On April 1
st
, 2015, the Muslim Student Association and a Shafii imam presented an “
anti-
ISIS”
panel at the University of New Mexico. This presentation was part of a week-long program
called “Islam Awareness Week”. The University of New Mexico is a problematic school that has
a record of being pro-Islam, pro-Palestine, and anti-Israel, in addition to being a very liberal and leftist campus. Readers may recall that Nonie Darwish was harassed here in 2012, and more
recently, the passage of “Resolution 6S” through the student government, which attempts to criminalize “Islamophobia”.
During th
e “anti
-
ISIS” presentation, a fellow UNM student named Michael Noah Guebara
started quoting violent verses in the Quran in order to point out that Islam preaches violence. I happened to sit almost directly behind this student, and witnessed the entire ordeal. This ordeal was recorded via cellphone.
The 2 minute long segment which may be found on Guebara’s
Facebook, has since
gone viral. Guebara presents the “anti
-
ISIS” panel as being “pro
-
ISIS”, but
this needs more explanation. The local media in Albuquerque and the Daily Lobo newspaper have all been portraying Guebara in a false manner, claiming that it is controversial, and that the Muslim Student Association has claimed this as a misrepresentation of what really happened.
Guebara’s video may be seen here
In response to Guebara’s video clip, the Muslim Student Association
has uploaded a three-part video series on Youtube, claiming to show the proceedings in full. However, this is not the case. There should be a fourth or fifth video segment, where the imam is asked about the jihad found in all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, and about a verse from Sahih Muslim that talks about the
“Hour” not being established until the Jews are killed. The fourth or fifth video segment
would also show an audience member walking out in disgust and anger, after telling the imam that he is telling lies. Part #3 of the event may be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu9FDaMJDz8
If you go to the 14:01 mark, I am heard asking the imam about the Salafi Muslims, and about the striking similarities shown by all four Sunni madhabs when it comes for Sharia. This is because ISIS is Salafi-Wahabbi, and because Mohammed clearly stated that the best generation was his, and the subsequent two generations after him. Salafis emulate these generations, and my questioning was to prompt the imam about jihad and to see if he would reject the Salafis. I also asked about the rules for scriptural exegesis, because the imam had previously attempted to fool the audience that Guebara was taking the violent Quranic verses out of context. The imam also made Guebara read some verses from the Old Testament, construing it as evidence that the Bible also teaches violence. In response to my questions starting a few seconds after 14:01,
the imam tells me that I am “half a Muslim” and that I had done my research.
However, the imam must have known where I was going with my questions, as he claimed that 80% of Sharia is about things such as not drinking alcohol, and every other thing except for jihad. This omission may be found in the fourth or fifth
parts of the proceedings, which the Muslim Student Association did not upload. In response to this omission, I explicitly brought up jihad as the missing 20%, to which the imam then got agitated and started making false arguments. Hopefully the rest of the video will be uploaded, but I am not holding my breath.
However, the imam’s response to my questions in part #3 of the
video segment shows that he did not reject the Salafis
–
how can he claim to be “anti
-
ISIS” when
he accepts that the Salafis are legitimate? In defense of Michael Noah Guebara, the ISIS panel did in fact turn the discussion into a personal attack session against Christianity. As the student who sat right behind Michael Noah Guebara, and also engaged the imam throughout the entire discussion session, I can attest to the fact that the imam was presenting a whitewashed version of Islam that does not exist in reality. There are several points that need to be addressed. Point 1: The imam frequently makes comparisons between the violence in the Quran and the violence in the Old Testament of the Bible. The problem with this comparison is that the Bible clearly has an Old and New Testament, where new instructions are given for Christians. In addition, the violence in the Old Testament was bound by context, making it descriptive and only relevant to a certain instance. This is in sharp contrast to the Quran, whose verses are
prescriptive, and the Quran does not have a “New Testament”
. The ISIS panel used the word
“context” without actually applying it to the Bible or to the Quran. They clearly did not understand what “context” is.
Point 2:
The imam’s wife talked about “protection” for non
-believers. This is akin to the mafia extortion
and blackmail scheme, where innocent people are threatened if they don’t pay up. The notion of “protection” for non
-believers is non-existent in Islam. First of all, why should non- believers need protection from Muslims in the first place? Second, this not
ion of “protection” is
actually a euphemism for the jizya head tax, more appropriately described as a capitulation and subjugation tax that only targets non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Here is evidence from a very reputable Shafii madhab source, the Reliance of the Traveler, found under the Objectives of
Jihad: “
Thc caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ( provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social
order
of Islam by paying the nonMuslim poll tax which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll
tax…”
Point 3: The notion of jihad was deliberately misrepresented by the imam through a straw-man argument. Nobody had claimed that jihad was a holy war. Yet the imam stated this and then attacked it
. Here is what Reliance of the Traveler says about jihad: “
Jihad
means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word
mujahada,
signifying warfare to establish the religion. Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others. He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad. If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him
and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can.
”
Point 4: Here is what jihad means, across all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence:
•
Ibn Taymiyya (Hanbali jurist), proclaimed: “Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and its aim is that the religion is Allah’s entirely and Allah’s word is upper
-
most… those who
stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or
cannot fight… they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (propaganda) and acts (assisting in the warfare).” As the readers may inquire, information warfare may be seen through the deceptive narratives given by “moderate Muslims” and their
sympathizers.
•
Ibn Abi Zayd al-
Qayrawani (Maliki jurist), proclaimed: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution… it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited
them to embrace the religion of Allah, except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the jizya, short of which war will
be declared against them.” These conditional statements do not show any notions of
democratic, pluralistic norms. If non-believers refuse to accept Islam, or become subjugated, jihad must be waged against them.
•
Abu’l Hasan al
-
Mawardi (Shafii scholar), proclaimed: “The infidels… are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it… Second
, those
whom the invitation to Islam has not reached… it is forbidden to… begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them… if they still refuse to accept after this,
war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call ha
s reached.”
•
And from the Hidayah, Volume 1 (Hanafi school): “It is not lawful to make war upon any
people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them
to embrace it…. If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither co
nsent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon Allah for assistance,
and to make war upon them.”
Point 5:
A recent lie was found on the Daily Lobo, in which the author stated, “
Jihad in the Islamic theology actually means a defensive war against foreign aggressors when your independence is threatened and you are physically attacked by the enemy.
” My question is: does
burning the Quran, saying that Mohammed (the false prophet) was racist, a murderer etc, and c
reating the false definition of “Islamophobia” justify jihad?
This seems like self-victimization,
and an attempt to create excuses for waging jihad, when they really don’t even need to make
excuses. Why? Because jihad is commanded by Allah against non-believers in the first place. After the event was over, I was approached by several Muslims, including the president of the Muslim Student Association at UNM, who asked me for my contact information. I declined. I had sensed that they knew that I knew too much, and that I now posed a threat to them. Another one of the Muslims who approached me was one of the panel members, who is seen shaking his