UN fears new conflict in Somalia

[mattxr 9]

Daily arms shipments are arriving in Somalia in violation of a United Nations arms embargo, a senior UN official has told the BBC.

Bruno Schiemsky, co-ordinator of the UN Monitoring Group, said the flow of arms had risen substantially since Islamists went on the offensive this month.

He warned it was only a matter of time before the Union of Islamic Courts clashed with interim government forces.

The African Union has urged the world to renew support for the government.

Meanwhile the UN refugee agency has warned that unless a peaceful solution could be found, Somalia's humanitarian problems would "increase tremendously", AFP news agency reported.

And a UK government minister, Lord Triesman - speaking on behalf of the International Contact Group on Somalia - called on the transitional government and Islamic militias to begin a dialogue to try to bring order to the country.

The interim government is under growing pressure from the Islamist militia who now control the capital, Mogadishu, and have extended their authority through much of central and southern Somalia.

Somalia is struggling to emerge from 15 years of anarchy and violence which have seen it with no functioning government since the overthrow of Siad Barre in 1991.

Military build-up

Mr Schiemsky describes a growing build-up of arms inside Somalia with deliveries coming in by air and by sea on a daily basis.

The Union of Islamic Courts is reported to be beginning to threaten President Abdullahi Yusuf's own base in the semi-autonomous northern region of Puntland.

The president and the transitional government are based in Baidoa, north-west of Mogadishu.

On Saturday, the Islamists complained that Ethiopian troops had crossed into Somalia - a claim denied by Addis Ababa.

Ethiopia has supported the transitional president, and is determined not to see an Islamic state founded in Somalia.

Independent sources are now also saying that about 500 Ethiopian troops are indeed inside Somalia - just east of Baidoa.

With both sides re-arming, and credible reports of foreign troops inside the country, the situation in Somalia looks increasingly grim, the BBC's Martin Plaut says.

Warning of the risk of a worsening humanitarian crisis, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, told a news conference in the Kenyan capital:

"What we appeal to the international community, both in Somalia as in everywhere else, is to do its best to create conditions for a peaceful settlement of the problems and an adequate political solution."

Beleaguered government

In a statement from its headquarters in Ethiopia, the African Union (AU) condemned the violence destabilising Somalia, and called for the early deployment of peacekeeping forces in the country.

The military advance of the Islamist militia has threatened to undermine the minimal achievements of the transitional government, established 18 months ago.

The AU said the international community should not let up in its support for what it described as the legitimate authority in Somalia.

However, the Union of Islamic Courts, which denies US claims that it is linked to al-Qaeda militants, has said it has no intention of trying to take over from the transitional administration and is prepared to engage in talks, given the right conditions.

not to be funny or anything but could be good for a campaign?

[ran 0]

We can't decently let these people go on killing eachother but it's a damn tempting solution.

[Gollum1 0]

Build-up of arms? Somalia doesn't have enough weapons to go around anymore? I hope this doesn't escalate further, that country has seen enough misery.

[ran 0]

Build-up of arms? Somalia doesn't have enough weapons to go around anymore? I hope this doesn't escalate further, that country has seen enough misery.

This should escalate or at least go on that way as long as we, the western nations use it as a proxy against Islamic extremism in Western Africa. This country has seen enough misery you're right, but it's not going to stop anytime soon if the African Union supported by Europe doesn't take care of its business.

On a side note they have the decency to kill their peers with bullets most of the time at least.

[Supah 0]

The quickest end to this is if they would just stop killing each other. If they really want to kill each other I don't see why we as the west should get involved, the most recent attempt to stop the violence there didn't exactly end in a pretty spectacle.

[ran 0]

The quickest end to this is if they would just stop killing each other. If they really want to kill each other I don't see why we as the west should get involved, the most recent attempt to stop the violence there didn't exactly end in a pretty spectacle.

Better get involved or else nothing will be done and the consequences of 10 more years of civil war have to be taken into account when it comes to regional stability. It would be all well if Somalia's troubles were only confined within the borders, but they aren't and look like they're going to expant westward if extremists set a foot down there.

[Balschoiw 0]

Somalia is a loose/loose situation for all parties involved.

War is a habit there. A bad habit but a habit everyone has.

By funding special warlords and cutting some others from the money flux the west still creates more rage and more hunger for money and power. The fundamental moves come as no surprise. Apart from Mogadishu the country is run by islamists for over a decade now. Islam and warlords mix up. Add some Khat and cheap weapons and people who are on the run for more than 2 decades then you have your rock solid ground for Somalia.

First of all the West, esp. the USA should quit funding loyal warlords. Even if they are loyal to the US they are the same murdering gangsters as all the other 124934289 red bearded weirdos down there.

A win situation in that country can only be achieved on a microscaled level, e.g a person that survives one day longer because of a NGO delivery that isn´t sold by warlords.

That´s all you can achieve. The rest is an illusion.

[EiZei 0]

What can you say, chaos is an ideal soil for taleban wannabes.

[JdB 151]

Trying to solve the situation with military force will cause a second insurgency and a mass increase in islamic terrorism. Not doing anything will cause the same sh*t to go on forever. Nothing they do will have any positive effect. The only thing that could bring a solution is wisdom and compassion, and I don't think God has planted that tree over there...

Can't we just nuke the place and be done with it

[Heatseeker 0]

Islamic extremists control the capital, we all know they (clans/armed militia groups) all fight for power over there. Africa is too big for the west to concern with Somalia exclusively, i think some "closer" countries would have a better influence at stoping the clan fights for power and establishing some sort of supported central government, turning Somalia into a country?

Easier said than done though...

[theavonlady 2]

Africa is too big for the west to concern with Somalia exclusively, i think some "closer" countries would have a better influence at stoping the clan fights for power and establishing some sort of supported central government, turning Somalia into a country?

I doubt it. The "closer countries" are possibly nothing more than next in line:

Africa : The Gold Mine of Al-Qaeda and Global Jihad.

EDIT: Snippet:

Introduction

The interest and presence of global Jihad groups in Africa is not new, particularly in the eastern and northern parts of the continent. Yet, more recently, in the wake of political violence in Sudan and Somalia , it seems that Africa is becoming a viable region for Al-Qaeda. This has manifested itself through – organized Jihadi radicalism, and self-radicalized sympathizers of global Jihad, which follow the strategy and doctrines of Al-Qaeda and its supportive clerics and scholars. In the past year we have witnessed a growing presence of new formed Jihadi groups in Africa , which use old and more recent violent conflicts to radicalize African Islamic elements, recruit support, and bring the African arena under the Jihadi “global umbrella.â€

Recently, a new article published by a virtual magazine of supporters of global Jihad—Sada al-Jihad (Echo of Jihad)—has very clearly sketched the new direction of Al-Qaeda or global Jihad – towards Africa . The magazine, which celebrated in June 2006 its 7 th issue, appears to be an alternative to the “late†popular Jihadi virtual magazine Sawt al-Jihad, which was published by Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia . It disappeared after the severe and successful measures taken by the Saudi authorities against the Saudi branch of Al-Qaeda.

The article in Arabic, titled “Al-Qaeda is moving to Africa†by Abu Azzam al-Ansari provides us with an analysis of all the possible advantages of Africa as a battlefield and greenhouse for global Jihad. Here is the translation of the full text of the article, which speaks very clearly for itself.

.......................................

UPDATE: That was fast!

Quote[/b] ]Somalia: Islamic Courts declare "jihad" on Ethiopian troops

East African Jihad to begin? From Garowe Online, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

MOGADISHU, Somalia June 18 (Garowe Online) THE UNION of Islamic Courts that have taken control of Mogadishu and parts of southern Somalia in recent weeks have declared "jihad" on Ethiopian troops who have allegedly crossed into Somalia.

The Chairman of the Courts, Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, said that Ethiopia should not allow its troops to enter Somalia and added that heavily armed militias loyal to the Courts will take military action against the invasion of Ethiopian troops.

Chairman Sheik Sharif called on the people of Somalia to prepare themselves for the defense of the Motherland from Ethiopian military aggression. He refered to the presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia as "direct aggression."

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]Ethiopian troops sent to Somali border

Ethiopia denies claims of incursion

Saturday, June 17, 2006; Posted: 12:04 p.m. EDT (16:04 GMT)

JOWHAR, Somalia (AP) -- The leader of the Somali Islamist group that captured the capital this week said 300 Ethiopian troops had crossed into the country Saturday, but an Ethiopian official said his country's troops were at the border and had not crossed it.

Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, chairman of the Islamic Courts Union, said Ethiopian troops entered Somalia through the border town of Dolow in the southwestern region of Gedo early Saturday.

"We want the whole world to know what's going on," Ahmed told journalists. "Ethiopia has crossed our borders and are heading for us. They are supporting the transitional federal government."

In recent days, Ethiopian troops have been crossing into Somali border towns and leaving, Ahmed said.

"They have deployed a lot of soldiers around the border towns, which is why we have been saying that Ethiopia is going to send in troops to Somalia," the cleric said.

Ahmed's translator initially said the chairman had accused the United States of encouraging an Ethiopian intervention, but Ahmed later said that was a mistranslation and he had not made such an accusation.

In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Bereket Simon, an adviser to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, said Ethiopian troops had not entered Somalia.

"Ethiopia has a right to monitor its border," Bereket told said. He gave no further details.

It was the first official statement by an Ethiopian official about rumors there were Ethiopian troops at the border.

Rise to power

The Islamic Courts Union is the group behind the militiamen that have swept across southern Somalia installing clan-based, religiously oriented municipal administrations.

It captured Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, on June 6 after months of on-and-off fighting with an alliance of U.S.-backed secular warlords and now controls most of southern Somalia.

More than 330 people died in the fighting, most of them civilians.

The Islamic group, accused by the United States of harboring al Qaeda, portrays itself as free of links to Somalia's past turmoil and capable of bringing order and unity. But the future of a country accustomed to moderate Islam would be uncertain under hard-line Islamic rulers.

Ahmed denied on Saturday that any foreigners were involved in the Islamic courts or that any one in the courts had ties to al Qaeda.

Ethiopia has intervened in Somalia in the past to prevent Islamic extremists from taking power.

Ethiopians were also key power brokers in forming President Abdullahi Yusuf's transitional Somalia government in 2004. Yusuf was their preferred candidate for president. Yusuf, himself a former warlord, had asked for Ethiopian troops to back up his government in 2004.

In a statement Saturday, Yusuf said he was willing to hold talks with the Islamic Courts Union if they agree to mediation by Yemen.

He said they must stop their advance and agree not to enter any more towns than they have already and they must recognize the legitimacy of the government and the constitution.

Ahmed said that his group was ready to hold talks with what he described as the "illegitimate government," but he would not agree to any conditions.

He denied the Islamic courts had any plans to advance on Baidoa, the seat of Yusuf's government. Ahmed said that, however, if there were popular uprisings where the people asked for the help of the Islamic courts, the courts would provide assistance.

He said he and fellow Islamic court leaders could not understand why the U.S. assisted the warlords, adding that he thought there were bad and good people in the U.S. government. The bad ones backed the warlords, Ahmed said.

Warlords flee

An Islamic Courts Union spokesman, meanwhile, said the last two main warlords who lost the Somali capital to the militia fled the country on board a U.S. warship Saturday.

But the U.S. Naval 5th Fleet, which patrols international waters off Somalia and is based in Bahrain, said it had no reports that any of its ships had picked them up.

Abdi Rahman Osman, spokesman for the Islamic Courts Union, said Muse Sudi Yalahow and Bashir Rage left Mogadishu late Friday on a boat and were later picked up by the warship.

U.S. officials have acknowledged backing the warlords against the Islamic group.

The departure of Yalahow and Rage from Mogadishu would mean the 11-member warlord-led Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism has collapsed.

Somalia has been without an effective central government since the fall of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991.

Yusuf's government is supported by Somalia's neighbors, the United Nations, the United States and the European Union, so opposing it could mean regional and international isolation and possibly crippling sanctions for any administration the Islamic forces try to build.

The transitional government, whose military consists of little more than the president's personal militia, has watched from the sidelines as the Islamic forces overcame a coalition of secular warlords.

CNN.com

[Balschoiw 0]

1. There is a difference between Jihad and AQ

2. Almost any religious driven conflict in Africa has been labelled "Jihad" for the last 20 years while the daily islamic religion in Africa is totally different from Islam elsewhere and therefore the definition of Jihad is different aswell.

Attacks on refugees from Ethopia for example were labelled

under the false pretense of Jihad while they were just motivated by greed and ethnical reasons.

It seems to be more comfortable for western media to put the label on Jihad on every massacre the continent has seen lately, while it is factually wrong.

3. The AQ claim imho is highly overrated. From all the attacks and clashes that happened over the last 10 years only a minimal percentage has been conducted by single AQ members. The rest is ethnical and secular driven violence or just violence carried out with guns, with no big background.

A life is africa is not worth a penny. It happened to me that I got offered an ashtray on a little market near Belet and as I wasn´t that delighted about it the seller offered me his kid-daughter along with the ashtray. Buy one, get two.

Men threw their wifes into the barbwire to use them as human bridges. Maybe this demonstrates that human life has no value in some regions of the african continent.

Keep in mind that there is hardly any infrastructure in those troubled regions, so even if the AQ would try hard to recruit there, it would take them ages to get in contact with local volunteers. Apart from that most juveniles and "warriors" are organized with the warlords or tribal bosses and are more interested in hardcore crime then religious driven terror acts.

Of course Bin Laden for example can take benefit of his Sudanese wife. He can move freely in a huge area, not because he´s boss of AQ, but because one of his wife´s is the daughter of the local Warlord that controls a huge territory. Family ties are number one ties, but the people don´t get frantic because he´s boss of AQ, an organization most of the people don´t even know.

In the end it´s more about personal greed and loyalty towards tribal leaders than AQ.

[Ironsight 1]

It happened to me that I got offered an ashtray on a little market near Belet and as I wasn´t that delighted about it the seller offered me his kid-daughter along with the ashtray. Buy one, get two.

So how did you get the girl through customs at the airport?

[Balschoiw 0]

There are good jokes and bad jokes.

Apart from that there were no customs

[theavonlady 2]

1. There is a difference between Jihad and AQ

In what sense?

[EdGrrr 0]

The Northern part of Somalia (former British Somalia) is remarkably peaceful, especially compared to the area around Mogadishu. It has withdrawn from the Somali union and is trying to leave peacefully. Shame no other government in the world will recognise it. Somaliland.Gov

[Acecombat 0]

1. There is a difference between Jihad and AQ

In what sense?

If you've been around since the WTC incident i think plenty has been said and done on that subject in the mainstream media in all forms of it paper/tv/net etc.

For someone whose kept up with the news and events this should be quite clear.

[theavonlady 2]

1. There is a difference between Jihad and AQ

In what sense?

If you've been around since the WTC incident i think plenty has been said and done on that subject in the mainstream media in all forms of it paper/tv/net etc.

For someone whose kept up with the news and events this should be quite clear.

I'm sorry, I'm not saying there isn't a difference. Yet AQ advocates Jihad as a method to achieve goals.

So it's not clear to me what Balschoiw's point was here. Since you seem to know, could you please enlighten me?

[Balschoiw 0]

While jihad is the metholodigy of islamic believers to struggle with themselves and their inner conflicts on one hand and the violent approach to non-believers on the other hand (<- read, 2 sides of the medal), AQ does not run a Jihad by definition of jihad as they deliberately target islamic believers in numbers for political goals, and use the jihad as a cover-up and recruiting tool under false pretense.

AQ is a terrorist organization who tries to promote their plan under the context of jihad while they break basic jihadism rules with their actions on a daily base.

This was one of the reasons why Zarquawi got finally killed.He claimed to conduct Jihad while he spent more time on killing believers of Islam than attacking non-believers to get his intended civil-war running.

AQ is the best example of abusing the jihad for very different purposes and a terrorist organization certainly cannot be compared to religious instrument or behaviour with traditional roots within the islamistic codex.

The expression jihad today stands for war, terror, killing and murder while it´s traditionally more than just that and if you talk to muslims you will find out that they use the expression jihad for the struggle within themselves, the struggle to find a way to live a life that is on one hand orientated towards their believe and faith and the temptations they face in daily life.

This is the other side of jihad, that is often forgotten.

I just wanted to highlight this.

[theavonlady 2]

While jihad is the metholodigy of islamic believers to struggle with themselves and their inner conflicts on one hand and the violent approach to non-believers on the other hand (<- read, 2 sides of the medal), AQ does not run a Jihad by definition of jihad as they deliberately target islamic believers in numbers for political goals, and use the jihad as a cover-up and recruiting tool under false pretense.

AQ is a terrorist organization who tries to promote their plan under the context of jihad while they break basic jihadism rules with their actions on a daily base.

This was one of the reasons why Zarquawi got finally killed.He claimed to conduct Jihad while he spent more time on killing believers of Islam than attacking non-believers to get his intended civil-war running.

AQ is the best example of abusing the jihad for very different purposes and a terrorist organization certainly cannot be compared to religious instrument or behaviour with traditional roots within the islamistic codex.

The expression jihad today stands for war, terror, killing and murder while it´s traditionally more than just that and if you talk to muslims you will find out that they use the expression jihad for the struggle within themselves, the struggle to find a way to live a life that is on one hand orientated towards their believe and faith and the temptations they face in daily life.

This is the other side of jihad, that is often forgotten.

I just wanted to highlight this.

Allow me a little cut and paste for your reading pleasure.

Please find excerpted below the legal texts associated with Jihad and apostacy, as recorded in Reliance of the Traveller ('Umdat al-Salik wa 'Uddat al-Nasik) - A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (scroll down the page to find it). By all means, read the recommendations therunder, especially the first one.

Keep in mind that Al Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim group.

All relevant page references are included below.

The following symbols within the excerpts mean as follows: A: comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi; N: comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman; n: remark by the translator; and, O: excerpt from the commentary by Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat.

Quote[/b] ]1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation

pp. 599-603

O9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,

“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.â€

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you†(Koran 2:216);

(2) “Slay them wherever you find them†(Koran 4:89);

(3) “Fight the idolaters utterly†(Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allahâ€;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.â€

Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,â€

and Allah Most High having said:

“Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good†(Koran 4:95)

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,†meaning upon the Muslims each year.

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can.

0.9.2 Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity) (O: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one’s mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force).

0.9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for the non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way is possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible.

WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD

Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

….

THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

0.9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) – which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself – while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled†(Koran 9:29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“I am the last, there will be no prophet after me.â€

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

0.9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, people of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi (y21), 6.48-49)).

2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar

p. 20

b5.0 THE OBLIGATORINESS OF FOLLOWING QUALIFIED SCHOLARSHIP

b5.1 (Muhammad Sa’id Buti:) Because scholars accept the evidence from Koran, sunna and reason as complete and intersubstantiative that the ordinary person or learned one not at the level of textual dedication and ijtihad is not entitled but to follow a qualified mujtahid who has a comprehensive grasp of the evidence – they say that a formal legal opinion (fatwa) from a mujtahid is in relation to the ordinary person just as a proof from the Koran and sunna is in relation to the mujtahid. For the Koran, just as it obligates the scholar thoroughly versed in it to hold to its evidences and proofs, also obligates (n: in the verse quoted above at b2.1) the uninformed person to adhere to the formal legal opinion of the scholar and his ijtihad (ibid., 73).

3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death

pp. 595-598

o8.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)

(O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, “Trim your nails, it is sunna,†and he replies, “I would not do it even if it were,†as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.)

o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

o8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representatives may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).

o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).

o8.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: o8.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).

o8.6 (A: If a spouse in a consummated marriage apostatizes from Islam, the couple are separated for a waiting period consisting of three intervals between menstruations. If the spouse returns to Islam before the waiting period ends, the marriage is not annulled but is considered to have continued the whole time (dis: m7.4).)

ACTS THAT ENTAIL LEAVING ISLAM

o8.7 (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

(1) to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

(2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

(3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,†or “I am Allah†– unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of oblivion (A: a friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1 (O:))), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

(4) to revile Allah or his messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

(5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

(6) to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;

(8) to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith isâ€;

(9) to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allahâ€: “Your saying ‘There’s no power or strength, etc.’ won’t save you from hungerâ€;

(10) for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,†to reply, “I act without the decree of Allahâ€â€™;

(11) to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafirâ€);

(12) when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah†(There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah)), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

(13) to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma’, def: b7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

(15) to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: ‘Ala’ al-Din ‘Abidin adds the following:

(16) to revile the religion of Islam;

(17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

(18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

(19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

(20) to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-‘Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24).)

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

From an Amazon.com reader's review of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims by Andrew G. Bostom (read and learn, read and learn):

Quote[/b] ]Also commenting on the Qur'anic chapter 9, verse 29 are al-Zamakshari (d. 1144), al Tabari (d. 923), al-Beidawi (d. 1286), Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966) and al-Azhar, al-Muntakhab Fii Tafsir al-Qur'aan al-Kariim, 1985. Let no one say that Bostom has taken these teachings out of context, for the classical and contemporary commentators interpret the passage in precisely the same way as it appears.

Chapter 4 is then devoted to jihad in the Hadith, with commentary from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

Part 3 presents the classical writings of Muslim theologians and jurists on jihad. This 110-page section spans the entire history of Islam, beginning with commentators from the 8th century and continuing through the 20th century. Bostom has gleaned writings of Malik B. Anas (d. 795) from the Muwata, as well as a 1915 Ottoman Fatwa.

He also includes several works translated into English for the first time. For example, Ibn Qudama (d. 1223), writes, "Legal war (jihad) is an obligatory social duty (fard-kifaya); when one group of Muslims guarantees that it is being carried out in a satisfactory manner, the others are exempted." Almost everywhere in this text, the author is belligerent. "It is permitted to surprise the infidels under cover of night, to bombard them with mangonels [an engine that hurls missiles] and to attack them without declaring battle (du'a)."

Similarly, the renowned Sufi master al-Ghazali (d. 1111) writes (now in English for the first time), "One must go on jihad (i.e. Warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year... one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and drown them." The marriages of slaves, al-Ghazali continues, are automatically "revoked. One may cut down their trees.... One must destroy their useless books." This belies the notion that Sufism is peaceful.

I would quote the original Islamic texts verbatim in whole but I'm not at home, where we have a copy of the book.

How much longer will people pretend that Bin Laden is anything but a classic religiously abiding Muslim, following the laws of Islam, as myriads of Muslims have done for the last 1400 years?!

UPDATE: Andrew Bostom, the author of The Legacy of Jihad, mentioned above, has an excellent relatively consice online article on the subject, with links to many of the Islamic sources:

The Global Jihad.

[Balschoiw 0]

And the point of your flooding is ?

[theavonlady 2]

And the point of your flooding is ?  

In a rush.

Some things you said:

Quote[/b] ]AQ does not run a Jihad by definition of jihad as they deliberately target islamic believers in numbers for political goals

Does Sunni Islam view Shi'ites as apostates?

How does Islam view Muslims that collaberate with infidels in imposing any form of non-Islamic governance and who assist infidels in fighting other Muslims?

Quote[/b] ]and use the jihad as a cover-up and recruiting tool under false pretense.

There's no cover up here nor false pretenses. This is purely Islamic law.

Quote[/b] ]AQ is a terrorist organization who tries to promote their plan under the context of jihad while they break basic jihadism rules with their actions on a daily base.

Again I ask how? This is mostly a myth.

Quote[/b] ]This was one of the reasons why Zarquawi got finally killed. He claimed to conduct Jihad while he spent more time on killing believers of Islam than attacking non-believers to get his intended civil-war running.

Besides what I already mentioned above, can you look up which highly respected Muslim is the first one known to be quoted as saying "War is deceit"?

Quote[/b] ]AQ is the best example of abusing the jihad for very different purposes and a terrorist organization certainly cannot be compared to religious instrument or behaviour with traditional roots within the islamistic codex.

I've already brought you a tip of the iceberg sampling of all of Islam's main schools of jurisprudence and their opinions on Jihad.

Quote[/b] ]The expression jihad today stands for war, terror, killing and murder while it´s traditionally more than just that and if you talk to muslims you will find out that they use the expression jihad for the struggle within themselves,

I am very familiar with the double use of the term Jihad and its literal meaning of "struggle." But you're very wrong when it comes to "tradition." Violent Jihad goes back to day 1 of Islam and is documented as such in the very foundations of Islam.

Read Sahih Bukhari, Book 52: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad).

Read Sahih Muslim, Book 19: The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar).

Straight from the source. Read and learn! Read and learn!

And the ever important quote from Quran 9:19-20:

<ul>Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah <Jihad fi sabil Allah>? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong.

Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause <Jihad fi sabil Allah>, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).

Quote[/b] ]This is the other side of jihad, that is often forgotten.

And not what is being discussed here. And not what is heavily documented in Islamic sources at the onset of Islam.

"Oh, look! A distraction!"

And now for something completely different - not:

Imposition of Sharia in Somalia.

[Balschoiw 0]

Ah I see you´re pulling the bad, bad islam card again.

Sorry, I won´t follow you there. I know where you stand and I already thought that you would jump into that discussion for some more islam bashing and actually not to contribute to the thread. If so you would have made up your background on african islamism.

There are quite a few sources on the meaning of jihad and it´s implementation in daily religious life for non-suicidal islamistic believers. This could be a surprise for you but I know you won´t find out as you don´t want to find out.

As I know that it´s useless to waste the time to list them here as you somewhat are the spiritual mastermind of worldwide islamism I will just save my time and hope that you´ll find oneday that not all muslims are suicidal maniacs, although I doubt that you´d be neutral enough to open your mind into that direction.

Still, AQ = Jihad is bollocks.

Sincerely,

Balschoiw.

Oh and btw: A translation is still what it is. An interpretation in a different language:

Quote[/b] ]Pickthall: "Oh, but I call to witness the planets, the stars which rise and set, and the close of night, and the breath of morning..." Arberry: "No! I swear by the slinkers, the runners, the sinkers, by the night swarming, by the dawn sighing..." Shades of the Symbolists.

[Nemesis6 0]

Still, AQ = Jihad is bollocks.

Same goes for your argument, you know with Jihad being a "peaceful struggle for inner peace". Jihad is an integral part of Islam, but for the most part, the people who realize that take it to mean one specific thing. Can you guess which one of these it is? -

A: Violent deaths to the infidels

Or...

B: A peaceful struggle for inner peace

By the way - Balschoiw, why do you think that anyone who criticizes Islam hates Arabs or Muslims in general? It's like as soon as people start digging in the Koran and subsequently start questioning the teachings of Islam and/or the present way that these teachings are practiced, one is dubbed a Muslim-hater.

By the way 2 - Avon, I recognize that Jihad fi sabil Allah thing... That was what the Muslim extremist group Al-Muhajiroun shouted in their protest outside the Danish embassy in Britain, along with the whole "UK YOU WILL PAY!" and "Khairbar, Khairbar, ya yahud!" things they had going, just to name a few of their "less nasty" chants.