+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7
1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67

Thread: When is a Jihad not a Jihad?

  1. #1

    Default When is a Jihad not a Jihad?

    I hope someone can help me in relation to the issue of jihad and establishing the Islamic state. I understand the basic jihadi position to be that taking up the sword is a duty to establish the state. The logic being that if a Caliph implements one single kufr law then then armed struggle is allowed. Therefore, if a leader rules by a totally kufr system and hundreds of kufr laws then armed struggle is even more incumbent.

    I understand the HT position to be one of following a non violent method to establish the khilafah but supports jihad in areas under occupation such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am curious about how HT differentiates between an occupying army where jihad is supposed to be permitted and where it is not. For example, it is well known that Syria has Alawites in power and much of the security forces. Alawites are not considered muslim. Is Basher al Asad (non muslim) and his many Alawite forces an occupier? Is armed struggle legitimate and would it be a jihad? If he is non muslim and "occupies", with his many non muslim troops, then why use the peaceful method there when liberation is required?

    Also, is the Lebanese army basically considered a muslim army even though it comprises mainly Christians because the country has an overall slight muslim majority now? If it is a non muslim army and government then is armed struggle allowed to help resist occupation?

    When will the Iraq situation stop being one of legitimate armed resistance according to HT? If it is when the last US armed forces leave then why isn't it a jihad in every single muslim country where there is a foreign base?

    If India which was muslim land occupies Kashmir then why is its occupation illegitimate whereas the Pakistani forces occupying Kashmir legitimate? Afterall, India has many muslim senior politicians and military brass. Similarly, Pakistan has many non-muslims in senior positions. Yet neither of them implement Islam and to be fair, at the moment, it could be argued that Pakistan is engaged in a more overt form of Islam-bashing. If armed resistance is permitted in Kashmir, then is it also permitted in Madras or Delhi (areas under Indian occupation)? What makes a country "muslim" according to HT? Is it population by percentage? Or is it numbers? If it is numbers then some estimates put the number of Indian muslims greater than those in Pakistan.

    Apparently, defensive jihad is a duty for those under occupation. Does that mean muslims under occupation in Spain should resort to armed resistance?

    I am sorry if it sounds confusing but I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say. That is, the jihadi position seems simple. All the leaders are illegitimate so can be toppled by armed struggle as they are illegally occupying their positions and implementing kufr. Whereas, for me, the HT position is not clear as to what makes an occupier worthy of resistance?

  2. #2

    Default

    The question Method, Jihad, Iraq being Jihad etc has been discussed on many threads already

    http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.ph...r=asc&start=60

    http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.ph...&postorder=asc

    http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.ph...ighlight=jihad

    http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.ph...&highlight=dar

    http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.ph...&highlight=dar

    These are not the only ones, others may be pull out a few more for you.

    Islam defines muslim lands where Kharaj and Usher had been levied ie Kharaji and Usheri lands. I will start a new thread on this with an explanation from HT adoption inshallah.

  3. #3

    Default

    I have posted the how Islam defines lands to be Islamic lands here

    http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.ph...ic&p=8817#8817

  4. #4

    Default when is a jihad not a jihad?

    Thank you for your links. Somtimes it is possible provide such a whole lot of differing evidence that the real issue is obscured. I understand that there are different classifications for muslim land (ushri etc). Perhaps I can simplify my points to make them clearer.

    The US is occupying Iraq at present. Every muslim agrees that armed resistance is allowed because they have invaded muslim lands and assumed authority. At what point would HT regard such an occupation to be one where armed struggle is no longer needed? I say this because it is likely that the US will have some sort of presence indefinitely. If it means the presence of one muslim soldier allows for jihad, then does this apply to anywhere there are foreign bases?

    Is the Syrian regime an occupier? Is armed resitance allowed considering that Basher al Asad is an Alawite supported by Alawites? Does the same apply to Lebanon?

    What makes the Pakistani army deserve our support when fighting in India when both countries have no Islamic agenda and both have numerous muslims in them. Does armed struggle apply in other areas such as Madras and Delhi>

    Is armed struggle legitimate today in Spain?

    Thanks.

  5. #5

    Default RE: when is a jihad not a jihad?

    At what point would HT regard such an occupation to be one where armed struggle is no longer needed?
    My observation of these guys is that it will deem it over when the Americans (occupiers) leave the job to their Agents (of the occupiers).

    They have not taken the opportunity to prove me wrong.


    Is the Syrian regime an occupier?
    Aren't all the Regimes occupying the former Khilafah?



  6. #6

    Default

    Salaam,

    With regard to removing the current regimes, it needs to be done by the ummah. I.e. we need to change the thoughts of the ummah so they reject the current rulers. Once this happens they will inshallah give bayah to a khalif and the current ruler in that area will have no choice but to leave his post. If he refuses then he is fought and tried in an Islamic court for his crimes. Or he will go into exile (i.e. no fighting will be carried out to remove him).

    The point I am making is that every problem has an islaamic solution which is carried out in a specific way, not in a hap-hazzard, unorganised way by a bunch of people, without a popular base. The Islamic state is built by the authority of the ummah and there needs to be a popular support for it, just like what Mu'sab ibn Umayr (ra) built in Medina.

    Fighting occupiers, i.e. foreign invasion also has a certain method which is the work of the army of the islaamic state.

    However, defending ones, land, property and honour also has a specific ruling. I feel this is reason for the fighting being carried out against the kafireen in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

    I think before going into the discussion "When is jihad, not a Jihad", you need to agree upon the definition of Jihad by studying the Islamic evidences and also how this duty is to be carried out by looking at the seerah of the Prophet (saw) and that of the rightly guided khulafaa. Unless this is agreed upon, the current discussion will go round in circles.

    And Allah knows best.

  7. #7

    Default

    Assalamu Alaykum and Ramadhan Karim

    Please note that Saudi Arabia has never been occupied. So how can we apply the method of physical military action in order to establish an Islamic system?
    Also, if there is no Riba and no legitimate transactions in Dar al-Harb, does this apply also to the "occupied" Muslims' Land"?

    If observing the Ahkam if Riba amounts to recognising the system of the Kuffar, does this mean we cannot apply for passports and driving licences, but we can get a mortgage and have deposit accounts?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haytham
    Assalamu Alaykum and Ramadhan Karim

    Please note that Saudi Arabia has never been occupied. So how can we apply the method of physical military action in order to establish an Islamic system?
    Also, if there is no Riba and no legitimate transactions in Dar al-Harb, does this apply also to the "occupied" Muslims' Land"?

    If observing the Ahkam if Riba amounts to recognising the system of the Kuffar, does this mean we cannot apply for passports and driving licences, but we can get a mortgage and have deposit accounts?

    The Arabian Peninsula IS occupied.

    Firstly it is occupied by a bunch of Tawgheet from the House of al-Saud.

    Secondly it is occupied by American and Allied Troops.


    Obviously being ruled by agents of the colonial-occupiers is not colonisation according to HT.

    The very fact that a bunch of thugs control a territory that belongs to the former Khilafah, means that it is occupied. Unless the Hizb views it as liberation.


    It is the recognition by HT of the colonial-agent Tawagheet all over the Muslim World that leads to them not fighting them... since they view the Muslim World through colonialist spectacles.


    If you say "Saudi Arabia has never been occupied" that means Khilafah is still there intact (as no-one ever replaced it with something else).

    But the very fact you referred to the Arabian Peninsula as 'Saudi' Arabia proves a lot... since it is reallly Saudi-Occupied Arabia.


    Next you'll be saying there are such things as 'Taghut-Muslims'.

    :)

    Walaikum Salam

  9. #9

    Default

    Salam

    Was it not Abdul Wahab who gave the Baya'a to Abdul Aziz? These two did not fly from Washington. They were two locals who conspired against the Ottoman state.

    Since we differ about the definition or the reality of occupation, is there any way we can verify this independently, by experts in the filed of your own choice?

    Also, perhaps you would like to comment on the second part of my question

    Jazakallah

  10. #10

    Default

    I ain't making it up... http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.ph...ic&p=6533#6533


    You aren't like the rest of your collegues prepared to commit to anything one way or the other... perhaps you can deal with the issues properly. Start with...


    Do we fight against the occupiers, but put down our guns when the occupier puts his agent in his place?

    Are the Rulers Taghut? ...and then can you have Taghut-Muslims?


    Answer to the last part of your question - No it does not.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Jihad of the 'naffs'?
    By BLOOD_THIRSTY in forum Islamic Culture
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 17:27
  2. questions on jihad
    By mohammedabdullah in forum Latest News and Current Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-01-2009, 13:08
  3. Jihad Difa3: Khilafa first or Defensive Jihad??
    By khalid298 in forum Questions or Comments
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 22:17
  4. is this jihad?
    By ummah in forum Latest News and Current Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17-04-2008, 17:45
  5. jihad?
    By topman in forum Islamic Culture
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-03-2008, 10:30

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts