JIHAD WATCH--Has there ever been a time when one group of people openly exposes its animosity for another group of people—even as this second group not only ignores the animosity, but speaks well, enables, and legitimizes the first group?
Welcome to the 21st century, where Western politicians empower those Muslims who are otherwise constantly and openly denouncing all non-Muslims as enemies to be fought and subjugated.
Consider this video of Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami, a top-ranked figure in Egypt’s Salafi movement which won some 25% of the votes in recent elections. He makes clear a point that, in a different era, would be thoroughly eye-opening—that all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance: when Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive.
Discussing “the analogy between Egypt’s Christians and the Jews of Medina,” Burhami pointed out that Muslims may make temporary peace with infidels, when circumstance calls for it:
The Jews of Medina represent a paradigm—laid by the prophet [Muhammad]—that shows how Muslims should deal with infidels. The prophet’s methods of dealing with infidels are available for Muslims to replicate depending on their situation and their capabilities. The Prophet in Mecca dealt with the infidels in a certain way, so whenever Muslims are vulnerable they should deal with the infidels in this same manner.
Burhami is referring to the famous Mecca/Medina division: when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in his early Mecca period, he preached peace and made pacts with infidels; when he became strong in the Medina period, he preached war and went on the offensive. This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been instructive to Muslim leaders for ages. (Read the rest of the article at Jihad Watch.)
If you missed my video on this topic, be sure to watch it:
2 comments:
David, what did you think of these stages:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/evolution-of-european-gaza-stripes.html
5 here!
Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com
Excuse me, "the Jews broke the covenant"?
On the contrary. I lose count of how many times Mohammed broke the Compact of Medina before 627. By our own standards, Kaab ibn Asad would have been well and truly justified in considering the compact no longer in force.
But Kaab ibn Asad was a man of his word. He did not flinch from keeping his promises, no matter how unfairly they had been extracted, no matter how circumstances had changed, no matter how badly the other party had betrayed its own side of the bargain. The Battle of the Trench was actually the second time he was willing to sacrifice his tribe rather than break his word (the first time had had nothing to do with Mohammed).
The Qurayza died because Kaab ibn Asad kept the compact to the bitter end. Let's at least give him the credit for that.
Post a Comment