Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Washington Post aids jihad by legitimizing its propagandists

In response to a "Christian scholar," from here:
Martin Marty has no clue of what Islam -- as defined by its god and prophet in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- really is.

There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

Communication is important and valuable when the other party communicates in good faith. I do not doubt that Marty has met many decent people of good will who self-identify as "Muslim."

It appears from his comments that he has engaged in dialogue also with "moderate" Muslims seeking to deceive ignorant and gullible Infidels about the role in Islam of offensive warfare against them. His lack of intellectual curiosity and inability to distinguish truth from propaganda calls into question his credibility.

As for studying "religious fundamentalism," what is the only major religion on earth that -- when its adherents practice the religion as its authoritative texts say they must -- enslaves and kills those who refuse to submit to its god? Only Islam. That bit of moral equivalence calls into question Marty's credibility.

Demonstrating his suicidal ignorance of Islam, Marty repeats one of the half-truths perpetrated with a success of which Joseph Goebbels only dreamed: jihad doesn't mean what we think it means.

It is true that "jihad" means "struggle." There are many kinds of struggle.

It is is curious that Marty spends many words on the use of the term as meaning "peaceful inner struggle" but addresses not at all the meaning of the word in the context most troubling to non-Muslims: offensive warfare against Infidels to make the world Islam.

Offensive jihad to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind is fundamental to nearly fourteen centuries of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history. This is so because Allah commanded it and Mohammed practiced it.

The theology of offensive jihad comes directly from Allah's commands and Muhammad's words and deeds (e.g., Qur'an 9:5, 9:29, and Muslim Book 019, Number 4294). They require the faithful to offer non-Muslims three choices: conversion to Islam, subjugation with payment of the jizya (an oppressive poll tax), or death.

Additionally, all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach the necessity for offensive jihad in order to subjugate unbelievers to the rule of Allah.

Contrary to what Marty and his fellow apologists for jihad would have us believe, "jihad" used in this manner is consistent with Islam's "holy" texts:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: '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 respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans 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 those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, 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).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

Was Mohammed commanding that if non-Muslims refuse to convert or submit to Islam that the faithful should seek Allah's help and "struggle inwardly" against them?

Was Allah requiring the faithful to "struggle inwardly" and slay the Pagans wherever they are found?

Was Allah urging Muslims to "struggle inwardly" against those who reject Allah until they submit and feel subdued?

Did Mohammed confess, "I have been ordered to 'struggle inwardly' against the people" until all worship only Allah?

Did Allah mandate "inward struggles" until there prevail faith in Allah altogether and everywhere"?

Jihad as "inner struggle" is found in one hadith from a collection not considered traditionally by Muslims among the most reliable, but Marty and his fellow "scholars" are unaware of these verses of blood from Qur'an and reliable ahadith?

Therefore, Marty accuses of hatred those who use the term "jihad" correctly. In making this false, ad hominem attack and in dutifully and foolishly repeating this misrepresentation of the meaning of "jihad," he calls into question his credibility.

Marty also mentions the Crusades, a favorite tu quoque argument made by jihad's apologists. The only problem is (though Crusaders did commit evil) that the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in defense of Christians in the East under siege for centuries by hordes of bloodthirsty Muslims "struggling inwardly" against them. In hinting uncritically at this tried and true tu quoque, Marty calls into question his credibility.

Furthermore, what exactly about Mohammed's lying, stealing, enslaving, raping (including his nine-year-old "wife" Aisha), and slaughtering of non-Muslims who refused to submit to his god should moral people tolerate? In uncritically urging tolerance of Islam's "divinely" -inspired depravity and brutality, Marty calls into question his intellectual integrity and his moral judgment.

The most outrageous claim made by Martin Marty in his essay is that somehow the Bible and Islam's texts are morally equivalent. This could not be further from the truth. He is right to urge education of others' religions; sadly, he has not taken his own advice. In trying to equate Christ's Word with Allah's revelations, Marty commits blasphemy.

He also erroneously equates the command for ancient Israel to war against the inhabitants of Canaan -- a limited, specific command for one time, place, and target -- with Allah and Mohammed's universal and timeless commands and frequent examples of warring against non-Muslims until all submit to Islam. In making such a false equivalence, Marty calls into question his intellectual integrity.

More than "creative conversation" (isn't that lying?) or "common action" (always in the direction of less honesty about Islam), telling the truth about the Religion of Peace will enable Muslims of good will to either reshape or reject their god's doctrine of blood. More importantly for non-Muslims, realizing what motivates and sustains jihad will enable us to correctly identify the threat and plan accordingly.

Alleging the existence of "inward strugglers" of the "Religion of Peace," demonizing honest, accurate criticism of Islam, equating our self-defense with Islamic terrorism, and implying that violent "extremism" is coming anywhere but from Islam only aids Allah's War Against Humanity.

Being a Christian and a scholar, Martin Marty should know better.