Last night we posted a translated news article from the Netherlands about serious infighting among radical Muslims in the Netherlands. The spat included a secretly recorded phone call between Imam Fawaz Jneid and the leader of Shariah4Belgium and Shariah4Holland.
A commenter named heatsketch left a very interesting analysis of the exchange between the two leaders. His observations are spot-on — better than anything I could do.
Two new words for our Arabic lexicon:
- Madhhab: The fiqh (body of Islamic jurisprudence) of one of the four schools of Sunni law (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali).
- Hisbah: The correct application of sharia in a state governed by Islamic law.
And the analysis:
What Fawaz is doing is saying that the time for Jihad is not now. Salafists act based on mujtihad, or personal consensus, as opposed to ijtihad, or communal consensus, of the regular four madhhab of Islamic Sunni law. Fawaz is not a Salafist. He is of the traditional madhhab.
The Sharia of the traditional madhhab states that the ummah cannot wage aggressive jihad without permission from the caliph, and there is no caliph, because there is no kalifah. Fawaz is clearly just saying that now is not the time, and that Moslems must get their own house in order before attacking the dar ul-harb.
Notice how he says “who... has given you a fatwa?”, implying that if a fatwa was issued by a traditional scholar he views as legitimate, he wouldn’t be objecting.
Notice also how he says “What you are doing brings difficulties for the Muslims in the Netherlands and in Belgium.” The Sharia of the traditional madhhab states that one should not be seditious in infidel nations or even wage jihad if those actions will bring harm to other Moslems.
Fawaz doesn’t actually condemn jihad, he just claims that these men aren’t real jihadists, but criminals. And from the view of the traditional madhhab, he is correct. He is not a Salafist, and good for him. But that doesn’t mean he rejects the need for Islam to eventually reign supreme on earth and for the People of the Book to have submitted and paid Jizya. His own statements heavily imply that he would not reject offensive jihad if legitimate ulama declared it obligatory. And he hasn’t rejected jihad against the US and Israel.
Non-Salafist Moslems are supposed to engage in Dawah, or proselytization, and then Hisbah, or “enjoining good and forbidding evil. Hisbah is basically enforcing Sharia. If Dawah or Hisbah are resisted, then Jihad can be waged, if the legitimate authorities justify it. That has not happened. Fawaz needs Islam to look good so he can engage in Dawah in the meantime.
Fawaz is a Moslem and therefore, in the end, he is an enemy of Europe.
14 comments:
"Fawaz doesn’t actually condemn jihad, he just claims that these men aren’t real jihadists, but criminals."
Six of one = half dozen of another.
While Fawaz "thinks" that timing issues and authoritative basis may legitimize jihad, jihadists are, in fact, ALWAYS criminals based on Western non-Muslim moral and legal standards....
So, I agree with the conclusion that "Fawaz is a Moslem and therefore, in the end, he is an enemy of Europe."
Actually, one of the definitions in the article is not quite accurate:
"Madhhab: The fiqh (body of Islamic jurisprudence) of one of the four schools of Sunni law "
A madhab is itself a "school" -- of fiqh (Islamic law); not a synonym of fiqh, as the definition above implies.
And, fyi, madhahib -- not to be confused with the "mad habibs" who follow them (though strictly speaking, ahbab is the plural form of habib, habibi) -- is the plural form of madhab.
The 4 schools of Islamic law are thus al-madhahib al-fiqhiyah
(fiqhiyah being the genitive form of fiqh)
The Hesperado
More broadly, I have serious objections to the claims woven by "heatsketch" -- which, incidentally, reflect a view that is not really novel among analysts (both in and out -- as well as those half-assedly straddling in and out -- of the still inchoate anti-Islam movement) of the problem of Islam. It is a view that tends to serve to truncate the problem into a more manageable, bite-sized problem. No longer is Islam qua Islam the problem: the problem is really just the "extremists", the "fundamentalists", the "traditionalists", the "conservatives", the "Wahhabists", the "Qutbists" -- or, as here, the truncation that has become fashionable of late, the "Salafists".
At any rate, the analysis of heatsketch presents a tissue composed of such a tight bundle of complex facts, factoids and unproven assumptions (particularly its misconception of what "defensive war" means in Islam as opposed to what we mean by it), it would take me considerable time to unravel it. Perhaps I will soon, time permitting.
Without heatsketch giving us any further explanation, I would still volunteer that there did not seem to be an attempt to ameliorate the base threat posed by Islam.
Clarification was made as to authorization that "Hate Beard" (whoever thought up that monicker deserves a prize), deems not, as yet, able to be issued by some caliph of the not, as yet, established kalifa (caliphate).
There was no attempt to dismiss the still latent elements of jihad that both Muslim groups are intent on waging. As heatsketch noted:
But that doesn’t mean he rejects the need for Islam to eventually reign supreme on earth and for the People of the Book to have submitted and paid Jizya. His own statements heavily imply that he would not reject offensive jihad if legitimate ulama declared it obligatory. And he hasn’t rejected jihad against the US and Israel.
It's pretty hard to read anything else into that but the usual hatred for all things Western.
If anything, the overall analysis provides a very useful window upon how it is that even the most extreme Muslims continually find in other co-religionists some infintesimal "impurity" that warrants labeling their fellow jihadist-in-arms as taqfir and, therefore, worthy of being dispatched in the usual blood-soaked manner.
More's the pity that Islam can't turn to cleaning its own house before launching any form of external jihad. There would be no Muslims left after such an internal purification save two beturbaned mullahs with hands on each others' throats strangling themselves to death in the barren midst of some Islamic utopia making the final determination as to who is more pure.
Zenster,
re: your final paragraph -- unfortunately, the Muslim pan-organism functions more like mites. Mites spend all their time breeding, having sex with each other, and killing and eating each other: and yet, they continue to thrive by the trillions.
Other useful analogies for the sociology of Islam are army ant colonies, bee hives, locust plagues, cancer, feral dog packs, etc. For the focus of psychology, I dare say that demonic possession, werewolves, vampires, and zombis are more useful than any of the extant models by which Western analysts anxiously try to superimpose some semblance of familiar (i.e., Western) humanity onto Muslims.
Four phases of Western universalism, and the humanity of Muslims
Hesperado: … unfortunately, the Muslim pan-organism functions more like mites. Mites spend all their time breeding, having sex with each other, and killing and eating each other: and yet, they continue to thrive by the trillions.
An otherwise apt comparison − especially with respect to the very limited range of overall activities, (i.e., copulation, consumption and cannibalism, all favorite Islamic pastimes) − save for the fact that mites, like any parasite worth its appetite, know well enough not to kill their host.
Islam demonstrates no such self-restraint. It's dreams of a global caliphate will just as likely see the most productive half of this planet's population put to death and, along with it, the possibility of curing AIDS or any other threat to humanity that might well extinguish all life on earth.
This does not even address how Islam, even in its isolated and supremely reigning form, still has "UNHAPPY ENDING" written all over it.
As Wretchard noted in his magnum opus, "The Three Conjectures":
Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry. Revenge bombings between rival groups and wars between different Islamic factions are the recurring theme of history. Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction. [emphasis added]
As you yourself noted in the "Muslim Human Shields for Egyptian Christians" thread:
The danger is not that Muslims will in fact unify into a successful conquest of the world: the danger is the amount of mayhem and misery which innumerable minions among them will be able to wreak successfully merely in trying, but failing to succeed in their perennial dream of world conquest.
No matter which final scenario applies − global caliphate or not − anything but a swift and decisive defeat of Islam in the very near term carries with it an absolute guarantee of butchery and abject human suffering, for Muslim and non-Muslim alike, on an unimaginable scale. Remember folks:
ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.
Fawaz sounds like he's just come from a Hizb ut Tahrir conference: first get your caliphate then go nuts on the kuffar.
The Islamic conquest is essentially on autopilot. As has been said many times: demographics is destiny. PC/MC amplifies this problem by disarming the host.
Given this, an Islamic enemy that bides his time or, similarly, every Islamists attack that is thwarted, is a victory not for us but for Islamists.
In the last 10 years the Islamists have made great strides in Europe and to some extent in the US.
The hate speech laws allow the left-wing fascist to cut off any political movement at its infancy.
These are the depressing facts that we, following GoV, are confronted with on a daily basis.
While there has been some political progress in the last year against the PC/MC advocates the progress is to fragile and timid.
Various posters and commentators have offered solutions that fall within the democratic and constitutional framework - along the lines of waking up out of the consumerism and MSM stupor. However, it will take a great leap of faith to believe that theses solution will be able to, firstly, stop the progress of Islamization and then reverse it.
I agree with Zenster that the solution or the reversal will not be pretty. I don't think it had to be this way but PC/MC has one after the other closed off all the sane defence mechanism.
Perversely in our desperation we may join our enemies in seeking a solution out of anarchy. And once a critical point is reach where sufficient groups feel this way so anarchy will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When we pass this point we will all regret it and so, realising this, we return to our leap of faith option but with increased resololve.
Btw, what's the Arabic word for 'innovation' again?
Demographics is destiny is true only if you think social conditions are steady state and will not change. Given the economic and social turmoil that is going on I wouldn't want to say that the Moslems are going to win just because they are currently out breeding the Europeans.
Zenster,
"save for the fact that mites, like any parasite worth its appetite, know well enough not to kill their host."
Yes, I realized that among all my metaphors/analogies, none included the crucial factor of metastasis (except for cancer) -- which is the key syndrome of Islam, making it the gold standard of the "Fitna" and "Fasad" ("Disorder in the Land") which Muslims foment wherever they are and wherever they go -- but of which, in their eternal tendency to project, they obsess about accusing others.
Just want everybody to know that I just threw Jammer's testimony as a court recognized expert on Islam, in some obfuscating taiquiya apologizer for Islam, AKP, and Turkey's face.
Islam's aim is malignant.
How it determines to get there is only of tactical interest.
A global gulag run by theocratic crazies is a goal that only a psychotic sadist could love.
Like the 'prophet' Mohammad.
And his mad minions.
All sane human beings must oppose this malicious movement and insidious ideology to the death.
Post a Comment