Jihad is not one of the pillars of Islam:

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0018:

It is narrated on the authority of ('Abdullah) son of Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Holy Prophet (may peace of Allah be upon him) said: (The superstructure of) al-Islam is raised on five (pillars), i. e. the oneness of Allah, the establishment of prayer, payment of Zakat, the, fast of Ramadan, Pilgrimage (to Mecca).

Among the abundant evidence in the Qur�an concerning the rules of Jihad, here is a selection:

XXVI. 225. Seest thou not that they wander distracted in every valley?-

226. And that they say what they practise not?-

227. Except those who believe, work righteousness, engage much in the remembrance of Allah, and defend themselves only after they are unjustly attacked. And soon will the unjust assailants know what vicissitudes their affairs will take!

LX. 8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

9. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

IX. 58. If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.

59. Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them).

60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

61. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

Obviously, only a small minority follow the writings of Syed Al-Qutb, the formulator of the "modern" form of jihad otherwise, with over 1 billion Muslims in the world, there would be general military engagements rather than random acts of terrorism.

Al-Qutb's writings are actually an adaptation of Lenin's theory, expounded in his article "On Party Organization," that a small, dedicated group could effect change on a massive scale, with a veneer of Islam placed upon it.

Most of the people in the Muslim world are primarily concerned with feeding their families and do not have the resources to engage in these issues.

I do not see these movements as any threat at all, but rather as an extreme reaction to western imperialism. Insha'Allah they will die out over time as did other radical groups such as the Hashishun.

Proper education of all Muslims concerning the tenets of their faith would alleve some of the problem. However, as long as the United States continues to attempt world domination there will be resentment. The extreme form of this resentment will be expressed in terrorism.

I will give one example of a just jihad: In 1815 the Russian Army invaded Chechnya and began a genocidal campaign, slaughtering men, women and children by the thousands. After a decade of this barbarism Imam Shamil declared jihad against the Russians with the exclusive goal of expelling the Russians from Chechnya.

Yusuf. wrote: Most of the people in the Muslim world are primarily concerned with feeding their families and do not have the resources to engage in these issues. I do not see these movements as any threat at all, but rather as an extreme reaction to western imperialism. Insha'Allah they will die out over time as did other radical groups such as the Hashishun. Proper education of all Muslims concerning the tenets of their faith would alleve some of the problem. However, as long as the United States continues to attempt world domination there will be resentment. The extreme form of this resentment will be expressed in terrorism. I will give one example of a just jihad: In 1815 the Russian Army invaded Chechnya and began a genocidal campaign, slaughtering men, women and children by the thousands. After a decade of this barbarism Imam Shamil declared jihad against the Russians with the exclusive goal of expelling the Russians from Chechnya.

Y: "I do not see these movements as any threat at all, but rather as an extreme reaction to western imperialism. Insha'Allah they will die out over time as did other radical groups such as the Hashishun."

B: Really?  Maybe not to 1 Billion Muslims but certainly they slaughtered 300 or so on 9/11.  What about to them - it was certainly a threat.  What about to the good name, the reputation of your Faith, since people are associating these murderers as Muslims (even though they are not true Muslims, we would agree), it behooves you to address their errors at every turn and to try to speed their demise.  Are you saying that it is alright, it is a proper strategy to just let them die out on their own?  And what about the way they're threatening certain imams and certain moderate teachers - you must not support that and you must see the threat in that, right?

Y:Proper education of all Muslims concerning the tenets of their faith would alleve some of the problem. However, as long as the United States continues to attempt world domination there will be resentment. The extreme form of this resentment will be expressed in terrorism.

B: Show me the contours of US imperialism and world domination - what does it look like?  Thanks for answering my questions..

May the peace and grace of our Lord be upon you and your family..

There are, in fact, very few radical groups in the Middle East. The sad fact is that, owing to the sophistication of modern technology, a small group of individuals can cause massive destruction, particularly when they are willing to die in the process. For example, had Al-Qaeda existed 100 years ago and had similar grievances with the United States there would have been very little they could have done. But in fact, 19 individuals were actually the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. This equals an infintesimal fraction of the Muslim world population.

As far as combatting terrorism, the methodology of terrorism worked out by Mikhail Bakunin and Sergei Nechaev in the 1870s has proven impossible to stop. The formation of small, semi-autonomous cells allows rapid restructuring with minimum losses. The Russians against the anarchists, the British against the IRA, the Spanish against the Basque separatists stand as convincing proof that terrorism cannot be stopped by any currently known means. Therefore, to try to become involved in combatting terrorists is futile, and the only sane course for a Muslim to follow is to practice one's religion faithfully and raise one's children properly so that they do not become involved in such activities.

I used to be one of those who ran high and low in my community denouncing terrorism as unislamic, as did many of my brothers and sisters. But there were two consistent reactions: some people said they already knew that true Muslims would not commit acts of terror, and so therefore there was no need to reinforce this idea. Others were never satisfied, always found something lacking in my explanations, or simply accused me of trying to save my own skin from backlash. I tried to deal with these people for a long time, and finally came to the conclusion that no evidence or demonstration would be sufficient to convince them. Therefore, I concluded there is nothing to be gained from such demonstrations.

As for America's imperial policy, I refer you to A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Engdahl, Pluto Press, 2004. The subject is far too complex and detailed to engage in a discussion here, but this book will give you a good introduction.

I still do try to spread the message that Islam is a religion of peace at times. As for other religions, you are correct: Christians slaughtered millions in their history. The Hindu sect of Kali also murdered many innocents.

The means for the regeneration of the Ummah can be found in the writings of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. It is his example I follow and spread to other Muslims. His Damascus Sermon is a good introduction to his ideas:

http://www.saidnur.com/foreign/en/risaleler/sermon1.htm - http://www.saidnur.com/foreign/en/risaleler/sermon1.htm

To b95000:

Who is this Hussein that you refer to? There have been many Hussein's in the history of Islam, you'll have to elaborate. And if you are referring to Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet (SAWS), then what do you mean by calling him such vile things such as "rapist, mass murderer"? Do you have any factual evidence, any historical references to back up these outlandish and disgusting accusations, or is it just something that you heard from Falwell?

P.S: for an accurate portrayal of the mass murder, rape, genocide and imperialism that the United States has ingaged in since its inception, try reading "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" by Ward Churchill (AK Press)

B95000 wrote: If you are saying that the US has done wrong things, I will not disagree with you AK47, but I ask you which country has not done wrong things...

West has been lot more worse than the rest of the world. In the last 100 years alone, they have killed more people than the people in the rest of the world have killed.

http://iviews.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IV0309-2080 - relevant article to this thread

Well, like I said, there have been many Hussein's, the most famous of which was the grandson of the Prophet (SAWS), so when you said "Hussein" I was taken aback, since in the West Saddam Hussein is always referred to as "Saddam".

Yes Saddam was a murderer, a tyrant and an egomaniac, as are the vast majority of governments in Muslim states, as such I won't disagree with you that many nations, many cultures and empires have committed atrocities, but like ZamanH points out, the sheer amount of atrocities committed by the United States and its proxy nations greatly outweigh the crimes committed by other nations. For instance, the vast majority of nations that have oppressed their people in the 20th century were U.S. allies and dependents (excluding the Soviet Union and China of course, who committed innumberable crimes themselves). When Indonesia was committing atrocities against the East Timorese under Suharto, it was being supplied with the weapons to commit said atrocities by the United States under the guise of fighting "communist" insurgency in East Timor. It was only after Indonesia had outlived its usefullness to the United States that America was miraculously concerned with the welfare of East Timor. How can you even defend the United States at all? As Muslims, we do not target the United States and Israel alone for our criticism, first and foremost we target our own corrupt and immoral regimes. Why can't Americans do the same?

Also, I was not throwing mud on the United States generally, I was stating historical fact. No nation in history has been so hypocritical, war-mongering, lying and two-faced as the United States. America's crimes began against the Native peoples of the United States already in 1776 and just expanded from there. I challenge you to disprove these historical facts on America's aggressive and imperialist behavior since its inception. Read Ward Churchill's book and disprove any of his points, all of which are historical facts (except for his points on Bosnia and Kosovo, which are completely false and I don't know where he got his information, in fact, the claims he makes regarding those two nations are CONTRARY to historical fact.)

b95000 wrote: Yusuf. wrote: Christians slaughtered millions in their history. I am a Christian.  This is a glib reference.  You care to elaborate on this? Just a basic review - for instance are you calling the monarchies in Europe "Christian" - Constantinople one, but like the Kings of France and England, et al?  Are you calling those guys Christians?  Shall we call Hussein a true Muslim - the rapist, mass murderer - along with his sons?

What I meant was that people claiming to be Christians: the Crusaders, for example. However, i agree; no true Christian would commit murder.

It's really getting more and more interesting.

Zaman, you must believe everything B95K says because he puts a "Period" at the end of his sentences. Plus, you must agree that it's not a "stated policy" of the US government to oppress Arabs and Muslims, it just happens to run that way.

Saddam never claimed to be a Muslim.

Why should we take your above narration as some gospel truth, especially, since that "babies in incubator" spin by the Americans through Bush the Elder Mid East war? You are so knowledgeable, could you kindly enlighten us about poor April Glaspie's fate? You may remember, she was your Ambassador in Baghdad when Saddam ran Kuwait over.

My friend it's a bit of an uphill task these days to correct the image and, the taste your government (and, specially, the New American Century project) has left with people around the world. I suggest if you spent half as much energy and got your admin to adapt a wee humane policies, it might help, not just the world but also the people of the United States of America.

Best of luck

When any people are attacked and occupied, with bogus reason and sheer criminal intent it's not just Jihaad but also the simplest most basic right of those people to fight and despatch the invaders - with whatever means at their disposal.

Does that make any sense or we should not fight for our freedoms if it's the Americans at the other end?

Assalamu alaikum,

The "stolen incubator" story is a proven lie:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marto/aip/mcohen.htm - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marto/aip/mcohen.htm

For heaven's sake don't just lose whatever little goodwill you may be left here with us for the sheer sake of smartness. You well know that when you click on my profile you find my real name there!

Have you ever been anywhere near Afghanistan? It's one country you can't bullsh*t me about. Come on tell us what has been handed over there? And, to whom?

You must think we are really a bit thick here in this forum? And, we would believe anything just because it's said by an American? My friend those days are long lost when people used to respect the American word like that.

Let's climb down to the reality land and talk a bit just at man to man level. 

Do you or don't you understand that we are NOT comparing Muslim leaders with anyone here. Have I ever said that these Muslims re any better than your ratched lot? Just even once? You are getting into that comparison. Not me.

We are simply discussing US occupations, here, right now. It's sad, but I will have to ask you do you know what occupation means? I mean in the normal ordinary terms. In some dictionary. Not in Dick Chenny's head.

Even the US intellectuals, those people who happen to have a wee more than just the two brain cells to rub together, do understand what the US is doing to the world. If you don't understand what's happening in the world and to your country's image, please, go and bark at your Vice President's door, not at ours.

He promised you some rose garden. We did not.

"with bogus reason and sheer criminal intent."
Sorry, I forgot to add a few words. "With dodgy bogus reasons, lies and utter cowboy style criminal intent and purpose"

Happy now? And, as shameless as an American?

Whisper wrote: Saddam never claimed to be a Muslim.

ya, he even had a tatoo on his arm, by Islamic law he should have his arm cut off shouldnt he.  Great laws demand respect even if they are barbaric.

To say the US was occupying Iraq, i can agree with but sence elections we are no longer in power, the Iraqi elected government is.  There would not be nearly as much of a US presence in Iraq if the security of the country was stable.  To many people want Iraq to be in civil war which is exactly what would happen if the US simply left the country at this point.

Its easy to point fingers at this point and say get out but if the US and UK did the place would be over ran with Insergent Islamic Extremest which would make there way to power similarly to how the Taliban did, by barbary in the midst of civil war.

Rocitreal, my above post was for some cocky and slippery poster. I am glad you joined in with this string, you seem to be a genuine person.

You will agree with me that power always lies with the man with the gun. Election have made no difference to holds the actual power strings. Does it not matter at all if the Iraqis don't feel? The elections may be a good thing but just for the home market in the US. Other than that you will find that the "handover" drama and the "civil war will happen if we leave" songs are both far bigger fictions than even the WMDs.

The Afghan civil war was a product of the Vienna Conference when the Soviet Union and the US agreed to keep supplying arms to their respective clients in Afghanistan - a direct result of their interference in my country.

We need to look at global things away from just being an American.

Why would Iraqi's go to risk there lives to vote in record numbers if they didnt believe there votes were worth anything ? 

is it completely un imaginable that a country known to have tried to develope WMD had them ? is it at all possible that they were there at some point ?

America did help arm the defenders of Afganistan from the USSR, would you have rather the USSR occupy the country ?

Yaar, why should it be one occupying if not the other? The deal the US and the Soviets made was anti Afghan in essence, just a recipe of civil war.

The Iraqis were promised by the political parties that this election will bring the end of occupation closer. They lined up for that.

Do you know of any people who like to be occupied?

The US was only involved AFTER the USSR started the war.  We never sent troops to fight, only money and weapons for the fighters defending Afganistan.

US didnt start that war nor the current war in Afganistan.

It is true that by setting up an elected Iraqi Government and Constitution it is obviously transfering power from the allied forces to the Iraqi's.

Do you know how many parents like islamic terrorists killing there children in the streets ?  Do you know how many Iraqi's want murderers driving around with car bombs to blow up there streets and infrustructure

B: You're suggesting some ad hoc deal with the Soviets or just what happened by default?
I don't believe in "suggesting" things. In Vienna Conference (1989) the US and the USSR agreed to "keep supplying their respective clients with arms".

B: Sasha, will you acknowledge that there has been a turnover of the keys of government, power and wealth to an elected Iraqi government, that the Iraqi economy grew by 52% in 2004 according to an extensive IMF study and is growing at another staggering 40% in 2005..?  How are any of these things consistent with any sort of definition of occupation?

Bruce, would you like to genuinely discuss this as a human being or are you just keen of spreading the Neo-Con gospel?

If you are genuinely keen on knowing what's going on in Iraq, you would know the simple fact of life that the man with a gun always holds the ultimate power never mind who we may trust with a few keys.

Economy is the last point on an average Iraqis agenda. First is running water. The second, electricity supply. And the third is "good bye" of the occupation troops.

You wish to talk about economy. Would you please answer just these three questions simply - without typing in some doctorate worthy thesis:

1. Has Iraq suddenly gone into producing Boeing spare parts? Or, has some other locked up sector like tourism has added extra revenue streams to its economy

2. Is it possible that the sudden jump in crude prices reflects in these figures?

3. If such a jump in economy then why does it not reflect in the country's employment figures?

Bruce, do you ever follow the British or any other seious global publications? There was a very recent PEW poll in Iraq. It may not have been flashed in the US - like the US media did not touch on the Downing Street Memos - till a Senator set up a website.

Whats there for me to keep saying that a majority of Iraqis want you to leave? Also, in simple logical terms, if things were really that rosy in Iraq, the US President would never have breathed the "O" word. His words: "people don't like being occupied".

I will look into my Dbase and find that report for you, but first must swim. Too hot here!! 

Some juggler was trying to sell us slaughter and occupations under the "Liberation" designer label. He insisted on telling us how Eyerakis loved MNF troops. (never knew USA had now changed it's Trade Mark to MNF!)

Iraqis Put Contempt For Troops On Display

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 12, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD, June 11 -- A pair of AH-64 Apache helicopter gunships thumped back and forth overhead, scouring residential streets for insurgents. Dun-colored Bradley Fighting Vehicles snorted and wheeled around, their tracks gouging holes in the tarmac. A dozen Humvees stood sentry, closing off the four-lane avenue to Iraqi cars, while nervous American soldiers with M-16 automatic rifles forbade local residents from approaching.

"Look at this," said Ghassan Abu Ahmed, raising his hand in a sweeping gesture toward the tableau of military might. "This is freedom? It is crazy."

A car bomb had just hit a U.S. military convoy passing down the main avenue Friday afternoon in southwest Baghdad's Sayediyeh neighborhood, one of the near-daily attacks on occupation troops across Iraq. By the standards of Iraqi violence over the past two months, it was not particularly bloody. The U.S. military reported no serious casualties. But for what it told about Iraqis' attitudes toward the 13-month-old U.S. occupation, the attack was devastating.

"What Saddam did was awful, but what the Americans are doing is worse," said Abu Ahmed, a laborer who lives with his wife and four sons in a government-built apartment house flanking the road. "They say they are bringing us freedom. But this is what they bring."

Since U.S. forces drove to Baghdad and overthrew President Saddam Hussein in April 2003, the 138,000 American soldiers stationed here have lost their status as liberators in the eyes of most Iraqis. Polling by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority has chronicled a steady souring of opinion, with the most recent surveys showing about 80 percent of Iraqis with an unfavorable opinion of U.S. troops.

They have been encouraged in their views by Muslim preachers, who, judging by their sermons, have concluded that the U.S. occupation should end immediately if peace is to be restored to Iraq. To buttress their arguments, they repeatedly have cited the abuse of Iraqi captives at Abu Ghraib prison, which has helped crystallize opinion against the presence of U.S. soldiers.

"It was discovered that the freedom in this land is not ours. It is the freedom of the occupying soldiers in doing what they like, such as arresting, carrying out raids, killing at random or stealing money," Sheik Mohammed Bashir declared in his sermon Friday at Um al-Oura, a Sunni Muslim mosque in the middle-class Ghazaliya neighborhood.

"No one can ask them what they are doing, because they are protected by their freedom," he continued. "No one can punish them, whether in our country or their country. The worst thing is what was discovered in the course of time: abusing women, children, men, and the old men and women whom they arrested randomly and without any guilt. They expressed the freedom of rape, the freedom of nudity and the freedom of humiliation."

Sheik Bagir Saad at the Hikma Mosque in Sadr City, a stronghold of Shiite Muslim militiamen who have confronted the occupation militarily, denounced U.S. and U.N. plans that he said call for increased involvement by the international body and an increased emphasis on military forces from a variety of countries.

"The new U.N. resolution calls for multinational forces, but we want to inform all the countries that we don't want their armies, whether Arab, Islamic or foreign armies, because we will look at any army coming to Iraq as an occupation, and they should not send their children into this trap," he said.

The Baghdad residents who lined up to watch as U.S. soldiers clustered around their wrecked Humvees on Friday were clearly among the majority who have heeded the call of their sheiks. No one was heard expressing concern for the soldiers who were bombed. Judging by their comments, the neighbors of Sayediyeh's middle-class apartments looked at the avenue and saw enemies in desert camouflage.

Mohammed Ali Ahmed, 24, a worker who lives nearby, complained that the wounded U.S. soldiers were picked up and driven away for medical care by an Iraqi civilian ambulance that happened by. Iraqi ambulances are not for occupying troops, he declared.

"They shouldn't have taken them in the ambulance. They should have left them there, left them to die," Ahmed said to a neighbor.

"That's not right," objected Aqil Kitab, 28, another worker who was standing next to him. "Have you ever been in the army? Even your enemy, when he is wounded, you have to treat him. Then you can interrogate him or put him in a prisoner-of-war camp. The ambulance driver did his job. It was the right thing to do."

Interesting Sasha, that your article is from over a year ago - summer 2004!  Why don't we try to keep up with things...this was well before 8.5 million people voted in Jan. 2005, even before the handover of power in 2004...this is just absurd to be quoting this now without context.. wow, Sasha, what's up with that?

Good luck to you with such oft over repeated ouster of Saddam!

Right this moment we are talking just how the poor Eyerakis feel about your troops, specially, since those elections.

The elections were steged only:

1)      because Ayatallah Sistani forced the Americans to hold elections

      � CPA was only interested in keeping the CIA operative, Ayad Allawi in power.

2)      Iraqis voted because they were told that this would bring an end to the occupation. (No one said it was osme Liberation)

Things have really gone worse since they don't see an end of this occupation.

What handover of POWER?

It's a universal truth:

POWER only ever lies with the chap who holds the GUN.

Stay this point instead of running away into some far off sunset of your convenience.

Those statistics and the hatred of the Iraqis have gone worse.

If you wish to contest it, please, support your claim with fresh evidence instead of humming your MNF, liberation mantra.

After that we will also discuss why we can't shower democracy from 52,000 feet.

You have again gone off the rails, though my point was dead simple. Do you have problem reading English or you run away only when a point exposes some US misdeeds.

I paste it here for you to read:

Jihad is expending (one�s) effort/ability in fighting in the way of Allah directly (mubashira) or assisting by wealth or opinion or increasing numbers or other than that. The fighting to raise the word of Allah is jihad. As for jihad by opinion in the way of Allah, this is jihad is the opinion relates directly to fighting in the way of Allah. If it does not relate directly to this, it is not Shar�a jihad even if it involves difficulty (mashaqqa) and even if there results benefits in raising the word of Allah. This is because jihad in Shar�a is specific to fighting, so there enters within it everything related directly to fighting. Similar to the opinion is writing and speaking; they are jihad if they are related directly to fighting in the way of Allah like the speech to the army to encourage it to fight directly or words inciting fighting the enemies. If not, they are not (jihad). Neither political struggle nor rebuking (muqari�a) the rulers is termed jihad though their reward is high and their benefit to the Muslims great. The question/issue is not difficulty nor the benefit, but rather it is the Shar�a meaning with which it came for this word. The Shari�ah meaning is fighting and all that it related to it of opinion, speech, writing, strategy (makeeda) and other (similar) things.

The cause of jihad is not jizyah even though we stop (fighting) them when they accept the jizyah. Rather, the cause of jihad is that those whom we fight are disbelievers (kuffar) who rejected the da�wah. The Supreme said: �Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the deen of truth among the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah from their hands while they are humiliated� [TMQ 9:29]. The command to fight them due to their attribute of disbelief (kufr) i.e. fight them because they do not believe in Allah and the Last Day etc�so this description/attribute is a restriction (qayd) and at this point it becomes a cause (sabab). So the cause of fighting is disbelief. It came in another ayah: �O you who believe, fight those who encircle you (close to you geographically) of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you� [TMQ Tawba ] so the command to fight them is due to the attribute of disbelief. There are many similar ayat such as: �Fight the allies of Satan� [TMQ ] (and) �Fight the leaders of disbelief� [TMQ 9: ] (and) �Fight the polytheists altogether� [TMQ ] (which) all command the fighting due to a specific attribute which is the cause of fighting i.e. disbelief. As for the payment of jizyah, the Qur�an made it together with humiliation as the cause of stopping the fighting not the cause of fighting. Frome here it came that the cause of jihad is disbelief. If those whom we fight accept the da�wah they become Muslims; if they refuse to accept Islam (but) accept to pay the jizyah and be ruled by Islam, it is accepted from them and they are not fought as it is not permitted to force them to accept Islam. As long as they accept to be ruled by it and pay the jizyah, they have submitted to the da�wah even if they have not accepted Islam. Accordingly, it is not allowed to fight them after they accept to be ruled by it and pay the jizyah. However, if they accept to pay the jizyah but refuse to be ruled by Islam, it is not allowed to accept this from them because the cause of fighting�which is that they are disbelievers who have refused to accept the da�wah�remains standing so fighting them remains obligatory, an obligation which has not fallen from the Muslims� necks. As for the emergency treaties (mu�ahadat idhtirariyya) in which the Khaleefah accepts from them the jizyah while leaving them to rule themselves by the system of disbelief, due to the absence of (muwatat) of the external and internal circumstances for it, the Shar�a gave concession (rakhasa) to this emergency situation in the situations of necessity so no analogy is done upon it. Therefore the cause of jihad is that those whom we fight are disbelievers who refused to accept the da�wah and there is no other cause for jihad.

As for jizyah together with humiliation being a cause to stop fighting, this is only with non-polytheist Arabs. As for polytheist Arabs, it is not accepted from them except Islam or fighting due to the Supreme�s statement: �You will fight them or they will become Muslims� [TMQ ].

Jihad is obligatory by the explicit text (nass) of the Qur�an and Hadith. The Supreme said: �Fight them so that there remains no (fitnah) and the deen becomes wholly/only for Allah�[TMQ 2: ] and He said: �Fight those who don�t believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the deen of truth among the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah from their hands while they are humiliated� [TMQ 9: ] and the Supreme said: �If you do not go out (for jihad), He will punish you with a painful punishment� [TMQ 9: ] and He said: �O you who believe, fight those who encircle you of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you� [TMQ 9: ]. From Anas who said: �The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: �Fight the polytheists with your wealth, your hands and your tongues� (narrated by An-Nisai). Also from Anas that the Prophet (SAW) said: �A morning in the way of Allah, or an evening, are better than the world and what is within it� (narrated by Al-Bukhari). He also narrated that he (SAW) said: �I was commanded to fight the people until they say �There is no god but Allah��. Imam Ahmad and Abu Dawud narrated from Anas who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: ��Jihad (madhi) from when Allah sent me until the last of my Ummah fights the Dajjal. It will not be invalidated by the tyranny of the tyrant or the justice of the just (leader).�

From Zayd bin Khalid who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: �Whoever prepares a warrior (ghazi) in the way of Allah has (also) fought, and whoever takes care of his family in goodness (khayr) after him has (also) fought� (narrated by Ahmad). From �Ata bin Yazid al-Laithi that Abud Said al-Khudri (RA) related to him: �It was said: O Messenger of Allah, which of the people is better? The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: �A believer who does jihad in the way of Allah by his body and wealth� (narrated by Al-Bukhari). And he (AS) said: �Whoever dies without fighting or his soul thinking of fighting has died upon a branch of hypocrisy.� From Abi Awfa that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: �Know that paradise is beneath the shade of swords� (narrated by Al-Bukhari). From Abu Hurayra who said: �One of the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) passed by a ravine  with rivers of sweet water in it and was astounded by its beauty, so he said: What if I separated from the people and stayed in this ravine? But I will never do it until I seek permission from the Messenger of Allah (SAW) so he mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah who said: Do not do (so) for the standing of one of you in the way of Allah is better than his praying in his house for seventy years� (narrated by At-Tirmidhi). Jihad is a collective obligation (fard kifayah) offensively (ibtida�a), and an individual obligation (fard �ayn) against the enemy who attacks them while being a collective obligation upon the rest. The obligation does not fall until the enemy is expelled and the Islamic land liberated from their filth. The meaning of jihad being a collective obligation offensively is that we start fighting the enemy even if they do not start (fighting) us. If no Muslim performs the fighting offensively at any period then they will be sinful for leaving it. If the people of Egypt perform the offensive jihad then (its obligation) falls from the people of Indonesia, as there existed practically fighting by Muslims against belligerent disbelievers so the obligation of jihad has occurred. However if fighting (nashaba) between Muslims and disbelievers but the sufficiency (kifayah) has not occurred by the people of Egypt fighting the disbelievers alone, then its obligation does not fall from the people of India and Indonesia by the performance of the people of Egypt and Iraq. Rather it is obligatory upon the nearest (Muslim) then the nearest to the enemy until sufficiency occurs; if sufficiency does not occur except with all the Muslims, then jihad becomes obligatory upon all the Muslims until the enemy is conquered/subdued. The (muhil) of jihad being a collective obligation is if the Khaleefah has not told him to advance (jastanfiruhu); as for the one whom the Khaleefah has told him to advance, then jihad has become obligatory upon him due to the Supreme�s statement: �O you who believe, what is wrong with you that when it is said: �Go forth in the way of Allah� you hold firm to the earth� [TMQ 9:] and his (SAW) statement: �And if you are asked to advance, then advance.� The meaning of the sufficiency of jihad in the Islamic State is that there rises for jihad a people whose fighting is sufficient; whether they are an army for whom there are books of accounts (dawawin) for this as was the case in the time of Umar, or they had prepared themselves for jihad freely as was the case in the time of Abu Bakr. It is the same whether these ones or these ones or both of them together such that if the enemy targets them (al-mana�ah) occurs by them so it is a collective obligation upon them. If (al-mana�ah) does not occur through them, then the Khaleefah prepares other for jihad and so on. Offensive jihad does not mean that we initiate fighting the enemy directly; rather we must first call them to Islam.

If is not allowed for Muslims to fight those whom the Islamic da�wah has not reached; rather, the disbelievers must first be called to Islam. If they reject, then the jizyah; and if they reject, we fight them. Muslim narrated from Sulayman bin Buraydah from his father: �When the Messenger of Allah (SAW) appointed an Amir over an army or expedition, he would exhort him to fear Allah in his soul and to be good to those Muslims with him. Then he would say: Fight in the name of Allah, in the way of Allah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight but do not betray, commit treachery, mutilate nor kill a child. When you meet your enemy among the polytheists then call them to three (khisal) or (khilal) such that whichever of them they respond to, accept from them and do not fight them. Then call them to Isalm; if they are respond to you, accept from them and do not fight them. Then call them to move (tahawwal) from their land to the land of the emigrants (Muhajireen) and inform them that if they do this then for them is what is due to the Muhajireen and against them is what is due from the Muhajireen. If they refuse to move from it, then tell them that they are like the bedouin Muslims upon whom does not run what rule of Allah which runs over the believers and there is no booty or spoils for them unless they fight jihad with the Muslims. If they refuse, ask them the jizyah; if they respond to you, accept from them and do not fight them. If they refuse, seek help from Allah against them and fight them.� And from ibn Abbas: �The Messenger of Allah (SAW) never fought except that he invited them� (narrated by Ahmad). And from Furwat bin Maseek who said: �I said to Messenger of Allah, should I fight with those of my people advancing (against) those of them fleeing? He said: Yes. When I turned (to go), he called me and said: Do not fight them until you invite them to Islam.�

Firstly, the evidences presented above is the classical uderstanding of Jihad.

b95000 wrote: abujamal wrote: " So let's look at this quote you gave Abujamal: [quote=abujamal]�Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the deen of truth among the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah from their hands while they are humiliated� [TMQ 9:29]. At the very least this would forbid the so called 'jihadists' from fighting other Muslim believers and other monotheists, other People of the Book.  Now, we're into this, because the US and Israel and Europe, still, are full of People of the Book and monotheists.

Secondly, that is not my quote, but a verse from the Quran. And ifwe turn to the classical scholars for their commentary on this verse such as the mufassir ibn Kathir, this is what you will find:

The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

Allah said,

[���������� ��������� ��� ����������� ��������� ����� ����������� ��������� ����� ������������ ��� ������� ������� ����������� ����� ���������� ����� �������� ���� ��������� �������� ���������� ������ ��������� ����������� ��� ���� ������ ���������� ]

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,

[���������� ��������� ��� ����������� ��������� ����� ����������� ��������� ����� ������������ ��� ������� ������� ����������� ����� ���������� ����� �������� ���� ��������� �������� ����������]

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

Allah said,

[������ ��������� �����������]

(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,

[��� ����]

(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,

[������ ����������]

(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

���� ���������� ���������� ������������� ������������� ������� ��������� ���������� ��� ������� ������������� ����� ���������

(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''

[��������� ���������� �������� ����� ������� ��������� ����������� ���������� ����� ������� ����� ��������� �������������� ������������ ������ ��������� ��������� ��� ������ ����������� ������� ������ ����������� - ����������� ������������� ��������������� ���������� ���� ����� ������� ������������ ����� �������� ����� ��������� ������ ������������� �������� ������� ���� ������� ������ ���� ����������� ������ ����������� ]

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980 - http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980

jibreel wrote: the text above is a peace treaty....

English is obviously not your first language.

You claim that scholars without exception form their perception of war in Islam not by the Quran, but by what seems to be obvious to their hearts with historical events in the background.   My question for you is how have you arrived at this assertion?

 You further claim that the conclusions they come to are not cross checked and on top of it they support those conclusions with verses from Quran.  I ask what examples can you give to illustrate this point?

You claim that scholars should have taken a path to first consult Quran, and then historical perspective and lastly conclusions from their heart, for in this way they will arrive at Allah's intention.  My question: What have you relied upon for giving this advice? from Quran? Sunnah? or any major scholar of Islam known to this Islamic community?