Shari’a, unseen in plain sight — a commentary. Part 3: Jihad

The Shari’a manual, Reliance of the Traveller, contains a chapter on jihad, Chapter 9 of Book O. The title of Book O is “Justice”. This should give pause for thought. Over recent decades the world has become reacquainted with jihad. I say “reacquainted” because it has forgotten its many past jihad epidemics, the torrents of blood that flowed, and the dark ages that followed. But it is also a reacquaintance that it is trying very hard to derail. The book on Shari’a, the law of Islam, what Muslims call the “Sacred Law” or the “Law of God”, has a special chapter just on jihad.

Yet, the world has invented a special character it calls a “jihadi”. His role is to take the heat for Muslims. Why? Because a “jihadi” is someone who commits mass murder and terrorism, so Muslims have plausible deniability. Their Qur’an commands Muslims to commit jihad. Islamic “Sacred Law” spells out the details of how Muslims are to commit jihad. But the word “jihadi” does not appear once in the entire Qur’an, though “jihad” appears in forty-seven verses (in some more than once). “Jihadi” does not appear in the hadith, though “jihad” appears there 258 times (in many multiple times). Finally, “jihadi” does not appear anywhere in Reliance of the Traveller, though “jihad” appears there forty-four times. In all instances, without exception, the ones commanded to commit (the Islamic texts say “perform”) jihad are Muslims. Only Muslims commit jihad. “Jihadis” do not, because they do not exist. No Muslim talks of “jihadis”; only non-Muslims do. We will soon see why.

Mass murder is, of course, a crime, and a very serious crime at that, as is terrorism of any kind, if the society in question is not governed by Shari’a. Where Shari’a governs or effectively governs a society, jihad is not a crime, on the contrary, it is an imposition of justice. The book in which the “Sacred Law” of jihad is laid out is entitled Justice. Now I ask you to consider, dear non-Muslim reader, whether you think someone who wants Shari'a considers jihad a crime, and sees those who commit it as terrorists. If we cannot be certain as to what justice is to a Muslim, can we have any certainty as to what a Muslim considers a crime?

Shari’a stipulates: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, …warfare to establish the religion [Islam].” Warfare against non-Muslims is just, because refusal to convert to Islam is an injustice. It is an act of “aggression against Islam” and such jihad warfare is, by Muslim logic, “defensive”. Those Muslims who do not commit jihad are grateful to those who do, for it is not normally an obligation on all Muslims, but rather a “communal obligation”: if some of them do it, the others don’t have to. Those whom the West calls “jihadis” carry the can for those whom the West calls Muslims. To Muslims, those among them who commit jihad are most decidedly not "jihadis" and not criminals, let alone terrorists.

Shari’a describes this Muslim warfare against non-Muslims as “the lesser jihad,” to distinguish it from, “the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self”.

This “spiritual warfare against the lower self” is what non-Muslims fall for time after time. They assume, and Muslims do not disabuse them of this, that “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” or simply “spiritual warfare,” is about becoming a better person. And they would be right, except that to a Muslim, “becoming a better person,” means something very different to what the naïve non-Muslim assumes it to mean. To Muslims, to become a better person means to become a better Muslim, that is, closer to what the Qur’an prescribes for Muslims, closer to what pleases Allah. Instead of sitting at home and letting others do all the jihad killing, become a better person and do the killing yourself. When Muslims tell non-Muslims that jihad is about picking up your kids from school, or about spreading understanding, they are mocking them! To quote Reliance of the Traveller:

The scriptural basis for jihad, …is such Qur’anic verses as:

“Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Qur’an 2:216);
“Slay them wherever you find them'' (Qur’an 4:89);
“Fight the idolators utterly'' (Qur’an 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet …said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it [the shahada, that is, become Muslim], they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it,” (emph. AP).

But never fear, just because others are committing jihad, does not mean that you are marginalised from the action. Muhammad is reported to have said, “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad.” Yet, the armchair “jihadi” ought to take note:

“Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good.” (Qur’an 4:95).

Shari’a makes it abundantly clear:

There are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims:

The first is when they [non-Muslims] are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, …upon the Muslims each year. (emph. AP)

Take note: In this first state, the non-Muslims are in their own countries minding their own business. Muslims as a community must wage jihad war against peaceful non-Muslim countries that mean them no harm at all. Even the concept of appeasement has no meaning in the context of jihad.

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or [a country] near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can.

This is basically the entire Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. If non-Muslims should invade a Muslim country (for whatever reason — even to topple a brutal dictator), or a country neighbouring a Muslim country, then all Muslims in that country and nearby (unspecified) Muslim countries are obliged to go there and fight the non-Muslims, or support others to do so. Remember Saddam Hussein and the throngs of non-Muslims opposed to the US invading Iraq to topple him? How do you redeem the most brutal dictator in the Middle East who murdered 250,000 of his own citizens? Get the US to invade to topple him et voilà! all is forgiven (and forgotten). Just for reference, the Sebrenica massacre claimed 8,000 victims. To that extent have our ethics degenerated and been made ready for Shari’a.

Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines and to flee is an enormity [a grave sin] provided one is able to fight. If unable, …then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force.

Non-Muslims often mistake Muslim quiescence for peace, even integration. Muslims not fighting in the face of overwhelming force does not mean that peace is established; it only means that fighting has ceased. Such a state can continue for decades, even centuries, but it is never permanent. As such, Muslim quiescence is easily mistaken for integration. One sees this often in non-Muslim countries where Muslims are a minority: the non-Muslim majority takes it as a positive reflection on themselves that “their Muslim minority” is different to those violent Muslims in other countries. Their Muslims are peaceful, even “integrated”.

In the UK they say, “Look, they eat Christmas turkey; they’re integrated.” In Germany they say, “Look he’s wearing a suit and tie; he’s integrated.” In Poland they say, “Look, they’ve lived here peacefully for centuries; they’re integrated.” In Israel they say, “Look, they sit in the Knesset; they’re integrated.” In France they say, “Look, they’ve joined the Police; they’re integrated.” In the US they say, “Look, they’ve joined the military; they’re integrated.” In all such cases, the non-Muslim majority feels some pastoral responsibility for the integration of the Muslim minority, and proud when “our Muslims” are well-behaved, hence the “we must do more” syndrome, the shock-horror of “home-grown” terrorists, and painful introspections of “where did we go wrong?” when Muslims suddenly comply their own religion.

In the matter of Muslim “parallel societies”, no one calls it segregation, and certainly not apartheid, though that is precisely what it is, with all the supremacism and discrimination that that term entails. Here non-Muslim delusion, misplaced responsibility and wishful thinking are at their most stubborn, because countenancing the possibility that such Muslims might not be integrating would be an admission of failure on the part of the non-Muslim majority. It is a distant echo of the Christian mission, or the white man’s burden, that they feel obliged to take upon themselves, without either reason to do so, or the foggiest idea of what they are taking on. The tragic results litter the European landscape and are piling up in North America. “We are all Muslims now,” remember?

The First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution, for so long axiomatically touted as the guarantors of American freedom, are manifestly useless against two dumb Muslims and a handful of their useful idiot friends making a mockery of the US House of Representatives as they systematically “tear down” (their words) the society’s ability to defend itself. The very people who had so much to say about Europe going to the dogs without a First Amendment and a Second Amendment, are now watching precisely the same process underway in their own country, unhindered. This is not a gloat; we are all in the same mess. Why? Because we’re too good, or too intimidated, to call a spade a spade.

Jihad is also personally obligatory for everyone (able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims…

“Able to perform it” does not only  mean able to wield a weapon and kill non-Muslims. It also means able to assist in any way those who wield weapons and kill non-Muslims, whether directly or indirectly, by giving them money, food, shelter, sex, transport, documents, clothing, sons, directions, pointing out the houses, cars and businesses of non-Muslims, identifying the non-Muslims earmarked for killing, keeping silent when the police ask questions, and much more, all such deeds pleasing to Allah. In practice, there is no Muslim who is not able to perform jihad.

Those called upon (to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane), (emph. AP).

Think of the depth of depravity when a woman carries out jihad mass murder when it is not a personal obligation. She chooses to do it.

The following may not fight in jihad:

...someone with at least one Muslim parent, until they give their permission, unless the Muslims are surrounded by the enemy, in which case it is permissible for them to fight without permission.

Now think of all those silly discussions of whether the parents of Western ISIS brides knew about their daughters’ plans. So-called “martyrdom videos” are a different matter. On the one hand, they are, firstly, a son’s final thanks to his mother for having given birth to him, without which, of course, he would not have been able to die for Allah; and secondly, a promise to intercede for the family on the Day of Judgement. Making such a video, Qur’an, headband, shahada backdrop and all the rest of it, further solemnises what is already a deeply religious event: dying in the act of murder for Allah. Christians debate whether Bishop Cyril of Alexandria was right to have declared the monk agent provocateur Ammonius a martyr, because the latter had brought his death upon himself and therefore cannot be said to have died defending his faith. When Muslims say “martyrdom,” bringing about your own death is the whole idea, provided you kill in the act of dying.

The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians …and the war continues until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Qur’an 9:29)

“Taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent,” after which everything will be fine. But until then, “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.”

It is not permissible (in jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims.

What good is a dead sex-slave or a child slave? “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.”

Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (someone more than forty years of age) and monks.

Note: Killing restrictions apply to animals, not to old men and monks.

It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection.

It is not clear to me how this squares with Islamic sanction to lie to non-Muslims and to deceive them. If you want to ask a “scholar,” be my guest, but I have a pretty good idea of how this works out in practice.

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests of Islam and the Muslims and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

Muslims who proselytise (do da’wa) try to sell this mulling over the captive’s fate as one of the good things about Islam.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

No wonder Islam is the fastest-growing religion.

It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings.

At least the Israelis get this one right when they uproot Palestinians’ olive trees and blow up jihad terrorists’ homes. The Palestinians understand the deeper significance of such actions, which always escapes Western commentators.

In Sacred Law [Shari’a], “truce” means a peace treaty with those hostile [declining the “invitation” to convert, AP] to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Qur’anic verses as:

“An acquittal from Allah and His messenger...” (Qur’an 9:1);
“If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also” (Qur’an 8:61);

as well as the truce which the Prophet …made [with the] Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim.

"Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions,” (emph. AP)

Jihad warfare is raiding for booty, especially gold, silver and slaves. It is a key source of revenue for the Islamic state and a quick way to wealth for all who participate in the slaughter. This is why, “it is a matter of the gravest consequence” whether a truce applies “globally or in a given locality.” An entire chapter of the Qur’an (surah 8) is dedicated to “The Spoils of War”.

There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo,” (emph. AP). “Truces are permissible, not obligatory.

In Islam, peace for its own sake is forbidden. The default state is war. “If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made.”

When a jihad terror army or its controlling regime sues for peace is precisely when you must exert maximum pressure of every kind, including, of course, overwhelming physical force. Muslims suing for peace means one thing only: they will attack again, possibly before the ink is even dry, a lesson that Israeli leaders don’t seem to learn. Never allow those engaged in jihad warfare against you either to gain the upper hand (“be uppermost”) or be able to claim to be uppermost, which Hamas is able to do with alacrity. It serves only to bolster the jihad commitment of the whole population and more people put themselves and their children in harm’s way.

Allah Most High says,

“So do not be faint-hearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost”  (Qur’an 47:35).

It is not clear what those wanting a nuclear “deal” with Iran imagine that regime will do when they have a nuclear bomb and so become “the uppermost”.

Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of members or material, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet …made a truce …for that long. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.

“A truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet …made a truce for that long. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that.” If you want to know the Muslims’ bottom line, it is the example of Muhammad, to the letter. We might not realise it, but the terms of a truce are set by Muslims and are not negotiable:

The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax, namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.

It expires with the next attack. Israelis still think they can make truces with Hamas, despite these truces sometimes lasting no more than twenty-four hours. These continual making and breaking of truces also make Hamas “the uppermost”, as they are able to keep the Israelis falling for the same trick over and over, each time thinking that this time it will stick, and within hours they’re rushing into shelters again. In the warped Islamic logic and ethics, their "victory celebrations" are justified.

There is no such thing as “jihadism”; it is Islam. Just read the texts that Muslims are obliged to follow to the letter. Islam commands, for example, that every Muslim must pay zakat, alms. Shari’a also stipulates that zakat funds must be applied in eight categories of spending. The “scholars” differ on the details, but they are unanimous on one thing: zakat must always fund jihad and always to its full one-eighth entitlement. That means at least 12.5% of each dollar or euro or dinar given in zakat goes directly to funding terrorism. I say “at least,” because this absolute minimum can be considerably increased with funds from other zakat categories when they effectively coincide with the imperative to fund jihad. An example would be a mosque funding a “traveller” on his way to Syria to join ISIS. Oh, you thought all those thousands of ISIS recruits made their way halfway around the world out of their own pockets? Next time you learn of some individual or organisation being prosecuted for funding terrorism, think of a single drop identified and picked out of an ocean. Such is the parlous state we’re in, because we would rather conjure “jihadis,” than learn what Muslims are actually up to.