The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between Islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living).”

– Mahmoud Ayoub

Is it?

The quote above, stated by famous Muslim scholar sounds more like an apology of innocent spiritual journey of every Muslim than like a holy war against infidels. Professor Fazlur Rahman Malik has used the expression  jihad to describe all the efforts of Muslim believers to obtain  “a just moral-social order“. Unfortunately, that moral-social order is not possible to be realized under western system of values and believes but only under Shari’ah Law, which is the highest law given to the Muslims directly from God. It is not surprising why many Muslims don’t want to accept any law which is not made by Allah, but it is also for expecting that they will try to force the rest of the world to submit themselves to that Allah’s Law. That is the main root of our intercultural and inter religious clash. With or without terrorism, Shari’ah Law doesn’t want to be limited on the area where the Muslims are but to be spread as the rule of God and to be accepted as the highest form of judgment. Those kind of observations don’t bring the possibility for peace but rather open the Pandora’s box and chance for political Islam to be used and misused all over.

As far as I understand Islam, and I am aware of the facts that there are so many options for studying Qur’an, Shari’ah Law is a crucial goal and the jihad is the method of achieving it. Usually, when it comes to jihad definitions, people are automatically think that is a synonym for Islamic terrorism. It is more than naive.Why? Because the jihad is a part of Islamic terrorism agenda and strategy but the jihad also  plays more  sophisticated game, which is behind diplomatic relations, cultural activities or economical cooperation. Jihad is not only visible through the cheap terrorism. Jihad what is covered by political aspirations and world wide “peaceful interests ” is more dangerous and has long-term influences.


Bill Warner, an expert for Political Islam issues,  was writing about The For Jihads and was trying to define that there are also jihads which we  should be informed about and be prepared to not get into the “soft easy trap”. He states that there are four kinds of jihad: the jihad of murder, the jihad of money, the jihad of  speech and the jihad of writing. This is his classification based on his own research. The mentioned author believes that the jihad of money is the most serious attack on our civilization progress because the oil money  comes on our universities and shape our educational framework. Not better is that kind of  “the cultural jihad” which changes the paradigms in the whole new editions of books or media information. Most of the time, it seems that Islam is praised and every opposite opinion is not allowed or it is punished and censored.

All of these jihads are very tightly connected and one can’t make success without another. The logic is obvious. If you don’t have money, you can’t make influence on the educational networks and also on the political ground. When you have money, you can change all you need to change and to make all excuses you need for other jihads. The jihad of murder is the hard core of spreading of Shari’ah law and it could be practiced through the Islamic terrorism. When the jihad of money controls the media and the jihad of speech and writing forms the public opinion, Islamic terrorism could be presented in one day as a fight for freedom and justice. Everything comes together like in a puzzle.

The Muslim jurists come out with their own categories of jihads:

  1. Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bil qalb/nafs) which is some kind of spiritual struggle for a believer, internal battle.
  2. Jihad by the tongue/pen (jihad bil lisan/qallam) – which is compatible to Warner’s the jihad of speech and writing, verbal and written defense of Islam but also its spread.
  3. Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad)- obligation to combat injustice and do what is right ( whatever is that ” right”)
  4. Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif)- fighting for Allah and on His way. In other words, it is Holy War, referenced so many times in Qur’an and mostly against non-believers.maxresdefault

 It happens regularly that the last two jihads are considered as one- holy war. But I like to think that jihad by the hand is an introduction into the jihad by the sword. First of all, Shari’ah law is an absolute law and it annihilate all other laws. If we understand that in some western country there are majority of Muslims who find themselves offended by human laws, they will consider that society as an oppressive and injustice  and they will be able to demonstrate against it and to open the door for jihad by the hand. Afterwards, if nothing helps, come more serious systematical and violent changes which will hit us all. It is more than a simply, Muslim highest set of rules, incorporated in Shari’ah Law doesn’t let anything else to coexist  and it will treat it  as an insult.

Personally, I think that the western Muslims have more freedom here in the West to enjoy their religion than they really have had it in their home lands. They can choose which part or what dimension of Islam they will follow and how often they will practice it. In their origin countries, they aren’t able to choose, they must accept and  do not question it. To me, it is more than a delusional that some of them are demanding Shari’ah Law in the middle of European democracies, when they have escaped the ISLAMIC RULES and ran away from its strict policy towards the lack of religious discipline. We all know that western democracy would be dead in Islamic zone as well as we should keep in mind that Shari’ah Law would make our democracy toxic and make it extinct .

The BIG NO to the forced and uncontrolled Islamic immigration on the west is not a result of right-wing extremism or European patriotism colored by fascism. It is a clear knowledge of what could or would happen if many Muslims come to the West and start asking for their rights and start forcing their rights upon ours. We don’t have similar cultural, religious and political heritage. It is totally contradictory  what our politicians are trying to make, to let the snakes and frogs playing in the same pond and to feed no one. That wont work. It is not anymore only  about the Islamic terrorism challenge  but also about the malign spreading of Islam through the silent jihads. Multiculturalism will be eaten in Shari’ah law in one day. You can convert or you can be annihilated . The medium phase is the third-class or Dhimmi status for the people of Books. All of them aren’t the products of multiculturalism mastermind. They are the outcome of repressive system which feeds itself through the fear of punishment.

The four jihads are synthetic cover for the real idea of making ISLAMIC EMPIRE, THE CALIPHATE based on Shari’ah Law and absence of any freedom, especially not for infidels. There is a more  serious story behind beheading of non-believers by Islamic terrorists. They are only blood-thirsty jackals. Real game leaders are polite and kind, and they are paying to your media to not tell you the truth behind the truth.


    Does Islam permit Muslims to lie?

    Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”
    There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
    Quran (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
    Quran (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
    Quran (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals – see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)
    Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”
    Quran (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
    Quran (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
    Quran (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
    Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
    Hadith and Sira
    Sahih Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad’s men after they were “guaranteed” safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

    Sahih Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

    Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an “enemy.”

    Sahih Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”

    Sahih Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.

    From Islamic Law:

    Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression… (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)

    “One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.”
    The Hadith makes it clear that Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them or protect themselves. There are several forms:

    Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true as it relates to the Muslim identity.

    Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”

    Tawriya – Intentionally creating a false impression.

    Muruna – ‘Blending in’ by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

    Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans (known as Hudaibiya) that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

    Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

    At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed – having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981, Ibn Kathir v.4 p.300).

    Such was the reputation of early Muslims for lying and killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam (to avoid just such a demise). However, the others believed they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were tied up and beheaded by the missionaries – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

    Today’s apologists often rationalize Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

    Leaders in the Arab world sometimes say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Palestinian leaders routinely tell Westerners about their desire for peace with Israel, even as they whip Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews. Yassir Arafat even referenced “Hudaibiya” – an admission to conning guillible non-Muslims.

    The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well that John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, claimed well after the fact that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’

    The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of this was true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Quran puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing taqiyya to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

    The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it “has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization.” In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

    The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says “it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory”. The goal being the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

    Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

    In 2013, a scholar at the prestigious al-Azhar university decreed that Muslims may wear the cross in order to deceive Christians into thinking they are friendly. He cited 3:28 which says not to be friends with non-Muslims unless it is a way of “guarding” yourself against them.

    “Hiding faith” can mean deceiving others about Islam in order to make it appear more attractive. For example, a prominent Muslim activist in the United States, Linda Sarsour, bills herself as a “progressive” and says that gays, women and religious minorities need not worry about Sharia being imposed. She even says that money is lent free of charge under Islamic law (more about that here).

    The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people.

    The near absence of Quranic verses and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced their religion teaches honesty. In fact, many Muslims are honest because of this. But when lying is addressed in the Quran, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” – referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.

    Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.


    “You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”

    Linda Sarsour, Twitter (May 12, 2015)
    Sharia proponents in the West paint their critics as religious bigots and assure their audience that they have nothing to fear from Islamic law. Although, one might imagine this to be a hard sell given that Sharia is openly discriminatory, bigoted and sexist, it is often the opponents who are slurred as ‘fascists.’ Some gays even disparage other gays for speaking out against a theocratic code that plainly calls for their execution, even as their peers are being thrown from buildings and stoned by Sharia courts.

    This bizarre situation owes much to the fact that Sharia advocates in the West have learned to cloak themselves in the mantle of progressivism to peddle what they know is a lie (to people who seem completely uninterested in fact-checking).

    One of the more well-known advocates of Sharia in America is Linda Sarsour, a self-described “progressive” (and faux feminist), who assures eager ears that liberal views of dignity and human rights are upheld and even exceeded by Islamic law. Given Sarsour’s rock-star status, it is unlikely that she doesn’t know what Sharia really is, meaning that she is actively misleading her audience.

    In 2015, Sarsour began advertising the Sharia rule of “not paying interest” on Twitter. One of her tweets reads as follows: “If you’re still paying interest than [sic] Sharia hasn’t taken over America” (May 12, 2015). A separate tweet on the same day (above) explained that credit cards and loans would be “interest free” under Sharia. In other words, if Islamic law was adopted, money would effectively be lent free of charge. As she put it, “Sounds nice, doesn’t it?”

    Actually, it sounds like BS. If money were lent free of charge, then it would obviously not be lent at all, since there is no incentive for the lender to take the risk. Pure Sharia does not work in the real world of capital and trade. Islamic finance thus involves creating lender incentive, but calling it something other than “interest” or “usury.”

    This pretend game is known as murabaha. In simplistic terms, murabaha means inflating the purchase price to assure that the lender gets a return on their investment. While it may not be called “interest,” the effect is generally the same for the borrower.

    For example, let’s say that you take out a normal $100,000 mortgage on a house. At 5% interest, your payment is $537/mo for 360 months. Your total cost is about $193,000.

    Under Sharia finance, your contract with the lender technically charges 0% interest… but the purchase amount is $193,000! In other words, you still pay the same by the end of the term. The only difference is that it isn’t called “interest” (and your ability to pay down early or realize equity is greatly complicated, meaning that the lender probably enjoys the arrangement more than you do).

    Linda Sarsour is not a moron. She knows that there is no real financial benefit to Sharia. Her gullible audience does not. They believe what she says. She is thus blatantly misleading them into thinking that they will not pay to borrow money under Sharia, when it simply isn’t true.

    This is an example of taqiyya, the Islamic principle of deception for the advancement of Islam. While, in the case of finance, the consequences are relatively benign once the truth is discovered, the same cannot be said of the fate of religious minorities, atheists, women and homosexuals, who would (and do) suffer greatly under Islamic law.


  2. you are really a good webmaster. The web site loading speed is incredible. It seems that you’re doing any unique trick. Furthermore, The contents are masterwork. you have done a excellent job on this topic!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

About Sarahowlgirl1982

I am a master of Political Sciences, with special focus on Security Studies, Islamic Counter Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I enjoy discovering and commenting things which are " in the air" but still not spoken.I also do like science writing and planing to move myself into the pure science journalism !