Combative Jihad Jihad On Terror 3

After the call to Islam became public Prophet Muhammad and his followers endured 13 years of torture and persecution, simply because they were inviting the idol worshipping tribes in Arabia to worship god alone.

The perseverance and passive resistance displayed by the Muslims showed a great level of self control and inner strength.

It was not only the weak companions and slaves who are subject to attacks at the hands of the Mexicans. Also, companions of Prophet Muhammad from upper classes were not spared from one form of persecution or another, like Abu Bakar, who nearly died when he was beaten badly one day. It is worth mentioning that the very first martyr in Islam was not a man at all, but a woman, Lady sumaiya, who was jabbed with a spear by Abuja, one of the leaders of Croatia, which proves that even women were not spared from persecution and killing. To really appreciate the suffering and sacrifice of the early Muslims. One we just really need to look at some of the the the historical narrations

about what happened in Mecca. During those days, we talked about an embargo, we're not only talking about an economic embargo, we're talking about an embargo that affected family relations, social relations, friends, relatives, affected the economic situation of the Muslims, affected their religious freedoms and political freedoms. It was an embargo that encompassed the entire community. And we look back at some of the reports we find people saying that they ate grass, some of the Muslims like sad even Abby waqqas, he actually ate grass to survive, he had no food. We read the reports about children who are crying and screaming, who had no food and Muslims would go to their

brothers markets, fellow non Muslims and be refused to be sold food even though the food was right there in front of them. So this was not only an economic embargo, but also a spiritual embargo, a social embargo, and most importantly, a mental embargo, which was designed to shake the Muslim community from their faith. To avoid getting captured by the Meccans. Most Muslims had to immigrate secretly under the cover of the night, leaving behind all what they had a properties and memories.

in Medina, 14 years after the beginning of the prophets mission, a revelation came from God permitting the Muslims to fight back.

Admission was not given to them for more than 14 years. Despite all of the killing of victims and the suffering they endured, because their hearts were not yet ready to perform jihad. The Quran gave permission to the Muslims to engage in combat with their persecutors for the first time.

The Quran says permission to fight back is given to those who are being fought because they have been wronged. And indeed, God is all able to give them victory.

This verse is clear. in defining combative jihad, this combative jihad is in response to aggression and oppression and seeks to establish justice, which is a supreme goal, not only in Islamic teachings, but in every civilization. Establishing justice is a supreme goal. If you lose your homeland, well, Islam is encouraging Muslims to fight back and regain their freedom, a lot of discussions and a lot of differences over why Muslims fight, what justifies a Muslim to carry arms against others. As a convert to Islam? Definitely. That was a question that I had. And in recent years, due to the events that we've seen all over the world and the tragedies and killing of the

innocence, I really had to do some soul searching. I was blessed to come and study in Al Azhar University, here in Egypt and my fourth year of studies here, we actually studied an entire course on jihad. And in that book, it clearly clearly states that the reason why Muslims fight is not because they're fighting people who don't believe in Islam, but that Muslims can fight even Muslims if there is a situation where injustice is being perpetrated against them. So the main reason for fighting Islam according to that text, which was written by a number of scholars, as well as the majority of classical Muslim jurists is to repel injustice.

Muslim scholars throughout history explained the rulings of combat of jihad, depending on the two primary sources of Islamic legislation, the Quran and the Sunnah.

The teachings of Prophet Mohammed mainly focused on two things when it is allowed to go for combat.

If you go for combat, the do's and don'ts in combat, according to the Quran, especially in chapter 22, verses 39 to 41 ground for jihad is to protect places of worship, such as monasteries, synagogues, churches, and mosques. The Quran says for had gotten not decreed to repel some people by means of others demolition would certainly have come to many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is much mentioned in prays.

Another reason for jihad is failure to establish justice through peaceful means. combative, jihad is allowed only if the establishment or restoration of justice through peaceful means has failed. The Quran says yet if they inclined to peace, then you should also inclined to it. This is one of the main rulings in Islam, that Muslims cannot perform combative Jihad if the enemy wants peace. And of course, peace doesn't mean just ceasefire. Peace means ceasefire, we are returning back your rights. So that was crystal clear in the Koran and in the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, that Muslims should try to establish justice through all possible peaceful needs. And if this happens,

then Allah is opening no way for them to fight.

The Quran says, Therefore, if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah accords you no lawful way to fight against them. Peace always comes as the first option in Islam. One of the chapters of the Quran is called alpha in Arabic, which means the manifest victory, and it starts like that, surely we have granted you a manifest victory. And guess what? This victory was not in any battle. This victory was a peace treaty called the Viet peace treaty. So what do you think about the book that calls a peace treaty? A manifest victory is this book promoting peaceful war. Amongst the prophets teachings was the direction not to crave conflict.

He said, Oh, people do not look forward to meeting your enemies in battle and ask a lot of spare you from war. But if you meet them in battle, then stand for

the right of people to resist occupation by a foreign army is proving to be a powerful catalyst for many contrasting arguments in today's world.

One main reason for combative jihad, specifically called kuttan, meaning fighting is legitimate self defense to stop aggression. Another reason for jihad is to resist occupation. One of the worst crimes that can occur to an oppressed people is the stealing and the taking of the land and property, nearly in every ideology, the right of the oppressed people to stand up for their rights and fight the occupier is recognized.

Islam encourages Muslims to resist occupation, which is in fact considered to be a form of enslavement. This is clearly unacceptable and humiliating for the occupied people.

Resisting occupation is considered a duty and an essential human right in many cultures.

Emiliano Zapata a leading figure in the Mexican Revolution said it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

One of the groups of Mujahideen were the founding fathers of the United States of America, who stood up against oppression who resisted tyranny, but no one charged them with terrorism. The same can also be said about the French, who are great Mujahideen in the face of Hitler and the Nazis

among the founding fathers of the United States of America, and one of the most prominent figures in the American Revolution is Patrick Henry. He said, Give me liberty or give me death.

Now I can blame the founding fathers of the United States of America and fighting and resisting for the sake of freedom. Also, no one can blame the French for resisting and fighting the Nazis. It's common sense

People have the right to resist occupation a violent way under some circumstances. I think those circumstances held in the case of the American Revolution and created the what became the United States. I think that the circumstances are where the foreign government, the foreign occupier are abusing the population. And where there's a fairly broad consensus among the

the local population and the leaders of the local population, that that is in fact occurring.

The United States was founded on

a revolution. It was a right of the people to overthrow and abuse of government. This was something that was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

This is what the declaration is all was all about.

In occupied territories, it is playing there are going to be a community of individuals who are going to resist the occupation. Whether you talk about occupation, during the Second World War, or occupation, in more recent times, there are going to be circumstances in which a great number of people are going to consider that some form of resistance is lawful and legitimate and justified. The question is, what are the limits in law on what you can do, and it comes back again, to these very simple principles that I keep saying, it may well be permissible to target through force through violent military objectives. But what you can't ever do is expose civilian populations to

the threat or to the use of force. Once you do that, even in a situation of occupation or unlawful domination, you are crossing a line, just as a state crosses the line when it ever uses violent weaponry against

to serve their hidden agenda. Some people wrongly present verses of the Quran in order to deceive those who don't have sufficient knowledge of Islam.

Take for example, some people say how come Muslims are having in their book, fighting the cause of Allah, they should have loving the cause of Allah like other religions. But again, the same immoral cut and paste game is played against Muslims. The verse actually says, fight in the cause of Allah, those who fight against you, but they don't continue the verse and they take the words out of context, playing this game always against us. The grand says, and fight in the cause of god those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Indeed, God does not love those who commit aggression. A major problem within the Muslim community as well as outside of it is what I call

drive thru jurists, or cut and paste jurists, those people, whether they're Muslims or not, who take splice up versus edit them, you know, add a little TiVo or maybe even give it a little you know,

cut and paste job here and there, and presenting verses and statements of the Prophet peace be upon him, either which are not complete or out of context, using those verses, using those statements of the prophet to justify egregious actions. Some people say, how come Muslims are having in their book,

kill them wherever you find them, as if the Koran is only encouraging Muslims to kill non Muslims, as if Muslims should walk with two machine guns to kill non Muslims wherever they find them. But they are playing the same immoral cut and paste game. If you read the verse, as a whole, it says, Give them whatever you find them and drive them out from where they drove you out. This verse is telling Muslims to find their occupiers and to gain back the freedom of their homeland.

One of the clearest proofs that combative jihad is only to establish justice is that it is allowed for Muslims to launch jihad against Muslims to if they are the transgressing party. And this is not my own opinion. This is the very words of the Koran. It's very clear in the Koran that if Muslims are oppressors, they can be fought against

So it doesn't matter who's Muslim and who's not. But what matters is who's an oppressor and who's oppressed.

And if two groups of the believers fight amongst themselves, then reconcile between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you all against the one that which rebels until it complies with the command of Allah. And if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, a powerful verse, which illustrates the profound sense of justice in Islam. And it clearly expresses that Muslims are not ordered to fight people of other faiths simply because they share a different faith and Muslims. But it illustrates that Muslims are ordered to fight against oppression wherever it comes from an evil.

It's interesting historically, when you look at the early Muslim conquests, as people like to call them, I mean, even in prayer when we start our prayer, that's called a conquest. So Muslims are not looking at the conquest in the sense of only a military victory. But when they entered those countries, people greeted them and welcome them, they did not rise up against them. In fact, some of them even sent letters to the Muslim leader, saying come invade the country will help you and help us to relieve this yoke of oppression from our necks. So it's very rare to find that there was a wide resistance against the occupying armies of the Muslims. During the seventh and eighth century,

when Muslims fought against the Roman Byzantines and the Persians. They were rarely faced by any civil resistance. In fact, many civilians joined the Muslim armies and fought against the Romans and the Persians themselves. JOHN, the Bishop of nicaea, you and he gyptian Coptic historian, was an eyewitness to the Muslim armies conquest of Egypt. He wrote in his Chronicles that the Egyptian ariens joined the Muslims in besieging the Roman soldiers in the Babylon fortress.

The emerging Muslim community under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad was surrounded by two of the greatest civilizations known in the history of mankind, the Roman Byzantines and the Persians. Despite histories of achievement in the service of humanity, civilian populations were ravaged by war and suffered mass genocide at their hands.

innocent civilians were raped and killed, cities were looted, plundered and put ablaze in wars at that time, at the hands of the Romans and the Persians. Like in Salamis, Carthage roaders, and saw this and in many other places, Islam did not allow combat except after putting regulations on it. There is a code of combat in Islam.

Prophet Mohammed taught his followers to observe a strict code of war. He strongly emphasized the protection of civilians and their property, as well as aiding them through the difficult times after conflict.

We talk about the province teaching in its relationship to jihad. There are two important points that we need to make one we've already made when it is allowable for Muslim to fight and I was clarified earlier. But secondly, this is not like some type of WWF anarchist approach towards fighting the Prophet peace be upon him as well as the an A laid out very specific examples and rules for the one who's engaged in combat. Because combat is one of the most hated words in Islam. In fact, people will come to the prophet and say that the name their son war, and the Prophet would say change your son's name. Combat is not something that's liked by people. So definitely has to come

with rules because the ability for people to oppress and harm others is great in combat. So number one, the prophet for bet us very clearly not to kill people from other faiths, religious leaders of other faiths. Number one, to harm the older elderly people to harm those people who an armed to harm children to harm any innocent civilian is clearly forbidden in Islam. In fact, some of the prophetic narrations about killing the innocent and warning against doing so have reached the status of what's called collateral which means so many people narrated those statements of the Prophet peace be upon him, that there's no room for doubt. There's no room for questioning them, and the Muslim is bound

to act on them or he goes outside of what's called war and becomes known as what's known as a terrorist.

Controversy over what account is legitimate act of war or a good act of jihad, versus what must be considered a vicious act of terrorism has been

created an atmosphere of confusion which some have used to their advantage.

There seem to be a great mix up between martyrdom in a sense of self sacrifice, something which is regarded as a noble act, by all armies all over the world, people do sacrifice their life and are

praised as heroes or freedom fighters, on one hand, even if that requires self sacrifice, and between acts of terror, with people who are misled, to believe that this is martyrdom. In other words, there are acts that are islamically, acceptable as true martyrdom, that are called terrorist activities. And there are also acts that are basically terroristic acts and violate the teachings of Islam, that some people call it jihad or martyrdom. That confusion must be removed.

The rules of international law on methods and means of warfare known as international humanitarian law, it places very strict limits, you distinguish between combatants and non combatants. combatants are a legitimate target. Non combatants are not a legitimate target. And those rules are now codified in a set of instruments that were negotiated and concluded in 1949. The Geneva Conventions there are four Geneva Conventions supplemented by two protocols in 1977. And the rules in Geneva, to a very large extent reflect what's called customary international that's to say they are binding on everyone, on all states, on all actors on non governmental entities, as well.

Among the teachings of Islam is that no one can be fought except a combatant. And this is one of the main rulings of the code of combat in Islam, which is stated clearly in various verses of the Koran and the statements made by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon

the grand says, and fight to the cause of God, those who fight against you would begin on hostilities. Indeed, God does not love those who commit aggression.

By saying fight those who fight you, the verse is clearly putting a limitation on fighting to be directed only against combatants who took arms against Muslims, and started hostilities, violating the Islamic ethical code of combat, such as targeting non combatants, or fighting an unjust war disqualifies it as jihad, killing civilians on 911 cannot be justified in Islam. What happened seven, seven cannot be justified in Islam. bombing civilians and Hiroshima and Nagasaki can also not be justified in Islam, innocent civilians or innocent civilians, we don't have something called collateral damage in Islam. collateral damage could show up on the day of judgment and speak against

to a child, an innocent woman, an innocent man, an old person. So we have to really clarify this point for people and have to actively address Muslims who carry those ideas to that the killing of innocence. The killing of innocent civilians is an issue of violating a treaty, which is a form of hypocrisy and lying, which are from some of the major sins in Islam. So by killing an innocent person, not only are you bringing upon yourself the major sin of murder, you're bringing on yourself the major sin of hypocrisy as well as forgery in life.

Even though the Islamic rulings are clear as to the prohibition of targeting non combatants, some Muslim fanatics who fail to comprehend the rulings of jihad had been involved in terrorism. Less than two decades after the death of Prophet Muhammad fanaticism appeared amongst a group of Muslims known as the corrige, or Cora giants.

Shortly after the death of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, a group called the average surface, and that primarily function was destruction, killing and kills, disregarding the Quranic injunction that ordered people to respect the sanctity of the soul. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, foretold the appearance of fanaticism amongst some Muslims. He spoke about their characteristics.

Prophet Muhammad explained that the problem was not that their intentions were corrupt, but rather it was their understanding.

of religion that was not sound.

He said, each of you would consider his own prayers and fasting insignificant compared to their prayers and fasting. They would recite the Quran but it would not go any deeper than their throats, they would leave the religion just as the arrow exits from the other side of the pray.

Since in Islam are of two types, major sins and minor sins, killing is among the major sins. It's a major sin to kill in Islam to the extent that killing one innocent soul is equal to the killing of all mankind.

The Quran says, Who ever kills a person except in punishment for the killing of another person, or for the spreading of die or corruption in the earth, it shall be reckoned as though he has killed all humankind and whoever saves a life It shall be reckoned as though he has saved the life of all humankind.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, alluded to the greatness of the crime of murder when he said, a faithful believer remains at Liberty regarding his religion unless he kills somebody unlawfully.

Because of the Prophet Muhammad's teachings, that murder is a major sin, and a vicious and evil crime. Violent ideologies like that have never found a good medium to propagate in the Muslim world, except in the past few decades. This is a phenomena worthy of studying the ideology of the corage. We emerged during the past few decades. Similarly, the contemporary extremist, incorrectly interpret Quranic text to justify the killing of civilians.

The birth of the whole adage really provides an archetype for Muslims to constantly compare those groups who claim or take a stake in authenticity. And when we look at the whole adage, we see a few common traits. Number one is hyper literalism. There is no concept of analogy, no concern for context of text. The verse is what it is the meanings of the words that are as they are, and there's no deep investigation into the reasons and objectives behind religious text. Number two is a fetish for standing up against religious scholarship, discrediting the role of scholars the guidance of scholars, number three is looking at society in general, whether they're Muslim or non Muslim, in a

very, very negative way, and apocalyptic fashion. And interesting enough, many of these traits are shared amongst groups like Al Qaeda, as well as some of the more fringe neoconservative groups in North America, who, for example, have called for the death of our President Obama. Some of them are supplicating in churches, asking for his demise, these type of traits, Muslims look at them and are reminded of that devastating historical, historical epic, that we encounter, we dealt with the

Father soleimani, a Muslim who has dedicated his life to educating non Muslims on Islam, and to the radicalizing Muslim youth who may have fallen under the influence of self appointed leaders challenge their ideology.

We have our own law, the law of God, who says in his book, when

people will be Miss schema will pivot.

And if you punish that your punishment be proportionate to the wrong that has been done to you, in fact, they debated me saying, according to this version, or on we are allowed to kill their innocence and their civilians, as they killed our innocence and our civilians in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Kashmir. So he said, but they did not only kill our civilians, they also rape our women in Bosnia, if you think that the versus actually allowing you to respond to them, in the same way you were harmed. Why don't you go or if they're women, they said, No, we don't do that. I said, why not? Don't you think that the versus allowing you to do this? They said, No, rape is an illegal

sexual act. I said, therefore, the verse is not general. This verse is equal to the one in the Old Testament, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which also exists in the Koran, which means that simply if someone blew up one eye for you, you cannot blow up both his eyes. If someone damaged one tooth for you, you cannot go and damage all his 32 teeth, one eye and one tooth. Do not transgress your limits. But still, you cannot rape women. Even if your enemy did, you cannot kill non conscious

Better civilians, even if your enemy did or you would be exactly like them.

The Old Testament says, fracture for fracture, Iver I tooth for tooth whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.

The Quran says, Now, in it we prescribed for them, a life for a life and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose and an ear for an ear and a tooth for a tooth and retribution for wounds. Yet whoever would forego this out of charity than it will be taken as an atonement for the one who has suffered injury.

Is this book promoting peaceful war amongst the prophets teachings was the direction not to crave conflict. He said, Oh, people do not look forward to meeting your enemies in battle and ask a lot of spare you from war. But if you meet them in battle, then stand firm.

The right of people to resist occupation by a foreign army is proving to be a powerful catalyst for many contrasting arguments in today's world.

One main reason for combative jihad, specifically called

meaning fighting, is legitimate self defense to stop aggression. Another reason for jihad is to resist occupation. One of the worst crimes that can occur to an oppressed people is the stealing and the taking of their land and property, nearly in every ideology, the right of the oppressed people to stand up for their rights and fight the occupier is recognized.

Islam encourages Muslims to resist occupation, which is in fact considered to be a form of enslavement. This is clearly unacceptable and humiliating for the occupied people.

Resisting occupation is considered a duty and an essential human rights in many cultures.

Emiliano Zapata a leading figure in the Mexican Revolution said, It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

One of the groups of Nigeria he was the founding fathers of the United States of America, who stood up against oppression who resisted tyranny, but no one charged them with terrorism. The same can also be said about the French, who are great Mujahideen in the face of Hitler and the Nazis.

Among the founding fathers of the United States of America, and one of the most prominent figures in the American Revolution is Patrick Henry. He said, Give me liberty or give me death.

No one can blame the founding fathers of the United States of America and fighting and resisting for the sake of freedom. Also, no one can blame the French for resisting and fighting the Nazis. It's common sense. I think people have the right to resist occupation and violent way under some circumstances. I think those circumstances held in the case of the American Revolution and created the what became the United States. I think that the circumstances are where the foreign government, the foreign occupier are abusing the population. And where there's a fairly broad consensus among the

the local population and the leaders of the local population, that that is in fact occurring.

The United States was founded on

a revolution. It was a right of the people to overthrow and abuse of government. This was something that was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

This is what the declaration is all about.

In occupied territories, it is playing there are going to be a community of individuals who are

Going to resist the occupation. Whether you talk about occupation, during the Second World War, or occupation in more recent times, there are going to be circumstances in which a great number of people are going to consider that some form of resistance is lawful and legitimate and justified. The question is, what are the limits in law on what you can do, and it comes back again to these very simple principles that I keep saying, it may well be permissible to target through force through violent military objectives. But what you can't ever do is expose civilian populations to the threat or to the use of force. Once you do that, even in a situation of occupation, or unlawful

domination, you are crossing a line, just as a state crosses the line when it ever uses violent weaponry against

to serve their hidden agenda. Some people wrongly present verses of the Quran in order to deceive those who don't have sufficient knowledge of Islam.

Take for example, some people say how come Muslims are having in their book fight in the course of Allah, they should have loving the cause of Allah like other religions. But again, the same immoral cut and paste game is played against Muslims. The verse actually says, fight in the cause of Allah, those who fight against you, but they don't continue the verse and they take the words out of context, playing this game, always against us. The grand says, and fight in the cause of God, those who fight against you, but begin on hostilities. Indeed, God does not love those who commit aggression. A major problem within the Muslim community as well as outside of it is what I call

drive thru jurists, or cut and paste jurists, those people, whether they're Muslims or not, who take splice up versus edit them, you know, add a little TiVo or maybe even give it a little you know,

cut and paste job here and there and presented verses and statements of the Prophet peace be upon him, either which are not complete or out of context, using those verses, using those statements of the prophet to justify egregious actions. Some people say, how come Muslims are having in their book,

kill them wherever you find them, as if the Koran is only encouraging Muslims to kill non Muslims, as if Muslims should walk with two machine guns to kill non Muslims wherever they find them. But they are playing the same immoral cut and paste game. If you read the verse, as a whole, it says, kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out. This verse is telling Muslims to find their occupiers and regain back the freedom of their homeland.

One of the clearest proofs that combative jihad is only to establish justice is that it is allowed for Muslims to launch jihad against Muslims to if they are the transgressing party. And this is not my own opinion. This is the very words of the Koran. It's very clear in the Koran, that if Muslims are oppressors they can be fought against, so it doesn't matter who's Muslim and who's not. But what matters is, was an oppressor and oppressed.

And if two groups of the believers fight amongst themselves, then reconcile between them both What if one of them rebels against the other than fight you all against the one that which rebels until it complies with the command of Allah, and if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, a powerful verse, which illustrates the profound sense of justice in Islam. And it clearly expresses that Muslims are not ordered to fight people of other faiths simply because they share a different faith than Muslims. But it illustrates that Muslims are ordered to fight against oppression wherever it comes from an evil.

It's interesting historically, when you look at the early Muslim conquests, as people like to call them, I mean, even in prayer when we start our prayer, that's called a conquest. So Muslims are not looking at the conquest in the sense of only a military victory. But when they enter those countries, people greeted them and welcome them, they did not rise up against them. In fact, some of them even sent letters to the Muslim leader, saying come invade the country will help you and help us to relieve this yoke of oppression from our next so it's very rare to find that there was a wide resistance against the occupying armies of the Muslims during the seventh and eighth century, when

Muslims

fought against the Roman Byzantines and the Persians. They were rarely faced by any civil resistance. In fact, many civilians joined the Muslim armies and fought against the Romans and the Persians themselves. JOHN, the Bishop of nicaea, you and he gyptian Coptic historian, was an eyewitness to the Muslim armies conquest of Egypt. He wrote in his Chronicles that the Egyptian ariens joined the Muslims in besieging the Roman soldiers in the Babylon fortress.

The emerging Muslim community under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad was surrounded by two of the greatest civilizations known in the history of mankind, the Roman Byzantines and the prisons. Despite histories of achievement in the service of humanity, civilian populations were ravaged by war and suffered mass genocide at their hands.

innocent civilians were raped and killed, cities were looted, plundered and put ablaze in wars at that time, at the hands of the Romans and the Persians, like in Salamis, Carthage, roaders, and Sardis and in many other places, Islam did not allow combat except after putting regulations on it, there is a code of combat in Islam.

Prophet Mohammed taught his followers to observe a strict code of war. He strongly emphasized the protection of civilians and their property, as well as aiding them through the difficult times after conflict.

We talk about the prophets teaching and in its relationship to jihad, there are two important points that we need to make one we've already made when it is allowable for Muslim to fight and I was clarified earlier. But secondly, this is not like some type of WWF anarchist approach towards fighting the Prophet peace be upon him as well as the an A laid out very specific examples and rules for the one who's engaged in combat. Because combat is one of the most hated words in Islam. In fact, people will come to the prophet and say that the name their son war, and the Prophet would say change your son's name. Combat is not something that's liked by people. So definitely has to come

with rules because the ability for people to oppress and harm others is great in combat. So number one, the prophet for us very clearly not to kill people from other faiths, religious leaders of other faiths. Number one, to harm the older elderly people to harm those people who are unarmed, to harm children to harm any innocent civilian is clearly forbidden in Islam. In fact, some of the prophetic narrations about killing the innocent and warning against doing so have reached the status of what's called collateral, which means so many people narrated those statements of the Prophet peace be upon him, that there's no room for doubt, there's no room for questioning them, and the

Muslim is bound to act on them or he goes outside of what's called war and becomes known as what's known as a terrorist.

Controversy over what account is legitimate act of war, or a good act of jihad, versus what must be considered a vicious act of terrorism has created an atmosphere of confusion which some have used to their advantage.

There seem to be a great mix up between martyrdom in a sense of self sacrifice, something which is regarded as a noble act, by all armies all over the world, people do sacrifice their life and are

praised as heroes or freedom fighters. On one hand, even if that requires self sacrifice, and between acts of terror, with people who are misled, to believe that this is Martin. In other words, there are acts that are islamically, acceptable as true martyrdom, that are called terrorist activities. And there are also acts that are basically terroristic acts and violate the teachings of Islam, that some people call it jihad or martyrdom, then that confusion must be removed.

The rules of international law on methods and means of warfare it's known as international humanitarian law it places very strict limits, you distinguish between combatants and non combatants. combatants are a legitimate target. Non combatants are not a legitimate target. And those rules are now codify

In a set of instruments that were negotiated and concluded in 1949, the Geneva Conventions there are four Geneva Conventions supplemented by two protocols in 1977. And the rules in Geneva, to a very large extent reflect what's called customary international law. That's to say they are binding on every one on all states, on all actors on non governmental entities, as well.

Among the teachings of Islam is that no one can be fought except a combatant. And this is one of the main rulings of the code of combat in Islam, which is stated clearly in various verses of the Koran and the statements made by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon

the grand says, and fighting the cause of god those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Indeed, God does not love those who commit aggression.

By saying fight those who fight you, the verse is clearly putting a limitation on fighting to be directed only against combatants who took arms against Muslims, and started hostilities, violating the Islamic ethical code of combat, such as targeting non combatants, or fighting an unjust war disqualifies it as jihad, killing civilians on 911 cannot be justified in Islam. What happened seven, seven cannot be justified in Islam. bombing civilians and Hiroshima and Nagasaki can also not be justified in Islam, innocent civilians or innocent civilians, we don't have something called collateral damage in Islam. collateral damage could show up on the day of judgment and speak against

to a child, an innocent woman, innocent man, an old person. So we have to really clarify this point for people and have to actively address Muslims who carry those ideas to that the killing of innocence. The killing of innocent civilians is an issue of violating a treaty, which is a form of hypocrisy and lying, which are from some of the major sins in Islam. So by killing an innocent person, not only are you bringing upon yourself the major sin of murder, you're bringing on yourself the major sin of hypocrisy as well as forgery in life.

Even though the Islamic rulings are clear as to the prohibition of targeting non combatants, some Muslim fanatics who fail to comprehend the rulings of jihad had been involved in terrorism. Less than two decades after the death of Prophet Muhammad fanaticism appeared amongst a group of Muslims known as the courage or courage.

Shortly after the death of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, a group called the marriage surface, and their primary function was destruction, killing and kills, disregarding the Quranic injunction that ordered people to respect the sanctity of the soul. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, foretold the appearance of fanaticism amongst some Muslims. He spoke about their characteristics.

Prophet Muhammad explained that the problem was not that their intentions were corrupt, but rather it was their understanding of the religion that was not sound.

He said, each of you would consider his own prayers and fasting insignificant compared to their prayers and fasting. They would recite the Quran, but it would not go any deeper than their throats, they would leave the religion just as the arrow exits from the other side of the pray.

sins in Islam are of two types, major sins and minor sins. Killing is among the major sins. It's a major sin to kill in Islam to the extent that killing one innocent soul is equal to the killing of all mankind.

The Quran says, Who ever kills a person except in punishment for the killing of another person, or for the spreading of dire corruption in the earth, it shall be reckoned as though he has killed all humankind and whoever saves a life It shall be reckoned as though he has saved the life of all humankind.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, alluded to the greatness of the crime of murder when he said, a faithful believer remains at Liberty regarding his religion unless he kills somebody unlawfully.

Because of the Prophet Muhammad's teachings, that murder is an

Major sin, and a vicious and evil crime, violent ideologies like that have never found a good medium to propagate in the Muslim world, except in the past few decades. This is a phenomenon worthy of studying the ideology of the corage. We emerged during the past few decades. Similarly, the contemporary extremist, incorrectly interpret Quranic text to justify the killing of civilians.

The birth of the whole adage really provides an archetype for Muslims to constantly compare those groups who claim or take a stake in authenticity. And when we look at the whole adage, we see a few common traits. Number one is hyper literalism. There is no concept of analogy, no concern for context of text. The verse is what is in the meanings of the words that are as they are, and there's no deep investigation into the reasons and objectives behind religious text. Number two is a fetish for standing up against religious scholarship discrediting the role of scholars the guidance of scholars, number three is looking at society in general, whether they're Muslim or non Muslim, in a

very, very negative way, and apocalyptic fashion. And interesting enough, many of these traits are shared amongst groups like Al Qaeda, as well as some of the more fringe neoconservative groups in North America, who, for example, have called for the death of our President Obama. Some of them are supplicating in churches, asking for his demise, these type of traits, Muslims look at them and are reminded of that devastating historical, historical epic, that we encounter, we dealt with the whole adage, father, soleimani, a Muslim who has dedicated his life to educating non Muslims on Islam, and to the radicalizing Muslim youth who may have fallen under the influence of self appointed leaders

challenge their ideology.

We have our own law, the law of God, who says in his book, when

people will be Miss schema will pivot.

And if you punish that your punishment be proportionate to the wrong that has been done to you, in fact, they debated me saying, according to this version, or on we are allowed to kill their innocence and their civilians, as they killed our innocence and our civilians in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Kashmir. So he said, but they did not only kill our civilians, they also rape our women in Bosnia, if you think that the versus actually allowing you to respond to them, in the same way you were harmed. Why don't you go or if the women, they said, No, we don't do that. I said, why not? Don't you think that the versus allowing you to do this, they said, No, rape is an illegal

sexual act. I said, therefore, the verse is not general. This verse is equal to the one in the Old Testament, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which also exists in the Koran, which means that simply if someone blew up one eye for you, you cannot blow up both his eyes. If someone damaged one tooth for you, you cannot go and damage all his 32 teeth, one eye and one tooth, do not transgress your limits. But still, you cannot rape women. Even if your enemy did, you cannot kill non combatants civilians, even if your enemy did or you would be exactly like them.

The Old Testament says, fracture for fracture, Iver eye, tooth for tooth whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.

The Quran says now, in it we prescribed for them, a life for a life and an eye for an eye and a nose for a nose and an ear for an ear and a tooth for a tooth and retribution for wounds. Yet whoever would forego this out of charity than it will be taken as an atonement for the one who has suffered injury.