If mainstream leaders of Islam embrace terror as a legitimate aim and aggressive Jihad as a legitimate method, what reason is there to believe that Islam is peaceful?
Andrew G. Bostom concludes:
For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not.” “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?” He answers his own question as follows: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
Usmani explodes the myths that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking, or that this living institution is somehow irrelevant to our era. More ominously, mainstream Islamic legists like Mr. Usmani, mainstream Islamic military theorists, epitomized by Brigadier S.K. Malik, and mainstream Islamic government advisory groups such as Paksitan’s Council of Islamic Ideology motivate and validate the murderous acts of jihadism committed (or attempted) by pious Muslims, including Faisal Abbasi and Faisal Shahzad.
Read the whole thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment