and your enemies . . . .”
—Qur’an 8:60
“We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.”
—Qur’an 3:151
----
1. Jihad
Recently “jihad” has been the subject of a massive rebranding campaign—undertaken by none other than the very same Council on American-Islamic Relations that promoted this disingenuous letter. In 2013 CAIR began running bus ads featuring cheerful-looking Muslims with slogans such as “My Jihad is to stay fit despite my busy schedule. What’s yours?,”“My Jihad is to not judge people by their cover. What’s yours?,” and “My Jihad is to build friendships across the aisle. What’s yours?” 60
The 2014 open letter continued the campaign to whitewash the concept of jihad. “All Muslims see the great virtue in jihad,” it says, repeatedly claiming that jihad warfare is strictly defensive. “There is no such thing,” the scholars assert, “as offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, the Imams Malik and Ahmad and all other scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah, with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school.”
On its surface, it sounds moderate to renounce “offensive” jihad to convert or subjugate non-Muslims and claim the right only to defend fellow Muslims when they’re attacked. But remember that in Sunni Islamic law, only the caliph has the authority to declare offensive jihad, while defensive jihad is obligatory upon all Muslims when a Muslim land is attacked, and need not be declared by anyone. Thus since 1924 (when the caliphate was abolished by Atatürk) to this day (except for those who accept the Islamic State’s claim to have revived it), all jihad attacks, even 9/11, have been cast by their perpetrators as defensive.
So endorsing only “defensive” jihad is not as moderate as it sounds.
In any case, the Shafi’i school, which even the open letter’s signatories have to admit does endorse “offensive” jihad, is one of the four great schools of Sunni jurisprudence. If some Shafi’i scholars allow for “offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions,” can it really be said to be un-Islamic? Are the scholars pronouncing takfir on the Shafi’i school (declaring them heretics)? Or just deceiving gullible non-Muslims?
2. Dhimmitude
“Regarding Arab Christians,” the scholars remind the Islamic State caliph, “you gave them three choices: jizyah (poll tax), the sword, or conversion to Islam.” Jizya, as we have seen, is the tax specified in the Qur’an (9:29) to belevied on “the People of the Book” as a sign of their dhimmitude, their subjugation and submission to Muslim hegemony. This, the scholars say, was wrong, because “these Christians are not combatants against Islam or transgressors against it, indeed they are friends, neighbours and co-citizens. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they all fall under ancient agreements that are around 1400 years old, and the rulings of jihad do not apply to them.”
The letter’s explanation of jizya, however, is hopelessly self-contradictory.
The scholars tell the caliph that the Arab Christians are friends of the Muslims, who “did not wage war against you” and thus should not have been subjugated as dhimmis. But then in the very next paragraph they mention a “second type of jizyah,” which “is levied on those who do not wage war against Islam.” So if, as the signatories to the letter aver, “there are two types of jizyah in Shariah,” and only the first “applies to those who fought Islam,” then how is the Islamic State transgressing against Islam by levying the jizya on those who did not wage war against Islam?
These “moderate” scholars are apparently fine with a
—Qur’an 8:60
“We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.”
—Qur’an 3:151
----
1. Jihad
Recently “jihad” has been the subject of a massive rebranding campaign—undertaken by none other than the very same Council on American-Islamic Relations that promoted this disingenuous letter. In 2013 CAIR began running bus ads featuring cheerful-looking Muslims with slogans such as “My Jihad is to stay fit despite my busy schedule. What’s yours?,”“My Jihad is to not judge people by their cover. What’s yours?,” and “My Jihad is to build friendships across the aisle. What’s yours?” 60
The 2014 open letter continued the campaign to whitewash the concept of jihad. “All Muslims see the great virtue in jihad,” it says, repeatedly claiming that jihad warfare is strictly defensive. “There is no such thing,” the scholars assert, “as offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, the Imams Malik and Ahmad and all other scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah, with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school.”
On its surface, it sounds moderate to renounce “offensive” jihad to convert or subjugate non-Muslims and claim the right only to defend fellow Muslims when they’re attacked. But remember that in Sunni Islamic law, only the caliph has the authority to declare offensive jihad, while defensive jihad is obligatory upon all Muslims when a Muslim land is attacked, and need not be declared by anyone. Thus since 1924 (when the caliphate was abolished by Atatürk) to this day (except for those who accept the Islamic State’s claim to have revived it), all jihad attacks, even 9/11, have been cast by their perpetrators as defensive.
So endorsing only “defensive” jihad is not as moderate as it sounds.
In any case, the Shafi’i school, which even the open letter’s signatories have to admit does endorse “offensive” jihad, is one of the four great schools of Sunni jurisprudence. If some Shafi’i scholars allow for “offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions,” can it really be said to be un-Islamic? Are the scholars pronouncing takfir on the Shafi’i school (declaring them heretics)? Or just deceiving gullible non-Muslims?
2. Dhimmitude
“Regarding Arab Christians,” the scholars remind the Islamic State caliph, “you gave them three choices: jizyah (poll tax), the sword, or conversion to Islam.” Jizya, as we have seen, is the tax specified in the Qur’an (9:29) to belevied on “the People of the Book” as a sign of their dhimmitude, their subjugation and submission to Muslim hegemony. This, the scholars say, was wrong, because “these Christians are not combatants against Islam or transgressors against it, indeed they are friends, neighbours and co-citizens. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they all fall under ancient agreements that are around 1400 years old, and the rulings of jihad do not apply to them.”
The letter’s explanation of jizya, however, is hopelessly self-contradictory.
The scholars tell the caliph that the Arab Christians are friends of the Muslims, who “did not wage war against you” and thus should not have been subjugated as dhimmis. But then in the very next paragraph they mention a “second type of jizyah,” which “is levied on those who do not wage war against Islam.” So if, as the signatories to the letter aver, “there are two types of jizyah in Shariah,” and only the first “applies to those who fought Islam,” then how is the Islamic State transgressing against Islam by levying the jizya on those who did not wage war against Islam?
These “moderate” scholars are apparently fine with a
Similar Books
