Why the Jihad in America is Heating Up

Order Robert Spencer’s new book, Holy Hell: Islam’s Abuse of Women and the Infidels Who Enable It: HERE.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks, politicians on both sides of the aisle, as well as the media establishment, never grew tired of reminding us that Islam was a religion of peace and tolerance. Muslim spokesmen the same thing as well, and the more time passed after those attacks without another catastrophic act of jihad violence inside the United States, the more plausible the claim seemed. Those who pointed out Islam’s violent texts, teachings and tradition were, we were told, ignorant “Islamophobes” whom all decent people should shun. All was well in our multicultural paradise.

And yet it isn’t. As the twenty-fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, we still haven’t had another attack comparable to those that took place on that terrible day, but the incidence of smaller-scale attacks that emanate from the same ideology is becoming ever more frequent. On March 1, a Muslim migrant opened fire in a bar in Austin, Texas, killing three people and injuring 13 others. On March 7, two Muslims screaming “Allah akbar” threw a homemade shrapnel bomb at a crowd of pro-freedom protesters in New York City. Then on March 12, a Muslim crashed his car into a Michigan synagogue and opened fire, while another Muslim started shooting at Old Dominion University, murdering one person and injuring two others.

Four jihad attacks in two weeks. There have been many others recently as well. And jihad attacks in the United States are likely only to grow even more frequent.

It seems as if the United States is passing from the Qur’an’s first stage of jihad to the second. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains that there is a progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he says, the Muslims preached tolerance, because they were a small, powerless band that depended upon the indulgence of larger forces. When the Qur’an says “To you your religion, and to me my religion,” (109:6) it isn’t generously granting to non-believers the right to practice their own religions. It is demanding that tolerance from the non-believers.

When the Muslims gain political and military power, however, they stop preaching tolerance. The second stage of the Qur’an’s teaching on warfare, Ibn Ishaq explains, is defensive jihad. “Permission is given to those who fight,” says the Qur’an, “because they have been wronged, and Allah is indeed able to give them victory.” (22:39) The Michigan synagogue attack would be considered defensive jihad, for it was supposedly revenge for Israel’s alleged atrocities in Lebanon: the Muslims were wronged, so they have permission to fight.

Even that, however, was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”

The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. “Fight them,” says another Qur’an passage, “until persecution is no more and religion is all for Allah.” (8:39)

The Muslim community passes from one stage to the next as its numbers grow. Only when the community is small and weak, lacking political and military power, does it preach tolerance. When it becomes more powerful, the more violent stages come into play.

This was not just the idea of Ibn Ishaq alone. The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

At least some Muslims in the United States seem to have gotten the idea that the time for the stage of tolerance is over. The time has come to fight. We will see much more of this.