Modernism is the Root of All Terrorism

←Back to Section on True Jihad

Modernist muslims are at the forefront of propagating the blatant lie that the root of ‘Islamic’ terrorism is the ‘backwardness’ and medieval nature of the Islamic teachings practised by strict, orthodox muslims who refuse to ‘modernise’ their religion. Nothing can be further from the truth. On the contrary, it is the influence of ‘modernism’ and the purely modernist trend of reviewing Islam’s immutable, unalterable laws represented by the 4 madh-habs (the traditional schools of thought which have reliably transmitted all the original, uncorrupted rulings of Islam) which have opened the door for acts of mass-murder to be legalized by modernist-salafi pseudo-jihadis.

One does not need to look beyond the simple fact that while the medieval Christian crusaders wantonly slaughtered hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians, not unlike their even more brutal, modern secular counterparts today (albeit packaged and marketed better), the medieval Islamic empire was the only safe-haven for oppressed minority populations around the world. Even Christians who were subject to systematic pogroms and ‘cleansing’ by their brethren from other denominations, sought and gained sanctuary in the Islamic empire.

To this day, hundreds of Christian and Jewish communities are scattered all over the Islamic world – communities which had sought refuge there over a thousand years ago, and have been living peacefully there, until the onset of this modern age of ‘enlightenment’ and ‘civilisation’ in which injustices, genocides, disparity in living conditions, suicide and depression rates etc. throughout the world have rocketed to unprecedented levels.

Many non-muslim historians, both honest and even the biased ones, have been constrained to admit this historical reality. To cite just one example, Gustave Le Bon states regarding the unprecedented justice, nobility, and kindness displayed by the early, medieval Muslims whose religion had yet to be corrupted and ‘modernized’:

“The Arabs could have easily been blinded by their first conquests, and committed the injustices that are usually committed by conquerors.  They could have mistreated their defeated opponents or forced them to embrace their religion, which they wished to spread all over the world.  But the Arabs avoided that.  The early caliphs, who had a political genius that was rare in proponents of new religion, realized that religions and systems are not imposed by force.  So they treated the people of Syria, Egypt, Spain, and every country they took over with great kindness, as we have seen.  They left their laws, regulations, and beliefs intact and only imposed on them the jizya, which was paltry when compared to what they had been paying in taxes previously, in exchange for maintaining their security.  The truth is that nations had never known conquerors more tolerant than the Muslims, or a religion more tolerant than Islam.” (‘The Civilization Of The Arabs,’ p. 605)

The noble Jihad of the famous Islamic Sultan, Salahuddin Ayyubi (aka Saladin), against his brutal christian adversaries is just one of innumerable examples found in the ‘backwards’ medieval Islamic empire which vividly illustrate the contrast between medieval Islam, and the version of ‘Jihad’ carried out today by modernist salafis. The following short article provides a vivid portrayal of this contrast:

THE CHRISTIAN GENOCIDE OF JERUSALEM
AND THE ISLAMIC ‘REVENGE’

The Ransack and Pillage of Jerusalem

In the year 1099 AD (492 Hijri) when the Christians conquered Baitul Maqdis (Jerusalem), they slaughtered 70,000 Muslim men, women, and children. Giving a graphic account of the massacre of Muslims by the Crusaders, the Christian historian Michaud writes:

“The Saracens were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers, and above all into their mosques, where they could not conceal themselves from the pursuit of the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Omar, where the Saracens defended themselves for some time, renewed there the deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d’Agiles, who was an eye- witness, says. ‘that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses’ bridles.”

Fulcher of Chartres, a Christian chronicler of that time, said:

“In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared”

The Islamic Conquest of Jersusalem

Eighty eight years after the fall of Jerusalem into Christian hands, Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi (rahmatullah alayh) (Saladin) conquered this prized city. How did the magnanimous Sultan repay the butchery and massacre of 70,000 Muslims at the hands of the savage Crusaders the memory of which must have been fresh and raw in every Muslims’ mind? Describing the conquest of Jerusalem by Sultan Salahuddin, Steven Runcimman, a Christian, writes:

“Saladin had the city at his mercy. He could storm it when he wished…Saladin, so long as his power was recognized, was ready to be generous, and he wished Jerusalem to suffer as little as possible. He consented to make terms and offered that every Christian should be able to redeem himself at the rate of ten dinars a man, five a woman and one a child…On Friday 2nd October, Saladin entered Jerusalem. It was the 27th day of Rajab…The victors (i.e. the Muslims) were correct and humane.

Where the Franks, eighty-eight years before, had waded through the blood of their (Muslim) victims, not a building now was looted, not a person injured. By Saladin’s orders guards patrolled the streets and the gates, preventing any outrage on the Christians… Then Saladin announced that he would liberate every aged man and woman. When the Frankish ladies who had ransomed themselves came in tears to ask him where they should go, for their husbands or fathers were slain or captive, he answered by promising to release every captive husband, and to the widows and orphans he gave gifts from his own treasury.

His mercy and kindness were in strange contrast to the deeds of the Christian conquerors of the First Crusade. The Orthodox Christians and the Jacobites remained in Jerusalem. Each had to pay a capitation tax in addition to his ransom, though many poorer classes were excused the payment. The rich amongst them bought up much of the property left vacant by the Franks’ departure. The rest was bought by Moslems and Jews whom Saladin encouraged to settle in the city.

When the news of Saladin’s victory reached Constantinople the Emperor Isaac Angelus sent an embassy to Saladin to congratulate him and to ask that the Christian Holy Places should revert to the Orthodox Church. After a little delay his request was granted.”

This was the noble manner in which Sultan Salahuddin, the Conqueror of Jerusalem reciprocated the cold blooded massacre of 70,000 Muslims by the Crusaders. In so doing, he was implementing the Qur’aanic command: “Ward off evil with what is beautiful.”

[Article by Mujlisul Ulama] .

BOUND BY RIGID TAQLEED (ADHERENCE) OF THE ISLAMIC LAWS OF JIHAD

The Islamic laws of Jihaad which tightly bound the hands of Salahuddin (Saladin) and other medieval pious Islamic rulers (as opposed to the impious ones), are unchangeable and immutable, just like all other Islamic laws, regardless of the efforts of modernists who desperately seek to modernise, re-interpret and review these laws. Some of the slogans and reasons cited by modernists to justify subverting these medieval laws include “new circumstances and needs”, the huge disparity in technological and military power between the Muslim world and the West, and that “equal retaliation” is required to compensate for the tragic reality of literally millions of Muslims having been murdered by America, Israel, etc. through direct military interventions, wars by proxy, remote-control wars (aka drones), or ruthless dictatorships installed and puppeteered by the Imperialists.

Every single law of Islam has been preserved, codified, and transmitted from the time of its inception, in the form of the 4 schools of thought (madh-habs) that represent mainstream Sunni Islam. These laws cannot be subject to modernisation, re-interpretation or review, regardless of how unpalatable they might be to modernist Muslims today whose minds have been colonized by spiritually destructive and foreign ideologies such as modernism, capitalism, etc. These immutable and unchangeable laws include the categorical prohibition of targetting civilians, the prohibition of treachery, and innumerable other rules that not only rigidly regulate the conduct of Jihad, but also every other facet of Islam.

The EXACT same methods used by modernists to re-interpret and override Islamic laws that are unpalatable to their wildly-varying taste-buds, are also used by the modernist pseudo-Jihadis to re-interpret and override the Islamic laws that govern Jihaad which they feel are too rigid and restricted for their purposes.

It is also worth noting that the ‘Christianity’ that was responsible for innumerable counts of mass genocide of populations, was a ‘modernised’ and corrupted version of the pure religion which the blessed Prophet Eesa alayhis salaam (Prophet Jesus) brought to the world a thousand years prior to the crusades.

AN EXAMPLE DISPLAYING THE NOBLE SPIRIT OF THE EARLY ‘BACKWARDS’ MUSLIMS

The following excerpt from a non-Muslim historian contains an eye-opening account which encapsulates the spirit of justice and integrity displayed by the very earliest generations of Muslims, the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) (the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It throws into stark contrast the often dishonest, treacherous and murderous behaviour exhibited by modernist-salafi ‘jihadi’ groups which, in fact, is the natural consequence of a malleable and flexible methodology of Ijtihad (deriving new Islamic rulings) that is unfettered from rigid adherence to the 4 madh-habs, and which ultimately enables conferring religious legitimization to each and every transgression under the sun:

It is true that adherence to their ancient faith rendered them obnoxious to the payment of Jizyah – a word which originally denoted tribute of any kind paid by the non-Muslim subjects of the Arab empire, but came later on to be used for the capitation-tax as the fiscal system of the new rulers became fixed; but this Jizyah was too moderate to constitute a burden, seeing that it released them from the compulsory military service that was incumbent on their Muslim fellow-subjects…the following facts taken from the Kitab al-Kharaj, drawn up by Abu Yusuf at the request of Harun al-Rashid (A.D. 786-809) may be taken as generally representative of Muhammadan procedure under the Abbasid Caliphate. The rich were to pay forty-eight dirhams (footnote: A dirham is about fivepence) a year, the middle classes twenty-four, while from the poor, i.e. the field-labourers and artisans, only twelve dirhams were taken.

This tax could be paid in kind if desired; cattle, merchandise, household effects, even needles were to be accepted in lieu of specie, but not pigs, wine, or dead animals. The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms [distributed by the state] and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane, unless they happened to be men of wealth; this same condition applied to priests and monks, who were exempt if dependent on the alms of the rich, but had to pay if they were well-to-do and lived in comfort. The collectors of the Jizyah were particularly instructed to show leniency, and refrain from all harsh treatment or the infliction of corporal punishment, in case of non-payment [footnote: Abu Yusuf, pp. 69-71].

This was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state who religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musalmans [muslims].

When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that “the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.” [footnote: Tabari] Again, in the treaty made by Khalid with some towns in the neighbourhood of Hirah, he writes: “If we protect you, then Jizyah is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not due.”

How clearly this condition was recognised by the Muhammadans may be judged from the following incident in the reign of the Caliph Umar. The Emperor Heraclius had raised an enormous army with which to drive back invading forces of the Muslims, who had in consequence to concentrate all their energies on the impending encounter. The Arab general, Abu Ubaydah, accordingly wrote to the governors of the conquered cities of Syria, order them to pay back all the Jizyah that had been collected from the cities, and wrote to the people, saying:

We give you back the money that we took from you, as we have received news that a strong force is advancing against us. The agreement between us was that we should protect you, and as this is not now in our power, we return you all that we took. But if we are victorious we shall consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of our agreement.”

In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, “May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us.” [footnote: Abu Yusuf]

As stated above, the Jizyah was levied on the able-bodied males, in lieu of the military service they would have been called upon to perform had they been Musalmans; and it is very noticeable that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighbourhood of Antioch, who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay Jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty [footnote: Baladhuri, p.159]…

Living under this security of life and property and such toleration of religious thought, the Christian community – especially in the towns – enjoyed a flourishing prosperity in the early days of the Caliphate…In trade and commerce, the Christians also attained considerable affluence; indeed it was frequently their wealth that excited against them the jealous cupidity of the mob – a feeling that fanatics took advantage of, to persecute and oppress them.

Further, the non-Muslim communities enjoyed an almost complete autonomy, for the government placed in their hands the independent management of their internal affairs, and their religious leaders exercised judicial functions in cases that concerned their co-religionists only [footnote: Von Kremer]. Their churches and monasteries were, for the most part, not interfered with, except in the large cities, where some of them were turned into mosques – a measure that could hardly be objected to in view of the enormous increase in the Muslim and corresponding decrease in the Christian population…

Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed, it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country.”

[Thomas Arnold, The Spread of Islam in the World]

THE CASE OF THE TALIBAN
An Example of the Dangers of Deviant Modernist Sects

The evolution of the Taliban, and the increasingly modernist tactics and methods employed by them, serve as good examples of the effect of modernism on a movement that was, at least initially, completely ‘backwards’, medieval, and pure from deviant modernist-salafi influences.

Prior to the formation of the Taliban into a formalized body during which its fighters were instrumental in the defeat of the Russians, and in the early period of its governance of Afghanistan, the Taliban leaders had regarded with extreme abhorrence the methods and tools employed by salafi-modernist ‘jihadis’, such as suicide bombing, targetting civilians, jihadi promotional recruitment videos, etc. Even the internet itself was at one point proclaimed to be completely forbidden.

For many years, whilst the Arab Salafi mujahideen would openly issue fatwas encouraging the employment of suicide bombings and targetting of civilians, the Taliban specifically, and Afghans in general, would view such methods as completely forbidden. Suicide bombing itself was a strong taboo and regarded as a cowardly and ignoble way to meet one’s death. In their eyes there was a crucial fiqhi (juristic) distinction between the final decisive and volitional killing action being intentionally carried out by one’s own hands, and the final, decisive and volitional killing action being carried out by the enemies’ hands.

The few Talibaan leaders who were able to break this taboo, not only admit to being influenced by the Salafis but also admit taking direct ta’leem (instruction) and training in this field. Mullah Dadullah, to cite one example, is widely accepted as the person to have almost single-handedly broken this strong taboo widely amongst the Talibaan regarding the use of suicide bombing. He has openly admitted on video that this particularly tactic, amongst others which were once considered forbidden (such as jihadi recruitment videos) by the Talibaan, is one that he has acquired directly from the Salafis with whom he has had long held close ties.

Thus, from the Russian ‘superpower’ having been defeated comprehensively without the use of a single suicide bomb, right up till 2005, during which only isolated incidents of suicide bombings occurred in that region, now literally wave after wave of suicide bombs are carried out yearly, with willing participants including even women, and a fast-increasing range of targets are being regarded as legitimate depending on what each individual Jihaadi leader deems to be serving a valid ‘need’ according to his personal and chaotically fluctuating judgement (ijtihad).

It serves as yet another strong vindication of the Islamic ruling of the Shariah and the statements of the Salaf-us-Saliheen which strongly prohibit fraternizing, socialising, and mixing with deviant sects, and which mentions that the danger posed by deviant sects to the Ummah are worse than that of the Kuffaar, and that inclination and admiration for deviants is a sign of Nifaaq (an abominable type of hypocrisy) lurking in the heart.

However, such a ruling and attitude, just like most other Islamic rulings and attitudes adopted by the few strict, orthodox muslims (Ghurabaa) remaining today, have clearly become Ghareeb (lone, strange, ‘extreme’) as predicted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

←Back to Section on True Jihad

One thought on “Modernism is the Root of All Terrorism

  1. Khalid Umar

    Assalamu alaykum
    This is a very good and informative article.
    However,I have a disagreement regarding the last part titled , ‘THE CASE OF THE TALIBAN
    An Example of the Dangers of Deviant Modernist Sects’.
    A person reading this gets the impression that initially the Taliban(I am referring to the Afghan Taliban) were not in favour of targeting civilians but now they are. This is completely untrue.The Afghan Taliban never target civilians and are completely opposed to it.
    They do employ the tactic of suicide bombing ,as mentioned in this article, but only against the enemy i.e NATO and Afghan Army.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *