Tag Archives: Reliance of the Traveller

Pay Attention To The Country Making The Announcement

Posted on by

Today, The New York Post posted the following headline:

Iran says Hamas ready to release hostages if Israel stops airstrikes as at least 199 now known taken

It is interesting that Iran is making that announcement–as if there were ever any doubt as to who is pulling the strings of the Hamas operation.

To understand what is going on here, you need to understand one of the basic principles of Islamic law.

According the Reliance of the Traveller (a contemporary volume on Islamic law), this is the definition of HUDNA:

Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers of material, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim. 

…Even in modern times, it remains common for Muslims to refer to a proposed peace treaty or peace talks a hudna.

The source for the above information is Stephen Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure, published in 2015.

Israel has shut off the water to the Gaza Strip and cut off imports of food, etc. Just for the record, the purpose of “hudna” is to regroup and rearm for a future Islamic victory.

The New York Post article reports:

Iran’s Foreign Ministry claimed Monday that Hamas was ready to release its hostages if Israel ceases its airstrikes along the Gaza Strip — as the number known to have been taken by the terrorist group rose to at least 199.

Hamas officials are “ready” to release hostages, but doing so would be “impossible” under Israeli airstrikes in the region, Iranian Foreign Ministry Nasser Kanaani relayed at a news conference in Tehran.

The terror group “stated that they are ready to take necessary measures to release the citizens and civilians held by resistant groups, but their point was that such measures require preparations that are impossible under daily bombardment by the Zionists against various parts of Gaza,” Kanaani said.

In the past, Israel has had a policy of never negotiating with terrorists. We saw the positive results of that in 1976 when Israel mounted a daring raid on the airport at Entebbe rather than negotiate with terrorists. Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother, Yonatan Netanyahu, was killed in that raid. Prime Minister Netanyahu totally understands what is at stake.

Anyone with a knowledge of Islamic terrorism will tell you that if the bombing stops and the hostages are released, it will only be a matter of time before more hostages are taken. The only way to end this cycle of violence is to end the lives of those who are perpetrating it.

Notes On A Truce

Posted on by

The first thing to remember when viewing the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is the Islamic concept of “hudna.” RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER  (is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence) describes the rule for making “hudna” (or truce) as follows:

If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him Peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as it related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. (from CATASTROPHIC FAILURE by Stephen Coughlin)

In the eyes of Islam, the purpose of a truce is to give the Muslims time to rearm and grow stronger. That is one of many reasons I am not impressed with the current truce.

The Center for Security Policy posted an article today which mentions some other problems with the truce. One of the main unresolved issues is the right of Jews to go to the Temple Mount. This issue has the potential to unravel the Jordan-Israeli peace treaty.

The article reports:

The fact is, since the rioting escalated to the Temple Mount surrounding the Muslim holiday of Laylat al -Qadr two weeks ago, the Israeli government barred any Jew from setting foot on the Temple Mount since May 5. It did so as a temporary tactical move to calm unnecessary tensions. However, the war is now over, which means in the coming days, Israel will have to make a decision as to whether it will lift that ban. If it does lift the ban, Jews will again be able to go to the Temple Mount, at which point Hamas will ensure that there will be violence so that it maintains and emphasizes its control of events. Israel will either have to lift that ban and a Jew will go to the mount. That event will represent an immediate escalation and Jordan will be unable to take a neutral position given the col de sac into which it has rhetorically maneuvered itself. The resulting violence which Hamas will instigate now that it has such immense currency on the Palestinian street will not only threaten the survival of the Palestinian Authority, but it could even reverberate enough to destabilize the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan.

The article concludes:

In short, Hamas has positioned itself in a win-win position over all its enemies, presenting the world with the final verdict in this 12-day war and positioning itself to gut Judaism and threaten both Jordan and the PA.

We will see shortly whether Israel lifts the prohibition and a Jew ascends the Mount. If so, then we have a crisis in which Jordan, because of its imprudent intervention, will be forced to react with such intensity that it may cause the peace treaty to falter materially. If on the hand the ban is not immediately lifted, then Hamas has successfully changed the status quo to ban Jews, leaving Jordan and Abu Mazen fatally weak.

This ceasefire is fraught with great peril, and the President should be careful not to attach too much of his or the United States’ reputation and stature to it. It may indeed turn out to be a historical turning point, but not a positive one.

The current ceasefire in Israel is as much of a minefield as the war. We need to step very carefully. Unfortunately, I am not convinced we have leadership that knows how to do that.

 

There Are Some Things To Remember When Viewing The Truce In Afghanistan

Posted on by

Hot Air (and many other places on the Internet) are reporting today that America has signed a peace treaty with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The article notes:

The United States is set to sign a peace deal Saturday with the Taliban, its adversary in Afghanistan’s 18-year war. The deal marks a major turning point in a conflict marred by years of both military and diplomatic stalemate.

One provision of the agreement is the full withdrawal of American troops that is “heavily conditions based,” according to two U.S. officials who have been briefed on the deal. The officials declined to elaborate on what exactly those conditions are. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the deal publicly.

The article concludes:

This is something I was venting my frustrations about on Twitter yesterday. While I would be very pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, I can’t believe that the promises of the Taliban are worth anything. Also, even if they were being sincere, they don’t control all of the fighters in their country, so their ability to maintain a ceasefire is dubious at best.

I realize I’ve preached this line to all of you in the past, but I’ve not seen anything to sway my opinion much. The Taliban is just waiting for us to leave. If they have to wait another 14 months or another 14 years, they will. They’re very good at waiting for invading armies to grow frustrated and go home. They’ve been doing it forever. And as soon as we’re gone, they will tear now the new government and return to being a primitive, seventh century nation just as they’ve always been. At this point, we should probably just face up to that reality, use this deal as a ticket to pull our troops out and leave them to their own devices.

There are some things to remember when considering the war in Afghanistan. We made two major mistakes in that war that essentially cost us the moral high ground. Because we did not have the courage to face the problem of pedophilia in the country or to eliminate the poppy crop. Both would have been very difficult, but both would have had a positive impact on the blatant corruption in the country. Unless we were willing to overwhelm the population and stay long enough to change the culture, we were not going to be victorious there.

We also need to remember two of the basic concepts found in Islam–hudna and taqiyya. Reliance of the Traveller, which is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, states the following:

If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him Peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as it related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.

The purpose of a truce (hudna) was to give the Muslims time to stockpile weapons and become stronger.

In Islamic law, an obligation to lie exists if it is the only way to achieve an obligatory goal in Islam. Al-Taqiyya is based on a concept in Quaran 3:28 and 16:106. It is also found in the hadith,  the embodiment of the sunnah, the words and actions of the prophet and his family the Ahl al-Bayt (The Twelve Imams and the prophet’s daughter, Fatimah).

We are leaving Afghanistan. Under present conditions, that is a good thing. However, to believe that this will mean that Afghanistan will no longer be a disjointed terrorist state is naive. Afghanistan has never really experienced freedom under a central government. It is naive to believe that we can superimpose a central government that espouses individual freedom over what is currently there. We need to learn the lessons of the American revolution–unless the people are willing to fight for their freedom and respect the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God, they will never be free.

Note: the information in this article about the principles of Islam are taken from Stephen Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure. It is recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand the Muslim plan for worldwide Sharia Law.

 

Poverty?

Posted on by

PovertyInIslamThe violence in Islam is not the result of poverty. Those practicing violence are in agreement with the basic tenets of Islam as espoused in the Koran and the Hadith. If you doubt that killing infidels is part of basic Islam, please read Reliance of the Traveller. This book is the accepted translation and explanation of Islamic beliefs. Islam can be practiced without violence, but violent Islam is part of the Koran.

Is The Islamic State Islamic?

Posted on by

From 10 News Denmark:

ComparingQuranIS

I really think we need to wake up and smell the coffee. Reliance of the Traveller is the renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. It is available in English. It needs to be read by all of the leaders of western countries. It it the source for the rules of Islam. It calls for killing of infidels, killing of people who slander the prophet, etc. That is not Islamaphobia–that is truth. (Even my spell check does not recognize Islamaphobia as a word!)