Thursday, July 05, 2007

Majid Khadduri

Robert Spencer talks about the great Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, dead this year at age 98, in "Fact or 'Islamophobia'?". Khadduri, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law, helpfully explained the doctrine of jihad in his 1955 book, "War and Peace in the Law of Islam."

"The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. Although it was not a consciously formulated policy, Muhammad’s early successors, after Islam became supreme in Arabia, were determined to embark on a ceaseless war of conquest in the name of Islam. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
"Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument or carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief in God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared “some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ.” Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community which prefers to remain non-Islamic -- in the status of a tolerated religious community accepting certain disabilities -- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. (Page 64)"
In other words, jihad is not something acted out by a minority of Islamic extremists contrary to the "Religion of Peace." Jihad against non-Muslims is a duty for all Muslims until they conquer the world. In other words, religious slaughter is part of Islam's DNA.


Anonymous heidiannej said...

of course it is. one need only to read the koran to know this. what frightens me most is the group (vast in numbers) who say "islam is a peaceful religion and only the fanatics are twisting it to make if violent" when in all actuality, those who don't adhere to the teachings of muhammad are nothing more than lukewarm islamists. and if you think a lukewarm islamist carries more weight in the muslim community than a lukewarm christian in the christian community, then you have ignored the world around you for far too long.

Wed Jul 11, 03:13:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous wigon said...

Its funny cuz I've lived all over the Middle East and I was never treated as a dhimmi or threatened with death if I didn't convert. Many of the Islamic countries I've lived in (such as Indonesia, the largest Muslim country on Earth) were actually quite tolerant of other religions aside from a few incidents on some small islands.
Even in Saudi Arabia I was allowed to go to Christian church services held in a movie theatre with full knowledge of the Saudi government.
Its only since the invasion of Iraq that I have seen a massive surge in Islamic extremists. They are still a minority, but unfortunately American conservatives are portraying them as the true standard bearers of Islam. Essentially you guys are promoting Al-Qaeda type ideologies of Jihad until judgement day. That one Iraqi scholar is just one scholar. Do you know what madhhab (Islamic school of interpretation) Khadduri belongs to? Do you know if the line of scholars he comes from agrees with his view? I can assure you that many respected scholars do not. The concept of a "house of war" being the non-Muslim world was not orginally part of Islam but was developed hundreds of years later. Furthermore the major expansion of Islam did not occur until after the death of Mohammed. Many of his followers had been quite upset at some of his peace treaties so one must wonder why Islam suddenly exploded into a conquest of Jihad only after he died? Then you must also look at the massive internal violence during that early period in which Muslims were pitted against Muslims. Today Muslims themselves don't even agree on what "true Islam" is or what a true Islamic nation would look like. So overall, I have very little fear of Jihadis taking over the West and implementing Al-Qaeda style Shariat law upon us. Here in America, immigration patterns and the projected growth of Islam does not indicate that they will ever become a major power in the United States. Most of our immigrants these days are from Mexico. So don't sweat it unless Mexico becomes a Muslim country. Ban beer and tequilla in Mexico? Not likely.


Mon Jul 16, 01:34:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Tantor said...


Thanks for your comments. Always glad to hear a rebuttal from somebody with direct knowledge.

I believe that the House of Saud turns a blind eye to some church services in the American enclaves in Saudi Arabia. Still, even at the very best, you have to be quiet about it, don't you? You're arguing that the ban on the practice of other religions is enforced imperfectly. I would argue that there should be no ban at all, that such a prohibition of free thought and conscience is the feature of a tyrannical state.

The surge in Islamic extremism did not start with Iraq. V.S. Naipaul saw it well in progress back in 1979 and 1980 when he made a tour of Muslim countries which he documented in "Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey." The cultural shifts Naipaul cites in going from village life to modern city life stoked the fire of reactionary Islamic extremism. Billions of Saudi petrodollars spent promoting Wahhabism and Islamism the world over have put fuel on the fire.

Jihad did not start after Mohammed's death. The conquest of Mecca can be seen as the first jihad, which was prefaced by many skirmishes and raids. Mohammed went on to conquer other villages in Arabia and quite clearly stated that all Arabia should be Muslim. Some say Mohammed fought in eighty battles in his lifetime, which models battle as part of Islam. Mohammed also clearly stated in his last days that he would fight every man until all the world submitted to Allah. That's basically a doctrine of jihad dictated by the Perfect Muslim.

We agree that Muslims will never conquer America nor impose sharia law here, but they can do a lot of insane bloodletting and murder.

Mon Jul 16, 02:50:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous USpace said...

Robert Spencer is a hero! Islam as practiced by the Islamofascists will never be peace because if Earth ever became ruled by Sharia Law all the multitudes of Islamic factions that hate each other would keep fighting each other forever.

Educate ourselves and others!

The Religion of Peace

Prophet of Doom

The Brussels Journal

Jihad Watch

Gates of Vienna

Hard To Swallow

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
allow religions to kill

believe its followers
when they claim to be peaceful

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never criticize prophets

there is no hateful scripture
claim it can't be translated

Do American Liberals Want a Taliban Europe?

Sun Aug 26, 08:37:00 PM 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home