What's new

The three stages of Jihad.

Hulk

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
7,582
Reaction score
-18
Country
United States
Location
United States
David Wood on the 3 stages of Jihad:

Someone posted this to me and I want to verify if what he references are correct. So posting it here.
 
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Another extremist crazy evangelical christian missionary saying lunatic things...how original!

You might as well post paster terry jones burning qurans as well...

or Pat Robertson saying Muslims bring "demons" in their neighbors' house...

:disagree:
 
e83e5ef578c8197e27030ed1d1ccf3bf.jpg
 
Your video isn't working, but I'm assuming it's supposed to be this video:
To answer the OP's question, this video is not correct.
Now I could easily, easily refute this video and shatter this guy's arguments in minutes.

First of all, when was the last time a Muslim American blew up a grocery store? Or anything, for that matter? Bad example given, but at least it conveys his point.

Then he raises the point of Quranic verses [9:29] and [2:256] supposedly conflicting, as one says 'there is no compulsion in religion' while the other says 'fight those who don't believe'. The answer to this one is very simple. Context. When the Quran says 'there is no compulsion in religion', it is addressing Muslims in general, made evident by verse [2:254] starting with 'O you who have believed', meaning it is referring to all the believers. If you look at the beginning of the 'Surah' (Chapter) or move a few verses back, again you will see evidence that this is addressing Muslims in general. (If it was not, it would have said 'O Muhammad' or something similar, referring to the prophet during the time he was alive i.e: not applying to all the Muslims)

But when you look at verse 9:29 and 9:28, it says:
O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
Next verse:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
This is clearly not applicable to all Muslims during all periods of time because this verse is clearly referring to Masjid al Haram and the Polytheists' final year in Makkah. Then, it also says 'If you fear privation (hardship/deprivation)'. There is no contradiction here.
When they are in a Muslim land (i.e Masjid al Haram) and they don't want to convert, they must pay Jizya. If you are threatened or besieged by them, you may wage war against them. It does not, in any way, tell people to go and murder non-Muslims living thousands of miles away from them. There are clear restrictions.

Before that, in verse 9:4 the Quran already set a clear restriction:
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

“Allah does not forbid you from being kind and equitable to those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes. Indeed, Allah likes those who are equitable. Allah only forbids you from making friends of those who fight you because of religion or expel you from your homes or aid in your expulsion. The ones that make friends of them are the wrongdoers.” - Quran 60:8-9

Okay, so there you go Mr.Wood, you got your answer. But no, instead of trying to read around that one sentence you quoted, you decide to become the messiah and offer a solution: 'If you want to understand Islam, understand Jihad'. He then proceeds to pull some BS out by saying that there are three stages of Jihad, which I will cover in a while. (By the way, this has absolutely zero basis anywhere in any Islamic sources.)

Here he talks about Stage 1 : 'Stealth Jihad' (stealth struggle? That doesn't sound right), how when the Muslims were in Makkah, they did not wage war but criticized the polytheists 'peacefully' (he quotes Surah al Kafirun which says 'To you is your religion and to me mine' but when they got power they started slaughtering them. A really stupid thing he says here is 'non-Arabs'. What the hell? They were all Arabs, who are you talking about David?
Apparently he is referring to something in the History of Al Tabari, which is by the way not considered an authentic Islamic text as it was written by a Persian historian about 300 years later, in which it is claimed that the Holy Prophet told the Pagans that he can make them rule over non-Arabs. Strange, and I couldn't find Al Tabari online for free, so I will try to get my hands on it and examine this point later

He then says with a little smirk ''non-Arabs, Christians, Jews, Persians, etc''. Now this is extremely laughable. There were, in fact, Christian Arabs and Jewish Arabs in Makkah at the time. Arab is a race, not a religion. Muslim is not Arab and Arab is not Muslim. They are two different things. So that further undermines the credibility of this point.

Another thing this little argument doesn't take into account is that the Makkans were the prophet's own people. Of course he would try to reason with them first. They (the politicians mostly) replied to his reason (and peaceful criticism) by throwing stones, trying to murder the Muslims and boycotting them, after which the Muslims were commanded to migrate to Madinah (and eventually fight the Makkans). David's attempt to make the Makkan pagans look like the victims here fails miserably.

Okay, moving on, he talks about 'Stage 3: Aggressive Jihad' and claims that after the Muslims had gained strength and defeated the Pagans, Surahs like At-Taubah started being revealed, making the Muslims wage 'aggressive Jihad' against 'non-Arabs'. Now this whole argument collapses entirely when you see that Surah At-Taubah was revealed during the Battle of Tabuk, one started by the Byzantines (by killing a Muslim ambassador and making preparations for war).

Then he jumps back to 'Stealth Jihad' for a while and goes on to talk about something called 'Taqiyah', 'concealing the Muslims' true intentions'. Now first of all, I learned about Taqiya from an anti-Islam website, even though i went through education in Pakistan, which included the Quran and Islamiyat (Islamic Studies). Guess what? There is absolutely no mention of this sort of taqiya anywhere in Islam.
A simple wikipedia search would tell you that 'The term taqiyya does not exist in Sunni jurisprudence', which is probably why I never heard of it before someone online accused us muslims of practicing it.

Now this is incredibly unfair because we can't explain or defend ourselves anymore. All my arguments can be thrown out the window by saying 'it's all Taqiya'. Like what the hell man? This is a conspiracy theory of the 'illuminati' kind, saying that all the Muslims around the world are united in practicing Taqiya and fooling the whole world. What this does not take into account is that Muslims are all normal human beings who lead normal human lives. Also, If Taqiya is not even taught to Muslims, how do they know to practice it? It just doesn't make sense.

It is also extremely wrong because it causes distrust between Muslims and Non-Muslims. Very much distrust. It effectively makes sure that any otherwise un-informed person who watches this video will never trust a Muslim in his life.

David quotes verse 3:28 to prove his point, which simply talks about using a truce as a method of protecting yourself (as opposed to waging war). It does, however, state that Muslims should not side (or ally) with Non-Muslims but a very important part of this is that it says 'rather than believers', which can also be translated as 'instead of'. So, a Muslim can be friends with non-Muslims if it doesn't mean having to oppose other Muslims.

Another important part is that the words used for 'friend' or 'ally' imply a friendship so close that your life goals are the same. This is further backed by different translations (Dr.Ghali, especially) and the second part of the verse that says ''the final goal is to Allah''

He then quotes Abu Darda out of context, when he said that ''We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them''. David flat-out lied and took this as proof that 'Muslims pretend to be friends while cursing in the hearts'. It's actually the opposite. What this quote means to say is that even if you dislike someone or are enemies with them, you are supposed to smile at them (i.e treat them nicely).
Here, for more information on Abu Darda: Abu Darda Al Ansari (d.34H) أبو الدرداء الأنصاري - Islamic Encyclopedia
For example:
Apart from his devotions, he was a close follower of the Prophetic ways. He always smiled when speaking to the people. His wife told him, “People will think a fool of you for your smiles.” He answered, “I have seen the Prophet smiling every time he spoke to a person.”

Again, David Quotes At-Tabari out of context and very much, making the pagans look like poor little victims and the Muslims like some monsters. I can't say anything on this because I can't get my hands on At-Tabari and it isn't anywhere on the internet, otherwise I'm sure I could continue to shred David's arguments. I'll try to get it in a while, then come back here and debunk those too.

Moving on, he accuses Muslims of double standards, saying that 'when the pagans responded in kind, insulting Islam, the Muslims started crying about persecution'.
Now here's the thing: the pagans did not respond 'in kind'. They responded by trying to murder the Muslims, throwing garbage and stones, boycotting them and eventually exiling them. That is not 'insulting Islam', neither is it responding 'in kind'.
Why would they do that? Why would the Pagans react disproportionately? Politics. The politicians had very much to lose if Islam gained power, they were happy controlling their tribes, stirring up violence, stealing from their people and doing whatever they wanted. It was bad for them when they were challenged openly by Muhammad (pbuh)

Okay, so after this, he makes another point: ''Persecution was the best thing that happened to Islam''. ''All the Christians of Abyssinia, Jews and Pagans of Madinah and other places rushed to their aid''. So now this claim is completely wrong because:
a) The people of Madina did not just help the Muslims - they wanted to become Muslims
b) People like the Banu Thaqif of Taif and the Jewish tribes living near Madinah continued to oppose them.

Pretty much only Abyssinia and Madinah helped the Muslims, and that too was when the Muslims migrated there (i.e they did not 'rush to their aid', they simply offered the Muslims asylum.)

David then says that 'Muhammad was already planning to conquer all of these people', which is completely false because the people of Abyssinia, which is now Ethiopia, are still Christians. They kept friendly relations with the Muslims, the Muslims didn't force them to convert and we have a huge amount of Ethiopian Christians to this day.
This above point also renders the argument that 'Islam was spread by the sword' invalid, because if that was the case, the Abyssinians would have been turned into Muslims a long time ago.

He continues to base some arguments on that little quotation from At-Tabari to say that the Muslims lied and had double standards, etc, etc. I can not refute these points properly until and unless I get access to At-Tabari but I will still try by quoting other sources. Basically what David's argument here is that the Pagans only responded when their Gods were attacked (''they were ok with Muslims believing in Allah and even preaching Islam'', he says)
I can quote many, many historians saying that the first few converts to Islam, including Sumayyah bint Khabbab (the first martyr) and Hazrat Bilal were tortured. They did not openly denounce the Pagan Gods or anything, they simply refused to believe in them. Hazrat Bilal, for example, kept saying 'God is one' when he was being tortured.
Bilal Ibn Rabah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look at the sources cited at the end, they are links to many books and even BBC articles.

Next, David says that Muslims resorted to 'terrorism' by attacking the Makkan caravans.
Now, first of all, they were clearly enemies (the Makkans had boycotted, exiled and purged the Muslims away - that means war, anywhere in the World) and it was the 6th Century. That is not terrorism, it is (or was) a legitimate Military engagement. Again, a little wikipedia search would show this (backed by good sources):
The survival of nomads (or Bedouins) was also partially dependent on raiding caravans or oases, thus they saw this as no crime
This point is further backed by the fact that the Muslims did not attack the Caravans of Banu Damrah after they made a truce with them.

David then says that the ''Muslims launched seven attacks and the Makkans never retaliated''
So when did the battle of Badr take place? According to David, the Makkans started sending some soldiers to protect their caravans and were attacked and defeated by the monstrous Muslims. On the other hand, historians say that the Makkans found out about the raid plan in advance and sent an Army to counter this. Also according to them, the Makkans tried to raid Madinah once. Who do I believe? Well, needless to say, those historians have a lot more credibility than this dude.
Some more info on this: The First Raids and Skirmishes

Then he goes on to claim that Muhammad started murdering and assassinating his critics, again without giving any proof or source. We're just supposed to take his word for it. He's making an accusation here, he needs to back it up with something.

I can keep going on and on and on but I think this is enough to show that this video is full of lies, logical inconsistencies, fallacies and clear propaganda. Everyone is welcome to discuss or argue against my long, long response but please don't expect me to reply today, it's late at night and all this writing is tiring.
And sorry for the extremely long post but if you can spare 20 minutes to listen to David, I'm sure you can spare some time to read it.
 
Back
Top Bottom