Saturday, April 24, 2010

Revolution Muslim: Who Are They Actually Willing to Debate?

No one doubts that South Park is offensive to practically everyone. But most people do not make a connection between (a) being offended by silly cartoons, and (b) butchering the people who make the cartoons. To make such a connection, we need a bridge between offending and killing. That bridge is Islam, which calls for the deaths of those who insult Muhammad.

However, the validity of this bridge depends on whether Islam is true. That is, if Muhammad was a false prophet, no one should be killed for insulting him. If, however, Muhammad was a true prophet, then his commands to murder critics should be followed today.

There's very little disagreement between me and Revolution Muslim when it comes to Islamic teachings. But there is a massive difference between me and Revolution Muslim when it comes to whether Islam is true. If I believed that Islam is true, I might be threatening Trey Parker and Matt Stone too.

It seems that much could be solved by resolving the question of Muhammad's prophethood. I'm perfectly willing to address this issue in public debate. Unfortunately, while Revolution Muslim loves to instigate their fellow Muslims to violence in defense of Muhammad, they refuse to defend Muhammad rationally.

If you watch Revolution Muslim's videos, you'll see them constantly challenging people to debate. Even in their response to criticisms over their threats against Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Revolution Muslim says they're ready to defend their views in debates. Yet Sam, Nabeel, and I are all ready to debate, and I've challenged Revolution Muslim to defend their prophet in public.

Why do they back down? Are they bluffing? Are they tossing around debate challenges because they don't think that anyone will actually debate them? Well, we're waiting. I live right down the street from them, and I'm ready.

39 comments:

minoria said...

Hello David:
Yes,they are bluffers.I saw Yahya's latest video.I don't know if he meant IBN KATHIR when he said you had not quoted Muslims correctly about 65:4 but I checked on a translation (TAFSIR IBN KATHIR) done BY MUSLIMS.It's true Ibn Kathir said 65:4 means pre-puberty girls.

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54223

VJ said...

cheers to DR wood.

they are cowards like joker naik,they will never accept the challenge cause they have no truth with them.......

aussie christian said...

debate, this mob of cowards wont debate, and whats on their website is a lie, a great big muslim lie, just like mohummad taught them to.

Here is how it works, they put on their site that they will debate anyone anywhere anytime, then when the offers of debate come in they either claim they are too busy just now, claim that they dont have the money to travel anywhere to debate, cause they have jobs or centerlink payments to collect, or they ignore invitations to debate and delete debate challenges, whilst claiming they are unrefutable because no infidel is game to debate them.

Either way, you will not get a debate from these cowards because they will never debate dispite what lies they place upon thier webiste, because they know full well islam is wrong, undefendable, fully refuted.

The only reason they follow islam, or claim to, is they are thugs who wish to find some excuse to legitamise their evil intents. bit like nazi's, facsists, racists, serial killers, peadophiles, etc.

LouisJ-B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Felker said...

That South Park episode, as vulgar as it was in many respects, was brilliant in terms of the overall message. ALL the religious figures were being poked fun of with no fear of death threats, but Muhammad was the only one who had to be the exception.

I hope everyone will actually take the time to watch the episode (which can be viewed at southparkstudios.com) as well as the "Cartoon Wars" episodes which depicted a similar situation. But I realize these shows may be too vulgar for some, so watch at your own risk.

hugh watt said...

Muslims can not defend Islam with intelligent reasoning, just like Muhammad. What he did is what Muslims do when in the same situation. Ego plays a big part in this. It's like the school bully or gang leader mentality, threaten the smart guy and if that doesn't work, beat them up. In Muhammad's case he had 'a god' who told him to kill anyone who opposed him.
Debate! These guys would rather fight than debate. One guy from Revolution Muslim said they want to "terrorise" people, "the Quran commands them to do so in Arabic." Then comes the double-speak.

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

Dear Mr. Wood,

These brothers don't claim to run a religious or theological website. The main focus of Revolution Muslim is not to call non-Muslims to Islam.

I mean no disrespect, so I say this only because they more than likely don't care if you don't believe in the Prophet-hood of Muhammad (Salallahu Alayhee Wa Salaam), the authenticity of the Qur'an, or the validity of the religious and spiritual aspects of Islam.

The main focus of their site is to bring global attention to the political and social conditions of oppressed Muslims throughout the world while encouraging meaningful and intelligent dialog concerning these matters with others who are willing to do the same.

If you were willing to discuss with them these specific matters, I'm sure that these brothers might not feel as if they were wasting their time with you.

Sincerely, Yusuf

hugh watt said...

Yusuf said..
"The main focus of their site is to bring global attention to the political and social conditions of oppressed Muslims throughout the world while encouraging meaningful and intelligent dialog concerning these matters with others who are willing to do the same."

Is that what the man who said, "the Quran tell's us (Muslims) to terrorise you, in Arabic," meant?
I watched the interview!

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

@Hugh Watt:

Why don't you ask Mr. Abdullah Muhammad yourself?

You can call the number on his website (revolutionmuslim.info) and ask him about the interview.

*Also, if you live in the NY area you can personally speak to him every Friday between 12pm-2pm at the Islamic Center of New York on east 96th street in Manhattan.

Take care,

Yusuf

minoria said...

I will grant the Muslims in Chechnya for example have been massacred(100,000)by the Russians.But not because the Russians are doing it for Jesus.I think if the Chechnyans were Hindu,Christian,atheists,they would still have been treated the same.

Then there is the Palestinian case.I think that's it.

THAILAND
Muslim terrorists there have killed 3,000 Buddhists(plus some Muslims) in the Muslim majority south.Innocent civilians.
The Thai governement has conceded and conceded alot but nothing.
Were the Muslims of southern Thailand really being oppressed?NO.
And believe me,the BUDDHISTS have treated the Muslims very well.

KASHMIR
The Indian government has killed civilians,how many I don't know,but the military group that fights the government has forced almost all of the 300,000 HINDU civilians to flee for their lives(only 5,000 remain).That is called OPPRESSION of Hindus.

The Fat Man said...

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza
The phone number has been disconnected and the website has been pulled. The blog does not accept comments and neither as far as I can tell does it have a email address. If you have one let us know I have over a thousand pictures and counting of Mohamed I would like to send him.

The Fat Man said...

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza
The phone number has been disconnected and the website has been pulled. The blog does not accept comments and neither as far as I can tell does it have a email address. If you have one let us know I have over a thousand pictures and counting of Mohamed I would like to send him.

Sepher Shalom said...

hugh,

I saw that interview as well. Yunis Al-Khattab (if memory serves, was the specific individual) told the reporter that the Arabic text of the Quran explicitly tells Muslims to terrorize non-Muslims. He is an official spokesman for Revolution Muslim. His title within the group is something related to "public relations" or "media spokesman" etc.

When a man who officially speaks on behalf of an organization makes statements like that, everyone with any common sense knows exactly what type of group they are. They believe they are mandated by God to terrorize all non-Muslims. Add 1+1 and tell me if they support terrorism?

Sepher Shalom said...

Yusuf said: "These brothers don't claim to run a religious or theological website. The main focus of Revolution Muslim is not to call non-Muslims to Islam."

That makes no sense at all Yusuf. If you want to argue they aren't a "dawah" organization that would be one thing (I still disagree, but I can see how someone could logically try to argue that point). Claiming their website isn't "religious" or "theological" is absurd. They chose to include the word "Muslim" in their name. They get their entire ideology from the Quran and Hadith. They base all their actions and positions on their theology of Islam.

I'm not sure why you would make the claim I just quoted above, but it's completely out of touch with reality.

Sepher Shalom said...

Yusuf said: "The main focus of their site is to bring global attention to the political and social conditions of oppressed Muslims throughout the world while encouraging meaningful and intelligent dialog concerning these matters with others who are willing to do the same."

The main focus of their website is to call Muslims to Jihad. If you look at the behavior of this group and the materials they have put out in the public sphere, it is quite evident that they use a propagandized version of the "political and social conditions of oppressed Muslims throughout the world" in order to inspire Muslims to take up Jihad. Just look at how they decided to deal with the creators of South Park. First, they say they have "insulted the Prophet". Then, they explain the Islamic teaching for dealing with such individuals is to kill them. They prove this position from the Sirah and Hadith, and expand on the issue by citing Ibn Taymiyya to prove their position. Then, they post addresses to help people find Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

Did they invite them to "debate" anything? No. Did they invite any specifically relevant person to debate on this issue? No. Surely if their goal is dialog and debate, as your comment suggests, they could have found someone to debate issues related to free speech, freedom of expression, and drawing Muhammad for a public debate.

These guys aren't interested in debate. They are interested in rousing Muslims in the U.S. to Jihad - not the "internal struggle" variety of Jihad either - the outward struggle against non Muslims, and against kufr.

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

@ Mr. Shalom -
You're right, Mr. Shalom. It sounds absolutely ridiculous for me to say that these brothers at Revolution Muslim are not running a religious or theological website. I should have been much clearer and more specific in what I was trying to convey. For this blunder, I sincerely apologize. To clarify; Revolution Muslim is not an organization that has the main intention of trying to either revert or convert non-Muslims to Islam. Here is a statement from Revolution Muslim in response to the current media frenzy:

We have received a high volume of reaction to our efforts to counter the South Park cartoons depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) and after dealing with repairing the damage to the website, letting the situation die down a bit, and getting some of the events we are working on that we hold as important as well, we will return for open dialogue with those that are interested. In order to engage in this dialog however, some statements must be made.
We received an overwhelming amount of media response due to one sentence included in a post last week. The media, in its eternal ignorant manner rushed to cover the controversy especially because it dealt with the South Park cartoon, something as American as Apple pie.

However, what cannot be displayed by a mainstream media that is focused only on sound bytes and controlled by elite interests is depth and two-way dialog.
While thousands of calls came in threatening us, and saying nothing intelligent at all in opposition, many voiced their opposition intelligently, and we can understand many of the positions. We hope that we can engage those of you that want to discuss the recent South Park controversy in the coming days and sometime early next week we will, Allah willing. So, we are imploring those of you that want an opportunity to talk to us to send an email to revolutionmuslim@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it – so we can listen to your side, your rationale, I am sure there is much we can agree on and once the site is up and running again we will hold this dialoug. Of course, the mainstream press will not and is not capable of covering this dialog, but we ultimately would like to discuss our views with South Park Creators as well so that we may be able to alter the way that media contributes to war, death, destruction, and most importantly preventing that an informed citizenry exists so that democracy functions in its truest intent. Certainly no coverage of our clarifying statements were quoted in any of the text and these people, like politicians, only care about what sells and gets viewers, rather than performing the role of paving the way for the generation of important information. We ask you to join us, look forward to hearing from you and thank those that took time to express their views intelligently by phone, e-mail, or letter.

Last Updated (Sunday, 25 April 2010 01:13)

Peace.

hugh watt said...

Sepher. That's the interview i'm referring to.

Yusuf. R.M's statement is un-Islamic.

.."so that democracy functions in its truest intent." There's no such thing as democracy in Islam. The 'infidel' know this!

Nakdimon said...

Yusuf, can you explain what "oppression" is? because when you have clarified that, we can look at the treatment that Christians get in Islamic countries vs Muslims in the West, since I'm guessing that this is the "oppression" that you are referring to.

Shalom,
Nakdimon

Ryan the Lion roar... said...

While I'm slightly perturbed my previous comment was denied, I'll attempt to contribute once more...

Yusuf, you keep mentioning "clarifying" statements made by Revolution Muslim. There is no clarification needed for a threat against someone's life. We get it. You want someone to do to Matt and Trey what happened to Theo Van Gogh. There is no clarification needed.

The only appropriate response, if RM cared to make one, is a public apology to Matt and Trey and the removal of the individual who made the threat as well as the post itself from the organization. Anything less is unacceptable. Your freedom of speech includes responsibility for things you say, and a death threat, or warning, or whatever you want to call it; what REVOLUTION MUSLIM POSTED is unacceptable if you're interested in holding rational discussion on world affairs and oppression of Muslims.

It is a black and white, binary issue.

David Wood said...

Ryan,

If you keep your language clean, your comments will go through (even if they're illogical, as your first comment was).

Two basic rules:

(1) Clean language.
(2) No "Christians are my dhimmis" talk. (But this doesn't apply to you.)

Ryan the Lion roar... said...

LOL! I'll ignore the dig, and move forward keeping that in mind.

Christians ARE my dhimmis though (SARCASM ALERT).

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

@ Nakdimon:
Oppression is the unjust or cruel exercise of power or authority. I think Jews, Christians and Muslims have all been guilty of this throughout history.
However, I don't believe that any one religious or idealogical group (Jews, Christions, Muslims, etc.) holds an all-time monopoly on oppressing people. However, no, Revolution Muslim was NOT referring to Muslims oppressing Christians in Muslim lands. When discussing oppression, RM usually refers to the oppression of Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Palestinians being oppressed by the allied forces of the U.S., Great Britain, Israel, and the regimes they install into Muslim countries in order to maintain a grip on each territories' economy and natural resources. With that being said, I have zero problem recognizing that in some countries today more Muslims are being oppressed by their fellow Muslims than by non-Muslims. The treatment of Muslim women in some countries by Muslim men can be downright shameful and it angers me to tears. I don't have a problem recognizing the shortcomings of some of my Muslim brothers and I certainly have no problem recognizing my own shortcomings. I pray that we (Muslims) pray for forgiveness and make sincere repentance for our failure to live up to our deen and that Allah guides us all.

Ameen.

Allah knows BEST, Yusuf

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

@ Ryan:

I never said that I wanted Trey Parker and Matt Stone to wind up like Theo Van Gogh. I would actually prefer Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone to be guided toward Islam and to become Muslims. A lofty thought, I'm sure, but it is much more pleasant than the thought of them both being violently killed. I pray that Allah softens their hearts to Islam. Ameen.

Sincerely, Yusuf

hugh watt said...

Yusuf said: "When discussing oppression, RM usually refers to the oppression of Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghans, and PALESTINIANS being oppressed by the allied forces of the U.S., Great Britain, Israel, and the regimes they install into MUSLIM COUNTRIES in order to maintain a grip on each territories' economy and natural resources." (Emphasis added)

So, when did "Palestine" become a "Muslim country?"

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismilahir Rahmanir Raheem.

@ Hugh Watt:

I never said in my earlier post, 'Palestine is a Muslim Country'. Palestine is not a country. Palestine is a region in which Jews, Muslims and Christians all live. I did make a general reference to Muslim COUNTRIES but I never said that Palestine was one of them.

Peace, Yusuf

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

@ Hugh Watt:
You're right that there is no western interpretation of Democracy in an Islamic State. The closest thing we have to it in an Islamic State is Shura. Still, these brothers at Revolution Muslim live in the U.S. and it is not un-Islamic to work within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution if one lives here. However extreme you believe these brothers to be, I believe that they are quite moderate and this is a good opportunity for every American to utilize this unfortunate situation (and their first amendment rights) as a door towards peaceful and intelligent dialog between people of differing opinions. May Allah make the fruits of our discussions beneficial for all. Ameen.

Peace, Yusuf

Sepher Shalom said...

Yusuf said: "I never said that I wanted Trey Parker and Matt Stone to wind up like Theo Van Gogh. I would actually prefer Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone to be guided toward Islam and to become Muslims."

Well, what other option does the Qur'an offer to them besides death or conversion? They aren't "People of the Book" so paying Jizya is out of the question.

That only leaves them with 2 options: 1) convert, 2) fight the Muslims who want to qatiloo them as instructed in Surah 9 and other places.

Here is some interesting literature title, "Jihad and Qital for the sake of Allah". Such a peaceful teaching to struggle and slaughter for the sake of your god.

Sepher Shalom said...

I found this passage to be particularly peaceful:

" We Are A People Who Drink Blood

Khalid Bin Al-Waleed[May Allah be pleased with him]



When Khalid bin Waleed (may Allah be pleased with him) reached Yarmook with his army to fight the Romans, he addressed them saying:

Oh mujahideen! This is a memorable day. It is the day on which our faith will be tested and tried. Today we should avoid every kind of arrogance, pride and not contend for individual glory or egoistic bragging..

Oh mujahideen of Islam! Fight only to gain the Goodwill of Allah Almighty. In the Muslim army today there are many great generals: each of them is worthy and can be entrusted with the permanent command of this army. Today you have assigned me this honor of commanding the Muslim army. So I hope that for the honor and victory of Islam, today we will enter the battlefield of Jihad as one. Allah will be our Supporter and Defender.

Then both the armies confronted each other at Yarmook. The Roman general, Mahan, scornful addressed his counterpart, Khalid bin Waleed (may Allah be pleased with him) and said:

"We know that it is hardship and hunger that have brought you out of your lands. We will give every one of your men ten dinars, clothing and food if you return to your lands, and next year we will send you a similar amount."

Khalid bin Waleed (may Allah be pleased with him) was enraged on hearing these scornful and arrogant words, and answered:

"Actually, what brought us out of our lands is that we are a people who drink blood, and it has reached us that there is no blood tastier than Roman blood."

1. Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah, Dar Abi Hayyan, Cairo, 1st ed. 1416/1996, Vol. 7 P. 14.

(Romans are the Europeans,the Westeners who migrated from Europe,this includes almost all whites but ofcourse reverts are brothers & sisters in Islam,defending them is an obligation)"


...I think its at this point where I'm supposed to say, "and Allah knows best"....

Sepher Shalom said...

Yusuf,

I'm not trying to pick on you. Hopefully you know that. You seem like a nice enough guy. We would probably get along just great over some coffee. But, I do think you are mis-characterizing the Revolution Muslim group.

To provide some evidence from the materials they have put into the public sphere, just look at this YouTube video which they title "Street Dawa 10-23-09 Part 2". They clearly believe themselves to be a dawa organization, and from their own words in the video they see "moderate Muslims" as munafiqun, and I suspect their internal dialogues are even more stringent, since they are suggesting such moderates have "left the deen". I have to wonder how many Muslims they would be willing to declare disbelievers off-camera?

(Also, notice the prominence of Jihad in their message. This is why I'm saying the purpose of the group is to call Muslims to Jihad, and to reject Democracy. The ultimate end of this type of teaching would mean Muslims who accept their message would either have to leave America, or engage in treason to overthrow the government.)

Sepher Shalom said...

*correction, "munafiqeen"

My Arabic is not exactly fluent :-P.

(Although a Surah is titled "Al-Munafiqun", which is confusing to me. It's my understanding that construction is grammatically incorrect, but I digress.)

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

@ Mr. Shalom -
For the benefit of others, I will post some of the ayats (for the sake of brevity) on the link that you gave:

Jihad To Rescue The Oppressed
4:75 And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who being weak are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men women and children whose cry is: "Our Lord! rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Thee one who will protect; and raise for us from Thee one who will help!"

Satan Is Feeble
4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

Fight But Do Not Transgress
2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
191 And slay them wherever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
192 But if they cease Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.
193 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

Permissibility For War
22:39 To those against whom war is made permission is given (to fight) because they are wronged and verily Allah is Most powerful for their aid
40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right (for no cause) except that they say "Our Lord is Allah." Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another there would surely have been pulled down monasteries churches synagogues and mosques in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid His (cause); for verily Allah is Full of Strength Exalted in Might (Able to enforce His Will).
41 (They are) those who if We establish them in the land establish regular prayer and give regular charity enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs.

*Mr. Shalom. Why should we have any more issue with these ayats than western intellectuals have with Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' or Miyamoto Musashi's 'Book of Five Rings'? Military commanders throughout the world (including the U.S.) utilize the tactics taught in these particular texts even today. If you were to go to West Point Academy or The Citadel, you would find that these are required reading material. Unfortunately, I think that some people go to extremes today and don't make a distinction between what is being 'peaceful' and what is being 'pacifistic'.

As far as the conversation you posted between Hazrat Khalid Ibn Al-Walid (Radi Allahu Anhu) and the Roman General Mahan; are you seriously defending the Romans? Do I really need to go into detail about the pain, suffering, and oppression they inflicted upon the world? Even if you asked a Jewish Rabbi, he would probably agree that the Romans were the most tyrannical force the world had ever known. Look, the dark ages was a time of WAR, not a time of playing 'patty-cake'. No offense, but I don't know if you have ever been an infantryman, or even if you have ever been in a physical fight against someone for your life before as I don't know you personally. However (if you have), were nice words ever exchanged between you and your adversary during combat?

Just some food for thought.

Take care, Yusuf

Sepher Shalom said...

Yusuf,

In typical Islamic fashion, you are picking and choosing what you quote. This is why I provided the link, that anyone who wishes to can read the context of everything and make up their own mind. Since you have decided to selectively quote, and have specifically asked me what I have a problem with I will tell you:

"8:17 It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust) it was not thy act but Allah's: in order that He might test the believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He who heareth and knoweth (all things).
18 That and also because Allah is He who makes feeble the plans and stratagems of the unbelievers"


Allah give the Muslims unbelievers to kill as a test for them. When Muslims kill unbelievers, it's really Allah that kills them.

"Al-Tirmidhi HadithHadith 3835 Narrated byAbuHurayrah
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "If anyone meets Allah with no mark of jihad, he will meet Allah with a flaw in him."
Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah transmitted it"


You have a religious flaw if you haven't been scared by fighting and killing for Allah.

" Abu Imaad States: “The sheikh, the Imam, the scholar and the example”

During the year of 814 hijri the enemy attacked the people of At-Teenah, a

village in Egypt, and the people of Dumyat marched to their help, the most

notable of them being Ibn-Nuhaas. There then flared an immense battle

between the two sides and Ibn-Nuhaas was killed whilst attacking the

enemy not fleeing."


The material I linked to praises a man for attacking the Egyptians, who did nothing to the Muslims or Islam before the attack. His death in battle is glorified in this passage. A religion that says dying while fighting in battle, killing and being killed is one of the highest causes (Surah 61:10-13) is not a religion worth my respect.

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

part 2

" The hadith of “We returned from the minor Jihad to the major Jihad” is fabricated. It hasn’t been narrated by any of the scholars of hadith.

Ibn Taymiyah states: The hadith of “We returned from the minor Jihad to the major Jihad” is fabricated and is not narrated by any of the scholars who have knowledge of the words of Rasulullah, his actions and his Jihad against the nonbelievers. In fact Jihad against Kufar is among the greatest of deeds. Indeed it is the greatest voluntary deed a human could do."


Among the greatest of deeds is fighting and killing the kuffar.

" Mudawanah by Imam Malik -The three commentaries on Mukhtasar Khalil by Al Kharshi, Alaysh and Al Hatab – Al Muhala by Ibn Hazm – Subul Al Salam – Nayl Al Awtar – Al Fatawa al Kubra by Ibn Taymiyah.

3. The meaning of these hadiths referring to jihad can only mean fighting. For example:

• Abu Huraira states that the Messenger of Allah was asked: “Is there any deed equivalent to jihad?” He said, “Yes, but you wont be able to do it” The third time he said, “What is equivalent to the mujahid is the one who is fasting, and praying continuously until the mujahid comes back”7 In other words comes back from combat. Coming back from struggle of the soul would make no sense.

• Abu Hurairah states that the Messenger of Allah was asked, “O Messenger of Allah, guide me to a deed equivalent to jihad” He said, “I don’t find any!” Then he said, “When the mujahid goes on jihad, can you enter your masjid and pray continuously, and fast and never break your fast?” The man said, “and who could do that!”8

• Abu Huraira narrates that one of the companions passed by a spring of fresh water in a valley. He said if I seclude myself from people and stay in this valley (to worship Allah). But I wont do so until I seek permission from the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah said, “Don’t do so. The posting of one of you in the path of Allah is better than his prayer in his house for seventy years. Don’t you want Allah to forgive you and enter you into Paradise? Fight (iqzoo) in the path of Allah. For whoever fights (katal) in the path of Allah a time equivalent to that of milking a camel, Paradise is guaranteed for him”9. So this Sahabi who wanted to live in seclusion to make jihad al nafs was told not to do so."


This next passage was particularly enlightening:

"The Islamic Legitimacy of The "Martyrdom Operations"

The "martyrdom operation", "Jihad-bombing-assault", or what people mistakenly call "suicidal attack" is a controversial issue nowadays: is it Islamically legitimate or not?

The term "martyrdom operation" refers to when the Mujahed (the one who fights for the cause of Allah) puts explosive materials in his car or encircles himself with, sneaks into the enemy land, then blows it up where he determines their harm, killing some of them and is killed as well.

Martyrdom NOT Suicide

Before presenting the Islamic evidences that such operations are Islamically legitimate, we need to emphasise that it is wrong to call such operations a "suicide". Killing one's self aggressively or casting one's self into destruction, all of which are forbidden in the Qur'an "and do not cast yourself into destruction" [S2, V195]."


...and it goes on like that explaining why it's allowed in Islam to blow yourself up in order to kill kuffar.

I could fill post after post with disgusting teachings from that link, all sourced right back to your Quran, Hadith, and orthodox madhabs. Do you really need to ask WHY I think the writing from that link is sick and twisted? The fact that you would even attempt to defend this literature is nauseating. On second thought, we wouldn't get along over coffee.

Sepher Shalom said...

Yusuf said: "are you seriously defending the Romans?"

I never did anything of the sort. I condemn Roman fighting and imperialism that was falsely done in the name of my Messiah. By the same note, I condemn the fighting and imperialism of Islam. Unfortunately, when Muslims went out and conquered it was by the direct command of the Quran and Muhammad.

All I did was post the text. I never defended anything. I find it odd that rather than condemn the violent actions and words in that quote, you attempt to accuse me of defending the Romans, and then you attempt to distort the content which I linked to (simply scroll up to see what I mean).

I think the real question here is, which of the words I quoted above do you condemn? Do you condemn the claim that murder by self-detonation is halal? If so, how do you refute the arguments given in the link I provided? You seem awfully eager to defend that website. I find that disturbing.

Sepher Shalom said...

Yusuf said: "
*Mr. Shalom. Why should we have any more issue with these ayats than western intellectuals have with Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' or Miyamoto Musashi's 'Book of Five Rings'? Military commanders throughout the world (including the U.S.) utilize the tactics taught in these particular texts even today. If you were to go to West Point Academy or The Citadel, you would find that these are required reading material."


I completely agree with you that the Quran and Hadith are war manuals. I think you have made a reasonable comparison.

Yusuf said: "Look, the dark ages was a time of WAR, not a time of playing 'patty-cake'."

The problem is, Muslims don't leave the Quran and Sunnah in the "dark ages" where they belong. Muslims have been replicating the behavior of Muhammad, and applying the dark age mentality of Sunnah and the Quran for over 1400 years. This is a problem of today. Let's look at the Romans today. Do we find people on the Italian peninsula (heart of Western Rome) or Greece (heart of Eastern Rome) trying to copy the behavior of General Mahan? Thank God no. The rest of the world (even much of the secular world) has moved on to better moral examples in the last 1400 years. Muslims keep copying a group of tribal warlords (Muhammad and the Sahaba).

hugh watt said...

Yusuf, do you love Muhammad more than Truth?

Odo said...

I was very surprised when Yusuf admitted the Quran is on the same plane as other war manuals like Sun Tsu's. It is really sad because people hold God dearest to their hearts, they love God more then they love their own cubs, and to have people who hold God so closely and so personally, the highest 'love' one can have in life, to have this God turn out to be a God of War, and the Quran the ‘Art of War’, and to habe this God approve of killing certain people for all time - that is just very very sad.

I don’t mind Sun Tsu, he is not to be exalted, revered, or worshipped like Muhammad. According to Islam Muhammad is the al-Insān al-Kāmil, the sublime and perfect human, endowed with such matchless character that none could reach its limit, an example for all mankind. Sun Tsu did not say his Art of War was directed at Gods command for all people for all time and he did not act as an example from God, I speculate if he did he might have had a big following; Suntsu does not work on Gods behalf.

But Muhammad left behind a whole religion. He directed people as to what Allah commands everyone to do for all time to come, among those things is to "cast terror" into the disbelievers hearts and to "strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip" if they are in opposition to Muhammad's teaching. Muhammad and his followers are justified in their actions because it was Allah who directed their every move, Muhammad "did not slay them, but it was Allah who slew them" – this is complete remission of sin, in fact every time Muslims kill for the Prophets cause they are directly sanctioned to do so by Allah, it is what Allah wills. After Muhammad’s death these traditions became political tools for Islam. While Muhammad was still alive, he was using those same methods and tactics. (8:12,13,17)

The way I look at it, the Qur’an actually is a better war manual then The Art of War; it is more deceptive, treacherous, and filled with more employable tactics. But Sun Tsu is so far above Muhammad in every personal respect, he did not need to make things up in order to attain his place in history.

Asadullah Yusuf Hamza said...

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

Odo said:
"I was very surprised when Yusuf admitted the Quran is on the same plane as other war manuals like Sun Tsu's."

When did I ever say this? I never said this. As a Muslim, I believe that The Noble Qur'an is far above any and every manual that has ever been produced by man because (as Muslims) we believe that The Noble Qur'an is the absolute Word of Allah (All-Mighty God).

Whereas some people believe that Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' mainly covers the military aspect of human existence, We (The Muslims), believe that The Noble Qur'an covers every aspect of the human condition. I'm a Muslim, and that is my position.

The question I previously asked was;
"Why should WE have any more issue with these AYATS than western intellectuals have with Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' or Miyamoto Musashi's 'Book of Five Rings'?"

I never said that the Qur'an or The Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (Salallahu Alayee Wa Salaam) are war manuals. You did. I happen to believe that the Qur'an and the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (Salallahu Alayee Wa Salaam) is a complete instruction manual for how to live one's life should they be guided by Allah and choose to accept it.

Look, I understand (and respect) that you're a Christian with beliefs and interpretations different than my own. As such, I understand that you believe that The Noble Qur'an and The Hadith of The Prophet Muhammad (Salallahu Alayee Wa Salaam) are 'war' manuals.

Of course, I don't share the same opinion because I'm a Muslim, and as such I believe that The Qur'an and The Hadith of The Prophet Muhammad (Salallahu Alayee Wa Salaam) are life manuals because military matters are just one aspect of life. The Qur'an and The Hadith of The Prophet Muhammad (Salallahu Alayee Wa Salaam) covers more than just that. I find that it offers a fully comprehensive system of living above and beyond just physical combat.

Simply put, our ideological world views are different and I can live with that.

With that being said, allow me to reiterate and say that I believe the system of Islam to cover every area of the human condition. Among some of these areas are; marriage, divorce, family, trade, charity, dietary matters, belief, prayer, diplomacy, and yes, even combat when absolutely necessary. Still, my beliefs do not require others to share them.

Again, allow me to repeat that my beliefs do not require others to agree with me and believe as I do. Insha'alaa (All-Mighty God willing), people are free to choose and say the things they're bound to say anyway, but rest assured that it will not persuade me to share your views.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that I am not a Sheik, a Tafsir, or even a Talib-ul-Ilm. Please note that any and all mistakes are my own, and if that if any mistakes were made, then I seek refuge in the Grace, Mercy, and Forgiveness of Allah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem Al-Ghaffar (The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful, The Most Forgiving). Ameen.

May Allah protect us (Muslims) from any and all misguidance. Ameen.

Surah Al-Kafirun - (The Disbelievers)

[بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَـنِ الرَّحِيمِ]

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

[109:1]
Say : O ye that reject Faith!

[109:2]
I worship not that which ye worship,

[109:3]
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

[109:4]
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

[109:5]
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

[109:6]
To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Sincerely, Yusuf

Odo said...

Hello Yusuf,

Because people take those ayats as words of God, nobody takes Sun Tsu's words as the words of God.

But you quoted a whole bunch of passages that command Muslims to kill, and then you said "Why should we have any more issue with these ayats than western intellectuals have with Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' or Miyamoto Musashi's 'Book of Five Rings'?"

Let me paraphrase, that is exactly like saying: 'Nobody in the west has a problem with Sun Tsu or Miyamoto Musashi, why should they (by we, I understand you mean everyone and not just Muslims) have a problem with Muhammad (or the ayats commanding to kill at Allah's will, from Muhammad)' – exactly because nobody reveres Sun Tsu as a prophet Yusuf! When people use the Art of War they can be assured that it is not "Allah who slew them", but the will of sinful humans.

I never said that the Qur'an or The Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (Salallahu Alayee Wa Salaam) are war manuals.

You compared material from the Quran to war manuals and asked why anyone should have a problem with one and not the other.

By doing that you did put the Qur'an on the same plane as other war manuals. But now you said 'I just mean this one ayat'

The only other thing I can think of to say is, the ayat is in the surah, the surah in the Qur'an, the Qur'an was transmitted by Muhammad. I don't think it would matter a difference if you wrote 'ayat' or 'Qur'an', they still boil down to the same logical conclusion, you are making a comparison between Muhammad and Sun Tsu and asking in bewilderment 'why one and not the other'.

It doesn't matter; people can read the words and judge for themselves.

And I really don't think Radical Muslim is a 'moderate' group as you suggest. But I do think they adhere to orthodox Islam better than other Muslims in the west.