MI5: 400,000 British Muslims Sympathetic to Violent Jihad

Officers at a Scotland Yard briefing said they continued to be very concerned by the intelligence picture, with 70 investigations continuing and some of the information received described as "very sinister".

The head of the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist branch, Peter Clarke, said 60 people were awaiting trial in the UK for terrorist-related offences.

But he warned: "This is unprecedented, and the flow of new cases shows no sign of abating - if anything it is accelerating."

MI5 believes, from polls, that around 400,000 people in the UK are "sympathetic to violent jihad around the world", said Frank Gardner.

Within that number 1,200 people have been identified as being activists the security service believe are engaged in acts of terrorism at home and abroad, he said.

The first anniversary of the bombings of London will be marked on Friday by a national two-minute silence [and a fuck-off massive exhbition of Islam at an expense of £200,000 to the London tax payer - Ed]

Nothing to see here, move along please.

"Islam and terrorism are two words that don't go together" - Brian Paddick, Senior Police Officer, and utter twat, at a press conference on 8th July.

Britain is full of Islamophobes (how unfounded! how irrational!)

MI5 must be the only organisation in Britain that's not in complete denial regarding the British Muslim community. Well they'd better be - they are there to protect the country. Politically correct thinking in the intelligence community would be fateful. "Terrorists? What terrorists? That's BlairBushHitler trying to scare you into a war with the Martians!"

25 Responses to “MI5: 400,000 British Muslims Sympathetic to Violent Jihad”

  1. # Blogger Malcolm

    Thats not a surprise, read the koran, you will realise that its every muslims duty to hate us native British.  

  2. # Anonymous Anonymous

    where does it say that?  

  3. # Blogger Malcolm

    From the 'holy book';

    2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

    2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

    Good stuff eh ?  

  4. # Anonymous Old Peculier

    Perhaps we should try to engage with the Muslim community in order to combat extremism. Hang on a minute,though, we tried this and it didn't work.  

  5. # Blogger jonz

    The Jihad Verses are used to justify attack against Britain, which is of course kaffir state, a country of "unbelievers" in Islam.

    Obviously it doen't say "wage ware against the native British" but it does say "wage ware against the unbelievers".

    Here are 164 jihad verses from the Qu'ran

    Theological justifications for hatred of British and attacking of Britian are openly discussed on the less moderate Muslim forums.  

  6. # Anonymous Frank

    ~400,000 sympathizers out of ~1,500,000 of which ~1200 have been singled out by MI5. which is less than 0.1% of the UK Muslim population and if Forest Gate/Jean Charles de Menezes are anything to go by, then 99% of those people are innocent people too

    So to the author, stop stirring up shit! It's people like you that these terrorist really want to kill.  

  7. # Blogger jonz

    Mr Thick as Shit,

    How many people does it to take to kill 52 people?

    Answer: 4

    So, thats 13 people per person!

    You know little of statistics. 0.1% of a population to be involved in suspected terrorist activity is a relatively huge number. By contrast, for the whole population the UK the figure is 0.00002%  

  8. # Blogger jonz

    So ergo, there should be no profiling by ethnicity or race, since patently white grannies who go to church on Sunday are just as likely to blow up a British public space as a young muslim with a chip on his shoulder...  

  9. # Blogger jonz

    It's people like you that these terrorist really want to kill.

    Really? Fuck me, so you're saying those 52 people weren't innocent, huh? They were all waging a counter-jihad, was they?  

  10. # Blogger Malcolm

    Its time we supported UK troops, how about this;

    Wear something red on a Friday.  

  11. # Blogger Malcolm

    Oops, forgot the link;
    What would Charles Martel do  

  12. # Anonymous Anonymous

    this is NOT WW2, support what? the fight against anyone 'a bit funny looking'?

    Oooh i really want to support the troops as they shoot at journalists, civilians, & each other, go on boys!

    perhaps we should support the troops that are killed by there own bloody superiors before even finishing their training.  

  13. # Blogger Malcolm

    Every jihadist or wahabi killed by British troops is one less to endanger the West.
    It is a war, their stated aim to to gring the whole world into dar-al-islam. While not every muslim supports this aim, many will not mind, and virtually none are willing to stand up to the imans and others that preach evil against infedels.  

  14. # Blogger Granny Weatherwax

    patently white grannies who go to church on Sunday are just as likely to blow up a British public space

    Rumbled! Damn.  

  15. # Blogger Granny Weatherwax

    patently white grannies who go to church on Sunday are just as likely to blow up a British public space

    Rumbled! Damn  

  16. # Blogger Granny Weatherwax

    Senior moment there I'm afraid.  

  17. # Blogger jonz


    More cyanide Vicar? ;)  

  18. # Blogger Admin

    Any open-minded person embarking on a study of Islam, especially if using books written in European languages, should be aware of the seemingly inherent distortions that permeate almost all non-Muslim writings on Islam. At least since the Middle Ages, Islam has been much maligned and severely misunderstood in the West. In the last years of the Twentieth Century, it does not seem that much has changed—even though most Muslims would agree that progress is being made.


    I feel that an elegant summary of the West's ignorance of Islam and the motives of Orientalism are the following words by the Swiss journalist and author, Roger Du Pasquier:

    "The West, whether Christian or dechristianised, has never really known Islam. Ever since they watched it appear on the world stage, Christians never ceased to insult and slander it in order to find justification for waging war on it. It has been subjected to grotesque distortions the traces of which still endure in the European mind. Even today there are many Westerners for whom Islam can be reduced to three ideas: fanaticism, fatalism and polygamy. Of course, there does exist a more cultivated public whose ideas about Islam are less deformed; there are still precious few who know that the word islam signifies nothing other than 'submission to God'. One symptom of this ignorance is the fact that in the imagination of most Europeans, Allah refers to the divinity of the Muslims, not the God of the Christians and Jews; they are all surprised to hear, when one takes the trouble to explain things to them, that 'Allah' means 'God', and that even Arab Christians know him by no other name.
    Islam has of course been the object of studies by Western orientalists who, over the last two centuries, have published an extensive learned literature on the subject. Nevertheless, however worthy their labours may have been, particularly in the historical and and philological fields, they have contributed little to a better understanding of the Muslim religion in the Christian or post-Christian milieu, simply because they have failed to arouse much interest outside their specialised academic circles. One is forced also to concede that Orientals studies in the West have not always been inspired by the purest spirit of scholarly impartiality, and it is hard to deny that some Islamicists and Arabists have worked with the clear intention of belittling Islam and its adherents. This tendency was particularly marked—for obvious reasons—in the heyday of the colonial empires, but it would be an exaggeration to claim that it has vanished without trace.
    These are some of the reasons why Islam remains even today so misjudged by the West, where curiously enough, Asiatic faiths such as Buddhism and Hinduism have for more than a century generated far more visible sympathy and interest, even though Islam is so close to Judaism and Christianity, having flowed from the same Abrahamic source. Despite this, however, for several years it has seemed that external conditions, particularly the growing importance of the Arab-Islamic countries in the world's great political and economic affairs, have served to arouse a growing interest of Islam in the West, resulting—for some—in the discovery of new and hitherto unsuspected horizons." (From Unveiling Islam, by Roger Du Pasquier, pages 5-7)

    The feeling that there is a general ignorance of Islam in the West is shared by Maurice Bucaille, a French doctor, who writes:

    "When one mentions Islam to the materialist atheist, he smiles with a complacency that is only equal to his ignorance of the subject. In common with the majority of Western intellectuals, of whatever religious persuasion, he has an impressive collection of false notions about Islam. One must, on this point, allow him one or two excuses. Firstly, apart from the newly-adopted attitudes prevailing among the highest Catholic authorities, Islam has always been subject in the West to a so-called 'secular slander'. Anyone in the West who has acquired a deep knowledge of Islam knows just to what extent its history, dogma and aims have been distorted. One must also take into account that fact that documents published in European languages on this subject (leaving aside highly specialised studies) do not make the work of a person willing to learn any easier." (From The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, by Maurice Bucaille, page 118)


    The phenomenon which is generally known as Orientalism is but one aspect of Western misrepresentations of Islam. Today, most Muslims in the West would probably agree that the largest volume of distorted information about Islam comes from the media, whether in newspapers, magazines or on television. In terms of the number of people who are reached by such information, the mass media certainly has more of a widespread impact on the West's view of Islam than do the academic publications of "Orientalists", "Arabists" or "Islamicists". Speaking of labels, in recent years the academic field of what used to be called "Orientalism" has been renamed "Area Studies" or "Regional Studies", in most colleges and universities in the West. These politically correct terms have taken the place of the word "Orientalism" in scholarly circles since the latter word is now tainted with a negative imperialist connotation, in a large measure due to the Orientalists themselves. However, even though the works of scholars who pursue these fields do not reach the public at large, they do often fall into the hands of students and those who are personally interested in learning more about Islam. As such, any student of Islam—especially those in the West—need to be aware of the historical phenomenon of Orientalism, both as an academic pursuit and as a means of cultural exploitation. When used by Muslims, the word "Orientalist" generally refers to any Western scholar who studies Islam—regardless of his or her motives—and thus, inevitably, distorts it. As we shall see, however, the phenomenon of Orientalism is much more than an academic pursuit. Edward Said, a renowned Arab Christian scholar and author of several books exposing shortcomings of the Orientalist approach, defines "Orientalism" as follows:

    " . . . by Orientalism I mean several things, all of them, in my opinion, interdependent. The most readily accepted designation of for Orientalism is an academic one, and indeed, and indeed the label still serves in a number of academic institutions. Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient—and this applies whether the person is an anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or philogist—either in its specific or its general aspects, is an Orientalist, and what he or she does is Orientalism." (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 2)

    "To speak of Orientalism therefore is to speak mainly, although not exclusively, of a British and French cultural enterprise, a project whose dimensions take in such disparate realms as the imagination itself, the whole of India and the Levant, the Biblical texts and the Biblical lands, the spice trade, colonial armies and a long tradition of colonial administrators, a formidable scholarly corpus, innumerable Oriental "experts" and "hands", an Oriental professorate, a complex array of "Oriental" ideas (Oriental despotism, Oriental splendor, cruelty, sensuality), many Eastern sects, philosophies, and wisdoms domesticated for local European use—the list can be extended more or less indefinitely." (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 4)

    As is the case with many things, being aware of the problem is half the battle. Once a sincere seeker of the Truth is aware of the long standing misunderstanding and hostility between Islam and the West—and learns not to trust everything which they see in print—authentic knowledge and information can be obtained much more quickly. Certainly, not all Western writings on Islam have the same degree of bias—they run the range from willful distortion to simple ignorance—and there are even a few that could be classified as sincere efforts by non-Muslims to portray Islam in a positive light. However, even most of these works are plagued by seemingly unintentional errors, however minor, due to the author's lack of Islamic knowledge. In the spirit of fairness, it should be said that even some contemporary books on Islam by Muslim authors suffer from these same shortcomings, usually due to a lack of knowledge, heretical ideas and or depending on non-Muslim sources.

    This having been said, it should come as no surprise that learning about Islam in the West—especially when relying on works in European languages—has never been an easy task. Just a few decades ago, an English speaking person who was interested in Islam, and wishing to limit their reading to works by Muslim authors, might have been limited to reading a translation of the Qur'an, a few translated hadeeth books and a few dozen pamphlet-sized essays. However, in the past several years the widespread availability of Islamic books—written by believing and committed Muslims—and the advent of the Internet have made obtaining authentic information on almost any aspect of Islam much easier. Today, hardly a week goes by that an English translation of a classical Islamic work is not announced. Keeping this in mind, I would encourage the reader to consult books written by Muslim authors when trying to learn about Islam. There are a wide range of Islamic book distributors that can be contacted through the Internet.


    Moving on to a more detailed look at the West's distorted view of Islam in general and Orientalism in particular . . . Edward Said, the Arab Christian author of the monumental work Orientalism, accurately referred to Orientalism a "cultural enterprise". This is certainly no distortion, since the academic study of the Oriental East by the Occidental West was often motivated—and often co-operated hand-in-hand— with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers. Without a doubt, the foundations of Orientalism are in the maxim "Know thy enemy". When the "Christian Nations" of Europe began their long campaign to colonize and conquer the rest of the world for their own benefit, they brought their academic and missionary resources to bear in order to assist in the task. Orientalists and missionaries—whose ranks often overlapped—were more often than not the servants of an imperialist government who was using their services as a way to subdue or weaken an enemy, however subtly:

    "With regard to Islam and the Islamic territories, for example, Britain felt that it had legitimate interests, as a Christian power, to safeguard. A complex apparatus for tending these interests developed. Such early organizations as the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1698) and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1701) were succeeded and later abetted by the Baptist Missionary Society (1792), the Church Missionary Society (1799), the British and Foreign Bible Society (1804), the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews (1808). These missions "openly" joined the expansion of Europe." (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 100)

    Anyone who has studied the subject knows that Christian missionaries were willing participants in European imperialism, regardless of the pure motives or naïveté of some of the individual missionaries. Actually, quite a few Orientalist scholars were Christian missionaries. One notable example is Sir William Muir, who was an active missionary and author of several books on Islam. His books were very biased and narrow-minded studies, but they continue to be used as references for those wishing to attack Islam to this very day. That Christians were the source of some of the worst lies and distortions about Islam should come as no surprise, since Islam was its main "competitor" on the stage of World Religions. Far from honouring the commandment not to bear false witness against one's neighbour, Christians distortions—and outright lies—about Islam were widespread, as the following shows:

    "The history of Orientalism is hardly one of unbiased examination of the sources of Islam especially when under the influence of the bigotry of Christianity. From the fanatical distortions of John of Damascus to the apologetic of later writers against Islam that told their audiences that the Muslims worshipped three idols! Peter the Venerable (1084-1156) "translated" the Qur'an which was used throughout the Middle Ages and included nine additional chapters. Sale's infamously distorted translation followed that trend, and his, along with the likes of Rodwell, Muir and a multitude of others attacked the character and personality of Muhammmed. Often they employed invented stories, or narration's which the Muslims themselves considered fabricated or weak, or else they distorted the facts by claiming Muslims held a position which they did not, or using the habits practised out of ignorance among the Muslims as the accurate portrayal of Islam. As Norman Daniel tell us in his work Islam and the West: "The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal . . . " (p. 267)." (From An Authoritative Exposition - Part 1, by 'Abdur-Raheem Green)

    This view is confirmed by the well known historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, when he writes:

    "Medieval Christendom did, however, study Islam, for the double purpose of protecting Christians from Muslim blandishments and converting Muslims to Christianity, and Christian scholars, most of them priests or monks, created a body of literature concerning the faith, its Prophet, and his book, polemic in purpose and often scurrilous in tone, designed to protect and discourage rather than to inform".." (From Islam and the West, by Bernard Lewis, pages 85-86)

    There is a great deal of proof that one could use to demonstrate that when it came to attacking Islam, even the Roman Catholic Church would readily embrace almost any untruth. Here's an example:

    "At a certain period in history, hostility to Islam, in whatever shape or form, even coming from declared enemies of the church, was received with the most heartfelt approbation by high dignitaries of the Catholic Church. Thus Pope Benedict XIV, who is reputed to have been the greatest Pontiff of the Eighteenth century, unhesitatingly sent his blessing to Voltaire. This was in thanks for the dedication to him of the tragedy Mohammed or Fanaticism (Mahomet ou le Fanatisme) 1741, a coarse satire that any clever scribbler of bad faith could have written on any subject. In spite of a bad start, the play gained sufficient prestige to be included in the repertoire of the Comédie-Française." (From The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, by Maurice Bucaille, page 118)


    The dedicated enemy of the church, referred to above, was the French philosopher Voltaire. For an example of what he thought of at least one Christian doctrine, read his Anti-Trinitarians tract. Also, the above passage introduces a point that one should be well aware of: the distortions and lies about Islam throughout the ages in Europe were not been limited to a small number of scholars and clergy. On the contrary, they were part of popular culture at the time:

    "The European imagination was nourished extensively from this repertoire [of Oriental images]: between the Middle Ages and the eighteenth century such major authors as Ariosto, Milton, Marlowe, Tasso, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and the authors of the Chanson de Roland and the Poema del Cid drew on the Orient's riches for their productions, in ways that sharpened that outlines of imagery, ideas, and figures populating it. In addition, a great deal of what was considered learned Orientalist scholarship in Europe pressed ideological myths into service, even as knowledge seemed genuinely to be advancing." (From Orientalism, by Edward Said, page 63)

    "The invariable tendency to neglect what the Qur'an meant, or what Muslims thought it meant, or what Muslims thought or did in any given circumstances, necessarily implies that Qur'anic and other Islamic doctrine was presented in a form that would convince Christians; and more and more extravagant forms would stand a chance of acceptance as the distance of the writers and public from the Islamic border increased. It was with very great reluctance that what Muslims said Muslims believed was accepted as what they did believe. There was a Christian picture in which the details (even under the pressure of facts) were abandoned as little as possible, and in which the general outline was never abandoned. There were shades of difference, but only with a common framework. All the corrections that were made in the interests of an increasing accuracy were only a defence of what had newly realised to be vulnerable, a shoring up of a weakened structure. Christian opinion was an erection which could not be demolished, even to be rebuilt." (From Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, by Norman Daniel, page 259-260)

    Edward Said, in his classic work Orientalism, referring to the above passage by Norman Daniel, says:

    "This rigorous Christian picture of Islam was intensified in innumerable ways, including—during the Middle Ages and early Renaissance—a large variety of poetry, learned controversy, and popular superstition. By this time the Near Orient had been all but incorporated in the common world-picture of Latin Christianity—as in the Chanson de Roland the worship of Saracens is portrayed as embracing Mahomet and Apollo. By the middle of the fifteenth century, as R. W. Southern has brilliantly shown, it became apparent to serious European thinkers "that something would have to be done about Islam," which had turned the situation around somewhat by itself arriving militarily in Eastern Europe." (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 61)

    "Most conspicuous to us is the inability of any of these systems of thought [European Christian] to provide a fully satisfying explanation of the phenomenon they had set out to explain [Islam]—still less to influence the course of practical events in a decisive way. At a practical level, events never turned out either so well or so ill as the most intelligent observers predicted: and it is perhaps worth noticing that they never turned out better than when the best judges confidently expected a happy ending. Was there any progress [in Christian knowledge of Islam]? I must express my conviction that there was. Even if the solutions of the problem remained obstinately hidden from sight, the statement of the problem became more complex, more rational, and more related to experience." (From Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, by R. W. Southern, pages 91-92)

    Regardless of the flawed, biased—and even devious—approach of many Orientalists, they too can have their moments of candour, as Roger DuPasquier points out:

    "In general one must unhappily concur with an Orientalist like Montgomery Watt when he writes that 'of all the great men of the world, no-one has had as many detractors as Muhammad.' Having engaged in a lengthy study of the life and work of the Prophet, the British Arabist add that 'it is hard to understand why this has been the case', finding the only plausible explanation in the fact that for centuries Christianity treated Islam as its worst enemy. And although Europeans today look at Islam and its founder in a somewhat more objective light, 'many ancient prejudices still remain.'" (From Unveiling Islam, by Roger Du Pasquier, page 47 - quoting from W. M. Watt's Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press)


    In conclusion, I would like to turn to a description of Orientalism by an American convert to Islam. What he has this to say about the objectives and methods of Orientalism, especially how it is flawed from an Islamic perspective, is quite enlightening. While summarizing his views on a book by an Orientalist author, he writes:

    " . . . (t)he book accurately reports the names and dates of the events it discusses, though its explanations of Muslim figures, their motives, and their place within the Islamic world are observed through the looking glass of unbelief (kufr), giving a reverse-image of many of the realities it reflects, and perhaps calling for a word here on the literature that has been termed Orientalism, or in the contemporary idiom, "area studies".
    It is a viewpoint requiring that scholarly description of something like "African Islam" be first an foremost objective. The premises of this objectivity conform closely, upon reflection, to the lived and felt experience of a post-religious, Western intellectual tradition in understanding religion; namely, that comparing human cultural systems and societies in their historical succession and multiplicity leads the open-minded observer to moral relativism, since no moral value can be discovered which on its own merits is transculturally valid. Here, human civilizations, with their cultural forms, religions, hopes, aims, beliefs, prophets, sacred scriptures, and deities, are essentially plants that grow out of the earth, springing from their various seeds and soils, thriving for a time, and then withering away. The scholar's concern is only to record these elements and propose a plausible relation between them.
    Such a point of departure, if de rigueur for serious academic work . . . is of course non-Islamic and anti-Islamic. As a fundamental incomprehension of Islam, it naturally distorts what it seeks to explain, yet with an observable disparity in the degree of distortion in any given description that seems to correspond roughly to how close the object of explanation is to the core of Islam. In dealing with central issues like Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the Koran, or hadith, it is at its worst; while the further it proceeds to the periphery, such as historical details of trade concessions, treaties names of rulers, weights of coins, etc., the less distorted it becomes. In either case, it is plainly superior for Muslims to rely on fellow Muslims when Islamic sources are available on a subject . . . if only to avoid the subtle and not-so-subtle distortions of non-Islamic works about Islam. One cannot help but feel that nothing bad would happen to us if we were to abandon the trend of many contemporary Muslim writers of faithfully annotating our works with quotes from the founding fathers of Orientalism, if only because to sleep with the dogs is generally to rise with the fleas." (From The Reliance of the Traveller, Edited and Translated by Noah Ha Mim Keller, page 1042)

    As anyone who has studied Orientalism knows, both their methodology and their intentions were less than ideal. The follow remarks serve as a pointed synopsis of the approach of Orientalism to the Qur'an in particular and Islam in general:

    "The Orientalist enterprise of Qur'anic studies, whatever its other merits and services, was a project born of spite, bred in frustration and nourished by vengeance: the spite of the powerful for the powerless, the frustration of the "rational" towards the "superstitious" and the vengeance of the "orthodox" against the "non-conformist." At the greatest hour of his worldly-triumph, the Western man, coordinating the powers of the State, Church and Academia, launched his most determined assault on the citadel of Muslim faith. All the aberrant streaks of his arrogant personality -- its reckless rationalism, its world-domineering phantasy and its sectarian fanaticism -- joined in an unholy conspiracy to dislodge the Muslim Scripture from its firmly entrenched position as the epitome of historic authenticity and moral unassailability. The ultimate trophy that the Western man sought by his dare-devil venture was the Muslim mind itself. In order to rid the West forever of the "problem" of Islam, he reasoned, Muslim consciousness must be made to despair of the cognitive certainty of the Divine message revealed to the Prophet. Only a Muslim confounded of the historical authenticity or doctrinal autonomy of the Qur'anic revelation would abdicate his universal mission and hence pose no challenge to the global domination of the West. Such, at least, seems to have been the tacit, if not the explicit, rationale of the Orientalist assault on the Qur'an." (From: "Method Against Truth: Orientalism and Qur'anic Studies", by S. Parvez Manzoor, Muslim World Book Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Summer 1987, pp. 33-49.)

    Need we say more?

    Please visit http://thejourney2islam-team.blogspot.com/ to read more  

  19. # Blogger Admin

    Does Islam order the killings of non-Muslims as Malcom states?

    What Does Islam Say About "Forcing People in Religion?"

    A basic and fundamental truth established by the sacred texts of Islam (Quran and Hadeeth) is that: - "No one can be compelled to accept Islam!"

    It is the duty of the Muslims to establish proof of validity of Islam to the people in order for the truth to be distinct from falsehood. Once that is done, whoever wishes to accept Islam may do so and whoever wishes to continue upon their belief may do so. No one is to be threatened or harmed in any way should they chose not to accept Islam.

    It is not only forbidden to compel someone to accept Islam - it is impossible to do so.
    Please consider the meaning of the word"Islam" before continuing to read: ['Islam'; Ar. from the root 'slm' (silm), to be in peaceful submission; to surrender; to obey; peace; "Islam" lit. 'The active willful surrender, submission, obedience, in purity to the will of another (Allah) in complete peace.']

    The understanding from the meaning of the word "Islam" itself makes it clear that there is no way that you could possibly force someone to do something that requires them to do it of their own free will and accord. If someone were "forced to enter Islam" then it would not be "Islam" anyway, as a condition of "Islam" is that it is by free choice in peace. Forcing people into Islam is totally illogical and certainly not acceptable in concept nor practice.
    More about the word "Islam" [click]

    It is the duty and obligation of the Muslims to establish the truth and proofs of Islam and then allow others the freedom of choice to accept or reject the proofs.
    There are two principle sources of proof for the Muslim. They are:
    The Quran - considered by Muslims to be the absolute Speech or Recitation of Allah, the Almighty. ('Quran' Ar. from the root; qr'a: to recite; Quran; lit. "That which is recited"). More about Quran . . . [click]

    The Hadeeth - teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him. (hadeeth - Ar. meaning, stories or narrations. The hadeeths have been collected, authenticated [in collections by Bukhari and Muslim called 'sahih', categorized, preserved and memorized for over 1,400 years; all in the original language [Arabic]). More about Hadeeth . . . [click]

    Among the many decisive pieces of evidence in Islam to prove that "There is no compulsion in Islam" are the following:

    Allah says in His Quran: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” [Surah al-Baqarah: 256]

    Allah also says in Quran: “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” [Surah Yunus: 99]

    And Allah says: “So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in Allah’s sight are all of His servants.” [Surah Al `Imran: 20]

    Allah The Almighty has also said: “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.” [Surah Al-Maidah: 99]

    It is important to note that these last two verses were revealed in Madinah. This is significant, since it shows that the ruling they gave was not just contingent on the Muslims being in Mecca in a state of weakness.

    Some people might be wondering that if Islam indeed advocates such an approach, then what is all this we hear about jihad? How can we explain the warfare that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions waged against the pagans? The answer to this is that jihad in Islamic Law can be waged for a number of reasons, but compelling people to accept Islam is simply not one of them. The reason why jihad was first permitted in Islam was so the Muslims could defend themselves against persecution and expulsion from their homes.

    Allah, Most High says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged – and verily Allah is Most Powerful for their aid – (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right – (for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah’. Did Allah not check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his cause, for truly Allah is full of strength and might.” [Surah al-Hajj: 39-40]

    Many of the earliest scholars mention that these were the first verses of the Quran that was revealed regarding jihad. Thereafter the following verses were revealed:

    “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever you catch them and drive them out from whence they drove you out, for terrorism is worse than killing. But do not engage in combat with them at the sacred mosque unless they engage you in combat there. But if they combat against you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And combat them on until there is no more terrorism or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, don't let there be hostility except to those who practice oppression.” [Surah al-Baqarah: 190-193]

    From this point on, the scope of jihad was broadened from being purely for defense against direct attack to being inclusive of resistance against those who suppress the faith and deny people the freedom to choose their religion for themselves. This came later, because it is legislated for the Muslims only when they are capable of doing so. In times of weakness, Muslims may only fight against direct attack.

    As for the spread of Islam, this is supposed to take place peacefully by disseminating the Message with the written and spoken word. There is no place for the use of weapons to compel people to accept Islam. Weapons can only be drawn against those who persecute and oppress others and prevent them from following their own consciences in matters of belief. The Muslims cannot just stand by while people are being denied the right to believe in Islam and their voices are being crushed. This is the meaning of Allah’s words: “And fight them on until there is no more terrorism or oppression and there prevails a way for justice and faith in Allah.” [Surah al-Baqarah: 193]

    The Prophet (peace be upon him) said in his letter to the Roman governor Heracles: “I invite you to accept Islam. If you accept Islam, you will find safety. If you accept Islam, Allah will give you a double reward. However, if you turn away, upon you will be the sin of your subjects.” [Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim]

    Once people have heard the Message without obstruction or hindrance and the proof has been established upon them, then the duty of the Muslims is done. Those who wish to believe are free to do so and those who prefer to disbelieve are likewise free to do so.

    Even when the Muslims are compelled to fight and then subdue the land, their duty thereafter is to establish Allah’s law in the land and uphold justice for all people, Muslim and non-Muslim. It is not their right to coerce their subjects to accept Islam against their will. Non-Muslims under Muslim rule must be allowed to remain on their own faith and must be allowed to practice the rights of their faith, though they will be expected to respect the laws of the land.

    Had the purpose of jihad been to force the unbelievers to accept Islam, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would never have commanded the Muslims to refrain from hostilities if the enemy relented. He would not have prohibited the killing of women and children. However, this is exactly what he did. During a battle, the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw people gathered together. He dispatched a man to find out why they were gathered. The man returned and said: “They are gathered around a slain woman.” So Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “She should not have been attacked!” Khalid b. al-Walid was leading the forces, so he dispatched a man to him saying: “‘Tell Khalid not to kill women or laborers”. [Sunan Abu Dawud]

    This should not be misconstrued to indicate that the prophet, peace be upon him, made the killing of women (and children, elders, clerics and other innocents) to be haram (forbidden) at this particular point and time. In fact, it was always haram (forbidden) and the prophet, peace be upon him, was only reconfirming what was already in place by the shari'ah (Islamic Law).

    Therefore, even in the heat of battle against a hostile enemy, the only people who may be attacked are those who are actually participating in the fighting. Had the purpose of jihad been to force the unbelievers to accept Islam, the rightly guided Caliphs would not have prohibited the killing of priests and monks who refrained from fighting. However, this is exactly what they did. When the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, sent an army to Syria to fight the aggressive Roman legions, he went out to give them words of encouragement. He said: “You are going to find a group of people who have devoted themselves to the worship of Allah (i.e. monks), so leave them to what they are doing.”

    We have demonstrated that it is a principle in Islam that there is no compulsion in religion and we have discussed the objectives of jihad. Now, we shall turn our attentions to some texts that are often misunderstood.

    One of these is the verse: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.” [Surah al-Tawbah: 5]

    Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting.

    However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Quran that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. We will be discussing these texts shortly.

    The people being referred to by this verse are the pagan Arabs who had been waging war against the Prophet (peace be upon him) and who had broken their covenant and treaties with him. This verse is not speaking about the other pagan Arabs who did not break their treaties and take up arms against the Muslims. It is also most definitely not speaking about the Jews or Christians, or, for that matter, the pagans who were living outside of Arabia.

    If we look at the verses in Surah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear.

    A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says: “There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Surah al-Tawbah: 1-2]

    In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads: “Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Surah al-Tawbah: 4]

    So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)”, we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace.

    This is further emphasized by a few verses later where Allah says: “Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Surah al-Tawbah: 13]

    Ibn al-Arabi, in his commentary on the Quran, writes: “It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you.” [Ahkam al-Quran: (2/456)]

    Allah also say right after the verse under discussion: “How can there be a covenant before Allah and His Messenger with the pagans except those with whom you have made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? As long as they stand true to you, stand true to them, for Allah does love the righteous.” [Surah al-Tawbah: 7]

    Another misunderstood text is the hadîth where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am Allah’s Messenger. If they do so, then there blood and their wealth are inviolable except in the dispensation of justice, and their affair is with Allah.” [Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslims]

    There can be no qualms about this hadîth’s authenticity, since it is recorded in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. However, this hadîth is also not to be taken generally, out of context, and in complete disregard to all the other textual evidence.

    The term “people” here is not referring to all humanity. Ibn Taymiyah says: “It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” [Majmu al-Fatawa (19/20)]

    Islam commands the Muslims to be just with people of other faiths, whether they be Jews, Christians, or pagans. Islam calls us to treat them kindly and try to win their hearts as long as they do not take up arms against us. Allah says: “Allah forbids you not with regard to those who neither fight against you for your faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them, for Allah loves those who are just.” [Surah al-Mumtahanah: 9-10]

    Allah commands Muslims to respect their non-Muslim parents and to accompany them in this world in a good manner.

    The Quran commands us to argue with them in the best manner. Allah says: “Argue with the People of the Scripture in the best manner except those among them who act oppressively. Say: We believe in the revelation that has come down to us and in that which came down to you. Our God and your God is one, and it is to Him we submit ourselves as Muslims.” [Surah al-Ankabût: 46]

    We are ordered to uphold our covenants with the non-Muslims and not betray them or transgress against them. The Prophet (peace be upon him) gave a stern warning to us against killing a non-Muslim with whom we are at peace. He said: “Whoever kills one with whom we have a covenant will not smell the scent of Paradise.” [Sahih Muslim]

    The faith of a Muslim is not acceptable unless he believes in all of the Prophets who were sent before (peace be upon them all). Allah says: “O you who believe! Believe in Allah, His Messenger, the scripture that He revealed to His messenger and the scripture that he revealed before. Whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His books, His Messengers, and the Last Day has gone far astray.” [Surah al-Nisa]


    The meaning of the word; ['jihad'; Ar. from the root 'jahada',to struggle; assert oneself, as in "making great effort to arrive at a conclusion as to the meaning and interpretation of Islamic Law (ijtihad)"; strive, as in, "striving to complete a monumental task (jahed)"; "jihad" lit. 'The struggle to attain the objective.]
    The principle purpose of the institution of "jihad". It must be understood that "jihad" according to "shari'ah" (Islamic Law) was instituted by Allah, The Law Giver Himself, only for the purpose of raising, protecting and defending the "deen" (way of Islam; "Laa elaha illa lah" [none has the right to be worshipped, except Allah."]).  

  20. # Blogger Malcolm

    Now I'm confused, are the extracts from the koran citing violence against non-believers mis-translations from Arabic, or lies written by Westerners to distort islam ?
    OK. I know many muslims and they are decent British citizens. They appear to me to be decent God-fearing people, they are nice to thier families and respect other faiths. I try and belive this is how muslims the world over are, but I just can't get away from violence and terror spread about the world in the name of islam.
    Looking at many websites and reading a few books, I believe that whatever islam is now, it is being pushed down a totalitarian road by the spread of a wahabi inspired view of the religion that is pushed by the Saudis, using the massive wealth from oil. A mosque recently built near me was sponsored mostly by a Saudi charity, and the iman is a Saudi.
    I guess he don't preach tolerance, but I may be wrong.  

  21. # Blogger jonz

    You have to remember some of our adversaries highly educated. Bin Laden can be extremely eloquent, as can many other Islamic scholars.

    I am not about to go in a refute this point by point, simply because I haven't got the time.

    The proof is in the pudding as they say. My opinion on the Qu'ran is this - it has many facets, and it's a bit like a mirror.

    A peaceful Islamic scholar can find many pieces to backup the notion that Islam is a peaceful religion and those causing violence are misinterpreting the jihad verses.

    An angry Islamic scholar can find many pieces in the Qu'ran to backup his thesis that it has commanded him to fight the unbelievers, and thus violence is fully justified.

    It's all very nice and fluffy when we have Muslims exalting how these jihadis have misinterpreted the Qu'ran.

    Quite simply it's not these people, like Admin, that bother me...  

  22. # Blogger jonz

    I believe that whatever islam is now, it is being pushed down a totalitarian road by the spread of a wahabi inspired view of the religion that is pushed by the Saudis, using the massive wealth from oil.

    Yup. Admin what you say is ooh-so-reassuring, but shouldn't you be telling all this to your brothers who seek to destroy us???

    They're the one's that need their minds changed -- not us, thankyou very much.  

  23. # Anonymous alison

    "Any open-minded person embarking on a study of Islam, especially if using books written in European languages, should be aware of the seemingly inherent distortions that permeate almost all non-Muslim writings on Islam"

    Non muslim 'distortions' arent really the issue.

    Any open minded person embarking on a study of Islam should also be aware that 'Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact' (Rushdie) which plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists 'allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes' and therefore justifies, unchallenged, their use of the more violent verses. Its not 'non muslim distortions' that are even the issue.  

  24. # Anonymous Flashbuck

    Whenever they do a survey of muslims and mulsim opinion they should just  

  25. # Anonymous Flashbuck

    Whenever they do a survey of muslims and muslim opinion they should just ask muslim males under the age of thirty what their opinion is instead of all muslims - male, female, young and old. It is largely young male muslims under the age of thirty who are the most radical and the most fanatical.  

Links to this post

Create a Link

Looks odd? Use Firefox!

Email drunkenblogging AT gmail.com