Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyya Quotes

See {621776} for the official Muslim Brotherhood Slogan. The major issue is whether or not an organization that holds to those slogans can be trusted in a democratic society after they have officially espoused non-democratic means and ends. No one took the Nazi Party writings seriously until the party was elected and then ended the German Democracy. Similarly, the Iranian Ayatollahs were not taken seriously until they had turned Iran into a tyrannical theocracy. So one view is not to relate to or have the Muslim Brotherhood participate until they renounce the violent, non-democratic parts of their charter and/or slogans. The other, urged by Tarek Masoud is to not take the “blood curdling” slogans seriously, and assume that it is just verbal hyperbole to which Arabs are culturally prone.

This sura is interpreted in two ways. For many modern Muslims it means that in discussions and debates on religion with non-Muslims, do not back off, and if you do it is a religious transgression. Defend the faith. For the fundamentalists and extremists, they interpret the same sura in physical warlike terms. So if there is a fight or battle with disbelievers, retreating from the battlefield is not only cowardice and perhaps a crime under military regulations as it is in the West, but it is in Christian terms a mortal sin for which there one will go to hell. So the most religious of Muslims will fight to the death using this sura as their guidance. On the other hand, Muhammad himself as the military and civil leader of Islam made strategic retreats. In the history of almost all warfare between the West and Muslims—especially the Arabs—courage on the battlefield has been lacking and the Israelis, British, French, Americans, and Hindus of India all observe this military weakness and accounting for this is built into their military doctrine.

The issue of force verses diplomacy has been in debate at almost all times. However, the issue of the conflict with Islam is much the same today—almost 1000 years later

For another version see Shakespeare {47041}, Bulwer-Lytton {114805}, and Hogben {624057}

The Christian Crusaders and the Muslim extremists through this day are not the only peoples who described atrocities as “Holy war.”

In modern times there has been much criticism of the Muslim fundamentalists and the claim of the religious leadership that those who die in Holy War (Jihad) will immediately go to heaven. The concern is that this encourages terrorism and aggressive war. Yet, here we have virtually the same kind of “reward” for violence as issued by the Christians. See {611697} for another such example.

Note that Mormon doctrine requires that peace be offered 3 times before even a righteous war is begun. Under this doctrine, preemptive war would not be permissible, but diplomacy must be tried first and that by offering genuine peace. It is hard to apply this doctrine to the War on Terror, where there is no “other side” to negotiate with and the dispute is existential for democracy and freedom. The parenthetical references are to Mormon Scripture.

1st Baron Macaulay. When there were riots or violent demonstrations in those days, the demonstrators would break up the street pavements and use the stone blocks to throw at police or soldiers. Change, reform and revolution has often occurred in England, the United States and several other democracies without riots or violent demonstrations. The Civil Rights movement demonstrations in the South often turned violent, but the violence never came from the protestors, but those opposed whose violence was condoned by the police often produced by the police themselves.

Note that the weak are not to be killed in a jihad UNLESS they “fight with words.” If a woman, child, invalid, older person says something that is interpreted as contrary to Islam, they too shall be killed along with all the males. The overriding principle is that anyone who interferes with the dominance of Islam, is to be killed.