OPO JARE GUSTI

India thwarts two jihadis who were plotting in India
Was another Mumbai-scale attack in the offing?
"Hizbul Mujahideen" -- that is, Party of Jihadists. But of course the learned analysts know that their Islamic allegiance can be entirely discounted, as it is of no importance in revealing how jihad terrorists are recruited and motivated to kill Infidels.
"Militants were sent to India on ‘important’ assignment," from The Hindu, August 8 (thanks to Maxwell):
NEW DELHI: The two suspected Hizbul Mujahideen militants arrested in the Walled City on Thursday night had been sent to India by the outfit’s supreme commander, Syed Salahuddin, on an “important” assignment.
They were remanded to 10-day police custody by a court here on Friday.
The police are trying to ascertain whether Javed Ahmad Tantray and Ashiq Ali Butt had been sent to carry out a strike in the run-up to the Independence Day celebrations here on August 15.
Their interrogation so far revealed that Salahuddin and his deputy, Khalid Saifullah, met them separately at training camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir seven months ago and asked them to remain prepared for an important assignment. A fortnight later, another militant Shahid told them to sneak into India through Nepal. He also procured passports and visas for them....
Posted by Robert at 10:54 AM Comments
var idcomments_acct = '8b6949a53699db3a78af8530727a735a';
var idcomments_post_id;
var idcomments_post_url;
Email this entry Print this entry Digg this del.icio.us
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027162.php
Buzz up!

"We can see that President Obama has followed the enmity steps of his predecessor towards the Somali people"
The leader of the Somali jihad is angry with Barack Obama for aiding the resistance to that jihad. But at very least Aweys can take comfort from the fact that Obama's focus is very narrowly upon Al-Qaeda and jihad groups allied to it, with no interest in aiding the resistance to jihad when it takes other forms or is furthered by other groups in other areas of the world.
"Somalia: Hizbul Islam denounces US government," from the Somaliweyn Media Center, August 8 (thanks to James):
Hizbul Islam one of the Islamists factions in the Somali capital Mogadishu and an opponent to the government of Somalia led by his Excellency Sheikh Shariff Sheikh has on Saturday released an official communiqué in a written form saying that they are absolutely against the American involvement in the Somalia politics.
This is the translation of the communiqué which was written in Arabic, and had the signature of the chairman of Hizbul Islam Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys
The involvement of America in the Somali politics will not achieve anything prosperous but things will be on the other way from the frying pan to the fire.
In the first place we thought that the administration of the current President of America Obama will be quite different from that of his predecessor George Walker Bush on the side of how he will be dealing with the Somali people how he approaches the Somali politics, but to our point of view there are no changes at all things like father like son.
We can see that President Obama has followed the enmity steps of his predecessor towards the Somali people.
We acknowledge that the American government is using highly advanced modern tactics in colonizing the entire universe, while earlier to use to help all movements which are in quest of freedom. We are also fully a wear that America has used the forces of Abyssinia for the eradication of the Somali people right in their soil, but with the help of the Almighty Allah their dreams remained pending.
Likewise we know that America has deployed modern weaponries in Somali, and is planning to deploy additional weapons in the near future this will create no stable atmosphere in Somali.
The problems of America to the Somali population started since when coalition troops led by America reached Somali in the year 1992 calling themselves to be restoring peace in Somali while killing tens of Somalis each day.
In the bottom line of the communiqué Hizbul Islam urged the government of America to halt its involvement in the Somali politics.

Lesser Jihad (Jihad bil Saif)
Within Islamic jurisprudence jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, non-Islamic leaders or non-Muslim combatants, but there are other ways to perform jihad as well, including civil disobedience. The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state.[5][6][14]
In the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, the rules associated with armed warfare are covered at great length.[14] Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas.[15] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[14] Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[16]
Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by Muhammad's own policies and the entire subsequent history of the spread of Islam. From the first generation of Islam, jihad ideology inspired the conquest of non-Muslim populations, forcing them to submit to Muslim rule or accept outright conversion (although conversion was not generally demanded of "Peoples of the Book," this too could be forcibly imposed on non-"Peoples of the Book"). Jihad ideologies also inspired internal civil conflict, as can be seen in early movements like the Kharijites and the contemporary Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization (which assassinated Anwar Al Sadat) as well as Jihad organizations in Lebanon, the Gulf states, and Indonesia.[3] When used to describe warfare between Islamic groups or individuals, such as al-Qaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq, perpetrators of violence often cite collaboration with non-Islamic powers as a justification.[17] Terrorist attacks like that of September 11, 2001, which was planned and executed by radical Islamic fundamentalists, have not been sanctioned by more centrist groups of Muslims.[18]
The word itself has been recorded in English since 1869, in the Muslim sense, and has been used for any doctrinal jihad since c. 1880.[19]

Controversy
Controversy has arisen over whether use of the term jihad without further explanation refers to jihad of the sword, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[20]
Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[21]
Scholar David Cook writes:
In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.[22]
And according to Douglas Streusand, "in hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare."[23]
Some fundamentalist Muslim traditionalists see that the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islamic Peace (Dar al-Salam), in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited. The presumption is that by natural law these domains will compete and fighting is inevitable therefore the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds — treasure in this one, paradise in the next. For most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[24]
Nevertheless, the hadith is there, and the fact remains that ideas regarding which hadith are to be considered "controversial" are more often than not based upon the preconceived ideology of certain factions rather than the consensus of the ummah, or even historical or theological exegesis. Furthermore, all of the greatest saints (wali) of Islam and the majority of the ummah have supported Muhammad's interpretation of jihad according to this hadith, as well as that of the Qur'an itself, as being critical to daily religious practice in which the believer is urged to engage in struggle (jihad) within oneself (nafs) against the incessant promptings of the evil one.[25]
A number of Islamic scholars[who?] have distinguished jihad, as legitimate struggle, from fasad, as illegitimate violence and troublemaking, and argue that terrorism should be called fasad, not jihad.

History of Jihad

Origins
The beginnings of Jihad are traced back to the words and actions of Muhammad and the Qu’ran.[26] This word of Allah explicitly encourages the use of Jihad against non-Muslims.[27] Sura 25, verse 52 states: “Therefore, do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them with this, a great striving.”[28] It was, therefore, the duty of all Muslims to strive against those who did not believe in Allah and took offensive action against Muslims. The Qu’ran, however, never uses the term Jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah; qital is used to mean “fighting.” The struggle for Jihad in the Qu’ran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Qu’ranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries[27]. The first documentation of the law of Jihad was written by ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Awza’i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. The document grew out of debates that had surfaced ever since Muhammad's death.[26]

Early Instances of Jihad
The first forms of military Jihad occurred after the migration (hijra) of Muhammad and his small group of followers to Medina from Mecca and the conversion of several inhabitants of the city to Islam. The first revelation concerning the struggle against the Meccans was surah 22, verses 39-40:[29]
“
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid. (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).
”
—Abdullah Yusuf Ali
There were several reasons for Muhammad and his followers to fight the Meccans:[30] For one, Muslims were defending themselves against the Meccans' attack. According to this surah 2, verse 190 was revealed:
“
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
”
—Abdullah Yusuf Ali
The Muslims had - at least partially - provoked the Meccans to attack them by robbing the goods of their caravans.[31] However, this was inevitable, for the Emigrants (the Muslims who had fled from Mecca to Yathrib/Medina) had lost all of their goods because of the Meccans and needed a livelihood.[32] They robbed goods from Meccan caravans, which was considered justified at that time.[32]
At this time, Muslims had been persecuted and oppressed by the Meccans.[33] There were still Muslims who couldn't flee from Mecca and were still oppressed because of their faith. Surah 4, verse 75 is referring to this fact:
“
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!
”
—Abdullah Yusuf Ali
The Meccans also refused to let the Muslims enter Mecca and by that denied them access to theKa'aba. Surah 8, verse 34:
“
But what plea have they that Allah should not punish them, when they keep out (men) from the sacred Mosque - and they are not its guardians? No men can be its guardians except the righteous; but most of them do not understand.
”
—Abdullah Yusuf Ali
The main focus of Muhammad’s later years was increasing the number of allies as well as the amount of territory under Muslim control.[34] The Qu’ran is unclear as to whether Jihad is acceptable only in defense of the faith from wrong-doings or in all cases.[26]
Major battles in the history of Islam arose between the Meccans and the Muslims; one of the most important to the latter was the Battle of Badr in 624 AD.[34] This Muslim victory over polytheists showed “demonstration of divine guidance and intervention on behalf of Muslims, even when outnumbered.”[35] Other early battles included battles in Uhud (625), Khandaq (627), Mecca (630) and Hunayn (630). These battles, especially Uhud and Khandaq, were unsuccessful in comparison to the Battle of Badr.[34]. In relating this battle, the Qu’ran states that Allah sent an “unseen army of angels” that helped the Muslims defeat the Meccans.[36]

Jihad and the Crusades
The European crusaders conquered much of the territory held within the Islamic state, dividing it into four kingdoms, the most important being the state of Jerusalem. The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land (former Christian territory) from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. There was little drive to retake the lands from the crusaders, save the few attacks made by the Egyptian Fatimids. This changed, however, with the coming of Zangi, ruler of what is today northern Iraq. He took Edessa, which triggered the Second Crusade, which was little more than a 47-year stalemate. The stalemate was ended with the victory of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (known in the west as Saladin) over the forces of Jerusalem at the Horns of Hattin in 1187. It was during the course of the stalemate that a great deal of literature regarding Jihad was written.[34] While amassing his armies in Syria, Saladin had to create a doctrine which would unite his forces and make them fight until the bitter end, which would be the only way they could re-conquer the lands taken in the First Crusade. He did this through the creation of Jihad propaganda. It stated that any one who would abandon the Jihad would be committing a sin that could not be washed away by any means. It also put his amirs at the center of power, just under his rule. While this propaganda was successful in uniting his forces for a time, the fervor burned out quickly. Much of Saladin's teachings were rejected after his death.[37]

Islamic Spain and Portugal
Medieval Spain was the scene of almost constant warfare between Muslims and Christians. Periodic raiding expeditions were sent from Al-Andalus to ravage the Christian Iberian kingdoms, bringing back treasure and slaves. In raid against Lisbon in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur took 3,000 female and child captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves in 1191, took 3,000 Christian slaves.[38]
The Almohad Dynasty (From Arabic الموحدون al-Muwahhidun, i.e. "the monotheists" or "the Unitarians"), was a Berber, Muslim dynasty that was founded in the 12th century, and conquered all Northern Africa as far as Libya, together with Al-Andalus (Moorish Spain). The Almohads, who declared an everlasting Jihad against the Christians, far surpassed the Almoravides in fundamentalist outlook, and they treated the dhimmis harshly.[39] Faced with the choice of either death or conversion, many Jews and Christians emigrated.[40][41] Some, such as the family of Maimonides, fled east to more tolerant Muslim lands,[40] while others went northward to settle in the growing Christian kingdoms.[42][43]

Indian subcontinent
Sir Jadunath Sarkar contends that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic Jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects."[44] In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns. In 1527, Babur ordered a Jihad against Rajputs at the battle of Khanwa. Publicly addressing his men, he declared the forthcoming battle a Jihad. His soldiers were facing a non-Muslim army for the first time ever. This, he said, was their chance to become either a Ghazi (soldier of Islam) or a Shaheed (Martyr of Islam). The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb waged a Jihad against those identified as heterodox within India's Islamic community, such as Shi'a Muslims.[45][46]

Tamerlane
Timur Lenk, a 14th century Turco-Mongol conqueror of much of western and central Asia, thought of himself as a ghazi, although his wars were also against Muslim states.[47]

Fulani jihads
The Fula or Fulani jihads, were a series of independent but loosely connected events across West Africa between the late 17th century and European colonization, in which Muslim Fulas took control of various parts of the region.[48] Between 1750 and 1900, between one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of slaves.[49]

Caucasus
In 1784, Imam Sheikh Mansur, a Chechen warrior and Muslim mystic, led a coalition of Muslim Caucasian tribes from throughout the Caucasus in a ghazavat, or holy war, against the Russian invaders.[50] Sheikh Mansur was captured in 1791 and died in the Schlusselburg Fortress. Avarian Islamic scholar Ghazi Muhammad preached that Jihad would not occur until the Caucasians followed Sharia completely rather than following a mixture of Islamic laws and adat (customary traditions). By 1829, Mullah began proselytizing and claiming that obeying Sharia, giving zakat, prayer, and hajj would not be accepted by Allah if the Russians were still present in the area. He even went on to claim that marriages would become void and children bastards if any Russians were still in the Caucasus. In 1829 he was proclaimed imam in Ghimry, where he formally made the call for a holy war. In 1834, Ghazi Muhammad died at the battle of Ghimri, and Imam Shamil took his place as the premier leader of the Caucasian resistance. Imam Shamil succeeded in accomplishing what Sheik Mansur had started: to unite North Caucasian highlanders in their struggle against the Russian Empire. He was a leader of anti-Russian resistance in the Caucasian War and was the third Imam of Dagestan and Chechnya (1834-1859).[51][52]

Mahdists in Sudan
During the 1870s, European initiatives against the slave trade caused an economic crisis in northern Sudan, precipitating the rise of Mahdist forces.[53][54] Muhammad Ahmed Al Mahdi was a religious leader, who proclaimed himself the Mahdi - the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will appear at end times - in 1881, and declared a Jihad against Ottoman rulers. He declared all "Turks" infidels and called for their execution.[55] The Mahdi raised an army and led a successful religious war to topple the Ottoman-Egyptian occupation of Sudan. Victory created an Islamic state, one that quickly reinstituted slavery. In the West he is most famous for defeating and later killing British general Charles George Gordon, in the fall of Khartoum.[56]

Wahabbists
The Saudi Salafi sheiks were convinced that it was their religious mission to wage Jihad against all other forms of Islam. In 1801 and 1802, the Saudi Wahhabists under Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud attacked and captured the holy Shia cities of Karbala and Najaf in Iraq, massacred the Shiites and destroyed the tombs of the Shiite Imam Husayn and Ali bin Abu Talib. In 1802 they overtaked Taif. In 1803 and 1804 the Wahhabis overtaked Mecca and Medina.[57][58][59][60]

Ottoman Empire
Upon succeeding his father, Suleiman the Magnificent began a series of military conquests in Europe.[61] On August 29, 1526, he defeated Louis II of Hungary (1516–26) at the battle of Mohács. In its wake, Hungarian resistance collapsed and the Ottoman Empire became the preeminent power in Central and Eastern Europe.[62] In July 1683 Sultan Mehmet IV proclaimed a Jihad and the Turkish grand vizier, Kara Mustafa Pasha, laid siege to the Vienna with an army of 138,000 men.[63][64][65]
On November 14, 1914, in Constantinople, capital of the Ottoman Empire, the religious leader Sheikh-ul-Islam declares Jihad on behalf of the Ottoman government, urging Muslims all over the world - including in the Allied countries - to take up arms against Britain, Russia, France and Serbia and Montenegro in World War I.[66] On the other hand, Sheikh Hussein ibn Ali, the Emir of Mecca, refused to accommodate Ottoman requests that he endorse this jihad, a requirement that was necessary were a jihad to become popular, on the grounds that:
'the Holy War was doctrinally incompatible with an aggressive war, and absurd with a Christian ally: Germany'[67]

Afghanistan
Ahmad Shah, founder of the Durrani Empire, declared a jihad against the Marathas, and warriors from various Pashtun tribes, as well as other tribes answered his call. The Third battle of Panipat (January 1761), fought between largely Muslim and largely Hindu armies who numbered as many as 100,000 troops each, was waged along a twelve-kilometre front, and resulted in a decisive victory for Ahmad Shah.[68]
In response to the Hazara uprising of 1892, the Afghan Emir Abdur Rahman declared a "Jihad" against the Shiites. The large army defeated the rebellion at its center, in Oruzgan, by 1892 and the local population was severely massacred. According to S. A. Mousavi, "thousands of Hazara men, women, and children were sold as slaves in the markets of Kabul and Qandahar, while numerous towers of human heads were made from the defeated rebels as a warning to others who might challenge the rule of the Amir". Until the 20th century, some Hazaras were still kept as slaves by the Pashtuns; although Amanullah Khan banned slavery in Afghanistan during his reign,[69] the tradition carried on unofficially for many more years.[70]
The First Anglo-Afghan War (1838–42) was one of Britain’s most ill-advised and disastrous wars. William Brydon was the sole survivor of the invading British army of 16,500 soldiers and civilians.[71] As in the earlier wars against the British and Soviets, Afghan resistance to the American invaders took the traditional form of a Muslim holy war against the infidels.[72]
During September 2002, the remnants of the Taliban forces began a recruitment drive in Pashtun areas in both Afghanistan and Pakistan to launch a renewed "jihad" or holy war against the pro-Western Afghan government and the U.S-led coalition. Pamphlets distributed in secret during the night also began to appear in many villages in the former Taliban heartland in southeastern Afghanistan that called for jihad.[73] Small mobile training camps were established along the border with Pakistan by al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives to train new recruits in guerrilla warfare and terrorist tactics, according to Afghan sources and a United Nations report.[74]
Most of the new recruits were drawn from the madrassas or religious schools of the tribal areas of Pakistan, from which the Taliban had originally arisen. As of 2008, the insurgency, in the form of a Taliban guerrilla war, continues.
Alhough there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghan mujahideens resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,[75] and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[7 (www.jihad.com)