The sentences are awkward in places because it is a direct translation of Maududi’s writings. We find his teachings to be consistent with that of other Islamic scholars. The emphasis is ours.
Islam is all-encompassing, the Islamic state should not be limited to just the “homeland of Islam”. It is for all the world. ‘Jihad’ should be used to eliminate un-Islamic rule and establish this Islamic state: Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.
The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology. and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution. Jihad is the term for the use of all these forces. The objective of Jihād’ is to eliminate all un-Islamic states and replace them with an Islamic system of state rule.
Active combat is not the only role in the battle. Not everyone can fight on the front line Jihad is a combination of combat for God and support for those waging combat (Qita’al). Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.”
According to Islamic belief, all nations will eventually become Muslim lands. Then, and not before, is the time when the world will finally be at peace. It’s a noble goal and the basis upon which an Islamic Muslim makes the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Some choose a militant role to bring it about; the rest are commanded by Allah to serve in support of them. And that is the reason why moderate Muslims do not stand up in condemnation of terrorist acts the way we in the West expect them to.
Our hope lies not with moderate Muslims but with the reformists. They are there, but they’re a very small minority within the Muslim world. Reformists are considered to be apostates, former Islamists who have left the religion and turned against it, often more reviled than infidels who never were believers in the first place.
In researching for this post I came across the following, which is a very good explanation of the difference between a moderate and a reformist Muslim.
Moderates = most likely a Taqiyya* driven individual who may not commit acts of terror themselves, but will surely defend Islam and deny the problem within.
Reformists = Those who will honestly see the problem within their own, do not defend Islam but attack the evil within and don’t condemn anti-jihadists for pointing out the obvious.
* “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions or convictions and is allowed by the Koran when dealing with kuffar (non-believers).