Islam & ISIS – Offensive Jihad
Hello and welcome! This video will be looking at offensive jihad. Not defensive jihad – no. The offensive type. One of the things that you will always hear from islamic apologists is that jihad was only defensive and never offensive. This is completely false. As we’ve seen already in the verses mentioned in the previous videos, but we also know that the history of islam, as written by muslims, shows us many examples of battles and raids that were purely offensive, 100%. The dozens of raids, I am aware of, were offensive. And some of the larger battles were too. In fact, the only battle that comes to mind which was defensive was the Battle of the Trench, which never really materialized into a battle anyway, as the Muslims dug a large trench around their city to prevent the Meccan pagans from entering. But even that came after many years of Muslims attacking the trade caravans of the Meccans and constantly being a significant nuisance to their trade. I will quickly provide at least two examples where the jihad was definitely not defensive. The Battle of Badr is probably the most well-known battle, that the Muslims were involved in, at the time of Muhamed. It was their first major battle with the pagans of Mecca. The Muslims had decided to raid a trade caravan belonging to the Meccans. And the Meccans heard news of the plans that the Muslims had and sent out an army to protect the caravan. Many muslims accept this and don’t deny it, but others who really just can’t come to admit that their prophet was starting these wars to steal and accumulate wealth have suggested that the Muslims were merely trying to get back what was stolen off them. Now, there is little evidence from within islamic sources, that the Meccans were actually stealing from the Muslims. But let’s read about the build up to this battle, briefly, in the main biography of Muhammad – otherwise known as the Sira. They said that when the apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the muslims and said: “This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey.” So the apologist excuses and explanations totally fail here. And it’s clear that this is offensive jihad – not defensive in any way. Let’s break it down: Firstly, Abu Sufyan is coming from Syria and going to Mecca – so the merchandise that he has cannot be that of the Muslims, as it has been just brought from Syria. Secondly, Muhammad states clearly that it is their property. He didn’t say that the Quraysh caravan was containing our property, when he was speaking to the Muslims. Thirdly, he clearly provides an instruction to go and attack it. Then he says they may get some war booty out of it. If you keep reading, you would see that the Muslims didn’t even expect Muhammad to go to war. And Abu Sufyan was anxious. So it’s really clear who is starting this war. Hint, hint – it’s not the anxious one. Well, maybe it’s the guy saying “Go out to attack it!” So the Muslims initiated the battle of Badr by trying to rob the Meccan pagans. How about the raid of Khaybar? When the apostle raided a people, he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer, he held back. if he did not hear it, he attacked. I mean, just that sentence alone tells us he was targeting neighbouring towns and villages randomly. He waits outside to see if they do the call to prayer or not. If they don’t – it means they are not muslim and he attacks them, as the result. What kind of religion of peace is this? Is this meant to be defensive jihad? Really? Anyway, let’s just keep reading. We came to Khaybar by night and the apostle passed the night there and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him and I rode behind Abu Talha with my foot touching the apostle’s foot. We met the workers of Khaybar coming in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried “Muhammad with his force!” and turned tail and fled. The apostle said “Allah akbar! Khaybar is destroyed! when we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.” So he waits the night, doesn’t hear the call to prayer – that confirms they are not Muslims in this town – and therefore they had become fair game for him to attack. He is about to attack these poor people waking up and walking out with their spades and baskets, just trying to make a living. They see Muhammad’s army and they run for their lives. How can a Muslim apologist tell us jihad was only defensive when we have an abundance of stories like this. In order to try and prove their point, apologists will often repeat verses like these around to try and put the wool over your eyes. “There is no compulsion in religion”, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits for Allah loveth not transgressors.” But the problem with these verses is that they are widely believed to have been cancelled out by later verses within the Muslim concept of abrogation, which tries to explain all the contradictions by suggesting that the verses revealed later supersede the earlier ones if they contradict each other. We are told by the major exegetes of the Quran, that this verse has been abrogated by later verses, which command the killing of non-believers. We only need to look at how islam’s biggest scholars interpreted them. Here is what Imam Tabari reports for the infamous “There is no compulsion in religion” verse. “There is no compulsion in religion” means that the Arabs who had no (monotheist) religion were forced into religion by the sword, whereas the Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians) are not forced if they pay the jizya. So there is no compulsion for other monotheists to join Islam, if they are willing to pay the jizya tax. For the rest of the non-believers, the options are to join islam or be killed. The Quran contains a number of peaceful verses which were revealed when Islam was weak and tried to establish itself. The more violent and aggressive verses all came when the Muslims had grown in number and power. I think this verse sums this up pretty neatly. “And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand.” This verse clearly tells us, that Muslims should not be calling for peace, when they are in a position of strength. This explains why Islam began with peaceful verses, but then they all got cancelled out, when they were emboldened enough through strength. So much for this being the religion of peace: The Quran clearly states that you should not call for peace if you have the upper hand. Let’s look at more examples which glorify jihad. In this hadith, Muhammad makes it clear, that to kill people and be killed is the best thing a muslim can hope to do. “By the being in whose hand is Muhammad’s life, I love to fight in the way of Allah and be killed, to fight and again be killed and to fight again and be killed. In another hadith Muhammad says: “He who dies without having fought or having felt fighting against the infidels to be his duty will die guilty of a kind of hypocrisy.” So Muhammad labels those who do not fight as hypocrites. And the Quran threatens hypocrites with the worst type of torture in hell. Chapter 4, verse 145 reads: “Surely the hypocrites are in the lowest stage of the fire and you shall not find a helper for them” So now asides from the incentives of virgins in the afterlife if you die fighting for islam, you are now being told “If you don’t fight – you can be considered a hypocrite”. Whether the hadith refers only to Muhammad’s time or for all times is contested among classical muslim scholars. But we can certainly see how one can see it to be an eternal command. Especially with authentic hadiths like this one around: I heard the messenger of Allah say: “A group of people from my Ummah will continue to fight in defence of truth and remain triumphant until the Day of judgement.” There are plenty of verses in the Quran that command fighting. Many of you are familiar with them already, so I won’t go into too much detail here, but here is one example: “Fighting is enjoined on you and it is an object of dislike to you and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you and Allah knows, while you do not know.” This verse sums up the problem with religion, and Islam in particular, in a nutshell. It basically says “We have ordered you to fight, even though you you might not want to” And at the end of the verse it tells us “God knows and you don’t” So therefore we should never question his judgement and ask why. Just listen and obey. This is why it’s so difficult to reform and why it’s so easy for violence to breed within islam. It says it here. Allah knows and we don’t. So who are we to question? Who are we to change these commands or water them down? Another quick example: Chapter 61, verse 10: “O you who believe, shall I lead you to a merchandise which may deliver you from a painful chastisment? You shall believe in Allah and his messenger. and struggle hard in Allah’s way with your property and your lives that is better for you did you but know” The word used in Arabic for “struggle hard” in that verse is “tujahidouna – which is a variation of jihad. So those who do jihad with their lives and their properties – meaning their wealth – will avoid a painful torment in hell. One last verse: Chapter 2, verse 193: “And fight with them until there is no persecution and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors Let’s read what this means. I mean, on paper it looks ok. It tells muslims to stop fighting if the other side give up, which is kind of common sense. But as always we have a clause. You can’t be hostile and aggressive against people if they are not fighting you, unless they are oppressors. Well, who is an oppressor? The commentary by Tabari on this verse says: With this verse god means: “If they stop,” that is – if they stop fighting, embrace your faith, and carry out what your faith requires and left the worshipping of idols, then you can stop fighting them and aggressing against them. This is because you cannot start conflict, only against the oppressors. And they are the polytheists. So we can see clearly here, that you must continue to fight until they become muslims and carry out all that Islam requires them to do – from prayers to fasting etc. This is also supported in the commentary of Ibn Kathir, where he says: “But if they cease let there be no transgression except against the wrong-doers” indicates that if they stop their shirk which means polytheism and fighting the believers, then cease warfare against them. “Shirk” is the Arabic word for polytheism. So a second major exegete of the Quran confirms that fighting should not stop unless they stop worshipping any gods beside Allah. So it’s clear fighting non-believers must continue forever. This is at least the case within Sunni Islam. Shia islam is generally in a more dormant and pacifist state, as they are waiting the emergence of the “Mahdi” (saviour) to lead the nation and make those decisions for them. So in conclusion: Fighting in the way of Allah, is not only tolerated it’s most definitely encouraged. A verse tells muslims not to call for peace if they are in a position of strength. Those who don’t fight are told that they are hypocrites. The Quran tells muslims fighting is good for them even if they don’t realise it. And many scholars have interpreted these verses as being a call for constant war until islam dominates the entire world. Stay tuned for the next episode where we will be looking at suicide bombings and until then: Thank you for watching! Please share these videos as much as you can! And I’ll see you soon. Goodbye!