When I read this I wonder....According to this man, any Muslim I meet has a duty to (since I’m not going to covert) kill me. Does that mean if I kill a Muslim then it’s an act of self defense? Based on this reading of the Koran and Islam it would seem so.
Maybe I’m missing something.
Oh, I get it. They can kill me and it’s O.K. But for an unbeliever to kill one of them....not so much.
Its more complex than that, and rather dependent on the “correct” analysis of the relevant texts. Thats straight Sunni Islam, its all about the law on the books as interpreted by a lot of old geezers over 1400 years.
One way of looking at it, which is common I understand, is that it is unlawful for a Muslim to make war - kill, raid, enslave, forcibly convert - in a land where the Muslims have no power but are well treated. They consider themselves to be implicitly under the terms of a treaty - note he makes a point to mention the lack of one wrt to Syria and Foley.
Now, other interpretations (like that of the Muslim Brotherhood in general, but also lots of others) are that a treaty does not exist if country x is fighting Muslims anywhere else, or has done so or is thinking of doing so.
Or if there is a good chance that Muslims can gain political domination in that place. Or if they determine that they are ill treated and thus the implicit treaty is abrogated.
War can then be justified.
Thence the residents of the country are fair game. Whether or not to act on this is a matter of prudence and the Muslims may even then be advised to refrain, being as they could consider thenselves implicitly in a state of truce (not peace).
And then of course there are the characters like these guys.
It really is quite interesting.