In my humble opinion this interpretation of the Aggressive Jehad of Islamic history is extremely incorrect and far away from the facts. Even in those days when this thing was considered to be a creditable “Attribute of the kings” Aggressive Jehads were waged not because it was customary for that period of time but because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of religion of Allah. There were other “Attributes of the kings” that in the excitement of victory they never made any distinction between women, children and old people when persecuting them. But Islam did not encourage it just because it was customary. On the contrary Islam not only framed such military rules and regulations but also practically enforced them as could not even be imagined by the “kings”. These were a matter of great surprise and rather unbelievable for the people who had not only become used to the barbarism of those kings but also became their admirers.
Aggressive Jehad is lawful even today for the purpose it was lawful in those days. Its justification cannot be veiled only because the peace-loving inventors of Atom Bombs and Hydrogen Bombs label it as “Expansionism” and resent those who have put the chains of slavery around the necks of the people of Asia andAfrica. They are still bleeding under these heavy chains.
With due apologies, I may point out that it seems to me the result of the grandeur of the paganism that people have fixed their standard of good and bad on the basis of the propaganda which produces a lie as truth and truth as lie and then causes it to work into the minds of people to the extent that, to say nothing of non-Muslims, the Muslims themselves are overawed and inclined to adopt an apologetic attitude. If breaking such a grandeur of falsehood and evil comes under the definition of “Expansionism” we should venerate the blame of this expansionism with complete self-confidence, rather than stand humble before them as though saying, “when you thought that Aggressive Jehad was good we practised it, but since you have started condemning it in your books….. and only in books…..we have also forbidden it on ourselves.”
My humble self can never agree with this way of thinking.
Muhammad Taqi Usmani.
Usmani’s condemnation of a peaceful, non-aggressive approach to non-Muslims in the West is beyond debate or doubt. He advocates violent and aggressive Jihad even against peaceful non-Muslims if they don’t heed the call to Islam and he bases his legal ruling explicitly on legal verses in the Qur’an, the actions of Mohammed and the successor Caliphates, and a consensus among Shariah authorities. By doing so, he has rooted his doctrine of Jihad within traditional and authoritative Shariah.
Had the lawyers for Caribou bothered to conduct even a minimal due diligence, they would have been confronted with three sobering facts:
 Usmani, as a Shariah legal authority, has issued an absolute grant to Muslim terrorist combatants and their financial and logistical supporters to wage aggressive Jihad against the West. Further, because Usmani is a Shariah authority, his publication of this responsive letter is not theory or theological; it is binding Islamic law and must be taken as such by Shariah-adherent Muslims.
 If Usmani’s legal ruling is in fact traditional and authoritative, the Shariah black box of SCF has just become a weapon in the Jihad to destroy the Western world’s refusal to submit to Shariah. Usmani’s ruling strongly suggests by implication that SCF is hardly an embrace of the West’s domination, but rather a kind of treaty with the Western world until the Muslims will have the opportunity to wage violent Jihad. In this context, SCF is part of the Jihad to end the “psychological subordination” Muslims suffer when Islam is not the dominant religion in the world.
 To the extent that terrorists will use Usmani’s legal rulings to justify attacks against Western interests, and in view of Caribou’s indirect financial support of Usmani as a paid advisor to Arcapita and given Arcapita’s relationship to Usmani and its absolute control over Caribou, should Arcapita be charged with the material support of terrorism, Caribou and its assets could very well be on the blunt end of an executive blocking order or post-conviction forfeiture proceeding.
At the very least, the fact must be fully disclosed that Caribou is principally owned and operated by a company which embraces Shariah authorities such as Qaradawi and Usmani. And, it will hardly be sufficient to characterize Usmani and his legal rulings through some vague or oblique reference as an “outside advisor” to its principal shareholder. Usmani is a highly regarded and respected Shariah authority by all of the Shariah authorities in the world. He sits on all of the important Shariah boards and is a leader in the industry’s standards associations. His rulings cannot be marginalized because his role, along with the other co-members of the Arcapita Shariah board, in setting the Shariah policies for Caribou are absolute given Arcapita’s controlling interest.
A final note regarding the third of the sobering facts above. According to Arcapita’s public representations, it pays both a Shariah charitable tax on its profits and purifies any forbidden “interest” income by contributing those funds to charity. For the 12 months ending June 30, 2007, Arcapita had set aside more than $2.4 million for such charitable contributions. While Arcapita reportably hired a law firm to confirm that it did not make charitable contributions to organizations designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government, this listing is hardly exhaustive of Muslim charities involved in funneling aid to terrorists. While Arcapita’s lawyers might have taken a list of charitable contributions provided by Arcapita and cross-checked them against the designated terrorist organizations, this is only a first step. Given the public record regarding the purpose and methodologies of Shariah, the published statements, writings and legal rulings from two of Arcapita’s esteemed Shariah authorities on the Law of Jihad and the support of violence against Western or Israeli targets, such a casual due diligence of the beneficiaries of Arcapita’s charitable contributions would be negligent at best and quite possibly reckless.