A Critical Analysis of 'Real Islam'. Its People ... - Bukti dan Saksi

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission
and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...The other religious groups
did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of
defense...Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations. [18]
The simple terrible fact is that Jihad does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but rather is
an integral part of its timeless core. According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi,
"Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.... If non-Muslims
submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to
wage war against them. … Those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them"
World peace, according to his Islamic teaching, "is reached only with the conversion or submission of
all mankind to Islam." So by Tibi’s logic, when Muslims wage jihad, they are performing pious acts of
worship to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So it is, by this convoluted logic, that when Muslims
disseminate Islam through violent means it is not war (harb), but rather a sacred act of "opening" the
world to Islam. In other words, by simply existing, the entire non-Islamic world is always responsible for
any and all Jihadic acts against them.
All this official Islamic scripture and sacred writings shows that the official meaning, purpose, and
scope of Jihad is in fact quite clear and unambiguous. Further evidence will be outlined in subsequent
chapters and appendix laying out carefully and chronically both the permanent basis for violent Jihad
today, and its application by Muhammad , his ‘rightly guided Caliphs’ who followed him, and all
subsequent followers of Islam throughout history.
Bat Ye'or wrote in The Decline of Eastern Christianity "Jihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of
the duties that the believer must fulfill; it is Islam’s ‘normal’ path to expansion". It must now be noted
that there is a deliberate effort underway by Islamists and their apologists to present the term Jihad
differently. Some of these efforts may be genuine attempts to soften the religion and perhaps cause less
military Jihad, but it seems most representations are simply propaganda efforts intended to disseminate
misinformation for political purposes. The relatively new phraseology and interpretation is offered mainly
to westerners, with the real meaning still taught in the vast majority of Islamic institutions around the
world as it has always been. Obviously Islam does not want to alarm the intended audience with the truth,
especially the Americans who have been acting badly of late.
In Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning (by Daniel Pipes Ph.D. in history and
director of the Middle East Forum) Mr. Pipes states there is nearly universal falsification on the meaning
of jihad amongst elitists. He cites an intellectual scandal wherein even scholars at American universities
issue public statements that avoid or whitewash the primary meaning of Jihad in Islamic law and Muslim
history. The result is obfuscation as we try to make sense of the Jihad declared on us and discover who
the enemy is and what his goals are. Such apologists are dangerous because even people who think they
know that jihad means holy war are susceptible to the combined efforts of scholars and Islamists
brandishing notions suggesting Jihad means ‘resisting apartheid’ or ‘working for women's rights’. To
quote his article:
…through an examination of media statements by university-based specialists, they tend to portray the
phenomenon of jihad in a remarkably similar fashion—only, the portrait happens to be false. … from the more
than two dozen experts I surveyed, only four of them admit that jihad has any military component whatsoever,
and even they, with but a single exception, insist that this component is purely defensive in nature. … To
another half-dozen scholars in my survey, jihad may likewise include militarily defensive engagements, but this
meaning is itself secondary to lofty notions of moral self-improvement. … But an even larger contingent—nine
of those surveyed—deny that jihad has any military meaning whatsoever. The trouble with this accumulated
wisdom of the scholars is simple to state. It suggests that Osama bin Laden had no idea what he was saying
when he declared jihad on the United States several years ago and then repeatedly murdered Americans in
Somalia, at the U.S. embassies in East Africa, in the port of Aden, and then on September 11, 2001. It implies
that organizations with the word "jihad" in their titles, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden's own
"International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," are grossly misnamed. And what about
all the Muslims waging violent and aggressive jihads, under that very name and at this very moment, in Algeria,
Egypt, Sudan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Ambon, and other places around the world? Have they not heard
that jihad is a matter of controlling one's anger? But of course it is bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the jihadists