A long note on Islamic cult violence and Jihad.

Islam is a cult. There is little dispute about that if you take the time to study the theology, history and meaning of Islam. It is not a religion. One of the key attributes of a cult is violence, must of it mindless, ritualized, and irrational. Cults are pagan-fascist constructs and bear no relationship to a true religious ideal which endeavors to free the human and his body, mind, spirit and free-will. A cult will enslave, not liberate. Part of the process of enslavement is violence against those who are not sufficiently fundamentalist in following the doctrines of the cult; and against those who reside outside the cult. Thus National Socialist Germans could kill Jews because they were subhumans living outside of the chosen 'ubermenshen', and Russian National Socialists could demonize non-Communists, non-Russians and those outside of the preferred 'class' cult and structure. Violence against the outsiders is a common trait of pagan fascisms. It is no different with Islam.

One only has to read the Koran to understand that violence against UnBelievers, which is situated on every page, is a mandatory aspect of being Islamic. No Muslim can argue against this. No amount of historical revisioning can erase this fact.

Many Western big-brains and the cultural Marxist apologists in our midst will of course attempt to argue that these verses in the Qur'an are being taken out of context. This is a nonsense since these people have not read what orthodox Muslim themselves, including Islamic scholars have said about Koranic violence, racism and supremacism. By my count, there are at least 123 clear passages in the Koran calling on violence against non-Muslims, including killing them; humiliating them; and consigning them to hellfire. Muslims can't explain this away with a wave of their 'sophisticated' and 'tolerant' hand. This is especially true when you read what Muslim theologians say about Koranic hate.

For example one of the earliest great Muslim legal scholars, Al-Tabari (838-923), explained that Surah 9:5 which demands the death of infidels if they would not embrace Islam, and if they entered Mecca as uncoverted infidels¹. Much later, Al-Mahili (d. 1486) also gives a clear indication of understanding Surah 9:5 offensively and aggressively,

"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed."²

Another of the most historically influential Muslim jurists and quranic exegetes, al-Baidawi (d. 1286), gives a fairly typical understanding of the doctrine, commenting on Surah 9:29,

"Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation."³

The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), who was a jurist of the Maliki legal school affirmed the duty of Islam to gain power over other nations when he stated,

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in Islam, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same." ⁴

Other noteworthy Islamic jurists and philosophers promoted the same offensive strategy for jihad. Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) commented that Surah 9:5, seen above, abrogated any covenant which might have been made between Muslims and infidels, and that it stipulated that Muslims fight the infidels anywhere on earth, except for within "the sacred area" (i.e. the haram of Mecca)⁵. Ibn Hazm (994-1064) provides some interesting commentary concerning the so-called "tolerance" verse, Surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion...."), when he demonstrates the true purpose of the ayah,

"The prophet Muhammad did not accept from the Arab heathens less than Islam or the sword. This is compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith (or religion) applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option either to embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax. In this case they can keep their own faith. It was truly said on the authority of the apostle of God that there is no compulsion in the faith." ⁶

Thus, compulsion certainly was to be applied to any non-Muslims who were not Christians or Jews. These latter two groups were given the third, apparently non-compulsive, choice of submitting to pay the jizyah poll-tax and live out their lives as a permanent underclass. This "non-compulsion" applies only to lands outside the Arabian peninsula. For the peninsula itself, the traditions stipulate that no two religions could exist there, only Islam alone⁷.

Other medieval scholars arrived at the same general conclusions about jihad that are drawn from the Qur'an. The North African jurist al-Qayrawani (d. 996, of the Maliki school) drawing inspiration from 9:29 wrote,

"Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."⁸

Al-Mawardi (972-1058), a scholar of the Shafi'i juridical tradition, said,

"The mushrikun of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them....Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger....It is forbidden to begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached...."⁹

The Hidayah, the classical manual of law for the Hanafite legal tradition prepared by al-Marghinani (1152-1197), says this about jihad, drawing again upon the command to impose jizyah in 9:29 as it relates to the "three choices" rule (convert, submit, or die),

"It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war....If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."¹⁰

Peters provides the view of Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), the Hanbalite jurist who, as will be seen in the next chapter, was instrumental in establishing the extremely fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an and the traditions which stifled Islamic intellectual endeavors starting in the 13th century. Taymiyya wrote about jihad,

"Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare)."¹¹

As we can see, prominent Islamic scholars of antiquity from each of the four major schools of jurisprudence in historical Islam (even the "liberal" Hanafites) clearly understood the quranic injunction to holy war. Even al-Ghazzali (1058-1111), a Sufi (who is yet considered "orthodox" by Sunni Islam) and therefore a representative of the mystical (and supposedly peaceful) side of Islam, supported doing whatever it takes to conquer and subdue "infidels",

"....one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them....If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab is enslaved, his marriage is automatically revoked. A woman and her child taken into slavery should not be separated....One may cut down their trees....One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide....they may steal as much food as they need...."¹²

Modern Muslim scholars, historians, and exegetes have taken similar stances on jihad. Al-Buti reveals for us the following,

"The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of Islam would like to tell us) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars"¹³

He likewise states,

"You may wonder now: Where is the wisdom of forcing infidels and their associates to embrace islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth century understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be subjugated to its system and philosophy despite the freedom he possesses? How can it be reasonable for the state to have the right to subjugate its citizens to the laws, principles, and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all does not have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?" ¹⁴

And in further refutation of the "defensive war" theory,

"This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a holy war in islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack....It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished. The mind set of the European man has matured to embrace islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?" ¹⁵

Hence, al-Buti is quite honest about the fact that the Qur'an commands offensive jihad for the purpose of converting infidels to Islam. Other modern Islamic scholars agree. In exegeting Surah 9:29, which commands the laying of the jizyah onto the infidels, Khan states,

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in the verse 9:29). So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them.

"So at first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory...."¹⁶

Thus, the teaching is that Muslims are to fight when they have sufficient strength to win, and that this fight is obligatory. When Muslims are not strong enough to fight their enemies, they are to lie low until such a time as they can fight, according to another prominent modern Muslim scholar. Quoting as-Suyuti, as-Saleh wrote,

"The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient."¹⁷

Essentially, Muslim peacefulness all too often would be a deception that was waiting to be unmasked the moment the Muslims felt themselves strong enough to risk waging war. Saleh goes on to cite Zarkashi in a footnote saying,

"Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims."¹⁸

Saudi scholar al-Amin likewise points to the Qur'an for the justification of offensive holy war,

"God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of Islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before extending the invitation to embrace islam first, as the Qur'an says. 'We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers, 'Allah is strong, Almighty' (Surah Iron 57:25)."¹⁹

This is especially informative for those who may remember that in the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks, Saudi religious and political leaders, in the process of extending their condolences to President Bush, also extended an invitation to him to convert to Islam, which was a clear application of the principle shown above. Abdul-Fattah reiterated this when he wrote,

"Islamic law demands that before Muslims start fighting infidels (unbelievers) they first deliver the message of Islam to them. It was proven that the prophet never fought people before he called them to embrace Islam first. He used to command his generals to do so also."²⁰

To the extent that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were wrong in their attacks on 9-11 and in other terrorist attacks before then, in the view of radical fundamentalist Muslims, it was in that they had not first issued the standard call for the enemy to embrace Islam first, before the foe was fought.

Qutb, in a chapter entitled "Jihaad in the Cause of God", says this about those who believe that jihad is to be a defensive war only,

"They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom....Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience."²¹

Thus, while touting "freedom of individual conscience", Qutb seems to be espousing the right of the "Islamic community" to take control of political authority, presumably even if that authority is the government of a foreign country in which Muslims reside, which would hearken back to what was seen earlier with Surah 8:72-73. Qutb's whole chapter consists of his arguments that Islam has a "right" to wage jihad to overthrow social and political systems which are not in accord with Islamic law, so that people are then "free to serve God", meaning that there will be no competitors to Islam, and hence people will choose Islam. Naturally, people who are already Muslims but who live in foreign countries where Islam is not the law of the land are considered doubly in need of "liberation" by having the non-Muslims systems under which they live overthrown and replaced by Islam. Hence, he perversely attributes the term "freedom" to a state of affairs where conquered peoples are given the choice of either converting to Islam, living as second-class citizens, or dying. Qutb, it should be noted, was executed by Egypt's Nasser government for attempting to overthrow the secular regime.

That Muslims, some "weak" and living in foreign lands and others "strong" and living in Dar es-Salaam, should help each other to overthrow these foreign systems which "oppress" Muslims is seen in Usmani's comment on 8:73,

"Between a Kafir and a Muslim neither there is real comradeship nor they can inherit each other. Of course, the Kafir is the comrade and heir of a Kafir (Unbeliever). In fact, all the Unbelievers in enmity against you are one. Wherever they will find the Muslims weak, they will tease and persecute them. So if the Muslims will not support and help each other, or the weak Muslims will not try to bring themselves under the support and protection of the free Muslims, a great Fitna and corruption will spread, i.e. the weak Muslims shall not be secure and their Eman will be in danger too."²²

Fattah adds,

"Islam has approved war so that the Word of God becomes supreme. This is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad, therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab Peninsula to call them to embrace islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight them." ²³

In fact, if unbelievers resist the "call to Islam", then they themselves are responsible for the wars which Islam is then required to fight against them, at least in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalism. Tibi, himself a voice against Islamism and for reformation within Islam, describes the traditional understanding of warfare and authority in Islam,

"At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. ?We have sent you forth to all mankind (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (dawa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the dawa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam....Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of ?opening? the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Quran and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the dawa, are blamed for this state of war, for the dawa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is ?temporary truce? (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of ?temporary?)."²⁴

Modern Islamic authorities from the Indian subcontinent stand with their brethren on this issue. Fazlur Rahman notes the abundant discussion of jihad in the Qur'an, and rejects the modern interpretation of jihad as defensive war only²⁵. Pirzada likewise states about the nature of Islamic jihad,

"The reasons stated in the verse for waging a war against the people of the Book clearly show that it is not for a defensive war, the command for a defensive war was given much earlier....The fact is that it is not correct to limit jihad within the circle of defensive war, nor is it correct to term it, what is today called, 'an aggressive war', because jihad is not a war that is fought for conquering land, national prejudices, material gains, and false ideologies, it is fought for the noble purpose of freeing the slaves of God from the lordship of the false gods, to end aggression and tyranny and to give them a pure and virtuous atmosphere. This war is synonymous with the act of surgery of the rotten part of the body to provide healthy life to humanity."²⁶

Maududi as well rejects attempts to make a distinction between offensive and defensive jihad and views jihad as the means by which to overthrown all non-Islamic systems and replace them with submission to Allah. Speaking of Islam as a "revolutionary force", he says,

"The division of Islamic Jihad into "offensive" and "defensive" is not permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at one and the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim party attacks the rule of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of Islam in space-time forces."²⁷

Hence, "defense" is defined as destroying any system not in agreement with Islam. Under this ideology, "defense" then becomes not just an option, but an act of piety. Nu'mani demonstrates this redefinition in his justification of jihad as a noble and spotless act,

"Fighting, apparently a cruel act, was shorn of all sordid motives and raised to such level of sanctity and saintliness that this manifestation of the devil in man was sublimed into a pious act of highest godliness. It was now to aim at protecting the weak and oppressed against the highhandedness of the strong and cruel."²⁸

Nu'mani then cites a number of quranic verses such as Suwar 5:39, 6:39, and 9:29 in support of his statement. "Protecting the weak and oppressed" means freeing them from the control of non-Islamic political and philosophical systems - without bothering to find out if they desire to be "freed", of course. He further exalts the "sanctity" of holy war,

"Jihad or the holy war was exalted into an act of piety not only in respect of its ultimate aim, but also in its external aspect....In short, was that once reflected the atrocious and barbaric side of human nature was now turned, through the teachings of Islam, into an institution for the glorification of Allah, establishment of peace, suppression of turbulence, and protection of the oppresses. What was more it was conducted as a service at a mosque or church with praises of Allah on the lips of the devotees."²⁹

Because it is the duty of good Muslims to "liberate" the rest of the world from the tyranny and oppression of their native, non-Islamic political, religious, and philosophical systems, much is said by the commentators to this end. Daryabadi, commenting on Surah 9:123, says this about fighting infidels who are nearby,

"i.e. the neighbouring pagan states, for they claim your care in the first place, and their reclamation ought to be endeavoured first."³⁰

Similarly, Zaheer cites the medieval commentator Ibn Kathir to explain that Surah 9:123 commands Muslims to keep fighting whoever next borders previously conquered territories, and notes that Ibn Kathir gave this as the explanation for why the Islamic faith spread to such an extent as it did³¹.

Violence is also the prescribed suggestion for dealing with "hypocrites" - those members of the Islamic community who are insufficiently Islamic in their approach to the religion. Surah 9:73, seen above, is sometimes interpreted by commentators as saying that the striving against hypocrites is to be done through words and arguments (though the striving against unbelievers still requires the sword). Daryabadi, for instance, presents this interpretation of 9:73³². This interpretation, however, is by no means universal. Zaheer notes that while some ancient commentators, such as Ibn Kathir, interpreted 9:73 more peacefully, others did not. He cites not only Ibn 'Abbas as saying that this verse requires fighting with the sword against unbelievers, but also 'Ali as saying that this verse calls for the use of the sword against hypocrites³³. Usmani says that the sword may be used against hypocrites if their hypocrisy becomes "public clearly"³⁴. Pirzada says about 9:73,

"That is; Now no quarters should be shown to the hypocrites, but they should be dealt with strictly and firmly, and if necessary force should be used against them to the extent that may be required."³⁵

Essentially, whatever force is deemed necessary to induce Muslims who are insufficiently pious to get with the program may be used to coerce them into religious piety and at least outward conformity with the strictures of the shari'a law.

In relation to what was seen above about the imperative to spread holy war so as to "liberate" non-Muslim lands from their non-Muslim cultures and political systems, for those "People of the Book" who refuse to come around once they are conquered, Islam stipulates a set of coercive measures designed to induce conquered non-Muslims (called dhimmiyyun, or dhimmis) to convert to Islam. More will be said in the next chapter about the institution of dhimmitude itself, but we should note at this point the commandment of Surah 9:29 to fight non-Muslims until they "pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." The jizyah is a poll tax (often coupled with a land tax called the kharaj) levied on all able-bodied non-Muslim males in lands conquered by Islam. The purpose of this tax, aside from generating revenue for the Islamic state, is to emphasize to dhimmis their second-class status and subjugation to the Islamic religio-political system. Paying the jizyah is not optional - refusing to do so would result in death or expulsion from their own land. Usmani notes this in his commentary on 9:29,

"The Polytheists and Idolators were primarily aimed to be totally exterminated from the soil of Arabia, but so far as the Jews and Christians were concerned the main policy in the beginning was to shatter their power against Islam and its expansion. So permission was granted that if they accepted obedience and paid Jizyah they could live in the Islamic state and their life and property shall be safe. If they did not accept obedience they would be dealt with like the Polytheists, i.e. they would also be exiled or slain, because they do not also believe in God and the Messenger as must."³⁶

As we will see in the following chapter, acceptance of the terms of dhimma, which include the submission and payment of the jizyah, did not in practice always guarantee the safety of life or property which Usmani suggests it did. Shafi likewise notes that the jizyah is essentially a payment of protection, a sort of medieval Mafioso-style extortion,

"Literally, jizyah means return or recompense. In the terminology of the Shari'ah, it refers to the amount of money taken from disbelievers in lieu of killing." ³⁷

The jizyah is meant to show the dhimmis that they are inferior, that their stubborn insistence on retaining their old ways places them in a position of submission and slavery to the Islamic system. Anwer Ali explains this to us in his comments on 9:29,

"The Jizyah is compensation for protection and security of the non-believers of the Islamic State. It is a symbol for subordination to the Islamic State. The word Ann Yadin, i.e. pay by their hands [translated as "with willing submission" in Yusuf Ali's translation above], means that they should pay it of their own as a subordinate and the words Wahum Sagheroon mean that they should not have superiority over the land; the superiority should be for believers who are vice-regents of Allah on earth.

"Further, the idea underlying Jizyah is that each year they must think that to pay for remaining on the wrong, instead of getting on the Straight Path and paying the poor rate, is actually a most unfortunate complex in which they are involved."³⁸

Hence, jizyah "proves" to the infidel the inferiority of his own belief system, and at the same time "encourages" him to convert to Islam. Maududi reiterates this in his comment on this ayah when he notes that the jizyah serves to remind Jews and Christians of their submission and the "price of following the ways of error."³⁹

The examples given above are only a very small sampling of what could be said with regard to both the historical and modern orthodox Muslim positions on holy war and the forceful subjugation of non-Muslims. As we can see, the justification is often drawn directly from those verses that were quoted above, and that are said to be "defensive only" or "taken out of context" by Muslim apologists. Jeffrey observed,

"It is of course, easy to raise the objection that a Jihad in the old sense is impossible of realization in the modern world, for Islam is far too badly divided for anything like a general Jihad to be contemplated and far too weak in technical equipment for a Jihad to be successful even if started. This does not dispose of the fact, however, that the earlier conception of Jihad has left a deposit in Muslim thinking that is still to be reckoned with in the political relations of the Western world with Islam."⁴⁰

Thus, it should certainly be seen that offensive war for the specific purpose of spreading the Islamic religion is very much a quranic practice. While the apologists tell us that jihad is "defensive", their own scholars past and present refute this lie.

Violence From the Ahadith

The Qur'an is not the only source for this jihad doctrine, however. The ahadith also say much about waging offensive war against the infidel. Jihad is touted as the second best deed which could be performed in Islam, next only to believing in Allah and his prophet Mohammed, and better even than performing the hajj⁴¹. To those who participate in jihad comes either the spoils of war if he lives or paradise if he is killed.

"The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)." ⁴²

Other portions of the ahadith also confirm the rights of jihadis to the spoils of those they kill in holy war ⁴³ and their automatic entry into paradise if they die as martyrs in the cause of Allah ⁴⁴. Participation in holy war earns Muslims many benefits and blessings from Allah, or so the writings teach. For instance, Mohammed is reported to have said,

"He who keeps a horse posted on the enemies' frontier in Allah's path, then manages himself (to feed it) with its fodder with his own hand, will earn a virtue for every grain (he feeds it)." ⁴⁵

Right after this passage, it is then taught that a man who participates in jihad only for so long as the time spent between two milkings of a she-camel (I don't know much about camels, but the traditions suggest that this is only a single day's worth of daylight⁴⁶) still is entitled to paradise because of the blessedness of his endeavor ⁴⁷. The tradition also teaches that a man who dies in holy war has the right to intercede before Allah in paradise for the entry of seventy other persons from among his friends and family, which Allah then is required to allow into paradise ⁴⁸. It pays to have friends, apparently!

The importance of holy war in Islamic teaching takes precedence over other religious activities, as well. Mohammed taught that acting as a soldier of Allah is as good as if one perpetually "observes fasts" and "stands in devotion" every night⁴⁹. While Islamic teachers in the West will play up the Muslim duty of zakat, the giving of alms to the poor, the ahadith teach that giving of your wealth to support jihad earns you even greater rewards. The tradition states based upon an interpretation of Surah 2:261,

"He who supplies provisions (to mujahids) in Allah's path and stays at home is entitled to seven hundred dirhams for each dirham (spent in Allah's cause) and he who himself fights in Allah's path and spends (money) for the same cause, is entitled to get for every dirham (the reward of) seventy thousand dinars." ⁵⁰

Perhaps one of the most decisive statements in all the ahadith which shows the driving force behind the expansion of Islam to be greed, and not any sort of "service" to a deity is this,

"'Ubada b. Samit (Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said that in the beginning, the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would promise to gift one-fourth of spoils (to Mujahids) and one-third of booty on repatriation.(note: "This involves the idea of holding a portion of the booty until the entire campaign is concluded, so as to encourage the mujahedeen to continue fighting to the end, this is what repatriation means") ⁵¹

Even more blunt is the tradition that says,

"He who kills (a person in jihad) is entitled to his belongings."⁵²

Want something that a non-believer has? Just get out your sword (or AK-47), wage jihad, and take it! Nevermind those laws of God like, "..thou shalt not kill....thou shalt no steal....thou shalt not covet..." (Exodus 20:13,15,17)

Hence, it should be seen and understood that the inclination of the teachings from the Muslim religious texts is toward violence and the propagation of the Islamic religion by war and the enticement of booty and eternal, carnal paradise.

Sources:

1) - Al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan 'an ta'wil ay al-Qur'an, commenting on 9:5
(2) - Al-Mahalli, Tafsir al-Jalalayn , commenting on 9:5
(3) - Al-Baidawi, Asrar ut-tanzil wa Asrar ut-ta'wil, commenting on 9:29
(4) - Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddimah, trans. F. Rosenthal, abrg. and ed. N.J. Dawood, Bk. 1, Ch. 3.31, p. 183
(5) - Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Azim, commenting on 9:5
(6) - Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Nihal, Vol. 8, commenting on 2:256
(7) - Muwatta of Malik, Bk. 45, Sect.5, No. 18, where Mohammed is reported to have said this, and then turned out the Jews of Khaybar and forced them to emigrate, see also Sahih Muslim, Bk. 19, No. 4366
(8) - Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, La Risala: Epitre sur les elements du dogme et de la loi d'Islam selon le rite malikite, Trans. Ed. L. Bercher, p. 165
(9) - Al-Mawardi, Al-ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, p.60
(10) - Al-Hidayah, Vol. 2, p. 140
(11) - R. Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, p. 49
(12) - Al-Ghazzali, Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i, pp. 186, 190-191
(13) - M.S.R. Al-Buti, The Jurisprudence of the Biography, pp. 323-324
(14) - Ibid., pp. 266-267
(15) - Ibid., pp. 266
(16) - Sahih Bukhari, trans. M.M. Khan, Vol. 1, p. xxvi
(17) - S. as-Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 269, citing As-Suyuti's Itqan fi-ulum al-qur'an
(18) - Ibid., note on p. 270
(19) - M. al-Amin, The Methodology of Islamic Law, p. 17
(20) - A. Abdul-Fattah, The Spirit of the Islamic Religion, p. 384
(21) - S. Qutb, Milestones, p. 76
(22) - A.S.A. Usmani, Tafseer e-Usmani: The Noble Qur'an, Vol. 1, p. 811
(23) - Abdul-Fattah, op. cit., p. 382
(24) - B. Tibi, "War and Peace in Islam", The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives, ed. T. Nardin, pp. 129-131
(25) - F. Rahman, Islam, p. 37
(26) - S. Pirzada, Dawatul Qur'an, trans. A.K. Shaikh, Vol. 1, pp. 614-615, commenting on 9:29
(27) - See S.A.A. Maududi, Jihad in Islam, p. 13
(28) - A.S. Nu'mani, Sirat-un-Nabi, trans. M.T.B. Budayani, Vol. 2, p. 280
(29) - Ibid., pp. 281-282
(30) - M.A.M. Daryabadi, Tafsir-ul-Qu'ran, Vol. 2, p. 272
(31) - S.I. Zaheer, Tafsir Ishraq Al-Ma'ani: Being a Quintessence of Qur'anic Commentaries, Vol. 5, p. 147
(32) - Daryabadi, op. cit., pp. 248-249
(33) - Zaheer, op. cit., pp. 90-91
(34) - Usmani, op. cit., p. 867
(35) - Pirzada, op. cit., p. 645
(36) - Usmani, op. cit., p. 837
(37) - M.M.M. Shafi, Ma'ariful Qur'an, Vol. 4, p. 363, commenting on 9:29
(38) - S.A. Ali, Qur'an: The Fundamental Law of Human Life, Vol. 6, p. 539
(39) - S.A.A. Maududi, Meaning of the Qur'an, Vol. 4, p. 186
(40) - A. Jeffrey, "The Political Importance of Islam", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 1 (1942), p. 388
(41) - Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 1, Bk. 2, No. 25
(42) - Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 1, Bk. 2, No. 35
(43) - Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 4, Bk. 53, Nos. 369-370
(44) - Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 4, Bk. 53, No. 386; Vol. 9, Bk. 93, No. 555
(45) - Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 4, Bk. 24, No. 2791
(46) - Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Bk. 69, No. 513
(47) - Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 4, Bk. 24, No. 2792
(48) - Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 4, Bk. 24, No. 2799
(49) - Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 4, Bk. 24, No. 2754
(50) - Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 4, Bk. 24, No. 2761; see also Sahih Muslim, Bk. 20, Nos. 4639 and 4614; Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Bk. 53, No. 352 and Vol. 4, Bk. 56, No. 839
(51) - Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 4, Bk. 24, No. 2852
(52) - Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 4, Bk. 24, No. 2838