Sunday, January 1, 2012

Three Stages of Jihad

For more on the stages of Jihad, see:
Sam Shamoun, "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"
Rev. Richard P. Bailey, "Jihad: The Teaching of Islam from Its Primary Sources"
Shaykh Ibn Humaid, "Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah"


Jabari said...

Very good job there David!!!! And Happy New Year!!!!!!! If I can, I will try and get the pamphlet you made out to other people :). I don't want America to be Islamized.

Fisher said...

" adorable Parent Trap Lindsay Lohan transforms into whatever she is now..."

I seriously lol'd at that part. Man, you really know how to present apologetics with a comedic twist.

D335 said...

operation monkey wrench is in effect.

Neil said...

Can someone recommend a couple books that will help me understand Islam, the Koran and the other Islamic texts? Something in more layman English would be great. Thanks!


WhatsUpDoc said...

Excellent work David, pamphlet idea is great.

I am firmly in the Monkey Wrench army I am going to try to distribute at least couple of hundred of these in this Dimmistan (Toronto)

WhatsUpDoc said...

@neil Just read Koarn and Sahi Bukhari and Sira (biography of Mo) by Ibn Kathir. They are devout Muslims.

you can read Truth about Mohammad by Robert Spencer. On youtube our David " Idiots Guide to Islam " series. To to counsel of x Muslims web site and operated by an apostate.

h.e.c. said...

As a Muslim I don't understand why Christians are always so obsessed with jihad. The bible teaches the same thing dosent it... Think of Joshua and the children of Israel killing hundreds for their cause supposedly commanded by god.

Anonymous said...

Great job David. It seems your videos just keep getting better and better.

I thought I should offer a thought on the "Clueless" stage because here in the West where we have universal free education, the concept is a bit hard for us to understand.

In Islam the situation is as it was in the West before the printing press where the Catholics had the position that only priests were entitled to have the scriptures, and not the common man.

Similarly in Islam the commoners are called ummi in the singular or ummiya in the plural, which means unlettered in the sense of being unread or unknowledgeable. The lettered clerics are called ulama.

The words ummi and imam are linguistically related in the same way as sheep and shepherd are in Christianity such that the learned imams guide the ignorant sheep.

The Quran was likely deliberately rather than accidentally scrambled out of chronological order for the purposes of secrecy for the stealth jihad phase with the imams possessing the secret to unscrambling the meaning as each stage arrives.

So that brings us to our American Muslim friends who are clueless. They are doubly behind the 8-ball because they not only face the Muslim culture of not being told about the phases until the time arrives that they need to know, but they also face possibly having parents who left the Middle East to get away from that, and like every generation, there is a generation gap between the devout elders and the children who want to be Americans.

This leads us to the temptation to believe that everything is going to be okay, but first, we have the Muslim Brotherhood and their fronts like CAIR, MSA, and ISNA steering the people into fundamentalist directions. The latest mosque study shows that some 80% of mosques have imams and literature promoting violent jihad. This number is somewhat skewed because the peaceful mosques are more poorly attended, meaning that more like 96% of US Muslims attend the bad mosques.

Secondly, I know you have experience in Dearborn, but this video compellingly shows that Muslims behave as a cultural block. Plus Muslims also unite as a block for Muslim issues and unitedly condemn Israel and hate Jews. In the video, What the West Needs to Know about Islam, Walid Shoebat also tells us that US Muslims know how to play the game of acting normal when non-Muslims around and speak more honestly in purely Muslim company. He cites an example of a bilingual jihad fund-raiser that said what it was in Arabic, and said it was a Middle Eastern cultural fair in English.

Anyway, here's the video of Muslim protesters at the Dearborn Arab Festival. These are the ones that are cited as an example of moderation and the stars of All-American Muslim. It really gives the impression that American Muslims are not very much different from Middle Eastern Muslims at all:

Traeh said...

Thank you for the outstanding overview. The three (or 4) stages you point out are something I'd been a little vague about till seeing your video, which put it in admirably clear terms. I'd say we are once again in your debt.

I wonder if it would make sense to do two things:

1. Give this video the subtitle "Overview," and

2. Then do three more videos, each one illustrating one of the three stages in more biographical detail, and the three videos, together with the overview, comprising a mini-biography of Muhammad focused above all on illustrating the three stages.

Perhaps one could also get all four videos on a single disk with a professional label or cover, and encourage people to buy the disk and mail it on a target date to every senator, or the like, perhaps with a basic letter written by you that people could sign and send if they wished.

I love your little insertions of Obama and other clips into your videos. That said, perhaps you should have less repetition of the same Obama clips in this one. For example, if you are going to have Obama before each Qur'an cite repeat "And the holy Qur'an says," introduce some kind of variation the third time somehow.

You say it is simple to see the 3-stage pattern in the sources, but as Goethe says somewhere, "it's easy, but what's easy is hard." Getting hold of and reading all those not immediately interesting texts, and then disentangling the pattern from that huge thicket of materials, not all of them available on line, takes some labor. We are in your debt.

The little pamphlet -- it looks like it's really a flyer -- could discreetly be left in public places perhaps. Hopefully that would not be incendiary...

Neverrepayevilwithevil said...

An excellent piece once again. David you are indeed a true defender of the faith. As they say, knowledge is power. The bible says 'the people perish for lack of knowledge' to kill a snake you have to cut the head. islam is a (pack of lies) snake.It must be exposed completely, its origins and all. The alarm bells are ringing, wake up America, Europe and the rest of the world. Enough of political correctness, its time to call a spade a spade.

simple_truth said...

David, great work! Yes, stage zero needs to be recognized. How many times do I hear from a presumed westernized Muslim that I or others don't know about Islam when mentioning things such as you have presented over the years.

I also agree with you that most likely the westernized Muslim is not intentionally lying when they say that Islam is a religion of peace. I have to say that I really get highly annoyed when non-Muslim westerners go along with this garbage. I am ready to join your operation Monkey Wrench.

Happy New Year to everyone!

Traeh said...

What's an "adorable parent trap"? I'm guessing it doesn't refer to adorable parents of some kind.

Is it rather a child star who is so genuinely or seemingly "adorable," that if she wanted to she could easily manipulate adults into the trap of becoming her adoptive parents?

Koala Bear said...

@Neil - this is a good one by The Center for Study of Political Islam (CSPI)

One review of the book says:-

If you are interested in learning about Islam, don't read the Koran first. Read a good biography of Mohammad followed by a collection of his sayings (hadiths). The CSPI offers "Mohammed and the Unbelievers" and "The Political Traditions of Mohammed" that cover the political aspect of these topics.

Anonymous said...

@ h.e.c. @ Traeh @ Koala Bear

@ h.e.c. - The point you and most Muslims miss is that Joshua was a one-time historical event. Jihad in Islam is an ongoing command.

@ Traeh - Hi! Good to see you over here! The Parent Trap is a classic Haley Mills Disney movie that was remade with
Lindsay Lohan.

@ Koala Bear - Good lead on A Simple Koran. It really isn't necessary to read the Sira and Hadith first because A Simple Koran is Muhammad's reconstructed historical Koran. This means the Sira and Hadith have been integrated into A Simple Koran, and also An Abridged Koran. An Abridged Koran is not an abridgement in the usual sense because it only eliminates the duplications. The example is given that the story of Moses and Pharoah is repeated 30 times. This presentation is best for comprehension, but to use A Simple Koran to find a verse, you need an index which is not included. I have, however, provided an index in my blog post here:

Book Review: A Simple Koran and An Abridged Koran

Zack_Tiang said...

Great video. =D
Yet another video worthy to go viral...

PETE said...


Hmm.. More we produce book about reality of Islam teaching, and more book will produce by Muslims to defence they lies..

Expose all video about teaching of Islam is much better..

Search 4 Truth said...

@ h.e.c.

the difference is that that was for a particular people, place, and time.

Islam commands Muslims to wage jihad against all non Muslims untill the end of time. And makes us the worst of creatures on the planet. Jesus said to love all people even your enemy. Allah and Mohamed said to fight all people evn your family if they are not following Allah and Mohamed! Big difference. Again, it's context! You have to actually invest in critical thinking. Islam is a fascist bigoted ideology. Christ taught to love and have compassion for all. And those who live by the sword will die by the sword!

MonAmí said...

Happy New Year, very good and informative article; I've copied the Three Stages of Jihad, may I translate it into Spanish, or do you already have it?


andy bell said...

The even more simpler solution is to immediately put a halt to muslim immigration into America.

It's obvious that muslims don't want to "coexist" with anyone. They can't even coexist with each other. Let alone show the modicum of tolerance for us infidels.

Americans are not trying to emigrate into muslim hell-holes. So there shouldn't be any reciprocation. Look at the mistake Europe made. They invited people into their nations, who are not willing to assimilate and is hostile towards to the host country.

Jihad and death is obviously part of their creed. Just go our separate ways and live to each his own.

Samatar Mohamed said...


"the difference is that that was for a particular people, place, and time."

So wait a second here, are you trying to justify an act that you disagree with by saying it is not happening now. But you are missing the point search for truth. Let me point you to the greatest double standards that christians indulge in. You disagree whole heartedly with the killing of innocent children, women, and animals, but when this occurs in the Bible, you say that it was only for a point in time. But the question is whether the killing of innocent women and children is acceptable in any point in time. You seem to indicate that the morals of God changes. Lets take an example of adultery, if adultery was practiced and allowed by God in the Old testament, but he outlawed it in the New Testament, would you reply to someone who tells you that God allowed adultery in the Old testament by saying that it was only allowed in a time and place, for specific people. Of course not, if you were honest you would condemn such an action regardless of whether it was for a time and place. But you cannot do that since it occurs in your bible. Again, your ignorance is at display.

p.s. I am using an example, and am not saying the Old testament allowed adultery.

Samatar Mohamed said...

There is so such thing as offensive Jihad in Islam by the way. The prophet (pbuh) forbade muslims from turning to the extreme like the terrorist in these days. We are told to have discussions with non muslims, not to force them into islam.

"Invite (mankind, O Muhammad SAW) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islâm) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Qur'ân) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided. [16:125]."

And unlike the Bible, in particular the Old testament, the prophet (pbuh) forbade the killing of women in children during war.

"It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children. (Sahih Al Bukhari Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.)"

saheeh hadith on extremism:

"The Messenger of Allaah (SAW) said, "I warn you of extremism in the Religion for indeed those that came before you were destroyed due to their extremism in the religion." Reported by an-Nasaa'ee (5/268), ibn Maajah (no. 3029)."

Again, David conveniently decided to forget about the historical context in his video. At first I thought it was just a coincidence. But now I am thinking otherwise.

Quranic verse for the day: (5:3)

حُرِّمَتۡ عَلَيۡكُمُ ٱلۡمَيۡتَةُ وَٱلدَّمُ وَلَحۡمُ ٱلۡخِنزِيرِ وَمَآ أُهِلَّ لِغَيۡرِ ٱللَّهِ بِهِۦ وَٱلۡمُنۡخَنِقَةُ وَٱلۡمَوۡقُوذَةُ وَٱلۡمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَٱلنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَآ أَكَلَ ٱلسَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيۡتُمۡ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى ٱلنُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسۡتَقۡسِمُواْ بِٱلۡأَزۡلَـٰمِ‌ۚ ذَٲلِكُمۡ فِسۡقٌ‌ۗ ٱلۡيَوۡمَ يَٮِٕسَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن دِينِكُمۡ فَلَا تَخۡشَوۡهُمۡ وَٱخۡشَوۡنِ‌ۚ ٱلۡيَوۡمَ أَكۡمَلۡتُ لَكُمۡ دِينَكُمۡ وَأَتۡمَمۡتُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ نِعۡمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلۡإِسۡلَـٰمَ دِينً۬ا‌ۚ فَمَنِ ٱضۡطُرَّ فِى مَخۡمَصَةٍ غَيۡرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ۬ لِّإِثۡمٍ۬‌ۙ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ۬ رَّحِيمٌ۬

Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah, that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject Faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

David Wood said...

Samatar is so desperate to defend his religion, he insults his god and prophet in the process.

Samatar says that there is no offensive Jihad stage. Yet I quoted the Qur'an: "Fight those who believe not in Allah." The criterion for fighting here is that people don't believe in Allah. Samatar believes Allah meant something else. But in reinterpreting Allah's words, Samatar is telling us that he can speak more clearly than Allah! Perhaps Muslims should worship Samatar.

I also quoted Muhammad, who said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah." So Muhammad believed Allah had commanded him to fight people based on their beliefs (offensive Jihad). But according to Samatar, Allah didn't mean this. Hence, even Muhammad didn't understand Allah, and Samatar understands the Qur'an better than his prophet! Perhaps Samatar believes he's the true prophet here!

Samatar also condemns the Old Testament, which the Qur'an repeatedly affirms. It seems that Allah wasn't aware of the fact that the Old Testament is corrupt and immoral. So Samatar knows more than Allah! Further, Muhammad swore on the Torah, showing that he believed it to be a revelation from God. But Samatar knows better, and is more knowledgeable than his prophet!

Samatar also SELECTIVELY quotes the Hadith, knowing full well that Muhammad allowed the killing of women and children in the night raids. Moreover, the Qur'an allows Muslims to kill children, provided the children are going to go astray and do evil deeds. Beyond all this, Islam teaches that Allah flooded the earth and reigned down fire on Sodom, killing countless women and children. Samatar condemns his own God and prophet in so many different ways, I'm not even sure we're talking to a Muslim anymore!

Van Grungy said...

ready to discuss the trojan horse messianic muslim 'unity in diversity' 2nd coming of issa baha'i yet?


islam didn't break the cross.. PROGRESSIVE revelation did..

David, email me.. I would like to read about what you think of the baha'i..

Van Grungy said...

islam is revisionist history, replacement theology and at it's base.. plagiarism

can't wait for Robert Spencer's book on the total myth and lie of mohammad..

HE NEVER EXISTED.. now that would be the best news ever.. besides nuking mecca..

but I still think mecca should be nuked to glass.. just because allah would not will the end of islam..

So many lives would be saved by proving allah is impotent..

Van Grungy said...

The OT isn't 'corrupt and immoral'.. it's a book of history.. people were corrupt and immoral.. the OT is just a record..

like it takes billions of years to get to this point of nature, it takes thousands of years to get to this point of human nature..

well.. at least I get it..

TLAM Strike said...

I was hoping to find some kind of pamphlet like you mentioned at the end of this video. I begin my 3rd semester classes at the end of the month so I will be sure to post copies of this on the various student bulletin boards throughout my university.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David Wood

But the problem with your assumption David is that you assume that when the prophet (pbuh) said fight, that he meant to go to war. This is a gross misinterpretation to the word like Jihad and martyrdom. Most non muslims assume that Jihad means to wage holy war, but it is a strive or struggle in the way of Allah (swt)in many matters such as a muslim like me defending the faith by discussing issues in Islam. You shouldn't take a verse from the Quran that applied to a certain scenario, and then apply that verse to every scenario. That is the reason that historical context is important. When you quote a verse such as 9:29, you should also apply the historical context of how the verse was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

With regards to the Old Testament, we muslims do not take the entire Old Testament to be inspired, and I am sure you have already come across this in your study if Islam. The Quran even condemned the Jews and christians in surah Baqarah verse 79.

"Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby."

Also Surah 5:13

"But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard: they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them,― barring a few-ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind."

Here we can see that the Quran affirms that there has been changes made in the scriptures. Therefore, when you say that muslims believe in the Old Testament, remember that we do not believe in everything in the Old Testament as these noble verses clearly show.

And lastly, om your comment regarding the killing of women and children, I showed you a clear passage where the prophet (pbuh) explicitly rejected the killing of innocent women and children, but you continue to reject it because it does not suit your agenda of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And with regards to the the incident of Sodom, nowhere does the Quran say that innocent people were harmed in the event. Rather, Allah (swt) says in the Quran that the evildoers were the ones who suffered the terrible fate.

"We rained down a rain upon them. See the final fate of the evildoers! (Qur'an, 7:84)".

The same thing occured with the people of Nuh. The evildoers were punished, and the good ones were saved.

" "My Lord! Forgive me, and my parents, and him who enters my home as a believer, and all the believing men and women. And to the Zâlimûn (polytheists, wrong-doers, and disbelievers) grant You no increase but destruction!" (28)."

But lets assume for the moment that Allah (swt) did harm innocent people during the flood. What you have done is placed the limits or ruling on man also upon God. God almighty has the right to take like from humans, animals, etc... but that does not give us humans the right to do this unless it is in self defense. We do not have the right to just go to an entire city and destroy everything in sight including the innocent women, children, and animals. Lets say you were living in that time with your family, and God commanded me and my army to kill everyone, including your wife and children. How can you justify such an action by claiming that it is okay for humans to murder innocent people because it was in a different time and place. You have even admitted before that you did find certain things in the Old Testament disturbing. Maybe you should think deeper as to why that is.

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar

You have serious mental issues. Yes Jihad can be offensive, defensive and an inner struggle. But we all know, including yourself, that it can be offensive. And if you would not have run from the other posting you would have seen that you were clearly refuted. It is pathetic that you cannot accept reality!

Just as we said on the other post. We corner you, you stop responding and do not accept the clear facts that we presented earlier. And then you regurgitate the same lies that we already refuted! We have already refuted you many times and exposed that you are incapable of critical thinking. Go back and read the other postings you ran from!

There was no certain scenario. This is an open ended command!

* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ قَاتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلاَ بِٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلْحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُواْ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ }

Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam.



search 4 truth said...


Al-Jihad legally in Shar’iah:

The four Fuqaha’ have agreed that al-Jihaad is al-Qitaal (fighting) and to help there in (i.e. in Qitaal).

To you is the definition of the four jurists:

1. Al-Hanafiyah:

It says in Fath al-Qadeer by Ibn Humaam 5/187: “al-Jihaad: calling the Kuffar to the religion of truth and to fight them if they do not accept”. al-Kaasaani said in al-Badaa’i’, 9/4299 “To sacrifice ones strength and energy in Fighting in the way of Allah ‘Azza wa-Jal with ones life, property and the tongue and whatever besides”.

2. Al-Maalikiyah:

For a Muslim to fight against a Kaafir who is not under oath, to raise the word of Allah, or if he (Kaafir) is in his (Muslim’s) presence (in order to attack him), or upon his (Kaafir) entering his (Muslim’s) land. (Haashiya al-’Adawi/as-Sa’eedi 2/2 and ash-Sharh as-Sagheer/Aqrab al-Masaalik by ad-Dardeer 2/267)

3. Ash-Shaafi’iyah:

Al-Baajawari said, “al-Jihaad means: al-Qitaal (fighting) in the way of Allah”, al-Baajawari / Ibnul-Qaasim 2/261. Ibn Hajr said in al-Fath 6/2, “…and legally (it means) sacrificial striving in fighting the Kuffar”

4. Al-Hanbaliyah:

“To Fight the Kuffar” see Mataalibu Ulin-Nahi 2/497. “al-Jihaad is al-Qitaal (fighting) and to sacrifice all strength in it to raise the Word of Allah”, see ‘Umdatul-Fiqh p.166, and Muntahal-Iraadaat 1/302.

Allah SWT forbids His prophet peace be upon him to follow the liars-disbelievers of Mecca- in that is against Truth (al haq).

Al-Qurtubi said in his interpretation of Quran 18/230 ‘He forbids him from leaning to disbelievers and they used to call him to stop fighting so that they stop as well. Allah clarified that leaning to them is a Kufr(disbelief). “And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. » Israa 74. And Idhan means: docility and mannerism. Allah explained here that disbelievers of Mecca wished that Mohamed peace be upon him would soften and effectuate with them, things which Allah forbid His prophet to do.’

And also, on the day of Al-Fath (when the Prophet sallallahu alayhe wa sallam conquered Makkah), the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa salam) said: “There is no Hijrah (migration from Makkah to Al-Madinah) after the victory, but only Jihad and good intention. If you were required to march forth, then march forth.” {Fath Al-Bari 4:56}

Allah Subhana wa Ta’ala also said:

“O Prophet! Make Jihad against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. Hell shall be their home; and it is the worst of all homes.” {Surah At-Tawba 9:73}

Ibn Abbas (radhi Allahu anhu) said: “Allah commanded the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa salam) to fight the disbelievers with the sword, to strive against the hypocrites with the tongue and annulled lenient treatment of them.” {Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, p. 475 and Tafsir At-Tabari 14:359}

search 4 truth said...


Furthermore, Allah commanded the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa salam) to fight even if others didn’t join, when He (subhana wa Ta’ala) said:

“Therefore, O Muhammad, fight; in the path of Allah, you are accountable for no one except for yourself. Urge the believers to fight, it may be that Allah will overthrow the might of the unbelievers, for Allah is the strongest in might and severe in punishment.” {Surah An-Nisaa 4:84}

Commenting on this verse, Ibn Kathir said: “Allah commands His servant and Messenger, Muhammad (sallallahu alayhe wa salam), to himself fight in Jihad and not be concerned about those who do not join Jihad.” {Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, p. 529}

Offensive Jihad

This is where the enemy is not fighting Muslims or gathering to fight the Muslims. This type of jihad is Fard Kifayah, which means that if some Muslims perform this duty, the obligation falls from the rest. If none of them responds to this obligation, then they are all in sin.

Allah says:

“O believers, fight them until there is no more fitnah and the Deen of Allah (way of life prescribed by Allah) is established completely” {Surah Al-Anfal 8:39}

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allaah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah, If they do that then their blood and wealth is safe from me, except by the laws of Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allaah.” {Narrated by al-Bukhaari, Vol. 1, No. 24; Muslim, Vol. 1, No. 29}

Ibn Qudaamah said: “Jihad is an obligation upon the community; if some people undertake it, the rest are relieved of the obligation.” What fard kifaayah means is that if it is not undertaken by enough people, then all the people are guilty of sin, but if enough people undertakes it, the rest will be relieved of blame. Initially the command is addressed to all of them, as in the case of an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn), but then in the case of fard kifaayah the obligation is dropped if enough of the people undertake to do it, unlike the case with fard ‘ayn where the obligation is not dropped if someone else does it. Jihad is a fard kifaayah, according to the majority of scholars.” {al-Mughni, 9/163}

search 4 truth said...


Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Everyone who hears the call of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to the religion of Allah with which he was sent and does not respond to it must be fought so that there will be no fitnah and so that submission will all be for Allah.” {Majmu’ al-Fatawa 28/249}

In regard to offensive jihad and whether or not having an imam or ruler that is followed is a condition for this type of jihad; then we have the statement of Imam Ash-Shawkanee to this affect. His full name is Imam Ali bin Muhammad bin Abdullah Ash-Shawkanee. He lived 1173-1250AH (1777-1834CE), he was a great scholar who studied under a number of great scholars, his famous book being “Nayl Al-Autar”. Imam Ash-Shawkanee said in his book Irshaad as-Saa’il Ilaa Dalaa’il al-Masaa’il:

“The Muslims differed over attacking the Kuffaar in their lands [offensive Jihaad], as to whether or not the great Imaam is a condition for such? The true truth that is acceptable is that [Jihaad] is obligatory upon every Muslim individual, and the Qur’aanic verses and Prophetic narrations are unrestricted [meaning, they do not mention a condition of an Imaam].” {Page 80 of ar-Rasaa’il as-Salafeeyah}

Neither Ibn Qudamah nor Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on them) placed the condition of having a ruler or imam for jihad to be Fard ‘Ayn.

Not only is the claim that jihad cannot be Fard Ayn without a ruler or Imam that is followed baseless in the light of Quran and Sunnah, but we shall see that this even contradicts the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) and the way of the righteous companions and their understanding.

In Saheeh Bukhari it is reported that Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) made a peace treaty with the Quraysh, which allowed the Muslims to perform Umrah the year after the treaty was conducted. However, in this treaty there was a quite distressing condition, which said that if a Makkan embraced Islam and went to Allah’s Messenger to seek shelter, he would be handed back to the Makkans… After making this treaty, Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) returned to Madeenah. Now, a man named Abu Basir bin Asid Ath-Thaqafi from the Quraysh happened to have embraced Islam during this truce. When the Prophet returned to Medina, Abu Basir, the new Muslim convert from Quraish came to him. The infidels sent in his pursuit two men who said (to the Prophet), “Abide by the promise you gave us.” So, the Prophet handed him over to them. They took him out (of the City) till they reached Dhul-Hulaifa where they dismounted to eat some dates they had with them. Abu Basir said to one of them, “By Allah, O so-and-so, I see you have a fine sword.” The other drew it out (of the scabbard) and said, “By Allah, it is very fine and I have tried it many times.” Abu Basir said, “Let me have a look at it.”

When the other gave it to him, he hit him with it till he died, and his companion ran away till he came to Medina and entered the mosque running. When Allah’s Apostle saw him he said, “This man appears to have been frightened.” When he reached the Prophet he said, “My companion has been murdered and I would have been murdered too.” Abu Basir came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, Allah has made you fulfill your obligations by your returning me to them (i.e. the infidels), but Allah has saved me from them.” The Prophet said, “Woe to his mother! What excellent war kindler he would be (i.e. he would start a war), should he only have supporters.”

search 4 truth said...


When Abu Basir heard that, he understood that the Prophet would return him to them again, so he set off till he reached the seashore. Abu Jandal bin Suhail (another Muslim convert) got himself released from them (i.e. infidels) and joined Abu Basir. So, whenever a man from Quraysh embraced Islam he would follow Abu Basir till they formed a strong group. By Allah, whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraysh heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them (i.e. infidels) and took their properties. The people of Quraysh sent a message to the Prophet requesting him for the sake of Allah and kith and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his companions) promising that whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet would be secure. So the Prophet sent for them (i.e. Abu Basir’s companions). {Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 3, Number 891}

We can deduce the following points from this hadeeth:

1. Abu Basir started fighting alone without waiting for any companion to join him. Afterwards, he had some companions to stand by him, and was engaged in jihad according to the command of Allah:

“Therefore, O Muhammad, fight; in the path of Allah, you are accountable for no one except for yourself. Urge the believers to fight, it may be that Allah will overthrow the might of the unbelievers, for Allah is the strongest in might and severe in punishment.” {Surah An-Nisaa 4:84}

Ibn Kathir (May Allah have mercy on him) said regarding this verse:

“Allah commands His servant and Messenger, Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa salam, to himself fight in Jihad and not be concerned about those who do not join Jihad. Hence Allah’s statement, “You are accountable for no one except for yourself.” {Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 2, Page 529-530}

2. Abu Basir (may Allah be pleased with him) did not fight under any ruler or imam, rather he was his own commander, when he put one of his enemies to death and later other companions joined him and fought alongside him.

3. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not say that Abu Basir was wrong or that he was mistaken because he had no imam over him, rather the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) kept silent about it, showing approval of such action. Thus, we can say that this action of Abu Basir was indeed Sunnah, rather the prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said “Woe to his mother! What excellent war kindler he would be (i.e. he would start a war), should he only have supporters.” so he ment by this that fighting by yourself offensively is good but if you was to have a group it would be better.

We say this narration is sufficient for us to prove that having an imam or ruler that is followed is not a condition for Jihad. This is agreed upon by great scholars of the past that it is not a condition for jihad, and Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab’s grandson talked specifically against this innovated condition and also used the hadeeth of Abu Basir to prove his view.

search 4 truth said...


Shaykh ‘Abdir-Rahmaan bin Hasan bin al-Imaam Muhammad bin ‘Abdil-Wahhaab an-Najdee said in response to some objections of Ibn Nabhaan:

“It is to be stated: By what book and by what ayah does there contain an evidence that Jihad is not obligatory except with an Imam that is followed?! This is from the inventions in the Din and a straying from the path of the believers. The evidences that invalidate this opinion are too well known to mention.

From them, there is the general order to wage Jihad and encouragement towards it and the threat of punishment for abandoning it. The Most High said: {And if Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allah is full of Bounty to all that exists.} [Surah al-Baqarah 2: 251] And He said in Surah al-Hajj: {For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, the places of worship much would surely have been pulled down.} [Surah al-Hajj 22:40]

Everyone who establishes Jihad in the path of Allah has obeyed Allah and fulfilled what Allah has obligated and the Imam would not become the Imam except through Jihad not that there is no Jihad without an Imam. The truth is the exact opposite of what you have said oh man…”

Until he (’Abdir-Rahmaan bin Hasan) said:

“The points of reflection and the evidences concerning the falsehood of what you have authored is abundant in the Book and the Sunnah, in the biographies, narrations and statements of the People of Knowledge with proofs and narrations – they are almost not even hidden from an idiotic person because even he would know of the story of Abu Basir when he came as a Muhajir and the Quraysh sought from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to return him to them according to the condition that was between them in the treaty of al-Hudaybiyyah so he departed from them, killed the two Mushriks that came in search of him. He headed to the seashore after he heard the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) say: “Woe to his mother! What excellent war kindler he would be, should he only have supporters.”

Thereafter he attacked the caravans of the Quraysh when they came from Sham. He would seize (their wealth) and kill thereby he was independently waging war against them without the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) because they (the Quraysh) were in a treaty him in the truce. So, did the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) say: “You were mistaken in killing the Quraysh because you all were without an Imam?” Far removed is Allah from all imperfections and impurities! How harmful ignorance is upon its people! Refuge is sought with Allah from opposing the truth with ignorance and falsehood!” {Ad-Durrar as-Sanniyah 8/199-200}

We also have a statement from the great scholar and jurist Ibn Qudamah Al-Maqdisi (died 720AH/1302CE) who said:

“The absence of an Imam does not postpone the Jihad, because much is lost in its postponement.” {Al-Mughni 8/253}


minoria said...

Hello samatar:

Here is an answer to your question about the Cananites.

You can translate with Google Translate:

Now one question often asked by Muslims is:

"Do you agree with genocide?"

They refer to the order to kill all the Cananites,which by the way was conditional.

For me the answer is YES if it can be shown that,according to God's order to us in an explicit fashion,a real vision, and his view of things that X group does not deserve life.

Muslims agree that an individual person,er,like Hitler and Stalin,or Mao or Genghiz Khan can be so evil he does not deserve life.

The same can be for a tribe or ethnicity.

Deleting said...

That was a different context. The inhabitants had been paricipating in mass genocide, infantcide, sodomy and the like for a very long time.
And they didn't kill everyone in the land. They were merciful as well.
Unlike your prophet who killed because people didn't agree with him or critized them.

jonnykzj said...

@Samatar Mohammed

Let me also add something here. You mentioned the OT and how GOD changes His laws. IF you go back and read my posts whilst i was still a muslim, not sunni anymore but still believed Quran, i used to mock the Bible extensively and throw OT verses in the face of Christians every now and then. Many cldnt even reply to me for whatever reason and it gave me a huge sense of victory. NOW the LAWS IN THE OT are divided into 1) MORAL LAWS, 2) CIVIL LAWS and you could also have a third category 3) DIETARY LAWS but these cld be included in 2. Infact some Christians had mentioned this to me BUT I REPLIED that the Civil laws R MADE BY MEN, NOT GOD so He has nothing to do with them in the first place. BUT THIS, I NOW REALIZE, IS COMPLETELY FALSE! ALL MORAL,CIVIL AND DIETARY LAWS, AS INSTRUCTED BY THE LORD IN THE OT, ARE/WERE FROM HIM. The latter 2 KEPT CHANGING ACCORDING TO THE ENVIRONMENT. The former, the MORAL LAWS, ONCE INTRODUCED WERE NEVER TO BE TAKEN AWAY. ALSO this doesnt mean that a moral offense not yet revealed by GOD wasnt considered bad by Him then. It was BUT HE WLDNT punish ppl if they failed to uphold them. That's the difference and this is CRUCIAL. ADULTERY was NEVER OK. The OT many a times mentions REPORTS OF WHT PPL DID NOT THT GOD APPROVED OF SUCH.
Next you say the OT talks about the killing of innocent children and women. Here one has to understand that GOD Himself ofcourse has the right to kill or inspire someone to kill anyone. EVEN Muslims have to admit tht the Quran says tht Allah destroyed whole cities. Are you saying He saved all the children in them? ALSO note tht in the OT the Prophets commanded to do the killing HAD VERY STRONG EVIDENCE VIA MIRACLES ACCEPTED BY THE BEST EXPERTS i.e. MAGICIANS AT THT TIME BEFORE THEY WENT OUT AND FOLLOWED THE COMMAND OF GOD. Muhammad had NO SUCH MIRACLES, except those which appear more than a century after his death in Bukhari, which wld suspicious to any objective reader.
Note further that whilst in the Bible we first have what we today would consider a lot of violence, though under the guidance of GOD, and later peace with the era of grace WHILST INISLAM IT IS THE OPPOSITE i.e. First we have peace whilst Muhammad was in Mecca, not that powerful and later in Medina when he gained authority it was violence EVEN BEING INCREMENTAL. How does that make any sense whatsoever? Muslims true to their faith today tend to follow this exact same pattern by first tricking the ppl and pretending to be peaceful, then claiming victimhood and wanting to fight to defend themslves ANDF FINALLY INSTITUTE SHARIAH AND KILL ANY THAT THREATEN TO UNDERMINE e.g. by trying to inform ppl of how shariah is bad for ppl BY WORD OF MOUTH NOT BY PHYSICAL ATTACKS just in case Muslims wanna play the defense card again.

CHMartel said...

Satan’s Trinity
By Louis Palme
Dec 16, 2011

“Satan’s Trinity - Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad” by C. “H” Martel
Reviewed by Louis Palme
This must-read book has a simple premise – compare the lives of the three most evil people in history. Why did it take so long for this idea to be put in print? Probably because most people consider Muhammad a religious “prophet,” and they wouldn’t think of juxtaposing his life that those of two 20th Century tyrants. But Islam is, at the core, a political ideology, just like Nazism and Communism, with a goal of world domination. The main reason Islam has endured is that its promised pay-off for followers is in the unverifiable afterlife, whereas the other ideologies promised near-term successes which failed to materialize.
The similarities of these three historical figures are amazing. They were all narcissist tyrants who had the accidental good fortune of impeccable timing. They were the ‘strong horses’ of their day, and people fell into step by the millions. But they all had fatal character flaws – Hitler over-reached, Stalin was a clumsy strategist, and Muhammad‘s revelations from on high are contradictory and indefensible.
Author Martel assembles an amazing collection of facts, anecdotes, and insights in this 187 page book. It is hard to put down because it traces the short careers of these men through some of the most calamitous times in history. While Hitler and Nazism were responsible for about 60 million deaths, and Stalin and Communism about 80 million, Islam’s legacy (albeit over a longer time-span) approaches 300 million lives. Only malaria and influenza have killed more people than Islam.
Martel believes that ultimately Islam will be subdued – not by force of arms, but rather by the truth. “The only sane way to defeat Islam is to attack the ideology with the truth such [as] has been done in this book.”
“Satan’s Trinity” is available in Kindle format at and in book form via This is one of the best books I’ve read this year.

jonnykzj said...


I'd like to add that even Hitler and Stalin, though they were extremely evil, not as much as muhammad IMU. This is coz at least the women under Hitler and Stalin enjoyed pretty much equal rights and specifically in the case of Hitler the Aryan race were all one group and they were not even controlled as much regarding market as were the communists under stalin. BUT WITH MUHAMMAD there is CONTROL ALMOST EVERYWHERE ESPECIALLY WITH WOMEN. Also the Grand Mufti of Egypt temporarily made a pact with Hitler to eradicate the Jews together so you can see that one of the most evils of Hitler(i.e. wanting to eradicate a whole race) was ALREADY PART AND PARCEL OF ISLAM PLUS THE ADDITIONAL STUFF we all know about.

hugh watt said...


Hope this is of some use.

'साहिल' said...

excellent research work, keep on exposing the hypocrisy of islam

Unknown said...

The link in the Jihad part of your blog does not work. It points to another site, and I guess there were some changes since then.
Can you give us a proper link for the document you created?

accept the truth they are liars said...

why would anyone debate these people , they are faking it and using whatever words they can to do just this pretend to be so loving right what they are to do next is written in their text and any muslim knows this WAKE UP... acting all calm and questionably educated,,, DIDNT ANYONE WATCH THE FILM..they are engaging you and lieing to try to convince you they are not that while proof is happening all around the globe, and this man writing would cut your throat just like the women and children they are and have already killed
you will be their next little girl after they stab you in the back..

A Georgia Trout Man said...

Very useful, I have read through Koran several times and deducted the many antihical statements which do not sync up. Trying to see, HOW it was a religion of peace when it also commands so much violence.

Capt.Duck said...

Knowing our enemy, how they operate and thier goals, is EXTREMELY important so we can recognize and counter thier deceptive practices.
-- The deception that Islam is peaceful, is one of the most effective tools Muslims use to gain an advantage and eventually force non-Muslims into submission to Islam -- eventually to the point of forced conversion, death, or slavery. -- Islam allows, even encourages, Muslims to lie about Islam if it furthers the goals of Islam.
Taqiyya: Islamic doctrine of deceit

Mas Jack said...