Search This Blog

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Obama doesn’t understand Jihadist doctrine

This blog post has moved to:

1 comment:

  1. As always, a very instructive analysis by Rev Dr Mark Durie.

    Dr Durie writes:

    "Teachers and preachers in Islamic institutions across America ... need to teach their congregants that this doctrine (individual Jihad) does not apply, that anyone who uses it to attempt to legitimize his or her personal jihad is acting against God's laws and that no martyr's paradise awaits them."

    I don't want to sound negative -- let alone ignorant -- but ...

    It's not clear to me how this could be done in an honest manner by an Islamic preacher or scholar.

    There's nothing in the Koran that I know of that could override a call to individual Jihad that draws on the examples of Mohammed and his followers.

    If I were an Islamic scholar or preacher and I asked myself: Are the Kafir oppressing or assaulting (which includes mocking or even resisting) Islam? If so, is it obligatory for every Muslim to prevent this with all his might? Is striking terror into the heart of the Kafir an effective strategy for advancing Islam? If a Muslim dies in the process, will he get to Paradise? Etc.

    ... I would have to answer "yes" to all of the above.

    The only thing I can think of that would encourage an honest Islamic scholar or preacher to argue against individual Jihad would be to show that individual Jihad is harming Islam and impeding the establishment of Islam's domination.

    But there's no evidence for that.

    The evidence suggests that individual Jihad is very effective in softening up, subduing, and extracting concessions and compromises from the Kafir.

    It's clear to me that individual Jihad is very effective in draining the resources of the Kafir nations and sending the Kafir leaders into a flurry. Especially advantageous is how it causes the Kafirs to turn on each other.

    If I can see this, I expect Islamic scholars can also see it.

    If there was a debate between two honest Islamic scholars and one argued FOR individual Jihad and the other argued AGAINST it, I think the "FOR" side would easily win. And, as a bonus, would be able to accuse the AGAINST side of being a hypocrite -- which is worse than being a Kafir.

    So, there's my thinking on it.

    I welcome comment and criticism.


Comments are moderated. Avoid profanities or foul language. Stay on topic. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Posts which violate these principles or are deemed offensive in any way will be deleted.