islam teaches me that i must defend myself & my fellows against the depredations of islam, and that i may kill in order to do so ... .

islam teaches me that i must defend myself & my fellows against the depredations of islam, and that i may kill in order to do so, if necessary. 

update, 08.24.2011.  if you doubt my assertion that islam preaches that a muslim may kill anyone who is a danger to muslim society, regardless of whether said person has threatened or harmed that musliim, please consider this.  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/cairo-university-lecturer-in-islamic-jurisprudence-every-muslim-who-meets-a-zionist-is-entitled-to-k.html .  dr. salah sultan, a lecturer in islamic jurisprudence at cairo university, opines that any muslim on egyptian soil may rightfully kill any zionist.  simple, straightforward as that.  end update.

this was the precise issue addressed in my essay, "it is a moral imperative to resist aggression":

the questions posed here and the issues examined becomes, therefore, in my mind, when do we acquiesce in the necessity [to defend ourselves], in those moral imperatives engendered by and in response to the actions of those who wage aggressive war upon our rights, our liberties, our religious and political values, and our civilization.  in short, when does it become a moral obligation to rise in defense of ourselves, whether that defense express itself by intellectual argument, or whether it is pressed by violence and force of arms.

the essay posits the notion that not only is self defense permissible within certain contexts, but that it is obligatory in a moral and ethical sense to rise to one's own defense, or the defense of one's fellows, or the defense of one's religion or heritage or civilization.

i suppose it no secret that i view the west, the united states, my fellows and myself as under aggressive, unprovoked and unrelenting attack by islam and its muslims adherents, and that i think it high time that the west, we, you and i act accordingly and take those measures necessary and proper to defend ourselves.  the only moral and ethical inhibition i have seen in the past is just to whom may i take such measures, and need i identify a person actively engaged in a terrorist act before i may exact just retribution.

this inhibition is rapidly diminishing, as i have resolved to my own satisfaction, if not necessarily predictably a jury's, that all of islam is a just entity against who to retaliate, just as islam views me as a just target.  tit for tat, it has become, in my own mind.

curiously i find that islam agrees with me, and that according to islam doctrine i am justified to defend myself against islam, against muslims, for islams attacks upon my fellows and i.  islam views self defense very broadly, as do i. 

hey, i looked it up, at google.  really.

i direct your attention to the website of ayatollah sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, the link being http://english.bayynat.org.lb/fatawa/s10p1.htm .  the subject discussed is self defense according to the islamic law of sharia, and, if you will notice, the article is under the heading of "fatwa."

my notions of what is entirely fit and proper for you and i to do in defending ourselves from islamic predation and depredation is precisely confirmed by islamic doctrine, and this islamic scholar.  he writes, this man learned in the ethics of self preservation, and in the defense of one's fellows and one's homeland:

  "self-defense and all that which is aimed at preserving one's life are intrinsic urges. thus, the shari'a has made it lawful and obligatory on the mukallaf to comply with it. furthermore, by rewarding the practicing self-defense and punishing for its abandonment, the shari'a has stressed its importance for it aims at man's prosperity, progress of nations, and peace and security of the human race.

the importance of this sacred duty is not less than that of enjoining good and forbidding evil, if it does not outstrip it. by taking to the former, we aim at defending the faith and moral values; by practicing the latter, which is a defensive jihad, we mean to protect the very existence of the human race society, and the homeland, hence the plethora of quranic verses and traditions (hadith) which talk favorably about this topic; parallels have often been drawn between jihad and striking a deal with the creator, in that embarking on it would open up a special gate to heaven, which allah has reserved for the elite among his creation.

we will confine the discussion to the defensive type of jihad (al jihad ad difa'ie), because the jihad in the way of allah (al jihad al ibtida'ie) is not feasible before the re-appearance of the twelfth imam (may allah hasten his re-appearance).

defensive jihad does not stop at defending oneself, property, honor, etc., rather it goes far beyond this circle to cover the defense of others, be they muslim or non-muslim. furthermore, it goes beyond driving away direct threat to one's own being to that which is indirect, e.g. that which may result in undermining society, the land as a sovereign entity, and all that which relates to its security, economic welfare, political interests, and so on of the type which makes the individual and society function according to what allah has ordained.

on certain occasions, self-defense against the dangers on a personal level could fall on the individual himself (wjibun aini), if he can do that. however, should the individual [an other, for instance: jjjay] not be in a position to protect himself, others should, by way of wajibun kifa'ie, take it upon themselves to do it for him [as myself, for instance: jjjay].

yet, defending the homeland and other public interests falls within the remit of wajibun kifa'ie to start with. that said, it might take the description of wajibun aini sometimes."

in addition, islam holds that if one is entitled to defend one's self or others, it may be done by pre-emptive strike.  this is made eminently clear in the below passage:

 173. protecting oneself is done in two stages:

i. ........

ii.    the use of pre-emptive strike, as a means of averting imminent danger, but stopping short of causing death. however, it is within one right to use any means at their disposal to protect themselves, even if it leads to hurting the aggressor and killing them in the process.

there you have it, just about as clearly spoken as possible.  according to the teaching of islam as pronounced by sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, self defense is obligatory to advance the moral imperative of g_d when undertaken to defend aggression taken against one's self, one's fellow's, or one's country, religious heritage and civilization.

in the analysis set forth above, self defense is not merely permissible.  it is a duty.

i shall not hear of it for a muslim who follows the faith to criticize me for defending myself from him, for it is written by the direction of allah that i am obliged to do so.  i take this analysis no less profound, correct or enlightened simply because its propositions are advanced by an infidel such as myself.

hey, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, as we say out these parts.  and, note, that in the analysis advanced by the learned sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, whether he be sheik, imam or ayatollah or whatever i am obliged to undertake the defense of my country from islam predation and aggression, even to the extent of protecting against indirect threats such as threaten to undermine the strength of my community.

it is written.   and, i find it oddly compelling, coming from islam.  and, i adopt it as good instruction for me.  now, i undertake the task of finding confirmation from a source from within western civilization, and i have taken a cursory examination of the usual suspects, and will start with acquinas, augustine those worthy catholics, and will look to kant and locke.

but, in the meantime, i thought that you would enjoy this.  and, how can a muslim object to an infidel following the teaching of islam.  {:O)  {:OP   {:O)

john jay @ 06.26.2010

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/06/-to-not-resist-aggression-it-is-immoral-.html 

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/06/it-is-a-moral-imperative-to-resist-aggression-.html 

from the writings of john bar naphka, son of the black smith.

 

Comments

[GM Roper]

Too much. I suggest we threaten Medina with a bombing campaign unless they relent and back off.

[JewishOdysseus]

John, this lovely essay proves one thing, if nothing else: You are a good muslim!

[A muslim]

If you feel like following islam why not try and follow this verse of the quran:

Chapter 5 verse 32:

If anyone kills a single innocent human being it is as though he has killed the whole of humanity but if anyone saves anyone's life it is as though he has saved the life of whole humanity.

Islam unequivocally condemns killing any innocent human being (whether muslim or christian or jew, --no matter what faith).

And according to islam every muslim should try to save human lives, save!!

If you really like to know about Islam try to read the Quran or the teachings of prophet which are the only authentic sources of Islam!! I repeat THE ONLY!!!

Who told you to go and read some fatwa by some person or some so called scholar.

For your information, if you kill a single innocent human being in the name of self defense, far from being closer to islamic identity you won't even be considered a human according to the teachings of Islam.

[john jay]

a muslim:

two words for you.--

1.)abrogation
2.)debate

abrogation. the early, flowery verses of the koran are abrogated by later verses, which most assuredly authorize muslims to kill infidels.

infidels are hardly "innocents" under islamic, sharia, are they?

i will open this forum to you to debate on koranic text, say, with someone like robert spencer of jihad watch, who is an islamic scholar and reads the texts of the koran in arabic.

you want to give it a go?

and, finally, on "authentic" and "authorative" sources on islam.

you dissemble. hint: that is a fancy word for misinform or misdirect.

now, muslims have been killing humanity, in the form of religious conflict strictly between muslims, since the death of mohammed over who gets to be the authoritative source on the koran, and they call the arguing factions sunni and shia, in the main, the two major factions.

(so much for islam/muslims not killing. they kill each other more than they kill anyone else!!)

innocents included?

and, dear friend "a muslim," would you care to explain to the rest of those who read these pages, what an "innocent human being" is, according to muslim scripture.

let's flush you out right now, and see if you can be candid, and straight forward with the truth.

come on, now, a muslim, tell us what an "innocent" is? is it a muslim child who is wheeled in his baby stroller by an iraqi police recruiting center blown to bits by an islamic terrorist bomb?

is it an infidel child riding a train in spain blown to bits by an islamic bomb?

you opened the argument.

come on back for a little more, and let us examine some of the things you say.

john jay

p.s. i note that you do not say one thing to refute either:

1.)the words of the scholar sayyed muhammad hussein fadlallah, or his interpretation of islam as set forth in his fatawa, or
2.)my characterization of them.

nor do you say that the teachings of islam shall not give guidance in such matters to an infidel to me.

instead, you engage only in misdirection & misformation about an abrogated verse in the koran.

in other words, you lie.

explain to my readers, dear "a muslim," about when a muslim is authorized to lie about islam in order to confuse infidels of its true purpose.

this comment section is open to you.

come on back. any time. we'll keep the porch light on for you.

[john jay]

a muslim:

i would be very happy to have you respond to these observations as well, mr. "islam is a religion of peace," with relation that islam does not kill innocents.

first, & again, define who is an "innocent" in the eyes of islam. is a jew an innocent? a catholic? a sunni to a shia, a shia to a sunni?

and, then there is this issue which all who blather "islam is a religion of peace" avoiding facing, imho.

that is, all major jihadist terror acts receive religious approval from clerics before occurring.

is that not right?

that is, "suicide bombers" do not think they are committing "suicide" or illegally or irreligiously taking their own lives in violation against islamic proscriptions toward doing the same, do they, because they are educated by authentic and authoritative islamic clerics that they are not doing so.

is that not right?

and, finally, i am unaware of any major ayatollah or imam or head of any of the major islamic teaching universities or mosques condemning on an institutional or religious basis islamic jihad as carried out against israel, the united states, europe and the rest of the world, such as directed against hindu's in india, or buddhists in thailand, ... , are you?

are you interested in commenting on what that means, that islam does not condemn terror killings and jihadist killings, such as the world trade centers or the mumbai massacres?

is this not right?

so, mr. "a. muslim," would you care to address these issues.

john jay

[john jay]

a muslim:

finally, will you refute the teaching of sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah as being contrary to islam and the word of allah.

or, will you acknowledge the teaching of sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah as being true to islam and the word of alleh?

are fadlallah's teachings the position of islam?

john jay

[eib]

Quote:
Chapter 5 verse 32:

If anyone kills a single innocent human being it is as though he has killed the whole of humanity but if anyone saves anyone's life it is as though he has saved the life of whole humanity.
end.

Not quite.

Too bad verse 33 has to follow 32.

Quote:
32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
end quote.

The decree of life was never given to Muslims and certainly not to Arabs.
It was given only "to the Children of Israel."
Which Muslims CERTAINLY ARE NOT.

[john jay]

eib:

thank you very much for your very thoughtful and concise exegesis of these passages.

islam provides and means no comfort to those who are not muslim.

and, oddly enough, islam provides and means no comfort to those who are muslim.

islam kills non-believers, without compunction. and, if they have no infidels to kill, they kill each other, squabbling over the meaning of the koran and big mo's life. and, who is to interpret all that.

they just kill, incessantly. seems to be the case, wherever they are.

john jay