This means, quite absurdly, that groups such as ISIS are as legitimate as any other Islamic group who makes a Jihad against impurity. This also means Islam is not a religion, but an entire way of doing things – it does not include reform, and those who attempt it make themselves apostates: which requires execution.
With the Crusades, we in the West always forget to mention that the first crusade (1095) was a reactionary movement which stemmed from the first Christian city being conquered 450 years before the Crusades even began. The first Crusade was launched to reclaim Jerusalem after over two thirds of the Christian world has been taken by Islam for pilgrims to have a safe route again.
Also with the Crusades we fail to mention that the entirety of Spain was conquered and taken in 710 by Islam. The Reconquista (the re-conquest) crusade was ended in 1492 when Islamic Spain was reclaimed. That’s 800 years of the Religion of Peace.
The first Crusade was in 1095. It took Christian Europe over four hundred years of aggressive invasion from the Islamic empires, and that being viciously fought back before the ‘state of being marked by the cross’ even begun. The first Crusade was a response to the Islamic empire’s four hundred year Jihad against us, using the Just War clause which puts forward that a war of defence is justified out of self-love and preservation – the first Crusade was justified by our strict war principles.It was a reaction, a retaliation. It was not a random act of war, it was an act of desperation to watching enslavement and Crucifixions, desecration of holy sites and the economic poverty that came with it. Anyone who puts forward the idea that the first was wrong, has not looked into Christian history, Christian war ethics or the history of the Islamic empires.
Jihad (Arabic for struggle, but within Muslim society it means struggle against those outside the Umma [Islamic society/struggle against impurity]) is the inner and outer struggle for purity. This is a political struggle, the struggle inside is in the Umma, the struggle outside is against the Kafir. Islam is about the submission of man to God’s ways, and there can be no exception – and the perfect man which obeyed God’s way is Muhammad, thus Muhammad’s actions ought to be followed and emulated to make the perfect Muslim – when you combine this with the abrogation that means Muhammad’s earlier life is inferior to his later life: warlord and aggressive campaigning against all impurity is to be done by each and every Muslim – whether this be a literary, violent, immigratory or sexual Jihad is not important, so long as you are struggling against impurity. Impurity is all that is not Umma.
It is often said, rather falsely, that Jihad is merely a term for ‘struggle’. So one could say that any personal endeavour is a Jihad. This is somewhat obscure and incorrect considering the context of Jihad, and the distinctions made within them. One is al-jihad al-akbar, which is the internal struggle to achieve personal purity. The other is al-jihad al-asghar which is the military struggle against infidels. Both are obligatory, with the first being a permanent individual obligation, and the latter being a communal activity. These are known as the greater and lesser Jihad.
Muhammad waged a violent Jihad and battle every six weeks for the last nine years of his life.
The Qur’an, Haddiths and Sira legally allow lying (Taqiyya), this lie is a form of denying one’s faith or commitment in order to make one’s blasphemous acts less impure in the eyes of God, so the believer does not face persecution until they are strong enough to consume the Kafir and make Umma universally sovereign. For example:
‘Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.’ – Qur’an, 3:28.
‘Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief… except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment.’ – Qur’an, 16:106.
Another interesting thing is the Dhimmi. The Dhimmi is a man of the book, a Jew or Christian. They are given a special status in return for paying a tax (Jizya). This was later extended to include Hindus and Sikhs. What this does is requires someone to pay a tax, and by doing so debase the Al-Kafirun status and bring one closer to the Umma via Zakat (bringing closer to purity). The purpose of this is to put financial strain and punishing treatment (giving the tax is traditionally accompanied with a slap to the face cheek) on the person so they will convert (one does never convert to Islam but revert, as in Islamic law Islam is the original position, thus you can only revert to Islam, not convert) and become one with the Umma. Conversion into Islam is incredibly easy, one needs only speak the Shahada, now you must purify yourself by emulating Muhammad the perfect Muslim. The only problem with this is Al-Riddah is forbidden, meaning once you’re in, getting out is death. If you’re born into a Muslim family or reverted to Islam, removing yourself from it removes you from Umma, and makes you impure and a concealer of the truth.
The Golden age was slavery:
How was the Islamic golden age achieved? Dhimmitude. This is when a powerful foreigner pays for his own safe passage and protection in an Islamic state: they become a VIP, they have to pay a Jizya (Unbeliever tax) and they have their beard tugged and shaved off to show disrespect every time they pay. This becomes a progressive tax which eventually leaves the person so poor that they lose their Dhimmitude and just become a Kafir. Kafirs are unbelievers with no power: they can be killed and owned with no law being broken, if they steal food you cut off one hand and one foot, and if they kill a Muslim they are executed by crucifixion. This is all in order to gain riches off foreigners, and then to convert or kill them when they are powerless.The scientific golden age was actually from importing and exporting Christian, Jewish, Hindu and etc scientists to Baghdad as slaves and Dhimmis, and then forcing them to invent things, and then taking all of the credit for it.
Islam is a religion of peace and war:
The idea that Islam is a religion of peace is true, but somewhat misleading. Islam stems from a word that means submission and surrender, but can also mean peace – this is dualistic on purpose: via submission and surrender (becoming a Muslim), one will find peace and safety under God. When we also bear in mind the law of abrogation, when asked if Islam is a religion of peace: the answer is yes. When asked if Islam is a religion of war: the answer is yes. It is simultaneously both. But abrogation also means while peace is not bad, it is not quite as good as war when it comes to spreading the Umma and imposing the sharia which works to purify the Kafir, and revert the Dhimmi. Because of this a group such as ISIS are actually legitimate Muslims and the most devout when it comes to emulating Muhammad’s life. The Qur’an is merely a recitation, while the Sira is the guidebook to the perfect Muslim, ISIS are devout and scholarly Sunnah (words and acts of Muhammad) Muslims. They follow the Sira to the letter as all early deeds and words of Muhammad are superseded by his later words and deeds. With every single video they give a long, and detailed account of why they are doing what they are, what they are about to do and why, and where their authority comes from – and it is always scholarly, and Islamic.
The lie that Islam doesn’t permit violence:
What annoys me most about Islamic apologists is their cherry picking and lack of knowledge of Islamic theology and context. Take for example the most obvious distortion of facts used to refute all violence done in the name of Allah: “…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” – The Qur’an, chapter five, verse 32.
Sounds lovely right? Wrong. It is quoting the Torah, the Jewish holy book and is not a complete quote. Here is the full quote:
“[We ordained for the Children of Israel] (this is in reference to the Torah) that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
Unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief – this is a quantifier and makes it okay to murder. In the old testament murder is illegal and immoral killing, while killing itself is justified. Thus the Qur’an makes murder merely killing so long as it is against a Muslim. The only murder is of a Muslim. When this peaceful verse is quoted from the Qur’an the context is ignored, so is the verse after it:
“The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” – The Qur’an, chapter five, verse 33.
“[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” – The Qur’an, chapter five, verse 38.
Mischief is defined by not being part of the Umma, thus the mandate to execute and crucify anyone who is not a Muslim is qualified by these verses. The infidel being killed is not murder, but justice with Qur’anic justification.
Attacks on ‘Holy’ places is Islamic:
The destruction of Islamic artefacts and holy places is actually supported by Islam itself, as it is strictly anti-idolatry – to make a shrine, or even a holy spot is to make a joke out of what is the only thing worthy of praise – God. Muhammad is the humble but perfect submitter to and of God, Muhammad is not God, so no shrine nor depiction of him allowing praise as if he is, is allowed. Thus the attacking of a holy site of Islam is actually a legitimate Islamic claim. Also Ramadan marks when the Qur’an was first received, fasting is done to show purity and obedience. And if one is again to consider abrogation: violence and purging against all forms of impurity are legitimated, especially against Muslims who do not observe the abrogation set down by Muhammad himself.
The major problem within Islam is a founding debate: Muhammad was the perfect Muslim: be like him – now when you add that to his law of abrogation (that he repealed his Meccan peaceful days, and replaced it with his Medinan days) you get a very clear and strict ruling of what it means to be a Muslim: A group like ISIS are ignoring tenets because they were added later or they are from Muhammad’s Meccan days. They follow the path of Muhammad and observe his rule of abrogation, and thus are a legitimate Islamic group. An extremely conservative one at that.
The Qur’an is in order of size of chapter and thus becomes dualistic and confusing because it is not categorised by importance or the life of Muhammad, it contradicts itself because chapters are both from the Meccan and Medinan periods, if you sort each chapter and separate them: all the peaceful ones are of Meccan period, and the violent ones are of Medinan period – In Muhammad’s life he abrogates and repeals on his Meccan laws meaning they are not incorrect but are less good – ISIS have legitimacy from the Qur’an, Sira, Haddiths and the life of Muhammad – all things which make one a Muslim.