Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   The Club House (
-   -   It's the doctrine of jihad, stupid. (

Rocky7 04-24-2013 02:10 PM

It's the doctrine of jihad, stupid.
Twelve years after 9/11 and the beat goes on. If the news of jihadi terrorist bombings in Boston and Bangalore was not enough to wake us from our collective slumber, the arrests of Chiheb Esseghaier of Montreal and Raed Jaser from Toronto this week certainly should. Though I doubt it.

According to RCMP Assistant Commissioner James Malizia, the two Muslim men were allegedly getting "direction and guidance" from al-Qaida elements in Iran. He added: "Had this plot been carried out, it would have resulted in innocent people being killed or seriously injured."

While ordinary Canadians and non-Muslims around the world are bewildered by these never-ending news reports of terrorism and alleged plots, the response by the leaders of the Islamic community is the tired old cliche - Islam is a religion of peace, and jihad is simply an "inner struggle."

The fact is these terrorists are motivated by one powerful belief - the doctrine of armed jihad against the "kuffar" (non-Muslims).

It is worth noting that not a single Muslim cleric since 9/11 has mustered the courage to say the doctrine of armed jihad is defunct and inapplicable in the 21st century. They rightfully denounce terrorism, but dare not denounce jihad.

The armed jihad launched against the infidels, is clearly promoted by the 20th-century writings of such Islamists as Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the late Syed Maudoodi of Jamaat-e-Islami of Indo-Pakistan.

Young Muslims across Canada and the U.S. are given booklets titled Towards Understanding Islam, written by Maudoodi. In the booklet, Maudoodi exhorts ordinary Muslims to launch jihad, as in armed struggle, against non-Muslims.

"Jihad is part of this overall defence of Islam," he writes.

In case the reader is left with any doubt about the meaning of the word "jihad," Maudoodi clarifies:

"In the language of the Divine Law, this word (jihad) is used specifically for the war that is waged solely in the name of God against those who perpetrate oppression as enemies of Islam. This supreme sacrifice is the responsibility of all Muslims."

Maudoodi goes on to label Muslims who refuse the call to armed jihad as apostates:

"Jihad is as much a primary duty as are daily prayers or fasting. One who avoids it is a sinner. His every claim to being a Muslim is doubtful. He is plainly a hypocrite who fails in the test of sincerity and all his acts of worship are a sham, a worthless, hollow show of deception."

If Maudoodi's exhortations are not enough to motivate Muslims to conduct acts of terror, we have the words of the late Hassan al-Banna being distributed in our schools and universities. Al-Banna makes it quite clear that the word "jihad" means armed conflict. He mocks those who claim jihad is merely an internal struggle.

Al-Banna says this redefinition of the term "jihad" is a conspiracy so that "Muslims should become negligent."

And here is what Syed Qutb, another Egyptian stalwart of the Islamist movement and the Muslim Brotherhood, writes in his seminal work on Islam and its relationship with the West, Milestones:

"A Muslim will remain prepared to fight against it (non-Muslim country), whether it be his birthplace or a place where his relatives reside or where his property or any other material interests are located."

Unless the leaders of Canadian and American mosques as well as the Islamic organizations denounce the doctrine of jihad as pronounced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, and distance themselves from the ideology of Qutb, al-Banna and Maudoodi, they stand complicit in the havoc that these jihadis are raining down on the rest of us.

For those who search for the root cause of Islamist terrorism, it's the doctrine of jihad, stupid.


Tarek Fatah is a Canadian muslim writer.

onenut58 04-24-2013 02:45 PM

What most people don't understand is its a holy war of the end times for them. The Christian messiah comes back and stops the wars and does away with the evil people. But to there messiahs end time return they believe is very soon. They have to start the war and there messiah comes back and leads them through it to eventual complete destruction of any other belief or forced conversion.
If you read up on the rise of the Persian empire you will see the blue print they follow. Remember Iran is Persia.

rurak 04-24-2013 04:39 PM

So killing innocent women and children is their goal. A loving and just God would certainly not condone acts of terror ..... I'm pretty certain about that

Mosin 04-24-2013 05:05 PM


Originally Posted by rurak
So killing innocent women and children is their goal. A loving and just God would certainly not condone acts of terror ..... I'm pretty certain about that

It's my belief that God isn't within a thousand miles of that crap.
Me thinks spirituality and religion are two vastly different things...

yazul42 04-24-2013 05:07 PM

Strange that 3 major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all worship the God of Abraham, seem so at odds with each other, zealots of all three have been responsible for millions dying to prove who is more pious. I believe that God is very disappointed and most likely pissed.

locutus 04-24-2013 05:09 PM

It seems like all of the "end times" people, whether muslim, christian, ahteist or what whatever are all nutty fanatics.

Rocky7 04-24-2013 09:22 PM


Originally Posted by yazul42 (Post 1225466)
Strange that 3 major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all worship the God of Abraham, seem so at odds with each other, zealots of all three have been responsible for millions dying to prove who is more pious.

Rubbish. What absolute, unadulterated, progressive claptrap!

A few years back Israeli troops cornered some Palestinian gunmen in the Church of the Nativity. Shots were fired. There were Christian monks inside the Church when those shots were fired. The monks were taken hostage for a while. Damage was done.

This is one of the most sacred religious sites in Christendom. It is the place Christ was born. It was left damaged and with bullet holes.

Not one Christian Bishop and not one Christian priest or minister or any sort of Christian religious leader on the entire planet declared a holy war, a jihad, or called for violence or revenge against anyone, including the groups who entered that Holy Site, shooting, damaging and desecrating it. NOT ONE!

If that had happened at the Hole Mosque in Medina, the cries of "Jihad" would still be heard, and there would have been rivers of blood and hundreds of heads sawed off living people - all cheered on by Muslim Imams.

PUHleease! We are different.

Furthermore, the big killers in human history have not been religions at all. Those have been socialists. In comparison to Stalin, Mao, and friends, even medieval Muslim armies were bit players.

I'm not a church goer, but I can see what is plainly in front of me. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.

primer1 04-25-2013 01:03 AM

Doesn't this belong in "politics, religion, and controversy?"

yazul42 04-25-2013 11:34 AM

I agree Rocky,, religion itself is not to blame,, those who usurp religion and use it to gain power,etc. The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, ethnic cleansing conflicts, all come to mind as how religion is used as an excuse for violent actions, men, not God , are to blame IMO.

Rocky7 04-25-2013 02:13 PM

No offence, but you really, really need to get down to the library and do some reading about the Crusades and other matters. The point you make (have been taught) is not entirely invalid, but you have taken a truism and applied it without consideration of the facts.

Let me give you a helpful shove off shore if I can:

The Crusades were a defensive war called by a Catholic Pope Urban in response to Islamic imperialism. Pope Urban was asked to do something by European leaders who had spent too much time fighting each other and not paying attention to Islamic aggression. They finally realized they had a problem when Islamic armies began moving north of Mediterranean. By the time the First Crusade was underway, Muslim armies had conquered all of North Africa, all of Spain and were entering southern France. I am not saying the Crusades were an ancient version of the Peace Corps; they were not. This was medieval times, after all. What I am saying is that the Crusades began as a defensive response to Islamic aggression. Those who say that western armies in Afghanistan were similar to the old Crusades were somewhat correct, but without knowing why they were correct.

It took centuries to stop Islamic aggression. That is exactly what those Moorish and Ottoman armies were. The Siege of Vienna?

I am not an expert is ME history, friend, but I do know that almost everything you will have heard on the MSM about these things was twisted and sanitized to fit an agenda. Same goes for most school teachings.

The history of Islam is uniquely aggressive, intolerant and barbaric. That has been magnified as the rest of the world has evolved and become more open-minded while most of Islam has remained rooted in the 12th century. If you don't understand that, you don't understand.

Why is that important?

You were just bombed. We just interrupted a plot to wreck a high speed train. I see talking heads in the media and liberal politicians in both our countries wringing their hands and yammering about this and that, falling over themselves to declare these things are the work of lone wolves and/or disorganized nuts. They don't get it. Or maybe they refuse to get it. That's why I posted this article. Our common enemy is in plain view, really. He has been newly vitalized in the late 20th century by radical Islamists and OPEC oil money, but he is that same ancient enemy. We need to see him.

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.