Does Islam foment Fitna and Fasad?

by Hesperado on September 18, 2011

in counterjihad, Hadith (traditions of Muhammad), Hesperado (team member), Islam, Islamic terrorism, jihad, tafsir

by Hesperado

Introduction:

Before we get into the meat of our essay (really only a couple of slices of cold cuts), a little clarification of terms is in order.

For those Infidels who haven’t had the pleasure of learning more terms from the ugly, wicked world of Islam:

Fasad — Most commonly translated “disorder in the land”. It appears in Koran 5:32-33. In verse 32, it states (elliptically) that those who foment fasad may be killed without incurring the condemnation which God stipulated to the Israelites — namely, that “if you kill one person it is as though you have killed all mankind”. In the next verse, it specifies further that those who foment fasad should be “killed or crucified” as a suitable punishment.

What is “disorder in the land”, and why does the Koran think it’s so bad it deserves capital punishment? To answer that, one must go to the tafasir (another lovely word from the ugly, wicked world of Islam, meaning “exegeses” or “interpretations”) of the Koran. Ibn Kathir is one of the more well-known writers of interpretation of the Koran. It becomes clear from reading Ibn Kathir on this, and related verses, that “disorder in the land” in the Islamic mind most importantly means the situation that is caused when people disobey Islamic rule based on Islamic law.

I.e., the entire non-Muslim world is fomenting fasad, by the mere fact that it is constituted of societies whose laws and customs reflect the massive fact that their peoples don’t care about Islam and its Obsessive-Compulsive Do’s and Don’t’s based upon Mohammed’s Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder reinforced by supposed divine fiat through the Koran. And because the entire non-Muslim world is fomenting fasad, it remains the Dar-al-Harb (another lovely word from the evil, wicked world of Islam) — the “Realm of War”, perpetually at war with Islam by the mere fact that it pursues its own interests without respect for Mohammed.

Which brings us to our next word: Fitna. We non-Muslims are, in the warped minds of Muslims, perpetually at war with Islam also because of Fitna.

Fitna — More or less a synonym for Fasad. In the aforementioned tafsir of Ibn Kathir, his discussion combines the two terms with yet another crime in Islam, Shirk (which means the crime of polytheism, which in Islam includes the Trinity as well as a supposed divinization of monks and saints by Christians, and of rabbis by Jews). Koran 8:39 is a good place to start to grasp what Fitna means:

“And fight and kill them [those who disobey Islam] until there is no more Fitna [disobedience to Islam]”.

Again, Ibn Kathir’s tafsir (and the tafasir of other authoritative Muslim exegetes) makes clear that Fitna cannot be delimited to mere “persecution” (as many Muslim apologists would like to do, in order to paint their perennial world-wide militarism as that of “freedom fighters resisting oppression”), but actually centrally involves any significant disobedience to Allah and of His Putative Prophet, Mohammed — and therefore any significant disobedience to Islamic law, which is the translation of Allah’s and Mohammed’s commands into a sociopolitical existence that fuses State and Religion: a reflection of the Islamic desire for this fusion to apply to the whole world, in order to prepare the world for the Last Days.

Now, to answer the question of our essay title, we would say there are two answers, diametrically opposed — each answer reflecting, in turn, a lexicon equally opposed, diametrically, with the other.

In terms of the Islamic definition of Fitna and Fasad, of course, Muslims are not fomenting them when they try to implement a “purer” form of Islam. In terms of their definition in the real world outside of the collective psychosis of Islam, however, Muslims are, with supreme irony, spreading Fitna and Fasad in the very process of trying to stamp them out: For their perennial obsession with exterminating “disorder in the land” in fact ends up wreaking the mayhem and misery of Fitna and Fasad, all day long.

Cold Cuts:

As promised, the meat of our essay today:

The O.I.C. (Organization of the Islamic Conference — apparently recently renamed “Organization of Islamic Cooperation”) represents all majority Muslim nations in the world (over 50 of them), and their annual conferences attract the major Muslim leaders and ulama (official body of clerics who interpret Islamic law) of each member nation.

As we have seen often since 911 from this or that Islamic group or organization, the OIC came out recently and solemnly condemned terrorism — but, of course, with the classic Islamic loophole.

According to this story from CNS news:

In a statement marking the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the bloc of Islamic states on Sunday reiterated a stance that has stymied efforts at the United Nations for well over a decade to develop a global convention against terrorism – the insistence that any definition of terrorism should make an exception for “resistance” against foreign occupation.

Now here’s a related story from BBC:

Pakistan: Islamic jihadists ambush school bus, murder five children.

And these Muslims, in the name of “resistance” against foreign (i.e., not sufficiently “pure” Islamically) occupation, also killed the driver, and wounded 19 other children.

Or how about:

SUNGAI GOLOK (Southern Thailand): Three Malaysians, including a child, were killed and at least 50 others injured after three bombs exploded in this popular border town.

Or:

Pakistani Taliban: “We will target funeral processions and wedding ceremonies of those who support the U.S.”


Just three examples of literally thousands of similar (or worse) items one could adduce from the “bloody borders” Muslims maintain with their global neighbors around the world — from the Philippines to Thailand to Indonesia to India to central Asia to Asia Minor to the Middle East to Africa — and to Europe, the UK and North America (and even South America, in two bloody bombings in Argentina in the 80s).

Thousands of violent atrocities which the O.I.C.’s loophole — in the context of their solemn “condemnation” of “terrorism” — would allow to squeak through as “resistance against foreign occupation” rather than what they are: relentless campaigns of terrorist razzias calculated to further the jihad locally, with an eye toward the ultimate goal of the global jihad.

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: