Top Menu

Sumbul Ali-Karamali: Who’s Afraid of Shariah?

A timely article from Sumbul ali-Karamali, she makes good points on the hot-button issue of Shariah. A catch phrase that many are using to fear-monger against Islam and Muslims when many do not know what it actually means or how Muslims perceive it.

Who’s Afraid of Shariah?

Hasn’t the whole notion of shariah in America gotten a bit out of control? No, it hasn’t — it’s gotten hugely, obscenely, ignorantly out of control. How many of those anti-Islam protesters holding “NO SHARIA LAW” signs (as if anyone were advocating shariah law in the U.S.) actually know what the word means? I’d say, oh, none. Roughly.

Shariah (also spelled shari’ah or sharia or shari’a) is the Arabic word for “the road to the watering place.” In a religious context, it means “the righteous path.” Loosely, it can mean simply, “Islam.”

There are six principles of shariah. They are derived from the Qur’an, which Muslims believe is the word of God. All Islamic religious rules must be in line with these six principles of shariah.

Aha! The six principles must be about killing infidels, veiling women, stoning people for adultery, honor killings and female genital cutting, right? Nope.

Here they are, the six principles of shariah:

1. The right to the protection of life.
2. The right to the protection of family.
3. The right to the protection of education.
4. The right to the protection of religion.
5. The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
6. The right to the protection of human dignity.

Well, bless me, as a pledge-of-allegiance-reciting, California-raised Muslim girl, these six principles sound a lot like those espoused in my very own Constitution of the United States. Except that these were developed over a thousand years ago.

This is the core of shariah — these six principles. The term “shariah law” is a misnomer, because shariah is not law, but a set of principles. To Muslims, it’s the general term for “the way of God.”

But how do we know what the way of God is? Early Muslims looked to the Qur’an and the words of the Prophet Muhammad to figure this out. They filled books of interpretive writings (called fiqh) about how to act in accordance with the way of God. They rarely agreed — the fiqh is not just one rule, but many differing opinions and contradictory rules and scholarly debates.

Sometimes, shariah also refers to the whole body of Islamic texts, which includes the Qur’an, the sayings of the Prophet, and the books of interpretive literature written by medieval Muslim scholars. The first two are considered divine. The interpretive literature, the fiqh, is not.

The fiqh was meant to develop and change according to the time and place — it has internal methodologies for that to happen. It is not static, but flexible. No religion gets to be 1400 years old and the second largest in the world unless it’s flexible and adaptable.

The Qur’an is old. The fiqh books of jurisprudence are old. To modern eyes, they can look just as outdated as other ancient texts, including the Bible and Torah. That’s why, just like the Bible and the Torah, the Islamic texts must be read in their historical context.

Assuming all Muslims follow medieval Islamic rules today is like assuming that all Catholics follow 9th century canon law. Islam, like Christianity, has changed many times over the centuries, and it continues to change. Focusing only on the nutcases who advocate a return to medieval times is ignoring the vast majority of modern Muslims.

For example, stoning for adultery is a punishment that appears in fiqh, as well as early Judaic law. But it does not appear in the Qur’an. In Islam, therefore, stoning was a result of cultural norms imposed on the religious texts. Moreover, in the fiqh, though the punishment for adultery was stoning, adultery was made such a fantastically difficult crime to prove that the punishment was impossible to apply. Historically, stoning was very rarely implemented in the Islamic world, which is ironic, since today the Saudi and Iranian governments apply it as though they’d never heard of the strict Islamic constraints on it.

The vast majority of Muslims today do not believe in stoning people for adultery, and many are working hard to eradicate it. Stoning is horrific and has no place in our world. The miniscule percentage of Muslims who advocate it are imposing the medieval penalty while ignoring all the myriad limitations meant to make it inapplicable.

As for other scary stories attributed to shari’a, like honor killings, veiling of women, and female genital cutting, these are cultural practices and not Islamic. They are practiced by non-Muslims of certain cultures as well as Muslims.

Shari’a is a set of religious principles and is not the law of the land anywhere in the world. The 50-some Muslim-majority countries are all constitutional states and nearly all of them have civil codes (many of these based on the French system). Being Muslim does not require a governmental imposition of something called “shari’a law,” any more than being a Christian requires the implementation of “Biblical law” (though there are, of course, a tiny minority of both Christians and Muslims who do advocate such things, including Sarah Palin).

As for Islam being a political system, there is nothing in the Qur’an about an “Islamic state,” and the Prophet himself never tried to implement an “Islamic state,” despite hysterical accusations to the contrary. Those under his leadership practiced a variety of religions.

Traditionally, in the Islamic world, the institutions that governed were always separate from the institutions that developed religion. In fact, they often checked and balanced one another. Although no civilization has been free from all conflict, every Islamic empire was a multi-religious, multicultural empire, in which religious minorities were governed by their own laws.

The term “Islam as a religion and a state” really only became popular in the 1920s, as a reaction to Western colonization of the Muslim world. In fact, Islam contains plenty of concepts consistent with modern democracy — for example, shura (consultation) and aqd (a contract between the governed and the governing). In other words, Muslims can be perfectly comfortable in America, following state and federal laws.

The Qur’an contains many verses advocating religious tolerance, too, though the anti-Islam protesters won’t believe it. The Qur’an says that: God could have made everyone into one people, but elected not to (11:118); God made us into different nations and tribes so that we can learn from one another (49:13); there is no compulsion in religion (2:256); and that we should say, “to you your religion, to me mine” (109:6).

The only verses about fighting in the Qur’an refer specifically to the polytheistic Arab tribes who were trying to kill the Prophet in the 7th century. So the Islamophobes who look in the Qur’an for the fighting verses and assume that these verses refer to them personally are simply being narcissistic. Contrary to counting Jews and Christians as “infidels,” the Qur’an repeatedly commands particular respect of Jews and Christians. It is established in Islam that you don’t need to be Muslim to go to heaven.

Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t make it true; but it certainly results in people believing the lie. That’s what the Islam-haters are counting on. That, and the ignorance about Islamic tenets.

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

Bigotry may be a human tendency, but America has never stood for bigotry. I believe in an America that stands for pluralism and multicultural understanding. The hysteria and hate toward Muslims – resulting in several acts of violence against Muslims just this week, such as a stabbing and arson – is un-American. We must stop it, and the first step is understanding and education.

Sumbul Ali-Karamali is an attorney with an additional degree in Islamic law, as well as the author of “The Muslim Next Door: the Qur’an, the Media, and that Veil Thing.”

, , , , , , ,

  • @Mosizzle: “I just hope he doesn’t take my thoughts as proof of a Pan-Islamic Global Jihadi Leftist Dhimmi Saudi Eurabian Mass Conspiracy.”

    Not sure about that, but that Glen Reinsford of will consider this one more “deadly terror attack” and increase his stupid counter by one.

  • Mosizzle

    Just some extra notes here on the whole Jihad Bob / Spencer issue.

    Since he refuses to admit or decline whether he is Robert Spencer, I will just assume he is. I am actually a regular reader of Jihad Watch, having not missed a single post for months. And old Jihad Bob, once getting in the full swing of the debate, uses terminology and phrases that just oozes Spencer. Plus missing out his opponents key points and attacking weaker parts of the argument is just classic Robert Spencer.

    I just hope he doesn’t take my thoughts as proof of a Pan-Islamic Global Jihadi Leftist Dhimmi Saudi Eurabian Mass Conspiracy.

  • Mosizzle

    Jihad Bob,

    Again, more proof of your miserable failure. You continue to cherrypick all of our arguments and ignore some of our stronger points. It is useless to argue with you. If this didn’t constitute Jihad of the Pen, then I would be doing something more useful, which according to you is probably making a bomb or planning how to infiltrate the Us government with Stealth Jihad.

    I’m just going to back it all up for a bit. You lost on the point about offensive jihad and the new discussion became about the status of pacifism in Islam vs Christianity.

    You Claim: Christianity is more pacifistic than Islam. (Sounds like Spencer here!)

    “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB) More on this quote later!

    A point I made earlier that you completely flew over was that the Pope actively encouraged participation in the First Crusade and promised that their sins will be erased. Far from excommunication, participation in warfare was not entirely prohibited and it can be determined that Catholicism is not a pacifist religion. Why? Because the Pope said so. But, that was all those years ago, Catholics don’t believe in it now. Well actually, since the Pope is infallible, representative of God and the best darn human since Jesus – his word is as good as God’s. Don’t try and give me a billion quotes from other Popes says War is bad in all situations because that (a) means that Catholicism is flawed as Popes cannot be upholding God’s will but have conflicting beliefs (b) means that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is wrong and hence Catholicism is wrong.

    Emperor Constantine conquering in Christ’s name was real pacifism wasn’t it. Without such military conquest Christ wouldn’t be in Europe and America. Was Jesus a pacifist when he violently throw out the traders in the temple? See earlier quote for how even Jesus felt that enough may become enough when resisting someone. Or as atheist might interpret the bible, this is further proof of the Bible ‘s blatant contradictions. Also please see Spencer’s laughable response to this quote in Infidel’s guide to Islam and the crusades!

    Claim number 2: Because there have historically been more pacifists in Christianity than Islam, Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam is a religion of war.

    What a ridiculously flawed argument! There are more scholars who have allowed warfare than condemned it. The point the others were making about Just War is that St.Augustine and the Church did not consider pacifism to be realistic but limited it so that it becomes acceptable. You are okay with Catholics being semi-pacifist but want us to find an example of a Muslim who never ever ever allowed violence. That would be against Islamic principles to force people to reject violence when their homes are under attack or their family is in danger.

    However, prominent Muslims have reject aggression and crazy Jihad at everything that moves and breathes. See the list of names you found “interesting” and find out about them. That should shut you up.

    Some considerable time has been wasted on this claim. Please explain the point of your “challenge” to find any Muslim pacifists. Its like saying find me some Muslim vegetarians to prove your religion is kind to animals.

    Claim number 3: Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a pacifist

    Actually, he was. He rejected all Jihad by the sword and abrogated it with Jihad of the pen. He believed he had the authority because he was the new Caliph of the Muslim community. Proof of this is how Ahmadis don’t react even when persecuted to the extreme. Even Spencer said that this group “eschews traditional Jihad” but remarked they are an exception.

    Claim number 4: Rumi wasn’t a pacifist

    Read his Masnavi. Also known as a Bible for Pacifists.

    Claim number 5: The rubbish on Orthodox not being in the flow with violence

    “Our Fathers did not consider the killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that they are not clean-handed.” St Basil

    This is also where your claim that war resulted in 3 year excommunication. This means it was not official Catholic Church doctrine but limited to Orthodox Churches. Secondly, it just meant not being able to eat Jesus’ flesh for three years. Not Pacifism at all.

    Finally, considering all hell has broken loose on this conversation, please declare, O Jihad Bob, what else you want in light of these refutations so that you may be shut up.

  • JihadBob

    Nassir, the fact that Christians and Jews were ‘dhimmis’ with certain rights accorded to them under an Islamic state completely undercuts Zakariya’s claim that non-Muslims are not governed under Islamic law – the dhimmi regulations were an aspect of Islamic law.

    I think that was pretty obvious.

  • PS: Sorry for the typos.

  • @Zakariya posted–“Non-Muslims can’t be held to Islamic law. We don’t believe that non-Muslims need to stop eating pork or drinking alcohol. Islamic law is solely for Muslims.”

    @JihadBob responded–“Sure they can’t.”

    What JihadBob? Nothing to back up what you’re saying? Do you really think three words not supported by facts can pass as a rebuttal?

    JihadBob clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. With a simple Google search you can find countless examples disproving you.

    Anyone with even a shallow knowledge with the history of Islamic empires knows that alcohol was consumed. Many Muslim monarchs actually drank alcohol themselves–obviously committing a sinning in the process. Jahangir, for example, died because he drank alcohol.

    Anyways, Christians didn’t have to follow Islamic taboos regarding food.
    According “E.J. Brill’s first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936

    “A Muslim may not prevent his Christian slave from drinking wine, eating pork and going to church.”

    In the Ottoman Empire, different religious communities were subject to their own religious law, Sharia, Halakha, and Christian Canon law. Each of these communities was called a Millet, hence the Millet system, an example of religious pluralism in pre-modern Islam.

    Muslim scholars (such as Al-Shaybani) allowed non-Muslims to be exempt from Islamic dietary laws.

    According to the documents of the Cairo Geniza, which describes Jewish life in Medieval Egypt, Jews produced wine by leasing vineyards from the Ayyubid and Mamluk governments.

  • JihadBob


    > “The lion who breaks the enemy’s ranks
    is a minor hero
    compared to the lion who overcomes himself.”

    There’s nothing remotely pacifistic in that comment. No renunciation of warfare, violence, fighting, blood shed.

    Your quote completely undercuts your prior claim that Rumi was a pacifist. If I took that quote from a Western general, no one would claim the man was a pacifist.

    Are your standards for Muslim pacifism and non-violence so low that you can’t see this?

    > Thus sitting in a mosque wielding nothing but a quran and prayer beads is better than waving a kalashnikov.

    Unfortunately, that’s not a renunciation of violence to the slightest degree.

    If I say cantaloupes are good, but watermelons are better, am I saying that I dislike cantaloupes?

  • JihadBob


    > Bollocks. The Orthodox Churches (there is more than one) accepted St. Augustine and his concept of a ‘just war’. Remember this was before the schism between east and west. The Patriarchs, however, tended to be subservient to the secular head of state.”

    No they didn’t. The Orthodox accepted St. Basil’s stance on warfare while the Latin West adopted St. Augustine’s.

    Besides, just war is not a holy war. Augustine viewed war as being inherently evil.

    By definition, anyone who believes in holy war would not view those wars as being evil.

    > Were all the European wars about ‘defending the faith’ or were they more rooted in secular power struggles?

    Do you know what ‘in theory’ means? And why do you keep on bringing up Just War?

    And no, the Muslim understanding of holy war was not the same as the Catholic stance of it.

    See Sherman Jackson’s article on holy war in Islam and he’ll tell you that most classical Muslim scholars called for offensive holy war against non-Muslim nations.

    > Non-Muslims can’t be held to Islamic law. We don’t believe that non-Muslims need to stop eating pork or drinking alcohol. Islamic law is solely for Muslims.”

    Sure they can’t.

    > Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wasn’t a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. That’s why I was careful enough to reference the Western dictionary definition of pacifism so we can avoid apologists dropping power words such as ‘pacifism’ for the reader to apply their own cultural meaning to the term.

    So far, I have not seen evidence that a single classical Muslim theologian who was a pacifist – someone who condemned all forms of fighting.

    If this keeps up, I may have to lower my initial challenge and simply ask for any classical Muslim theologians who at least shared St. Augustine’s views on warfare.

    > H.H. the Agha Khan (pretty much all Isma’ilis in fact)

    Hopefully this is a real example of pacifism, where Agha Khan condemned all forms of violence, including secular warfare.

    I’m beginning to suspect that you’ll come out and announce that Agha Khan did not advocate ‘holy war’ because his religious beliefs held that the Jihad was in abeyance and, so, that meant he was a pacifist.

    No, a pacifist that does one not make.

  • Ah yes, typical Islamophobic bigotry at its best. They’ll claim that Islamophobia is a ‘myth’ and that white middle-class Christians are really the most oppressed minority in this country. Of course, when a Sikh or Latino gets stabbed because some drunken redneck ‘thought he looked Arab,’ well they must be faking it. Funny that those same Islamophobes (who claim Islam isn’t a race) only target those of us with swarthy good looks, while never realizing there are black, white, even East Asian Muslims.

  • Cynic

    Just another one of his double standards.

    Remember how JihadBob used to cunningly (as if) reply that Muslims are not a race…and therefore Islamophobes are not racist. All the while bitching about the fact that whites are bigger victims of hate crimes than Muslims. D’oh! Good times though 😀

  • Also, is it just me, or is it kind of funny to see JihadBob (aka Robbie Spencer) crying about Christianity not being a monolithic entity, yet at the same time he insists that Islam IS? I mean, he’ll gleefully blame an American Shi’a for something that happened centuries ago in Morocco. Seems like he’s getting a taste of his own medicine now.

  • @ JihadBob: Robby boy, you are getting dumber and dumber. Hahaha.

    > Also, please keep in mind that Christianity is not a monolithic religion
    > as many Christianophobes often times make the mistake of assuming

    And that is true, but for most of its history, Christianity in the West has been Roman Catholic. The various Orthodox and Oriental Churches in the east tended to be on the national level (meaning the Ethiopian Church was the Church of Ethiopians, the Greek Church the Church of Greeks, the Assyrian Church the Church of Assyrians, and so forth), while Protestants didn’t come about till much, much later. And of course the evangelicals have been around for less than a century…

    > the Orthodox church never had a concept of holy war

    Bollocks. The Orthodox Churches (there is more than one) accepted St. Augustine and his concept of a ‘just war’. Remember this was before the schism between east and west. The Patriarchs, however, tended to be subservient to the secular head of state.

    The Byzantine Emperor portrayed himself as Jesus’ earthly representative, the Russians were more than willing to portray themselves as ‘defenders’ of the Orthodox faith in the Balkans and Middle East, and Ezana of Axum (the first Christian Negus of Ethiopia) spoke of his enemies being ‘scattered before him like wheat’.

    > and the Protestants totally rejected this belief as well (as it isn’t
    > found in the New Testament).

    See below. The Protestant powers have never had any problem using religion as a justification for warfare, though most industrialized and moved into a more secular phase. I suspect part of this is because there is no deeply rooted infrastructure comparable to the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, countries like Sweden are still officially Lutheran and then you’ve got the Church of England.

    > As for Catholics, I believe you’ll find that theoretically, holy war
    > could only be waged for the self defense of Christian nations.

    You might want to do a little more research here. The Catholic Church’s official view on warfare was developed by St. Augustine, and included more or less the same criteria as Islam. Defending the faith, certainly, but it became complicated when Christian states fought one another. And sometimes the Pope DID side with one European nation or another. Were all the European wars about ‘defending the faith’ or were they more rooted in secular power struggles?

    This gets complicated when the Protestant Churches were formed, as there were crimes and persecutions on both sides. Read up on the Catholic-Protestant struggles in Europe. Pretty bloody stuff there, and definitely religiously motivated (even approved by religious authorities at times).

    > We’ll see if classical Muslims scholars held this fangled belief of
    > Jihad as only being allowed as a form of self defense

    Some have.

    > or if they advocated holy war against non-Muslims for the purposes of
    > spreading Islamic law to non-Muslims peoples.

    Non-Muslims can’t be held to Islamic law. We don’t believe that non-Muslims need to stop eating pork or drinking alcohol. Islamic law is solely for Muslims. The closest you will come is the concept of a just Islamic state replacing corrupt non-Muslim states. That’s pretty much all the early Islamic conquests were about.

    > Were Muslims ‘excommunicated’ if they killed in battle?

    By whom? We don’t have a pope or anything comparable. If we did we wouldn’t be split into Sunnis and Shi’as, now would we? In fact, if anything we are too careful not to call into question anyone else’s faith, which is part of the reason we wind up with people falling for the Wahhabi garbage.

    > Were there Muslim pacifists – actual pacifists according to the Western
    > definition of the word?

    I was unaware that the ‘West’ had a monopoly on the concept of pacifism, especially since the concept of ahimsa was well developed in India thousands of years earlier. But anyway, yes, there were and are Muslim pacifists. Off the top of my head you’ve got Badshah Khan (the ‘Frontier Gandhi’), Amadou Bamba (one of my personal heroes, who is still a major part of Senegalese culture), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (depending whether or not you want to consider Ahmadis Muslim), H.H. the Agha Khan (pretty much all Isma’ilis in fact), Said Nursî, etc.

    I suppose you’ve never heard of any of those people, and you probably won’t even bother looking them up. I’ll just take that as more evidence of your moral (and scholarly) bankruptcy.

  • Syed

    JihadBob said “Christian scholars held quite a different array of beliefs concerning war/holy war.”

    You make it look like the Pope was a two-bit opinion columnist. You are talking about the Vicar of Jesus Christ here. When the Vicarius Iesu Christi speaks – it is the word of the highest authority in Christianity. And when he says murder and rapine is the highest duty of the Christian faithful – it probably was. Please refudiate the papal indulgences granted to murderers of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

  • Mosizzle

    “Indeed. Christian scholars held quite a different array of beliefs concerning war/holy war.”

    “I’ll be happy to provide direct quotes from over a half dozen influential Christian theologians who categorically rejected all forms of violence.”

    The First Statement contradicts the latter, because someone could just set up a church and declare pacifism to be the way of God but it does not mean it is true. It is useless to have some random priests’ views because Pope Urban is the supreme head of the Church and is declared to be infallible and a representative of God on Earth. He is the real deal. His words and actions will always be part of Church doctrine. To say he is wrong is equivalent to blasphemy. The vast majority of Christians adhere to Catholicism and Anglicanism, both of which have previously made use of war to propagate their beliefs and have previously declared each other infidels in order to legitimise their killing.

    Muslim Scholars on Pacifism
    Rumi. Like I said Sufis act on a Prophetic hadith that states that purification of ones heart is the greater jihad. Hence he says; (find this on wikiquote)

    “The lion who breaks the enemy’s ranks
    is a minor hero
    compared to the lion who overcomes himself.”

    Thus sitting in a mosque wielding nothing but a quran and prayer beads is better than waving a kalashnikov.

    By the way, I would mention Mirza Ghulam Ahmed (founder of Ahmadiyya) but he is not favoured amongst other Muslim since he declared himself to be second coming of Jesus, but he too rejected all jihad except in self-defence. Even today, Ahmadiyya live peacefully with everyone but are still persecuted like everyone else and even their mosques are opposed (wth?).

    As for well accepted Sunni Clerics, Tahir Ul Qadri is probably number one. My parents watched his sermons as children and he is well respected. Search for him and you will find his landmark “Fatwa on Terrorism”. He specifically condemns the actions of Al Qaeda and has challenged, with theological arguments, the idea of Dar Ul Harb.

    There are many Muslim scholars who were rolling it Ghandi style during their fight for freedom. Jinnah didn’t advocate armed revolt either. Dr Israr Ahmed also recommended that Muslims resist against the Kuffar by non violent resistance but have the cameras rolling to catch the Kuffar in the act and that would have a greater impact than any fighting.

    The Quilliam Foundation is a great example of Muslims getting together to fight extremism theologically and peacefully. They have many scholars on their side too. They have rolled out a few fatwas on their own with the help of these scholars.

    Muslims like all humans reject the idea of “perpetual war”. We all want peace, bro!

  • JihadBob

    “About your nonsense that Christian soldiers would be excommunicated –

    Maxumum BS.

    Pope Urban declared the 1st Crusade by saying that all fighters would have their sins forgiven.

    Whoops. Guess someone forgot their reading.”

    Indeed. Christian scholars held quite a different array of beliefs concerning war/holy war.

    That’s why I’m asking if classical Muslim theologians ever shared the same pacifistic views held amongst many of their Christian counterparts.

  • JihadBob

    “Au contraire, Jay Bob, prominent Sufis such as Rumi, widely respected by Sunnis and Shias, have condemned violence and prefer the greater jihad of the heart.”


    It’s always good to be proven wrong on such a serious subject matter.

    But I couldn’t find that much on google (yes, I did know who Rumi was before you mentioned him), do you have direct quotes from Rumi saying that violence was inherently wrong and should be condemned?

    Did he reject battlefield martyrdom and holy war?

    In the meantime, I’ll be happy to provide direct quotes from over a half dozen influential Christian theologians who categorically rejected all forms of violence.

    Your other names are intriguing too. I was aware of Muslims who did reject most (though not all) forms of violence and reinterpret Jihad as a spiritual struggle during the nineteenth century in British ruled India – the founder of Ahmadianism (sp?) is one name right off the bat.

    We can look at what these prominent thinkers believed too, but for the most part, I am looking for classical Muslim theologians.

  • Mosizzle

    More Bob-O?

    “Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because
    they have been wronged − truly God has the power to come to their
    support”(Surat Al−Hajj 22:39−40)

    Oops. Did you miss that verse out in the Infidel’s Guide to Koran?

  • Mosizzle

    Jihad Bob,

    About your nonsense that Christian soldiers would be excommunicated —

    Maxumum BS.

    Pope Urban declared the 1st Crusade by saying that all fighters would have their sins forgiven.

    Whoops. Guess someone forgot their reading.

  • Mosizzle

    “I take it that as a ‘no’, you don’t have a single Muslim scholar who condemned all forms of violence.”

    Au contraire, Jay Bob, prominent Sufis such as Rumi, widely respected by Sunnis and Shias, have condemned violence and prefer the greater jihad of the heart.

    Contemporary Clerics like Tariq-Ul-Qadri have condemned violence both in his annual anti-terrorism conference held in England and in his 600 page (Yes!) “Fatwa on Terrorism”.

    Note also Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who was a COMPLETE PACIFIST and DEVOUT MUSLIM and who opposed the Brutal British Empire alongside Ghandi.


  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    Does it matter?
    Either he is and we continue to run rings round him or it isnt and when the real one turns up we tell him he is not the real one and Jihab boob is, and that will wind him up greatly.
    A winner either way I think

  • Either JihadBob is a Spencer wannabe or is Bobby Spencer trolling on Loonwatch.

    As we all know, Spencer needs alter egos (i.e. Fitzgerald, JihadBob) to keep his façade going.

  • Syed

    halal pork said “No wonder the Muslims can’t agree on ant thing except violent Jihad and terrorism”.

    LOL… All Muslims also agree that you are a troglodyte. Please refudiate by writing at least one coherent sentence!

  • Syed

    JihadBob said “It was this loop hole that Christian theologians grudgingly permitted Christians to enter service.”

    Some loop hole – it is responsible for 90% of all blood shed and wars in the past 2000 years. Must be a really huge hole!

  • Jawad


    When is the Danios vs Spencer debate?

  • JihadBob

    “First you said “excommunication”, faced the fact that this is a foreign concept to Islam, so you set “not excommunicated” equal to “not condemned”. Typical. Maybe you’re not aware that Khalid Ibn Al Waleed – to name a highly prominent example – was once severely reprimanded by none less than the Prophet himself (PBUH) for wrongfully killing somebody in battle, who had already surrendered.”

    I take it that as a ‘no’, you don’t have a single Muslim scholar who condemned all forms of violence.

    So now we’re left with smoke screens.

    ’nuff said.

    “If you are fighting a rightful battle”

    I don’t care if the cause was considered ‘just’ or ‘holy’ by the powers that be.

    Was there a single Muslim scholar who believed that Muslim soldiers who died fighting in battle (for the ‘right’ cause) would not be considered martyrs?

    “And if you are sophisticated enough to understand Islamic tradition and theology, you will find that the theoretical applications of ‘holy war’ are limitied to fighting only in defense of Islam.”

    According to Sherman Jackson, most classical Muslim scholars permitted offensive holy wars against non-believers – for the purpose of spreading Islamic law. The theological philosophy of the Rashidun and Umayyad dynasties (the first two and earliest examples of Islamic rule) were predicated on launching wars of aggression and conquest on non-Muslim lands.

    It was the realization of these policies that eventually bankrupted the latter empire and the political realization of later dynasties that perpetual warfare was an unsustainable concept.

    Economics, not your interpretation of Islam, tempered the practical applications of offensive Jihad warfare. Yet, the theological considerations of offensive Jihad warfare remained. Scholars in the next centuries continued the call for the Jihad. The only exception within Islamic civilization that I can find that rejected ‘holy’ war were the schools of thought within Shia Islam that held that Jihad was in abeyance until the arrival of their Imam. For them, war was just war (harb), for all other Muslims, war by the state was holy war (jihad).

Powered by Loon Watchers