Monday, May 26, 2008

Relatives in defense of jihad

Recently a family member shared photos of the honoring of Marines who've made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of Western Civilization and our God-given, unalienable rights.

To that e-mail I replied, "It's too bad Mohammed made their sacrifice necessary."

This is what was sent in response to that observation by another family member:
. . . it is indeed even worse that . . . people continue to be misinformed.
The author appears to argue that worse than Americans dying in defense against jihad are the imagined misinterpretations of Islamic texts by jihadists and the plain reading of those texts by non-Muslims.

This ad hominem attack was sent to several family members, but not to me.

Impugning someone's integrity behind their back does not a healthy dialogue make.

Also, her position is inherently dishonest. If someone claims to know enough about Islam's "holy" book (there are actually several texts considered authoritative in traditional Islam besides Qur'an) to absolve Mohammed of responsibility for 1400 years of global jihad against non-Muslims, then they must know the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle requiring that slaughter.

On the other hand, if they don't know the texts well enough to admit from where Allah's monsters derive the justification for their murders (and worse), if they are so completely ignorant of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira so that they defend Mohammed and his book as "holy," then how can they call anyone else "misinformed"?

I am confident that the author is incorrect in her assertions regarding Islam's authoritative documents, since I've actually read them.

Rather than assume that one or more sessions in the People of the Desert School of Islamic Propaganda makes her an expert on Islam, she ought to open a book.

Regrettably, this is the same line of "argumentation" used by jihad's agents in the West. Considering that even the Commander-in-Chief repeats the same canard, the wide dissemination throughout non-Muslim lands of the facts regarding the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed is needed now.

What are these facts? Did Mohammed command offensive warfare against non-Muslims or not? If so, why defend him?

Allah and the prophet from hell demand (and boasted, among other things):
"fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [poll tax]. . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . . " (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
In defending Mohammed, this is what she defends.

Why not instead attack the monster?