LikeLike

LikeLike

I need to emphasize one more point, which shows how dishonest or ignorant this so-called evangelical author is. The Kharijites he mentions were condemned as heretics BECAUSE they opposed the Caliph and waged war against him. They were not in submission to the legitimate Muslim ruler, and therefore were defying the teachings of their own prophet. However, none of these jihadist groups are fighting against the Caliph or any legitimate Islamic government, SINCE THERE ARE NONE! Therefore, none of these groups can be likened to the Kharijites.

Besides, do you really think that all of these Muslim groups waging jihad do not know what their sources and scholars throughout the centuries have taught concerning the issue of jihad and its implementation? Seriously? This again shows the dishonesty and/or ignorance of this writer. Avoid this useful idiot.

LikeLike

To be quite honest, this author is either ignorant or quite dishonest. Note his assertion, “only LEGITIMATE Islamic governments…” The problem is that there are NO legitimate Islamic governments in existence as far as Islamic shariah is concerned. Moreover, it’s not the government that decides, but the caliph, i.e., the Muslim ruler, in a caliphate. Since no such caliphate exists, this means that Muslims cannot wait for the “Islamic government” to legitimize jihad. Instead, this role is now assumed by the Muslim imams, muftis, shaikhs. And this is precisely the reason why ISIS appointed a caliph since they are fully aware that if they can get Muslims to accept their caliph then this would make it incumbent upon Muslims to hear his call to jihad.

In other words, your author is dishonest since the condition he proposes, namely, that only a legitimate Islamic government can declare jihad, can never be met, which is why Muslims are now forced to look to qualified Muslim clergy to call for jihad. I hope this helps.

LikeLike

It’s by an evangelical at First Things. Here are some things that seemingly refute arguments made against Islam and arguments that terrorist groups like Isis are completely justified from a fully Islamic standpoint:

“Therefore, in Islamic law only legitimate Islamic governments can declare a jihad, not individuals or nonstate actors… An exception is made when a Muslim land comes under attack or occupation by an enemy force, which renders jihad or resistance an individual responsibility… But even then, jihad has to have been formally declared by the legitimate authority. By declaring and conducting jihad on their own, jihadist groups act as heretical usurpers.”

“The groups target and kill Muslim opponents, justifying their actions by invoking takfir, that says when fellow Muslims can be declared unbelievers who can be killed… A splinter group known as the Kharijites taught that it was acceptable to excommunicate and legitimize jihad against other Muslims, if they were judged guilty of certain sins… This idea was repudiated by the rest of the Muslim community at the time, and all 4 orthodox schools of law, including Hanbali, continue to reject it… Indeed, the legal tradition of Islam includes explicit rulings against Kharijites, classifying them as unbelievers who should be fought and killed.”

“Those who argue that jihadi groups represent the “essence” of Islam actually reflect a very Western way of thinking. Wittingly or unwittingly, they presume a scripturalist interpretation of Islam… To prove their point, these Islam-is-the-problem critics tend to link specific acts of jihadi groups to a string of references from Islamic scripture, traditions, texts, and Muslim scholarly opinions… Perversely, this sola scriptura approach is no different from the jihadists’ own “Qur’an and sunna alone” approach.”

What do you think?

LikeLike