A Critical Analysis of ‘Real Islam’. Its People, Culture, Philosophy, and Practices Yesterday and Today.
by: Vernon Richards (Sept 19, 2005)
Comments and suggestions may be directed to Islam_Undressed@yahoo.com
---------------oo0oo---------------
"A valuable sourcebook to the destructive activities of radical Muslims, and the Islamic texts they use to justify their actions and gain recruits in the Islamic world." -- Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch and author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers" (Regnery) and "Islam Unveiled" (Encounter).
---------------oo0oo---------------
An Introduction to Real Islam
‘Real Islam’ from the Religious Texts
Chronology and Abrogation in the QUR’AN
Muhammad’s Actions, Speaking Louder than Words
Actions of the four "Rightly Guided" Caliphs
Early History of Peaceful Islam
The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslims
Worldwide Islam Today, by Country
Todays News from Peaceful Islam
Spin …The Art of Ignoring the Obvious
Islamic Contradictions and Hypocrisies
Never-Ending Islamic Conspiracies
The Final Analysis on Real Islam
Appendix B – Diary of Muhammad
Links to other Articles/Papers
Entropy and Democracy Unholy Alliance, Struggling with Reality
Religion in America Islamic Tools of War
Oil and Jihad Consequences of Nuking Mecca
Adult Cognitive Processes Zarqawi, a True Muslim
There are always many different ways to view any event, any individual life, or any movement in history. Though various perspectives may yield very different conclusions, all can be correct from the vantage point of different observers. For example, the world looks very stark and hostile from the viewpoint of a rabbit in the pot just placed over the fire, but hungry children looking at the simmering stew are likely to see a brighter day ahead. Both viewpoints are perfectly reasonable and sound.
Viewing Muhammad from 'inside' the benefits and social structures of Islam yields a very appealing magnanimous character whose company his friends sought and relished. On the other hand, the viewpoint of those looking in from 'outside' Islam has always been very different. Muhammad had two faces that he showed to others, with the difference between the countenances, to put it mildly, quite profound. Which face Muhammad revealed to you depended on whether you were a believer …or not.
It must first be noted that this work will concentrate on the life and personality of Muhammad from the outside-looking-in perspective, essentially from someone who does not believe that the man was a representative of God. As such, this view of the man is bound to be unpalatable to 'insiders' who justify his every word and act as infallible, divine, and unimpeachable. For any Muslim reading this, consider that this study is made strictly from facts extracted from Islamic texts, but without the usual Islamic excuse-making or divine-justifications. This evaluation will make an attempt to be complete, logical, fair, with any judgment compared only to universal standards of human civil behavior now considered acceptable to modern societies. Essentially what will be done is to hold up a looking-glass to Islam, so that it can see the face that has (and is) being shown to Westerners. The vast majority of data evaluated herein is sourced from inside sacred Islamic works and well-known irrefutable historical facts, in an attempt present an image that is both accurate and undistorted. Of course it would be patently unfair to blame the holder of the mirror for the clear reflected image. If Islam is concerned about this objectification, and the growing number of other works documenting the face which Islam shows infidels, then this particular mirror-holder suggests that Islam work to change that projection, instead of issuing ever more fatwas, which only serve to deepen the distrust of outsiders.
There is an abundance of work generated from 'within' Islam that characterizes who Muhammad was and his relationship with fellow Muslims, which will not be repeated in great detail here. That being said, we will do a quick review of Muhammad from the 'inside' Muslim perspective, for the sole purpose of illustrating the dramatic difference in viewpoints between insiders and outsiders.
The following favorable summary of the chief character traits of Muhammad comes from 'THE LIFE OF MAHOMET', by WILLIAM MUIR Vol. II. p.28. [Smith, Elder, & Co., London, 1861]
This picture and representation of the man, beloved and worshiped by Muslims worldwide, sounds like the kind of person anyone would want as a friend or neighbor. Unfortunately this is the side reserved for believers only, and would not be offered to anyone who did not accept his claim of prophethood. But keep this image in mind, as the contrast between this pleasant personality, and the face he offered non-believers, will be the focus of the remainder of this work.
The war we are engaged in, we are told, is a war against 'terror'. But terror is an emotion, and terrorism deployed against a people is a tactic, like blockade, blitzkrieg, ambush, or siege. As such, terrorism is not an enemy per se, but simply a tactical method deployed by unsavory characters. The term ‘terror’ does not describe the philosophical, social, or political motivations of a people adopting terrorist methods, and is an entirely inadequate term to describe the current worldwide conflict. Though such vague nomenclature may be reassuring to our society obsessed with political correctness, it is unnecessarily nebulous. Such poor precision is deception because it prevents rational evaluation of the true threat behind the terrorist weapon deployed against us. Those who limit their thinking to the constraints of the politically-correct 'thought police' seem content to believe that we are not really fighting individuals or nations, but rather some kind of abstraction, … as if somewhere there are soldiers with "Republic of Terror" embroidered on their uniforms marching lock-step to attack us. Terrorist acts are simply the weapon of choice deployed by actual enemies of flesh and blood to accomplish some objective. As will be shown, the terrible agenda behind such methods are even broader and more insidious than the individual terror acts they employ.
In reality, we are no more in a war against ‘terrorism’ than we were ever engaged fighting the scourge of Machine guns in WWI, the plague of Zeros or German Tanks in WWII, or the threat of Nuclear weapons in the Cold War. In wartime, it is not machine guns, kamikaze zeros, tanks, bombs, and bullets which by themselves are responsible for killing people; … it is actual real people, acting on some nationalistic, political, or religious ideology which pull the trigger and are responsible for all causalities. In fact, all potentially lethal weapons are just inanimate objects, perfectly content to remain safely in storage, until some ideologist chooses to pick it up and use it to advance some personal, nationalistic, or religious cause. Ultimately it is not only the foot soldiers, but the leadership, and in particular the ideology itself, which is responsible for all acts of war committed in its name, by whatever weapon. Contrary to popular nomenclature, ours is not a war against "evildoers," a creaky tag that conjures faceless entities lurking in the dark. Terrorism may be the method employed, but Jihad in support of Islam is the ideology all these militant movements share. That simple fact remains difficult to express because of the inferences that naturally follow. It remains unacceptable to draw any conclusions implying that; to effectively ward off Jihadist aggression, we may need to also combat an ideology born of a religion. In the formerly Judeo-Christian (currently relativist-hedonist) West, such a thought triggers near panic: How can religious worship inspire anything but goodwill among men, aren't terrorist tactics opposed by all but a statistically invisible Islamic fringe? Instead of identifying the real enemy, and discrediting the dangerous ideology inciting them, we courageously fight ‘terrorism’, and determinedly target ‘evildoers’. Like the well-intentioned and noble Don Quixote, we slash at windmills. All the while, actual real terrorists with steely determination and considerable support, plot their next massacre.
Most Americans have a benignly positive attitude toward religion, but this partiality allied with political correctness is blinding us, keeping us from asking reasonable questions upon which the survival of our civilization may well depend. Does our culture, obsessed with tolerance, render us incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions about Islam’s core values and designs? The general reluctance to criticize any non-Christian religion, and the almost universal public ignorance about Islam, make for a dangerous and potentially lethal mix. The gentle reader should be forewarned that this work delves much deeper into the cultural, spiritual, and religious roots of the current conflict than others dare to go. This is not for the faint hearted, but is presented for the benefit and enlightenment of all lovers of truth, knowledge, and freedom. Unfortunately there are large numbers of Americans leaning one direction or the other on the issue of the ‘war’ based solely on popular opinion, because they lack either specific knowledge, or the deep moral convictions and strong values that our society has traditionally depended on for its strength and prosperity. Those lacking knowledge or with no convictions are dangerous because, with no moral compass of their own, they can be easily manipulated through misinformation and spin. Stalin referred to these as "the convenient masses".
There are two very practical pieces of advice upon which one can base fair judgment of other people, religions, and governments. In fact those who fail to embrace this advice completely are destined to remain forever as lost as 'old' Europe is today. I believe my source is a good one. The first litmus test to use in judgment is … "Only through a mans works is his true nature exposed". The other is "By this we can know if man has truly repented … he will confess and forsake the bad behavior". By these two pieces of advice, one can fairly judge the value of individual and groups actions, and also gauge the progression if and when they realize their actions lead to bad fruit, and make claim to be reformed. Until then, it would be stupid to call the kettle anything other than 'black', even when speaking from a pot that is less than white.
It seems inevitable that this work is likely to be tagged by some as Islamophobic or racist. It may appear (and some will undoubtedly charge) that the facts and views presented herein are extreme. But the data is in fact genuine, accurate, as is the context in which it is presented. It seems inevitable these days that perspectives based on traditional values are quickly tagged as politically 'incorrect', and often judged as coming from the extreme far right. The author admits only to ascribing to a political and social philosophy centered much more on personal responsibility and social/cultural accountability than is currently interpreted as 'politically correct' by the far-left. There is Far-Left, Left, Middle, Right, and Far-Right. Be careful not to limit and ascribe correct thinking and judgment to any one political philosophy. Within all these leanings are valuable perspectives, truth, and sometimes even wisdom. The trick is sorting through the mountains of propaganda necessary to get to any information of true value. Whatever our political affiliation, continued prosperity, as well as our very survival, now dictates that this people put aside their differences and concentrate on the values we share, and the threat common to all of us.
This work will explain exactly why the West waits in vain for Islam to take full responsibility for the vile acts being produced in her name by a myriad of groups. Hopes will remain unfulfilled that majority peaceful Islam, out of a sense of principal and humanity, will actually doing something to reform itself, without having to be pressured by others. Until such a day we must be realistic and realize that what we can expect is more of the same …a little 'hand wringing' is probably all we will ever see from their regional and world leaders, along with more finger pointing at Israel and the West. The reasons for such pessimism will become clear later. In the mean time, until we see effective action and hear convincingly from this supposed vast silent majority of peace-loving Muslims, it is expedient for the rest of the world to take off the blinders and begin to live with both eyes wide open. From knowledge comes wisdom, from wisdom comes power, and from power comes safety. The only thing that springs from ignorance is error, weakness, and sometimes …mortal peril. This is one of those times.
Once upon a time, there was a grand Emperor who enjoyed elaborate clothing and fine robes as ornate and decorated as any great leader of vast kingdoms. Seeking to be the greatest of all he sought ever finer raiment so that others might see outwardly the greatness and power of his office and influence. He had the finest clothes and trappings commensurate with his desires, but a great tailor and wizard from another land came and whispered in his ear that he could create an adornment so beautiful, grand, and powerful that all who saw it would naturally worship the wearer as the greatest of all leaders. He claimed the material to be used possessed the unique quality of being visible only to the truly enlightened and intelligent, but would be invisible to stupid infidels. Work commenced and soon the great one was on proud display with his new robe for the entire world to see. ‘The Emperor's New Clothes’ by Hans Christian Andersen should be studied carefully as it seems more applicable today than any other time in history. Today many view plainly the works of Islam yet continue to issue the usual politically correct euphemisms of how beautiful and perfect the new robes appear (i.e. how peaceful the great religion is). The simple innocence and honesty of an unafraid, unsophisticated child is called for to give the rest of us the courage to state the obvious. Who are the modern-day weavers of the emperor’s new clothes today? Islamic apologists, the myopic liberal media, academic elitists, as well as an unusual conflagration of fascists, communists, European socialists, anarchists, and many other far-left and far-right organizations throughout the world. But then even President Bush regularly defends and praises the "great, peaceful world religion", giving it blanket legitimacy irrespective of the inaction and failure of the worlds ‘best’ religion to put a lid on terrorist acts committed in its name. You can call me stupid, I just don’t see it. The reader is hereby promised that if you study without bias the facts herein in their entirety, the robes will also become invisible to you. The spectacle of ‘Islam Undressed’ is neither benign nor pleasing, and is likely to invoke embarrassment or horror from the on-looker, but should also result in a healthy dose of apprehension and accompanying survivalist thinking. Survival is the first order of the day, once secure, we can return to debating the niceties of various political and cultural differences and resurrect more sensitive approaches to handling differences in religion and culture. Difficult social issues relating to our hyper delicate racial, sexual, and gender sensibilities can be debated again later. For now, the sight of this self-described great emperor needs to be dealt with, particularly his intentions with respect to the sword of Jihad in his right hand already dripping in blood.
On September 11, 2001, self-described devout Muslims carried out an act of brutal terrorism and murdered some 3000 people in America and caused over 100 billion in property damage. They hijacked 4 planes, slit the throats of stewardesses, and destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. Remaining Americans were impacted by the trillion dollars in capital and millions of jobs lost. The victims of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crashing airliners were not armed and did not fall in pitched battle. Of the three thousand dead, none expected their fate, but were nonetheless combat casualties of self-described religious warriors. On March 11, 2004 hundreds in Madrid, Spain experienced the same fate, at the same hands, for the same reasons, with thousands left wounded and maimed. The Israelis know intimately the nature and intents of Islam, while the children of Beslan had their up-close and personal introduction to ‘real Islam’ Sept 2004. Londoners received their bitter taste of reality on 7/7/05. Today, many not directly affected by these attacks seek to forget those terrible days, to push it out of relevance, but the orphans of those causalities, and children of orphans not yet born, can never forget.
America and other nations responded and went after culpable Muslim terrorist groups in Afghanistan, with a follow-on campaign against a major sponsor of terror in Iraq. Elsewhere in the world, some governments arrested men associated with Islamic extremist groups. Those arrested were members of organizations participating in terrorism, but whether convicted or not, they always claimed to be good devout Muslims badly treated and misunderstood. As it turns out, various terrorist cells, networks, and organizations stretch far and wide. The enemy we pursue has proved to be adept at using false identities and cloaks of privacy to hide. To conceal themselves, their efforts, and their plans, they also make use of our own freedoms of speech, movement, and religion, along with the seemingly always available grass-root support from fellow Muslims.
Following September 11th, many Muslims living in the West defended Islam, stating that it is a religion of peace. At the same time there were many other Muslims in Islamic lands, and even some in America (living in predominately Muslim communities as well as Muslim students on American campuses) who openly celebrated the deaths and destruction. Many throughout the Islamic world were observed rejoicing and calling for the continuing destruction of America chanting "Death to America", and "America is the Great Satan". Huge numbers openly or quietly rejoiced, with the absence of sincere and coherent outrage palpable. In the West, Muslim spokesmen were much more muted; some proclaimed that "the Muslim terrorists have hijacked our faith" and that real Islam is a kind, tolerant religion not associated with terrorist individuals or events. A claim oft repeated in defense of Islam was that "Islam' is a word which literally means 'Peace'". In response it was pointed out that the Arabic word for peace is salaam, and that Islam is Arabic for surrender or submission, quite a different concept than peace, and that even Muslim means one who submits. Now the official line from Islam is that "Islam' means Peace through submission to Allah's will", but the opposite camp points out that the newly created definition is illusory in that it does not mention what 'Allah's will' is with respect to Jihad and its role in the advancement of Islam. The two camps often seem to completely contradict each other. Obviously, they both cannot be correct. Those in the West are left to divine, what's the bottom line according to real Islam? Out of an overabundance of prudence, it would be wise to first fortify ourselves with knowledge. If we fail to thoroughly investigate what Islam is truly all about, there is a danger we might inadvertently invite even more horrific sequels to the disasters that have already been perpetrated upon us.
Since that dastardly attack the topic of Islam seems always in the news, and there has been much more discussion about terms like "Jihad". One question commonly asked is "why are so many associated with this religion so violent?" Giving the benefit of the doubt to a poorly understood religion, and to secure the support of the Islamic world, the American political machine has gone out of its way to stress that America and her allies are not fighting Islam, but rather, they are fighting terrorists who have perverted the true teachings of Islam. On the other hand, other voices have raised concerns that indeed there is a violent component within the religion, and that Islam itself is part of the problem. Thus far those expressing concerns about fundamental Islam have been largely muted, out of an excess of political correctness. But this overwhelming desire to view the Islamic world through rose-colored glasses has resulted in significant resistance to critical analysis of Islamic writings, practice, and history.
In addition, there is the problem that most Americans are generally a busy people caught up in various pursuits, who have little time nor inclination to dive into a foreign religious philosophy filled with strange new words. Most of us are too lazy or distracted to learn even our own religious heritage in any depth, let alone one that is as different as Islam. Indeed, almost half of Americans have no interest in religion at all, if not an aversion to studying or understanding any religious culture or philosophy. Of the rest who consider themselves religious, few study with the intent of understanding the details and nuances of a doctrine. Most are content to read their sacred texts occasionally, learn a few key concepts, listen to their appointed leaders, and then go home after church to catch the football/basketball game. The average American needs to understand quickly is that the benefits for non-believers to understand Islam in some detail are tremendous, especially if there are Muslims making Jihad headed your way. Unfortunately many might not be able to appreciate that warning, because many of us have a convoluted perception of what Jihad means.
For us to truly understand "Jihad" and Islamic violence in today's time frame, we must start by examining the revered Islamic texts in some detail. A sixty-second sound byte from some "expert" (be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or otherwise) is not sufficient. To gain a knowledge base sufficient for fair judgment one must more deeply investigate the three sources of religious philosophy related to Islam in their holy texts … the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. These texts form the foundation of Islamic beliefs and philosophy. But quoting verse is not enough, we will also have to acquaint ourselves with other sources of history surrounding the period to understand the context, background, scope, and applicability of the various passages related to Jihad and violence in Islam. Otherwise, one would be left with many passages that seemingly contradict each other, and be no closer to truly understanding "Jihad", and the application of Islamic violence today. A complete picture must be drawn. A mere phrase such as "Islam means peace", or "Jihad is an internal struggle against internal, sinful desires" or, "Islam is violent", has little support if one does not know the actual teachings of Islam.
Since the death of thousands of Americans has occurred at the hands of self-proclaimed devout Muslims, and since scores of similarly disposed Muslims have vowed to continue to murder Americans, be they men, women, or children, it is incumbent upon us to examine the fundamental teachings of Muhammad, found in the afore mentioned texts, to see how they are being applied or misapplied today. This investigation and study has become all the more urgent because of what is at stake. It is not just American lives (and way of life), which may be at risk, but the lives of anyone living in free, democratic societies, all non-Muslim peoples are at issue. Therefore, readers should understand that when "America", or "American" is referenced, we are also including Britons, Mexicans, French, Germans, Japanese, Brazilians, Russians, Poles, Chinese, Australians, Canadians, and so forth.
For a start, the sometimes-elusive Islamic concept of Jihad must be clearly understood. In particular, we need to determine exactly how it is understood, accepted and supported by a majority (or a large minority) of Muslims today. If it is accepted as it is practiced by the many militants, then by western standards it would really be incorrect to call Islam a religion at all; rather it would represent more a military, political and cultural threat. These hard questions need to be asked to know if the actions of the many devoted murderous Muslims in various organizations and lands today can be identified as truly Islamic and if their violent acts are done in the spirit of real Islam, or if they (and their active and passive supporters) represent a fringe minority. Many prefer to believe that the threat to America comes not from Islam itself, but from an extremist form of the religion espoused by a few terrorists and their small but vocal band of supporters. If they are a tiny insignificant minority, they may be manageable by typical diplomatic, military, and law enforcement methods designed to marginalize, isolate, discredit, and destroy. But a majority (or even a large minority) from a population of about 2 billion is still a huge number of people virtually impossible to manage by those methods, because if millions or billions intend to kill and destroy a particular people or nation, there is very little that society can do to protect itself short of extreme protective self-defensive and even offensive measures. Now, by observation of various Muslim and Western scholars, up to 50% of all Muslims worldwide sympathize with the Jihadist message, …if this is accurate were talking many hundreds of millions of people, a number much too large to monitor and impossible to police.
The task of critically analyzing Islam is not a particularly difficult task, as the writings and history of the 1400 year Islamic movement are quite extensive and prolific. The difficulty arises when anyone identifies any possible fault or point of critics whatsoever. You see Muslims are what you would call hyper-sensitive to any criticism or observation that does not glorify and honor their ‘best’ religion and in particular their prophet, ‘Muhammad’. Whereas all other religions seem to be able to survive all sorts of arguments and disparaging comments, Islam tolerates no such dissent or discussion of any kind. In Islamic lands the punishment for insulting the prophet is the same as it has always been …death. This sort of intimidation has proven to be very effective in lands which are fully Islamic. Muslims yesterday and today are terrified of the response by Islamic fanatics should they accidentally disrespect the Qur’an or say something negative about the prophet or accepted teachings. You can criticize leaders and lay alike only by saying they are not Islamic enough, but suggest that the theology is flawed or needs reforming, and be prepared to be dispatched to hell very quickly. Non-Muslims have also suffered at the hands of ‘believers’ by making ‘insensitive’ comments about the religion or their prophet. The first documented violent acts of the religion were when Muhammad attacked and killed several of his critics, which seems to provide Muslims today all the justification they need to continue that practice. Though potentially dangerous, we are keenly interested in cutting through all fog and spin to ascertain what is genuine, authentic, and indisputable. It is much more dangerous to continue to give the religion and its fanatic followers cover through our fear and silence. This book will be completely frank, with no deference given to any group’s delicate sensibilities. For the future of our families and country, we need clear understanding and honest answers to the following three questions: #1 - What are the correct scriptural teachings of Islam with respect to the application of violence to further its cause both yesterday and today? #2 - Is real Islam behind and does it condone the Sept 11th attack (and others claimed in its name), or were those terrorists doing something outside Muhammad’s religion? And… #3 - What does the future hold for Islam and America (and all other non-Islamic countries)?
"Real Islam" is the way of living the ‘Messenger of Allah’ (Muhammad) practiced and taught, as it is understood by the majority of Muslims today. To understand how Muslims think and what they really believe today, we need to look carefully at the material they have been taught from. One can also look at the history of the different sects within Islam, but all real Islamic philosophy is fully contained in its recognized scripture. By Muslim belief and understanding, no prophet can or will follow Muhammad, and so no further scripture will ever be offered to challenge or replace the existing works. Within several centuries of Muhammad’s death, Muslim theologians and jurists, Sunni (including all four main schools of jurisprudence), Shiite, and Sufi (both Sunni and Shiite), constructed from Qur’anic verses, the hadith collections, and the sacred biographies of Muhammad (the Sira). These foundational texts of Islam contain Muhammad’s words and deeds over a 23-year period, the Qur’an being dominant in Islamic theology. But even the Qur’anic suras are not given equal weight. As will be shown, the most applicable part of Islamic theology is based more heavily upon Muhammad’s final teachings and deeds than earlier writings. This work endeavors to uncover these most important final teachings, exactly as recorded in the Qur’an, using chronology and context identified by the Hadith (the traditions and sayings of Muhammad), and the biographical material in the Sira.
In studying the scripts, it needs to be remembered that many of his words are understood to apply only to a specific people for a specific time or event. It appears that as Muhammad’s circumstances changed, his words, teachings, commands, and attitudes also sometimes changed. Thus, as situations changed over time, Muhammad’s words and teachings morphed to accommodate them, and so real Islam also changed over time. In the end, at Muhammad’s death, the philosophy and conduct of Islam and its followers solidified to a more stable and recognizable form. Therefore, to determine what real Islam teaches regarding Jihad and violence, we must examine these text’s chronology, context, scope, and applicability. It is either mistaken or dishonest to take one passage out of context and apply it to a set of circumstances for which it was not meant.
What we are going to do is examine a number of Qur’anic passages related to Jihad and violence. Citations obtained from related Islamic texts (the Hadith and Sira) are also presented to provide background, context, and chronology. Additionally, various references and commentary from early Islamic scholars’ (tafsir) will be presented. When appropriate, quotations will be presented by other historians, scholars or experts on Islam, be they Muslim, Christian, or secular.
After this, we are going to go a step further. We are also going to examine Muhammad’s actions. Actions ever speak louder than words; therefore, let us lend an ear to hear what it is that his deeds speak about the man. A wise sage said, "A man is defined by what he does." Thus, Muhammad’s works must be thoroughly scrutinized, for surely they truly portray his heart and show us who he was, and what he truly believed. This is all the more important in our study because Muslims relationship with the God they worship is by and through the words and example of their beloved prophet. The absolute truth accepted by all Muslims is that Muhammad was the ‘seal’ of the prophets, or the last and final representative of God. Essentially, they believe that God completed his delivery of all revelation and instruction to men by the words and example of His final ‘Messenger’, and that new revelations or prophets are no longer possible. So the works mentioned, which contain the teachings and example of Muhammad, is all there is for Muslims to follow and pattern their lies after.
We will also briefly review what Muhammad’s closest "companions" understood to be his final wishes, which direction they believed were the commands of God to His messenger or apostle. We will refer to the four "rightly guided" Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. These four hold a special place in Islamic theology and history. If anyone knew what Muhammad truly wanted, they did. Following Muhammad’s death, they continued to fulfill and obey his commands, as they understood his final clear directions and wishes. They loved Muhammad, obeyed his commands, and put their lives on the line for him time and again. Hence, we can safely assume that their actions accurately depict their understanding of how Muhammad wanted them to carry on Islam (i.e. real Islam).
Now then, if Muhammad’s calls to violence found within the texts were only for a specific period, against a specific people, for an understandable cause such as self-defense, or to alleviate the persecution of an oppressed people, then the critics of Islam could not honestly say that Islam is a religion that condones aggressive violence and terrorism. On the other hand, if it can be shown that Muhammad’s final intentions for Islam were to attack, conquer, and rule all other peoples, and that the use of violence in various forms, including terrorism, are justified to install Islam as the dominant power, and that philosophy is being extended today by a significant number of believers, then it would be deliberate deception to call Islam a religion of Peace.
In light of the long, often-violent history of Islam’s expansion, and the many more recent terrorist attacks in the world, it would be foolish to rely on carefully crafted statements, in English, from prominent Muslims regarding the true nature of Islam. Westerners are inclined to believe religious leaders are normally honest and pious, and we want desperately to believe that all Muslim clerics and imams are similarly disposed, but that is an assumption fraught with peril. Unfortunately, as will be shown, practicing dishonesty and deception towards non-believers is also a part of accepted Islamic doctrine, and success at such deliveries in the advance of Islam is celebrated and rewarded.
So, let us start our study of official Islamic doctrine.
Statements from Islamic theologians profess that the Qur’an is the immutable and unalterable word of Allah, but such statements should not be taken literally, as what is really meant (and understood by Muslims) is; "passages that have not been abrogated in the Qur’an are the immutable and unalterable word of Allah". Understanding the application of Abrogation as it is used in interpreting the Qur’an is critical to this study. This unusual application is an important principal and facet of Islamic studies. We must start with the Qur’an because it is one of the foundations of Islam. Islam is built upon the Qur’an and "Sunnah", or lifestyle of Muhammad. Many Western readers will probably be inclined to apply traditional methods of logic and study of Biblical scriptures to their study of the Qur’an. They will be tempted to take various Qur’anic verses at face value, mistakenly thinking that all the verses in the Qur’an have equal weight and are equally applicable today. They may reason that since the Qur’an in one place says, "there is no compulsion in religion"; it must mean that Muslims are not to force people into Islam. This approach, however, is erroneous. One of the odd facets of the Qur’an is that some verses "abrogate" other verses, or in other words, they cancel them, rendering them null and void and no longer applicable.
"Abrogation" means the canceling or replacement of one Qur’anic passage by another. It seems that as circumstances changed during the 23-year period that Muhammad dictated the Qur’an, the directions and precepts found therein sometimes changed to accommodate new and changing political and military realities, sometimes quite dramatically. Thus, the Qur’an abrogates or cancels itself in various passages and presents seemingly conflicting statements. Muslims do not view this sort of abrogation as a contradiction, but rather, as improvements to better suit varying circumstances or needs, or to fit Muhammad’s religious concepts. For example, many Islamic scholars consider that the verse reference above "there is no compulsion in religion", found in 2:256, has been abrogated by the passage found in 9:5, (more on this later). This is widely understood because the more tolerant verse in chapter 2 was spoken about 7 - 8 years earlier than the one spoken in Chapter 9.
The "Dictionary of Qur’anic Terms and Concepts", pages 5 and 6 [1] state: "Qur’anic injunctions themselves may be abrogated, as has happened in a few cases. An example of this abrogation is 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery, (q.v.) stated in 4:15-16. A study of the Qur’an shows first, that only a limited number of Qur’anic verses have been abrogated, and second, that the abrogation pertains to legal and practical matters only, and not to matters of doctrine and belief."
In "Islam: Muhammad and His Religion", page 66,[2] the great Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery wrote: "The Qur’an is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to the Qur’anic science known as "Nasikh wa Mansukh", i.e.: "the Abrogators and the Abrogated"."
The Encyclopedia of Islam, [3], states on abrogation:
Therefore, because of the changing circumstances in Muhammad’s time, various Qur’anic passages are recognized as having been abrogated, and it is normal that some Islamic doctrine changes over time. As such, rules that were once correctly applied to one set of circumstances, may not necessarily apply to a different reality at a later date. This concept is unusual by Western religious standards in its scope, and there are even minor disagreements within Islam regarding which teaching or doctrine abrogates another. In general, Muslims recognize more recent passages and writings as the most applicable, abrogating earlier references on the same subject matter. Therefore, when discussing Islam and Jihad, what must be considered most applicable are Muhammad’s final teachings and commands, especially what his last wishes and instructions were regarding Jihad and violence. From the viewpoint of the non-Muslim world, we must know which Qur’anic passages are still in force today for the Muslim community, and which are not. Earlier statements related to peace may or may not have been abrogated by later statements related to violence, or visa versa. We must carefully examine the context of the texts to know which Jihadic directions are acceptable and in force today.
The revered work "al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) deals in great detail with many subject matters addressed in the Qur’an wherein there appears to be some conflict or contradiction. The book goes through every sura (chapter), pointing out in full detail every verse which has been canceled, and the verse(s) which replace it. The author notes that out of 114 suras, there are only 43 which were not affected by this concept. As an example of the scope of abrogation in the Qur’an: there are 125 versus that call for tolerance and patience which have been canceled and replaced by sura 9:5: "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." and sura 5:33: "For those who do not submit to Allah their punishment is . . . execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet, from the opposite sides, or exile from the land".
[See: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986 p.27]
Muslim activists universally fail to reveal to Westerners this major doctrine, hiding the fact that earlier conciliatory passages have been rendered null and void for over 1300 years. When Westerners discover it on their own they complain we misinterpret such writings or misapply their impact. Muslim promoters prefer to polish Islam's image by quoting the earlier abrogated Meccan passages that call for patience and forbearance. Spokespersons hide or omit Medinan passages that clearly call for killing and maiming. When hearing people explain Islam claiming the earlier more peaceful verses are dominant in Islamic philosophy, one must judge between two options; Either the presenter is completely ignorant of genuine Islamic doctrine, or he is practicing officially sanctioned Islamic deceit.
Because opinions with regard to proper conduct between believers and non-believers varies widely, the question of which Qur’anic verses are ‘alive’ and being applied today, is critical to understanding ‘Real Islam’, and potentially to our own survival. Ibn Warraq summarizes the Muslim concept of abrogation as follows:
We will next review the general chronology of the Qur’anic listings, with respect to their violent Jihadic passages. As stated earlier, we must explore both the context and chronology of the Qur’anic passages. This is challenging because the Qur’an is not arranged chronologically and in fact, no one knows for certain its complete chronology. There is no standard chronological agreement among scholars, be they Muslim, Christian, or secular, as to when chapters or even portions of chapters were revealed during Muhammad’s life. Some of Muhammad’s words, spoken as the Qur’an near the end of his life, were folded into passages he spoke near the beginning of his declared prophet-hood. Therefore, the Qur’an is a jumbled chronological hodgepodge. In and of itself, the Qur’an is practically worthless when it comes to determining its chronology. The only corroborating references that are able to provide us a guide as to when certain passages were spoken are the Sira and Hadith. Sometimes they provide chronological details behind the Qur’an’s verses. However, as a whole, scholars are unable to completely determine the Qur’an’s chronology. Consequently, they only offer their best, educated, opinions. In our study, we are most interested in the opinions accepted by the majority of Muslims today.
A Qur’anic chronology is very important because what Muhammad said earlier in his life did not necessarily apply to later events (due to "abrogation" mentioned previously). By any standard of evaluation, it appears he was always prepared to change his mind, vows, and rules. (See the selection of Hadiths from Sahih Muslim,[5] book 15, #s 4044 – 4062). If we are to understand true Islamic Jihad as it is understood and taught today, then we need to establish his final position with respect to Jihad and aggression. Hence, the last few chronological passages of the Qur’an are of great importance, as are the subsequent actions of his closest companions as they followed that direction.
Note that the majority of various Qur’anic passages relative to "Jihad" or violence come from chapter nine. Most scholars agree that chapter nine is from a very late period - near the end of Muhammad’s life. The great Muslim historian Tabari, in volume 8, (who wrote a 39 volume Islamic history and an extensive commentary on the Qur’an)[6], shows that the conquest of Mecca occurred in 630. Ibn Ishaq documented, in a work which is the most authentic biographical material available today, "Sirat Rasulallah", page 617[7], that the main Jihad section of chapter 9 was revealed in AH 9 (i.e. 631). Muhammad died in 632. Therefore, chapter 9 was revealed during Muhammad’s last two years, if not in the last year. Chapter 5 is usually thought to be the last chronological chapter, but it does not have many references to Jihad.
The following is a quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam, op cit, with respect to the problems of Qur’anic chronology. At the end of the quote are its chronological lists taken from several different scholars of Islam:
The Egyptian standard edition gives the following chronological order of the Suras, with the verses said to date from a different period given in parentheses:
The Encyclopedia of Islam, op cit, also details three Western Islamic scholars chronology of the Qur’an. (Noldeke was one of the greatest Qur’anic scholars from the West). This is the chronological order of the last Medinan Suras listed in their work:
[NOTE: Traditional Western dating breaks the chronological order of the Qur’an up into 3 or 4 groups. The last group (sometimes called "late Medinan") is presented above. There are earlier suras in both lists above, however, for space’s sake, and editing time, only the last sura grouping is presented. Note that sura 9 is the second to last in all these three scholar’s groupings.]
Canon Sell in "The Historical Development of the Qur’an", page 204, [8], details that Jalalu-d-Din as-Syuti (a great Muslim Qur’anic scholar) lists chapter 9 second to last, and Sir William Muir (a great Western Islamic scholar) lists chapter 9 as last. All of the above-mentioned references also list chapter 5 near the chronological end, if not at the very end.
The Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, volume 6, book 60, # 129 (or 5.59.650), [9], Hadith states: "The last Sura that was revealed was Bara’a…" So Sura 9 was considered by him to be one of the last, if not the last revealed chapters of the Qur’an.
Therefore, the works of six top scholars, (3 Muslim, 3 Western), all agree that chapter 9 is either the last or second to last chapter to be spoken or revealed by Muhammad. Consequently, since this chapter contains the largest amount of violent passages, this is our focus. In classical exegesis then, as a result of being the last Chapter revealed, Sura 9 would dominate, or abrogate, conflicting Qur’anic passages from earlier periods.
In "Milestones, Ideologue of Fundamentalist Islam in Egypt", Syed Qutb argues strongly for Jihad from select Qur’anic verses (4:74-76; 8:38-40; 9:29-32). These passages alone, he states, suffice to justify the universal and permanent dimensions of Jihad (pp. 53-76). All this being said, to be thorough and fair, we will also review other relevant earlier passages on Islamic violence and Jihad found in the Qur’an.
'Jehad' (Jihad) is an Arabic word that literally means 'endeavor'. In the literal historical context, this Islamic doctrine clearly implies physically fighting in the way of the Arabic God ‘Allah’ to establish supremacy over unbelievers, until they relinquish their faith and become Muslims, or acknowledge their subordination by paying the ‘Jaziya’ (or Jizya) humiliation tax. As will be shown in subsequent chapters, Jihad historically has been a perpetual war against infidels (Buddhists, Hindus, Deists, Pagans, Atheists, Skeptics, Jews, Christians, etc). The 5 pillars (obligations) of Islam include Shahadah (the witness), Salat (mandatory daily prayers), Zakat (mandatory alms), Sawm or Siyam (fasting during Ramadan), and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). As a practical matter (so as not to alert or advertise its methods and intents to potential adversaries), Jihad narrowly missed becoming a ‘declared’ pillar of Islam. Although not a declared pillar, amongst a majority of Muslims Jihad enjoys at least sympathy and support, if not active participation. It follows that Jihad then, in practice, serves as a functional pillar (obligation) of official Islamic theology. Indeed, any preview of Islamic written theology in relation to Jihad reveals that the practice is at least as important to the salvation of Muslims as are the other pillars. In many verses, the importance, and the promised benefits of Jihad (in both this life and the next) appear much larger than the more spiritual benefits associated with the other 5 pillars mentioned.
In the correct context of the Islamic sacred texts, ‘Jihad’ means literally ‘holy war’, but today there is an effort in some quarters to extend or redefine its meaning and scope. To some it essentially means, "struggle", and to those there are two types or divisions in Jihad: greater and lesser. "Greater Jihad," is the struggle within the soul of a person to be better, more righteous -- the fight against the devil within. "Lesser Jihad" is the fight against the devil without, the military struggle against those who subjugate Muslims or frustrate her aims. For those Muslims who ascribe to this differentiation, the struggle against the external oppressor waxes and wanes, but the fight to suppress the evil inclinations within is perpetual. When asked which is more important to Islam, greater Jihad or lesser Jihad, many ‘moderate’ Muslims tell infidels something like; "They don't call it greater Jihad for nothing". Unfortunatly, the rather small effort within some communities of Islam to redefine/reform Islam to exclude ‘physical violence against non-believers’ from the concept of Jihad, …is losing.
Amongst mullahs from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to points across the globe, a somewhat different definition of the Greater and Lesser Jihad is now offered; "They are of equal importance", say even Moderate Muslims. "Jihad against the oppressor of Muslims is an absolute duty. Islam is a religion that defends itself." The newer emphasis and message resonating now is as was described by a Pakistani Cleric interviewed in 2002; "Both the Jihads have their importance. In one, we struggle to amend our inner self, and in another, we defend our religion. Islam is a religion of limits, except for Jihad, where there is no compromise. Jihad must be fought without limits". This new emphasis places Jihad against ‘the devil without’ as more applicable today. Jihad against outside devils, in particular against the ‘Great Satan America’, is waxing strong, assuming a permanent place of overriding importance. This is very disturbing with grave implications because once a Jihad has been declared and accepted by the followers of Muhammad, they tend to see it through to the end, even if that effort involves huge sacrifice and spans decades.
What follows are several classical definitions of Jihad. Thereafter we will examine passages from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira related to Jihad and violence in Islam. "Jihad" or other forms of the word occur in the Qur’an about 35 times. Additionally throughout the Qur’an there are other words used for various other forms of violence. References to all these terms (fighting, war, attack, Jihad, slay, kill, etc) are almost continuous.
From the "Concordance of the Qur’an", 1983[10] comes a definition, probably the simplest most straightforward found. Kassis essentially derived it from the Qur’anic context of the word:
The following is a more detailed definition of Jihad from the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam[11], page 89:
Many Westerners have wondered in amazement at the number of men leaving safe and relatively comfortable lands to undertake a perilous journey and face death to fight superior forces in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Iraq. Clearly, those who do so, do it out of a strong sense of religious duty, fully expecting to be rewarded for their sacrifice. The "Dictionary of the Qur’an", op cit, defines Jihad as;
Regarding Jihad, the "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir", volume 2, pages 116, 117 on verse 2:191[12] states:
The classic manual of Islamic sacred law, "Reliance of the Traveler" [13], is one of the more respected, classical works in Islamic theology. This 1200+ page voluminous book on Sharia contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence compiled by "the great 13th century Hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Iman Nawawi, and others. This work was not written with a Western audience in mind. Nawawi wanted to produce a book on Islamic law that was precise and accurate, one that taught true Islamic values. There are additional statements regarding the rules of Jihad found in "Reliance of the Traveler", but we quote only one relevant statement that portrays Jihad’s scope and application, from page 599:
Scholarly consensus by all reputable Islamic experts is sourced by scriptural basis for Jihad from such Qur'anic verses as: "Fighting is prescribed for you" (2:216), "Slay them wherever you find them" (4:89), "Fight the idolaters utterly" (9:36), and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:
A Hadith report by Muslim confirms this philosophy:
Finally, from Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadis #0033, and Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, Book 8, Hadis #387, comes a telling insight on the true meaning and scope of Jihad:
According to Muslim doctrine, to deny Allah and Muhammad's exclusive right to be believed in and adored is a terrible crime. Having established the ‘best religion’ that abrogates all others, the Prophet undeniably prescribed that the correct course of action against non-believers is to fight them. Since the biggest crime any person or nation can commit is denial of Islam, it is quite clear the true solution to the problem has been dictated to be perpetual war (Jihad) against such renegades. Based upon Islamic scholars’ writings, it appears undeniable that violent Jihad is permitted in Islam for both offensive and defensive purposes. It was commanded by, and praised by Muhammad as being one of the greatest forms of true Islamic spirituality. Further, some of the final direction from Muhammad was that that Jihad is to continue until all people are subjected to Islamic rule. Offensive aggression toward non-Muslims is clearly and unashamedly allowed, but prior to attacking, the Muslims are to offer them a choice: 1- Become Muslim; 2- do not become Muslim but pay the extortion (Jizya) tax; 3- defend yourself unto death.
Jihad embodies both an ideology and a jurisdiction, formally conceived by Muslim legal experts and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur’anic verses and long chapters in the Traditions (the hadith). The consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i) is clear:
Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (Maliki),
Ibn Taymiyya (Hanbali)
From (primarily) the Hanafi school, as given in the Hidayah
al-Mawardi (Shafi’i)
These consenting opinions are all in complete harmony. In the violent, nearly 1,400-year relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, Jihad and dhimmitude were firmly established by the 8th century. Perhaps the preeminent Islamic scholar in history was Ibn Khaldun, a renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist. In his writings in 1406, he summarized these opinions and five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of Jihad:
The simple terrible fact is that Jihad does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but rather is an integral part of its timeless core. According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi,
World peace, according to his Islamic teaching, "is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam." So by Tibi’s logic, when Muslims wage jihad, they are performing pious acts of worship to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So it is, by this convoluted logic, that when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means it is not war (harb), but rather a sacred act of "opening" the world to Islam. In other words, by simply existing, the entire non-Islamic world is always responsible for any and all Jihadic acts against them.
All this official Islamic scripture and sacred writings shows that the official meaning, purpose, and scope of Jihad is in fact quite clear and unambiguous. Further evidence will be outlined in subsequent chapters and appendix laying out carefully and chronically both the permanent basis for violent Jihad today, and its application by Muhammad , his ‘rightly guided Caliphs’ who followed him, and all subsequent followers of Islam throughout history.
Bat Ye'or wrote in The Decline of Eastern Christianity "Jihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of the duties that the believer must fulfill; it is Islam’s ‘normal’ path to expansion". It must now be noted that there is a deliberate effort underway by Islamists and their apologists to present the term Jihad differently. Some of these efforts may be genuine attempts to soften the religion and perhaps cause less military Jihad, but it seems most representations are simply propaganda efforts intended to disseminate misinformation for political purposes. The relatively new phraseology and interpretation is offered mainly to westerners, with the real meaning still taught in the vast majority of Islamic institutions around the world as it has always been. Obviously Islam does not want to alarm the intended audience with the truth, especially the Americans who have been acting badly of late.
In Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning (by Daniel Pipes Ph.D. in history and director of the Middle East Forum) Mr. Pipes states there is nearly universal falsification on the meaning of jihad amongst elitists. He cites an intellectual scandal wherein even scholars at American universities issue public statements that avoid or whitewash the primary meaning of Jihad in Islamic law and Muslim history. The result is obfuscation as we try to make sense of the Jihad declared on us and discover who the enemy is and what his goals are. Such apologists are dangerous because even people who think they know that jihad means holy war are susceptible to the combined efforts of scholars and Islamists brandishing notions suggesting Jihad means ‘resisting apartheid’ or ‘working for women's rights’. To quote his article:
Pipes got it right, pointing out that the argument and issue is really a moot point. In fact it does not matter what propagandists, our educated elitists, Pipes, or all Islamic apologists claim Jihad means. What really matters is how millions of self-described devout Muslims understand it today and how they intend to act on their belief. What it has meant in the past (up to and including today) has already been fully defined by all previous actions of Muslim Militants in their conduct toward non-believers, and further debate to clarify or change that historical reality is just plain silly. Any honest review of Islamic history from 610 to 2004 answers the question of Jihadic definition quite convincingly, a portion of which will be reviewed in subsequent chapters. As far as majority Muslim understanding and use of the Jihad term goes, nothing much has changed through the last 1400 years. The lesser Jihad cannot be separated out from the greater Jihad and ignored; it appears they are both a part of unalterable core Islam. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either being deceitful …or has been deceived. The basic Islamic worldview sees all lands as either as Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam), or Dar al-Harb (the abode of war). All those countries and societies not currently dominated by Islamic supremacy are by default the abode of war, where Jihad (and deception) is always fully justified. Those who contend that jihad war is not a main tenet of traditional Islam do so either deceitfully or in blissful ignorance.
The writings of two contemporary Muslim scholars of jihad, the late Majid Khadduri, and Bassam Tibi, confirm that Islam in our age is still in uniform compliance with the earlier sacred writings. The uniquely Islamic conception of "House of War" (Dar ul-Harb) and "House of Islam" (Dar ul-Islam) was a consensus formulation from the early classical period of Muslim jurisprudence.
Majid Khadduri’s 1955 treatise on jihad remains one of the most respected analyses of this institution, summarizing the consensus views of these previous Islamic experts as follows:
And in 1996, Bassam Tibi wrote this:
Finally, as author Ram Swarup observed in Understanding Islam through Hadis: "Jihad is a divinely ordained institution in Islam. By many authorities it is counted as one of the pillars of Islam. Theologically, it is an intolerant idea: a tribal god, Allah, trying to be universal through conquest. Historically, it was an imperialist urge masked in religious phraseology."
Recent Muslim Views on Islam and Jihad
Several more modern Muslim leaders have put forward their reasoning describing when waging war is justified and allowed. From "The Qur’anic Concept of War", by Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, it says (in the preface):
That Muslim writer, from our ally Pakistan, states that those who reject Islam are viewed as a cancerous growth to be violently removed (i.e. murdered). Note that the writer basically agrees with "Western Scholars" observations that Islam is indeed "in a state of perpetual war" with non-Muslims. Indeed, reviewing conflicts worldwide today, it is Islamic militancy which is causing more death and despair in the world than any other religious or political ideology. Review the following news release from an Egyptian party newspaper issued after Sept 11th.
A small collection of passages is compiled in Appendix A regarding Jihad and fighting which make clear the specific nature of this combative ideology in Islamic scripture. The reading is somewhat labored, but well worth the insights, particularly if the reader has never been exposed to authentic Islamic ‘holy writings’. For Westerners, who have not been raised on Islamic scripture, it is important to personally study the texts to decide with authority if Islamic spokespersons are shooting strait in their claims …or those who warn otherwise. If you don’t discover for yourself, you risk becoming a pawn, played like a harp blindingly supporting someone else’s agenda.
The passages outlined in Appendix A show how important Jihad and fighting are in Islamic scripture and history. Historically, Muhammad and his movement did not initially use force to induce the Jews, Christians and pagans to accept Islam, however force was justified for defense. Later, when he began to gather an army to himself and was able to go on the offensive, he did so. Appendix A shows that scripturally, Jihad is highly commendable, and those that fight are rated high in Allah's eyes, with constant promises that fig