Islamic Jihad and the Bondi Beach massacre 14 December 2025

When the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent [i.e. submit to Islam and become Muslim] and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way (Qur'an 9.5)

Islamic jihad gunman Naveed Akrim shooting Australians at Bondi Beach, with a high-powered, semi-automatic, long-barrel rifle, following on Islamic State (ISIS) training, 14 December 2025.

Jihad: The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam. The duty of the Jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is therefore a provisional state of affairs only the chance of circumstances alone can justify temporarily Islam, however, must be completely made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminate (Emile Tyan, Encyclopedia of Islam, c.1920)

Jihad ("fight or battle"): a religious duty imposed on Muslims to spread Islam by waging war physically against unbelievers and enemies of the Islamic faith (Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 6);

Armed jihad is to be carried out until all lands are liberated from unbelievers and when all unbelievers submit to the rule of Islam (Khadduri and Liebesny, 1955)

------------------

The Jihad is as dead as the Crusades (Sydney Mail, 1 November 1911)

1. Jihad & weakness

Jihad is an element of Islam prescribed in the Qur'an (Surah 9:5) and biographical Hadith and set in stone within the related Shariah law. Muslims are obliged to undertake jihad as prescribed therein. The practical definitions cited above clearly outline the physical brutality and go on to reveal the ultimate aim of jihad, namely killing and subjugation of all Infidels, i.e., those people who are not Muslim. Modern YouTube commentator and historian of the interaction between Islam and the West, Robert Ibrahim, pointed out in February 2026 that jihad is, furthermore, only an obligation once a Muslim attains a practical an useful position of power and can successfully carry out the physical attack demanded. If the Muslim or their organisation is in a position of subservience or lack of domination, Islam permits them to wait until the situation changes to their advantage, wherein they can become both the instigator and perpetrator of the jihad event. A good, recent practical example of this caveat is revealed in the following example from Australia, a non-Muslim country, concerning the Bondi Beach massacre of 14 December 2025.

Muslims have resided in Australia since the earliest colonial times, following the arrival of the British First Fleet in January 1788. By the 2020s the Muslim population in the Sydney region was strong enough to consider the carrying out of jihad. Following the 7 October 2023 HAMAS invasion of Israel and the killing, kidnapping and injuring of thousands of innocents Jews, there were celebrations by local Muslim on the streets of Sydney, with no intervention by authorities and police calling them to task for their anti0Semitic, hateful and violent chants such as Kill the Jews! This was a sign to the local Muslim community that they had attained a degree of power over authority and Australian law. This meant to some that they could now go the next step and, following a two year period of anti-Semitic attacks around the city following the HAMAS massacre, on 14 December 2025 two local Muslim men who were members of Islamic State, carried out an Islamic terrorism attack on Jews and Australians celebrating a festival on Bondi Beach. Some fifteen innocent people - mostly Jews - died, with many more injured, with a least 50 being shot but having survived.

Unfortunately, following the Bondi Beach massacre, the subsequent comments from local politicians were mute and weak, with the Prime Minister finding it difficult to even the words Islam or Muslim in addressing the slaughter. He went on to blame guns, and began an inane call for social harmony without anything to back that up. His hear was definitely in the sand, as was that not only other politicians throughout the country, but also by the Left and supporters of the Free Palestine movement. Truth and action based upon that truth went missing.

The Bondi Beach massacre clearly revealed the use of jihad as outlined in the above definitions, with the attack coming at a time when the local Infidels were perceived as weak by those in the local Islamic community who were keen to follow the demands of their faith. An understanding of the traditional and still-current definition of jihad therefore explains the basic reason behind the carrying out of the Bondi Beach massacre of 2026, namely, a desire by the two Muslim men to go to heaven following their carrying out the wishes of God (Allah) as set out precisely in the Qur'an 9:5.

-------------------

2. Jihad re-defined

Whilst the above traditional definitions of jihad emphasise its brutal, "holy war" killing spree aspect as so often seen, with an emphasis on physical and psychological violence on innocent civilians, from babies to old people, recent definitions have turned this around to present jihad as a practice of peace. For example:.

* Jihad is an Arabic word that means "exerting", "striving", or "struggling", particularly with a praiseworthy aim (Wikipedia 2026).

* Jihad: the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin (Oxford Languages Dictionary 2026).

Of course, to most people around the world, both inside and outside of Islam, jihad means to kill with extreme prejudice, and this is the most prominent use of the word in historical references, with ample examples over time to support that. It is, by its very nature, brutal, sadistic and demonstratively dominating of individuals, groups, organisations and independent nation states.

------------------

3. Historical references

It is of interest to note references to Islamic jihad in newspaper reports within Australia during the colonial period from the 1850s onwards and leading up to World War I when Australia, as a member of the British Empire, found its soldiers fighting against Muslims Turks at places such as Gallipoli. The following are some newspaper items of note which mention jihad. It can be seen from them that there were mixed messages in regards to what it entailed. Whilst most referred to its equivalence to a "holy war", some played down the violence involved and defended Islam more generally. This is a reflection of the current trend, where a lot of effort is put into downplaying the more controversial and brutal aspects of Islam and Islamic jihad.

* 4 January 1859, The Age, Melbourne:

India and Persia

..... we find a letter from the King of Persia to the Great Mogul, calling on him to raise the Mahomedans of India in a jihad against the English, and a letter from the Delhi Potentate asking for Persian aid for help in this great work.....

[NB: Persia is modern day Iran.]

* 4 August 1877, The Queenslander, Brisbane:

Proclamation of the Jihad

The momentous step has now been taken (says an English exchange). The Sultan-Khalif has proclaimed the "Holy War" of Mohammedanism, and the Sheik-ul-Islam has issued the solemn Fetwa which binds all Mussulman consciences from the coasts of Morocco to the Great Wall of China. The progress of news is slow among the nations of the East compared with the rate at which intelligence is disseminated in Europe, and it may take weeks and months before the full meaning of the Sheik-ul-Islam's answer and the Sultan Khalif's proclamation reaches the more distant portions of the Mohammedan community. The news is sure to arrive at last, however, and Western civilisation has done much to quicken the means of communication at the disposal of Orientals even. The words spoken in the Mosque of' the " Conqueror" at Constantinople will in no long time be the theme of excited comment in every bazaar of Hindostan. The following is a literal translation of the Fetwa, which in all such cases is in the form of a regular interrogation, and embodies the statement of facts to be adjudicated upon, followed by the ceremonial reply of the Sheik-ul-Islam :—

"Question : If, after the Commander of the Faithful - whose Khalifate may God prolong to the day of the judgment — has concluded a solemn treaty with the ruler of an unbelieving country, the sovereign of such country makes unendurable and unacceptable demands which lessen the glory of Islam and degrade the Mohammedan nation, and, in order to impose these demands upon Mussulmans, insultingly makes preparations for war, transgresses the boundaries of Mohammedan States and devastates the same, and thus breaks the solemn treaty; in such a case, as soon as it is plain that the Mussulmans possess the necessary strength and resources for the contest, and that the contest on behalf of the Faith is meritorious, is it the duty of the Protector of the Faith, the Sultan of the Mussulmans - to whom may the Almighty God grant victory - to send the conquering troops of Islam against that country, and, in confidence in God the Supreme Ruler, to undertake the War of Faith for the glory of Islam against the said country and people? It is an answer that is sought.

Answer. - 'Yes, God knows that it is so.' Thus writes the poor Hassan Cheirullah, unto whom may God be merciful!"

* 17 September 1889, The Australian Star, Sydney: [NB: This article is a defence of Islam, aiming to present it in the best possible light to a largely Christian audience in Australia]

MUHAMMADANISM

Dr. G. W. Leitner, writing in Time, says: Muhammad came into a state of society where to have a daughter was considered to be a misfortune, and where female children were sometimes buried alive. There was no limit to the number of women a man could marry, and they were a part of the property divided among the heirs of a deceased person. On the unlimited polygamy which produced this state of things, Muhammad put a check ; he directed that a man could only enter into the marriage contract with two, three, or four wives, if he could behave with equal justice and equal love to them all. Unless he could do that he was only permitted to marry one wife. Now, as practically no one can be, as a rule, equally fair and loving to two or more wives, the spirit of Muhammad's legislation is clearly in favor of monogamy. He also raised woman from the condition of being a property to that of a proprietor, and he also constituted her as the first "legal" sharer whose interests the Muhammadan law has to consult.

The allegation has been made against Muhammad that by his own example he justified profligacy. Let this statement be examined. Fortunately, we are not dealing with a legendary individual, but with an historical person, whose almost every act and saying is recorded in the Hadith or collections of traditions, which, next to the Koran, form a rule of Muhammadan conduct. Those "Acts of the Apostles" are subjected to the most stringent rules of criticism as to their authenticity, and unless the story of an act or saying of the prophet can he traced to one of his own companions it is thrown out of the order of traditions, which form the subject of critical investigation as to their actual occurrence adopted by Muhammadan commentators. We have certainly far less authority of a secular character for the sayings and doings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, then, on what authorities, good, bad, or doubtful, do the allegations of Muhammad's profligacy rest? I have no hesitation in affirming that, following every such story to its source, it will be found to be entirely insubstantial, and that, on the contrary, to the very great credit of Muhammad, in spite of many temptations, he preserved the utmost chastity in a state of society which did not practice that virtue. Living among heathen Arabs, he remained perfectly chaste till, at the age of 25, he married a woman of 40 (equivalent to one of 50 in Europe); and he married her because she was his benefactor and beloved in his sacred mission. As he stated years after her death to a young and beautiful wife, who was "only jealous of the old and dead Khadija" in answer to her question, "Am I not as good as her?" "No, you are not so good; for she believed in mo when no one else did, she was my first disciple, and she honored and protected me when I was poor and forsaken." During the whole period of his marriage with her, 25 years, he remained absolutely faithful to her. It is true that, at the age of 55, we find him taking wife after wife; but is it not fair to assume that in the case of a man who had shown such self-control till that age there may be reasons other than those assigned by Christian-writers for his many marriages. What are these reasons

I believe that the real cause of his many marriages at an old age was charity, and in order to protect the widows of his persecuted followers. Persecution was great against his followers, "the believers in one God." At one time no one was allowed to give them food, and some of them were obliged to escape to Abyssinia in order to seek a refuge with the Christian king of that land. The king did not give them up to their persecutors. Some of them died in Abyssinia, and their widows, who would otherwise have perished, Muhammad took into his household. The idea that the Prophet had any improper intention in so doing is without foundation, especially if we consider that he had given abundant proof during his youth of continence. The story of the marriage of tho Prophet with Zainab, the divorced wife of his freedman and 'adopted son, Zeid, has also given rise to misconception. It may be premised that "the heathen Arabs considered it wrong to marry the divorced wife of an adopted son, although they had no objection to marry the wives (excluding their own mother) of a deceased father, just-as some people nowadays might not mind breaking the Decalogue who would on no account "whistle on a Sunday." '

Muhammad excluded all this "nonsense" by saying that an adopted child was not a real child; and this being so, it could not be supposed to be within the prohibited decrees. To affirm this truth, and not to justify a new marriage, the Prophet received a revelation, which has been misconstrued as a sanction to a wrongful act. It really seems to me that if men cultivated some thing like true charity they would have a different view of other religions than they now hold, and that they would endeavor to learn about them from their original sources, instead of from the prejudiced second hand reports of the opponents of these religions. Celibacy is rare among Mussulmans, and there are very few, if any, marriageable women that are not married. Adultery is punished equally both in man and woman. The culprit is flogged with 100 stripes publicly. With regard to concubine slaves, the Muhammadan law will not allow their offspring to be branded with infamy; and the child of a slave inherits, with the children of her master. Among us an illegitimate child has little protection, and even our highest ideal of marriage fulls far short of, for example, the Hindu marriage in a good caste, in which the wife prays for the salvation of her husband, as without her prayers his salvation could not be accomplished.

Tho Muhammadans have no taverns, gaming houses, or brothels, nor have they any idea of legalising prostitution; and as regards their general conversation it is infinitely more decent, as a rule, than that of most Europeans. I have seen young Muhammadan fellows at school and college, and their conduct and talk are far better than is the case among English young men, Indeed, the talk of the latter is often such as would incur punishment in a Muhammadan land.

The married woman is in a better legal position than the married English woman, and she can give evidence in attestation of a birth, marriage, or death, which is still denied to a woman in republican France. As regards the assumed immutability of the Muhammadanism religion, there is a liberty of interpretation of the Koran which enables "Islam" to be adapted to every sect and country, e.g., the law laid down for its interpretation that a conditional sentence has to take precedence of an absolute one, is one that secures every reasonable liberty of conscience, e. g., "fight the infidels" is an absolute sentence; "fight the infidels if they attack you first" is a conditional sentence, and has therefore first to be taken into account in determining the much misunderstood question of the "holy war," or rather "Jihad," against infidels. Indeed no such war is legitimate except in self-defence against those who persecute Muhammadans because they believe in one God and who turn them out from their homes; in other words, as in the case of the Muslim refugees to Abyssinia. As for religious toleration, there is much more of it in practice among Muhammadans than has been the case at any rate in Christian countries; and had this not been the fact, the Armenian, Greek, and Jewish communities would not have preserved their autonomy, religion, and language under, say, Turkish rule - a rule, I may add from personal knowledge, which offers many lessons of forbearance and humanity - to Christian legislation. Muhammad included Jews and Christians among Muslims; for those who believe in God and the last day " shall have no fear upon them, neither shall they grieve."

* 5 June 1897, The Australasian, Melbourne: [NB: This article attempts to present jihad as a retaliation against past wrongs by an aggressor. It is not this at all. It is part of basic Islamic ideology which calls on Muslims to kill Infidels at every opportunity.]

The Sermon - Crescent and Cross.

...... Some Mohammedan writers argue that a "holy war" Jihad against infidels is legitimate, according to the teaching of Mahomet, "only when infidels attack first," that is, in self-defence, when necessity requires it; and a saying of Omar is quoted in proof of Mohammedan forbearance and tolerance. After he had sworn to destroy the defenders of Jerusalem, this warrior repented, saying, "I will rather incur the sin of breaking my faith than put to death a single creature of God." But that is not all the teaching of the Koran or Mohammedan Bible, nor is Omar's repentance in keeping with the general behaviour of Turks and their rulers towards their enemies or infidels. The Koran teaches believers to "fight for the religion.of God; against those who fight against you;" but it adds "Kill them wherever ye find them; for temptation to idolatry is more grievous than slaughter!!! This shall be the reward of infidels. Fight, therefore, against them, until there is no temptation to idolatry, and the religion be God's." (Al' Koran, ch. 2.).

* 8 May 1901, Daily Telegraph, Launceston: [A brief history of the then recent progress of Islam across India and Africa.]

MODERN MAHOMMEDANISM.

Almost the whole of the modern progressive movement of Mohammedanism in this century may be traced, directly or indirectly, to a puritanical sect, the so-called Wahhabis, whose founder; Abd-al-Wahhab, appeared in the first half of the eighteenth century in the province of Nejd, in the interior of Arabia, as the reformer of a then very corrupt Mohammedanism. Before long he and his successors had such a powerful following among the nomad tribes of Arabia, that in the year 1803 they even gained possession of the two sacred cities, Mecca and Medina, and only about ten years ago was the Turkish Government able to put an end to their political power. This movement was originally directed only against the abuse of the veneration of saints, against religious superstition, and increasing luxury in worship, and therefore it aimed merely at a spiritual revival; it has, however, particularly since the destruction of its political importance, assisted a great deal in the exterior propagation of Mohammedanism. As little now could be affected by means of the sword for renewal of the faith, so much the more fervently did its adherents labor as religious teachers within the sacred mosque.

On the occasion of the pilgrimage to Mecca, obligatory for all believers in the Koran, a certain Saiyid Ahmad, formerly a freebooter and bandit in India, became acquainted with the teaching of the Wahhabis; and, on his return home to India about 1820, with true Mohammedan fanaticism, he made it his life work to spread the new doctrine — that is, to say, pure Islamism. In the year 1826. he preached a jihad against the Sikhs. In spite of great successes at first over the Sikhs and the Afghans, who also opposed him, he was finally defeated and put to death. The continuous progress of Mohammedanism in Hindostan is chiefly to be ascribed to his followers, who for a long time made the Indian city of Patna their headquarters.

By careful calculations, based on the absolutely reliable publications of the Indian Government on the census of India, the following increase in Mohammedanism is to be recorded in different parts of the Empire, in the period 1881-1891— in the 'Madras Presidency, an increase from 1,933,571 to 2,250,386 persons; in the Bombay Presidency, an advance of nearly 14 per cent, of the population; in Assam, an increase of nearly 13 per cent; in. the Punjab, of 10 per cent.; in Bengal and the North-west Provinces, of from 7 to 8 per cent. The whole of British India, inclusive of the tributary States, contained, in the year 1881 250,150,050 inhabitants, of whom 49.952,704 were Mohammedans: and in the year 1891, 280,062.080 inhabitants, of whom 57,061,796 were Mohammedans. The striking increase among the Mohammedans beyond the natural growth of population represents, according to Dr. Jansen's calculations, 0.406 percent, for this period of 10 years. From this it may further be calculated (as has been done by C. T. O'Donnell, one of the English census officials), that, in about 500 years, the whole of India will be an entirely Mohammedan country.

Mohammedanism is also making a triumphal progress at the present day through the 'Dark Continent.' It will be interesting to note some of the chief movements of Islamism, especially in West Africa. Almost all these movements may be traced to Wahhabite influence, whether it be that their moving spirit has come into contact with the teaching of these Puritans, or that newly founded orders, have embraced Wahhabite doctrines in a new form, and preach these fanatically to the heathen. Even in districts where Christian missions seem to have gained a firm footing. Mohammedanism obtains an increasing number of followers. Thus, in the beginning of the year 1870, Islamism was entirely unknown in Sierra Leone and Lagos, the two chief English settlements, while now about a third of the entire population profess the religion of Mohammedanism. The chief share in these almost unexampled missionary successes is due to individual religious associations, or Brotherhoods, whose aim in their rules at the propagation of Mohammedanism as well as at the inward purification of the religious life of the faithful.

In the western part of North Africa, especial activity is shown by the Kadriyan, who had established themselves as early as the beginning of the sixteenth century, in Timbuktu, but who were first stirred to the zealous propagation of Mohammedanism by the movement which originated with the Wahhabis and was supported by Danfodio. Their missionary work bears an entirely peaceful character; it is founded merely upon personal example and good teaching, under the natural influence of the teacher over the pupil and upon the spreading of higher civilisation. In order to give some idea of the immense spread of Mohammedanism in these regions, it suffices to mention that, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, with the exception of Timbuktu, there was scarcely a Mohammedan settlement in the region of the Niger, while in the year 1897, from 40 to 50 per cent. of the entire population were Mohammedans; and at the present day the Mohammedan sphere of influence reaches as far as the northern frontier, of the French Congo State.

In round numbers at the present day. the Dark Continent contains 80 million of Mohammedans to about 200 millions of inhabitants. It is hardly too much to say that one-half of the whole of Africa is already dominated by Islam; while, of the remaining half, one-quarter is leavened and another threatened by it. These numbers speak for themselves. Mohammedanism is on the way to a total conquest of the Dark Continent. And, if we inquire the manner in which Mohammedanism attains its almost unexampled successes, we are amazed at the simplicity of its methods. The propaganda takes place without attracting the attention of the world. Islam does not send forth its missionaries into heathen lands, like Christianity, with the prescribed task of inducing the largest number possible to embrace their own faith. The emissaries of Mohammedanism are the travellers, the merchants, who, while engaged in lucrative commercial transactions, implant their civilisation and their faith. From the first, the population mistrusts the missionaries sent 'ad hoc,' into their midst. They cannot comprehend the object of the coming of the stranger; the people have no confidence in him, and therefore oppose his undertakings. It is otherwise with the Mohammedan merchant; he does not seek to impose his religion upon the people, but wisely waits until they come to him to beg for enlightenment, for it is with nations as with children; what is given them they despise, while they eagerly desire what is apparently withheld from them. On the whole Mahommedanism shows a marvellous adaptability.

Where Mohammedans find an ancient civilisation as, for example, in China, they avoid either wounding or provoking those of a different belief, and manage to adapt religious ordinances to old customs; they include the old feasts in their calendar, and take an active share in all the doings of their fellow citizens of a different faith. Their tact is also shown by small concessions in external arrangements. In China, for instance, they are careful not to build their mosques higher than the other temples, and therefore the mosques are not adorned with minarets in that country. By the power of their eloquence their preachers have brought it to pass that in China, even in Government circles, Mohammedanism is regarded as uniting the best points of Confucianism and Buddhism. One of their chief methods of propaganda is the school, as has been remarked above. Here they educate future generations in their own views.

The main reason for the great successes of Mohammedanism, especially among the uncivilised heathen of Africa consists in the great simplicity of the religion in question. ''There is no God but God, and Mohammed is the Prophet of God." The convert need only believe these two sentences, and he is at once a Mussulman. After learning this simple confession of faith, he then needs only to fulfil the following five practical duties: (1) Recital of the Creed; (2) Observance of the five appointed times of prayer: (3) Payment of the legal alms; (4.) Feasting during the month of Ramadhan : and (5) The pilgrimage to Mecca. And every convert has equal rights with all other members of the community. In regard to the faith there are no distinctions: for did not even the Nubian Muhammed Ahmed, rise to be the Mahdi, the Messiah of the Mohammedans?

* I July 1905, The Telegraph, Brisbane:

The Messiah of Qadian

.... He denounces the doctrine of jihad, and with it all crimes of violence committed in the name of religion.

* 17 October 1906, The Daily News, Perth:

Projected attack on French posts - Moors mobilising

Morocco .... The Sultan's cousin is preaching a jihad against France..... A jihad is a religious war of Mahommedans against Christians or other unbelievers in Islam, inculcated by the Koran and tradition.

* 1 November 1911, The Sydney Mail:

Survey of the World People in the Foreground

A Moslem Jihad, or Holy War

Dr. Karl Kumm, a well-known traveller, who passed through Sydney a week or so ago, expressed the opinion that the Italian occupation of Tripoli will not precipitate a Holy War, but that a Holy War inside a decade is quite probable. That opinion has many supporters, most or them indeed placing the campaign near the beginning instead of the end of the decade. Delai Bey, Turkish Consul-General at New York, has stated that 400,000 citizens of the Ottoman Empire, who are now in America, are likely to be called upon to take the field in a Holy War as a result of the struggle between Italy and Turkey. It was announced a fortnight ago that the Imam Yahya of Yemen proclaimed a Holy War, and that the Yemen tribes flocked to the coast, but that Italy's command of the Red Sea rendered the proclamation nugatory. Many London and Continental publicists write in a strain which makes it appear that they regard a Holy War as a possibility of the near future. The Moslems of Turkey have, of course, the sympathy of the 90,000,000 or so Moslems of India. As a result of a meeting of representatives of these Moslems, held at Santa Sophia, a telegram was addressed to King George of England, claiming his intermediation, and a similar meeting, assembled at Lucknow, passed resolutions appealing for British intervention. Such facts give ground for ominous prophecies. But, given their full significance, they do not warrant the unfurling of the Green Banner and the proclamation of a Holy War. They may prepare the world for an exhibition of economic devices to frustrate the commercial activity of the enemy. The Lucknow meeting actually gave that direction to its enthusiasm, and recommended the boycotting of Italian goods. The Turkish Government has adopted the boycott at Constantinople, and Ferrid Bey, leader of the Egyptian Nationalist party, presiding at a meeting at Westminster, England, called upon all Orientals to rigorously boycott Italian goods.

A HOLY WAR, or Jehad, involves essentially different sorts of motives and actions. It is primarily religious. It primarily aims at extending by physical means the supremacy of the faith of Islam. That is why they have called such wars holy. The summons to arms is not to secure material aggrandizement, but spiritual rule. Mahomet, in the first year of his power, recognised that Jews and Christians were his enemies, and claimed that physical authority was placed in his hands by Allah that he might conquer both. The Jehad is not a Holy War unless this essential purpose be maintained, and the proclamation of a Jehad in the absence of this avowed purpose would leave millions of Moslems unaffected. If material ends only are to be gained, millions will only fight as armies of other nations fight, or will prefer the boycott or some other economic means of obtaining a commercial advantage. Jehad is still nominally a weapon in the spiritual armoury of the Sheik-ul-Islam, or head of the Islamic creed. Moussa Kiazim, the present Sheik, when he judges the faith in danger, or requiring a fresh extension of influence, may place the Green Banner in the Sultan's hands, and under it the Sultan may call on all the followers of Islam over the world to flock to the scene of conflict. That is the letter of the law. In the middle ages the letter was all-powerful. But in modern times Moslems, like others, view the letter of the law through the lens of reason. They are in commercial, professional, or industrial pursuits. They are scattered over the face of the earth. The 400,000 in the United States are a mere handful in a population of 80,000,000. Their avowal of sympathy with a Holy War, and, more, any attempt at actual participation in it would be disastrous to themselves. In Turkey itself there are only 8,000,000 Mohammedans to 8,000,000 Christians, the balance being made up of nondescripts, and the proclamation of a Jehad would at once call Christian Europe full steam to the Levant. But there are other reasons against the likelihood of a Holy War. The Mohammedans are themselves politically disunited. The Young Turk party hate the old Conservatives with all the vigour they used to spend on unbelievers. The party has become largely Western in ideas, and is either tolerant of, or careless about, the religious tenets Western nations observe. By unfurling the Green Banner the Sheik-ul-Islam would therefore be put ting the letter of the law to a test which would demonstrate that it is merely the empty shell of an ancient creed. Only the wildest of the wild tribes of Asia or Africa would spontaneously give ear to the summons, and they are for the most part destitute of military equipment. India stands wholly apart. England there holds the Hindoos with one hand and the Mohammedans with the other, and both recognise that it is to their good to be so held. The educated Mohammed an and the educated Hindoo in their enthusiasm for the advantages of western civilisation would pay small attention to the proclamation of a Jehad. Moussa Kiazim is not only a religious but a political leader, and is far too prudent a man to risk the loss of the letter as well as of the spirit of his ancient faith. Moreover, the Jehad has within recent years been vainly prophesied when the Sultan's do minions were assailed. Bosnia, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, and Montenegro have been torn from the Sultan within the past few years, and though muttered talk of unfurling the Green Banner was heard, no attempt was made to bring the letter of the law into practice.

THE idea of using physical force to help in propagating religious convictions was forced upon Mahomet by the necessities of his position. From his native Mecca he had followed the caravans trading to Abyssinia, Syria, and Egypt. But though he gathered information about Jewish and Christian rites, he failed to make money. He started several businesses and failed. Even in his closing years his notions of finance were irregular. However, he married a wealthy widow, fifteen years his senior, and was thus placed in a position to give more time to the study of celestial matters. For three years he trained his followers as a secret society. As they increased in numbers, more financial support was needed. To obtain revenue he authorised a poll tax to be levied on the caravan-merchants. This led to fights, and as Mahomet was generally successful, several merchants came to terms with him and allowed him fixed percentages. The battle of Ramadan gave him security. His force was inferior, but he alleged that angels took part in the fray and fought on his side. In his elation, he sent missives to all the potentates of his time, inviting them to adopt Islamism or to fight. An army was now indispensable, and the Jihad took its place in his ordinances. He declared that all who fell fighting for Allah gained Heaven. Unbelievers were offered three courses — they could accept Islam, or pay tribute, or fight. If they accepted they were received as Islamites; if they paid tribute, they acquired no civic rights, but were protected in their property; if they fought, their lives were forfeit, their families reduced to slavery and their goods seized. The soldiers' appetites were whetted by the regulation that four-fifths of the booty after a battle was divided among the conquering army. Victory was added to victory, till Europe trembled to its centre. Mahomet passed away, but Omar, a much abler soldier and better financier, carried forward the aggressive principles of the new religion. He was succeeded by other Caliphs, and the march westward was continued with a vigour that might be called fury. By the Middle Ages, Islamism had registered conquests in Egypt, Persia, Syria, Africa, Spain, and France, and the Caliphs regarded the subjugation or the rest of the world as an event of the near future. It was to repel this visitation of fury the Crusaders came into being. Western Europe was at that time Christian, and claimed that those who visited the Holy Land as pilgrims should be protected in person and property. This, though a secondary consideration, became so blended with the determination to drive the Ottoman back to the East that Islamism and Christianity became opposing forces. The Cross forced the Crescent. On both sides, therefore, the subsequent wars were all Holy Wars. The Christians promised Paradise to the slain, just as the Mohammedans did.

That was the origin and development of the Jehad. It is easy to see how Holy Wars, though quite natural in the centuries between the 7th and the 12th, would be, were they proclaimed to-day, treated by civilisation as a barbaric fanaticism. Neither party would be allowed to slay the other for religion's sake; but without Mahomet's religious impulse and promises the Jehad is a mere beating of drums invoking loyalty, without even a settled system of rule to lend authority to the drumbeats. Mohammed V., now nominally governing Turkey, is not regarded by a majority of his people as possessing even the civil power of a monarch, let alone the divine power which Mahomet made the basis of his Holy Wars. The Young Turks have threatened lately to drive him from the throne, as they drove Abdul Hamid and Murad, and Abdul Aziz in preceding years, and a certain way to hurry the threat to realisation would be for him to hearken to counsellors advocating so reactionary a proposal.

The day of the Turk as a fanatic has gone, except, as was said, among the wild tribes whose minds education has not yet illuminated. Even the Young Turks, who at a distance appear to entertain a few ingenuous enthusiasms, are found, on close acquaintance, to place little store on the Prophet's promises of rewards in the Hereafter, and to be in the political business for the material advantages they can get promptly out of it. Mr. W. T. Stead in his late run to Constantinople found that only about 100 of those in the front rank of the agitation really mean to incur personal danger. The old Conservative Turk in the little wisdom left to him, do not rely on a Jehad, but need badly, and know it, the intervention of the friendly Powers of Europe. The Jehad is as dead as the Crusades.

* 14 November 1911, Daily Post, Hobart:

What is a Jihad?

There is a growing desire that Europe should mediate between Italy and Turkey. This desire arises partly from sentiment, partly from self-interest, for the conflict in Tripoli touches European interests in many ways, the principle of which is the growing danger that Mohammedans in Africa will regard the struggle not as between Italian and Turk but as between Christian and Mohammedan. There is a danger, therefore, that "Jihad" or holy war may be proclaimed, which would involve not Italy only, but all European powers exercising sovereign rights in Northern and Central Africa.

The Koran declared war against those people who do not accept Mohomet as a prophet to be a religious duty, but Mohammedan commentators modified the injunction so far as to declare that a "Jihad" was only a religious duty when proclaimed by the Caliph. As the Sultan of Turkey is recognised as Caliph by the majority of Mohammedans, he has a powerful weapon in his hands if he chooses to use it. Mohammedans who do not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Ottoman Sultan, such as the Persians and Moors, look to their own rulers for the proclamation of a "Jihad"; there has been, in fact, no universal warfare by Moslems on unbelievers since the early days of Mohammedanism. "Jihads" are generally proclaimed by all persons who claim to be mahdis, e.g., Mohammed Armad (the Sudanese Mahdi) proclaimed a "Jihad" in 1882. In the belief of Moslems, every one of their numbers slain in a "Jihad" is taken straight to paradise.

A "jihad" may be mild and humane or ruthless and vindictive, according to the temperament of the Mohammedan nation that wages it. The regulations of "jihad" as prescribed by Mohammedan law are (from the Mohammedan point of view) essentially humane. These regulations are set forth in the article "Mohammedan Institutions" in the new "Encyclopedia Britannica."

Unbelievers must first be invited to embrace Islam and, if they follow a sacred book and are not idol-worshippers, are given a choice between (a) becoming Moslems, or (b) submitting to the Moslems and entering on a treaty with them of protection and tribute, or (c) fighting. If they accept Islam, their lives, families, and property are secure, and they form henceforth part of the Moslem community. The ability of Islam to create a common feeling between highly different races is one of its most striking features. If they submit and enter on treaty relations, they pay a poll tax, for which their personal safety is assured, and assume a definitely inferior status, having no technical citizenship in the State, only the condition of protected clients (dhimmis). If they elect to fight, the door of repentance is open, even when the armies are face to face. But after defeat their lives are forfeit; their families are liable to slavery and all their goods to seizure. It is open to the sovereign either to put them to death or to enslave them. or to give them their liberty, or to exchange them for ransom or against Moslem prisoners. The sovereign will choose that which is best for Islam. As for their families and wealth, the sovereign can release them only with consent of the army that has captured them. Apostates must be put to death. Four fifths of the booty after battle goes to the conquering army.

* 16 August 1912, The Telegraph, Brisbane: Moslem Peril - What Italy's action may bring upon the world. Comment: This article raises the spectre of Muslim soldiers of non-Muslim colonial nations rising up against those nations. It notes the fear inherent in the teachings of Islam and the practice of jihad.]

* 18 December 1914, Bunyip, Gawler, South Australia, Moslem in Egypt.

* 2 January 1915, The Age, Melbourne, Fanatical outrage at Broken Hill - Picnic train fired upon - Four killed and seven wounded. Refer the link at the top of this article to a fuller discussion on this jihad event at Broken Hill on 1 January 1915.

------------------

4. References

Baker, Emily and Sara Tomevska, An ex-jihadi and terror experts agree on one thing about extremism, ABC News, 6 February 2026.

Ibrahim, Raymond, Islamophobia outrage vs. Christian genocide, Raymond Ibrahim, YouTube, 27 February 2026, duration: 126.47 minutes.

Khadduri, Majid, and J. Herbert Liebesny, Law in the Middle East, The William Byrd Press, Richmond, 1955.

Mostfa, Ali, Jihad, in Islam: From the War of Words to the Clashes of Definitions, Religions, 12(11) 2021, 966.

The Koran, Penguin Classics, 1955, 444p. English translation by N.J. Dawood.

Woke media unmasked: Jihad in Australia, @OceaniaUnfiltered, 1 March 2026, YouTube, duration: 15.25.

Abstract: In this video, we reveal how Pauline Hanson and Rowan Dean have completely unmasked the woke media's cowardice regarding radical Islam in Australia. While the mainstream press tries to silence legitimate questions about Jihad and national security, Hanson is exposing their double standards and refusal to face reality. We break down exactly why the media is terrified of her question and why they resort to outrage instead of answers.

------------------

Last updated: 4 March 2026

Michael Organ, Australia

Search This Blog

nothing2seahere

Islamic Jihad and the Bondi Beach massacre 14 December 2025

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First contact - 3I/ATLAS interstellar consciousness spacecraft

Australia and the Space Force

Cullunghutti - sacred mountain