Dare To Speak - Islam Vs Free Democracy And Free Enterprise

Dare to Speak Islam versus Free Democracy and Free Enterprise

By Al Bailey Copyright 2006. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form, by Photostat, microfilm, xerography, or any other means, or incorporated into any retrieval system, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the author.

2

Table of Contents  Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5  Chapter 1: The new Cold War ........................................................................................................ 9  Chapter 2: A personal realization ................................................................................................. 24  Chapter 3: Koranic teachings that shape Islamic nations ............................................................. 41  The state of Muhammad’s world when he revealed the Koran ................................................ 41  Is it legitimate for a Westerner to critique the Koran?.............................................................. 44  Interpreting the Koran............................................................................................................... 49  The five pillars of Islam: requirements for being a Muslim ..................................................... 68  1.  Declare, with belief, that “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad ....................................................................................................... 68  2.  Pray five obligatory prayers per day (Salah) ................................................................ 69  3.  Give an offering of obligatory charity (Zakah or Zakat) .............................................. 69  4.  Participate in a fast during the month of Ramadan....................................................... 70  5.  Travel to Mecca ............................................................................................................ 71  The missing pillar: Love ........................................................................................................... 71  Islam’s substitute for the missing pillar of Love: War against Infidels.................................... 78  The Koran’s view of non-Muslims ........................................................................................... 83  A tool for Islam’s war against Infidels: Taqiyya (dissimulation) ............................................. 87  The “House of Peace” and the “House of War” ....................................................................... 92  The Koran’s view of Slavery .................................................................................................. 106  Is Islam a Religion of Peace?.................................................................................................. 109  Chapter 4: What are some of the characteristics of an Islamic Nation? ..................................... 112  The treatment of non-Muslims................................................................................................ 112  The spoils of holy war against Infidels (war booty) ........................................................... 116  The taxation of infidels who live in the House of Submission ........................................... 116  The treatment of Muslims who convert to another religion ............................................... 118  How essential are these characteristics to the success of an Islamic Nation? .................... 121  The treatment of women ......................................................................................................... 123  The treatment of secular Muslims and liberal Muslims.......................................................... 140  Islamic Economics .................................................................................................................. 144  Banking, Investment, and Insurance................................................................................... 144  Inheritance........................................................................................................................... 156  Corruption ........................................................................................................................... 156  Other aspects of Islamic Economics ................................................................................... 163  The over-all impact of Islam on a nation’s economy and development ............................. 164  Verdict: Islam’s road to economic hell is paved with pious intentions .............................. 173  Chapter 5: Free Democracy & Free Enterprise vs. Islamic Democracy & Islamic Economics . 174  A critique of cultural preservation for preservation’s sake..................................................... 174  Two aspects of Western culture worth passing on to our children ......................................... 174  What do the terms “Free Enterprise” and “Free Democracy” mean?..................................... 175  Islam opposes Free Democracy and proposes Islamic Democracy ........................................ 177  Islam opposes Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship............................................. 179 

3

The futility of seeking freedom and amity with Islamic governments ............................... 185  Islam opposes Free Enterprise and proposes Islamic Economics........................................... 189  Chapter 6: Islam overrules Science............................................................................................. 192  Chapter 7: The State of Islam Today .......................................................................................... 204  Stuck at a fork in the road ....................................................................................................... 204  Turkey ................................................................................................................................. 207  Iran ...................................................................................................................................... 209  Other Islamic nations, and their relationships with the West ............................................. 210  The House of Islam’s relationships with specific non-Islamic nations .................................. 220  Israel.................................................................................................................................... 220  France.................................................................................................................................. 228  Canada................................................................................................................................. 232  United States ....................................................................................................................... 233  Russia.................................................................................................................................. 248  Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) ................................................................................. 250  Armenia............................................................................................................................... 253  Cyprus ................................................................................................................................. 259  Germany.............................................................................................................................. 261  India .................................................................................................................................... 264  Nigeria................................................................................................................................. 265  East Timor........................................................................................................................... 267  The Philippines ................................................................................................................... 269  Thailand .............................................................................................................................. 270  The Netherlands .................................................................................................................. 272  Spain ................................................................................................................................... 276  United Kingdom.................................................................................................................. 277  Denmark.............................................................................................................................. 290  Relations between governments and peoples in the “House of Peace” .................................. 303  Bloody borders, or just plain bloody?................................................................................. 303  A recipe for conflict: Mix Church with State; bind tightly................................................. 308  Muhammad’s reign: Church and State bound together in one Messenger ......................... 310  Abrogation and its affects on Islamic Doctrine and Law ................................................... 325  Islamic guidance for daily living after Muhammad’s death ............................................... 328  The history of leadership in the Islamic world ................................................................... 339  The real political choice that Islamic Law offers: dictatorship or chaos. ........................... 344  Future leadership of the Islamic world ............................................................................... 348  Relations between the House of Islam’s political leaders and its people ........................... 357  Chapter 8: What next? ................................................................................................................ 362  Appendix A: The Medina Charter (622 C.E.)............................................................................. 367  Appendix B: Excerpts from Shari’ah regarding marriage .......................................................... 370  Appendix C: Verses where the Koran attaches Allah’s will to Muhammad’s will .................... 390  Appendix D: Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights .................................................. 398  Appendix E: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ........................................................ 405  Glossary of Arabic, Ottoman, and Islamic Terms ...................................................................... 410  Index ........................................................................................................................................... 420 

4

Introduction Much has been written about Islam, its ethics, and its relationships with other religions. Despite this large volume of work, there appears to be something missing, something even more basic and important to people of all faiths. What is missing is a study of Islam with regard to governance, particularly regarding its relationship to what we call democracy. The goal of this book is to fill the gap by providing this investigation and presenting its findings. Why choose this subject? Because, throughout the world, we receive starkly conflicting information about Islam. Apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace. They also claim that our democratic traditions of religious tolerance require us to respect the freedom of Muslims to practice Islam. At the same time, we see Muslims practicing violent religious intolerance around the world. This intolerance is often against their non-Islamic neighbors, who range from Orthodox Russians to Sudanese Christians, Hindu Indians, Catholic Filipinos, and Buddhist Thais. Additionally, Muslims practice religious intolerance against each other. We hear of Sunni Muslims persecuting Shiite Muslims, Shiite Muslims persecuting Sunni Muslims, and Wahhabis persecuting everyone else. Clearly, something is wrong with this picture. Yet many people fail to associate the violence committed by Muslims with Islam itself. They steadfastly seek alternative explanations, such as colonialism, tribal tensions, racism, and poverty. They refuse to even consider the idea that Islam may be inherently aggressive and intolerant toward other religions. This self-deception cannot continue for long. Islam’s presence and influence is growing throughout the world, and it demands our attention. For example, Nigeria’s northern states announced their conversion to Islamic Law in 2002 by sentencing several women to death by stoning for adultery. In 2006, the entire nation of Denmark was terrorized by Muslims around the world because a mid-sized, independent Danish newspaper published some political cartoons of Muhammad. An ever-growing cascade of violence tells us that we are approaching a time when we will have no choice but to confront two disturbing possibilities: • •

Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy as we know it, because it opposes the individual freedoms and protections that citizens of democracies cherish. Muslims are in the process of using our own democratic institutions to subvert democracy and to replace democratically determined law with Islamic Law.

Before you dismiss these words as bigotry, please allow me to explain: In the United States, we have embraced principles of tolerance and freedom that may be described as “live and let live.” Applied to religion, “live and let live” means that no one has the right to force their beliefs on others; nor may they prevent others from changing their beliefs. While Americans may not always live up to these principles, we aspire to them, and use our freedoms to correct ourselves as we progress.

5

Tolerance and freedom are essential parts of what we call democracy, which political theorists usually call Liberal Democracy or Western Democracy. In Dare to Speak, this form of democracy is called Free Democracy. Religious tolerance is an essential principle we live by in the United States and throughout the Westernized world. This principle has evolved from centuries of futile religious battles that caused us to violate the very beliefs we claimed to fight for. It was codified in complete form by the Constitution of the United States, which has been an example and a beacon of hope for nations around the world. While these nations have created constitutions of their own, to serve their particular circumstances, the U.S. Constitution has remained a guiding reference for progressive thinkers everywhere. Why? Because it exemplifies a framework for governance that grants unprecedented powers and freedoms to its citizens. In contrast, there is a part of the world where Free Democracy has not flourished, and its freedoms are not valued. Free Democracy did not evolve there, and we are discovering that it does not grow there, despite a variety of working examples in other parts of the world. This infertile soil is the House of Islam. Why has the form of democracy we cherish failed to take root and grow in the Islamic world? Because Islam ties religion and politics together in a Gordian knot. Islam has its own body of laws, known as Shari’ah,1 and these laws sharply oppose Free Democracy. Islam and Free Democracy are as opposed to each other as Communism and Free Democracy, or Fascism and Free Democracy. Many people refuse to consider the possibility that Islam and Free Democracy are irreconcilably opposed to each other. After all, the benefits of Free Democracy are obvious, and many Islamic nations have worked diligently to adopt it. Unfortunately, the fruits of these efforts confirm that Islam and Free Democracy do not mix. Islamic nations like Turkey, Egypt, and Algeria have histories of secular governments, but those governments have uneasy relationships with their citizens. These nations have often found themselves resorting to warlike tactics against Islamic fundamentalists to preserve themselves. In Iran, Islam’s mullahs won such a war, and they now use their authority to thwart the superficially democratic institutions they control. What makes Islam different from other religions? Why is it hostile to Free Democracy? To put it plainly, it does not believe in “live and let live.” Devout Muslims do not feel obligated to convince others to convert to Islam through reason. Instead, the Koran encourages them to use persecution. According to the Koran,2 people of other faiths are allowed to continue in their practices only if they acknowledge that Islam is a superior religion and pay extortion money to an Islamic government in the form of special taxes.3 This exception, which is extolled by Muslims as an example of tolerance, is actually designed to grind down other religions to nothing over time. To people who are weak, or young in their faiths, this persecution raises a 1

Also referred to as Sharia or Shariah. The Koran, which is also spelled “Qu’ran” or “Quran,” is a compilation of the recitations of Muhammad, believed by Muslims to be literal words of Allah. 3 Jizyah, which is a per capita tax imposed on adult male non-Muslims living under Muslim rule. 2

6

question: “Why pay extra taxes and accept an inferior position in society when all I have to do is convert to Islam?” In a sense, these mercenary conversions are a saving grace. There are many Muslims in the world who are Muslim in name only. They know that if they left Islam, their Apostasy4 would be considered a capital crime. They are prisoners of their faith instead of believers. Therefore, the apparent strength of Islam can be deceptive, and many nominal Muslims are far more benevolent than Islam calls them to be. Many of us Westerners grew up ignorant of Islam. Therefore, with few experiences to contradict our democracy-inspired beliefs, which seek to accommodate different religions, we have absorbed the notion that the world’s religions as merely different paths to the same goal. For people who still believe this, the words of this book will come as a shock, because they reveal that Islam violates this assumption. Dare to Speak will show that Islam is overtly hostile toward other religions. More importantly, it will show that Islam is overtly hostile to non-Islamic governments. This book will also uncover the subterranean war that Muslims are currently waging against the world’s Free Democracies. It will lay out the issues, provide references to back them up, and begin to discuss the actions that Westerners can take to preserve Free Democracy for future generations. This book quotes extensively from the Koran (a compilation of recitations that Muhammad claimed were Allah’s) and the Hadith (compilations of Muhammad’s other words and deeds), as well as recent news articles and modern religious books written by Muslims. It does so to demonstrate two key points: 1. The portions of Islamic holy scripture that carry disturbing messages are not merely stray quotes in otherwise benign books. They are essential components of Islam, and the Koran and the Hadith emphasize them repeatedly. Faithful Muslims take these messages seriously and act on them. 2. The actions of Islamic terrorists around the world are not merely the products of a few deviant minds or some splinter group; they come from the violent messages of one “eternal” source: Islamic holy scripture . Dare to Speak will demonstrate that, as long as Islam is treated as a respectable religion, and not as a hostile political ideology bent on global domination, Islam will continue to expand and sow its seeds of terror throughout the world. If we allow this to happen, the nations that currently embrace Free Democracy may one day find themselves destitute and chaotic, with their democratic laws replaced by Islamic ones. As you read this book, you will find many references embedded directly into the text rather than exiled to appendices or footnotes. This structure gives you direct access to the sources of Dare to Speak’s assertions, to help you view them easily and form your own conclusions. 4

The abandonment of one’s religion. While most religions frown upon Apostasy, Islam views it, in specific legal terms, as the greatest of all crimes that a Muslim can commit. It is a crime punishable by death.

7

If, after reading this book, you doubt its assertions, please do your own independent research. With vast resources and newspaper archives available on the Web and in libraries, your job will be easy and inexpensive. As a starting point, I highly recommend the University of Southern California’s “Compendium of Muslim Texts,” which provides on-line access to three translations of the Koran, plus a comprehensive compilation of hadiths, along with keyword search functions for all texts. You can find this site at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html. Please do not dismiss or pre-judge the points of this book if they disagree with what you want to believe. You have a duty to yourself and your family to understand the issues we face, so that you can respond to them appropriately. Your actions may impact your children far more than yourself. Before moving on to the first chapter, I would like to tell you why I call this book Dare to Speak. According to Islamic Law, these writings could easily be interpreted as insulting to Islam, and to Muhammad himself. The punishment for such insults, according to Shari’ah, is severe and may include death. Therefore, by writing to you, I am truly putting my life on the line. But this is why I feel I must speak. If I was silenced by fear, it would already be too late; Islam would be in control of my life, and yours.

8

Chapter 1: The new Cold War Back in the exciting days of the late ‘80s, when it became apparent that Communism had failed, and that Free Democracy held the keys to the future, Francis Fukuyama wrote a hopeful article called The End of History? which was later expanded into a book.5 As he saw it, history records the evolution of society. Through it, we have learned how primitive tribes progressed through various forms of government and economy in a series of experiments that ultimately led to a perfected structure that Fukuyama felt could no longer be improved. He believed that, while actual governments and laws may still evolve, the basic structures of modern democracy, including Free Enterprise and the fair treatment of minorities, were firmly established and needed no additions. He, and many others, believed that the battle between Communism and Free Democracy was the last great conflict of humankind. The popular image of Afghani Muslims at the time was that of courageous freedom fighters, who helped the West finally break the back of the Soviet Union. With the Cold War over, we could all look forward to pounding our swords into plowshares and cashing in on the “peace dividend.” Only one minor problem remained: the Middle East. But Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres6 were having productive talks in Oslo,7 and, in 1994, their break-through agreements won them the Nobel Peace Prize. The 1979 revolution in Iran was seen by the general public as an isolated case in an isolated country. The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1984, which killed 240 Americans, was portrayed as political rather than religious, and rooted in Europe’s occupation of Ottoman territories after World War I. Somalia’s bloody rejection of U.S. aid in 1993 was blamed on inept interference in a chaotic country that the U.S. did not understand. But all those issues were mere side-shows. The main event was Peace in the Middle East. A giddy world prepared for the revelry and looked forward to giving history its final curtain call. Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist for negotiating away too many Jewish demands. Later, the few remaining negotiating points became stumbling blocks that broke the whole deal. On September 28, 2000, Yasser Arafat declared the Intifada,8 and Israeli-Palestinian relations fell apart. An amazing detail in this deadly deterioration is that the area of land that broke the deal is less than 50 square miles, and most of it is barren wasteland.9 Equally amazing is the fact that no one seems willing to point out that it is absurd to rage eternally over such small stakes. Why do we ignore the apparent silliness of these people, who sacrifice thousands of lives over a small expanse of arid dirt? It might be because it is too embarrassing – we would rather think 5

The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama, 1992, publisher: Penguin Books At the time, Yasser Arafat was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister of Israel, and Shimon Peres was Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. 7 Capital of Norway. 8 Arabic term for “uprising.” The Intifada referred to here is more formally known as the Al Aqsa Intifada, or the Second Intifada. It refers to the uprising of Palestinians against Israel, beginning in September 2000, which began as hopes for a resolution on issues unsolved by the 1993 Oslo Accords deteriorated. 9 Apartheid Wall, by Nigel Perry, The Electronic Intifada, 2000-2002 Palestine Independent Media Center. 6

9

that the world is being rocked to its foundations by something important. To Americans, living in a country formed by the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Purchase, and the Gadsden Purchase, the situation is unfathomable. If the parties involved really wanted to solve their problems, they could readily do so through some kind of purchase or land swap. There is obviously something more ominous afoot, and it has little to do with land. Other events soon revealed that history was not going to end any time soon. They included the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. The United States responded but was ineffective. The country was so caught up with Bill Clinton’s trysts with Monica Lewinski that people barely noticed. Osama bin Laden was a shadowy, unknown figure who had rarely surfaced in the news before these attacks. Some cynics even viewed him as a convenient distraction from Bill Clinton’s impeachment process. After bin Laden openly declared war on the United States, the U.S. assailed him with a military fly-swatter – an ineffective cruise missile attack – and then returned to its scandals. On September 11, 2001, everything changed. With the Twin Towers collapsing in a cloud of dust, a gash in the Pentagon billowing smoke, and Flight 93 smashing into a Pennsylvania field on its way to Washington, presumably to the White House, the United States woke up and declared its War on Terror and Osama bin Laden. But how could Osama bin Laden, an outlaw in a remote part of the world, with only a few thousand terrorists at his disposal, strike such a devastating blow? And, how could he elude capture even to this day? The answer is that bin Laden is not an outlaw: his actions were condoned by his Afghan host, the Taliban. And, despite his apparent outlaw reputation among most Islamic governments, he was considered by many citizens of those governments to be a combination of Robin Hood and spiritual leader. These people saw him, and still see him, as a hero for declaring Jihad10 against the Infidel West, and they cheer his tirades against the United States. The alarming truth is that the only thing that can keep Osama bin Laden at large while a $25 million dollar reward hangs over his head is the intense loyalty of a vast multitude of Muslims. What worldview could possibly unite so many people around this ruthless and murderous terrorist? Bin Laden may have explained it best himself in an interview he gave ABC News reporter John Miller on December 22, 1998. In it, he skillfully combined words that were both gracious to Muslims and menacing to the West: ABC NEWS You have been charged with masterminding the bombings of the two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Are these charges true? OSAMA BIN LADEN Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds. Peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad, his companions and his kin. Let me begin by stating that we, in the World Islamic Front for jihad against Jews and Crusaders, have…issued a crystal clear 10

1. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels. 2. A crusade or struggle. – The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

10

fatwa11 calling on the Nation [of Muslims] to carry on jihad aimed at liberating Islamic holy sites, and the Ancient House [the Ka’aba,12 a cube-like structure in Mecca13],14 and Al-Aksa Mosque15 and all Islamic lands. …this…Nation of Muhammad…has responded to this appeal... We will continue this course because it is a part of our religion, and because God…ordered us to carry out jihad so that the word of God may remain exalted…If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans, in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque, and the Holy Ka’aba, is considered a crime, let history be a witness that I am a criminal. ABC NEWS You warned that Americans would die. Then, two months later, the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed. Were these bombings because of your fatwa (decree) against America? BIN LADEN …we have repeatedly issued warnings over a number of years. Following these warnings and these calls, anti-American explosions took place in a number of Islamic countries. Most probably, these acts came about as a result of such calls and warnings… ABC NEWS If the targets…are Americans, how can the deaths of…Africans be justified? BIN LADEN …Suppose that the Americans have attacked an Islamic country and kidnapped my children…to use as a shield, and then [they] started to kill Muslims as is the case in Lebanon, Palestine, and these days in Iraq, and also when they supported the Serbs in massacring the Muslims in Bosnia. According to Islamic jurisprudence, if we abstain from firing on the Americans lest we should kill these Muslims…the harm that could befall Muslims at large, who are being attacked, outweighs the good of saving the lives of these Muslims used as shields. This means that, in a case like this, when it becomes apparent that it would be impossible to repel these Americans without assaulting them, even if this involved the killing of Muslims, this is permissible under Islam… ABCNEWS The U.S. has also said, in formal charges, that you are in a position to develop chemical weapons and try to purchase nuclear material for weapons. How would such weapons be used?

11

A legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar. – The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. 12 The Ka’aba is the most holy structure in Islam, toward which all Muslims face when they pray. It is also the destination of the Hajj, which is the pigrimmage that each Muslim is to take at least once in a lifetime. The Ka’aba was reputedly built by Abraham and his son Ishmael as the world’s first place of worship for Allah. Islamic tradition holds that the Ka’aba was built in the location of a black stone, possibly a meteorite, which was given by Allah to Adam. That black stone is located in one of the corners of the Ka’aba and is kissed by worshippers during the rituals of the Hajj. Also referred to as Kaaba or Ka’bah. 13 Located in Saudi Arabia. Also referred to as Makka or Makkah. 14 This book uses the following convention when using parentheses in quotations: Square brackets “[ ]” denote comments by the author of this book, while parentheses “( )” denote comments from the source of the quotation. 15 The ancient mosque in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is considered to be the third most holy city by Muslims, because it is the alleged launching point of Muhammad’s famous “Night Journey” to heaven in a dream, discussed later in this book.

11

BIN LADEN …To seek…weapons that could counter those of the infidels is a religious duty…It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims… … ABC NEWS Since the bombings, the U.S. has maintained…forces in Saudi Arabia and recently used them to help in the renewed air strikes in Iraq. What can the U.S. expect from you now? BIN LADEN The American forces should expect reactions…from the Muslim world. Any thief…who enters the countries of others…to steal should expect…murder at any time. For the American forces to expect anything from me personally reflects a very narrow perception of things. There is a nation which compromises 1200 million Muslims. This nation is angry… … There is no doubt that the treacherous attack perpetrated a few days ago against the Muslim people of Iraq by the United States and Britain [recall that this interview took place in 1998] has confirmed several things, the most important of which is that Britain and America are acting on behalf of Israel and the Jews, to strike at any power in the Islamic world, with a view to paving the way for the Jews to divide the Muslim world once again and enslave it... As is known, a great part of the force that carried out the attack came from certain Gulf countries, which underlined the fact that these countries have lost their sovereignty. Now, infidels walk everywhere on the land where Muhammad…was born, and where the Koran was revealed to him... This happens while our scholars and Ulemas,16 who are the heirs of prophets, are in jail. These Ulemas are jailed while infidels, be they Jews or Christians, are free to go wherever they want in these countries…From here, I call on all Muslims to…form a leadership for resisting this crusader-Jewish invasion. The rulers have become powerless. … ABC NEWS You have been labeled as “Public Enemy number 1” by the U.S. government. Do you deserve this label? And, secondly, how can a person who is on the run and who is being pursued come to attack the world’s only “Superpower”? BIN LADEN Hostility towards America is a religious duty…To call us enemy number one or number two doesn’t hurt us. What we…care for is to please God…by doing jihad in his cause and by liberating Islam’s holy places from those wretched cowards. …Osama bin Laden is confident that…the Islamic nation will carry out this duty. I have been here for a few years and I have not left Afghanistan. But I am confident that Muslims…will…be able…to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. … ABC NEWS And, last question, have you got any message for the Muslims in the world? BIN LADEN These days, we, as a nation, are being subjected to an unprecedented offensive. We migrated…to defend the religion of God…to liberate [the] holy Ka’aba…from the crusaders, and to liberate [the] Al-Aksa Mosque and Palestine from the Jews.

16

A body of Mullas (high ranking Islamic religious authorities) – from Mariam-Webster On-Line Dictionary, 20052006 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

12

This Ancient House [the Ka’aba] is the center of attraction of people on this earth, physically and intellectually. Our life on this planet would be meaningless if we do not worship the God of the Ancient House. God…will not accept our prayers unless we are facing the Ka’aba… If we were not to defend God’s Ka’ba and God’s Ancient House, how and for what else are we to do anything to please our God…[?] … …Muslims should consider with care the [Koran’s] verses on loyalty, faith and jihad. They should sever any relations with the Jews and the Christians…God almighty says: “Ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them, verily God guideth not a people unjust”17… This text shows that whoever befriends Jews and Christians becomes like them, and becomes one of them in their religion and in their infidelity. God…indicated in many verses that whoever befriends the infidels becomes one of them…: “To the hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them but a [grievous] penalty.”18 “Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers, rather than believers; is it honor they seek among them? All honor is with God.”19 That is why I advise Muslims not to count on present regimes. Instead, they should defend their religion and themselves and the sanctuaries of Muslims. They should consider with care the orders of God…to the Companions of the prophet, to do jihad. And, how He blamed them when they slowed down. He said in his holy book: “ye who believe, what is the matter with you that, when you are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter.”20 And God also says: “when at last the order for fighting was issued to them, behold, a section of them feared men…even more than they should have feared God.”21 They said: “our Lord, why hast thou ordered us to fight? Wouldn’t thou not grant us respite to our natural term, near enough?”22 This is a great calamity that has afflicted people these days. They say it would be better to delay jihad… Whatever their reasons, the main reason is their attachment to this life. God says: “Say, short is the enjoyment of this world. The hereafter is the best for thou who do right…”23…That is why Muslims should take comfort in expecting the pleasure of God and their rewards in God’s paradise…May God…give us faith and peace of mind, and help us do his orders and avoid his prohibitions. And God’s peace and blessings be on our prophet Muhammad, and I conclude by praising God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds.

17

Koran, surah 5, verse 51. Koran, surah 4, verse 138. 19 Koran, surah 4, verse 139. 20 Koran, surah 9, verse 38. 21 Koran, surah 4, verse 77. 22 Koran, surah 4, verse 77, continued. 23 Koran, surah 4, verse 77, continued. 18

13

Osama bin Laden inspires many Muslims because his theology and reasoning agree with the Koran. In fact, according to a recent poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project,24 “The percentage of people expressing ‘a lot of confidence’ or ‘some confidence’ in bin Laden was vastly higher than similar ratings for Bush in the Palestinian Territories (71 percent vs. 1 percent), in Morocco (49 percent vs. 2 percent), in Jordan (55 percent vs. 1 percent), in Indonesia (58 percent vs. 8 percent) and in Turkey (15 percent vs. 8 percent).” In fact, in a July 2005 letter from Ayman alZawahiri (bin Laden’s number-two man), to Abu Masab Zarqawi (the now-deceased former head of al Qaeda in Iraq), al-Zawahiri wrote: “The strongest weapon that the holy warriors enjoy is popular support from the Muslim masses…”25 He also called this fact to President Bush’s direct attention in a recent video where he declared:26 Bush do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim people enjoying what God has given me from their support and their care and their generosity and their protection, and their participating in jihad until we defeat you, by Allah’s grace and help.

The United States, reputedly the most powerful nation in the world, has led a six-year international manhunt for bin Laden without success. At the same time, al Qaeda and its affiliates have continued to mount deadly attacks around the world. Obviously, bin Laden and his message enjoy strong and widespread support in the Muslim community. As explained in an interview with Afghani Colonel Mohammad Yahya Effendi in a recent National Geographic article entitled Land of the Pashtun:27 …Anyone who hands bin Laden over to the Americans might be 25 million dollars richer in reward money…but…disgrace would hang over this person, along with his family, clan, and tribe, for many generations. “Osama’s a major Islamic hero,” he added. “Whoever betrays him, why, his life wouldn’t be worth an onion.”

As this book will show, the reason bin Laden enjoys this support is that his call for destruction does not emanate from himself. He simply channels the Koran, which calls all Muslims to oppose the Infidel nations of the world until they surrender to Islam. It is through the submission of Infidels that Muslims believe world peace will finally be achieved. To many Muslims, who see the world through the lens of ideology, Osama bin Laden is a noble rebel fighting for Allah (the Muslim interpretation of God). They admire his resolve to throw off the House of Islam’s decadent entanglements with the Infidel West and to lead the charge against unbelievers. While many Muslims may disagree with Osama bin Laden’s tactics and timing, they do not dispute his goal. What are his tactics? Bin Laden seeks to engage the United States and other Western nations in a series of guerrilla actions, proxy wars, and terror campaigns, somewhat reminiscent of the early Cold War. By creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, he aims to undermine, demoralize, and destabilize the nations of the West. Once they are weakened, these Infidel nations will be ripe for Islamic conquest. 24

Arab Hostility Toward US Growing Poll Finds, by Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, June 4, 2003. Bombings reflect Zarqawi’s growing reach, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, November 13, 2005. 26 Al-Zawahri in first video since failed U.S. strike, Associated Press, MSNBC News, January 30, 2006. 27 Land of the Pashtun, by Tim McGirk, National Geographic Magazine, December 2004 issue. 25

14

If bin Laden’s tactics are controversial in the Muslim community, then what is the underlying goal that he and all devout Muslims share? The underlying goal of Islam is to establish a global Islamic state, which Muslims believe will be the ideal form of government and economy. Devout Muslims believe that “Islam is the solution”28 to the injustices perceived in lands currently governed by Free Democracy, where economies are guided by Free Enterprise. In other words, their shared goal is a global Islamic revolution, leading to rule by the laws of Allah, otherwise known as Islamic Law, or Shari’ah. This may sound like an outrageous claim. Many people may admit that there are extremists who think this way, but they cannot accept that these beliefs are prevalent. To remove any doubt, I am about to present the first of many quotes from an assortment of friendly beginner’s books on Islam. These primers were written mostly by Muslims, and are meant for new converts and Westerners curious about the faith. They include titles from the familiar “For Dummies” and “Complete Idiot’s Guide” series. Among them are “The Koran for Dummies,” “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran,” “Islam for Dummies,” and “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam.” These books are designed to provide sympathetic introductions, seasoned with humorous quotes and cartoons. Beneath their breezy appearances, though, these books reveal profound attacks on the foundations of Western society that are shocking and alarming. When reading my comments on these primers, please keep in mind that they are not about the books themselves, but on the Islamic beliefs they present. The authors are not indulging in personal opinions, but are conscientiously trying to present how Muslims interpret their Holy Scriptures, and how they apply those scriptures to their lives. These books were written by Muslims and recognized scholars, and were designed to be uncontroversial, at least for Muslims. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam even includes a lengthy and shining endorsement from Qasim Najar, one of the founding members of The Islamic Foundation of North America. Muslims say that “Islam is the solution” because they believe Islamic Law is divine, endorsed by Allah himself. As it says in Sohaib Sultan’s The Koran for Dummies: Devout Muslims…strongly believe that Islam is a complete way of life that requires obedience to God [Allah] and His Messenger (Muhammad) in communal laws as well as individual ethics. Most devout Muslims can’t accept the notion that religious laws must be replaced with secular laws in order to live in the modern world. Rather, as representatives or vicegerents of God on earth, Muslims feel a responsibility to live on earth in accordance with divine laws. …God alone is law giver, and Muslims (as those who submit to divine Will) must in turn practice and implement those divine laws. 29

… 28

Popular slogan throughout the Islamic world which has been specifically adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood; also used by Hamas during the 2006 elections in the Palestinian Territories. 29 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, chapter 11, section entitled Doing as God and His Messenger Do, page 164.

15

…The entire governance of an Islamic state revolves around the concept of God as the giver of law upon which societies are formed. An Islamic state must be governed by divine [Islamic] laws and principles. 30 … From the Koranic perspective, every individual in society has the obligation…to worship the Divine [Allah]. This obligation must be facilitated, honored, and protected by an Islamic society in order to live by the ethical teachings of the Koran. 31 … From the Koranic perspective, Muslims form a social movement dedicated to spreading and implementing divine teachings and laws on earth. 32

Devout Muslims believe that their goal is to liberate the world from darkness by replacing manmade forms of governance with Shari’ah. They believe that the world exists in a state of darkness called Jahiliyya, which means “ignorance of God’s ways.” 33 Muslims once used this term to describe Arabic tribes before their conversions, but now apply it to any nation that does not adhere to Shari’ah. Even though many “moderate” Muslims do not heed bin Laden’s call for Jihad today, they sympathize with his cause. They also want to lash out at imagined humiliations and restore Islam’s ancient reputation for being the world’s reigning moral and political authority. For example, Mahathir Mohamad, the Prime Minister of Malaysia (now retired), gave this speech at the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference on October 16, 2003: …All Praise be to Allah, by whose Grace and Blessings we, the leaders of the Organization of Islamic Conference countries are gathered here today…to plot a course for the future of Islam and the Muslim ummah34 worldwide... … I will not enumerate the instances of our humiliation and oppression, nor will I once again condemn our detractors and oppressors. It would be an exercise in futility because they are not going to change their attitudes just because we condemn them. If we are to recover our dignity and that of Islam, our religion, it is we who must decide, it is we who must act. To begin with, the Governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks and have a common stand, if not on all issues, at least on some major ones, such as on Palestine35… From being a single ummah we have allowed ourselves to be divided into numerous sects, mazhabs36 and tarikats,37 each more concerned with claiming to be the true Islam than our oneness as the Islamic ummah. We fail to notice that our detractors and enemies do not care whether we are true Muslims or not. To them we are all Muslims, followers of a religion and a Prophet whom they declare promotes terrorism, and we are all their sworn enemies. They will 30

Ibid, Chapter 8, section entitled The Verse of the Throne, page 113. The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 14, section entitled Preserving religion, page 204. 32 Ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Witnessing the Truth, page 238. 33 Ibid, Chapter 7, section entitled Qutub: The controversial revolutionary, page 101. 34 The worldwide community, i.e. nation, of Muslim people. Also referred to as the Ummah Islamia. 35 Throughout this book, the author adds emphasis to quotes via underlining. Special emphasis is occasionally made via bold black print. 36 The teachings and principles of a particular sect of Islam. 37 Lodges or Orders, usually headed by a teacher or master known as mürsit. 31

16

attack and kill us, invade our lands, bring down our governments…And we aid and abet them by attacking and weakening each other, and sometimes by doing their bidding, acting as their proxies to attack fellow Muslims... …over the centuries…the Muslim civilization became so weak that at one time there was not a single Muslim country which was not colonized or hegemonized by the Europeans. But regaining independence did not help to strengthen the Muslims. Their states were weak and badly administered, constantly in a state of turmoil. The Europeans could do what they liked with Muslim territories. It is not surprising that they should excise Muslim land to create the state of Israel to solve their Jewish problem… … The early Muslims were as oppressed as we are presently. But after their sincere and determined efforts to help themselves in accordance with the teachings of Islam, Allah had helped them to defeat their enemies and to create a great and powerful Muslim civilization. But what effort have we made especially with the resources that He has endowed us with? We are now 1.3 billion strong. We have the biggest oil reserve in the world. We have great wealth…We are familiar with the workings of the world’s economy and finances. We control 57 out of the 180 countries in the world. Our votes can make or break international organizations. Yet we seem more helpless than the small number of Jahiliyya converts who accepted the Prophet as their leader... Today we…are treated with contempt and dishonor. Our religion is denigrated. Our holy places desecrated. Our countries are occupied. Our people starved and killed. … Today, if they want to raid our country, kill our people, destroy our villages and towns, there is nothing substantial that we can do. Is it Islam which has caused all this? Or is it that we have failed to do our duty according to our religion? Our only reaction is to become more…angry. Angry people cannot think properly. …They launch their own attacks, killing just about anybody including fellow Muslims to vent their anger and frustration…The enemy retaliates and puts more pressure on the Governments. And the Governments have no choice but to give in… … There is a feeling of hopelessness among the Muslim countries and their people. They feel that they can do nothing right…The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews… … It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews…And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strengths, to plan, to strategize, and then to counter attack… …The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. We may not be able to do that …But even if we can get a third of the ummah and a third of the Muslim states to act together, we can…do something. Remember that the Prophet did not have

17

many followers when he went to Madinah. But he united the Ansars38 and the Muhajirin39 and eventually he became strong enough to defend Islam. Apart from the partial unity that we need, we must take stock of our assets. I have already mentioned our numbers and our oil wealth… … …We are up against a people who think. [The Jews] survived 2000 years of pogroms40 not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, Human Rights, and Democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also. Of late, because of their power and their apparent success, they have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people, will make mistakes, will forget to think. … There are many things that we can do. There are many resources that we have at our disposal. What is needed is merely the will to do it. As Muslims, we must be grateful for the guidance of our religion, we must do what needs to be done, willingly and with determination. Allah has not raised us, the leaders, above the others so we may enjoy power for ourselves only. The power we wield is for our people, for the ummah, for Islam…Insyaallah41 we will triumph in the end.

These are not the words of some firebrand upstart, long on ideology and short on real world experience. These are the words of an experienced world leader, who was Prime Minister of a nation of over 20 million people for 22 years. One aspect of Prime Minister Mohamad’s speech is particularly interesting: he blames a Jewish conspiracy for the humiliation and powerlessness of Muslims around the world. It makes one wonder how many Jews he has actually encountered in Malaysia during his 22-year rule. Certainly, for Malaysia to be humiliated by the Jews there must be at least a few Jews living there! According to the CIA’s World Factbook for 2006, the religions of Malaysia are “Muslim, Buddhist, Daoist, Hindu, Christian, Sikh,” as well as Shamanism in East Malaysia. Jews are so rare there that their faith is not even listed. Despite this, Prime Minister Mohamad expresses a deep hatred of Jews, upon whom he blames Islam’s perceived humiliations. Remarkably, he firmly believes that Jews have subverted the world for their own advantage, and invented human rights and democracy to help them do it.

38

Arabic term for “helpers.” Term for those who accompanied Muhammad on his flight from Mecca. 40 Yiddish, from Russian, literally, devastation: an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically : such a massacre of Jews. – from Mariam-Webster On-Line Dictionary, 2005-2006 Merriam-Webster, Inc. 41 God willing. 39

18

In this speech, Prime Minister Mohamad used the language of war – a cold war, 42 perhaps, like the one between Communism and Capitalism, but war all the same. And the battle is for world domination. Also interesting is the contrast in justifications for war used by Prime Minister Mohamad and Osama bin Laden. While both share the same end goal, i.e., a world dominated by Islam, their grievances are quite different. While bin Laden condemns the presence of Infidels on sacred Muslim land, Mohamad condemns alleged global domination by Jews. To Western ears, both arguments sound bizarre. How could the mere presence of non-Muslims on an arid swath of land be justification for war? How could anyone claim that a few million Jews actually control the world? Moreover, President Mohamad’s reasoning places Jews in a no-win position: If they live among others, they are accused of taking control of society; if they disconnect by forming their own country, they are denounced for taking land formerly occupied by non-Jews. What territory does he think is more appropriate for Jews to claim as a homeland than Israel? Jews tend to do something very natural for groups that feel threatened: they work very hard, and seek positions of leadership, so that they are not at the mercy of others. They may have annoying quirks in the eyes of some non-Jews, but no more so than the members of other groups that separate themselves from the surrounding culture. A lot of people find Jehovah’s Witnesses quirky, and the Amish have become outright tourist attractions. Antagonism toward another group of people that seems different may be one of the most instinctive of human motivations, but it is also one of the least admirable. As for those who are concerned about the relative prosperity and political power of Jews, they might find themselves better served by emulating some Jewish educational and economic practices instead of than lashing out. As for global domination, those concerned should note that Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Howard Hughes, and Ray Kroc were or are all Gentiles, and there has never been a single Jewish president in all of U.S. history. The real purpose of these allegations of Jewish or Infidel global domination is to serve the common goal of Osama bin Laden, Prime Minister Mohamad, and other Islamic leaders: to rally Muslims to the cause of Islamic global domination. These leaders have simply found different pretexts to justify the same cause. This explains why it seems impossible to resolve problems that crop up between Islamic communities and their neighbors. As soon as a conflict appears to be resolved, something else happens to re-open the wound, or new injuries flair up. This is because Islam is driven by an agenda of conquest and its believers constantly seek ways to justify it. Why? Because any good Muslim sees the world through the eyes of the Koran and the Hadith.43 These scriptures teach Muslims to divide the world into two parts:

42

1. A state of political tension and military rivalry between nations that stops short of full-scale war, especially that which existed between the United States and Soviet Union following World War II. 2. A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation. – The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

19

• •

Dar al-Islam: This term means “the House of Islam.” It can be translated further into “the House of Submission [to Allah]” or “the House of Peace.” It represents all lands governed by the tenets of Islam. Dar al-Harb. This term means “the House of War [against Allah]” 44 It represents all lands outside of the “House of Peace.” Any nation that does not submit to Allah by adopting Islam is considered rebellious against him. Therefore, regardless of whether these nations have made any hostile moves against the “House of Peace,” they defy Allah and offend Muslims by their mere existence.

It is impossible for a good Muslim leader to want lasting peace with the House of War. There may be strategic retreats and suspensions of hostilities, but the only lasting peace acceptable to Islam is the one expected on the utopian day when the entire world submits to Islam. This is why any opposition from the House of War on some issue may be labeled an insolent rebellion against Allah, and a call for jihad, if Muslims can give it a religious context. According to the tenets of Islam, it is not possible to diffuse this call to war by simply secularizing nations that were once considered Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish. As The Koran for Dummies explains, the only acceptable form of government is one that complies with Islamic Law:45 Secularism…violates the sacred teaching that says, “There is no authority or law, except God’s [Allah’s].” Also, for Islamic law to work, government has to have some role in implementing laws and forming policies out of the principles of Islamic law (4:59). To form human laws that clearly contradict divine law is considered a sin in the Islamic tradition (3.185). It proves difficult to marry secularism to the ideals of the Koran.

Confronted with this kind of reasoning, one begins to understand that Islam is, and has always been, hostile to all non-Islamic nations. Historically, the House of Islam has acted aggressively toward its non-Muslim neighbors for about 1,400 years – ever since the days of Muhammad. These hostilities have included propaganda, intimidation, demographic warfare, and terrorism, in addition to military warfare. Over the centuries, Islam’s decline lessened its ability to act on this hostility. The hostility itself, however, never faded. Despite this latent menace, Westerners began to dismiss the danger of Islam over time. Today, many refuse to even acknowledge that the danger exists, despite a revival of jihad against Dar al-Harb, fed by vast transfers of oil wealth to Islamic nations, instant global communications, and Muslim immigration to the West. Unfortunately, even the Westerners who perceive the danger rarely grasp its full scope. Religious war simply does not fit with their understanding of the world. While they may be able to grasp the notion of Islamic terrorism or “Islamofascism,” it is inconceivable that Islam itself 43

A hadith is an account of statements or actions of Muhammad, attested to by eye-witnesses. The proper Arabic plural for hadith is aHadith. A compilation of ahadith is called Hadith, and the discipline of its study is also called Hadith. An alternative spelling is Hadeeth. 44 The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, by Bernard Lewis, Schocken Books, New York, 1998, pages121-122. 45 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 20, section entitled Morality and Secularism, page 302.

20

could be hostile. They assume, without questioning, that all religions are basically the same, and that all religions teach about peace and love. I know this because I was one of them, and I now stand corrected. Westerners are accustomed to recognizing wars only when countries declare them. This allows Islam’s war to fly under the West’s radar, because it is declared by a borderless nation disguised as a religion. Islam’s leaders are not the kings, presidents, or premiers that fit easily into Western paradigms. Instead, they are religious scholars who disregard physical boundaries as legitimate limits to their jurisdiction. Islam is a faith that aspires to global conquest, peacefully when possible, and by force when necessary. It also demands loyalty beyond any tyrant’s dreams. It conducts its war on nonMuslim nations through the proxy nations it controls, the terrorist cells it imbeds in target states, and the growth of Islamic populations in those states. In the West’s excitement over “the end of history” and “the peace dividend,” Westerners were once determined to ignore this war, but its reality was seared into their hearts on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, even that shock was not enough to shake them out of their dreams. The U.S. response, known as The War on Terror, has remained intentionally blind to the true scope of the war. This blindness is becoming harder to maintain, however, as the banner of war moves from an extremist in the mountains of Afghanistan to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a leader elected by the 69 million people of Iran, who is actively developing technology that can be used for nuclear weapons in defiance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the UN. At a rally in Tehran on October 26, 2005, entitled “A World without Zionism,” President Ahmadinejad stood before a huge image of a broken United States and crashing Israel (see illustrations) and told his people:46 We are in…an historical war between the World of Arrogance (i.e. the West) and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years. … Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-à-vis the World of Arrogance… During the…last 100 years, the (walls of the) world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world... This occupying country (i.e. Israel) is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world...

46

The transcript of President Ahmadinejad’s entire speech can be found on the Islamic Students News Agency website, at www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-603386. A translation of this transcript to English can be found on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), as Special Dispatch Series 1013, entitled Iranian President at Tehran Conference: 'Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From the Center of the Islamic World – and This is Attainable', located at http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305. A translation can also be found at www.khomeini.org/MainPageArticles/transcript%20Ahmadnijad.htm.

21

Photo of President Ahmadinejad standing in front of an image displaying symbols of a broken United States and crashing Israel, along with a full image of the rally’s poster, and a close-up showing representations of the U.S. flag and the Star of David in an hour glass that declares that the time for these nations has run out. (Poster cropped from photo on Iranian Students News Agency website: www.isna.ir/Main/PicView.aspx?Pic=Pic-603386-2; Top photo found at: http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=%22world+without+zionism%22&c=news_photos; Third photo from Iranian Students News Agency website: www.isna.ir/Main/PicView.aspx?Pic=Pic-603386-5.

22

Note that Ahmadinejad’s “World of Arrogance” is not the United States. It is the entire Westernized world, which “arrogantly” rejects the laws of Allah. President Ahmadinejad also wrote a letter to President Bush, on May 8, 2006, which verified that he sees Islam’s war as not simply with Israel or the United States. He sees it as an ideological war with Free Democracy, the political system that now dominates the House of War:47 Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems. We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – …Almighty God [Allah]. Undoubtedly through faith in God [Allah] and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you [Mr. Bush] is: “Do you not want to join them?” Mr. President, Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God [Allah] will prevail over all things.

Like warped reincarnations of Marx and Lenin, a new generation of revolutionaries has risen to proclaim the end of Democracy and Capitalism, now known as Free Enterprise. A major difference between the Communist revolution and the Islamic revolution is that, while Communism was a relatively new ideology, Islam is very old. What is new about Islam’s revived revolution is the form it has taken – that of a cold war. By looking beyond the religious overtones of Islam and grasping its political ideology, we have an opportunity to respond to it appropriately, as we did during the Cold War against Communism, and avoid an outright Hot War. Alternatively, if we fail to diagnose the challenge of Islam correctly, our misdirected policies may actually bring on the devastation we hope to avoid. World War II was the result of European policies of appeasement and capitulation, which were designed to placate Hitler but actually encouraged him to become more aggressive. A rarely acknowledged fact is that the European Allies actually lost the first half of WWII. Poland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, most of France, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Greece were all overrun by the Nazis and Fascists before the U.S. entered the war. England’s defenses were on life support via the American Lend-Lease program, and the Russians had been pushed back to Moscow. It was only after the United States entered the war that Hitler was defeated. In the new Cold War, terrorism is Islam’s weapon of choice, and the United States is on the front line. This time, if the U.S. misdiagnoses the situation, who will be left to save it?

47

Full text letter of Islamic Republic Of Iran President to American President, Official website of the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran, www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/02/19/index-e.htm#b3.

23

Chapter 2: A personal realization Growing up in a small Pennsylvania town during the ‘60s and ‘70s, Islam was so far removed from my experience that I did not even realize that Muslims were Islamic. I was surprised when I found out that these terms applied to the same group of people. I met my first Muslim in 1979 while attending college. I had decided to hitch-hike home rather than ride a bus, and one of the truck drivers was an African-American who had just converted to Islam and was very excited about it. He told me that Islam held the answer to every question, and handed me a book on Islamic law. Being curious, and not wanting to offend the big guy as we bounced along in his cab, I took the book and began reading it. The rules I remember were things like “A wife must walk 20 feet behind her husband,” “you must eat using your right hand and wipe yourself using your left hand (toilet paper not required),” and instructions for washing yourself, which included “if water is not available, you can wash yourself with clean sand.” I did not ask about how this might apply to the section on wiping. My general impression was that, while Islam might have all the answers, its answers did not appear to make much sense. After reading this book for a while, I was asked by the trucker if I wanted to convert to Islam. I told him that I would keep reading, but would probably not be ready to convert by the end of the ride. My next contact with Islam was through the Iranian hostage crisis: a former neighbor was one of the hostages. When he finally returned to the United States, everyone in the neighborhood watched him kiss the ground on national TV. After that, however, events became more tragic. A former classmate of mine from high school was one of the 240 Marines killed in 1983 during the Beirut bombing of a U.S. Marines barracks. At the time, I did not see a direct link between Islam and political strife in the Middle East. Everyone I knew thought that the Middle East’s problems were a result of its culture, not its religion. I wondered how religion could be separated from culture, but decided to leave this question for another day. It was an esoteric issue, and I was focused on personal dreams of family, career, and prosperity. I made no time for anything that was not directly related to my own ambitions. After college, I went to grad school, found the girl of my dreams, got a great job at a top company, and bought a house, all by the age of 25. After achieving these trappings of success, my little paradise started to feel empty and I began opening my eyes to the world around me. I started doing volunteer work in local schools and joined an organization that tutored inner-city kids after school. It was through this organization that I had my first real contact with Muslims. One of my fellow volunteers was a coworker from a different part of the company. He had immigrated to the United States from Africa to go to college, and subsequently got a job with my firm. In working together with students, we became friends ourselves. As a couple of workaholic professionals,

24

we had little spare time to hang out or get into deep discussions. However, our friendship was good enough that, when he and his wife had their first child, he invited me to be a part of the baby naming ceremony, which was celebrated six months after the baby’s birth. As I sat crosslegged on the floor with a group of family friends, saying prayers for the baby, he commented to the group that my participation showed that Muslims and Christians could get along. This struck a discordant note for me because I had no idea that anyone thought they could not get along. But this was a party meant to celebrate a baby, so I decided to surpress my twinge of forboding and not ask what he meant by that remark. Through the course of my volunteer activities, I became acquainted with other Muslims. All of these contacts left me with favorable impressions of Islam. I certainly did not consider it a threat. In discussions on problems in the Middle East and Africa, I was assured that the troubles were cultural, not religious, and that Islam was a religion of peace. None of my friends seemed to follow those strange rules that the truck driver had shown me. When I was growing up, I avoided religious discussions because I felt that I did not know enough to engage in an intelligent conversation. I had what seemed to me a reasonable set of Christian beliefs, but knew that they were all based on second-hand information. I had studied neither the Bible nor any other source texts, and was therefore defenseless whenever someone started quoting scripture to me. While in college, I decided to cure this weakness by reading the entire Bible, cover to cover, and then reading other religious texts as well. I approached this reading with the critical eye of an academic, looking for useful knowledge and subjecting all claims to my own critical thought. It turned out that the Bible was quite different from what I had expected. It was mostly history, as told through the lives of its characters. Much of it was gruesome, but I could still relate to many of the stories and learn valuable insights about human nature and how to deal with people. After reading the Bible, I found that it had been such a valuable experience that I leapt right into the scriptures of other religions to seek other valuable insights. I read a number of books on Buddhism, the Tau Te Ching, and a book by Mercea Eliade called Essential Sacred Writings from Around the World, which was a smorgasbord of essential scriptures from over 80 religions, including Islam. Many of these passages were poetic and powerful, and the Koranic ones got me curious about the Koran as a whole. A few years later, while attending business school, I came across several other references to the Koran, including an article that praised the Koran highly and claimed that it was the only book one needed to read. Shortly thereafter, I got a copy of Understanding Islam and the Muslims, published by The Embassy of Saudi Arabia’s Department of Islamic Affairs. This booklet presented a beautiful and compelling picture of Islam and the Islamic world, with many inspiring quotes from the Koran. It also had some intriguing passages, such as: Islam may seem exotic or even extreme in the modern world. Perhaps this is because religion does not dominate everyday life in the West today, whereas Muslims have religion always uppermost in their minds, and make no division between secular and sacred. They believe that

25

the Divine Law, the Shari’ah, should be taken very seriously, which is why issues related to religion are still so important.

At about this time, my impression of Islam began to darken. In 1992, the spiritual and political leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini, declared that Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was an Insult to Islam, and issued the following fatwa against him:48 I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world… that the author of the book titled The Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran, as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been declared madhur el dam (‘those whose blood must be shed’). I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islam again…

In addition to this fatwa, Iran also offered a bounty of several million dollars for the assassination of Salman Rushdie. This was a very disturbing development, but I was still willing to believe that Khomeini was an extremist who did not represent true Islam. His behavior, though, piqued my interest in the Koran even more. During this time, I graduated from business school, returned to my employer for a year, and then left to start my own business. A few months later, on February 26, 1993, the Twin Towers were bombed for the first time. Fortunately, the bombing only damaged the base of one tower and killed six people. The schemers behind the blast turned out to be a small group of Muslims who were led by a New Jersey resident named Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Again, I was willing to believe that these bombers were extremists who did not represent their faith. I decided, however, that it was time to read the Koran and find out where all this behavior was coming from. When I began reading the Koran in the summer of 1993, I expected something very profound, given the wonderful praise I had heard, the snippets I had seen, and the devastating actions committed by Muslim extremists. What a disappointment! After all of the build-up, I found the Koran to be a legalistic, domineering, and rather mean-spirited text that was also very disorganized. It seemed to jump from one topic to another almost randomly. It also had some very militant passages that specifically and repeatedly told Muslims not to be friends of Christians and Jews, and described in detail the properly devout way to divide booty after military conquests. While there were also well-reasoned sections that flew to the heights of inspiration, my over-all impression was so negative that I actually began to question the translation. The highlighter originally intended for the Koran’s most inspirational passages was used to mark its most troubling ones instead. Suspecting nefarious machinations on the part of the translator, N. J. Dawood, I decided to find out more about him. It turned out that he was an Iraqi, so I assumed that he was a Muslim. Later, I discovered that he was an Iraqi Jew, and this threw doubt on the translation’s fairness. 48

Salman Rushdie, by Jame Harrison, Twayne Publishers, New York, NY, 1992.

26

I then began searching for a more accurate and less disturbing version, and discovered one written by a true believing Muslim named Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal. Unfortunately, its content was essentially the same as Dawood’s translation. I was left with a feeling of foreboding, and a dark realization that, despite oft-repeated claims, the Koran was definitely not a book of peace. My consolation was that the Old Testament also has many violent passages, and even the New Testament had an occasional verse that one could say endorses violence,49 so I decided that the real test of a religion was not simply its scripture, but also the actions of its practitioners. I consoled myself with pleasant memories of my Muslim friends from work and volunteer activities. During this time, I happened to see a news show where Louis Farrakhan was being interviewed. Farrakhan had recently returned from a visit to several Islamic African nations and was telling the interviewer both about the terrible things that whites had done through the enslavement of Blacks, and also about the wonderful spirit of brotherhood he experienced while visiting Islamic Africa. When the interviewer asked Mr. Farrakhan about the fact that one of the Islamic countries he visited (Sudan) still practiced slavery, Farrakhan gave a two-pronged response. His first response was to claim that slavery was different and more humane over there. When the interviewer pressed him to describe what he meant, he said that it would be divisive to talk about it further, implying that if the interviewer pressed him, Farrakhan would terminate the interview. The interviewer, demonstrating his political correctness, ended this line of questioning. Until then, I had been unaware that slavery was still being practiced anywhere in the world. I was shocked to discover it in, of all places, Africa!50 At about this time, my wife and I purchased a home and began attending a local church, and I was soon drafted into the Sunday school program for the high school students. 49

The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, Matthew 10:34-39: Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Many people have accused Jesus of inciting violence in these verses. Christians have a different interpretation: they believe that these verses describe what happens when a person accepts Christ and leaves the religion of his family. As we will see in reports of what happens to people who convert from Islam to Christianity, provided later in this book, this interpretation is valid. This interpretation is further reinforced by the fact that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament (Micah 7:6), in a passage describing the Prophet Micah’s struggle to remain faithful to God during his wretched times, which preceded the reformations of Judah’s king Hezekiah. 50 While I haven’t been able to identify this exact interview, my memory was confirmed by finding an interview in the July 23, 1996 issue of The Final Call (the Nation of Islam’s weekly newspaper), where Minister Farrakhan questioned the motives of those who criticized slavery in the Sudan. In the interview, he implied that Sudan was being targeted “because this Islamic government is trying to build an Islamic nation.”

27

The lesson plans I used came from a publisher of religious materials, and, one day, as I was preparing for an upcoming lesson, I discovered that we were to do an investigation of other religions. To prepare, I had to go to churches of other denominations and develop a report for the students on what I found. The goal of the lesson was to demonstrate that all churches, regardless of denomination, were essentially teaching the same lessons and that we were all part of one big ecumenical family. I decided to make the lesson interesting by using it to investigate Islam. I picked up the yellow pages and found the local Islamic Society, called them up, and asked if I could come to one of their services. The person on the other end of the phone gladly welcomed me and suggested that I come over that Friday. I decided to take my highlighted Koran and questions with me. When I got there, the gentleman I spoke with was waiting for me and welcomed me in. It turned out that he was the leader of this Islamic Society, although he had no religious title. The first thing I noticed was that there were shoes all over the place just outside the worship area. Also, among the shoes, were dozens of women and children. When I asked about the women, children, and shoes, I was told that only men were allowed into the worship area, and they had to leave footwear, women, and children outside. The gentleman then did something very gracious. He invited me to participate in the service, and guided me to sit among the brethren on the carpet. We kneeled together with a quiet reverence, and I kept my eye on the others to make sure I followed the motions properly. Then a visiting cleric began to speak from the front. I cannot pretend to remember exactly what he said, but it was to this effect: At one time, Islam was the greatest faith on earth. We commanded the world; we had the greatest minds, and the noblest men. But now we are humiliated, a beaten people, dominated by Christian nations. Why? Because we have become corrupt. We have strayed from the true teachings of the Koran. If we want to regain our proper place in this world, we must return to Islam’s roots. Only through the teachings of the Holy Koran can we hope to achieve our mighty destiny.

As I listened, all I could think about was “What is this guy talking about?” We are all here in the United States; we are all free to worship as we wish. No one is persecuting any of us. No one is humiliating any of us. As for the rest of the world, no one is specifically targeting Muslims for persecution, except for rogue nations like Yugoslavia and arguably Russia. It was then that a disturbing realization began to dawn on me: The people I was sitting with saw the world in a completely different way. They did not view themselves as Americans, but as persecuted members of a nation dominated by Christians. I later discovered that this “nation” is the Ummah Islamia, which translates to English as the Community of Islam, or Nation of Islam. After the service, a group of men came over to talk with me. They were all very excited and friendly, and asked if I was ready to accept Allah as the one and only God, and declare Muhammad his prophet. I answered that I had some questions about the Koran that I would like to discuss first, and proceeded to open my Koran and ask about the passages that discussed

28

killing infidels, the proper sexual relations between a man and his slaves, and the proper way to split up booty after vanquishing an enemy. They were a bit disconcerted at my questions, but assured me that these kinds of behaviors were not required, and quickly invited me again to convert. I then asked whether Islam considered the Koran to be an addition to the Old and New Testaments, or something to be read instead of the Bible, noting that the Koran refers to many Biblical characters. The leader of the Society told me that he had never read the Bible because it was a corrupted work. This is when I had my second realization: If a leader could say this, then the Bible must not be valued by Muslims at all. At this point, I began to perceive looks of suppressed outrage among the brothers, though we were able to remain courteous. I told them that I was not ready to convert to Islam, but wished them well. We had a cordial, if awkward, goodbye. That Sunday, I decided to limit my discussion to Christian churches. I did not want to scare my students with what had I discovered about Islam. I was still not ready to give up on Islam, though. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric I heard, I still did not see anyone act in a frightening way. I was still able to cling to the comforting thought that the Middle East’s troubles came from regional factors, such as cultures, ethnic groups, or national policies. I tried to dismiss a growing perception that the actual cause of those troubles was a religion that was becoming a force in my own country. At this time, my wife and I had no children to fill our four-bedroom house. To keep ourselves from rattling around too much, and also get the house to help pay for itself, we rented out a bedroom, and at one point rented it to an Islamic immigrant whom I will call “M.” I knew that we were dealing with someone from a different culture from the first phone call. While most people accept the advertised rent as given, M negotiated. He was an independent contractor from another state who was assigned to a local firm for a few months. I suggested that he come over to see the room and verify whether it was worth what we were asking. After visiting our home, M said that he liked the room but it was too expensive. He then offered to pay substantially less. Knowing that we charged a fair price, I politely turned him down. I figured that this was the end of it. However, a few days later, M called again. He asked if the room was still available and I told him it was. It appeared that, after looking around, he was now ready to rent from us. But again, he tried to negotiate. Again, I politely refused. The following week we got another call, and again we went through the same discussion. I realized that he was trying to see if we would lower our price out of desperation to fill an empty room. What he did not know was that my wife and I had decided long ago that it was better to go without rent than to compromise on any of our terms, because doing so would set a bad precedent. Also, I knew that he needed a room more than we needed a renter, so again, I politely turned him down. Later that week, he called again.

29

Finally, he was willing to rent on our terms. But the relentless haggling we experienced was a concern, and I worried that this habit would create other problems. We almost turned down his application, but, with an eye toward the law’s requirement that we not act prejudicially against anyone because of race, creed, or national origin, we felt that refusing him might lead to legal problems. So, with some trepidation, we opened our home to M. It turned out that M was a wonderful renter. He was clean, considerate, and pretty much kept to himself because of the huge workload of his project. We were aware that he was a Muslim, so we initially stayed away from personal subjects like religion. As time went on, though, we all got to know each other better. For example, he told us that he had a big family that moved to the United States a few years earlier, but they had kept pretty much to themselves and had few acquaintances beyond their faith community. We came to realize that, because of this isolation, our cohabitation was as much a cultural watershed for him as it was for us. As the months went by, M and I developed a friendship, and, before he left, we actually prayed over an occasional meal together. When it was my turn, I directed my prayer strictly to God in order to avoid turning our communal meal into something negative, and our conversations always stuck strictly to the positive. From time to time, I would ask M questions about Islam that bothered me. For example, we once discussed the concept of multiple wives. M explained that, even though it was lawful to have more than one wife, most people only had one, because only the wealthy could afford more. Answers like this naturally begged more questions, to which M simply claimed ignorance – he told me he would have to discuss these questions with an Islamic scholar before responding. After a few months, M’s contract ended and he packed his bags. Before he left, however, he handed us two videos by Ahmet Deedat, a noted and revered Islamic scholar. One of the videos was Is Jesus God? In it, Mr. Deedat debated the doctrine of the Trinity with Dr. Anis Shorrosh, an Egyptian Christian whom I had never heard of. The other was Is the Bible the Inerrant word of God? In this video, Mr. Deedat debated the validity of the Bible with Jimmy Swaggart,51 who was definitely not a person I would choose to represent Christianity in a debate. Despite the questionable qualifications of these Christian representatives, I sat down and watched both videos, because I had promised M that I would. Both debates were actually quite interesting and informative, and the Christian representatives held their own admirably against the truly learned Mr. Deedat. Both debates ultimately hinged on the validity of the Bible, which Deedat could only chip away at by pointing out some minor inconsistencies that could easily be explained as transcription errors or matters of interpretation. The impression that these debates left me with was that, whether or not you believed in the Bible’s validity, your pre-conceived notions were reinforced. After a series of indecisive scrimmages, the interlocutors ended each debate with a respectful exchange of words, reminiscent of the diplomatic “agree to disagree” language of the Cold War in the ‘80s. 51

Fundamentalist Christian televangelist popular in the 1980s, whose reputation was severely damaged by a prostitution scandal in 1988.

30

While watching these videos, though, I noticed that they had both been edited after taping. Word balloons frequently appeared, with arrows pointing to the heads of the Christian representatives, making nasty little comments about their arguments or personal lives, intending to ridicule them. The only balloon that said anything positive was one pointing to the head of a gentleman in the audience, telling the viewer that Cat Stevens, Islam’s favorite convert, was in the house. If the debates had been unedited, I would have thought them fair. Certainly, the people representing Christianity had no idea that the tapes were going to be doctored. Through stealth, the editors had transformed these debates into overt propaganda. Additionally, the selection of Jimmy Swaggart to represent Christianity was a set-up. The editing tactics displayed a mean spirit, with no sense of fairness, and they did not cast a favorable light on Islam. Instead, they revealed how winning was more important to the editors than presenting an honest inquiry. Moreover, the questions used in these debates, “Is Jesus God?” and “Is the Bible the Infallible word of God?” imply that these are bedrock doctrines of Christianity. If Mr. Deedat could prove that Jesus is not God, and that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, then he would be able to claim that his Christian opponents were wrong, and therefore Christianity itself was wrong. The implication was that, if Christianity was wrong, then Islam was right, even though the doctrines of Islam were never put in the spotlight for critical analysis. In truth, the questions raised by these videos did not validate or invalidate Christianity because they are ones that Christians themselves have debated since Christianity’s beginning. On the nature of Jesus, there are (or were) Catholic, Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, Gnostic, and other Christian doctrines. With regard to the Bible, the titles of the New Testament books themselves answer the question of whether they are “the Infallible word of God.” We have the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude. Obviously, these books were written by men believed to be inspired by God. No intelligent and informed Christian would claim that they are the “word of God” Himself in the way understood by Muslims, who say the Koran is literally the perfect, immutable, and eternal word spoken directly by Allah. It should come as no surprise that the video, Is the Bible the infallible word of God?, did not debate the subject claimed. Instead of discussing whether the Bible was the word of God, Deedat and Swaggart debated the Bible’s accuracy. The reason the editors chose this video’s title is because it alludes to what Muslims claim for the Koran, not because of what Christians claim for the Bible. Despite the irrelevance of these two questions to Christianity’s legitimacy, these videos were presented as if Christianity was on trial. Meanwhile, the tenets of Islam remained in the shadows, unchallenged. When I was done watching these videos, I wondered whether anyone ever videotaped similar debates entitled “Is Muhammad God’s Apostle?” or “Is the Koran the Infallible Word of God?” Then it dawned on me that such a debate was nearly impossible, because arguing against Muhammad and the Koran are “insults to Islam” that would invite death threats. Since that time,

31

I have searched for recorded debates on my two hypothetical questions. Sure enough, while there are monologues written by people hiding on the internet, I have found almost no recordings of reasoned face-to-face debates. The few debates that do exist treat both Muhammad and the Koran very gently, so as to not offend the Islamic debater. Interestingly, even under these favorable circumstances, Muhammad and the Koran hold up poorly.52 My wife also had some interesting experiences. While working toward a Master’s degree, she participated in a team project that included a female Muslim student. My wife frequently complained about not being able to organize team meetings because the Muslim woman refused to agree to a time without first getting her husband’s permission. Later, I read about an honor killing in the U.S. that was motivated by a Muslim family’s disgrace when a daughter rejected Islamic ways and cavorted like a normal American teenager. Surprisingly, the court gave a lenient sentence to the murderer in deference to the family’s cultural background. Then came news about the Taliban during the spring and summer of 2001. I sensed that some kind of line had been crossed when I read about the Taliban’s decision to destroy two ancient standing Buddha statues. Their reason for blasting away these huge and irreplaceable artifacts was that they represented idolatry and a polytheist religion. The final straw was when I heard that the Taliban imprisoned, and later expelled, a group of International Aid workers because they clandestinely evangelized to Afghanis. Even worse, the Afghanis who converted to Christianity were put on trial for their lives. At this time, I began to talk about my concern that Islam was not the religion of peace that Muslims claimed it was. My fear was that Islam’s followers were beginning to assert themselves in ways that could ultimately threaten the United States. For the most part, people looked at me as if I was crazy, possibly even politically incorrect. Even after Osama bin Laden’s bombing of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and the downing of United Airlines flight 93, many of the people I spoke with remained in denial about Islam, going so far as to say that my translations of the Koran must have been forgeries, written by people hostile to this peaceful religion. They refused to even read the Koran. One person told me emphatically that a person did not have to read the Koran to understand Muslims. He, like so many people I knew, accepted the notion that Islam was a religion of peace without ever checking the facts. He insisted that the violent Muslims were misinterpreting the Koran rather than acting on its instructions. Besides, he declared, Christianity also had a bloody history, so we had no right to complain. I wondered if these people realized that, according to Islam, it is unlawful for Infidels to even live on the Arabian Peninsula. Did they know that Osama bin Laden’s fury at the U.S. was based on this prohibition, because the United States fulfilled a request by the Saudi family to put a military base on Saudi soil, to protect them from Saddam Hussein after he annexed Kuwait? Did 52

To see examples of these debates, visit www.ankerberg.com/Articles/islam/IS0100W1.htm and www.thethingsthatmattermost.org/gallery11202005.htm. You can also conduct your own web search.

32

they think that this prohibition was something that a peaceful religion would create? Did they think that it was appropriate for this violation of Islamic Law to be used to justify the killing thousands of civilians on September 11, 2001? I hoped not. The most disturbing thing I remember from September 11 was watching the Twin Towers burn on TV, with people jumping from the windows, and then staring in disbelief as the towers crashed to the ground. I was in shock, and so was the nation. After a stunned silence, a bewildered cry rose up: “Why do they hate us?” The second most disturbing thing I remember was something said at the prayer service organized by George Bush a few days later. At the service, President Bush made a dramatic effort to bring about healing and proclaim a universal mourning among people of all faiths for the terrible loss. He made a point of portraying the hijackers as terrorists who did not represent true Islam. After his speech, he was followed by a series of religious leaders who took turns speaking and offering prayers. What struck me about the Islamic cleric was that, while others discussed the terrible loss of life, the cleric talked specifically about the loss of innocents. His language gave me the distinct impression that the term “innocents” was not meant to include all of the victims. Shortly thereafter, I read about how northern Nigeria had adopted Shari’ah and quickly moved to sentence a woman to death by stoning for getting pregnant out of wedlock. After a world-wide protest, she was ultimately released from this sentence, but only because of a loop-hole: she got pregnant before the law was enacted. For me, this outcome was no consolation. It certainly would not prevent other stonings. I was also dismayed to note that, while this one woman’s sentence was making headlines, the plight of thousands of Christians in Islamic countries barely registered in the news. This was particularly true in Sudan, where hundreds of thousands were being systematically displaced, enslaved or killed while the UN debated over whether the actions constituted genocide. Finally, our experience in Iraq during and after the two Gulf Wars uncovered Islam’s true intentions toward the West. Let me explain: At the end of the first Gulf War, the U.S. made a decision to stop its advance at the Iraqi border, rather than continue toward Baghdad to topple Saddam’s reign. It did this because the Sunni Arab nations in its coalition would not support further action, which could have shifted power into the hands of Iraq’s Shiite majority. As a result, the United States was prevented from overtly supporting the Shiite rebellion that was taking place in Iraq, as it did later with Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance. Instead, the U.S. could only provide low-level, indirect support. Saddam subsequently crushed the rebellion and killed hundreds of thousands of Shiite Iraqis. Who did the press blame for this atrocity? They blamed the U.S., for standing by and letting the slaughter happen. Our press never seemed to put one and one together to recognize that the real cause of the slaughter was a longstanding hostility between Sunnis and Shiites. Instead, they labeled the bloodbath within Iraq as a failure of U.S. policy.

33

Because many Americans are quick to believe their accusers, the popular sentiment in the U.S. was that the U.S. was to blame. Therefore, U.S. leaders vowed that they would not let the same mistake happen again. When the second war with Iraq started, the U.S. vowed not to leave the Shiites vulnerable. It then set out to establish an Iraqi government that would give Shiites limited political power through free and democratic institutions. While protests against the war came as no surprise, most Americans were shocked when the newly liberated Shiites turned against the Coalition that liberated them. Their response could be summarized as: “Thank you very much for ousting Saddam. Now get out!” This sentiment was openly declared by Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, a Shiite leader who loomed large during the war, but died later that year in a bomb blast which killed over 80 people.53 As reported by Newsday, al-Hakim sent this less-than-friendly message to the liberators of his people:54 “If the Americans enter Iraq because they want to rescue our people from this evil regime, and then they leave matters to the Iraqi people themselves, then everyone will be pleased,”…"But if the Americans come in with the intention of controlling Iraq…then they’re going to face strong opposition from all the Iraqi people.” He warned that a prolonged occupation would give the war the appearance of a crusade. “This will inflame religious tensions,” al-Hakim said. “It will show that the Americans want to humiliate and subdue the Iraqi people. It will bring us back to the days of colonial rule, and that will renew nationalist feelings in Iraq.” He deflected a question about whether his Badr fighters would attack U.S. forces during an occupation. “We have been fighting for our freedom for a long time,” he said, guardedly. “We will continue to do so.”

Not exactly the kind of warm welcome that Americans had hoped for from the Shiites, especially because a prolonged occupation was necessary simply to develop a constitution and establish other foundations of democracy. This was nothing like France after its liberation from Hitler. Instead of praising the liberators for their sacrifice, many Shiite leaders chastised themselves for being helpless for all of those years. It was a deep insult to be rescued by a Coalition of Infidel nations led by the U.S., which is popularly known in their region as “the Great Satan.” Even more humiliating was the fact that the Coalition of the Willing wiped out Saddam’s regime in mere weeks. In the months that followed, the hundreds of thousands who were killed by Saddam seemed to be forgotten, but every unintended civilian death or rogue action by an American was portrayed as brutal imperialist oppression by foreign Infidels. While 53 54

Iraqi Shiites Flex Muscle Even as They Mourn, by Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, September 1, 2003. Shiite Cleric may be a force after Saddam, by Mohamad Bazzi, Newsday, March 18, 2003.

34

Shiites and Sunnis blew up each other’s mosques, Coalition forces found themselves in stand-offs with insurgents who used mosques as shields, knowing that any Coalition attack on them would be seen as a direct attack on Islam, worthy of retaliatory jihad. U.S. leaders had expected remnants of Saddam’s reign to continue an insurgency, but they were blindsided when they found that some of the Governing Council’s greatest threats were Shiite clerics. For example, at the beginning of 2004, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, the religious leader of Iraq’s Shiites, decided that the elections were not being scheduled quickly enough, and nearly derailed the entire transition process with a Shiite uprising. Fortunately, he later consented to the Coalition’s plan, but only after Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council visited him repeatedly, and after UN representatives convinced him that an earlier date was not possible because of the work needed to prepare for a vote. Later, on April 4, 2004, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr incited an uprising that overran Najaf and quickly spread to other cities. On May 7th, one of his senior aides, Shiite Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli, gave a sermon described by the Washington Times:55 Sheik al-Bahadli said $350 would be given to anyone who captures a British soldier and offered $150 for killing one. “Any Iraqi who takes a female soldier can keep her as a slave or gift to himself,” he said. He also offered 25,000 dinars for killing a member of the Iraqi Governing Council – but in the worthless, old Saddam-era dinars, a sign of contempt for U.S.-appointed leaders. The cleric waved an assault rifle, prompting cries of “jihad” and “God is great” each time he lifted it.

Through a combination of intense diplomatic and military actions, this crisis was also contained, but hostility toward the U.S. remained high. Since then, our military’s postcombat goal has changed. It no longer expects to win the hearts of Iraqis. Instead, it wants to lower its profile by placing Iraqis on the front line, while also controlling the Iraqis enough to keep them from turning on each other. In doing so, it hopes to buy time for the fledgling Iraqi government to establish itself enough to prevent a revolution or civil war, so that the Coalition can leave without creating the appearance of retreating in disgrace. This is important because the appearance of retreat could become a rallying cry for militant Muslims eager to go on the offensive against the U.S. and its allies. In fact, hatred toward the United States was so strong that on July 4, 2004, George Sada, spokesman for Ayad Allawi, the newly appointed Shiite Prime Minister of Iraq, announced: “If [a guerrilla] was in opposition against the Americans, that will be justified because it was an occupation force. We will give them freedom.”56 Throughout the Governing Council’s administration, America was blamed for ruthless or callous indifference to civilian lives when military actions caused civilian casualties. 55

Cleric rips U.S. about Iraq abuse, by Scheherezade Faramarzi, Associated Press, The Washington Times, May 8, 2004. 56 Iraqi leader considers amnesty for insurgents, by Jim Krane, Associated Press, July 4, 2004.

35

Similarly, Americans were blamed for not providing adequate security when insurgents bombed a public place and killed dozens or hundreds of civilians. But how did Iraqi’s feel about American deaths? On April 3, 2004, just a few days after an ambush on American civilians that left them dead, mutilated, and burned, Sheik Fawzi Nameq addressed 600 worshippers at a Mosque near the ambush site. He told his listeners: “Islam does not condone the mutilation of the bodies of the dead.”57 He was silent about the murders themselves. In reading about the Shiites’ hateful reward to the United States for its sacrifice of blood, money, and international prestige, I finally recognized the true nature of their problem with us. The fact that it took me so long to perceive it is not the fault of the Iraqi Shiites. They had been shouting it at the tops of their lungs for a long time, as have the Sunnis. We in the United States have simply not understood their message, because their reason for outrage is incomprehensible to us. There appears to be a three-part reason for Muslim outrage against the United States, and the West in general: 1. According to the Koran, any Insult to Islam is a blasphemy that is subject to severe punishment and even death. 2. According to Islam, the Koran is the inerrant, eternal, and ultimate word of Allah, issued by his final and greatest Prophet. This implies that Muslims, as followers of the Koran, are morally superior to the followers of any other religion. As such, Muslims alone are authorized by Allah to establish law. As the Koran says:58 [3.110] Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong [through Islamic law], and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book59 had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

3. Thus the rescue of an Islamic country’s people by a group of Infidel nations, regardless of the bloodiness of that country’s Muslim ruler, is an unwelcome exposure of Islamic weakness. Additionally, the Coalition’s role in setting up a democratic and secular government is, to devout Muslims, an overt usurpation of Islam’s Allah-given authority over mankind. To these Muslims, the “perverted transgressors,” otherwise known as “the People of the Book (Christians and Jews),” are sitting in the seat of power rightfully held by Allah, dictating terms to Allah’s people. This is the ultimate Insult to Islam, which claims to be the steward of divine laws given to Muslims by Allah himself. More generally, Infidels insult and humiliate Muslims simply by being successful while Muslims and Islamic nations languish in poverty and chaos. Unwilling to question the usefulness of Allah’s perfect laws, the only acceptable explanation for the abject state of Muslims is that there 57

Muslim clerics condemn mutilation – but not slaying, by Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press, April 3, 2004. The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Lahore, 1934, 1937. 59 Christians, Jews, and Zoroatrians. 58

36

is a vast conspiracy of Jews and Christians against them. This is the conspiracy to humiliate Muslims that Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad railed against in his speech. Our Insult to Islam is that we Infidels have not learned our proper place, in lowly submission to Muslims. Infidels are to be tolerated, the Koran says, but only on terms that the Koran sets. These terms require subservience. Any relation with an Infidel nation that does not explicitly acknowledge Islam’s superiority is, by itself, a humiliation. My conclusions about Islam were confirmed when I read In the Presence of My Enemies, which is the autobiographical account of Gracia Burnham’s year-long ordeal as a hostage of the Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic terrorist group in the Philippines. Mrs. Burnham recorded the mindset of these militants, who were engaged in a long-standing insurrection against the Philippine government. This mindset is paranoid and aggressive, as the following quote reveals:60 [Martin Burnham, Gracia’s husband] had an interesting conversation with a captor named Ustedes Hail. This man was one of the most embittered fighters, passionate about regaining the Muslim homeland. He said the Abu Sayyaf didn’t want to have to do things like the recent massacre at the jeepney, “but the Christian world has just pushed us too far, and we’re sick of it. When people are oppressed, you can’t hold them back. It’s just going to be this way until we are given what we want.” Martin kept his cool…and gently probed for specifics: “Let’s see – just what all is included in your homeland?” “Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Jolo, Basilan, Southern Mindanao…,” he began naming off the islands in dispute. “So, if you got these…would that be the end of your struggle?” “Oh, no, no” came the quick reply. “That would be only the beginning. Then we would be obligated to take all of Mindanao; after all, it’s a wealthy island. “And then once we took Mindanao, we would take all of the Visayas [referring to islands in the midsection of the Philippines, such as Cebu, Samar, Leyte, Negros, and Panay]. “Then when we were done with the Visayas, we would go next to Luzon. “When all of the Philippines belonged to us, we’d move on to Thailand and other countries where there is such oppression. You see, Islam is for the whole world.”

I do not mean to imply that all Muslims subscribe to the views of a militant member of the Abu Sayyaf. However, with militant Islamic activity taking place in the Philippines, India, Thailand, Russia, Spain, the Netherlands, England, and the U.S., to name a few, and with Osama bin Laden being one of the most respected “leaders” in the Islamic world, it is clear that this terrorist’s opinion was not uncommon. Moreover, his opinion agreed exactly with what I saw in the Koran. 60

In the Presence of My Enemies by Gracia Burnham, 2003, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., page 170.

37

At this point, I arrived at what I believe to be a good basic understanding of the nature of Islam. Islam is not a religion as we in the United States usually define it, because Islam does not consider religion to be a private matter. Instead, Islam claims the power of law – a very public matter. Furthermore, its laws grant legal and economic rights according to each person’s religion, and it gives Muslims political power over non-Muslims. It also gives Muslims a moral imperative to conquer all of the world’s non-Muslims and establish Islamic governance over them. Thus Islam can be better understood as a political ideology than as a religion. Islam feels respected only when all other powers, be they religious or political, submit to it. Islam also declares that its adherents can justly exert lethal force when they believe Islam has been insulted by a lack of proper respect for its superiority. Nowadays, when I hear someone say that Islam is a religion of peace, it reminds me of a line from Tim Burton’s disturbing comedy, Mars Attacks: “We have come in peace, please surrender the planet immediately!” Paradoxically, the Muslims I have met in this country have, for the most part, been educated and courteous. They treasure their families and are capable of having a winning sense of humor. So how can these good and kind people believe in a faith with such violent tendencies? The only explanations I can come up with are these: •

Muslims living in the United States do not present the true face of Islam. In the United States, most Muslims are either secular, very liberal, or are constrained from fully practicing their faith because they feel so outnumbered by Infidels that they must suppress their religious imperatives. This does not mean that these Muslims are happy about not being in power. True believers cannot help but feel humiliated by living in a place where people shamelessly disregard Islamic law. The liberal and secular Muslims who have immigrated to the United States have done so through a process of self-selection. Most truly devout Muslims would not choose to move to the United States, or anywhere else in the West, unless they intended Jihad. However, Europe may be acting as a bellwether for the U.S. in this regard. Its experiences are revealing that, once Muslims become well established in Western lands, they begin to establish their own insular communities and assert themselves politically. The thought that many Muslims in the U.S. are either liberal or secular should not give Americans comfort. Firstly, their current liberality or secularism does not guarantee that they will not become radicals later, nor does it guarantee that their children will not radicalize. Secondly, the average Muslim family has two to four times as many children as the average Western family.61 Given this trend, it is inevitable that Islamic populations

61

Examples of the average number of children per woman (fertility rate) in Islamic nations: 1990 (Source: Population Reference Bureau): Afghanistan - 7.1, Algeria - 6.1, Egypt - 4.7, Iran - 6.3, Iraq - 7.3, Jordan - 5.9, Kuwait - 3.7, Lebanon - 3.7, Libya - 5.5, Morocco - 4.8, Oman - 7.2, Saudi Arabia - 7.2, Sudan - 6.4, Syria - 6.8, Tunisia - 4.1, Turkey - 3.6, Yemen - 7.4.

38

will grow faster than other populations, and this growth will ultimately give Islam the political power to legislate Shari’ah. Thus, over time, with the aid of democracy’s principle of majority rule, the freedoms that Westerners cherish as the hallmarks of Free Democracy could be legislated away. There are many Muslims whom Westerners would call good people, but this does not mean that they are good Muslims. This explanation has a darker corollary: there are many people who are good Muslims, but this does not mean that they are what Westerners would call good people. Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini are prime examples of people whom many in the Islamic world call “good Muslims.” One experience with a good person who was not a good Muslim occurred during a college engagement where I did some work with a Muslim student. When we began, she was nervous about being alone with me for an extended time because this might violate Islamic Law. However, as her confidence in me grew, she began to tell me about the many challenges she faced as a young person growing up in two worlds: the Muslim world of her family, and the secular world that surrounded all other aspects of her life. One way her struggle revealed itself was in her two cell phones. One was a gift from her father, and the other was a secret phone she bought for herself. Why the secret phone? Because the one her father gave her was actually used as a means of control. He “generously” insisted on paying the bill because it allowed him to scrutinize her calls and interrogate her on them. He also had complete control over her finances, even though she worked and went to college. He audited every bank statement and paycheck from her parttime job. He accounted for every penny, and only allowed her to withdraw small amounts each week to pay for essentials. With this she managed to scrape together enough money to open a secret bank account, which she used to pay for the secret cell phone. She also complained about other methods used by her father to control her life, which centered on the tactic of giving a gift and then almost immediately making a request or demand. She eventually reached a point where the gifts meant nothing to her – she loathed them. They were not acts of love or kindness, but bribery and manipulation. It did not surprise me that her father was doing these things, because they aligned with some of the teachings of Islam that I had encountered. What did surprise me was that she, as a Muslim, complained about his controlling ways. So I asked her: “Haven’t you ever read the Koran?” ”No,” this college student replied. I believe that this situation is very common. Many of the “Muslims” we meet are actually Muslims by inheritance or the cajoling of peers. Their claimed religion has little to do with Meanwhile, the average fertility rate for European countries is 1.4. In Japan, it’s also 1.4. According to the 2000 census, the fertility rate in the United States is 1.96 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).

39

their actual lives, other than superficial rituals and customs. In fact, this friend’s only apparent knowledge of her faith was in her holiday celebrations, her eating and bathing habits, and her adamant refusal of a Christmas gift because she was NOT a Christian. •

Islam actually does teach Muslims to be good in many ways, but only to other Muslims.62 Islam teaches Muslims how to be generous with other Muslims and treat them with honor and respect. These virtues, however, do not extend to people of other faiths beyond a superficial courtesy at best, particularly after those people have rejected opportunities to convert to Islam. Such people are no longer considered “innocent.” Therefore, they are no longer protected by the Koran’s words of moderation. As the Koran says: [48.29] PICKTHAL: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves…

Clearly, the virtues we often hear about in the Muslim community should not give us “disbelievers” comfort. Hitler also had a beautiful utopian vision for his Aryan race, filled with good, virtuous people and happy children. His only dilemma was that it could only come about after those who did not fit his vision were eliminated. He did not want to kill non-Aryans; it was just an unfortunate necessity. He went on to propel his country through a massive effort to dehumanize those who did not fit his utopia, particularly Jews and Gypsies, so that their slaughter would be less traumatizing to the good Aryans who carried out his Final Solution. I have treasured my friendships with many Muslims. I believe that the hearts of these people are far kinder than what Islam calls for. Unfortunately, it also appears necessary to confront them about the nature of Islam, because Islam represents a direct threat to the freedoms of all Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Atheists, etc. living in the West. Just as important, it is a direct threat to the freedoms these Muslim friends came to the United States to enjoy. Citizens of Free Democracies have largely been misinformed about Islam’s true nature, in a way that leaves them vulnerable to attack. Leaders of both Muslim and Western nations have falsely led them to believe that nations can be both Freely Democratic and Islamic, and that the freedoms we enjoy, particularly religious freedoms, can prosper in the Islamic world. This book will give you an opportunity to examine the foundational texts of Islam, as well as their modern interpretations, so you can draw your own conclusions. I hope that you will be left with a deeper understanding of Islam’s true nature, how it affects each of us, and what we can do to preserve our freedoms.

62

This statement is a bit of an over-generalization. Actually, Muslims are frequently taught to view members of competing Muslim sects with nearly the same contempt as Infidels.

40

Chapter 3: Koranic teachings that shape Islamic nations The state of Muhammad’s world when he revealed the Koran To start this investigation of Islam’s Holy texts, we can begin by reviewing some basics about Muhammad and the Koran:63 Muhammad, the man who recited the Koran, was born around 570 A.D. in Mecca, a trading post in the untamed and tribal Arabian Peninsula.64 At this time, Mecca and its surroundings lacked the rule of law, and various Pagan, Jewish, and Christian tribes competed ruthlessly with each other for scarce resources. Aside from the violence between tribes, life within a tribe could be equally brutal. Incest was common, as were polygynous practices that could give a man numerous wives, and infant daughters were considered such a burden that parents regularly buried them alive to dispose of them. Mecca was also famous for being home to a place of worship called the Ka’aba. This place of worship was used by all Arabic tribes, and they filled it with their idols, as well as icons of Jesus and Mary. Mecca was controlled by a pagan tribe known as the Quraysh, and the Ka’aba was controlled by a Qurayshi clan called the Hashim, into which Muhammad was born. After Muhammad was orphaned at an early age, he was cared for by his grandfather, Abd alMuttalib, for several years. When his grandfather also died, Muhammad’s guardianship passed on to his uncle, Abu Talib. Muhammad would accompany his uncle on trading caravans, and through these travels he established himself as an effective and honest business person. This attracted the attention of a wealthy widow named Khadijah, who hired Muhammad and later married him. In his caravan travels, Muhammad was exposed to the doctrines of both Jews and Christians. He also learned about Christian doctrine from Khadijah’s cousin, Waraqa ibn Nawfal, who was a learned Christian monk. The beliefs of these people impressed Muhammad and, as a young man, he began the habit of retiring to a cave for prayer and meditation. One day, Muhammad came home from this cave and told Khadijah of a remarkable event: while he was either sleeping or in a trance, the Angel Gabriel had come to him and commanded him to “Recite!” When Muhammad responded in confusion, the angel clarified: “Recite in the name of

63

This history is based on the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, written by ibn Ishaq, called Sirat Rasoul Allah, which translates to Life of the Apostle of Allah. This biography was written in approximately 780 AD, but was lost, and exists only through the abridged version of the original produced by Ibn Hirsharn in the early 800s. An abridged translation of this biography entitled The Life of Muhammad Apostle of Allah was written by Michael Edwardes and published by the Folio Society in London, UK, in 1964. 64 This book quotes numerous Islamic sources that use C.E., meaning “Common Era,” instead of A.D., which stands for Anno Domini (Latin for “The year of our Lord”).

41

your Lord who created Man from clots of blood.” “Recite! Your Lord is the Most Bountiful One, who by the pen taught man what he did not know.” Muhammad told his wife that, when he awoke, it seemed like these words had been “inscribed upon my heart.” And so began Muhammad’s ministry, which began humbly, with his wife Khadijah as his first and only convert. For many years, his followers were limited to members of his family. Over time, though, he began to find new followers among the poor in his community. Muhammad spoke of Islam, which means “submission” (to the will of Allah), as a restoration of the perfect and true religion of Allah, which was imperfectly practiced by the Jews and Christians. His affinity toward Jews and Christians at this time was so great that Muhammad had his followers adopt the Jewish practice of praying in the direction of Jerusalem. Muhammad’s revelations during that time, known as the Meccan revelations, are notably ecumenical and inclusive with regard to Jews and Christians, whom he called “people of the book.” The content of these verses tended toward poetry and preaching. As Muhammad’s band of followers grew, the pagan tribes began to feel threatened, and started to persecute them. Muhammad responded by sending some of his followers across the Red Sea to Christian Ethiopia for refuge in 615. The persecution of his followers continued, though, and in 619 he was devastated by two tragedies: both his wife Khadijah and his uncle Abu Talib, in their 60’s, died. This loss was even worse because Abu Talib’s leadership in Muhammad’s clan helped protect him for years, and the new leader of Muhammad’s clan was a sworn enemy. In the face of these disasters, Muhammad had a remarkable dream, which became famously known as the Night Journey. In this dream, the angel Gabriel set Muhammad on a winged donkey named Burak and whisked him to Jerusalem, from which he ascended through the seven heavens and met Allah himself. Interestingly, on the basis of this dream, rather than any physical event, Jerusalem was declared to be the third most holy religious site in Islam. This remarkable dream was soon followed by a real event that was nearly as amazing. While Muhammad had been suffering persecution, twelve traders from Yathrib, a city about 250 miles northeast of Mecca, converted to Islam during a pilgrimage to Mecca and had brought their new religion back with them, proselytizing enthusiastically. In 620, Muhammad met another group of traders from Yathrib, where he now enjoyed an excellent reputation, and their conversation changed history. Apparently, two of the Pagan Arab tribes in Yathrib had been disputing among themselves and, in the process, were ruining the city. Muhammad’s reputation led these traders to make him a proposal: Would Muhammad consider moving to Yathrib and acting as an arbitrator between the tribes? Muhammad accepted this proposal and migrated there with his Meccan followers. Once in Yathrib, Muhammad used his position to make himself ruler of the city. In the process, Yathrib was renamed Medina, which means City of the Prophet. His new authority was officially declared in 622 through a celebrated document known as the Medina Charter (see Appendix A).

42

As ruler of Medina, Muhammad became concerned with matters of governance, and his revelations assumed new tones. Instead of inspiration and poetics, they were primarily legal pronouncements, war rallies, and threats against political opponents. It is through this transformation of tone that Islam assumed its mandates to conquer and rule. In the process of ruling, Muhammad and his recitations also established Islamic Law. After becoming the ruler of Medina, Muhammad undertook a series of diplomatic and military operations that, by 630, had captured Mecca, slain Muhammad’s opponents, and conquered all of the tribes that had formerly harassed Muhammad and his believers. With the submission of Mecca, Muhammad was no longer the ruler of a city, but of a state. Word of his victories and religion spread rapidly, and the appeal of his rule by law drew eager adherents throughout a lawless land. Two of the tribes that had harassed Muhammad in Medina were Jewish, and it was both their rejection of him as a Prophet and their treachery toward him that soured Muhammad toward Jews. Some of the Koran’s harshest verses come from this period, as did Muhammad’s decision to change the direction of prayer (called the qibla) from Jerusalem to Mecca, whose Kabba he claimed was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael. By the time Muhammad died, just two years after his victory over the Meccans, Islam had spread across nearly the entire Arabian Peninsula and was pressing toward the territories of Byzantium and Persia. Rallying around the memory of their beloved Prophet, the conquering Muslims were virtually unstoppable. In 633, the hapless Persian Empire lost Mesopotamia to Muhammad’s successor, Caliph65 Abu Bakr. In 636, it fell completely under the sword of Caliph Umar.66 In 634 Abu Bakr’s troops won a victory over the Byzantines in Palestine, and Umar proceeded to appropriate large chunks of Byzantine territory for Islam, including Syria and Jerusalem. In the ensuing years, Muslims won military victories across all of North Africa, and by the early 700s had overrun the Spanish peninsula and even occupied portions of southern France. Muhammad’s written legacy for his followers is the Koran, as recorded by his scribes (known as remembrancers), and compiled by the Caliphs who succeeded him. Muslims believe that the Koran is a compendium of Allah’s messages, as recited by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, who then recited them to his remembrancers. To appreciate the Koran’s significance, consider this quote from The Koran for Dummies:67 Muslims view the Koran in its original form and language as the literal and unaltered word of God [Allah], preserved for all times to come. When Muslims say, “God says,” or “the Koran says,” they are in fact using different words to quote one source – namely God himself.

65

A leader of an Islamic polity, regarded as a successor of Muhammad and by tradition always male. – The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. Muslims consider the Caliph to be Allah’s vicegerent (administrative deputy) on earth. Also referred to as Calif, Kaliph, Kalif, Khalif, Khalifa, and Khalifah. 66 Also referred to as ‘Umar or Omar. 67 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Receiving Revelation Straight from the Source, page 9.

43

The Koran provides a direct relationship from its source (God) to its audience (humanity). As such, Muslims have a deep reverence for the Koran. In…traditional understandings of Islam, if you express doubt that the Koran is the word of God, then you have uttered words of disbelief.

With this understanding of how the Koran’s revelations came into being, the issues they were designed to address, and the authority they have over believers, we are almost ready to investigate the message of the Koran and its affect on people today. But before we begin, there is one more question to consider: Who are we, as non-Muslim Westerners who are ignorant of the Arabic language, to make such an investigation?

Is it legitimate for a Westerner to critique the Koran? One of the first things a defender of Islam will say when a Westerner critiques the Koran is that, because the Koran is the “literal and unaltered” word of Allah, any translation from the original language is not the true Koran. At best, it is a mere interpretation, and, because no translation is the actual word of Allah, any criticism based on a translation is invalid. At first glance, this assertion seems plausible, especially to a Westerner intimidated by a Muslim’s rebuke. However, if one challenges this logic, it quickly falls apart, demonstrating that it is nothing more than a ruse meant to discourage non-Muslims from commenting on the Koran. This assertion, which implies that the only people qualified to critique the Koran are those who can read it in its original language, is invalid for four reasons: 1. Most of the world’s Muslims do not speak Arabic.68 The assertion implies that Muslims who do not speak Arabic cannot understand the true meaning of the Koran. Hence they cannot truly understand their own religion, and they are not qualified to speak about its holy texts. This conclusion would be a big surprise to most Muslims. 2. The language of the Koran is NOT modern Arabic. The language of the Koran is Classical Arabic. During the recent rise of Pan-Arabism, this language has ironically been renamed Modern Standard Arabic. Modern Standard Arabic represents the revival of an ancient and nearly dead language from about 1400 years ago. Its condition was somewhat like that of Latin today, and its revival is somewhat like the recent revival of Hebrew. The difference between Classical Arabic and the Arabic of daily life, which varies dramatically from country to country, has been likened to the difference between Spanish and Italian.69 Therefore, even native speakers of Arabic cannot read the Koran in its 68

The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 22, entitled Language and Literature, page 323. 69 For an example of the many places where you can find such analogies, see the website www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/xislam.htm, which is an Islamic website at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. Look under its section entitled “The Koran.”

44

original language unless they receive special training, which they receive in school like a heavily promoted foreign language. This implies that any Koran written in a modern Arabic dialect has been translated. As such, it is a mere interpretation, and not the actual word of Allah. Just like an English Translation. Classical Arabic has enjoyed a revival in recent years, both because of Islam’s resurgence, and because many Arabic nations believe Arabs can gain political and economic clout through Pan-Arabism. It acts as a Lingua Franca for Arabs living across North Africa and the Middle East, and this facilitates media broadcasts, internet services, and travel. Because of its long period of non-use by the general populace, and its current use as a sort of unifying second language rather than as a primary language, we can safely assume that many of its nuances from Muhammad’s time were lost. If this is true, then some of the Koran’s nuances are also likely to be lost. Muslims will claim that this problem has been handled because a sort of dictionary, called The Tongue of the Arabs, was written by Ibn Al-Manthur Al-Afriki shortly after the Koran’s compilation, and it contains a definition written for every word in the Koran. Unfortunately, The Tongue of the Arabs is also written in Classical Arabic. Therefore, it is about as helpful to a reader of the Koran as a French dictionary, written in French, to an English speaker trying to read a French book. Moreover, the dictionary deals only with words, and neglects the meanings of popular phrases in use during Muhammad’s time. These meanings are now lost forever. Do you “get my drift?” If so, you get a “high five.” Again, this problem is not unique to Islam’s Holy Scriptures. In fact, the Old Testament has it even worse because it was written in Hebrew, a language that was nearly dead for centuries. A quick review of the Psalms alone will uncover words such as “shiggaion,”70 “sheminith,”71 “gittith,”72 “miktam,”73 “maskil,”74 “alamoth,”75 and “mahalath,”76 that have not been translated to English because no one knows their meanings, other than that they are “probably a literary or musical term.” While many Jews and Christians will claim that Divine Providence made sure that all essential meanings of the Hebrew scriptures were preserved, this claim cannot be proven. What we do know is that we will have to do the best we can with what we have. Muslims face the same situation. 70

The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, Psalm 7. ibid, Psalms 6, 12. 72 ibid, Psalms 8, 59, 81, 84. 73 ibid, Psalms 16, 57, 58, 59, 60. 74 ibid, Psalms 32, 42, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 74, 78, 88, 89, 142. 75 ibid, Psalm 46. 76 ibid, Psalm 53. 71

45

No one living today can truly speak with complete authority about a language that has been out of popular use for many centuries. This leads to the conclusion that no one living today, not even a Muslim, can truly understand the Koran, and no one living today is qualified to speak authoritatively about Islam. This conclusion would probably surprise everyone. 3. The first Korans were written in a consonant-only script. Imagine trying to read this book if only its consonants were printed. Tht ws ssntll th chllng fcd b rdrs f th frst Krns.77 At the time of Muhammad, Arabic writing was in a formative state. Not only could it not represent vowels; it had only 15 characters for 28 consonants. Despite these limitations, the Arabic alphabet served the needs of Muhammad’s remembrancers because they were trained in the Koran’s oral tradition, and used writing as a memory aid instead of as a primary communication tool. Unfortunately, different oral traditions arose very quickly, so that, a few decades after Muhammad’s death, no one knew the actual words with certainty. As explained by N.J. Dawood in his translation’s introduction: ...owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority.78 There are seven authoritative readings of the Koran, based on the recitations of the following eighth-century individuals: Nafi, Ibn Kathir, Abu ‘Amr al-‘ala’, Ibn ‘Amir, Hamzah, al-Qisa’I, and Abu Bakr ‘Asim. Additional readings that are considered less authoritative also exist. Even today, there are two variant readings in active use: Abu Bakr ‘Asim, which is popular throughout most of the Islamic world, and Nafi, which is popular in Africa outside of Egypt. So the next time someone says that the Koran is the perfect, immutable, and eternal word of Allah, you may want to ask them: “Which version?” At this point, it should be clear that there has never been agreement on the exact wording of the Koran, even among Islam’s earliest followers, despite the fact that they all spoke the Koran’s original language. In places where these various readings differ, no one can speak with authority as to which is truly correct. The remembrancers who fleshed out the Koran’s consonantal script into words performed the same tasks as any translator, and faced the same dilemmas, having to base at least some decisions on their own opinions. The only thing known for sure about the Koran is that its exact words were not even clear to the people who were living when it was compiled. If an Islamic authority must know 77

That was essentially the challenge faced by readers of the first Korans. The Koran, English Translation, with Notes Only, by N.J. Dawood, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983, page 10.

78

46

the meaning of every word of the Koran, with certainty, then how could anyone claim to have such authority? 4. Twenty-nine of the Koran’s surahs (chapters) begin with sequences of letters that no one understands. An example of such a sequence is “Alif Lam Mim,” which comes from the beginning of Surah 3, entitled The House of ‘Imran. These twenty-nine introductory character sequences cannot be interpreted at all by anyone. Among Islamic scholars, they are called “the mysterious letters” (or “the detached letters”). Once again, this leads to the conclusion that if a complete understanding of the entire Koran is required before one can speak with authority on it, then no one has such authority. Obviously, Muslims would not be happy if their method of dismissing non-Muslim critiques was applied to them. Doing so would demonstrate, with multiple proofs, that it is impossible for any living person to speak with authority on the Koran. Muslims would naturally call this conclusion absurd, and insist that their scholars can speak with authority. But if this is true, then they must also admit that the original assertion, that the Koran cannot be translated effectively into a modern language, is also absurd. If this assertion is absurd, then we must conclude that it is possible for a person to understand and critique the Koran on the basis of translations. To support this claim, consider the following: 1. People have been translating books of all sorts into English for hundreds of years with few complaints, and the same can be done with the Koran. While translators may be unable to preserve all the puns, rhythms, and wordplay of foreign literature, they can do a pretty good job of preserving meaning. Also, popular books are often translated by more than one person, so that readers can compare multiple translations to get a fuller understanding of the original text. Also, if several translators interpret a passage identically, a reader can be reasonably confident of its meaning. 2. Everyone who reads the Koran must interpret it when they apply it to their lives. If a knowledgeable scholar interprets the Koran by translating it, one can be reasonably confident that his interpretation is as good as any personal understanding that a speaker of Classical Arabic might have. Any reasonable person will recognize that a devout and intelligent person who reads the Koran in English may gain a better understanding of the Koran than an equally devout but less insightful person who reads the Koran in Classical Arabic. Unless Islamic scholars are willing to consign to Hell everyone who does not have a perfect understanding of the Koran, they should be willing to agree that people can gain a useful understanding of the Koran from a good translation to English. Furthermore, because

47

several translations are available, a reader of those translations can gain multiple perspectives of the Koran and thereby learn how different authorities interpret it. The bottom line is that it is not necessary to understand the exact words of Allah, in the original language, to understand the Koran. All we need to know is what the Koran means to the people who read it. And, through their translations, numerous Islamic scholars have provided authoritative line-by-line interpretations of the Koran. It is also worth noting that the tactic of dismissing translations of the Koran does more than discourage critiques by non-Muslims. It also gives Islamic authorities added power over their followers. In fact, the more inscrutable the Koran is, and the more necessary its teachings are for salvation, the more Muslims depend on Islamic authorities for guidance. This situation is not unique to Islam. In the past, Christianity was just as adamant on the same subject for the same reason. For example, William Tyndale, the first Englishman to translate the Bible into English, was burned at the stake for heresy in 1536. It also took until Vatican II, in the early 1960s, for the Catholic Church to endorse church services in languages other than Latin.79 Catholicism’s requirement that scriptures be read in Latin was particularly strange because the Bible’s books were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Latin Bible, known as the Vulgate, is a translation. If Christians reject the claim that the Bible cannot be translated, then they should also reject the claim that the Koran cannot be translated. Of course Westerners are qualified to critique the Koran on the basis of translations. The Koran has two translations to English that are universally accepted as authoritative by Islamic scholars: The Glorious Koran, by Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal, and The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. In addition, there are several other widely accepted translations80 that can help validate our critiques. By comparing translations of Koranic verses (called ayat81 in Arabic), it is possible to gain as good an understanding of the Koran as that of most contemporary Muslims. Such comparisons are easy with the aid of on-line resources designed for this purpose, such as www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran. If one compares these translations, one finds a remarkable level of agreement, which adds confidence to the conclusions of Dare to Speak. For the sake of readability, this book will not show multiple translations of each quote. It will focus on the translations of Pickthal and Yusuf Ali, and will try to present the version of each verse, or ayah, that is easiest to understand. If you have difficulty with any passage, you may cross-check it with any translation you wish. 79

The books of the Bible were originally written in several different languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Two translations that are universally accepted as authoritative are: The Glorious Koran, by Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal (London, 1930), and The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Lahore, 1934, 1937). Other translations that are considered authoritative by many Islamic leaders are: Holy Qur’aan, by M.H. Shakir (published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur’aan, Inc.), The Message of the Quran by Muhammad Asad (Gibraltar, 1980), and The Qur’an: The First American Version, by T.B. Irving (Vermont, 1985). 81 Koranic verses are known as Ayat in Arabic. Ayat is the plural of Ayah, the word for sign. This is because each verse is considered to be a sign of Allah. 80

48

Interpreting the Koran Before reading actual passages from the Koran, it is worth taking a moment to consider the typical build-up that a Muslim gives when introducing it. For example, The Koran for Dummies begins with the following tribute:82 The Jews and Christians asked Muhammad to bring some miracles as proof of the divine inspiration he claimed to receive from God. After all, if Muhammad was a prophet, then he should be able to perform miraculous magic, like Prophet Moses, or instantly cure the sick, like Jesus. The Koran responds to this challenge by exhibiting the highest form of literary Arabic ever to appear in the history of the language. The majestic words of the Koran changed the face of the Arabic language, outclassing all the famous poetry that was at its height before the Koranic revelation. To this day, the Koran serves as the standard by which all other Arabic is judged. The book’s language proves especially remarkable since it was transmitted through Prophet Muhammad, who was illiterate and was not known for his recital of poetry… In short, the primary miracle and proof that defines Muhammad’s prophethood is the Koran itself.

After an accolade like this, one would expect clarity from the Koran, as well as a transformative reading experience. Unfortunately, such expectations are deeply disappointed. Although the Koran repeatedly claims that it is clear,83 anyone attempting to read it in any language will quickly find it jumbled, inconsistent, and confusing. It is so jumbled and confusing that The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran introduces its first lengthy Koranic quote with the following disclaimer:84

82

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, chapter 1, section entitled The Proof, page 14. 83 Some examples of quotes from the Koran where it claims its revelations are clear (there are close to 200 such claims to clarity within the entire Koran): 1. [2.99] PICKTHAL: Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them. 2. [2.242] YUSUF ALI: Thus doth Allah Make clear His Signs to you: In order that ye may understand. 3. [12.1] PICKTHAL: Alif. Lam. Ra. These are verse of the Scripture that maketh plain. [12.2] Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand. 4. [16.82] YUSUF ALI: But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Message. 5. [24.54] YUSUF ALI: Say: Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message). 6. [26.2] YUSUF ALI: These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear. 7. [27.1] YUSUF ALI: These are verses of the Qur’an, -a book that makes (things) clear; 8. [36.69] YUSUF ALI: We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur’an making things clear: 9. [54.17] YUSUF ALI: And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: 10. [54.22] YUSUF ALI: But We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: 11. [54.32] YUSUF ALI: And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: 12. [54.40] YUSUF ALI: And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: 84

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 6, section entitled In This Chapter, page 63.

49

Experiencing the Koran has been compared to navigating a wild river. It swirls and twists and turns, then doubles back from where it came…and then, just when one thinks one knows where the river is going, it curves yet again in a new direction entirely. That metaphor may well be an oversimplification of the text of the Koran…although one must always remember that Muslims believe that any explanation of the text is an oversimplification…a great deal of the text remains, from verse to verse, entirely unpredictable and more than a little intimidating [for] the first-time reader.

After initial claims of perfection for the Koran, Muslims retract their praise even further when someone actually reads it in the original Arabic and discovers over one hundred grammatical irregularities85 86 (such as non-Arabic words instead of Arabic words87), and many outright errors, particularly in verses 2.177, 3.59, 4.162, 5.69, 7.160, 20.63, 49.9, and 63.10.88 89 Unfortunately, these are difficult issues for English speakers to verify for themselves, but indepth explanations are available in books such as Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab’s View of Islam, by Dr. Anis A. Shorrosh, Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by Ali Dashti, and Why I am Not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq. After reading a few surahs, it becomes clear why the Koran’s interpretation is so important, and why it has been interpreted in so many different ways. For example, in a section describing Jews and Christians, the Koran says: [3.113] YUSUF ALI: Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (for the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. [3.114] They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. [3.115] Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.

These verses imply that there were a substantial number of Jews and Christians who lived according to the will of Allah, independently of Muhammad and the Koran. And yet the Koran also has many long and scathing rebukes against all Jews and Christians. For example: [2.145] YUSUF ALI: Even if thou90 wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qibla91…If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, wert to follow their (vain) desires, - then wert thou indeed (clearly) in the wrong. [2.146] PICKTHAL: Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognize (this revelation92) as they recognize their sons. But lo! A party of them93 knowingly conceals the truth. 85

Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by Ali Dashti, translated by F.R.C. Bagley, Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA, 1994, Chapter 2: The Religion of Islam, page 42. 86 Why I am Not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, 1995, Amherst, New York, pages 112 – 113. 87 Ibid, pages 51 & 108. 88 Ibid, page 111. 89 Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab’s View of Islam, by Dr. Anis A. Shorrosh, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988, pages 199 – 200. 90 Muhammad. 91 Prayer direction (Muslims face toward the Ka’aba; Jews, historically, faced toward the Temple in Jerusalem). 92 The Koran.

50

… [2.159] YUSUF ALI: Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, - on them shall be Allah’s curse… [2.160] Except those who repent and make amends and openly declare (the Truth)94 … [2.174] YUSUF ALI: Those who conceal Allah’s revelations in the Book, and purchase for them a miserable profit, - they swallow into themselves naught but Fire…Grievous will be their penalty.

This implies that anyone who ignores “Allah’s revelations in the Book,” namely the Koran, will be rejected by Allah. But this is exactly what Jews and Christians do, unless they convert to Islam and leave their respective faiths. The only way to reconcile these two sets of verses is to say that it is possible for Jews and Christians to live righteously if they have never heard of the Koran, but the minute they reject Islam, they become cursed by Allah and deserve the utmost contempt. This is exactly how Muslims interpret these verses, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran explains: Islam specifically acknowledges that pious…Christians who do as Allah commands will gain entrance to Paradise (2:62). All those who persist in worshipping associate gods [that is, the Christian Trinity] after hearing the message of the One God, however, will go to hell.95 … The Koran…explains quite clearly…that many will ignore this call, will continue to worship their own low desires, and will in this way become the authors of their own doom.96 … Their skins, once burned off, will be replaced: We will make the rejectors of Our revelations suffer in the hell fire. As soon as the fire destroys their skins, We will give them new skins so that they may suffer more of the torment. [Allah] is Majestic and All-wise. (4:56)97

One might also note that the adjectives used for Allah would be more accurate if “sadistic” was substituted for “Majestic and All-wise.” After these curses, slanders, and horrifying images, this “Idiot’s” book kindly reassures Christians that they can expect “No intimidation, no harassment, no psychological manipulations, [and] no subliminal influence”98 from Muslims. While Muslims contend that they have explained the Koran’s contradictions about “the people of the Book,” reality does not confirm their explanation. It is hard to imagine that Mother Theresa 93

That is, those who do not convert to Islam The declaration referred to, stated with sincere belief, is what makes one a Muslim: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.” 95 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 18, section entitled Muslims and Christians, page 183. 96 Ibid, section entitled Advice for Unbelievers About Believers, page 184. 97 Ibid, Chapter 19, section entitled The Punishment of Hell, page 193. 98 Ibid, Chapter 22, section entitled Sister Khadijah Changes Her Faith, page 226. 94

51

or Billy Graham could be accused of worshipping “their own low desires,” but the Koran teaches Muslims that anyone who rejects Islam is in rebellion to Allah, and is therefore eternally doomed to horrible torment. The Koran’s approach to “the people of the Book” makes no sense in other ways as well. For example, its guidance on how to live differs significantly from that of the Jewish Tanakh99 (the Old Testament) and the Christian New Testament. Its stories of Biblical characters are also quite different. If the Koran is true, then everyone who lived by the Tanakh and New Testament before the Koran’s revelation had to be, by necessity, misled. Therefore, except for the prophets who were inspired directly by God, it would have been impossible for any Jew or Christian to live righteously. The Islamic answer to this point is two-fold: 1. The Koran is always correct; therefore, any differences between it and the Tanakh or New Testament come from corruptions to those earlier works. 2. The Koran, as well as the Torah and Gospel, always existed in a single grand “Mother of the Book”100 created by Allah, which was revealed in phases by the prophets. Therefore Islam (submission to Allah) always existed. Hence it has always been possible for people to be true Muslims. To Muslims, these explanations are airtight. From a more objective perspective, however, the idea of a single religion always existing in its present state, even though the content of its foundational texts changed over time, is highly doubtful. Furthermore, this notion falls apart as soon as one actually reads the Torah and Gospel and learns how they were written. Except for the beginning of Genesis, they were all biographical or autobiographical accounts of human events. Therefore, it is impossible for those books to have existed before their dates of human authorship. No one could possibly have lived according to their guidance before their authors wrote them, even if the authors were divinely inspired. The Koran’s depiction of these books is very different, as The Koran for Dummies reveals:101 The Koran views the Bible and Torah in the following way: Moses received divine revelation in the form of the Torah. Jesus received divine revelation in the form of the Gospel.102 Both of these Books were corrupted by human changes, and are therefore no longer reliable as the words 99

The Hebrew Bible; one of the two texts considered Holy by Jews (the other being the Talmud). It consists of the Torah (the Law, also known as the Pentatuch or the Mosaic books), the Nevi’im (the Prophets), and the Ketuvim (the Writings). It is nearly identical to the Old Testament of the Bible, differing slightly in the order of its books and their titles. 100 The Koran refers to the “Mother of the Book” in the following verses: • [13.39] YUSUF ALI Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.” • [43.4] YUSUF ALI: And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom. 101 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Previous Revelations: Between Sacred and Corrupted, page 66. 102 The term Gospel refers to the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which record the life of Jesus. Other parts of the New Testament are the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and Revelations (Apocalypse).

52

of God. Each Book does contain within it the original Truth, but not all of it. The Koran sets the record straight by including the portions of Torah and Gospel that are valid and still relevant, while correcting mistakes and excluding that which is no longer relevant.

The fact of the matter is that very little of either the Torah or the Gospel is written in a form of a “divine revelation.” In large part, they are biographies, autobiographies, or histories. The Koran contends that the Torah and Gospel were “corrupted” to serve the selfish interests of Jewish and Christian priests, but such a goal would not require these books to be rewritten so dramatically. Moreover, while there are many ancient copies of the Torah and Gospel, none of them indicate that there were ever any changes of the magnitude implied by the Koran. Thus, while the Koran’s explanation of the Torah and Gospel may seem plausible to people who have not read them, it is absurd to anyone who has. Even worse, by calling itself a replacement for the Christian and Hebrew Bibles, instead of a supplement to them, the Koran causes Muslims to lose a vast amount of essential information. For example, the Koran gives almost no historical context to the Biblical characters it refers to. If a student wanted to know whether Jonah lived before Elijah, or even whether Elijah lived before Elisha, the Tanakh is the only reference with answers. Also, the Koran’s omissions regarding Jesus are glaringly evident, especially to Christians, for whom the Koranic Jesus is an unrecognizable cipher, with no message beyond Muhammad’s own. In fact, the main messages of Jesus’ ministry, on empathy and sacrificial love, are completely lost. In effect, the Koran pays lip service to Jesus while completely ignoring the lessons he taught. Another way the Koranic Jesus is unrecognizable is in the Koran’s adamant declaration that Jesus is not the son of God, but just another prophet. As it says in Surah 19, entitled Mary (Maryam): [19.35] YUSUF ALI: It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, “Be”, and it is.

This is how the Koran says Mary became pregnant. What is strange about this claim is that the Koranic description of Jesus’ conception is not fundamentally different from the Biblical account because, in both cases, Mary becomes pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. Christians talk about Jesus being the son of God in a metaphorical sense rather than through the physical act of intercourse, but Muslims choose to hear this phrase in a carnal sense and then accuse Christians of blaspheming God by believing that He physically impregnated a woman. As The Koran for Dummies says:103

103

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled Purity of Faith, page 111.

53

This passage104 rejects the Christian doctrine of God having a begotten son. The Koran argues that God is above and beyond the need for having a son. God doesn’t have parents, nor does he produce children. But if one uses the metaphor of a child having a mother and father, then, according to the Koran’s own account, if Mary was Jesus’ mother, then who other than God was Jesus’ father? In fact, when Muslims are not busy castigating Christians for calling Jesus the son of God, they themselves say the same thing. Several hadiths record that Muhammad himself said this: 105

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 651: …I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary [Jesus], and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).”

In other words, Muslims are quite comfortable with the metaphor as long as Muhammad can also call himself a son of God. Moses holds up better in the Koran than Jesus, but even he is transformed into Muhammad’s own mouthpiece. For example, The Koran for Dummies says:106 The prophethood of Moses in the Koran begins with Moses receiving revelation from God as he stands in the valley of Tuwa, or the Hallowed Valley. Here, Moses learns of his prophecy and receives three teachings: • • •

To believe in no deity except God alone To establish prayers as a means of remembering the Divine To believe in the Last Hour when every soul will be rewarded according to its deeds.

These teachings are much more recognizable as the message of Muhammad, not the Biblical Moses, particularly with regard to the Last Hour, a concept never mentioned in the Torah.107 Islamic teachings also make problems for the Koran itself. Muslims claim that it is an eternal book, yet the Koran was clearly written in sections designed to deal with events as they unfolded. It even reverses its own guidance at times, most notably with regard to alcohol, usury, and, according to Sunnis, temporary marriage.108 And yet, Muslim orthodoxy claims that the Koran was written since the dawn of time, as a part of the “Mother of the Book.” The only way Muslims can reconcile this inconsistency is to claim that everything that happens in this world is pre-ordained by an all-knowing Allah. If Allah knows what will happen throughout history, then 104

Surah 112, verses 1-4, which Sultan quotes as: “Say: ‘He is One God: God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of all being. He Begets not, and neither is He begotten; and there is nothing that could be compared with him.’” 105 This hadith is repeated in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 652, and in Sahih Muslim, Book 30, Number 5836. NOTE: All hadiths come from a translation written by M. Muhsin Khan, available through the University of Southern California’s Hadith Database, at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html. 106 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled Becoming a prophet, page 124. 107 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, known collectively as the Law, the Pentateuch, or the Mosaic Books. 108 Shiites believe that Islam permits temporary marriage, while Sunnis believe that Muhammad reversed Islam’s original position on it. This controversy is discussed in the section of this book entitled The Treatment of Women.

54

he can write a complete book at the beginning of time and reveal it in sections as history unfolds, strategically changing policy as needed. This explains the strong Islamic belief in predestination, complete with a last day that is already scripted out in detail. Of course, accepting this notion of predestination creates other problems. For example, if everything is pre-ordained, then how can anyone be held responsible for their actions? That is, how can Jews and Christians be blamed for rejecting Islam if doing so was pre-ordained by Allah? The modern Islamic answer is that predestination is not really predestination, but actually “God’s foreknowledge.”109 Therefore, Allah can still change future events based on what people do in the moment. To see a fuller discussion of this convoluted explanation, see The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, Chapter 8, in the section entitled All Things Great and Small. Ultimately, though, the explanation about “God’s foreknowledge” does not ring true. The Hadith states the true Islamic position quite clearly, through numerous examples, such as: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 430:110…Allah’s Apostle…said…“…a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature’s) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 143:111 The Prophet said, “If anyone of you on having sexual relations with his wife said (and he must say it before starting) ‘In the name of Allah. O Allah! Protect us from Satan and also protect what you bestow upon us (i.e. the coming offspring) from Satan,’ and if it is destined that they should have a child then, Satan will never be able to harm that offspring.”

•

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 40, Number 4686:112…the Apostle…[said]: Allah created Adam, then passed His right hand over his back, and brought forth from it his offspring, saying: ‘I have these for Paradise and these will do the deeds of those who go to Paradise.’ He then passed His hand over his back and brought forth from it his offspring, saying: ‘I have created these for Hell, and they will do the deeds of those who go to Hell.’” A man asked: ‘What is the good of doing anything, Apostle of Allah?’ The Apostle…said: ‘When Allah creates a servant for Paradise, He employs him in doing the deeds of those who will go to Paradise…for which He will bring him into Paradise. But when He creates a servant for Hell, He employs him in doing the deeds of those who will go to Hell…for which He will bring him into Hell.’

109

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 8, section entitled All Things Great and Small, page 93. 110 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 315, Volume 4, Book 55, Numbers 549 & 550, Volume 8, Book 77, Numbers 593 & 594, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 546, and Sahih Muslim, Book 33, Numbers 6390 & 6397. 111 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Numbers 493 & 503. 112 A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345.

55

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 621:113…Allah’s Apostle said, “Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. ‘You are Adam whose mistake expelled you from Paradise.’ Adam said to him, ‘You are Moses whom Allah selected as His Messenger and as the one to whom He spoke directly; yet you blame me for a thing which had already been written in my fate before my creation?’” Allah’s Apostle said twice, “So, Adam overpowered Moses.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 466:114…The Prophet was asked about the offspring of pagans [who die in infancy]…; so he said, “Allah knows what sort of deeds they would have done.”

According to these hadiths, Muhammad claimed that Allah dictates everything that a person will do in his or her life before the person is even born. And even an infant is held accountable for these deeds – it makes no difference if the child dies before carrying them out. It is also worth noting that Muhammad’s logic in the last hadith is nonsensical: If Allah has perfect foreknowledge, then Allah should be able to anticipate whether a fetus will live to birth and, if born, what it will do before dying on a predetermined date as either a child or an adult. Regardless of the logical flaws in these hadiths, modern Muslims have clearly invented the fiction of “God’s foreknowledge” to keep their version of God from appearing cruel and sadistic for intentionally creating people whom he dooms even before birth. Strangely, Muslims are willing to ignore the hadiths themselves to do so. Even the fiction of “God’s foreknowledge” does not avoid the conclusion that Allah predestined every action of every person. If Allah created the world, and had perfect foreknowledge from the dawn of time, then he is in control of everyone’s actions from the dawn of time. That is, if he wanted people to do different things, then he could have set things up from the beginning to produce the desired results. This takes us back to the original ethical question, which the hadiths themselves express in the words of Adam: how can people be justly punished for performing their roles in a plan that Allah created? Why not hold Allah accountable, if the unjust actions of individuals fulfill Allah’s plan? This is the point at which Muslims completely disconnect from logic and go back to “The Koran is always right” and “Allah can do whatever He wants, and if this is what He has done, then, by definition, it must be righteous.” Another way the Koran reveals its inconsistency is in its guidance regarding Jews, Christians, Sabians,115 and Zoroastrians116. For example, consider the following passages:

113

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Numbers 260 & 262, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 611, and Volume 9, Book 93, Number 606. 114 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 465 and Volume 8, Book 77, Numbers 596 & 597. 115 A term used for the Mandaeans, a small sect still in existence today, who revere John the Baptist as the greatest prophet, and recognize that Jesus existed, but say he was a false prophet. The word Sabian derives from subbi, which means “those who baptize.” 116 The followers of Zoroaster (also called Zarathushtra), the prophet of Zoroastrianism (or Zarathushtrianism), which was the state religion of Persia.

56

•

[2.62] YUSUF ALI: Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

•

[2.256] YUSUF ALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks…

•

[3.187] PICKTHAL: And (remember) when Allah laid a charge on those who had received the Scripture [Jews and Christians] (He said): Ye are to expound it to mankind and not to hide it. But they flung it behind their backs and bought thereby a little gain. Verily evil is that which they have gained thereby.

•

[9.29] PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth [i.e., Islam], until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. [9.30] And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

How can these messages form a consistent set of instructions? On one hand, Muslims are told that there is no compulsion in religion, and that believing Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians have nothing to fear on the Last Day. On the other hand, Muslims are told to fight those who defy what Muhammad (as the messenger of Allah) commands, and allows them to relent only after those Infidels pay a special tribute to the Muslims after “being brought low.” This section then goes on to say that all Jews and Christians are perverse, with Allah himself fighting against them. Obviously, one cannot believe the first set of verses without doubting the second, and vice-versa. These kinds of inconsistencies are so frequent in the Koran they motivated Islamic authorities, as well as the Koran itself, to establish an interesting rule for interpretation: Whenever verses conflict with each other or with the Old or New Testament, the most recent verses always nullify the older ones. As the Koran says: [13.38] YUSUF ALI: We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children: and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed). [13.39] Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.

This point is repeated later even more clearly: [16.101] YUSUF ALI: When We substitute one revelation for another, - and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.

The Koran claims that it may overwrite itself and preceding scriptures in other verses as well, such as 2.106 and 22.52.

57

As for the contradictory Koranic policies toward non-Muslims, the following hadith demonstrates the ultimate verdict: convert or else.117 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 658:…The Prophet sent some cavalry towards Najd and they brought a man from the tribe of Banu Hanifa who was called Thumama bin Uthal. They fastened him to one of the pillars of the Mosque. The Prophet went to him and said, “What have you got, O Thumama?” He replied, “I have got a good thought, O Muhammad!…if you should set me free, you would do a favor to one who is grateful, and if you want property, then ask me whatever wealth you want.” He was left till the next day when the Prophet said to him, “What have you got, Thumama?” He said, “What I told you, i.e. if you set me free, you would do a favor to one who is grateful.” The Prophet left him till the day after, when he said, “What have you got, O Thumama?” He said, “I have got what I told you.” On that the Prophet said, “Release Thumama.” So he (i.e. Thumama) went to a garden of date-palm trees near to the Mosque, took a bath and then entered the Mosque and said, “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and also testify that Muhammad is His Apostle!”

More generally, the Koran tells readers to use chronology to determine which of its commands are actually in force. Unfortunately, the Koran is not organized chronologically, nor does it indicate chronology. Thus, it is often difficult to determine which of the commands cancel which, although research into these questions is aided by a group of early biographies of Muhammad known as the Sira.118 These biographies quote many Koranic and Hadithic passages and thereby provide a sequence of events. Despite these biographies, Pickthal states, in the Introduction to his translation,119 The arrangement [of the Koran] is not easy to understand. Revelations of various dates and on different subjects are to be found together in one surah; verses of Madinah revelation [which came after Muhammad established his government in Medina] are found in Meccan surahs [composed prior to Muhammad’s exodus to Medina]; some of the Madinah surahs, though of late revelation, are placed first and the very early Meccan surahs at the end.

The chronology of the Koran’s conflicting verses is such a complex issue that it has spawned a field of study called the Science of Abrogation120, where Islamic scholars determine which verses supersede, or abrogate, others. This field is extremely important because, according to many if not most Islamic scholars, abrogated verses have no force. Even though they remain in the Koran, it is as if they do not exist. According to these scholars, the peaceful verses quoted above came from a time when Muslims were a threatened minority in Mecca. These verses were abrogated by the more hostile ones that came later, while Muhammad was ruling Medina and expanding his power across the Arabian peninsula. Instead of using chronology, the Koran sorts its surahs in order of importance,121 from most to least, according to the opinions of its compilers. If one investigates how the Koran was 117

This hadith is repeated in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 451, Volume 3, Book 41, Number 604, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 658, and Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4361. 118 Biographies of Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq (and preserved through ibn Hisham’s edited version), Tabari, Waqidi, and Ibn Sa’d. Ibn Ishaq’s biography is used as a reference in this book. 119 Glorious Koran, by Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal, London, 1930, Introduction, page xxviii 120 Naskh is the Arabic term for abrogation. If a verse has been abrogated, it is nasikh. 121 Some commentators claim that the Koran’s surah’s are sorted by length, from longest to shortest, rather than importance. While generally true, there are exceptions. For example, surah 1 is only seven verses long.

58

compiled, things get even murkier: It was assembled, years after Muhammad’s death, from scraps of paper, leaves, bone, etc. on which individual revelations were written. Many of the chapters, particularly the longer ones, are clearly hodgepodges where the compilers did their best, given the difficulty of their task. As one reads portions of the Koran, one can almost visualize the passages being cut and pasted together in a best-guess manner.122 It should now be apparent that one of the greatest challenges to understanding the Koran is the Koran itself. According to Gerd-R. Puin, a specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic paleography at Saarland University (Saarbrücken, Germany): …the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible – if it can’t even be understood in Arabic – then it’s not translatable.123

How do Muslims respond to this claim? They reply with a masterful spin job that turns incomprehensibility into proof of superhuman brilliance and depth. As The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran explains124: One important hadith relates that the Koran has, besides its (translatable) surface meanings, deeper intrinsic meanings…meanings that are not apparent to every reader, but only to a select few. Thus, the ultimate meaning of the Koran is not to be found in any translation, but in the Arabic text itself, a text that defies simple word-for-word rendering.

It appears that the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes has not reached the Islamic world; otherwise they would recognize in these words the logic of those clever tailors, who convinced the Emperor that his “clothes” were so refined that only a “select few” could see them. The “deeper intrinsic meanings” claimed by Islam’s apologists also raise other questions: If there is anyone who can understand these meanings, why should they be unable to describe them to other people in terms those people could understand? Conversely, if no one can explain these meanings, then how can anyone claim to understand them? And if no one can understand them, then how can anyone claim to know that these meanings exist? 122

A scholarly work that discusses this issue is The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abu-Ala’ Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999. For each surah, Maududi provides an introduction which discusses, among other things, how the text was assembled. For example, for the Surah Al-Baqarah (The Cow), he writes: The greater part of Al-Baqarah was revealed during the first two years of the Holy Prophet’s life at AlMadinah. The smaller part which was revealed at a later period has been included in this Surah because its contents are closely related to those dealt with in this Surah. For instance, the verses prohibiting interest were revealed during the last period of the Holy prophet’s life but have been inserted in this Surah. For the same reason, the last verses (284-286) of this Surah which were revealed at Makkah before the migration of the Holy Prophet to Al-Madinah have also been included in it. The way these surahs were assembled clearly indicates an editing process, conducted either by Muhammad or the Caliphs who came after him. The manual construction and refinement of texts is confirmed by both eye-witness accounts of Muhammad’s recitations and the historical account of the Koran’s assembly. The Islamic claim that surahs such as these were written by Allah long before Muhammad’s revelation of them, in a “Mother of the Book,” utterly defies logic. 123 What is the Koran? by Toby Lester, Atlantic Monthly Magazine, January 1999. 124 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 1, section entitled A Message Like No Other, page 10.

59

On the other hand, one would think that the Koran’s words made sense to the people who originally compiled them. Thus the Koran’s incomprehensibility may actually prove the point made earlier: The language of the Koran is only imperfectly understood, after being out of popular use for 1400 years, and the portions of the text that appear incomprehensible use facets of the ancient language that have been lost. Where the meanings of the language have been lost, the meanings of the Koran have also been lost. The Koran’s problems run even deeper because there has been a recent discovery of early Korans that demonstrate that the Koran evolved over time. While this discovery comes as no surprise to Biblical paleographers, it creates a crisis in Islam because it directly contradicts the fundamental Muslim belief that the Koran is the “literal and unaltered” word of Allah. As Toby Lester related in his 1999 article, What is the Koran?:125 In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana’a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure’s inner and outer roofs stumbled across…an unappealing mash of old…documents…[T]he laborers gathered up the manuscripts…and set them aside…where they would probably have been forgotten…were it not for Qadhi Isma’il al-Akwa’, then the president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find. Al-Akwa’ sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, and in 1979 managed to interest a visiting German scholar, who…persuaded the German government to organize and fund a restoration project. Soon after the project began, it became clear that the hoard was a fabulous example of what is sometimes referred to as a “paper grave”…the resting place for…fragments from close to a thousand different parchment codices of the Koran… Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam’s first two centuries – they were fragments…of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What’s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text [that] are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran…is…the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God. … The first person to spend a significant amount of time examining the Yemeni fragments, in 1981, was Gerd-R. Puin ... Puin…recognized the antiquity of some of the parchment fragments, and his preliminary inspection also revealed unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. Enticing, too, were the sheets of the scripture written in the rare and early Hijazi Arabic script: pieces of the earliest Korans known to exist, they were also palimpsests – versions very clearly written over even earlier, washed-off versions. What the Yemeni Korans seemed to suggest…was an evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century A.D. … …Puin and Von Bothmer have published only a few tantalizingly brief articles…on what they have discovered…They have been reluctant to publish…because they felt that the Yemeni authorities, if they realized the possible implications of the discovery, might refuse them further access. Von Bothmer, however, in 1997 finished taking more than 35,000 microfilm pictures of the fragments, and has recently brought the pictures back to Germany. This means that soon Von Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely…“So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers 125

What is the Koran? by Toby Lester, Atlantic Monthly Magazine, January 1999.

60

of the Koran is just God’s unaltered word,” [Puin] says. “They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history too. The Sana’a fragments will help us to do this.” Puin is not alone in his enthusiasm. “The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt,” says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary…“Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant…These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.”

Beyond this recent discovery that the Koran had an evolving text, Muslims themselves record a long history of controvertial tamperings and omissions. To glimpse one such controversy, do an internet search for “Surah al-Walayah,” a disputed surah attributed to the Shiites. Hadiths also record, repeatedly, an apparent omission from the Koran, which Caliph Umar himself declared: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:…‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan [a remembrancer] added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817: …‘Umar sat on the pulpit, …and…, he said, “…Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person…who commits illegal sexual intercourse), and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed…And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah’s Book: ‘O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.’ … Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 424:…‘Umar (in a Friday Khutba-sermon) said, “No doubt, Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed to him the Book (Quran), and among what was revealed, was the Verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning adulterers to death).’”

Note that Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, book 82, Number 817 actually refers to two omissions, where the second one is a command for offspring to be truthful about their fathers’ identities. Perhaps the greatest source of Koranic tamperings and omissions was Muhammad himself, who is known to have recited sections of the “perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God,” and then gone back and revised those sections on several occasions. The most famous of Muhammad’s revisions is what has become known as the “Satanic verses,” whose story is told by two of Islam’s earliest writers: al-Tabari, a great Muslim historian, and ibn

61

Ishaq (704-768), who wrote an authoritative biography of Muhammad entitled Sirat Rasoul Allah. The story of the Satanic verses is summarized in Islam for Dummies:126 Muhammad met opposition in part because, in attacking polytheism, he was implicitly attacking the religious beliefs of his contemporary’s ancestors. One of al-Tabari’s accounts says that Muhammad was wishing for a revelation, which would make his situation with his fellow citizens of Mecca less contentious. At this point he recited Sura 53:19-20, “Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat the third, the other.” Al-Lat simply means “the Goddess.” Al-‘Uzza means “the mighty one” – equated with Venus (the morning star), and very popular among the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. Manat means fate or destiny, which is a key concept of pre-Islamic Arabic religion. These goddesses are referred to as the daughters of Allah, which may originally simply mean “feminine divine beings.” They had shrines in the area of Mecca in pre-Islamic times. According to al-Tabari’s version – which I remind you is disputed – Muhammad added, “these are exalted females (or literally, great birds) whose intercession is to be desired,” which seemed to allow a subordinate role for the three goddesses. And why not, after all? Islam accepted the existence of various beings between people and God, such as angels and jinn, so why not also accept these beings as a conciliatory measure to the inhabitants of Mecca who were delighted by Muhammad’s words. However, this would have been to return to polytheism. Subsequently, Gabriel informed Muhammad that he’d been led astray by Satan. Muhammad deleted the statement about the intercessory role of the goddess and substituted newly revealed verses including verse 53:23 that says that the three goddesses are mere names and don’t truly exist. The deleted verses are known as the Satanic verses.

Besides demonstrating the evolving nature of the Koran, this anecdote raises a far deeper issue: Where did the Koran’s inspiration actually come from? Allah, Satan, Gabriel, or Muhammad? A Muslim would claim that any other verses that were not from Allah would have been edited out on the command of Gabriel, acting on behalf of Allah. To a skeptic, however, such an explanation is less than satisfactory because the Satanic verses were not the only ones retracted from the Koran, as revealed in the following hadiths:

126

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 731: (During the early days of Islam), the inheritance used to be given to one’s offspring and legacy used to be bequeathed to the parents, then Allah cancelled what He wished from that order and decreed that the male should be given the equivalent of the portion of two females, and for the parents one-sixth for each of them, and for one’s wife, one-eighth (if the deceased has children) and one-fourth (if he has no children), for one’s husband, one-half (if the deceased has no children) and one-fourth (if she has children).

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 57:…Gabriel informed the Prophet that they (i.e. the martyrs) met their Lord, and He was pleased with them and made them pleased. We used to recite [this message from the martyrs], “Inform our people that we have met our Lord, He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased.” Later on this Quranic Verse was cancelled…

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 69:…There was revealed, about those who were killed at Bir-Mauna, a Quranic Verse we used to recite, but it was cancelled later on…“Inform our people that we have met our Lord. He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased.”

Islam for Dummies, by Prof. Malcolm Clark, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 3, page 39.

62

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 421:…Allah revealed a Quranic Verse to His Prophet regarding those who had been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma’una, and we recited the Verse till later it was cancelled. (The Verse was:) “Inform our people that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him.”

The last three of these hadiths are particularly interesting because they preserve a specific Koranic verse that was quietly removed from the Koran without any explanation. Presumably, this verse was erased for two reasons: 1. It was clearly not in the voice of Allah. 2. It violated the Muslim belief that dead souls stay with their bodies in the ground until the Last Day. However, if this verse violated the fundamental tenets of Islam, and it was given to Muhammad by Gabriel (all messages from Allah were allegedly transferred by Gabriel) then, one must ask: Who is “Gabriel?” Another question that comes to mind after reviewing these and other hadiths where Muhammad edits Koranic verses is: if the Koran is the perfect word of Allah, then why wouldn’t Allah have pronounced it perfectly the first time? One can understand why many Muslims would rather dispute the authenticity of the “Satanic verses” and other hadiths than deal with their ramifications. Web searches on “Surah al-Walayah,” the Satanic verses, and the above hadiths reveal impressive volleys of accusations and counter-accusations between Muslim sects, particularly Sunnis and Shiites. A thorough read of these references will reveal that, in an effort to keep from discrediting the Koran, Sunni and Shiite leaders have decided to circle the wagons. Officially, they declare that the Koran is the perfect, immutable, and eternal word of Allah, despite the words of their own Hadith and claims about Surah al-Walayah. They do this because they fear that these debates could call the Koran’s perfection into question and lead Muslims to doubt their faith. As for the Hadith, there are such deep problems that not even Muslims are scandalized when someone accuses them of being corrupted. In fact, hadiths contradict the Koran so frequently that it is necessary for The Complete Guide to the Koran to explain that:127 In the case of a conflict between the Koran and the Sunna [literally, “the way;” the life of Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith], the resolution…is simple and instantaneous: The revealed word of God [the Koran] is what determines the matter.

Regarding hadiths that are neither confirmed nor contradicted by the Koran, Muslims appear to uphold or discredit them depending on what is useful at the moment. If a hadith supports a particular argument that a Muslim is trying to make, the hadith is authoritative. If a hadith is clearly incorrect or makes Islam or Muhammad look evil, it is dismissed as unauthoritative, at least publicly.

127

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 4, section entitled What’s the Difference Between the Koran and the Sunna, page 40.

63

Muslims who are more scholarly will attempt to gauge a hadith’s credibility by the witnesses who saw it and transmitters who told it, but this study still does not provide decisive verdicts. Unlike the canonical and apocryphal books of the Bible, there is no way to look at a particular hadith and say with certainty whether it is considered true. Another factor that has arisen is the realization that a chain of witnesses and transmitter could be forged as easily as the hadiths themselves. If Muslims could agree that certain hadiths were not true, one would think that those hadiths could be removed, or at least marked as untrue, because they tend to discredit the entire Hadith. Instead, Islamic scholars play it both ways. They say that if a hadith comes through a weak chain of transmitters, it is not necessarily false, and if a hadith comes through a strong chain of transmitters, it is not necessarily true. This leaves them in a position to confirm or dismiss hadiths at their discretion, and change their positions according to expedience. Because of the doubtful Sunni hadiths, Shiites go so far as to reject the authority of all Sunni hadiths, as explained on the Shiite website, www.answering-ansar.org, in its article entitled Creed of the Shi’a: explained: The Shi'a rejection of the Sahah Sittah128 … There is NO requirement in Islam to believe in Sahih Bukhari, Muslim etc…let us look at some of these hadith, and then we leave it to those with open minds to conclude whether these are true words…or folk tales…: … The Prophet(s) said, “The (people of) Bani Israel used to take baths naked (all together) looking at each other. The prophet Moses…used to take bath, alone. They said, ‘By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.’ So, once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with the clothes. Moses followed the stone saying, ‘My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone!’ Till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said ‘By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body.’ Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone.” Abu- Hurayra added, “By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from the beating.” –“Sahih Bukhari” Volume. (1) Book (5): Bathing, Chapter (21): Taking bath in seclusion & completely naked Do our readers believe this type of rubbish? The dash of the stone with the clothes of Moses and the sprint of Moses (nude) after it is such a fabricated story that no rational mind is ready to accept it. This hadith can…best be described as a fable…

This scoffing at Sahih Bukhari reflects more than the corrupted nature of the Hadith; it reveals that the Sunnis and Shiites honor completely different sets of Hadith. While the Sunnis honor Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Nasa’i, Sunan Ibn-iMajah, and Malik’s Muwatta (several others exist but they have less authority), which are collectively referred to as the Sahah Sittah, the Shiites honor Al-Kafi, Al-Tahzeeb, Al-IsTibSar, and mun la YahDuruhu Al-faqeeh (as well as others of lesser authority). And, just as the Shiites ridicule the Sunni Hadith, Sunnis also ridicule that of the Shiites. To see a Sunni attack on the Shiite Hadith, visit http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_vs_sunni.htm#2. 128

The Sahah Sittah is an aggregate term for the compilations of hadiths that Sunni Muslims consider authoritative.

64

For the sake of simplicity, this book will focus on the Sunni, rather than Shiite, Hadith. The Sunni Hadith is used for four reasons: •

•

• •

The Sunni Hadith is given more authority by Sunnis than the Shiite Hadith is given by Shiites. The authority of Shiite Hadith is weakened (even among Shiites) by both late dates of authorship and the fact that Shiism is divided into sects that recognize somewhat different sets of Hadith. The Shiite Hadith is diluted with hadiths about the twelve Imams.129 The twelve Imams are the blood-line successors to Muhammad whom Shiites believe to be Islam’s rightful leaders. These hadiths record actions up to the disappearance of the twelfth Imam in 874 AD, hundreds of years after Muhammad’s death. Outside of Iran and Iraq, the typical Muslim one will encounter is Sunni. This fact, together with the two preceding, makes the Sunni Hadith the one most likely to come up in discussions of Islam. The Shiite hadiths that quote Muhammad are very similar to Sunni hadiths. Where significant differences exist (particularly regarding temporary marriage), this book investigates them through the divergent Sunni and Shiite laws derived from those hadiths.

Shari’ah is derived by Islamic scholars who interpret the Koran and the Hadith, as well as Islamic tradition. But if scholars cannot agree on the Koranic verses, hadiths, and traditions to use, then it is impossible for them to agree on what Shari’ah should be. Given the controversies over the authenticity of various hadiths, as well as the abrogation of Koranic verses, one can appreciate the Muslim lament: If you ask a hundred Muslims “What is Shari’ah?” you will get a hundred and ten different answers. Unfortunately, the nature of Shari’ah is serious business in the Islamic world, because Muslims believe that an incorrect Shari’ah is more than bad law; it perverts Allah’s intentions and can lead believers to Hell. A glaring example of such law is the Shiite “Temporary Marriage,” which will be discussed further in the section entitled The Treatment of Women. For Shiites, temporary marriages are perfectly legitimate and endorsed by God himself. For Sunnis, temporary marriage is adultery, a Hudd crime punishable by severe whippings or death. This kind of wide divergence comes from the differing hadiths used by the sects. Given the problems that the hadiths create for Shari’ah, one might wonder why they are referred to at all. After all, isn’t the Koran supposed to be the perfect, immutable, and eternal word of Allah? And if it is perfect, then shouldn’t it be sufficient? The answer to this question is that much of this supposedly perfect book is unintelligible unless the hadiths are referred to for context. Given the difficulty of interpreting the Koran, scholars have decided to give lay people a simpler objective: Instead of learning the Koran, Muslims should memorize it, in the original Arabic, even if they do not understand the language.

129

This statement is only true for the Hadith of Twelver Shiites (the predominant Shiite sect). Variations in accepted Hadith exist between the different Shiite sects.

65

Again, Muslims are not doing anything unprecedented in Christendom. In fact, in former times, the Catholic Church encouraged people to memorize Latin versions of Biblical passages even if they did not know Latin. For both Muslims and Christians, the effect of this kind of memorization is the same: it ritualizes and mystifies holy words. In effect, scriptural verses become magical chants. Fortunately for Christians, the Bible can be translated without losing its power. For the Koran, however, things are different. Attempts to translate the Koran reveal that it is a triumph of form over content, as unintentionally noted in The Koran for Dummies:130 The Koran’s oral tradition gives the Book its aura. The recited word of the Koran is much more powerful than its printed form, especially if the text has been translated from Arabic into another language. The Koran, however, is more than an auditory triumph of form over content. Muslims have also developed Arabic calligraphy into a high art form, to make sure that it is also a visual triumph of form over content. For example, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran presents the following example of Koranic calligraphy to demonstrate its beauty:131

When translated to English, this beautiful work of art says: [8.60] YUSUF ALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power.

Apparently, the beauty of Arabic calligraphy does a magnificent job of concealing the Koran’s unbeautiful meanings. As described in Encyclopedia of the Orient, the relationship of a typical devout Muslim to the Koran can be summarized as follows:132 The reciting of the Koran is an art known by most Muslims. The most frequently used technique normally involves sitting on the ground with the book in the lap or placed on a specially made low table. This sitting position resembles the lotus position used in eastern religions, but is not at all strict on the upright position of the spine – most Muslims bend over the Koran they read. 130

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, section entitled Cheat Sheet. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 21, section entitled Arabic Calligraphy, page 221. This Illustration is cited in that book as coming from “Traditional Arabic Collections,” by Judith Burros. 132 Encyclopedia of the Orient, by Tore Kjeilen, LexicOrient, 1996-2004. 131

66

The reading technique uses a rhythm... The performance of this rhythm is done with both torso, swaying a little in an oval shape, and voice and reading speed…the reading of the Koran is a meditative moment for all Muslims, and a ritual that can be performed anywhere. The Koran’s actual guidance in everyday life for Muslims must not be overestimated…in general Muslims think of the Koran as far too complex to be a guide in daily matters if it should be interpreted by a Muslim layman. When a Muslim has problems understanding the true meaning of the Koran, he/she will resort to books written by men learned in Islamic sciences or ask the learned in the local society. There are situations where Muslims look up the Koran for guidance, but this will be in cases where they know what to look for, and where to look.

The result of this state of affairs is that lay Muslims remain ignorant, despite memorizing the entire Koran, and Islamic scholars hold an incredible amount of power over the lives of lay people. These scholars interpret the Koran and transform its guidance into very detailed and complex legal codes that are not articulated explicitly anywhere in the Koran or the Hadith. This is another reason why Shari’ah, supposedly Allah’s law, varies from one Muslim country to another. These variations reveal how Islamic scholars claim an authority that is supposedly reserved for Allah and his Apostle. Because Shari’ah defines Islam’s rules for all aspects of life, Islamic scholars have sway over more than spiritual matters. They also make declarations on matters of law, politics, and war. This explains a phenomenon very disconcerting to Westerners, who find familiar religious metaphors horribly warped by Islam. In the Muslim world, there are Islamic “men of the cloth” who store powerful weapons inside their “churches” and give “sermons” that incite their “congregations” to kill those of other faiths. But are these aberrations really as foreign as they seem? In truth, they would sound quite familiar to Europeans living a few centuries ago, when Church and State were not separated by the principals of Free Democracy.133 England itself went through many deadly religious purges, most famously during the reign of “Bloody Mary.” The problem that Islam presents is not so much its bloody past, but the fact that its scriptures, the source of that bloody past, are considered perfect and unchangeable. Even worse, they exhort believers to submit the entire world to Islam. As stated in The Koran for Dummies:134 According to the Koran, God [Allah] chose the Koranic revelation as the final message that completes the teachings of all previous revelations, both in theology and law. As the final message, the Koran provides guidance not only for a specific community or time, but for all of humanity.

133

Also known as Liberal Democracy and Western Democracy. The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Completion of past revelations, page 12. 134

67

Moreover, submission to Islam encompasses every aspect of life in an unchanging and timeless way, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran points out: Muslims view their tradition not simply as a “religion,” in the Western sense of the word, but as a way of life that encompasses all actions in social, political, family, and economic realms – or, for that matter, any other realms of activity.135 … It is important to bear in mind that changes in human language are irrelevant to the question of the teachings of the Koran. These divine teachings, Muslims believe, do not change over time, because the word of God [Allah] is permanent and definitive.136

More to the purpose of this book, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization states that:137 If Muslims were to accept in principle the separation of religion from the domain of public life (which would then become secularized, as it has in the West to an ever greater degree since the Renaissance), they would have to abandon the doctrine of Unity that lies at the heart of the Islamic message. They would have to act against the Sunnah of the Prophet and fourteen centuries of the historical unfolding of the Islamic tradition.

Now that we can appreciate the significance of Islamic Holy Scripture to both private and public life, as well as the challenge of interpreting it, we are ready for an in-depth look at the Koran and the Hadith, and the traditional ways Muslims have interpreted them.

The five pillars of Islam: requirements for being a Muslim Given the large quantity of reading material in Islam’s Holy Scripture, and the historic illiteracy of human populations, Islam has always been boiled down to a few basics for the man on the street. The basics that relate to daily living are known as the Five Pillars of Islam. An interesting fact about these pillars is that, except for the primary one, soon to be discussed, none of them were introduced by the Koran. Instead, they were pre-existing practices that Islam adopted for itself. This fact fits with the Muslim notion that Islam is the perfection of a faith that has existed from the beginning of time, albeit imperfectly. In fact, the only thing truly unique about its pillars is that they require the believer to declare that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. This seemingly small innovation, however, turns out to be the thin edge of a very large wedge. The five pillars of Islam are: 1. Declare, with belief, that “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah

and I bear witness that Muhammad is His Messenger” (Kalimah or Shahadah)

135

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 3, section entitled Understanding a Way of Life, page 26. 136 ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Simple Laziness, page 162. 137 Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization, by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, HarperSanFrancisco, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, 2003, Chapter 5, section entitled Political Institutions, page 113.

68

This recitation is known as either Kalimah (the “Word”), or the Shahadah (the “Testimony” of Faith). While there appears to be no direct quote in the Koran that mandates this pillar, there is a reference that comes close: [5.82] YUSUF ALI: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. [5.83] And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognize the truth: they pray: “Our Lord! We believe; write us down among the witnesses.”

2. Pray five obligatory prayers per day (Salah) There are over one hundred references to prayer throughout the Koran. This representative sample illustrates how these references are designed to reinforce or put a new stamp on existing practices. The fact that prayer was a preexisting concept also becomes apparent when one notices that the Koran discusses prayer without ever defining it. Instead, the Koran assumes that Muslims are familiar with prayer, so it only needs to give instructions on how to do it the Islamic way: •

[2.238] YUSUF ALI: Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).

•

[4.43] PICKTHAL: …Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith).

•

[4.102] PICKTHAL: And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their arms [weapons]. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms.

•

[5.6] PICKTHAL: …When ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles…

•

[11.114] PICKTHAL: Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the night.

3. Give an offering of obligatory charity (Zakah or Zakat) This pillar requires every Muslim who, at the end of the year, is in possession of the equivalent of 85 grams of gold or more in cash or goods, to give Zakah at the minimum rate of 2.5% of all assets. Taxes paid to any government do not substitute for this religious duty. 69

The recipients of Zakah are the poor, the needy, new Muslim converts, Muslim prisoners of war (to liberate them), Muslims in debt, employees appointed to collect Zakah, Muslims engaged in Islamic research, study, or propagation efforts, and foreign Muslims in need of help. The Koran has at least 27 references to Zakah, which is also translated as “regular charity,” or “the poor-due.” Two example verses are: •

[5.12] YUSUF ALI: Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: "I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practice regular charity, believe in my messengers, honor and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath…

•

[7.156] PICKTHAL: …I smite with My punishment whom I will, and My mercy embraceth all things, therefore I shall ordain it for those who ward off (evil) and pay the poor-due, and those who believe Our revelations;

Unfortunately, the terms “regular charity” and “poor-due” are actually misnomers, because Zakah is often used for Islamic propagation, administration, and warfare, rather than for the poor, as the following article reveals: Iraqis say Saudis financing Sunni insurgents Associated Press, MSNBC News, Dec 8, 2006 CAIRO, Egypt - Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash. Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition. But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents. Two high-ranking Iraqi officials…told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zakat, collected for Islamic causes and charities. Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq’s insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

4. Participate in a fast during the month of Ramadan (Sawm) This fast prohibits eating, drinking, and having sex during the day, but encourages these activities during nighttime celebrations. The Koran has over twenty references to this fast. The sample quotes below explain both its

70

motivation and practice: •

[2.183] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for those before you, that ye may ward off (evil); … [2.185] The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur’an…And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days.

•

[2.187] PICKTHAL: It is made lawful for you to go in unto your wives on the night of the fast…So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink until…dawn. Then strictly observe the fast till nightfall and touch them not, but be at your devotions in the mosques.

5. Travel to Mecca during Ramadan (Hajj) and participate in special

religious celebrations that take place at the Ka’aba Muslims attempting the Hajj nowadays face an interesting dilemma caused by the spread of Islam: While there are over a billion Muslims, the maximum number of people who can visit the Ka’aba during Ramadan is physically limited to about three million. As a result, the Saudi government has issued a statement declaring that only 1 in 1000 people who apply for the Hajj will be permitted to come. If the life expectancy of a typical Muslim is 70 years, this restriction means that, for every 1000 people, only 70 of them (7%) will actually be able to do a Hajj in their lifetimes. To allay the fears of the other 93%, who might otherwise believe that they will be condemned to Hell, this pillar was modified, so that Muslims need only express an intent to go on a Hajj rather than actually do it. This intent is expressed by celebrating Eid, a special holiday at the end of Ramadan. Again, the quotes of the Koran verify that the Hajj, in one form or another, was an ancient practice that, in theory, traces all the way back to the days of Abraham and Ishmael: [2.125] PICKTHAL: And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).

Clearly, the latter four of the Five Pillars of Islam were established by Semitic tribes near the Ka’aba long before Muhammad’s time. Therefore, the only pillar that uniquely distinguished Islam from its predecessor religions was the first, because it required allegiance to Muhammad.

The missing pillar: Love When reviewing the Five Pillars of Islam, one finds that they appear benign, and possibly even helpful, particularly when compared to the chaotic culture that Muhammad grew up in. According to Islam’s historical accounts, Muhammad’s leadership had many positive effects and

71

brought about a unifying identity, a sense of belonging and camaraderie, and an admirable support for the needy. Unfortunately, these pillars do little to advance what we in the West would call ethical behavior, as can be inferred from the following hadiths: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 480:138…A Bedouin came to the Prophet and said, “Tell me of such a deed as will make me enter Paradise, if I do it.” The Prophet…said, “Worship Allah, and worship none along with Him, offer the (five) prescribed compulsory prayers perfectly, pay the compulsory Zakat, and fast the month of Ramadan.” The Bedouin said, “By Him, in Whose Hands my life is, I will not do more than this.” When he (the Bedouin) left, the Prophet said, “Whoever likes to see a man of Paradise, then he may look at this man.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 690:139…The Prophet said, “One of the sayings of the prophets which the people have got is, ‘If you do not feel ashamed, then do whatever you like.’”

When Westerners stand back and look at the Five Pillars, there appears to be something missing: The principle of love and compassion for others. This principle is a pillar of Judeo-Christian ethics that permeates Western culture even in a post-Christian age. For example, the closest connection between the Five Pillars of Islam and the Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would have them do unto you,”140 or “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,”141 is Zakah (works of charity). This connection is extremely remote, however, because charitable giving does not actually require love or compassion, and can be motivated by far more self-serving objectives. While the Koran is essentially devoid of the Golden Rule, there are hadiths that say things that initially sounds similar, such as: •

Sahih Muslim, Chapter 18: CONCERNING THE FACT THAT IT IS ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF IMAN THAT ONE SHOULD LIKE THE SAME THING FOR ONE'S BROTHER-IN-ISLAM AS ONE LIKES FOR ONE’S SELF… Book 1, Number 73:142…the Prophet…observed:…“no bondsman (truly) believes till likes for his neighbour,” or (the Holy Prophet) said, “for his brother, whatever he likes for himself.”

•

Sahih Muslim, Chapter 19: CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION TO HARM NEIGHBOUR Book 1, Number 74:…the Messenger of Allah…observed: He will not enter Paradise whose neighbour is not secure from his wrongful conduct.

•

Sahih Muslim, Chapter 20: CONCERNING EXHORTATION TO ACCORD HONOUR AND RESPECT TO THE NEIGHBOUR AND TO THE GUEST AND OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE SILENCE EXCEPT IN GOODNESS…

138

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 31, Number 115, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 188, Volume 9, Book 86, Number 88, and Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 9. 139 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 691, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 141, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 9, Number 9.15.49. 140 See Bible, Matthew 7:12. For a related Hebrew maxim, see Talmud, Shabbat 31a: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” 141 See Bible, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19. While the Golden Rule is not unique to Judaism and Christianity, these versions are the most commonly known in the West. 142 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12 and Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 72.

72

Book 1, Number 75:143…the Messenger of Allah…observed: He who believes…should either utter good words or better keep silence; and…should treat his neighbour with kindness and…should show hospitality to his guest.

However, a deeper look into these hadiths reveals that they are qualified in ways that undo the Golden Rule’s intent: •

The admonition that “no bondsman (truly) believes till he likes for his neighbor…whatever he likes for himself” applies only to other Muslims. Clearly, in answer to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” Muhammad would not have told the story of the good Samaritan. Islam’s version of the golden rule is exclusive.

•

The true meaning of the admonition that “He who believes…should either utter good words or better keep silence; and…should treat his neighbour with kindness and…should show hospitality to his guest” is clarified by the following hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 59o:144…A man asked permission to enter upon the Prophet. When the Prophet saw him, he said, “What an evil brother of his tribe! And what an evil son of his tribe!” When that man sat down, the Prophet behaved with him in a nice and polite manner and was completely at ease with him. When that person had left, ‘Aisha said…“O Allah’s Apostle! When you saw that man, you said so-and-so about him, then you showed him a kind and polite behavior, and you enjoyed his company?” Allah’s Apostle said, “O ‘Aisha! Have you ever seen me speaking a bad and dirty language? (Remember that) the worst people in Allah’s sight on the Day of Resurrection will be those whom the people leave (undisturbed) to be away from their evil (deeds).”

In other words, Muhammad teaches believers to be completely two-faced in their hospitality. Muslims are to be kind to the people they despise, having faith that their kind acts will damn those people to the deepest recesses of Hell. Muslim hospitality is not evidence of brotherly love. Instead of focusing on love for others, Islam’s holy scriptures focus on obedience to the will of Allah, which, during Muhammad’s ministry, meant obedience to Muhammad. Today, this obedience has been transferred to the clerics who interpret Muhammad’s recitations. The missing pillar of love for mankind is one of Islam’s fundamental shortcomings, although some orders of Sufism (Islamic mystics that many Muslims consider heretical) apparently embrace love to a certain degree. Love is an essential glue that binds people together in mutual trust and ultimately holds society together. A society that does not understand or value love for mankind is destined to rip itself apart. If one searches the Koran for the word “love,” and disregards phrases like “Allah does not love…” the search will turn up only 24 mentions of the word. Even in these cases, the Koran 143

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 76, 77, & 78, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 49, Number 49.10.22. 144 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Numbers 80 & 152.

73

provides very little guidance on how to act in a loving way toward others. In fact, “love” is usually mentioned at the end of a long and stern message, often related to warfare, as a carrot to motivate the listener: “Allah loveth those who keep their duty.”145 In only a few cases do these verses discuss something similar to what Westerners think of as love, namely charity and good works, and even in these cases, the goal is to express love for Allah or seek Allah’s love. The Koran is simply not concerned about people expressing love for each other in more than a superficial way. There are many people who are charitable without being loving. In fact, the Catholic institution of indulgences, which Catholicism wisely rejected long ago,146 hinged on the notion of charitable donations, especially to the church, to buy God’s forgiveness for crimes for crimes. The Koran almost never discusses love in the context of human relationships. In the absence of love, the Koran’s primary messages on human relations are: • • • •

Do good works and charity for other Muslims. Honor agreements. Be forgiving. Hold people of other faiths in hostile contempt.

In total, there are only two sets of verses in the Koran that address values akin to true love: verses 30.21 and 60.7-8, which will be presented shortly. What follows is a rather long section that provides every phrase where the Koran uses the word “love” in a positive sense, along with enough surrounding text to provide context. Feel free to skim, rather than read, these passages, once you get a sense of their meanings: •

[2.177] PICKTHAL: It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West [part of the prayer ritual of Salah]; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress.

•

[2.195] PICKTHAL: Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent.

•

[2.222] PICKTHAL: They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.

145

As a subsequent section of this book will soon reveal, this quote comes from the Koran, verse 9.7. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume III, by Edward Gibbon, Random House, Chapter 58, pages 425-426.

146

74

•

[3.31] PICKTHAL: Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins.

•

[3.76] PICKTHAL: Nay, but (the chosen of Allah is) he who fulfilleth his pledge and wardeth off (evil); for lo! Allah loveth those who ward off (evil).

•

[3.134] PICKTHAL: Those who spend (of that which Allah hath given them) in ease and in adversity, those who control their wrath and are forgiving toward mankind; Allah loveth the good;

•

[3.146] YUSUF ALI: How many of the prophets fought (in Allah’s way), and with them (fought) large bands of godly men? But they never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah’s way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast. [3.147] All that they said was: “Our Lord! Forgive us our sins and anything we may have done that transgressed our duty: Establish our feet firmly, and help us against those that resist Faith.” [3.148] And Allah gave them a reward in this world, and the excellent reward of the Hereafter. For Allah loveth those who do good.

•

[3.156] YUSUF ALI: O ye who believe! Be not like the Unbelievers, who say of their brethren, when they are traveling through the Earth or engaged in fighting: “If they had stayed with us, they would not have died, or been slain.” This that Allah may make it a cause of sighs and regrets in their hearts. It is Allah that gives Life and Death, and Allah sees well all that ye do. [3.157] And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass. [3.158] And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto Allah that ye are brought together. [3.159] It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou [Muhammad] dost deal gently with them. Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so pass over (their faults), and ask for (Allah’s) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs (of moment). Then, when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).

•

[5.42] PICKTHAL: Listeners for the sake of falsehood! Greedy for illicit gain! If then they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between them with equity. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.

•

[5.93] PICKTHAL: There shall be no sin (imputed) unto those who believe and do good works for what they may have eaten (in the past). So be mindful of your duty (to Allah), and believe, and do good works; and again: be mindful of your duty, and believe; and once again: be mindful of your duty, and do right. Allah loveth the good.

•

[9.3] PICKTHAL: And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage [the Hajj] that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, [9.4] Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). [9.5] Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and

75

establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [9.6] And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. [9.7] How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship [the Ka’aba]? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.

•

[9.107] YUSUF ALI: And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars. [9.108] Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.

•

[19.96] YUSUF ALI: On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will (Allah) Most Gracious bestow love.

•

[30.21] PICKTHAL: And of His signs is this: He created for you helpmeets from yourselves [women] that ye might find rest in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy.

•

[49.9] YUSUF ALI: If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).

•

[60.7] PICKTHAL: It may be that Allah will ordain love between you and those of them with whom ye are at enmity. Allah is Mighty, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [60.8] Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

•

[61.4] YUSUF ALI: Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.

•

[76.5] YUSUF ALI: As to the Righteous, they shall drink of a cup (of wine) mixed with kafur, [76.6] A fountain where the devotees of Allah do drink, making it flow in unstinted abundance. [76.7] They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day whose evil flies far and wide. [76.8] And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive, [76.9] (Saying), “We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks. [76.10] “We only fear a Day of distressful Wrath from the side of our Lord.”

The impression of love that the Koran gives is: Love is only for Allah to give and to receive. Good works and acts of charity are not motivated by genuine love for fellow human beings, but by love for Allah, and the desire for Allah’s rewards and the fear of his punishment.

76

Islam goes beyond simply ignoring the notion of love, in the Judeo-Christian sense familiar to Westerners. In fact, it loudly opposes it. For example, this is what The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam has to say about love:147 Muslims look aghast these days at the efforts of Western popular culture to promote the idea that we are all gods inside our hearts or that God lives in us, and we can tap into His power like some sort of personal energy reservoir. It seems people are creating God in their own image and justifying any action they engage in by claiming that “God is Love” and so will condone all types of behavior. It seems sometimes that authentic knowledge of God and a seriousness about what He represents have descended to the level of a joke. Muslims stand…like lighthouses in the storm, calling people to resist the false suggestions of Shaytan, or Satan…The Qur’an warned us long ago that the desire of Shaytan is to separate us from God, and what better way for him to succeed than to get all of us to call ourselves gods and goddesses or to make up gods of our own!

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam was designed to present Islam as palatably and benignly as possible to Westerners, and yet its allegations against the West and, in a veiled way, Christianity, are alarming. It calls the innocent and comforting statement “God is Love” an abhorrent sacrilege. It misinterprets Christian doctrine in order to imply that Christians are polytheists, a common Muslim charge that places modern Christians among the lowest of the low in the Islamic hierarchy of despised Infidels. How bad is it to be called a polytheist by a Muslim? Another book in this light-hearted series, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, provides the answer:148 Shirk is the sin of associating someone or something with the One God [Allah] – making something equal to Allah. It is the gravest of all sins, and is regarded as unforgivable if the person committing it dies while still engaged in it.

Apparently, according to these books, people who say “God is Love” are among the worst of all sinners, deceived by Satan into committing an unforgivable sacrilege. This theme of misinterpretation, derision, and open antagonism toward Christianity, as well as Judaism and the West in general, pervades both of these “Idiot’s” books and will shock anyone who is familiar with other books in the “Complete Idiot’s Guide” series. According to the Koran, love for Allah often requires bloody war with other people. If one is called to war by an Islamic authority, any attempt to avoid it is considered Hypocrisy. As for guidance on how people can express love for fellow human beings, the Koran is nearly silent. While it admonishes Muslims to do good works, it says little about what a “good” work is. It is clear, however, that war against Infidels is a good work.

147

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 4, section entitled There Is Only One God, page 39. 148 Ibid, Chapter 1, section entitled Pagans, Be Damned!, page 8.

77

Islam’s substitute for the missing pillar of Love: War against Infidels Beyond the Five Pillars of Islam, there is another pillar that the Koran discusses extensively: War against Infidels. In fact, Muslims often call “Jihad” the sixth pillar of Islam. The Koran for Dummies describes Jihad this way:149 The Koran places heavy emphasis on using divine revelation as a catalyst for establishing [Islamic] justice in all its forms, and struggling against injustice [non-Islamic justice] in all its forms…At the center of this teaching is the concept of Jihad, which means to struggle in the path of God, both inwardly and outwardly, for good against evil. … These social teachings make it impossible for Muslims to separate their religious lives from their social responsibilities (6:162-164150). The Koran teaches that such a distinction is wrong, and preaches that not only individuals, but also social institutions, should serve God [Allah] as a means of producing an equitable [i.e., Islamic] society.

These words imply that any social institution, such as government, is unjust if it is not Islamic. If it is unjust, then Muslims are called upon to struggle against it. Muhammad states this mission, which has been passed on to his followers, more generally, through the following hadiths. Many other hadiths express the same goal: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24: 151 …Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform…that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

•

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294:152…when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would…say:…Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action…Invite them to (accept) Islam;…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [tax]…If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated…

149

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Guiding the Way: Prophet Muhammad, page 10. 150 This is a reference to the Koran: [162-164] PICKTHAL: Say: Lo! my worship and my sacrifice and my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the Worlds. He hath no partner. This am I commanded, and I am first of those who surrender (unto Him). Say: Shall I seek another than Allah for Lord, when He is Lord of all things? Each soul earneth only on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another’s load. Then unto your Lord is your return and He will tell you that wherein ye differed. 151 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 27 – 35, and Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 14, Number 2635, and Book 19, Numbers 2993 & 3061. 152 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Mulsim, Book 19, Numbers 4295 & 4296.

78

How important is military jihad to Islam? The following hadiths, together with many others, reveal how Muhammad made military jihad a centerpiece of Islam that was rewarded both on earth and in the hereafter. These hadiths also reveal how Muhammad and his successors used military jihad to spread Islam through conquest: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:…Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).” The questioner then asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44:153…A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 266l:154…Allah’s Apostle, in one of his military expeditions against the enemy,…got up amongst the people saying, “O people!…when you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” Then he said, “O Allah, the Revealer of the Holy Book,…defeat them, and grant us victory over them.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53:155…The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world…, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s Cause).”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 377:156…On the day of the battle of Uhud, a man came to the Prophet and said, “Can you tell me where I will be if I should get martyred?” The Prophet replied, “In Paradise.” The man…fought till he was martyred.

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 627:157…The Prophet sent a Sariya [army unit] towards Najd and I was in it, and our share from the booty amounted to…thirteen camels each. [this was a substantial amount of wealth at that time]

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46:158…I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “…Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”

153

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 405, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.14.33. 154 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 73 and 210. 155 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 72, Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4631, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.14.27. 156 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Numbers 4678, 4679, & 4680. 157 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 27, Numbers 6 & 8, Book 34, Numbers 294, 302, & 432, Book 35, Number 456, Book 40, Number 563, Volume 4, Book 53, Numbers 324, 362, 364, 378, & 379, Volume 5, Book 59, Numbers 340, 360, 469, 540, 541, 627, & 636, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 698, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 282, Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Number 2310 & 2313, Book 8, Number 3315, Book 19, 4331 – 4337, Sunan Abu-Dawood, Book 19, Number 3013, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.6.15. 158 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 104, Book 53, Numbers 348 & 352, Volume 9, Book 93, Numbers 549 & 555, Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Numbers 4617, 4626, & 4628, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.1.2.

79

In addition, Sahih Muslim devotes an entire book to the subject of Jihad, entitled The Book of Jihad and Expedition, which includes the following chapters: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Chapter 1: Regarding permission to make a raid, without an ultimatum, upon the disbelievers who have already been invited to accept Islam Chapter 9: Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate Chapter 11: The spoils of war especially made lawful for this umma Chapter 12: Spoils of war Chapter 13: Regarding the right of the fighter to the belongings of the one killed by him in the fight. Chapter 15: Fai’ (property taken from the enemy without a formal war) [in other words, thievery and extortion] Chapter 17: Distribution of the spoils among the fighters Chapter 19: Binding the prisoners and putting them in confinement and justification for setting them free without any ransom [The justification for release is converting to Islam] Chapter 20: Evacuation of the Jews from the Hijaz [Actually, a forced exodus] Chapter 23: Return of their gifts to the Ansar by the Muhajirs when the latter grew rich as a result of the conquests Chapter 27: The Battle of Hunain Chapter 28: The Battle of Ta’if Chapter 29: The Battle of Badr Chapter 30: The Conquest of Mecca Chapter 35: The Battle of Ahzab or the Battle of the Ditch Chapter 36: The Battle of Uhud Chapter 37: Wrath of Allah upon a person who is killed by the Prophet himself (may peace be upon him) Chapter 42: The Battle of Khaibar Chapter 43: The Battle of Ahzab or Khandaq (The Tribes or The Ditch) Chapter 44: Dhu Qarad and other battles Chapter 46: Fighting of women side by side with men Chapter 47: Women participants in jihad to be given a prize but not a regular share in the booty, and prohibition to kill children of the enemy [they are to be raised in the practice of Islam instead] Chapter 48: The number of wars waged by the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him)

Similarly, other hadith compilations devote large sections to warfare: • • •

Sahih Bukhari includes books entitled Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad), Onefifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus), and Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (peace be upon him) (Al-Maghaazi). Sunan Abu-Dawud includes books entitled Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad), Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah), and Battles (Kitab Al-Malahim). Malik’s Muwatta includes a book entitled Jihad, with sections entitled Stimulation of Desire for Jihad and Stripping the Slain of their Personal Effects in the Booty.

Even more disturbing is the realization that suicide is not prohibited as strongly as apologists for Islam claim. The constant stream of suicide attacks by Muslims make much more sense after 80

reading the following hadith, deemed worthy of its own chapter in Sahih Muslim, which condones suicide for the sake of Islam: Chapter 50: ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE FACT THAT HE WHO KILLS HIMSELF DOES NOT BECOME UNBELIEVER Book 1, Number 211:…When the Apostle…migrated to Medina, Tufail…also migrated…, and there also migrated along with him a man of his tribe. But the climate of Medina did not suit him, and he fell sick…So he took hold of an iron head of an arrow and cut his finger-joints. The blood streamed forth…till he died. Tufail…saw him in a dream. His state was good and he saw him with his hands wrapped. He (Tufail) said to him: What treatment did your Allah accord to you? He replied. Allah granted me pardon for my migration to the Apostle…(Tufail) again said: What is this that I see you wrapping up your hands? He replied: I was told (by Allah): We would not set right anything of yours which you damaged yourself. Tufail narrated this (dream) to the Messenger of Allah…Upon this [Muhammad] prayed: O Allah I grant pardon even to his hands.

While this hadith does not seem particularly harmful by itself, it becomes so when Islamic scholars combine it with rewards for dying in Jihad. Muhammad called Outward Jihad, otherwise known as warfare, the Lesser Jihad. The Inward Jihad, also called the Greater Jihad, is one’s inner struggle to follow Allah’s will in all things, including a commitment to the Lesser Jihad, which is subsumed under it. Muslims often use this distinction to deflect criticism of Jihad, claiming that Jihad does not necessarily stand for military war.159 Despite this claim, the Koran and the Hadith place a major focus on the “Lesser Jihad” against Infidels, about which these scriptures have plenty to say. They also give very explicit and graphic instructions to believers. For example, in the Koran: • • •

There are seventeen specific passages where believers are told to slay or be slain. There are seven passages that provide specific guidance on killing through warfare. There are forty two passages that command believers to fight in the name of Allah.

Religion of peace, indeed. Any reader of the Koran will quickly perceive that far more attention is given to war than to love. Here is a small sampling of the Koran’s guidance: •

[2.191] PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.

•

[2.193] PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

•

[2.216] YUSUF ALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah

159

One will often hear apologists for Islam claim that “Jihad” does not necessarily mean “war.” However, this distinction makes no sense because the term “war” also does not necessarily mean “war” as armed combat. For example, we are familiar with “the War on Poverty,” “the War on Illiteracy,” and “being at war with oneself.” For all intents and purposes, Jihad and war are used in the same ways with the same intentions.

81

knoweth, and ye know not.

•

[2.246] PICKTHAL: Bethink thee of the leaders of the Children of Israel after Moses, how they said unto a prophet whom they had: Set up for us a king and we will fight in Allah’s way…Yet, when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned away, all save a few of them. Allah is aware of evil-doers.

•

[3.147] PICKTHAL: Their [the armies of the prophets] cry was only…give us victory over the disbelieving folk.

•

[3.168] PICKTHAL: Those who, while they sat at home, said of their brethren (who were fighting for the cause of Allah): If they had been guided by us they would not have been slain. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Then avert death from yourselves if ye are truthful.

•

[3.195] YUSUF ALI: And their Lord hath accepted them, and answered them:…Those who have…suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,…I will…admit them to the gardens with rivers flowing belief: - A reward from the presence of Allah…

•

[4.74] YUSUF ALI: Let those fight in the cause of Allah, who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).

In these passages, as well as elsewhere, the Koran gives true believers a moral imperative to kill Infidels when doing so will advance the goal of converting all mankind “voluntarily” to Islam, or making them submit to Allah’s authority in the form of Islamic government. The Koran and the Hadith, and therefore Islam, exhorts and sanctifies war to such a degree that Islamic nations have made it impossible for the United Nations to agree on a universal definition of terrorism. As the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime states in its website’s section on terrorism, “The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures.”160 Defenders of the Koran will claim that the verses quoted above relate to specific historical events and therefore are not directed toward modern people. The falseness of this claim unveils itself in several ways: • •

•

160

The Koran was written without any dates and virtually no historical context, and it speaks directly to the reader. It was designed to be what Muslims claim it is (when they are not making excuses for its violent language): timeless and universal. The people reviled by the Koran as Infidels and Polytheists still exist, so its commands cannot be considered ancient history. Any reader of the Koran immediately makes the connections between its words and people living today. If the Koran is timeless and universal, then so are its calls for war. The entire foundation of Islam rests on the belief that the Koran has a message for Muslims living today, as well as for all mankind. According to the Koran, any Muslim

See www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html.

82

who ignores its words commits either Hypocrisy or Apostasy, and deserves severe punishment. A skeptical reader of the Koran quickly begins to wonder why Allah needs people to wage war on his behalf. After all, his almighty nature should make him capable of fighting his own battles. The Islamic answer to this question can be seen in a quote from The Koran for Dummies:161 The Koran says that humans have been given the responsibility to represent or act as the deputy of the Divine on earth, in both words and deeds…162 The role of vicegerent calls on human beings to become active participants in the enjoining of good and forbidding of evil, which the Koran describes as an obligatory social role. Part of enjoining good and forbidding evil [according to the Koran] is the struggle towards implementing divine laws on earth, whereby societies live under a system of [Islamic] justice and righteousness.

The Koran’s view of non-Muslims Westerners usually think of a religion as a set of beliefs that form a worldview distinct enough to deserve its own name. A perusal of the religious texts of Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists, and Hindus, as well as the New Testament, reveals that they focus on relationships, both with God (or gods) and with people. None of them emphasize hostility toward other religions. While Jesus may have been personally involved in a mission to reform the Judaism of his day, his actual teachings were about personal ethics, relations with God, relations with other people, and evangelizing. His goal was not to subdue or kill the Jews or anyone else. If anything, his famous instructions to “go the extra mile”163 and “turn the other cheek”164 taught just the opposite. Conversely, the Mosaic and historical books of the Old Testament can remind one of the Koran when they record how God commanded Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Saul, and David to wipe out entire cities, right down to the babies and livestock, because they did not worship the one true God. In fact, throughout both the Koran and the Hadith, there are passages that defend the Old Testament, sometimes to the dismay of Jews themselves. For example, Sahih Bukhari relates the following episode, which is retold in several hadiths:165 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 633:…A Jew and Jewess were brought to the Prophet on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked the Jews, “What do you (usually) do with them?” They said, “We blacken their faces and disgrace them.” 161

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled The purpose of human life, page 131. 162 [27.62] PICKTHAL: Is not He (best) Who answereth the wronged one when he crieth unto Him and removeth the evil, and hath made you viceroys of the earth? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Little do they reflect! 163 See Bible, Matthew 5:41 164 See Bible, Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29 165 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 829, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 79, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.1.1.

83

He said, “Bring here the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful.” They (fetched it and) came and asked a one-eyed man to recite. He went on reciting till he reached a portion on which he put his hand. The Prophet said, "Lift up your hand!" He lifted his hand up and behold, there appeared the verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning of the adulterers to death). Then he said, “O Muhammad! They should be stoned to death but we conceal this Divine Law among ourselves.” Then the Prophet ordered that the two sinners be stoned to death…I saw the man protecting the woman from the stones.

In fact, if Moses had been alive during the time of Muhammad, he probably would have made Muhammad look like an easy-going guy. However, the Old Testament’s version of God’s instructions do not threaten other faiths today because, for better or for worse, the religions that Jews were commanded to destroy have not existed for thousands of years. Moreover, the geographical claims of Judaism are quite limited. The “promised land” of Moses is roughly the size of New Jersey, not the entire world. Islam is unique among major world religions in that its holy scriptures are openly hostile to people of every other living religion, including agnosticism and atheism. They also teach believers to bring the entire world under Islam’s yoke, by persuasion if possible, and by force if necessary. They also repeatedly and specifically name Jews and Christians as groups of people to despise, to hold in contempt, to subdue, and to kill. While these scriptures occasionally offer olive branches to these religions, the goal of the olive branch is to give Infidels an opportunity to convert voluntarily to Islam before Muslims subdue them by the sword. People of faiths other than Judaism, Christianity, Mandaeasim, and Zoroastrianism are simply lumped together as heathens, idol-worshippers, or polytheists, and are considered the worst of all Infidels. As for Atheists, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran says:166 The Koran teaches that some, but not all, will earn hell’s punishment eternally. Atheists, for instance, will earn membership in the group that earns eternal punishment: Those who deny My existence and die with such attitude will be subject to the condemnation of God [Allah], the angels, and all people. They will live condemned forever, will have no relief from the torment, and no attention will be paid to them. (2:161-162)167

A popular trend among Muslims today is to paint Christians as Polytheists because they worship a “Holy Trinity” – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this way, they can place Christians among those who are most despised in the Koran. The irony of this treatment is that Muslims actually believe in the same three things, but they manufacture distinctions in order to accuse Christians of blasphemy. To see this, consider: 1. 2.

Muslims believe in God, They believe in a virgin birth of Jesus through God’s will, with the specific intent of having Jesus proclaim the Gospel, and

166

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 19, section entitled There Will Be an Accounting, page 192. 167 This Koranic quote comes via the translation authored by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar, one of the authors of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, who chose to reference his own translation.

84

3.

They believe in the Holy Spirit, as the Koran explicitly states in verse 2.253. Both authoritative versions of this verse are presented to demonstrate that the term “holy Spirit” is not a fluke of translation: •

[2.253] YUSUF ALI: …to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit.

•

[2.253] PICKTHAL: …We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty) and We supported him with the holy Spirit.

The Koran for Dummies also discusses a term called Imminence, which it describes as “The avenue whereby God is known and His presence felt in human experience on earth.”168 This is what Christians call the Holy Spirit. When Muhammad describes Imminence in the Hadith Qudsi, his words again sound like a Biblical description of the Holy Spirit: My servant constantly approaches Me through supererogatory acts of worship until I love him, and when I love him, I become his eyes with which he sees, his hands with which he holds, and his legs with which he walks.

When Christians make such statements, however, Muslims feel free to accuse them of calling themselves gods. The bottom line is that Muslims believe the same three tenets that they claim are hallmarks of Christian “polytheism.” One reason why the Koran alleges that Christians are polytheists is that it is confused as to the nature of the Christian Trinity. In Surah 5, entitled The Table, the author of the Koran revealed that he believed the Christian Trinity to be Father, Son, and Mother, rather than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: [5.116] PICKTHAL: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right…

Given the reverence with which some Christian denominations regard Mary, this mistake is somewhat understandable. However, Christians, with the exception of a small ancient heretical group called the Mariamites, who happened to be present on the Arabian Penninsula, never took Mary to be a god, and never regarded her as part of the Holy Trinity. Understandable as the Koran’s error is, it is a gross error, which again reveals its less-than-divine nature.

168

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled Knowing God, page 118.

85

To get a fuller sense of Islamic malice toward other religions, we turn again to The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, and its section on the Taliban’s destruction of Afghanistan’s ancient and irreplaceable standing Buddhas:169 Recently, the extremist political group known as the Taliban, who rule Afghanistan as of this writing, became the object of a lot of international criticism for their decision to destroy the ancient Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley… While the Muslim world debated the merits of the Taliban policy, and the non-Muslim world deplored the destruction of this ancient Buddhist art, the Taliban continued with the demolition. The actions of the Taliban bring up an interesting but contradictory situation. When you look at the situation from the point of view of the Shahadah170, the Taliban can rightly say they did nothing wrong, yet to Western minds their actions appear very wrong. In the Taliban’s understanding, they were merely destroying idols, or graven images, as the Bible would label them. In fact, Taliban representatives expressed their puzzlement at the opposition from the Jews and Christians, whose own religious book, the Bible, also requires the destruction of idols (see Exodus 20:1-5).

What is astounding about these words is that they were published in 2002, many months after the September 11 attacks, and yet the author, an American convert to Islam named Yahiya Emerick, did not bother to acknowledge those attacks anywhere at all in the entire book. Apparently, those attacks were not worth mentioning, but it was worth the author’s time to devote pages to a discussion on the Buddhist statues, where he explains that, while the Taliban may have been a bit overzealous, they were certainly acting within the bounds of Islam. In fact, he notes that Jews and Christians are a bit hypocritical to criticize the Taliban because their faiths call them to do the same thing. Subsequently, Emerick’s book points out that the Buddhist statues were originally defaced by the British Army in the nineteenth century during their battle for Afghanistan.171 He states that the British “destroyed” the statues but, if one looks at pictures from that era, one finds that a more accurate term is, literally, “defaced,” in the same manner that Napoleon’s soldiers shot off the nose of the Sphinx. While the impulsive vandalism by a group of British soldiers is to be deeply regretted, it is quite different from a systematic governmentplanned demolition. Emerick concludes his discussion with these words:172 The Taliban concluded that since no one was there worshipping the statues, they could be rightly destroyed as false idols without reneging on the rights granted to religious minorities…The merits of their actions will continue to be debated in the Muslim world, but one fact remains: They sincerely believed in what they did.

169

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 10, section entitled Are Muslims Idol-Breakers?, pages 116-117. 170 Mentioned previously in this book as the Arabic term for Islam’s Declaration of Faith: “I declare there is no god but Allah, and I declare that Muhammad is His Messenger.” 171 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 10, section entitled Are Muslims Idol-Breakers?, page 117. 172 Ibid, Chapter 10, section entitled Are Muslims Idol-Breakers?, page 118-119.

86

Thus, in a few breezy paragraphs, Emerick manages to trivialize the obliteration of two irreplaceable Buddhist monuments by Islamic zealots, while accusing Christians and Jews of hypocrisy, and implying that the British were no better than the Taliban, while ignoring an atrocity perpetrated under the Taliban’s protection. He also ignored the fact that, regardless of the number of Buddhists in Afghanistan, half a billion of them live throughout the world, and the Taliban’s actions were hurtful to them. Emerick’s discussion leaves the reader wondering these questions: •

How could an American publish a book that discusses the Taliban in such sympathetic tones after the 9/11 attacks? Has Emerick forsaken the “Infidel” nation of his birth?

•

How could Emerick make such obvious and callous misrepresentations about Christian and Jewish doctrine, British history, and the Taliban’s harm to Buddhists? Isn’t he obligated by his religion to have integrity?

Actually, he isn’t.

A tool for Islam’s war against Infidels: Taqiyya (dissimulation) A disconcerting way in which Islam reveals its political, rather than religious, nature is in its principle of Taqiyya (also known as “Taqiya”), which translates as “dissimulation,” or “misrepresentation,” or “lying.” According to Webster’s On-Line Dictionary,173 In Islamic law and tradition, Taqiyya is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs to nonMuslims. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger. Often thought as peculiar to the Shi’a Muslims, Taqiyya is acknowledged by Sunni Muslims as well. … Taqiyya, like any other Islamic tenet, has guidelines and limits. However, these guidelines vary from group to group; no one interpretation of this facet of Islamic law is accepted by all groups of Muslims. According to many Shiite Muslims, dissimulation can only be legally used by Muslims verbally, when a Muslim believes that he or she is being wrongly persecuted…The Qur’an states that if one lies, then the liar is guilty of sin and is a transgressor “except he who is compelled while his heart remains steadfast with the faith”. The first use of Taqiyya found historically in Islam was when Muslims were beginning to be tortured by the Quraishites. ‘Ammar bin Yasir, a follower of Muhammad and whose friends had been killed for being Muslim by the Quraish, was confronted by a Quraishite. ‘Ammar, using Taqiyya, pretended to renounce Islam and thus saved his life when asked if he was a Muslim. Muhammad himself was known to have used Taqiyya when he kept his prophetic mission hidden for three years from the Quraish when prolonged hostility was occurring towards the Muslims.

In its politically correct effort to be non-judgmental about a world religion, the authors of this definition present Taqiyya in a way that sounds fairly reasonable. Even at a surface level, 173

See www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/TAQIYYA.

87

though, the above definition becomes unnerving when one considers how determined Islam’s leaders are to make Muslims feel “wrongly persecuted.” A deeper investigation reveals other disturbing characteristics. One of the links that appears with this word on Webster’s on-line dictionary leads to a 3-part essay entitled Al-Taqiyya /Dissimulation, from www.Al-Islam.org.174 This essay provides many useful insights into the true nature of taqiyya, as well as the reason why Shiites and Sunnis contend over it: From Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part I: The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” A one-word translation would be “Dissimulation.” … The following exposition will…demonstrate the existence of al-Taqiyya in the Quran, Hadith, the Prophet’s…custom, and the companions’ custom… … It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that: After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet…was approached by Hajaj Ibn ‘Aalat and told: “O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?” The Prophet…excused him and said: “Say whatever you have to say.” … It is narrated by al-Ghazzali in his book, “Ihya ‘Uloom al-Din,” that: Safeguarding of a Muslim’s life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and that lying is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is at stake. … Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, “al-Ashbah Wa al-Naza’ir,” affirms that: “it is acceptable…to utter words of unbelief; and if one is living in an environment where evil and corruption are the pervasive norm, and permissible things (Halal) are the exception and a rarity, then one can utilize whatever is available to fulfill his needs.” … Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, that Abu al-Darda’ said: “(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people).”

Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part II includes a strange assurance from Shiites: lying is not mandatory whenever a Muslim is under duress, especially when truthfulness helps further the cause of Islam:

174

This dissertation is spread over three web pages (Part I, Part II, and Part III): www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html, www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/2.html, and www.alislam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/3.html.

88

The Shia did NOT innovate or concoct anything new, they simply followed the injunctions of Allah…, as stated in the Quran, and the custom of…Muhammad. Nonetheless, one must also examine what the Shia themselves say about al-Taqiyya: …al-Mudhaffar in his book, “Aqa’id al-Imamiyah,” wrote that: “…It is not mandatory to practice it (al-Taqiyya) at all times; on the contrary, it is permissible, and sometimes necessary, to abandon it (al-Taqiyya) altogether; as in the case where revealing the truth will further the cause of the religion, and provide a direct service to Islam…”

Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part III discusses the basis of the dispute between Shiites and Sunnis regarding Taqiyya: Shiites feel that a history of religious persecution by Sunnis justifies alTaqiyya against them. It also makes a plea, from Shiites to Sunnis, to put away this dispute and join with them as brothers, so that they can unite in lying to the Infidels: The Shia HAVE TO practice al-Taqiyya as part of the persecution that they have suffered from day one of the death of…Muhammad. It is enough to say “I am a Shi’I” to get your head chopped off even today in countries like Saudi Arabia… My comment here is that Wahhabis themselves do indeed practice al-Taqiyya, but they have been psychologically programmed by their mentors in such a way that they don’t even recognize alTaqiyya when they do actually practice it… Dr. al-Tijani [a Shiite] wrote [of a time when] he was sitting next to a Sunni scholar on a flight to London; they were both on their way to attend an Islamic Conference. At that time, there was still some tension due to the Salman Rushdie affair…The Sunni scholar said: “The Shia must drop certain beliefs and convictions that cause disunity and animosity among the Muslims.” Dr. al-Tijani answered: “Like what?” The Sunni scholar answered: “Like the Taqiyya and Muta’ [temporary marriage] ideas.” Dr. al-Tijani immediately provided him with plenty of proofs in support of these notions, but the Sunni scholar was not convinced, and said that although these proofs are all authentic and correct, we must discard them for the sake of uniting the Ummah!!! When they both got to London, the immigration officer asked the Sunni scholar: “What is the purpose of your visit sir?” The Sunni scholar said: “For medical treatment.” Then Dr. al-Tijani was asked the same question, and he answered: “To visit some friends.” Dr. al-Tijani followed the Sunni scholar and said: “Didn’t I tell you that al-Taqiyya is for all times and occasions!” The Sunni scholar said: “How so?” Dr. al-Tijani answered: “Because we both lied to the airport police: I by saying that I came to visit some friends, and you by saying that you are here for medical treatment; when, in fact, we are here to attend the Islamic Conference!” The Sunni scholar smiled, and said: “Well, doesn’t an Islamic Conference provide healing for the soul?!” Dr. al-Tijani was swift to say: “And doesn’t it provide an opportunity to visit friends?!”

This intriguing dissertation also reveals the ease with which Muslims can resort to Taqiyya. It shows how Islamic teachings effectively condone dissemblance toward Infidels, particularly in an Infidel nation, whenever doing so serves the interests of Islam. The idea that a world religion like Islam could incorporate dissemblance to the point of making it a field of study, with its own special name, can seem almost unbelievable to non-Muslims. However, this does not imply that people of other faiths never lie when pressed. For example, Dutch Christian Corrie ten Boom wrote a book, called The Hiding Place, which recorded how 89

she and her family hid Jews from the Nazis during World War II, ultimately being caught and sent to a prison camp, where both her father and sister died. There is an important distinction, however. Her family’s motivation was “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” It was not to avoid personal hardship or to promote Christianity. This investigation of Taqiyya reveals an even more important point: The two scholars in the above story were traveling to the United Kingdom in the 1980s. Although there were tensions over Salman Rushdie at the time, the U.K. was not in a state of war with any Islamic nation. Muslims had no reason to fear for their lives in the U.K.. Why did these scholars lie to the immigration officer so easily that the Sunni cleric did not even realize he had done so? The obvious answer is that their disingenuousness was habitual. Why? Because the House of Islam considers itself to be in a state of perpetual war against the Infidel nations of the world (though cease-fires are permitted), and Muslims do not feel obligated to deal honestly with those who live in rebellion to Allah and his Law. As Muhammad declared repeatedly in the Hadith: 175

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:

…Allah’s Apostle called, “War is deceit.”

Some may wish to counter this conclusion with the following Koranic verse, which is part of the Koran’s version of the story of Moses and Exodus. In it, Allah makes clear his opposition to those who lie: [40.28] PICKTHAL: And a believing man of Pharaoh’s family, who hid his faith, said: Would ye [Pharaoh] kill a man [Moses] because he saith: My Lord is Allah, and hath brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is lying, then his lie is upon him; and if he is truthful, then some of that wherewith he threateneth you will strike you. Lo! Allah guideth not one who is a prodigal, a liar.

However, this verse does not redeem Islam from accusations of endorsing dissemblance for two reasons: • •

The “believing man of Pharaoh’s family” who spoke against lying had practiced taqiyya. Verse 40:28 came from an early time in Muhammad’s ministry, while he was preaching in Mecca and his people were a persecuted minority.176 Later, after Muhammad became the ruler of an expanding empire, this verse was abrogated, at least with regard to Islam’s perceived enemies, as the following quote demonstrates: [3.54] PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed

(against them): and Allah is the best of schemers. One might wonder why an all-powerful, all-knowing Allah would need to scheme against his own creations, whose lives he himself decided before they were born, and of whom he has perfect foreknowledge. The Islamic answer is that Allah has decided to 175

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 267 & 269, and Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Numbers 4311 & 4312. 176 In fact, the story of Moses and Exodus probably did much to bolster the spirits of Muhammad’s beleaguered followers.

90

work through the Muslims, his “representatives or vicegerents of God on earth,”177 who are called on “to become active participants in the enjoining of good and forbidding of evil,”178 by scheming on behalf of Allah. There is another term related to Taqiyya, called Kitman, which also deserves special attention. A good description of Kitman comes from the Islamic website, www.islamonline.net:179 …the word kitman comes from the verb katama, which means to hide, to conceal…it touches on so many aspects - some of which are good and others are bad. Starting with the good aspects, we can say that a good type of kitman (concealment or hiding) is when you hide things still in process till they are complete….In this regard, the Prophet…says in the hadith: “Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish in kitman.” He himself gave the best example…in the early days of Islam. When the number of Muslims was still small and the community was still weak, there was a big need for concealment or secret call (kitman) so as to save the cause of da`wah (inviting people to Islam) from the fierce enemies. … Kitman is of much greater importance when we realize that it is a type of trust. When one discloses some of his secrets to you and asks you to keep them secret from others, then it is your duty to keep them secret as required by that person. Even between the two spouses, they have to practice kitman, i.e. they are in no way allowed to talk to others about the details or generalities of their conjugal life or intimate relations [such as beatings?]. Kitman may extend to cover the secrets of the whole state at the time of war and peace where a person who is loyal to his people cannot divulge to anyone or tell the enemy about his country’s affairs. Now, let’s turn to the bad type of kitman, namely, withholding or hiding. An example of this type is the image of a person whom Allah has gifted with knowledge so as to benefit people with it. However, such a person practices the kitman of knowledge by hiding it. To such type of people the Prophet hints in one of his hadiths in which he states that their knowledge will be like a bridle for them in Hell. Another ignominy of ignominies is that type of people whom Allah gives wealth and properties. Yet, they practice kitman of money, by withholding zakah and not offering charity. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, warns them: “Whomever Allah gives money but refrains from paying the zakah on it, this money will turn into a big snake, on the Day of Judgment, which will seize him by cheeks saying, ‘I am your money, I am your treasure’”

We have already seen how Muslims apply Kitman to words like “tolerance” and “peace,” which they use in unexpected ways that are concealed from Westerners. Another example of Kitman comes from Understanding Islam and the Muslims, the Saudi Arabian pamphlet mentioned

177

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, chapter 11, section entitled Doing as God and His Messenger Do, page 164. 178 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled The purpose of human life, page 131. 179 See www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016204&pagename=IslamOnline-EnglishAAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

91

previously in the section of this book entitled A personal realization. It contains the following passage: What do Muslims think about Jesus? Muslims respect and revere Jesus…, and await his Second Coming. They consider him one of the greatest of God’s messagers to mankind. A Muslim never refers to him simply as ‘Jesus’, but always adds the phrase ‘upon him be peace’…

Nowhere in this Christian-friendly passage, or anywhere in the pamphlet, is it revealed why Muslims await Jesus Christ’s Second Coming. Their disturbing reason is that Muslims believe that Jesus’ Second Coming will bring the end of Christianity and the triumph of Islam. The gruesome manner of this “Second Coming” is discussed in more detail in the upcoming section entitled The future of leadership in the Islamic world.

The “House of Peace” and the “House of War” As was noted in the beginning of this book, Muslims are taught to divide the world into two realms: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam), which can be translated more fully as the “House of Peace,” and the House of War (Dar al-harb). Within the House of Islam, people of other faiths may be tolerated, but only on terms specified by the Koran. Any nation that is not Islamic automatically belongs in the House of War, and is subject to a perpetual state of jihad.180 Within its realm, Islamic tolerance of other religions has limits, as proclaimed by hadiths such as: Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17: 181…Umar [said], “One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah…said was, ‘May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration. Two deens [religious practices] shall not coexist in the land of the Arabs.’”

In other words, the Arabian Peninsula is to be exclusively Muslim. In 640, Umar drove all Christians, Jews, and Heathens from the land and, to this day, none are allowed to live there. Infidels are not even allowed to visit the holy city of Mecca. Muhammad’s dying wish was what prompted Osama bin Laden to declare Holy War against the United States. It did not matter that the U.S. helped him and the other Mujahadeen fight against the Soviet domination of Afghanistan. It did not matter that the purpose of the Prince Sultan Air Base, which the U.S. built in Saudi Arabia, was to help the Saudis and other Islamic nations drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991. To Osama bin Laden, the mere existence of this air base was a violation of Muhammad’s dying wish, because Infidels were living on the Arabian Peninsula. To him, this was an unforgivable sin that had to be avenged.182 180

The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, by Bernard Lewis, Schocken Books, New York, 1998, pages 121-122. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288, Book 53, Number 392, Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Number 3763, Book 19, Numbers 4363 & 4366, Sunan AbuDawud, Book 19, Numbers 3001 and 3026, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18. 182 The Saudi’s have been skirting Muhammad’s dying wish by allowing non-Muslim foreigners onto Saudi soil, to provide technical and management assistance in their oil industry. This necessary evil has been something the 181

92

The reason bin Laden is so popular throughout the Muslim world is because he dares to act on the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith. He stands for Islam, punishes the Infidels, and refuses to play meekly according to the West’s rulebook. Muslims cheer him for having the bravery to lash back at the West, which disregards Islam so profoundly that it does not even recognize its transgressions. Bin Laden has the courage that many Muslims wish they had. The Saudi government had kept the U.S. military base a secret from its populace, and it did so for good reason: the Saudi royal family knew that they were violating Muhammad’s wish.183 However, as soon as the secret came out, citizens became so outraged that the Air Base had to decamp to avoid causing an unintended Saudi “regime change.” Beyond the Arabian Peninsula, the House of Islam can claim to tolerate non-Muslims. A Muslim’s definition of “toleration,” however, is quite different from what Westerners assume. Westerners tend to define “religious toleration” as acceptance of and respect for other religions.184 Muslims, on the other hand, use a different definition, one akin to “putting up with something one despises.”185 The true spirit of Islamic tolerance reveals itself in an anecdote told by an Islamic cleric in Germany, Bassam Tibi, in the Hamburg weekly, Die Zeit:186 The bishop of Hildesheim in Germany paid an imam a courtesy visit in his mosque. The imam handed the Catholic prelate a Koran, which he joyfully accepted. But when the bishop tried to present the imam with a Bible, the Muslim cleric just stared at him in horror and refused to even touch Christianity’s holy book. “The bishop was irritated because he perceived this behavior as a gross discourtesy,” wrote Tibi, “but the imam had only acted according to his faith. For if an imam gives a bishop a Koran, he considers this a Da’Wa, or call to Islam.” This, explained Tibi,…corresponds to a verse in the Koran: “And say ... to those who are unlearned: ‘Do ye submit yourselves?’” (Surah 3:20).

To get a deeper understanding of where the imam’s behavior came from, consider Surah 109 (The Unbelievers) and the commentary written on it by a prominent leader of Islamic thought named Sayad Abul Ala Maududi. As Maududi explains, this surah, which is often presented as proof of Islam’s tolerance of other religions, is actually just the opposite: [109.001] PICKTHAL: Say: O disbelievers! nation has been coping with by restricting these Infidel foreigners to specific walled compounds on the edges of Saudi soil, only allowing them temporary residency, and launching a major effort to educate their own people in the skills needed, so that the foreigners can eventually be removed. The U.S. military presence has been viewed as a far grosser violation because it imports powerful weapons from an Infidel land, a land that supports Israel and, in theory, could use those weapons against Islam’s most holy sites. 183 U.S. – Saudi Alliance appears strong, by Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, April 27, 2003. 184 “A disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior;…Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others.” From Webster’s On-Line Dictionary. Source: Wordnet 1.7.1, Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. 185 “The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.” From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. 186 Scholar Warns West of Muslim Goals, By Uwe Siemon-Netto, United Press International (UPI), June 18, 2002.

93

[109.002] I worship not that which ye worship; [109.003] Nor worship ye that which I worship. [109.004] And I shall not worship that which ye worship. [109.005] Nor will ye worship that which I worship. [109.006] Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

Maududi’s commentary explains that this surah declares definitively that there is no room for compromise with regard to religion:187 There was a time in Makkah when…the Quraish chiefs had not yet lost hope that they would reach some sort of a compromise with [Muhammad]. Therefore, from time to time they would visit him with different proposals of compromise so that…the dispute between them [would be] brought to an end… … …there was need that they [the Quraish chiefs] should be given a definite, decisive reply so that their hope that he [Muhammad] would come to terms with them on the principle of “give and take” was frustrated for ever. … …the Surah…was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers’ religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity….Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching that they should exonerate themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith. That is why… the Muslims still recite it centuries after they have passed away, for expression of disgust with and dissociation from kufr and its rites is a perpetual demand of Faith. As for the esteem in which the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) held this Surah, it can be judged from the following…hadith[s]:…Naufal bin Muawiyah al-Ashjai said to the Holy Prophet …: “Teach me something which I may recite at the time I go to bed.” The Holy Prophet replied: “Recite Qul ya-ayyuhal kafirun188 to the end and then sleep, for this is immunity from polytheism.” [Numerous similar hadiths are cited at this point, which repeat and emphasize Muhammad’s admonition to recite this surah every night.]

We can now see that the imam’s refusal even to touch the Bible offered by the bishop, after the bishop had accepted the Koran from the imam, parallels Muhammad’s rejection of the offer made by the Quraish chiefs. Are there different paths to the same God? Islam emphatically says NO, and prescribes rituals that embed contempt for all other religions deeply into Muslim minds. Obviously, ecumenical respect is a one-way street when it comes to Islam. From an Islamic perspective, the goal of tolerance is to provide Infidels with a non-violent opportunity to convert. “Religious toleration” is just one of several important phrases that Muslims and Westerners use in similar ways but with completely different intents. 187

The Meaning of the Qur'an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999, commentary on Surah 109. 188 “Qul ya-ayyuhal kafirun” means “O you kafirs!” or “O you kufrs!” This is the first ayat (verse) of Surah 109, which was translated by Pickthal as “O disbelievers!”

94

Islamic “toleration” only grants that other religions may exist, in a constrained way, for the time being. However, Muslims believe that even this form of tolerance will disappear during the end times, as numerous hadiths relate, such as: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: …Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”

•

Sahih Muslim, Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY

189

Book 37, Number 6665:…Allah’s Messenger…said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from HellFire. Book 37, Number 6666:…Allah’s Apostle…said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire…190

Between now and that “glorious” Last Day, the Koran requires all Infidels in the House of Islam to humbly acknowledge Islam’s superiority and pay the Jizya.191 Jizya is a special annual tribute, or tax, paid to support Islam’s military forces. Islamic authorities explain that this tax is justified as compensation for the Infidel exemption from military service. While portrayed as an advantageous way to “opt out” of the military, the fact is that Infidels are excluded. The reason for this exclusion becomes obvious when one notes that the Jizya was often used to pay the costs of keeping non-Muslims in their place and waging war against non-Muslim lands. There is another agenda that the historical Jizya also served: forced “voluntary” conversion, through this tax’s crushing weight. Once the Jizya brought a man to destitution (only males were assessed this tax, but anyone past the age of puberty was considered a man), so that he had no more to give without facing his and his family’s starvation, he had two options: convert to Islam or die. This is because non-Muslims who did not pay the Jizya were considered in rebellion to the Islamic state: Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294:192…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [tax]…If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.

Once the starving Infidel converted, he became required to also raise his children as Muslims. Also, an Infidel woman who wished to avoid the destitution caused by these taxes would marry a Muslim man, thereby ensuring that all of her children would be raised in Islam (children were required to be brought up in the religion of their fathers). 189

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176, and Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Numbers 6981, 6982, 6983, 6984, and 6985 190 This chapter continues in a similar vein through Numbers 6667, 6668, and 6669. 191 [9.29] YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 192 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Mulsim, Book 19, Numbers 4295 & 4296.

95

To fully appreciate the impact of the Jizya, it is important to know something about its history. Originally, Islam imposed two taxes on its non-Muslim subjects: the Jizya and the Kharâj. While the nature of both taxes is not exactly clear from Islamic holy scripture, and was somewhat flexible during Islam’s history, a good sense of what these taxes were in Muahmmand’s day comes from the Hadith. The following hadiths shed light on what the Jizya was: •

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 19, Number 3032: When the Prophet…sent him to the Yemen, he ordered to take from everyone who had reached puberty one dinar or its equivalent in Mu’afiri garment of Yemen origin.

•

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 19, Number 3040:193…the Apostle of Allah…said: Tithes [one-tenth of a person’s income] are to be levied on Jews and Christians, but not on Muslims.

•

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 17, Number 17.24.44:…Malik [said] that Umar…imposed a jizya tax of four dinars on those living where gold was the currency, and forty dirhams on those living where silver was the currency. In addition, they had to provide for the Muslims and receive them as guests for three days.

•

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 17, Number 17.24.46: …Malik said, “The sunna is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. The…jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them. As long as they are in the country they have agreed to live in, they do not have to pay anything on their property except the jizya. If, however, they trade in muslim countries, coming and going in them, a tenth is taken from what they invest in such trade [that is, ten percent of assets brought to trade, not ten percent of the actual sales].

•

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 17, Number 17.25.48:…Malik…said, “…I used to work with Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud in the market of Madina in the time of Umar…and we used to take a tenth from the Nabateans.”

In the light of modern taxes, which can far exceed ten percent, this tax does not appear to be extreme at first glance. However, a comparison of modern taxes to the Jizya is a comparison of apples to oranges, because modern taxes are used to provide benefits to the people who pay them, ranging from social security, to medicare, to public schools, to police and fire protection, etc., while the Jizya was used to support a system that oppressed the people who paid it. Despite this distinction, Muslim apologists will claim that the Jizya was an appropriate compensation for the dhimmi exemption from military service. Beyond the fact that a ten percent Jizya still motivated conversions to Islam, and beyond the contempt that Muslims felt for infidels who would rather pay the Jizya in submission, rather than fight, either for the cause of Allah or for their own faiths, there were other factors that made the Jizya far more coercive than it may originally appear. As mentioned, the Jizya was only one of the taxes originally placed on Infidels. There was also a tax on non-Muslim traders, mentioned in the fourth bullet above, which took ten percent of a 193

Similar hadiths can be found in Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 9, Number 1596 and Book 19, Number 3043.

96

trader’s goods, whether or not those goods were traded. To be competitive with traders not subject to this tax, non-Muslim traders had to either convert to Islam or deal strictly in goods deemed unworthy of Muslims, such as alcohol and products derived from dead animals (discussed further in the section of this book entitled Other aspects of the economy that are affected by Islam). However, the harshest tax was the Kharâj. Islam’s holy texts define the Kharâj through hadiths like the following: Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 19, Number 3000:194…The Prophet fought with the people of Khaybar, and captured their palm-trees and land, and forced them to remain confined to their fortresses. So they concluded a treaty of peace providing that gold, silver and weapons would go to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), and whatever they took away on their camels would belong to them, on condition that they would not hide and carry away anything. If they did (so), there would be no protection for them and no treaty (with Muslims). … [The people of Khaybar] said: Muhammad, leave us to work on this land; we shall have half (of the produce) as you wish, and you will have half… While this quote, and others like it in Islamic holy scripture, do not mention the Kharâj explicitly in their English tranlations, this is because “Kharâj” is typically translated into English words, such as “tribute” or “recompence,” instead of being left in its original form. However, references by Muslim writers make the meaning of Kharâj clear, such as:195 When Khaybar was conquered by the Prophet,...the Jews, recognizing the conquerors as the owners of the entire conquered land (after the custom of the day), offered to cultivate the lands as the tenants of the State and paid a part of the produce. The Prophet granted them their request and fixed the Kharâj at half of the produce. Over time, the terms “Jizya” and “Kharâj” became synonymous, even though both taxes were still assessed.196 As a result, the evolving meaning of “Jizya” has led to a situation today where non-Muslims who fear Islam say that the Jizya was crushingly heavy, while Muslims defending Islam dismiss this claim by referring to the relatively light definition of Jizya found in the Hadith. The fact of the matter is that non-Muslims were assessed crushing taxes, which frequently impoverished non-Muslims and then forced them to convert after they became unable to pay. While these taxes were somewhat graduated, they did not go to zero as modern income taxes do. There was always a significant minimum tax to pay. This minimum tax was what forced the 194

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 36, Number 485, Book 39, Numbers 521, 522, 524, & 531, Book 44, Number 678, Book 50, Number 881, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 380, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 550, Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Numbers 3758 – 3763, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.19. 195 An Islamic Perspective on the Wealth of Nations, by Imad A. Ahmad, presented at the International Conference on “Comprehensive Development of Muslim Countries: An Interdisciplinary Approach from an Islamic Perspective”, Aug. 1-3, 1994, Subang Jaya, Malaysia. See www.minaret.org/malaysia.htm. 196 The Arabs in History, Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press, 2002, pages 72—81.

97

destitute to convert. Interestingly, these taxes caused such a mass of religious conversions that, by 717 AD, the (Umayyad) Caliphate suffered a financial crisis caused by the collapse of its tax base.197 Similarly, the Abbasid Caliphate endured a long series of revolts by Christian Copts ruined by taxes, ending in 832 with a widespread massacre of Coptic men and the enslavement of Coptic women and children.198 These bits of history demonstrates a point that will be investigated in more depth shortly: a government founded on the tenets of Islam only flourishes when when it has non-Muslims to prey upon, unless it happens to control vast and valuable natural resources. Returning to the question of proper relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, the Koran issues the following commands: •

[3.28] YUSUF ALI: Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah…

•

[4.144] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?

•

[5.51] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

•

[9.73] PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.

•

[28.86] YUSUF ALI: And thou hadst not expected that the Book would be sent to thee except as a mercy from thy Lord: Therefore lend not thy support in any way to those who reject (Allah’s Message).

•

[60.13] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Be not friendly with a folk with whom Allah is wroth, (a folk) who have despaired of the Hereafter as the disbelievers despair of those who are in the graves.

A review of the Koran’s commands that tell Muslims not to be friends with Jews and Christians leads one to wonder why. Could it be that, by getting to know their Jewish and Christian friends, Muslims might come to doubt the Koran’s slanders against them? Or possibly even feel empathy for them as human beings? To discover how Muslims are taught to view non-Muslims, consider the following excerpt from the Shari’ah issued by Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani., which defines what is considered najis. Najis means “filthy.” If something najis is touched, ritual purification is required before undertaking any acts of reverence or worship. 199

Najis Things 197

The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, by G. R. Hawting, London, Routledge, 2000 See www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/History_of_Arab_and_Ottoman_Egypt. 199 IMPORTANT NOTE: Because Shari’ah is derived from the Koran and Hadith, its exact form has been an ongoing debate among Islamic jurists for nearly 1400 years. While most versions are similar, there can be 198

98

84. * The following ten things are essentially najis: … Urine and Faeces … Semen … Dead Body … Blood … Dogs and Pigs … Kafir [Disbelievers] 107. An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis… As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. However, it is better to avoid them. 108. The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis. 109. If the parents, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a minor child are all kafir, that child is najis, except when he is intelligent enough, and professes Islam… 110. A person about whom it is not known whether he is a Muslim or not…will be considered Pak. But he will not have the privileges of a Muslim, like, he cannot marry a Muslim woman, nor can he be buried in a Muslim cemetery. … Alcoholic Liquor … Sweat of an Animal Who Persistently Eats Najasat [unclean things] …

You may recognize Al-Sistani’s name. This is because he is the “moderate” who has been representing Iraq’s Shiites throughout Iraq’s post-Saddam era. He is also the man who nearly started an uprising against Coalition forces in early 2004, when he decided that government control was not being handed to Iraqis quickly enough.

significant differences, especially between Shiites and Sunnis. These disputed issues are called Ishkal, which is Arabic for “doubt.” Therefore, when quoting Shari’ah, it is not possible to refer to the translation of a single definitive text. For this book, the version of Shari’ah used was issued by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini AlSistani, of Iraq. See www.al-islam.org/laws/index.html. When this book was originally written, Sistani’s Shari’ah was available at www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=3&lang=eng&part=3, however, the website was changed so that his Shari’ah is no longer available.

99

Despite these slanders against Jews and Christians, Muslims see themselves as persecuted, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran testifies:200 In an era when it is unacceptable to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs and it is considered a grave social misstep to ridicule the faith of fellow-citizens…it is still “open season” on Islam and Muslims. Today religious discrimination against Muslims is rampant, and coarse attacks upon the faith of millions of Americans…[are] all too common.

If one were to compare the number of Muslims who have died in the United States because of anti-Muslim hatred to the number of non-Muslims who have died in the United States because of Muslim hatred, one would find few if any Muslim deaths, but thousands of non-Muslims deaths. This is not simply a matter of the September 11 attacks. Numerous terrorist cells have been thwarted, but others have succeeded, including individual acts of sheer hatred. These incidents appear to be increasing in frequency. They include: • • • • • • •

•

The 1993 bomb attack on the Twin Towers, masterminded by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a former professor at Cairo’s prestigious Al-Azhar University. This bombing killed six people and injured a thousand. The 1997 shooting attack by Ali Abu Kamal at the Empire State Building. Kamal killed one and wounded six before turning his gun on himself.201 The July 4, 2002 shooting spree by Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet, who killed two people at Los Angeles International Airport, right near the front counter of Israel’s El Al Airline.202 The 2002 shooting attacks of Muslim converts John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who killed a total of sixteen people. Their ten sniper killings in Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Maryland made them famous as the “Beltway Snipers.” The 2006 auto attack by Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who ran down nine University of North Carolina students in an SUV.203 The 2006 gun attack by Naveed Afzal Haq, whose father helped found an Islamic Center in Seattle. Haq broke into a Seattle Jewish charity center and shot six women, one fatally.204 The 2006 auto attack by Omeed A. Popal, a young man “from a ‘decent, pious and respectful’ family, devout members of the Abu Bakr Siddiq Mosque in Hayward [California]”. Popal drove his SUV through the streets of San Francisco, deliberately running down fourteen randomly selected people, killing one.205 The 2007 gun attack by Sulejman Talovic, another young Muslim, who had immigrated from Bosnia in 1998 with his family. In his attack, Talovic shot nine people, five fatally,

200

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 3, section entitled In This Chapter, page 25. 201 N.Y. killer carried political note: Empire State Building security is tightened, by Tom Hays, Associated Press, The Standard-Times (New Bedford, Massachusetts), February 25, 1997. 202 FBI names LA airport gunman, BBC News, July 5, 2002. 203 UNC Attack Suspect Wanted to Punish Gov’t, by Steve Hartsoe, Associated Press, The Guardian (U.K.), March 7, 2006. 204 Police: Seattle shooting suspect ambushed teen, Associated Press, MSNBC News, July 29, 2006. 205 Driving rampage killed one, injured at least 13, by James Hohmann and Katherine Corcoran, Mercury News (San Jose, CA), August 30, 2006.

100

•

at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. The only reason the carnage was not greater was that he was shot dead by police while in the midst of his rampage.206 The 2007 auto attack by Nashville taxi driver Ibrahim Ahmed, who got into an argument over religion with two Christian students and then attempted to run them over, hitting one.207

Perhaps what is most astounding about these incidents is the way that the press responds to them. It tends to downplay the attacker’s religious hatred and find alternative explanations, or switches focus to the killer’s community and fears of retribution. Examples of this phenomenon can be seen in the articles cited above, such as Mall shooting prompts Bosnian backlash fears, and Taxi driver had earlier Metro traffic charges. Instead of calling these attacks religion-based hate crimes, the press rushes to defend the Islamic community and dismiss the attackers as lunatics or cranks. While mental illness may play a role in some cases, this is only because it removes the restraints that keep most Muslims from acting on the hatreds they are taught. Murderous rampages always indicate a disordered mental state. Mental problems would not excuse a racist who burns down an African-American church. He would be prosecuted for committing a hate crime. Why doesn’t this apply to Muslim attackers? Apologists for the Koran’s hateful verses tend to offer explanations that, on reflection, give more distress than comfort. For example, The Koran for Dummies says:208 Passage 5:51-52 forbids Muslims from taking Jews and Christians as “friends” because the two look only to protect one another rather than the Muslims. The verse goes on to say that Muslims who ally with them have a (spiritual) disease in their hearts whereby they can’t trust in God. “Friend” is an incorrect translation of the Arabic word Awliya’, which is closer in meaning to “allies” or “protectors.” … However…the Koran explains that forbidding alliance with People of the Book does not apply to all Jews and Christians. Rather, it refers, first, to those who make fun of Islam and Muslim practices (5:57-58). And, secondly, it applies to those non-Muslims who commit aggression against the Muslim community, oppose the practice of faith, and drive Muslims out of their homes (60:9). If the People of the Book, or any other non-Muslims, do not persecute Muslims, then the Koran permits alliance and friendship and enjoins mutual kindness and justice between communities (60:7-8)

While these words may sound reasonable at first, a real life scenario shows that they are actually designed to tilt the global playing field in favor of Islamic conquest. Consider, hypothetically, a case where a group of Muslim terrorists bomb a subway in what they consider to be a Christian nation, and the bomb kills dozens of people. The authorities of the “Christian” government try to 206

Mall shooting prompts Bosnian backlash fears, Associated Press, MSNBC News, February 15, 2007 Taxi driver had earlier Metro traffic charges: He's charged with trying to run over two passengers, by Colby Sledge, The Tennessean, February 20, 2007. 208 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Forbidding “friendship” with People of the Book, page 156. 207

101

track down the surviving perpetrators but discover that no one in the Islamic community is willing to provide useful information. These Muslims all claim to know nothing, and they are shocked (!) to hear that those who committed the crime could do such a thing. In the absence of cooperation from the community where the perpetrators came from, the “Christian” authorities begin to tighten security measures in the community, doing things like arresting Islamic clerics known to preach hatred against the Infidel government. In response, the Muslim community cries out against this perceived persecution. According the maxims of The Koran for Dummies, these Muslims have done the right thing in protecting their Muslim brothers rather than acting as allies or protectors of the Christians. Moreover, they would be right to claim that they are being persecuted. Such persecution is grounds for Jihad. As The Koran for Dummies explains:209 The Koran allows Muslims to fight in armed struggle against “those who wage war against you…” (2:190)…Muslims are allowed to kill their aggressors and drive them out of their land in order to protect the Islamic state (2:191). Islam is not a pacifist religion. Rather, the Koran believes in self-defense in the form of war, if necessary, and with appropriate force. Once this battle begins, the Muslims are told to “fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God [Allah] alone” (2:193).

Unfortunately for us “Infidels,” the Koran does not grant us the same right of self-defense. This hypothetical story brings up an important question: Why is it that, time and again, when Muslim terrorists strike Western targets, very little information comes from the Muslim community? It turns out that there is more at work than simply a command not to ally with Jews and Christians. Muslims also have a very strong concept of family loyalty. As described in The Koran for Dummies:210 The Koran considers it one of the worst possible sins to cut sacred kinship bonds. Lineage preserves the identity of individuals within society; lineage also emboldens the family structure that is so essential to the development of a society based on Koranic ethics.

In other words, the Koran strongly discourages the betrayal of a family or tribal member to outsiders, especially Jews and Christians, and Muslims recognize that this practice empowers their ability to “develop…a society based on Koranic ethics.” Later in The Koran for Dummies, the author tries to weaken this conclusion by saying: Muslims are called to treat each other with kindness and respect, but at the same time, this mercy should not violate the principles of justice. For example, a Muslim can’t hide a murderer, whether family or friend, in his or her home to protect them from the justice of law.”211

While the author acknowledges that Islam’s call to kindness does not necessarily extend to nonMuslims, he neglects to mention that the injunction against hiding murderers applies only when the “principles of justice” are Islamic principles of justice, because the “justice of law” is 209

Ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Jihad as armed struggle, page 253. The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 14, section entitled Preserving lineage, page 205. 211 Ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Managing justice and mercy in society, page 235. 210

102

actually the justice of Islamic law. Governments that do not respect Shari’ah are considered inherently unjust, and Muslims are not required to respect them. Instead of respect, those governments receive taqiyya and jihad. Therefore, the Koran’s command for Muslims not to protect Christians and Jews combines with its sanctification of kinship bonds and the principles of taqiyya and jihad to protect terrorists from being exposed. With the aid of this cover, Muslims are able to, in the words of prominent British cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, “bleed the enemy” in their pursuit of establishing an Islamic state.212 Even more disturbing is the fact that this mechanism has been used by Hezbollah, a LebaneseShiite terrorist organization, in an attempt to prod the entire Islamic world into a war with Israel. Lebanon was originally founded as a primarily Christian and Sunni nation. After the Islamic Revolution of Iran, however, Ayatollah Khomeini’s new government decided to create a new terrorist organization, Hezbollah, whose stated objective was the destruction of Israel. With the aid of Iranian and Syrian largesse, a second objective soon revealed itself: Shiite expansionism. During the turmoil of Lebanon’s Civil War in the 1980s, and in the years that followed, the Shiite population grew rapidly in Lebanon, making both Sunnis and Christians nervous. However, by leading the charge against Israel, Hezbollah made it impossible for the Sunnis to confront the Shiites, and the Christians were powerless to exert their wishes without Sunni consent. In a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Sunnis could not possibly ally with Israel, no matter what Hezbollah did, because the Koran itself makes such an act unthinkable. Therefore, Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist organization, with only a minority representation in Lebanon’s legitimate government, effectively commandeered Lebanon’s foreign policy. When Hezbollah attacked Israel, Lebanon was unable or unwilling to exert its sovereignty over Hezbollah’s Lebanese territory. When Lebanon gave Hezbollah free reign, it forced Israel to take unilateral actions of its own. When Israel attacked Hezbollah inside Lebanon, Hezbolla’s forces dressed in civilian clothes, concealed their weapons in civilian areas, and launched their attack from those areas. It then successfully portrayed Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah as attacks on Lebanese civilians. Once the attacks became viewed as attacks on Lebanon, Hezbollah’s support expanded from its original sponsors to Muslims around the world. This kind of scenario has played itself out several times in the past few decades, each time threatening to bring about a global conflict between those who oppose Israel’s existence and those who support it. Getting back to The Koran for Dummies’ claim that Muslims are justified in attacking Jews and Christians “who make fun of Islam and Muslim practices,” this position’s one-sidedness becomes clear when one considers that the Koran and the Hadith do far more than “make fun of” Jews and Christians. These scriptures actually teach Muslims to believe that Jews and Christians who do not convert to Islam are evil and accursed. For example: [2.145] PICKTHAL: And even if thou broughtest unto those who have received the Scripture all kinds of portents, they would not follow thy qiblah…And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then surely wert thou of the evil-doers. 212

Bleed the Enemy, by Emily Flynn Vencat, Newsweek Web Exclusive, January 12, 2006.

103

[2.146] Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognize (this revelation) as they recognize their sons. But lo! A party of them knowingly conceals the truth. … [2.159] Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed…are accursed of Allah…

This point naturally raises a question: If the Koran is correct about Jews and Christians, then what should be the relationship between the “House of Peace” and the “House of War,” which Jews and Christians allegedly rule? On this subject, the Koran offers its believers plenty of guidance, a small sample of which is shown below: •

[8.12] YUSUF ALI: …I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” [8.13] This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger:

•

[8.39] PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.

•

[8.65] PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight… if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.

•

[8.67] PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter…

•

[9.29] YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah…(even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

•

[9.38] YUSUF ALI: O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter?... [9.39] Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place…

•

[9.111] PICKTHAL: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain…

•

[9.123] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

Interestingly, despite the fact that Islam prohibits non-Muslims from living on the Arabian Peninsula, or even visiting Mecca, it does not allow non-Muslim nations to make similar prohibitions against Muslims. To see a Muslim testify to this unlevel playing field, consider the following defense of Jihad offered in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam: According to Islamic Law, an armed struggle can be initiated only for the following reasons:

•

To defend your community or nation from aggressors.

104

• •

To liberate people living under oppressive regimes. To remove any government that will not allow the free practice of Islam within its borders.

In other words, if Infidels were to treat Muslims the way Muslims treat Infidels on the Arabian Peninsula, it would be grounds for war. Despite claims to the contrary, the second item in the above list also reveals that peace is not possible in an Infidel nation with a sizable Muslim population, because Muslims feel oppressed when forced to live by democratically legislated secular laws instead of Allah-decreed Islamic Law. Therefore it does not matter whether non-Muslim nations exclude Muslims or allow them to immigrate; either action will lead to Holy War. In the long run, the only way for an Infidel nation to avoid Jihad is to submit to Islam. Our choice is to either capitulate or prepare to defend ourselves. A second reason why there cannot be peace between the House of Islam and the House of War is provided by The Koran for Dummies in the quote below. Ironically, this rationale for war arises as the author tries to de-fang one of the Koran’s most infamous verses:213 Ayah214 9:29 says that Muslims should fight those who deny God [Allah] and the Last Day, and deny the laws of moral law, and refuse to acknowledge the Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the exemption tax (Jizya) willingly after being subdued or humbled in war. Some people mistakenly take this Ayah to mean that Muslims should fight Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands unless they pay the Jizya tax. In truth, the Hadith clearly outlines the true purpose of the tax: to exempt non-Muslim men from service in the Muslim army. (Non-Muslims shouldn’t be required to participate in armed struggle for a faith they don’t believe in.) The money of this tax then goes into supporting the Islamic state’s army, which guarantees protection of all non-Muslim communities living under the Islamic state… This passage appears in the context of a Surah that discusses the hostilities of war during the time of revelation – a time when Jews and Christians aided the Pagans against the Muslim community. However, Ayah 9:29 in no way diminishes other passages found throughout the Koran that call for peaceful coexistence between faiths, such as 60:8.

Leaving aside the question of how an Infidel must feel about being forced to pay for an army that wars against Infidel nations, consider the final paragraph: the “peaceful coexistence” referred to applies only to Infidels living humbly and subdued, paying the Jizya to an Islamic state. Moreover, it clarifies that any time a non-Muslim nation defends another non-Muslim nation from Islamic aggression, it falls into the same category as the Jews and Christians who aided the Pagans. This is so because these nations are “against the Muslim community.” It does not matter whether the nation being defended is Israel, East Timor, or the people of southern Sudan.

213

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 18, section entitled Giving Aya 9:29 its proper context, page 278. 214 Arabic term for a Koranic verse. Literally, it means “sign.”

105

Essentially, the only way a non-Muslim nation can avoid jihad is to either aid Muslim nations in their wars or stay completely out of them, regardless of what those nations do. Any interference on behalf of Islam’s victims is likely to trigger the jihad tripwire. Added to this threat is the realization that the Muslims who are commanded to carry out jihad are not simply the citizens of Muslim nations, but all members of the Ummah (nation of Islam), including those who live in Infidel lands. In other words, devout Muslims living in the United States would feel justified by their faith if they decided to attack the U.S. because of its support for Israel, or even Southern Sudan or East Timor.

The Koran’s view of Slavery If you have ever had a conversation with an African American Muslim about the fact that slavery was widely practiced throughout the world from the beginning of history, and that it still goes on in some Islamic African nations today, the response you can expect is that slavery in Africa, particularly in Muslim lands, has always been different from the kind practiced in the U.S.. They will claim that slaves in Africa were treated far more kindly. In fact, they will claim that slaves were treated like members of the family. Rather than accept such assertions at face value, you may want to conduct your own investigation, by finding out what the Koran and Hadith have to say, and learning how those scriptures were applied by Muslims throughout history. You will then be in the position to decide for yourself. As mentioned in the Introduction to this book, the University of Southern California hosts a website with the entire Koran, in three translations, and a large body of the Hadith. It also contains a search function for all of these texts, to help researchers find every place where the terms “captives,” “slaves,” “black,” or “Ethiopian” are used. See www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html to start your own investigation. What follows are some examples of the Koran’s guidance on slavery. Note that the first set of verses comes from the translation by N.J. Dawood, which is written in modern English and is easier to understand. Yusuf Ali’s version is shown in the footnotes:215 •

[23.1-6] DAWOOD: Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers; who avoid profane talk, and give alms to the destitute; who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)…

•

[2.178] PICKTHAL: …Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.

These verses are particularly opposed to what Westerners normally consider justice. The first set indisputably puts its stamp of approval on raping slave girls, who would have no recourse in a

215

[23.1] YUSUF ALI: The believers must (eventually) win through, … [23.5] [those] who abstain from sex, [23.6] except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (in their case) they are free from blame,

106

legal system that says their rapes “are lawful.” Verse 2.178 debases slaves even further. It states that if a Muslim kills another person’s slave, then one of that Muslim’s slaves has to die. Some Muslims interpret verse 2.178 more liberally: instead of killing the slave, the aggrieved slaveholder may instead take a slave from the offender. While less bloody, the slave’s lack of control over his or her own life is nearly as profound. In a world where slaves are mere property, not human beings, these would sound like reasonable penalties. In fact, this sort of law has a history that precedes Islam by millennia. For example, the Code of Hammurabi, which is the earliest known legal code,216 prescribes the following: Law 229: If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. Law 230: If it kills the son of the owner, the son of that builder shall be put to death. Law 231: If it kills a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house.

To modern Western eyes, this ancient legal tradition appears barbaric because it requires an innocent person to be killed or removed from everything he or she knows. According to the legal code outlined in the Koran, slaves have no right to their own lives. They can be killed or confiscated to punish their owners for the owners’ crimes. But what if a free man kills his own slave? Malik’s Muwatta provides the answer: Malik’s Muwatta, Book 43, Number 43.21.15a…Malik said, “There is no retaliation held against a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally…”

The next verse reveals that Infidel slaves fare even worse than Muslim slaves, for while a Muslim slave may be freed under certain circumstances, an Infidel slave is the lowest of the low, with no hope of release except through conversion. •

[4.92] YUSUF ALI: Never should a believer kill a believer; but (if it so happens) by mistake, (compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased’s family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed…

The Hadith confirms this policy with passages such as:217 Malik’s Muwatta, Book 38, Number 38.6.9:…one of the Ansar came to the Messenger of Allah… with a black slave-girl of his. He said, “Messenger of Allah, I must set a slave free who is a mumina [believer]. If you think that she is mumina, I will free her.” The 216 217

Written approximately 2500 B.C. Similar hadiths can be found in Malik’s Muwatta, Book 38, Numbers 38.6.8, 38.6.10, 38.6.11, & 38.6.12.

107

Messenger…questioned her, “Do you testify that there is no god but Allah?” She said, “Yes.” “Do you testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?” She said, “Yes.” “Are you certain about the rising after death?” She said, “Yes.” The Messenger…said, “Free her.”

Further insights into the nature of slavery under Islam come from John Illife’s Africans: the History of a Continent, which provides vivid images of what slavery was like in the ancient Islamic world. If Africans treated their slaves like family, as claimed, then the following reports paint a damning image of African family life:218 One guess is that the Saharan routes (including that from Darfur in the eastern savanna) carried between 4,000 and 7,000 slaves northwards each year at this time [the 1300s]. North African traders said that many died from want and thirst on the two-thousand-kilometre desert crossing and that survivors were worth between five and eight times as much in Tripoli as in Borno… Most slaves came from non-Islamic, often stateless peoples to the south, whom cavalrymen raided each dry season. A song said to honour an eleventh-century ruler of Kanem celebrated his brutality: The best you took (and sent home) as the first fruits of battle: The children crying on their mothers you snatched away from their mothers: You took the slave wife from a slave, and set them in lands far removed from one another.

As mentioned before, slavery is not merely a matter of history in the House of Islam; it is being practiced today, in places like Mauritania and Sudan. According to a University of Pennsylvania summary of one of its recent publications, called War and Slavery in Sudan, by Jok Maduk Jok, a Dinka tribe member whose people are targeted by Arab slave traders:219 Slavery has been endemic in Sudan for thousands of years. Today the Sudanese slave trade persists as a complex network of buyers, sellers, and middlemen that operates most actively when times are favorable to the practice…the present day is one such time, as the Sudanese civil war that resumed in 1983 rages on between the Arab north and the black south. Permitted and even encouraged by the Arab-dominated Khartoum government, the state military has captured countless women and children from the south and sold them into slavery in the north to become concubines, domestic servants, farm laborers, or even soldiers trained to fight against their own people. Also instigated by the Khartoum government, Arab herding groups routinely take and sell the Nilotic peoples of Dinka and Nuer. For Arab traders “the nation of the blacks,” or Bilad Al-Sudan, has traditionally been the source of slaves. When the slave trade developed into corporate enterprise in the nineteenth century, the slave-takers articulated distinctions based on race, ethnicity, and religion that marked the black, infidel southerners as indisputably inferior and therefore “natural” slaves. Such distinctions have survived…even during those periods when slavery has not been authorized by the government. When it is authorized, as it is today (due to the implementation of Shari’ah), slavery then becomes the extreme form of this systemic oppression.

218

Africans: the history of a continent, by John Iliffe, Cambridge University Press, 1995, Chapter 5, pages 76. War and Slavery in Sudan by Jok Maduk Jok, 2004, University of Pennsylvania Press (summary found at www.upenn.edu/pennpress) 219

108

At this point, the Islamic perspective of black enslavement should also be clear. While Free Democracy ended slavery in the West, Islam reinvigorates it by making it morally acceptable. In fact, Muslims are beginning to re-import the practice of slavery back into the United States, one hundred and forty years after it was outlawed, as the following article reveals: Egyptian pair gets prison for enslaving girl Associated Press, The Herald (Monterey County, CA), Oct. 24, 2006 SANTA ANA (AP) - An Egyptian man and his ex-wife were sentenced Monday for enslaving a girl from their home country for two years while forcing her to work under harsh conditions for no pay. Abdel Nasser Youssef Ibrahim, 45, was sentenced to three years in prison, and his former wife, Amal Ahmed Ewis-abd El Motelib, 43, received a 22-month sentence. U.S. District Judge James V. Selna ordered the pair to pay restitution of $76,173 to the girl. Ibrahim and Motelib each pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy, holding a person in involuntary servitude through force or coercion, obtaining labor through unlawful force or coercion and harboring an illegal alien. Prosecutors said the two will serve their sentences before being deported to Egypt for overstaying their visas. The pair brought the girl into the United States in August 2000 when she was 10, and ordered her to clean their Orange County home and take care of their five children while she lived in squalid conditions…“The young victim in this case was subject to inhumane conditions that included both physical and verbal abuse.” United States Attorney Debra Wong Yang said in statement. Prosecutors said the girl received no compensation during the nearly two years that she worked for the couple. They said she was forced to sleep in the garage, had her passport taken away and wasn’t allowed to play outside. … The girl will be allowed to remain in the United States. Slaves are like family in the Islamic world? Some family!

Is Islam a Religion of Peace? We have already seen how Westerners misunderstand Islam’s use of the term “religious toleration.” Another important misunderstanding comes from the claim that “Islam means peace.” According to Understanding Islam and the Muslims, published by The Islamic Affairs Department of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington DC: The Arabic word “Islam” simply means “submission,” and derives from a word (salaam) meaning ‘peace.’ In a religious context it means complete submission to the will of God [Allah].

This definition of Islam is quite different from what is frequently broadcasted by the popular press. Marmaduke Pickthal, in his translation of the Koran, probably provides the most accurate definition when he translates Islam as “the Surrender,” which agrees well with the Saudi embassy’s “submission.”

109

Muslims, Christians, and Jews all agree that submission, or surrender, to the will of God brings peace. However, a quick review of the Koran’s calls for warfare against non-Muslims, together with its method of establishing “peace” through brutal repression, leads one to conclude that Islam’s use of “surrender” is more military than spiritual. Islamic “peace” has as much to do with real peace as the Ministry of Love described in George Orwell’s 1984220 had to do with Love. What is the basis of Islam’s predatory philosophy? It is the belief that Jihad against Infidels, while bloody itself, will bring about world peace under Islam. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Those who have studied Hitler’s career know that his plan to exterminate the Jews and other “inferior races” was not simply an act of sadism. He honestly believed that it was an unpleasant necessity that would ultimately bring about a better world. Similarly, Lenin, Stalin, and other leaders of the Soviet Union all portrayed their murderous policies as temporary measures that would lead to a Communist Utopia. To help Muhammad bring about his utopian vision, he rewarded his Muslim foot-soldiers with special exemptions from eternal consequences. Numerous hadiths tell how these exemptions gave Muslims free license to steal, rape, and kill: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 445:221…The Prophet said, “(The angel) Gabriel said to me, ‘Whoever amongst your followers die without having worshipped others besides Allah, will enter Paradise (or will not enter the (Hell) Fire).’” The Prophet (was) asked, “Even if he has committed illegal sexual intercourse or theft?” He replied, “Even then.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 80i:222…Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah’s Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the killer who also gets martyred (In Allah’s Cause).”

Muhammad went beyond rewarding his martyrs; he actually condemned to Hell those Muslims who manage to preserve themselves from martyrdom: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 428:…The Prophet said, “Allah will not accept the excuse of any person whose instant of death is delayed till he is sixty years of age.”

A curious similarity between Muhammad and the terrorist leaders of today is that he called others to martyrdom while managing to preserve his own life. Muhammad lived until age 63, which, according to this hadith, would imply that Allah should not accept him. However, as the Hadith repeatedly demonstrates, Muhammad’s rules only applied to others, not to himself.

220

1984, by George Orwell, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1949, Chapter 1. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 329, Volume 3, Book 41, Number 573, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 717, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 285, Volume 8, Book 76, Numbers 450 & 451, and Volume 9, Book 93, Number 579. 222 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Book 20, Numbers 4658, 4659, and 4660. 221

110

One of the lasting lessons from the awful days of Nazi Germany was that utopian ends do not justify their cruel means. Leaders with utopian visions often find it easy to shed the blood of others who stand in their way, and substitute loyalty for ethics as their basis of power. One can reach a deeper understanding of Islam’s true nature by studying the character of Muhammad. In Pickthal’s introduction to The Glorious Koran, he states:223 …The number of campaigns which he [Muhammad] led in person…is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight.

This was quite an impressive military achievement for someone whose rein lasted only eleven years (from 622 to 632), and whose votaries claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Pickthal then presents a long and somewhat exaggerated list of accomplishments, including “raised woman from the status of chattel to complete legal equality with man,” and “made universal human brotherhood a fact and principle of common law.” What is this universal human brotherhood built on? A hadith from Malik’s Muwatta tells us: Malik’s Muwatta, Book 15, Number 15.7.24:…“Shall I not tell you the best of your deeds,…better for you than giving gold and silver, and better for you than meeting your enemy and striking their necks?” They said, “Of course.” He said, “Remembrance…of Allah.”

While an objective student of Islamic history might be skeptical of Pickthal’s panegyrics, his facts come from the ancient Islamic historians themselves. The historical record confirms that Muhammad was a great warrior, conqueror, lawgiver, and absolute dictator. As Pickthal says,224 [Muhammad] personally controlled every detail of organization, judged every case and was accessible to every suppliant.

While Muslims may claim that Muhammad believed in mutual consultation with others,225 he remained the ultimate authority for all decisions within his state. Whenever he was faced with a particular challenge, a revelation would conveniently provide the answer. Once this answer was declared, Muhammad’s followers faced a choice: comply with it, or be accused of Hypocrisy or Apostasy, a Hudd crime punishable by death. Islam is clearly not a religion of peace, but of pacification, because it reduces those under its power to a state of submission. It is a framework for conquest and establishing power.

223

The Glorious Koran, by Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal, London, 1930, Introduction, page xxvi. Ibid. 225 This principle is known as shura or sura. 224

111

Chapter 4: What are some of the characteristics of an Islamic Nation? Because the Koran is presented as a series of revelations, rather than as an organized body of law, it does not give clear guidance on the proper structure of an Islamic state. In fact, many Islamic nations have built governmental institutions and written Shari’ahs that differ significantly from each other. Despite these differences, there are a number of important doctrines essential to all Islamic governments. These doctrines address issues such as: • • • •

The treatment of non-Muslims The treatment of women The treatment of liberal and secular Muslims The management of money

This section describes how Islamic nations deal with each of these issues.

The treatment of non-Muslims Within the House of Islam, Muslims have full rights, while Infidels do not. The inferior status of Infidels is multidimensional and can range from special taxes to an inability to testify against Muslims in court, from special clothing requirements to building prohibitions, and from marriage restrictions to religious requirements for children, as well as mandates for submissive deference to Muslims. Historically, the level of Infidel debasement has varied significantly, according to the versions of Shari’ah adopted by various regimes. However, a single document, known as The Pact of Umar, which established relations between the Islamic government of Caliph Umar and the conquered Christian populations of Syria and Palestine, is the basic framework that Muslims turn to as a guide for governing non-Muslim subjects. In Jacob Marcus’s work, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, there is both a translation of The Pact of Umar and a description of its context. This book is quoted on both Islamic and non-Islamic websites. It states:226 THE Pact of Umar is the body of limitations and privileges entered into by treaty between conquering Muslims and conquered non-Muslims… The Pact was probably originated about 637 by Umar I after the conquest of Christian Syria and Palestine. By accretions…, the Pact was extended; yet despite these additions the whole Pact was ascribed to Umar… The Pact of Umar has served to govern the relations between the Muslims and “the people of the book,” such as Jews, Christians, and the like, down to the present day. In addition to the conditions of the Pact listed below, the Jews, like the Christians, paid a head-tax in return for protection, and for exemption from military service. Jews and Christians were also forbidden to hold government office… In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! 226

The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, by Jacob Marcus, New York: JPS, 1938, pages 13-15

112

This is a writing to Umar from the Christians of such and such a city. When You (Muslims) marched against us (Christians), we asked of you protection for ourselves, our posterity, our possessions, and our co-religionists; and we made this stipulation with you, that we will not erect in our city or the suburbs any new monastery, church, cell or hermitage; that we will not repair any of such buildings that may fall into ruins, or renew those that may be situated in the Muslim quarters of the town; that we will not refuse the Muslims entry into our churches either by night or by day; that we will open the gates wide to passengers and travelers; that we will receive any Muslim traveler into our houses and give him food and lodging for three nights; that we will not harbor any spy in our churches or houses, or conceal any enemy of the Muslims… That we will not teach our children the Qu’ran (some nationalist Arabs feared the infidels would ridicule the Qu’ran; others did not want infidels even to learn the language); that we will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it; that we will not prevent any of our kinsmen from embracing Islam, if they so desire. That we will honor the Muslims and rise up in our assemblies when they wish to take their seats; that we will not imitate them in our dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair; that we will not make use of their expressions of speech, nor adopt their surnames (infidels must not use greetings and special phrases employed only by Muslims); that we will not ride on saddles, or gird on swords, or take to ourselves arms or wear them, or engrave Arabic inscriptions on our rings; that we will not sell wine (forbidden to Muslims); that we will shave the front of our heads;…that we will wear girdles round our waists (infidels wore leather or cord girdles; Muslims, cloth and silk). That we will not display the cross upon our churches or display our crosses or our sacred books in the streets of the Muslims, or in their market-places; that we will strike the clappers in our churches lightly (wooden rattles or bells summoned the people to church or synagogue); that we will not recite our services in a loud voice when a Muslim is present; that we will not carry Palm branches (on Palm Sunday) or our images in procession in the streets; that at the burial of our dead we will not chant loudly or carry lighted candles in the streets of the Muslims or their market places; that we will not take any slaves that have already been in the possession of Muslims, nor spy into their houses; and that we will not strike any Muslim. All this we promise to observe, on behalf of ourselves and our co-religionists, and receive protection from you in exchange; and if we violate any of the conditions of this agreement, then we forfeit your protection and you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels.

The way this document establishes religious oppression and colonization is profound. Of particular interest is the fact that Infidels were encouraged to convert to Islam, even though they were not allowed to read the Koran. However, if they were horrified by what they read after converting to Islam, they would no longer be able to apostasize without risking their lives. Moreover, by prohibiting non-Muslims from reading the Koran, The Pact of Umar made sure they remained blissfully unaware of the depth of Islam’s hostility toward them. The Pact of Umar also made sure that Infidels stood out as different from Muslims, for easy and immediate identification. This tactic has been used by repressive regimes throughout history, most famously by Nazi Germany against its Jewish citizens, who were forced to wear yellow Stars of David. Another revealing portion of this pact is the declaration that non-Muslims must never strike Muslims, regardless of the circumstances, including self-defense from an attack by a Muslim.

113

Furthermore, the violation of any portion of this pact by any individual was legal grounds for launching an attack on the entire non-Muslim community. This way of thinking surfaces frequently in the Islamic world, where the actions of a few non-Muslims, such as the Danish cartoonists, can bring on massive Islamic retaliations that target entire nations, or more. In addition, just as Infidels were not allowed to defend themselves from Muslim attacks, they also did not have the same protection from murder that Muslims enjoyed, as many hadiths explain,227 such as: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 111:…Abu Juhaifa said, “I asked Ali [the fourth Caliph], ‘Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet apart from the Qur’an)?’ Ali replied, ‘No, except …what is (written) in this sheet of paper…’” Abu Juhaifa said, “I asked, ‘What is (written) in this sheet of paper?’ Ali replied, ‘it deals with…the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).’

This rule even applied when a Muslim slave killed a free Infidel: Malik’s Muwatta, Book 44, Number 44.2.2a:…Malik said about a Muslim slave who injures a Jew or Christian, “If the master of the slave wishes to pay blood-money for him according to the injury, he does it. Or else he surrenders [the slave] and he is sold, and the Jew or Christian is given the blood-money of the injury or all the price of the slave if the blood-money is greater than his price.”

This rule is especially harmful because it left the door open to murder without a meaningful punishment. According to these rules, a free Muslim, who wished to kill a Jew or Christian, could simply tell one of his slaves to do it for him. He then “punished” the slave by selling him to a friend and handing the proceeds to the victim’s family. This was a small price to pay for a “hit.” In an era when slavery is not officially recognized in most Islamic nations, a pricing strategy for murder has evolved to replace the old system above. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the payment schedule for blood-money is:228 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman 50,000 riyals if a Christian man 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman 6,667 riyals if a Hindu man 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

227

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 14, Number 2745, Book 39, Numbers 4491 & 4515, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 43, Number 43.15.8b. 228 Last Rights: Saudis Welcome Foreigners to Work – But Not to Die – Nation’s Strict Form of Islam Blocks Burial of ‘Infidels’, By Yaroslav Trofimov, The Wall Street Journal, Apr 9, 2002.

114

With the Saudi Riyal being worth about 27 cents in 2006, these prices can be quite attractive. For while the possibility of death hangs over anyone who kills a Muslim, the penalty for killing an Infidel is simply a murder tax. This tax schedule reduces Infidel murder to a mere financial calculation, where the benefits can easily outweigh the costs. For example, if an Infidel reporter writes alarming stories about Saudi Arabia, he or she can be easily silenced by a wealthy sheik. Also, Jews should note their absence from the blood-money schedule, so it is probably not a good idea to visit Saudi Arabia! From The Pact of Umar, as well as other historical agreements between Muslim conquerors and the conquered, it is clear that Muslims have never been opposed to colonialism, as long as they are the colonizers. Muslims do not rail against European colonization because colonization is wrong. Rather, what outrages them is that they, the rightful colonizers, were instead colonized. When Muslims colonize a region, their propaganda assumes truly Orwellian forms. The most Orwellian term is “House of Peace,” itself, which refers to the Islamic world, a region that, since its inception, has been wracked with internal strife. Another Orwellian term is the one used by Muslims for non-Muslims living in the House of Peace: “Ahl al-dhimmah,” who are nicknamed “Dhimmies.” This term stands for “Protected People.” Essentially they are called “Protected People” because they must pay protection money. As the rules for murder above demonstrate, they are not actually very well protected. Islamic newspeak also turns the concept of freedom on its head, as revealed in the explanation of Jihad found in The Koran for Dummies:229 Jihad…[is]…the struggle (uphill road) to free men and women from servitude and lordship of anything or anyone other than the Divine, so that he or she can choose and practice submission to God (Islam) without any restrictions.

Of course, “submission to God” is actually submission to Islam’s religious authorities. Also, note how the quote above cleverly avoids discussing how jihad deals with people who choose not to submit to Islam’s version of God. The answer is that Muslims seek to free men and women for submission, and those who refuse to submit will be repressed and exploited. In other words, Islamic “freedom” is the opposite of freedom. With regard to the West, “Muslims struggle to free men and women” from secular democracy, that is, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”230 As in Orwell’s dystopia, Muslims apparently believe that “War is Peace” 231 and “Freedom is Slavery.” 232 In the section of this book entitled Islam overrules science, we will also find that “Ignorance is Strength.”233 229

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Struggling against evil, page 253. 230 Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863 231 1984, by George Orwell, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1949, Chapter 1. 232 Ibid. 233 Ibid.

115

Clearly, the most accurate translation of Dar al-Islam is “House of Submission,” not “House of Peace.” Non-Muslims have historically been an important source of revenue for Islamic nations, as well as individual Muslims. The next section will present the three major income streams that Muslims feel justified in collecting from Infidels: war booty, special taxes, and confiscation.

The spoils of holy war against Infidels (war booty) To see how Islamic nations justify enriching themselves by conquering and taxing non-Muslims, consider Allah’s reputed words from the Koran: •

[8.41] YUSUF ALI:…out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah, - and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer…

•

[48.18] PICKTHAL: Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto thee [Muhammad]…and hath rewarded them with a near victory; [48.19] and much booty that they will capture. Allah is ever Mighty, Wise. [48.20] Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture,…that He may guide you on a right path.

War booty is such an important matter that the Koran devotes an entire chapter to the subject: Surah 8, whose title translates as Booty, or The Spoils of War. This surah begins as follows: In the name of the merciful and compassionate God. [8.1] PICKTHAL: They ask thee…of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah…and obey Allah and His messenger…

The Hadith provides an explanation of how this verse came about:234 Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4328:…My father took a sword from Khums235 and brought it to the Holy Prophet…and said: Grant it to me. He refused. At this Allah revealed (the Qur’anic verse): “They ask thee concerning the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war are for Allah and the Apostle” (8.1).

Verses like these demonstrate that the Koran gave Muhammad and his successors permission to enrich themselves, at their own discretion, through warfare. While the spoils of war were given to both Allah and Muhammad, Muhammad was the only one who actually controlled their use.

The taxation of infidels who live in the House of Submission As we have already seen, the Koran states:

234

A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4329. Literally, “the fifth” in Arabic. This is a tax that applies to war booty and weath that is discovered rather than earned, such as buried treasure and mineral deposits. Also referred to as Khumus. 235

116

[9.29] YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

How important was the Jizya paid by “protected peoples” to Muhammad’s followers? The following hadith reveals that it was essential:236 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:…We said to ‘Umar…, “Chief of the believers! Advise us.” He said, “I advise you to fulfill Allah’s Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.)”

While the Koran and the Hadith provide Muslims with over-all concepts on how to treat Infidels, Shari’ah codifies these concepts into law. What follows are excerpts on the subject from AlSistani’s Shari’ah:237 VI. Spoils of War 1837. If Muslims fight against the infidels by the command of the Holy Imam (A.S.238) and, in the war, acquire some booty, that booty is called Ghanimat. And it is obligatory to pay Khums (a 20% tax to the Islamic government) on what remains after deducting the expenses incurred for protection and transport etc. of that booty, and after setting aside what the Imam spends according to his discretion, and what he keeps as his special right… 1838. If Muslims engage in a war against infidels without the permission of Imam (A.S.), and win some spoils of the war, everything that they acquire as the spoils belongs to Imam (A.S.), and the fighters have no right in it. … VII. Land Purchased by a Non-Believer Zimmi239 from a Muslim 1842. If a Zimmi non-believer purchases land from a Muslim, as is commonly held by Fuqaha (Islamic jurists), the former should pay Khums on it from that land itself, or from any other property belonging to him.

While Al-Sistani’s website does not provide the date of this fatwa, I have found references to it that go back to at least February 2004. This means that if Al-Sistani had declared an insurgency against the Coalition government (essentially forming his own alternative government), then 20% of the booty captured would have been paid to his alternative government, after he takes whatever he feels is his fair share of the spoils. If Shiites conducted an insurgency without his approval, then he laid claim to all of the spoils. Section VII states that if an Infidel purchases property (or some equivalent) from a Muslim, the Infidel must pay a special 20% tax to the Islamic government. This tax, which applies only to non-Muslims, amounts to an institutionalized confiscation of Infidel property – as peaceful and ceremonial war booty. 236

A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 404. Islamic Laws, on the topic of Khums: sections entitled Spoils of War and Land Purchased by a Non-Believer Zimmi from a Muslim. See www.al-islam.org/laws/index.html. 238 A.S. stands for Ali Sistani, the author of this fatwa. 239 An Infidel living under the “protection” of an Islamic government. An alternative term for Zimmi is Dhimmi. 237

117

Laws such as these explain why clerics like Muqtada al-Sadr strive for greater authority, and why clerics engage each other in bloody battles for turf. Each of them covets the authority to grant themselves these spoils, taxes, and confiscations. These laws also show why Mosque and state cannot be separated once Shari’ah takes hold, and why Islam is intractably opposed to Free Democracy.

The treatment of Muslims who convert to another religion While the Koran rails against Islam’s Apostates, it does not define specific legal penalties. To understand the penalty for Apostasy prescribed by Islam, one must delve into the Hadith, which provides the answer in numerous places. In the process of doing so, these hadiths also define what are known as the Hudud240, or Hudd crimes, the only crimes punishable by death: •

Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Number 4152:241…Allah’s Messenger…[said]: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim…, but in one of the three cases: [1] the married adulterer, [2] a life for life, and [3] the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the [Islamic] community.

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:242…Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “…I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:243…A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.”

•

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 36, Number 36.18.15:…the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “If someone changes his deen [religion] - strike his neck!”

Sistani’s Shari’ah adds further insight on how to deal with an Apostate’s family and estate:244 2456. A Muslim who renounces Islam and adopts a non-Muslim faith is an apostate, and they are of two types: Fitri and Milli. [The] Fitri apostate is one whose parents…were Muslims…, and he…was also a Muslim, till after having reached the discerning age, and thereafter he converted…A Milli is exactly the opposite.245 2457. If a woman becomes an apostate after marriage, her marriage becomes void…

240

Also referred to as Hudood. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17, and Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Numbers 4153, 4154, and 4155. 242 A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57. 243 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 630, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58, Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4490, and Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4341. 244 Islamic Laws, on the topic of Marriage: section entitled Miscellaneous rules concerning marriage. See www.alislam.org/laws/index.html. 245 This cryptic definition of a Milli actually intends to state that a Milli is a person who converts to Islam (and away from the religion of his or her parents), but then converts out of Islam again. 241

118

2458. If a man becomes a Fitri apostate after Nikah (marriage contract), his wife becomes haraam (unlawful) for him and she should observe Iddah [waiting period] of death in the manner which will be explained in the rules relating to ‘divorce’. 2459. If a man becomes a Milli apostate after Nikah, his marriage becomes void. …his wife…should observe Iddah of ‘divorce’ which will be mentioned under the rules relating to ‘divorce’. And it is commonly held that if her husband becomes a Muslim before the completion of her Iddah, their marriage remains intact.

What is particularly bizarre about Shari’ah’s harsh treatment of those who turn away from Islam is its deep inconsistency with a Koranic verse that Muslims love to quote when trying to put nonMuslims at ease about Islamic practices: [2.256] PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion.

The question is: How can there be no compulsion in religion when Shari’ah requires such harsh punishments for Apostates? Obviously, Islam’s laws regarding Apostates are designed to compel Muslims not to change their religion. The answer is that the above verse was abrogated and no longer has power. One may wonder whether Shari’ah’s anti-Apostasy laws are actually enforced. Absolutely! While enforcement varies from country to country, these laws remain active and ready to serve when needed. Rashid Khalidi affirmed this disturbing fact in his book, Resurrecting Empire, in a section intended to say something negative about the United States. In trying to portray America’s presence in the Middle East as impiricism, he inadvertently makes a very different point:246 Where the United States was involved in the Middle East [after World War I], it was via the work of Protestant missionaries, who established churches, schools, and hospitals. This effort aroused surprisingly little local antagonism, since the missionaries quickly learned to confine their proselytizing to local Orthodox and Catholic Christians and to Jews, rather than…the Muslim majority…Such an effort…would have been strongly opposed by the local governments while apostasy from Islam was strictly forbidden by Islamic law, on pain of death.

These anti-Apostasy laws are not archaic remnants from former days; there are plenty of modern cases where such penalties were executed. Four of the better known examples are: •

Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, one of the liberators of Sudan from Britain, and a practicing Muslim who simply disagreed with the new government’s implementation of Shari’ah, was arrested by the Sudanese government and executed for Apostasy in 1985.247

•

Sadiq Abdul Karim, a Saudi Arabian Shiite who was arrested on the charge of smuggling a copy of the Bible into Saudi Arabia. When the judge demanded that he convert from Shiism

246

Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 1, entitled The Legacy of the Western Encounter with the Middle East, page 32. 247 Sudan: In the Name of God (Repression continues in northern Sudan), Human Rights Watch, November 1994 Vol. 6, No. 9.

119

to Sunni Wahhabism, Karim refused. In response, the judge declared “You abandon your rejectionist belief [Shiism] or I will kill you.” Karim refused again, and was convicted of Apostasy and Blasphemy. He was publicly beheaded on September 3, 1992.248 •

Reverend Mehdi Dibaj, a former Iranian Muslim who converted to Christianity, was condemned to death by the Iranian government for the crime of Apostasy in 1983 and was executed in 1994.249

•

Hashem Aghajari, a professor at Tehran’s Tarbiat-e-Modarres (Teachers Training University), was sentenced to death in November 2002 for publicly insulting Islam, a crime tantamount to Apostasy. According to the Associated Press:250 Aghajari, a professor of history…was convicted of insulting the Prophet Muhammad and questioning the clergy’s interpretation of Islam. In a speech in Hamedan in June, he questioned why only clerics had the right to interpret Islam, saying each new generation should be able to interpret the faith on its own. … In addition to the death sentence, Aghajari was sentenced to 74 lashes, banned from teaching for 10 years, and exiled for eight years to three remote Iranian cities. The other punishments could still be carried out even if the death sentence is revoked.

Fortunately, this story ends on a brighter note than the others. After nearly two years, and the protests of many thousands of students, along with petitions from around the world, Iran’s Supreme Court overturned the conviction and set Professor Aghajari free.251 The conclusion of the court, however, should not give comfort. It determined that Aghajari’s words did not insult Islam; therefore, he need not be killed. It did not conclude that people should not be killed for insulting Islam. Shari’ah’s call to kill Islam’s Apostates is not limited to Islamic lands; it applies to Europe and the United States as well. As The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran explains:252 If a Muslim rejects…any of the basic principles, or any matter that all Muslims unanimously accept and practice, he will be considered an apostate and non-Muslim. Apostasy is a crime comparable to high treason in contemporary law. An apostate is subject to capital punishment; in certain cases, repentance is acceptable.

Muslims feel obligated to honor Islamic law over the secular laws of Infidel lands, though some Islamic leaders have told their followers to respect secular laws until they can be changed legally. But even if they respect secular governments for now, they chafe at having to live under 248

Death Penalty, published by Amnesty International, AI Index MDE 23/09/00. See www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/dp.html. 249 1995 Amnesty International report on Iran, covering the period of January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995 250 Condemned Iranian gets last chance, by Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press. 251 Iranian professor freed from jail, by Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, The Guardian (U.K.). 252 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 13, section entitled Apostasy, page 141.

120

the laws of Man rather than those of Allah, and they look forward to a day when Shari’ah rules the world. Such are the seeds being sown in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other Western nations where Muslims are moving to live, work and become citizens.

How essential are these characteristics to the success of an Islamic Nation? It may be jarring to Western minds to think that the sacred texts of a religion would not only prescribe how to conduct war and divvy up booty, but would also tell believers to tax people on the basis of religion and punish anyone who Apostatizes with death. However, the historical fact is that these institutions were essential to Islamic unity and growth. Terror kept Islam’s converts from leaving the faith after joining it, and Islam’s military expansion was financed by war booty from Infidels and taxes on Dhimmies. At this point, it should be clear that Westerners are deceiving themselves when they make distinctions between “good” Muslims and Muslim Fundamentalists, Extremists, or Terrorists. Good Muslims believe that people who Apostatize from Islam should be severely punished. They also believe that the proper position in society for non-Muslims is subjugation. In other words, good Muslims are extremists, and Muslims who are not extremists are not good Muslims. While every religion has been stained by murderous extremist sects, these sects are condemned by mainstream believers. With Islam, however, extremism is the mainstream. Even the extremists of other religions rarely hold positions as extreme as those of mainstream Muslims. Islam’s brutal policies have brought glory, power, and wealth to Muslim nations in the past. However, these benefits were transitory because the income streams created by Islam’s policies are a sort of pyramid scheme. This can be seen in the history of the Ottoman Empire. As a young nation, the Ottoman Empire expanded rapidly, and its rulers were thought to be unstoppable. However, its medieval methods of communication and transportation, along with its centralization of power in the Sultan, as well as its custom of beginning all military campaigns from Constantinople, made it impossible for the Empire to project itself beyond certain limits.253 Once the Ottoman Empire stopped growing, its power began to collapse in a vicious cycle of decreasing revenues: 1. As the difficulty of conducting ever-more distant battles increased, war booty declined to a trickle and then turned into losses from failed campaigns. 2. Revenue from non-Muslims declined as Infidels within Ottoman territory either emigrated or converted to Islam, reducing the supply of non-Muslims to exploit.254 253

For example, sieges of Vienna always failed because of the army’s arrival in late summer and departure in early autumn, to avoid the cold for which they were ill-equipped. The Ottomans were also remarkably uninterested in the West’s technological developments until after years of humiliating losses. This latter topic is the subject of Bernard Lewis’s book What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, Oxford University Press, 2002. 254 An example of this reduction of tax revenue, and the problems it created, can be found in Some Notes on Land, Money, and Power in Medieval Islam, by Bernard Lewis, Published in a Festschrift in honor of Robert Anhegger, Turkische Miszellen, in Istanbul, 1987; pages 237-242. This article can also be found in From Babel to Dragomans, by Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press, 2004.

121

3. Revenue from the remaining non-Muslims declined as they reduced their productivity in response to excessive taxation.255 This triple-loss of revenue brought on a period of decline in which the Ottoman Empire languished until it fell. However, the Ottoman legacy of moribund economics through Islamic Law has survived in its successor states up to the present day, except for places blessed with vast quantities of oil or other natural resources. Another contributor to the Ottoman Empire’s decline was the Silk Road’s loss of monopoly power over European trade with China and India. Before the 1500s, the Ottoman Empire was able to charge excessive taxes and tariffs on commerce along this route. This, in turn, created powerful incentives for Europeans to bypass the House of Islam, which Portugal did in 1499 when it navigated a route around Africa to India. The Ottoman Empire’s loss of monopoly power over trade with China and India is often blamed for its decline. However, a quick review of facts shows that the Empire itself was the culprit. Consider: •

A voyage from Europe, around Africa, to India, was long, hazardous, and expensive compared to one that crossed the Mediterranean to Egypt, the Red Sea, and then India. Yet this alternative was unable to compete with the more hazardous route. This says far more about the Ottoman Empire than it does about the Europeans or their far-flung voyages.

•

An ancient canal existed that had connected the Red Sea to the Nile River, with the Nile then going on to the Mediterranean. The potential benefits of restoring this canal, which had fallen into disrepair, were staggering. It could have established a new source of monopoly income for the Ottomans, who could have charged Europeans for traveling on this convenient route. It could also have given the Ottomans a strategic advantage in warfare: they would have been able to move warships and materiel rapidly from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, while preventing enemies from doing the same. And yet the canal was not restored. Interestingly, this ancient canal fell into disrepair at a telltale point in time. As The Middle East for Dummies states, “Several kings had dug and maintained a canal from about 2000 B.C., but it fell into disrepair after the eighth century A.D.”256 The fact that Muslim rulers allowed this ancient canal to decay, and did not upgrade or even maintain it, says volumes about their inability to accomplish large projects. This failure was the natural result of, among other things, Islamic prohibitions against lending at interest and risk-taking, as the upcoming section of this book entitled The management

255

This is a classic economic response to taxation when taxation removes incentives to work. To further understand the nature of how Islam’s taxation of Infidels affected their economic activity, see the section of this book entitled The House of Islam’s relationships with specific non-Islamic nations, under Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). 256 The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 6, entitled The Modern Middle East, page 92.

122

of money and assets will discuss. In contrast to Ottoman inaction, the French proposed the Suez Canal in the 1850s and, by 1869, had designed it, overseen its construction, and completed it. This canal has been an economic linchpin of the world ever since.257 In the late 1800s and early 1900s, oil played a negligible role in the fortunes of Islamic nations. It was during this time that the Ottoman Empire fell apart and Islamic leaders began a widespread effort to modernize their nations by adopting Western institutions and codes of law. Turkey went so far as to adopt a largely secular and democratic form of government under their revered leader Kemal Ataturk. However, as oil became the life-blood of Western economies, and as the West’s own oil reserves began to decline, the wealth and power of several Islamic nations climbed rapidly. Today, with about two-thirds of the world’s proven oil reserves located in the greater Middle East,258 Muslims have found a new economic engine, which is capable of turbo-charging the traditional ones of conquest and exploitation. And, with the aid of technological advancements developed in the West, such as cell phones (for remote detonations) and the internet (to support networks of terrorist cells), they are conceiving ways to finally achieve Islam’s dream of global domination.

The treatment of women In the Middle-East of fourteen hundred years ago, the precedents that Muhammad set for the treatment of women were considered liberal. The issue women face today is not so much Islam’s ancient liberality or conservatism, but the fact that Shari’ah has not changed significantly in 1,400 years. While the West has gone through a continuous series of legal experiments on everything from slavery, to religion, to women’s rights, to child labor, Shari’ah remains little changed, like an artifact from the days of its founding. To see how this situation affects women, consider the following Koranic verses and their implications on the status of women in the House of Submission. Pay particular attention to the first verse, which already appeared in this book’s discussion on slaves. It explains that, while the penalty for murdering a man is death, the penalty for murdering a man’s wife is death for the wife of the murderer (some may claim that the murderer’s wife should only be confiscated, like a slave, rather than killed). Just like slaves, women are treated as property rather than human beings, without the right to control their own lives. •

[2.178] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.

•

[2.223] PICKTHAL: Your women are a tilth259 for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him.

257

See History of the Suez Canal link on www.suezcanal.com, the official website of the Suez Canal. The Petroleum Bomb, by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Mechanical Engineering, October 2005. 259 Cultivation of land; tillage…Tilled earth. From The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. 258

123

The following hadith tells how the preceding verse came to exist, and also explains the meaning of “as you will”: Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Number 2159:…The people of the Book (i.e. the Jews) used to have intercourse with their women on one side alone (i.e. lying on their backs). This was the most concealing position for (the vagina of) the women. This clan of the Ansar adopted this practice from them. But this tribe of the Quraysh used to uncover their women completely, and seek pleasure with them from in front and behind and laying them on their backs. When the muhajirun (the immigrants) came to Medina, a man married a woman of the Ansar. He began to do the same kind of action with her, but she disliked it, and said to him: We were approached on one side (i.e. lying on the back); do it so, otherwise keep away from me. This matter of theirs spread widely, and it reached the Apostle of Allah… So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: "Your wives are a tilth to you, so come to your tilth however you will," i.e. from in front, from behind or lying on the back. But this verse meant the place of the delivery of the child, i.e. the vagina. •

[4.3] YUSUF ALI: If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

•

[4.11] YUSUF ALI: Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…

•

[4.24] YUSUF ALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess… [4.25] If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess…Wed them with the leave of their owners,260 and give them their dowers…

•

[23.1-6] DAWOOD: Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers; who avoid profane talk, and give alms to the destitute; who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)…261 The Hadith provides a practical application of the preceding verse which is particularly interesting, because it involves Ali, the husband of Muhammad’s daughter, Fatima:

260

How about getting the permission of the slave? Dawood’s translation is used in this case because the two more authorized versions are difficult to read. For the sake of consistency, however, the Yusuf Ali translation is included here: [23.1] YUSUF ALI: The believers must (eventually) win through… [23.5] [those] who abstain from sex, [23.6] except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (in their case) they are free from blame… 261

124

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637: Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (one-fifth of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.” •

[2.228] YUSUF ALI:…And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

•

[4.34] PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them262 to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient…As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them.

In his commentary on the Koran, Maududi, the prominent Islamic thinker and leader mentioned previously, praises the moderation with which Muhammad exercised the command to “admonish [rebellious wives], banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.” Unfortunately, his praise has quite a different effect: it reveals the repressive and paternalistic mindset of Islam:263 Whenever the prophet…permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it. And even in cases where it is necessary, the Prophet…directed men not to hit across the face, nor to beat severely nor to use anything that might leave marks on the body.

Muhammad’s own interpretation of the Koran regarding women, as well as his “moderation,” is further displayed in hadiths such as the following:264 •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 14, Number 68:…Allah’s Apostle…said, “Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined”…Allah’s Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah’s Apostle, who married her and her Mahr [bridal gift] was her manumission.

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 437:…The Prophet came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy’s defense, the beauty of Safiya…was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha’ where her menses were over and he married her.

In other words, Safiya exchanged her slavery for freedom by marrying her owner, the man who wiped out her city, killed her husband, and enslaved those of her family who survived. 262

That is, men. Towards Understanding the Qur’an, by Syed Abul-A’ala Mawdudi (translated by Zafar I. Ansari from Tafheem Al-Qur’an), Islamic Foundation, Leicester, England. Commentary on Surah 4, ayah 34. 264 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 431, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143, Volume 5, Book 59, Numbers 512, 513, 522, & 524, Volume 8, and Book 75, Number 374. 263

125

The following passages also show how Muhammad used Allah to maintain control over his wives: [33.30] YUSUF ALI: O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah. [33.31] But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness, - to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance. [33.32] O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just. [33.33] And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display…

As Islam evolved over time, these words, originally recited by Muhammad to keep his wives in control, became law for all women. Other insights on the rights of women, or the lack thereof, come from Ayatollah Sistani’s interpretation of Shari’ah: 2382. If Nikah [marriage contract] of a woman is pronounced to a man without her consent, but later both man and woman endorse the Nikah, the marriage is in order.265 2419. If a person contracts Nikah with a non-baligh [pre-pubescent] girl, it is haraam [unlawful] to have sexual intercourse before she has completed her nine years. But if he commits sexual intercourse with her, she will not be haraam for him when she becomes baligh [pubescent], even if she may have suffered Ifza (meaning that her urinary tract and menstrual tract have been one, or her menstrual passage and rectum have been one), though, as a precaution, he should divorce her.266 2421. For a woman with whom permanent marriage is contracted, it is haraam to go out of the house without the permission of her husband…Also she should submit herself to his sexual desires, and should not prevent him from having sexual intercourse with her…And as long as she does not fail in her duties, it is obligatory on the husband to provide for her food, clothes and housing. 2422. If the wife does not fulfill her matrimonial duties towards her husband, she will not be entitled for the food, clothes or housing, even if she continues to live with him. But if she refuses to obey occasionally, the common verdict is that even then she cannot claim any entitlement from her husband. 2426. If a man, for example, has two wives and spends one night with one of them, it is obligatory on him to spend any one of four nights with the other as well; in situation other than this, it is not obligatory on a man to stay with his wife…as a precaution, a man should spend one night out of every four with his permanent wife.

265

Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part I of II, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, section entitled Conditions of Pronouncing Nikah. 266 You may have to read this article of law a few times to fully appreciate it. Let it sink in.

126

2428. If Mahr [a dowry given by the groom to the bride] is not fixed in a permanent marriage, the marriage is in order. And in such case, if the husband has sexual intercourse with the wife, he should pay her proper Mahr which would be in accordance with the Mahr usually paid to women of her category. As regards temporary marriage, however, if Mahr is not fixed, the marriage is void.267

This last clause touches on an Islamic institution that appears bizarre and unthinkable to modern Western eyes: temporary marriage. As described by Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s Shari’ah: There are two kinds of marriages: (i) Permanent marriage (ii) Fixed-time marriage … In a fixed time marriage, the period of matrimony is fixed, for example, matrimonial relation is contracted with a woman for an hour, or a day, or a month, or a year, or more…This sort of fixed time marriage is called Mut’ah or Sigha. 2375. If a woman appoints a person as her representative so that he may, for example, contract her marriage with a man for ten days, but does not specify the day from which the period of ten days would commence, the representative can contract her marriage with that man for ten days from any day he likes… 2433. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to subsistence even if she becomes pregnant.268

This “fixed-time marriage,” when combined with the mahr gift for the bride, constitutes a form of prostitution that Islam considers worthy of Allah’s approval, with the woman’s “guardian” playing the role of Allah-approved pimp. At this point, it is important to note that, while the Sunni and Shiite versions of Shari’ah are very similar in most regards, the institution of temporary marriage is fully sanctioned only by Shiism, which is the sect of Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sunnis, with whom Saddam Hussein is associated, are much more circumspect about temporary marriage, as the following quote from a Sunni version of Shari’ah reveals:269 Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah) Marriage in Islam is a strong bond, a binding contract, based on the intention of both partners to live together permanently in order to attain, as individuals, the benefit of the repose, affection, and mercy which are mentioned in the Qur’an, as well as to attain the social goal of the reproduction and perpetuation of the human species…

267

Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part I of II, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, section entitled Rules regarding permanent marriage. 268 Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part II of II, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, section entitled Mut’ah (Temporary Marriage). 269 The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Islamic Book Service, 1982.

127

Now, in temporary marriage (known in Arabic as mut’ah), which is contracted by the two parties for a specified period of time, in exchange for a specified sum of money, the above-mentioned purposes of marriage are not realized. While the Prophet…permitted temporary marriage during journeys and military campaigns before the Islamic legislative process was complete, he later forbid it and made it forever haraam. The reason it was permitted in the beginning was that the Muslims were passing through what might be called a period of transition from jahiliyyah [ignorance] to Islam.…After the advent of Islam,…on military expeditions, they were under great pressure as a result of being absent from their wives for long periods of time…The weak ones feared that they would be tempted to commit adultery, a major sin and an evil course, while the strong in faith, on the other hand, were ready to castrate themselves, as stated by Ibn Mas’ud: We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah…and did not have our wives with us, so we asked Allah’s Messenger…, ‘Should we not castrate ourselves?’...He forbade us to do so but permitted us to contract marriage with a woman up to a specified date, giving her a garment as a dower (mahr)… … …the Prophet…adopted a course of gradualism in the matter of sex, at first permitting temporary marriage as a step leading away from fornication and adultery, and at the same time coming closer to the permanent marriage relationship. He then prohibited it absolutely…In…the hadith we find the Prophet’s own words, “Allah has made it haraam until the Day of Resurrection.” … The majority of the Companions [of the Prophet] held the view that after the completion of the Islamic legislation, temporary marriage was made absolutely haraam. Ibn ‘Abbas, however, held a different opinion, permitting it under necessity…Later, however, when Ibn ‘Abbas saw that people had become lax and were engaging in temporary marriages without necessity, he withdrew his ruling, reversing his opinion…

Even though Sunnis do not join with Shiites in overtly approving temporary marriage, they recognize that Muhammad himself sanctioned it at one time, and see it as something that may be tolerated during difficult times, even if it remains strongly disapproved. The question we are left with is: Under what circumstances is temporary marriage necessary? Unless human physiology has changed dramatically since the days of Muhammad, the idea that temporary marriage is necessary is absurd, as is the notion that men’s sexual urges are so strong that they have to castrate themselves to maintain control of their bodies. This whole story sounds like a fabrication meant to rationalize Muhammad’s shifting policies. To better understand Muhammad’s true position on temporary marriage, consider the following hadith, from a time when Muhammad already had numerous wives. This hadith echoes the previous “garment as a dower” anecdote: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182:…The Prophet said, “Sit here,” and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been…lodged in a…garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu’man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, “Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift.” She said, “Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?” The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” He said, “You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge.” Then the Prophet came out to us and said, “O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family.”

128

While secular governments often tolerate prostitution, Islam introduces the strange notion that prostitution has Allah’s approval, at least under certain circumstances. This concept is even stranger because Islam calls extra-marital sex a Hudd crime. Adultery is the crime that nearly caused the stoning deaths of several Nigerian women in 2002.270 If those women had only contracted to be married for an hour and accepted payment for it, then, at least according to the Shiite Shari’ah, the whole ugly business of death by stoning could have been avoided. Shari’ah does more than condone temporary marriage for women; one of its unintended consequences is that it also promotes temporary marriage for men. This phenomenon stems from a set of related hadiths typified by: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715:271…Rifa’a divorced his wife, whereupon ‘AbdurRahman…married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil, (and complained to Aisha of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating)…when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie!...she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.”…

One’s initial amazement comes from Muhammad’s disregard for wife-beating, to the point of requiring the wife to have sex with her abusive husband. However, the precedent set by this hadith is even more astounding. To see how Shari’ah’s interpretation of such hadiths lead to temporary husbands, one must understand that, according to Shari’ah, it is very easy for a man to divorce a woman. All he needs to do is say “Talaq!” (Divorce!) three times and the divorce begins, even if the words were spoken in a fit of emotion. This power, by itself, can be devastating to a woman. But Islamic law magnifies the devastation with its interpretation of the above hadith, which is the foundation of an institution known as halala. This facet of Islamic law, which is designed to discourage husbands from divorcing their wives too many times, achieves its objective by humiliating wives. As Iraq’s “moderate” Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani, pronounces in his fatwa:272 2536. If a man divorces a woman twice and takes her back…she becomes haraam for him after the third divorce. But if she marries another man after the third divorce, she becomes halal for the first husband on fulfilment of five conditions…: (i) The marriage with the second person should have been of permanent nature. If he contracts with her a temporary marriage for one month or a year, and then separates from her, the first husband cannot marry her.

270

Woman sentenced to stoning freed, by Jeff Koinange, CNN, February 23, 2004. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 807, Volume 7, Book 63, Numbers 186 & 238, Book 72, Number 684, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 107. 272 This section of Islamic Law is excerpted from “Islamic Laws,” issued through the fatwa of Ayatollah Ali alHusseini Al-Sistani, Shiite Grand Ayatollah of Iraq. See www.al-islam.org/laws/divorce.html#2519. 271

129

(ii) The second husband should have had sexual intercourse with her… (iii) The second husband divorces her, or dies. …

To Westerners, this may seem like an unlikely situation, but this is because Western divorces are much more difficult and time-consuming than saying “Talaq! Talaq! Talaq!” – with each declaration of “Talaq!” counting as an individual divorce (according to many but not all interpretations of Shariah). Therefore, this seemingly unlikely situation can occur in seconds. Later, if the husband decides that he spoke too quickly in divorcing his wife, and the two wish to reconcile, the couple must find a man who will agree to “permanently” marry the wife, have sex with her, and then divorce her, so that the original couple can remarry. Such a marriage is common enough to earn its own special name: Nikah Halala. Islam’s laws are more than absurd; they can also have profoundly harmful affects on women’s health. For example, Arab News recently reported that Saudi Arabia has attached conditions to a pregnant woman’s right to enter a hospital: Men Must Accompany Pregnant Women in Clinics Essam Al-Ghalib, Arab News Staff JEDDAH, 30 September 2003 — Deputy Minister of Health Dr. Qassim Al-Qasabi has issued a directive to all hospitals advising that they should admit pregnant women only if they are accompanied by men who are prepared to take responsibility for both the mother and child… … In the event that a woman is admitted to a hospital’s emergency room and is not accompanied by a man, she is to be held at the hospital in specially designated rooms to prevent her escape… If no one comes to claim responsibility for the woman, she is to be transferred to one of the Kingdom’s social service providers after the local police have been notified.

The need to call the police and physically prevent pregnant women from escaping makes one wonder about the nature of the services provided by the social service providers. When this information is combined with Shari’ah’s directive that women proven to have had sex outside of marriage are to be stoned to death, it becomes clear why those unaccompanied women might want to escape. It is also clear that many pregnant women will stop going to the hospital. Another Islamic policy that affects both women’s health and their economic well-being is opposition to birth control, which religious leaders often portray as an Infidel conspiracy to keep Muslims from gaining power. This theory ignores the fact that Infidel nations are the greatest “victims” of this so-called conspiracy. In fact, birth rates in Europe and Japan have become so low that they are unable to maintain their population levels. Islam’s religious leaders also ignore the fact that much of the Islamic world faces a crushing overpopulation crisis, which birth control has virtually eliminated in the West. But while the West views birth control as a way to avoid overpopulation, poverty, pollution, and habitat destruction, Islamic leaders view it as a plot to undermine Islam.

130

For example, one Islamic website, Mission Islam,273 says that part of its mission is: To increase awareness as to the extent of oppression against Muslims throughout the world and the conspiracy…to exterminate Muslims and the religion of Islam from the face of the Earth.

This website links to an article entitled Population Control: Centerpiece of Imperialist Aggression against the Muslim World, which talks at length about imagined plots to trick Muslims into using birth control and thereby depopulate the House of Islam. The authority for Islam’s prohibition against birth control comes from hadiths such as:274 Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, book 59, no. 459…We went out with Allah’s Apostle…and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women, and celibacy became hard on us, and we loved to do coitus interruptus [the “withdrawal” method of birth control]…we said, “How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked [Muhammad] about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.’

Interestingly, Muhammad’s response implied that Allah gave Muhammad’s followers permission to rape captured women without any sense of obligation to those they impregnated, because “if any soul is predestined to exist, it will exist.” Despite this hadith’s faulty logic,275 it has been interpreted to mean that Muhammad told the faithful to have full-fledged sex with the captives because coitus interruptus represents an attempt to prevent souls destined for birth from being born. Thus Muhammad is seen as opposing birth control. The next hadith reveals that, on top of Shari’ah’s requirement that women submit themselves sexually to their husbands, and not use birth control, the powers of Heaven are also invoked to compel women to have many children: 276

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460: …Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.”

The results of Islam’s mandates and beliefs are revealed in the following excerpt of a BBC article, entitled India losing population battle,277 which also shows another way women who violate Islamic principles become targets of cruelty: Aasiyah Begum has given birth to 29 children she thinks, but five have died. 273

See www.missionislam.com. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 718, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 600, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.95. 275 If it is true that “if any soul…is predestined to exist, it will exist,” then it could also be predestined that the use of coitus interruptus prevented conception. 276 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Numbers 121 & 122, and Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Numbers 3366, 3367, & 3368. 277 India losing population battle, by Adam Mynot, BBC News, World Edition, December 3, 2002. 274

131

… She says birth control is against her religion - Islam - and adds: “It’s a sin to have an operation. No prayers would be said at my grave when I die. Only people with serious health problems can have operations.”

Islam’s opposition to birth control is not unique among religions. However, its requirement that women have sex with their husbands, on demand, without birth control, together with its cruel punishments for those who practice birth control, create a birthrate “perfect storm.” Fortunately, the practical issues of overpopulation are beginning to force Muslim nations to endorse birth control regardless of tradition,278 but Muslims face no such constraints in Western lands free of overpopulation stresses. Shari’ah restricts women in so many ways that appear nonsensical and exploitive to Westerners that a commentary on all of them would fill another book. To keep the focus of Dare to Speak on its intended topic, selections from Al-Sistani’s Shari’ah regarding women have been copied, without comment, into Appendix B. Please read them and reach your own conclusions. While it may be true that Islam gave women certain rights that Arabian women did not have before Muhammad, it also gave women a decidedly second-class status. According to the Allahgiven laws of Islam, women are property used as baby-producing tilths. Islam justifies this ruling through the Koran’s reasoning that women are weaker and men provide for them. And finally, because women are weak and provided for by men, whom they serve as baby-makers, women should obey men. Concepts that strengthen women physically, legally, and economically, such as modern medical care and birth control, and Western notions of fairness and equality, are secondary matters if they matter at all. The second-class status of women also explains Islamic policies on interfaith marriage. Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women “of the Book,” but Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men “of the Book.” If a Muslim woman wants to marry a nonMuslim man, then the man must convert to Islam. Why does this difference exist? The answer is that Islam is less concerned about belief and more concerned about political allegiance and power. In the House of Islam, children are raised in the faiths of their fathers. Therefore, the most peaceful and easy way to spread Islam is through marriage, with the children being raised as Muslims. Furthermore, if a Muslim husband dies, or divorces a non-Muslim wife, their children must be taken from the non-Muslim wife and raised by Muslim relatives, a ruling made famous by the movie, “Not Without My Daughter,”279 starring Sally Field. As time goes on, the inevitable result of Islam’s marital laws is that non-Islamic religions will dwindle.

278 279

Iran’s Birth Rate Plummeting at Record Pace, by Janet Larson, Earth Policy Institute, December 21, 2001. Produced by Harry J. Ufland, Mary Jane Ufland, and Anthony Wave, Directed by Brian Gilbert, 1991.

132

Allowing couples to choose their faith on the basis of actual belief does not serve Islam’s political objectives. Therefore, Islamic politics take precedence over a Muslim woman’s right to marry the man of her choice, just as it takes precedence over a non-Muslim woman’s right to raise her children in her own faith, regardless of the strength of her faith or the weakness of her Muslim husband’s faith. Under Shari’ah, religious and governmental authorities have the legal right and obligation to force a couple to divorce if the husband and wife do not comply with these laws. Despite obvious inequities, Muslim women have been brainwashed into thinking that they are more liberated than Western women. To understand their perspective, read the following portions of a website made by and for Muslim women,280 and notice that every time these women proclaim a right, no matter how trivial, they follow up with a qualifier that undermines it: Muslim Women Have the Right to Go Outside of Her Home Muslim women are not forbidden from going out in the community, working, or visiting relatives and female friends, if there is no objection from their guardian/husband and they are covered and behave and speak according to Islamic guidelines and, if necessary, escorted by their Mahram (a close male relative). However, a woman’s home should be the main base that she works from. … A Woman in Islam Has the Right to Get an Education In the words of the Prophet Muhammad… “To seek knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim.” … “Muslim,” here, meaning male and female Muslims, as women are the twin halves of men…. This is referring to religious knowledge, in the first place, and to any other kind of knowledge, in the second place, where one has the intention of benefiting herself, her family and the Islamic society. Additionally, a husband should not forbid his wife from going out of the house to seek basic religious knowledge, unless he is teaching her at home… The Right to Go to the Mosque The Messenger of Allah…said: “If someone’s wife asks his permission to go to the mosque, he should not deny it to her.” … At the same time, a woman’s prayer in her home is better, from the standpoint of her household duties and duties as a mother. Also it is better in the sense that it prevents unnecessary mixing with men. The Prophet…also stated on another occasion: “But their homes are better for them.”… Islam Gives Men and Women Equal Rights …Equality and sameness are two very different things… In the West, women may be doing the same job that men do, but their wages are often 280

See www.themuslimwoman.com/herrights/womensrights.htm.

133

less…whatever rights modern Western women have, they fall short of those of her Muslim counterpart! Islam has given woman what duties [fit] her female nature. It gives her full security and protects her against becoming what Western modern women themselves complain against: a “mere sex object.” The Right to Seek Employment … While Islam does not prohibit women working outside the home, it does stipulate that the following restrictions be followed to safeguard the dignity and honor of women and the purity and stability of the Islamic society…: 1. Outside employment should not come before, or seriously interfere with her responsibilities as wife and mother. 2. Her work should not be a source of friction within the family, and the husband’s consent is required in order to eliminate later disagreements. If she is not married, she must have her guardian’s consent. 3. Her appearance, manner and tone of speech and overall behavior should follow Islamic guidelines. These include: restraining her glances in relation to any men near the work place, wearing correct Islamic dress, avoiding men, not walking in a provocative manner, and not using make-up or perfume in public. … 5. Her job should not be one which is mixing and associating with men. 6. A woman should try to seek employment in positions which require a woman’s special skills, or which relate to the needs of women and children, such as teaching, nursing other women, midwifery, medicine with specializations like pediatric or obstetrics-gynecology.

While this Muslim women’s website may level some well-placed jabs at Western society, these jabs pale next to the body blows it delivers to Islamic women. Moreover, there is one jab at the West that seems misplaced: the claim that Islam protects women from becoming “mere sex objects.” If Shari’ah allows wives to be punished by their husbands for refusing sex, the natural effect would be to reduce them to the status of “mere sex object.” It turns out that the rights these Muslim women claim to have are not rights at all, because every time a “right” is given with one hand, it is taken away with the other. The bottom line is that there is very little a good Muslim woman can do without the approval of her husband or a (male) guardian. She cannot even go outside lawfully unless accompanied by an escort. How does Islam respond to such accusations? The Complete Idiot’s Guide for Understanding Islam answers with a clever combination of half-truths, spin, and anti-Western slander: Islam does not teach that women are inferior in religion or in political rights…Rather, it elevates women by freeing them from a lot of drudgery that God has said men are primarily responsible for…Men are the undeclared servants of women, in an ideal Islamic sense.281 281

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 20, section entitled Beyond Stereotypes, page 251.

134

One of the dictates [of the Koran] is that a female will inherit a share that is only half that of the man’s. This seems unfair on the face of it, but remember, the role of men in an Islamic family. The man has to support the family as a matter of religious obligation while the woman is not obligated to spend a dime.282 The Qur’an allows a man to marry up to four wives…What could be the reason for this seemingly licentious privilege for men? … It is an often misunderstood solution to certain unique problems…What…if there is a shortage of men, say, because of war?…What about men who have a hard time being monogamous…? What if a woman is barren? Should she be divorced and cast aside in favor of a fertile wife? … Polygyny283 is the answer to all of these problems. It actually works in women’s favor by tying the man to each wife so much so that he is more aware of his responsibilities, trying to earn enough to support his extended family.284

In other words, Islam does not subjugate women to men, but instead makes men “undeclared servants” of women. Polygyny does not give men an advantage by making it possible for men to play one wife against the other, as Muhammad did,285 but actually favors women. Obviously, this favoritism toward women must be why women are not allowed to marry multiple men. And, of course, it makes sense for a woman to receive half the inheritance of her brother, because women do not have to support a family, even if the brother has no family to support but the sister does. The Koran for Dummies also adds that one should not say that the Koran endorses polygyny, but “In truth, the Scripture seeks to limit polygamy, which was uncontrolled and widely practiced in pre-Islamic times across Arabia and other parts of the world.”286 Unfortunately, The Koran for Dummies does not explain how this “limit” can have any positive affect on the monogamous societies of today. To sort out the reality from the spin, consider the fact that Islamic law requires women to wait four months after the death of a husband before marrying again, but men are not required to wait at all. In fact, in a family with multiple wives, the concept of a mourning period makes no sense because the larger family, with up to three other wives, is still in-tact. The loss of a single wife is a much less significant event than the loss of a husband, or the loss of either a husband or wife in a Western-style monogamous marriage. However, once the legal precedent of not having a mourning period is established for men with multiple wives by Islamic Law, it is also applied to men with only one wife.

282

Ibid, Chapter 20, section entitled Why Only Half an Inheritance?, page 259. Most people believe that Islam supports polygamy, but this in fact is not the case, because polygamy allows women to have multiple husbands. With polygyny, only men can have multiple wives. 284 Ibid, Chapter 20, section entitled Polygamy in Islam, page 260-261. 285 See discussion of Surah 66 of the Koran, known as The Prohibition, found in the section of this book entitled Muhammad’s reign: Church and State bound together in one Messenger. 286 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 15, section entitled Giving equal time: Polygamy for men, page 218. 283

135

After explaining how polygynous marriage is fair, and works to the advantage of women, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam goes on to talk about divorce. Unfortunately, its discussion does not explain how Islam’s slanted divorce laws are fair to women. Instead, it praises them for being efficienct, at least for men:287 Talaq: Male-Initiated Divorce The procedure for divorce in Islam is relatively easy. If two people have resolved to end their marriage, then why should there be a long drawn-out and bitter fight in court? The male-initiated divorce is called talaq, or divorce. The man must pronounce to his wife three times the word “Talaq!”…then…all sexual relations must stop for a period of three menstrual cycles to see if the woman is pregnant…During that time, the Qur’an forbids the man to force the woman out of the house or to emotionally abuse her. He still has to pay all the bills as well… Khul’:288 Female-Initiated Divorce Women are not forever bound to men they want to leave. Islam provides a way for women to initiate divorce called Khul’. Basically, a woman can file papers with an Islamic court or a recognized scholar, asking to divorce her husband. Although she doesn’t need the permission of her husband, she does need a compelling reason. She must agree to give up all or part of her dowry in compensation to the soon-to-be divorced husband, the amount being determined by the importance of her reason for wanting to leave the marriage…

In other words, after extolling the ease with which men can divorce women, the author goes on to describe how women must undergo “long drawn-out” court procedures to divorce men. The power men have over women through their ability to divorce with ease is further underscored by the following hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 630:...Regarding the explanation of the following verse: – “If a wife fears Cruelty or desertion…” (4.128) A man may dislike his wife and intend to divorce her, so she says to him, “I give up my rights, so do not divorce me.”

While Muslims may have a point when they claim that “equality and sameness are two very different things,” one would be hard-pressed to explain how women enjoy equality with men under Shari’ah. After explaining Shari’ah’s “equal” treatment of women, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam goes on to blame the West for all of the problems that Shari’ah creates: In most Muslim countries, few people have any rights, men or women. Remember that the Islamic civilization was virtually wiped out during the era of Colonialism, and thus what is left is a confused jumble of customs, religious ideas, imported governmental structures, political turmoil, and poverty. 289

287

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 20, section entitled Divorce in Islam, page 262. 288 Also referred to as Khul’a. 289 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 20, section entitled The Struggle for Equal rights, pages 252.

136

So, from the Islamic standpoint, the liberation of women is not accomplished by rejecting their religion but by actually implementing it. Replacing the current regimes in Muslim countries with Islamic governments that will rule according to the Qur’an is also essential.290

In other words, if Islamic women appear repressed, it is not because of longstanding practices in the Islamic world. Rather, it is the result of Western corruption and domination, and “imported governmental structures” such as democracy. And the solution to any inequity is, of course, to rid the Islamic world of corrupting Western-style governance and institute Islamic governments that rule according to Shari’ah. Beyond the alarming concepts these supposedly “cute” introductory books present, they carry a distinct echo of the apologists for Communism during the Soviet Union’s declining years. People who remember those debates will recall such remarks as: “It’s not that Communism doesn’t work, it’s that Communism has never been tried,” and “the government of (the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba – take your pick) is not true Communism.” The people who said such things wanted their listeners to believe that the solution to Communism’s failure was to impose a more Communistic Communism. And similarly, according to The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Islam, the solution to Islam’s problems is a more Islamic Islam. In fact, the argument that Islamic nations do not practice true Islamic Law has been used to rationalize Muslims living in Infidel lands. As The Koran for Dummies explains:291 If Muslims have a real problem with following secular laws [in Western nations], they should migrate (make Hijra) to Muslim lands where they can freely follow their religion. However…that is nearly impossible because there is not a single government left today that truly practices Islamic law.

As ridiculous as this claim would sound to someone living in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the United Arab Emirates, it blames Muslim problems on the West in a way that uninformed and gullible Westerners guiltily accept. One of the arguments that The Koran for Dummies makes is that, rather than move back to their homelands in the House of Submission, Muslims should work peacefully through the democratic process to establish true Islamic states wherever they are. The author seems unable to recognize that the repressive regimes that Muslims flee are the fruits of Islamic culture. Like vectors in an epidemic, these Muslims carry the disease they hope to escape. Returning to our discussion of women, The Koran for Dummies also explains why male witnesses have a stronger voice than women in court :292

290

Ibid, section entitled The Struggle for Equal rights, pages 253. The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 11, section entitled Doing as God and His Messenger Do, page 164. 292 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 19, section entitled Right to bear witness to business transactions, page 294. 291

137

The Koran says that…there should be two male witnesses to [every business] transaction. But, if two men are not available, then one male witness and two female witnesses suffice, so that if one woman makes a mistake the other can remind her (2:282). …Critics…claim that this verse makes women appear intellectually inferior to men…these claims are incorrect. You have to remember that at the time of revelation, women were largely unfamiliar with business practices as a sector that was mostly male dominated. (Unfortunately, the same holds true today for women in some parts of the world.) This stipulation about female witnessing performs a function of justice in fair business practices and doesn’t represent female inferiority in any way.

This explanation raises several questions: • • •

How is it fair that no quantity of female witnesses is sufficient unless a male witness is also present, even though it is sufficient to have two male witnesses but no females? How is it that the eternal word of Allah could have issued a law that was a product of its times and is no longer relevant? Do Muslims really believe that it is no longer relevant? Would the places where “the same holds true today for women,” tend to be in Western nations or Islamic nations?

Muhammad, whose great wisdom is revered throughout the House of Islam, provides a clear answer to all of these questions, through a hadith that is repeated numerous times:293 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:…The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”

Today, few people would argue that the minds of Western women are so deficient that they are incapable of standing alone in a court of law. When The Koran for Dummies asserts that “the same holds true today in some parts of the world,” its author is not talking about Free Democracies in the West. Instead, he appears to describe Islamic lands, where Shari’ah laws create women who need Islam’s paternalism. We can therefore infer that the author is correct when he asserts that “This stipulation about female witnessing…doesn’t represent female inferiority.” Instead, this stipulation joins with other Islamic laws to impose female inferiority, and dependence on men. Another way Islam imposes dependency on women is by limiting their mobility, as revealed in the following article: Nigerian taxis fined for carrying women Reuters, MSNBC News, Jan. 6, 2006

293

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28, Book 6, Number 301, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 161, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 125, Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 142, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 12, Number 12.1.2.

138

KANO, Nigeria - A court in the northern Nigerian city of Kano has fined 45 motorcycle taxi riders for transporting women, in violation of a new rule to comply with Islamic Sharia law, a court official said on Friday. The ban on women passengers…has caused controversy in the city, which is predominantly Muslim but has a sizable Christian community.

Besides hurting all women, regardless of religion, these transportation rules also harm Nigeria’s economy and quality of life by making it harder for women to work and go about their daily business, and by depriving taxi drivers of a substantial clientele. A dramatic way to discover Islam’s true position on women is to read what Muhammad himself had to say. The next hadith restates Muhammad’s previous quote, but goes even further with his mean-spirited put-downs:294 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:…Once Allah’s Apostle…passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”

There is one last way in which Muslims claim to treat women more equally than Infidels, particularly Christians and Jews. This is in Islam’s version of the story of Adam and Eve. As The Koran for Dummies says: Eve’s story in the Koran stands in stark contrast with the Biblical narrative of creation. Feminists might find these differences between the Biblical and Koranic narratives quite interesting. … The Koran offers a story that absolves Eve, and thus woman, from tempting Adam into sin. Rather, the Koran identifies Satan as the enemy of both sexes.

By now, it should not come as a surprise that this claim about Islam is untrue. The truth is that Islamic scripture blames Eve quite harshly. Furthermore, it uses Eve to condescendingly declare that women are hopelessly errant, as can be seen in the following hadiths: •

295

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 547: …The Prophet said, “But for the Israelis, meat would not decay and but for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.”

294

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28; Volume 2, Book 18, Number 161; Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 125; Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 142, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 12, Number 12.1.2. 295 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 611, and Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Numbers 3471 & 3472.

139

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 548:296…Allah’s Apostle said, “Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion [the head], so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked…”

In the light of these hadiths, one can appreciate more fully how the following Koranic verse sets up enmity between men and women, just as it establishes enmity between Satan and humans: [2.35] PICKTHAL: And We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrongdoers. [2.36] But Satan caused them to deflect therefrom and expelled them from the (happy) state in which they were; and We said: Fall down, one of you a foe unto the other!

In summary, Islamic women have been locked into a truly medieval position in Islamic society. But as abject as Muslim women may appear to Westerners, the position of secular and liberal Muslims is even worse, as the next section reveals.

The treatment of secular Muslims and liberal Muslims As discussed previously, Muslims have full rights in the House of Islam while non-Muslims do not. This explains the phenomenon of “secular Muslims,” who call themselves Muslims for reasons that have nothing to do with belief. Secular Muslims want to avoid being penalized for Apostasy, and they want the legal advantages of being Muslim. Similarly, liberal Muslims try to pick and choose only the Koranic verses that conform to their own personal beliefs. This allows them to claim to be Muslim, and enjoy Islam’s legal benefits, even though they violate their obligation to submit to the entire Koran. While non-Muslims will find similar people within their own faiths, the motivation is much weaker. For example, “Non-practicing Jews” and “non-practicing Catholics” retain their religious affiliations for family and social reasons, rather than to preserve legal rights. Liberal Jews and liberal Christians pick and choose their beliefs, just like liberal Muslims. For example, there are many American Catholics who condone abortion even though Catholicism opposes it. They choose to remain Catholics, but call themselves liberal, knowing that they could readily switch to a more liberal version of Christianity if they want to. While Jewish and Catholic leaders may be dismayed by their unorthodox brethren, the stakes are much higher for Islamic leaders. For example, Islamic leaders wonder how well unenthusiastic or unconventional Muslims will respond when Islam calls for jihad, because jihad requires all Muslims to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and desertions could bring disaster. Muhammad faced this problem from the beginning of his reign, and he handled it by calling such Muslims Hypocrites and punishing them harshly. Islam’s religious leaders have maintained this policy ever since.

296

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Numbers 113 & 114, and Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Numbers 3466, 3467, & 3468.

140

To get an idea of Islam’s intolerance of Hypocrites, consider this excerpt from the January 1999 edition of Atlantic Monthly Magazine, which describes the plight of Abu Zaid, an Islamic scholar with liberal views on the Koran:297 “The Koran is a text, a literary (rather than literal) text, and the only way to understand, explain, and analyze it is through a literary approach,” Abu Zaid says… …for challenging the idea that the Koran must be read literally as the absolute and unchanging Word of God – Abu Zaid was in 1995 officially branded an apostate…The [Egyptian] court then proceeded, on the grounds of an Islamic law forbidding the marriage of an apostate to a Muslim, to order Abu Zaid to divorce his wife… Abu Zaid steadfastly maintains that he is a pious Muslim… For a while, Abu Zaid remained in Egypt and sought to refute the charges of apostasy, but in the face of death threats and relentless public harassment he fled with his wife from Cairo to Holland… Sheikh Youssef al-Badri, the cleric whose preachings inspired much of the opposition to Abu Zaid, was exultant. “We are not terrorists; we have not used bullets or machine guns, but we have stopped an enemy of Islam from poking fun at our religion....No one will even dare to think about harming Islam again.”

When reading about Abu Zaid, keep in mind that many people consider Egypt to be one of the more westernized Islamic nations. Other Islamic nations may take a harder-line approach, as Iran did when Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the murder of Salman Rushdie, an Apostate Muslim, for writing The Satanic Verses. The underlying issue that liberal Muslims, like liberal Christians, recognize is that their holy scriptures contain contradictions, either within themselves or with common sense. For example, with Christianity, nearly all Christians ignore, or work very hard to explain away, Paul’s declaration that:298 …women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. – 1 Corinthians 12:34-35

Christians also work overtime to reconcile the conflicting stories of Judas Iscariot’s death found in the books of Matthew and Acts. To see why, read these excerpts:299 When Judas…saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders…Then he went away and hanged himself…So they [the chief priests and the elders] decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. – Matthew 27:3-8 297

What is the Koran? by Toby Lester, Atlantic Monthly Magazine, January 1999. Source: The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985. 299 Ibid. 298

141

With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. – Acts 1:18-19

Who bought the field? How did Judas die? While it is possible to explain these differences as the understandable results of two different eye-witness accounts (impalement may have also been referred to as “hanging”), it is not possible to claim that both versions are 100% clear and accurate. Christians handle these issues by claiming that the Bible is a divinely inspired work, written by men. As such, Christians grant that the Bible may contain some imperfections, but this admission doesn’t shatter its underlying credibility. Instead, it gives people the freedom to downplay some passages without being accused of Apostasy. Muslims, on the other hand, have no such escape hatch. For them, there are only two options: either the Koran is the complete, literal, and unaltered word of Allah, or it is not. If it is not, then Islam’s primary claim to legitimacy is false. From Islam’s perspective, any free thought or criticism regarding the Koran is viewed as a very deep threat. It amounts to Apostasy, a crime punishable by death. Dire consequences await those who disagree with Islamic authorities on the nature or message of the Koran. This repression destroys free thought. It also kills those who think freely. Harsh intolerance has spawned bloody conflicts within the House of Submission ever since its earliest days. Muhammad himself set the stage for sectarian violence when he declared: 300

Sunan Tirmidhi, Number 56 …Allah’s Messenger…said: There will befall my Ummah exactly (all those) evils which befell the people of Isra’il, so much so that if there was one amongst them who openly committed fornication with his mother there will be among my Ummah one who will do that, and if the people of Isra’il were fragmented into seventy-two sects my Ummah will be fragmented into seventy-three sects. All of them will be in Hell Fire except one sect. They (the Companions) said: Allah’s Messenger, which is that? Whereupon he said: It is one to which I and my companions belong.

In fact, according to Muhammad, bloody violence between Islamic sects is a requirement for bringing about the end-times, when Islam finally achieves its ultimate redemption and glory: Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6902:…Allah’s Messenger [said:] The last Hour will not come until the two parties (of Muslims) confront each other and there is a large-scale massacre amongst them and the claim of both of them is the same. Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6903:…Allah’s Messenger [said]: The last Hour will not come unless there is much bloodshed. They said: What is harj? Thereupon he said: Bloodshed. bloodshed.

With these graphic and damning words, Muhammad laid the groundwork for violent competition between various Islamic sects, where each sect calls itself “the Congregation,” and strives to 300

Sunan Tirmidhi numberings vary; this hadith numbering came from Alim 6.0 CD-ROM version; other versions say that this hadith is Number 171. A similar hadith can be found in Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 40, Number 4579.

142

bring on the end-times through bloodshed, grabbing eternal glory for itself while sending the others to Hell. Muhammad’s words tell each sect to view every other with nearly the same contempt that they reserve for Infidels and Polytheists. Even today, each sect is quick to call every other sect “Hypocrite,” or even “Apostate,” for perverting the intents of Allah. One may wonder whether Muslims of differing sects really are this hostile toward each other. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran provides a subtly-worded answer to this question when it says: If any person takes part in activities, or expresses beliefs, that clearly go against the teachings of the Koran or the authentic Sunna,301 then that person’s activities or doctrines are not Islamic.

Unfortunately, there is no universal agreement on which hadiths are authentic. Therefore, there can be no universal agreement on the authentic Sunnah (the life of Muhammad), which the hadiths record. What the authors of this “Idiot’s” book are subtly saying is that all Muslims who revere Hadiths other than their own are un-Islamic and have been misled by false testimonies about Muhammad’s life. This places them in the same category of misled believers as Christians and Jews. Unfortunately, every Muslim sect feels this way about every other Muslim sect. Similarly, the Koran calls any Muslim who is not willing to fight for Islam, or who maintains friendships with Infidels, a Hypocrite, as revealed below: •

[3.167] PICKTHAL: And that He might know the hypocrites, unto whom it was said: Come, fight in the way of Allah, or defend yourselves. They answered: If we knew aught of fighting we would follow you. On that day they were nearer disbelief than faith. They utter with their mouths a thing which is not in their hearts.

•

[4.88] PICKTHAL: What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites…? [4.89] They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah [that is, leave their homes to fight for Allah]; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them…

•

[4.138] YUSUF ALI: To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them…a grievous penalty;[4.139] Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honor they seek among them? Nay, - all honor is with Allah. [4.140] …Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:[4.141] (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: “Were we not with you?” - but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): “Did…we not guard you from the believers?” … [4.145] The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them;-

301

The example or way of life of Muhammad, embracing his words and actions. The Sunna is revealed primarily through the Hadith, though the Koran and other historical references also reveal or confirm portions of it. Like the Hadith it is derived from, the Sunna is controversial; what one considers to be the Sunna depends upon what one considers to be the Hadith. Also referred to as Sunnah.

143

•

[33.60] PICKTHAL: If the hypocrites…do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors…but a little while. [33.61] Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.

Thus, Islam does more than oppress non-Muslims. It also oppresses and terrorizes its own believers, threatening them with death and eternal torment if they are insufficiently faithful. Beyond these threats, Islam also has financial laws that unwittingly bring hardship upon even the most devout Muslim. In the next section, which discusses Islam’s prohibitions on asset and risk management, we will see how Shari’ah cripples the ability of Muslims to engage in commerce, make large investments in speculative ventures, and cover risks through insurance.

Islamic Economics As the ruler of an empire, Muhammad developed a number of legal rulings on business transactions within his realm. These rulings dealt with loans, commercial transactions, farming, livestock, gambling, inheritance, nepotism, and legal testimony. In the centuries that followed, these rulings were generalized into a comprehensive system now called Islamic Economics, which is a subset of Islamic Law. This section presents the major aspects of Islamic Economics and their effects on Muslims.

Banking, Investment, and Insurance No aspect of Islamic Economics affects Muslims more than the prohibition against lending with interest: •

[2.275] YUSUF ALI: Those who devour usury [interest income from lending] will not stand, except as stand one whom the Evil one by his touch Hath driven to madness. That is because they say: “Trade is like usury,” but Allah hath permitted trade and forbidden usury.

•

[4.161] PICKTHAL: And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it…We have prepared…a painful doom.

While these verses only imply divine punishment for usery, Islam also provides earthly punishments for those who lend with interest, as the following hadith reveals: Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 19, Number 3035:…The Apostle of Allah…concluded peace with the people of Najran on condition that they would pay to Muslims two thousand suits of garments, half of Safar, and the rest in Rajab, and they would lend (Muslims) thirty coats of mail, thirty horses, thirty camels, and thirty weapons of each type used in battle. Muslims will stand surely for them until they return them in case there is any plot or treachery in the Yemen. No church of theirs will be demolished and no clergyman of theirs will be turned out. There will be no interruption in their religion until they bring something new or take usury. Isma’il said: They took usury.

144

This prohibition is codified in Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s version of Shari’ah, under its list of unlawful business practices. This Shari’ah tells believers that any transaction involving interest is prohibited, except under special circumstances:302 2063. There are many Haraam deals and businesses;…mentioned below: … (iv) Any transaction which involves interest. 2088 …a Muslim can take interest from a non-Muslim…[the importance of this clause will soon become apparent]

This prohibition against lending money at interest may initially sound good to some people. It also resonates with some interpretations of the Bible.303 Unfortunately, it also devastates economies. The reason for this comes down to two basic facts: 1. Money in a person’s hand today is worth more to that person than money promised in the future. Why? Because money is intrinsically useful (if you have it, you can spend it; if you lend it, you cannot) and everyone faces uncertainty about future events, such as repayment. 2. Most economies operate with some level of inflation. In an inflationary environment, money is constantly losing value. Therefore lenders must charge interest simply to preserve the value of the money they loan. It turns out that the people whom the Koran claimed to be “driven to madness” by the touch of “the Evil one” were actually correct. Trade really is like “usury,” which we call “lending with interest.” Such lending allows people to freely exchange money today for money in the future, and vice versa, just as trade allows people to exchange one good for another. Strangely, Allah’s perfect wisdom, as spoken in the Koran, missed this fact. Despite the Koran’s lack of understanding, this concept is essential to banking, finance, and insurance. To see this, consider a bank: It lends money, knowing that a certain percentage of those loans will default. To stay in business, the bank must charge an interest rate on its loans to cover those losses and provide competitive salaries for its employees. This example demonstrates that interest charges are not inherently evil. In fact, they are the lifeblood of financial institutions because lenders, like everyone else, expect to be paid for their services. In the West, “usury” has become a term reserved for loans with excessive interest rates that exploit the ignorant and desperate. However, loans that charge competitive interest rates are 302

Islamic Laws, Transactions, Part I of III, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, section entitled Haraam (unlawful) Transactions 303 See Bible, Psalm 15: “Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary? He whose walk is blameless…who lends his money without usury…” (quoted from The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985).

145

more than acceptable; they are essential to commerce. Without them, it would be almost impossible to undertake any large private enterprise. Their absence would cause the flood of innovations that power the West’s success, such as automobiles, electricity, telephones, passenger jets, computers, and satellites, to slow to a trickle. The historical lack of loans, stocks, bonds, annuities, and other financial instruments in the Islamic world has played a major role in its poverty, with the exception of nations with vast oil reserves. This poverty is the unavoidable result of Shari’ah’s laws against lending with interest, despite the claims of Muslim leaders, such as Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Osama bin Laden, who prefer to blame Islamic destitution on imagined Infidel conspiracies.304 Interestingly, there was a long time when the Christian world imposed similar self-defeating financial rules upon itself, which caused the money-lending Jews to enjoy financial success despite their persecution. In the past, Jews were persecuted throughout Christendom and were prevented from owning property. One of the few career options available to them was finance, largely because lending money at interest was considered usury, a business unworthy of Christians. Fortunately for the Jews, finance is a lucrative business, and they often prospered. Thus, despite their persecution, Jews gained financial power, and came to be seen as a necessary evil. Famous relics from those days are Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and, intriguingly, the Magna Carta, which was signed under duress by King John in 1215. With its mighty reputation for laying the foundations of parliamentary government, the Magna Carta will surprise a firsttime reader by referring specifically to England’s Jews, as shown in these excerpts: Article 10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, dies before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age… Article 11. And if anyone dies indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt…

Apparently, the Magna Carta uses the term “Jew” where people today would say “banker” or “creditor.” Fortunately, as Christendom emerged from the late Middle Ages, church leaders such as Bernardino of Sienna came to appreciate that lending with interest could be legitimate and beneficial for all. This realization played an important role in Europe’s ascendancy. For Muslims, however, this realization cannot occur, because the Koran eternally rules it out. Consequently, Jews (and Christians) tend to be prosperous compared to Muslims in the House of Islam, even though they suffer socially and legally. Recently, some enlightened Muslims recognized that Western-style financial instruments contribute to economic vitality. In response, they developed a set of financial services known 304

See the chapter of this book entitled Chapter 1: The new Cold War.

146

collectively as Islamic banking. Essentially, Islamic banking is normal banking, except that interest rates and risk-taking are disguised in terms acceptable to Muslims. To the extent that it differs from normal banking, the differences introduce restrictions that damage market efficiencies and create unnecessary risks. To peer into the world of Islamic Banking, read the following excerpts from the website of the Institute of Islamic Banking & Insurance (www.islamic-banking.com). This institution devotes itself to developing financial instruments that comply with Islamic scripture: The Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance Background What was dubbed a “utopian dream” over two decades ago has become a reality in this short period… Islamic Banking – What is Islamic Banking? The basic principle of Islamic banking is the prohibition of Riba (Usury or interest): …a basic tenet of Islamic banking [is] the outlawing of riba, a term that encompasses not only the concept of usury, but also that of interest… … Although the western media frequently suggest that Islamic banking in its present form is a recent phenomenon, in fact, the basic practices and principles date back to the early part of the seventh century… It is evident that Islamic finance was practiced predominantly in the Muslim world throughout the Middle Ages, fostering trade and business activities…It is claimed that many concepts, techniques, and instruments of Islamic finance were later adopted by European financiers and businessmen. The revival of Islamic banking [occurred] in 1976. At the same time financial resources of Muslims, particularly those of the oil producing countries, received a boost due to rationalization of the oil prices, which had hitherto been under the control of foreign oil Corporations. These events led Muslims to strive to model their lives in accordance with the ethics and philosophy of Islam. … Islam not only prohibits dealing in interest, but also in liquor, pork, gambling, pornography and anything else which the Shariah (Islamic Law) deems Haram (unlawful). Islamic banking is an instrument for the development of an Islamic economic order. Some of the salient features of this order may be summed up as: 1. …Islam…forbids all forms of economic activity which are morally or socially injurious. 2. While acknowledging the individual’s right to ownership of wealth legitimately acquired, Islam makes it obligatory on the individual to spend his wealth judiciously and not to hoard it, keep it idle or to squander it. 3. While allowing an individual to retain any surplus wealth, Islam seeks to reduce the margin of the surplus for the well-being of the community as a whole…by participation in the process of Zakat.

147

4. …Islam seeks to prevent the accumulation of wealth in a few hands to the detriment of society as a whole, by its laws of inheritance. 5. …the economic system envisaged by Islam aims at social justice without inhibiting individual enterprise beyond the point where it becomes not only collectively injurious but also individually self-destructive. The Islamic financial system employs the concept of participation in the enterprise, utilizing the funds at risk on a profit-and-loss-sharing basis. This by no means implies that investments with financial institutions are necessarily speculative. This can be excluded by careful investment policy, diversification of risk and prudent management by Islamic financial institutions… The Islamic Financial System While elimination of “Riba” or interest in all its forms is an important feature of the Islamic financial system, Islamic banking is much more. In essence, it aims to eliminate exploitation and to establish a just society by the application of the Shari’ah…to the operations of banks and other financial institutions. To ensure compliance to the Shariah, Islamic banks use the services of religious boards comprised of Shari’ah scholars. The Religious Board … The day-to-day application of Shari’ah by religious boards is two-fold. First, the religious board reviews the operations of the financial institution to ensure that they comply with the Shari’ah. This is, to a large extent, an investigatory role…the religious board endeavours to answer the question [of] whether or not proposals for new transactions or products conform to the Shari’ah, and offers constructive and creative recommendations. An Islamic financial institution is required to establish operating procedures to ensure that no form of investment or business activity is undertaken that has not been approved in advance by the religious board. Also, the management is required to periodically report and certify to the religious board that the actual investments and business activities undertaken by the institution conform to forms previously approved by the religious board. Takaful (Islamic Insurance) In modern business, one of the ways to reduce the risk of loss due to misfortunes is through insurance. The concept of insurance where resources are pooled to help the needy does not contradict Shari’ah. …[Islamic insurance] is not a new concept, in fact it had been practised by the Muhajrin of Mecca and the Ansar of Medina following the hijra of the Prophet over 1400 years ago. It is generally accepted by Muslim Jurists that the operation of conventional insurance does not conform to the rules and requirements of Shari’ah. Conventional insurance involves the elements of uncertainty (Al-gharar)…, gambling (Al-maisir) as the consequences of the presence of uncertainty and interest (Al-riba) in the investment activities of the conventional insurance companies which contravene the rules of Shari’ah. Takaful is an alternative form of cover which a Muslim can avail himself against the risk of loss due to misfortunes.

148

Until this so-called “revival” of Islamic Banking, the damage that Islamic Law did to Muslims’ economic well-being was profound, as the following excerpt from the Associated Press article, Islamic banking expands in West, illustrates:305 Many of Britain’s 2 million Muslims have been locked out of buying their own homes because Shari’ah law prevents riba, or usury – meaning traditional mortgages are off-limits.

When presenting its financial concepts, the Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance makes a number of intriguing claims that are designed to appeal to Islamic sensibilities. For example: •

Islamic banking is banking without interest. How can banking work without interest? This section presents typical examples of Islamic banking by contrasting the Western and interest-free approaches: o

The Islamic home mortgage If a Westerner wanted to buy a house, he or she would make a down payment and then finance the balance through a mortgage from a bank or mortgage company. The buyer would then make monthly payments until the mortgage is paid off. Because of Islam’s prohibitions against interest, Muslims have lacked a way to finance home purchases until very recently. Fortunately, the promoters of Islamic Banking have invented a traditional-sounding new concept known as “Murabaha.” The Ahli Limited Bank website describes Murabaha as follows:306 Murabaha was first introduced in 1997 and is a simple method of financing the purchase of your house according to Islamic principles. … How it works You identify the property you wish to buy and agree on the purchase price with the seller… …the bank will buy the property…and immediately sell it to you at a higher price. The higher price is calculated depending on the value of the property, the number of years you wish to pay us over and the amount of your first payment… Your first payment to the bank is made on the day of completion and is your initial contribution, normally a minimum of 17% of the purchase price. One month after completion, your regular monthly payments will commence…

In other words, the person who uses Murabaha to purchase a house makes a down payment, in this case 17%, and then makes monthly payments that are 305 306

Islamic banking expands in West, Jane Wardell, Associated Press, June 12, 2005. www.iibu.com/buy_home/murabahahow.htm

149

indistinguishable from regular mortgage payments. The higher price that the bank charges the homebuyer for the house, which the homebuyer pays off through a series of monthly installments, is calculated to produce the same monthly payments as the interest charged in a conventional mortgage. Using the handy payment calculator provided by Ahli Limited Bank’s website,307 one can see exactly how Islamic banking works. For example, if one purchased a $200,000 home, financed by a 15-year payment schedule, the 17% down payment would be $34,000 and the monthly payments would be $1,492. This is equivalent to a situation where a homebuyer makes a down payment of $34,000 and then finances the balance of $166,000 with a traditional 7% mortgage. While Murabaha may initially appear to be indistinguishable from a traditional mortgage, it has a trait that actually makes it much worse. With Murabaha, the bank owns the house, and the homebuyer purchases it from the bank for a price that is significantly higher than the original seller’s price. To appreciate the devastating effect of this trait, an example using numbers is necessary. If you have difficulty with numbers, please skip the next two paragraphs to see the end result of Murabaha on the buyer of a $200,000 house. In the example above, the homebuyer must pay the bank $302,560 ($34,000 + $1,492 x 12 months/year x 15 years) for the $200,000 home. Unfortunately, the homebuyer owes the Islamic bank this amount regardless of whether the person pays it off over the planned 15 years or whether he or she must sell the house before then. For example, if the new homeowner is transferred by work to another location after living in the house for a year, he or she may be able to get a slightly higher price, say $220,000. The amount owed to the bank, however, would be a whopping $250,656 ($302,560 - $34,000 - $1,492 x 12 months). Thus, even though the house’s value increased by $20,000, the homeowner, after using all of the proceeds of the house’s sale to pay off the Islamic bank, would still owe the bank $30,656 ($302,560 – $250,656). On the other hand, consider what would have happened if this homeowner had made a down payment of $34,000 and then financed the rest with a traditional mortgage of $166,000. After making mortgage payments of $1,492 for a year, $6,490 of those payments would have gone to reducing the principal amount owed, so that the homeowner would still owe the bank $159,510 ($166,000 $6,490). After using the proceeds from the home sale to pay off the loan, the homeowner with a traditional mortgage would be left with a surplus of $60,490 ($220,000 - $159,510). In other words, Murabaha would leave the homebuyer in this example $91,146 poorer than if he or she had financed the home with a traditional mortgage 307

See www.iibu.com/buy_home/murabahacalc.asp.

150

($30,656 of debt after home sale vs. $60,490 surplus after home sale). This difference is nearly half the value of the home. From the perspective of the homebuyer, Murabaha is grossly inferior to a traditional mortgage because it forces the buyer to either stay in the home for the term of the Murabaha or suffer dramatic financial losses. Moreover, Murabaha destroys one of the traditional ways Westerners build wealth – through the appreciation of home values. Islamic banks, however, profit handsomely from this arrangement, cashing in whenever homeowners move before the terms of their Murabahas finish. o A simple Islamic loan The nature of a simple Islamic loan can be seen from the following example: If a Westerner wanted to take out a simple loan for $10,000, for one month, at a 12% annual interest rate, he could make an agreement with a bank to receive that $10,000 and then later repay it, plus $100 for the interest, for a total of $10,100. In contrast, when a Muslim needs $10,000, he or she can go to an Islamic bank and get it without paying any interest. Instead, the borrower would pay a service fee for the loan. This service fee might be something like $100. In this case, the Muslim would ask the bank for $10,100, which the bank would give him. It would then immediately charge the $100 service fee, so that the Muslim walks away with $10,000. A month later, the Muslim would repay the loan of $10,100. Muslims must sure be relieved to know that their Islamic banks avoid the evil and forbidden practice of charging interest! Islamic jurists have actually developed a term for tactics such as those used by Islamic bankers: “hiyyal,” which means “trick” in Arabic. With the aid of this trick, other Islamic financial practices become possible, such as Ijara Wa Iktina, which is a lease-to-own arrangement primarily for equipment used in moneygenerating operations, and Salam, which is used to create Islamic futures markets.308 Rationalizations aside, it is clear that Islamic banking is, at best, identical to normal banking, and, at worst, is very harmful to customers. Its only benefit is that it uses terminology that makes Muslims feel comfortable, so that Islamic Bankers can deceive them, as well as others new to finance, with claims that borrowers do not pay interest. •

Islamic banking existed in Islam’s earliest days, and is being revived today. This is a very strange claim, given Islam’s strong prohibitions against lending with interest, and the fact that historical records reveal Jews to have been the former financiers of Europe. It also rings false because it gives no rational explanation for Islamic banking’s ancient demise. If Islamic banking existed in ancient times, why would it ever

308

For more information on these practices, see www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/economics/nbank2.html.

151

have stopped? Muslims cannot blame the West for its disappearance, because Islam was in a state of ascendancy until the 1600s and, throughout the last few centuries of this ascendancy, it was largely unaffected by Western ways, which it considered backward and misguided.309 Perhaps the most convincing evidence that Islamic Banking did not exist in Islam’s early days is the fact that Muhammad himself died nearly broke, and in debt to a Jew, as numerous hadiths reveal,310 such as: o

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 283:…Anas went to the Prophet with barley bread having some dissolved fat on it. The Prophet had mortgaged his armor to a Jew in Medina and took from him some barley for his family. Anas heard him saying, “The household of Muhammad did not possess even a single Sa of wheat or food grains for the evening meal, although he has nine wives to look after.”

o

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 743:…The Prophet died while his armor was mortgaged to a Jew for thirty Sa’s of barley.

Given Muhammad’s hostility toward Jews, it seems highly unlikely that he would have taken a loan from a Jew if he could have gotten one from a Muslim. As Muhammad’s life demonstrated, and the remainder of this chapter will confirm, the economic legacy Muhammad left his followers was a set of laws that produces poverty, large families, and bad debt. The claim that Islamic Banking has existed from the earliest days of Islam is better explained by a Muslim tendency to take any good idea practiced in the West and find a way to say that it was used in Muhammad’s time, was Islamic, and was lost because Muslims strayed away from true Islam. This sort of propaganda will be discussed in more depth later. •

Islamic banking requires a religious board to govern its decisions and procedures. In contrast to the Western finance industry’s innovative ways, Islamic Banking’s religious boards invoke memories of Islam’s religious leaders railing against innovations accepted long ago in the West, such as organ transplants,311 photos, television, movies, paintings, and secular music.312 At best, such boards, which operate in addition to the

309

What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, by Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 26. 310 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Numbers 282, 309, & 404, Book 35, Numbers 453 & 454, Book 41, Number 571, Book 45, Numbers 685, 686, & 690, and Volume 4, Book 52, Number 165. 311 Organ transplants create difficult theological issues in Islam regarding the physical nature of people when resurrected on the Day of Judgment. 312 These contentions are based on Muhammad’s prohibitions against secular music and the manufacture of musical instruments, and his claim that any graven image, including realistic paintings of individuals, fostered religious idolatry. Interestingly, Muslims who claim that photographs, movies, and television are acceptable explain that this is so because these are mechanical reproductions of real images. Creations made by an artist’s hand, however, are

152

normal structures of corporate governance, add bureaucratic overhead that make Islamic banks slower to act, less responsive to market phenomena, and more expensive to run. •

Takaful (Islamic insurance) is an alternative to Western insurance that allows Muslims to cover risks without involving interest, gambling, or uncertainty. Insurance is a particularly difficult concept for Muslims to endorse because it can be easily interpreted as gambling. As the old joke says, “You can’t win with life insurance: they’re betting you won’t die, while you’re betting you will!” Gambling is specifically prohibited by the Koran: [5.90 - 91] PICKTHAL: … games of chance…are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed…

This prohibition is also expressed repeatedly in the Hadith: Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 26, Number 3662:…the following verse of Surat al-Baqarah revealed; “They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: In them is great sin....” Umar was then called and it was recited to him… Malik’s Muwatta, Book 31, Number 31.13.25:…“The Messenger of Allah…forbade…buying something whose number, weight and measure is not known with something whose number, weight or measure is known…That is not a sale. It is taking risks and it is an uncertain transaction. It falls into the category of gambling because he is not buying something from him for something definite which he pays. Everything which resembles this is also forbidden”… Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 128:313 Allah’s Apostle said: …whoever says to his companions, ‘Come let me gamble’ with you, then he must give something in charity (as an expiation for such a sin).”314

These prohibitions against lending at interest and gambling, and against financial speculation in general, have always made Muslims uncomfortable with the concept of insurance despite the obvious need. Fortunately, organizations like the Institute for Islamic Banking and Insurance have recently come up with a concept called Takaful, which The Bank of Pakistan explains in a publication called An Introduction to Takaful – An Alternative to Insurance:315

outlawed. Thus, while a movie may be acceptable, a poster for it may not. Saudi Arabia, however, recognizes the absurdity of such rulings. Therefore it has made movie theaters illegal, as discussed in Daring to use the Silver Screen to Reflect Saudi Society, by Hassan M. Fattah, in the April 28, 2006 issue of the New York Times, page 4. 313 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 383, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 314, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 645, and Sahih Muslim, Book 15, Number 4041. 314 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 383, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 314, & Book 78, Number 645, and Sahih Muslim, Book 15, Number 4041. 315 An Introduction to Takaful – An Alternative to Insurance, by Muhammad Ayub, Sr. Joint Director of the Islamic Banking Dept. of the State Bank of Pakistan in Karachi. See www.sbp.org.pk/departments/ibd/Takaful.pdf.

153

Different views have been expressed about the status of conventional insurance…An overwhelming majority of the Shariah scholars believe that it is unlawful due to involvement of Riba (interest), Maisir316 (gambling) and Gharar317 (uncertainty). Takaful, the Islamic alternative to insurance, is based on the concept of social solidarity, cooperation and mutual indemnification of losses of members. It is a pact among a group of persons who agree to jointly indemnify the loss or damage that may inflict upon any of them, out of the fund they donate collectively… Takaful is not a new concept in Islamic commercial law. The contemporary jurists acknowledge that the foundation of shared responsibility, or Takaful, was laid down in the system of ‘Aaqilah’, which was an arrangement of mutual help or indemnification customary in some tribes at the time of the Holy Prophet…In case of any natural calamity, everybody used to contribute something until the loss was indemnified. Similarly, the idea of Aaqilah in respect of blood money or any disaster was based on the concept of Takaful wherein payments by the whole tribe distributed the financial burden among the entire tribe… … The distinction between…conventional insurance and Takaful…is more visible with respect to investment of funds. While insurance companies invest their funds in interestbased avenues and without any regard for the concept of Halal-o-Haram [Permitted or Forbidden by Shari’ah], Takaful companies undertake only Shariah compliant business and the profits are distributed in accordance with the pre-agreed ratios in the Takaful Agreement. Likewise they share in any surplus or loss318 from the pool collectively.

This publication explains why normal insurance violates Islamic injunctions against interest, gambling, and speculation, and presents Takaful as a concept with ancient Islamic roots and worthy objectives. It does not, however, explain how Takaful is any less a form of speculation or gambling than regular insurance. There is also a question about replacing the “interest” of regular insurance companies with the Islamic notion of “shar[ing] in any surplus or loss”: Since when did matters of surplus (that is, profit) and loss stop being speculative? The truth of the matter is that this kind of investment is actually more speculative than the interest-bearing ones used by insurance companies. This leads to the next strange claim of Islamic Banking: •

When an Islamic Bank puts its customers’ assets at risk on a profit-and-loss sharing basis, this does not constitute a form of speculation. This is Islamic banking’s final deception: It claims that profit-and-loss sharing arrangements do not constitute speculation. To see the falsehood of this claim, imagine the Islamic bankers deciding whether to invest their customers’ funds in the ownership of a business (known as an equity interest among capitalists). What are the first things that these bankers would do? They would research the market that the business serves. They

316

Any form of business in which monetary gains or losses are matters of chance. Maisir refers to income based on speculation rather than labor or real sector business. 317 Any major uncertainty about a contract’s subject matter or the rights & liabilities of its parties. 318 Losses, if any, are first absorbed by reserves known as Participants Equity, then from interest-free loans from shareholders of the Takaful Company, and then by a general increase in pricing by the Company.

154

would investigate the firm’s management team, and the business’s products and services. They would find out how much money the management itself has invested in the business. In other words, they would try to determine whether the business is likely to be profitable. These efforts to minimize risk implicitly acknowledge that risk exists, and that the investment is speculative. Anyone who has invested in a business knows that joint ownership can be one of the highest-rolling gambles of all. This deception makes other kinds of partnership and limited partnership permissible for Muslims. Examples of Islamic partnerships are Mudaraba, Musharaka, and Muqarada, which are discussed in depth at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/economics/nbank2.html. Until the invention of Islamic Banking and Islamic Insurance, business enterprises in the Islamic world languished from a lack of financial and organizational tools for raising capital and minimizing risk. Thus, despite the dishonesty of their arguments, Islamic bankers create opportunities for Islamic nations to move away from the destitution they have traditionally known. Islamic Banking and Islamic Insurance are positive developments for the House of Islam. Unfortunately, they are only partial fixes because they do not address Islam’s prohibitions against stocks, bonds, futures, and money markets, which are all purely speculative. In recent years, through a combination of Western support and native comprehension of a need for such institutions, stock exchanges and financial houses have begun to arise in a number of Islamic nations. The following is a list of all stock exchanges in the Islamic world as of March, 2005:319 1. Amman Stock Exchange, Jordan 2. Bursa Malaysia Berhad, Malaysia 3. Dhaka Stock Exchange, Bangladesh 4. Dubai Financial Market, United Arab Emirates 5. Istanbul Stock Exchange, Turkey 6. Karachi Stock Exchange, Pakistan 7. Khartoum Stock Exchange, Sudan 8. Muscat Securities Market, Oman 9. Palestine Securities Exchange, Palestine 10. Tadawul-Saudi Stock Market, Saudi Arabia 11. Tehran Stock Exchange, Iran

319

Report of the Round-Table Meeting on Promotion of Cooperation Among the Stock Exchanges of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) Member States, published by the Istanbul Stock Exchange on March 2829, 2005.

155

While this progress is commendable, participation in these stock markets remains extremely limited. For example, the website for the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) reveals, in its About ASE section,320 that: The ASE was established in March 1999…The ASE membership is comprised of Jordan’s 30 brokerage firms.

Jordan’s Amman Stock Exchange exemplifies how recent, limited, and fragile these stock markets really are, particularly after one understands Islam’s injunctions against speculation.

Inheritance The book, Islam: A Very Short Introduction, brings up several points about Shari’ah’s economics which, while subtle, have profound effects on the long-term development of Islamic nations: [Shari’ah’s] laws of inheritance prevented concentrations of wealth among individuals, as estates had to be divided according to the provisions of the Shari’a which limits the amount a single heir may inherit while favouring a multiplicity of claims by agnatic kin (relatives in the male line). Although these provisions could be evaded by the creation of family trusts (waqf), endowments from which the founders’ families could draw incomes in perpetuity, such provisions militated against the productive use of capital for commercial and industrial purposes. 321 … In many Muslim lands women have been systematically denied their inheritance rights under Islamic law, either by family pressures or by legal devices such as the family waqf or trust. Marriage between first cousins, permitted under Islamic law, is often converted into a positive injunction, with girls obliged to marry their first cousins. The aim of such customs has been to keep property in the patriarchal family, countering the distributive effects of the laws of inheritance…322

Some assets, such as businesses and farms, simply do not divide up easily unless they are liquidated, and attempts at joint ownership often lead to major problems concerning governance. Thus, Shari’ah’s laws of inheritance favor the liquidation of businesses so that their assets can be distributed to relatives. This tends to terminate business operations that provide goods and services to society. Apparently, the freedom that Western testators enjoy, of writing their wills any way they want, has important societal benefits.

Corruption This characteristic of Islamic Economics is not only a result of what Shari’ah says, but what it consents to through silence. Islam: A Very Short Introduction describes how Shari’ah’s exclusive focus on individual and tribal behavior encourages corruption:323 The Shari’a, both in theory and practice, was uncompromisingly individualistic… 320

See www.ammanstockex.com Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 4, entitled The Shari’a and Muslim Societies, pages 86-88. 322 ibid, Chapter entitled Women and Family, pages 97-98. 323 ibid, Chapter entitled The Shari’a and its consequences, pages 88-89. 321

156

The Shari’a recognized no corporate entities…in law…One consequence of the absence of [this] concept…may be seen in the proliferating alleyways of many pre-modern Middle East cities, where private territory – cafes, workshops, stalls, and so forth – constantly encroaches on public space. The public domain…is…not a separate entity requiring legal protection… A negative consequence of the Shari’a approach to law has been the lack of legitimacy accorded the public interest in the form of city, state, or any other institution standing between the individual and God. Corruption is endemic in many societies, and it would be unfair to target Muslim societies as being uniquely prone to bribery, graft, and the private misappropriation of public funds…However, a culture informed by the absence of institutional boundaries between the public and private spheres may be more vulnerable to such abuses than one where the boundaries are rigorously upheld by law.

Thus, because Muhammad’s society was tribal and had few notions of corporate or municipal governance, the Koran addresses only issues pertinent to tribes and is silent on important matters of corporate and municipal law. For example, is it wrong for a mayor to hand exclusive contracts for essential services to members of his own tribe, while excluding others? Shari’ah says nothing against it; therefore, according to Shari’ah, it is not forbidden. In fact, Islamic scholars have decided that Islam endorses nepotism. As The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran proudly declares:324 Give to the Near of Kin First! At several points, the Koran instructs that voluntary charity should [go] to blood relatives first, and then to other members of [Islamic] society. Notice who comes at the head of the list in the following passage: “Give the relatives, the destitute, and the needy travelers their share (of charity).” (30:38)

It only takes a small step in logic to turn charity for a relative into a job for a relative. Thus, Shari’ah’s silence on corporate and municipal law, coupled with its directives to help relatives first, creates incentives for corruption. Despite Shari’ah’s obvious shortcomings in corporate and municipal matters, no devout Muslim would say that it is inadequate. To do so would be tantamount to saying that Allah’s law is imperfect. The Koran for Dummies also has a section that reveals how, even within the limited context of law for individuals, Shari’ah has severe defects that encourage corruption. Interestingly, the book calls attention to these defects in an effort to show how Shari’ah is not as severe as it initially sounds:325 324

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 15, section entitled Give to the Near of Kin First, page 158. 325 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 17, section entitled Preventing unlawful sexual relations, page 269.

157

The Koran says a man and woman that are found guilty of fornication should be flogged 100 times (24:2). According to the Sunnah, those who commit adultery should be lashed 100 times as well as stoned to death. However, the proof for fornication or adultery is extremely strict. Basically, in order to convict a man or woman of unlawful intercourse, four male witnesses with a clean record of trustworthiness must have witnessed the act of sexual intercourse (24:4). Only the actual witnessing of the act – not just suspicion – can stand in an Islamic court. Also, spying is completely forbidden in the Koran (49:12). As such, the testimony of someone who peeks or invades the privacy of another person’s home can’t be accepted…

Notably absent from this discussion is any acknowledgement that these legal hurdles work against women who have been raped, as outlined in the Wall Street Journal article, Islam and Rape:326 …most Hudood laws legalize the prosecution of a woman for fornication if she cannot prove a crime [of rape] was committed. In Pakistan, four Muslim men must have witnessed the event [rape], and testify for the victim. If the woman can’t produce those witnesses, she can be prosecuted for alleging a false crime. Penalties include stoning to death, lashing or prison.

Malik’s Muwatta explains why Shari’ah often punishes rape victims with death: Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.4.16a: Malik said, “The position with us about a woman who is found to be pregnant…and she says, ‘I was forced,’…is that it is not accepted from her and the hadd is inflicted on her unless she has a clear proof of what she claims…[about being] forced or she comes bleeding if she was a virgin or she calls out for help so that someone comes to her and she is in that state or what resembles it of the situation in which the violation occurred.” He said, “If she does not produce any of those, the hadd is inflicted on her and what she claims of that is not accepted from her.” This leads us to the ultimate injustice toward women found in Islam-dominated cultures: honor killings. Consider a situation where a woman is raped. If she accuses the rapist but doesn't have four eyewitnesses, she is likely to suffer the punishment reserved for rapists. If she doesn't accuse the rapist but becomes pregnant, she can be stoned to death for adultery. Faced with these choices, an honor killing may be the most merciful option available. While this isn't the only circumstance under which an honor killing can take place -- a girl may be killed by a family member for simply acting in ways that might lead to this situation -- we can now see a link between Shari'ah law and the practice. Muslims often claim that honor killing is not Islamic because it is not required by Shari'ah. They claim that it is instead a cultural phenomenon and point out that people of other faiths can commit honor killings too in that part of the world. However, they neglect the fact that, in the Islamic world, nonMuslims are often subjected to the same Islamic judgements as Muslims, and face the same harsh choices. While Shari'ah does not call for honor killings, it creates an legal environment that encourages it for people of all faiths. And Muslims are essentially the only people who have carried this practice into the West.

326

Islam and Rape, Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2006, page A6.

158

Islam: A Very Short Introduction also calls attention to another aspect of Shari’ah’s illogic, in its effort to show that Shari’ah is not as severe as it initially sounds. In this case, it tells how Shari’ah invalidates pregnancy as proof of recent sexual activity for single women:327 …in the case of a deserted or widowed woman who becomes pregnant, she may be protected by the legal fiction (hila) of the “sleeping foetus,” according to which a pregnancy can be accepted as lasting five or even seven years, while the child remains the legal heir of the dead or absent husband. An unmarried woman who becomes pregnant can resort to the fiction of the “public bath.”…a virgin, it was claimed, who visited the public baths after the men had just vacated them might inadvertently sit on a pool of semen thereby making herself pregnant.

In fact, according to these authors, about the only thing that can cause one to be punished according to Shari’ah is telling the truth. Muhammad himself confirms this conclusion through the following hadiths, all of which are told repeatedly: •

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.1.8:328…‘Stoning is in the Book of Allah for those who commit adultery, men or women, when they are muhsan [married] and when there is clear proof of pregnancy [according to Islamic standards] or a confession.’

•

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.1.6:329…two men brought a dispute to the Messenger…One of them said...“My son was hired by this person and he committed fornication with his wife”…The Messenger…said, “…Your son should have one hundred lashes and be exiled for a year.” He ordered Unays al-Aslami to go to the wife of the other man and to stone her if she confessed. She confessed and he stoned her.

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 810:330…A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet and confessed that he had committed an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet turned his face away from him till the man bore witness against himself four times. The Prophet said to him, “Are you mad?” He said “No.” He said, “Are you married?” He said, “Yes.” Then the Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death, and he was stoned to death at the Musalla.

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 813:331…When Ma’iz bin Malik came to the Prophet (in order to confess), the Prophet said to him, “Probably you have only kissed (the lady), or winked, or looked at her?” He said, “No, O Allah’s Apostle!” The Prophet said…”Did you have sexual intercourse with her?”…At that, (i.e. after his confession) the Prophet ordered that he be stoned (to death).

•

Sahih Muslim, Chapter 10: IT IS FORBIDDEN TO PUBLICISE ONE’S SINS Book 42, Number 7124:…Allah’s Messenger [said]: All the people of my Ummah would get

327

Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 5, section entitled Women and the Shari’a, page 97. 328 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Numbers 816 & 817 and Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4194. 329 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 885, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 629, Volume 8, Book 82, Numbers 815, 821, 826, & 842, and Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4209. 330 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 814, Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Numbers 4196, 4197, 4202, 4205, & 4206, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4414, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.1.2. 331 A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4198.

159

pardon for their sins except those who publicise them. And (it means) that a servant should do a deed during the night and tell the people in the morning that he has done so and so, whereas Allah has concealed it. And he does a deed during the day and when it is night he tells the people, whereas Allah has concealed it.

The last three hadiths are particularly interesting because, in them, Muhammad actually encouraged believers to conceal the truth and thereby escape prosecution. A final method for circumventing the law is to deny a crime in the name of Allah. The Hadith illustrates this method through its rescripted Jesus: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 653:…The Prophet said, “Jesus, seeing a man stealing, asked him, ‘Did you steal?’, He said, ‘No, by Allah, except Whom there is None who has the right to be worshipped’ Jesus said, ‘I believe in Allah and suspect my eyes.’”

While this hadith establishes a universal precedent for lying under oath and getting away with it, it is also specifically aimed at Christians, who worship Jesus and are expected to follow his example. For while Christians would never swear “by Allah, except Whom there is None who has the right to be worshipped,”they are called on to discount their own eye-witness accounts if a Muslim swears falsely by this oath. And what about eternal penalties for the perfidious acts one has gotten away with, with the aid of Islam’s corrupting precepts? For these, Islam provides its own version of Catholicism’s old Indulgence doctrine, as can be seen in these quotes from the Koran: •

[2.225] YUSUF ALI: Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

•

[5.89] PICKTHAL: Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will take you to task for the oaths which ye swear in earnest. The expiation thereof is the feeding of ten of the needy…, or the clothing of them, or the liberation of a slave, and for him who findeth not (the wherewithal to do so) then a three days’ fast. This is the expiation of your oaths when ye have sworn; and keep your oaths.

In other words, “Keep your oaths, but only if you really meant them in the first place. If you break an oath that you had intended to keep, you can escape moral responsibility through charitable works or fasting.” Thus, with regard to truth-telling during criminal prosecutions, Shari’ah and the laws that generally apply in Free Democracies diverge sharply. Free Democracies will offer leniency to encourage truthful confessions. Islam, on the other hand, discourages confessions with severe punishments. It also grants freedom and moral absolution to those who lie shamelessly when Islam’s demanding burdens of proof cannot be met. Apparently, Muslims believe that God’s divine and perfect law should have the following characteristics: •

Extreme punishment, moderated by:

160

•

• •

Deliberate ignorance of facts, such as: o Eye-witness accounts (if one denies a crime in the name of Allah) o The fact that pregnancy cannot result from entering public baths o The fact that human live-births have gestation periods that essentially never exceed 43 weeks. Archaic and nearly unattainable burdens of proof, such as requiring four males to eyewitnesses a sex act, when a modern paternity test based on DNA testing can accurately identify a father. Roadblocks to criminal investigations, such as prohibitions against entering or looking into a person’s house without permission. These prohibitions make many crime-busting tactics, as well as rescue operations, virtually impossible. Examples of additional roadblocks are the Islamic customs of burying the dead within two days of death and outlawing exhumations. It is common knowledge that essential information about murders can be found through forensic studies of corpses.

Therefore, not only does Islam encourage Muslims to lie to non-Muslims with the aid of Taqiyya, it also encourages Muslims to lie to each other during legal proceedings. While Shari’ah’s rules may have made sense in ancient times, they appear absurd in an era when modern scientific methods of investigation are available. By today’s standards, Islamic Law gives new meaning to the term “Blind Justice,” because its legal system is truly blind. A legal system that punishes those who tell the truth, and is unswayed by the laws of nature, and is unreceptive to modern methods of evidence collection, is nearly certain to be more corrupt than a modern one. To get a sense of the House of Islam’s pervasive corruption, consider the results of a 2005 study conducted by Transparency International, which calculated a Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for each nation with a population greater than one million (see table 1).332 Nations with Islamic pluralities or majorities are shown in black, Free Democracies are shown in red, and struggling democracies (which have been recently liberated from dictatorships, communism, economic isolationism, or foreign domination) are shown in blue. Nations ruled by dictatorships or communist regimes are excluded because of this book’s focus on the conflict between Islam and Free Democracy. Nations whose populations are between 20% and 50% Muslim are shown with three asterisks next to them (***) because, as will become more apparent in subsequent tables, Islam impacts nations even when Muslims are minorities. This table does not reveal that Islam is solely responsible for the corruption of nations. Instead, it indicates that corruption can arise from a number of factors. However, it does reveal a trend: while only ten Islamic nations appear in the top half of this ranking, thirty-eight are in the bottom half. And, of the nations whose populations are between 20% and 50% Muslim, only one appears in the top half, while five appear in the bottom half. In contrast, forty-one of the world’s Free Democracies appear in the top half of the list, while only one appears in the bottom half. In fact, the top 28 nations are all Free Democracies. 332

To learn more about the methods used to calculate a CPI, visit www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005, and see the methodology section of Corruption Perceptions Index 2005.

161

Table 1: 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) Ranking (Nations with > 1 Million people only) Source: Transparency International (Red=Free Democracy, CPI Rank (least Country corrupt to most) 2005 CPI Score Iceland 1 9.7 Finland 2 9.6 New Zealand 2 9.6 Denmark 4 9.5 Singapore 5 9.4 Sweden 6 9.2 Switzerland 7 9.1 Norway 8 8.9 Australia 9 8.8 Austria 10 8.7 Netherlands 11 8.6 United Kingdom 11 8.6 Luxembourg 13 8.5 Canada 14 8.4 Hong Kong 15 8.3 Germany 16 8.2 USA 17 7.6 France 18 7.5 Belgium 19 7.4 Ireland 19 7.4 Chile 21 7.3 Japan 21 7.3 Spain 23 7.0 Barbados 24 6.9 Malta 25 6.6 Portugal 26 6.5 Estonia 27 6.4 Israel 28 6.3 Oman 28 6.3 U.A.E. 30 6.2 Slovenia 31 6.1 Botswana 32 5.9 Qatar 32 5.9 Taiwan 32 5.9 Uruguay 32 5.9 Bahrain 36 5.8 Republic of Cyprus 37 5.7 Jordan 37 5.7 Malaysia 39 5.1 Hungary 40 5.0 Italy 40 5.0 South Korea 40 5.0 Tunisia 43 4.9 Lithuania 44 4.8 Kuwait 45 4.7 South Africa 46 4.5 Czech Republic 47 4.3 Greece 47 4.3 Namibia 47 4.3 Slovakia 47 4.3 Costa Rica 51 4.2 El Salvador 51 4.2 Latvia 51 4.2 Mauritius 51 4.2 Bulgaria 55 4.0 Colombia 55 4.0 Thailand 59 3.8 Trinidad & Tobago 59 3.8 Belize 62 3.7 Brazil 62 3.7 Jamaica 64 3.6 Ghana*** 65*** 3.5*** 3.5 Mexico 65 Panama 65 3.5 3.5 Peru 65 Turkey 65 3.5 Burkina Faso 70 3.4

Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority) Country Croatia Egypt Poland Saudi Arabia Syria Morocco Senegal Sri Lanka Suriname*** Lebanon Rwanda Dominican Republic Mongolia Romania Armenia Benin*** Bosnia & Herzegovina Gabon India Iran Mali Moldova Tanzania Algeria Argentina Malawi*** Mozambique*** The Gambia Macedonia Yemen Eritrea Honduras Kazakhstan Nicaragua Palestinian Territories Ukraine Zambia*** Afghanistan Bolivia Ecuador Guatemala Guyana Libya The Philippines Albania Niger Russia Sierra Leone Georgia Kyrgyzstan Papua New Guinea Azerbaijan Ethiopia Indonesia Iraq Uzbekistan Pakistan Paraguay Somalia Sudan Tajikistan Cote d’Ivoire Nigeria Turkmenistan Bangladesh Chad Guinea Guinea-Bissau

CPI Rank (least corrupt to most) 70 70 70 70 70 78 78 78 78*** 83 83 85 85 85 88 88*** 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 97 97 97*** 97*** 103 103 103 107 107 107 107 107 107 107*** 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 126 126 126 126 130 130 130 137 137 137 137 137 144 144 144 144 144 152 152 155 158 158 SEE NOTE SEE NOTE

2005 CPI Score 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2*** 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9*** 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8*** 2.8*** 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6*** 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7

*** Country which, while not having a Muslim majority or plurality, is at least 20% Muslim. NOTE: Guinea and Guinea-Bissau were not included in the study by Transparency International, despite their populations of more than one million people. These nations were placed at the bottom of this ranking because it is presumed that an inability to collect data – i.e., a lack of transparency – excluded them from the research.

162

Other aspects of Islamic Economics There are three other important aspects of an economy that are affected by Islam: agriculture, commodity trading, and goods produced from animal byproducts, particularly pork: •

Agriculture. As numerous hadiths report:333 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 533:…The people used to rent their land for cultivation for one-third, one-fourth or half its yield. The Prophet said, “Whoever has land should cultivate it himself or give it to his (Muslim) brother gratis; otherwise keep it uncultivated.”

In other words, share-cropping is a sin. Because of physical limitations on what a single farmer can do himself, the net effect of Islam’s policy is to discourage the cultivation of lands that the owner cannot till, keep farms small, and inhibit investments in large-scale farming techniques. In spite of the complaints we sometimes hear about “agribusinesses,” it is their high-tech methods, developed in Free Democracies, that have allowed the world’s food supply to grow faster than its human population. Additionally, their large-scale storage and transportation methods have also made sure that food goes to the places where it is needed and is edible when it gets there. In Islamic nations, however, agriculture remains largely dependent on ancient and traditional methods. These nations often appear in the news because of mass starvations. While droughts and other natural disasters are usually blamed, the real cause becomes apparent when one tries to recall the last time people living in the deserts of the United States suffered a mass starvation. This is because the United States has an agricultural system that does not depend on local produce, and it has also turned many arid lands green through irrigation. Even during the disastrous dust-bowl years of the Great Depression, actual starvation was relatively rare. People moved to new locations and sought work. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal brought relief. And farmers invented better farming methods. Travelers frequently remark on how the passage into Israel from one of its Islamic neighbors is like passing from a desert into green fields. This is not an accident of geography. It is the result of modern farming and irrigation methods, which are the fruits of Free Enterprise. •

Commodity trading. Also recorded repeatedly in the Hadith is Muhammad’s prohibition against brokers:334

333

Similar hadiths can be found Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Numbers 532, 535, 536, & 537, Book 47, Numbers 801 & 802, Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Chapter 13, entitled Leasing of Land, which consists of Numbers 3715 – 3741, Chapter 14, entitled Renting of Land for Food, which consists of Numbers 3742 – 3746, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 33, Number 33.1.2.

163

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 36, Number 474:…Ibn ‘Abbas said, “The Prophet forbade the meeting of caravans (on the way) and ordained that no townsman is permitted to sell things on behalf of a bedouin.” I asked Ibn ‘Abbas, “What is the meaning of his saying, ‘No townsman is permitted to sell things on behalf of a bedouin.’” He replied, “He should not work as a broker for him.”

While it is unclear how narrowly or broadly this edict should be interpreted, the result has been caution about engaging in brokering activities. The effect has been to keep a variety of commodity exchange markets operating at primitive levels. In the busy souks of the Middle East, one commonly finds something that is rare in the West: Street vendors who sell goods that they themselves produce. This practice is evidence of a primitive commodities market. While quaint and charming, this system also lacks the convenience, quality assurance, and accountability that Westerners have come to expect. •

Products derived from pork and other dead animals. Muhammad also took the Jewish prohibition against eating pork and broadened it in a dysfunctional and meanspirited way, as revealed in the many hadiths that resemble this one:335 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 438:…“Allah and His Apostle made illegal the trade of alcohol, dead animals, pigs and idols.” The people asked, “…What about the fat of dead animals, for it was used for greasing the boats and the hides; and people use it for lights?” He said, “No, it is illegal.” Allah’s Apostle further said, “May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah made the fat (of animals) illegal for them, yet they melted the fat and sold it and ate its price.”

In addition to the products mentioned in this hadith, Muhammad’s prohibition also applies to products like Jell-O, glue, and soap, as well as a broad range of medicines. While many modern products and medicines are produced synthetically today, they never would have been developed in the first place without their animal-based progenitors. Furthermore, many products still use ingredients made from dead animals. Once again, a prohibition from Muhammad has created stumbling blocks to innovation.

The over-all impact of Islam on a nation’s economy and development So far, we have seen many individual components of Shari’ah that impact a nation’s economy, but we have not looked at their aggregate affects. To appreciate the over-all impact of Islamic Economics, review Table 2, which ranks nations according to their per-capita GDPs.336 337

334

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 36, Numbers 367 & 372, and Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Numbers 3628, 3629, and 3630. 335 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Numbers 426 & 427, and Volume 6, Book 60, Number 157, and in Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Numbers 3840 &3842. 336 The per-capita GDP of a nation represents the average productivity of its citizens. 337 Source CIA World Factbook, 2006. See www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/.

164

Table 2: GDP per capita by country (Source: CIA: The World Factbook 2006) (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority) Rank Country 1. Luxembourg 2. U.A.E. 3. Norway 4. U.S.A. 5. Ireland 6. Iceland 7. Denmark 8. Canada 9. Austria 10. Switzerland 11. Australia 12. Japan 13. Belgium 14. Finland 15. Netherlands 16. United Kingdom 17. France 18. Germany 18. Sweden 20. Italy 21. Hong Kong 22. Singapore 23. Taiwan 24. Qatar 25. Spain 26. New Zealand 27. Israel 28. Brunei 29. Bahrain 30. Greece 31. Rep. of Cyprus 31. Slovenia 33. South Korea 34. Malta 35. Czech Republic 36. Portugal 37. Kuwait 38. The Bahamas 39. Barbados 40. Trinidad & Tobago 41. Estonia 42. Hungary 42. Slovakia 44. Lithuania 45. Poland 46. Latvia 46. Oman 48. Argentina 48. Mauritius 50. Saudi Arabia 51. Malaysia 52. South Africa 53. Croatia 54. Libya 55. Chile 56. Costa Rica 56. Russia 58. Botswana 58. Mexico 60. Bulgaria 60. Uruguay 62. Brazil 63. Iran 63. Thailand 63. Tunisia 66. Kazakhstan 66. Romania 66. Turkey 69. Turkmenistan 70. Colombia 71. Macedonia

GDP - per capita $55,600 (2005) $43,400 (2005) $42,300 (2005) $41,800 (2005) $41,000 (2005) $35,600 (2005) $34,600 (2005) $34,000 (2005) $32,700 (2005) $32,300 (2005) $31,900 (2005) $31,500 (2005) $31,400 (2005) $30,900 (2005) $30,500 (2005) $30,300 (2005) $29,900 (2005) $29,800 (2005) $29,800 (2005) $29,200 (2005) $28,800 (2004) $28,100 (2005) $27,600 (2005) $27,400 (2005) $25,500 (2005) $25,200 (2005) $24,600(2005) $23,600 (2005) $23,000 (2005) $22,200 (2005) $21,600 (2005) $21,600 (2005) $20,400 (2005) $19,900 (2005) $19,500 (2005) $19,300 (2005) $19,200 (2005) $18,900 (2005) $17,000 (2005) $16,700 (2005) $16,400 (2005) $16,100 (2005) $16,100 (2005) $13,700 (2005) $13,300 (2005) $13,200 (2005) $13,200 (2005) $13,100 (2005) $13,100 (2005) $12,800 (2005) $12,100 (2005) $12,000 (2005) $11,600 (2005) $11,400 (2005) $11,300 (2005) $11,100 (2005) $11,100 (2005) $10,000 (2005) $10,000 (2004) $9,600 (2005) $9,600 (2005) $8,400 (2005) $8,300 (2005) $8,300 (2005) $8,300 (2005) $8,200 (2005) $8,200 (2005) $8,200 (2005) $8,000 (2005) $7,900 (2005) $7,800 (2005)

Net oil export Net oil exp. (million bbl/day) per capita 2.5 (2004) 3.4 (2001)

350 bbl/yr 270 bbl/yr

0.14 (2001) 0.60 (2004)

11 bbl/yr 7 bbl/yr

0.40 (2003)

4 bbl/yr

0.76 (2005)

310 bbl/yr

0.19 (2005) 0.16 (2005)

180 bbl/yr 84 bbl/yr

2.1 (2005)

320 bbl/yr

0.12 (2005)

40 bbl/yr

0.72 (2004) 0.29 (2005)

84 bbl/yr 4 bbl/yr

7.9 (2003) 0.23 (2003)

110 bbl/yr 4 bbl/yr

1.4 (2005)

88 bbl/yr

5.1 (2004)

15 bbl/yr

1.7 (2004)

7 bbl/yr

2.5 (2004)

15 bbl/yr

0.84 (2003)

22 bbl/yr

0.12 (2003) 0.24 (2005)

7 bbl/yr 4 bbl/yr

Rank Country 72. Algeria 72. Panama 72. Ukraine 75. North Cyprus 76. Dominican Republic 76. Namibia 78. Belize 78. Bosnia&Herzegovina 78. Gabon 81. Lebanon 82. Peru 83. The Philippines 84. Albania 84. Paraguay 86. Azerbaijan 87. El Salvador 87. Guatemala 87. Jordan 90. Guyana 91. Armenia 92. Jamaica 93. Ecuador 93. Sri Lanka 95. Morocco 96. Suriname *** 97. Egypt 97. Maldives 97. Syria 100. Indonesia 101. Iraq 102. Georgia 102. India 104. Honduras 104. Nicaragua 106. Bolivia 107. Papua New Guinea 108. Ghana *** 109. Pakistan 110. Mauritania 111. Bangladesh 111. Kyrgyzstan 111. Sudan 114. Guinea 115. The Gambia 115. Mongolia 117. Moldova 117. Senegal 117. Uzbekistan 120. Cote d'Ivoire 121. Chad 121. Rwanda 123. Nigeria 124. Burkina Faso 124. Djibouti 124. Mozambique*** 127. Mali 127. Tajikistan 129. Benin*** 129. Eritrea 131. Ethiopia 131. Niger 131. Palest. Territories 134. Yemen 134. Zambia*** 136. Afghanistan 136. Guinea-Bissau 136. Sierra Leone 139. Tanzania 140. Comoros 140. Malawi*** 140. Somalia

GDP - per capita $7,200 (2005) $7,200 (2005) $7,200 (2005) $7,135 (2004) $7,000 (2005) $7,000 (2005) $6,800 (2005) $6,800 (2005) $6,800 (2005) $6,200 (2005) $5,900 (2005) $5,100 (2005) $4,900 (2005) $4,900 (2005) $4,800 (2005) $4,700 (2005) $4,700 (2005) $4,700 (2005) $4,600 (2005) $4,500 (2005) $4,400 (2005) $4,300 (2005) $4,300 (2005) $4,200 (2005) $4,100 (2005) *** $3,900 (2005) $3,900 (2005) $3,900 (2002) $3,600 (2005) $3,400 (2005) $3,300 (2005) $3,300 (2005) $2,900 (2005) $2,900 (2005) $2,800 (2005) $2,600 (2005) $2,500 (2005) *** $2,400 (2005) $2,200 (2005) $2,100 (2005) $2,100 (2005) $2,100 (2005) $2,000 (2005) $1,900 (2005) $1,900 (2005) $1,800 (2005) $1,800 (2005) $1,800 (2005) $1,600 (2005) $1,500 (2005) $1,500 (2005) $1,400 (2005) $1,300 (2005) $1,300 (2002) $1,300 (2005) *** $1,200 (2005) $1,200 (2005) $1,100 (2005) *** $1,000 (2005) $900 (2005) $900 (2005) $900 (2003) $900 (2005) $900 (2005) *** $800 (2005) $800 (2005) $800 (2004) $700 (2005) $600 (2005) $600 (2005) *** $600 (2005)

Net oil export Net oil exp. (million bbl/day) per capita 1.1 (2005) 11 bbl/yr

0.39 (2004)

11 bbl/yr

1.4 (2005)

18 bbl/yr

0.28 (2004)

4 bbl/yr

0.22 (2005)

7 bbl/yr

2.1 (2005)

7 bbl/yr

0.31 (2005)

*** Country which, while not having a Muslim majority or plurality, is at least 20% Muslim. Side-by-side comparisons: Compare the per-capita GDP of the Republic of Cyprus (#32) vs. North Cyprus (#76), and Singapore (#21) vs. Malaysia (#52), and Israel (#28) vs. the Palestinian Territories (#130), and India (#103) vs. Pakistan (#110) and Bangladesh (#112). These comparisons reveal how Islam has affected countries with otherwise similar physical environments or heritages.

165

4 bbl/yr

Now that there is more than one table, you may wish to compare how particular nations perform according to various rankings. To do this, refer to Table 5, which is the last table in this section. It lists countries alphabetically, and shows each country’s ranking according to each index. The messages of Table 2 are clear and dramatic: •

The nations with Islamic pluralities are generally the least productive and poorest. In fact, the least prosperous Free Democracy (Costa Rica, #56) has a higher GDP per capita than the most prosperous non-oil producing Islamic nation (Tunisia, #63).

•

The only Islamic nations that perform well have vast oil resources. These nations depend on Western inventions for both the demand for oil and the means to extract it. A tell-tale sign of their technological dependence is the fact that Iran, a nation of 69 million people, and a major exporter of oil, must import its gasoline. This is because Iran has no major oil refineries. Similarly, a tell-tale sign of the prosperous Islamic nations’ dependence on the West can be seen in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), where surging oil prices raised its GDP per capita from $25,200 in 2004338 to $43,400 in 2005. This surge lifted their ranking from #24 to #2. The U.A.E. exports nearly 1 barrel of oil for every man, woman, and child every day. In fact, if one estimated that oil sold for an average of $60 per barrel in 2005, revenues from oil exports alone would have been $21,000 per capita. Kuwait provides an even more extreme example. If one again assumed that oil sold for an average of $60 per barrel of oil in 2005, the value of its per capita oil export would be $19,200 – exactly the same as its GDP per capita. Essentially, the citizens of Kuwait produce nothing of value except oil extracted from the ground.

•

Islamic nations without oil resources are more than slightly poorer than Free Democracies. The differences are stark, often more than an order of magnitude. In fact, the average per-capita income of a non-oil exporting Islamic nation is about $2,820, while the average per-capita income of a non-oil exporting Free Democracy is about $25,200.339

338

Source: CIA: The World Factbook, 2005. These averages were computed by averaging the per-capita incomes of each country, to an accuracy of three significant figures.

339

166

Of particular interest are the following five sets of nations (See also Table 2): 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

Original political entity Malaysian Federation (Break-up: 1965) British Mandate of Palestine (Independence: 1948) Cyprus (Division: 1974) European Soviet Satellite Nations (Dissolution: 1989)

British India (Independence: 1947)

Democratic Nations # 22: Singapore ($28,100)

Islamic Nations340 #51: Malaysia ($12,100)

#27: Israel ($24,600)

#131: Palestinian Terr. ($900)

#31: Rep. of Cyprus ($21,600)

#75: North Cyprus ($7,135)

#31: Slovenia ($21,600) #35: Czech Republic ($19,500) #42: Hungary ($16,100) #42: Slovakia ($16,100) #45: Poland ($13,300) #53: Croatia ($11,600) #60: Bulgaria ($9,600) #66: Romania ($8,200) #71: Macedonia ($7,800) #102: India ($3,300)

#78: Bosnia&Herzegovina ($6,800) #84: Albania ($4,900)

#109: Pakistan ($2,400) #111: Bangladesh ($2,100)

Until recent decades, each set of nations was joined together politically. However, after just a few decades of separation, their GDPs per capita have diverged sharply. In 2006: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Singapore’s was more than double Malaysia’s. Israel’s was twenty-three times that of the Palestinian Territories. The Republic of Cyprus’s was triple North Cyprus’s. All of the democracies (both Free and struggling) that were once European Soviet satellites were significantly higher than any of those with Muslim majorities. (Note: The one former European Soviet satellite not listed in either column is Serbia, which is 19% Muslim and is still reeling from the brutal war waged by defeated ruler Slobodan Milosevic against the Muslim-majority province of Kosovo.) 5. India’s was nearly 40% above Pakistan’s, and nearly 60% above Bangladesh’s. These differences recall the contrasts between West Germany and Communist East Germany, Taiwan and Maoist China, and South Korea and Communist North Korea during the contest between Free Democracy and Communism. The ranking of GDPs per capita shows another disturbing pattern, which indicates that Islam does not need a plurality to impact a nation’s productivity. In fact, a Muslim population of as little as 20% appeared capable of driving a nation’s productivity to the low end of the scale. In fact, all 20 of this list’s bottom performers had Muslim populations of 20% or more. Similarly, of the eleven nations being considered for loan forgiveness by the World Bank in 2006,341 six of them – Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, and Sudan – have 340

These nations are called Islamic Nations because they have Muslim majorities; hence their Muslim citizens have the power to legislate Shari’ah through democratic or other means.

167

Muslim majorities. In addition, Liberia and Togo, two nations also being considered for loan forgiveness, but are too unstable or dictatorial to be included in this study’s tables, have 20% Muslim populations. And the Central African Republic, one of the three remaining countries being considered for loan forgiveness, which is also too unstable to be included in this study’s tables, has a Muslim population of 15%.342 In other words, only two out of the eleven nations being considered for loan forgiveness do not have substantial Muslim populations. How could Islam have such an impact, even when only 20% (or less) of a nation’s population is Muslim? While each such nation listed in this study’s tables (Benin, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Suriname, and Zambia) has its own unique story, common themes are: • • •

High levels of corruption Political instability Financial turmoil

These themes are all characteristic of Islamic nations not blessed with vast natural resources. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the presence of a substantial Islamic minority may significantly damage the political and economic environment of a nation, even when Muslims do not have majority power. For a third perspective, consider the Human Development Index (HDI),343 calculated by the U.N. for each of its member nations. U.N. researchers base their HDI on a combination of factors: GDP per capita, life expectancy, adult literacy rate, and school enrollment. Table 3 shows the ranks of nations according to their HDI scores, and reveals a dramatic difference between Islamic nations and Free Democracies. In fact, the results in this table are just as stark as those in Table 2: The highest-ranking Islamic nation is Brunei, at #32, and the highest-ranking Islamic nation that is not an oil-exporter is Bosnia-Herzegovina, at #60. This table also shows, once again, how non-Islamic nations with significant Muslim populations are adversely affected. Of the 25 most undeveloped nations in this study, 24 had Muslim populations of 20% or more. This group of 24 Muslim-influenced nations does not include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, which were too unstable for the UN researchers to study.

341

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative – List of Ring-Fenced Countries that Meet the Income and Indebtedness Criteria at end-2004, by the Staffs of the World Bank and the IMF, approved by Danny Leipziger and Mark Allen, International Development Association and International Monetary Fund, April 11, 2006, page 6. This document can be found at www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2006/041106.pdf. 342 The reason 20% was used, instead of 15%, as the criterion in this study is that there were not enough nations with a 15% Muslim population to say that a 15% criterion was statistically valid. 343 United Nations Human Development Report 2005, United Nations Development Program, 2006, available at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/

168

Table 3: UN Human Development Index 2005 (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority) Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 4. 4. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 11. 13. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 25. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 39. 39. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 57. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 69.

Country Norway Iceland Australia Canada Luxembourg Sweden Switzerland Ireland Belgium USA Japan Netherlands Denmark Finland United Kingdom France Austria Italy New Zealand Germany Spain Israel Greece Singapore Portugal Slovenia South Korea Republic of Cyprus Barbados Czech Republic Malta Brunei Argentina Hungary Poland Chile Estonia Lithuania Qatar Slovakia U.A.E. Bahrain Kuwait Croatia Uruguay Costa Rica Latvia The Bahamas Mexico Bulgaria Panama Trinidad & Tobago Libya Macedonia Malaysia Russia Brazil Romania Mauritius Bosnia & Herzegovina Colombia Oman Albania Thailand Saudi Arabia Ukraine Peru Kazakhstan Armenia Ecuador

Human Dev. Index (HDI) 0.963 0.956 0.955 0.949 0.949 0.949 0.947 0.946 0.945 0.944 0.943 0.943 0.941 0.941 0.939 0.938 0.936 0.934 0.933 0.930 0.928 0.915 0.912 0.907 0.904 0.904 0.901 0.891 0.878 0.874 0.867 0.866 0.863 0.862 0.858 0.854 0.853 0.852 0.849 0.849 0.849 0.846 0.844 0.841 0.840 0.838 0.836 0.832 0.814 0.808 0.804 0.801 0.799 0.797 0.796 0.795 0.792 0.792 0.791 0.786 0.785 0.781 0.780 0.778 0.772 0.766 0.762 0.761 0.759 0.759

Oil Exporter? YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

Rank 69. 72. 73. 73. *** 75. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 82. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 112. *** 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. *** 125. 126. 127. *** 128. *** 129. *** 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136.

YES

Country Lebanon The Philippines Paraguay Suriname*** Jordan Tunisia Belize Sri Lanka Turkey Dominican Republic Maldives Jamaica Turkmenistan Iran Georgia Azerbaijan Palest. Territories Algeria El Salvador Syria Guyana Kyrgyzstan Indonesia Uzbekistan Nicaragua Bolivia Mongolia Moldova Honduras Guatemala Egypt South Africa Tajikistan Gabon Morocco Namibia India Botswana Comoros Pakistan Papua New Guinea Bangladesh Ghana*** Sudan Djibouti Yemen Mauritania The Gambia Guinea Senegal Nigeria Rwanda Eritrea Benin*** Cote d'Ivoire Tanzania Malawi*** Zambia*** Mozambique*** Ethiopia Guinea-Bissau Chad Mali Burkina Faso Sierra Leone Niger Afghanistan Iraq Somalia

Human Dev. Index (HDI) 0.759 0.758 0.755 0.755*** 0.753 0.753 0.753 0.751 0.750 0.749 0.745 0.738 0.738 0.736 0.732 0.729 0.729 0.722 0.722 0.721 0.720 0.702 0.697 0.694 0.690 0.687 0.679 0.671 0.667 0.663 0.659 0.658 0.652 0.635 0.631 0.627 0.602 0.565 0.547 0.527 0.523 0.520 0.520 *** 0.512 0.495 0.489 0.477 0.470 0.466 0.458 0.453 0.450 0.444 0.431*** 0.420 0.418 0.404*** 0.394*** 0.379*** 0.367 0.348 0.341 0.333 0.317 0.298 0.281 SEE NOTE SEE NOTE SEE NOTE

Oil Exporter?

YES YES

YES

YES YES

YES

YES

*** Country which, while not having a Muslim majority or plurality, is at least 20% Muslim. NOTE: The UN’s Report excluded North Cyprus, Taiwan, and Hong Kong because it does not recognize them as independent entitites. For Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, UN researchers were unable to gather the data for their studies. For this reason, these three nations are shown at the bottom of this ranking.

169

There is another issue that is just as important to a nation as its prosperity, and that is its future prosperity. To help policy-makers understand the likely effects of their economic policies on future prosperity, The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have joined together to create what they call the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF). This index ranks nations according to their business environments, based on policies regarding trade, taxes, money supply, banking regulations, business regulations, property rights, and wage and price controls.344 These factors indicate whether nations are moving toward greater or less prosperity in the future. Table 4 ranks nations according to their IEFs.345 While looking at these rankings, note that the study puts countries into four categories: Free, Mostly Free, Mostly Unfree, and Repressed. The table below shows that all of the Free Democracies were either Free or Mostly Free, while none of the Islamic nations were Free, and the vast majority were either Mostly Unfree, Repressed, or unstudiable: Index of Economic Freedom (IEF)

Classification

1 – 1.99 2 – 2.99 3 – 3.99 4–5 Researchers could not/did not study

Free Mostly Free Mostly Unfree Repressed

Number of Free Democracies 20 23 0 0 0

Number of Islamic Nations 0 8 32 4 10

From these results, we can expect that the gap in GDP per capita between Free Democracies and Islamic nations will continue to widen. Note that all six of the non-Islamic nations with Muslim populations of 20% or more were in the Mostly Unfree category. If these nations had been included with the other Islamic nations in the above summary, the number of Muslim-influenced nations in the Mostly Unfree category would have been 38 instead of 32.

344

To find out more about how these factors are used to develop a nation’s IEF, see www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads.cfm#methodology. 345 Source: www.heritage.org/research/features/index/.

170

Table 4: Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) for 2006 (Source: Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal) (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority) Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 9. 9. 12. 12. 14. 15. 16. 16. 18. 19. 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 27. 27. 30. 30. 30. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 42. 44. 45. 46. 46. 48. 49. 49. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 55. 55. 58. 58. 60. 61. 62 63. 64. 65. 65. 67. 68.

Country Hong Kong Singapore Ireland Luxembourg Iceland United Kingdom Estonia Denmark Australia New Zealand U.S.A . Canada Finland Chile Switzerland Netherlands Republic of Cyprus Austria Germany Sweden Czech Republic Belgium Lithuania Malta Bahrain Barbados Armenia The Bahamas Japan Botswana Norway Portugal Spain El Salvador Slovakia Israel Taiwan Slovenia Latvia Hungary Poland Italy Trinidad & Tobago France South Korea Costa Rica Uruguay Panama Kuwait South Africa Albania Jamaica Belize Croatia Greece Macedonia Jordan Mexico Mongolia Saudi Arabia Peru Bulgaria U.A.E. Bolivia Georgia Malaysia Thailand Kyrgyzstan

IEF 1.28 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.74 1.74 1.75 1.78 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.85 1.85 1.88 1.89 1.90 1.90 1.95 1.96 1.96 2.10 2.11 2.14 2.16 2.23 2.25 2.26 2.26 2.26 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.33 2.35 2.35 2.36 2.38 2.41 2.43 2.44 2.49 2.50 2.50 2.51 2.63 2.69 2.69 2.70 2.74 2.74 2.75 2.76 2.78 2.78 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.83 2.83 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.93 2.96 2.98 2.98 2.99 2.99

Rank 69. 70. 70. 70. 73. 74. 75. 76. 76. 78. 78. 81. 81. 81. 84. 84. 86. 87. 87. 89. 89. 91. 92. 93. 93. 95. 95. 95. 98. 98.*** 100. 100. 102. 103. 104.*** 105. 105.*** 107. 108. 109.*** 110. 111. 112. 113. 113. 115. 116. 117. 118.*** 119.*** 120. 121. 122. 123. 123. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132.

FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE MOSTLY FREE

Country Lebanon Bosnia & Herzegovina Guatemala Oman Mauritius Qatar Nicaragua Brazil Mauritania Moldova Senegal Guyana Namibia Turkey Cote d'Ivoire Mali Colombia Romania Sri Lanka Djibouti Tanzania Morocco The Philippines Tunisia Ukraine Burkina Faso Gabon Honduras Chad Ghana*** Argentina Ecuador Paraguay Pakistan Zambia*** Kazakhstan Mozambique*** Niger Dominican Republic Benin*** Algeria India Russia Azerbaijan The Gambia Rwanda Guinea Egypt Suriname *** Malawi*** Guinea-Bissau Ethiopia Indonesia Sierra Leone Tajikistan Yemen Bangladesh Uzbekistan Syria Nigeria Turkmenistan Libya Iran Afghanistan Iraq North Cyprus Somalia Sudan

IEF 3.00 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.01 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.01 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.01 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.03 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.04 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.05 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.08 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.08 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.10 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.10 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.11 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.11 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.11 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.14 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.14 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.16 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.19 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.19 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.20 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.20 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.21 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.23 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.24 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.24 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.28 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.28 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.28 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.29 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.29*** MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.30 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.30 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.31 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.33 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.34*** MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.35 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.35*** MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.38 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.39 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.40*** MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.46 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.49 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.50 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.51 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.51 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.53 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.55 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.59 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.60*** MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.63*** MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.65 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.70 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.71 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.76 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.76 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.84 MOSTLY UN-FREE MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.88 3.91 MOSTLY UN-FREE 3.93 MOSTLY UN-FREE 4.00 REPRESSED 4.04 REPRESSED 4.16 REPRESSED 4.56 REPRESSED SEE NOTE SEE NOTE SEE NOTE SEE NOTE SEE NOTE

*** Country which, while not having a Muslim majority or plurality, is at least 20% Muslim. NOTE: The Heritage Foundation specifically excluded Afghanistan, Iraq, North Cyprus, Somalia, and Sudan. These countries were not included because researchers could not collect the data needed. Five additional Islamic nations, Brunei, Comoros, Eritrea, Maldives, and the Palestinian Territories, were excluded for unstated reasons.

171

Table 5: Summary of Indexes (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority) Country Afghanistan Albania Algeria Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas, The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Benin*** Bolivia Bosnia & Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Canada Chad Chile Colombia Comoros Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Finland France Gabon Gambia, The Georgia Germany Ghana*** Greece Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latvia

Net oil exp. per capita

11 bbl/yr 4 bbl/yr

84 bbl/yr

180 bbl/yr

7 bbl/yr 7 bbl/yr 4 bbl/yr

11 bbl/yr

11 bbl/yr

15 bbl/yr 18 bbl/yr

22 bbl/yr 320 bbl/yr

CPI 117 126 97 97 88 9 10 137 ^ 36 158 24 19 62 88*** 117 88 32 62 ^ 55 70 14 158 21 55 ^ 51 152 70 37 47 4 ^ 85 117 70 51 107 27 137 2 18 88 103 130 16 65*** 47 117 ^ ^ 117 107 15 40 1 88 137 88 137 19 28 40 64 21 37 107 45 130 51

GDP per cap 136 84 72 48 91 11 9 86 38 29 111 39 13 78 129*** 106 78 58 62 28 60 124 8 121 55 70 140 56 120 53 31 36 7 124 76 93 97 87 129 41 131 14 17 78 115 103 18 109*** 30 87 114 136 90 105 21 42 6 103 100 63 101 5 27 20 92 12 87 66 37 111 46

HDI ^ 63 88 33 69 3 17 86 48 42 112 29 9 77 124*** 96 60 108 56 32 50 134 4 132 36 61 109 46 125 44 28 30 13 115 80 69 101 88 123 37 130 13 16 104 118 85 20 112*** 23 100 119 131 91 99 ^ 34 2 107 93 84 ^ 8 22 18 82 11 75 68 43 92 47

IEF ^ 51 110 100 27 9 18 113 27 25 126 26 22 53 109*** 64 70 30 76 ^ 66 95 12 98 14 86 ^ 46 84 53 16 21 8 89 108 100 117 34 ^ 7 121 12 44 95 113 65 19 98*** 55 70 116 120 81 95 1 40 5 111 122 132 ^ 3 36 42 52 27 55 105 49 68 39

Country Lebanon Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malawi*** Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova Mongolia Morocco Mozambique*** Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Cyprus Norway Oman Pakistan Palestinian Territories Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines, The Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname*** Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine United Arab Emirates (UAE) United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Yemen Zambia***

*** Country which, while not having a Muslim majority or plurality, is at least 20% Muslim. ^ Researchers did not rank this country according to this particular index.

172

Net oil exp Per capita 88 bbl/yr

4 bbl/yr

7 bbl/yr

7 bbl/yr 270 bbl/yr 84 bbl/yr

310 bbl/yr 15 bbl/yr 110 bbl/yr

4 bbl/yr

7 bbl/yr 350 bbl/yr 4 bbl/yr

4 bbl/yr

CPI 83 117 44 13 103 97*** 39 ^ 88 25 ^ 51 65 88 85 78 97*** 47 11 2 107 126 152 ^ 8 28 144 107 65 130 144 65 117 70 26 32 85 126 83 70 78 126 5 47 31 144 46 40 23 78 144 78*** 6 7 70 32 144 88 59 59 43 65 155 107 30 11 17 32 137 103 107***

GDP per cap 81 54 44 1 71 140*** 51 97 127 34 110 48 58 117 115 95 124*** 76 15 26 105 131 123 75 3 46 109 131 72 107 84 82 83 45 36 24 66 56 121 50 117 136 22 42 31 140 52 33 25 93 111 96*** 18 10 97 23 127 139 63 40 63 66 69 72 2 16 4 60 117 134 134***

HDI 69 53 38 4 54 127*** 55 81 133 31 117 59 49 98 97 105 129*** 106 11 19 95 136 121 ^ 1 62 110 87 51 111 73 67 72 35 25 39 57 56 122 65 120 135 24 39 25 ^ 102 27 21 78 114 73*** 4 7 90 ^ 103 126 64 52 75 79 82 66 39 15 10 45 94 116 128***

IEF 69 131 23 4 55 119*** 65 ^ 84 24 76 73 58 78 58 91 105*** 81 16 9 75 107 129 ^ 30 70 103 ^ 48 ^ 102 61 92 41 30 74 87 112 115 60 78 123 2 34 38 ^ 49 45 33 87 ^ 118*** 19 15 128 36 123 89 67 42 93 81 130 93 63 5 9 46 127 125 104***

These tables send a clear message: No matter how you slice it, Free Democracy, together with Free Enterprise, produces prosperity, while Islam produces hardship. These tables also indicate why the European Union may have good reasons for resisting Turkey’s efforts to join it. Despite Turkey’s physical proximity, its people live in a world that has more in common with the House of Submission than with the European Union. After reviewing these statistics, it is safe to predict that the prosperity of oil-rich Islamic nations will fall back in line with other Islamic nations after their oil reserves run out, or after the West reduces its dependency on oil.

Verdict: Islam’s road to economic hell is paved with pious intentions Despite the obvious failure of Islamic Economics, Muslims insist that it is superior to Free Enterprise. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam illustrates the Muslim perspective: In capitalist nations, the problem (of struggle between the haves and have-nots) is only partially addressed by scant welfare and social programs whose existence is always begrudged and under constant assault.346 … For every person who lives well, someone else has to make due with much less.347

These sound like convincing reasons to call Free Enterprise a failure, until one considers that the beneficiaries of those “scant” welfare and social programs, who “make due with much less,” have incomes and benefits that are several times the average incomes of people living in Islamic nations that are not oil exporters. Moreover, the zero-sum thinking of the second quote goes beyond simply being wrong. By ignoring the fact that many people have become wealthy by enriching the world with new inventions and ideas, it gives poor people a rationale for hating those who succeed. By pitting the poor against the rich, the author uses a tactic right out of the old Communist playbook of class warfare, enflaming the “proletariat” against the “bourgeoisie.” Until the Islamic world either rejects the tenets of Islamic Economics, which is unlikely, or until it finds a way to explain that Free Enterprise was actually Islamic all along and practiced by the Prophet, which is slightly more likely, the financial well-being of Islamic nations will continue to lag dramatically behind that of the West. Unfortunately, with their unwillingness to question the Koran and Muhammad’s guidance, we can expect Muslims to continue to blame their plight on Infidel exploitation rather identify the true culprit: Islamic Law.

346

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 12, Introduction, page 139. 347 Ibid, Chapter 12, section entitled The Burden of Wealth, page 140.

173

Chapter 5: Free Democracy & Free Enterprise vs. Islamic Democracy & Islamic Economics A critique of cultural preservation for preservation’s sake Before going further with this comparison of Islamic governance to Free Democracy and Free Enterprise, there is an important issue that deserves attention: cultural preservation. When a Westerner sees Islamic cultures, a common impression is that they are foreign and exotic but not necessarily harmful. This view is encouraged by a wide variety of media sources, such as the movie Kingdom of Heaven,348 and publications such as The National Geographic. The problem with these sources is that they are not objective. Some are obliged to flatter the nations or groups that give them access. Others have an intrinsic bias, which could be stated as: “Different cultures are like diverse living species; they need to be preserved and not intruded upon by perverse Eurocentric Man.” In both cases, biased stories are almost unavoidable. In the first, media sources know that their portals of access may close if they offend their hosts. In the second, sources tend to be sociologists and anthropologists. These researchers devote their lives to studying other cultures, and generally believe that societies can only be understood after one accepts them on their own terms. These people dismiss the notion of evaluating other cultures by Western standards. To them, morality is relative, and other cultures use belief systems that Westerners are in no position to judge. Such motivations and worldviews incline these sources to present their subjects as those subjects see themselves, and to portray us as those subjects see us. The images we see tend to display other cultures at their best, while leaving their unpleasant aspects on the cutting-room floor. A favorite tactic is to present Westerners as crude and murderous invaders who victimize innocent and peaceful natives. For example, historians often focus on Spanish brutality during the conquest of the Aztecs, but breeze over the fact that those Spanish, whose numbers were very small, only succeeded because of alliances with native peoples. Why did those natives join the Spanish? Because they were preyed upon by Aztecs for daily human sacrifices. Similarly, researchers may write articles about the gruesome gods of living Mayan tribes that preserve ancient beliefs, but they rarely reflect on the disturbing moral ramifications of those beliefs. If morality is relative, then how can anyone claim that ritualized murder is wrong? People marvel at the achievements of ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt, but often forget that they were built on slavery and the looting of foreign lands. They admire the grandeur of southern antebellum mansions, but ignore the fact that they were products of slavery. And they commit the same error when they admire the great architectural achievements of Islam’s heyday, while failing to note that they were built with war booty and slaves.

Two aspects of Western culture worth passing on to our children After the enchantments of mystery and nostalgia are taken away, every culture, including our own, leaves much that would offend an objective observer. If a culture hopes to leave a better 348

2005, directed by Ridley Scott.

174

world for its children, it must learn to view itself with a critical eye and seek to understand both what helps it and what harms it. Among the residues of harmful institutions that tarnish all of our ancestors, there are some brilliant gifts that Westerners can be proud to bestow upon future generations. Two of these gifts are the institutions of Free Enterprise and Free Democracy, which developed over a period of several hundred years in Western Europe. These institutions are largely responsible for the economic and social advancements seen in “Westernized” nations.

What do the terms “Free Enterprise” and “Free Democracy” mean? Until now, we have used the terms “Free Enterprise” and “Free Democracy” without really defining them, because most people in the West have an intuitive understanding of their basics. However, to go further in this discussion, we need to say exactly what they mean. Free Enterprise is a very simple concept. It is the notion that any group of two or more people has the freedom to negotiate trade and business agreements without the outside control of some higher authority. While Free Enterprise can have pathologies,349 it is remarkably efficient at providing people with the goods and services they need, at prices they are willing to pay. Governments that promote Free Enterprise try to minimize their involvement in commerce, and regulate it only when the pathologies of Free Enterprise create significant problems. Democracy is a system of government that allows Free Enterprise to flourish. By providing citizens with the right to vote, Democracy makes it possible for people to influence the laws they live by, empowering them to limit the pathologies of Free Enterprise. For example, if pollution becomes a problem for people, they can support politicians who promise to regulate polluters. This may be an imperfect system, but it is better than any system where rulers are not accountable to their subjects through elections. As Winston Churchill famously said:350 No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

While Democracy supports Free Enterprise, it is much more than a “capitalist tool.”351 It allows people to influence government decisions in all areas of life. Democracy is a political structure that empowers people in their relationships with government. It gives people a right to participate meaningfully in debates on important issues that can cover everything from slavery to capital punishment and abortion. But herein lies Democracy’s own pathology, known as “the tyranny of the majority.”352 As a wit once noted, “A democracy is three wolves and two sheep – voting on what to have for dinner.”

349

Examples of pathologies that occur within the Free Enterprise system are monopolies and free riders. Hansard, November 11, 1947. 351 Famous and facetious slogan of Malcolm Forbes (1919 – 1990), based on the sentiments of Economics and Philosophic Manuscripts, by Karl Marx, 1844. 352 From a chapter title in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, volume 1, published in 1835. 350

175

Without special protections for minorities, democracy can and has led to abuse. For example, in the United States, a majority once decided that African slaves had no rights, not even to live with their spouses and children. In 1934, Hitler held a plebiscite that gave him a 90% approval rating, even though his hatred for Jews and other minorities was well known. In the years that followed, German “Aryans” participated in a systematic campaign to dehumanize and murder Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, and other Christians, all within the bounds of their fascist version of democracy. Similarly, communist nations also consider themselves democratic. For example, the official name of North Korea is The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Clearly, a government must be more than democratic if it is to protect the rights of all. It must institutionalize the belief that every human being has fundamental rights that governments cannot take away. This concept was first proposed by John Locke in 1690 as Life, Liberty, and Property.353 It was echoed in the opening lines of the U.S. Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It was given a legal framework in the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. And it was deftly supplemented by Franklin Roosevelt in his January 6, 1941 Address to Congress, in which he outlined his “Four Freedoms,” just months before the Pearl Harbor attack. Those Four Freedoms were: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear. This combination of fundamental rights and freedoms is the basis of Free Democracy. Before moving forward with this discussion, it is important to note that this book uses the term “Free Democracy” for a concept that has traditionally been known as “Liberal Democracy.” The term “Free” is used because “Liberal” is now associated with ideas that have nothing to do with Liberal Democracy’s original intent. When the term “Liberal Democracy” was first coined, “liberal” implied a form of government where people were not restrained by authoritarianism. Therefore, it opposed strong central government. Today, “liberal” often means “generous,” and implies generous social programs provided by strong central government. The dual institutions of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise evolved over hundreds of years in the West, and continue to evolve today. However, in the Islamic world, the story is quite different. Not only did Free Democracy and Free Enterprise not evolve there, they fail to survive there, despite dozens of working examples in other parts of the world. Why do Islamic nations fail to adopt the principles of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise? Because these institutions conflict with Islamic core beliefs, which include institutionalized Muslim superiority and contempt for both interest-bearing loans and financial speculation. With this understanding of the principles that shape Islamic nations, as wells as those of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise, we are ready to discuss exactly how Islam opposes Free Democracy and Free Enterprise.

353

From Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government published in 1690.

176

Islam opposes Free Democracy and proposes Islamic Democracy In the House of Submission, when anything conflicts with Islam, Islam wins. As stated in The Koran for Dummies:354 Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals who try to promote certain ideas, such as democracy, tolerance, and so on, must make Koranic teachings a focal point of their argument. Similarly, any ideas that intellectuals want to discourage, such as unjust violence, must be proven to be antithetical to the wording or spirit of the Book [Koran].

Even those who aspire to an Islamic form of democracy envision something very different from Free Democracy. Again, The Koran for Dummies provides insight into what a pro-democracy Muslim seeks. After declaring that the Koran’s system of governance is not a theocracy, it describes a Koranic government that absolutely is a theocracy, even if it includes some democratic traits. Moreover, it is a theocracy that specifically excludes non-Muslims:355 The Koran does not believe in establishing a theocracy on earth. Rather, its system of governance focuses on the following three concepts: •

• •

Unity of God [Allah]: God’s Oneness brings together His attributes of Creator, Sustainer, and Master, which make God sovereign over all His creation (23:116; 57:2; 7:54; 10:31). As such, God has the primary authority to create personal and social laws that govern human life. Prophecy: Prophecy communicates and presents the modeled life and path built on divine laws and guidance (4:79-80; 7:157-158). The role of mankind as God’s vicegerent on earth (2:30; 6:165): A religious elite or a single religious figure does not claim ownership to this role – it belongs to the entire [Islamic] community that lives under divine laws of rights and responsibilities…

Men and women, as a collective body, must nurture God-conscious civilizations that enjoin moral good and social benefit and struggle against moral evil and social harm (9:71; 22:41). As new legal issues arise for the ever-progressing [Islamic] community, the community must actively take part in an intellectual struggle (ijtihad) to determine God’s Will. While an Islamic state follows divine laws [Shari’ah], humans must determine and implement those laws, which takes place under a system of mutual consultation, known as Sura356 (42:38). Here, an elected body of legislators (such as members of parliament or congress) debates and decides affairs of the state in light of the Koran, [Islamic] prophetic teachings, and other sources of [Islamic] sacred law. Key differences exist between a Western-style democracy and an Islamic democracy. Western democracy places the sovereignty or authority of rule in the people, who form the constitution to determine rights and responsibilities for citizens. An Islamic democracy places sovereignty or rule of law in God [Allah], Who places rights and responsibilities on the people (4:1).

354

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Having room for interpretation, page 82. 355 Ibid, Chapter 20, section entitled Debating the rule of law between citizenry and God, page 304. 356 Also referred to as Shura.

177

From this description, it is clear that Islamic Democracy is not democratic at all in the Western sense. Its legislators are not meant to represent the will of the people, but to interpret the will of Allah. People who do not subscribe to Islam’s interpretation of God are completely excluded from political office and the legislative process. This type of disenfranchisement would open the doors to more drastic forms of abuse. One of the most disturbing aspects of Islamic Democracy is that it represents another case where Muslims and Westerners use the same term, “democracy,” but with entirely different meanings. Muslims often say they are pro-democracy, and in doing so lull Westerners into thinking that we have common ground. What these Westerners do not realize is that those Muslims want Islamic Democracy, not Free Democracy. Before moving on to the next topic, there is one remaining question that should be addressed: Why do Muslims believe that an Islamic Democracy is not a Theocracy? The answer can be found in a paper entitled An Islamic Perspective on the Wealth of Nations, written by Imad A. Ahmad. 357 It states that: Islam is, politically, a nomocracy, that is, a system of rule of law…It is not, as the Western press is wont to misrepresent it, a theocracy, that is, a rule by clerics. The concept of theocracy violates the fundamental premise of Islam—that there is none worthy of worship but God. In the Islamic world-view, each human being is directly responsible to the Almighty. The issue of what it is that God commands has been answered in writing, in the Qur’an. It is the unchanging sharî`ah itself, and not some human being or assembly, that man must obey. The nomocratic nature of Islam cannot be overstated…Abu Bakr’s inaugural address reflects an attitude in sharp contrast to that of political leaders before him: “Now it is beyond doubt that I have been elected your Amir, although I am not better than you. Help me, if I am right; set me right if I am in the wrong; truth is a trust; falsehood a treason.... Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet; when I disobey Allah and His Prophet, then obey me not.” (Siddiqi, pp. 46-47).

Apparently, Muslims declare that Islam is not a theocracy because, in a theocracy, rulers are worshipped. However, this definition of a theocracy is not the one commonly used in English. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary defines theocracy as “A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.”358 The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines theocracy as “a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.”359 According to these definitions, an Islamic government clearly is a theocracy. Once again, Muslims use their own meaning for a word, which differs from the one in common use. From a practical standpoint, the distinction Muslims make is meaningless. This is because their “law” is Islamic Law, which only Islamic scholars are qualified to decide. Hence an Islamic government must ultimately be controlled by Islamic jurists (scholars), even if less scholarly Muslims are active in the legislative and executive branches. It doesn’t matter whether Muslims 357

An Islamic Perspective on the Wealth of Nations, by Imad A. Ahmad, presented at the International Conference on “Comprehensive Development of Muslim Countries: An Interdisciplinary Approach from an Islamic Perspective”, Aug. 1-3, 1994, Subang Jaya, Malaysia. See www.minaret.org/malaysia.htm. 358 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. 359 Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Third Edition, June 23, 2005

178

worship those Islamic scholars or not; the determinations of these scholars are given the same practical authority over daily life in either case. In fact, the last portion of this quote makes it clear that Islamic scholars have the right to overrule their own political leaders if those leaders try to implement laws that disagree with those scholars’ interpretation of Shari’ah. This right places the leaders of both Islamic and non-Islamic nations in precarious positions, and has been a frequent cause of political instability. This instability is an important subject in itself, and will be investigated more fully in the sections of this book entitled The history of leadership in the Islamic world and Relations between the House of Islam’s political leaders and its people. The final point to note is that Islamic Democracies do away with the separation of powers that characterize Free Democracies. While Free Democracies carefully separate the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive powers, Islamic Democracies concentrate power in the hands of its jurists. An Islamic Democracy’s “Supreme Court” can do more than simply declare laws un-Islamic, just as our Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional; it also has the power to control who is elected to office and may remove leaders for straying from Islamic orthodoxy. Through this control over the avenues to power, it manipulates legislators and executives in ways similar to the Soviet Union’s Communist Party. Paradoxically, this means that Islamic Democracies are likely to be nearly as oppressive to Muslim citizens as to non-Islamic subjects. Islam’s silencing of non-Muslims in politics is only one of the important ways in which Islam opposes free speech and religious expression. We are about to uncover others.

Islam opposes Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship The concepts of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship are so intertwined that the easiest way to understand Islam’s relation to them is to look at both together. The following words come from an on-line tourist magazine for the nation of Qatar,360 which is 95% Muslim:361 The official religion of Qatar is Islam, and the vast majority of Qataris are Sunni Moslems… … During the Holy Month of Ramadhan…, Moslems are required to fast between dawn and dusk. Non-Moslems are expected to conform to this in public, and respect the prevailing conditions… … It is expected that non-Moslems resident in Qatar should respect the laws and customs of the religion. This means adhering to modest standards of dress and behaviour in public, in addition to not mocking or denigrating Islam in any way.

At first glance, these rules, which are enforced by law, do not appear unduly harsh. A deeper look, however, reveals how repressive they really are: • 360 361

Non-Muslims are legally required to observe Islamic practices, at least superficially.

www.qatar-info.com/general/religion.htm. CIA: The World Factbook, 2006.

179

•

It is impossible for anyone, whether Muslim or not, to have a free-ranging conversation about religion. In addition, people of other religions are forbidden from evangelizing, because doing so would imply that Islam is incorrect, a form of denigration.

A sad result of these constraints is that, by preventing Muslims from debating faith, Islam deprives them of opportunities to convince others of Islam’s virtues. If a religion can only defend itself by declaring religious debate illegal, it betrays a fear that Islam cannot bear the scrutiny. Worse still, these constraints lead to intellectual stagnation, a hallmark of the House of Islam. In a nutshell, Islam shuts down the free marketplace of ideas. While one would expect an Islamic Nation’s official website to present its laws as positively as possible, a more objective source unveils the true effects of Shari’ah on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship. For example, the 1995 Human Rights Watch World Report reveals Islam’s dark side in its section entitled Iran-Human Rights Developments362: In a population of sixty-two million, Iran’s religious minorities include 3.5 million Sunni Muslims, 350,000 followers of the Bahai faith, 80,000 Christians and 30,000 Jews. Tens of thousands of Christians, Jews and Bahais have fled Iran in the past fifteen years. During 1994 the government mounted a fierce campaign against the small Christian minority. Churches have been shut down, scores of young Christians – many of them converts from Islam – have been imprisoned and tortured… Three leading Evangelical Christians were killed in suspicious circumstances. In January, Bishop Haik Hovasepian Mehr, who had come to international prominence leading a campaign for the release of Pastor Mehdi Dibaj, was murdered. Mehdi Dibaj, who converted from Islam to Christianity about forty-five years ago, had been imprisoned in Sari, northeastern Iran, from 1983 to 1994. In late June, another evangelical minister, Tateos Michaelian was shot and killed. He was acting chair of the Council of Protestant Ministers in Iran, a post he assumed following the murder of Bishop Hovasepian Mehr. Pastor Mehdi Dibaj was killed a week later in early July. There was no evidence of a thorough official investigation into the killings, and Christian sources held the government responsible for the deaths. Iranian officials claim that evangelical churches have political agendas besides worship. There was also no let up in the persecution of the Bahai minority, which is…referred to as a heretical sect. In February, a judge released two Muslims who had killed a Bahai, citing a religious authority to the effect that Bahai blood may be shed with impunity. The judge based his ruling on the late Ayatollah Khomeini‘s fatwa (edict) that a Muslim will not be killed for killing an apostate. …Haji Muhammad Ziaie, a Sunni Muslim leader from Bandar-Abbas, known to be critical of government policies, was found dead in suspicious circumstances in July. He had been summoned for interrogation by security forces…and he has never been seen alive again.

362

Human Right Watch, 1995, Human Rights Watch World Report 1995.

180

This Human Rights Watch report does not imply that all Islamic nations are like Iran. However, cases like those described above are not isolated, and, to the extent that nations adopt Shari’ah, such cases become more common. Constraints on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship exist throughout the House of Submission. Even Islamic nations with Western frameworks of government face strong pressures to enact Shari’ah in entirety. These governments are constantly on the defensive against Islamists who try to overthrow them and lock Shari’ah’s shackles firmly into place. For example, Nigeria has a democratic government but has recently experienced the ascendance of Islam and Shari’ah in its northern states. This rise of Shari’ah is being accompanied by losses of freedom in a genuine culture war. This war has produced several fiascos, including chilling death sentences for pregnant women accused of adultery. Freedom of Speech has also been assaulted, as Deroy Murdock, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, describes in his Op-Ed piece The Islamofascist Agenda:363 Islam may be a religion of peace, but many of that faith’s remarkably thin-skinned fundamentalists evidently missed that memo. At least 220 [people] were murdered, over 1,100 wounded and some 12,000 rendered homeless in recent riots that began when Muslims in Kaduna, Nigeria, burned down the offices of This Day, a Lagos-based newspaper. It published Isioma Daniel’s November 16 article on the recently relocated Miss World pageant [relocated out of Nigeria due to protests from Muslims]. “What would Muhammad think?” Daniel asked. “In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among” the contestants. For four days…, This Day published front-page apologies about the article. It also described its staff as half-Muslim. None of this mollified militant Muslims in Kaduna…Muslims rampaged against the paper once Nigeria’s Supreme Islamic Council declared that Ms. Daniel’s article “declared total war against Islam” and urged Muslims to respond violently. After torching the daily’s bureau, mobs ignited 22 churches and attacked Christians. They, in turn, retaliated, setting eight mosques alight. The mayhem eventually reached Abuja, Nigeria’s capitol, where machete-wielding Muslims chanted: “Down with Beauty.” Meanwhile, the Zamfara state government met with at least 20 Islamic groups…and issued a fatwa ordering Isioma Daniel’s murder. Zamfara’s deputy governor…said: “It is binding on all Muslims wherever they are, to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty.” Ms. Daniel has resigned from the paper and is in hiding. “If she (Daniel) is Muslim, she has no option except to die,” Zamfara’s information commissioner, Tukur Umar Dangaladima, told the Associated Press. “But if she is a nonMuslim, the only way out for her is to convert to Islam.”

Muslims tell us, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Koran, 2.256). They should try to explain how this motto applies to the case of Isioma Daniel. 363

The Islamofascist Agenda, by Deroy Murdock, The National Review, December 3, 2002.

181

This is not an isolated incident. Similar terrorism was recently waged against the Miss Universe pageant in Iraq: Miss Iraq goes into hiding from militants Associated Press, MSNBC News, April 12, 2006 AMMAN, Jordan - Iraq’s newly crowned beauty queen has gone into hiding, fearing she will be targeted by Islamic militants who reportedly threatened to kill other women who participated in a Baghdad pageant last week. Silva Shahakian, an Iraqi Christian, received the title of Miss Iraq when the initial winner [Tamar Goregian] stepped down after receiving death threats… … ABC reported that Goregian received threats by…religious extremists who referred to her as “the queen of infidels” for participating in the pageant…

In Indonesia, often trumpeted as a land of moderation, and recognized as the most populous of Islamic nations, a toned-down version of Playboy magazine was shut down, not only by militants, but by the government itself: Indonesia wants Playboy to postpone issue Reuters, MSNBC News, April 13, 2006 JAKARTA, Indonesia - …About 300 hard-line Islamists vandalized the building housing Playboy’s offices…in a protest against its publication in the world’s most populous Muslim nation. The protesters threw rocks at the front lobby, breaking windows of the building…several days after the magazine hit Indonesian news-stands for the first time. Police made some efforts to stop the attackers but did not arrest anyone. “It would be better if there were a deal to postpone the second edition,” Jakarta police chief Firman Gani told reporters… He said he planned to ask the publishers to meet with police to discuss the matter, but would appeal to higher authorities for support of a postponement if Playboy did not voluntarily comply. The postponement would allow police time to investigate whether Playboy’s issue had violated any laws, Gani said.…He did not announce new actions against any of the militants involved in the Wednesday attack or the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), the hard-line group that organized the demonstration.

A similar report arrived recently from the newly “democratized” Afghanistan: Editor of Afghan women’s magazine arrested USA Today, Associated Press, October 5, 2005 KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The editor of an Afghan women’s rights magazine was jailed after a presidential adviser accused him of publishing un-Islamic material — including an article critical of the practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes, officials said Friday.

182

Minority Shiite Muslim clerics in Kabul objected to that article and another in the monthly Haqooq-i-Zan — or Women’s Rights — that argued that giving up Islam was not a crime. Police arrested the magazine’s editor, Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, on Saturday. … …Under a revised March 2004 media law signed by Karzai, content deemed insulting to Islam is banned. Criminal penalties were left vaguely worded, leaving open the possibility of punishment in accordance with Shariah, or Islamic law.

Islam’s constraints on free speech are not limited to comments about Muhammad, the Koran, or Muslims. Instead, they are generalized to enforce virtue through law. These prohibitions stem from two Koranic verses that may initially sound commendable: [49.11]YUSUF ALI: …Let not some men among you laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed [i.e. after he has become a Muslim]: And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong. [104.1] YUSUF ALI: Woe to every (kind of) scandal-monger and-backbiter…

The meaning of the latter verse is clarified in hadiths that record discussions between Muhammad and his followers on what qualifies as backbiting: Sahih Muslim, Book 32, number 6265:364…(the Holy Prophet) said: Backbiting implies you’re talking about your brother [i.e. another Muslim] in a manner which he does not like. It was said to him: What is your opinion about this that if I actually find (that failing) in my brother which I made a mention of? He said: If (that failing) is actually found (in him) what you assert, you in fact backbited him, and if that is not in him it is a slander.

Unfortunately, the Islamic scholars who interpret the Koran and the Hadith decided to give these remarks the force of law, and use them to suppress free speech. The Koran for Dummies explains how:365 Islam recognizes freedom of speech, but that speech can’t violate the sanctity of another human being’s honor by use of backbiting and slandering. Tabloids, for example, would be a big no-no in an Islamic society.

With Islam’s prohibition against telling truths that hurt a person’s dignity, tabloids would not be the only victims of Islamic rule. Other “big no-no’s” would be the tools that Free Democracy uses to enforce honesty in government, such as investigative reporting on politics and many campaign activities. Thus, the prohibition against “backbiting” further encourages corrupt practices, adding to the problems described in this book’s section entitled Corruption.

364

A similar hadith can be found in Malik’s Muwatta, Book 56, Number 56.4.10. The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Receiving the rights of citizenship, page 247. 365

183

This prohibition also makes it impossible for people to say critical things about Muslims without bringing self-righteous wrath upon themselves, and it discourages Muslims from reporting on the terrorist activities of other Muslims. Another point to note is that, because these rules are designed to protect only Muslims, nonMuslims remain wide-open to both backbiting and slander. Inflammatory remarks against nonMuslims are perfectly acceptable because the Koran itself does so repeatedly. Also, “big no-no” is an understatement meant to keep with the friendly tone of the “For Dummies” series. To get a better sense of what “big no-no” really means, consider the following formal statement issued by Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam) about Salman Rushdie:366 Yusuf Islam Issues A Formal Statement On The Rushdie Affair By Yusuf Islam, March 2nd, 1989 Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted. On 21st February, I was speaking to a group of students at the Kingston Polytechnic, and in response to a question, I simply stated the Islamic ruling on the Rushdie affair. Suddenly, my picture was splashed on the front page of newspapers all over the world next to the headline: ‘Kill Rushdie says Cat Stevens’. It is very sad to see such irresponsibility from the ‘free press’ and I am totally abhorred. … …Under the Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfill their basic religious duties…If we can’t get satisfaction…like a ban on this blasphemous book, ‘Satanic Verses’…this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress. No. If Mrs. Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas…then perhaps the only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country… … …as far as…the implementation of [the] full Islamic way of life in Britain is concerned, Muslims realize that there is very little chance of that happening in the near future. But that shouldn’t stop us from trying to improve the situation…That is the duty of every Muslim…

Sad words to hear from the man who brought us “Peace Train,” “Moon Shadow,” and “Morning has Broken.” One shudders to think that the U.K. might someday heed the call of its Muslim citizens and change its laws so that people who insult Islam can be assassinated. In his statement, Yusuf Islam asserts his right to speak freely, but supports Salman Rushdie’s murder for doing the same. Furthermore, Mr. Islam was “totally abhorred” at the press’s “irresponsibility” for reporting his statements. Perhaps he thought they were backbiting. More ominous than Mr. Islam’s words were the actions of other Muslims. Attempts to kill the Norwegian and Italian publishers of The Satanic Verses were made, and Hitoshi Igarashi, its Japanese publisher, was actually murdered. 366

This statement can be found on the Cat Stevens website. See http://catstevens.com/articles/00013/.

184

Clearly, Islamic Law opposes Free Democracy on multiple fronts: It excludes non-Muslims from the political process, it represses speech, and it represses religious expression.

The futility of seeking freedom and amity with Islamic governments Given Islam’s opposition to Free Democracy, which devout Muslims portray as a Jewish, Christian, or foreign conspiracy against them, Muslims limit their options for governance to dictatorship or one-party rule. Muslims acknowledge this, but portray these forms of government as preferable, when tempered with the Islamic tradition of “consultation.” To understand their viewpoint, read what the website IslamForToday has to say on the subject:367 Islamic Government … From the first Islamic state in Medina…until just after World War One, there was a Caliph, the leader of the [Sunni] Muslims, and an Islamic government somewhere in the world. In 1923…, with the end of the caliphate, Islamic government ceased. In Muslim majority countries, all of which were at that time under the influence or direct control of European governments, the legal and political systems introduced were modeled on those of the Christian states of the west. Various countries copied, or had imposed upon them, the systems of Europe…In nearly every country the institutions based upon the Quran…were abolished. Now in the last part of the twentieth century, the demand for the Islamic system of government is reviving. … Consultation has a high status in Islam. This is indicated by the name of surah…forty-two, “Consultation”.368…Although non-Muslims were not involved in consultation in the early period of the birth of Islam, there is nothing to indicate they cannot be included in consultation on national affairs or affairs not dealing with the beliefs of the Muslims.369 However, as the head of state must implement the Quran and Sunna, it is necessary that this position should be held by a Muslim. Islamic government…follows the laws and principles of the Quran and the Sunna of Muhammad. Government is the responsibility of all humanity, especially of those people who understand that they are the ‘caliphs’ of God [Allah]…

At best, Islamic Government is similar to the rule of a single party, the “‘caliphs’ of God.” At worst, it is rule by a single Muslim dictator. Any claim that this conclusion is tempered by Islamic “consultation” rings false when one considers that all dictators, no matter how despotic, consult with others. Consultation may simply be a way to gather information and form alliances. 367

Islamic Government, By Bilal Cleland. See www.islamfortoday.com/cleland04.htm As in many of the Koran’s surahs, the title does not represent the theme of the chapter, but a single distinguishing sentence. What follows is everything that surah 42, Consultation, has to say about consultation: [42.36] YUSUF ALI: Whatever ye are given (here) is (but) a convenience of this life: but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting: (it is) for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord: [42.37] Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive; [42.38] Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance; [42.39] And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) help and defend themselves. 369 We have already seen how Muslims believe that Islam is “a way of life that encompasses all actions in social, political, family, and economic realms – or, for that matter, any other realms of activity.” Therefore, the possibility that non-Muslims might be consulted on “affairs not dealing with the beliefs of the Muslims” offers essentially no political power at all. 368

185

While it is old news that Iran (discussed further in Chapter 6) is an Islamic Democracy, the list of Islamic Democracies in the world might surprise a typical Westerner. They are often portrayed as moderate, or allies, and include nations that the U.S. even helped establish. Consider the following excerpts from the constitutions of some of these nations. Constitution of Malaysia: 370 PART I - THE STATES, RELIGION AND LAW OF THE FEDERATION … (3.3) …the [Supreme Head of the Federation of Malaysia]371 shall be Head of the religion of Islam … (3.5) …Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the [Supreme Head of the Federation of Malaysia] in matters relating to the religion of Islam.

Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, :372 2.Islam to be State religion Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan. … 19. Freedom of speech, etc. Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam… … 31. Islamic way of life. … (2) The state shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan, (a) to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory… (b) to promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards; and (c) to secure the proper organisation of zakat, [17][ushr,] auqaf and mosques. … Chapter 1. THE PRESIDENT … (2) A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim… … Chapter 2. PARLIAMENT … (1) There shall be three hundred and forty-two seats of the members in the National Assembly, including seats reserved for women and non-Muslims. …there shall be, in the National Assembly, ten seats reserved for non-Muslims. … 62. Qualifications for membership of Parliament. [other than the ten seats for non-Muslims] A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Parliament unless :… 370

Source: www.helplinelaw.com/law/constitution/malaysia/malaysia01.php. The Malaysian term used in its Constitution is Yang di-Pertuan Agong (also called the Raja Permaisuri Agong). 372 Source: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part3.ch1.html 371

186

(d) he is…not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; (e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties… … [194] Chapter 3A. FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT … (2) The Court shall consist of not more than eight Muslim Judges… … 227. Provisions relating to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. (1) All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.

Constitution of The Arab Republic of Egypt:373 Article 2 Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Islamic jurisprudence is the principal source of legislation. … Article 19 Religious education shall be a principal subject in the courses of general education.

Constitution of The Republic of Tunisia:374 Preamble In the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful, We…Proclaim the will of this people…; … - to remain faithful to the teachings of Islam…, to its membership of the Arab family, to cooperation with the African peoples in building a better future, and with all peoples who are struggling for justice and liberty; … Chapter I General Provisions Article 1 [State] Tunisia is a free State, independent and sovereign; its religion is the Islam, its language is Arabic, and its form is the Republic. … Section I The President of the Republic Article 38 [Head of State] The President of the Republic is the Head of the State. His religion is Islam.

Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan:375 Preamble In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful – Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of Worlds; and Praise and Peace be upon Mohammad, His Last Messenger and his disciples and followers.

373

Source: http://www.uam.es/otroscentros/medina/egypt/egypolcon.htm Source: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/cafrad/unpan004842.pdf 375 Source: www.embassyofafghanistan.org/constitution.html 374

187

We the people of Afghanistan, believing firmly in Almighty God, relying on His divine will and adhering to the Holy religion of Islam; … Chapter III The President … (1) Presidential candidates should posses the following qualifications: Should be citizen[s] of Afghanistan, Muslim, and born of Afghan parents, and should not have citizenship of another country. … (3) The provision of this article is applied to the Vice Presidents as well. … The President-elect, prior to resumption of his/her duties, performs the following oath of allegiance…: "In the name Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate In the name God Almighty, in the presence of your representatives of the nation of Afghanistan, I swear to obey and safeguard the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam…

Constitution of The Republic of Iraq:376 Preamble We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization…; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed… … Chapter I: Basic Principles … Article 2: 1. Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam. … 2. This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people… Article 3: Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. … Part III: The Judiciary … Article (90): … 2. The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law…

Some may claim that constitutions such as these do not lead to one-party rule because different Islamic sects can form their own parties, and Muslims can form parties regardless of sect. There is some truth to this claim, but it neglects the fact that non-Muslims are disenfranchised. If nonMuslims can vote at all, their votes are restricted either a token minority or legislators or to Muslims sworn to uphold Islamic Law, which is designed to discriminate against non-Muslims. 376

Source: MERIA (Middle East Review of International Affairs), Volume 9, No. 3- September 2005. See http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issue3/Iraqiconstitution/constitution.html

188

Non-Muslims living in Islamic Democracies can never hope to have laws enacted that give them rights equal to Muslims. To picture this situation in terms familiar to Americans, imagine what the U.S. would be like if only Democrats could be elected to public office. The Democratic Party might polarize into opposing groups, such as Union Democrats vs. Immigration Democrats, but Republicans and others would still be excluded from the legislative process. Similarly, consider a U.S. where only Republicans could be elected. The Republican Party might polarize into Fiscal Conservatives vs. Religious Conservatives, but Democrats and others would be excluded. Sadly, the inevitable despotism of one-party rule and dictatorship creates more opportunities for blaming the West. For example, if Islamic governments bring oppression, then Western governments that deal peaceably with them are accused of supporting tyranny. As The Koran for Dummies377 states: …from my observations, Muslims…are frustrated by the failed regimes that rule over them. The citizens of these countries feel that their governments have allowed world powers to exploit their resources, while Muslims are left without jobs and other public benefits. …many Muslims are angered by the perception that while world leaders talk about democracy and freedom, they sometimes support the very regimes that have crushed true Islamic movements based on democracy, freedom, and justice in the Muslim world.

But if Muslims are angered by Western nations that support oppressive regimes in the Islamic world, does this mean that Muslims would welcome Western efforts to oppose those regimes? Apparently not. For example, after the U.S. and its allies toppled Iraq’s infamous Saddam Hussein and began to establish an Islamic democracy, the U.S. faced rallying cries of “Infidel occupier!” and “Democracy doesn’t flow from the barrel of a gun.”378 These cries reflected the fact that many Muslims do not understand or trust democracy in any form, and they mistrust any Infidel government that offers to help them establish one. Therefore, it is futile for non-Islamic nations to seek amicable relations with the House of Islam. They will be accused of either supporting repressive governments or being imperialsists.

Islam opposes Free Enterprise and proposes Islamic Economics The manner in which Islam opposes Free Enterprise is subtle but very profound. Superficially, Free Enterprise appears to flourish in the House of Islam, especially when one visits the Middle Eastern souks,379 well-known for their bargaining practices. However, as anyone who has tried to start a large-scale business may attest, Islam’s opposition to interest-bearing and speculative financial instruments can impose major barriers. While some Muslims may have found ways to

377

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 18, section entitled Looking at Jihad in Today’s World, page 282. 378 Title of an article written by Chris Patten and published in the September 2003 issue of Foreign Policy magazine. It is a play on a quote from Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book: ‘Power grows out of the barrel of a gun’. From 1992 to 1997, Mr. Patten served as the last British governor of Hong Kong. 379 Arabian term for marketplace.

189

Islamicize certain banking and insurance sectors by cloaking their use of interest and speculation, other sectors remain off limits, such as standard mortgages, junk bonds, and derivatives. The actions of Islamic financiers are governed by religious boards, which certify that their practices are halal (permitted by Islam). In Islamic nations, similar bodies police all economic transactions to verify compliance with Islam. This level of trade interference far exceeds anything seen in a modern Free Democracy, and the transactions allowed under Islam fall far short of what one would call Free Enterprise. These constraints choke the entrepreneurial talents of practicing Muslim business people and keep them operating on small scales. Unfortunately, Islamic economists misinterpret the cause of Muslim destitution. Through warped lenses, they perceive that Islamic nations are poor because they are not Islamic enough, and that the true solution is to replace Free Enterprise with Islamic Economics. Such views are promoted by people such as Mufti Taqi Usmani, a recognized Pakistani expert in Islamic Jurisprudence and Economics who has served on Pakistan’s Supreme Court and the Islamic Fiqh380 Council for the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).381 At the 2000 International Conference of the World Muslim Congress, he declared that:382 The twentieth century has witnessed the rise of communism, the conflict between capitalist and communist countries, and lastly, the fall of communism. The…failure of communism was not due to its justified criticism of the evils of capitalism. Rather it was caused by the inherent defects of the alternative system suggested by it. The capitalist economies still suffer from inequities in the distribution of wealth… The world, therefore, is badly in need of a Third Economic System. The Muslim Ummah can work out this system based on the Islamic norms. The economic principles taught by the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet…are quite capable of solving the major economic problems faced by the world today… It was neither private ownership nor the institution of market forces that was the basic cause of injustice in the capitalist system. The basic factor for creating inequities in the capitalist countries was the absence of a criterion to differentiate between just and unjust earnings. The instruments of interest, gambling, speculative transactions and the tools of exploiting immoral desires of the consumers to secure huge profits were allowed, which tend to create monopolies… … Islam not only allows the market forces but also provides mechanisms to keep them operative with their natural force without their being hindered by monopolies… First, [Islam] subjects the process of earning to certain divine injunctions, which clearly define the limits of halal and haram. These injunctions tend to prevent monopolies and curb the unjust and immoral earnings and commercial activities detrimental to the collective interest of…society … 380

Literally, “to comprehend.” As applied to Islam, this term means: to comprehend Islam’s application to daily life through study of the Koran and Sunnah. Fiqh is a prerequisite to the development of Shari’ah. 381 See biographical summary available at www.albalagh.net/taqi.shtml. 382 IIBI Discussion Forum: The Economic Challenge for the Ummah, by Justice Taqi Usmani, published in New Horizon, February 2000 issue, by The Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance. See www.albalagh.net/Islamic_economics/economy.shtml.

190

Second, the institution of Zakat…and…other financial obligations provide that even the halal income is again distributed to the persons who could not earn enough due to insufficient market opportunities. Through the twin controls, the wealth is kept under constant circulation and the chances of its concentration are almost eliminated. …our main tragedy is that the principles of Islamic economy are still in theoretical form for which no living example is available. The Muslim countries have not tried to structure their economy on Islamic bases. Most of them are still following the capitalist system and that too in a half-baked manner, which has made the economic atmosphere much worse than that of the developed capitalist countries. Unfortunately, despite having…clear cut Islamic injunctions, the inequities existing in Muslim countries are far more severe than in the Western world.

Mufti Usmani clearly states that Islam is an economic system, one that he believes is superior to both Communism and Free Enterprise, particularly because it combats the pathology of monopoly. In fact, his words appear to reach out to disaffected Communists who are still searching for an alternative to Capitalism. Unfortunately, his argument seems to confuse monopoly with business growth. In the West, there are millions of businesses that have used loans to grow, and, despite their large size, they are not monopolies. In cases where monopoly abuses occur, the abuses are not caused by interest-bearing loans, but by economies of scale that make a company’s service more valueable or less expensive as the company gets bigger. A company with such economies of scale is called natural monopoly. A good example of a natural monopoly was Bell Telephone, because its telephone network became more valuable to customers as more people connected to it, while its cost of adding customers was small relative to the cost of developing the network’s technology. The West has experimented with a number of ways to reduce the abuses of monopoly with varying degrees of success. Utilities have been regulated to limit profits. Anti-trust laws have broken up some of the world’s biggest monopolies, such as Standard Oil and Bell Telephone. While these approaches may not be perfect, they are superior to the prohibitions of Islamic Economics, which would have prevented the loans and speculative investments needed to turn gasoline and telephones into domestic commodities in the first place. Islamic Economics is why home-grown large-scale commercial ventures are virtually unknown in the Islamic world. In other words, Islamic Economics pursues “economic justice” the way Communism did: by making everyone equally poor. But Islamic Economics fails to even here. As Usmani notes, “despite having…clear Islamic injuctions, the inequities existing in Muslim countries are far more severe than in the Western world.” If a partial implementation of Shari’ah produces less equity than the West, why should we believe that a full implementation would create a more equity? The fact of the matter is that, in the Islamic world, power and wealth have always been concentrated in the hands of a few ruling families while most people lived in poverty. Economics is not the only science reshaped by Islam. In the next section, we will see how Islam stamps science in general with its own die.

191

Chapter 6: Islam overrules Science At first glance, science does not appear to fit this book’s discussion of Free Democracy, Free Enterprise, and Islam. In fact, Muslims have always been very proud of their ancient contributions to science, particularly in math and chemistry. However, as we shall see, Islam’s scriptural – that is, religious – understanding of science, together with its prohibitions against free speech and lending with interest, combine to shackle scientific advancement. To fully appreciate the extent to which Islam overrides science, it is important to note that the Islamic concept of science is fundamentally different from that of the West: • •

In the West, the guiding light of science is the scientific method, which seeks to answer questions by formulating hypotheses, testing them with real-world experiments, and then refining those hypotheses and testing them again. In the Islamic world, the guiding light of science is Islamic holy scripture, which provides answers through Islamic scholarship.

Because of Islam’s approach to science, very few new ideas have come from the Islamic world, though early Muslims did a decent job of assimilating innovations from conquered lands. Also, after developing their own scholars of foreign scientific scriptures, early Muslims sometimes combined concepts to produce advances, particularly in the fields of chemistry and algebra. But this is not the impression one gets from Islamic propagandists. The West even plays along, often giving credit where it is not due. The most familiar example of undue credit is the “Arabic” number system we use. In truth, “Arabic” numbers came from India and were absorbed by Muslim invaders. Europe subsequently learned this system from Arab traders. Muslims claim many scientific inventions for themselves. Unfortunately, these claims may be their greatest inventions of all. Any investigation will uncover a plethora of falsehoods and absurdities that are so universally believed by Muslims that they are printed in even the most Westernized of Islamic primers. For example: •

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam lists the preservation of Greek science as an Islamic achievement.383 In reality, Europe’s loss of Greco-Roman science was largely due to Rome’s fall to invading “Barbarians,” a disaster in which Muslims played a lead role. Basically, Muslims acquired Greco-Roman science in the course of conquering Byzantine territory. As a testimony to Islam’s “contribution,” The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam quotes a famous fourteenth-century Islamic historian named Ibn Khaldun, who, in his work, Al Muqaddimah,384 described how the Islamic world got the knowledge it

383

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 26, section entitled Charting the Muslim Influence on Europe, page 323. 384 Ibid, Chapter 26, section entitled Charting the Muslim Influence on Europe, page 322.

192

“preserved”: ...the Muslims won their remarkable victories, conquering the Byzantines…At first, the Muslims were simple, and did not cultivate learning, but as time went on, the Muslims…began to wish to study the various branches of philosophy, of whose existence they knew through their contact with bishops and priests among their Christian subjects. The Caliph, al-Mansur, therefore sent an embassy to the Byzantine emperor, asking him to send translations of books on mathematics. The emperor sent him Euclid’s Elements and some works on physics. Muslim scholars studied these books, and their desire to obtain others was whetted. When al-Ma’mun…assumed the caliphate,…he sent out ambassadors…to the Byzantine Empire,…to search out works on Greek science and have them translated into Arabic...a great deal of material was gathered and preserved.

The strangest thing about this quote is that it is presented under the subtitle, Charting the Muslim Influence on Europe. A more appropriate title would have been Charting the European Influence on Islam. Also, given that the Byzantine Empire continued to exist until 1453 AD, it played just as important a role in transferring ancient Greek knowledge back to Western Europe as the House of Islam. However, after the annihilation of Constantinople, with three days of pillage, rape, and fire by Ottoman forces, it has not been in a position to claim credit for its contributions. Finally, it is worth noting that the Islamic world’s preservation of Greek science, and its absorption of Indian mathematics, were basically applications of Islamic science to a new set of books. That is, scholarship was used in the acquisition of knowledge instead of the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation. This hardly qualifies as an achievement. If we can credit Muslims with anything, it is in conquering the Eastern Roman Empire less destructively than the barbarian tribes that overran the Western Empire. •

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam claims that a Muslim, Abu Raihan al-Biruni (d. 1048), was the first to accurately calculate the circumference of the Earth.385 Apparently, there is a bit of Greek science that the Islamic world forgot to preserve – the widely recognized fact that the first person to accurately calculate the circumference of the Earth was a Greek named Eratosthenes, in 240 BC. By measuring the shadows of vertical rods at noontime on the Summer Solstice at two different locations, Eratosthenes was able to calculate the earth’s circumference to be 39,690 km, which was accurate to better than 0.1% of the true diameter of 40,008 km.

385

Ibid, Chapter 26, section entitled Illuminating the Science Hall of Fame, page 325.

193

•

The Koran for Dummies claims that a Muslim invented the astrolabe.386 While there appears to be some debate over exactly who invented the astrolabe, the person was unquestionably Greek. The debate revolves around the definition of “astrolabe,” because this tool evolved over time. Eratosthenes (276 – 194 BC), invented a spherical astrolabe. Hipparchus (c. 190 – c. 120 BC) is also credited with inventing an astrolabe. Ptolemy (c. 90 – c. 168 AD) used an astrolabe to develop his theory of planetary motion. Theon of Alexandria (c. 335 – c. 405 AD) wrote a treatise on the astrolabe. Obviously, the astrolabe was a highly refined tool hundreds of years before Muhammad was even born. What Muslims can be credited with is using the astrolabe religiously, to locate the qibla wherever they lived. To aid their practice, some refinements were made, most notably by the 11th century astronomer Al-Zarqall, whose astrolabe could be used at any latitude. Subsequently, other inventions in the West replaced the astrolabe, such as the cross staff, the back staff, the octant, and finally, the sextant, which was invented independently in both Britain and America in 1730. This device proved to be so accurate, portable, and convenient that it is still used today as a back-up to modern electronic systems. Therefore, while Muslims may have refined a tool for navigation, they did not invent it. They simply added a few ideas and then stopped contributing, leaving the West to continue the tool’s development.

•

The Koran for Dummies claims that Chinese Muslims invented paper.387 It is widely acknowledged that paper was invented in China by a man named Cai Lun388 (ca. AD 50—121) in about 105 AD, roughly 500 years before Muhammad’s ministry. Cai Lun could not possibly have been a Muslim. What Muslims can claim for themselves is the refinement of paper by substituting linen fibers for bamboo some time in the 10th century.

•

The Arab World Studies Notebook389 claims that Muslims discovered America before Columbus. In yet another effort to steal credit for the achievements of the West, many Muslims are now even claiming that Muslims discovered America before Christopher Columbus. This claim has become so popular that it is now being printed as unquestioned fact in Islamic school textbooks, such as the Arab World Studies Notebook. In fact, there are multiple theories behind this claim, whose variations betray an intent to trump Western

386

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 20, section entitled Advancing society through science, page 297. 387 Ibid, Chapter 20, section entitled Advancing society through science, page 297. 388 Alternative spellings: Cài Lún, Ts’ai Lun 389 Arab World Studies Notebook, Middle East Policy Council, Washington, D.C., 2002.

194

achievements rather than pursue truth. While the Arab World Studies Notebook claims that Muslims landed in North America and interbred with the Algonquin Indians, Precolumbian Muslims in the America390 offers a remarkable alternative reality: “a Muslim navigator, Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad, from Cordoba, Spain, sailed from …Palos… in 889 CE, crossed the Atlantic, reached an unknown territory…and returned with fabulous treasures,” and “Columbus and early Spanish and Portuguese explorers were able to voyage across the Atlantic…thanks to Muslim geographical and navigational information.” It is commonly known that Columbus was indeed preceded in America – by non-Muslim explorers. One of them was Leif Erikson, a Viking Christian, who hopped from Iceland to Greenland, and then went on to Newfoundland in 1001 AD, starting settlements that later failed during what has become known as “The Little Ice Age.” Other predecessors included the ancient and now nameless bands of hunter-gatherers who crossed over the Bering Straits at least 15,000 years ago. The American Indians can be forgiven for not being able to name their prehistoric predecessors. Muslims, however, consider their historical records to be matters of national pride. And yet they do not know which Muslims went to America and interbred with the American Indians, and they cannot explain why, after supposedly discovering great riches in the 9th century, Muslims never established trade in the Americas, as did the Spanish, for better or for worse. If Columbus was “able to voyage across the Atlantic…thanks to Muslim geographical and navigational information,” why weren’t Muslims using that information? •

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam states that “Like many other scientists in the Muslim world, [abu Abdullah] Al-Battani knew the world was round.”391 The implication, that European scientists did not know this fact, is untrue. As already mentioned, Eratosthenes calculation of the Earth’s circumference in 240 BC presumed that the world is round. Western knowledge of a spherical Earth is at least as ancient as Plato, who described this concept in his Timaeus in about 360 BC. While Europe’s illiterati may have thought the world was flat, the educated knew otherwise for many centuries. The same was true in the land that became the Islamic world, where Western knowledge was often assimilated via Muslim conquest. To verify this claim, recall that the Catholic Church was infamous for endorsing Ptolemy’s geocentric theory of planetary motion, and imprisoned Galileo for claiming that the Earth moved around the Sun. As flawed as Ptolemy’s theory was, it presumed a round Earth. On this, the Church and Galileo were in complete agreement.

390

Precolumbian Muslims in the America, by Dr. Youssef Mroueh, 1996. See http://www.sunnah.org/history/precolmb.htm. 391 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 26, section entitled Illuminating the Science Hall of Fame, page 325.

195

•

Both The Koran for Dummies and The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran make grand claims about the Koran’s advanced scientific knowledge, but then provide examples that are scientifically inaccurate.392 393 For example, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran contains the following strange discussion of Koranic botany:394 The science of botany was in no way advanced enough at the time of the Prophet to have concluded that plants have gender traits. But in the Koran we are told: He made a pair of every fruit and made the night cover the day…(13.3)

The first error that leaps from this bit of Koranic “science” is the claim that all plants (or fruits?) have gender traits. Plants typically do not have the gender traits implied by verse 13.3. While flowers may have male and female parts, there are very few plants with male and female individuals (such plants are called dioecious). Most fruit-bearing plants are perfectly capable of reproducing from a single individual, whose flowers have stamens (male) and pistils (female). Examples of such plants are apples, cherries, cucumbers, grapefruits, melons, oranges, peaches, pears, peppers, squash, tomatoes, and zucchini. However, there is a fruit-bearing dioecious plant called the date palm, which was very important in Muhammad’s world and probably inspired this Koranic verse. But the date palm is widely known to have been cultivated as long ago as 4000 BC. It is also known that, even in ancient times, cultivators frequently fertilized female plants manually to improve yields and reduce the number of male plants that had to be cultivated.395 In other words, the dioecious nature of date palms was well-known in the ancient world. In fact, the following hadith shows that Muhammad and his companions also knew about it: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490:…Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing. One day he…said, “I feel that Allah has inspired me as how to cure myself. Two persons came to me (in my dream)…One…asked… ‘What is the ailment of this man?’ The other replied, ‘He has been bewitched’ The first asked, ‘Who has bewitched him?’ The other replied, ‘Lubaid bin Al-A’sam.’ The first one asked, ‘What material has he used?’ The other replied, ‘A comb…and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm.’…”

Therefore, the second error that leaps from this “Idiot’s” passage is the claim that “the science of botany was in no way advanced enough at the time of the Prophet to have concluded that plants have gender traits.” In truth, the Koran was making a reference to knowledge that medieval Arabs were as familiar with as “the night cover[s] the day.”

392

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 9, section entitled Earthly Creations, pages 136-139. 393 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 8, section entitled Scientific and Historical Information, pages 8789. 394 Ibid, page 89. 395 Source: The official website of the city of Nizwa, Oman: www.nizwa.net/agr/dates/datefarm/datefarm.html.

196

Another strange bit of Koranic “science” comes from The Koran for Dummies:396 The Koran describes the divine structure of the mountain as firmly rooted in the earth, “standing firm” so that the mountain does not shake with the rest of the earth (31:10). Today, geologists have also come to the conclusion that mountains are rooted in the earth with hard sediments, like the roots of trees, which play an essential role in securing the earth.

As anyone living near the San Andreas fault, or the mountains of Pakistan or Iran knows, mountain ranges are among the places most likely to be affected by earthquakes. Mountains are never “standing firm,” because the continental plates they reside on slowly but constantly drift over the face of the planet, floating on top of the Earth’s molten core. In fact, mountains are frequently the jumbled results of continental plates crashing into each other. The whole concept of mountains described in the Koran is flawed. One of the most celebrated triumphs of Koranic “science” has been its description of how a fetus develops in the womb. As The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran indicates, this description again reveals the Koran’s miraculous nature:397 Most of us couldn’t break down the sequence of development of the human fetus, but we are certainly aware that the fetus exists within the womb. This fact wasn’t so clear to the people of the seventh century, who developed a litany of superstitions and fables to explain the process of human development and birth. Yet the Koran speaks unmistakably of a human ovum attaching itself to the uterine wall, and the processes of fetal development: He created man from a clot of blood. (96:2) And… The living germ, then, was turned into a shapeless lump of flesh from which bones were formed. The bones, then, were covered with flesh. At this stage, we caused it to become another creature. All blessings belong to God, the best Creator. (23:14) The phrase “shapeless lump of flesh” is a strikingly accurate description of the embryo in its early stages of development. The phrase “covered with flesh” appears to refer to muscle development.

Again, we find a specious presentation of Islamic science. While false, it sounds true those who don’t know any better. Here are some facts about fetus development:398 •

The heart muscle begins beating on about the 21st day of pregnancy.

396

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 9, section entitled Earthly Creations, page 137. 397 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 8, section entitled Scientific and Historical Information, page 89. 398 See www.pregnancycare-center.org/Stagesofdevelopment.htm.

197

•

By the time the backbone (the first structure to become bone) begins forming, on about the 28th day, arms, legs, eyes, and ears are already visible. Moreover, the structures that will become bone are cartelege at this point, and they only develop into bone at a later phase of development.

In other words, bones are not the first discernable structures in the fetus, and they are not covered later with flesh, as the Koran describes. Instead, the heart muscle, unmentioned in the Koran, is the first discernable structure, and other flesh and bone structures develop together at a later point. Bones, rather than cartelege, actually develop last. In fact, the calcification of cartilaginous “bones” continues even after childbirth. Also, despite the author’s claim that fetus development was not understood during the time of Muhammad, the nearby civilization of Rome had an understanding of fetal development at least as good as the imperfect one described in the Koran. Both The Koran for Dummies and The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran have other claims about the Koran’s “scientific knowledge” that turn out to be either observations that one could make with the naked eye, broad generalizations that do not indicate advanced knowledge, or outright falsehoods. If one were to investigate each of these claims, one would become convinced of Muhammad’s scientific ignorance rather than the Koran’s scientific knowledge. •

Most strangely, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam states that “Muslims developed the scientific method of formulating a hypothesis and testing it to see whether it is correct.”399 Actually, an early form of the scientific method came to the Islamic world through its conquests in India, along with the Indian number system and mathematics. This can be seen most notably in the works of a remarkable Indian mathematician and astronomer named Aryabhata (476 AD – 550 AD). It is possible that the scientific method was refined in the Islamic world, but I have found no evidence of this. However, it is known that the scientific method was refined by William of Ockham, an Englishman and Catholic theologian from the early 1300s, who stated a valuable research criterion that has become known as Ockham’s Razor: If there are competing theories that explain a given set of data, choose the simplest theory. At about this time, the Islamic world became infected with a virulent case of excess piety, similar to what caused the Church to imprison Galileo. However, in the House of Islam, this infection thrives even today. One can see this infection at work in The Koran for Dummies,400 which says that:

399

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 26, section entitled Charting the Muslim Influence on Europe, page 323. 400 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 9, section entitled The sun and moon, page 135.

198

The Koran shows an innate knowledge of astronomy in pointing out that the sun and moon alternate by day and night in a “rounded course” (21:33), which alludes to the fact that both the sun and moon rotate around the earth, a “scientific” discovery that was made well after the Koran’s revelation.

This is not a typographical error. According to the Koran, the sun does rotate around the earth. In both authoritative translations to English, the cited verse declares: [21.33] PICKTHAL: And He it is Who created…the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit. [21.33] YUSUF ALI: It is He Who created…the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

This view of astrophysics is affirmed in many other Koranic verses,401 as well as the Hadith, which explicitly tells devout Muslims how to interpret the Koran’s words: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421:…The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I replied, “Allah and His Apostle know better.” He said, “It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’” (36.38)

Even more disconcerting than these bizarre explanations is the “Dummies” claim that these Koranic “revelation(s)” are confirmed by “‘scientific’ discovery”! While it is understandable that people from the Dark Ages might have believed that the sun rotates around the earth, the Koran makes this belief permanent. It would be an act of Apostasy for a devout Muslim to disagree with verse 21.33 and verse 36.38, as well as their many corroborating verses. While some Muslims may try to wiggle around the “Dummies” viewpoint by claiming that these verses refer to the Sun’s orbit in the Milky Way, or to the Sun’s rotation on its own axis, the fact remains that a mainstream writer for the “For Dummies” series thinks that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Moreover, this view is what any Muslim would 401

Additional verses from the Koran that imply the Sun moves around the Earth: • [13.2] YUSUF ALI: Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. • [22.18] PICKTHAL: And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. • [31.29] PICKTHAL: Hast thou not seen how Allah…hath subdued the sun and the moon (to do their work), each running unto an appointed term; • [39.5] PICKTHAL: He…constraineth the sun and the moon to give service, each running on for an appointed term. Is not He the Mighty, the Forgiver?

199

have concluded from the Koran before being informed by Western Science that the Sun rotates around its own axis, and that it also orbits around the center of the Milky Way. In researching the above claims, I found so many exaggerations and outright falsehoods that I have come to doubt nearly all of these books’ claims about Muslim achievements and the Koran’s scientific knowledge. Little of this knowledge rises to the standard of a useful scientific theory, and little of it has contributed to mankind’s store of useful information. In fact, the Koran has several “scientific” concepts that actually detract from mankind’s store of useful knowledge, and are so wild that the authors of these beginners’ books avoided mentioning them. For example, there is the story of a man named Dhu’l-Qarneyn, whom Muslims commonly believe to have been Alexander the Great, who followed the sun until he found it setting in a muddy spring with people living nearby: [31.29] PICKTHAL: They will ask thee of Dhu’l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him. [31.31] Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. [31.32] And he followed a road [31.33] Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout.

Another illuminating bit of Koranic “science” explains that the heavens in the sky have different levels, with the lowest level hung with lamps. It also explains that shooting stars, otherwise known as meteors, are actually lamps flung at evil spirits: •

[67.5] YUSUF ALI: And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

•

[15.16] YUSUF ALI: It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made them fair-seeming to (all) beholders; [15.17] And (moreover) We have guarded them from every cursed devil: [15.18] But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).

•

[37.6] YUSUF ALI: We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,[37.7] (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, [37.8] (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, [37.9] Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, [37.10] Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.

After the Koran pronounces, three times, that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits, what devout Muslim would say that they are interplanetary rocks that crashed into the earth’s atmosphere? To be fair, it is important to also note that the Bible has its own strange “science” at times. It joins the Koran in portraying angels as real, and has spawned a legion of creationists who adamantly revolt against the theory of evolution.

200

A key difference between the Bible and the Koran is that only the Koran claims to have been spoken by Allah himself. As previously discussed in the chapter entitled A personal realization, this fact gives the Koran unquestionable iron-clad authority in the mind of devout Muslims. Therefore, as the Hadith says: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 347:402… It is a sign of having knowledge that, when you do not know something, you say: ‘Allah knows better.’

In other words, if a Westerner confronts a Muslim with logic and demonstrates conclusively that the words of the Koran don’t make sense, the Muslim should not concede the point, but only reply “Allah knows better.” Another important difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians are called upon to resolve disputes through peaceful methods, while Muslims are called upon to resolve disputes through jihad. Despite this distinction, Christians have had their own rebellions against science, and only reluctantly learned to listen to the Bible spiritually while letting nature speak for itself. While this change in viewpoint may be difficult for Christians, it is impossible for Muslims, who can only make this change by acknowledging that the Koran is not perfect – an act of blasphemy. Another major difference between Western Science and Islamic Science is that Western Science does not care about truth per se. Instead, it focuses on useful and accurate approximations, because it humbly acknowledges that the ultimate truths of reality still lay beyond our crude comprehension. As a result, Western scientists are quick to discard one theory in favor of another if a new theory is more useful and accurate than an old one. Islamic Science, on the other hand, defines the Koran to be the Truth, and then seeks to map the observable world onto its pages. In fact, the authority of the Koran is greater than that of personal observation. If a Muslim sees something that disagrees with the Koran, he or she will claim that the Koran is still true, but we simply do not understand its truth with regard to the thing observed. While the Islamic world may have made some contributions to science, the fact that these beginners’ books resorted to exaggerations and falsehoods gives sad testimony to the scarcity of achievements. In comparison, the achievements of Western science through giants like Huygens, Newton, Laplace, Bernoulli, Gauss, Mach, Faraday, and Einstein make exaggeration unnecessary. 402

The phrase “Allah knows better” or “Allah knows best” permeates the Hadith, and can be found in: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 12, Numbers 799, 809, & 829, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 874, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 360, Volume 6, Book 60, Numbers 62, 297, & 333 Volume 7, Book 68, Number 477, Book 72, Number 687, Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 1, Book 4, Number 1317, Book 16, Number 4161, Book 26, Number 5545, Book 31, Number 6070, Book 31, Numbers 6154 & 6158, Book 38, Number 6678, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 3, Number 863, Malik’s Muwatta, Book 1, Number 1.5.24, Book 9, Number 9.24.85, Book 16, Number 16.16.53, Book 17, Number 17.3.8, Book 18, Numbers 18.15.41 & 18.17.44, Book 20, Numbers 20.37.121, 20.51.176, 20.69.228, & 20.76.256, Book 21, Number 21.14.29, Book 27, Number 27.7.1, Book 28, Numbers 28.1.2 & 28.13.32, Book 31, Numbers 31.1.1 & 31.44.97, Book 36, Numbers 36.10.13, 36.18.15, Book 43, Number 43.16.8c, and Book 50, Number 50.3.5.

201

A final point: While there may be Koranic verses that thwart science directly, the ways in which Muslims interpret the Koran amplify the damage. Consider the following verse: [22.18] YUSUF ALI: Seest thou not that to Allah bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth, - the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great number among mankind?

This passage could easily be interpreted in a poetic sense. Unfortunately, Muslims choose to read it literally. For example, The Koran for Dummies states:403 The Koran teaches that all creations on earth and in the universe submit to God [Allah] in worship by following His laws. So, the sun and the moon, the plants and the trees, and the animals bow down in praise of God for sustaining them…

In light of the fact that neither animals, nor the moon, sun, or stars bow down and worship Allah in any observable sense, the author goes on to explain that animals and physical objects “bow down in praise of God for sustaining them” by simply adhering to the laws of nature. The subtle pathology of this explanation is that it transmutes the laws of nature into the laws of Allah, and Muslims believe that the Koran defines the laws of Allah. Therefore, Muslims believe that the Koran, as a vessel of Allah laws, speaks authoritatively on the laws of nature, and should be considered a source of answers to scientific questions. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr says in his book, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization,404 Nature is a book whose ayat405 are to be read like the ayat of the Quran; in fact, they can only be read thanks to the latter, for only revelation can unveil for fallen man the inner meaning of the cosmic text. Certain Muslim thinkers have referred to the cosmos as the “Quran of creation” or the “cosmic Quran”, whereas the Quran that is read every day by Muslims is called the “recorded Quran.” The cosmos is the primordial revelation whose message is still written on the face of every mountain and tree leaf and is reflected through the light that shines from the sun, the moon, and the stars. But as far as Muslims are concerned, this message can only be read by virtue of the message revealed by “the recorded Quran.”

The dark side of this viewpoint is that it makes any scientist or inventor an Apostate if his or her work violates the Koran. We see this dark side in the diatribes of Islamic scholars against portraiture, photography, movies, television, and even organ transplants. Islam stifles science by suppressing free speech and, as a consequence, free thought and invention. Islam does more than hinder science with its strictures on free speech; as mentioned previously; it also does so through Islamic Economics. Research projects often need large amounts of money, which in the West can be fulfilled by interest-bearing loans. Many realms of research 403

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Worship and service to God, page 11. 404 Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization, by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, HarperSanFrancisco, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, 2003, Chapter 3, section entitled The Cosmos, page 71. 405 As mentioned previously, Ayat is the Arabic term for Koranic verses. The literal meaning is “signs;” thus this quote uses a pun: the signs of nature are to be read like the signs, or verses, of the Koran.

202

are risky, such as in the ocean’s depths, air, and space, and can only be attempted if insurance provides a safety net. Islam’s prohibitions make these hurdles even more challenging. In summary, Islam attacks science on multiple fronts. Its holy scriptures provide false answers to important scientific questions. It prohibits research and product development in a broad range of areas. It lashes out against scientists whose discoveries disagree with the Koran. It makes it difficult to raise money for research. It also discourages risk-taking. After considering the many hurdles that Islam places before science, it is no wonder that that science has progressed much faster in the West. This blaring fact has led Muslims themselves to realize that something is wrong, but they cannot bring themselves to say that Islam is the cause. Instead, they have desperately sought other reasons which have led to misguided solutions. The resulting confusion has combined with a sense of crisis to produce the violence and rage seen in the House of Islam today.

203

Chapter 7: The State of Islam Today Stuck at a fork in the road Today, Islamic nations are at a fork in their roads to the future, and each has two hands firmly on the wheel, pulling in opposite directions. The first hand is traditional Islamic society, which has been driving in a straight line ever since “The Closing of the door of Ijtihad”406 in the tenth century. While Europe languished in the dark ages, the Islamic world spent its first centuries going through a period of continual intellectual refinement. This process came to a halt, however, when a scholar named al-Qaffal issued a fatwa in the tenth century. This fatwa declared that all questions regarding Islam’s guidance for living had been answered, and that there was no need for further intellectual development. From then on, all questions were to be answered by references to preceding scholars.407 The second hand belongs to modernizers who long for the West’s prosperity and power. These iconoclasts and leaders of a new ijtihad are constantly veering from traditional customs and seeking out Western ideas, hoping to grab the West’s keys to success. Unfortunately, Islamic nations have been stuck at this fork for many years. They seek Islam’s glory days of old while simultaneously desiring the affluence, liberties, and power enjoyed in the West. They find themselves trying to travel down two divergent roads at once. In Islam’s earliest days, Muslims readily assimilated the inventions and scientific developments of conquered lands. After “The Closing,” however, there was a long period of disinterest in the thoughts, inventions, and science of Infidel foreigners. This disdain for Western innovation gradually changed as the Ottoman Empire, which considered itself to be the center of the Islamic world, whose Caliph carried authority similar to that of the Pope’s, began to lose wars and territory. In the face of these losses, the Islamic world became painfully aware of its backwardness. This realization launched a frantic Ottoman effort to reassert Islam’s long-held belief that Muslims were the best and most advanced people in the world. Initially, the only Ottoman goal was to import Western weapons and military tactics, but it was soon clear that these were only short-term fixes.408 To reestablish Ottoman supremacy, the Empire would have to harness and then surpass the West’s creative energy. Thus began a wholesale importation of Western ideas, inventions, and political philosophies into the House of Islam. The speed of Westernization accelerated with the 1904 discovery of Iranian oil,409 which was then followed by other oil discoveries throughout the Middle East. Western drilling technology 406

Ijtihad is the process of studying the Koran and Hadith to derive a ruling on a specific issue. More generally, Ijtihad can be considered a scholarly inquiry into the application of divine law based on Islamic holy texts. 407 How the Door of Ijtihad Was Closed, Islamic Voice, June 1998. 408 What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, by Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 20. 409 Blood & Oil: Memoirs of a Persian Prince, By Manucher Farmanfarmaian and Roxane Farmanfarmaian, Random House, 1997.

204

brought Western financing, and Middle-Eastern elites were soon awash with Western money. This money opened the floodgates of Western culture, with Middle Eastern elites giving their children Western educations and buying vast quantities of Western toys, such as automobiles, radios, televisions, and weapons. At a deeper level, the ascension of Western culture corresponded with a decline of Islamic culture. Islam’s great fall from grace followed the Ottoman Empire’s decision to enter World War I on the side of Austria and Germany. The Allies (France, Britain, Russia,410 Italy, and the United States) meted out harsh justice at the Treaty of Versailles. Like Germany and Austria, the Ottoman Empire lost vast territories, which were either liberated, absorbed by the victors, or made British, French, or Italian mandates. This loss was even more humiliating, though, because the Ottoman Sultan and Caliph, Mehmet V, had declared it to be a jihad – a Holy War. The devastating outcome of World War I meant that Allah, as well as the Ottoman Empire, had been defeated by the Infidels. As with Nazism and Communism, Islam’s political ideology soon fell into disrepute when its flagship nation fell. The final blow to Islamic statehood was Mustafa Kemal’s revolution in Turkey, which, in 1924, dismantled the Ottoman Empire, abolished the discredited caliphate, and left the leadership of Sunni Islam in disarray. Germany’s rage at the humiliations of World War I opened the door for Hitler’s revenge in World War II. In the Muslim world, rage at the loss of Islam’s flagship nation was initially more muted because many Arabs felt that the Caliphate had been stolen from them long ago by the Turks. These Arabs had allied themselves with Britain and France to liberate themselves from a reputedly illegitimate Ottoman Caliphate. Sadly, the Arabs soon came to see the mandates of Britain, France, and Italy as Christian occupations rather than European ones. To this day, there remains a raw sense of outrage against Christianity over the mandates. This outrage remains so fresh that the Muslim author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam wrote:411 With the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire…interfaith dialogue [took] on the tone of conquered and conquerors. The five nations that have done the most harm to the Muslim world – Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Russia – suppressed the teaching and practice of Islam and went to great lengths to set up missionary schools and other forms of institutional Christianity in the lands they controlled.

The inappropriateness of this interpretation becomes apparent when one notes that Ataturk’s secular revolution in Turkey did far more to dismantle political Islam and suppress Islamic practices than anything the Christian nations ever did.

410

Though Russia had been disabled by its own Bolshevik revolution and dropped out of the war after losing substantial territories. 411 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 17, section entitled Interfaith Dialogue, page 209.

205

The apparent triumph of Westernization in the House of Islam did not immediately create all of the benefits that Westernizers had hoped for. The reasons for this could fill volumes, but the bottom line is that the institutions of the West, which developed over centuries, were based on a set of political and economic practices whose benefits are not immediately obvious. The West had gone through a number of political and economic theories, and the ones that remained had survived difficult trials. The expectation that Western concepts would graft easily onto the social and cultural institutions of Islam without painful conflicts was a set-up for failure. Unfortunately, these problems have given Islam’s religious leaders a pretext for rejecting Western institutions altogether. As The Koran for Dummies puts it:412 Scholars have almost unanimously agreed that when the Muslim community strictly adheres to this concept of “enjoining good and forbidding evil [according to the Koran],” then it is given leadership as an exemplary community on earth. But, if the Muslim community leaves behind the practice of good [according to the Koran], fails to prevent evil [according to the Koran], and abandons sincere belief in One God [Allah], then it can no longer be considered the “best community.” … The Koran views striving for…God’s laws as a requirement for the social and moral preservation of the entire [Islamic] community. Many commentators, from the post-Islamic civilization period [post-World War I] in particular, argue that abandoning this responsibility causes the downfall of Muslim nations, which in their eyes have become subservient to the rest of the world instead of becoming its leaders.

Whenever Muslims perceive injustices around them, these religious leaders are quick to declare that “Islam is the solution!”413 In fact, this is the slogan that Hamas used during the 2006 Palestinian elections,414 to portray its opposition to Fatah415 as a battle between Islam and secularism, and it helped produce a landslide victory. This slogan is code for “Reject the Infidel West.” Unfortunately, these Muslim leaders have put the Islamic world into a difficult position because most modern ideas and institutions are not inherently Western. Instead, they represent progress in a universal sense. To reject these concepts because they came from the West is to reject progress and change in general. Therefore, the call of fundamentalists to revive Islam’s glory days actually sends the House of Islam back into the brutal and tribal past. What follows is a very brief summary of the roads that Islamic nations have chosen and how they have fared on their journeys:

412

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil, pages 238-239. 413 U.S. Muslims react to furor with deft diplomacy, by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, February 13, 2006 issue. 414 Rise of Hamas concerns brewers, by Matthew Gutman, USA Today, April 10, 2006, page 6A. 415 The political party of Yasser Arafat. It is secular in that its unifying goal is Palestinian nationhood rather than a particular religious agenda. It is a coalition of Palestinian Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and secularists.

206

Turkey Through the fierce leadership of native son Mustafa Kemal, hailed as Ataturk (“Father of the Turks”), Turkey resolved to pay the full price of change, and, after several tumultuous decades in the early 1900s, emerged as a secular and largely democratic nation. This remarkable achievement went so far as to offer religious freedoms similar to the West, despite its primarily Muslim population. Turkey’s ability to maintain this government for over 70 years has encouraged many Westerners to believe that Free Democracy can endure in the Islamic world. However, Turkey’s prospects may not be as bright as they appear. After many decades, its grasp of Western institutions remains tenuous. Despite its success in comparison to other Islamic nations, there is a powerful undercurrent of Islamic resentment toward its secular government. Turkey has been the victim of numerous Islamic terrorist bombings416 that were perpetrated by fundamentalists opposed to Turkey’s Western orientation. These attacks supplement those of Kurdish separatists, who are also Muslims but have an ethnic rather than religious axe to grind. Additionally, Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a member of the Justice and Development Party, which seeks to strengthen Islamic institutions within Turkey. Despite the attacks of extremists, Turkey is not as secular as its reputation leads many to believe. For example, it effectively supports Islam as the state religion by bankrolling imams and making Islamic teachings a required part of public education, regardless of a student’s religion.417 Extremists attack Turkey simply because it is not as Islamic as they would like. Turkey’s ostensibly secular government, along with the modernist clergy it employs, is in almost constant conflict with the Islamic traditions of its people. One point of conflict is the education of girls, as unveiled in the following article: Turkish campaign seeks to educate girls By Louis Meixler, Associated Press Writer, September 28, 2005 Van, Turkey –…Mehmet Sadik Altin, the local imam, charges up to a lopsided concrete home with a mud roof and demands to know why the five girls inside aren’t in class. “We don’t have money for bread,” Meryem Benek shouts…“How can I send my girls to school?” … Hundreds of teachers are combing city slums and rural villages as part of a massive national campaign to educate an estimated 520,000 Turkish girls who don’t go to school. How well they succeed could hold far-reaching consequences: Ankara begins entry talks with the European Union on Monday, and the focus will be on issues such as human rights, gender equality, and Turkey’s need to improve its economy. Already, many European countries are reluctant to accept such a huge and poor country. …

416

For examples, refer to the following articles: Bombings at Istanbul synagogues kill 23, FoxNews/Associated Press, November 16, 2003, and Bus blast kills 5 in Turkey, CBS News/Associated Press, July 16, 2005. 417 2002 Report on Human Rights Practices, U.S. Department of State, section entitled Turkey, subsection entitled Freedom of Religion.

207

It is…a difficult effort that clashes directly with Islamic…traditions dictating that girls don’t belong in the classroom. … In some poor provinces, officials estimate that at least half of girls do not go to school – despite the fact education is compulsory until the age of 14… … A key part of the campaign has been mobilizing imams like Altin – who under law must be government employees – to convince conservative Turks that Islam is not against educating girls. … “Allah’s first order to the Prophet Muhammad was ‘Read!’” Tanriant said. “Allah did not say ‘Read boys!’ or ‘Read girls!’” he explained, sitting in his office in the corner of a mosque.418 That view, however, is controversial in many areas…while government imams support the campaign, unofficial religious leaders have tried to undermine it. … In front of a nearby house, Selahattin Yildirim stood on the stoop, smoking. “Why ‘Hey Girls Let’s go to School?’” he asked. “It should be ‘Hey Boys.’ This is immoral. Why force people to send their girls to school?”

Turkey is an interesting case because its movement toward Free Democracy and Free Enterprise has brought it relative economic success, but at the expense of Islamic values and traditions. In fact, the driving force of its Westernization in recent years has been the government’s desire to join the European Union and reap economic benefits from membership. This goal has been hampered, though, by Turkey’s blemished human rights record, its support for North Cyprus, and an economy that, while outstanding among Islamic nations, is poor by European standards. To the extent that Turkey remains backward, its backwardness is a measure of the grasp that Islam still has on its culture and laws. The tension between Turkey’s traditional Islamic culture, and the Western culture championed by its government, can be seen in this recent article: EU starts historic Turkey membership talks MSNBC News, Associated Press, October 3, 2005 LUXEMBOURG - The European Union opened membership talks with Turkey early Tuesday — a historic first step that would transform the bloc by taking in a …Muslim nation and expanding its borders to Asia and the Middle East. … The negotiations came amid fears that rejecting the only Muslim EU candidate country could destabilize the Turkish government, which has staked its future on building ties with the West… … Washington also has showcased Turkey as an example of a Muslim country that is not only proWestern but also secular and democratic.

418

As a side-note, it is interesting to see a Muslim claim that Muhammad was ordered to “Read!” by the Angel Gabriel while Muslims simultaneously claim that Muhammad was illiterate. Other translations of the story of Muhammad and Gabriel say that Muhammad was ordered to “Recite!,” which makes more sense. The confusion arises from the fact that “recite” and “read” are both meanings of the same Arabic word, “qara’a”, which stands for reading aloud. Qara’a is the root word for Qur’an (Koran), which means Recitation.

208

But many Europeans have…concerns about admitting a poor and predominantly Muslim nation.

In other words, after over 70 years of governmental commitment to Western institutions, Turkey’s stability still hangs in the balance. After all this time, the acceptance of Free Democracy by its people still appears to depend on the lure of gaining access to the wealth and the economic prosperity of Europe, rather than the popular acceptance of Europe’s traditions of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. It is feared that any stop in momentum could cause the pendulum to swing back toward Islamic traditions. Still, Turkey’s leaders have progressed farther toward Free Democracy and Free Enterprise than other Islamic nations. While each nation has its own unique history, their common strategy has been to pick and choose their favorite democratic institutions without accepting the whole package. This creates appearances of progress without accomplishing real change, such as a president who bequeaths the presidency to his son (Syria), and a “consultative council” (instead of a parliament), whose members are appointed by the monarch rather than elected (Saudi Arabia). The dismal results of these half-hearted experiments confirm that a nation that puts the strictures of Islamic Law on its people will not enjoy the benefits of Free Democracy or Free Enterprise. While the prospects for progress in the House of Islam remain gloomy, there have been a few positive developments. One of them has been the revival of ijtihad. Unfortunately, the lack of any universally recognized clergy in the Muslim world,419 together with Islam’s tradition of resolving religious debates through war, has led to further strife. Moreover, the bounds of ijtihad remain limited. While the Koran and the Hadith can be reinterpreted, they cannot be rewritten.

Iran Iran is an Islamic nation that has managed to place a democratic veil over a theocracy. Its version of Islamic Democracy conducts popular elections, but requires all political candidates to be approved by the Guardian Council, a group of mullahs who act as Iran’s ultimate legal authority. Therefore, the people of Iran participate in elections, but the Guardian Council controls the outcome by eliminating candidates who do not subscribe to its views. Moreover, the membership of the Guardian Council is determined by one man, known as the Supreme Leader, whose sweeping powers control through proxy all aspects Iran’s governance, including the actions of Iran’s President. Ayatollah Khomeini was Iran’s first Supreme Leader, and his successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, is the current Supreme Leader. What may be most interesting about the office of Supreme Leader is the circular power loop it creates. That is, the Supreme Leader choses the members of the Guardian Council, who control the selection of another group called the Assembly of Experts, who, in turn, elect the Supreme Leader. In other words, Iran’s “Islamic Democracy” is not a democracy at all. All real power is concentrated in the hands of an elite circle of theocrats who pay lip service to democracy in the form of elections whose candidates they control.

419

How the Door of Ijtihad Was Closed , Islamic Voice, June 1998.

209

The net effect is a Shiite Islamic party reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.420 The most recent example of how this Shiite party controls electoral outcomes was the 2005 elections, where the Guardian Council eliminated all liberal and moderate candidates for President, plus thousands of liberal and moderate candidates for other offices. As a result, the presidency went to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an extreme hard-liner, and the nation as a whole took a hard turn toward global militancy. Although Iran looks like a democracy, this should not warm the hearts of the West. Not only are non-Muslims shut out of elected office, but Sunnis and liberal Shiites are excluded as well. Iran’s version of democracy does more than allow “the tyranny of the majority;” it actually uses this tyranny to serve Shiite interests. Therefore, there is nothing Free about Iran’s democracy. Ayatollah Khomeini and the other founders of Iran’s Islamic Republic were clever men. They recognized the need for participative government, and decided to serve that need through democratic elections. They also recognized that the only way to guarantee a Shiite government would be to have Shiite clerics choose the candidates. Therefore they designed a representative democracy that was guaranteed to always be Shiite. Unfortunately, by guaranteeing Shiite control, they disabled the democracy. Even worse, their Islamic blinders prevented them from realizing that they were destroying the democratic spirit they had dreamed of. What Ayatollah Khomeini did not recognize is that Shari’ah is fundamentally anti-democratic, because it represents an unchangeable body of laws. In Free Democracies, all laws are changeable, according to the will of the people, through the votes of elected representatives.421 Any attempt to impose Shari’ah on the democratic process puts suffocating constraints on legislators, because the only way to prevent un-Islamic laws is to create a body of religious overseers with veto power. This is what Iran actually does, because its Guardian Council does more than control who runs for office; it may also veto legislation that violates Shari’ah.

Other Islamic nations, and their relationships with the West While the world’s other Islamic nations all reject Free Democracy and Free Enterprise, they do so to varying degrees. Some are Islamic democracies, such as the nations whose constitutions were presented in the preceding chapter. Despite their Sunni foundations, these governments have more in common with Iran than with the United States. Other Islamic nations are monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, or dictatorships, such as Libya, or anarchies, such as Somalia. Regardless of their forms of government, these nations’ relationships with the West tend to fall into three categories: Expedient, Mercenary, and Alienated. 1. Expedient. These nations share few if any common values with the West, but ally themselves with the West for political expedience. For example, Pakistan is a strong ally of the United States in its War on Terror, but its attempts at democracy have stumbled time and again. It is currently a dictatorship under General Pervez Musharraf. Just a few years ago, Pakistan actively helped the Taliban establish its Islamic government in 420

Iran Elections Now In Doubt By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, CBS News, January 26, 3004. Even the United States Constitution has been subject to numerous changes. It has been amended 27 times in a little more than 200 years. 421

210

Afghanistan. The most obvious reason for Pakistan’s reversal in policy toward the Taliban is that it was on the brink of nuclear war with India at the time when President Bush declared “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”422 Pakistan’s leaders knew that if they continued to support the Taliban, which provided a safe haven for al Qaeda, the U.S. might rapidly join forces with India against it. To gauge the true sentiment of Pakistan’s people, note that General Musharraf pardoned Abdul Qadeer Khan, the “founding father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program,” after it was disclosed that Khan had sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.423 General Musharraf lives between a rock and a hard place: He had to support President Bush or run the risk of invoking America’s wrath. By doing so, however, he has exposed himself to several assassination attempts by Islamic fundamentalists,424 who accuse him of being either a Hypocrite or an Apostate. This is because Musharraf’s actions conflict directly with the wishes of many Pakistanis, who actively support the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Despite the actions of Musharraf, many of Pakistan’s religious leaders consider themselves at war with the West, particularly the United States. 2. Mercenary. These nations struggle with the self-perception that they are selling their

souls for material gain. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain are repressive Islamic monarchies that directly oppose Free Democracy. Their friendly relations with the West come from lucrative trade agreements that are simply too good to pass up. Besides a mutual desire for profit, there are few shared values between them and the West. To grasp how little the West shares with these “staunch allies,” 425 consider the following article: Saudi king cracks down on photos of women Reuters, MSNBC News, May 16, 2006 RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, under pressure from Islamists to curb reforms, has warned local media against showing pictures of Saudi women… … Newspapers have broken with tradition and have…begun printing photographs of Saudi women beside stories, usually with hair covered but faces showing, which many Wahhabi Islamists consider morally wrong. …

422

President George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001. 423 Pakistan: Secret nuclear network dismantled, Associated Press, MSNBC News, January 5, 2006. 424 Pakistan seeks six in assassination plots, by Paul Haven, Associated Press, August 19, 2004. 425 An example of the many references to these mercenary nations as “staunch allies” of the U.S. can be found in Sporadic fighting marks 4th day of violence in Gaza, West Bank, by Mike Hanna, Jerrold Kessel, with Associated Press & Reuters contributing, CNN.COM, October 1, 2000.

211

“There are photographs published in some newspapers...and one needs to think if he would want his daughter, sister or wife to appear like that. Of course, no one would,” the king was quoted as saying… ... In recent months, many figures in the powerful religious establishment have used mosque sermons, Internet forums and public debates to decry a wave of “liberalization” they fear will secularize the country along Western lines…

Oil profits, and the Western goods they purchase, have left citizens of these countries feeling uncomfortable. On one hand, they are able to live in luxury. On the other hand, they see Muhammad’s Hypocrites in themselves. In addition, their religious leaders are quick to accuse their governments of siding with the Infidel West against Muslim brothers, as the Islamic scholar Hasa al-Banna alleges in a tract that rants against Islam’s mercenary leaders and their European allies:426 The Europeans worked assiduously to enable the tide of this materialistic life, with its corrupting traits and its murderous germs, to overwhelm all the Islamic lands… They laid their plans for this social aggression in masterly fashion, invoking the aid of the political acumen and the military predominance until they had accomplished their desire. They deluded the Muslim leaders by granting them loans and entering into financial dealings with them, making all of this easy and effortless for the economy and to flood their countries with their capital, their banks, and their companies; to take over the workings of the economic machinery as they wished; and to monopolize, to the exclusion of the inhabitants, enormous profits and immense wealth. After that they were able to alter the basic principles of government, justice, and education, and to imbue political, juridical and cultural systems with their own peculiar character in even the most powerful Islamic countries… This being insufficient for them, they founded schools, and scientific and cultural institutes in the very heart of the Islamic domain, which cast doubt and heresy into the very souls of its sons and taught them…to regard as sacred anything…which had a European source …

Islamic doctrine has taught the citizens of these mercenary Islamic nations to despise the House of War and its Infidel citizens. Therefore, they loathe their dependence on Western trade and call their governments sell-outs for allowing the West to corrupt their morals. Similarly, they accuse the West of cynically propping up undemocratic monarchies for the sake of oil and trade.427 This perception of corruption and social injustice, together with the free time that wealth provides, has led many young people in these nations to turn to religious studies. These young people have become vital sources of support for al Qaeda, as well as the other militant factions that battle against their rulers.428 Beneath the apparent prosperity of 426

Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna: a Selection from majmu’at rasail al imam al shahid hasan al-banna, translated by Charles Wendel, Berkely: University of California Press, 1979, pages 27-28. 427 Saudi Arabia: Kingdom on Edge, by Frank Viviano, National Geographic magazine, October 2003. 428 Ibid.

212

these nations is an undercurrent of destabilizing forces that could rise up at any time, as it did during Iran’s Islamic Revolution. For their parts, the ruling classes rationalize their trade with the West by using profits to finance pro-Islamic activities around the world. Their money allows them to pursue a global Islamic revolution through more subtle means. For example: •

Founding and financing mosques in areas that would otherwise not be able to support them financially. These mosques tend to far exceed the capacity needed to serve the existing Muslim population and act as distribution centers for hateliterature, as the following London Times article reveals: Lessons in hate found at leading mosques October 30, 2007, Sean O’Neill, Security Editor … Books calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain indoors and forbidding interfaith marriage are being sold inside some of Britain’s leading mosques, according to research seen by The Times. Some of the fundamentalist works were found at the bookshop in the London Central mosque in Regent’s Park, which is funded by the Saudi regime and is regularly visited by government ministers. Its director, Ahmad al-Dubayan, is also a Saudi diplomat and was among those greeting King Abdullah when he arrived in Britain last night for his official state visit. Extremist literature, including passages supporting the stoning of adulterers and waging violent jihad, was also found on sale at many other mosques regarded as mainstream institutions. More than 80 books and pamphlets were collected during a year-long project in which researchers visited 100 mosques across Britain. … The researchers found hardline material at a quarter of the 100 mosques visited during the project. The report said: “On the one hand, the results were reassuring: in only a minority of institutions – approximately 25 per cent – was radical material found. “What is more worrying is that these are among the best-funded and most dynamic institutions in Muslim Britain – some of which are held up as mainstream bodies. Many of the institutions featured here have been endowed with official recognition.” A key theme of the books was a “strident sectarianism” which told Muslims that they should remain separate from other faiths and resist integration. The report stated: “Simply put, these notions demand that the individual Muslim must not merely feel deep affection for and identity with his fellow believers and with all that is authentically Islamic. The individual Muslim must also feel an abhorrence for nonbelievers, hypocrites, heretics, and all that is deemed ‘unIslamic’. The

213

latter category encompasses those Muslims who are judged to practise an insufficiently rigorous form of Islam.” … The report called for a radical overhaul of Britain’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, which it argued has a “powerful and malign” influence over British Islam and sponsored the export of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine.

As a testimony to British denial, note the sense of comfort the researchers found in discovering that “only…25 per cent” of the mosques carried radical literature. This is cause for alarm, not comfort. •

Founding and financing Islamic schools (called madrassas)429 around the world. Over the past few decades, funding has focused particularly on the West, cultivating Islamic radicalism in some of the very hearts of Western culture, as the Associated Press reports: Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school The books say it’s OK for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts Wed., June. 11, 2008 McLEAN, Va. - Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday. Other passages in the school's textbooks state that "the Jews conspired against Islam and its people" and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed "polytheists." The passages were found in selected textbooks used during the 2007-08 school year by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax and receives much of its funding from the Saudi government…

George P. Shultz (former Secretary of State) and R. James Woolsey (former CIA Director) recently wrote an article that described the magnitude of this subversion:430 Estimates of the amount spent by the Saudis in the last 30 years spreading Wahhabi431 beliefs throughout the world vary from $70 billion to $100 billion. Furthermore, some oil-rich families of the Greater Middle East fund terrorist groups directly. Whether in lectures in the madrassas of Pakistan, in textbooks printed by Wahhabis for Indonesian schoolchildren, or on bookshelves of mosques in the U.S., the hatred spread by Wahhabis and funded by oil is evident

429

A Madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Also spelled madrasah, madrash, medresa, or madressa. The Petroleum Bomb, by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Mechanical Engineering, October 2005. 431 Wahhabism is a fundamentalist Islamic sect that has strong and close historical ties to the leaders of Saudi Arabia. This sect has been granted near-governmental powers over the nation by Saudi rulers. 430

214

and influential. •

Founding and financing Islamic Studies programs and colleges and universities throughout the West. Below are just a few examples of the prestigious American universities that have accepted donations of tens of millions of dollars from wealthy Middle Easterners to found Islamic Studies programs. Some examples: o

o

o

•

“The world’s fifth wealthiest man, Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, is donating $20 million to Harvard to expand Islamic studies”432 “In December 2005, the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU) received a $20 million dollar gift from HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal…This endowed fund is the second largest single gift in Georgetown University history.”433 "Because the King Fahd Middle East Studies Program is based on bilateral projects, the entire University [of Arkansas] and all its disciplines have had opportunities to participate…Funded by a generous $21.5 million gift from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the program is now in its sixth year.”434

Engaging in “Libel Terrorism” and “Libel Tourism,” where wealthy Muslims, usually from the Middle East, use crushing lawsuits to silence those who speak up about Islam. For such billionaires, it is easy to travel to Western nations to pursue endless litigation. The Boston Globe describes an example case:

'Libel tourism' and the war on terror By Samuel A. Abady and Harvey Silverglate, November 7, 2006 … Rachel Ehrenfeld, an adviser to the Defense Department and director of the New Yorkbased American Center for Democracy, pioneered investigation into the financial roots of terrorism… One target of Ehrenfeld's work is Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, former owner of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia and former chief operating officer of the scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International… In "Funding Evil," Ehrenfeld reported that bin Mahfouz deposited "tens of millions of dollars in London and New York directly into terrorist accounts" and transferred some $74 million to the International Islamic Relief Organization and the Muwafaq Foundation run by Yasin al-Qadi, a US-designated terrorist. Bin Mahfouz would have little chance to silence his accusers by a libel action in US courts…No other nation goes as far to protect speech. Indeed, outside the United States, truth is often not a defense to allegations of defamation…[such as in]…Britain, Canada, Australia, or any of the 41 member states of the Council of Europe. Bin Mahfouz and fellow libel tourists have made the English libel bar rich, leading the London Times to declare the United Kingdom the "libel capital of the Western 432

Islamic Studies Gets $20M Gift, Samuel P. Jacobs, Harvard Crimson, December 13, 2005. About ACMCU, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding website, http://cmcu.georgetown.edu/about/ 434 Saudi Minister of Education and Delegation Sign Cooperative Agreements with University of Arkansas, Daily Headlines, May 28, 1999, http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/858.htm. 433

215

world." English lawyers now refer to the "Arab effect" to describe the surge of English libel actions by wealthy, non resident Arabs accused of funding terrorism. This trend has produced a succession of rulings, settlements, and damage awards against English and American media defendants costing millions of pounds. Bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened suit in England 33 times against those who linked him to terrorism. He runs a website boasting of his victories. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post all have settled with him. The English court enjoined publication of "Funding Evil" in Britain and awarded bin Mahfouz 60,000 pounds ($109,470), even though the merits of his allegations were never tried.

Is it any wonder that the Western press is strangely quiet and timid about connecting Islam with terrorism?

Thus, despite the din of their less sophisticated citizens, the oil-rich leaders of mercenary Islamic nations have prosecuted a subtle but effective soft jihad aimed at undermining the very nations that enrich them.

3. Alienated. Alienated nations flounder in states of chaos. They either have no valuable natural resources, or they are unable to organize themselves enough to extract them. They are typically not of immediate strategic or political importance to the West. Two examples of such nations, which have commanded recent attention, are Somalia and Sudan. Their histories illustrate the conditions of alienated nations in general:

Somalia Somalis reject the tenets of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise and are hostile to the Infidel West. However, because they do not have vast natural resources, they are unable to act on their hostility. Despite their lack of means, Somali hostility is clear. In the early 1990s, Somalia was in a state of complete chaos. The preceding decades had seen colonization by Italy and Britain, followed by an independent government that attempted to reconcile democracy with Islamic tribal values. This period ended with a coup by General Mahammad Siad Barre, whose “scientific socialism” attempted to combine Islam with Communism. He also maintained close relations with the Soviet Union. Siad Barre’s government deteriorated into a dictatorship over the course of the next decade. During the 1980s, his grip on power also eroded, resulting in a revolt in 1988 by the United Somali Congress (USC) under General Mahammad Faarah Aidid. By 1991 there was no functioning government and the remaining social structures were based on a combination of clan traditions and Islam.435 These rival clans engaged in bloody battles for dominance, and their methods included burning rivals’ crops and cutting off their resources, to starve each others’ civilian populations. These battles combined with a drought to create widespread famine. In response, the 435

Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Country Studies: Somalia. See www.loc.gov/rr/frd/.

216

United Nations launched a major effort, known as UNOSOM I (United Nations Operations in SOMalia I), to bring food and aid to the starving people. When the convoys arrived, competing warlords attacked them and confiscated the supplies for themselves, preventing them from reaching rival groups. The United Nations then took up an offer from the U.S. to help create a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian aid. Thus began Operation Restore Hope, through the Unified Task Force (UNITAF), a multi-national force led by the United States, which supplied 28,000 out of 45,000 troops. Its mission was to secure ports, airports, and supply lines to bring humanitarian aid to the starving people. While UNITAF was able to stem the immediate humanitarian crisis, the political situation remained chaotic.436 The United Nations therefore started UNOSOM II, whose mandate was to “assist…the Somali people in rebuilding their economic, political and social life, through achieving national reconciliation so as to recreate a democratic Somali State.”437 What ensued was a battle between the UN and Somali tribal forces. These tribes opposed the UN disarmament programs and aimed to defend their clannish and Islamic ways against democracy. On June 5, 1993, UN troops attempted to shut down General Aidid’s radio station because it was broadcasting inflammatory messages against them. In response, General Aidid’s militiamen repelled UN forces, killing 23 Pakistani UN troops in the process. The United States then embarked on an expensive and bloody 5-month manhunt for Aidid. By the end of the manhunt, dozens of U.S. and UN troops were killed, as well as hundreds of Somalis, but Aidid remained at large. In October of 1993, the U.S. ended its search for Aidid after 18 U.S. soldiers were killed, with some of the soldiers corpses dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.438 This showcase of brutality was immortalized by the movie Black Hawk Down.439 In 1995, the UN terminated UNOSOM II after the loss of 153 peacekeeper lives and an expenditure of 1.6 billion dollars. Somalia continues to this day in a state of bloody chaos. One of the few things that unite Somalis is hatred of the West. It is clear that those in power would prefer their traditional bloody ways to modern democracy, which they view as foreign, Infidel, and a threat to their own power. What is the lifestyle that Somali traditions give its people? The following Washington Times article provides a glimpse: Dying for water in Somalia’s drought By Emily Wax, The Washington Post, April 14, 2006 RABDORE, Somalia - Villagers call it the “War of the Well,” a battle that erupted between two clans over control of a watering hole in this dusty, drought-stricken trading town.

436

United Nations Operations in Somalia I, United Nations Department of Public Information, August 31, 1996. See www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm. 437 United Nations Operations in Somalia II, United Nations Department of Public Information, August 31, 1996. See www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2.htm. 438 Somalia Starts Over After Government-Free Decade, by Karl Vick, Washington Post, December 20, 2000. 439 2001, directed by Ridley Scott

217

By the time it ended two years later, 250 men were dead. Now there are well widows, well warlords, and well warriors. … In Somalia, a well is as precious as a town bank, controlled by warlords and guarded with weapons… … “Even when local people are good and plan out water catchment systems, warlords just take it over. That's why we have so many people drinking horrible water with worms and dirt and getting very ill,” said Abdul Rashid, a Somali nurse in Rabdore…

Sudan Sudan has had a long history of foreign control and civil war, ever since the early days of Islam. One of Sudan’s historic weaknesses has been its multitude of ethnic fault lines, especially between its largely Muslim north and Christian-animist south, and between its Arab and black populations, regardless of faith. In 1956, Sudan gained independence from Britain. Six years later, civil war broke out because the South feared Islam’s growing power in the north. In a 1969 coup, Jaafar Numeiri took control of the country and, in 1972, signed a peace treaty that gave the South partial autonomy. In 1978, oil was discovered in southern Sudan. This discovery, which should have brought prosperity to the nation, inflamed old hostilities instead, as the North and South vied for control over the oil. In 1983, Numeiri declared Shari’ah to be the law of the land, and thereby triggered a new outbreak of civil war. This conflict provoked a military coup in 1985, which was subsequently replaced by a democratically elected government in 1986. Three years later, the democratic government was overpowered in another coup, this time by Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir. Al-Bashir, together with his National Islamic Front (NIF), abolished Sudan’s parliament, established an Islamic state, and reimplemented Shari’ah. In his effort to crush the non-Muslim South, al-Bashir used starvation tactics against the areas stricken with famine. International humanitarian aid intended for the victims was diverted to the Muslim North instead. In response to this confiscation, the U.S. stopped sending humanitarian aid to Sudan in 1990. When the Gulf War erupted in 1991, Sudan sided with Iraq. After the war, Sudan opened its doors to Osama bin Laden and gave him safe haven, along with free reign to develop 23 terrorist training camps. Sudan’s leaders eventually asked bin Laden to leave, but only upon Saudi Arabia’s request in 1996.440 Bizarrely, Sudan was a member of the UN Human Rights Commission from 1993 to 1995. Its membership allowed Sudan to block UN efforts to investigate and combat Sudanese human rights violations.441

440

The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 15, sections entitled Starving for a fight and A match made in paradise?, pages 234, 235. 441 Information published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and available at www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm.

218

In 1999, the oil that had been discovered in the South began to be exported, bringing substantial income to the nation. In the ensuing battles for that income, the government collaborated with Islamic militias to systematically enslave or eliminate millions of Christians, Polytheists, and non-Arab Muslims in the southern and western parts of the country.442 From 1998 to 2000, Sudan was again able to block UN actions, through its renewed membership on the UN Human Rights Commission.443 While Sudan’s war with the South was settled by a peace agreement in 2005,444 the conflict in the Darfur region continues to rage. In this region, the government collaborates with Arabic militias, called Janjaweed, to displace, enslave, or wipe out hundreds of thousands of black Muslims, because their race is considered inferior.445 In response to international protests, Sudan initially agreed to call off the Janjaweed, but then balked at taking action. As a result, international sanctions were imposed by a UN Resolution.446 Sudan’s tale of woe in Darfur is far from over, and if history has taught anything, more trouble can be expected in the South. As it stands, the South is largely autonomous, complete with its own legislature and ample access to oil funds for rebuilding its infrastructure. The key point here is that the government of the South, which desires Free Democracy, could only achieve its goal by separating from the North, which desires Shari’ah. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this dual system as the years pass. The examples of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Sudan reveal that the prospects for Free Democracy in the Islamic world are grim. At best, Free Democracy barely survives. At worst, it either deforms into something oppressive or dies completely. Sadly, despite logic and evidence, many Muslims are in complete denial regarding Islam’s incompatibility with Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. Rashid Khalidi, in his book, Resurrecting Empire, provides insight into how this denial works, when he discusses the difficulties of establishing democracy in the Arab world: 447 …[the] “democratic deficit” in the Arab world has absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion. Only…ignorance allows so many…“experts”…to make such claims, which are belied by the thriving democracies in three of the largest Muslim countries in the world: Indonesia, 442

Buying the freedom of slaves in Sudan Contributor: Associated Press, CNN, December 20, 1997. Information published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and available at: www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm. 444 Documents that define this agreement include The Implementation Modalities of the Protocol on Power Sharing, dated 26th May, 2004, The Implementation Modalities of the Framework Agreement on Wealth Sharing, dated 7th January, 2004, and Southern Kordofan Annex, State of Southern Kordofan, Final and approved Text of 21st December, 2004. All of these documents are available through the United States Institute of Peace, an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts, established in 1984. 445 Muslim killing Muslim in Sudan, by Sudarsan Raghavan, Knight Ridder NewsService, June 20, 2004. 446 UN council OKs resolution to act on Sudan crisis, by Jonathan Wald, CNN, July 30, 2004. 447 Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 2, entitled America, the West, and Democracy in the Middle East, page 62. 443

219

Bangladesh, and Malaysia, not to speak of Turkey, Iran, and all the Arab countries that once had parliamentary systems. …Egypt did not cease to be a Muslim country during the thirty years it experienced parliamentary government, from 1922 to 1952, nor was it because of Islam that democracy failed in Egypt (or elsewhere in the Middle East). It had much more to do with the fact that the parliamentary system, and the Egyptian regime in general, were so co-opted and undermined by Britain that they were incapable of ending the seventy-two-year-old British military occupation or solving the country’s many other pressing problems.

Khalidi has an interesting theory, but he fails to address this question: If the “democratic deficit” “has absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion,” and its failure is due to British occupation, then why are only the Islamic members of the former British Empire so markedly unsuccessful in establishing Free Democracies, after nearly fifty years of independence? The answer is that Islam teaches Muslims to believe unquestioningly that Islamic ways are superior to all others; therefore all problems must be due to the corruption or interference of Infidels. To doubt Islam’s wisdom and law is tantamount to Apostasy.

The House of Islam’s relationships with specific non-Islamic nations Islam’s early period of expansion, followed by decline and loss of political control, has created a messy mix of Muslim populations in lands that are otherwise non-Islamic. In addition, a resurgence of Islamic expansionism and fervency has created problems in places where Islam had previously not been a factor. This section summarizes examples of nations that have been particularly affected by Islam’s spirit of Jihad. While it cannot portray the complete story of any single country, its snapshots reveal a composite image of Islam’s history with non-Islamic lands. The picture one gets is of a religion that spreads violence, rules through oppression, and leaves chaos.

Israel Though it is not geographically a part of the West, Israel’s history, population, and political institutions make it an enclave of Western culture in a region that the House of Islam considers its own. Long before the time of Muhammad, Israel’s territory was known as the Land of the Jews. In about 1200 BC, the nomadic Twelve Tribes of Israel invaded it and claimed it as their own. In around 1000 BC, King Saul established his kingdom there, which was expanded by his successors King David and King Solomon. Decades later, it was divided into Israel and Judah. Centuries later, Israel was conquered by Assyria, and a century and a half after that, Judah was conquered by Babylon, but restored by Babylon’s conqueror, Persia. Under Imperial Rome, it was a province known as Judea. In about 70 AD, it was crushed by Rome in response to an insurrection. The resulting dispersal of Jewish communities throughout Europe, Africa, and Asia, which was exacerbated by the crushed Bar Kochba revolt against Rome in 135 AD, became known as the Diaspora. Despite their dispersal in foreign lands, these communities maintained their Jewish identity, complete with laws, holidays, and legal authorities, based on that of ancient Israel. This identity limited Jewish integration into host nations, and caused them to be labeled as members of a nation that no longer existed geographically. In a sense, the Jewish nation had reverted to its

220

tribal origins, somewhat reminiscent of the twelve nomadic tribes that wandered under Moses’ unifying leadership, where membership was defined purely according to blood line and adherence to Talmudic customs. In the Islamic world, with Shari’ah’s tribal orientation, this tribal incarnation of Judaism fit with Islam’s notions of governance. Jewish communities were simply subject tribes that paid tribute to Islamic authorities and acknowledged Muslim superiority. In the West, however, Jews were often perceived to be a subversive nation within a nation, a people that lived by their own rules and served their own interests above those of the state. Because of this, they were not considered simply wrong-headed and degenerate, as they were in the Islamic world. In the West, Jews were often seen as an overt threat to sovereignty. While all Jews lamented their status as a people without a country, modern Israel was born out of the religious persecution that Jews suffered specifically in Europe. In the late 1800s, a Jewish visionary named Theodore Herzl began the Zionist movement, which encouraged Jews to buy land in the Ottoman Empire and re-establish a Jewish homeland. The weak and crumbling Ottomans inadvertently abetted this immigration through several policies that Zionists used to their advantage. These policies included: • • •

Seeking to build political support in places where Arabs were hostile to Turkish rule by creating immigrant communities indebted the Ottomans. Populating and modernizing underdeveloped provinces by opening them to settlement by Europeans. Appeasing Western allies by according non-Muslims equal status under Ottoman law.

To appreciate how undeveloped Jerusalem and its surroundings were at the time, note that Jerusalem’s population during the 1890 census was only about 36,000. This city had existed for thousands of years, and should have been a prospering tourist destination for millions of pilgrims. Instead, it was a sleepy backwater town. Although Germans, Russians, Frenchmen, and Englishmen all established communities in the area, Zionists responded far more than all of the others combined. At first, hostility toward Jews was relatively low compared to what they experienced in Europe, and Jews were permitted to buy land freely. However, they arrived in such great numbers that the Ottomans eventually sought to limit Jewish immigration. By this time, though, the genie was out of the bottle. The Zionist dream of a Jewish homeland had captured Jewish imaginations around the world, and they continued to immigrate and purchase land regardless of law. After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned into Turkey, the French mandates of Syria and Lebanon, and the British mandates of Trans-Jordan and Iraq. When England prepared to administer its mandates, its Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, decided to accede to heavy petitioning from Jews for a Jewish homeland defined largely by the properties purchased by Jews during Ottoman times. This homeland, named Palestine, was carved from Trans-Jordan. Its official status soon brought Jewish immigration to new heights.

221

Not surprisingly, Palestine’s natives perceived this flood as a foreign invasion. Thus began the conflicts between indigenous Palestinians and Jewish immigrants. After World War II, and in the wake of the Holocaust, worldwide sympathy for Jews encouraged an even greater flow to Palestine. This surge of immigrantion brought the simmering conflict with natives to a boiling point, and the escalation of distrust and malice that had built over the decades turned into a vicious total war. Detailed accounts of this war, as recorded in books like O Jeruslaem!,448 reveal no honorable side, only deception, betrayal, ruthlessness, implacable hatred, and blood lust, a sickening record of man’s cruelty toward man. Today, each side looks back at the atrocities of the other to justify its own behavior, and they continue this war through treacheries large and small, and propaganda battles for world sympathy. To an outside observer, it appears that the native Palestinians have a legitimate grievance. However, their behavior has been so uncooperative and uncouth that they undermine sympathetic impulses that might otherwise lead world opinion to side with them, as the following brief history illustrates. The Middle East for Dummies provides a concise and sanitized summary of the events that led to the founding of Israel. It starts by describing the Arab response to Jewish mass-immigration in the 1920s:449 …the Arabs didn’t stand by idly watching events take place. Their frustration with continued developments led to a series of particularly violent revolts in the 1920s and 1930s. The discovery of a secret Jewish arms cache in 1935 forced an alliance between Arab factions, called the Arab Higher Commission (AHC) the following year. Heading the AHC, Hajj Muhammad Amin al Husseini rejected a British proposal for a joint legislative council of Arabs and Jews in 1936. The next year he also rejected the British Pell Commission’s suggestion of a partition of Palestine. Eventually he fled Palestine to Lebanon and spent his time attempting to lead Arab opposition in exile [The author discretely fails to mention that al Husseini joined forces with Adolf Hitler, as described later in this book under the sections entitled “Yugoslavia” and “Germany”]. Forming modern day Israel Unable to contain the violence, the British decided to withdraw from Palestine. A series of key developments determined the formation of the modern state of Israel: • • • •

1947: Through Resolution 181, the fledgling United Nations resolves to partition Palestine, giving roughly half to the Jews and half to the Arabs. The Jews accept, but the Arabs reject the resolution. May 14, 1948: The British Mandate ends as the last British high commissioner withdraws from Palestine. May 14, 1948: The Jewish National Council declares Israel an independent state. May 1948…: Immediately, the First Arab-Israeli War erupts. As a result, Israel gains nearly half of the Palestinian share of the land…

448

O Jerusalem!, by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Simon and Shuster, 1972. The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 6, entitled The Modern Middle East, pages 88 – 89. 449

222

In this last bullet, the author glosses over the question of how the First Arab-Israeli war started, but seems to imply Israeli aggression. Fortunately, a clearer picture of events can be found at Jordan’s official website for former King Hussein bin Talal, a source that cannot be accused of Zionist sympathies. It states: “Immediately after the proclamation of the state of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq sent troops to join with Jordanian forces in order to defend their brethren, the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.”450 In other words, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq joined forces and attacked Israel. Continuing with the history provided by The Middle East for Dummies: • •

1949: After the war, the Palestinians basically say, “Okay, we’ll accept U.N. Resolution 181. Give us back our land.” 1949: The Jews more or less say, “No way! Too late! You had your chance.”…

This development left 600,000 Israelis in charge of nearly ¾ of the land, and 1.2 million Arabs to eke out a living on the remaining ¼, although some 700,000 of those Palestinians became refugees, mostly in Trans-Jordan. The Israelis made two important decisions that further affected the population. • •

They allowed the Arabs living within Israel’s new borders to remain and eventually awarded them Israeli citizenship. The 1950 Law of Return encouraged the immigration of any Jew living anywhere in the world.

Despite Israel’s apparent liberality toward its remaining Arab population, the idea of living under Jewish authority was an anathema to most of the native Muslims and Christians. President Nasser of Egypt expressed the popular sentiment when he declared, “Israel’s existence is itself an act of aggression. We accept no kind of coexistence with it.”451 Therefore, many of the Palestinian Arabs chose to become exiles, setting up refugee camps in what has come to be known as the Palestinian Territories, as well as in nearby Arab lands. Instead of accepting Israeli citizenship or simply moving on to other parts of the world, these Palestinians chose to live in refugee camps and wait for the day when they could reclaim Israel for the House of Islam. In other words, the Arab-Israeli war has not ended; it had simply assumed a latent form, waiting for its opportunity to flare up again. The entire Middle East was outraged at the thought of Jews usurping Muslim land, and a universal cry rose up to destroy Israel. However, the series of wars that followed each ended in Israel’s favor, sometimes with an expansion of territory. This outraged the Arab nations even more, and deepened their sense of humiliation and hatred. In the face of this hatred, Israel has tried to secure peace treaties by offering back some of the land acquired through war. This “Land for Peace” policy has resulted in peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan. Israel has also tried to use this policy to establish peace with the Palestinians.

450

See www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_palestine.html The right question: Do we take his words seriously?, by Dr. Steve Carol, Center for Advanced Middle East Studies, January 11, 2006. See www.cames.ws/2006_01_01_camesblog_archive.html. 451

223

It gave substantial territories to them, which are now governed by the Palestinian Authority, and promised to work with the Authority to establish an independent Palestinian nation. Despite some progress, these developments have not even come close to normalizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Israel’s treaties with Egypt and Jordan were purchased by giving away substantial territories, and they did little to build a genuine sense of comity. In fact, their unfriendly relations have given rise to a new term: “Cold Peace.” In the case of the Palestinians, Israel found that its land concessions were not interpreted as an olive branch, but as a retreat, and as a military victory for the organizations attacking Israel. Therefore, the Palestinians simply become more aggressive, illustrating the old Barberi saying, “Whoever acts like a sheep the wolf will eat.” Even worse, the Palestinians elected Hamas, whom they credited for the Israeli “retreat,” to lead the Palestinian government. The official charter of Hamas calls unequivocally for Israel’s annihilation. Israel’s other neighbors only refrain from attacking because they fear that they might lose. A disturbing aspect of Israel’s recent history is its motivation for giving away the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Israel’s leaders realized that if they kept the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the rapidly growing Palestinian populations (the average number of children per woman is greater than 4452) would soon give Muslims an absolute majority in Israel. If this were to happen, Israel would have to either renounce its claim of being a Free Democracy or succumb to an Islamic majority at the ballot box. Today, Israel stands in the crosshairs of a hatred that has spread from its neighbors to the entire Islamic world. In fact, when Muslims today want to decide whether a nation is hostile to Islam, their acid test is that nation’s policy toward Israel. Any leniency toward Israel is met with an outrage that is unreceptive to discussion or reason, and indignant at the thought of having to explain why Israel is illegitimate and the Palestinian war against it is valid. At first glance, Muslim outrage seems justified. However, a deeper look reveals a one-sided recollection of history that is characteristic of extreme bias. While decrying the inability of Palestinians to find work in Israel, because of barriers that hinder transportation back and forth from Palestinian lands, they ignore the reason for the barriers: terror attacks that were blowing up the very businesses where Palestinians claimed they wanted to work. Furthermore, Islamic nations have provided scant support to their own Palestinian exiles, the majority of whom continue to languish without the rights of citizenship in refugee camps founded nearly sixty years ago.453 454 It is ironic that Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy more freedom than their brothers in Islamic lands, regardless of whether those Palestinians live in refugee camps. Palestinian Israelis

452

Populations and Demographic Developments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip until 1990, a study prepared by Dr. Wael R. Ennab, presented at the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), June 28, 1994. 453 In-depth study of Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, published in February, 2000 by Fafo (an independent research foundation founded by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions in 1982) in a joint research project with the Jordan. 454 Why are Palestinians still living in refugee camps? Where are they from and why don’t they go home? published by The U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation of Palestine. Website: www.endtheoccupation.org.

224

represent about 18% of Israel’s population and hold about 10 seats in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament).455 Incidentally, the United States has also been far kinder to Palestinian exiles than the Islamic world has been. Many Palestinians have immigrated to the United States and enjoy full citizenship. Obviously, Muslims are not outraged by the mistreatment of Palestinians living under the rule of Israel or its allies. One can only conclude that the true motivation behind Muslim outrage is the knowledge that Jews, particularly foreign Jews, have gained political control over a land that Muslims claim for Islam. Even worse, those Jews have rebuffed attacks and prospered economically while surrounding Muslim lands languish in poverty. Israel’s success is, by itself, an insult to both Islam and Arab pride. Another way to see through the fog of Palestinian/Muslim outrage, as well as Israel’s own claims of victimhood, is to notice the inability of either side to find a solution to their land disputes. The land currently being fought over is a thin strip along the West Bank that approximates Israel’s pre-1967 border. Israel’s leaders want to release most of the West bank because of the high Muslim population. Similarly, most Muslim leaders have declared that they would accept Israel if it returned to its 1967 borders, ceding outer areas to the Palestinian Authority. The disputed ribbon of land, claimed by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel, consists of less than 50 square miles. This is a miniscule quantity, even when compared to the rest of the Palestinian Territories. Moreover, most of this land is infertile and relatively unsettled. Sadly, Israelis have been nearly as hard-headed regarding territory as the Palestinians. An interesting indicator of Israeli attitudes comes from a BBC article on Israeli settlers’ resistance to their forced removal from the Gaza Strip in 2006:456 …as bulldozers moved towards the outpost, protestors linked arms around the buildings due to be demolished and pelted the troops with stones, paint-filled balloons and eggs. When the settlers resisted the eviction, troops wielding sticks charged the crowds and scuffles broke out. … “They are treating people here like Arabs,” Arieh Eldad of the National Union Party told Israel Radio.

Despite Israel’s heavy hand in the Palestinian Territories, it has three compelling arguments in its favor regarding this ribbon of land: •

The West Bank territory was won in a war where Israel was not the aggressor. The 1967 Six Day War is famous in Israel and infamous among Arabs because it is the war that handed the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Sinai Peninsula to Israel. Its

455

The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 6, entitled The Modern Middle East, page 139. 456 Settlers clash with Israeli troops, BBC News, February 1, 2006.

225

stage was set on May 16th, 1967, when Egypt’s President Nasser ordered UN Peacekeepers to evacuate the Sinai Peninsula so that they would not be caught up in an impending war. The Peacekeepers immediately complied because they were equipped to maintain peace, not fight. With the Peacekeepers out of the way, Nasser declared war on Israel on May 18th, saying: As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.457

In the days that followed, other Arab leaders chimed in with similar calls for Israel’s extermination. However, action was delayed while Syria haggled with Egypt and Jordan over who would command the exterminating army. Confronted with this impending onslaught, Israel took advantage of the delay. On June 5, it launched a surprise attack on Egypt’s Air Force and virtually wiped it out. With the forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in disarray, Israel rapidly took command of all theaters and pacified the Arab nations.458 Some may claim that Israel was the aggressor in this war because it actually fired the first shot. However, reasonable people would think it absurd for a nation to sit idly while its enemies on three sides moved ahead with announced plans to exterminate it. War was clearly declared on Israel, and Israel acted in self-defense. •

By the rights of conquest that every victorious country has ever lived by, the West Bank Territory is Israel’s to give away, and they can give away as much or as little as they desire. Again, it is absurd to think that a nation is obligated to give away territory won in a defensive war, particularly when the aggressors did not seek conquest, but extermination.

•

We can be certain that if the Arab nations had won, they would have been far less generous to the Israelis than the Israelis have been to them. In the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, only Arab nations, together with their Islamic allies, have used phrases like “total war,” “exterminate,” and “wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.”459 In contrast, the language of Israel has consistently been defensive. It insists on its right to exist, but also demonstrates a willingness to trade away land for solid peace agreements. Israel’s language and actions do not demonstrate a desire for conquest, much less a desire to exterminate any group of people.

457

The Case For Israel, by Isi Leibler, Australia: The Globe Press, 1972, page 60. The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 11, entitled The Powder Keg: Israel and Palestine, pages 141 – 144. 459 Blair ‘revolted’ by ‘destroy Israel’ call of Iranian president, by Sam Knight, The Times (U.K.), October 27, 2005. 458

226

To citizens of a nation like the United States, which acquired a number of territorial claims from other nations by purchasing them,460 an obvious solution suggests itself: Either Israel or the Palestinian Authority should purchase undisputable rights to the lands in question. And yet this solution eludes both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Why? The only possible answer is that neither side is willing to sell their claim to the disputed land for any price. The Palestinians would rather kill and be killed than relinquish a single inch of land, no matter how well-off the transaction would make them. And, while the same could be said of the Israelis, the fact is that they won their land in a defensive war: it is theirs to give away or keep. One often-heard justification for Palestinian claims to land is that the Palestinian Territories are too small to be viable as a nation. This argument falls apart, though, at the slightest challenge, because, in comparison to the Gaza Strip’s 140 square miles, and the Palestinian West Bank’s 2,270 square miles, the nations of Monaco (0.7 sq. mi.), Nauru (8.5 sq. mi.), Tuvalu (9 sq. mi.), San Marino (24 sq. mi.), Liechtenstein (62 sq. mi.), and the Marshall Islands (70 sq. mi.) are tiny. If those nations can survive, then a nation with a total of 2,410 square miles should be able to get by. Furthermore, the roughly 50 miles of disputed territory is negligible compared to the land Israel has already given away to create the Palestinian state. The natives of Palestine have been under foreign domination for thousands of years, and have never enjoyed independence during that time until now. Their rulers changed from Rome, to Persia, to Umar’s Arabian Caliphate, to the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, to the Seljuk Caliphate of Rum, to the Fatimids of Cairo, to the European Crusaders, to the Turkish Ottoman Empire, to the British Authority, and, finally, to Israel, which intends to grant them sovereignty. Their squabble over 50 square miles is an act of ingratitude that squanders any opportunity for goodwill between it and its most important trade partner: Israel. Unfortunately, with Hamas gaining control of the Palestinian Authority and turning to Iran as Western aid is cut off,461 it is becoming less likely that the Palestinians will recognize their bad manners and more likely that relations will worsen. With Iran and Syria supporting Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based Shiite organization whose primary purpose is also Israel’s destruction, we have the makings of a war that could engage Israel in another existential battle and engulf the entire Middle East. As bad as this sounds, Israel faces a long-term internal problem that is just as devastating. As long as the birth rates of Israeli Muslims exceeds those of Jews, it is only a matter of time before Muslims gain political dominance, unless Israel renounces its claim to Free Democracy and travels further down the road of apartheid-like policies that it has always had,462 and which have grown with Israel’s governance of the Palestinian Territories.463 460

The Louisiana Purchase from France, the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico, and the Alaska Purchase from Russia. Iran’s leader offers to fund Hamas government, Associated press, MSNBC News, February 22, 2006. 462 According to the Government Press Office of Israel, 80.4% of Israel is government owned, and another 13.1% is owned by the Jewish National Fund. These lands can only be rented, leaving the remaining 6.5% to private ownership by Jews and Palestinian Israelis. While defenders of this policy claim that this form of state ownership restricts private Jews and Palestinian Israelis equally, the fact is that Israel is a Jewish state. Therefore, state ownership is equivalent to Jewish ownership, though in a communal sense rather than private. This means that at least 93.5% of Israel is guaranteed to be under Jewish control, and Palestinian Israelis can never hope to own more than 6.5%. Furthermore, Israel may decide who it rents to and who it evicts, where eviction is nearly equivalent to exile. This is why television reports regularly show the homes of Palestinians being bulldozed by the Israeli 461

227

Both scenarios lead Israel to a dead end: if Israel remains a Free Democracy, it will eventually become dominated by Muslims who will implement Shari’ah. If Israel renounces Free Democracy, then it will lose the moral high ground it currently uses to build support in nations that provide it with economic and military aid. If the latter case happens, Israel could become completely isolated. Once isolated, it would be ripe for Islamic military conquest. Israelis might take comfort in the fact that the Koran actually legitimizes Israel’s existence, despite claims to the contrary by Palestinians and their Muslim sympathizers. This is what the Koran has to say, in both authoritative translations: [17.104] YUSUF ALI: And We [Allah] said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd. [17.104] PICKTHAL: And We [Allah] said unto the Children of Israel after him [Moses]: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

It is strange that Muslims seem oblivious to this portion of their own Koran. Perhaps the Jews of Israel should focus on convincing their Muslim brothers that the Day of Judgment has not yet come, and that its timing is for God to decide, not the political or religious leaders of Islam. A final thought: The premise of Muslim outrage at Israel is that the Jews have invaded Muslim lands. If we allow people to make historical claims on territory, then what territory would the Jews be able to claim other than Israel? Are Muslims allowed to make historical claims to land that Jews are not allowed to make?

France France, which has long considered itself to be the cultural center of the world, is in the process of losing its own culture. The empire it created in North Africa during the 1800s and early 1900s encouraged Muslim immigration from an early date. This Islamic presence has grown to the point where it is strongly asserting its own identity. As described in the New York Times article, Muslims remaking old France:464

government as a form of retaliation, a concept unimaginable in the United States. In Israel, the state owns most of the land and may do what it wants with it. 463 From Israel: An Apartheid State? by Leila Farsakh, published in Le Monde Diplomatique, November 2003: After the 1967 war Israel consolidated its claims to the occupied land. The rightwing government elected in 1977 developed an elaborate policy of territorial integration and demographic separation. The military government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip…expropriated and enclosed Palestinian land and allowed the transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories: they continued to be governed by Israeli laws. The government also enacted different military laws and decrees to regulate the civilian, economic and legal affairs of Palestinian inhabitants. 464

Muslims Remaking Old France, by Elaine Sciolino, The New York Times, April 10, 2003.

228

To enter the rue du Bon Pasteur in the heart of this Mediterranean port is to leave France. Or rather, it is to leave a France still fixed in the imagination of many, a land where French is spoken and the traditions of a secular society are enforced. The rue du Bon Pasteur - the street of the Good Shepherd - is a haven that is owned, operated and populated by Arab Muslims. Arabic is spoken here. All the women cover their hair with scarves. Men in robes and sandals sit together in cafés where they reach out to Arabia via satellite television. … The street reflects the political and social reality facing France. Demography has transformed the country, whose population is about 7 percent Arab and Muslim, the highest percentage in Western Europe. The figures are more striking in Marseille, where about 10 percent is Arab and about 17 percent Muslim. “We are no longer a France of baguettes and berets, but a France of ‘Allah-hu Akbar’ and mosques,” said Mustapha Zergour, director of Radio Gazelle, a radio station geared to the Arab community…

Mustapha Zergour’s quote points out the distinction between “immigration” and “invasion.” When people immigrate, they want to become a part of their new country. When people invade, they want to take over. What is the effect of Islam’s ascendancy in France? If Americans stopped bashing the French for a moment for not doing what Americans want, they would find that the proud French, loath to appear weak, are actually quite intimidated. In fact, as reported by United Press International, France has recently created an organization to help deal with its growing sense of fear: France helps launch Muslim group By Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religion Correspondent, December 19, 2002 WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (UPI) – In France, where separation between religion and state is even more rigidly enforced than in the United States, a Muslim umbrella organization is about to be born with the active participation of the government. Representatives of three leading Muslim groups – each linked to a foreign country – began a twoday seminar in the government-owned castle of Nainville-les-Roches, near Paris, in order to create a “French Muslim Council.” If all goes well, this new institution will eventually act as interlocutor between French Islam and civil authorities on the national and regional levels. Islam is France’s second-largest religion, with between 4 and 5 million adherents. Should they succeed, an extraordinary and sometimes almost desperate effort by a succession of interior ministers…will finally come to an end. …the current interior minister…expressed the hope that a “French Islam with French-speaking imams” would emerge and “support values commensurate with the values of the Republic.” …

229

The problem is that…there is no…indigenous French Muslim clergy…Islam does not even possess a school of theology in this country. Hence, future clerics are trained abroad, where often anti-Western currents prevail. Of the approximately 1,000 imams in France, only 9 percent are French citizens.

Unfortunately, France’s interior minister appears to misunderstand the problem. Does he believe that, by training Islamic clerics in France, somehow the Koran will become compatible with the secular values of the French Republic? On the contrary, it is likely that, by opening Islamic religious schools in France, France could exacerbate its troubles. France’s growing fear is betrayed by its behavior on the international scene. As a French professor told an American reporter during the reporter’s visit to France:465 “The reason President Chirac supported the U.S. in the 1991 Gulf War was because there were far fewer Arabs in France at that time. Twelve years later, with such a huge Arab population, it’s not politically feasible to support the U.S. over Iraq,” a professor of politics…explained to us … “My students say Americans are only in Iraq for the oil, for financial interests. I ask them, ‘Who does the most business in Iraq? France! Don’t you think France has a financial interest in defending Iraq?’…

French Muslims sense this fear, and it emboldens them. A subtle way to assert Muslim power is to have schoolgirls begin a widespread practice of wearing headscarves to school, a practice which had formerly been unusual. The French, unnerved at this peaceful but visible display of power, decided to make a general rule, aimed at Muslims, which banned all displays of religious articles in public schools.466 This action only further revealed French weakness, because it focused on fashion accessories but ignored the deeper issue of Islamic ascendancy. The Islamic world’s reaction to this superficial law was as strong as it was extreme: Thousands protest French ban on scarves467 By Masha MacPherson, Associated Press, February 14, 2004 PARIS – Thousands of people, many of them women wearing head scarves, marched in France Saturday to protest a law banning the Islamic coverings and other religious apparel in public schools. Protesters said the law was discriminatory and would prevent Muslim girls from attending school. … Police estimated that 2,600 people marched in the southern city of Lyon and another 1,300 in Paris, just two of a dozen cities where demonstrations were planned… 465

Politics aside, they still love us in France, by Bernadette Malone, Manchester (New Hampshire) Union Leader, December 7, 2003. 466 French Cabinet adopts bill banning Muslim head scarves in school, Associated Press, USA Today, January 28, 2004. 467 Thousands protest French ban on scarves, by Masha McPhereson, Associated Press, Boston Globe, February 14, 2004.

230

… Saturday’s protests were the latest in a series in France against the measure, which would also ban Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses from public schools… … French leaders hope the law will quell [the] debate over Islamic head scarves that has divided France since 1989, when two young girls were expelled from their school in Creil, outside Paris, for wearing the head coverings… The bill stipulates that “signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students are forbidden” in public schools. It would not apply to students in private schools or in French schools abroad.

It is strange how a prohibition on head scarves could suddenly prevent Muslim girls from attending school when, for many years, Muslim girls had been attending school just fine without them. The Islamic tendency to paint any constraint, no matter how trivial, as a life-or-death struggle against oppression is apparent in the following Associated Press article, which reveals that Muslims are willing to kill over a school dress code that applies only to public schools: French Head Scarf Ban Underway468 PARIS, October 20, 2004 (AP) France has quietly begun expelling Muslim girls for wearing head scarves to public schools in defiance of a new law banning conspicuous religious symbols, treading carefully for fear of endangering two French hostages in Iraq. The expulsions of at least five girls since Tuesday were the first since the law went into effect at the start of the academic year on Sept. 2. They were kept low-key because the French journalists’ captors had demanded the measure be abolished. … “They have just destroyed my life,” 12-year-old Khouloud told Le Monde newspaper after she and another girl were expelled Tuesday from the Jean Mace middle school in Mulhouse. … The kidnapping in Iraq of journalists Christian Chesnot and Christian Malbrunot, who entered their third month in captivity Wednesday, forced education authorities to tread softly… … The small Sikh community in France, estimated at 5,000-7,000, has learned that turbans can also pose a problem. Three Sikh boys with turbans at a school in Bobigny, outside Paris, have been kept out of class since Sept. 2…

At least two valuable lessons come from these articles: 1. Many Muslims, like the girl quoted, were more concerned about schoolgirls’ headscarves, claiming that their lives were being destroyed, than the French hostages being held on their behalf, whose lives were in genuine danger.

468

French Head Scarf Ban Underway, by Elaine Ganley, Associated Press, CBS News, October 20, 2004.

231

2. By not dealing directly with the real problem (that Muslims are not assimilating into French society and are hostile to it), French legislators have created unanticipated difficulties for members of their society who are not a threat, such as the Sikhs. Despite obvious and widespread cases of Islamic hostility inside France, the weeks of Muslim rioting in November 2005 were almost completely misinterpreted in the U.S., thanks to the press’s apparent unwillingness to report that the rioters were primarily Muslim. In U.S. news coverage, reporters portrayed the riots in terms of American political agendas. They presented the riots as responses to racial prejudice against Africans, mistreatment of immigrants, unemployment, and ghetto poverty, and seasoned their reports with a healthy dose of antagonism toward the French. The fact that virtually all of the rioters were Muslim was scarcely mentioned. Sadly, the American press corps encouraged readers to turn their backs on the French, with headlines such as Rage of French youth is a fight for recognition469 and France burns for its sins.470 They obscured a key element of this civil disorder and avoided alerting Americans to the possibility that France’s troubles with Islam may one day be their own. The native French are afraid, and with good reason. Instead of bickering with them, perhaps the U.S. should seek ways to join with them to defend the freedoms we share and cherish.

Canada Canada has always worked hard to encourage immigration to its chilly climes. In their efforts, Canadian policy makers encouraged a flood of Muslim immigration. As of February, 2005, there were about 579,600 Muslims in Canada, representing about 2% of the population.471 Despite this relatively low percentage, Islam has already begun to assert itself politically by trying to incorporate Shari’ah into Canada’s legal system. Surprisingly, this shocked and dismayed many female Muslims, as the following Toronto Star article relates: Protest rises over Islamic law…Muslim women's groups vow to stop sharia courts Lynda Hurst, Feature Writer, June 8, 2004 … Until last fall, no Western jurisdiction allowed the 1,400-year-old body of religious law called sharia to take root inside its secular legal system. Then the province of Ontario quietly approved its use. Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, shariabased marriage, divorce and family tribunals run by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice are expected to begin later this year. The move has so horrified many Muslim women that they’re vowing to stop the tribunals before they start. … “When you come to Canada, you are a human being with full rights,” says Jonathan Schrieder, a Toronto civil litigation lawyer. Allowing sharia here — even a “Canadianized” version, as its proponents claim — “will subject Muslim women to a huge injustice.”

469

Rage of French youth is a fight for recognition, by Molly Moore, Washington Post, November 6, 2005. France burns for its sins, by Carol Matlack, BusinessWeek, News Analysis, November 7, 2005. 471 Muslims in America, National Geographic magazine, February 2005. 470

232

Many others are appalled that Ontario is setting a precedent that other secular nations will be pressured to follow. To writer Sally Armstrong, whose work has taken her to several Muslim countries, Ontario’s move is a “human rights catastrophe.” … “Sharia law doesn’t work as it is supposed to work in a single country,” says Armstrong. “Why does Ontario’s justice system think it will work here?” … The National Association of Women and the Law is preparing a research paper on how sharia, by definition, undermines Canada’s equality rights.

This protest by female Muslims underscores the point that many people who call themselves Muslims are actually people who converted for the sake of marriage and did not understand what they got themselves into. It is inconceivable that a believing Muslim could be against Shari’ah. Fortunately, Canada realized the danger of the precedent it set and rescinded the power of Shari’ah Courts in September 2005. This wise move does not, however, solve the problem that Islam presents; it only defers dealing with it until a later time when Muslims are a larger proportion of the population.

United States Over the past century, the United States has supported Muslim nations in numerous ways, both privately and through government actions. It helped open up the Islamic world’s oil industry and provided billions of dollars in aid. It has provided everything from food and disaster relief to infrastructure projects and family planning. It supported the Mujahadeen’s battle to overthrow the Soviet Union’s Communist government in Afghanistan, and helped Muslims in Bosnia defend themselves against Serbian “ethnic cleansing.” Later, it protected Muslims in Kosovo when Serbs sought revenge for attacks made on them by ethnic Albanian militias. It lodged complaints against Russia for its suppression of Chechen liberators. It joined with over thirty other nations, many of which were Islamic,472 to rescue Kuwait from an invasion by Iraq. It led a humanitarian effort to prevent the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Somalia. It provided $350 million to victims of the Indonesian Tsunami of 2004, and $50 million to victims of the Pakistani earthquake of 2005. Yet, despite all this, the United States is hated throughout the Islamic world, and dubbed by many as “The Great Satan.” To appreciate the current state of affairs, consider this portion of a recent article, Fewer Arabs admire the U.S., Survey Finds:473 [A] six-nation survey [was] conducted in June by Zogby International, a nonpartisan public opinion research firm…

472

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Senegal, Niger, Morocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Turkey. 473 Fewer Arabs admire the U.S., Survey Finds, by Toshiyuki Inaba, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, July 23, 2004.

233

According to the survey, the United States gets its best rating in Lebanon, with 20 percent of those surveyed saying they respected the United States. In Egypt, only 2 percent of residents reported positive opinion of the United States. James Zogby, president of Arab American Institute, which commissioned the survey, said that the decline in U.S. popularity among the Arabs resulted from its policy toward the Arab world. U.S. policy is so unpopular in the Arab world that it drags down those aspects of America that are admired: values, products and people, Zogby said. “Attitudes toward American policy are decidedly lower than it was even in 2002,”… In explaining the decline of U.S. popularity, Zogby acknowledged the U.S. policies, particularly toward Iraqi and Palestinian issues, fueled Arabs’ resentment of the United States. But he added that many of those surveyed see U.S. treatment of Arabs and Muslims as more important than its policies on other issues.

Given James Zogby’s connection to both the Arab American Institute and Zogby International, an organization led by his brother John, and given the knowledge that the answers to survey questions are often influenced by their wording, one must wonder whether the results of the study were objective. However, regardless of whether or not one accepts the validity of this study,474 475 it leads to the same conclusion, because both Zogby’s are highly recognized leaders of the Arab-American community, and speak frequently on the community’s behalf. Even more frustrating than the Islamic world’s forgetfulness of the many times the U.S. has come to the aid of Muslims is their rationale for resentment: They paint any aid to an enemy, or any attack on a fellow Muslim nation, as an attack on all Muslims. The unfairness of this view stands out when one considers the many times Islamic nations have gone to war with each other in recent history. This view is not surprising, however, if one understands that it reflects the mindset of a famous Bedouin tribal saying: “I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.” While Muslim brother nations

474

According to the biography of James Zogby found on the Arab American Institute’s website (www.aaiusa.org/drzogby/36/biography), “In 1975, Dr. Zogby received his doctorate from Temple University’s Department of Religion, where he studied under the Islamic scholar Dr. Ismail al-Faruqi.” 475 According to The New Yorker article The Pollster, by Larissa MacFarquhar, which appeared in the October 18, 2004 issue: Zogby’s questions are mostly straightforward, but sometimes they are more leading than necessary. For instance, one question from a recent survey of American Muslims asks, “If you had to choose one of the following ways to wage the war against terrorism, which would you choose?” and offers these options: “Changing America’s Middle East policy,” “Use of strategic nuclear weapons,” “Attacking Iran,” “Contracting with mercenaries,” “Using U.S. Military Covert/Special Forces,” “U.S. Air Force bombing,” and “Biological warfare.” If there exist choices beyond Arafat or war, they are not offered… Some Zogby surveys can sound almost like push polls—fake polls designed not to collect data but to persuade respondents of a point of view (the prototypical push poll being one in which an interviewer calls voters and asks them whether they would be less likely to vote for Candidate A if they knew that he was a bigamist or had killed his mother with an axe).

234

may war against each other without enraging the entire Islamic world, it is an intolerable if a “foreigner” nation does the same. The two main American policies that have attracted Muslim outrage in recent history are its support for Israel and its attack on Saddam Hussein. If we restrain our impulse to assume that their outrage must somehow be justified, and examine their reasons for outrage more closely, we can see how unjustified they really are: •

U.S. Policy toward Israel. The role that the United States has tried to play regarding Israeli/Palestinian relations is one of moderator, seeking a peaceful settlement that does not result in the annihilation of either group. This is an extremely difficult role because of the implacability of the opponents: Palestinians consider Israel to be “Occupied Palestine” and are determined to retake the land and expel the Jews. Israel, for its part, has given up on the possibility of a bilateral settlement and has taken matters into its own hands, appropriating areas that were formerly Muslim, such as East Jerusalem, and building permanent walls to prevent movement between Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The taking of East Jerusalem, which was the Palestinian Authority’s intended capital, struck Palestinians in the heart, while the walls, which block many Palestinians from employment in Israel, struck them in the stomach. The United States had the courage, or naiveté, to take on the role of honest broker between these two antagonists. Its reward has been universal outrage from the Islamic world. From a Muslim perspective, any attempt to mediate is unjust support for Israel. Islamic fury at the U.S. boils down to rage over America’s refusal to join with Muslims in Israel’s annihilation. From their perspective, the least America could do is abandon Israel to its hostile neighbors.

•

U.S. Policy toward Iraq. In today’s political environment, it is easy to lose track of Saddam Hussein’s bloody legacy as partisans debate over the Second Gulf War. Here is a quick recap of Saddam’s deeds: Saddam’s rise to power began in 1959, with a failed assassination attempt on Iraqi Prime Minister General Abdel-Karim Oassem. After spending several years in exile, he returned to Iraq and played a leading role in the successful coup of 1968. Saddam was rewarded for his deeds with the position of Vice-Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. Over the ensuing years, he built an outstanding reputation as he led a successful literacy program for the nation and transformed Iraq’s health care system into one of the best in the Middle East. However, upon his accession to the presidency in 1979, his reputation darkened quickly. He kicked off his reign by accusing 5 members of the Revolutionary Council, as well as 17 other rivals, of an assassination plot, for which they were executed. In 1980, he launched a war against Iran to regain disputed territories and oil fields, and to crush the rise of Iraqi Shiite extremism inspired by the Iranian revolution.476 During the war, he used both mustard gas and sarin gas on Iranian soldiers, as well as internal enemies. He also exerted brute force to literally kill internal

476

The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 12, section entitled The Iran-Iraq War, page 171.

235

opposition. At one point, he ordered a series of gas attacks on 60 separatist Kurdish villages in northern Iraq.477 While the total number of deaths is unknown, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000. It has been documented that over 5000 died in the village of Halabja alone.478 The war with Iran went on for eight years, devastating the economies of both nations and costing each side about 250,000 lives. It ended in stalemate, with the border restored to its pre-war location. In 1990, almost immediately after the war with Iran, Saddam launched another war for oil, this time with Kuwait. Through the United Nations, the United States led a multinational force to defeat Saddam. This victory drastically curtailed Saddam’s ability to attack both internal enemies and neighboring states. Northern Iraq was established as an autonomous region for Kurds. Additionally, large no-fly zones were created over the north to protect Kurds from Iraqi air attacks, and over the south to also protect Shiites. Despite these constraints, Saddam still managed to crush a Shiite uprising in the south, killing hundreds of thousands and burying them in mass graves.479 As this atrocity unfolded, the United States was chastised around the world for not doing more to protect the Shiites. After the first Gulf War, the UN established inspections to make sure Saddam Hussein could no longer use weapons of mass destruction, particularly poison gas or nuclear weapons. Saddam resisted these inspections and launched anti-aircraft attacks on the American and British planes that enforced the no-fly zones. As a result, in 1998, the weapons inspection teams left Iraq and the U.S. and U.K. began bombing Iraqi military sites.480 In subsequent years, the UN passed several resolutions requiring Iraq to re-open its doors to weapons inspectors, culminating in UN Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, 2002. This was Iraq’s final opportunity to comply before the UN could authorize intervention by military force. Throughout this interplay, Saddam’s government resisted, lied, complied, bullied, provided inadequate information, and engaged in games of cat-and-mouse. The resulting consternation and confusion split the UN on whether to take military action. However, the United States was determined to go ahead, and organized its own “Coalition of the Willing” to prosecute the war. It assembled a coalition of 36 nations, without UN approval, and, against the wishes of France, Germany, and Russia, rapidly attacked and overwhelmed Iraq’s military. Ultimately, it captured Saddam Hussein and began a process intended to establish democracy in Iraq. The United States expected an outcry from the nations that opposed enforcement of the 477

Saddam Hussein’s Rise to Power by Jessica Moore, The Online NewsHour (website for The News Hour with Jim Lehrer), Public Broadcasting System. 478 Kurds say Iraq’s attacks serve as a warning by Scott Peterson, The Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2002. 479 Expert: 300,000 in Iraq’s Mass Graves, Associated Press, FOXNews, November 8, 2003. 480 No Threat: A former weapons inspector rejects Bush’s evidence by Jon Wiener, LA Weekly, September 20-26, 2002.

236

UN resolution. Those nations had extensive economic ties, both legal and illegal, with Saddam through the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and they were quite happy to keep their revenues flowing. The U.S. also expected opposition from Iraq’s Sunni Arab population, which had benefited from Saddam’s reign. It was unprepared, however, for the opposition of Iraqi Shiites. U.S. planners assumed that the Shiites would welcome their liberators with open arms, but the Shiites greeted them with raised fists instead. Given the power vacuum created by Saddam’s fall, an interim transitional government was needed to administer Iraq and lay the groundwork for democratic elections. Despite the obvious need for this administration, Shiite leaders almost immediately denounced the Coalition presence as an occupation and tried to undermine the interim government. Since that time, Iraq has experienced numerous terrorist attacks and several overt rebellions. These attacks deprived Iraqis of electricity, oil money, and infrastructure, while making its transition to self-governance more difficult. Remarkably, these attacks came almost as frequently from Shiites, who had the most to gain from democracy, as from Sunnis and foreign insurgents. For example, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has declared that he and his Mahdi481 Army, an independent militia, will fight American troops to the death, saying “I will keep on resisting, and I am staying in Najaf and won’t leave it till the last day of my life.” 482 The United States has begun the final phase of its plan for Iraq. Iraq is now being led by its own native citizens, elected through democratic elections. Iraqi forces are assuming ever-more leadership in military operations, and some regions of the nation are now entrusted to them. It is clear that the United States is trying to phase itself out of Iraq without leaving chaos in its wake. Has this progress served to quell the insurgency? Not at all. In fact, insurgent attacks have become more frequent since the 2005 elections, and have begun to take the form of a civil war. Why has the insurgency become bloodier as Iraq moved closer to independence? Because Iraqi opposition to Infidel occupation is only the top layer of hatred. As that 481

From the website www.islamicweb.com/history/mahdi.htm, we receive this definition: The term “MAHDI” is a title meaning “The Guided one”. Mahdi is a normal man who is going to follow the true Islam. His name will be Muhammad and his father name will be ‘Abdullah. He is a descendant from Ali and Fatima (daughter of the prophet Muhammad…) so he will be descendant from al-Hasan or alHusain. Mahdi will be very just and his capital will be Damascus. Allah told us that Jews will master the world two times (we live now 1998 during the first one) and Mahdi will appear between those two periods and will rule through the last one. Mahdi is NOT a prophet but he is the final Rightly Guided Khalifa [see definition of Caliph]. Mahdi will lead Muslims to a great victory against the Christian Romans (i.e. All the white Europeans including the Americans). This great war is called al-Malhamah al-Kubrah or Armageddon. It will end up with a great victory to Muslims against Romans after six years. Muslims will take over their capital Rome (this can be any city). In the seventh year, the Antichrist will appear and a greater war will start between Jews and Muslims for 40 days…and will end when Jesus…will come and Muslims will kill all Jews. All people will convert into Islam. Peace will pervade the whole world. According to Twelver Shiism, the 12th Imam, also referred to as the “Hidden Imam,” is the Mahdi. 482 U.S. Marines take command of troops in Najaf, CNN News, August 10, 2004.

237

layer peels away, other pretexts for strife come to the surface. A basic reason for Iraq’s internal strife is that it is not an integrated nation. It has three regions, each with its own predominant ethnic group: Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab, and Sunni (but largely secular) Kurd. Each of these ethnic groups covets Iraq’s valuable oil resources. The region belonging to the Sunnis, in the northwest portion of Iraq, once enjoyed wealth, power, and privilege under Saddam Hussein, but has little oil. The Sunni insurgents are therefore fighting for the privileges of the past. Shiite Arabs and Sunni Kurds also despise each other, but they, at least, have two things in common: ° °

A shared hatred of their oppressor, Saddam Hussein, and for Saddam’s beneficiaries, the Sunni Arabs. Plentiful oil resources, with which they would like to enrich their own autonomous regions.

The Shiites and the Kurds would like nothing more than to divide the oil spoils of the Coalition victory amongst themselves and then live independently of each other. In fact, the Kurds would already be independent if Turkey had not threatened war. This point raises a question: why would Turkey declare war on the Iraqi Kurds if they declared independence from Iraq? Because Turkey fears that if Iraqi Kurds get independence, it would encourage Turkish Kurds to declare independence as well. Welcome to the tribalistic logic of the “House of Peace”! Another facet of this culture of tribe against tribe is again unintentionally unveiled by Rashid Khalidi in Resurrecting Empire, when he chides the United States for its ignorance of Iraqi sensibilities:483 …Iraqis and others in the Middle East have a strong sense of history: not only do they not forget their experiences with the British occupation; they recall vividly the history of earlier occupations of Baghdad, such as that in 1258 when it was sacked by the Mongols. Bringing even a symbolic contingent of Mongolian soldiers to join the forces of the “Coalition,” as the United States has done, is a perfect example of how to trample on the sensibilities of such people.

The symbolic contingent of Mongolian soldiers consisted of about 170 people. The goal of the Coalition forces was to topple a murderous and oppressive dictator and to help the Iraqis establish a democracy. The Mongol invasion occurred 750 years ago. And yet, Khalidi claims that the Iraqis were offended. If Americans held grudges as doggedly as the Iraqis, it would be impossible for them to engage in cordial relations with Britain, let alone Germany, Japan, Russia, Canada, and Mexico. If Europeans held such grudges, they could have never formed the European Union. Similarly, a reconciled South Africa would be inconceivable. In fact, peace anywhere in the world would be inconceivable, just as it actually is inconceivable in the Islamic world. In the House of Islam, almost 483

Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 1, entitled Raising the Ghosts of Empire, page 172.

238

every group of people can find an incident somewhere in the past to justify hatred for nearly every other group of people they have ever encountered. As for the Iraqi Shiites, they are working to build close ties with Iran, with the goal of emulating its form of government.484 In fact, when negotiating with the more secular Kurds over Iraq’s constitution, the Shiites pushed so hard for a more Islamic state that negotiations nearly collapsed. Iraqi Shiites are now exerting themselves by effectively altering the laws of Iraq in ways that Sunnis find truly alarming. For example, the Shiite laws on temporary marriage discussed earlier are gaining hold, as the following article confirms: Shi’ite temporary marriages regain popularity By Solomon Moore, LA Times Staff Writer, January 15, 2006 NAJAF, Iraq —…Mutaa, a 1,400-year-old tradition alternately known as pleasure marriage and temporary marriage, is regaining popularity among Iraq’s majority Shiite Muslim population after decades of being outlawed by the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein. … Shiite clerics, including Iraq’s highest religious authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have sanctioned mutaa… … Shiite and Sunni sects disagree on the lawfulness of mutaa…many Sunni authorities regard it as a sexual relationship outside religious behavior. … Even though the practice quietly persisted during the Hussein regime, temporary marriages have experienced a resurgence in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion… [Sunnis] see that as a sign of rising Shiite influence in political and religious affairs and of the explosion of cross-border traffic between Iraq and the Shiite theocratic state of Iran, where mutaa is even more popular. … Women’s rights activists call mutaa an exploitative arrangement…“The clerics issue fatwas condoning this practice that allows men to treat women like prostitutes…” Sheik Adel Amir Tureihi, a Shiite cleric in Najaf, said …the practice was designed to provide Muslims with a lawful outlet for natural sexual desires. “People need sex just like they need food,” he said. “Islam is a natural, organic religion.” But Azhar Tureihi, a Najaf-based gynecologist not directly related to the sheik, said pleasure marriages carried serious societal consequences, regardless of how readily religious authorities accepted the practice. She said she knew of a woman who became pregnant during a temporary marriage and was the victim of an “honor killing” by her brother. “This kind of killing is called ‘shame washing’ — the brother went to the police and confessed,” the physician said. “The sentence for this type of killing is normally only 10 months.” 484

Iranian minister makes historic Iraq trip, by Bassem Mroue, Associated Press, The Boston Globe, May 17, 2005.

239

Nearby, [a] shopkeeper took a more casual view. He chuckled to himself as he recounted his many temporary brides. “This is better than committing adultery because it is permitted,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.” And sometimes my wife is sick or traveling or outside the house. This kind of marriage can be for one year, one month, one day, one hour — whatever you decide.” … …“I ask them here,” he said, waving his hands around his storefront…“The roses, the vases — it’s all a trap. I’ll give them a bouquet or an antique, some small gift like that. If the women ask for too much money, I will refuse.” … At least once…, the shopkeeper temporarily married a virgin — a 15-year-old girl, he said…

Considering that Sunnis call the acts above “fornication” and “adultery,” rather than “temporary marriage,” and that Shari’ah’s penalty for adultery is death, one can more easily understand their adamant opposition to Shiite ascendancy. Another reason for strife is that the compromises required by Free Democracy’s politics do not come easily to people whose faiths are filled with absolutes and harsh punishments. Islamic ideology does more than oppose Free Democracy. It deprives its followers of the beliefs, philosophies, and habits that could help them embrace it. This, together with the differences between Shiite and Sunni Shari’ah, explains why opposition to the new Iraqi government remains so strong long after the 2005 elections. Islam opposes Free Democracy philosophically by teaching faithful Muslims to ask questions that Democracy has a hard time answering. For example: • • •

How can one engage in the political process of compromise when dealing with Allah’s Law, as embodied in the perfect words of the Koran? How can one choose to turn away from the perfect laws that Allah himself commanded? How can one bear to see Allah’s laws perverted by the misinterpretations of false and ignorant Muslims?

For true believers, the notion of Free Democracy is abhorrent, and not just because it could impose laws that are contrary to Allah’s will. The very thought of unscholarly people dickering over law is an affront. Such politicians play with laws that only Allah has the right to declare, and which only devout scholars have the wisdom to interpret. Opposition to Free Democracy is the only thing, other than hatred for Infidels, that could have brought Sunni militants like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, together with Shiite militants like Muqtada al-Sadr. These militants, who would have otherwise been at each others’ throats, joined together in October 2005 to oppose Iraq’s constitutional referendum. Their sentiments were like those of a statement issued by the Ansar al-Sunna Army, another extremist group, during their battle against the 2005 240

elections: “We have also warned everyone against going to…the so-called polling centers of this mockery and dirty blaspheming game, for voting in those centers means electing gods to be worshipped other than Allah.”485 This viewpoint, which can seem insane to Westerners, makes perfect sense from an Islamic perspective. Muslims believe that Islamic law was given to them by Allah, and, therefore, the authority to define law belongs to Allah alone. Moreover, because Allah is perfect, Allah’s law must also be perfect, needing no additions or modifications. Therefore Allah’s authority to define law is exclusive and absolute. Muslims believe that respect for Allah’s law is a form of worship. As it says in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran:486 There are laws and rules for all activities. Any required activity undertaken …as…an obligation to submit to the will of [Allah]…is regarded as worship.

Therefore, the authors of man-made laws have usurped the authority of Allah and set themselves up as gods. Any person who respects those man-made laws is worshipping those lawmakers instead of Allah. To a devout Muslim, the notion of a secular government is fundamentally unacceptable, and perceived as a threat. For example, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has expressed this view repeatedly, as reported in the Washington Post article, AlZawahiri tries to keep al-Qaeda in his grip:487 Promoting ideology ,…In a videotape aired by…al-Jazeera…, the…Egyptian surgeon once again blasted the U.S. military and political presence in the Middle East. But the bulk of his lecture was aimed at another radical Islamic movement: Hamas, which swept to victory in the Jan. 25 elections in the Palestinian Territories. Zawahiri congratulated Hamas on its political success, but he also offered a stern warning: Avoid the temptation to work with “secular” Palestinian legislators, and never compromise on efforts to establish strict Islamic law, or sharia. “Power is not an end in itself. Real power is application of sharia on earth,” he said. “Entering the same parliament as the lay people, recognizing their legitimacy and the accords they have signed is contrary to Islam.” … The lecture echoed comments made by Zawahiri on Jan. 6, when he ripped the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood for taking part in last year’s elections in his native Egypt…democracy, he has said, is an assault on God’s [Allah’s] right to rule.

485

Troops Mobilize for Iraqi Balloting, by Karl Vick, Washington Post, January 28, 2005. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 4, section entitled Is Islam a Religion or a Social System?, page 39. 487 Al-Zawahiri tries to keep al-Qaeda in his grip, by Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post, April 15, 2006. 486

241

While these words may sound like the rantings of a madman, they recall the words of former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad quoted earlier in this book: They [the Jews] invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, Human Rights, and Democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others.

These men despise Free Democracy and consider it evil. Unfortunately for Muslims, they have no satisfactory alternative to Free Democracy, because they cannot agree on what Allah’s Law actually is. Therefore, after uniting to reject Free Democracy, Muslims proceed to turn upon each other, until one group gains power, through assassination or war, and then maintains it through oppression. Finally, the most depressing aspect of this attempt to create an Iraqi beachhead for democracy in the Middle East is that the “democracy” Iraq created with its constitution is not the kind of Free Democracy that was envisioned at the start of the war. President Bush has said as much in recent speeches, but in language designed to soften the blow and claim success if any kind of democracy takes hold in Iraq, whether Free or not. For example, at a recent talk he gave to the United States Chamber of Commerce, he said:488 As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us.

In other words, we may be witnessing the birth of a nation that resembles the “democracy” of Iran more than the United States. This would leave Americans asking an important question: “Is this what we sacrificed our lives and treasure to create?” While the new government may be friendly toward the U.S., at least for a while, the resounding answer will be “No, this is not what we set out to do.” To see what the future may hold for Iraq, consider these reports from Afghanistan, where the U.S. has had comparative success: An Afghan judge said this week a man named Abdul Rahman had been jailed for converting from Islam to Christianity and could face the death penalty if he refused to become a Muslim again. Sharia, or Islamic law, stipulates death for apostasy… “…Whatever the court orders will be executed…” said Mahaiuddin Baluch, an adviser on religious affairs to President Hamid Karzai.489 … 488

President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East: Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington D.C., November 3, 2003 (White House press release). 489 Afghanistan says fate of convert up to the court, Reuters, MSNBC News, March 22, 2006.

242

Diplomats say the Afghan government is searching for a way to drop the case, and on Wednesday authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial. But four senior clerics…said Rahman deserved to be killed for his conversion. “He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian,” said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque. “The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed.” “…The people will not be fooled,” said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. “This is humiliating for Islam. Cut off his head.” Raoulf is considered a moderate cleric in Afghanistan…490 … “For 30 years, we have fought religious wars in this country and there is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian,” said Mohammed Jan…, who lives…in Kabul… … Police arrested [Rahman] last month after discovering him in possession of a Bible…Prosecutors have offered to drop the charges if Rahman converts back to Islam, but he has refused. 491 … …prosecutors had issued a letter calling for Rahman’s release because “he was mentally unfit to stand trial.” He also said he did not know where Rahman was staying but that he may be sent overseas for medical treatment. ‘Abdul Rahman must be killed’ Hours earlier, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting “Death to Christians!” marched…to protest the court’s decision… “Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it,” said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed,…“The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion.” … …Rahman has asked for asylum “outside Afghanistan.” … The international outrage over Rahman’s case put Karzai in a difficult position because he also risked offending religious sensibilities…senior Muslim clerics have been united in calling for Rahman to be executed.492

The trial for Abdul Rahman’s life did not come from the Taliban, insurgents, militants, or warlords. It came from the Islamic Democracy of Afghanistan, which the United States helped establish. Fortunately, Afghanistan’s government found a loophole in their law and declared Abdul Rahman insane, allowing him to find exile in Italy. Still, this episode leaves disturbing images of what “the will of the people” is in Islamic lands. 490

Some clerics call for killing Afghan Christian, Associated Press, MSNBC News, March 24, 2006. Afghan convert may be unfit for trial, Associated Press, USA Today, March 22, 2006. 492 Afghan who became Christian freed from prison: Italian foreign minister will ask government to grant asylum to convert, Associated Press, MSNBC News, March 28, 2006. 491

243

The real lesson from Afghanistan, and Iraq, is that it may not be realistic to expect Free Democracy to grow in Islamic nations. Sadly, the U.S. may one day find that the sacrifices it made to bring democracy to the Middle East, measured in hundred of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, only helped Muslims develop new forms of oppression. Through these and other unpleasant responses to Western aid and interventions, the Muslim world sends three clear messages to the West, and especially to the United States: • • •

Good deeds by Infidels will not be acknowledged or appreciated. Actions taken by Infidels are likely to be interpreted in the worst possible way, and as an affront to all Muslims, to reinforce and justify Muslim hatred. Muslims have a special capacity for transforming any worthy concept into oppression by remaking it in the image of Islam.

Why is this? Because one of Islam’s major claims is that it is the final and perfecting step in a long evolution of faith that has moved beyond Judaism and Christianity. For them, gratitude toward the non-Muslim West calls this belief into question, because it is absurd to think that a perfected religion could leave its believers needing help or protection from their inferiors. Christians and Jews are supposed to be the “protected peoples” (Dhimmis), not Muslims! And no one else even deserves “protection,” let alone thanks. People in the United States have a difficult time understanding the Muslim perspective. This is because they typically see benevolence and care as evidence of friendship. This viewpoint comes from recognizing that we are all flawed, and that we all have our ups and downs. Americans even express this sentiment in popular songs, such as Bill Whithers’ Lean on Me: Lean on me, when you’re not strong, and I’ll be your friend, I’ll help you carry on For it won’t be long, ‘Til I’m gonna need, somebody to lean on

Unfortunately, this interpretation of mercy and aid is far from universal. In Roman times, one of the greatest insults a victor could give the loser of a battle was mercy, depriving the loser of honor, both in life and in death. Even the Old Testament gives a malevolent twist to helping others, in Proverbs 24:21-22: If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you shall heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward you.493

In other words, show kindness to your enemy, to humiliate him or her and gain favor with God for yourself. This Old Testament perspective is reflected in Muslim thought and makes their resentment easier to understand. However, this resentment toward the West does not imply that Muslims will not emigrate to it. Despite their contempt for Infidels, Muslims still want a piece of the West’s prosperity. A

493

Bible, King James Version.

244

jarring example of this comes from Gracia Burnham’s description of conversations that took place while she was held hostage by the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines: He (Hurayra) would sit with a little notebook and ask us to help him learn English. … …He would ask all about the United States. His real goal, he explained, was to get to Afghanistan and die in holy war so he could go straight to paradise.494 … For some reason, he (Mang Ben) liked the idea of Hurayra learning English. He told the others in his group, “You need to do the same. You won’t go far in this world without it.” 495

There are two ways to interpret these conversations. It is possible that these members of the Abu Sayyaf wanted to learn English so that they could infiltrate the United States, or some other Western nation, and then carry on their Jihad. It is also possible that they saw English as the language of economic success. Hurayra’s questions about America suggest an interest in finding work in the U.S. Perhaps he wanted both financial prosperity and martyrdom. This notion of coming to the United States and achieving the American Dream is something that many people around the world embrace, as the flood of immigrants to the U.S. demonstrates. How can a Muslim brain both despise the United States and want to seek his or her fortune there? After many conversations with friends from India, I have come to understand how this logic works in a foreigner’s mind. Even though these friends are Hindu rather than Muslim, the logic applies to both: A common opinion among people from India is that India is poor compared to the U.S. simply because India is overpopulated and has relatively few natural resources. My Indian friends had decided to seek their fortunes in the U.S. (and did quite well) because they saw a wide-open country, with plentiful land and resources. While their opinion may appear valid when compared with India, it ignores the fact that Free Democracy and Free Enterprise play vital roles in the United States’ success. It does not recognize that there are other parts of the world with more resources and fewer people but, despite this, they are destitute and chaotic. It also ignores the fact that Japan, like India, also has a large population and few natural resources, but its adoption of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise has brought it remarkable success. It is easier for my friends to turn a blind eye toward the virtues of these institutions rather than criticize elements of their native culture, such the caste system. In a more benign way, these Indians present a cultural challenge to the United States similar to that of the Muslims. For example, there was a day when one of these friends mentioned to me that she was going to a Patel party (her last name is Patel). I thought “How nice – a family reunion!” She then corrected me: it was much more than a family reunion. She was going there to meet other Patels and possibly find a husband. I was aghast at the implied incest, especially because she was only 16, but she explained to me that the Patels were more of a clan than a set of close blood-relatives. This only made me feel a little better – I could see a caste system in the 494 495

In the Presence of My Enemies, by Gracia Burnham, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2003, page 118. Ibid, page 121.

245

process of incarnating itself over here in the U.S.. Later, my suspicions were confirmed when I learned that “Patel” is the name of a caste. Someday, it may be necessary to deal with the issues this conversation brought up. However, the challenge of Indian assimilation into American culture is relatively minor. The Hindu caste system doesn’t single out Westerners for persecution, and I haven’t seen any indication that Indians are determined to make the caste system a global institution enshrined by law. Moreover, the success of Indian democracy is beginning to remove pressure for Indians to move to the U.S. Instead of Indians seeking jobs in America, we are now finding that American jobs are seeking India. Despite fears of “exporting American jobs,” this phenomenon is actually a wonderful testimony to the success of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. We should recognize that India is in a state of transition, from being a poor third-world nation to being a prosperous Free Democracy. Just as in the cases of Japan and South Korea in previous decades, India may seem like a threat as it catches up to us, but it will have a very difficult time surpassing us. Let them prosper, and engage with us in mutually beneficial trade. Hopefully, over time, one of the results of commerce will be that Indians see the caste system as self-harming and wrong, just as we now see slavery and segregation in the West. The Islamic world, however, is far more problematic. Muslims are attracted to the United States because of the opportunities here, but it is not possible for good Muslims to feel comfortable about living in a non-Islamic society which constantly offends their sensibilities and disrespects Shari’ah. These affronts are pervasive: they force women to remove their veils for driver’s license photos; they force Muslim firemen to shave their beards (so that face masks can form effective seals); they prevent men from having multiple wives. Infidels do not acknowledge Muslim supremacy. The list goes on. Being told by the Koran not to take Jews and Christians for friends, Muslims face a choice of either violating the Koran or isolating themselves from the people who surround them. As we found with the family of our renter, “M,” they often choose to isolate themselves. But with their traditions of large families, it is only a matter of time before Muslims will try to reshape their adopted lands in their own image. Unfortunately, in the process of doing so, they will undo the prosperous combination of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise that attracted them to the United States in the first place. This phenomenon is already beginning to happen in the United States. In 2006, Keith Ellison was elected Minnesota’s Representative of its fifth congressional district, with the aid of a large constituency of Somali immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. after UNOSOM in the early 1990s. When Ellison swore on the Koran to uphold the U.S. Constitution, he might as well have sworn on The Communist Manifesto or Hitler’s Mein Kamp, because the principles of the Koran and the Constitution are completely opposed to each other. Only ignorance of Islam’s political nature, or fear, could have allowed this to happen. To further the irony, the Koran used for Ellison’s ceremony belonged to Thomas Jefferson, who was President during the First Barbary War and

246

probably used it to understand the enemy. Because the United States is taking in a large number of immigrants who wish to enjoy American-style prosperity rather than American-style freedom, it runs the risk of becoming a modern day Babel. According to the Book of Genesis, Babel was a city that enjoyed great wealth and prosperity.496 Its prosperity was a towering beacon that attracted people from all over who sought its wealth. The story says that God caused all of Babel’s residents to suddenly speak different languages. A more obvious secular explanation would be that the people who flooded into Babel, seeking wealth, spoke the languages of their own homelands. In rapid order, as the city filled with people from other lands, communication broke down and Babel’s engine of prosperity collapsed. The people who came to Babel seeking wealth destroyed it instead. Then they left, empty handed. The United States, like Babel, is beginning to feel the strain of multiple languages. However, the prospect of multiple legal systems is far more dangerous. The Ottoman Empire, with its patchwork of different laws for different peoples, was a testimony to the chaotic results. This is exactly the danger that the U.S. is beginning to face as Shari’ah ascends. So far, the pressures of Islamic Law upon the United States have been isolated, in the forms of Muslim women protesting unveiled photo-IDs, leniency for honor killings, and a de facto prohibition against printing images of Muhammad, in the wake of Denmark’s cartoon fiasco. In Canada and France, Islamic pressures to create special legal institutions specifically for Muslims are already producing results, and will only increase as Muslims become more numerous. This Babelization of law is especially dangerous in the case of Shari’ah, because Shari’ah is hostile toward many of the West’s citizens, as well as Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. Is there evidence that many Muslims, who come to the United States seeking prosperity, do not respect the institutions that create that prosperity? What is the basis for accusing Muslims of using their wealth to destroy those institutions? To answer these questions, consider the Islamic charitable organizations that have been caught funneling donations to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Al Qaeda. One recent example comes from the Boston Globe: Muslim charity indicted for alleged terrorist link By Curt Anderson, Associated Press, Boston Globe, July 28, 2004 WASHINGTON – A major American Muslim charity and seven of its officers were charged…with providing millions of dollars in support to Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist group blamed for dozens of suicide bomber attacks in Israel. The 42-count indictment…claims the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development provided more than $12.4 million to individuals and organizations linked to Hamas from 1995 to 2001...

496

See Bible, Genesis 11:1-8.

247

…The charges include conspiracy, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, tax evasion, and money laundering.

Another example was reported recently by USA Today: Bush administration accuses Saudi charity of financing terrorism USA Today, September 9, 2004 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration accused a U.S. arm of a large Saudi charity on Thursday of helping to finance terrorist activities. The Treasury Department’s action covers Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation’s locations in Ashland, Ore., and Springfield, Mo. The action makes a formal designation that the group is suspected of supporting terrorism… The department said a federal investigation “shows direct links between the U.S. branch and Osama bin Laden,” the al-Qaeda leader… In addition, [the] Treasury cited allegations that the U.S. arm of Al-Haramain…engaged in money-laundering offenses…to conceal the movement of funds intended for Chechnya…which they claimed was for the purchase of a prayer house… …[Also,] donations made to Al-Haramain intended to support Chechen refugees were instead diverted to support “mujahideen as well as Chechen leaders affiliated with the al-Qaeda network.”

While indictments are not convictions, it is disconcerting that these charitable organizations, which are some of the largest and most legitimate of their kind, have multiple-count indictments against them. Moreover, these are just two of many such organizations that have been accused. While the U.S. court system can take years to determine guilt or innocence, these cases, together with the terrorist cells discovered on American soil, call into question the intentions of a significant number of American Muslims. While the United States has a small Islamic minority at the moment, this situation could change rapidly. As of February 2005, there were 1209 Mosques in the U.S. and roughly 2-3 million Muslims, who comprise less than 1% of the population.497 However, in Western Europe, Muslim populations rose, through a combination of immigration, marriage, and high birthrates, to nearly 10% in a few decades. If our experience is anything like theirs, then we can soon expect attempts by Muslims to reshape U.S. law. As in Canada and France, Muslims will work to establish legally recognized Shari’ah courts, government-funded religious institutions, and special accommodations at schools.

Russia The primary conflict between Russia and Islamic militants today stems from Chechnya’s war for independence. This conflict was born in Russia’s imperial past, following its conquest of the Caucasus during the mid-1800s. These conquests encountered little resistance at the time 497

Muslims in America, National Geographic magazine, February 2005.

248

because, in large part, they filled a political void in a chaotic land.498 However, as Richard Pipes wrote in The Formation of the Soviet Union:499 The Chechens and Ingush presented a special problem…Inassimilable and warlike, they created so much difficulty for the Russian forces trying to subdue the North Caucasus that, after conquering the area, the government felt compelled to…expel them from the valleys and lowlands into the bare mountain regions. There…they lived in abject poverty, tending sheep and waiting for the day when they could wreak revenge on the newcomers and regain their lost lands.

The time between then and now has been marked by frequent revolts, harsh repressions, mass deportations, and occasional independent states. In 1944, Stalin commanded virtually the entire Chechen population to resettle in Kazakhstan, to avenge Chechen collaboration with the Nazis against the Soviet Union. But exile did not chasten the Chechens. In fact, it only intensified their rebellious behavior. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described in The Gulag Archipelago, …there was one nation that would not give in, would not acquire the mental habits of submission – and not just individual rebels among them, but the whole nation to a man. These were the Chechens. They were capable of rustling cattle, robbing a house, or sometimes simply taking what they wanted by force. They respected only rebels. And here is an extraordinary thing – everyone was afraid of them. No one could stop them from living as they did. The regime which had ruled the land for thirty years could not force them to respect its laws.

In 1957, Nikolai Khrushchev took a series of actions meant to undo many of Stalin’s worst offenses. In this effort, Khrushchev allowed the Chechens to return to their homeland and establish the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. This arrangement brought relative peace for many years, but this peace unravelled when the Chechens became outraged over a 1988 Soviet attempt to rewrite history and claim that the Chechens had willingly joined the USSR. This outrage soon turned into a demand for Chechen independence. Under the leadership of Jokhar Dudaev, they briefly achieved this goal, but were crushed by Russia in 1994.500 Today, with its rebellion strangled by brute force, Chechnya’s rebels have redirected their mission from independence to vengeance. They have channeled their malice into a string of terrorist attacks on civilian targets by sending suicide bombers to commuter trains, hospitals, a rock music festival, a Moscow theater, a Moscow apartment complex, and a ferry boat.501 In May 9, 2004, the elected Chechen President, Akhmad Kadyrov, was assassinated by an explosion as he watched an outdoor holiday concert.502 The most heinous terrorist act to date occurred in the town of Beslan, just outside Chechnya, where 32 Chechen suicide-terrorists

498

Philip’s Atlas of World History General Editor: Patrick K. O’Brian, The Institute of Historical Research, University of London, 1999, page 180. 499 The Formation of the Soviet Union, by Richard Pipes, Harvard University Press, 1996. 500 Chechen History by Edward Kline, President of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, 1995. 501 A Long History of Chechen Terror Attacks, Deutsche Welle, December 6, 2003. 502 Chechen president killed in stadium bombing, by Mark McDonald, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 9, 2004.

249

captured a middle school and then bombed it on its opening day in 2004.503 Some 330 people died, more than half of them children.504 The sentiment of these suicide attackers can be summed up in a quote from a recording made by one of the Moscow theater terrorists: It does not matter where we will die…we will take with us the souls of the infidels…Every one of us is ready for self-sacrifice for the sake of Allah and independence of Chechnya. We want to die more than you want to live.505

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) The region formerly known as Yugoslavia has been so unstable for so long that it is difficult to discuss its history without discussing the history of the entire Balkan Peninsula: The Balkans have been the battlegrounds of cultural wars for thousands of years, with territories frequently changing hands between tribes even in the days of the ancient Illyrians, Thracians, and Dardanians. Its confusion of cultures and religions is so tangled that, today, when people want to say a country is hopelessly fragmented and hostile, they say it is “Balkanized.” Balkanization is similar to tribalization, but more complex. To understand both the Balkans and the meaning of Balkanization, we need some background on Balkan history: In 300 AD, the Balkan Peninsula had been a part of Rome for hundreds of years. At about this time, the first northern invasions by Serbian tribes began, which continued throughout the first millennium.506 As these tribes pressed further south, Orthodox and Catholic churches competed for the hearts and tithes of these potential converts, creating a religious crazy-quilt that added new religious components to the tensions that already existed between tribes. During the final years of the Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Turks conquered the area and began a repressive program designed to convert the inhabitants to Islam. The Ottoman outrages are described in “Bulgaria: Illustrated History” :507 The place allotted to the Bulgarian people in the Ottoman feudal political system entitled it to no legal, religious, national, even biological rights as Bulgarian Christians. They had all been reduced to the category of the so called rayah (meaning “a flock,” attributed to the non-Muslim subjects of the empire). The peasants who represented the better half of the Bulgarian population were dispossessed of their land. According to the Ottoman feudal system, which remained effective until 1834, all of [the land] belonged to the central power in the person of the Turkish sultan. The Bulgarians were allowed to cultivate only some plots.

503

Over 300 killed in school carnage, by Simon Ostrovsky, The Moscow Times, September 6, 2004. How did it come to this?, by Andrew Meier, National Geographic, July 2005. 505 We want to Die More than You want to Live, Pravda, October 25, 2002. 506 Philip’s Atlas of World History General Editor: Patrick K. O’Brian, Copyright 1999, Published by the Institute of historical Research, University of London, pages 70, 71. 507 Bulgaria: Illustrated History by B. Dimitrov, Published 2002 by Boriana Publishing House, Sofia, Bulgaria, sections extracted from www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/under.html. 504

250

Groups of rural Christian families, varying in number, were put under an obligation to give part of their income to representatives of the Muslim military, administrative and religious upper crust, as well as to fulfill various state duties… The establishment of that kind of intercourse in agriculture - the fundamental pillar of the economy at that time,…led to the total loss of motivation for any real farming and production improvements, both among the peasants and the fief-holders. The complex and incredibly burdensome tax system forced the farmers to produce as much as needed for their families’ subsistence, while the feudalists preferred to earn…more from looting and from the incessantly successful wars waged by the Ottoman Empire in all directions until the end of the 17th century. … The Bulgarian people were subjected to national and religious discrimination unheard of in the annals of all European history. During court proceedings, for example, a single Muslim’s testimony was more than enough to confute the evidence of dozens of Christian witnesses. The Bulgarians were not entitled to build churches, set up their offices, or even wear bright colors. Of the numerous taxes (about 80 in number) the so called ‘fresh blood tax’508 (a levy of Christian youths) was particularly heavy and humiliating. At regular intervals, the authorities had the healthiest male children taken away from their parents, sent to the capital, converted to Islam, and then trained in combat skills. Raised and trained in the spirit of Islamic fanaticism, the young men were conscripted into the so-called janissary corps, [which] caused so much trouble and suffering to both the Bulgarians and Christian Europe. The Turkish authorities exerted unabating pressure on parts of the Bulgarian people to make them convert their faith and become Muslims…according to…medieval standards…, the [political] affiliation of a given people was determined by the religion it followed.

This treatment was not limited to Bulgaria, but was common throughout the Balkan Peninsula. It converted populations to Islam with varying degrees of success, creating a complex and hostile mix of faiths as well as peoples. As the repressive boot of the Ottoman Empire was lifted during the 1800s and early 1900s, this fragmented patchwork of people and faiths was exposed. Due to longstanding rivalries and animosities, born of both heritage and religion, the entire region has been, and remains, politically chaotic and unstable. A brief respite from turmoil was provided by WWII hero Josip Tito, an independently-minded communist who went on to lead the newly formed Yugoslavia for 35 years. This unity succeeded in part because Yugoslavia’s communism repressed all religions. However, upon Tito’s death in 1980, the nation entered a period of economic and ethnic turmoil which, in many ways, paralleled the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Union’s collapse, and the popular rejection of Communism, Yugoslavia quickly disintegrated in 1991 and 1992 under the misrule of Slobodan Milosevic, a Serb nationalist.509 The shards of fractured Yugoslavia became Catholic Slovenia, Catholic Croatia, Orthodox Macedonia, Orthodox Serbia and Montenegro, and Islamic/Orthodox/Catholic (Croat) Bosnia-Herzegovina.

508 509

This tax was also known as the devshirme, or devsirme. Background Note: Serbia and Montenegro, U.S. Dept. of State. See www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5388.htm.

251

While most of these nations had a preponderance of one religion over the others, BosniaHerzegovina was especially tangled. Ultimately, a Serbian territory called Republika Srpska was carved out of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which left the Muslim/Orthodox/Croat “Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” A peaceful settlement came about only through UN intervention.510 Its stability is fragile, even today, and is entirely dependent on UN Peacekeepers. Another place where religious-ethnic groups continue to compete for power is Kosovo, which has changed hands between Muslim Albania and Orthodox Serbia several times over the centuries, and is currently a part of Serbia, even though its people are 90% Muslim Albanian. The reason that Kosovo is a part of Serbia is its emotional and historical importance to the Serbs. Kosovo was the location of an epic battle with the Ottoman Turks in 1389, which, while indecisive itself, resulted in the death of Serbia’s heroic leader, Prince Lazar. After the death of Lazar, the leaderless Serbs soon succumbed to the Ottomans. Centuries later, as the Ottoman Empire crumbled, Serbia’s annexation of Kosovo was a deeply emotional victory for the Serbs, who had used Prince Lazar and Kosovo as unifying icons throughout the years of Ottoman repression.511 Unfortunately, this emotional gain by the Serbs represented an equally emotional loss by the Muslim Albanians, who have waged battles of various sorts ever since to regain it. This included an alliance with Axis forces during World War II, rallied by Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, to battle against the Ally nation of Yugoslavia.512 Albania conquered Kosovo and scattered the Serbs living there to other lands. After the Axis defeat, Yugoslavia regained Kosovo, but the Albanians living there responded by embarking on an effort to regain power through both immigration from Albania and high Albanian birth rates. The Albanian population of Kosovo climbed rapidly during the years following World War II. In the ten-year period of 1961 to 1971 alone, the Albanian percentage of Kosovo’s population increased from 67% to 74%.513 The most recent flag-carrier of this battle is the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), which began making terrorist attacks on Serbs in Kosovo as Yugoslavia disintegrated after Tito’s death. In the late 1980s, Yugoslavia’s elected leader, Slobodan Milosevic, responded to these attacks with repressive measures against all Albanians, which he called “ethnic cleansing.” These attacks were so severe that the rest of the world called them “genocide.” Interestingly, the term “ethnic cleansing” originated with the KLA, in their effort to “cleanse” Kosovo of non-Albanians.514 This conflict was contained only by the direct intervention of NATO forces under the auspices of the UN, which made Kosovo a UN Mission in 1999. Despite this intervention, the KLA continues to commit intermittent terrorist attacks against Orthodox churches and Serbs. NATO’s presence does not solve Kosovo’s problems, but only keeps a lid on them.515

510

Background Note: Croatia, U.S. Department of State. See www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3166.htm. Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo, by Miranda Vickers, Columbia University Press, 1998. 512 Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, by Bat Ye’or, Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, Madison NJ, 2002. 513 Albanian and Serbs in Kosovo: An Abbreviated History, by G. Richard Jansen, Colorado State University, April 25, 1999, updated November 12, 2002. 514 Ibid. 515 Background Note: Serbia and Montenegro, U.S. Department of State, www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5388.htm. 511

252

Armenia Armenia’s ancient and tortured history is one of a nation stranded on the shoals between Christian and Islamic cultures. There were times when it was an island of Christendom. There were also times when it was swept under waves of Islamic subjugation. One of the greatest sources of Armenian national pride is that it was the first officially Christian nation in the world, due to the conversion of King Trdat in 301AD. However, this honor was short lived because the Persian Empire conquered Armenia just a few years later. Then, in 387, part of Armenia was captured by Christianized Rome. In the centuries that followed, its status tottered between independence and subjugation, and it was ultimately partitioned between the Islamic Persians and the Islamic Ottomans. Through policies similar to those in the Balkans, the Armenian nation became a crazy-quilt of populations spread throughout its traditional lands. This book has already touched on what might be called the tribalizing effect of Islam, and its version of tolerance, which allows other religions to exist, but only in subjugation to an Islamic state. The Ottoman version of Islamic “tolerance” used enslavement, forced conversions, land confiscation, special taxes, and forced migrations to maintain Ottoman power. Islamic “tolerance” is unique in its declaration that each religious sect should govern its own people with its own unique set of laws. As The Koran for Dummies explains:516 Non-Muslims [in an Islamic nation] have the right to set up their own communal laws according to the principles of their religion, as long as their laws don’t violate any major state law…Critics of Islam feel that this creates a barrier between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities that could lead to ill feelings through a lack of communication. Islamic scholars and activists argue that giving non-Muslims jurisdiction over their own communal laws is the only way to truly protect the freedom of worship.

This tactfully worded explanation neglects to mention that the “major state laws” of Shari’ah institutionalize Muslim supremacy over non-Muslims, allow Muslims to kill non-Muslims who offend them, and prohibit conversions from Islam, on pain of death. It does, however, unveil two other characteristics of Islamic political theory: •

•

Islamic political theory binds church and state together so profoundly that Muslims cannot conceive of law outside of the context of religion. Within Islam’s framework, the concept of secular law does not exist. Even laws that one would normally consider incontrovertibly secular, such as traffic laws, are subsumed under Shari’ah through extrapolation from the Koran and the Hadith’s recording of the Sunnah. Islamic political theory gives “freedom of worship” a completely different meaning from what Westerners presume. According to Shari’ah, “freedom of worship” does not apply to Muslims at all because they are not free to leave the fold of Islam. “Freedom of Worship” is more about preserving the internal laws of non-Muslim ethnic groups (or tribes) than it is about one’s religious beliefs or the ability to freely change them. In fact,

516

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Rights of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, page 251.

253

there were even times when the Ottoman Empire discouraged conversions to Islam, because the conversions reduced tax revenues from non-Muslims.517 Muslims themselves recognize the tribalizing effect of Islam and its incompatibility with Western concepts of nationhood, but choose to view this in a positive light. For example, in his book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Mahmood Mamdani manages to dress tribalization in the clothes of political philosophy when referring to the cultural conflicts within Afghan society. Instead of calling it anarchic, he says that Afghan society is “historically adapted to a highly decentralized and localized mode of life”518 – an example of Political Correctness that verges on comedy. He also says that:519 Historically, Afghan society managed its cultural diversity through a highly decentralized polity and society. A centralizing state project was likely to exacerbate rather than contain these differences.

A more honest picture of Afghan society appears in an anecdote told by Dr. Craig Davis in The Middle East for Dummies:520 A great tension exists between different ethnic groups in the Middle East. In South Asia, for example, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Hazaras, Tajiks, and other groups are in constant conflict. In 1988, I went to a small Afghan hospital in Peshawar to visit one of my Afghan students who’d developed typhoid fever. I was wearing Pakistani clothes, including a tope, a Pakistani hat. When I announced to the Pashtun chokidar (gatekeeper) in my flawed Urdu of my intentions to visit a patient, he abruptly informed me in his equally flawed Urdu that visiting hours were three hours off… After I finally succeeded in getting the…gatekeeper to talk about his family…and other small talk, he asked me where I was from. When I told him the United States, he leaped up, shook my hand, expressed his pleasure in meeting me, and informed me that I was free to enter the hospital. He added that he was sorry for the delay, but said, “I thought you were Punjabi.”

While America’s version of tolerance, a product of Free Democracy, has tended to produce a “melting pot,” the House of Islam’s version of tolerance, seasoned with contempt, has tended to produce hard lines of mutual hostility between its sub-groups. These hostilities have created a long history of rebellions, suppressions, and bloody purges. The effect of this history is visible throughout the Islamic world, from India to Afghanistan and the Sudan, but it is particularly evident in the Balkan Peninsula and Armenia.

517

The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire, by Arnakis, G. Georgiades, Journal of Modern History, v. 24, n. 3 (September 1952), pages 235-251. 518 Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror, by Mahmood Mamdani, Three Leaves Press, Doubleday, New York, 2004, Chapter 3, entitled Afghanistan: The High Point in the Cold War, page 163. 519 Ibid, Chapter 3, entitled Afghanistan: The High Point in the Cold War, page 153. 520 The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 22, entitled Language and Literature, page 322.

254

The history of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian genocide, which climaxed in 1915, is again so tangled and complex that there is no way to encapsulate it adequately in these pages. As a substitute, this book will excerpt two other sources: an article from the AZT Armenian Daily, and a book review by Professor James R. Russell of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, which depicts the genocide and its aftermath.521 Russell is a professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University. AZG Armenian Daily #076, April 24, 2002, provides a brief historical recap of the genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire and Turkey against the Armenians, along with a summary of the long-term effects of those genocides: Strategic Consequences of Armenian Genocide By Armen Ayvazian … Up to 1915, the territory where ethnic Armenians lived occupied the whole Armenian plateau, that is, the historical Armenia…this territory totaled 350,000 square km, each region of the territory being kind of a separate ‘castle’, which had a protective role for Armenians living in that region. Thus [during] Iranian, Turkish, or Mongolian invasions, [if] one region was captured, the people could easily [go] to another region that was as hard to capture as the previous one…after some time, when a region of [the] Armenian plateau was captured by foreign invaders, [the] Armenian population, which escaped to neighboring regions, ‘repatriated’ back to their region. And…the number of Armenians in each region always outnumbered the foreign population. Being the majority in a region, Armenians could easily rebel and recover both their land and independence. The first terrible consequence of the Armenian Genocide, which was carried out by Ottoman Turkey, was that Armenians were estranged from the land where they lived for centuries. As regards [the] strategic factor, the loss of the land deprived Armenians from most of their ‘castles’, leaving only 1/10th of the previous protective space. At present, Armenia does not have any place to run to or cede. Directly speaking, Armenia does not have a right to lose a war; otherwise, the Armenian nation will be eliminated. … …All [of] the Western Armenian leading intellectuals, political and public figures, as well as common people, were executed during the 1915 events. Having lost their…leaders [the] Armenian nation was thereafter helpless, and bound to scatter from country to country… … The genocide of [the] Armenian nation actually falls into 4 stages: 1894-96, when around 300,000 Armenians were massacred; 30,000 were killed in 1900; 1.5 million -during the 1915-16 genocide, and about 300,000 from 1918 to 1922. The number of victims, totaling more than 2 million…are justly described as an attempt by…Ottoman Turkey to exterminate the Armenian nation...

The Burning Tigris: When the Tigris Burned and the Euphrates Ran Red describes an on-going complicity of the United States (and many other nations) in this genocide, for the sake of good relations with a Muslim ally nation. The end of this section reveals how this complicity gave tyrants the green light for other genocides in the 20th century. In the 21st century, Islamic tyrants may turn that green light on us: 521

The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response, by Peter Balakian, published by Harper Perennial, October 1, 2004.

255

Imagine it is the present day in an alternate universe. A historically progressive American paper publishes a front-page article declaring that the Jews of Europe were killed in World War II because they were agents of a foreign power that did not yet exist. A prestigious literary journal sneeringly dismisses the Holocaust as having been the massacre of a few thousand Jews “who had rioted against their Christian fellow citizens” of Germany. Now let us imagine that the same Nazi Germany had been fought not to defeat, but to a draw. The modern state acknowledges that regrettable atrocities were committed on both sides during the Second World War, but venerates the architects of the Final Solution as national heroes. Tourists can visit the ruins of synagogues and the cultural relics of Eastern European Jews who lived in the region, even as the government destroys the few remaining monuments — the more artistic of which are attributed in guidebooks to the ancestors of the Germans themselves. One U.S. presidential candidate after another promises to sign a Congressional bill acknowledging that what happened to the Jews was genocide but nobody ever does, for good relations with Germany come at the price of a courteous silence. There is an Israel, but it is isolated by a Nazi blockade, a third of its population dead of disease and starvation or in emigration in search of work. The Jews themselves have tried in vain to advance recognition of their cause…Some [wrote] books, and…managed to rouse the conscience of the best and the brightest across America, only for everything…to be consigned to oblivion soon thereafter. Substitution of Armenians for Jews in the paragraph above returns us to this universe. It was a front-page article in the Forward522 in 1995 that claimed that Armenians, about 1.5 million of whom were exterminated by the Ottoman Turkish state in 1915, were “assisting the Soviet effort to overtake Turkey” — even though it was not until 1920 that the Russian Armenian province, the guberniya of Erevan, was conquered by the Bolsheviks, and two years more until a state called the Soviet Union came into being. The majority of the Armenians who were killed were farmers and craftsmen who knew no foreign language, lived in villages a fortnight from the nearest port or railhead, and rarely traveled even half as far. The second article, by Christopher de Bellaigue, which reduced the whole business to a few thousand Armenians “killed while rioting against their Muslim fellow citizens,” was published in the New York Review of Books. The latter is not only an untruth, it is the opposite of the truth. There were two waves of the extermination of the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, and de Bellaigue’s remark seems to refer to the first: In 1895-96, members of the Armenian community of the capital, Constantinople, demonstrated peacefully against the systematic murder and extortion of their compatriots in the Anatolian interior (historical Armenia) by government tax-collectors and Kurdish marauders in the pay of the Ottoman authorities. The protest was suppressed with extreme violence; it was followed by a wave of state-sponsored massacres, called a jihad and led by Muslim mullahs and…theological students, in which some 200,000 Armenians were slaughtered… Today’s Armenia, a tiny state in the Transcaucasus, exists only because it was part of Tsarist Russia and then the Soviet Union. In Soviet times, it flourished: The country was cherished and supported by the Diaspora much as Israel was to be by Jews; there was even a kind of “law of return,” of which many thousands took advantage. The region today is now independent, and has been under Turkish blockade for over a decade. As a result of severe conditions, many of my colleagues there have died young. 522

The Forward is the name of the Yiddish language newspaper in which this book review appeared, in the January 23, 2004 edition. Prof. Russell’s article was written as an indignant response to the apparent apathy of Jews to the plight of the Armenians.

256

The Ottoman leaders who planned and carried out the Armenian genocide are officially celebrated as heroes of the present successor state, which…denies the genocide took place. Throughout eastern Anatolia, the names of Armenian towns have been changed and priceless monuments of medieval Armenian Christian art had been systematically destroyed by 1997. The official Turkish line is that the Armenians are not there now because they never were; and if there were any, well, then it was they who did the massacring — of their Turkish neighbors. But the Armenians were also dangerous foreign elements, a fifth column, so the genocide was justified. Though it didn’t happen. So all the testimony of the survivors, those unlettered, gentle grandmothers who never served a foreign state, who never struck a fellow creature in anger, but who worked and cooked and raised children and forged a new life in the factory towns and working-class neighborhoods of New England, is all a carefully corroborated fraud, a conspiracy. … …During World War I, eyewitness reports of the arrests, death marches and mass killings poured in from American diplomats and missionaries, journalists and physicians. When the war ended, President Wilson declared, “Armenia is to be redeemed.” But…no amount of agitation or mass of fact could ever materially affect American policy. The White House did not condemn the Ottomans in 1896. The United States did not go to war against Turkey in 1917. After the October Revolution, Russia withdrew from the war and Turkey invaded the Transcaucasus, continuing to massacre the Armenians even after its own capitulation. The surviving sliver of Armenia controlled by Russia was incorporated into the Soviet Union, and President Wilson’s postwar plan for an American mandate in Armenia was eventually voted down by an isolationist Senate. Despite continuing public pressure on behalf of the Armenians, American policy in the 1920s was more concerned with achieving a foothold in the Muslim Middle East, and access to oil, than in a nation of which a third were refugees, another third under Soviet rule, and the rest extinct. … …the insistence of the government in Ankara that America and Israel deny the Armenian genocide as the price of continued friendship is too high to pay and in the end probably need not be paid for the alliance to continue. It is, besides, misguided. Denial warps Turkish society itself, as the Turkish scholar Taner Akcam has pointed out: Falsification of history leads to other kinds of repression. …in 1997 France recognized the Armenian genocide as such. Turkey protested loudly, but soon life went back to normal. The United States, he suggests, is too fearful… …The Armenians…dehumanized as infidels over a millennium of Muslim oppression and misrule, survived in the end only because the Russian army’s nuclear umbrella sheltered (and shelters) Erevan523. The Armenians of Karabagh averted a new massacre in the early 1990s because they got arms and learned how to use them. As a Zionist leader told an assembly full of yeshiva524 kids in Lithuania on the eve of the Holocaust: “Children! I want you to learn. I want you to learn to shoot.”

523 524

Capital of Armenia. Also spelled Yerevan. A kind of Jewish school.

257

Beyond a deeper understanding of Islam’s relationship with Infidel peoples, the Armenian experience casts an ominous shadow on the consequences of Western inaction. Through a combination of complacency, self-interest, and ignorance, Western nations did more than simply permit the Armenian genocide; they set the stage for Nazi atrocities decades later. As Adolph Hitler remarked on the eve of his Final Solution:525 Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter – with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me. I have issued the command – and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad – that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness…with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need.526 Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

The degree to which Muslims live in a state of denial about Islam’s history of violence is mindboggling. Unfortunately, Westerners who have not studied history are susceptible to Islamic propaganda, which often turns history on its head. For example, consider these words from The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran:527 …negative and wholly inaccurate stereotypes about Islam are common in the United States. Some analysts imply or say openly…that Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant system of thought – conveniently ignoring the fact that Muslim nations are remarkably free of racial strife and violent crime and that the Islamic faith’s history of religious tolerance over the centuries is well documented. It is a strange brand of intolerance that yields racial harmony!

The native Africans of Darfur and southern Sudan may have a slightly different opinion. The question we face today is this: Will Osama bin Laden and his followers, like Genghis Khan and his horde, one day be considered the founders of a vast and mighty state, despite their murderous deeds? Will our grandchildren only remember him through the accolades of Islamic propagandists? Maybe we should be more careful about the precedents we set through inaction and complicity, and maybe we should be more careful about the truths we sacrifice for the sake of political alliance.

525

Exhibit USA-28 of the Nuremburg Tribunal. Quote also appeared in What about Germany?, by Louis Lochner, published by Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942. 526 To make room for the growth of his Aryan “master race,” Hitler planned to conquer foreign lands and enslave the people, who would be exterminated progressively as the Aryan need for land expanded. 527 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 3, section entitled An Example from History, page 27.

258

Cyprus528 Cyprus, one of the most famously beautiful islands in the Mediterranean, was a Christian land from the earliest days of Christendom, as well as a part of the Byzantine Empire. With Constantinople’s fall to the Ottomans in 1453, however, Cyprus became an outpost of Christianity’s shrunken frontier. Cyprus, under constant pressure from various Muslim empires, paid annual tributes for its “protection.” By the early 1500s, Cyprus had become a quasi-vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, its tributes did not dissuade the Ottomans from their intended conquest, but only persuaded them to focus their attentions elsewhere for the time-being. After a few decades, Cyprus came back into the Ottoman cross-hairs and quickly succumbed in 1570. Throughout the former lands of Byzantium, the Greek identity remained strong despite Ottoman subjugation and Turkification programs that planted Turkish settlers in conquered lands. After hundreds of years, Greek pride, together with Ottoman persecutions, prompted a general revolt in the 1820s. The end result of this revolt was Greek independence and a tottering Ottoman Empire. At this time, Britain was allied with the Ottomans against the rising power of Russia, which had supported Greek independence and humbled the Ottomans in the 1820s during the RussoTurkish war. Because of the Ottoman Empire’s internal divisions and weaknesses, European nations came to view the Ottoman Empire as a buffer state, to limit Russia’s expansion, rather than as a threat in itself. However, as the “sick old man of Europe,” the Ottoman Empire could not adequately protect itself, and it grew dependent on European reinforcements. In the wake of the Crimean War of the 1850s, when Britain and France joined with the Ottoman Empire to thwart Russian encroachment, the Ottoman Empire went so far as to invite the British to make Cyprus a protectorate in 1878. The idea was to let Britain administer Cyprus on behalf of the Ottomans, so that the Ottomans could focus on combating the Russians. This arrangement worked to the benefit of both nations for several decades. In World War I, however, alliances were reversed in a mirror-maze of circumstances: It began with the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir apparent to the AustroHungarian throne, by a member of a Serbian nationalist movement known as “The Black Hand.” The Serbs, who had recently thrown off the Ottomans with Russian support, carried out this assassination to oppose Austria-Hungary’s plans to annex their lands. Austria-Hungary used this provocation to assert their control over Serbia and squash its independence movement. Russia had been an arch-enemy of the Ottomans for centuries, and had taken vast portions of formerly Ottoman land north and east of the Black Sea. Russia had also supported rebellions that liberated Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania from Ottoman control. Therefore, the sympathy that Russians felt for Serbia was very strong. When Austria attacked Serbia, Russia responded by entering the conflict to defend the Serbs.

528

This history was compiled through a review of both the history given by the official website of the President of “The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus” (www.trncpresidency.org) and that given by the official website of the Republic of Cyprus (www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/index_en/index_en?opendocument – for version in English).

259

Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire, humiliated by its multitude of losses to Russian-supported rebellions, and hoping to regain lost land, decided to enter the battle against its current foes (the Serbs and Russians) by joining forces with its previous foe, Austria-Hungary. By this time, Germany, the fast-rising economic and military powerhouse of Europe, which had recently defeated the French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, had entered the war on the side of its long-time ally, Austria-Hungary. Britain, on the other hand, had entered into an alliance with France and Russia in 1907, called the Triple Entente, because it feared Germany’s rising power. This alliance pulled Britain into the burgeoning war on the side of Russia. And so, through a twisted chain of alliances, the British and Ottomans found themselves on opposite sides of “The Great War.” This unintended circumstance placed Britain in the easy position of taking Cyprus from its Ottoman opponent, and it did so by annexation in 1914. After the war, Cyprus was relatively prosperous under British administration. However, this period was marred by violent agitation from Greek Cypriots, who wanted Cyprus joined to Greece, as well as Turkish Cypriots, who wanted it joined to Turkey. The only thing these antagonists had in common was that they both wanted Britain out. While Britain’s empire had brought it wealth and power for many years, World War II strained its imperial system to the breaking point. At an ideological level, the brutality of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan stimulated a healthy dose of introspection, and imperialism lost its allure. More pragmatically, the strain of World War II had exhausted Britain and forced it to promise independence to many of its colonies in exchange for military support. Thus, after the war, Britain transformed its colonies into a “Commonwealth” of independent nations that were linked through mutually advantageous economic and political ties. To further this transition, Britain entered into the 1959 Zurich Agreement with Greece and Turkey, with the intent of establishing an independent Cyprus. However, the Cypriots themselves were excluded from the agreement’s discussions, and they resented their lack of representation. By 1960, Britain, Greece, and Turkey had agreed to a constitution for Cyprus. In this constitution, Greeks held the highest power, but Turks, who represented about one-fifth of the population, could veto legislation. Unfortunately, but understandably, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots both rejected it. But it was not simply that Greek and Turkish Cypriots did not buy into this constitution. The sad truth was that they could not work together to produce one, and would not accept one created by anyone else. Furthermore, they were adamantly opposed to living together as a single nation. In the ensuing years, Greeks and Turks made polarizing migrations to build political power in specific areas. In 1974, Greece orchestrated a coup d’etat of the unified government. This coup provoked a retaliatory invasion by Turkey, which led to a formal partition of the island into the Turkish North and Greek South. In 1975, a UN-brokered agreement was established that further

260

encouraged northern migrations by Turks and southern migrations by Greeks.529 In 1983, the Turkish legislative assembly administering the northern region proclaimed itself to be the independent Turkish Republic in North Cyprus. Today, for all practical purposes, the north and south of Cyprus are two separate countries, even though the UN has rejected the Turkish North’s declaration of independence and has encouraged its member nations to not recognize it. Since the Turkish invasion, the northern republic has seen a massive influx of Turkish nationals, who reinforce and solidify Turkish claims to the land. Meanwhile, the southern Republic of Cyprus, which still claims sovereignty over the entire island, has joined the European Community. Today, Cyprus is divided by a “fence” called “the green line.” While deep wounds remain, this separation has given both sides economic and political stability. Because of the ties many Greeks have in the north, and Turks have in the south, as well as Turkey’s desire to follow Cyprus into the European Union, there have been on-going talks of a Cypriot reunification. In discussing this topic, the following article reveals something else: the decline of North Cyprus after the Muslim Turkish takeover: Green Light: Border Opening in Cyprus By Andrea Talas, HVG (independent weekly), Budapest, Hungary, April 29, 2003 A spontaneous unification process may have been started on the island of Cyprus, now divided for 29 years, since Rauf Denktas, the president of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus…opened the Green Line separating the island’s two sections. …Marula Mihaili…, after 29 years of exile…visited her childhood home in the town of Yerolakos…in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an entity recognized solely by Ankara. The widow…found almost everything as it had been left on July 20, 1974, when she was forced to leave it a few hours after the Turkish takeover. The Turkish family that occupied the house still uses the silver set that Mihaili received as a wedding gift, [as well as the] now somewhat worn furniture…Other Greek Cypriots told the same story…it was a bitter experience for many Greek Cypriots to see how impoverished the Turkishoccupied northern half of the island has become…The seaside resorts, once counted as tourist attractions, were now lifeless, abandoned, in a state of decay…the Greek Orthodox churches have been transformed into mosques. There is now nothing to suggest that the buildings were once Christian churches…

Germany Germany has a unique history among European nations with regard to Islam. Its historically cordial relations with the House of Submission stem from two sources: •

Germany’s alliance with the Ottoman Empire during the World War I.

529

United Nations Document S/11789, referred to as the Population Exchange Agreement. A web-based summary of this document can be found at www.cypnet.com/.ncyprus/history/republic/agmt-popexch.html.

261

•

Germany’s belligerence, during World War II, toward France, England, the Soviet Union (formerly Russia), and the Netherlands. These nations were despised in the Islamic world because of their histories as colonizers of Islamic lands, spanning the globe from Algeria to Persia, and from Chechnya to Indonesia.

By chastising the French, British, Russians, and Dutch, Germany won a special place in the hearts of many Muslims around the world (though not all – many Arabs also considered Britain an ally for liberating them from the Ottoman Empire). This affinity was personally strengthened by Adolph Hitler, whose hatred of Jews resonated so well in the Islamic world that, when Persia liberated itself from British occupation in 1935, it changed its official name from Persia to Iran in order to trumpet the fact that Iran was the theoretical source of Hitler’s Aryan race. Later, during WWII, Iraq actually called on Axis nations for help to fight against the British.530 Many Muslims also remember the close collaborative relationship Hitler established with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1936, who also served as President of the (Palestinian) Supreme Muslim Council during that time. Al-Husseini collaborated tirelessly with Hitler to recruit and train Muslim soldiers for the Nazi war effort. Despite this collaboration, al-Husseini escaped prosecution as a war criminal after the war, largely because of European fears of outrage in the Arab lands they still administered. This immunity allowed him to enjoy his final years as an icon of Arab nationalism, and his collaboration with Hitler was never condemned by his supporters. His nephew, Yasser Arafat, considered him a hero and mentor, and boasted of their special relationship.531 Germany has changed considerably since the bad old days of The Third Reich, but one of Hitler’s lasting legacies is a large Muslim population in Germany. In large part, these Muslims descend from World War II Soviet defectors, who rejected the U.S.S.R. as an atheist occupier of Muslim lands. These Muslims now represent an axis of Muslim extremism in the heart of Europe, as described in the following Wall Street Journal article: The Beachhead: How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis Became [a] Center of Radical Islam By Ian Johnson, The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2005; Page A1 MUNICH, Germany – …Buried in…archives are hundreds of documents that trace [a] battle to control the Islamic Center of Munich…the material shows how radical Islam established one of its first and most important beachheads in the West when a group of ex-Nazi soldiers decided to build a mosque. The soldiers’ presence in Munich was part of a nearly forgotten subplot to World War II: the decision by tens of thousands of Muslims in the Soviet Red Army to switch sides and fight for Hitler. After the war, thousands sought refuge in West Germany, building one of the largest Muslim communities in 1950s Europe. When the Cold War heated up, they were a coveted prize for their language skills and contacts back in the Soviet Union…U.S., West German, Soviet and British intelligence agencies vied for…them in the new battle of democracy vs. communism. 530

Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 1, entitled The Legacy of the Western Encounter with the Middle East, page 24. 531 The Mufti of Jerusalem, by Philip Mattar, Columbia University Press revised edition, 1988.

262

Yet the victor wasn’t any of these Cold War combatants. Instead, it was a movement with an equally powerful ideology: the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1920s Egypt as a social-reform movement, the Brotherhood became the fountainhead of political Islam, which calls for the Muslim religion to dominate all aspects of life. A powerful force for political change throughout the Muslim world, the Brotherhood also inspired some of the deadliest terrorist movements of the past quarter century, including Hamas and al Qaeda. The story of how the Brotherhood exported its creed to the heart of Europe highlights a recurring error by Western democracies. For decades, countries have tried to cut deals with political Islam – backing it in order to defeat another enemy, especially communism. Most famously, the U.S. and its allies built up [the] mujahadeen…in 1980s Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union – paving the way for the rise of Osama bin Laden, who quickly turned on his U.S. allies in the 1990s. … Political and social groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood now dominate organized Islamic life across a broad swath of Western Europe… While these groups renounce terrorism and officially advocate assimilation, the upshot of their message is that Europe’s Muslims – now representing between 5% and 10% of the continent’s population – need to be walled off from Western culture. This in turn has helped create fertile ground for violent ideas. Islamic terrorists have increasingly used Europe as a launching pad for their attacks, from the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. to last year’s bombing of trains in Madrid. …Postwar Munich was a ruined city packed with Muslim émigrés fleeing persecution…Most favored some sort of accommodation with the West. But the victor had a bolder vision: a global Islam opposed to the ideals of secular democracy…

Fortunately, in the aftermath of numerous terrorist attacks that could be traced back to organizations in Germany, the German government realized that it not only had a problem, but also had to do something about it: In Germany, Harder Line Looms By Ian Johnson, The Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2005; Page A14 MUNICH, Germany – Local officials have started taking steps against one of the historic centers of Islamism in the West, after years of tolerating and even supporting it. … Now, attorneys in the state of Bavaria have launched two separate investigations. One is aimed at determining whether the Islamic Community of Germany misappropriated state funds, a move that could force the group to pay back more than €700,000 ($868,070) to the state. Prosecutors also are investigating an allegedly related organization that runs a nearby school. Officials denied an education license to the school…, a move confirmed by courts last week. The actions in Bavaria could signal that Germany will take a harder line nationally against Islamist organizations. One of the driving figures behind the moves is Günther Beckstein, the Bavarian interior minister…Mr. Beckstein believes that the Islamic Community of Germany’s allegedly ideological links with the Muslim Brotherhood make it an undemocratic force. “The Islamic Community of Germany is a group that is against the constitution,” Mr. Beckstein said…“It is justified that the state not support such organizations.”

263

For decades, the Munich mosque and its related organizations have been cornerstones of the Muslim Brotherhood network that gradually spanned Europe… For almost a decade, domestic intelligence had…published warnings about the group’s allegedly radical ideology. Public officials, however, continued to deal with [it], financing its private school with €340,000 a year. The organization maintained nonprofit status, which allowed donors to write off their contributions. … In the late 1990s, the Islamic Community of Germany began to attract unwanted attention: A man sentenced for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had been a regular at the Munich mosque and, later, a high-ranking al Qaeda suspect who had contact with mosque members was arrested nearby. In 1998, the group was put on the domestic intelligence agency’s watch list. The next year, the Islamic Community of Germany lost its nonprofit status because of sloppy bookkeeping…donations to the group are no longer tax-deductible. … The Islamic Community of Germany’s direct involvement with the school ended in 2003, when a group called the German-Islamic Educational Enterprise was founded…It obtained nonprofit status and received roughly the same…state support to run the school, officials say. Now, state prosecutors are investigating whether the new group may have forged the signatures of members who weren’t present at its founding…Local officials denied the school a license for the current school year because they say it is a dummy organization set up to disguise links to the Islamic Community of Germany. “We are afraid that the group running the school, which belongs to the Islamic Community of Germany, is using the school to spread Islamist ideology,” said Thomas Huber, spokesman for the district government of Upper Bavaria…

India India has a long history of contention between indigenous Hindus and Muslims who arrived on the wings of the Ghurid Empire’s Islamic invasion in the 12th century. This Islamic presence grew throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, through the Sultanate of Delhi, and culminated in the Mughal Empire, which ruled virtually all of India during the 16th and 17th centuries. By the time traders from Europe began to arrive, India was in the process of succumbing to the Mughals. The European traders, pursuing their own interests, allied themselves with the Hindu populations to gain political power as protectors, and secured lucrative trade arrangements in the process. In the 1600s and 1700s, Britain displaced the other European nations and strengthened its role as protector until all of India was its client and Britain ruled large portions outright. The trade and technical innovations that accompanied Britain made its presence welcome at first. However, by the early 1900s, after a number of atrocities, and after the insult of denying Indians full rights as British citizens,532 the relationship soured, and India began a decades-long battle for self-determination. During World War II, the British promised independence to India in exchange for its military support. After the war, Britain made good on its promise, but this only

532

This may sound familiar to readers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

264

brought back the ancient war for religious dominance. One of the leading forces in this conflict was the Muslim League, whose mission was to form a separate Muslim state ruled by Shari’ah. Ultimately, colonial India was divided into two nations: India and Pakistan (which later split into modern Pakistan and Bangladesh). The conflicts and mass migrations associated with Pakistan’s founding caused more than one million deaths.533 Since that time, India and Pakistan have fought four wars over the disputed Indian state of Kashmir. Today they periodically threaten each other with annihilation through nuclear war. Despite the mass migrations, there remains a substantial number of Muslims in India. In fact, Muslims represent about 13% of India’s population. For a variety of reasons, ranging from perceived oppression to sympathy with Pakistan to conquest, they have lashed out numerous times against the Indian government. Bombings occur regularly,534 and, in December of 2001, a murderous attack on India’s National Parliament itself by a Kashmiri/Pakistani militia resulted in 14 deaths.535 Muslim terrorist attacks that are less politically devastating but far more deadly are also familiar to Indians, such as the bombing of two crowded markets on October 22, 2005, which killed 59 people.536 Hindus have frequently responded to Muslim terrorism with attacks of their own, leaving ample blood on everyone’s hands.

Nigeria Islam’s rise in Nigeria was proclaimed when Nigeria’s northern provinces adopted Shari’ah in 2000 and 2001. Islamic courts then flaunted their power by quickly condemning a pregnant divorcee to death by stoning. Since that time, northern Nigeria has proceeded to alienate itself from the West on multiple fronts. Beyond its public displays of harsh Islamic Law, northern Nigeria has turned away from modern innovations in other ways and sent itself on a journey back toward Islamic traditions. A stand-out example of this regression comes from the case of a pregnant divorcee: the court resolved the case’s question of paternity with the aid of a traditional Islamic method, namely, the testimony of three men, rather than a modern and scientific paternity test (the accused man himself was the fourth male witness). Even though Western minds cannot imagine how witnesses could prove that a man did not impregnate a woman, the male witnesses were all that Shari’ah needed to absolve the father. As a side note, this again demonstrates how Shari’ah is stacked in favor of men, because, while both men and women may be sentenced to death for adultery, it is virtually impossible for a man to be convicted: Woman sentenced to stoning freed From Jeff Koinange, CNN, Monday, February 23, 2004 KATSINA, Nigeria (CNN) – An appeals court has freed a Nigerian mother sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. 533

Philip’s Atlas of World History General Editor: Patrick K. O’Brian, Copyright 1999, Published by the Institute of historical Research, University of London, pages 88, 89,118, 119, 194, 195, 248, 249. 534 India’s Great Divide, by Alex Perry, TimeAsia, August 4, 2003. 535 Indian Muslim leader is slain at memorial service, by Rama Lakshmi (Washington Post), International HeraldTribune, May 22, 2002. 536 Claim of responsibility for deadly India blasts, Associated Press, MSNBC News, October 30, 2005.

265

The Shari’ahh Court of Appeal ruled…that Amina Lawal’s conviction was invalid because she was already pregnant when…Islamic Shari’ahh law was implemented in her home province…Shari’ahh law…is practiced in 12 of Nigeria’s 36 states. …human rights groups…were outraged at the sentence that Lawal should be buried up to her neck and then have stones thrown at her head until she was dead. …not all the spectators who attended the hearing were pleased by the result. One man who had come to hear the court’s ruling said: “I would have preferred Amina to be stoned to death. She deserves it.” … Lawal was convicted and sentenced in March 2002 after giving birth to a baby girl more than nine months after divorcing. Under the strict Shari’ahh law, pregnancy outside marriage constitutes sufficient evidence for a woman to be convicted of adultery. … She insists she did nothing wrong and that the man who fathered her child made a promise to marry her. He did not, leaving her pregnant and with no support. The man said he was not the father, and three male witnesses testified he did not have a sexual relationship with Lawal. The witnesses constituted adequate corroboration of his story under Shari’ahh law, and he was freed. … The adoption of Shari’ahh, which includes amputation as a possible punishment for convicted thieves, has stoked violence between Muslims and Christians in Africa’s most populous state. More than 3,000 people have been killed.

Islam’s ascendancy is also poisoning northern Nigeria’s relations with the West. Consider the recent outbreak of polio that started in northern Nigeria and spread to its neighbors. Although Nigeria finally allowed Western aid-workers to bring polio vaccinations to its northern provinces, this decision was delayed for 11-months by vicious rumors spread by Islamic leaders hostile to the West. The articles below summarize the story: Nigeria Boycotts Polio Vaccination Drive By Glenn McKenzie, Associated Press Writer, USA Today, February 22, 2004 KADUNA, Nigeria (AP) – Sticking to its position that the polio vaccine is a U.S. plot against Muslims, an overwhelmingly Islamic northern Nigerian state declared Sunday it would boycott an emergency immunization campaign being launched to stop the crippling outbreak that is spreading across west and central Africa. The announcement from Kano state came on the eve of a World Health Organization campaign to immunize 63 million children in 10 African nations as the polio outbreak spreads from northern Nigeria into countries where the disease had been eradicated. …Islamic leaders there say the vaccine is part of a U.S. plot to kill off Nigeria’s Muslims, by spreading the AIDS virus or agents that cause sterility. … Nigerian state again allowing polio vaccinations By Oloche Samuel, Associated Press, August 1, 2004

266

TAKAI, Nigeria –…Nigeria’s Kano state, where a recent epidemic of the crippling disease started and spread to 10 other African nations, allowed vaccinations to resume Saturday after an 11-month boycott. … Since the boycott began in August 2003, polio has spread from Nigeria across West and Central Africa, infecting polio-free countries and threatening a UN backed drive to eradicate the disease worldwide by next year…

East Timor While East Timor’s struggle to repel an invasion by Indonesia appears to be victorious at the moment, it had suffered overt Islamic aggression from Indonesia for 24 years. Its story is summarized by the following report: Last Indonesian Ship Leaves E. Timor By Laura King, Associated Press, Washington Post, October 30, 1999 DILI, East Timor –– …Indonesian troops [in] a gray troop-transport ship slowly pulled away from the harbor early Sunday, quietly ending the 24-year occupation of this former Portuguese colony that left thousands dead. Their departure from East Timor marks the end of a long and fruitless struggle by the world’s most populous Muslim nation to subdue a small, stubbornly separatist Roman Catholic province on its eastern fringe.

The story of East Timor’s struggle against Islamic aggression began almost immediately after it expelled its Portuguese colonizers on December 7, 1975. Just weeks after the Portuguese departure, Indonesia smashed East Timor’s new freedom with a bloody invasion that caused over 200,000 deaths. This was followed by a violent occupation, which was summarized in the United Nations’ Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on East Timor.537 The following are excerpts from the UN report: 7. On November 12, 1991, Indonesian forces shot into a crowd of people who had gathered at the Santa Cruz cemetery in Dili for a memorial service for a youth shot dead by the Indonesian National Army (TNI) in an incident on 28 October 1991. The number of mourners killed at the Santa Cruz cemetery is not clear… 8. For the last several years, the Commission on Human Rights…had been concerned with the serious human rights violations in East Timor, relating to continuing allegations of extrajudicial killings, torture, “disappearances” and acts of sexual violence attributed to members of the TNI and pro-government militias… 9. …in late 1998 and early 1999, new militia groups were established in East Timor by the Indonesian authorities who reportedly portrayed the emergence of new militia groups as a spontaneous reaction against the activities of supporters of independence.

537

Published by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland, Copyright 1996-2000. Presented to the General Assembly on January 31, 2000. This report can be found at www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.54.726,+S.2000.59.En.

267

10. In January 1999, President Habibie offered East Timor substantial autonomy, or independence if the offer of autonomy was rejected…

During the months between President Habibie’s offer and the actual vote on August 30, 1999, the situation became extremely violent. According to the UN report: 34. The members of the International Commission of Inquiry were confronted with testimonies surpassing their imagination. … 37. …President Habibie’s proposal in January 1999 for greater autonomy or independence for the Territory coincides with an increase in militia activity there. 38. Intimidation by the militia groups was often in the form of burning houses, destruction of property and beatings. The men fled to the hills and the women who remained behind were harassed and in some instances sexually abused. … 41. In April, several hundred internally displaced people had sought refuge in the church in Liquicia. There is evidence that on 5 April a person was killed in the church and that militia and TNI were jointly responsible for this killing. On 6 April…, militia and Indonesian army personnel went on a shooting spree at the church resulting in several deaths. A witness testified that he was engaged by TNI to remove 15 bodies from the site and dispose of them in the lake in Maubara. According to…a nurse in a hospital in Dili, six injured persons were brought from Liquicia to the hospital. She described a young woman who had been stabbed in the back and neck. A man had his right ear cut off and had stab wounds at the back, arms and shoulder. … 48. …Another witness testified that her husband, who had sought refuge in Manual Carrascalao’s house, was killed on that day. Yet another witness testified that on 19 April, 11 bodies were brought in a truck and he was asked to bury them near Maubara Lake. According to him these bodies were from the killing that took place in Manual Carrascalao’s house. … 75. The Commission visited the site of the massacre that took place at the Suai church on 6 September. At the time of the massacre, several hundred persons had sought refuge in the church. In the incident, three priests – Father Dewanto, Father Francisco and Father Hilario – were killed. Accounts of the militia and TNI removing the bodies of those killed in the church have now been corroborated with the exhumation in West Timor of 26 bodies alleged to be victims of the killings in Suai church… … 84. An eyewitness testified that on 12 April 1999…people were forced to stand in a line by militia and TNI and then to kneel and pray. Then they were killed with automatic guns and pistols. The dead bodies were thrown on a truck and driven away…Twenty-two bodies were found later, 13 of them in one grave.

The religious overtones of these atrocities are obvious. Finally, on August 30, 1999, with a 99% turnout, over 78% of the voters of Catholic East Timor chose independence from Islamic Indonesia. In October, under the watchful eyes of the UN and the world, Indonesia evacuated its military from East Timor.

268

The Philippines The Philippines has a long history of contention between Muslims (called Moros, from Moor, the Spanish term for Muslim) and Christians. This began in the 1400s, when several native tribes in the southern islands converted to Islam. The spread of Islam was partially accomplished by capturing and enslaving natives from the northern islands, and then bringing them south and pressuring them to convert. This Islamicization of the Philippines was interrupted by the arrival of Spanish conquistadors in 1571, who began to colonize the Philippines and convert natives to Christianity, also often by force. Their efforts succeeded over the Muslims in large part due to superior weapons, particularly after the arrival of steam ships in the mid-1800s. In 1898, the U.S.S. Maine exploded and sank in Havana Harbor,538 launching the SpanishAmerican War. Months later, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain for $20 million, as part of the war’s settlement at the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. continued Spain’s Christianization effort, but switched to less coercive methods. American administrators encouraged Christians from the northern islands to emigrate to the southern ones, which had historically been Islamic. They also encouraged southern Filipinos to study in Manila and taught them Western methods of politics, economics and social life. During the American period, slavery was abolished, and highways, schools, and hospitals were built throughout the southern islands. The Moros, however, fought these changes, claiming that the Americans intended to make them inferior to Christian Filipinos. Their resistance continues to this day, in the form of guerrilla warfare against the Western-style Philippine government.539 In the War on Terror, the Philippines have been paralyzed by fears of reprisals by the Moros. Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has refused to label the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) a terrorist organization, because she fears that doing so would drive them from ongoing negotiations and incite retaliatory attacks.540 Also, when Iraqi insurgents captured a Filipino and held him hostage in July 2004, demanding that the Philippines leave, Arroyo quickly withdrew the Philippines’ 600 troops from the Coalition of the Willing.541 Presumably, this capitulation came from fears that defiance of the hostage-takers would invite Moro retaliation. Has this timidity helped the Philippines end its Islamic insurgency? A recent article answers this question by describing rebel activities in 2005: 538

At the time, there was high tension between Spain and both Cuba and the U.S. Cuba wanted independence, and the U.S. opposed European interference in the Americas. The explosion of the U.S.S. Maine was attributed to a mine in the harbor. Subsequent investigations have called this explanation into doubt, and suggest a mishap with the ship’s steam boiler. 539 Sources: 1. Southern Philippines Question – The Challenge of Peace and Development, by Eliseo R. Mercado, Notre Dame Press, Cotabato City, 1999. 2. Decolonization and Filipino Muslim Identity, by Samuel K. Tan, Journals and Publications Division – University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, 1985. 3. Roots of Conflict. Muslims, Christians and the Mindanao Struggle, by Rosalita Tolibas-Nuñez, Asian Institute of Management Washington SyCip Policy Forum, Washington DC, 1997. 540 The Evolution of Philippine Muslim insurgency, by Marco Garrido, Asia Times. March 6, 2003. 541 Ex-hostage reunited with family, Contributors: Maria Ressa and Caroline Faraj, CNN, July 21, 2004.

269

Terrorists Train for Seaborne Attacks By Jim Gomez, Associated Press Writer, March 17, 2005 MANILA, Philippines — Two of the most dangerous al-Qaida-linked groups in Southeast Asia are working together to train militants in scuba diving for seaborne terror attacks, according to the interrogation of a recently captured guerrilla. The ominous development is outlined in a Philippine military report…that also notes increasing collaboration among the Muslim militants in other areas, including financing and explosives, as extremists plot new ways to strike. In the past year, the Indonesia-based Jemaah Islamiyah has given Abu Sayyaf militants in the Philippines at least $18,500 for explosives training alone… … Authorities fear scuba divers could target ships with more accuracy than a small explosive-laden boat like the one used in the USS Cole blast that killed 17 sailors in 2000 in Yemen. According to the Philippine report, an Abu Sayyaf suspect in a deadly bus bombing in Manila on Feb. 14 named Gamal Baharan described how he and other seasoned guerrillas took scuba diving lessons as part of a plot for an attack at sea.

Thailand To fully appreciate that Islamic hatred is not limited to Israel, or America, or Europe, or Christianity, or Judaism, but targets any government or religion in the House of War, consider what Muslim fundamentalists are doing in southern Thailand, a Buddhist nation that has never been colonized by the West. As in Hindu India, Muslims have found a pretext for attack. As reported by Agence Presse France: Elderly Buddhist beheaded in Thailand’s restive Muslim south By Anusak Konglang, AFP, May 29, 2004 Bangkok, Thailand – …It was the first decapitation in the violence, which has claimed some 190 lives since January, police said. Sieng Patkaoe, 63, was attacked by men with machetes early Saturday as he tapped rubber trees on his plantation in the southern province of Narathiwat… Sieng’s severed head was left along a village road. His body, found some 60 metres (yards) away, had a note pinned to it threatening more killings, police said. “If innocent Malayu (the predominant ethnic group in the Muslim south) continue to be arrested, we will murder more Buddhists,” police quoted the note as saying… The victim had no conflict with neighbours, police said. The killing marks a new level of brutality in the violence, mainly blamed on Muslim separatists, that has plagued southern Thailand this year.

270

In addition to decapitating religious leaders, Muslim rebels in this Buddhist country also engage in their depressingly familiar tactic of attacking grade schools and sowing anarchy, as the New York Times reported on July 6, 2005: Schools in Thailand Under Ethnic Siege By Seth Mydans, International Herald Tribune YALA, Thailand - …In an escalating campaign of violence here in the largely Muslim south of mostly Buddhist Thailand, government-run schools and the teachers who work in them have become particular targets of bombs and gunmen. In the past year and a half, dozens of schools have been damaged or destroyed by arson. The local teachers union said 18 teachers had been killed…in the three most dangerous southern provinces, an average of one a month… A long-simmering separatist movement in this former Malay sultanate lies at the heart of the violence, hand in hand with resentment at discrimination against Muslims and attempts at forced assimilation by the government. … More than 700 people have died since the level of violence rose sharply in January 2004, including nearly 200 in two mass killings by the military that have caused widespread resentment here. … Just 10 percent of Thailand’s population of 63 million is Muslim, with most of them clustered here in the south, where they live side by side with Buddhists. The teachers who have been killed include people of both religions. … The whole rhythm of life is changing in the south, Ms. Duangporn said. “Everything happens in daylight,” she said. “At night, everybody stays home…” The economy is collapsing as well. Wholesale buyers no longer come to the fruit and fish markets or buy fabric and clothing. The government is subsidizing part of the economy by buying local produce. According to a local newspaper, as many as 10,000 workers could lose their jobs as the military shuts down rock quarry operations in order to prevent the theft of explosives…

Thailand’s trials again reveal that Islamic justifications for attack are mere pretexts. If it is not support for Israel, then it is America’s presence in Saudi Arabia. If it is not a French ban on head scarves, then it is Danish cartoons of Muhammad. In the case of Thailand’s Buddhists, their crime is to have the audacity to rule over Muslims, while they themselves commit the unforgivable sin of shirking Allah. To fully appreciate Islam’s hostility to Buddhism, recall the Taliban’s decision to completely obliterate Afghanistan’s two huge standing Buddha statues – harmless, lifeless, and defenseless works of art. What pretext was there for these attacks? In this case, none existed. The demolitions were naked displays of Islamic hostility, veiled only by the excuse that demolition was permitted because no Buddhists remained in Afghanistan. In fact, this lack of Buddhists

271

only reflects an ancient jihad against Buddhism that accompanied the Muslim invasion of India. This invasion essentially wiped Buddhism out of that part of the world. Another interesting point about the Islamic insurgency in Thailand is that one of its supporters is Jemaah Islamiyah,542 just as in the Philippines. Jemaah Islamiyah is also responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that targeted Western tourists in Indonesia. What is most remarkable about this Pan-Islamist organization is that its host country, Indonesia, refused to label it a terrorist group for many years, and did so only after an attack on its own territory. In October 2003, an Associated Press article entitled Terror Group Filling the Void543 noted: … Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri and other national leaders don’t publicly mention Jemaah Islamiyah by name in the country, which is home to more Muslims than any other nation, roughly 200 million. And the government has not declared Jemaah Islamiyah a terrorist organization – making it impossible to prosecute membership in it as a crime – and has refused to shut down Islamic boarding schools associated with militants…

Perhaps what most startling is not that Indonesia shields Islamic terrorist groups, but that apologists for Islam hold up Indonesia as a progressive Islamic state. If Indonesia is progressive, it is only in comparison to nations like Somalia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The following article displays Indonesia’s true colors: One in 10 Indonesians back suicide bombings Reuters, MSNBC News, March 16, 2006 JAKARTA - Eleven percent of the people in Indonesia [more than 20 million]…believe suicide attacks against civilian targets are sometimes justifiable, a survey said on Thursday. … The survey also revealed that 8 percent [over 16 million] support masterminds of past suicide bombings, including Noordin M. Top, the most wanted terror suspect in Indonesia… … Anti-terror campaigns in Indonesia have faced hurdles, including perceptions the United States is out to attack Islam, as well as the ample space given to militant voices and their sympathizers in the Indonesian media. Support for shariah The survey also found that almost half the respondents [about 100 million] back stoning, as a punishment for adulterers, while support for other extreme elements of Islamic shariah was also significant…

The Netherlands If any nation could be called the birthplace of extreme tolerance, it is the Netherlands. Its tradition of toleration began as a reaction to Catholic repression under Spanish rule during the 1500s, and flowered when the Netherlands gained independence in 1609. Dutch tolerance was 542

Thailand PM: Hambali was Plotting, Associated Press, CBS News, August 16, 2003. Note: Hambali, an Indonesian whose real name is Riduan Isamuddin, is the leader of Jemaah Islamiyah. 543 Terror Group Filling the Void, Associated Press, CBS News, October 17, 2003.

272

so famous that the Pilgrims, who ultimately landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, initially moved to the Netherlands seeking refuge from British persecution. They decided to leave after concluding that the Dutch were too permissive. Since then, Dutch tolerance expanded from the realm of religion, free speech, and equal rights for women to issues that would scandalize many in the United States, including legalized marijuana and hashish, prostitution, nudity, gay marriage, and euthanasia. While some people may call this kind of tolerance “utopia,” a more accurate term would be “laboratory.” The Dutch conduct social experiments that are simply impossible in other parts of the world. An important experiment that the Dutch have been conducting recently is: “What happens when you tolerate groups and ideologies that do not tolerate each other?” One of the experimental cases producing results is the Dutch mixture of Islam, homosexuality and free speech. One result was the 2002 assassination of Prof. Pim Fortuyn, who led a fastrising political party known as the LPF.544 545 The professor’s death taught this experiment’s lesson: in a nation committed to tolerance, the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. This paradox stands out especially with Fortuyn, because his activism against the massive influx of Muslim immigrants was motivated by Islam’s strong prohibitions against homosexuality. As an openly gay man, he had already witnessed brutalities carried out by immigrant Muslims against Dutch homosexuals who were accustomed to living their lives openly. He also noticed that many Muslim immigrants, even those who had lived in the Netherlands for generations, did not assimilate into Dutch society, and did not even bother to learn the language. He saw the population of his native Rotterdam rapidly become 15% Muslim. He feared that Islam’s intolerance of homosexuality could alter Dutch society and spread anti-homosexual persecution. At the time, Fortuyn was portrayed in Europe’s press as a xenophobic neo-Nazi. This raises an interesting question: Why did the press deem Fortuyn’s “intolerance” of Muslim immigrants worse than Muslim intolerance of homosexuals? At any rate, Fortuyn’s rising star, as the leader of a major political party, was called a threat to the treasured European doctrines of tolerance. The tide of intolerance toward Fortuyn rose to such a point that the forces of political correctness snuffed him out. On May 6, 2002, he was shot dead by Volkert van der Graaf, a Dutch animal rights activist, who did it “to protect Muslims,”546 just days before national elections that predicted an impressive showing for his party. Despite his murder, Pim Fortuyn was able to make his point, which was summarized concisely in the National Review article, Murder in Holland:547 In a recent televised debate with an imam, Fortuyn baited the Muslim cleric by flaunting his homosexuality. Finally the imam exploded, denouncing Fortuyn in strongly anti-homosexual 544

LPF stands for List Pim Fortuyn. No one said he was modest! Fortuyn buried after Dutch bid farewell, BBC News, May 10, 2002. 546 Fortuyn killed ‘to protect Muslims’, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Joan Clements, The Telegraph (U.K.), March 28, 2003. 547 Murder in Holland, by Rod Dreher, National Review, May 7, 2002. 545

273

terms. Fortuyn calmly turned to the camera and, addressing viewers directly, told them that this is the kind of Trojan horse of intolerance the Dutch are inviting into their society in the name of multiculturalism.

Fortuyn’s words proved to be prophetic as the Dutch experiment yielded another result. On November 2, 2004, movie producer Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by Muhammad Bouyeri for making a film critical of Islam. Finally, the Dutch got Pim Fortuyn’s message. In a November 2004 poll of Dutch television viewers, he was voted “The Greatest Dutchman of All Time.”548 As for Theo van Gogh, the New York Times article, Man on Trial in Dutch Killing Says He’d Do ‘Same Again’, summarizes the story: AMSTERDAM, July 12 - …Bicycling to work last Nov. 2, Mr. van Gogh was shot at least six times before having his throat cut. The defendant, Muhammad Bouyeri, the 27-year-old son of Moroccan immigrants, showed no remorse, saying he had killed Mr. van Gogh based on his religious beliefs. “I acted out of conviction and not out of hate,” Mr. Bouyeri told the court. “If I’m ever released, I’d do the same again. Exactly the same.” He added his actions were based on “the law that instructs me to chop off the head of everyone who insults Allah or the prophet.” Mr. van Gogh - along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch politician (who co-produced the film “Submission” with him) - received death threats after their short but provocative film about abuse of Muslim women was broadcast last year on Dutch television. … Prosecutors…characterized Mr. van Gogh’s killing as a terrorist act designed to rein in a tolerant and democratic Dutch society. “The accused preaches a message of hate and violence,” one of the prosecutors… told the court. “He preaches that anyone who thinks differently can be killed.” Mr. Bouyeri was apprehended…in a shootout with…Dutch police. He told the officers…that he had wanted to die that day, presumably as a martyr. … Originally, Mr. Bouyeri had tried to boycott his own trial…Dutch journalists had speculated that he refused to recognize the court’s jurisdiction, believing instead that he was only beholden to the Islamic law of Shariah. … After killing Mr. van Gogh, Mr. Bouyeri used a knife to affix a five-page note to Mr. van Gogh’s corpse. It quoted the Koran and threatened Ms. Hirsi Ali, among other prominent Dutch politicians. Ms. Hirsi Ali, who went into hiding for weeks after the killing, still lives under constant police protection.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, by the way, is an Islamic refugee from Somalia who renounced her faith and fled to the Netherlands after being forced into an arranged marriage.549 Sadly, in the months that followed van Gogh’s death, the firestorm caused by Hirsi Ali’s denouncement of Islam has led 548 549

Fortuyn voted greatest Dutchman, BBC News, November 16, 2004. Gunman kills Dutch film director, BBC News, November 2, 2004.

274

the Dutch to turn dumbfoundingly on their brave refugee, with a blind eye toward the threat that menaces them all. As the Wall Street Journal reported: Islamist Threats To Dutch Politician Bring Chill at Home By Andrew Higgins May 17, 2006; The Wall Street Journal, Page A1 THE HAGUE – Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been threatened repeatedly with “execution” by Islamist extremists. She lives in an apartment with bulletproof windows, and is driven to work at the Dutch Parliament by armed guards, who vary the route to outfox would-be hit men. But an unexpected menace emerged closer to home: her own neighbors. They have fought to evict her, complaining that the presence of a well-known terrorist target in their luxury apartment tower in this Dutch city has upset their family lives and reduced the value of their property. “Once this lady leaves, the problem is no longer there,” says…a retired executive who owns a place two floors above the hunted politician. He says he has nothing…against Ms. Hirsi Ali. But along with other residents, he wants to banish the fears stirred by the proximity of Holland’s most acid – and most frequently threatened – critic of Islam. Yesterday, Ms. Hirsi Ali’s neighbor got his wish. Three weeks after a Dutch court ordered her out of the building in response to complaints from Mr. Verhagen and other residents, she resigned from Parliament and said she would leave Holland altogether. Her decision follows a cascade of problems: angry neighbors, a government threat to revoke her citizenship and, more generally, growing public disenchantment with her denunciations of both radical Islam and more conventional Muslim doctrines…

Possibly the most disturbing aspects of Theo van Gogh’s murder are Mr. Bouyeri’s personal history and the content of the letter he stabbed onto van Gogh’s dead body, as reported in the Wall Street Journal article, Rude Awakening: A Brutal Killing Opens Dutch Eyes to Threat of Terror:550 Mohammed Bouyeri, a 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan man arrested for the murder of Mr. van Gogh, and many of his suspected confederates, shared a trait with Mohammed Atta and his fellow 9/11 hijackers in the U.S.: They weren’t slum-dwelling delinquents but reasonably educated beneficiaries of the Western societies they want to destroy… A note tacked onto Mr. van Gogh’s chest with a knife…fulminated against “infidels,” [and] vow[ed] death to Ayaan Hirsi Ali…“Hair-raising screams will be squeezed from the lungs of the nonbelievers,” warned the letter. It ended…in the style of an Islamic verse: “I know for sure that you, O America, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Europe, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Netherlands, are going to meet with disaster.” Mr. Bouyeri…was born in Holland and graduated from a Dutch high school. He spoke Dutch far better than Arabic, worked as a volunteer in an Amsterdam youth center, and before he embraced radical Islam, seemed well integrated in society.

550

Rude Awakening: A Brutal Killing Opens Dutch Eyes to Threat of Terror, by Andrew Higgins, The Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2004, page 1A.

275

While life has remained relatively calm in the Netherlands, tensions between Muslim and Dutch communities have heightened. Although no additional injuries or deaths have been reported, there have been numerous retaliatory attacks on Islamic sites within the country.551 Despite their bad treatment of Hirsi Ali, the normally tolerant Dutch have begun to take proactive measures to stave off a culture clash with Muslim immigrants. One of their first actions has been to send a clear message: We are a tolerant people, and if you cannot tolerate tolerance, we will not tolerate you! The medium for this message is an entrance exam that the Netherlands now requires of all would-be immigrants, as explained in the article, Film exposes immigrants to Dutch liberalism:552 AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture. If they can’t stomach it, no need to apply. Despite whether they find the film offensive, applicants must buy a copy and watch it if they hope to pass the Netherlands’ new entrance examination. The test – the first of its kind in the world – became compulsory Wednesday, and was made available at 138 Dutch embassies. Taking the exam costs $420. The price for a preparation package that includes the film, a CD ROM and a picture album of famous Dutch people is $75…

Spain Spain’s experience with Islam goes back to the glory days of Islam’s rapid expansion, as it galloped across the tumbling Roman territories of North Africa and continued into the Iberian Peninsula. In 711 AD, Muza ben-Nosair conquered the Visigoth King Rodrigo. In 712, he proclaimed the caliphate of Cordoba. This caliphate continued its rapid expansion until it was finally halted in southern France at the Battle of Poiters in 732. After this over-extension, the caliphate retrenched and established a more permanent presence over most of what is now Spain. Initially, Spain prospered under its Muslim rulers, but by the early 1100s, the caliphate had disintegrated into 39 petty kingdoms, which became exhausted from internal battles and were reduced to chaos. In this weakened state, the Christian subjects were able to reassert themselves and, kingdom by kingdom, reclaim the land for Christendom. By 1492, the same year as Columbus’s “discovery” of America, Spain’s Catholic King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella eradicated the last vestiges of Islamic power from Spain by conquering Granada.553 After five centuries of sleep, Islam roused itself again in Spain on March 11, 2004, through the bombing of four rush-hour trains. The reason for this shocking violence went beyond Spain’s support for the war to depose Saddam Hussein; it was also meant to settle old accounts dating back to the 1400s:

551

Islamic School Set Ablaze in Netherlands Associated press, November 9, 2004. Film exposes immigrants to Dutch liberalism, Associated Press, MSNBC News, March 15, 2006. 553 A Concise History of Spain, by Henry Kamen, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1973, summarized from pages 15-57. 552

276

Madrid train bomb kills 192 By Bill Hutchinson, with James Gordon Meek and News Wire Services New York Daily News, March 11, 2004 Stunned Spanish authorities scrambled last night to track down the cold-blooded terrorists who killed 192 people and wounded more than 1,400 by bombing four rush-hour trains converging on the capital of Madrid. … A shadowy group linked to Al Qaeda claimed responsibility… Francisco Javier Ruperez, Spain’s ambassador to the United States, said, “This is our own 9/11, and I am sure we are going to react very much the way the Americans did when they had that terrible suffering of theirs.” … The blasts came just three days before national elections…In its letter, the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri said the bombings were payback for Spain’s support of the Iraq war. “This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America’s ally in its war against Islam,” the letter said...

The horror of this attack shocked the world. Afterwards, the sinister justification sank in: “settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America’s ally in its war against Islam.” The words of this letter reveal that the attack was really not a settling of accounts at all, but pure aggression veiled with a pretext. How so? Basically, there was little for the attackers to settle accounts over. Spain had rescinded its colonial aspirations in Muslim Africa decades earlier, and the Crusades were ancient history. In fact, Christian Spain did not even exist at the time of the Crusades – it was a part of the Caliphate of Cordoba. The claim that America was waging a war against Islam also makes no sense. The U.S. and its allies went to war against Saddam Hussein, a secularist who was a menace to both his Muslim neighbors and his Muslim citizens. At the time of the blast, Coalition forces were helping Iraq establish an Islamic Democracy. Perhaps the terrorists intended to say that they were punishing Spain for its Apostasy from Islam hundreds of years ago, but their only clear message was pure hatred. Nothing but hatred could have motivated this attack on civilians that left 1400 casualties and 192 deaths. Unfortunately, Mr. Ruperez’s predictions for Spain were disappointed, and the people of Spain responded with fear rather than resolve. A few days after the bombing, they elected a presidential candidate who promised to extract Spain from Iraq.

United Kingdom With regard to Islam, the U.K. seems to be repeating a bit of history it may rather forget: the years leading up to World War II. While the West’s conflict with Islamic terrorism is more complex than that cataclysmic battle between nations, the parallels are striking:

277

•

The full scope of Nazism’s threat was not appreciated by the British public, which, in the bloody aftermath of World War I, sought to avoid another conflict at all costs. With their policy of appeasement, Britain stood by as Hitler expanded his reign into Austria and Czechoslovakia. Neville Chamberlain even condoned these actions through his participation in the 1938 Munich Conference, from which he returned declaring: “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.”554

•

In the spirit of open-mindedness, Britain legitimized Nazi Germany, as well as Hitler’s views on Arian supremacy. In fact, sympathy for Hitler went as high as the ruler of Britain itself, in the form of King Edward VIII. In 1936, Edward abdicated the British throne to marry Bessie Wallis Warfield, an American divorcee. Shortly thereafter, the newlywed couple visited Chancellor Hitler, in 1937. If fortune had not been so kind as to see Edward renounce the throne, Hitler may have been far more successful with his campaigns of hate. At this point, it is important to note that Britain was not the only “civilized nation” with native apologists for Hitler. Europe as a whole offered him unwitting support in numerous ways. For example, the Olympic Committee of those days allowed the 1936 Olympics to take place in Berlin. In the United States, Hitler had none other than Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh as advocates. In fact, Ford was so supportive that in July 1938, on his seventy-fifth birthday, he flew to Germany so that Hitler could award him the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle.555 Charles Lindbergh also flew to Germany in 1938 for an award, the Service Cross of the German Eagle, which he received from Hermann Goering. Lindbergh later became spokesman for the America First Committee, which opposed U.S. involvement in World War II. This organization included among its founding members Walt Disney, Sinclair Lewis, and Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the influential daughter of Teddy Roosevelt and cousin of Franklin Roosevelt.

•

From a sense of guilt, Britain joined the rest of Europe in legitimizing Hitler’s outrage over the settlement of WWI, thereby disabling its ability to stand up to him. While Imperial Germany did not start World War I, it was certainly finished by it. After several years of relative success in battle, Germany collapsed from within. It was crippled by a general strike, which then-Corporal Hitler blamed on the Jews. This strike was soon followed by a revolt against Kaiser Wilhelm, who fled for his life to the Netherlands. The Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany economically and humiliated the German people. It carved away vast German territories, stripped it of its military, and weighed it

554

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, Simon and Shuster, 1960. Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power 1919-1933, by James Pool & Suzanne Pool, The Dial Press, 1978, page 129. 555

278

down with massive war reparations. German rage at this treatment, together with Germany’s inept form of democracy called the Weimar Republic, led to Hitler’s rise. His message of vengeance, which he called redemption and justice, resonated with the German people, and produced a nation determined to destroy every country and people that had humiliated it. Britain, together with the rest of Europe, saw Germany’s rage and backpedaled on the harsh terms of Versailles. They allowed Germany to violate those terms by first rearming itself and then reclaiming lost territories. They did not realize that their appeasement policies would be interpreted as weakness, and would encourage more aggression. •

Britain, along with the rest of Europe, continued to seek diplomatic solutions long after it was clear that diplomacy was a euphemism for capitulation. Immediately after his accession to the Chancellorship in 1933, Hitler began to dismantle the Treaty of Versailles, beginning with German rearmament. This brought him the support of many industrialists, who stood to profit from weapons production. With his power base secure, Hitler began to implement his dark vision with lightning speed: o 1933: Dachau concentration camp built and then used to help eliminate opposing political parties. o 1933: First Nazi book-burnings. o 1933: Withdrawal from the League of Nations. o 1934: “The Night of Long Knives,” during which a wide assortment of political rivals within the Nazi party were assassinated. o 1935: Saarland reclaimed by Germany. o 1935: Secretly developed Luftwaffe (Air Force) announced, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In response to these aggressive actions, Britain’s Prime Minister Stanly Baldwin, and Foreign Minister Samuel Hoare, chose to work with Hitler rather than confront him. They and Hitler signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which allowed the German navy parity at 35% of the British Navy. Hitler then instituted the Nuremberg Laws, which, among other things, defined Jewishness along racial terms rather than religion. He then made it a crime for Jews to marry Aryans, raise the German flag, and join the German military. He also rescinded their right to vote. In 1936, the Nuremberg Laws were supplemented by prohibitions against Jews working in professional jobs. In March of that year, Hitler also masterminded Germany’s reoccupation of the Rhineland, which he was able to celebrate a few months later at the Summer Olympic Games hosted in Berlin. During this entire period, Hitler managed to soothe European alarm with words of peace, claiming a simple desire for German parity with other European nations. For example, on May 21, 1935, he went so far as to say, in a major political speech:556

556

See The History Place website: www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-hossbach.htm.

279

The blood shed on the European continent in the course of the last three hundred years bears no proportion to the national result of the events. In the end, France had remained France, Germany Germany, Poland Poland, and Italy Italy. What dynastic egotism, political passion, and patriotic blindness have attained in the way of apparently farreaching political changes by shedding rivers of blood has, as regards national feeling, done no more than touched the skin of nations. It has not substantially altered their fundamental characters. If these states had applied merely a fraction of their sacrifices to wiser purposes, the success would certainly have been greater and more permanent.

Despite Hitler’s overt hostilities, these words were all Britain and other European powers needed to hear, because it was what they wanted to hear. Unfortunately, Hitler’s words of assurance corresponded in no way with his actions. As the nations of Europe watched with trepidation, Hitler became even bolder. In 1938, like a chess master, he annexed Austria in a diplomatic coup. A telling description of the times comes from an account of Hitler’s rise found in The History Place:557 Hitler knew that civilized men such as Schuschnigg [the Chancellor of Austria], and those who followed, would readily compromise to prevent the loss of life. They would all learn too late that Hitler did not value life and that war was his ultimate goal.

In his build-up to the Austrian coup, Hitler knew how to play the victim, portraying the Austrian Nazis as a persecuted minority. For example, on February 20, 1938, shortly after his visit from the former British King Edward VIII and his new wife, Hitler declared that it was “intolerable for a self-conscious world power [Germany] to know that at its side are co-racials who are subjected to continuous suffering because of their sympathy and unity with the whole German race and ideology.” Austrian Germans responded by taking to the streets and wreaking chaos upon the embattled Austrian government. A few months after annexing Austria, Hitler turned his sights on Czechoslovakia, employing the same “victim” gambit to stir up political and social unrest among the German Czechoslovakians. Then, through a daring series of maneuvers, which climaxed with the September 30 Munich Agreement, he intimidated Britain and France into letting him annex Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland militarily. Britain and France signed this agreement without even consulting the Czech government. The twin results of this settlement were Chamberlain’s hopeful “Peace for our time” speech and Hitler’s complete contempt for Britain and France. During this time, Winston Churchill, who had been sounding alarms about Hitler for years, continued to be ignored. While Hitler was negotiating with Britain and France, he managed to save some quality time for Henry Ford, to award Ford with the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle as a birthday gift. From Sudetenland, Hitler continued his expansionist policies with utter disregard for the

557

ibid: www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-austria.htm.

280

supposed allies of the nations he invaded. His next victim was Poland, in 1939. •

Britain could not muster the will to respond to Germany until directly attacked. Germany’s 1939 invasion of Poland shredded the Munich Agreement and forced Britain and France to declare war. Despite this declaration, the British took little action. Germany went on to conquer Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, and France as Britain stood by. This period became aptly known as “The Phony War.”558 Then, after defeating all of Britain’s nearby allies, Germany directed its malice at isolated Britain itself. By the time Britain responded in force, it was too late. Its neighbors were defeated, and Britain was cornered. Its eventual victory can only be credited to Winston Churchill’s leadership, U.S. intervention, and Hitler’s overconfident attack on the Soviet Union.

After recapping the years that led to World War II, analogies between Britain’s handling of Nazism and its current handling of Islam become evident. Before discussing them, however, we should note that Britain is not the only Western nation guilty of these mistakes, which grew out of the West’s climate of moral relativism and indiscriminate inclusiveness. This point leads to an essential moral question: If we say that there are no absolutes of good or evil, then how can we claim that the deeds of any people, no matter how murderous, are evil? After all, even the Nazis had their point of view – shouldn’t they have been respected? Of course not. And with this realization, we are prepared to see how Britain’s old mistakes regarding Nazism illuminate the mistakes being made today with Islam: •

The full scope of Islam’s threat is not appreciated by the British public, which, in the bloody aftermath of World War II, seeks to avoid another conflict at all costs. Islam is not bashful about its nature. Translations of the Koran and other Islamic texts are readily available through stores and the web. Search engines make it possible to find answers to virtually any question about Islam, almost instantaneously. The doors of Mosques are open every Friday, waiting to share Islam’s message. Through any method of research, Islam will reveal that it holds non-Muslims in contempt and seeks to deprive them of the full rights of citizenship. Its believers are also glad to discuss the inferior status that Islam assigns women, although they may call it equal but different. And, even if the Muslims you meet may deny it, a few pointed questions will quickly demonstrate that Islamic Law is fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. Despite all of this, the British have continued to let Islam grow in their midst. They seem to assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Muslims will somehow give up Shari’ah, don bowlers and umbrellas, and join British society. They ignore the fact that Muslims see Islamic Law as Allah-given, unchangeable, and all-encompassing, with an

558

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, Simon and Shuster, 1960.

281

authority that supersedes secular law and demands Infidel submission. British resolve to avoid conflict is reflected in the BBC’s decision not to use the term “terrorist” when describing attacks in Israel, the United States, and even the U.K. Instead, the BBC uses words like “bomber” or “gunman,” because the word “terrorist” contains a value judgment that implies injustice on the part of the attacker. This conflict avoidance also reveals itself in the way that radical Islam has flourished in the U.K., with people connected to terrorism walking freely in the streets, such as Rached Ghannouchi, whose An-Nahda party attempted to assassinate Tunisia’s President Zine alAbedine ben Ali.559 Perhaps the most blatant example of this cowardice is the conclusion of a study by Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (also known as Chatham House) following the London subway bombings. This study announced that the U.K. is at risk of terrorism because of its involvement in Iraq.560 This statement implies that the U.K. might have been able to avoid terrorism by doing what the terrorists wanted. The falsehood in Chatham House’s conclusion is clear after one considers the nationalities of the Muslim terrorists who carried out the attacks: They were not Iraqis. One was Jamaican and the other three were British, of Pakistani origin. Moreover, the Iraqi territory that the British have overseen has been relatively peaceful, because that region is largely Shiite, and the Shiites were glad to see Saddam go. Despite misgivings over the “Infidel Occupation,” Iraqi-British relations were not deteriorating. In truth, the bombers were simply looking for a plausible pretext to justify their actions. They could have just as easily blamed their attack on British indifference to the French policy on head scarves. On a personal note, I have British friends who remind me of this baffling determination to ignore Islam’s threat despite numerous terrorist attacks around the globe. My most memorable experience was with an educated and well-seasoned Certified Public Accountant, who normally exhibits sharp analytical skills. One day, we got on the subject of Islam and, in answer to his questions, I suggested that he might want to read the Koran. I gave him my copy. Months later, I asked him about his progress with the book. He told me that he had started to read it but found it difficult to follow. He then told me that he did not have to read the Koran to understand Islam anyway, because he had some friends who were Muslims and they seemed like nice people. •

In the spirit of open-mindedness, Britain legitimizes Islam, as well as Islam’s views on Muslim supremacy. In many ways, this point was already made in the preceding paragraphs. But there remains an important corollary: Blind tolerance leads to self-defeating views and moral paralysis. That is, if an intolerant ideology calls itself a religion, many people give it unquestioned acceptance, even if it calls for global political domination and persecution

559 560

Jane’s Intelligence Review Vol. 7; No. 4, April 1, 1995, page 175. Study: U.K. at ‘risk’ for supporting Iraq war, Reuters, MSNBC, July 18, 2005.

282

of other religions. For these people, blind tolerance and inclusiveness has disabled their ability to see danger signs, and may even cause them to attack their defenders. The U.K. reveals how blind tolerance can lead to self-destructive paralysis in the following article, which tells why Israel recently decided to suppress information that linked a subway bomber to a 2003 terror attack in Israel: Report: U.K. bomber linked to ’03 Israel attack Reuters, July 17, 2005 LONDON - Israeli security sources played down a report on Sunday that a key suspect in this month’s London bombings is believed to have helped plan a pro-Palestinian suicide attack in Tel Aviv two years ago. … Maariv Daily said Muhammad Sidique Khan traveled to the Jewish state in 2003 and that Israeli defense officials suspect he helped two fellow British Muslims carry out a suicide bombing at a beachfront bar that year that killed three people. British police named Khan, 30, as a member of a cell that killed at least 55 people in the July 7 bombings in the capital. … Israeli officials are under orders from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon not to draw links between the London attacks and Palestinian militants to avoid offending British sensibilities.

In other words, Prime Minister Sharon would not allow members of his government to link the U.K. subway bombers to those who attacked Israel on behalf of the Palestinians, because he feared that doing so might offend the many British who support the Palestinians. British resolve to maintain its traditions of tolerance, in spite of bloody evidence that one of the groups they defend is viciously intolerant toward them, could one day lead them to turn against natural allies, and protect enemies, in the war on terror. •

From a sense of guilt, Britain legitimizes Islamic outrage over Britain’s colonial past, and its current occupation of Iraq, thereby disabling its ability to stand up to Islamic terrorists. As with other former colonizers, many Britons feel a sense of guilt over their nation’s colonial past. One cause of this guilt is the former belief in European racial superiority, which helped justify colonialism. Horrified by the grotesque mirror that Hitler held up to them, Britain recoiled from its imperialist ways. However, before the British delve further into self-loathing, they should take heart, because the institutions they established in colonial times ultimately benefited the new nations. Some are among the most successful nations in the world, while others have gone on to be at least more successful than they were before colonization. A good gauge of how well those nations have prospered since their colonial days is the extent to which they adopted Western institutions introduced by Britain.

283

When considering Britain’s legacy, one should consider the chaos of those territories before the British arrived. They should also consider how determined the British were to leave their one-time colonies with stable governments and viable economies. In comparison, the Ottoman Empire voraciously exploited conquered lands, ruthlessly suppressed independence, and left behind nations that were deeply wounded, struggling to heal even today. Similarly, after ousting Saddam, the U.K. and the U.S. have worked diligently to help Iraqis build their own indigenous version of democracy, to provide a stable government that would protect the rights of all. They have persisted in this worthy goal despite the attacks of insurgents and a population that appears poorly adapted to democracy. While some in Britain may think that Tony Blair’s policies on Iraq were misguided, no one can honestly claim that he was mean-spirited, murderous, or exploitive. In fact, a quick review of recent history shows that nearly everyone killed in Iraq today is a victim of sectarian violence and terrorism, not the Coalition of the Willing. Why is Iraq swarming with terrorists? Because there are so many causes for which Muslims are willing to slay and be slain: o There are Sunnis who want to take back the power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein and lost to the Shiites. o There are Shiites who seek revenge on the Sunnis who formerly oppressed them. o There are Sunnis who seek revenge on the Shiites who have killed their relatives. o There are Sunnis and Shiites who oppose democracy because they believe it allows non-scholars to usurp Allah’s legislative authority. o There are Sunnis who seek to disgrace and chase out the Infidel occupiers. o There are also Shiites so filled with hate for Infidels that they seek to destroy members of the very Coalition that rescued them from Saddam’s persecutions. The terrorists opposed to the Coalition of the Willing have found those forces nearly unassailable, despite the slow attrition of about two soldiers per day. Therefore, the terrorists have decided to change tactics and defeat the purpose of the Coalition rather than the coalition itself. Their plan now is to: o Destabilize Iraq’s new government. o Kill the innocent civilians that the Coalition came to protect (especially civilians of opposing religious sects). o Make the Coalition forces appear impotent. o Discredit the concept of democracy. o Turn popular opinion against the Coalition. A recent bombing of innocent civilians in Baghdad shows this plan in action: Three car bombs kill up to 43 in Iraq By Bassem Mroue, Associated Press Writer, The Boston Globe, August 17, 2005

284

BAGHDAD, Iraq –Three car bombs exploded Wednesday near a crowded bus station and a nearby hospital where survivors were being taken, killing up to 43 people in the deadliest suicide attack in Baghdad in weeks… … Police said the first bomb blew up at the Nadha bus terminal, the city’s largest, shortly before 8 a.m. as swarms of travelers were boarding buses. As Iraqi police rushed to the scene, a suicide driver detonated his vehicle in the station’s parking lot. Another suicide bomber blew up his car a half-hour later across the street from nearby Kindi Hospital, where ambulances were transporting the injured. … “We want our voices to be heard by the president of the republic and every official to tackle such violence,” shouted one dazed security guard who refused to give his name. “All those who were killed are innocent people. There were no American nor Iraqi troops on the scene.”

Despite such testimonies, many Britons are quick to accept terrorist claims that it is legitimate to murder innocent civilians because of Britain’s presence in Iraq. Many war protestors even blame the Coalition for the thousands of civilians who have died since Saddam’s downfall, as if the Coalition, and not the terrorists, did the killing. People who blame the United Kingdom for the actions of Islamic terrorists are worse than unfair. They actually undermine the goal of peace that they claim to pursue. These people mislead themselves by thinking that they will be able to satisfy the terrorists by complying with their demands. As with Hitler, capitulation only encourages the terrorists, and leads to more demands and more terror. •

Britain, along with the rest of Europe, continues to seek diplomatic solutions long after it has become clear that diplomacy is a euphemism for capitulation. This phenomenon is most apparent in Britain’s, France’s, and Germany’s 2006 attempts to sway Iran from its nuclear aspirations. A far more subtle place where diplomacy has given cover for conquest is in the fabric of Britain’s own society. While militant clerics incite terrorist acts against the West, the British government, in the name of free speech and open dialogue, protects their right to do so. After the subway bombings of July 7, 2005, British faith in diplomacy and dialogue began to lose favor, and they began to crack down on those who incite violence. However, before then, the United Kingdom allowed radical Muslim clerics to fill their listeners with anger and hatred. Time and again, the U.K. took little action against radicals until after terrorist acts were committed. For example, native son Richard Reid, otherwise known as the “shoe bomber,” was recruited in a mosque by a widely known militant cleric: Shoe-bomb suspect met with al-Qaida suspects, British newspaper reports Associated Press, January 5, 2002

285

LONDON (AP) The man accused of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives hidden in his sneakers was seen in London with suspected members of the alQaida terrorist network, a British newspaper reported Saturday. A worshipper at London’s Finsbury Park mosque, Rashid Hussain, was quoted by The Times as saying he saw Richard C. Reid at the mosque in 1998… … London-born Reid converted to Islam while in prison for petty crimes. He later worshipped at the same south London mosque as Zacarias Moussaoui, charged with conspiracy in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The mosque’s leader, Abdul Haqq Baker, has said young converts there were courted by extremist groups. He suggested Reid might have had contact with more radical mosques such as the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, home of militant Egyptian-born cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Abdul Haqq Baker, the mosque’s leader, said that he was aware of young converts at his mosque being courted by extremist groups. This raises important questions: Why did he let this happen? Why didn’t he report what he saw? His place of worship was being used as a recruitment center for murder, and he knew it. Yet he did nothing to stop it. Also, why did British authorities allow the Finsbury Park Mosque to keep operating? How could they not see that the preaching of violence would ultimately lead to violence? It is because leaders in the Islamic community, such as Mr. Baker, continue to claim that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists are an aberration. On the basis of these assurances, Britons go about their business, just as they did with Hitler in the 1930s. Even in the aftermath of London’s subway bombings, which killed 55 people and injured hundreds, Britain’s tendency to hear what it wants goes on. For example, in a show of unity with other leaders in London after the bombings, Sheik Zaki Badawi, the head of Britain’s Council of Mosques and Imams, said: “Anyone claiming to commit a crime in the name of religion does not necessarily justify his position in the name of that religion.”561 Let me repeat that: He said, “Anyone claiming to commit a crime in the name of religion does not necessarily justify his position in the name of that religion.” These are not words of assurance. Another example of Britain’s continuing capitulation, even after the subway bombings, was described in the New York Times:562 The Thursday bombings also rippled through the world of arts and entertainment with the inevitable moments of bitter irony and bad taste.

561

Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions, by Alan Cowell, New York Times, July 11, 2005. BOMBINGS IN LONDON: ARRESTS; Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions, By Alan Cowell, Souad Mekhennet, and Jonathan Allen, The New York Times, July 11, 2005. 562

286

Waterstone’s bookshop in London scrambled to cancel print advertisements for “Incendiary,” a new novel written in the form of a letter to Mr. bin Laden by a woman whose husband and son died in a London terrorist attack…But some of the ads were irretrievable, including posters already hung in the London Underground, where three of the four bombs went off.

What was Waterstone’s afraid of? Offending Muslims for implying that Islamic terrorism was behind the bombings? Or possibly driving home the point that Islamic terrorism is not fiction? Meanwhile, multitudes in the U.K. and other Western nations cling to the soothing words of Muslims who tell them what they want to hear, even when it directly contradicts what they see with their own eyes. For example, The Koran for Dummies explains that:563 The Koran says that while [non-Islamic] beliefs and practices theologically contradict the Islamic way of life, it is not the responsibility of the Muslims to judge others. Rather, the Book says that God [Allah] alone has the responsibility and right to judge “Muslims, Jews, Sabians, Magians (fire worshippers),564 and Polytheists” on the Day of Judgment, since only God is aware of all things (22:17). God’s condemnation and punishment of certain souls should not be misunderstood as a call for Muslims to take these souls to account in this world. Muslims themselves are to be judged by God, and are in no position to judge others.

Also:565 The Koran also teaches that even those who speak or act towards Muslims in an unjust and ignorant manner should not be treated with the same dishonor. Rather, Muslims are instructed to respond with words of peace (25:63), and to repel evil with good, so that friendship replaces hatred (41:34; 25:72). From the Koran’s perspective, treating even your personal enemies with respect eventually leads to good relations with that person.

With the aid of a very select group of Koranic verses, the author tries to conceal the Koran’s over-all message, and convince readers that people like Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists have nothing to worry about, at least until Judgment Day. This claim contrasts sharply with the Koran’s true message, which was discussed in the section entitled The treatment of non-Muslims. •

Britain could not muster the will to respond to Islam’s threat until directly attacked. Until the London subway bombings, Britain’s apparent policy for avoiding Islamic terrorism was to make itself a safe haven for terrorists. The following New York Times article describes the fruits of this strategy: BOMBINGS IN LONDON: THE MESSAGE

563

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Limits to an inclusive theology, page 149. 564 Terms used to refer to Zoroastrians. 565 Ibid, Chapter 14, section entitled Preserving Honor, page 207.

287

For a Decade, London Thrived As a Busy Crossroads of Terror By Elaine Sciolino and Don Van Natta Jr.; Souad Mekhennet and Tim Golden contributed (New York Times), July 10, 2005 Long before bombings ripped through London on Thursday, Britain had become a breeding ground for hate, fed by a militant version of Islam. For two years, extremists like Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, a 47-year-old Syrian-born cleric, have played to ever-larger crowds, calling for holy war against Britain and exhorting young Muslim men to join the insurgency in Iraq… In a sermon attended by more than 500 people in a central London meeting hall last December, Sheik Omar vowed that if Western governments did not change their policies, Muslims would give them “a 9/11, day after day after day.” … For years, there was a widely held belief that Britain’s tolerance helped stave off any Islamic attacks at home. But the anger of London’s militant clerics turned on Britain after it offered unwavering support for the American-led invasion of Iraq. On Thursday morning, an attack long foreseen by worried counterterrorism officials became a reality. “The terrorists have come home,” said a senior intelligence official based in Europe, who works often with British officials. “It is payback time for a policy that was, in my opinion, an irresponsible policy of the British government to allow these networks to flourish inside Britain.” Those policies have been a matter of intense debate within the government, with the courts, the Blair government and members of Parliament frequently opposing one another. For example, when the Parliament considered a bill in March that would have allowed the government to impose tough controls on terror suspects – like house arrests, curfews and electronic tagging – some legislators objected, saying it would erode civil liberties. “It does not secure the nation,” William Cash, of the House of Commons, said of the bill. “It is liable to create further trouble and dissension among those whom we are seeking to control – the terrorists”… … Counterterrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain are supporters of Al Qaeda. Among that number, officials believe that as many as 600 men were trained in camps connected with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere. … Before Sept. 11, 2001, British officials monitored radical Islamists but generally stopped short of arresting or extraditing them. After Sept. 11, the government passed legislation that allowed indefinite detention of terrorism suspects. But last year, it was overturned by Britain’s highest court, the Law Lords, as a violation of human rights law. Complicating Britain’s antiterrorism strategy is its refusal or delays of requests for extradition of suspects by some allies, including the United States, France, Spain and Morocco.

288

Moroccan authorities, for example, are seeking the return of Mohammed el-Guerbozi, a battle-hardened veteran of Afghanistan who they say planned the May 2003 attacks in Casablanca, which killed 45 people… But the British government has no extradition treaty with Morocco and has refused to extradite Mr. Guerbozi, a father of six who lives in a rundown apartment in north London… … For 10 years, France has been fighting for the extradition of Rachid Ramda, a 35-year-old Algerian, over his suspected role in a bombing in Paris in 1995 staged by Algeria’s militant Armed Islamic Group… Another prime terrorism suspect who operated in London for years is Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, the suspected mastermind of the Madrid bombings… … Across Britain, since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly 800 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act of 2000…Of that number, 121 were charged with terrorism related crimes, but only 21 people have been convicted. … Even last week’s bombings did little to curtail the rhetoric of some of the most radical leaders, who criticized Prime Minister Tony Blair for saying that the bombings appeared to be the work of Islamic terrorists. “This shows me that he is an enemy of Islam,” Abu Abdullah, a self-appointed preacher and the spokesman for the radical group Supporters of Shariah, said in an interview on Friday… Mr. Abdullah declared that those British citizens who re-elected Mr. Blair “have blood on their hands” because British soldiers are killing Muslims. He also said that the British government, not Muslims, “have their hands” in the bombings, explaining, “They want to go on with their fight against Islam.” … So far, there appears to be little effort to restrain outspoken clerics, including prominent extremists like Sheik Omar, who has reportedly been under investigation by Scotland Yard. Sheik Omar, who remains free, is an example of the double-edged policies in Britain. He is a political refugee who was given asylum 19 years ago and is supported by public assistance. Asked in an interview in May how he felt about being barred from obtaining British citizenship, he replied, “I don’t want to become a citizen of hell.”

Hopefully, as the United Kingdom digests its subway bombings and the ramifications of their past policies toward Islam, they will begin to act on the obvious fact that people who espouse terrorist views do not deserve the right to have their liberties protected. Were London’s subway attacks direct enough to fully unveil Islam’s threat to the British? Or will Britain continue to see Islamic terrorism as something that deserves no more than police action? Will Britain continue to grasp for assurances from “moderate” Muslims, who say that Islam is a religion of peace, while citizens try to contain their fears of a Muslim uprising?

289

Only time will tell whether Britain will continue to ignore its history with the Nazis, and repeat it with the Muslims. For the United Kingdom, and all of the other nations discussed in this section, the common experience is that Islam breeds fear and hatred among all inhabitants, non-Muslim and Muslim alike. The hostile presence of Muslim groups that do not assimilate with their host nations, and which lash out at non-Muslim citizens, marks an unwelcome resurrection of tribalism in places where it had been long dead. It also marks a loss of free speech, and freedom from fear, as Denmark recently realized.

Denmark When Dare to Speak was first drafted, Denmark was not even mentioned. Suddenly, in 2006, Denmark became a focal point of Islamic hatred. Its plight once again made the clash between Free Democracy and Islam impossible to ignore. It also revealed the speed with which Muslims can strike terror throughout the world, as well as the sensitivity of Islam’s tripwire for detonating global conflict. Denmark’s story began innocuously enough. As Kevin Sullivan tells it in his February 2006 article for The Washington Post, entitled Cartoon furor began quietly,566 The global furor over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad can be traced to one day last September when newspaper editor Flemming Rose smelled a good story. He said he’d read that museums in Sweden and London had recently removed artworks their staff deemed offensive to Muslims. A Danish comedian told him that he felt free to desecrate the Bible but that he’d be afraid to do the same to the Koran. Then Rose read that a Danish children’s book author couldn’t find illustrators who dared draw Muhammad for a new book on Islam. Rose…suspected the art world was self-censoring out of fear of Islamic radicals. So he contacted 25 Danish newspaper cartoonists with a challenge: Draw Muhammad as you see him. Twelve responded…including one that depicted Islam’s holiest figure with a bomb in his turban. “We have a tradition of satire in Denmark,” Rose, 47, said…“We do the same with the royal family, politicians, anyone. In a modern secular society, nobody can impose their religious taboos in the public domain.”

Islamic leaders, however, did not share Rose’s view that these cartoons were simply iconoclastic affirmations of Denmark’s Freedom of Speech. Nor did they pause to contemplate why someone might think it appropriate to draw Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban. Instead, they railed against the caricatures as outrageous insults, and responded in a way that demonstrated that the caricatures were true. Sullivan continues:

566

Cartoon furor began quietly, by Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, February 8, 2006.

290

At the Islamic Cultural Center in Copenhagen, Ahmed Abu Laban saw the cartoons. “We were astonished and extremely shocked,” said Laban,…One of Denmark’s most prominent Muslim clerics… Laban immediately called together 11 other Muslim leaders to plan a response. Eliciting no regrets from the newspaper or the Danish government, they sent envoys to the Middle East to seek support…

But how did those Danish envoys transform their outrage in September into an international conflict in January? Easy! They added obscene cartoons to the ones actually published: The cartoons were “a volcano in Egyptian media,” Laban said. “People were extremely angry.” … Government officials and other critics here said Laban’s delegations intentionally inflamed Islamic leaders in Egypt and Lebanon by passing off several obscene cartoons of Muhammad as among those published in the newspaper.

In short, these mass riots were orchestrated by Islamic leaders who falsified cartoons and attributed them to Danish artists. Their goal was to foment hatred against the West and launch a series of retributions. Even after the forgery was exposed, Muslims preferred to remain outraged by the original cartoons, even though they previously garnered little attention. Muslim outrage ignored the fact that, by definition, political cartoons are always offensive to someone, and every group imaginable is caricatured by cartoonists sooner or later. Jews and Christians may grumble when their founders are satirized in political cartoons, but they generally view such caricatures as statements about themselves, not their founders, and they treasure the right to Free Speech enough to bear those insults without resorting to riots, destruction, or murder. To my knowledge, no one in a Free Democracy has ever died because of a religious caricature. For example, the cartoonist who drew Muhammad with a bomb as a turban had previously drawn a cartoon where the Star of David was attached to a similar bomb, yet no crisis materialized.567 Political cartoons of Jesus and Moses are common throughout the world. Muslims give two reasons for being outraged over Muhammad’s caricatures. The first is that such cartoons are an insult to Muhammad, and therefore, to Islam. The second is that any image of a person can lead to idolatry, and this danger is especially true for Muhammad. The question of how a political cartoon can both insult Muhammad and lead people to idolize him is left unanswered. Also unexplained is why Muslims responded so rabidly, considering the many times in Islam’s history when Muslims themselves created images of Muhammad, as evidenced by the following quote from Islam: A Very Short Introduction, in a space that once contained the reproduction of such an image:568 567

Cartoon furor began quietly, by Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, February 8, 2006. Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 2, section entitled Sira (Biography), page 34. 568

291

In the first edition of this book, this space contained an illustration from the famous manuscript of Rashid al-Din’s Universal History (1307)…Although the illuminated manuscript…is widely regarded as a masterpiece and is often reproduced, a small number of readers found the picture blasphemous. In the words of one of them: ‘There is definitely no human being that can ever depict the beauty and grandeur of his (the Prophet’s) countenance.’ There is no explicit ban on figurative art in the Quran, but popular Muslim tradition became strongly iconophobic…

It is hard to imagine that the author, a professor at Oxford University, would remove the depiction of Muhammad simply because “a small number of readers” were unhappy with the book. Authors, especially academics, endure criticism as part of their jobs. The author’s use of the word “blasphemous,” together with an understanding of how Muslims responded to Salman Rushdie’s “blasphemy,” reveals that fear is what actually motivated the removal. This quote also reveals what appears to be the real reason for Muslim outrage at the cartoons: In the eyes of many Muslims, Muhammad was superhuman, despite claims to the contrary. To these people, Muhammad’s “beauty and grandeur” was so great that any image of him is inadequate, therefore insulting. If an image of Muhammad that is considered a “masterpiece” is “blasphemous,” then a satirical cartoon is outrageous beyond words. At this point, it is interesting to note that while Muslims demand respectful deference, they do not give it. Muhammad himself seemed to enjoy making fun of non-Muslims, as several hadiths reveal, such as:569 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 435:…The Prophet said to Hassan, “Lampoon them (i.e. the pagans) and Gabriel is with you.” Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 449:…The Prophet said to Hassan, "Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e., supports you)." Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 6081:…Allah’s Messenger…said, “Satirise against the (nonbelieving amongst the) Quraish, for (satire) is more grievous to them than the hurt of an arrow.”

On the other hand, how are Muslims taught to repay Infidels who insult Muhammad? Numerous hadiths provide the answer, such as:570 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 409:…While the Prophet was in the state of prostration, surrounded by a group of people from Quraish pagans, ‘Uqba bin Abi Mu’ait came and brought the intestines of a camel and threw them on the back of the Prophet. The Prophet did not raise his head from prostration till Fatima (i.e. his daughter) came and removed those intestines from his back, and invoked evil on whoever had done (the evil deed). The Prophet said, “O Allah! Destroy the chiefs of Quraish…”

569

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 731 and Volume 8, Book 73, Numbers 171 & 174, Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Numbers 6074, 6079, 6080, & 6081, and Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4997. 570 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 241, Book 9, Number 499, and Volume 5, Book 58, Number 193.

292

Later on I saw all of them killed during the battle of Badr and their bodies were thrown into a well except the body of Umaiya or Ubai, because he was a fat person, and when he was pulled, the parts of his body got separated before he was thrown into the well.

With this background, the Islamic response to these political cartoons becomes more understandable, even if it is not more justified. Reading about the orchestrated responses to these cartoons is like watching an explosion whose shrapnel is malice, anarchy, and intimidation: Developments in Prophet Drawings Case The Associated Press, WIBC 1070 News Radio, Indianapolis, Indiana, February 2, 2006 Thursday’s developments in the controversy surrounding the publication by European newspapers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which has sparked outrage in the Islamic world: • • • • • • • •

Armed militants with ties to the Fatah Party surrounded European Union offices in Gaza and threatened to kidnap foreigners… More than 300 Islamic students rallied in eastern Pakistan, chanting “Death to Denmark!” and “Death to France!” Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Austrian ambassador, representing the EU, to protest the publication… Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai condemned the images, calling the publication an “insult ... to more than 1 billion Muslims.” Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Yuri Thamrin said that while his country upholds free expression, “such freedom cannot be used as a pretext to insult a religion.” The managing editor of the French daily France Soir that republished the drawings was fired… The Jordanian weekly newspaper Shihan published three of the caricatures, saying it was reprinting them to show readers “the extent of the Danish offense.” Hours later, its editor was fired … About 100 Lebanese women staged a sit-in in Lebanon’s southern city of Sidon.

… Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures By Albert Aji, Associated Press Writer, February 4, 2006 DAMASCUS, Syria - Thousands of Syrians enraged by caricatures of Islam’s revered prophet torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on Saturday… In Gaza, Palestinians marched through the streets, storming European buildings and burning German and Danish flags… Iraqis rallying by the hundreds demanded an apology from the European Union, and the leader of the Palestinian group Hamas called the cartoons “an unforgivable insult” that merited punishment by death. … Aggravating the affront, Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said repeatedly he cannot apologize for his country’s free press… The Vatican deplored the violence but said certain provocative forms of criticism were unacceptable.

293

“The right to freedom of thought and expression...cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers,” the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy. … In Santiago, the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the Chilean Embassy in Damascus was also torched… … “We will redeem our prophet Muhammad with our blood!” they chanted. Mahmoud Zahar, leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, told the Italian daily Il Giornale the cartoonists should be punished by death. “We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully.” he said. … Anger swelled in Europe, too. Young Muslims clashed briefly with police in Copenhagen, the Danish capital, and some 700 people rallied outside the Danish Embassy in London. …Iran’s president ordered his commerce minister to study canceling all trade contracts with European countries whose newspapers have published the caricatures…President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the caricatures showed the “impudence and rudeness” of Western newspapers against the prophet as well as the “maximum resentment of the Zionists (Jews) ruling these countries against Islam and Muslims.”

In this article, note the words of support that the Catholic Church offered Muslims. They will soon regret those words. As the explosion spread, the leaders of the Free World, who normally stand up for free speech, stood down instead. Caught off-guard, they scrambled to diffuse a bomb that had already detonated. They even went so far as to side with Muslim terrorists, whose weapon was intimidation this time instead of murder. They joined with these terrorizers in declaring that Freedom of Speech should be limited far beyond the “don’t shout ‘Fire!’ in a theater” level accepted in the West. One wonders where these defenders of Muhammad were hiding when Jesus was insulted in the press. Moreover, what about respect for Denmark, whose embassies were stormed and whose flags were burned? Clearly, these reputed “Defenders of the Free World” were defending Muhammad instead out of fear of his followers. Their positions had nothing to do with respect: Irate Muslims Stage New Protests By Scott Wilson and Kevin Sullivan, Washington Post, February 4, 2006; Page A12 … In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw criticized European newspapers for republishing cartoons that originally appeared only in one newspaper in Denmark. “There is freedom of speech, we all respect that,” Straw told a news conference during a visit with Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol. “But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary. It has been insensitive. It has been disrespectful, and it has been wrong.” The United States expressed a similar view. “We…respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility,” said State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper. “Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.” …

294

In the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, as many as 100 members of the radical Islamic Defenders Front stormed into the office tower housing the Danish Embassy…, demanding an apology…another Muslim coalition, the Islamic Community Forum, issued a statement at one of Jakarta’s most prominent mosques demanding the death penalty for the cartoonists who drew the caricatures and others involved in their publication. … In London…several hundred Muslims gathered…at the London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park and marched to the Danish and French embassies, burning a Danish flag and chanting, “Denmark, you will pay.” Some chanted, “Jihad! Jihad!” and held up placards that read, “Learn the lesson from 9/11.” … The Daily Telegraph…said it had chosen not to publish the cartoons while defending the “right to offend within the law.” “We prefer not to cause gratuitous offence to some of our readers, a policy we also apply, for example, to pictures of graphic nudity or violence,” the newspaper said.

What is interesting here is the cowardice of the Daily Telegraph, and the disingenuousness of its rationale. Since when do Western newspapers refrain from publishing items that “cause gratuitous offence to some of [their] readers”? Perhaps they were only defending the “right to offend” within Islamic law. The Daily Telegraph’s decision not to publish these caricatures is quite different from its decision not to include nudity for two reasons: • •

Nudity is something that publishers may freely choose to include. Anyone can go to a newsstand and see publications with nudity. If the Daily Telegraph refrains from showing nudity, this is a marketing decision, not a response to death threats. Muslim outrage essentially demands special treatment that is not given to any other religion. They are using fear to extort “respect” from others.

The Daily Telegraph’s response makes one wonder how it would have responded to threats from the Germans over caricatures of Hitler during the build-up to World War II, or how they would have responded to threats from the Soviets over caricatures of Stalin. Is anger all it takes to stifle the free press? If so, the West is in deep trouble. Even more troubling was the self-censorship recommended by Britain’s Jack Straw and America’s Kurtis Cooper. Administratively, how would they propose to make sure that publications print nothing that would offend Muslims? Their words imply that Islamic scholars should have veto power over the content of publications. This would hand Muslims a power not given to any other religion, or even to the U.S. government. Would negative press about events in the Middle East, or about Islamic religious leaders, also offend Muslims? In the days that followed, much of the world was caught in a whirl-wind of catastrophe: Violence Spreads Over Muhammad Caricatures By Zeina Karam, ABC News International, February 5, 2006 BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — Thousands of Muslims rampaged Sunday in Beirut, setting fire to the Danish Embassy, burning Danish flags and lobbing stones at a Maronite Catholic church…

295

… The Danish foreign minister said: “enough is enough.”…”Now it has become more than a case about the drawings. Now there are forces that want a confrontation between our cultures,”… … The trouble threatened to rile sectarian tensions in Beirut when protesters began stoning St. Maroun Church, one of the city’s main Maronite Catholic churches, and property in Ashrafieh, a Christian area… Lebanon’s Justice Minister Charles Rizk, a Christian, urged leaders to help end the violence. “What is the guilt of the citizens of Ashrafieh of caricatures that were published in Denmark? This sabotage should stop”… In the Afghan city of Mihtarlam, some 3,000 demonstrators burned a Danish flag and demanded that the editors at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten be prosecuted for blasphemy… … In Iraq, about 1,000 Sunni Muslims demonstrated outside a mosque in the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi. A giant banner read: “Iraq must end political, diplomatic, cultural and economic relations with the European countries that supported the Danish insult against Prophet Muhammad and all Muslims.” Another 1,000 supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr rallied in Amarah, denouncing Denmark, Israel and the United States and demanding that Danish and Norwegian diplomats be expelled. … Caricature clash with NATO troops turns deadly MSNBC News Services, February 7, 2006 KABUL, Afghanistan - NATO peacekeepers and Afghan police exchanged fire with protesters who attacked a NATO base Tuesday in the second straight day of violent demonstrations…over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Four protesters were killed and dozens wounded a day after four other Afghans died in a similar protest. … In Iran, protesters attacked the Norwegian Embassy with stones and Molotov cocktails. The Austrian Embassy was similarly attacked on Monday. … Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the West’s publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons was an Israeli conspiracy motivated by anger over the victory of the militant Hamas group in the Palestinian elections last month… Afghans, NATO soldiers hurt In Afghanistan, NATO troops…and police fired on hundreds of protesters outside the base in Maymana after demonstrators shot at them and threw grenades. The protesters also burned an armored vehicle, a U.N. car and guard posts… … In the Afghan capital of Kabul, police used batons to beat stone-throwing protesters outside the Danish diplomatic mission office and near the offices of the World Bank on Tuesday… … More than 3,000 protesters threw stones at government buildings and an Italian peacekeeping base in the western city of Heart… About 5,000 people clashed with police in Pulikhumri town, north of Kabul…

296

… Incidents elsewhere Pakistan: Protests in Peshawar and North Waziristan each drew some 5,000 people…In Peshawar, Chief Minister Akram Durrani, the province’s top elected official who led the rally, demanded the cartoonists “be punished like a terrorist.” … Indonesia: Danish citizens were advised to leave Indonesia, where rowdy protests were held in at least four cities Tuesday… … Diplomatic impacts … On Monday, Iran announced it cut all trade ties with Denmark because of the cartoons. Iran imports some $280 million worth of goods a year from Denmark. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said he disapproves of the caricatures, but insisted he cannot apologize on behalf of his country’s independent press.

Rasmussen’s reasoning, which any believer in Free Democracy and Freedom of Speech would accept, was violently opposed in the Islamic world. To see how Muslims continued to punish all of Denmark for the actions of a mid-sized independent newspaper, and how the U.S. and other Western nations suffered collateral damage, continue reading: Massive cartoon protest in Beirut By CNN Beirut Bureau Chief Brent Sadler, CNN Producer Syed Mohsin Naqvi and journalist Tom Coghlan, Thursday, February 9, 2006 BEIRUT, Lebanon – About half a million Muslims turned a Beirut religious ceremony into a peaceful protest against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed… …“At your service, oh Mohammed, at your service, oh Prophet of God,” the crowds chanted with fists raised. “Death to America, Death to Israel” … “Today, we are defending the dignity of our prophet with a…demonstration,” Reuters quoted [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah as telling the crowds. “But let George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to...we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices.”…“We are a nation that can’t forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values,” Nasrallah said. … On Wednesday, Rice accused Iran and Syria of inciting Muslim anger and violent protests over the cartoons of Mohammed – drawing the ire of Syria’s U.S. ambassador and an Iranian vice president.

The above article ended with the following disclaimer: CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of the Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.

297

Hmmm. Is that the kind of reasoning that uncovered the Watergate scandal? It does not seem likely, given that Watergate was exposed through the brave actions of two reporters who not only added fuel to the controversy, they sparked it. If those reporters had buckled in the face of threats, the Nixon White House would have gotten away with its crimes. Obviously, cowardice struck CNN, just as it struck the Daily Telegraph. In light of the threats made against other news media, their disclaimer is essentially saying: “We’ll be quiet! Just don’t hurt us!” It is remarkable to think that the press is more afraid of Islam than it was a President of the United States. A few days later, the House of Submission ratcheted up its vengeance with an international boycott, to make Denmark an example for the rest of the world to fear: Mideast boycott a ‘nightmare’ for Danish firms By Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, February 11, 2006 COPENHAGEN - …“It took us 40 years to build up our business in the Middle East, and five days to bring it to a total stop,” said Astrid Nielsen, spokeswoman for the Danish company here. She said suspending operations at the Riyadh plant, the company’s regional base, and a near-total boycott of the company’s products, have cost Arla about $1.7 million a day since Jan. 28. The boycott of Danish goods, propelled by Muslim leaders and imams preaching in mosques, has brought exports of Danish products to the Middle East and North Africa to a virtual standstill. It has scuttled a flow of goods to the region that was worth about $1 billion in the first 10 months of 2005… … …Rasmussen…has repeatedly expressed regrets that Muslims have been offended by the cartoons of Muhammad, while saying he cannot apologize for what was printed in a private newspaper. “You can’t hold a whole nation responsible for what is published in a free and independent newspaper,” Rasmussen said… … …the al-Qiswani Supermarket in the West Bank town of Beit Hanina…prominently displayed posters [saying] “If you love the Prophet, join us in boycotting Danish products”…The store’s owner, Abed Qiswani…said “…The problem these European countries have now is with the Islamic giant…they should think about who they mess with.” … Rasmussen said dairy industry officials had hoped that Prime Minister Rasmussen’s televised comments offering regrets for the offense caused to Muslims would improve the situation. “But so far that has had no impact,” he said… … Pedersen said the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which first published the Muhammad cartoons, “should have been more careful.” “Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, but you can’t cry ‘Fire! Fire!’ in a cinema,”…

And so, the leader of Denmark was compelled to ask the world’s Muslims for mercy, for a crime that neither he nor his government committed, but to no avail. Even more pathetic was the lament of a Danish citizen who equated the cartoons to shouthing “Fire!” in a theater. Cartoons are nothing of the sort. They are satire – humor – which was unfortunately at the expense of a

298

group of very dangerous and hostile people, who proved the caricatures correct by beating the Danes into submission. On the same day, the following report came in: Denmark pulls diplomats from Muslim states Associated Press, MSNBC News, February 11, 2006 COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Denmark has temporarily withdrawn its ambassadors from Syria, Iran and Indonesia because their safety was at risk in the wake of a Danish newspaper’s publication of drawings of the Prophet Muhammad… … The small Scandinavian country is shell-shocked by the wave of anti-Danish protests, some of them violent, that have spread like wildfire across the Muslim world. Danish paper JyllandsPosten, which first published the cartoons, apologized for offending Muslims but stood by its decision to print the drawings, citing the freedom of speech.

And so, Denmark’s little newspaper, with its staff and contributors threatened by death, and with the sufferings of its homeland hanging around its neck, submitted to Islam’s demand while trying to maintain a shred of dignity, with a fig leaf of principle. Does anyone imagine that they will ever print another cartoon of Muhammad? But this is not the end of the story – we’re only halfway through the month! Read on to see the other smack-downs Denmark suffered, as well as the House of Islam’s self inflicted wounds, followed by the redirection of hostility from Denmark to the entire West, particularly the United States, Israel, and Christians in general: 3 killed as Pakistan cartoon protests escalate Associated Press, MSNBC News, February 15, 2006 PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Gunfire and rioting erupted Wednesday as tens of thousands of people took to the streets in several Pakistani cities during the country’s third consecutive day of violent protests over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Three people were killed, including an 8-yearold boy. More than 70,000 people flooded the streets of the northwestern city of Peshawar…The massive crowd went on a rampage, torching businesses and fighting police…A bus terminal operated by South Korea’s Sammi Corp. was torched… Protesters burned a KFC restaurant, three movie theaters and the offices of the main mobile phone company in the country. A Norwegian mobile phone company’s offices were also ransacked… … Intelligence officials say members of outlawed Islamic militant groups have joined the protests, and may be inciting violence to undermine the pro-Western government of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. …Many chanted “Death to Denmark!” and “Hang those who drew the insulting cartoons!” … Anger in Malaysia, Indonesia

299

…hundreds of Muslim protesters ripped apart and burned Danish flags Wednesday in a rally at the Danish honorary consulate in Manila, the Philippines. … Indonesia’s importers association also announced a boycott of Danish goods until the Danish government apologizes for the cartoons. … Libyans burn Italy consulate in cartoon protest MSNBC staff and news service reports, February 18, 2006 TRIPOLI, Libya - …protesters set fire to the Italian consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and clashed with police hours after an Islamic cleric in Pakistan offered a $1 million reward for killing one of the cartoonists. Libyan security officials said 11 protesters were killed or wounded in the clashes in Benghazi. … Thousands rally in London More than 10,000 angry people protested in central London Saturday against the cartoons that have infuriated many in the Muslim world. “Free speech, cheap insults,” read one demonstrator’s placard. “How dare you insult the blessed Prophet Muhammad?” asked another. … Reward on cartoonist’s head … Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, prayer leader at the historic Mohabat Khan mosque in the conservative northwestern city of Peshawar, announced the mosque and the Jamia Ashrafia religious school he leads would give a $25,000 reward and a car for killing the cartoonist who drew the prophet caricatures — considered blasphemous… He also said a local jewelers’ association would give $1 million… … “This is a unanimous decision by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophets deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize.” … The cartoonists have gone underground and lived under police protection since the conflict started escalating last year… … Muslims assault U.S. Embassy in Indonesia Associated Press, MSNBC News, February 19, 2006 JAKARTA, Indonesia - Hundreds of Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad tried to storm the U.S. Embassy on Sunday… …In Turkey, tens of thousands gathered in Istanbul chanting slogans against Denmark, Israel and the United States. … Christians are targets Pakistani Muslims protesting in the southern city of Sukkur ransacked and burned a church Sunday after hearing accusations that a Christian man had burned pages of the Quran, Islam’s holy book.

300

That incident came a day after Muslims protesting in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri attacked Christians and burned 15 churches in a three-hour rampage that killed at least 15 people. Some 30 other people have died during protests over the cartoons that erupted about three weeks ago. In Jakarta, about 400 people marched to the heavily fortified U.S. mission in the center of the city, behind a banner reading “We are ready to attack the enemies of the Prophet.” ‘We are fighting America’ … …“They want to destroy Islam through the issue of terrorism ... and all those things are engineered by the United States,” said Maksuni, who only uses one name. “We are fighting America fiercely this time,” he said. “And we also are fighting Denmark.”

As anti-Christian violence erupted throughout the House of Submission, the Catholic Church finally realized that their initial support for Muslims was rewarded only with bloodshed. Chastened, they admitted that they had made a mistake when they tried to reach out to Muslims: Vatican to Muslims: practice what you preach By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor, Reuters, ABC News, February 23, 2006 PARIS (Reuters) - After backing calls by Muslims for respect for their religion in the Mohammad cartoons row, the Vatican is now urging Islamic countries to reciprocate by showing more tolerance toward their Christian minorities. Roman Catholic leaders at first said Muslims were right to be outraged when Western newspapers reprinted Danish caricatures of the Prophet … …the Vatican this week linked the issue to its long-standing concern that the rights of other faiths are limited, sometimes severely, in Muslim countries. Vatican prelates have been concerned by recent killings of two Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria…At least 146 Christians and Muslims have died in five days of religious riots in Nigeria. “If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us,” Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican’s Secretary of State (prime minister), told journalists in Rome. … Iraqi Christians say they were well treated under Saddam Hussein’s secular policies, but believers have been killed, churches burned and women forced to wear Muslim garb since Islamic groups gained sway after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. … “Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves,” Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa. Jesus told his followers to “turn the other cheek” when struck. “The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights,” he said…

301

Bizarrely, the most tragic victims in this debacle were Nigerian Christians: At Least 15 Die in Nigeria Cartoon Protest By NJADVARA MUSA, Associated Press Writer, February 19, 2006 MAIDUGURI, Nigeria - Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings. …[A] reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze. … Thousands of rioters burned 15 churches in Maiduguri in a three-hour rampage… “Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters”…Witnesses said three children and a priest were among those killed. … Kano lawmakers also called on the state’s 5 million people to boycott Danish goods. … With Saturday’s deaths, at least 45 people have been killed in protests across the Muslim world… … U.S. Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes said U.S. newspapers generally did not reprint the caricatures “because they recognize they are deeply offensive, even blasphemous to the precious convictions of our Muslim friends and neighbors.” In Cairo…Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, of al-Azhar University, the world’s highest Sunni Muslim seat of learning…said the Danish prime minister must apologize for the drawings and further demanded that the world’s religious leaders meet to write a law that “condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets.” He said the United Nations should impose the law on all countries.

In other words, if the world gave in to Tantawi’s demand, the United Nations would impose a law on every person in every country, saying that they shall not say anything that a Muslim might consider insulting to Islam. Under such a law, religion-based crimes and oppressions could be committed without fear of criticism, and you would be barred from reading this book. For an entire month, the world reeled from a crisis caused by some cartoons published in a midsized independent Danish newspaper. This episode can leave little doubt as to whether Islam stands for “peace” or “submission.” As to status of free speech in the United States, the makers of South Park left no doubt: ‘South Park’ aims at censors, hits Bush, Jesus Thursday, April 13, 2006, Associated Press, CNN NEW YORK (AP) – Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, the creators of “South Park” skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon’s most recent episode.

302

The comedy – in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians – instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag. … Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Mohammed… The network’s decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said. … Parker and Stone…built [a script] around the incident. In Wednesday’s episode, the character Kyle is shown trying to persuade a Fox network executive to air an uncensored “Family Guy” even though it had an image of Mohammed. “Either it’s all OK, or none of it is,” Kyle said. “Do the right thing.” The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point where Mohammed is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.” It is followed shortly by the images of Christ, Bush and the flag.

This article goes on to discuss how the Catholic League was offended by the image of Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag. Those who were offended, though, missed South Park’s point: They could display those offensive images without endangering anyone. Given South Park’s track record of irreverence toward all religions, from Christianity to Judaism to Scientology, this hypocritical “respect” for Islam reveals Comedy Central’s true motivation. As with the leaders of the Free World and the news media, its motivation was fear. In the face of fear, all of Comedy Central’s pretended political incorrectness withered and submitted. Sadly, those who freely antagonize peaceful religions and governments, but remain fearfully silent about Islam, may one day discover that they have unwittingly undermined the institutions that respected them and strengthened a religion that threatens them. This leads us to a question: Which laws do we live by? Are we living by the laws of the United States, which respects Free Speech, or are we living by the laws of Shari’ah? Do we really want to tell Islamic terrorists that we disrespect people who respect our freedoms, but willingly submit to those who threaten us?

Relations between governments and peoples in the “House of Peace” Bloody borders, or just plain bloody? In Samuel P. Huntington’s famous report, The Clash of Civilizations, he coined a well-known phrase: “Islam has bloody borders.” Unfortunately, history has shown that Huntington was being polite, because Islam is bloody inside and out. While the Koran has declared an eternal state of war with non-Islamic nations, relations between and within Islamic nations are rarely much better. This is because Islamic scripture offers little guidance to help people transcend hatred, tribalism, religious intolerance, or predatory nationalism. It even sets the stage for strife

303

between Islamic factions. What follows is a brief and partial sketch of inter-Muslim strife over the past one-hundred years: •

• • • •

•

• • • •

The Ottoman Empire’s weakness was largely due to tribal battles between its various ethnic groups, particularly between Arabs, who believed themselves to be the rightful stewards of Islam, and the Turks who ruled over them, but also between Arabs, Kurds, and Persians. Kurdish minorities in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran have long battled their nations’ leaders for independent homelands. Pakistan was originally carved from the Eastern and Western extremities of India, but the two regions were unable to reconcile their differences and soon split into Pakistan and Bangladesh, Iraq had a bloody 8-year war with Iran, and then launched a war against Kuwait. Iraq’s attack on Kuwait was repelled by a coalition that included Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Syria, Turkey, and The United Arab Emirates, as well as a number of Western nations, led by the United States. Despite its dramatic success, this first Gulf War ended at the border of Iraq. This premature termination left a Shiite rebellion against Saddam Hussein with minimal outside support, and Saddam crushed it ruthlessly. Why did the Coalition stop at the border? Because the Islamic nations fighting Saddam were mostly Sunni, and they did not want to aid the Shiites against Saddam’s Sunni leadership. Pakistan’s Sunnis and Shiites terrorize each other when they are not terrorizing people of other faiths, blowing up each others’ places of worship with dismal regularity. The situation is similar in Iran, except that Shiites have the upper-hand. In the spring of 2004, General Muammar Qaddafi of Libya joined with Al Qaeda in an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Crown Prince Abdulla, ruler of Saudi Arabia.571 In Saudi Arabia, Shiites are treated as Apostates.

These conflicts do not stop at the national level. They descend through ethnicities, tribes, clans, and even families. In fact, the very characteristics that made Muslims unconquerable in former days appear to make them ungovernable today, except through repressive displays of force. An extreme example of Islam’s culture of conflict comes from Land of the Pashtun, an article from the December 2004 issue of National Geographic which describes a major ethnic group in Pakistan and Afghanistan: The Pashtun may be the most ungovernable people on Earth. They are divided into dozens of tribes and hundreds of clans, which are usually at war with each other. The presence of an invader (even a pair of journalists from National Geographic) unites the tribesmen just long enough to drive out the interlopers. Then they go back to shooting at each other. The only time the Pashtun are at peace with themselves, it is said, is when they are at war. In the tribal areas, the typical Pashtun home is built like a fortress, with high watchtowers and 20foot walls. And no self-respecting Pashtun is without his personal armory. A powerful household might have an antiaircraft gun mounted in the watchtower, a mortar or two, a .50571

Al Qaeda behind Libyan plot to murder Saudi prince, Pakistan Daily Times, June 12, 2004.

304

caliber machine gun, a dozen or so AK-47s, and a stack of rocket-propelled grenades. With all this firepower, a spat between neighbors often turns into a pitched battle.

While extreme, this sort of culture is not unusual in the Muslim world. It echoes familiar descriptions of the Chechens and Somalis, and can be seen in the Janjaweed’s murderous treatment of their black Muslim brothers in Darfur, Sudan. Pakistan must also deal with separatists in its Baluchistan region. The Baluch are another Muslim ethnic group that uses terrorism. In their case, as with many others, terrorism is being used by Muslims against a Muslim state:572 …Baluchistan has been troubled by a growing insurgency by tribesmen seeking greater autonomy and more benefits from the province’s natural gas resources, Pakistan’s main source. Insurgent attacks On Saturday, militants fired more than 100 rockets into the town of Sui, killing two military guards and six civilians, and damaging 16 houses, police said. Sui is near Pakistan’s main gas field and about 450 miles southwest of Islamabad. The attack followed a similar rocket blitz on Friday and Saturday in the nearby town of Dera Bugti. The area’s senior government administrator, Abdul Samad Lasi, said militants also blew up a section of gas pipeline and a water pipeline in Dera Bugti overnight, while a landmine blast on Sunday morning killed a civilian…in nearby Kohlu district. … The latest violence came after President Pervez Musharraf demanded on Friday that Baluchistan’s tribal leaders disband their “private militias.”

Interestingly, these kinds of conflicts take place throughout the “House of Peace,” and they are conducted with shockingly ruthless brutality. The West is familiar with the horrors committed by its own aberrations, such as Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, but those masters of terror at least tried to conceal their depravity. In the “House of Peace,” opponents shamelessly broadcast levels of barbarism that would make Hitler and Stalin blush. A quick survey of their tactics reveal: • • • • • •

The murder of diplomats from non-belligerent nations Indiscriminate bombings that kill civilians on all sides of a rivalry Targeted bombings of hospitals, mosques, and funerals Attacks on vacationers Double- and triple-bombings, designed to kill onlookers and rescuers helping victims The use of innocent civilians, women, and children as human shields

What follows is a small sampling of newspaper headlines describing such attacks: • • 572 573

Bali [Indonesia] death toll set at 202573 30 Iraqi children, 215 wounded in Red Crescent hospital bombing574

Bomb kills 12, injures 13 on bus in Pakistan, MSNBC News Services, February 6, 2006. BBC News, February 19, 2003.

305

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Four car bombs explode in Casablanca [Morocco]575 Bomb explodes in Afghanistan mosque; 16 wounded576 Jakarta [Indonesia] car-bomb explosion kills 14577 Latest Baghdad [Iraq] Bombing Comes as Thousands Attend Hakim Funeral578 Istanbul [Turkey] rocked by double bombing579 Riyadh [Saudi Arabia] bomb toll hits 17580 Bomb Kills Six at Iraqi Mosque581 Bomb Explosion at Mosque Kills 3 in Bangladesh582 Karachi [Pakistan] mosque attack kills 15583 Bomb Kills 16 at Shiite Mosque in Pakistan: Karachi Attack Follows Slaying of Sunni Cleric584 Suicide Bomb at Funeral Kills 14: Official’s Brother Slain 2 Days Earlier; Allawi [Iraq] Vows Hard Line585 Bomb blast kills 9 near Australian embassy: Big terror strike in Jakarta [Indonesia]586 Deadly Double Bombing In Pakistan587 Four Killed in Pakistan Mosque Bombing588 Bombing Kills 10 Near Shiite Shrine; Karbala [Iraq] Cleric, Apparent Target, Is Hurt589 Bombers Again Strike Iraqi Shiite Worshipers; Attacks Kill 30 and Injure 40 On Last Day of Annual Rite590 14 killed in terrorist attack in Algeria591 Attackers strike twice near Cairo [Egypt] tourist sites: Women open fire on tour bus after blast near museum592 Car bomb kills 25 at Iraq funeral593 5 Dead In Pakistan Mosque Bombing594 20 Killed in Afghan Mosque Bombing595

574

Arabic News, April 3, 2003. Associated Press, CTV (Canada), May 16, 2003 576 Associated Press, USA Today, June 30, 2003. 577 AFP & Reuters, Dawn (Pakistan), August 6, 2003 578 By Scott Bobb, Voice of America, September 2, 2003. 579 BBC News, November 20, 2003. 580 News24 (South Africa), October 11, 2003. 581 By Naseer Al-Nahr, Al Jazeera, Arab News, January 10, 2004. 582 By Anjana Pasricha, Voice of America, January 13, 2004. 583 Al Jazeera, May 8, 2004. 584 By Kamran Khan, Washington Post, June 1, 2004. 585 By Doug Struck, Washington Post, July 7, 2004. 586 AFP, Dawn (Pakistan), September 10, 2004 587 Associated Press, CBS News, October 7, 2004. 588 Associated Press, FOX News, October 10, 2004. 589 By Saad Sarhan and Karl Vick, Washington Post, December 16, 2004. 590 By Jackie Spinner and Bassam Sebti, Washington Post, February 20, 2005. 591 India Daily, April 9, 2005. 592 MSNBC News Services, Associated Press, April 30, 2005. 593 By Antonia Castaneda, Associated Press, Chicago Sun-Times, May 2, 2005. 594 CBS News, May 30, 2005. 575

306

• • • • • • • • •

Bombs hit Arab section of an Iranian Province596 In Darfur [Sudan], foraging means risking rape597 Probe: Truck Bomb Killed Lebanon’s Hariri [20 others also killed]598 Top Egyptian diplomat in Iraq seized, killed by insurgent group599 Egypt resort blasts kill 49600 Iraqi terrorists say they killed Algerian envoys601 Doctors in the Cross Hairs: Iraq’s physicians are increasingly targeted by violence602 Karzai [Afghanistan] orders ‘human shield’ probe603 Algeria bombs kill 3, injure 24604

These headlines are only snapshots of the mountains of atrocities that have piled up in the past few years. They are strange monuments to a religion that boasts of teaching Europe the concept of chivalry.605 Also note that these bombings and attacks are not restricted to Iraq, but are throughout the House of Islam. After reviewing how Muslims of different sects destroy each others’ mosques, hospitals, funerals, diplomats, and religious leaders, it is ironic that Iraqis are outraged whenever Coalition forces accidentally damage a mosque. Moreover, Muslims die far more frequently and horribly at each other’s hands than at the hands of Israelis or Americans, yet those nations are widely considered to be Enemy Number One and Enemy Number Two. Why is this? Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia provided a glimpse of the answer in his speech at the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference, quoted at the beginning of this book: …If we are to recover our dignity and that of Islam, our religion, it is we who must decide, it is we who must act…To begin with, the Governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks and have a common stand, if not on all issues, at least on some major ones, such as on Palestine… From being a single ummah we have allowed ourselves to be divided into numerous sects,…each more concerned with claiming to be the true Islam than our oneness as the Islamic ummah…the Muslim civilization became so weak that…the Europeans…could do what they liked with Muslim territories. It is not surprising that they should excise Muslim land to create the state of Israel to solve their Jewish problem…

595

CBS News, June 1, 2005. The Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal, June 13, 2005. 597 By Jennifer Brooks, The Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal, June 14, 2005. 598 By Zeina Karam, Associated Press, Las Vegas Sun, June 17, 2005. 599 By Andy Mosher, Washington Post, July 7, 2005. 600 By Lee Keath, Associated Press, July 23, 2005. 601 By Robert H. Reid, Associated Press, July 28, 2005. 602 By Scott Johnson, Newsweek, January 9, 2006. 603 Associated Press, CNN, May 23, 2006. 604 Reuters, CNN, October 30, 2006. 605 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 17, section entitled Interfaith Dialogue, page 209-210. 596

307

In other words, in the face of inter-Muslim strife and chaos, a rare consensus exists on Islam’s malice toward Jews, Christians, and Infidels in general. Thus, in their search for a unifying cause, Islamic leaders have decided to harness this hatred. One can infer from President Mohamad’s speech that his goal was not to bring peace to the world, but only to redirect Muslim aggression away from other Muslims and toward Jews, Americans, and Europeans. Before going further, it is important to recognize that relations between Christian sects have at times been just as dismal as those between Islamic sects. What is hard for Western nations to accept, however, is that their hard-won lessons in peacemaking do not transfer readily to the House of Islam. It is even harder to accept that those lessons will not transfer at all. Unfortunately, as long as Muslims believe that the Koran is divine, and Muhammad is exemplary, this will be the case. Westerners do not want to accept this fact, but history confirms it. Traveling into the House of Islam can be like stepping into the chaotic and tribal world of another millennium, except that it has been updated with imported technology, much of it deadly.

A recipe for conflict: Mix Church with State; bind tightly There is another issue that contributes to rampant strife within the Islamic world: a tight binding of church with state. When church and state are unified, a person cannot change their religion without changing their relationship to the state. This makes conversion tantamount to treason. In this sort of world, people of different faiths are viewed as subversives, and missionary work is an act of insurgency, or even war. Sayad Abul Ala Maududi was mentioned earlier in this book as a prominent Islamic thinker. He was actually much more. Maududi was a founding father of Pakistan and a war hero, whose commentaries on the Koran are among the most respected in the world. As a founder of Pakistan, he wrote extensively on the subject of religion’s relationship to the state. One of his works is The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law. In it, he wrote: If, at some time in the future, an Islamic order of government is established, the law of executing the apostate is implemented, and all [apostates] within the confines of Islam are…imprisoned…, no doubt in this situation the fear will arise that a very great number of hypocrites…who will pose as a permanent threat for every kind of treason. In my opinion its solution…is to notify the Muslim population in the area where an Islamic revolution occurs that people who…have defected from Islam and wish to remain as defectors should formally disclose their non-Muslim identity and leave…within a year…After this period, all those who are born of Muslim lineage will be considered…Muslim, they will be subject to all Islamic laws,…and then whoever steps outside the fold of Islam will be executed.606 … An organized society which has chosen the form of a state can hardly provide a place…for people who differ from it in fundamental matters…it is very difficult to give people a place in society… if they completely oppose the foundations on which the…society and the state are established. 606

The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law Section III: The Execution of the Apostate - A Rational Consideration,Part l: Muslims by Birth, by Sayad Abul Ala Maududi, translated by Syed Silas Husain and Ernest Hahn, 1994, page 51.

308

In this matter Islam has practised a degree of tolerance which no other order in the history of the world has ever practised. All other orders either force those who differ on fundamentals to conform to their principles or they destroy them.607 Islam alone, while making them tributaries…, gives them place within its borders and tolerates many of their activities that directly conflict with the foundation of the Islamic state and society. The sole cause of this toleration is because Islam does not despair of human nature. It operates with an enduring hope…that when those who…do not see the light of the true religion will have an opportunity to…experience its…blessings, they will finally accept this truth. Therefore it works patiently and continues to tolerate those obdurate elements which do not assimilate into society and the state, hoping that at some point they will experience transformation… But the sole treatment for the person whose hard heart, once transformed, has again hardened and who demonstrates no capacity whatever to assimilate into society’s order is to cast him out. In any case, the value of the individual, however great it be, cannot be great enough to allow the whole order of society to be corrupted because of it.608

Sayad Abul Ala Maududi’s writings show that, according to his interpretation of Islam, church is state and state is church. In his view, Islam should control all aspects of life, and those of other faiths are “obdurate” Infidels who are tolerated only by the patience of Islam, which does so in hope of eventual conversion. Strangely, he appears to believe that this form of “tolerance” is the most liberal in the world. There is a key difference between Islamic nations and Free Democracies with a Christian heritage: The historical foundation of Islam rests on Islamic nationhood, while the historical foundation of Christianity rests on the separation of church and state.609 Christianity began without governmental authority, and could therefore return to that condition without sacrificing its fundamental tenets. Islam, on the other hand, began with governmental authority, and bound religious matters inextricably with legal ones. The Koran, the Hadith, and Shari’ah all demand absolute authority for Islam. When it does not have the power to rule – that is, when Shari’ah does not have authority over both Muslims and non-Muslims – it is hobbled and incomplete. In this case, true believers see themselves as repressed, and their religion disrespected and humiliated. Therefore, wherever Muslims represent a substantial portion of a non-Islamic nation, as is the case in the Philippines, Thailand, and India, there will always be an Islamic insurgency.610 But the “House of Peace” also has internal sources of strife, which began with leadership rivalries that followed Muhammad’s death, as the next section reveals. 607

These completely false statements reveal a remarkable mindset. Imagine being a Pakistani who comes to America with the mindset of a “tolerant” Muslim. Every day in this country would be extremely confronting, and possibly overwhelming. 608 The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law Section III - The Execution of the Apostate: A Rational Consideration, Part c: The Natural Requirement of an Organized Society, by Sayad Abul Ala Maududi, translated by Syed Silas Husain and Ernest Hahn, 1994, page 35. 609 The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, Luke 20:25: …He [Jesus] said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 610 Thailand & International Islamic Front, by B. Raman, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper no. 890, Jan. 9, 2004.

309

Muhammad’s reign: Church and State bound together in one Messenger During Muhammad’s lifetime, leadership was clear because there was only one source of authority: Muhammad. While Muslims might claim that leadership came from Allah, Muhammad’s command was what Muslims actually followed. And while Muhammad may have consulted with others before making decisions, he always had the final say. After Muhammad’s death, Muslims faced the challenge of determining Allah’s will in the absence of His Messenger. This is when efforts to compile the Koran and the Hadith began. The Hadith records how this process took place, beginning with Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar, and culminating in the definitive Koran during the reign of Caliph Uthman, over twenty years after Muhammad’s death.611 For example:612 •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:…Abu Bakr…said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Qur’an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore, I suggest you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.’”…Then Abu Bakr said (to me). “You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book.”…So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from…palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance)...: “Verily there has come unto you an Apostle…from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty…(9.128-129).” Then the complete manuscripts…of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with ‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:…Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, “…Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered [four Qurra’] to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari…:

611

Also translated as ‘Uthman or Othman. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 201, Book 61, Number 511, and Volume 9, Book 89, Number 301. 612

310

“Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (33.23).”

Though Muslims assert that this compilation is the literal and unaltered word of Allah, even a Muslim would have to admit that, in the Koran’s chain of communication, from Allah to Gabriel to Muhammad (who was allegedly illiterate and could therefore only claim to remember what was said to him) to Muhammad’s remembrancers (or Qurra’) to the Koran’s compilers to the interpreters who later added vowels to the text at their discretion, there is plenty of room for the errors of “whisper down the lane.” Moreover, how could an eternal book possibly result from a compilation of scraps collected by a group of Caliphs who never claimed to have any direct access to the mind of Allah? There is also a strange Islamic tradition that claims Muhammad was illiterate, and that his illiteracy is proof that he could not have written the Koran. They use this claim to conclude that the Koran could only have come from Allah. The idea of a successful trader being illiterate seems doubtful. Even 1400 years ago, a trader had to be good with numbers and binding contracts. For Muhammad to be successful enough to convince a wealthy widow to marry him, talent in writing and computation seem like necessities. He certainly had the mental capacity, as the successful administration of his empire testifies. But even if we accept the assertion that Muhammad was illiterate, the Hadith’s accounts of how the Koran was revealed show a basic flaw in the above “proof.” Muhammad dictated his verses to remembrancers who recorded them. Therefore, Muhammad could compose without knowing how to write. Hence his alleged illiteracy was irrelevant to his ability to produce Koranic verses. Furthermore, his alleged illiteracy did not prevent him from composing other written documents, such as letters to other rulers, as many hadiths confirm. For example:613 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 189:…When the Prophet intended to write a letter to the ruler of the Byzantines, he was told that those people did not read any letter unless it was stamped with a seal. So, the Prophet got a silver ring…and stamped on it the expression “Muhammad, Apostle of Allah.”

Apparently, it also did not prevent him from seeking to write a message from his deathbed:614 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 393:…When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah’s Apostle deteriorated, he said, ‘Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.’

More to the point, Muhammad’s alleged illiteracy did not prevent him from improvising the Koran’s contents on the spot:615 613

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 65, Volume 7, Book 72, Numbers 761 & 764, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 276, and Sahih Muslim, Book 24, Numbers 5216, 5217, & 5218. 614 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114, Volume 5, Book 59, Numbers 716 & 717, Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 468, Sahih Muslim, Book 13, Numbers 4014, 4015, & 4016, and Book 31, Number 5879.

311

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 118:…When the Verse: – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home),” (4.95) was revealed, the Prophet said, “Call so-and-so.” That person came to him with an ink-pot and a wooden board…The Prophet said (to him), “Write: ‘Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.” Ibn Um Maktum who was sitting behind the Prophet then said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I am a blind man.” So there was revealed in the place of that Verse, the Verse: – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury, or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.” (4.95)

Regardless of the actual source of the Koran, a quick review reveals that, for all practical purposes, its messages emanated from Muhammad and definitely served his interests. According to the accounts of eye-witnesses, the typical process through which Muhammad received a revelation amounted to what others might call “thinking” or “dreaming,” or even “having a conversation with someone.” This is how The Koran for Dummies describes the process:616 Muhammad told his companions that divine inspiration came to him in two primary ways through Angel Gabriel: • •

Revelation came “like the ringing of a bell” until he grasped all that was revealed. Revelation came through Angel Gabriel taking the form of a man who would then impart divine inspiration to Muhammad.

After trying to picture what these encounters looked like, one is left with more questions than answers. Fortunately, hadiths from Muhammad’s teen-aged wife, A’isha, provided some insight into how the verses of the Koran were composed, although she seems as confused as we are: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 400:617 Narrated [by] Aisha: Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done.

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 440:618…‘Aisha said that the Prophet said to her “O ‘Aisha, This is Gabriel and he sends his (greetings) salutations to you.” ‘Aisha said, “Salutations (Greetings) to him, and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on him,” and addressing the Prophet she said, “You see what I don’t see.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 48:…Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet for marriage. ‘Aisha said, “Doesn’t a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?” But when the Verse: “(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the turn of) any of them (your wives) that you please,’ (33.51)619 was revealed,” ‘Aisha said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.’”

615

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 512, and Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4676. 616 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 2, section entitled The stages of revelation, page 24. 617 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490, and Volume 8, Book 75, Number 400. 618 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 220, Book 74, Numbers 266 & 270, and Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Numbers 5994 – 5997. 619 The full text of this verse, which will be discussed more fully in the next few pages, is:

312

The clearest indicator of the Koran’s actual source is the Koran itself. It reveals its true author in numerous places, but particularly Surahs 1 and 55, respectively entitled The Opening and The Beneficent. These beautiful surahs, which qualify as poetry and are from the early Meccan period, begin with the following verses: The Opening: [1.1] PICKTHAL: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. [1.2] Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, [1.3] The Beneficent, the Merciful. [1.4] Master of the Day of Judgment, [1.5] Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help. [1.6] Show us the straight path, [1.7] The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray. The Beneficent: [55.1] YUSUF ALI: (Allah) Most Gracious! [55.2] It is He Who has taught the Qur’an. [55.3] He has created man: [55.4] He has taught him speech (and intelligence). [55.5] The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed; [55.6] And the herbs and the trees - both (alike) prostrate in adoration. [55.7] And the Firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the Balance (of Justice), [55.8] In order that ye may not transgress (due) balance. [55.9] So establish weight with justice and fall not short in the balance. [55.10] It is He Who has spread out the earth for (His) creatures…

Throughout The Opening and The Beneficent, Allah is referred to in the third person. Unless someone claims that Gabriel wrote portions of the Koran independently of Allah, these two surahs indicate that the author was Muhammad himself. Islamic commentators try to rebut this conclusion by explaining that these prayers were given by Allah to Muhammad so that they could be taught to Muslims, just as the Lord’s Prayer was given by Jesus to Christians. This explanation is unsatisfactory, though, because the Koran has many verses where Allah tells Mohammad to relay messages to the Muslims and others, and they all begin with instructions for Muhammad, such as “Say” or “A declaration…from Allah…to…” While examples of such instructions abound, two of the most obvious ones are surahs 113 and 114, known respectively as The Daybreak and Mankind: The Daybreak: [113.1] PICKTHAL: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the Daybreak [113.2] From the evil of that which He created; [113.3] From the evil of the darkness when it is intense, [33.51] YUSUF ALI: Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing.

313

[113.4] And from the evil of malignant witchcraft, [113.5] And from the evil of the envier when he envieth. Mankind: [114.1] PICKTHAL: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, [114.2] The King of mankind, [114.3] The god of mankind, [114.4] From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, [114.5] Who whispereth in the hearts of mankind, [114.6] Of the jinn and of mankind.

Devout Muslims believe that every word of the Koran is the word of Allah, as spoken by Allah himself, and relayed by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Verses 113.1 and 114.1 are consistent with this belief. But why would a perfect Allah break this sensible pattern for surahs 1 and 55? It makes no sense. The most obvious answer is that these prayer surahs were written by Muhammad, unless one says that the perfect, immutable, and eternal Koran lost a few words. Other clear cases of Muhammad’s authorship can be found throughout the Koran. For example: •

[6.114] PICKTHAL: Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you [Muhammad’s listeners] (this) Scripture, fully explained?...

•

[27.91] YUSUF ALI: For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this city, Him Who has sanctified it and to Whom (belong) all things: and I am commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to Allah’s Will,-

•

[42.10] YUSUF ALI: Whatever it be wherein ye differ, the decision thereof is with Allah: such is Allah my Lord: In Him I trust, and to Him I turn.

It is astounding that anyone could claim that these are Allah’s words instead of Muhammad’s. In fact, the ramifications of these verses are so controvertial that a few translators have inserted “Say:” in front of them, even though this word is not in the original Arabic text. A dramatic example of Muhammad’s personal authorship comes from Surah 111, known alternatively as either Palm Fiber or The Flame: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. [111.1] YUSUF ALI: Perish the hands of the Father of Flame [Abu Lahab]! Perish he! [111.2] No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! [111.3] Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! [111.4] His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel! [111.5] A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!

Abu Lahab was an uncle of Muhammad who, according to Maududi’s commentary on this surah, was “was the only person to join with the enemies [of Muhammad] against his own relatives [Muhammad and his followers].”620 This is a strange accusation to make, considering that it was 620

The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999, commentary on Surah 111.

314

Muhammad who turned against the ways of his family, not the other way around. However, it is this surah’s jarring change in tone, as it moves from introduction to content, that betrays its true author. These are not the words of a “compassionate” “merciful” Allah, who is all-powerful and all-knowing. Instead, they are the words of a furious man lashing out at a close relative whom he felt had betrayed him. Shifts in the speaker’s identity, from Allah, to Muhammad, and sometimes even to a third party, are so frequent in the Koran that it makes one wonder how Muslims could possibly think that the Koran’s sole speaker is Allah. To answer this quandary, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran provides a convenient explanation: …Notice…that the names Allah applies to Himself (those beginning with capital letters, such as We, God, He, and so on) – shift constantly. Allah, in other words, refers to himself from different angles of perception – because he encompasses all possible angles of perception! This is a phenomenon that repeats itself again and again in the Koran.

With this explanation, a Muslim apologist spins evidence that the Koran is a badly-written forgery of God’s word into a demonstration of Allah’s all-encompassing nature. In doing so, he also demonstrates that a person who decides that the Koran is the Word of Allah will always find a way to explain away any evidence to the contrary. Why would Muhammad choose to speak with Allah’s voice? Because doing so gave his commands incredible power. Imagine being able to claim that God said, “I am as My servant thinks I am,”621 or declare that “He who obeys me, obeys Allah, and he who disobeys me, disobeys Allah.”622 These are actual quotes from the Hadith, and they unveil the power that Muhammad enjoyed. There are so many Koranic verses where Muhammad joins his will to Allah’s (over 70) that only a small sampling is shown here (see Appendix C for complete list). What follows are example cases where Muhammad used Allah’s authority to win arguments, commandeer war spoils, and generally make his own directives unquestionable: •

[4.13] PICKTHAL: …Whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where such will dwell for ever… [4.14] And whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He will make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom.

•

[4.80] YUSUF ALI: He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).

•

[5.33] PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their

621

Hadith Qudsi, Number 15. The Hadith Qudsi is a collection of hadiths that are believed to be quotes of Allah (that were left out of the Koran) rather than quotes of Muhammad. They differ from Koranic verses in that they are Muhammad’s paraphrases of Allah rather than exact words attributed directly to Allah himself. 622 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 204. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 251, Book 92, Numbers 384 & 385, and Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1890, Book 20, Numbers 4518 – 4523.

315

hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; •

[8.1] PICKTHAL: …Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger…

•

[8.13] PICKTHAL: That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.

•

[9.3] YUSUF ALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans…

•

[9.59] YUSUF ALI: If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and had said, “Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon give us of His bounty…”

•

[9.61] PICKTHAL: And of them are those who vex the Prophet and say: He is only a hearer…Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom.

•

The next verse is particularly interesting because, when the speaker said “Allah and His messenger,” the reference could only mean Muhammad. This is because Muhammad was the only being who held court, heard disputants, and judged between them. If Allah truly knew all, there would be no need for disputants to be summoned before Him. [24.48] YUSUF ALI: When they are summoned to Allah and His messenger, in order that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come)… [24.50] Is it that there is a disease in their hearts? Or do they doubt, or are they in fear, that Allah and His Messenger will deal unjustly with them? Nay, it is they themselves who do wrong. [24.51] The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, “We hear and we obey”… In verse 24.51, who is “He”? Is it Allah, His Messenger, or “Allah and His Messenger”? The obvious answer is Muhammad.

•

The next verse is another case where “Allah and His messenger” clearly meant Muhammad, although it should now be evident that Muhammad had difficulty distinguishing between himself and Allah. The verse discusses times when believers were with Muhammad, working on projects that required teamwork with him. Muhammad was telling people working with him not to leave until he had dismissed them. [24.62] PICKTHAL: They only are the true believers who believe in Allah and His Messenger and, when they are with him on some common errand [YUSUF ALI: matter requiring collective action], go not away until they have asked leave of him…

This verse again raises the question: Who is “him”? Is it Allah, His Messenger, or “Allah and His Messenger”? Once again, the clear answer is Muhammad.

316

•

[49.3] YUSUF ALI: Those that lower their voices in the presence of Allah’s Messenger, - their hearts has Allah tested for piety: for them is Forgiveness and a great Reward.

•

[33.36] PICKTHAL: And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair…

•

The next verse shows how Muhammad’s absolute power gave him the ability to transform “God damn you” into “God damns you” – a devastating curse upon anyone who annoyed Allah’s Messenger. [33.57] YUSUF ALI: Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.

•

[33.53] YUSUF ALI: …Enter not the Prophet’s houses until leave is given you…but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth…Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah’s Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah’s sight an enormity.

The above verse clearly serves Muhammad’s wishes, not Allah’s. In it, Muhammad exempts himself from the laws that apply to everyone else: In verse 2.234, the Koran declares that all widows are allowed to remarry after 4 months and 10 days. But Muhammad wants none of his wives to ever remarry. This is quite a commandment, considering that he had 11 wives after Khadijah’s death: Sawda Bint Zam‘a, A’isha Bint Abu Bakr, Hafsa Bint ‘Umar, Zainab Bint Khuzaima, Ummu Salama, Zainab Bint Jahsh (who had been the wife of Muhammad’s freed slave, Zayd, who divorced her so that Muhammad could wed her623), Juwairiyya Bint al-Harith, Safiyya Bint Huyay, Ummu Habiba, Maria the Copt, and Maimuna Bint al-Harith. •

[33.50] YUSUF ALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy…uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; - this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large)…in order that there should be no difficulty for thee… [33. 51] Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside… These are the verses whose revelation led Aisha to say that “your Lord hurries in pleasing you.”

A more cynical observer might have said that Muhammad hurried in pleasing himself. Islamic scholars go through great effort to put a positive spin on the above verses, which

623

Sirat Rasoul Allah, by ibn Ishaq, approx. 780 AD, Chapter entitled Last Illness. An abridged translation of this biography entitled The Life of Muhammad Apostle of Allah was written by Michael Edwardes and published by the Folio Society in London, UK, in 1964.

317

give Muhammad the status of Allah-sanctioned “sex-god.” For example, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, in his introduction to Surah 33, explains the verses this way:624 “…an important thing that needed to be reformed was the question of the adoption of a son. Whoever was adopted by the Arabs as a son was regarded as one of their own offspring: he got share in inheritance; he was treated like a real son and real brother by the adopted mother and the adopted sister…And the same was the case if the adopted son died or divorced a wife. The adopted father regarded the woman as his real daughter-inlaw. This custom clashed in every detail with the laws of marriage and divorce and inheritance enjoined by Allah in Surahs Al-Baqarah and An-Nisa. It made a person who could get no share in inheritance entitled to it at the expense of those who were really entitled to it. It prohibited marriage between the men and the women who could contract marriage perfectly lawfully. And, above all, it helped spread the immoralities which the Islamic Law wanted to eradicate…When the artificial relations endued with customary sanctity are allowed to mix freely like the real relations, it cannot but produce evil results. That is why the…concept and custom of regarding the adopted son as the real son should be eradicated completely…Therefore, it was inevitable that the custom should be eradicated…through the Holy Prophet himself. For no Muslim could ever conceive that a thing done by the Holy Prophet himself…could be detestable. Therefore…the Holy Prophet was inspired by Allah that he should marry the divorced wife of his adopted son, Zaid bin Harithah…

It should now be evident that Muhammad portrayed the will of Allah as essentially indistinguishable from his own. This method of legitimizing power, by joining a ruler’s will with that of a god, is a venerable maneuver. It has been repeated throughout history, ever since the days of Hammurabi and Pharaoh, and it persisted into modern times, in the form of Ethiopia’s King Haile Sellassie, who was considered by Rastafarians to be a prophet of God. Leaders of religious cults often claim the same God-given authority even today. One of the benefits that Muhammad enjoyed from this union was nearly absolute power over his true believers. This is the kind of power that could corrupt even the wisest of men. Muhammad’s submission to power abuse stands out in the last two sets of verses. In these passages, Muhammad declares for himself almost unlimited sexual rights that no one else could have (33.50). He then goes on to declare that his wives must never marry another man after his death (33.53). Both declarations violate the laws of Shari’ah that apply to everyone else. They also set precedents that directly violate some of the most fundamental tenets of democracy: •

624

Equal protection under the law. Muhammad violated this tenet by subjecting his wives to special laws that prevented them from marrying anyone else (33.53), even though Shari’ah declared that widows may remarry after a four-month mourning period.

The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999.

318

•

Rulers are not above the law. Muhammad violated this tenet by exempting himself from Shari’ah’s laws on marriage, so that he could marry a multitude of women and impose his sexual desires on others against their will (33.50). Muhammad went even further, seeking exemption from any constraints, as the Hadith reveals in quotes such as “O Allah!...Please forgive me my previous and future sins.”625 The Hadith also shows that Muhammad claimed that this prayer was granted:626 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 3:…The Prophet said, “On the Day of Resurrection the Believers will assemble and say, ‘Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord.’…Jesus will say, ‘I am not fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad, the Slave of Allah, whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.’…”

Moreover, in granting himself special privileges, Muhammad set a dangerous example for all Islamic rulers, who, in their adoration, seek to imitate Muhammad’s ways. While today’s Islamic rulers may adhere to the Shari’ah that Muhammad violated, they can still claim that rulers are exempt from other laws that are followed by everyone else, just as Muhammad did. In other words, verses 33.50 and 33.53 set the stage for not just corruption, but tyranny. This is not to say that Free Democracies are free from corruption, nor can anyone claim that the leaders of Free Democracies do not try to grant themselves special privileges. What we can say, however, is that the principles of Free Democracy declare that corruption and special privileges are wrong and punishable by law, and that Free Democracies give citizens both moral and legal frameworks for combating such abuses. What was it like to live under the reign of Muhammad? Before seeking answers to this question, recall these words from the Koran: [33.21] YUSUF ALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day…

The following hadiths provide snapshots of Muhammad’s reign: If you talked badly about Allah and His Messenger in some way, Muhammad might call on your friends to deceive you with kind words and then kill you:627 •

** Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4436:…the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka’b bin Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad bin Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like).

625

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 21, Number 221. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Numbers 482, 534 & 590. 626 Other attestations to the forgiveness of Muhammad’s future sins can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 19, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 1, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 570, and Volume 9, Book 93, Numbers 507 & 532v. 627 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 45, Number 687, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 270 & 271, and Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369.

319

So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka’b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka’b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage?...we can pledge you (our) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad bin Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu ‘Abs bin Jabr and Abbad bin Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them…his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad bin Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na’ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

If you neglected morning prayers at the local mosque, Muhammad might punish your disobedience by burning down your house, with you in it:628 •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 617:…Allah’s Apostle said,…I was about to order for collecting fire-wood (fuel), and then order Someone to pronounce the Adhan for the prayer, and then order someone to lead the prayer. Then I would go from behind and burn the houses of men who did not present themselves for the (compulsory congregational) prayer.

•

Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1373: ‘Abdullah reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying about people who are absent from Jumu’a prayer: I intend that I should command a person to lead people in prayer, and then burn those persons who absent themselves from Jumu’a prayer in their houses.

If you were a six year old girl, Muhammad might command your father to give you to him in marriage, and then consummate the marriage when you reach your ninth birthday: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:…The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:629 Narrated [by] Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years)…Later on…my mother…came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she

628

Hadiths similar to these two can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 626, Volume 3, Book 41, Number 602, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 330, Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1370, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 8, Number 8.1.3. 629 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Numbers 64, 65, & 88, and Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4915.

320

wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house…There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

While Muhammad may have been morally self-indulgent, he was very strict about the morality of others. For example, if you and your spouse were once wet nursed by the same woman, he might force you to divorce: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 827:630…“A black slave-lady came and said, ‘I suckled you both [she happened to have wet-nursed two children, who, much later, had married].’…“I went to the other side and told the Prophet about it. He said, ‘How can you (keep her as your wife) when the lady has said that she suckled both of you (i.e. you and your wife?)’ So, the Prophet ordered him to divorce her.”

Because religion, morality, and law were all under Muhammad’s direct control, he was able to generalize the above morality into law, granting himself leniency while applying an Allahreinforced iron rule over his subjects: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 176:631…The Prophet said, “Whoever disapproves of something done by his ruler,…he should be patient, for whoever disobeys the ruler even a little …will die as those who died in the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance. (i.e. as rebellious Sinners).”

Despite Muhammad’s attraction to young girls, he could be relied on for strict morality regarding women he found unattractive. For example, if you were a woman who asked Muhammad to marry you, but he did not want you, then he would refuse your offer. Your disappointment would soon be forgotten, however, when replaced by the horror of finding your nuptials transferred to a destitute stranger:632 •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 24:…A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have come to give you myself in marriage (without Mahr).” Allah’s Apostle looked at her. He looked at her carefully and fixed his glance on her and then lowered his head…A man from his companions got up and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! If you are not in need of her, then marry her to me.” The Prophet said, “Have you got anything to offer?”…“No, by Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! I could not find even an iron ring”…the Prophet said, “How much of the Quran do you know?” He said, “I know such Sura and such Sura,”… The Prophet said, “Go, I marry her to you for that much of the Quran which you have.”

If you were a Jew, or other non-Muslim, Muhammad might take your land from you, in accordance with his belief that all the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle:633

630

A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 88. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Numbers 175, 177 – 179. 632 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Numbers 54, 58, 63, & 66, Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3316. 633 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 85, Number 77, and Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4363. 631

321

•

** Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:…While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews.” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise, you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”

If you were a non-Muslim living in another nation, Muhammad felt that he had the Allah-given right to terrorize and conquer your land, and then plunder it, and keep whatever portion of the booty he desired for himself. Also, you would not want to oppose his attack, because Muhammad claimed to have the power to personally redeem or damn you for eternity: •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 429:634…Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are: 1. Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. 2. … 3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me (and was not made so for anyone else). 4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind. 5. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection.)

•

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 38, Number 503:635…When the delegates of the tribe of Hawazin, after embracing Islam, came to Allah’s Apostle, he got up. They appealed to him to return their properties and their captives. Allah’s Apostle said to them, “…you have the option of restoring your properties or your captives, for I have delayed distributing them.”…When they realized that Allah’s Apostle would return to them only one of two things, they said, “We choose our captives.”

Admittedly, despite his great power, Muhammad displayed some restraint. For example, in the interest of peace, Muhammad forbade others from fighting in Mecca, and only allowed himself to fight for a few hours per day:636 •

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 303:…Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah made Mecca a sanctuary and it was neither permitted for anyone before, nor will it be permitted for anyone after me (to fight in it). And fighting in it was made legal for me for a few hours of a day only.

Besides providing snapshots of Muhammad’s reign, hadiths 1 and 9 show again how Muhammad joined himself with Allah into a single entity called either “Allah and His Apostle” or “Allah and His Messenger.” How else could Muhammad claim that the Earth belonged to him?

634

A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 778, and Volume 5, Book 59, Number 608. 636 Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Numbers 104 & 112, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 432, Volume 3, Book 29, Numbers 58 & 59, and Volume 4, Book 53, Number 412. 635

322

Muhammad was also skillful in the way he positioned himself in relation to Allah, for while he attached Allah’s will to his own, he also claimed to be only a messenger, making it impossible for opponents to argue or negotiate with him. Among negotiators, this is known as the “higher authority” gambit, and Muhammad wisely chose the ultimate “higher authority.” Muhammad’s position as messenger also provided him with another benefit: He used Allah’s authority in a way that permitted him to have human failings. This allowed him and his followers to claim that his mistakes were glorious revelations of Muhammad’s humanity instead of evidence that he was a fraud. Another case where Muhammad’s indiscretions were spun into something glorious comes from Surah 66, entitled The Prohibition. According to N.J. Dawood’s introduction to this Surah, Mohammed, we are told, was once found by his wife Hafsah with a Coptic slave [Maria the Copt, who became one of Muhammad’s wives], from whom he had promised her to separate. Of this Hafsah secretly informed A’isha, another wife of his. To free Mohammed from his promise to Hafsah was the object of this chapter.637

What follows are the opening verses of Yusuf Ali’s translation of The Prohibition: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. [66.1] O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts (wives)… [66.2] Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)… [66.3] When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said, “Who told thee this?” He said, “He told me Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things).” [66.4] If ye two638 turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe, - and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up. [66.5] It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you, - who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility), who travel (for Faith) and fast… [66.6] O ye who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones, over which are (appointed) angels stern (and) severe, who flinch not (from executing) the commands they receive from Allah, but do (precisely) what they are commanded.

In this Surah, Allah chastised Muhammad, not for breaking a promise to his wife and having intercourse with a slave, but for making a promise to his wife when no such promise was required. Furthermore, Allah sent a message to the wives: Lay off Muhammad and be submissive to him, or you and your family might be sent to Hell. This Surah also verifies that Islamic theology does not give control of Hell to Satan, but to Allah.

637 638

The Koran, English Translation, with Notes Only, by N.J. Dawood, Penguin Classics, July 1, 2000. Muhammad’s wives Hafsah and A’isha.

323

After reciting this surah, Muhammad punished his other wives by sleeping exclusively with Maria the Copt for a month, clearly violating the Koran’s command for husbands to spend at least one of four nights with each wife. However, Muhammad was already accustomed to breaking the Koran’s edicts, having been married to nine wives concurrently instead of legal maximum of four. Syed Abul Ala Maududi’s explanation of this surah’s self-serving verses639 spins them about as gloriously and creatively as one can imagine: …[Allah’s] criticism of the Prophet and the…warning to the wives…has not been made secretly but included in the Book, which the entire Ummah has to read and recite forever. Obviously, neither the intention of making mention of it in the Book of Allah was, nor could it be, that Allah wanted to degrade His Messenger and the mothers of the faithful in the eyes of the believers; and [it] is obvious that no Muslim has lost respect for them…after reading this Surah of the Qur’an. Now, there cannot be any other reason of mentioning this thing in the Qur’an than that Allah wants to acquaint the believers with the correct manner of reverence for their great personalities. The Prophet is a Prophet, not God, that he may commit no error. Respect of the Prophet has not been enjoined because he is infallible, but because he is a perfect representative of Divine Will, and Allah has not permitted any of his errors to pass by unnoticed. This gives us the satisfaction that the noble pattern of life left by the Prophet wholly and fully represents the will of Allah. Likewise…the holy wives of the Prophet were human, not angels or super men. They could commit mistakes. Whatever ranks they achieved became possible only because the guidance given by Allah and the training imparted by Allah’s Messenger had molded them into the finest models. Whatever esteem and reverence they deserve is on this very basis and not on the presumption that they were infallible. For this reason, whenever in the sacred lifetime of the Prophet…the Companions or holy wives happened to commit an error due to human weakness, they were checked…some…errors were mentioned in the Qur’an and Allah Himself corrected them so that the Muslims might not form any exaggerated notion of the respect and reverence of their elders and great men, which might raise them from humanity to the position of gods and goddesses.

During Muhammad’s lifetime, his presence made the moral life of Muslims simple: Any alleged command of Allah was, by definition, right, righteous, and instructive, even when it was inconsistent with Allah’s other alleged commands. Actually, the preceding statement oversimplifies the situation for ancient Muslims, because there were dissentions within the ummah during Muhammad’s life. However, Muhammad always prevailed because he could conveniently produce a message from Allah tailored to the situation. And because the message came from Allah, it could not be questioned without risking the accusation of Hypocrisy or Apostasy. Thus, the scimitar of death hung over all critics and dissenters.

639

The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999, from introduction to The Prohibition (At-Tahrim).

324

Abrogation and its affects on Islamic Doctrine and Law Muhammad’s streamlined morality dramatically simplified his leadership responsibilities, because it allowed him to produce new messages for new situations, even if those messages contradicted previous ones. Claiming Allah’s voice, Muhammad repeatedly declared his right to abrogate previous Koranic verses (as previously mentioned in the section entitled Interpreting the Koran). There are so many abrogated verses that the subject has itself become a field of study, which Muslims call the “science”640 of Abrogation. Through this “science,” Islamic authorities try to identify abrogated verses and the verses that abrogated them. The number of abrogated verses varies from 42 to 238 among Muslim authorities. Of these, the ones most important to Westerners are the peaceful ones, such as the abrogated verse: [2.256] YUSUF ALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks…

Verses like this come from an early period in Islam’s history, when Muhammad’s followers were a Meccan minority, threatened by the polytheist and Jewish tribes around them. However, after Muhammad gained power in Medina, new verses abrogated the old ones. An example of an abrogating verse is: [9.5] YUSUF ALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

This particular verse, known as “the verse of the sword,” is especially interesting because it is famous among Muslims as the watershed verse that abrogated all of of the peaceful ones that preceded it. It is also interesting because of the way Muslims defend it. For example, after quoting this verse, The Koran for Dummies goes on to explain that the term “Pagans” is not as threatening as it sounds:641 The word used in Arabic is Mushrikun, meaning “those who associate partners with God,” or “Polytheists.” This verse does not apply to all “unbelievers.”

Hindus and Buddhists will find little comfort in this assurance. Neither should Christians, when they realize that Muslims accuse them of being polytheists, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran explains: •

There were three major religions in West Asia during the Prophet’s lifetime: Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. The latter was a polytheistic faith that had a powerful influence on

640

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Abrogating passages, page 91. 641 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Fighting against “unbelievers”, page 154.

325

Christianity.642 •

Conventional Christianity promotes Jesus as the Son of God, thereby violating the believer’s duty not to associate anything with Allah… In the Koran, the classical Trinity of Christianity – recognizing God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – is considered a form of polytheism: Those who say that God is the third of the Three, have, in fact, turned to disbelief. There is no Lord but God, the only One Lord. If they will not give-up such belief, the disbelievers among them will suffer a painful torment. (5:73) … The practice of associating partners with Allah in worship is…known as shirk in Islam. It is portrayed over and over again within the Koran as a grievous sin. Humans who commit shirk do so at the peril of their own souls. 643

Returning to the subject of abrogation, The Koran for Dummies makes a strange claim: “the Koran argues that if the Scripture was man-made, contradictions and omissions would crop up in the Book, rather than coherence, consistency, and completeness (4:82; 39:23).”644 The verses on which this claim is based are: [4.82] PICKTHAL: Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity. [39.23] PICKTHAL: Allah hath (now) revealed the fairest of statements, a Scripture consistent, (wherein promises of reward are) paired (with threats of punishment), whereat doth creep the flesh of those who fear their Lord…

Despite the Koran’s claims for itself, the Hadith actually testifies to the Koran’s inconsistency:645 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53:…Ibn Az-Zubair…said to Uthman bin ‘Affan (while he was collecting the Qur’an) regarding the Verse: “Those of you who die and leave wives ...” (2.240) “This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you…leave it in the Qur’an…?” Uthman said, “O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place.”

The very existence of the “science” of Abrogation indicates that the Koran does not meet its own standard of proof. However, Muslims turn a blind eye to this inconvenient fact and declare that the Koran is consistent because it says it is consistent. Unfortunately, this circular logic still leaves the inconsistencies unresolved. In fact, Islam has at least two unresolvable conflicts regarding essential tenets other than the treatment of Infidels: 642

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 2, section entitled An Alliance That Never Materialized, page 19. 643 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 9, section entitled No Trinity, pages 97-98. Note that the Koranic quote comes from the translation written by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar. 644 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 21, section entitled Misconception #1: Muhammad Wrote the Koran, page 312. 645 A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 60.

326

1. The nature of Allah: Is he anthropomorphic or indescribable?646 2. The nature of the Koran: Is it timeless or created? At times, debates over these issues were so heated that they led the House of Islam to conduct its own series of inquisitions, which rivaled the infamous ones in Spain hundreds of years later. Ultimately, the debates were resolved by a theological tossing up of the hands, in resignation to Allah’s incomprehensibility. This surrender is described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction:647 The rationalist tendency held sway at the ‘Abbasid court under the Caliph Al-Mamun (813-33) who imposed an inquisition-type system, the mihna, according to which government officials were obliged to declare their allegiance to the doctrine of the Created Quran. One who refused to do so, despite imprisonment and torture, was Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the traditionist… In 849, under one of al-Mamun’s successors, the policy was reversed. Theological underpinning for a compromise between the rationalists and traditionalists was supplied by…Abu’l Hasan alAh’ari (d.935)…Ultimately, for the Ash’aris, God [Allah] is inaccessible to human reason. God makes himself known only through revelation, and the terms in which he chooses to reveal himself (including his throne, his hands etc.) must be accepted “without asking how”...This phrase, a key term in Ash’ari theology, “leaves to God the understanding of his own mystery.”

In other words, one should not try to apply logic or reason to Allah, because, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran says, “Allah is, in the end, utterly beyond the comprehension of human beings.”648 While Christianity and Judaism face similar issues, the ramifications are much more severe with Islam because the Koran, which is the source of these logical contradictions, is also the source of Islamic Law. Therefore, just as with Allah, this statement implies that one should not try to apply logic or reason to the legal pronouncements of Islamic scholars. Abrogation is also an issue with the Hadith. Therefore, whenever one sees a verse from either the Koran or the Hadith that “proves” Islam’s peacefulness, one should always ask: Has this verse been abrogated?

646

The controversy over whether or not Allah is defined by describable physical parameters and possibly human shape arises from the numerous Koranic references to Allah sitting on or mounting his throne, such as: • [7.54] PICKTHAL: Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the Throne. • [39.75] PICKTHAL: And thou (O Muhammad) seest the angels thronging round the Throne, hymning the praises of their Lord. And they are judged aright. There are also anthropomorphic references to Allah in Muhammad’s famous description of his Night Journey. See the following hadiths: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 429, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 227, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 608, and Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 309, 313, & 314. 647 Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 3, section entitled Tawhid in Early Islamic Thought, pages 58–59. 648 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 9, section entitled Allah, the Only God, as All-Seeing Sustainer of Creation, page 99.

327

Some Islamic scholars debate the concept of abrogation and deal with the Koran’s inconsistencies differently. These scholars claim that the abrogated and abrogating verses refer to specific historical situations; therefore, they do not contradict each other. They believe that changing times call for changing policies. And with these words, they try to deflect the concerns of non-Muslims over Islam’s hostile intents. Unfortunately, the practical results of this position are the same as Abrogation. Why? Because, if the Koran’s guidance is still relevant (and every Muslim would say it is), then the most recent verses are the ones in force. However, these scholars could be intending something more sophisticated, where they draw parallels between the conditions of early Muslims and the conditions of Muslims today. That is, when Muslims are a small minority, they should emphasize the peaceful verses, just as Muhammad did when he practiced Kitman in Mecca. Then, after they gain power in numbers, they will be in a position to emphasize the hostile verses, just as Muhammad did as the ruler of Medina. As they say, changing times call for changing policies. Therefore, the peaceful verses of the Koran are not what they appear to be, and the people who quote them may be, unwittingly or intentionally, misleading others about Islam’s intentions. The Koran’s one consistent message, which does not change, and which is driven home time and again, is the requirement of absolute submission to the will of Allah and his messenger. Because Muhammad joined Allah’s will to his own, the Koran effectively teaches Muslims to surrender to the will of Muhammad. As Allah’s spokesman, Muhammad claimed the authority to make laws, retract them, create exemptions for himself, declare Jihad, collect taxes, and extend mercy or severity with complete authority. While Muhammad may have been no more despotic than most leaders of his day, and better than some, his method of gaining authority, by declaring himself the messenger of Allah, bequeathed to his followers a legacy of turmoil.

Islamic guidance for daily living after Muhammad’s death Islam’s centralization of religious and political authority in Muhammad ended with his death, at age 63, as he lay in the arms of A’isha, his 18-year-old wife of nine years. His dying words were strangely uncertain, coming from a man who claimed to be a prophet whose past and future sins were forgiven, who could describe the Last Day in detail, and who claimed the ability to intercede for the salvation of others:649 649

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 236:… Some (cooked) meat was brought to Allah’s Apostle and…was presented to him as he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, “I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection….Allah will gather all the human beings…they will go to Adam and say to him, ‘You are the father of mankind…(please) intercede for us with your Lord…Adam will say, ‘…go to Noah.’ So they will go to Noah and say, ‘O Noah!…please intercede for us with your Lord…He will say, ‘…go to Abraham.’ They will go to Abraham and say, ‘O Abraham!...please intercede for us with your Lord… He will say to them, ‘…go to Moses.’ The people will then go to Moses and say, ‘O Moses!…(please) intercede for us with your Lord… Moses will say, ‘…go to Jesus.’ So they will go to Jesus and say, ‘O Jesus!… Please intercede for us with your Lord…Jesus will say, ‘…go to Muhammad.’ So they will come to me and say, ‘O Muhammad! You are Allah’s Apostle and the last of the prophets, and Allah forgave your early and late sins. (Please) intercede for us with your

328

650

Sahih Muslim, Book 26, Number 5432: ‘A’isha reported:…When Allah’s Messenger…fell ill, and his illness took a serious turn,…he withdrew his hand from my hand and then said: O Allah, pardon me…

Muhammad’s death confronted Muslims with two immediate leadership questions: 1. Religious: How should Muslims govern their daily lives? 2. Political: Who should replace Muhammad as ruler of the House of Islam? The bloody search for answers to these questions led to conflicts that have plagued the House of Islam ever since. During Muhammad’s life, the Koran, the Hadith, and the Shari’ah did not exist as complete and authoritative documents. Muslims took their guidance for daily living directly from Muhammad, who could override existing policies and scripture at will. After his death, those desiring a faithful Muslim life sought the guidance of the “Companions of the Prophet.” These were the people who knew Muhammad personally, knew his recitations, and understood Muhammad well enough to say, with authority, how he would have handled a particular situation. The faithful sought out these friends, family members, and remembrancers to find out how Muhammad would have handled situations if he could. However, as time went on and these “Companions of the Prophet” began to die off, this method of guiding the lives of Muslims became ever-more tenuous. Responding to this diminishing resource, Islam’s Caliphs decided to compile the Koran, then the Hadith, and finally Shari’ah, as this section will explain. In the wake of Muhammad’s death, the geographical expansion of Islam led to divergent traditions and scriptures, and these differences began to pull the Islamic world apart. Muslims on the edges of the empire began to argue over what was scriptural and what was not. This growing conflict, together with the prospect of losing Islam’s brain trust through war, prompted Muhammad’s successors to undertake a massive effort to organize and codify Muhammad’s recitations. At the time of Umar’s death, there were still several competing versions of the Koran in circulation. Caliph Uthman, the third successor, consolidated these versions to define the authoritative Koran. He then destroyed all competing versions, an act for which he paid with his life. While Muslims claim that the individual verses recited by Muhammad are still with us today, the manner of the Koran’s compilation confirms that it reflects the genius of the remembrancers, the compilers, and the editors nearly as much as it reflects Muhammad himself. Given the fragmented nature of the source materials, there was also an opportunity for the compilers to Lord…The Prophet added, “Then I will go beneath Allah’s Throne and fall in prostration before my Lord…Then it will be said, ‘O Muhammad Raise your head. Ask, and it will be granted. Intercede; it (your intercession) will be accepted.’ ….(Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Numbers 485, 286, & 553, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 307, Book 55, Numbers 556 & 581, Volume 6, Book 60, Numbers 3 & 242, Volume 8, Book 75, Number 317o, Book 76, Number 570, Volume 9, Book 93, Numbers 507, 532V, 600, 601, & 607, Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 349 – 380, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.2.3.) 650 A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 5986.

329

assemble them into forms that served their own objectives rather than the original ones of Muhammad. While the Koran helped Muslims find guidance on how to live, it still left many questions unanswered. In their search for guidance, Islam’s leaders naturally turned to Muhammad’s own life, as recalled by those who knew him or preserved his memory. Unfortunately, the bad blood between Islam’s different sects led them to rely on different memory chains, leading to sometimes-divergent compilations of hadiths, as previously noted in Interpreting the Koran. A major difference between the Koran and the Hadith is that the Hadith compilations were assembled decades or even centuries after Muhammad’s death. Therefore, they created wide gates through which legend and fable could pass. This widely acknowledged issue has led to another Islamic “science,” where scholars try to determine the veracity of each individual hadith, based on the chain of people who whispered it down the lane. As a legal code, both the Koran and the Hadith were poorly organized jumbles. As Muslims tried to apply the Koran and the Hadith to matters of law, they organized Islam’s scriptural doctrines into a formal code called Shari’ah, through a process of interpretation called Tafsir. In addition, a process called Ijtihad was used to produce rulings for specific situations. Unfortunately, there were different schools of thought on the content of the Koran and the Hadith. Therefore, it was impossible for all Muslims to agree on what was law under Shari’ah. Among Sunnis, Shari’ah’s variations proceed from four major schools of thought: Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafii. Among Shiites, the major schools are: Usuli, Akhbari, Shayki, Alawi, Bohra, Druze, Khoja, and Zaydi. Kharijites also have their own school of thought. While these schools could not be reconciled, each developed a relatively coherent philosophy, making it possible for scholars to claim that Shari’ah was well-defined by the time of “The closing of the door of Ijtihad” in the tenth century. From then on, Islamic authorities claimed to have found, through scripture, the answers to all of life’s questions, even if each school had its own set of answers. With its authority over all of life’s questions, Shari’ah has a much broader scope than Western law. Shari’ah places every single human action into one of five categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Obligatory acts (such as paying taxes) Recommended acts (such as night vigil prayers) Permissible acts (such as marrying four wives) Undesirable acts (such as divorce) Prohibited acts (such as stealing)

Because of Shari’ah’s all-encompassing jurisdiction, there is no human action on which Shari’ah is silent. When a new case arises, Islamic scholars engage in Tafsir and Ijtihad to determine which of the above five categories it belongs to. How important is Shari’ah to Muslims? Obviously, given the description above, it is very important. But most Westerners do not appreciate how important it is. Muslims believe that

330

Allah is profoundly unknowable and unavailable to them on a personal basis. Therefore, the only connection they have with Allah comes through Allah’s instructions in the Koran. This means that Shari’ah, which applies the Koran to daily living, is the primary way through which Muslims express their devotion to Allah. For them, practicing Shari’ah is a form of worship. As described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction:651 Shari’a means literally “the way to a watering place”: the Quranic use of the term suggestively combines the notions of a vital means of sustenance in this world and access to the divine realm of the world to come. Conversely, disregard for Shari’ah by non-Muslims is unbelief, and a form of rebellion against Allah. No wonder Muslims consider non-Muslims to be cut-off from Allah and severely misguided!

The methods used to compile the Koran, the Hadith, and Shari’ah reveal how Muslims sought a rational and God-fearing way to define Islamic living. Their methods were somewhat similar to those used for the Tanakh, the Talmud, and the New Testament. In each case, groups of religious leaders deliberated over which texts and interpretations were authoritative. However, there is one important distinction between the Koran and the Jewish and Christian scriptures. While Jewish and Christian religious leaders retain some humility about the origins of their scriptures, saying only that the texts are divinely inspired, Islam’s leaders proclaim that the Koran is literally the divine word of Allah Himself. Therefore, like Allah, the Koran is perfect, immutable, and eternal, and so are the laws of Shari’ah that flow from it. In addition, Muhammad’s life, as recorded in the Hadith, is considered exemplary and worthy of imitation in all ways. Just as Christians are known for the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD), Muslims ask the same question regarding Muhammad. The answers that come from the Sunnah, however, are very different from what comes from the Gospel. The Sunnah is the source of one of the greatest inconsistencies in Islam, for while Muslims make a great distinction between themselves and Christians by accusing Christians of worshipping Jesus and adamantly asserting that Muslims do not worship Muhammad, one finds that Muslims indulge in a form of hero-worship that far exceeds anything seen in Christianity. For while Christians apply “WWJD” to matters of ethics and morals, Muslims apply Muhammad’s version to the minutest aspects of life. Muslims literally use the Sunnah to answer questions like “What would Muhammad eat?” “How would Muhammad wipe?” and “What kind of pet would Muhammad have?” In other words, Islam encourages believers to emulate Muhammad’s manners and habits to levels of detail almost inconceivable to Westerners. This level of hero worship far exceeds anything Hitler, Stalin, or Mao ever enjoyed within their cults of personality. Consider the following hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:…By Allah, whenever Allah’s Apostle spat, the spittle would fall in the hand of one of them (i.e. the Prophet’s companions) who would rub it on 651

Islam: A Very Short Introduction , by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 4, Introduction, page 73.

331

his face and skin; if he ordered them they would carry his orders immediately; if he performed ablution, they would struggle to take the remaining water; and when they spoke to him, they would lower their voices and would not look at his face constantly out of respect…

Muhammad’s hero worship continues right up to the present day. In fact, a popular phrase uttered by Muslims when defending Muhammad is “We love him more than we love our parents,”652 as the noted Pakistani scholars, Javen Ahmad Ghamidi and Khalid Zaheer, stated in an on-line debate with Ali Sina, a courageous Apostate from Islam who founded the website www.news.faithfreedom.org. Muslims believe that when Muhammad was married to Khadijah, he was the ideal husband for one wife. They also believe that later, when he was married to multiple wives, he was the ideal husband for multiple wives, even though he had at least nine at one time and the Koran’s limit is four. In the eyes of Muslims, Muhammad could literally do no wrong, because he defined proper behavior, except when he made a mistake intended to demonstrate that he was human rather than divine, and thus he provided the perfect example of human imperfection. As The Koran for Dummies says: The Koran describes Prophet Muhammad as a mercy to mankind (21:107) and the best example to be followed in worshipping God (68:4). Muslims seek to emulate Muhammad’s nature, character, and actions on a daily basis as the best of God’s servants. The role of Prophet Muhammad is extremely important…because his sayings and actions are considered only second to the Koran in the interpretation and development of Islamic law…Furthermore, the life example and teachings of the Prophet supplement Koranic teachings by clarifying or expanding on ideas and concepts. …[Muhammad] never asked to be worshipped himself. In fact, worshipping Muhammad would immediately place you outside the Islamic faith. Therefore, the term Muhammadanism…is not only incorrect, but also offensive to Muslims.653 … Devout Muslims express their love for Prophet Muhammad by trying to follow his life example in almost every step they take throughout the day. When they sit down to eat, they try to eat in the same manner as Muhammad; when they talk, they try to talk with the same humility that Muhammad exhibited towards his companions; and when they walk, they seek to walk with the same gentleness as their Prophet. 654

In other words, after stating that Muhammad was a God-sent mercy to mankind, and the best example to be followed, whose daily actions are emulated by Muslims in minute detail, and then noting that Muhammad’s words and actions are used extensively to develop Islamic law, the author vehemently denies that Muhammad is worshipped.

652

See www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Ghamidi60916.htm. The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Guiding the Way: Prophet Muhammad, page 10. 654 Ibid, Chapter 11, section entitled Muhammad as the best example for humanity, page 161. 653

332

According to the 2000 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, the second definition of “worship” is “Ardent devotion; adoration.”655 If this is a legitimate definition, then how can Muslims claim that they do not worship Muhammad? We, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, can only infer that Muslims “doth protest too much” over the term “Muhammadanism.” But, of course, The Koran for Dummies notifies readers that if anyone dares to conclude this, they will offend Muslims and thereby make themselves targets of Muslim outrage. Christians have no direct analog to Shari’ah because the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles are best viewed as parables on how God wants people to treat each other. As such, they define virtues, but do not define enforceable laws, because they do not stipulate earthly punishments for violations. While Christian denominations may develop rules and guidelines for their corporate governance, there are few if any governmental laws that directly reflect the teachings of Jesus. In contrast, Judaism does have a body of rules for living, called the Talmud, which is somewhat analogous to Shari’ah. It interprets the Torah, just as Shari’ah interprets the Koran. Jews and Muslims differ dramatically, however, in their relationships to these interpretations. Jews consider themselves Jewish by heredity as well as by faith. Therefore, a Jew does not need to adhere to the Talmud to be Jewish. For Muslims, however, the practice of Shari’ah is an essential connection to their religion. For Muslims, inclusion is strictly a matter of belief. Therefore, a violation of Shari’ah can effectively alienate one from Islam. Such violations may be condemned as Hypocrisy, and even Apostasy, and, as such, can invoke a severe punishment. Shari’ah is based on Koranic and Hadithic scriptures that were written over a thousand years ago. While the Koran may have contributed some ideas that were advanced for its time, the claim that those ideas are perfect and eternal is not supported by the Hadith’s own description of how the Koran was compiled. The Koran’s claim of eternal perfection is worse than untrue; it makes Muslims unable to adapt to advances in technology and deal with problems that were not anticipated in Muhammad’s day. What would be Muhammad’s answer to overpopulation, or the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation? Undoubtedly, Muhammad would have something to say on these and other matters if he was alive today, even though the Koran and the Hadith are silent. It is also likely that his edicts would contradict many of the rulings made by clerics. Given Muhammad’s penchant for abrogating verses, it is even possible that his new declarations would contradict those of the Koran and the Hadith. Unfortunately, the leaders of Islam are constrained to the revelations, words, and actions of a man who lived in another era. In the face of new challenges, Islamic scholars and leaders must do their best to apply his ancient guidance to times he could not even imagine. What makes this constraint even more problematic is the extreme sanctity of the Koran. For Muslims, there is no shade of gray; either it is the word of Allah or it is not. If someone ignores 655

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

333

even the slightest passage in the Koran, that person ignores Allah himself – an act of Apostasy. This creates a situation similar to what one would see among Jews if they still attempted to live according to the letter of Mosaic Law. Thankfully, Jews no longer adhere to commands like: Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; – Exodus 32:14656

How far does Shari’ah delve into the minutiae of daily life? A sampling of its laws will provide a glimpse. While these laws may seem strange, obsessive, or even a bit humorous to a Western reader, these are not like the archaic laws that are sometimes unearthed for our amusement in the United States. These laws are taken quite seriously by devout Muslims, particularly in nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, and northern Nigeria, where Shari’ah is the law of the land: VI. Transfer (Intiqal)657 210. If the blood of a human being, or of an animal whose blood gushes forth when its large vein is cut, is sucked by an insect, normally known to be bloodless, and it becomes part of its body, the blood becomes Pak (clean). This process is called Intiqal (transition, or transfer). But when a blood-sucking leech sucks human blood during some treatment, it will be najis (filthy), because it is not considered as part of its body – it is considered as human blood. 211. If one kills a mosquito which has sat on one’s body, and blood which it has sucked comes out, it will be considered Pak, as it was destined to be its part, even if the time gap between its sucking and it being killed be very small. However, as a recommended precaution, one should avoid such blood.

This segment comes from the section of Shari’ah that deals with preparing oneself to be clean, a process known as Wudhu. Wudhu is important for a variety of reasons, one of which is that a person must be clean before performing any of the five daily prayers. Shari’ah describes extensively, and in minute detail, what is considered clean or filthy, and how to make something that is filthy, such as one’s body, clean. The penalties for violating these rules (such as performing a prayer while in a state of filthiness) are not necessarily punished on this earth, although they may be frowned upon. No violation, however, will go unpunished in the hereafter, except by discretionary Divine indulgence. Another example of the triviality to which Islamic Law descends can be seen in the following instructions for the Ramadan Fast. To anyone familiar with medical treatments, the potential health hazards of these instructions are obvious:658 The Fast of Ramadan becomes obligatory when thirty days of the preceding month, Sha’ban are past, or with the seeing of the new moon of Ramadan…If one witness is accepted, it is a condition that he must have the quality of veracity, and thus be neither a slave nor a woman… 656

The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985. From Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani’s Islamic Laws. 658 Extract from instructions for observing the fast of Ramadan by Muhyi al-Din al-Nawawi (died 1277), an afaqih (leading scholar) of the school of Shafii (a Sunni school of Islam). 657

334

To fast, one must rigorously avoid coition, vomiting…or introducing any substance to the “interior of the body.” Some make it a condition that there be in the body power to absorb the food or the medicine thus introduced. It does not matter if the “interior” is inside the head, or the belly, or the intestines or the bladder; all can break the fast with the introduction of a substance by sniffing or eating or injection, or through incision into the belly or the head, or the like. According to the soundest opinion, putting drops in the nose or the urethra breaks the fast. It is necessary [however] for such an introduction to be by an open passage. Thus there is no harm in oils entering the pores by absorption… The introduction must be intended, so that if a fly or gnat or dust of the road or flour-dust entered by accident, the fast would not be broken…the fast is broken if saliva leaves the mouth and one brings it back into the mouth, or if one moistens a thread in one’s mouth and then puts it back in one’s mouth still moist…

Unfortunately, the righteous path is not always clear even to Muslims. For example, great scholars sometimes disagree on important matters, as The Koran for Dummies describes:659 Not all scholars agree on the categorization of every single ethical action. For example, some scholars feel that growing a beard is obligatory, while other say it is only recommended.

One thing is sure, though: Islam prohibits evil parlor games such as chess and backgammon: •

Sahih Muslim, Chapter 2: IT IS PROHIBITED TO PLAY CHESS Book 28, Number 5612:…Allah’s Apostle…said: He who played chess is like one who dyed his hand with the flesh and blood of swine.

•

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4920:…The Apostle of Allah…said: He who plays backgammon disobeys Allah and His Apostle.

•

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 52, Number 52.2.7:…“There is no good in chess, and [Muhammad] disapproved of it.” Yahya said, “I heard him disapprove of playing it and other worthless games. He recited this ayat, ‘What is there after the truth except going the wrong way.’” (Sura 10 ayat 32).

According to the Koran, on the Last Day, each of a person’s actions during his or her life will be held on a balance, and all violations, no matter how minor, will be held against them. For each such violation, a Muslim is to suffer the tortures of Hell for a certain period of time. Because they are Muslim, though, they will ultimately be able to enjoy eternity in Paradise. Christians and Jews who have rejected an invitation to convert to Islam, as well as Polytheists, Atheists, Apostates, and Hypocrites, will not be so fortunate. An in-depth review of Shari’ah660 would reveal how Western lifestyles deeply offend the Muslims among us many times a day. Even worse, Westerners insult Allah with their flagrant violations of his Law. For example, there was a recent controversy in Florida where an Islamic 659

The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 17, section entitled Exploring the Contents of the Sacred Law, page 265. 660 An example of these laws can be viewed in-depth on the website www.al-islam.org/laws/ .

335

woman insisted on wearing a veil that covered her face while sitting for a drivers’ license photo. While Westerners consider photo-IDs to be an essential form of identification for a wide variety of purposes, this person considered herself persecuted for being required to remove her veil.661 An even more severe example of unintentional desecration is simply touching the printed word “Allah” without having gone through Wudhu. As the Shari’ah of Grand Ayatollah Sistani says, under the section entitled Things for which Wudhu is Obligatory, 325. It is haraam, as an obligatory precaution, to touch the Name of Allah or His special Attributes662 without Wudhu, in whichever language they may have been written. And it is also better not to touch, without Wudhu, the names of the holy Prophet of Islam …

Think about the number of times you have violated Shari’ah as you read this book by simply touching the word “Allah.” How seriously do Muslims take these seemingly minute laws? Consider a recent global controversy over the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, as described in the following Boston Globe article: Guantanamo probe finds five Koran mishandling cases By Will Dunham, May 26, 2005 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has identified five incidents of “mishandling of a Koran” by U.S. personnel at Guantanamo Bay, but found no credible evidence that the Muslim holy book had been flushed down a toilet, the commander of the prison said on Thursday. … …Hood said investigators turned up 13 allegations of mishandling the Koran, with five confirmed cases of “what could be broadly defined as mishandling of a Koran” … Hood said the detainee, who U.S. officials have not identified, said at the May 14 interview he had not been beaten or abused but that he had heard rumors that other detainees had been. “We then proceeded to ask him about any incidents where he had seen the Koran defiled, desecrated or mishandled, and he allowed as how he hadn’t, but he heard that guards at some other point and time had done this,” Hood said. But Hood said investigators did not directly ask the detainee about a Koran being placed in a toilet. “I do not believe they used that word toilet,” he said. The issue of whether the Koran had been thrown in a toilet…has generated controversy globally in recent weeks. [The] Bush administration denounced as wrong a May 9 Newsweek article, later retracted by the magazine, that stated U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down a toilet to try to make detainees talk. Violent protests erupted in some Muslim countries following the article’s publication and at least 16 people died in rioting in Afghanistan. …

661

Judge: Woman can’t cover face on driver’s license, CNN Law Center, June 10, 2003. The “special Attributes” are the 99 names of Allah. Examples: The Holy, the Sovereign Lord, the Merciful, the Beneficent, the Exalted, the Guardian of the Faithful, the Compeller, the Subduer, the Constrictor, the Dishonourer, the Avenger, etc. For a complete list, do a web search on “99 names of Allah” and see what you get. 662

336

Eight allegations of mishandling the Koran were not confirmed, Hood said. These involved six in which guards either accidentally touched a Koran, touched it within the scope of their duties or did not touch the book at all, he said. Two additional incidents involved interrogators who either touched or stood over a Koran, Hood said. Hood said the inquiry turned up 15 incidents in which detainees themselves “mishandled or inappropriately treated the Koran,” including one case in which a detainee ripped pages from his own Koran.

When I first heard about this controversy, I thought it was a joke. After all, just a few years earlier, we had seen New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani get rebuked in the press and overruled by the New York State Supreme Court because he had revoked city funding for an art exhibit that included a painting of a black Madonna with elephant dung on her breast and cut-outs of female genitals in the background. How could the press rebuke Giuliani, who committed no violence or active censorship, for simply refusing to fund this affront to his faith, and then treat the touching of the Koran as an international outrage worthy of a criminal investigation? Furthermore, at what point did “mishandling of a Koran” become a violation of U.S. law, military or otherwise? Do we have similar laws against mishandling a Bible, Torah, Veda,663 Tipitaka,664 or any other holy scripture? Next, I thought “Guantanamo must be a pretty darned good place if the inmates have to resort to this kind of complaint.” But no, the Islamic world was quite serious, and their outrage was real. And the press did not ridicule this outrage as they did Giuliani’s; instead they legitimized it. In the United States, when someone desecrates a Bible or some other cherished holy image, it can be called art, and receive government funding. Remember “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano, which, like the poop-smeared Madonna, was also exhibited at U.S. taxpayer expense? While many Christians felt deeply hurt and insulted by these acts, an international crisis did not ensue, and no one died as a result. America’s closest analogy to Islamic outrage can be seen in its debate over desecrating the flag. However, even in this situation, Americans have been far more civil. When Americans see images of foreigners burning their flag, they may be offended, but they do not riot and kill. Westerners are simply not accustomed to treating anything with the kind of idolization that Islam demands for its rituals and artifacts. Therefore, in the minds of Muslims, the West tramples relentlessly on Islamic icons, laws, and notions of virtue. Also, they see Christians as weak for not avenging the outrages committed against Jesus, whom they also revere. This weakness is what Muslims call Hypocrisy, which renders Westerners doubly contemptible. Because of Shari’ah’s rigidity, the conflicts between Islamic and Western cultures will not fade away as people intermingle. Instead, the two cultures will chafe irritatingly against each other until overt aggression results, along with battles for legislative domination. To get a fuller appreciation of the depth and irreconcilability of this conflict, consider these phrases from the 663 664

Hindu Buddhist

337

Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights,665 which was declared in 1981 (Appendix D) as an Islamic answer to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights666 (Appendix E): Therefore we, as Muslims, who believe … in our obligation to establish an Islamic order: … It is the right and duty of every Muslim to refuse to obey any command which is contrary to the [Islamic] Law, no matter by whom it may be issued.

This document accurately reflects the Islamic contention that the laws that derive from the Koran and the Hadith are universal, and apply to all nations, whether they are Islamic or not. In fact, many Muslims feel obligated to live according to Shari’ah in defiance of the laws of their host countries whenever these laws conflict. The mutinous nature of Islam’s mandate can be seen in the following quote, already cited, from The Koran for Dummies:667 Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals who try to promote certain ideas, such as democracy, tolerance, and so on, must make Koranic teachings a focal point of their argument. Similarly, any ideas that intellectuals want to discourage, such as unjust violence, must be proven to be antithetical to the wording or spirit of the Book [Koran].

Disturbingly, this quote indicates that, with Islam, there is no opportunity for genuine intercultural dialogue. True Muslims are convinced that their faith has all of the answers, and that those answers are Allah-given. This conviction severs them from lines of reason that do not proceed from their Holy Scriptures, and “dialogue” ultimately leads to either a stand-off between the Muslim and non-Muslim, or capitulation on the part of the non-Muslim. Tensions will inevitably rise as Muslims and non-Muslims intermingle. Before continuing, one must note that the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights is more of a statement of defiance against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights than a legal document adopted by any nation. It is, however, widely cited throughout the Islamic community as a proper definition of human rights according to the Islamic worldview, as evidenced by the multitude of Islamic websites that laud it. If you doubt this, do a web search and verify this claim for yourself. Does this mean that, after Muhammad’s death, Islam’s guidance for the faithful has only come from holy scripture, without room for new Divine messages? Not entirely. Despite the fact that Islam adamantly declares that Muhammad was the final and greatest prophet, meaning that God will no longer speak through prophets, Muslims have developed a loophole that allows for new divine messages. The loophole is that these messages come in dreams where Muhammad speaks instead of God. As described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction:668 665

Declared by the Islamic Council, 16 Grosvenor Crescent, London SW1, September 19, 1981. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations in General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) on December 10, 1948. 667 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Having room for interpretation, page 82. Previously cited in the section entitled Islam Opposes Free Democracy. 668 Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 2, section entitled The Elaboration of Muhammad’s Image, page 46. 666

338

Those to whom the Prophet appears in dreams cannot be deceived, for God will not permit Satan to take his form…To allow for imposture – a false vision of the Prophet – would undermine the unity of Islam by inviting accusations and counter-accusations of fraud. By the same logic, the Muslim mystic is denied direct access to divine revelation, for Muhammad is the “seal” of the prophets… This belief is based on the many hadiths that echo these words:669 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 126:…The Prophet said, “Who ever sees me (in a dream) then he indeed has seen the truth, as Satan cannot appear in my shape.” In other words, instead of speaking for Allah, as Muhammad did, these latter-day prophets speak for Muhammad. New players, same old game.

The history of leadership in the Islamic world In Muhammad’s last days, the “ideal” leader made a critical blunder: He left his followers without a well-defined plan of succession. This failure led to bloody battles for power and a deep schism in the Islamic community. What follows is a quick summary of Islam’s early history of succession:670 •

Upon Muhammad’s death in 632, at age 63, a group of Muslims, later called Sunnis, conducted a form of election among their tribal leaders and chose a successor whom they called the Caliph. Unfortunately, this election was conducted without the participation of Muhammad’s blood-cousin and son-in-law, Ali, who was busy making funeral arrangements for Muhammad. This surreptitious election was seen as illegitimate by the faction of Muslims later known as Shiites, who believed leadership should proceed through blood lines, and who felt that Ali had been robbed of his rightful position.

•

Abu Bakr, the father of Muhammad’s wife A’isha, was elected Caliph after Muhammad’s death. He initiated the Koran’s compilation, but died of old age only two years later. His reign was viewed as successful by Sunnis but despotic by Shiites. This difference of opinion set the stage for later battles.

•

Umar, the second Caliph, and father of another of Muhammad’s wives, ruled from 634 to 644 and played a major role in developing the Koran. His work was cut short, however, when he was assassinated by a disgruntled slave in 644.

•

After Umar’s assassination, Uthman, who was one of Muhammad’s sons in law, was selected as Caliph by a 6-man council and reigned from 644 to 656. Uthman played an important role in Islam’s history by completing the Koran’s compilation and eliminating

669

Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 110, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 217, Volume 9, Book 87, Numbers 122, 123, 124, & 125, and Sahih Muslim, Book 029, Numbers 5635, 5636, 5637, 5638, & 5639. 670 Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong, Random House, 2000, pages xiv-xv.

339

all competing versions. Unfortunately, this honor cost him his life, as explained in Islam: A Short History: 671 The Quran-reciters, who knew the scripture by heart and had become the chief religious authorities, were…incensed when Uthman insisted that only one version of the sacred text be used…, and suppressed variants, which many of them preferred…Increasingly, the malcontents looked to Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s cousin, who, it seems, had opposed the policies of both Umar and Uthman, standing for “soldiers’ rights” against the power of the central authority. In 656 the discontent culminated in outright mutiny. A group of Arab soldiers from Fustat returned to Medina to claim their due, and when fobbed off they besieged Uthman’s simple house, broke in, and assassinated him. The mutineers acclaimed Ali as the new Caliph.

The death of Uthman also gave birth to another rebellion that would ultimately kill Ali and establish the caliphate as an object of conquest and dynasty rather than either election or Muhammad’s blood line, as described next. •

During the 24-year period of the first three caliphates, the faction of Muslims who believed that leadership should be carried on through blood lines gained power, particularly among the Persian Muslims. This movement climaxed with Ali’s selection as the fourth Caliph upon Uthman’s death, and he reigned from 656 to 661. Unfortunately, non-Persian Muslims (now known as Sunnis) resented Ali’s inclination toward the Persians. This, along with a sense of outrage over Ali’s refusal to punish Uthman’s murderers, who were also supporters of Ali, led to two rebellions. The first took place when Muhammad’s wife A’isha raised an army against Ali, but lost in 656 at the Battle of the Camel. The second rebellion was led by Uthman’s nephew, Mu’awiya (a Sunni), and climaxed in 658 during a famous battle where the losing Mu’awiya had his cavalry put pages from the Koran on the tips of their spears and cry out “Let Allah decide!” (the question of Ali’s guilt or innocence in Uthman’s murder). Ali, who in all likelihood was innocent of the murder, and more afraid of his supporters than in league with them, agreed to an investigation. His decision, which indicated Ali’s confidence in his innocence, robbed his supporters of certain victory, and this angered them so much that many of these “supporters” actually turned on him and formed a faction called the Kharijis (meaning “seceders”). This action created Islam’s third sect. Ali responded by pursuing the Kharijis ruthlessly, killing off all of their original leaders.672 By this time, however, the Khariji movement had new leaders and survived the slaughter. Today, Kharijis retain a significant presence in Oman, though they represent less than 1% of the total Muslim population. Although Ali was able to suppress the Kharijis, the split within his camp weakened him politically. The three-member arbitration panel established to decide Ali’s case turned against him and gave the caliphate to Mu’awiya. Ali’s reduced forces still had power

671 672

Ibid, pages 32-33. Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong, Random House, 2000, page 35.

340

though, and he continued to reign several more years in the Shiite strongholds of southern Iraq. Ali was ultimately assassinated in 661, presumably by a Khariji. After Ali’s death, struggles for the caliphate continued, with Mu’awiya’s Umayyad dynasty on one side and the Shiites, who preferred Ali’s line, on the other. A few years later, Ali’s former Shiite supporters called on his second son, Husayn, to rise against Mu’awiya’s son, Yazid. The defeat of Husayn’s Shiite uprising was particularly gruesome, and humiliated the Shiites. What follows is the sequence of events. Shortly before Husayn’s uprising, Shiite envoys from the city of Kufa had assured Husayn that the Shiites there would support him in a rebellion against Yazid. Husayn responded by raising an “army” of fewer than 100 supporters and marching against Kufa. Unfortunately, Yazid’s supporters discovered the conspiracy and killed Kufa’s Shiite leaders before Husayn arrived. Without leaders, none of Kufa’s Shiites came to Husayn’s aid. Isolated in the desert, and without access to water, Husayn’s meager forces shriveled in the sun. Over the next week, Husayn witnessed the bloody deaths of two young nephews, his oldest son (who died in his arms), his youngest son (who was pierced in the throat by an arrow), and a nephew on that nephew’s wedding day. On the eighth day, both arms were cut off of his half-brother as he desperately tried to fetch water, and on the tenth day, Husayn and the remains of his Shiite “army” were slaughtered. Husayn’s severed head was carried to Yazid in Damascus as a trophy. Shiism lived on, though, and today Shiites flagellate themselves annually for deserting Husayn in a “celebration” known as ‘Ashura. For them, his death is still as fresh as if had just happened, and they are inspired by his reputed dying words: “Death with dignity is better than a life of humiliation.” To this day, these believers give Islamic leadership only to Muhammad’s descendants, and they insist that Ali was the first true Caliph, or Imam, as they call him. Although Ali’s bloodline died out with the Shiite’s twelfth Imam, the Shiites contrived a theology to preserve their beliefs. They claim that the twelfth Imam is a “hidden Imam,” who has been hidden alive for the past 1,300 years and will appear again to rule and conquer injustice. The vengeance they long for will apply to non-Shiite Muslims as mightily as to any Infidel. Today, when Shiites recite their calls to prayer, they pronounce curses upon the first three caliphs, as well as A’isha. Thus, during the twenty-nine years following Muhammad’s death, Islam divided into three sects, each separated by a deep chasm of hatred for the others. Given these sects’ bloody beginnings, and the long and vengeful memories that Islam teaches its believers to have, it is apparent that ecumenicalism is just as impossible among Muslim sects as it is between Muslims and Infidels. To fully appreciate the chasm between Sunnis and Shiites, recall the devastating suicide attacks that each sect has perpetrated on the other, and then note that the desire of suicide bombers is to attain heaven by dying in jihad against non-believers. Despite this gruesome beginning, Muslims praise Islam’s chaotic early years with nostalgic pangyrics. For example, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran says:673 673

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 2, section entitled Islam’s Triumph, page 19.

341

Clearly, a revolution had occurred [with the coming of Islam], probably the most far-reaching and influential revolution of human history. Anarchy…and rampant immorality had given way to a clearly ordered way of life built on principles derived from two things and two things only: the Koran and the behavior and sayings of the Prophet.

Sunni Muslims call Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali the “Rightly-Guided Caliphs,” and their era is considered Islam’s “golden age.” There are three reasons for this: 1. The Caliphs were “companions of the Prophet” 2. The office of Caliph was awarded on the basis of election by a council of Islamic leaders rather than military action or inheritance through a non-Muhammadan bloodline. 3. Conquering Muslims enriched the caliphate with hoards of captured booty. During the caliphates that followed Islam’s “golden age,” the theological rifts between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kharijis hardened. Around 1000 AD, the caliphate itself was split as the Islamic nation divided into several petty states, each with its own Caliph.674 They warred with each other just as readily as they did with Infidel nations. So, just as in the Christian realm, with its battles between denominations and kings, the House of Islam was riddled with bloody rivalries. For many centuries, Muslims have had a fundamentally pessimistic worldview, even as the House of Islam grew. The West has also had periods of pessimism and darkness, but with an over-all trend toward optimism that brought it the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the Idustrial Age, the Space Age, and the current period of global democratization. In contrast, Islam’s history has been one of fragmentation and decline, despite its geographical expansion, and not because of anything taking place in the West. As described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction: This historical achievement (which may without too much distortion appear as a golden age in the social memory of Muslims) was counter-balanced by a conspicuous failure at the level of power politics. After its initial expansion, the Arab empire imploded. Islam’s central institution, the caliphate, at first contested by rival factions, was gradually drained of legitimacy, as the caliph, the “shadow of God on earth” became the prisoner of palace guards recruited from the tribes. … The Islamic state…never fully transcended its tribal matrix. The implosion of the Arab empire compounded the Caliph’s failure to enforce religious conformity [i.e. religious unity]…The law developed separately [through the religious elite] from the agencies entrusted with its enforcement [the rulers], and so military-tribal rule became the norm…“a ruler who has no say at all in the definition of the law by which his subjects have chosen to live cannot rule those subjects in any but a purely military sense.”

After Muhammad and the “Rightly Guided Caliphs,” Islam’s rulers did not have the religionbacked moral authority to create new laws for Muslims, because only Islamic scholars could define Shari’ah. As a result, there have been tensions between rulers and scholars for many centuries.

674

Umayyad caliphate, Fatimid caliphate, Almohad caliphate, and Abbasid Calphate, among others.

342

This restriction on Islamic rulers was not limited to Muslims. According to Shari’ah, rulers did not even have the authority to make laws for non-Muslims. Infidels had the right to live by their own laws as long as they submitted themselves to Muslim domination by paying the Jizya and not violating Shari’ah’s prohibitions. Therefore, Islamic rulers were stripped of nearly every tool for governance other than raw power. As a result, the general Muslim sentiment has been that the Ummah was led astray by a succession of power-hungry men who usurped the caliphate in one way or another to serve their own purposes. Therefore, the laws made by these rulers, whether selfish or beneficent, were often seen as illegitimate. Even traditions about Muhammad contributed to this conflict, through hadiths like: Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 40, Number 4629:675…The Prophet…said: The [legitimate] Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.

which has also been translated on many Islamic websites as: the Caliphate after me will last thirty years; afterwards it will revert to a cruel monarchy.676

These factors combine to create a polity where Islamic scholars periodically stir up rebellions by issuing their own fatwas that defy civil authority, as happened during the Iranian revolution. Disagreements between Islamic scholars can also incite religious battles, which resemble civil wars, as is happening today in Iraq. The religious inclination to overthrow rulers and clash with other religious authorities has been a source of chaos throughout Islamic history. The extent of Islamic hostility toward its rulers can be seen in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, when it states that:677 For many years the caliphate was a powerful institution; it was abolished in the 1920s, following the eclipse of the Ottoman Empire, which had co-opted it in the sixteenth century.

Echoing this hostility, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization declares that “many considered [the Ottoman Caliphate] to be a sultanate and not a real caliphate.”678 According to these books, Islam’s Caliphate was a sham for centuries, confirming Muhammad’s prediction as recorded in the Hadith. Clearly, many Muslims saw the Ottoman Empire’s caliphate as illegitimate centuries before Attaturk abolished it and Europe “occupied” the Middle East. This observation confirms what a study of Ottoman history also reveals: Political turmoil in the Middle East was not and is not the 675

A similar hadith can be found in Sunan Tirmidhi, Fitan, 48. Example websites: www.thewaytotruth.org/miracles/predictions.html, www.mohammadpbuh.com/3/predictionsof.htm, www.islambyquestions.org/miracles/predictions.htm, http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=89&page=9, www.muslimanswers.org/proofs09.htm. 677 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 8, section entitled It’s Settled, page 86. 678 Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization, by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, HarperSanFrancisco, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, 2003, Chapter 5, section entitled Political Institutions, pages 111-112. 676

343

product of Western interference. Instead, it was a pre-existing condition that weakened the Empire and made it seek to Westernize. Furthermore, Islam’s power continues to destabilize Islamic nations regardless of their levels of Westernization.

The real political choice that Islamic Law offers: dictatorship or chaos. At this point, we have investigated some major facets of Shari’ah and the society it creates, but we have not put those facets together and viewed the whole. Doing so reveals an anti-holistic affect. That is, Shari’ah’s harm is greater than the sum of its parts. Consider: • •

• •

• •

• • • •

•

Shari’ah originally meant to limit intertribal strife and slavery, but today preserves and sanctifies them. Shari’ah originally meant to limit the exploitation of women, but today preserves and sanctifies it, particularly with regard to marriage and women’s ability to engage in unencumbered commerce. Shari’ah allows multiple bodies of laws to exist in a single territory for different groups of people, fostering a tribal environment. Shari’ah institutionalizes religious persecution by making religious minorities secondclass citizens who are burdened with limited legal rights, special taxes, and pervasive contempt and suspicion. Shari’ah holds the penalty of death or exile over Muslims who stop believing in Islam, or who are accused of doing so. Shari’ah’s religious repression combines with other constraints on Freedom of Speech, and freedom of thought, to create a suffocating intellectual environment that hinders scientific development and allows leaders to abuse power with impunity. Shari’ah’s high regard for family, clan, and tribal loyalty encourages nepotism and other forms of corruption, and also shields criminals from prosecution. Shari’ah’s archaic requirements for admissible evidence in court encourage lying. Shari’ah’s financial laws sow poverty among all Muslims. Shari’ah’s religious basis for law tends to place religious leaders in competition with political leaders, as well as other religious leaders. These competitions tend to militarize believers and breed both sectarian and insurgent strife. Shari’ah lacks the Golden Rule, stated in Judeo-Christian scripture as “Do to others as you would have them do unto you,”679 or “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”680 Without these maxims, which tend to create harmonious living despite differences, suspicions and tensions always mount between various segments of Islamic society. Furthermore, despite Islam’s calls for Muslim brotherhood and claims of tolerance for Infidels, it actually cultivates extreme prejudices by motivating each sect to view all others as Apostates, Polytheists, or perverters of Allah’s word.

The net effect of these characteristics is a destitute, primitive, hostile tribal society that produces few new ideas and is threatened by foreign ones.

679

See Bible, Matthew 7:12. For a related Hebrew maxim, see Talmud, Shabbat 31a: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” 680 See Bible, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19. While the Golden Rule is not unique to Judaism and Christianity, these versions are the most commonly known in the West.

344

As Shari’ah gains influence in a society, the society will disintegrate into a Hobbsian world of all against all, best stated as “I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.” This is Islamic society’s natural state, although it can, at times, take on the appearance of an empire or a modern nation-state. This happens when one particular tribe, through the efforts of an especially capable strongman, gains power over other tribes, assumes the mantle of Caliph or Imam (or, as Sultan, controls the Caliph) and proceeds to enrich himself with Zakat, Khums, and Jizya. Saudi Arabia, which was formed when Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud conquered most of the sheikdoms of the Arabian Peninsula, is the clearest modern example of a traditional Islamic political matrix in the appearance of a state. In fact, it may even be more traditional than the Ottoman Empire, harkening back to Islam’s earliest times and drawing strong parallels to the reigns of Muhammad and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, where Muhammad handed power to relatives and forged alliances through marriage. Even though most of today’s Islamic governments appear to be more modern, the underlying structures are almost always the same matrix of tribal alliance and nepotism. While Western Aristocracies once had much in common with Islam’s ruling families, the West’s ability to separate Church from State made it possible to develop the modern concepts of Democracy and Free Enterprise. Muslims, on the other hand, can never truly accept these concepts because they directly contradict Islamic holy scripture. Therefore, the best metaphor for modern-looking Islamic governments may be “old wine in new wineskins.” In this metaphor, the “new wineskins” are the democratic forms of government established by European colonial rulers as they divested themselves of their empirical holdings, while the “old wine” is the traditional Islamic power matrix that was repressed during colonial rule, but returned to fill the government positions established by the departing colonizers. As a result, the Islamic world is rife with “presidents” who effectively operate as the Sultans, Imams, or Caliphs of old. These strongmen manipulate parliaments, media, and election laws for their own benefit, as well as the benefit of their families, clans, tribes, hometowns, coreligionists, and cronies. Examples of such presidents are Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Syria’s Bashar al-Asad, Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Sudan’s Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf, Bangladesh’s Iajuddin Ahmed and, until recently, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Even Iran’s Islamic Democracy, with its popular elections, preserves this power matrix. How? The Guardian Council controls who may run for elected office, and it in turn is controlled by religious experts who, according to the requirements of Shiism, are of Muhammad’s bloodline. The problem with these kinds of arrangements is that tensions invariably arise between the tribes in power and the tribes out of power, and this leads rulers to employ repressive tactics. These tactics fuel deeper animosities that are often joined with religious fervor, because tribal alliances are often formed along sectarian lines. Sooner or later, a weak successor falls, or an especially strong opposition topples a dictator. However, rather than establish a new reign, the Islamic

345

nation is most likely to descend into chaos as the tribes that once united to oppose the old ruler turn on each other, creating a state of chaos and intertribal warfare until a new strongman arises. Once one perceives the Islamic world’s political cycle of strongman, failure, chaotic tribal interregnum, and new strongman, which we can shorten to strongman-chaos-strongman, its political landscape becomes more comprehensible. For example, one can see that: • • • •

The Saudi monarch and the presidents for life described previously are either strongmen or their dynastic descendants. Somalia is in the midst of tribal chaos that marks an interregnum. Afghanistan’s Mullah Omar was the strongman of the Pashtun-aligned Taliban that arose from the post-Soviet interregnum. Pakistan, despite its constitution and the legacy of political institutions left by the British, has, in fact, endured a succession of strongmen whose reigns have been far more enduring than any of its elected leaders.

Most importantly, one can see that the elected presidents of Coalition-backed Afghanistan and Iraq are powerless because they are irrelevant to Islam’s natural cycle of strongman-chaosstrongman. In fact, these presidents only survive in protective bubbles provided by Coalition forces while their countries engage in Islam’s usual tribal rivalries. If the Coalition left, those leaders would have to either leave with them or join the intertribal warfare around them, hoping to be a part of a new dictatorship that will ultimately arise according to the repressive norms of Islamic society. In either case, the democratic experiments foisted by the Coalition would quickly collapse in a death memorialized by the taunts and jeers of “victorious” Muslims. Ataturk may have succeeded in breaking Islam’s cycle of strongman-chaos-strongman with his secular revolution in Turkey because he attempted it during Islam’s absolute nadir, after the Ottoman Caliphate’s loss of a Holy War against the West’s preeminent powers. Even so, Turkey’s secular democracy has had to resort to repressive means, including military force, to preserve itself. In fact, Turkey is currently in the process of becoming re-Islamicized. A recent National Geographic article entitled Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan681 reveals Pakistan’s particular instance of the powers that drive the strongman-chaos-strongman cycle. It also reveals Pakistan’s failed vision for a modern secular nation of Muslims, whose reality is tribalism, poverty, ignorance, and violence: Beneath the surface of Pakistan,…opposing forces grind against each other like two vast geologic plates…The clash between moderates and extremists in Pakistan today reflects this rift, and can be seen as a microcosm for a larger struggle among Muslims everywhere. …60 years after its founding, Pakistan still occupies unsettled ground. Traumatized by multiple wars with India, a parade of military strongmen…and infighting among ethnic groups – Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi, Pashtun – Pakistan’s 165 million people have never fully united as one nation, despite being 97 percent Muslim. To hold the country together, successive governments have spent billions on the military, creating a pampered and self-serving monolith of mostly Punjabi generals while neglecting the basic needs of the people, for justice, health, education, security, and hope… 681

Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan, by Don Belt, National Geographic, September 2007 issue, pages 32 – 59.

346

It’s not just the surging homegrown Taliban, which in one two-week period this year scorched and bloodied the streets of half a dozen cities with suicide bombs. Or the al Qaeda fighters who prowl the western mountains of Waziristan, butchering anyone suspected of being an American spy. Just as chilling are the “night letters” posted on public buildings, warning that all girls, upon threat of death, must wear head-to-toe burkas and stop attending school. Or, in a rising tide of intimidation, the murders of teachers and doctors and human rights workers accused of “crimes against Islam.” But perhaps the most telling evidence of all was [an] encounter with a 22-yearold woman named Umme Ayman, who seemed all too eager to die. …She and a group of 200 female religious students have taken over a public children’s library in Islamabad. They are protesting the destruction of mosques run by radical clerics that the government says were built without permits… “We are not terrorists,” she says. “We are students. We wish to spread Islam over all the world. If America wants to end Islam, then we are prepared to die defending our faith. We have said our goodbyes.”…Amid shelves lined with children’s storybooks, they have posted signs reading “Allah is for Muslims, not infidels.”… “Our fate is with Allah,” Ayman says, as other protesters gather around, “but if the government grants our demands, there will be no problem.” And what are those demands? “To rebuild the mosques and to make Pakistan an Islamic state.”… From the start, the founders of Pakistan intended their nation to be a refuge for Muslims, not an Islamic state…Pakistan’s first leader, Mohammad Ali Hinnah, and his brain trust of secular intellectuals created a fledgling democracy that gave Islam a cultural, rather than political, role in life. Their Pakistan was to be a model of how Islam, merged with democratic ideals, could embrace the modern world… Sixty years later, having been educated in schools that teach mainly the Koran, the young women in the library are stunned when I mention Jinnah’s secular vision for Pakistan. “That is a lie,” Ayman says, her voice shaking with fury. “Everyone knows Pakistan was created as an Islamic state, according to the will of Allah. Where did you read this thing?” Such is the certainty of Pakistan’s Islamists, whose loud assertions give them political influence far beyond their numbers. The women may be on the front lines of this protest, but it’s clear the clerics in the mosque next door are calling the shots. The children’s library is a few yards from one of the most radical mosques in Pakistan, Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, which has posted dozens of lean young jihadists in black turbans around the library, brandishing swords, staffs, axes, and AK-47s… …Ordinary people are…stifled by a government and police force that are among the most corrupt in the world, led by an army that answers to no one… A girl called Najma, who is 16, speaks in a cautions monotone, and it is difficult to know, after what happened, whether she will ever speak naturally again… Two weeks ago, at one in the morning, five men, maybe six, burst through the door of the family’s mud-brick home…They identified themselves as police and said they were searching for weapons. One held a pistol to her mother’s chest while another pinned her nine-year-old brother, Rizwan, to the floor. And then two men held Najma down on the bed while a third raped her.

347

The leader masked his face with a scarf, her mother says, but she recognize the raspy voice of their neighbor, a police constable, who lives 200 yards away and wants the plot of wheat that Najma’s family moved here to farm as tenants 40 years ago. According to the complaint Najma’s father filed with the police, the attack resulted from his refusal to vacate the land. After the rape, the men spent a few minutes ransacking the house. As they left, they delivered a warning: Leave this place, or we’ll be back for your other daughter. …Rape is epidemic in parts of the country…where it is used as a barbaric instrument of tribal justice; a village might punish a husband’s adultery, for example, by gang-raping his wife. Najma’s case is typical in southern Punjab…where the British rewarded their local allies with grants of land and autonomy; after partition, these feudal landlords became a law unto themselves. In their world, rape is a tool of intimidation wielded by powerful, politically connected landowners to terrorize peasants, to scare them off their land. If a family doesn’t comply…they are often killed. “Who’s going to stop them?”… … Perves Hoodbhoy lives every day with the consequences of the lack of public education in Pakistan. An MIT-trained professor of nuclear physics at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, he was speaking to a graduate-level class in physics a few days after the huge disaster that devastated Kashmir in 2005, describing the geophysical forces that produced the disaster. “When I finished, hands shot up all over the room,” he recalls. “‘Professor, you are wrong,’ my students said. ‘That earthquake was the wrath of God.’” …“It isn’t Islamic to teach that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates. Instead, you are supposed to say, by the will of Allah, an earthquake happens.” … My new friends want to know why Americans think they are terrorists. It’s a good question, and an innocent one, judging by the young and open faces of the dozen or so students sharing their evening meal with me… …they say their dream for Pakistan is “a peaceful nation, in which justice prevails, in keeping with Islamic law.” But they believe, as many here do, that Islam is under attack. By America, by the West, by India, by their own government. Under these circumstances, they say, jihad is justified. What about suicide bombing? Is it sanctioned by Islam?... “in any Muslim land that’s occupied, suicide bombing is allowed,” says a personable older boy named Rafiullah…A few mention Iraq and Palestine as places where such bombings are justified. Another boy mentions Afghanistan. “But it’s not allowed in Pakistan,”Rafiullah says, “since we’re not an occupied country.”…”Nobody has a right to blow you up, even if you’re a nonMuslim, or an infidel. If you are here as a guest, you are welcome.” He reaches to shake my hand, as if to reassure me. These words, intended to comfort, actually operate as a threat in disguise. All the author’s protectors would have to do is withdraw their protection and he could be a dead man. Would he dare to speak his mind freely and argue against their disturbing assertions? Welcome to the life of a Dhimmi in the House of Repression and Chaos.

Future leadership of the Islamic world Despite Islam’s pessimistic view of history, Muslims anticipate a return to righteousness and actively seek it through a leader who might surprise some: Jesus. However, Muslims believe

348

that Jesus’ “second coming” will be very different from what Christians imagine, because Jesus is a militant. What will this second coming look like? The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam describes a thoroughly-scripted eschatology in detail. Brace yourself; this is scary:682 Prophecies About the Muslim World Are Muslims expecting the end of the world soon? Modern conditions, as foretold by the Prophet Muhammad, lead many to believe that the end is indeed near. The greatest of these signs lies in the worldwide condition of the Muslim community. There is no unified Islamic nation encompassing the whole Muslim world, as is called for in the Qur’an. Muslims are not victorious against their foes anywhere in the world, and only recently did the armies of Europe end their military occupation of over 90 percent of the Muslim world… To make matters worse, in almost every Muslim country the free practice of Islam is suppressed. It is so bad that in Turkey, the former seat of the last Islamic Empire, it is illegal for females to wear head scarves in school or for children to be sent to academies to learn about the Qur’an [except through government-controlled courses on Islam]… … …Muslims feel that we have entered the beginning of the end-times process. In this there is commonality with fundamentalist Christians, who also feel the end of the world is near. What are the signs of the end-times? Islam teaches that after the Muslim world is vanquished and broken up into many competing nations, the practice of Islam will be increasingly difficult for true believers…Other signs of the end-times include…: 1. Abundant riches (oil?) will be discovered under the Euphrates River in Iraq, and people will fight over them, causing much death and destruction. 2. Children will no longer obey their parents. 3. Poor nations will compete with each other to build tall buildings in their cities. 4. It will be hard to tell men and women apart. 5. Women will outnumber men. 6. Religious knowledge will decrease dramatically. 7. Wealth will be widespread, and corruption will be rampant. 8. Music, female singers, and alcohol will be prevalent. 9. The worst people will be chosen as leaders. 10. There will be family turmoil in every household. …Early Muslims were often under the impression that the Last Day would soon come… …a great Muslim leader will arise who will unify all faithful Muslims under his banner and will wage many successful campaigns against the enemies of Islam. This leader’s title is the Mahdi. Muslims look forward to his appearance and expect that many victories in Palestine and India will be achieved. Invading armies from Europe will be vanquished as well. … 682

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 9, sections entitled Prophecies About the Muslim World, The Signs of the Hour, The False Prophets, and The Rule of Jesus, pages 105-108.

349

[After some time,] The Dajjal [anti-Christ] will claim that he is a new prophet of God. He will be wealthy and have amazing powers to cure people of their illnesses…The majority of the people of the world, including a few misguided Muslims, will follow him and believe in him. He will therefore amass a lot of military might, which he will use to harass and destroy all vestiges of true religious expression. The reign of the Dajjal will last for 40 days. During that time, he will gather an army and begin to conquer the Middle East, which had been unified under the Mahdi…When all appears lost, the Mahdi will call his soldiers together in the evening and receive their pledge to fight to the last man and woman on the following day. While the darkness of night is still upon the Muslim camps in and around central Syria…a voice will be heard saying, “The one who listens to your pleas has come.” When the time for the morning prayer arrives, the Prophet Jesus, who had been saved from dying on the cross thousands of years before and had been kept in Paradise by God, will descend in the midst of Damascus. After joining the Muslims in prayer, he will lead the Mahdi’s forces against the Dajjal’s army. The Dajjal’s soldiers will number 70,000. On the battlefield, Jesus will command his troops to move aside so that there will be a clear view between him and the Dajjal [anti-Christ]. Upon seeing Jesus, the Dajjal’s powers will fade and he will make a panicky retreat into Palestine. The Muslims will come down from the mountains and crush the remnants of the enemy army. Jesus will pursue the Dajjal to a place named Lydda, which is near an airport south of the present-day city of Tel Aviv in Israel. There Jesus will strike down the Dajjal with a lance, and his reign of tyranny will be over. The Rule of Jesus …Jesus will speak to the Christians and Jews of the world and convert them to Islam. He will succeed in breaking the worship of the cross and will stop the eating of pork…Jesus will be the spiritual head of a transnational government of peace. Everyone in the Middle East will convert willingly to Islam, and there will be no more war…He won’t reign for a thousand years, as Christianity teaches, but will live only 40 more years – the rest of his natural life span. Along the way he will marry and have children. While he is in the world, peace and prosperity will bring countless benefits for all people.

What is more frightening than these words themselves is the fact that they reflect the scriptural interpretations of modern Muslims more than the scripture itself. These verses tell a story much more disjointed and less tied to current events than the above quote implies. To get a sense of them, consider this hadith from Sahih Bukhari (Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425), which explains that Jesus will be:683 …a just ruler [who] will break the Cross684 and kill the pig685 and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts. 683

To see other hadiths pertinent to the eschatology of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, see Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 287, Number 293, Number 325, Number 327, Book 7, Numbers 3186 – 3187, Book 41, Numbers 7005 – 7057, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 36, Numbers 4266 – 4277, and Book 37, Number 4310. 684 This is a reference to Christianity or Christians. 685 This is usually considered to be a reference to either Judaism or Jews, although the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam implies that it is a reference to eating pork. While it is remotely possible that

350

What these passages from The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam reveal is that Islamic ideology does more than oppose Free Democracy. Devout Muslims actually believe that Free Democracy, as exemplified by Israel and/or the United States, is an evil springboard for the anti-Christ, otherwise known as the “Great Satan.” A widespread interpretation of Islamic prophesy, represented by the above “Idiot’s” quote, has actually inserted the history of the past 100 years into its eschatology, and this new script incorporates both Western democratization efforts and Israel. Moreover, this script is flexible, as it is with all groups claiming “The End is Near,” and it will adjust to fit new events as they occur, as it has done for centuries. As noted in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, devout Muslims are like Christian doomsayers in that both groups have been saying “The end is near” since the early days of their religions, and both long for the glorious return of Jesus. Another similarity is that, despite an appearance of prophetic truth, their “signs of the end times,” quickly fall apart under scrutiny. For example, a quick analysis of the “signs” presented above shows that: 1. The Euphrates lies in a cultural war zone that has existed since the days of ancient Rome and Persia, and its people have a long history of conflict. In former days, this area was famous as “the fertile crescent” – the breadbasket of the Middle East. People fought over its abundant farmland. The suggestion of “oil?” is a new interpretation of a very old “prophesy” that has been true since the days of Muhammad. 2. Children have always disobeyed their parents. 3. Nations, both rich and poor, have been competing to build tall buildings almost since the dawn of architecture. Consider the ancient Ziggurats, made legendary by the tower of Babel, and the Egyptian pyramids, as well as the Eiffel Tower of 130 years ago. Especially, consider the grand buildings that arose in and near the Arabian Desert during Islam’s “Golden Age.” 4. Ask yourself: are you having difficulty distinguishing women from men? I didn’t think so, except maybe for male terrorists hiding under burkas. 5. Women, particularly in the warlike Middle East, have always outnumbered men – in fact, this is one of the stated rationales for polygyny. 6. If one reads ancient laments about the spiritual condition of man, one will find that people have been bemoaning the loss of religious knowledge since the dawn of religion. 7. Widespread wealth sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing. As for corruption, it is a timeless and universal problem that, if anything, has improved in recent years as governments have become more transparent and accountable to their people. 8. Music, female singers, and alcohol all existed long before Islam, and have always persisted in the Middle East, which has long been renowned for its belly-dancers. 9. Bad political leadership and corruption have been laments since the dawn of history. 10. Household turmoil is also timeless. Even Muhammad’s own household was rife with it, as the Koranic passages and hadiths quoted in this book reveal. Yahiya Emerick did not know the customary interpretation of this passage, it is far more likely that his interpretation is meant to avoid bringing up the hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, which says: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.

351

The difference between Christian doomsayers and Islamic ones is that Islamic doomsayers are not content to simply predict the end times. Given Islam’s militaristic outlook and dreams of redemption, they actually seek to provoke the final battle scenes. No wonder Israel has had numerous wars with its Muslim neighbors – many Muslims see Israel’s destruction as a signal of Islam’s return to glory! After considering Islam’s “prophesies,” Islamic hatred for Israel makes much more sense, as do Muslim conspiracy theories of Jewish global domination and the oft-stated claim that Israel is the United States’ 51st state, or that the U.S. is controlled by the Jews. Islam’s holy scriptures set the stage for destructive self-fulfilling prophesies. They train Muslims to distrust non-Muslims, and to even distrust Muslims of other sects. They discourage honest communication between groups, and value loyalty over integrity and objective reason. They portray warfare as a religious duty that yields booty now and glory later. And they train Muslims to be outraged whenever non-Muslims act to defend themselves from Islam’s aggression, and call their defensive acts defiance of Allah and his Apostle. After seeing how Islam sows the seeds of conflict, it is not difficult to predict cataclysmic warfare between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially as warfare technology advances. With this new understanding, the speech given by Malaysia’s President Mohamad quoted at the beginning of this book no longer sounds like the words of a paranoid and hateful man. Instead, it sounds like the words of a rational man indoctrinated by a paranoid and hateful religion. Even more disturbing is how this scripted eschatology encourages Islamic leaders to try to make themselves heroes of the end-times. For example, Moqtada al-Sadr calls his militant followers the “Mahdi Army.” It is also possible that Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, is trying to be the Mahdi. This seems to be the only plausible reason for him to provoke a war with Israel, given Israel’s overwhelming firepower. He knew that his forces could not win by themselves, but he may have believed that his attack would bring on the victorious return of Jesus. In this eschatology, Hezbollah would be rescued, Israel would be obliterated, and Jesus, in the form of Hezbollah’s sponsor, President Ahmadinejad of Iran, would come in glory. While Hezbollah has stopped shooting missiles into Israel, its members can still look forward to another fight. One day, they may have the honor of eliminating Ahmadinejad’s need for longrange nuclear missiles, and join with Iran to “wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.”686 Sound unbelievable? Consider this: Even back in December 2005, Ahmadinejad’s words gave a perplexed world notice that something messianic was in the works: Religion Versus Reality By Richard Ernsberger Jr., Newsweek International

686

Blair ‘revolted’ by ‘destroy Israel’ call of Iranian president, by Sam Knight, The Times (U.K.), October 27, 2005.

352

Dec. 12, 2005 issue - …Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory rhetoric – “Israel should be wiped off the map” – has alarmed Western diplomats…Eerie stories about Ahmadinejad’s mystical obsessions have been drifting out of Tehran of late, specifically his devotion to the so-called 12th imam – the Shiite messiah, better known as the Mahdi, who’s supposed to return and lead an apocalyptic revolution of the oppressed over vague forces of injustice. By some accounts, the new president’s first deputy…recently asked cabinet members…to pledge their allegiance to the Mahdi in a signed letter. And when Ahmadinejad was Tehran’s mayor, he reportedly refurbished a major boulevard on grounds that the Mahdi was to travel along it upon his return. Last week, a videodisc began circulating that reportedly shows the president chatting with one of the country’s leading clerics…Referring to his September speech to the [UN], during which he called for the return of the 12th imam, the Iranian president confides that he felt himself surrounded by a radiant light. Not one foreign diplomat blinked during his speech, he adds.

How might this apocalyptic plan operate? Hezbollah tipped its hand when it tried to probe Israel’s capabilities through the kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers. Unexpectedly, this attack triggered an Israeli response before Hezbollah was truly ready to act. Hezbollah’s reaction, though, revealed much about its strategy: It provoked, but did not invade, Israel. When Israel entered Lebanon to rescue the hostages, Hezbollah began to launch rockets into Israel from civilian areas. This was a trap that virtually forced Israel to inflict civilian casualties. The civilian losses, in turn, unified the entire Islamic world against Israel, because, in any conflict between Israel and a Muslim entity, Muslims must choose to follow the Koran’s command to “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers,”687 and “Strive against the disbelievers.”688 Few if any people believe that the current cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel will bring about a permanent peace. Assuming that Hezbollah will provoke Israel again, we can expect them to again become pinned down militarily. In fact, the vast network of underground shelters that pock the southern Lebanese landscape, combined with Hezbollah’s lack of tanks and other invasive weapons, betray a plan to become pinned down. From this apparently defensive pose, it will cry out to its sponsor, Iran, and give President Ahmadinejad the opportunity to fulfill his messianic destiny and declare “The one who listens to your pleas has come.” There is even an added benefit: In this plan, the Mahdi and Jesus both are Shiite Muslims. Therefore, the question of whether Sunnis or Shiites are the true congregation will be settled in favor of Shiism. This is a win in every way for the Shiite schemers. One might seek comfort from the thought that this Nasrallah-Ahmadinejad version of the end times is not a perfect match to the story given in the “Idiot’s” book, but that book only provides one interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith. As noted previously, the scriptural depictions of the end times are disjoint and vague in important ways, allowing ambitious Muslims to bend them to serve their own glory-seeking purposes. Sadly, this kind of dementia is a recurring disease in the Islamic world. Sources used for other portions of this book also mention several of the more successful episodes of Messianic mania. For example: 687 688

Koran, [3.28] YUSUF ALI Koran, [9.73] PICKTHAL

353

From Islam: A Short History:689 …These [Abbasid] caliphs gave themselves titles expressive of the divine right of kings. AlMansur indicated that God would give him “special help” to achieve victory; his son styled himself al-Mahdi (the Guided One), the term used by Shiis to describe a leader who would establish the age of justice and peace.

From Islam: A Very Short Introduction:690 During the tenth century CE these Isma’ilis [a branch of Shiism] were at the forefront of several revolts inspired by eschatological expectations. In 909 a leader…proclaim[ed] himself the Mahdi and create[d] a state in North Africa.

From Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization:691 In the…eighteenth century…a number of major religious movements swept over West Africa, establishing Islamic states based on the appeal of charaismatic leaders, some of whom claimed to be the Mahdi. The most famous of thse figures was ‘Uthman dan Fadio, born in Gobir in…1754, who soon conquered much of West Africa as both religious leader and ruler.

From Africans: The History of a Continent:692 The Sudanese Mahdi, Muhammad ibn Abdallah,…revealed himself in 1881 as leader of Sudan’s stateless peoples against Egyptian rule…Three years later his forces took Khartoum…

As one might suspect, a closer look at Islam’s history reveals that its “golden age,” which Islamic fundamentalists seek to recreate through the returning Mahdi, is actually a warped utopian memory of an age that was golden in war booty only. Although Islam’s conquests may have once filled its coffers and underwritten magnificent works of architecture, its politics have almost always been tumultuous and bloody. Although this book cannot relate the entire history of Islam, you may want to study it further on your own, using any of the resources mentioned herein, or an Internet search, or a quick trip to the local library. You will find that the reputedly great dynasties of Islam were actually very repressive, and brought wealth to the ruling families while leaving the vast majority of people in ignorance and poverty. While one may claim that these Islamic dynasties were no more repressive than their non-Islamic contemporaries, the fact remains that they were far more repressive than anything Westerners would tolerate today. To citizens of modern Free Democracies, the Islamic dynasties of yesteryear should appear as attractive as the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 689

Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong, The Modern Library division of Random House, 2000, Chapter 2, section entitled entitled Ahe Abbasids: The High Caliphal Period (750-935), page 54. 690 Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 3, section entitled entitled Other Branches of Shi’ism, page 54. 691 Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization, by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, HarperSanFrancisco, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, 2003, Chapter 6, section entitled Islam in Other Areas, page 139. 692 Africans: The History of a Continent, by John Iliffe, Cambridge University Press, 1995, Chapter 9, section entitled entitled Partition, page 190.

354

The real, rather than idealized, history of Islam is one of bloody rivalries and sectarian feuds, which began with Uthman and Ali and continue to this day. The Assassins693 of former days have become the suicide bombers of today. In fact, suicide bombers are currently being used by Sunnis and Shiites against each other far more often than against Israel or the West. The following article illustrates just one recent example of this inter-Muslim strife: Bomb Kills 16 at Shiite Mosque in Pakistan By Kamran Khan, Washington Post Foreign Service, June 1, 2004; Page A17 KARACHI, Pakistan, May 31 – A bomb blast tore through a Shiite…mosque during evening prayers on Monday night, killing 16 people and wounding at least 30 others…, one day after the assassination of a prominent Sunni cleric in this southern port city. … Manzur Mughal, senior superintendent of police…, said…“We have many reasons to believe that today’s bombing was a response to yesterday’s murder of Mufti Shamzai”… …the blast was caused by about four pounds of C4 plastic explosives…The same type of device was used in a suicide attack at another Shiite mosque on May 7, in which 23 people were killed and 35 wounded…about 3,000 people have been killed in sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis in the last eight years. Sunnis make up about 80 percent and Shiites about 17 percent of Pakistan’s population of 150 million.

The ancient rivalry between Shiites and Sunnis is a primary source of Iraq’s river of blood. Shiites, who represent the majority of the population, have been dominated politically by the Sunnis for centuries. This was especially true under the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein, who is known to have killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites during their uprising after the first Gulf War.694 In the aftermath of the second Gulf War, both Sunnis and Shiites have agitated for the Infidel occupiers to leave, but Iraqi society faces a far deeper problem. The disturbing truth is that Sunnis and Shiites hate each other nearly as much as they hate Infidels, and that Sunnis, fearful of possible reprisals under a Shiite-led democracy, have engaged in a widespread insurgency to thwart democratic governance.695 To their credit, those who have worked together to form a constitution and a permanent government have made great strides that have exceeded the expectations of many. However, the bloody insurgency continues to rage, killing thousands of civilians since the February 2005 elections, with no end in sight. On top of their clashes with each other, the Shiites and Sunnis also have bloody internal clashes. For example, Shiism gives its clerics incentives to establish quasi-governmental hierarchies, which can, in turn, produce rival militias as religious leaders compete for money and power.

693

An Isma’ili (Shiite) sect, famous for consuming Hashish and giving the term Assassin its meaning. In the 11th and 12th centuries, they terrorized the Islamic and Infidel world alike by killing the rulers of nations. According to Marco Polo, their key operatives were young men, ages 12 – 20, who sought Paradise by fulfilling the murderous commands of their leaders (The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian, translated by Henry Yule, London, 1875) 694 Expert: 300,000 in Iraq’s Mass Graves, Associated Press, November 8, 2003. 695 Questions and answers on the Iraq power transfer, by John Yaukey, Gannett News Service, April 8, 2004.

355

Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr provides a prime example of this phenomenon: • • •

He murdered a rival cleric, Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei, in April 2003. He organized a militia, known as the Mahdi Army. For a time, he actually took over the governance of some Iraqi cities through this militia. This action was in direct conflict with the wishes of other Shiite leaders, particularly Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Husseini Al-Sistani, who is Iraq’s supreme Shiite authority.696

Al-Sadr’s example also shows how Shiite religious leaders can raise themselve above the law, establishing religious governments-within-a-government that answer to no one. To see how this works, read the following exerpt from the Newsweek article, Sword of the Shia:697 A…prominent exile was Abdul Majid al-Khoei, who was supposed [by the Coalition of the Willing] to be a key guide to the Shia religious community… Al-Khoei paid with his life. The London-based exile returned to the holy city of Najaf, where he was born and raised, under U.S. military protection. He quickly organized a local council to get electricity and water flowing again, apparently with CIA money…But al-Khoei’s father had been Iraq’s top ayatollah—and a bitter rival of Sadr’s father—during Saddam’s rule. Now the sons were competing for power and influence. Sadr castigated al-Khoei as a U.S. agent, and demanded that he turn over the keys to the tomb of Imam Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law. A gilded cage surrounding the tomb contains a box for pilgrims’ donations, a huge and vital source of income for religious leaders. As al-Khoei and a colleague visited the shrine on the morning of April 10, 2003, an angry mob attacked them with grenades, guns and swords. “Long live Moqtada al-Sadr!” the mob cried out. AlKhoei was stabbed repeatedly, then tied up and dragged to the doorstep of Sadr’s headquarters in Najaf, where he was still alive. A subsequent investigation by an Iraqi judge found that Sadr himself gave the order to finish him off: “Take him away and kill him in your own special way.” Yet it wasn’t clear at the time of the killing what Sadr’s personal role was, and “we didn’t want one of our first acts in country to be taking out one of the most popular leaders,” says a U.S. military officer familiar with Army intelligence on Sadr. The officer, who did not want to be named…, says the Army was worried about provoking riots...Politicians in his Sadr bloc won 23 of 275 seats in the January 2005 elections and, after fresh voting nearly a year later, now hold 30 seats…Sadr was able to play kingmaker. Two prime ministers since 2005 – Ibrahim Jaafari and the current Iraqi leader, Nuri al-Maliki – have depended on his swing votes for their majority.

While Shiites have often suffered bloody internal battles, Sunnis once enjoyed a relatively stable hierarchy for centuries under the Ottoman Caliph. Unfortunately, the Caliphate’s dissolution after World War I left many Sunni leaders free to declare Holy Wars of their own. Even leaders without official credentials such as Osama bin Laden may issue fatwas and take military actions. Today, there is no universally accepted entity that can speak on behalf of all Sunnis and declare the proper response to current events.

696 697

Symbol of Insurgency, by Charles Recknagel, Asia Times, April 9, 2004. Sword of the Shia, by Jeffrey Bartholet, Newsweek, December 4, 2006.

356

Thus, from both Sunnis and Shiites, there is a cacophony of voices claiming authority to speak for Islam. Some declare that their religion is peaceful, while others declare Jihad against the United States. Or Israel. Or Denmark. Faced with this discord, Westerners cannot simply turn their ears to those who say what they want to hear, because the opportunity for complicity with terrorism is enormous. While claiming to be peaceful people, “moderate” Muslims can easily funnel money and information to killers. Ultimately, these individuals may be caught in their deceits, but the damage done in the meantime could be devastating and permanent. Who is leading Islam into the future? Unfortunately, no one, though many, like Osama bin Laden and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, are willing to kill for the honor. Sadly, any attempt by the West to seek peaceful relations with the “House of Peace” is futile because Muslim hostility is a multi-headed beast. More profoundly, the idea of a lasting peace with the “House of War” violates Islam’s basic tenets. Therefore, any Muslim leader who begins to work toward peace with the West risks accusations of hypocritical complicity or apostasy, thereby drawing attacks from other leaders. And, when the killers are unable to attack the peaceful leaders themselves, they will turn on the innocent people whom those leaders are supposed to protect, as well as the West itself, to make those leaders appear impotent and helpless. Both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, of Palestine’s secular Fatah movement, have contended with such attacks from Hamas whenever they began to talk peace with Israel.

Relations between the House of Islam’s political leaders and its people Throughout much of the Islamic world, political leaders are at odds with their people and face no-win situations. On one hand, Western-oriented leaders are despised by citizens who accuse them of hypocritically selling out Islam for financial or political gain. On the other hand, Islamist leaders face opposition from citizens who long for the West’s prosperity and freedoms. At the core of this dilemma is a tangle of conflicting objectives among fundamentalist and liberal Muslims. Consider this sampling of issues: •

There is a strong fundamentalist urge to avenge the humiliation inflicted on Islam by the West as the Ottoman Empire declined and fell. Even Muslims who called the Ottoman Caliphate illegitimate felt humiliated by its downfall, particularly because no new Caliphate has arisen to take its place. To those who still burn with this humiliation, Western economic or military aid enflames their sense of dependence and deepens their rage. Such people will attach sinister motives to any aid received, and will undermine efforts by liberal Muslims to collaborate with the West. Taught to never doubt the teachings of their faith, these fundamentalists reject the notion that the weakness of Islamic nations might be the result of Islam’s own policies, and instead lay all blame on the West. The problems these people cause are compounded by a lack of any central religious authority to which they must answer, and which the Ottomans once had. In the absence of a central authority, every theologian feels free to act on his own beliefs and speak on

357

behalf of Allah. These fundamentalists are also a destabilizing force because they can turn to revered and ancient Islamic authorities to support their attacks on liberal leaders who cooperate with Infidels. For example, Ibn Taymiya,698 a 14th century jurist, argued that a ruler who does not enforce Shari’ah in all aspects forfeits his right to rule. In this case, jihad against such a ruler is more than acceptable; it may be obligatory. Shari’ah declares that a Muslim ruler must wage jihad against the enemies of Islam, i.e. those in the House of War. Ibn Taymiya’s pronouncements have strongly influenced extremists such as Osama bin Laden, who vowed to bring down the Saudi government, even though it is one of the most religiously conservative governments in the Islamic world. Why did bin Laden do this? Because the Saudis cooperated militarily with the United States in a war against Muslim Iraq, allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil. It didn’t matter that that Iraq was led by a mass murderer who had attacked other Muslim nations and was a military threat to Saudi Arabia. To Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabia had displayed its dependence on an Infidel army and had allied with Infidels to attack a Muslim nation. This was both a humiliation and a direct violation of the Koran. •

Fundamentalists seek to restore what they claim is Islam’s rightful place as the most advanced civilization in the world, by returning to the laws, beliefs, customs, and fearless courage that once made it great. Unfortunately, those laws, beliefs, and customs were made for a different time and do not consider modern innovations in science, finance, forensics, and other areas. Moreover, the teachings that inspire fearless courage adapt poorly to peacetime, leading to internal strife. A society based on these relics will inevitably be less fair, peaceful and productive than societies that incorporate modern ideas, technologies, and institutions. What these fundamentalists refuse to see is that they are trying to move foreward by going backward.

•

Liberal Muslims wish to enjoy the benefits of Infidel innovations but do not want to acknowledge any superiority on the part of the civilizations that produced them. Like the inventors of “Islamic Banking,” Muslims who try to modernize their societies often attempt to put Muhammad’s stamp on modern ways, and thereby avoid admitting that these innovations came from non-Muslim sources. While these modernizers may or may not be hostile to the West, their reasoning itself leads to an absurd conclusion: That the West has done a better job of understanding the Koran, and preserving Muhammad’s practices, than the House of Islam. Unfortunately, this absurdity feeds the belief that Islam’s leaders have misled the Muslims, or are being manipulated by malevolent Infidels who have stolen Islamic wisdom and left Muslims with nothing. Even though this belief makes no sense, it persists and encourages rebellion, along with a longing for Islam’s days of glory.

698

Lived from 1263 to 1328, and was an Islamic conservative theologian and jurist considered to be a progenitor of Wahhabism. – Summarized from Encyclopedia Britannica Precise, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 2006.

358

Many Muslims believe that, by adopting certain Western institutions, they are taking back Islam’s legacy. This mindset enables them to adopt Western institutions while maintaining their hostility to the West and calling them thieves instead of benefactors. However, by continuing to search ancient texts for answers to modern questions on law, finance, and science, they reject the underlying methods of reason that could lead them out of their state of backwardness. While they may be able to adopt some Western practices, they will be hard-pressed to invent anything truly new, and will remain dependent on the West for innovative ideas. •

Liberal Muslims aim to install the West’s engines of success (Free Democracy and Free Enterprise) into a society faithful to Islamic holy scripture. Professor Noah Feldman, of New York University’s School of Law at the time, did a valiant job of attempting to write a guidebook for this installation, entitled After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy.699 However, his book appears to be more interested in creating a democracy for Muslims than a democracy for all. How so? His vision would institutionalize the tyranny of the majority and legitimize Shari’ah’s harshness against Infidels, Polytheists, Pagans, Hypocrites, and Apostates. While Feldman recognizes that his Islamic Democracy would not be a Free Democracy, he fails to appreciate that Islamic Democracy lacks the virtues that make democracy even desirable. Instead, he seeks to comfort non-Muslims with inane bromides, assuring them that Islamic Democracy would not be all that bad. This is what Feldman says: One limitation of [Islamic Democracy] is that it is apparently the Muslim community alone that is entrusted with the task of interpreting and applying God’s word. That is all well and good for Muslims, but it excludes non-Muslims. If self-rule consists in figuring out what God wants within the framework of Islam, then non-Muslims will not be fullfledged participants. The answer that minorities in any democracy are excluded when they do not share the fundamental values of the majority may be unsatisfying to someone who thinks that equality is a touchstone of democracy. But perhaps non-Muslims could be permitted to participate in the democratic discussion of God’s will, even if they are not full members of the community. 700 … Islamic states traditionally required Jews, Christians, and other non-pagans701 deemed “peoples of the book” to pay a special tax and wear distinctive dress; legally, the state accorded them special status as “protected persons.” Churches and synagogues had to be modest in size relative to mosques. The enforcement of these rules varied historically from rigorous to lax, and treatment of non-Muslims ranged from highly tolerant to repressive and even violent. There is an extensive literature arguing about whether this protected status must amount to second-class citizenship – a question that might plausibly be answered either way. But even if these discriminatory taxing and zoning requirements

699

After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, by Noah Feldman, Published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2003. 700 Ibid, Chapter entitled God’s Rule and the People’s Rule, page 59. 701 This reference to pagans does not mean that pagans did not suffer abuses. Instead, it means that pagans were given no quarter at all. Laws are not needed for people who are not allowed to exist.

359

were put in place – and they need not be adopted by an Islamic state that is not fully Islamist – the Islamic state faces no theoretical barrier to treating its non-Muslim citizens equally. 702 … In northern Nigeria, where Islamic law is being introduced today, the threat of such punishments functions as a symbol of the new order, to Islamists and non-Muslim opponents alike. Everyone involved gets some benefit out of drawing attention to the possible stoning of an adulteress. It is free publicity for Islamists, and a good rallying point for opponents. It would be a horrible tragedy if anyone should be unlucky enough to be executed for adultery there, but an Islamic system need not execute anyone for adultery under normal circumstances. There is almost always some legal way out. The existence of hudud punishments is therefore not incompatible with democracy, unless we think that capital punishment makes a country undemocratic.703

If Feldman’s ideas were implemented, his “democracy” would do more than disenfranchise and discriminate against non-Muslims. As his defense of both Nigeria and the hudud laws demonstrates, his Islamic Democracy would be both harsh and capricious. Violators of the law might be killed or released, depending on the willingness of legal authorities to find “some legal way out.” Additionally, Feldman’s concept of Islamic Democracy would lend support to those who wish to oppress others. Ruling factions could invoke the laws of Shari’ah to impose severe penalties on opponents, calling them slanderers, backbiters, Hypocrites and Apostates. Therefore, on top of oppressing non-Muslims, Feldman’s concept is almost guaranteed to magnify the hostilities that Islamic sects already have toward each other, with their motivations to dominate, disenfranchise, and discriminate against each other. Interestingly, Prof. Feldman was a Senior Advisor for Constitutional Law at the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) for Iraq. Perhaps we should not be surprised that Iraq is being torn apart by sectarian strife and appears in danger of overt civil war. As the U.S. and its allies are discovering, Feldman was overly optimistic when he claimed that “It is a gamble to rely on secular moderates to produce democratic parties that are respectful of Islam without being Islamist, but the odds may be better than would appear to the Western imagination.”704 As alluded to previously, a sad effect of the conflicts between liberal and fundamentalist Muslims is that they force the political leaders of Islamic nations to become repressive and dictatorial. These leaders face citizens who are willing to use revolutionary force to achieve their goals if the leaders resist them. However, any action a leader takes to please one faction is likely to incite revolutionary action by the other. For example, if a leader introduces Western-style reforms, Islamic fundamentalists are likely to declare a fatwa against the leader or simply try to assassinate him. If a leader instead reforms a nation into an Islamic state, the state’s subsequent economic and political failure is likely to lead to popular revolt. Thus, Islamic leaders confront a 702

After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, by Noah Feldman, published by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York, 2003, Chapter entitled Islamic Equality, page 68. 703 Ibid, Chapter entitled Islamic Liberty, page 72. 704 Ibid, Chapter entitled Democracy’s Muslim Allies, page 225.

360

Hobson’s choice of either battling Islamic fundamentalists or watching their nations descend into chaos. Either way, they must use repressive measures to maintain order. Into these churning waters the United States has embarked on high-stakes experiments in nationbuilding, hoping to bring democracy and freedom to the Islamic world. After dethroning the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, will they be able to chart a course for Free Democracy and Free Enterprise? Or will these re-founded nations sink again into repression and chaos? So far, the results of these experiments have been less than encouraging: In Iraq, the new government faces multiple insurgencies, fed by both Sunni and Shiite rage at Infidel “occupiers,” as well as hatred for each other. This insurgent spirit is only exacerbated by the new government’s dependence on foreign militaries to prop it up. The economy also continues to languish, with an unemployment rate that in 2005 was somewhere between 27% and 50%.705 The bad economy is not the result of sparse funding. In fact, billions of dollars are being pumped into Iraq annually. However, corruption is rampant and Islamic terrorists continue to sabotage Iraq’s infrastructure and make commerce difficult. In addition, fears of infiltration by insurgents have kept military support jobs in foreign hands, even though Iraqis desperately need the work. Local businesses also miss the benefits of commerce because Coalition personnel are afraid to shop in local markets. Afghanistan’s situation, more than six years after the Taliban’s fall, is little better. The nation still depends on NATO forces to maintain order, and it still generates articles like these: Bomb kills election workers By Matthew Pennington, Associated Press, June 27, 2004, The Boston Globe KABUL, Afghanistan – A bomb tore through a bus carrying female election workers yesterday on their way to register women for the country's first post-Taliban vote, killing two and injuring 13. It was the bloodiest attack yet in a string of violence targeting election workers, aimed at sabotaging the September vote. A spokesman for the Taliban claimed responsibility… … Bomber strikes at Afghan funeral Kyodo, AFP, AP, Reuters, The Australian, June 2, 2005 KANDAHAR: A suicide bomb attack on the funeral of a leading cleric killed by suspected Taliban militants left at least 16 people dead… in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, officials said. A further 36 people were wounded when the blast ripped through a mosque in the centre of the city…The attack will raise fears that Taliban militants are further stepping up a renewed onslaught that has left more than 250 people dead this year.

705

Tackling Another Major Challenge in Iraq: Unemployment, By Jonathan Finer and Omar Fekeiki, Washington Post, June 20, 2005.

361

Chapter 8: What next? One normally expects a conclusion at the end of a book, but that is not what you will find here; in fact, this book has probably left you with more questions than answers. My goal has been to share a framework for understanding the resurging conflict between the House of Islam and the West, and reveal the causes of Islamic rage which have been long concealed by Western naiveté and mistaken assumptions. This framework answers the question that rang out after September 11’s attacks: “Why do they hate us?” In summary: •

Islamic terrorism cannot be blamed on a single person, like Osama bin Laden, or a single group, like al Qaeda, or a single nation, like Iran. Instead, it emanates from one root source: Islamic holy scripture. This scripture embodies a political philosophy that directly opposes Free Democracy and Free Enterprise and commands Muslims to pursue their opposition through deception, intimidation, terror, and conquest.

•

Islam joins religion inextricably with governance, and opposes Free Democracy’s separation of Church from State. Its tight union of religion and law causes believers to struggle against what they see as Free Democracy’s sacrilegious disregard for Allah’s Shari’ah.

•

While some Muslims struggle against Free Democracy with terrorist attacks, others do so more subtly. Leaders of oil-rich Islamic nations use their wealth to build mosques, madrassas, found Islamic Studies programs at universities and colleges, and silence whistleblowers through litigation around the world. They also spread anti-Western propaganda to undermine the Free Enterprise system that produces their luxuries. Muslim immigrants, claiming to seek Western freedoms, use population growth to turn Majority Rule into a time bomb that will destroy those freedoms as they vote Free Democracy out of existence. This phenomenon has already begun in the United States with the election of Representative Keith Ellison.

•

These subtle revolutionaries, whom we mislabel “moderates,” seek to transform Free Democracies into Islamic Democracies, where only Muslims hold political power. In an Islamic Democracy, the goal of legislators is to refine and update Shari’ah through a legislative form of ijtihad. Their goal is not to represent the will of the people, and they specifically exclude non-Muslims from the legislative process.

•

Islam’s regressive impact is not restricted to the House of Islam. In fact, Islam’s destructive arm can wield its scimitar very effectively in lands where Muslims do not have a majority. Through international embargoes and terrorist acts, Muslims have the power to cow Western nations into submission despite their minority status, as the Danish cartoonist fiasco demonstrates.

362

•

The choice between Free Democracy and Islamic Democracy, or any other form of Islamic government, really does matter. The tenets of Islam damage society in a variety of ways that are subtle but devastating: o Poverty. Islam’s prohibitions against what it calls usury and gambling, as well as other constraints to trade, lead Islamic nations into severe economic declines unless they happen to be blessed with vast natural resources. These declines are exacerbated by the corruption that Shari’ah’s shortcomings in corporate, municipal, and criminal law enable. These shortcomings warp the economies of Islamic nations and cause them to fall substantially behind Free Democracies. o Repression. Shari’ah represses both Infidels and Muslims on multiple fronts: ™ It deprives non-Muslims of political voice by disallowing criticism of the state religion and excluding non-Muslims from government. ™ It burdens women with institutional disadvantages regarding work, independent living, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and legal testimony. ™ It condones slavery, especially the enslavement of non-Muslims. To the extent that slavery has been eliminated from the Islamic world, it has only been a response to outside pressure from Free Democracies, and slavery is still practiced in some Islamic countries. ™ It muzzles free speech in ways that Westerners can hardly comprehend, let alone believe. The Muslim response to cartoons of Muhammad revealed only one facet of this repression. o Strife. Muslims believe that the Koran is the perfect, immutable, and eternal word of Allah Himself. They also believe that Muhammad led an exemplary life in all ways, as recorded in the Hadith. These two articles of blind and unquestioning faith combine to produce a form of absolutism that leads to bloodshed because the Koran has numerous interpretations and there are rival compilations of hadiths. When Muslims bicker over Allah’s will, they go beyond simply calling each other wrong; they accuse each other of perverting Allah’s holy word. Islamic scripture does more than sow seeds of conflict between factions. It also provides scant guidance on how to build trust and focuses instead on sowing prejudice and sanctioning violence as a means of conflict resolution. o Additionally, because the Koran, the Hadith, and Shari’ah developed in a tribal context, their teachings do not fit well with the corporate and national institutions of the West. Instead, Islam institutionalizes tribalism and the strife that is a natural part of tribal society. o Scientific and technological stagnation. Islam knocks out scientific and technological progress with a powerful combination punch:

363

™ It represses free speech, and therefore free thought, particularly when those thoughts threaten Islamic beliefs or Islamic leaders. ™ It claims to have jurisdiction over all aspects of life. This claim gives Islamic scholars authority to scrutinize all inventions, innovations, and ideas, and decide whether they should be permitted. Today, many of these scholars rage against Infidel inventions such as photography, television, and democracy, which they obviously would have outlawed if they had the power to do so. ™ It claims to have all of the answers. Therefore, it turns scientific research away from the scientific method and toward Islamic holy scriptures. If the Koran and the Hadith have all of the answers, why look elsewhere? ™ It prohibits lending at interest, making it difficult to finance large-scale research. ™ It opposes insurance, making it difficult to protect research institutes from loss. Almost invariably, new technologies in the Islamic world have been imported from the West. Not only has the Islamic world not given birth to these advances, it struggles to simply accept them. In short, Islam tends to return Muslims, along with their “protected” Infidels, back to the days of medieval Arabia, with all of its injustices, ignorance, slavery, polygyny, and tribalism. Without a continuous influx of Western money, technology, and political philosophy, the Islamic world would rapidly revert to its ancient condition. Unfortunately, Islam is spreading right now because of a combination of factors: • • • • •

There are longstanding “open arms” policies in the West for oppressed people. The economic and political oppression that Islam creates is causing a mass exoduses to the West. Islamic nations with vast natural resources have used their wealth to underwrite efforts to propagate Islam internationally, through both peaceful and violent methods. Islam’s followers understand how population growth leads to political power, particularly in democracies, and they are quietly using it to bring new nations into the House of Islam. The spirit of religious tolerance fostered by Free Democracy has been interpreted by many Westerners as an endorsement of moral relativism, which they call inclusiveness. This version of tolerance mistakenly assumes that there is no such thing as a pathological religion and that tolerance will always be reciprocated. It has damaged the West’s ability to recognize that Islamic beliefs destabilize society and do not reciprocate Western respect.

As Islam spreads, its journey to ancient ways will not be limited to the traditional Islamic world. It will also spread its misery in nations that were once Western-oriented but are switching to Islam, such as Nigeria. If this trend continues, Free Democracies will no longer be able to constrain Islam’s severe and despotic tendencies. The concept of Free Democracy will become

364

discredited and derided as evil and Godless, while Shari’ah’s advocates impose their laws with impunity. If this happens, we can look forward to a global death-spiral of living conditions. Without Free Democracies to prop up the economies of Muslim lands with aid and new inventions, the world’s economies will rapidly decline, particularly as the Middle East’s oil resources decline. Islam’s blindness to its own faults will prevent Muslims from seeing that Shari’ah is the cause of this disaster. Instead, they will attack their favorite scapegoats, such as the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, and Hypocrites. Violence will also escalate as leaders clash over whose Islamic sect is the true “Congregation.” As conditions deteriorate, their battles to counter the crisis with ever-more Islamic forms of Islam will become fever pitched, and continue long after society reverts to medieval levels of chaos. In effect, we will return to the Dark Ages we experienced during Islam’s first rise. Hard to believe? Consider Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Despite claims by those who want to blame all of the House of Islam’s troubles on Western colonialism, these nations were actually oppressive and chaotic long before the days of Western influence. Even more disturbing is the deterioration of Lebanon, which has been experiencing a miniature version of this descent into chaos over the past few decades. We have seen Islamic oppression in Shari’ah’s dictates on slavery, women, and Infidels. We have seen Islamic strife and chaos in the histories of Islam’s religious sects and the nations that have suffered Islamic subjugation. We have also seen the major fault lines that crisscross Islamic nations even today. Iraq has taught a hard lesson to those who believe in Free Democracy: Saddam Hussein’s despotism may have been a natural product of the Islamic society he came from. Furthermore, while it may be possible for democracy to succeed in Iraq, we can say with confidence that it will not be a Free Democracy. In fact, Iraq’s new Constitution confirms that our hopes for Free Democracy in Iraq are over. This realization is even more dismal after considering the massive military operations, lives, and treasure devoted to building democracy there. One day we may awaken from our dreams of nation-building to discover that we have created another “democracy” like Afghanistan, capable of sentencing a man to death for his personal religious beliefs. Or, even worse, a “democracy” like Iran. It should now be clear that it is not enough to deal with Islamic terrorism and warlike threats through police actions or disjointed policies toward individual countries. Doing so simply attacks Islam’s violent off-shoots while ignoring the root cause, which will only sprout new violence in the future. The uncomfortable conclusion we are left with is that, in the long run, we can only hope to preserve the liberties of Free Democracy if we develop a response to the true source of Islamic terrorism: Islam itself. But how can we, as people who believe in Freedom of Religion, do such a thing? How can we take actions to preserve the liberties we cherish without destroying them in the process? How can we protect ourselves from violence without ourselves becoming violent?

365

Islam, with its religious belief that Shari’ah should be the law of the land, poses a particularly difficult quandary for those who cherish Free Democracy hallmarks: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. However, there are solutions, and I would like to share my thoughts on them with you. At this point, you may have guessed why this book does not end with a conclusion: Dare to Speak is actually the introduction to another book, Dare to Act, which seeks solutions to the conflicts we face between Islam and the dual institutions of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. I hope you now appreciate why this book is called Dare to Speak. Muslims are likely to be offended by what it says, and it is quite possible that I will have to go into hiding, like Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoonists, Isioma Daniel, Silva Shahakian, Abdul Rahman, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to avoid execution. I may also become a victim of Islamic hatred, like Theo van Gogh and Hitoshi Igarashi. However, I believe that the freedoms we enjoy as the beneficiaries of Free Democracy are so precious and irreplaceable that I would rather risk my life to preserve them than stay quiet in cowardice. Our children have the right to enjoy these freedoms as we have enjoyed them, and we have an obligation to protect those freedoms from Islam. In protecting those freedoms, we will do nothing more than our forefathers who defended them from Fascism and Communism. Compared to the great sacrifices of our predecessors, this book, written in the comfort of a safe and secure home, furnished with the many benefits of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise, barely registers. Those who will receive the hero’s wreaths will be those who act.

366

Appendix A: The Medina Charter706 (622 C.E.) In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful. (1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them. (2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all men. (3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers. (4-8) The B. ‘Auf according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit they paid in heathenism; every section shall redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. ‘l-Harith, and the B. Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar likewise. (9-11) The B. ‘Amr b. ‘Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-‘Aus likewise. (12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or bloodwit in kindness. (12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of another Muslim against him. (13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them. (14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer. (15) God’s protection is one; the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders. (16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided. (17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all. (18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him. (19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.

706

A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad — A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasoul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955; pages 231-233. Numbering added.

367

(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance. (20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer. (21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him. (22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him. (23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad. (24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers. (25) The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families. (26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha’laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Tha‘laba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha ‘laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves. (36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that. (37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. (38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts. (39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. (40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime. (41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.

368

(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document. (43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection. (44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib. (45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy war. (45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs. (46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people of this document in purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. He who acquires ought acquires it for himself. God approves of this document. (47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.

369

Appendix B: Excerpts from Shari’ah regarding marriage707 NOTE: Although the following rules and laws were dictated by a Shiite cleric, they are, for the most part, practiced by both Sunnis and Shiites.

Marriage (Part I of II) The relation between man and woman becomes lawful by contracting marriage. There are two kinds of marriages: (i) Permanent marriage (ii) Fixed-time marriage In a permanent marriage, the period of matrimony is not fixed, and it is forever. The woman with whom such a marriage is concluded is called da’ima (i.e. a permanent wife). In a fixed time marriage (Mut’ah), the period of matrimony is fixed, for example, matrimonial relation is contracted with a woman for an hour, or a day, or a month, or a year, or more. However, the period fixed for the marriage should not exceed the span of normal lives of the spouses, because in that case, the marriage will be treated as a permanent one. This sort of fixed time marriage is called Mut’ah or Sigha.

Marriage Formula 2372. Whether marriage is permanent or temporary, the formal formula must be pronounced; mere tacit approval and consent, or written agreement, is not sufficient. And the formula (Sigha) of the marriage contract is pronounced either by the man and the woman themselves, or by a person who is appointed by them as their representatives to recite it on their behalf. 2373. The representative should not necessarily be a male. A woman can also become a representative to pronounce the marriage formula. 2374. As long as the woman and the man are not certain that their representative has pronounced the formula, they cannot look at each other as Mahram (like husband and wife), and a mere probable suspicion that the representative might have pronounced the formula is not sufficient. And if the representative says that he has pronounced the formula, but his assertion does not satisfy the parties concerned, it will not be deemed sufficient. 2375. If a woman appoints a person as her representative so that he may, for example, contract her marriage with a man for ten days, but does not specify the day from which the period of ten days would commence, the representative can contract her marriage with that man for ten days 707

These sections of Islamic Law are excerpts from “Islamic Laws,” issued through the fatwa of Ayatollah Ali alHusseini Al-Sistani, Shiite Grand Ayatollah of Iraq. See www.al-islam.org/laws/index.html.

370

from any day he likes. However, if the representative knows that the woman intends a particular hour or day, he should pronounce the formula according to her intention. 2376. One person can act as the representative of both sides for reciting the formula of permanent or temporary marriage. It is also permissible that a man may himself become the representative of a woman and contract permanent or temporary marriage with her. However, the recommended precaution is that two separate persons should represent each side, for the formula of marriage contract.

The Method of Pronouncing the Marriage Formula 2377. If a woman and a man themselves want to recite the formula of permanent marriage, the woman should first say: Zawwajtuka nafsi ‘alas sidaqil ma’lum (i.e. I have made myself your wife on the agreed mahr), and then the man should immediately respond thus: Qabiltut tazwij (i.e. I accept the marriage). In this way, the marriage contract will be in order. And if a woman and a man appoint other person to act as their representatives for pronouncing the formula of marriage, and if, for example, the name of the man is Ahmad and that of the woman is Fatimah, the representative of the woman should first say: Zawwajtuka muwakkilaka Ahmad muwakkilati Fatimah ‘alas sidaqil ma’lum (i.e. I have given to your client Ahmad in marriage my client Fatimah on the agreed mahr) and thereafter the representative of the man should immediately respond thus: Qabiltut tazwijali Muwakkili Ahmad ‘alas sidaqil ma’lum (that is, I accepted this matrimonial alliance for my client Ahmad on the agreed Mahr). Now the marriage contract is in order. And, on the basis of recommended precaution, it is necessary that the words uttered by the man should conform with those uttered by the woman; for example, if the woman says: Zawwajituka…(i.e. I have made myself your wife) the man should also say: Qabituttazwija…(i.e. I accept the matrimonial alliance) and not Qabitun Nikaha. 2378. It is permissible for a man and a woman to recite the formula of the temporary marriage (Mut’ah), after having agreed on the period of marriage and the amount of Mahr. Hence, if the woman says: Zawwajtuka nafsi fil muddatil ma’lumati ‘alal mahril ma’lum (i.e. I have made myself your wife for an agreed period and agreed Mahr), and then the man immediately responds thus: Qabiltu (i.e. I have accepted), the marriage will be in order. And the marriage will also be in order if they appoint other persons to act as their representatives. First, the representative of the woman should say to the representative of the man thus: Matta’tu muwakkilati muwakkilaka fil muddatil ma’lumati ‘alal mahril ma’lum (i.e. I have given my client to your client in marriage for the agreed period and the agreed Mahr), and then the representative of the man should immediately respond thus: Qabiltut tazwija li muwakkili hakaza (i.e. I accepted this matrimonial alliance for my client this way).

Conditions of Pronouncing Nikah 2379. There are certain conditions for the Nikah recited for marriage. They are as follows: (i) On the basis of precaution, the formula (Nikah) of marriage contract should be pronounced in correct Arabic. And if the man and the woman cannot pronounce the formula in correct Arabic, they can pronounce the Nikah in any other language, and it is not necessary to appoint any

371

representatives. But the words used in translation must convey strictly the meaning of “Zawwajtu” and “Qabiltu”. (ii) The man and the woman, or their representatives, who recite the Nikah, should have the intention of Insha’ (i.e. reciting it in a creative sense, making it effective immediately). In other words, if the man and the woman themselves pronounce the formula, the intention of the woman by saying: Zawwajtuka nafsi’ should be that she effectively makes herself the wife of the man; and by saying: “Qablitut tazwija” the man effectively accepts her as his wife. And if the representatives of the man and the woman pronounce the Nikah, their intention by saying: ‘Zawwajtu’ and ‘Qablitu’ should be that the man and the woman, who have appointed them as their representatives, have effectively become husband and wife. (iii) The person who pronounces the Nikah (whether he pronounces it for himself or has been engaged by some other person as his representative) should be sane, and as a precaution, he should be baligh [of mature age] also. (iv) If the Nikah is pronounced by the representatives or the guardians of the man and the woman, they should identify the man and the woman by uttering their names or making intelligible signs towards them. Hence, if a person has more than one daughter, and he says to a man: Zawwajtuka Ihda Banati (i.e. I have given away one of my daughters to you as your wife) and the man says: Qabiltu (i.e. I have accepted) the marriage contract is void, because the daughter has not been identified. (v) The woman and the man should be willing to enter into a matrimonial alliance. If, however, the woman ostensibly displays hesitation while giving her consent, but it is known that in her heart, she is agreeable to the marriage, the marriage is in order. 2380. If, while reciting the Nikah, even one word is pronounced incorrectly, as a result of which its meaning is changed, the marriage contract would be void. 2381. If a person pronouncing Nikah comprehends its general meaning, and has a clear intention of effecting that meaning, the Nikah will be valid. It is not necessary for him to know the exact meaning of each word, or to know the laws of Arabic grammar. 2382. If Nikah of a woman is pronounced to a man without her consent, but later both man and woman endorse the Nikah, the marriage is in order. 2383. If the woman and the man, or any one of them, is coerced into matrimony, and they give consent after the Nikah has been pronounced, the marriage is in order, although it is better that the Nikah be repeated. 2384. The father and the paternal grandfather can contract a marriage on behalf of his minor son or daughter, or on behalf of an insane son or daughter, if they are baligh. And after the children have become baligh or the insane has become sane, he can endorse or abrogate it, if the contracted marriage involves any moral lapse or scandal. And if the marriage contract does not involve any moral lapse or scandal, but the na-baligh son or daughter calls off the marriage, then

372

as an obligatory precaution, a Talaq or a renewed Nikah, whatever the case may be, must be recited. 2385. If a girl has reached the age of baligh and is virgin and mature (i.e. she can decide what is in her own interest) wishes to marry, she should, obtain permission from her father or paternal grandfather, although she may be looking after her own affairs. It is not, however, necessary for her to obtain permission from her mother or brother. 2386. In the following situations, it will not be necessary for a woman to seek the permission of her father or paternal grandfather, before getting married: (i) If she is not a virgin. (ii) If she is a virgin, but her father or paternal grandfather refuse to grant permission to her for marrying a man who is compatible to her in the eyes of Shari’ahh, as well as custom. (iii) If the father and the grandfather are not in any way willing to participate in the marriage. (iv) If they are not in a capacity to give their consent, like in the case of mental illness etc. (v) If it is not possible to obtain their permission because of their absence, or such other reasons, and the woman is eager to get married urgently. 2387. If the father or the paternal grandfather contracts marriage on behalf of his non-baligh son, the boy, upon attaining baligh, should pay maintenance of his wife. In fact, he should start paying her maintenance before becoming baligh, when he is able to consummate the marriage. And the wife should not be too young to have any sexual relation with the husband. And in the situation other than these, there is a strong indication that she is entitled to maintenance from the husband, therefore a compromise should be carried out as a precaution. 2388. If the father or the paternal grandfather contracts a marriage on behalf of his non-baligh son, they should pay the Mahr if the boy does not own any means, or if either of them undertakes to pay the Mahr himself. In other situations, the father or the paternal grandfather can pay Mahr from the boy’s wealth, but it should not exceed the proper usual Mahr customarily given in similar cases. But if the circumstances demand that higher Mahr be paid, they can pay it from the boy’s wealth, and not otherwise, unless the boy approves it after having become baligh.

Occasions When Husband or Wife Can Nullify Nikah 2389. If the husband comes to know after Nikah that his wife had, at the time of Nikah, any one of the following six deficiencies, he can annul the marriage: (i) Insanity, even if it is intermittent. (ii) Leprosy

373

(iii) Leucoderma (iv) Blindness (v) Being crippled, even if it is not to the extent of immobility. (vi) Presence of flesh or a bone in the woman’s uterus, which may or may not obstruct sexual intercourse or pregnancy. And if the husband finds that the wife at the time of Nikah, suffered from ‘Ifdha’ - meaning that her urinary and menstrual tract have been one, or her menstrual passage and rectum have been one, he cannot annul the marriage. As an obligatory precaution, he will have to pronounce talaq if he wants to dissolve the marriage. 2390. A woman can annul the Nikah in the following cases, without obtaining divorce: (i) If she comes to know that her husband has no male organ. (ii) If she finds that his penis has been cut off before or after the sexual intercourse. (iii) If he suffers from a disease which disables him from sexual intercourse, even if that disease was contracted after the Nikah, or before or after the sexual intercourse. 2390. In the following situations, if a wife refuses to continue with the matrimony and wishes to dissolve the marriage, then as a matter of precaution, the husband or his guardian will solemnize the divorce: (i) If she comes to know after the Nikah, that the husband was insane at the time of Nikah; or if he becomes insane after the Nikah, before or after consummation of the marriage. (ii) If she finds out that at the time of Nikah, the husband had been castrated. (iii) If she learns that he suffered at the time of Nikah from leprosy or leucoderma. Note: And if the husband is incapable of sexual intercourse, and she wishes to annul the marriage, it will be necessary for her to approach the Mujtahid708 or his representative, who may allow the husband a period of one year, and if it is found that he was not able to have sexual intercourse with her or with any other woman, the wife can annul the marriage. 2391. If the wife annuls the marriage because of the husband’s inability to have sexual intercourse, the husband should give her half of her Mahr. But, if the man or the wife annuls the marriage because of one of the other deficiencies enumerated above, and if the marriage has not been consummated, he will not be liable for anything. But if the marriage was consummated, he should pay her full Mahr. If the husband annuls the marriage due to the deficiencies mentioned in rule 2389, he will not be liable for anything if he has not had sexual intercourse with her. But if he has had sexual relation with her, then he has to pay full Mahr. 708

An Islamic scholar, particularly, one who researches answers to questions on the nature of Islam and its application to life. May have authority to decide legal matters.

374

Women With Whom Matrimony is Haraam 2393. Matrimonial relation is haraam with women who are one’s Mahram, for instance, mother, sister, daughter, paternal aunt, maternal aunt, niece (one’s brother's or sister’s daughter) and mother-in-law. 2394. If a man marries a woman, then her mother, her maternal grandmother, her paternal grandmother and all the women as the line ascends are his Mahram, even if he may not have had sexual intercourse with the wife. 2395. If a person marries a woman, and has sexual intercourse with her, the daughters and granddaughters (daughters of sons, or of daughters) of the wife and their descendants, as the line goes low, become his Mahram, irrespective of whether they existed at the time of his marriage, or were born later. 2396. If a man marries a woman, but does not have sexual intercourse with her, the obligatory precaution is that as long as their marriage lasts, he should not marry her daughter. 2397. The paternal and maternal aunt of a man, and the paternal and maternal aunt of his father, and the paternal and maternal aunt of his paternal grandfather, and the paternal and maternal aunt of his mother, and the paternal and maternal aunt of his maternal grandmother, as the line ascends, are all his Mahram. 2398. The husband’s father and grandfather, however high, are the wife’s Mahram. Similarly the husband’s sons and the grandsons (son of his sons or of daughters), however low, are her Mahram, regardless of whether they existed at the time of her marriage or were born afterwards. 2399. If a man marries a woman (whether the marriage be permanent or temporary) he cannot marry her sister, as long as she is his wife. 2400. If a person gives a revocable divorce to his wife, in the manner which will be explained under the rules relating to ‘Divorce’, he cannot marry her sister during the Iddah. But if it is an irrevocable divorce, he can marry her sister. And if it is the Iddah of temporary marriage, the obligatory precaution is that one should not marry his wife’s sister during that period. 2401. A man cannot marry the niece (brother’s or sister’s daughter) of his wife without her permission. But if he marries his nieces without his wife’s permission, and she later consents to the marriage, it will be in order. 2402. If the wife learns that her husband has married her niece (brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter) and keeps quiet, and if she later consents to that marriage, it will be in order. If she does not consent later, the marriage will be void. 2403. If before marrying his maternal or paternal aunt’s daughter, a person commits incest (sexual intercourse) with her mother, he cannot marry that girl on the basis of precaution.

375

2404. If a person marries his paternal or maternal aunt’s daughter, and after having consummated the marriage, commits incest with her mother, this act will not become the cause of their separation. And the same rule applies if he commits incest with her mother after the Nikah, but before having consummated the marriage with her, although the recommended precaution is that in this circumstance he should separate from her by giving her divorce. 2405. If a person commits fornication with a woman other than his paternal or maternal aunt, the recommended precaution is that he should not marry her daughter. In fact, if he marries a woman, and commits fornication with her mother before having sexual intercourse with her, the recommended precaution is that he should separate from her, but if he has sexual intercourse with her, and thereafter commits fornication with her mother, it is not necessary for him to get separated from her. 2406. A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim, and a male Muslim also cannot marry a non-Muslim woman who is not Ahlul Kitab709. However, there is no harm in contracting temporary marriage with Jewish and Christian women, but the obligatory precaution is that a Muslim should not take them in permanent marriage. There are certain sects like Khawarij, Ghulat and Nawasib who claim to be Muslims, but are classified as non-Muslims. Muslim men and women cannot contract permanent or temporary marriage with them. 2407. If a person commits fornication with a woman who is in the Iddah of her revocable divorce, as a precaution that woman becomes haraam for him. And if he commits fornication with a woman who is in the Iddah of temporary marriage, or of irrevocable divorce, or in the Iddah of death, he can marry her afterwards, although the recommended precaution is that he should not marry her. The meaning of revocable divorce and irrevocable divorce, and Iddah of temporary marriage, and Iddah of death, will be explained under the rules relating to ‘Divorce’. 2408. If a person commits fornication with an unmarried woman and who is not in Iddah, as a precaution, he cannot marry her till he has sought forgiveness from Allah, and repented. But if another person wishes to marry her before she has repented, there is no objection. If a woman is known as a lewd person, it will not be permissible to marry her till she has genuinely repented, and similarly, it is not permissible to marry a man known for his lustful character, till he has genuinely repented. If a man wishes to marry a woman of loose character, he should, as a precaution, wait till she becomes Pak from her menses, irrespective of whether he had committed fornication with her, or anyone else had done so. 2409. If a person contracts Nikah with a woman who is in the Iddah of another man, and if the man and the woman both know, or any one of them knows that the Iddah of the woman has not yet come to an end, and if they also know that marrying a woman during her Iddah is haraam, that woman will become haraam for the man forever, even if after the Nikah the man may not have had sexual intercourse with her.

709

People of the Book, that is Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.

376

2410. If a person contracts Nikah with a woman who is in the Iddah of another man, and has sexual intercourse with her, she becomes haraam for him forever even if he did not know that she was in her Iddah, or did not know that it is haraam to marry a woman during her Iddah. 2411. If a person marries a woman knowing that she has a husband, he should get separated from her, and should also not marry her at any time afterwards. And the same rule will apply, as a precaution, if he did not know that the woman was already married, and had sexual intercourse with her after Nikah. 2412. If a married woman commits adultery, she on the basis of precaution, becomes haraam permanently for the adulterer, but does not become haraam for her husband. And if she does not repent, and persists in her action (i.e. continues to commit adultery), it will be better that her husband divorces her, though he should pay her Mahr. 2413. In the case of the woman who has been divorced, or a woman who contracted a temporary marriage and her husband forgoes the remaining period of marriage, or if the period of her temporary marriage ends, if she marries after some time, and then doubts whether at the time of her second marriage, the Iddah of her first husband had ended or not, she should ignore her doubt. 2414. If a baligh person commits sodomy with a boy, the mother, sister and daughter of the boy become haraam for him. And the same law applies when the person on whom sodomy is committed is an adult male, or when the person committing sodomy is non-baligh. But if one suspects or doubts whether penetration occurred or not, then the said woman would not become haraam. 2415. If a person marries the mother or sister of a boy, and commits sodomy with the boy after the marriage, as a precaution, they will become haraam for him. 2416. If a person who is in the state of Ehram (which is one of the acts to be performed during Hajj) marries a woman, the Nikah is void, and if he knew that it was haraam for him to marry in the state of Ehram, he cannot marry that woman again. 2417. If a woman who is in the state of Ehram marries a man who is not in the state of Ehram, her Nikah is void. And if she knew that it was haraam to marry in the state of Ehram, as an obligatory precaution, she should not marry that man thereafter. 2418. If a man does not perform Tawafun Nisa (which is one of the acts to be performed during Hajj and Umrah Mufradah) his wife and other women become haraam for him. Also, if a woman does not perform Tawafun Nisa, her husband and other men become haraam for her. But, if they (man or woman) perform Tawafun Nisa later, they become halal. 2419. If a person contracts Nikah with a non-baligh girl, it is haraam to have sexual intercourse before she has completed her nine years. But if he commits sexual intercourse with her, she will not be haraam for him when she becomes baligh, even if she may have suffered Ifza (which has been described in rule 2389), though as a precaution, he should divorce her.

377

2420. A woman who is divorced three times becomes haraam for her husband. But, if she marries another man, subject to the conditions which will be mentioned under the rules pertaining to ‘divorce’, her first husband can marry her again after her second husband dies, or divorces her, and she completes the period of Iddah.

Rules Regarding Permanent Marriage 2421. For a woman with whom permanent marriage is contracted, it is haraam to go out of the house without the permission of her husband, though her leaving may not violate the rights of the husband. Also she should submit herself to his sexual desires, and should not prevent him from having sexual intercourse with her, without justifiable excuse. And as long as she does not fail in her duties, it is obligatory on the husband to provide for her food, clothes and housing. And if he does not provide the same, regardless of whether he is able to provide them or not, he remains indebted to the wife. 2422. If the wife does not fulfill her matrimonial duties towards her husband, she will not be entitled for the food, clothes or housing, even if she continues to live with him. But if she refuses to obey occasionally, the common verdict is that even then she cannot claim any entitlement from her husband. But this verdict is a matter of Ishkal710. In any case, there is no doubt that she does not forfeit her Mahr. 2423. Man has no right to compel his wife to render household services. 2424. The traveling expenses incurred by the wife must be borne by the husband, if they exceed her expenses at home, and if she had traveled with the husband’s permission. But the fares for travel by car or by air etc. and other expenses, which are necessary for a journey, will be borne by the wife, except when the husband is himself inclined to take her along with him on a journey, in which case he will bear her expenses also. 2425. If the husband, who is responsible for the wife’s maintenance, does not provide her the same, she can draw her expenses from his property without his permission. And if this is not possible, and she is obliged to earn her livelihood, and she cannot take her case to the Mujtahid, who would compel him (even by threatening him with imprisonment) to pay the maintenance, it will not be obligatory upon her to obey her husband while she is engaged in earning her livelihood. 2426. If a man, for example, has two wives and spends one night with one of them, it is obligatory on him to spend anyone of four nights with the other as well; in situation other than this, it is not obligatory on a man to stay with his wife. Of course, it is necessary that he should not totally forsake living with the wife. And as a precaution, a man should spend one night out of every four with his permanent wife. 2427. It is not permissible for the husband to abandon sexual intercourse with his youthful, permanent wife for more than 4 months, except when sexual intercourse is harmful to him, or 710

Literally, “problem,” “dilemma,” or “doubt.” From an Islamic perspective, this term applies to legal questions whose answers are not clear through research into the Koran and Sunnah.

378

involves unusually more effort, or when the wife herself agrees to avoid it, or if a prior stipulation to that effect was made at the time of Nikah by the husband. And in this rule, there is no difference between the situations when the husband is present, or on a journey, or whether she is a wife by permanent or temporary marriage. 2428. If Mahr is not fixed in a permanent marriage, the marriage is in order. And in such case, if the husband has sexual intercourse with the wife, he should pay her proper Mahr which would be in accordance with the Mahr usually paid to women of her category. As regards temporary marriage, however, if Mahr is not fixed the marriage is void. 2429. If at the time of Nikah for permanent marriage, no time is fixed for paying Mahr, the wife can prevent her husband from having sexual intercourse with her before receiving Mahr, irrespective of whether the husband is or is not able to pay it. But if she once agrees to have sexual intercourse before taking Mahr, and her husband has sexual intercourse with her, then she cannot prevent him afterwards from having sexual intercourse without a justifiable excuse.

Marriage (Part II of II) Mut’ah (Temporary Marriage) 2430. Contracting a temporary marriage with a woman is in order, even if it may not be for the sake of any sexual pleasure. 2431. The obligatory precaution is that a husband should not avoid having sexual intercourse for more than four months with a wife of temporary marriage. 2432. If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, makes a condition that her husband will not have sexual intercourse with her, the marriage as well as the condition imposed by her will be valid, and the husband can then derive only other pleasures from her. However, if she agrees to sexual intercourse later, her husband can have sexual intercourse with her, and this rule applies to permanent marriage as well. 2433. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to subsistence even if she becomes pregnant. 2434. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband, and does not inherit from him, and the husband, too, does not inherit from her. However, if one or both lay down a condition regarding inheriting each other, such a stipulation is a matter of Ishkal as far as its validity is concerned, but even then, precaution should be exercised by putting it into effect. 2435. If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, did not know that she was not entitled to any subsistence and sharing her husband’s conjugal bed, still her marriage will be valid, and in spite of this lack of knowledge, she has no right to claim anything from her husband.

379

2436. If a wife of temporary marriage goes out of the house without the permission of her husband, and the right of the husband is in anyway violated, it is haraam for her to leave. And if the right of her husband remains protected, it is a recommended precaution that she should not leave the house without his permission. 2437. If a woman empowers a man that he may contract a temporary marriage with her for a fixed period, and against a specified amount of Mahr, and instead, that man contracts a permanent marriage with her, or contracts a temporary marriage with her without specifying the time or amount of Mahr, the marriage will be void. But if the woman consents to it on understanding the position, then the marriage will be valid. 2438. In order to become Mahram (with whom marriage contract becomes haraam and is treated to be one of the close relatives), a father or a paternal grandfather can contract the marriage of his non-baligh son or daughter with another person for a short period, provided that it does not involve any scandal or moral lapse. However, if they marry a minor boy or a girl who is not in anyway able to derive any sexual pleasure during the period from the spouse, then the validity of such a marriage is a matter of Ishkal. 2439. If the father or the paternal grandfather of an absent child marries it to someone for the sake of becoming Mahram, not knowing whether the child is alive or dead, the purpose will be achieved only if during the period fixed for marriage, the child can become capable of consummating marriage. If it later transpires that it was not alive at the time the marriage was contracted, it will be considered void, and the people who had apparently become Mahram will all become Na-Mahram. 2440. If a husband gifts the wife of Muta’h with the period of her temporary marriage, thus releasing her, and if he has had sexual intercourse with her, he should give her all the things he agreed to give her. And if he has not had sexual intercourse with her, it is obligatory on him to give her half the amount of Mahr, though the recommended precaution is that he should give her full amount of Mahr. 2441. If a man contracted a temporary marriage with a woman, and the period of her Iddah has not ended yet, he is allowed to contract a permanent marriage with her or renew a contract for temporary marriage with her.

Looking At Non-Mahram 2442. It is haraam for man to look at the body or hair of the Non-Mahram women, regardless of whether it is with the intention of pleasure or not, and whether there is a fear of falling into sinful act or not. It is also haraam to look at the faces and the arms, up to the wrists, of such women with the intention of pleasure, or if there is fear of falling into sinful act, and the recommended precaution is that one should not look at their faces or arms even without such an intention. Similarly, it is haraam for a woman to look at the body of Non-Mahram man, except places which are customarily not covered, like, his face, hands, head, neck and feet. She can look at these parts of a man without the intention of deriving any pleasure, or if there is no fear of being entrapped in any sinful act.

380

2443. To look at the body of a woman who would not care for Hijab, even if she were advised, is not haraam, provided that it does not lead to sinful act or sexual pleasure, and excitement, nor is it with that intention; and in this rule, there is no distinction between a Muslim and a non-Muslim woman; and also between those parts, like their faces, their hands which they normally do not cover, and other parts of their bodies. 2444. Woman should conceal her body and hair from a man who is non-Mahram, and as an obligatory precaution, she should conceal herself even from a non-baligh boy who is able to discern between good and evil, and could probably be sexually excited. But she can leave her face and hands up to wrists uncovered in the presence of non-Mahram, as long as it does not lead him to casting a sinful, evil glance or her to doing something forbidden; for in both these cases, she must cover them. 2445. It is haraam to look at the private parts of a baligh Muslim, even if it is seen behind the glass or reflected in the mirror, or clean water etc. As an obligatory precaution, it is also haraam to look at the genitals of a non-Muslim, and of a discerning non-baligh child. However, wife and her husband can look at the entire body of each other. 2446. If a man and woman, who are Mahram of each other, do not have the intention of sexual pleasure, they can see the entire body of each other excepting the private parts. 2447. A man should not look at the body of another man with the intention of sexual excitement, and also, it is haraam for a woman to look at the body of another woman with the intention of sexual excitement. 2448. A man who is acquainted with a Na-Mahram woman should not, as a precaution, look at her photograph etc., provided that the woman is not a heedless, commonplace person. 2449. If a woman wants to give an enema to another woman, or to a man other than her husband, or to clean her/his private parts with water, she should cover her hand with such a thing that her hand would not touch the private parts of the other woman or man. And the same applies to a man who wants to give an enema to another man or a woman other than his wife, or to clean his/her private parts with water. 2450. If a woman is rendered helpless by her disease, and if the only helpful treatment to her can be given by a male doctor, she can refer to him. And if that male doctor must look at her to be able to treat her, or to touch her for that matter, there is no objection. However, if he can treat her by looking at her, he should not touch her body, and if he can treat her by touching her body, he should not look at her. 2451. If a person is obliged to look at the private parts of a patient for his/her medical treatment, he should, on the basis of obligatory precaution, place a mirror opposite him/her and look into it. However, if there is no alternative but to look directly at his/her private parts, there is no objection. Similarly, if the duration of regarding the genitals in the mirror would be longer than looking at them directly, the latter method may be adopted.

381

Miscellaneous Rules Concerning Marriage 2452. If a person gets entangled in haraam acts owing to his not having a wife, it is obligatory for him to marry. 2453. If the husband makes it a condition before Nikah, that the woman should be a virgin, and it transpires after Nikah that she is not virgin, he can repudiate the marriage. However, he can deduct and take the difference between the Mahr usually paid for a virgin woman and the one who is not a virgin. 2454. It is haraam for a man and a woman who are not Mahrams, to be together at a private place where there is no one else, if it is feared to lead to immorality and scandal, even if it is a place where another person can easily arrive. But if there is no fear of any evil, there is no objection. 2455. If the man fixes the Mahr of the woman at the time of Nikah, but intends not to give it, the marriage contract is in order, but he will be indebted to her. 2456. A Muslim who renounces Islam and adopts a non-Muslim faith, is an apostate, and they are of two types: Fitri and Milli. Fitri apostate is one whose parents or one of them were Muslims when he was born, and he himself was also a Muslim, till after having reached the discerning age, and thereafter he converted to become a non-Muslim. A Milli is exactly the opposite. 2457. If a woman becomes an apostate after marriage, her marriage becomes void, and if her husband has not had sexual intercourse with her, she is not required to observe any Iddah. And the position will be the same if she apostatizes after sexual relation, but she had reached menopause (Ya’isa), or if she was a minor. And if she had not reached menopause, she should observe Iddah as will be explained in the rules of ‘divorce’. And it is commonly held that if she becomes a Muslim during her Iddah, her marriage remains intact. However, it is improbable that this should be valid, and therefore, precaution should not be abandoned. A Ya’isa is a woman who has reached 50 years of age, and because of that advanced age, stops seeing Haidh and does not expect to see it again in her life. 2458. If a man becomes a Fitri apostate after Nikah, his wife becomes haraam for him and she should observe Iddah of death in the manner which will be explained in the rules relating to ‘divorce’. 2459. If a man becomes a Milli apostate after Nikah, his marriage becomes void. And if he has not had sexual intercourse with his wife, or if she has reached menopause, or if she is a minor, she need not observe Iddah. But if he apostatizes after having sexual intercourse with his wife, who happens to be of the age of women who normally have menstrual discharge, she should observe Iddah of ‘divorce’ which will be mentioned under the rules relating to ‘divorce’. And it is commonly held that if her husband becomes a Muslim before the completion of her Iddah, their marriage remains intact. However, it is improbable that this be correct, but, precaution should not be abandoned.

382

2460. If the woman imposes a condition at the time of Nikah that her husband will not take her out of the town, and the man also accepts this condition, he should not take her out of that town against her will. 2461. If a woman has a daughter from her former husband, her second husband can marry that girl to his son, who is not from this wife. Also, if a person marries his son to a girl, he himself can marry the mother of that girl. 2462. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of fornication or adultery, it is not permissible for her to have an abortion. 2463. If a man commits fornication with a woman who has no husband, nor is she in any Iddah, and later marries her, and a child is born to them, and they do not know whether the child is the outcome of legitimate relation or otherwise, the child will be considered legitimate. 2464. If a man does not know that a woman is in her Iddah and marries her, and if the woman, too, does not know (that she is in her Iddah), and a child is born to them, the child is legitimate and according to Shari’ahh belongs to both of them. However, if the woman was aware that she was in her Iddah, and that during Iddah marriage is not permissible, the child according to Shari’ahh belongs to the father, and in either case their marriage is void, and they are haraam for each other. 2465. If a woman says that she has reached menopause, her word may not be accepted, but if she says that she does not have a husband, her word is acceptable, except when she is known to be unreliable, in which case, investigation will be necessary. 2466. If a man marries a woman after her assertion that she does not have a husband, and if some one claims later that she was his wife, his claim will not be heeded unless it is proved to be true according to Shari’ahh laws. 2467. Until a son or a daughter completes two years of his/her age, his/her father cannot separate him/her from his/her mother. And as a precaution, a child should not be separated from its mother till it is seven years of age. 2468. If a person proposing marriage is known for his virtues and faith, then it is recommended that his proposal should not be rejected. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is reported to have said: “Whenever you receive a proposal for marriage on your daughter from a man whose virtue and piety pleases you, then give her hand in his in marriage. For if you do not do this way, great scandals and lapses will fill the earth.” 2469. If a woman compromises her Mahr with her husband, on a condition that he will not marry another woman, it is obligatory upon him that he does not marry another woman, and that the wife should not claim her Mahr. 2470. If an illegitimate person marries, and a child is born to him, that child is legitimate.

383

2471. If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife during fast in the month of Ramadan or when she is in her menses, he commits a sin, but if a child is conceived, it is legitimate. 2472. If a woman who is sure that her husband died while on a journey, marries another man after completing the Iddah of death, (which will be explained in the rules relating to ‘divorce’) and later her first husband returns from journey, she should immediately separate herself from her second husband, and she will be halal for her first husband. But, if the second husband has had sexual intercourse with her, she should observe Iddah and the second husband should give her proper Mahr equal to that of the women similar to her category, but she is not entitled to subsistence during Iddah.

Rules Regarding Suckling a Child 2473. If a woman suckles a child with the conditions which will be mentioned in rule 2483, that child becomes Mahram of the following persons: (i) The woman herself (i.e. the woman who suckles it) and she is called Riza’i mother (milk mother). (ii) The husband of the woman (for the milk belongs to him); he is called Riza’i father (milk father). (iii) Father and mother of that woman and all in their upward line, even if they are milk father and milk mother. (iv) The children born of that woman, or those who are born to her later. (v) The children of the children of that woman, however low, regardless of whether they are born of her children or her children had suckled them. (vi) The sister and brother of that woman, even if they are her milk sister and milk brother. (vii) Paternal uncle and paternal aunt of that woman, even if they are by milk, i.e. suckling. (viii) Maternal uncle and maternal aunt of that woman, even if they are by milk i.e. suckling. (ix) The descendants of the husband of that woman, (to whom milk belongs) even if they may be his milk children. (x) Father and mother of that husband (to whom milk belongs), however high. (xi) Sister and brother of the husband, (to whom milk belongs) even if they may be his milk sister and brother. (xii) Paternal uncle and paternal aunt and maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the husband, (to whom milk belongs) however high, even if they are his milk uncles and aunts.

384

There are other persons also (details regarding whom will be given in the following rules) who become Mahram on account of sucking milk. 2474. If a woman suckles a child with the condition which will be mentioned in rule 2483, the father of the child cannot marry the daughters of that woman, but it is permissible for him to marry her milk daughters, although the recommended precaution is that he should not marry them. Moreover, he cannot marry the daughters of the husband also (to whom milk belongs), even if they may be his milk daughters. And if any one of them happens to be his wife already, his marriage becomes void. 2475. If a woman suckles a child with the conditions mentioned in rule 2483, the husband of that woman (to whom milk belongs) does not become Mahram of the sisters of that child, but the recommended precaution is that he should not marry them. Also, the relatives of the husband do not become Mahram of the sister and brother of that child. 2476. If a woman suckles a child, she does not become Mahram of the brothers of that child. Moreover, the relatives of that woman do not become Mahram of the brother and sister of the child suckled by her. 2477. If a person marries a woman who has suckled a girl fully, and if he has had sexual intercourse with her, he cannot marry that milk girl. 2478. If a person marries a girl, he cannot marry the woman who has suckled her fully. 2479. A man cannot marry a girl who has been suckled fully by his mother or paternal grandmother. Also, if his step-mother suckles a girl from the milk belonging to his father, he cannot marry that girl. And if a person contracts Nikah with a suckling girl, and thereafter, his mother or his paternal grandmother or his step-mother suckles that girl, the Nikah becomes void. 2480. A man cannot marry a girl who has been suckled fully by his sister, or by his brother’s wife. And the position is the same if that girl is suckled by that man’s niece (sister’s daughter or brother’s daughter) or the granddaughter of his sister or the granddaughter of his brother. 2481. If a woman suckles the child of her daughter i.e. her granddaughter, or grandson, the daughter will become haraam for her own husband, and the same applies if she suckles the child of the husband of her daughter from another wife. But if a woman suckles the child of her son, the wife of her son who is the mother of the suckling child, does not become haraam for her husband. 2482. If the step mother of a girl suckles the child of her husband, with the milk that belongs to the girl’s father, the girl becomes haraam for her husband regardless of whether the child is the offspring of that very girl or of some other woman.

Conditions of Suckling Which Causes to be Mahram

385

2483. The following are the eight conditions under which suckling child becomes the cause of being Mahram. (i) That the child sucks the milk of a woman who is alive. It is of no consequence if milk is drawn from the breast of a woman who is dead. (ii) That the milk of the woman should not be the product of fornication or adultery. Hence, if the milk for an illegitimate child is breastfed to another child, the latter will not become Mahram of anyone. (iii) That the child sucks milk directly from the breasts of the woman. Hence, if milk is poured into its mouth, it has no consequence. (iv) That the milk be pure and unadulterated. (v) That the milk be of one husband only. Hence, if a breast-feeding woman is divorced and then she marries another man by whom she becomes pregnant, if the milk of the first pregnancy still continues from the breast till she gives birth to the other child, and she feeds any child eight times with the milk from her first pregnancy before giving birth, and feeds the same child seven times with the milk from the second pregnancy, after giving birth, that child will not become Mahram of anyone. (vi) That the child does not throw up the milk due to illness. If it vomits the milk, the suckling has no effect. (vii) The suckling should be of such quantity that it could be said that the bones of the child were strengthened and the flesh allowed to grow. And if that cannot be ascertained, then if a child suckles for one full day and night, or if it suckles fifteen times to its fill, as will be explained later, it will be sufficient. But if it is known that in spite of the child having suckled for one full day and night, or for fifteen times, the milk has not had any effect on the bones and the growth of flesh of the child, then one should not ignore exercising the precaution. (viii) That the child should not have completed two years of his age, and, if it is suckled after it has completed two years of its age, it does not become Mahram of anyone. In fact, if, for example, it sucks milk eight times before completing its two years, and seven times after completing its two years, it does not become Mahram of anyone. But, if milk continues from the breast for more than two years since a woman gave birth to her child, and she suckles the child continuously, that child will become Mahram of those who have been mentioned above. 2484. It is necessary that the suckling child should not have taken any other food, or sucked milk from any other person, during one full day and night. However, it takes very little food, so little that one may not say that it has taken any food in between, there is no harm in it. Also, it should have suckled the milk of only one woman fifteen times, and during these fifteen times, it should not have sucked the milk of any other woman. And it should have sucked milk every time without a gap, though, if while suckling milk it pauses to breathe, or waits a little, in a manner that from the time it started till the end, it is taken as one suckling, there is no objection.

386

2485. If a woman suckles a child from the milk of her husband, and when she later marries another man, suckles another child from the milk of her second husband, those two children do not become Mahram of each other, although it is better that they do not marry each other. 2486. If a woman suckles several children from the milk of one husband, all of them become Mahram of one another, as well as of the husband, and of the woman who suckled them. 2487. If a man has more than one wife, and every one of them suckles a child in accordance with the conditions mentioned above, all those children become Mahram of one another, as well as of that man, and of all those wives. 2488. If a man has two nursing wives, and if, for example, one of them suckles the child eight times and the other suckles it seven times, the child does not become Mahram of any one of them. 2489. If a woman gives full milk to a boy and a girl from the milk of one husband, the sisters and brothers of that girl will not become Mahram of the sisters and brothers of that boy. 2490. A man cannot marry without the permission of his wife, those women who became her nieces (sister’s daughter or brother’s daughter) owing to the suckling of milk. Also, if a person commits sodomy with a boy, he cannot marry his milk daughter, sister, mother and paternal grandmother by means of sucking milk. This rule applies also in the situation where an active partner in sodomy is not baligh, or when the passive partner is baligh. 2491. A woman who suckles the brother of a person does not become Mahram of that person, although the recommended precaution is that he should not marry her. 2492. A man cannot marry two sisters even if they may be milk sisters, that is, they have become sisters by means of suckling milk. If he marries two women and understands later that they are sisters, if he married them at one and the same time, both the Nikah will be void. But if he did not marry them at one time, the first marriage will be valid, and the second will be void. 2493. If a woman suckles the following persons from her husband’s milk, her husband does not become haraam for her, although it is better to observe precaution. (i) Her own brother and sister. (ii) Her own paternal uncle and paternal aunt, and maternal uncle and maternal aunt. (iii) The descendants of her paternal uncle and her maternal uncle. (iv) Her nephew (brother’s son). (v) Brother or sister of her husband. (vi) Children of her sister, or children of her husband’s sister.

387

(vii) Paternal uncle and paternal aunt and maternal uncle and maternal aunt of her husband. (viii) Grand children of another wife of her husband. 2494. If a woman suckles the paternal aunt’s daughter, or maternal aunt’s daughter of a man, she (the woman who suckles) does not become Mahram of that man. However, the recommended precaution is that he should refrain from marrying that woman. 2495. If a man has two wives, and one of them suckles the paternal uncle’s son of the other wife, the wife who suckled does not become haraam for her husband.

How To Breast Feed A Child 2496. The child’s mother is the best person to suckle a child. It is better that she does not claim any award from her husband for suckling the child, although it is good that he should reward her for that. However, if the mother demands more payment for suckling than a wet-nurse, her husband can entrust the child to the wet-nurse. 2497. It is recommended that the wet-nurse, whose services are obtained for a child, should be Shia Ithna-Asheri, sane, chaste, and good looking; and it is Makrooh for a wet-nurse to be a nonShia Ithna-Asheri or ugly, ill-humoured or illegitimate. It is also Makrooh to entrust the child to a wet-nurse who has given birth to an illegitimate child.

Miscellaneous Rules Regarding Nursing a Child 2498. It is recommended that a woman avoids suckling any and every child, because it is possible that she may forget as to which of them she has suckled, and later the two persons, who are Mahram to each other, may contract marriage. 2499. It is recommended, if possible, that a child is suckled for full 21 months. And it is not preferred that it be suckled for more than two years. 2500. If the right of the husband is not in any way violated by suckling, a wife may suckle the child of another person without the permission of her husband. 2501. If a man contracts Nikah with a suckling girl, and the wife of that man suckles her, then it is considered that the wife becomes the mother-in-law of her husband, and therefore, becomes haraam for him. Although this consideration is not free from Ishkal, yet precaution should not be ignored. 2502. If a person wants that his sister-in-law (his brother’s wife) may become his Mahram, he may contract a temporary Nikah with a suckling girl, for example, for two days, and during those two days, the wife of his brother may suckle that girl as mentioned in rule no. 2483. By so doing, she will become his mother-in-law, and thus be Mahram. But if the woman suckles the girl from his brother’s milk, it is a matter of Ishkal.

388

2503. If a man says before marrying a woman, that the woman he is marrying is his milk sister, she is haraam for him, if his statement is verified as true. And if he says this after the marriage, and the woman also confirms his word, the marriage is void. Hence, if the man has not had sexual intercourse with her, or has had sexual intercourse but at the time of sexual intercourse the woman knew that she was haraam for him, she is not entitled to any Mahr. And if she learns after sexual intercourse that she was haraam for the man, the husband should pay her Mahr according to the usual Mahr of other women like her. 2504. If a woman says, before marriage, that she is haraam for a man because she is his milk sister, and if it is possible to verify her statement as true, she cannot marry that man. And if she says this after marriage, it is like the man saying after marriage that the woman is haraam for him, and the rule in this situation has been given in the foregoing clause. 2505. Suckling a child, which becomes the cause of being Mahram, can be established by the following two ways: (i) Information in this behalf by a number of persons whose word is reliable. (ii) Two just men testify to this fact. It is, however, necessary that they should also mention the conditions of suckling the child. For example, they should be able to say, “We have seen the child for twenty four hours, sucking milk from the breasts of a woman, and during this time he has not eaten anything else.” And similarly, they should also narrate in detail, the conditions which have been mentioned in rule no. 2483. Witness by one man or two or four women, even if they are Adil, is a matter of Ishkal for establishing that the child has suckled from a particular woman. 2506. If it is doubted whether or not a child has sucked the quantity of milk which becomes the cause of becoming Mahram, or if it is considered probable that it might have sucked that quantity of milk, the child does not become Mahram of anyone, though it is better to observe precaution.

389

Appendix C: Verses where the Koran attaches Allah’s will to Muhammad’s will The Cow •

[2.278] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Observe your duty to Allah, and give up what remaineth (due to you) from usury, if ye are (in truth) believers. [2.279] And if ye do not, then be warned of war (against you) from Allah and His messenger. And if ye repent, then ye have your principal (without interest). Wrong not, and ye shall not be wronged.

•

[2.285] PICKTHAL: The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.

The Family of Imran •

[3.179] PICKTHAL: It is not (the purpose) of Allah to leave you in your present state till He shall separate the wicked from the good. And it is not (the purpose of) Allah to let you know the Unseen. But Allah chooseth of His messengers whom He will, (to receive knowledge thereof). So believe in Allah and His messengers. If ye believe and ward off (evil), yours will be a vast reward.

The Women •

[4.13] PICKTHAL: These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where such will dwell for ever. That will be the great success. [4.14] And whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He will make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom.

•

[4.100] YUSUF ALI: He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah, finds in the earth Many a refuge, wide and spacious: Should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and His Messenger, His reward becomes due and sure with Allah: And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

•

[4.136] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime. Whoso disbelieveth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers and the Last Day, he verily hath wandered far astray.

390

•

[4.150] PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and seek to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between. [4.151] Such are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom. [4.152] But those who believe in Allah and His messengers and make no distinction between any of them, unto them Allah will give their wages; and Allah was ever Forgiving, Merciful.

The Dinner Table •

[5.33] PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

•

[5.55] PICKTHAL: Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer). [5.56] And whoso taketh Allah and His messenger and those who believe for guardian (will know that), lo! The party of Allah, they are the victorious.

The Elevated Places •

[7.158] PICKTHAL: Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all - (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no Allah save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that haply ye may be led aright.

The Accessions •

[8.1] PICKTHAL: They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.

•

[8.13] PICKTHAL: That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.

•

[8.20] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak).

•

[8.24] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and the messenger when He calleth you to that which quickeneth you, and know that Allah cometh in between the man and his own heart, and that He it is unto Whom ye will be gathered.

391

•

[8.46] PICKTHAL: And obey Allah and His messenger, and dispute not one with another lest ye falter and your strength departs from you; but be steadfast! Lo! Allah is with the steadfast.

The Immunity •

[9.1] YUSUF ALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:[9.2] Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. [9.3] And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, - that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

•

[9.16] YUSUF ALI: Or think ye that ye shall be abandoned, as though Allah did not know those among you who strive with might and main, and take none for friends and protectors except Allah, His Messenger, and the (community of) Believers? But Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do.

•

[9.24] YUSUF ALI: Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause; - then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious.

•

[9.29] PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute (tax, Jizya) readily, being brought low.

•

[9.59] YUSUF ALI: If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and had said, "Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon give us of His bounty: to Allah do we turn our hopes!" (that would have been the right course).

•

[9.61] PICKTHAL: And of them are those who vex the Prophet and say: He is only a hearer. Say: A hearer of good for you, who believeth in Allah and is true to the believers, and a mercy for such of you as believe. Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom. [9.62] They swear by Allah to you (Muslims) to please you, but Allah, with His messenger, hath more right that they should please Him if they are believers. [9.63] Know they not that whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, his verily is fire of hell, to abide therein? That is the extreme abasement.

392

[9.64] The hypocrites fear lest a surah should be revealed concerning them, proclaiming what is in their hearts. Say: Scoff (your fill)! Lo! Allah is disclosing what ye fear. [9.65] And if thou ask them (O Muhammad) they will say: We did but talk and jest. Say: Was it at Allah and His revelations and His messenger that ye did scoff? •

[9.71] PICKTHAL: And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise.

•

[9.74] YUSUF ALI: They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.

•

[9.80] PICKTHAL: Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

•

[9.84] PICKTHAL: And never (O Muhammad) pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave. Lo! They disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and they died while they were evil-doers.

•

[9.88] YUSUF ALI: But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper. [9.89] Allah hath prepared for them gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein: that is the supreme felicity. [9.90] And there were, among the desert Arabs (also), men who made excuses and came to claim exemption; and those who were false to Allah and His Messenger (merely) sat inactive. Soon will a grievous penalty seize the Unbelievers among them. [9.91] There is no blame on those who are infirm, or ill, or who find no resources to spend (on the cause), if they are sincere (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger: no ground (of complaint) can there be against such as do right: and Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

•

[9.94] YUSUF ALI: They will present their excuses to you when ye return to them. Say thou: "Present no excuses: we shall not believe you: Allah hath already informed us of the true state of matters concerning you: It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe: in the end will ye be brought back to Him Who knoweth what is hidden and what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did."

393

•

[9.107] PICKTHAL: And as for those who chose a place of worship out of opposition and disbelief, and in order to cause dissent among the believers, and as an outpost for those who warred against Allah and His messenger aforetime, they will surely swear: We purposed naught save good. Allah beareth witness that they verily are liars.

The Light •

[24.48] YUSUF ALI: When they are summoned to Allah and His messenger, in order that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come). [24.49] But if the right is on their side, they come to him with all submission. [24.50] Is it that there is a disease in their hearts? Or do they doubt, or are they in fear, that Allah and His Messenger will deal unjustly with them? Nay, it is they themselves who do wrong. [24.51] The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, “We hear and we obey”: it is such as these that will attain felicity. [24.52] It is such as obey Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah and do right, that will win (in the end),

•

[24.62] PICKTHAL: They only are the true believers who believe in Allah and His messenger and, when they are with him on some common errand, go not away until they have asked leave of him. Lo! Those who ask leave of thee, those are they who believe in Allah and His messenger. So, if they ask thy leave for some affair of theirs, give leave to whom thou wilt of them, and ask for them forgiveness of Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The Clans •

[33.12] PICKTHAL: And when the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, were saying: Allah and His messenger promised us naught but delusion.

•

[33.22] YUSUF ALI: When the Believers saw the Confederate forces, they said: “This is what Allah and his Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true.” And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience.

•

[33.29] PICKTHAL: But if ye desire Allah and His messenger and the abode of the Hereafter, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the good among you an immense reward. [33.30] O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah. [33.31] And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth right, We shall give her her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich provision. [33.32] O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech. [33.33] And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the

394

Time of Ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor-due, and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah’s wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing. •

[33.36] PICKTHAL: And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.

•

[33.57] YUSUF ALI: Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.

•

[33.71] PICKTHAL: He will adjust your works for you and will forgive you your sins. Whosoever obeyeth Allah and His messenger, he verily hath gained a signal victory.

The Victory •

[48.9] PICKTHAL: That ye (mankind) may believe in Allah and His messenger, and may honour Him, and may revere Him, and may glorify Him at early dawn and at the close of day.

•

[48.13] PICKTHAL: And so for him who believeth not in Allah and His messenger Lo! We have prepared a flame for disbelievers.

•

[48.17] PICKTHAL: There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.

The Chambers •

[49.1] YUSUF ALI: O Ye who believe! Put not yourselves forward before Allah and His Messenger; but fear Allah: for Allah is He Who hears and knows all things. [49.2] O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not. [49.3] Those that lower their voices in the presence of Allah’s Messenger, - their hearts has Allah tested for piety: for them is Forgiveness and a great Reward. [49.4] Those who shout out to thee from without the inner apartments - most of them lack understanding. [49.5] If only they had patience until thou couldst come out to them, it would be best for them: but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

•

[49.14] PICKTHAL: The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say “We submit,” for the faith hath not yet 395

entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [49.15] The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah. Such are the sincere.

The Iron •

[57.7] PICKTHAL: Believe in Allah and His messenger, and spend of that whereof He hath made you trustees; and such of you as believe and spend (aright), theirs will be a great reward.

•

[57.19] PICKTHAL: And those who believe in Allah and His messengers, they are the loyal, and the martyrs are with their Lord; they have their reward and their light; while as for those who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, they are owners of hell-fire.

•

[57.21] PICKTHAL: Race one with another for forgiveness from your Lord and a Garden whereof the breadth is as the breadth of the heavens and the earth, which is in store for those who believe in Allah and His messengers. Such is the bounty of Allah, which He bestoweth upon whom He will, and Allah is of Infinite Bounty.

•

[57.25] PICKTHAL: We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind may observe right measure; and He revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and (many) uses for mankind, and that Allah may know him who helpeth Him and His messengers, though unseen. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.

She Who Pleaded •

[58.3] PICKTHAL: Those who put away their wives (by saying they are as their mothers) and afterward would go back on that which they have said, (the penalty) in that case (is) the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. Unto this ye are exhorted; and Allah is Informed of what ye do. [58.4] And he who findeth not (the wherewithal), let him fast for two successive months before they touch one another; and for him who is unable to do so (the penance is) the feeding of sixty needy ones. This, that ye may put trust in Allah and His messenger. Such are the limits (imposed by Allah); and for disbelievers is a painful doom. [58.5] Lo! Those who oppose Allah and His messenger will be abased even as those before them were abased; and We have sent down clear tokens, and for disbelievers is a shameful doom.

•

[58.13] YUSUF ALI: Is it that ye are afraid of spending sums in charity before your private consultation (with him)? If, then, ye do not so, and Allah forgives you, then (at least) establish regular prayer; practice regular charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

396

•

[58.20] YUSUF ALI: Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be among those most humiliated. [58.21] Allah has decreed: “It is I and My messengers who must prevail”: For Allah is One full of strength, able to enforce His Will. [58.22] Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity.

The Banishment •

[59.4] YUSUF ALI: That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if any one resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in Punishment.

•

[59.8] PICKTHAL: And (it is) for the poor fugitives who have been driven out from their homes and their belongings, who seek bounty from Allah and help Allah and His messenger. They are the loyal.

The Mutual Deceit •

[64.8] PICKTHAL: So believe in Allah and His messenger and the light which We have revealed. And Allah is Informed of what ye do.

The Divorce •

[65.8] YUSUF ALI: How many populations that insolently opposed the Command of their Lord and of His messengers, did We not then call to account, - to severe account?and We imposed on them an exemplary Punishment.

The Jinn •

[72.23] PICKTHAL: (Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His messages; and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger, lo! His is fire of hell, wherein such dwell for ever.

397

Appendix D: Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights 21 Dhul Qaidah 1401 19 September 1981

This is a declaration for mankind, a guidance and instruction to those who fear God. (Al Qur’an, Al-Imran 3:138)

Foreword Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago. These rights aim at conferring honour and dignity on mankind and eliminating exploitation, oppression and injustice. Human rights in Islam are firmly rooted in the belief that God, and God alone, is the Law Giver and the Source of all human rights. Due to their Divine origin, no ruler, government, assembly or authority can curtail or violate in any way the human rights conferred by God, nor can they be surrendered. Human rights in Islam are an integral part of the overall Islamic order and it is obligatory on all Muslim governments and organs of society to implement them in letter and in spirit within the framework of that order. … This Declaration of Human Rights is the second fundamental document proclaimed by the Islamic Council to mark the beginning of the 15th Century of the Islamic era, the first being the Universal Islamic Declaration announced at the International Conference on The Prophet Muhammad…and his Message, held in London from 12 to 15 April 1980. … Paris 21 Dhul Qaidah 1401 Salem Azzam 19th September 1981 Secretary General O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all aware. (Al Qur’an, Al-Hujurat 49:13)

Preamble WHEREAS the age-old human aspiration for a just world order wherein people could live, develop and prosper in an environment free from fear, oppression, exploitation and deprivation, remains largely unfulfilled; WHEREAS the Divine Mercy unto mankind reflected in its having been endowed with superabundant economic sustenance is being wasted, or unfairly or unjustly withheld from the inhabitants of the earth;

398

WHEREAS Allah (God) has given mankind through His revelations in the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of His Blessed Prophet Muhammad an abiding legal and moral framework within which to establish and regulate human institutions and relationships; WHEREAS the human rights decreed by the Divine Law aim at conferring dignity and honour on mankind and are designed to eliminate oppression and injustice; WHEREAS by virtue of their Divine source and sanction these rights can neither be curtailed, abrogated or disregarded by authorities, assemblies or other institutions, nor can they be surrendered or alienated; Therefore we, as Muslims, who believe a) in God, the Beneficent and Merciful, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Sovereign, the sole Guide of mankind and the Source of all Law; b) in the Viceregency (Khilafah) of man who has been created to fulfill the Will of God on earth; c) in the wisdom of Divine guidance brought by the Prophets, whose mission found its culmination in the final Divine message that was conveyed by the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) to all mankind; d) that rationality by itself without the light of revelation from God can neither be a sure guide in the affairs of mankind nor provide spiritual nourishment to the human soul, and, knowing that the teachings of Islam represent the quintessence of Divine guidance in its final and perfect form, feel duty-bound to remind man of the high status and dignity bestowed on him by God; e) in inviting all mankind to the message of Islam; f) that by the terms of our primeval covenant with God our duties and obligations have priority over our rights, and that each one of us is under a bounden duty to spread the teachings of Islam by word, deed, and indeed in all gentle ways, and to make them effective not only in our individual lives but also in the society around us; g) in our obligation to establish an Islamic order: i) wherein all human beings shall be equal and none shall enjoy a privilege or suffer a disadvantage or discrimination by reason of race, colour, sex, origin or language; ii) wherein all human beings are born free; iii) wherein slavery and forced labour are abhorred; iv) wherein conditions shall be established such that the institution of family shall be preserved, protected and honoured as the basis of all social life; v) wherein the rulers and the ruled alike are subject to, and equal before, the Law; vi) wherein obedience shall be rendered only to those commands that are in consonance with the Law; vii) wherein all worldly power shall be considered as a sacred trust, to be exercised within the limits prescribed by the Law and in a manner approved by it, and with due regard for the priorities fixed by it; viii)wherein all economic resources shall be treated as Divine blessings bestowed upon mankind, to be enjoyed by all in accordance with the rules and the values set out in the Qur’an and the Sunnah;

399

ix) wherein all public affairs shall be determined and conducted, and the authority to administer them shall be exercised after mutual consultation (Shura) between the believers qualified to contribute to a decision which would accord well with the Law and the public good; x) wherein everyone shall undertake obligations proportionate to his capacity and shall be held responsible pro rata for his deeds; xi) wherein everyone shall, in case of an infringement of his rights, be assured of appropriate remedial measures in accordance with the Law; xii) wherein no one shall be deprived of the rights assured to him by the Law except by its authority and to the extent permitted by it; xiii)wherein every individual shall have the right to bring legal action against anyone who commits a crime against society as a whole or against any of its members; xiv)wherein every effort shall be made to: (a) secure unto mankind deliverance from every type of exploitation, injustice and oppression, (b) ensure to everyone security, dignity and liberty in terms set out and by methods approved and within the limits set by the Law; Do hereby, as servants of Allah and as members of the Universal Brotherhood of Islam, at the beginning of the Fifteenth Century of the Islamic Era, affirm our commitment to uphold the following inviolable and inalienable human rights that we consider are enjoined by Islam. Explanatory Notes 1 In the [following] formulation of Human Rights, unless the context provides otherwise: a) the term ‘person’ refers to both the male and female sexes. b) the term ‘Law’ denotes the Shari’ah, i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence. 2 Each one of the Human Rights enunciated in this declaration carries a corresponding duty. 3 In the exercise and enjoyment of the rights referred to above every person shall be subject only to such limitations as are enjoined by the Law for the purpose of securing the due recognition of, and respect for, the rights and the freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare of the Community (Ummah). The Arabic text of this Declaration is the original. I Right to Life a) Human life is sacred and inviolable and every effort shall be made to protect it. In particular no one shall be exposed to injury or death, except under the authority of the Law. b) Just as in life, so also after death, the sanctity of a person’s body shall be inviolable. It is the obligation of believers to see that a deceased person’s body is handled with due solemnity. II Right to Freedom a) Man is born free. No inroads shall be made on his right to liberty except under the authority and in due process of the Law.

400

b) Every individual and every people has the inalienable right to freedom in all its forms⎯ physical, cultural, economic and political — and shall be entitled to struggle by all available means against any infringement or abrogation of this right; and every oppressed individual or people has a legitimate claim to the support of other individuals and/or peoples in such a struggle. III Right to Equality and Prohibition Against Impermissible Discrimination a) All persons are equal before the Law and are entitled to equal opportunities and protection of the Law. b) All persons shall be entitled to equal wage for equal work. c) No person shall be denied the opportunity to work or be discriminated against in any manner or exposed to greater physical risk by reason of religious belief, colour, race, origin, sex or language. IV Right to Justice a) Every person has the right to be treated in accordance with the Law, and only in accordance with the Law. b) Every person has not only the right but also the obligation to protest against injustice; to recourse to remedies provided by the Law in respect of any unwarranted personal injury or loss; to self-defense against any charges that are preferred against him and to obtain fair adjudication before an independent judicial tribunal in any dispute with public authorities or any other person. c) It is the right and duty of every person to defend the rights of any other person and the community in general (Hisbah). d) No person shall be discriminated against while seeking to defend private and public rights. e) It is the right and duty of every Muslim to refuse to obey any command which is contrary to the Law, no matter by whom it may be issued. V Right to Fair Trial a) No person shall be adjudged guilty of an offence and made liable to punishment except after proof of his guilt before an independent judicial tribunal. b) No person shall be adjudged guilty except after a fair trial and after reasonable opportunity for defense has been provided to him. c) Punishment shall be awarded in accordance with the Law, in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and with due consideration of the circumstances under which it was committed. d) No act shall be considered a crime unless it is stipulated as such in the clear wording of the Law. e) Every individual is responsible for his actions. Responsibility for a crime cannot be vicariously extended to other members of his family or group, who are not otherwise directly or indirectly involved in the commission of the crime in question. VI Right to Protection Against Abuse of Power Every person has the right to protection against harassment by official agencies. He is not liable to account for himself except for making a defense to the charges made against him or where he is found in a situation wherein a question regarding suspicion of his involvement in a crime could be reasonably raised.

401

VII Right to Protection Against Torture No person shall be subjected to torture in mind or body, or degraded, or threatened with injury either to himself or to anyone related to or held dear by him, or forcibly made to confess to the commission of a crime, or forced to consent to an act which is injurious to his interests. VIII Right to Protection of Honour and Reputation Every person has the right to protect his honour and reputation against calumnies, groundless charges or deliberate attempts at defamation and blackmail. IX Right to Asylum a) Every persecuted or oppressed person has the right to seek refuge and asylum. This right is guaranteed to every human being irrespective of race, religion, colour and sex. b) Al Masjid Al Haram (the sacred house of Allah) in Mecca is a sanctuary for all Muslims. X Rights of Minorities a) The Qur’anic principle “There is no compulsion in religion” shall govern the religious rights of non-Muslim minorities. b) In a Muslim country religious minorities shall have the choice to be governed in respect of their civil and personal matters by Islamic Law, or by their own laws. XI Right and Obligation to Participate in the Conduct and Management of Public Affairs a) Subject to the Law, every individual in the community (Ummah) is entitled to assume public office. b) Process of free consultation (Shura) is the basis of the administrative relationship between the government and the people. People also have the right to choose and remove their rulers in accordance with this principle. XII Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech a) Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports which may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons. b) Pursuit of knowledge and search after truth is not only a right but a duty of every Muslim. c) It is the right and duty of every Muslim to protest and strive (within the limits set out by the Law) against oppression even if it involves challenging the highest authority in the state. d) There shall be no bar on the dissemination of information provided it does not endanger the security of the society or the state and is confined within the limits imposed by the Law. e) No one shall hold in contempt or ridicule the religious beliefs of others or incite public hostility against them; respect for the religious feelings of others is obligatory on all Muslims. XIII Right to Freedom of Religion Every person has the right to freedom of conscience and worship in accordance with his religious beliefs. XIV Right to Free Association

402

a) Every person is entitled to participate individually and collectively in the religious, social, cultural and political life of his community and to establish institutions and agencies meant to enjoin what is right (ma’roof) and to prevent what is wrong (munkar). b) Every person is entitled to strive for the establishment of institutions whereunder an enjoyment of these rights would be made possible. Collectively, the community is obliged to establish conditions so as to allow its members full development of their personalities. XV The Economic Order and the Rights Evolving Therefrom a) In their economic pursuits, all persons are entitled to the full benefits of nature and all its resources. These are blessings bestowed by God for the benefit of mankind as a whole. b) All human beings are entitled to earn their living according to the Law. c) Every person is entitled to own property individually or in association with others. State ownership of certain economic resources in the public interest is legitimate. d) The poor have the right to a prescribed share in the wealth of the rich, as fixed by Zakah, levied and collected in accordance with the Law. e) All means of production shall be utilized in the interest of the community (Ummah) as a whole, and may not be neglected or misused. f) In order to promote the development of a balanced economy and to protect society from exploitation, Islamic Law forbids monopolies, unreasonable restrictive trade practices, usury, the use of coercion in the making of contracts & the publication of misleading advertisements. g) All economic activities are permitted provided they are not detrimental to the interests of the community (Ummah) and do not violate Islamic laws and values. XVI Right to Protection of Property No property may be expropriated except in the public interest and on payment of fair and adequate compensation. XVII Status and Dignity of Workers Islam honours work and the worker and enjoins Muslims not only to treat the worker justly but also generously. He is not only to be paid his earned wages promptly, but is also entitled to adequate rest and leisure. XVIII Right to Social Security Every person has the right to food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care consistent with the resources of the community. This obligation of the community extends in particular to all individuals who cannot take care of themselves due to some temporary or permanent disability. XIX Right to Found a Family and Related Matters a) Every person is entitled to marry, to found a family and to bring up children in conformity with his religion, traditions and culture. Every spouse is entitled to such rights and privileges and carries such obligations as are stipulated by the Law. b) Each of the partners in a marriage is entitled to respect and consideration from the other. c) Every husband is obligated to maintain his wife and children according to his means. d) Every child has the right to be maintained and properly brought up by its parents, it being forbidden that children are made to work at an early age or that any burden is put on them which would arrest or harm their natural development.

403

e) If parents are for some reason unable to discharge their obligations towards a child it becomes the responsibility of the community to fulfill these obligations at public expense. f) Every person is entitled to material support, as well as care and protection, from his family during his childhood, old age or incapacity. Parents are entitled to material support as well as care and protection from their children. g) Motherhood is entitled to special respect, care and assistance on the part of the family and the public organs of the community (Ummah). h) Within the family, men and women are to share in their obligations and responsibilities according to their sex, their natural endowments, talents and inclinations, bearing in mind their common responsibilities toward their progeny and their relatives. i) No person may be married against his or her will, or lose or suffer diminution of legal personality on account of marriage. XX Rights of Married Women Every married woman is entitled to: a) live in the house in which her husband lives; b) receive the means necessary for maintaining a standard of living which is not inferior to that of her spouse, and, in the event of divorce, receive during the statutory period of waiting (iddah) means of maintenance commensurate with her husband’s resources, for herself as well as for the children she nurses or keeps, irrespective of her own financial status, earnings, or property that she may hold in her own rights; c) seek and obtain dissolution of marriage (Khul’a) in accordance with the terms of the Law. This right is in addition to her right to seek divorce through the courts. d) inherit from her husband, her parents, her children & other relatives according to the Law; e) strict confidentiality from her spouse, or ex-spouse if divorced, with regard to any information that he may have obtained about her, the disclosure of which could prove detrimental to her interests. A similar responsibility rests upon her in respect of her spouse or ex-spouse. XXI Right to Education a) Every person is entitled to receive education in accordance with his natural capabilities. b) Every person is entitled to a free choice of profession and career and to the opportunity for the full development of his natural endowments. XXII Right of Privacy Every person is entitled to the protection of his privacy. XXIII Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence a) In view of the fact that the World of Islam is veritably Ummah Islamia, every Muslim shall have the right to freely move in and out of any Muslim country. b) No one shall be forced to leave the country of his residence, or be arbitrarily deported therefrom without recourse to due process of Law.

404

Appendix E: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.”

PREAMBLE Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

405

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights & obligations & of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. 406

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement & residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from nonpolitical crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience & religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

407

Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

408

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

409

Glossary of Arabic, Ottoman, and Islamic Terms AAQILAH – An arrangement of mutual help or indemnification customary in some tribes at the time of Muhammad, from which the modern concept of Takaful is derived. It involves the sharing of surplus (profit) and loss. AFIQIH – Literally, “one who comprehends” (the application of Islam to life). A leading scholar of one of the schools of Islamic thought and jurisprudence. ALLAH – Islam’s interpretation of God. While “Allah” is the general term used in the Arabic language for “God,” by Christians as well as Muslims, it is useful to keep the term distinct from “God” because its usage in the English language is exclusively Islamic, and the Islamic interpretation of God is quite different from that of the Christians and Jews who speak the English language. ANSAR – Helpers. AYAH – Literally, “sign;” used when referring to a verse from the Koran. It is called this because each verse is considered to be a sign of Allah. The plural of ayah is ayat. Also spelled aya. AYATOLLAH – Literally, “Sign of God.” The title of a leading Shiite cleric. Also referred to as Ayatullah. BALIGH – Of sexually mature age. The generally accepted age of baligh according to Islam is nine years. CALIPH – Literally, “successor.” For Muslims, it is title given to one considered a “successor to the Prophet.” The religious and political ruler of the Sunni Muslims, particularly in a caliphate. Also referred to as Calif, Kaliph, Kalif, Khalif, Khalifa, and Kahlifah. CALIPHATE – A government lead by a Caliph. DA’IMA – Permanent wife. DAR AL-HARB – The House of War. This is a reference to any territory that is not under the rule of an Islamic government. DAR AL-ISLAM – The House of Islam, which is sometimes translated further as the House of Peace, but is more accurately translated as the House of Submission. It is the territory under the rule of an Islamic government. DHIKR – An Islamic prayer, considered to be a remembrance of Allah, which consists of a repeated set of Koranic verses.

410

DEVSHIRME – Fresh blood tax, levied by the Ottoman Empire to create and maintain the Janissary Corps. Also referred to as devsirme. DHIMMI – A “protected” non-Muslim living in the House of Islam, who pays special taxes known as Jizya that Muslims do not pay, is excluded from the military, is prevented from owning weapons, and has little or no legal weight when providing testimony that conflicts with the testimony of Muslims. Plural used in this book: Dhimmis. Also referred to as Zimmi. DHIMMAH – Collective term for the Dhimmi population within the House of Islam. More properly, they are referred to as Ahl al-dhimmah. FATWA – A ruling, issued by a recognized Islamic religious authority, on the interpretation of Islamic Law, or on a particular legal question, or on the application of Islamic Law to events. FIQH – Literally, “to comprehend.” As applied to Islam, this term means: to comprehend Islam’s application to daily life through study of the Koran and Sunnah. Fiqh is a prerequisite to the development of Shari’ah. Also referred to as Fiqih. FITRI – An Apostate from Islam who was born to Muslim parents, and therefore born Muslim. GHARAR – Any major uncertainty about a contract’s subject matter or the rights & liabilities of its parties. Gharar is linked with gambling by Shari’ah and is thus considered haraam. HADITH – An account of Muhammad’s words and actions, attested to by eye-witnesses. The proper Arabian plural for hadith is ahadith. A compilation of ahadith is called Hadith, and the discipline of its study is also called Hadith. Also referred to as Hadeeth. The nature of Hadith is controversial because it consists of numerous books whose authenticity Muslims debate. For example, the Hadith considered authoritative by Sunnis are Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik’s Muwatta, while the Hadith considered authoritative by Shiites are Al-Tahzeeb, Al-Kafi , Al-IsTibSar , and mun la YahDuruhu Al-faqeeh. Other books of Hadith also exist. HAJJ – Arabic term for “Pilgrimage.” For Muslims, a Hajj is a pilgrimage to Mecca that takes place specifically during the 12th month of the Islamic lunar calendar, known as Dhul Hijjah, and thereby participates in special rituals performed only during that month. HAJJI – Arabic term for “Pilgrim,” specifically one who has completed a Hajj. Used as an honorary term. HALAAL – Permissible; particularly, actions considered permissible according to Shari’ah. Also referred to as Halal. HALALA – According to Wikipedia: (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Halala)

411

Shia and much Sunni jurisprudence of Sharia disallows a couple remarrying after having been through three divorces. Some Sunni schools view a triple talaq, when the husband saying “I divorce you” three times in a row, as equivalent to three single talaq. Other Sunnis and Shia treat that as a single divorce, arguing that Muhammad did so and Umar having no authority to change that (Muslim 3491, 3492). Theoretically couples cannot remarry until the ex-wives marry another man, to ensure that divorce is not taken lightly. However there is a legal stratagem that can be used to allow remarriage for couples who repent their decision to separate. It requires the former wife to marry somebody else (and sometimes have sexual intercourse in between). Usually this is achieved by marriage with somebody who agrees to help the couple. Shia use Nikah Mut’ah [temporary marriage]. In Sunni jurisprudence, they need to engage in a Nikah with the intention of divorcing as soon as sexual intercourse takes place. This sort of marriage is referred to as Nikah Halala. As can be easily imagined the whole process is fraught with emotional turmoil. After iddah is observed, the original couple may remarry. Nikah Halala is used mainly in countries that recognize the triple talaq. Also referred to as Halalah.

HARAAM – Forbidden; particularly, forbidden by Shari’ah. Also referred to as Haram. HIJRAH – Literally, “migration.” From an Islamic perspective, this term specifically refers to the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina in 622, to escape hostile Meccan tribes and establish Muhammad’s governance of Medina. The Muslim calendar begins in the year of this migration. HISBAH - Public vigilance, an institution of the Islamic State used to observe and enforce Islamic norms of public behavior. Actions can be initiated by both private individuals and socalled Morality Police. HUDD – The most serious category of crime in Shari’ah, which may be punished with the most extreme punishments, including death and amputation. While the specific punishments for Hudd crimes may vary from country to country, the following summarizes those used by the Ottoman Empire, which is today often romanticized as an “ideal” Islamic state by Sunnis: (1) For adultery, stoning; (2) For fornication, a hundred stripes; (3) For the false accusation of a married person with adultery (or Qazf), eighty stripes; (4) For apostasy, death; (5) For drinking wine, eighty stripes; (6) For theft, the cutting off the right hand; (7) For highway robbery; for simple robbery or the Highway, the loss of hands and feet; for robbery with murder, death, either by the sword of by crucifixion. (source: A Dictionary of Islam, by Thomas Patrick Hughes, London, W.H. Allen & CO., 1895) Also referred to as Hadd. Its plural is Hudud or Hudood. Item (3) deserves special attention because of the harsh implications it has on women who accuse men of raping them but cannot produce four male witnesses to support their claim. It is derived from the following hadith: 412

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4452:711…A man of Bakr ibn Layth came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and made confession four times that he had committed fornication with a woman [who presumably was married], so he had a hundred lashes administered to him. The man had not been married. He then asked him to produce proof against the woman, and she said: I swear by Allah, Apostle of Allah, that he has lied. Then he was given the punishment of eighty lashes of falsehood.

HUDUD – The Islamic penal code that defines punishment for the most severe crimes, categorized as Hudd. It is also the plural of Hudd. Also referred to as Hudood. IDDAH - The waiting period of a widowed or divorced woman during which she is not to remarry. Iddah may also be observed in cases of Apostasy, because a Muslim is required to divorce a marriage partner who Apostatizes. IJTIHAD - The process studying the Koran and Hadith to derive a ruling on a specific issue. More generally, Ijtihad can be considered a scholarly inquiry into the application of divine law based on Islamic holy texts. INSYAALLAH – Arabic for “God willing,” or “If Allah wills it.” Also stated as Inshallah.

INTIQAL – The process through which blood from a human or animal becomes ritually clean (Pak) when an insect normally known to be bloodless ingests it. ISHKAL – Literally, “problem,” “dilemma,” or “doubt.” From an Islamic perspective, this term applies to legal questions whose answers are not clear through research into the Koran and Sunnah. JANISSARY – A military corps in of the Ottoman Empire comprised of Christian children taken from their families through a devshirme, or “fresh blood tax,” converted to Islam, and then used to wage war against Infidel nations. Janissaries were at times given high prestige and privilege, so that some Christian families, otherwise oppressed, sought to elevate their children through entrance into the Janissary Corps. JIHAD – Literally, “struggle” or “striving.” With regard to Islam, there is the “Greater Jihad,” meaning self-mastery in conforming oneself to Islam, and there is the “Lesser Jihad,” meaning the battle against injustice (disregard for Shari’ah). The “Lesser Jihad” often takes the form of war against Infidel nations or insurgency against rulers who does not respect Shari’ah. The Greater Jihad is also known as the Outward Jihad or the Outer Jihad, and the Lesser Jihad is also known as the Inward Jihad or the Inner Jihad. JIZYA – Special taxes that Dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects of the House of Islam) pay to Islamic authorities. KA’ABA – The most holy structure in Islam, toward which all Muslims face when they pray. It has a cube-like shape and is located in Mecca (Saudi Arabia). It is the destination of the Hajj, 711

A similar hadith can be found in Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4423.

413

which is the pilgrimage that each Muslim is to take at least once in a lifetime. It was reputedly built by Abraham and his son Ishmael as the world’s first place of worship for Allah. Islamic tradition holds that the Ka’aba was built in the location of a black stone, possibly a meteorite, which was given by Allah to Adam. That black stone is located in one of the corners of the Ka’aba and is kissed by worshippers during the rituals of the Hajj. Also referred to as Kaaba or Ka’bah. KAFIR – A general term for any non-Muslim, whether Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. Also referred to as Kufr. KHARAJ – A special tax on agricultural land that is assessed only to Dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects of the House of Islam). KHARIJIS – Arabic term for “the seceders;” the second sect of Islam, who separated from the followers of Ali. Also referred to as Kharijites. KHILAFAH – Viceregency. From an Islamic perspective, this term is used in reference to the viceregency of man, acting as Allah’s deputy, to carry out Allah’s will on Earth. KHUL’ – Female-initiated divorce. A legal process where a woman files papers with an Islamic court requesting divorce. If a recognized Islamic scholar determines that a compelling reason justifies the divorce, He will approve the divorce request. Also referred to as Khul’a KHUMS – Literally, “the fifth” in Arabic. It is a tax that applies to war booty and weath that is discovered rather than earned, such as buried treasure and mineral deposits. Also referred to as Khumus. KITMAN – This term comes from the Arabic verb katama, which means “to hide” or “to conceal.” There are two kinds of Kitman: • •

“Good” Kitman, where people conceal their intentions or actions until they accomplish their objectives. This term applies especially to concealing intentions and actions when promoting the cause of Islam. “Bad” Kitman, where people hide their talents or money so that the Ummah cannot benefit from it.

KORAN – Literally, the recitation. It is the name give to the compilation of messages that Muhammad claimed to have received from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Based on the Arabic word “qara’a,” which means “to read aloud.” Also referred to as Quran, Qur’an, and Qur’aan. KUFR – See Kafir. MADINA – Arabic for “City of the Prophet.” This is the name that the city of Yathrib adopted for itself after Muhammad’s arrival. Also referred to as Madinah.

414

MADRASSA – An Islamic religious school. Also spelled madrasah, madrash, medresa, or madressa. MA’ROOF – A good and righteous act; in accordance with Islam. MAHDI – From the website, www.islamicweb.com/history/mahdi.htm, we have this definition: The term “MAHDI” is a title meaning “The Guided one.” Mahdi is a normal man who is going to follow the true Islam. His name will be Muhammad and his father name will be ‘Abdullah. He is a descendant from Ali and Fatima (daughter of the prophet Muhammad…) so he will be descendant from al-Hasan or al-Husain. Mahdi will be very just and his capital will be Damascus. Allah told us that Jews will master the world two times (we live now 1998 during the first one) and Mahdi will appear between those two periods and will rule through the last one. Mahdi is NOT a prophet but he is the final Rightly Guided Khalifa [see definition of Caliph]. Mahdi will lead Muslims to a great victory against the Christian Romans (i.e. All the white Europeans including the Americans). This great war is called al-Malhamah al-Kubrah or Armageddon. It will end up with a great victory to Muslims against Romans after six years. Muslims will take over their capital Rome (this can be any city). In the seventh year, the Antichrist will appear and a greater war will start between Jews and Muslims for 40 days (longer that usual days) and will end when Jesus (pbuh) will come and Muslims will kill all Jews. All people will convert into Islam. Peace will pervade the whole world. According to Twelver Shiism, the 12th Imam, also referred to as the “Hidden Imam,” is the Mahdi.

MAHR – Marriage dowry. MAHRAM – Close relative, whom one is forbidden by Shari’ah from marrying. This term usually, but not always, applies to males. MAISIR – Any form of business in which monetary gains or losses are matters of chance. Maisir refers to income based on speculation rather than labor or real sector business. Considered to be a form of gambling, thus haraam according to Shari’ah. MAQASID – Objectives; specifically, the objectives of Shari’ah, the end goal of which is justice according to Allah’s will. MASJID – Mosque. MECCA – Birthplace of Muhammad; a city on the southwestern portion of the Arabian Peninsula where the Kaaba, the spring called Zam Zam, and the Great Mosque is located. Also referred to as Makkah and Makka. MEZHAB – A particular sect of Islam, or the teachings or principles of that sect. MILLI – An Apostate from Islam who was born as a non-Muslim, and then converted to Islam, and then Apostatized.

415

MUDARABAH – An Islamic form of silent partnership where one party provides capital and the other undertakes the enterprise. MUFTI – An officially recognized Islamic scholar with the authority to make legal pronouncements. MUHARJIRIN – Term for those who accompanied Muhammad on his flight from Mecca during the Hijrah. MUJTAHID – An Islamic scholar, particularly, one who researches answers to questions on the nature of Islam and its application to life. May have authority to decide legal matters. MULLAH – An Islamic religious leader or teacher. MU’MIN – The Arabic term for Believer (in Islam). Also referred to as mumin. Feminine form is mu’mina. MUNKAR - Reprehensible deed. MURSIT – An Islamic teacher or master. Literal translation is “Guide.” MUSHRIK – An idolater; a polytheist. The Arabic plural of Mushrikun is Mushrikun. MUT’AH – Fixed-time marriage, also referred to as temporary marriage or pleasure marriage. It is also referred to as Sigha, but this is a shortening of “the Sigha of Mut’ah,” meaning the declaration of a temporary marriage. A proper illustration of these terms being used can be found at www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00330.html, a page devoted to questions from lay Shiites that are answered by an Imam: Question: Is it permissible to pronounce the sigheh of muta in a language other than Arabic, i.e. English or French? Answer: The sigha of mut’a can be pronounced in any language. But it should convey the full meaning of the original. The woman to say: “I give away myself in Mut’ah to you for a period of ............and against the agreed mahr of ................” The man to say: “I accept you in mut’ah accordingly”.

Mut’ah is considered Haraam by Sunnis and Halaal by Shiites. Also referred to as Muta, Mutaa, and Mut’a. The term may also be preceded by “Nikah” (marriage). MUZABANA – The practice of trading something whose quantity is known for something whose quantity or contents is not known. Shari’ah declares such transactions haraam because they constitute gambling.

416

NAJIS – Ritually impure according to Shari’ah; unclean; filthy; requiring Wudhu (ritual purification) before undertaking other acts of reverence or worship. NASKH – Abrogation; abolishment; nullification. NASIKH – Abrogated, that is abolished; annulled; nullified. NIKAH – Marriage, or Marriage contract. PAK – Ritually clean according to Shari’ah. PBUH – Acronym for “Peace Be Upon Him.” Obligatory blessing said immediately after mention of a prophet’s name. In Arabic, the acronym is SAW, standing for “Sallallaahu ‘alaihi Wa (Sallam).” QIBLA – The prayer direction. Muslims face toward the Ka’aba, while Jews faced toward the Temple in Jerusalem. Also spelled Qiblah. RAMADAN – Ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar, during which Muslims participate in a fast known as Sawm. RAYAH – Literally, “flock.” A term applied by the Ottoman Empire to its subjects, particularly its non-Muslim subjects. In contrast, Muslims are considered members of the Ummah. RIBA – Lending with interest, considered haraam by Shari’ah. SAHAH SITTAH – An aggregate term for the collections of Hadith that Sunni Muslims consider authoritative. These collections include Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik’s Muwatta. SALAH – The five daily prayers obligatory to Muslims. SARIYA – Army unit. SAW – Acronym for “Sallallaahu ‘alaihi Wa (Sallam),” meaning Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH). Obligatory blessing said immediately after mention of a prophet’s name. SAWM – The fast the Muslims participate in during the month of Ramadan. This fast prohibits eating, drinking, and having sex during the day, but encourages these activities through celebrations that go on throughout the night. SHAHADAH - The Arabic term for Islam’s Declaration of Faith: “I declare there is no god except God, and I declare that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” Also referred to as Kalimah. SHARI’AH - Islamic law. Also referred to as Sharia or Shariah.

417

SHIITE – Second largest Islamic sect; followers of Ali, who was nephew and son-in-law of Muhammad. Shiites consider him to be the first Imam, or Leader of the faith, and believe that leadership should pass through Muhammad’s bloodline. Also referred to as Shi’a, Shia, and Shi’I. SHIRK – To associate; particularly to associate partners with Allah or make other beings or people equals to Allah; to worship idols. Considered to be the worst sin a person can commit; one that is unforgivable if one dies while doing it. SHURA – Literally, “consultation.” This term refers to the method of mutual consultation that an Islamic ruler uses to gain information and advice before making a legislative, executive, or judicial decision. Liberal Muslims view Shura as the fingerpost toward a historically Islamic form of democracy. Also referred to as sura. SOFTA – Islamic religious student. SOUK. – Marketplace, a term particularly applied to the great open marketplaces of the Middle East. SUNNAH - The example or way of life of Muhammad, embracing his words and actions. The Sunnah is revealed primarily through the Hadith, though the Koran and other historical references also reveal or confirm portions of it. Like the Hadith it is derived from, the Sunnah is controversial; what one considers to be the Sunnah depends upon what one considers to be the Hadith. Also referred to as Sunna. SUNNI – Islam’s largest sect. Sunnis consider Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman to be the first three Caliphs, successively elected by tribal leaders after Muhammad’s death. SURAH – Literally, a “step” or “gate.” In the Koran, the term is used in place of “chapter.” Also referred to as sura. TABARRU’ – To donate for the benefit of others; charity. TAFSIR – Koranic exegesis that interprets the Koran through a study of its language, its historical contexts, its use of allegory, and the traditional interpretations of scholars. TAKAFUL – An Islamic concept of pooling resources to help the needy, particularly in the form of Aaqilah, that has been extrapolated by proponents of Islamic Banking to fill the void created by Islam’s declaration than Western-style insurance is Haraam. Islam’s prohibition against Western-style insurance is based on the notion that it is a form of gambling, and also involves lending with interest. TALAQ – Male-initiated divorce. This kind of divorce is initiated if a man says “Divorce!” three times to his wife: “Talaq! Talaq! Talaq!” TAQIYYA – The Islamic principle of dissimulation toward non-Muslims. Shiites also apply it to Sunnis.

418

TARIKAT – An Islamic lodge or order, usually headed by a teacher or master known as a mursit. ULEMA – A body of Mullas. UMMAH ISLAMIA - Worldwide Muslim community, i.e. Muslim nation. Also referred to as the Muslim ummah or simply the Ummah. WAHHIBISM – A fundamentalist Islamic sect that has strong and close historical ties to the leaders of Saudi Arabia. This sect has been granted near-governmental powers over the nation by Saudi rulers. WAQF – A family trust used to avoid Shari’ah’s inheritance laws. It allows assets to be held by a corporate entity controlled by a family, existing beyond the lives of individual family members. WUDHU – A ritual cleaning for the face, hands, arms, head, and feet that is required before undertaking other acts of reverence or worship. These acts include prayer and touching the name of Allah. YATHRIB – A city located about 280 miles north of Mecca, whose supporters of Muhammad invited him to emigrate from Mecca and establish a government. Upon Muhammad’s arrival, it was given the new name of Medina. ZAKAH – Obligatory charity in the form of a tax on possessions assessed at the end of each year at a rate of 2.5%. This tax is paid to either the Islamic government or Islamic religious leaders whose responsibility it is to disburse tax revenues in service of Muslims who are poor or in debt, newly converted, conducting war, imprisoned by war, researching Islam, or administering the tax. Also referred to as Zakat.

419

Index al-Ah’ari, Abu’l Hasan, 327 Alaska Purchase, 10, 227 Alawi, Shiite school of thought, 330 Al-Azhar University, 100 Albania, 167, 252, 259 Albanian and Serbs in Kosovo: An Abbreviated History, 252 al-Banna, Hasa, 212 al-Bashir, Omar Hassan Ahmad, 218 Algeria, 6, 38, 262, 289, 306, 307, 345 al-Hakim, Bakr, 34 Ali, Hirsi, 274, 275, 276, 366 Ali, Yusuf, 36, 48, 323 Al-IsTibSar, 64, 411, See Hadith al-Jazeera, 241 Al-Kafi, 64, 411, See Hadith Allawi, Ayad, 35 al-Masri, Abu Hamza, 103, 286 al-Qaffal, 204 al-Sadr, Muqtada, 35, 118, 237, 240, 296, 356 Al-Sistani, Ayatollah, 35, 99, 117, 118, 126, 127, 129, 132, 145, 239, 334, 336, 356, 370 Al-Tahzeeb, 64, 411, See Hadith Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation, 88 Al-Zawahiri tries to keep al-Qaeda in his grip, 241 al-Zawahiri, Ayman, 14, 241 Al-Zawahri in first video since failed U.S. strike, 14 Amman Stock Exchange, 155, 156 'Ammar bin Yasir, Quraishites, 87 An Introduction to Takaful – An Alternative to Insurance, 153 An Islamic Perspective on the Wealth of Nations, 97, 178 Ansars, 18 Apartheid Wall, 9 Apostasy, 7, 83, 111, 118, 119, 120, 129, 142, 199, 220, 324, 333, 334, 360, 413 Apostate, 143 Apostles, 333 Arab Hostility Toward US Growing Poll Finds, 14

1995 Amnesty International report on Iran, 120 20 Killed in Afghan Mosque Bombing, 306 2002 Report on Human Rights Practices, 207 3 killed as Pakistan cartoon protests escalate, 299 30 Iraqi children, 215 wounded in Red Crescent hospital bombing, 305 5 Dead In Pakistan Mosque Bombing, 306 A Concise History of Spain, 276 A Long History of Chechen Terror Attacks, 249 A Rational Consideration,Part l: Muslims by Birth, 308 A Very Short Introduction, 327, 331, 338, 354 A’isha, 312, 320, 323, 328, 339, 340, 341 About ACMCU, 215 Abrogation, 58, 325, 327 Abu ‘Amr al-‘ ala, 46 Abu Sayyaf, 37, 245, 270 Afghan convert may be unfit for trial, 243 Afghan who became Christian freed from prison: Italian foreign minister will ask government to grant asylum to convert, 243 Afghanistan, 12, 21, 33, 38, 86, 87, 92, 168, 182, 187, 188, 211, 233, 242, 243, 244, 245, 254, 263, 271, 288, 289, 293, 296, 304, 306, 307, 334, 336, 346, 348, 361, 365 Afghanistan says fate of convert up to the court, 242 Afghanistan, Constitution of, 187 Africans: the history of a continent, 108 Africans: The History of a Continent, 354 After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, 359, 360 Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud, 21, 210, 294 Akhbari, Shiite school of thought, 330 Al Muqaddimah, 192 al Qaeda, 14, 211, 212, 263, 264, 347, 362 Ala Maududi, Sayad Abul, 308, 309 al-Abedine ben Ali, Zine, 282

420

bin Laden, Osama, 10, 12, 14, 19, 32, 37, 39, 92, 146, 211, 218, 241, 248, 258, 263, 356, 357, 358, 362 Blair 'revolted' by 'destroy Israel' call of Iranian president, 226, 352 Bleed the Enemy, 103 Blood & Oil: Memoirs of a Persian Prince, 204 Bohra, Shiite school of thought, 330 Bomb explodes in Afghanistan mosque; 16 wounded, 306 Bomb Explosion at Mosque Kills 3 in Bangladesh, 306 Bomb kills 12, injures 13 on bus in Pakistan, 305 Bomb Kills 16 at Shiite Mosque in Pakistan, 355 Bomb Kills 16 at Shiite Mosque in Pakistan: Karachi Attack Follows Slaying of Sunni Cleric, 306 Bomb kills election workers, 361 Bomb Kills Six at Iraqi Mosque, 306 Bombers Again Strike Iraqi Shiite Worshipers; Attacks Kill 30 and Injure 40 On Last Day of Annual Rite, 306 Bombing Kills 10 Near Shiite Shrine; Karbala Cleric, Apparent Target, Is Hurt, 306 BOMBINGS IN LONDON: ARRESTS; Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions, 286 BOMBINGS IN LONDON: THE MESSAGE, 287 Bombings reflect Zarqawi’s growing reach, 14 Bombs hit Arab section of an Iranian Province, 307 Bosnia, 11, 100, 233 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 167, 168, 251 Bothmer, Von, 60 Britain, 119, 205, 213, 216, 218, 220, 238, 259, 260, 262, 264, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 285, 287, 289 Buddhist, 5, 18, 20, 86, 87, 270, 271, 337, 414 Buddhists, 40, 83, 87, 270, 271, 365

Arabs in History, The, 97 Arafat, Yasser, 9, 206, 262 Armenia, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258 Aryan race, 40, 262 astrolabe, 194 At Least 15 Die in Nigeria Cartoon Protest, 302 Attackers strike twice near Cairo tourist sites: Women open fire on tour bus after blast near museum, 306 Austria-Hungary, 259, 260 Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, 35, 99, 117, 118, 126, 127, 129, 132, 145, 239, 334, 336, 356, 370 Background Note: Croatia, 252 Background Note: Serbia and Montenegro, 251, 252 Badawi, Sheik Zaki, 286 Baghdad, 33, 182, 227, 238, 284, 285 Bahrain, 211 Baker, Abdul Haqq, 286 Bakr, Abu, 43, 46, 339, 342, 418 Baldwin, Stanly, 279 Balfour, 221 Bali death toll set at 202, 305 Balkan Peninsula, 250, 254 Balkanization, 250 Balkans, 250, 253 Bangladesh, 155, 167, 220, 265, 304, 306, 345 Bank of Credit and Commerce International, 215 Beachhead: How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis Became Center of Radical Islam, The, 262 Beirut bombing, 24 Belgium, 23, 281 Beltway Snipers, 100 Beneficent, The, 313 Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo, 252 Bible, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 45, 48, 52, 53, 61, 64, 66, 72, 83, 86, 93, 94, 119, 141, 142, 145, 200, 201, 243, 244, 247, 290, 309, 334, 337, 344 Bible, New International Version, 309 Bill of Rights, 176

421

Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, The, 15, 49, 51, 59, 63, 66, 68, 84, 100, 120, 157, 196, 197, 241, 258, 326, 327, 341, 343 Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, The, 15, 55, 77, 86, 134, 136, 173, 192, 195, 198, 205, 307, 349, 350 Condemned Iranian gets last chance, 120 Confucians, 83 Constitution of Malaysia, 186 Constitution of The Arab Republic of Egypt, 187 Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 187 Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 186 Constitution of The Republic of Iraq, 188 Constitution of The Republic of Tunisia, 187 Constitution of the United States, 6, 176 Corruption Perceptions Index, 161 Cote d’Ivoire, 167 Creed of the Shi’a: explained, 64 Croatia, 167, 251 Cyprus, 167, 208, 259, 260, 261 Czech Republic, 167 Czechoslovakia, 278, 280 Dar al-Harb, 20 Dar al-Islam, 20, 92, 116 Dar as Salaam, 11 Dardanians, 250 David, King, 220 Dawood, N.J., 26, 46, 106, 323 Deadly Double Bombing In Pakistan, 306 Declaration of Independence, 176, 264 Decolonization and Filipino Muslim Identity, 269 Deedat, Ahmet, 30 Democracy in America, 175 Denmark, 23, 281, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 357 Denmark pulls diplomats from Muslim states, 299 Developments in Prophet Drawings Case, 293

Bulgaria, 167, 250, 251, 259 Bulgaria: Illustrated History, 250 Burnham, Gracia, 37, 245 Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, The, 255 Burning Tigris: When the Tigris Burned and the Euphrates Ran Red, The, 255 Bus blast kills 5 in Turkey, 207 Bush administration accuses Saudi charity of financing terrorism, 248 Buying the freedom of slaves in Sudan, 219 Byzantine Empire, 43, 192, 193, 250, 259 Caliph, 43, 185, 193, 204, 205, 237, 310, 327, 339, 340, 341, 342, 354, 356, 410, 415 Capitalism, 19 Car bomb kills 25 at Iraq funeral, 306 Caricature clash with NATO troops turns deadly, 296 Cartoon furor began quietly, 290, 291 Case For Israel, The, 226 Catholic Church, 48, 66, 195, 294, 301 Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, 215 Chamberlain, Neville, 278 Chechen History, 249 Chechen president killed in stadium bombing, 249 Chechnya, 248, 249, 250, 262 Christianity, 27, 30, 31, 32, 48, 72, 77, 84, 93, 120, 140, 180, 205, 242, 244, 259, 269, 270, 303, 309, 325, 326, 331, 344, 350 Churchill, Winston, 175, 280, 281 CIA: The World Factbook, 18, 166, 179 Claim of responsibility for deadly India blasts, 265 Clash of Civilizations, The, 303 Cleric rips U.S. about Iraq abuse, 35 Clinton, Bill, 10 Code of Hammurabi, 107 Cold War, 9, 14, 23, 30, 167, 254, 262, 263 Communism, 6, 9, 18, 19, 137, 216, 242, 251, 366 Comoros, 167

422

Fascists, 23 Fatah, 206, 293, 357 fatwa, 11, 26, 99, 117, 129, 180, 181, 204, 360, 370 FBI names LA airport gunman, 100 Feldman, Prof. Noah, 359, 360 Ferdinand, Franz, 259 Fewer Arabs admire the U.S., Survey Finds, 233 Film exposes immigrants to Dutch liberalism, 276 Final Call, The, 27 First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, The, 98 Five Pillars of Islam, 68 Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna, 212 Ford, Henry, 278, 280 Formation of the Soviet Union, The, 249 Fortuyn buried after Dutch bid farewell, 273 Fortuyn killed ‘to protect Muslims’, 273 Fortuyn voted greatest Dutchman, 274 Fortuyn, Pim, 273 Four Freedoms, 176 Four Killed in Pakistan Mosque Bombing, 306 France, 23, 34, 43, 205, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 236, 247, 248, 257, 260, 262, 270, 276, 280, 281, 285, 288, 289, 293 France burns for its sins, 232 France helps launch Muslim group, 229 Free Democracy, 6, 7, 9, 15, 23, 67, 109, 118, 161, 166, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 183, 185, 189, 190, 192, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 216, 219, 220, 224, 227, 228, 240, 242, 244, 245, 246, 254, 281, 290, 297, 351, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366 Free Enterprise, 9, 15, 173, 175, 176, 189, 190, 192, 202, 208, 209, 210, 216, 219, 245, 246, 281, 359, 361, 362, 366 French Cabinet adopts bill banning Muslim head scarves in school, 230 French Head Scarf Ban Underway, 231 From Babel to Dragomans, 121 Fukuyama, Francis, 9

Doctors in the Cross Hairs: Iraq’s physicians are increasingly targeted by violence, 307 Driving rampage killed one, injured at least 13, 100 Druze, Shiite school of thought, 330 Dudaev, Jokhar, 249 Dying for water in Somalia’s drought, 217 East Timor, 105, 106, 267, 268 Economics and Philosophic Manuscripts, 175 Editor of Afghan women’s magazine arrested, 182 Edward, King VIII, 278, 280 Egypt, 6, 38, 46, 70, 109, 122, 141, 174, 187, 220, 223, 224, 226, 234, 241, 263, 291, 306, 307, 345 Egypt resort blasts kill 49, 307 Egypt, Constitution of, 187 Ehrenfeld, Rachel, 215 El Al Airline, 100 Elderly Buddhist beheaded in Thailand's restive Muslim south, 270 Eliade, Mercea, 25 Ellison, Rep. Keith, 246, 362 Emerick, Yahiya, 55, 77, 86, 134, 136, 173, 192, 195, 198, 205, 307, 349 Empire State Building, 100 Encyclopedia of the Orient, 66 End of History, The, 9 Eratosthenes, 193, 194, 195 Erdogan, Recep Tayyip, 207 Eritrea, 167 Essential Sacred Writings from Around the World, 25 EU starts historic Turkey membership talks, 208 Euphrates, 341, 349 Evolution of Philippine Muslim insurgency, The, 269 Ex-hostage reunited with family, 269 Expert: 300,000 in Iraq's Mass Graves, 236, 355 Faarah, Mahammad, 216 Farrakhan, Louis, 27 Fascism, 366

423

Harvard, 215 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, 168 Heritage Foundation, The, 170 Hezbollah, 103, 227, 297, 352, 353 Hiding Place, The, 89 Hindu, 5, 18, 20, 114, 245, 246, 264, 270, 337, 414 Hindus, 40, 83, 264, 265, 325, 365 Hipparchus, 194 History of the Suez Canal, 123 History Place, The, 279 Hitler, Adolph, 23, 34, 40, 110, 176, 205, 222, 258, 262, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 285, 286, 295, 305 hiyyal, 151 holocaust, 33 Holy Qur'aan, 48 Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary, The, 36, 48 honor killing, 32, 158, 239, 247 House of ‘Imran, The, 47 House of Islam, 6, 14, 20, 28, 90, 92, 93, 95, 105, 108, 112, 122, 131, 132, 140, 146, 155, 159, 173, 189, 198, 204, 206, 209, 220, 223, 225, 238, 254, 299, 307, 308, 327, 329, 342, 357, 358, 362, 364, 365, 410, 411, 413, 414 House of Peace, 20, 92, 104, 115, 116, 238, 303, 305, 309, 357, 410 House of Submission, 20, 116, 123, 137, 173, 177, 181, 261, 298, 301, 331, 410 House of War, 20, 92, 104, 105, 204, 212, 270, 357, 358, 410 How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis Became Center of Radical Islam, The Beachhead, 262 How did it come to this?, 250 How the Door of Ijtihad Was Closed, 204, 209 Human Rights Watch World Report, 180 Hungary, 167, 261 Huntingon, Samuel P., 303 Hussein bin Talal, King of Jordan, 223 Hussein, Saddam, 32, 92, 127, 189, 235, 236, 238, 239, 276, 301, 304, 355, 361, 365

Full text letter of Islamic Republic Of Iran President to American President, 23 Gabriel, 41, 42, 43, 62, 208, 311, 312, 313, 323, 414 Gadsden Purchase, 10, 227 Galileo, 198 Gates, Bill, 19 Gaza Strip, 224, 225, 227, 228 Genesis, 52, 54, 247 Georgetown University, 215 German-Islamic Educational Enterprise, 264 Germany, 59, 60, 93, 111, 167, 205, 222, 236, 238, 256, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 278, 279, 280, 281, 285, 305 Giuliani, Rudy, 337 Glorious Koran, The, 48, 58, 111 Gogh, Theo van, 274, 275, 366 Golden Rule, 72, 73, 344 Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, 254 Gospel, 52, 53, 84, 331 Graham, Billy, 52 Great War, The, 260 Greater Jihad, 81, 413 Greece, 174, 259, 260 Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire, The, 254 Green Light: Border Opening in Cyprus, 261 Guantanamo Bay, 336 Guardian Council, 209, 210, 345 Gulag Archipelago, The, 249 Gulf War, 33, 218, 230, 235, 304, 355 Gunman kills Dutch film director, 274 Hadayet, Hesham Mohamed Ali, 100 Hadith, 19, 20, 54, 63, 64, 65, 68, 83, 88, 93, 98, 105, 118, 131, 143, 153, 183, 204, 209, 309, 310, 315, 327, 329, 331, 333, 350, 363, 364, 411, 413, 417, 418 Hadith Qudsi, 85, 315 Hafsah, 323, See Wives of the Prophet halala, 129 Hamas, 15, 206, 224, 227, 241, 247, 263, 293, 294, 296 Hanafi, Sunni school of thought, 330, 334 Hanbali, Sunni school of thought, 330, 334 Haq, Naveed Afzal, 100

424

Iran, 6, 9, 21, 26, 38, 103, 120, 141, 155, 180, 181, 204, 209, 210, 211, 213, 219, 220, 227, 235, 239, 242, 262, 272, 285, 293, 294, 296, 297, 299, 304, 334, 352, 353, 362, 365 Iran’s leader offers to fund Hamas government, 227 Iranian hostage crisis, 24 Iranian minister makes historic Iraq trip, 239 Iranian President at Tehran Conference, 21 Iranian professor freed from jail, 120 Iran's Birth Rate Plummeting at Record Pace, 132 Iraq, 11, 12, 14, 33, 34, 35, 38, 70, 98, 99, 129, 168, 182, 189, 218, 221, 223, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 244, 262, 277, 282, 283, 284, 285, 288, 296, 304, 306, 307, 310, 341, 343, 345, 346, 348, 349, 355, 356, 358, 360, 361, 365, 370 Iraq, Constitution of, 188 Iraqi leader considers amnesty for insurgents, 35 Iraqi Shiites Flex Muscle Even as They Mourn, 34 Iraqi terrorists say they killed Algerian envoys, 307 Irate Muslims Stage New Protests, 294 Is Jesus God?, 31 Is the Bible the infallible word of God?, 31 Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, 252 Islam for Dummies, 15, 62 Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab’s View of Islam, 50 Islam, Yusuf, 184 Islam: A Short History, 339, 354 Islam: A Very Short Introduction, 156, 159, 291, 327, 331, 338, 342, 354 Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization, 68, 202, 343, 354 Islamic banking expands in West, 149 Islamic government, 6, 27, 112, 117, 185, 210, 363, 410, 419 Islamic Government, 185

Hypocrite, 143, 211 Hypocrites, 13, 98, 140, 141, 143, 144, 212, 213, 308, 335, 359, 360, 365, 393, 394 Ibn Al-Manthur Al-Afriki, 45 ibn Ishaq, 41, 62, 317, 367 Ibn Kathir, 46 Igarashi, Hitoshi, 184, 366 IIBI Discussion Forum: The Economic Challenge for the Ummah, 190 Ijara Wa Iktina, 151 Illyrians, 250 Imminence, 85 Implementation Modalities of the Framework Agreement on Wealth Sharing, dated 7th January, 2004, The, 219 Implementation Modalities of the Protocol on Power Sharing, dated 26th May, 2004, The, 219 In Darfur, foraging means risking rape, 307 In Germany, Harder Line Looms, 263 In the Presence of My Enemies, 37, 245 In-depth study of Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, 224 Index of Economic Freedom, 170 India, 37, 122, 131, 167, 192, 198, 211, 245, 246, 254, 264, 265, 304, 309, 346, 349 India’s Great Divide,, 265 Indian Muslim leader is slain at memorial service, 265 Indonesia, 14, 182, 219, 262, 267, 268, 270, 272, 297, 300, 305, 306 Indonesia wants Playboy to postpone issue, 182 Infidels, 19, 32, 37, 38, 40, 57, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 87, 89, 92, 94, 95, 102, 105, 110, 112, 116, 117, 121, 122, 143, 205, 220, 240, 244, 309, 355, 359, 364, 365 Inner Jihad, 413 Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance, 147, 190 intercourse, 53, 71, 83, 110, 126, 127, 158, 251, 323, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 382, 384, 385, 389 Inward Jihad, 413, See Lesser Jihad

425

Jihad, 10, 16, 38, 78, 81, 102, 104, 105, 110, 115, 189, 220, 245, 295, 328, 357, 359, 413 Jok, Jok Maduk, 108 Jordan, 14, 38, 155, 156, 182, 223, 224, 226 Judaism, 77, 83, 84, 118, 244, 270, 303, 325, 344, 350 Judge: Woman can't cover face on driver's license, 336 Justice and Development Party, 207 Ka'aba, 11, 12, 13, 41, 50, 71, 76, 414, 417 Kabul, 183, 243, 296 Kaduna, 181, 266 Kadyrov, Akhmad, 249 Kamal, Ali Abu, 100 Karachi mosque attack kills 15, 306 Karzai, Hamid, 183, 242, 293 Keith Ellison, 246, 362 Kemal, Mustafa, 205, 207 Khadijah, 41, 42, 51 Khalid bin Mahfouz, 215 Khalidi, Rashid, 119, 219, 238, 262 Khan, Genghis, 258 Khariji, 340, 341 Kharijis, 340, 342 Kharijites, school of thought, 330 Khoja, Shiite school of thought, 330 Khomeini, Ayatollah, 26, 39, 103, 180, 210 Khrushchev, Nikolai, 249 King Fahd Middle East Studies Program, 215 Kingdom of Heaven, 174 KLA. See Kosovo Liberation Army Koran for Dummies, The, 15, 16, 20, 43, 49, 52, 53, 54, 66, 67, 78, 83, 85, 91, 101, 102, 105, 115, 135, 137, 157, 177, 183, 189, 194, 196, 197, 198, 202, 206, 253, 287, 312, 325, 326, 332, 335, 338 Koran, English Translation, with Notes Only, The, 46, 323 Kosovo, 167, 233, 252 Kosovo Liberation Army, 252 Kufa, 341 Kurdish, 207, 236, 256, 304 Kuwait, 32, 38, 92, 211, 233, 236, 304 Kyrgyzstan, 167

Islamic Holy Scripture, 7, 68, 240 Islamic Law, 8, 15, 20, 33, 43, 104, 105, 137, 147, 149, 161, 173, 174, 184, 185, 265, 281, 308, 334, 402, 403, See Shari'ah Islamic Laws, Transactions, Part I of III, 145 Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part I of II, 126, 127 Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part II of II, 127 Islamic prophesy, 351 Islamic Saudi Academy, 214 Islamic School Set Ablaze in Netherlands, 276 Islamic Studies Gets $20M Gift, 215 Islamic Summit Conference, 16, 307 Islamist Threats To Dutch Politician Bring Chill at Home, 275 Islamiyah, Jemaah, 270, 272 Islamofascist Agenda, The, 181 Israel, 12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 70, 82, 100, 103, 105, 106, 163, 167, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 235, 256, 257, 270, 282, 283, 299, 300, 307, 351, 352, 353, 355, 357 Israel., 103, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 235, 247, 350, 352, 353, 357 Israel: An Apartheid State?, 228 Istanbul rocked by double bombing, 306 Jahiliyya, 16, 17 Jakarta, 182, 295, 301 Jane’s Intelligence Review, 282 Jerusalem, 21, 42, 43, 50, 221, 235, 262, 417 Jesus, 27, 30, 41, 49, 52, 53, 54, 83, 84, 85, 237, 291, 294, 301, 303, 309, 313, 326, 331, 333, 337, 349, 350, 352, 415 Jew in the Medieval World, The, 112 Jews, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 69, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 92, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 112, 119, 140, 143, 146, 176, 180, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 228, 235, 237, 242, 246, 256, 262, 278, 279, 287, 291, 294, 307, 308, 334, 335, 350, 359, 365, 368, 369, 376, 415, 417

426

Matthew, 27, 31, 52, 72, 83, 141, 206, 344, 361 Maududi, Sayad Abul Ala, 59, 93, 94, 125, 308, 309, 314, 318, 324 Mauritania, 108 Meaning of the Qur'an, The, 59, 94, 314, 318 Mecca, 11, 18, 41, 42, 43, 58, 62, 71, 88, 92, 104, 148, 402, 411, 412, 416, 419 Medina, 42, 43, 58, 148, 185, 325, 340, 367, 412 Men Must Accompany Pregnant Women in Clinics, 130 Merchant of Venice, The, 146 Middle East, 9, 24, 25, 29, 45, 119, 123, 157, 208, 214, 219, 220, 224, 227, 235, 238, 241, 242, 254, 257, 262, 291, 298, 343, 350, 351, 418 Middle East for Dummies, The, 44, 122, 218, 222, 225, 226, 235, 254 Mideast boycott a ‘nightmare’ for Danish firms, 298 Milosevic, Slobodan, 251, 252 Miss Iraq goes into hiding from militants, 182 Mohamad, Prime Minister, 18, 19 Mohamed Taha, Mahmoud, 119 Montenegro, 250, 251 Morocco, 14, 38, 288, 289, 304, 306 Mosaic Law, 334 Moses, 49, 52, 54, 64, 82, 83, 84, 291 mosques, 35, 71, 181, 214, 229, 261, 286, 295, 298, 305, 359 Mother Theresa, 51 Mu’awiya, 340 Mudaraba, 155 Mufti of Jerusalem, The, 262 Mufti Taqi Usmani, 190, 191 Muhajirin, 18 Muhammad, John Allen, 100 Multiple Identities of the Middle East, The, 20, 92 mun la YahDuruhu Al-faqeeh, 64, 411, See Hadith Munich Conference, 278 Muqarada, 155

Lahab, Abu, 314 Land of the Pashtun, 14, 304 Last Indonesian Ship Leaves E. Timor, 267 Latest Baghdad Bombing Comes as Thousands Attend Hakim Funeral, 306 Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, The, 127 Lean on Me, 244 Lebanon, 9, 11, 38, 103, 221, 222, 223, 227, 234, 291, 293, 295, 296, 297, 307, 353, 365 Lesser Jihad, 81, 413 Lessons in hate found at leading mosques, 213 Lester, Toby, 60 Leviticus, 54, 72, 344 Libel Terrorism, 215 Libel Tourism, 215 'Libel tourism' and the war on terror, 215 Liberal Democracy, 67, 176 Libya, 38, 210, 211, 300, 304 Life of the Apostle of Allah, 41 Locke, John, 176 London Central mosque, 213 Los Angeles International Airport, 100 Louisiana Purchase, 10, 227 Luke, 31, 52, 83, 309 Luxemburg, 23, 281 Macedonia, 167, 251 Madrid train bomb kills 192, 277 Magna Carta, 146 Mahathir Mohamad, 16, 37, 146, 242, 307 Mahdi, 237, 349, 350, 352, 353, 354, 356, 415 Malaysia, 16, 18, 97, 155, 167, 178, 186, 220, 299, 307, 352 Malaysia, Constitution of, 186 Malik’s Muwatta, 64, 72, 73, 79, 80, 92, 97, 107, 111, 114, 131, 153, 158, 159, 183, 201, 320, 329, 335, 411, 417, See Hadith Maliki, Sunni school of thought, 330, 334 Malvo, Lee Boyd, 100 Mamdani, Mahmood, 254 Marco Polo, 355 Marcus, Jacob, 112 Mars Attacks, 38 Massive cartoon protest in Beirut, 297

427

North Cyprus, 167, 208, 261 North Korea, 137, 176, 211 Nosair, Muza ben, 276 Oassem, Abdel-Karim, 235 OIC, 155, 190 Old Testament, 27, 45, 83, 84, 244 Oman, 38, 155, 304, 340 One in 10 Indonesians back suicide bombings, 272 Opening, The, 313 Operation Restore Hope, 217 Organization of Islamic Conference, 16, 190 Ottoman Empire, 9, 121, 122, 123, 204, 205, 221, 227, 247, 250, 251, 252, 254, 255, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 284, 304, 343, 357, 411, 413, 417 Outer Jihad, 413 Outward Jihad, 413, See Lesser Jihad Over 300 killed in school carnage, 250 Pact of Umar, The, 112, 113, 115 Pakistan, 153, 155, 158, 167, 186, 190, 197, 210, 211, 214, 219, 233, 265, 293, 297, 299, 300, 304, 305, 306, 308, 334, 345, 346, 347, 348, 355 Pakistan seeks six in assassination plots, 211 Pakistan, Constitution of, 186 Pakistan: Secret nuclear network dismantled, 211 Palestine, 9, 11, 12, 16, 43, 112, 155, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 235, 307, 348, 349, 350, 357 Palestinian Authority, 224, 225, 227, 235 Palestinian Territories, 14, 167, 223, 225, 227, 235, 241 Pashtun, 14, 254, 304, 346 Pentateuch, 54 Peres, Shimon, 9 Persian Muslims, 340 Peshawar, 254, 297, 299, 300 Petroleum Bomb, The, 123, 214 Philip’s Atlas of World History, 249, 250, 265 Philippines, 37, 245, 269, 270, 300, 309 Phony War, The, 281

Murabaha, 149 Murder in Holland, 273 Musharaka, 155 Musharraf, President Gen. Pervez, 210, 211, 299, 305 Muslim charity indicted for alleged terrorist link, 247 Muslim clerics condemn mutilation – but not slaying, 36 Muslim killing Muslim in Sudan, 219 Muslims in America, 232, 248 Muslims Remaking Old France, 228 Mut’ah, 127, 370, 371, 379, 412, 416 N.Y. killer carried political note: Empire State Building security is tightened, 100 Nafi, 46 Nairobi, 11 Najaf, 35, 237, 239 Najar, Qasim, 15 Nameq, Sheik Fawzi, 36 Nasab, Ali Mohaqiq, 183 Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, 202 Nasrallah, Hassan, 352, 357 National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, 215 National Geographic, 14, 174, 212, 232, 248, 250, 304, 346 Netherlands, 23, 37, 205, 262, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 278, 281 New Testament, 27, 52, 57, 83, 331 New York State Supreme Court, 337 Niger, 304 Nigeria, 5, 33, 139, 181, 265, 266, 267, 301, 302, 334, 360, 364 Nigeria Boycotts Polio Vaccination Drive, 266 Nigerian state again allowing polio vaccinations, 266 Nigerian taxis fined for carrying women, 138 Nikah Halala, 130 NIV Study Bible, The, 27, 45, 141, 145, 309, 334 No Threat: A former weapons inspector rejects Bush's evidence, 236 nomocracy, 178

428

Pickthal, Muhammad Marmaduke William, 27, 48, 58, 109, 111 Pipes, Richard, 249 Poland, 23, 167, 280, 281 Police: Seattle shooting suspect ambushed teen, 100 Politics aside, they still love us in France, 230 Pollster, The, 234 Polo, Marco, 355 Popal, Omeed A., 100 Populations and Demographic Developments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip until 1990, 224 President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East, 242 Prince Abdulla, 304 Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, 215 Prohibition, The, 135, 323, 324 Protest rises over Islamic law, 232 Protest rises over Islamic Law in Ontario, 39 Psalm, 45, 145 Ptolemy, 194, 195 Puin, Gerd-R., 59, 60 Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law, The, 308, 309 Qaddafi, Muammar, 304 Qatar, 179, 304 Questions and answers on the Iraq power transfer, 355 Qur'an: The First American Version, The, 48 Quraysh, 41, 62, 322, 367, 368, 369 Rabin, Yitzhak, 9 Rage of French youth is a fight for recognition, 232 Rahman, Abdul, 242, 243, 366 Rahman, Sheikh Omar Abdel, 26 Rahman, Sheikh Omar Abdel, 100 Ramadan, 70, 71, 334, 384, 417 Rasmussen, Anders Fogh, 293, 297 Reid, Richard, 285 Religion Versus Reality, 352

Report of the Round-Table Meeting on Promotion of Cooperation Among the Stock Exchanges of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) Member States, 155 Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school, 214 Report: U.K. bomber linked to ’03 Israel attack, 283 Republic of Cyprus, 167, 261, See Resurrecting Empire, 119, 219, 238, 262 Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The, 278, 281 Rise of Hamas concerns brewers, 206 Roman Empire, 74, 193 Romania, 23, 167, 259 Roosevelt, Franklin, 176 Roots of Conflict. Muslims, Christians and the Mindanao Struggle, 269 Rude Awakening: A Brutal Killing Opens Dutch Eyes to Threat of Terror, 275 Rushdie, Salman, 26, 89, 90, 141, 184, 287, 366 Russell, James R., 255 Russia, 28, 37, 205, 227, 233, 236, 238, 248, 249, 256, 257, 259, 260, 262 Sabians, 56, 57, 287 Sada, George, 35 Saddam Hussein’s Rise to Power, 236 Sahih Bukhari, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 83, 88, 90, 92, 95, 97, 110, 114, 117, 118, 125, 128, 129, 131, 136, 138, 139, 140, 152, 153, 159, 160, 163, 164, 196, 199, 201, 292, 310, 311, 312, 319, 320, 321, 322, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 339, 350, 351, 411, 417, See Hadith Sahih Muslim, 55, 58, 64, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 95, 97, 116, 118, 131, 142, 153, 159, 163, 183, 201, 292, 311, 312, 315, 319, 320, 321, 327, 329, 335, 339, 411, 417, See Hadith Salam, 151 Satanic verses, 62, 63 Satanic Verses, The, 26, 141, 184

429

239, 282, 304, 330, 339, 341, 342, 353, 355, 411, 416, 418 Shoe-bomb suspect met with al-Qaida suspects, British newspaper reports, 285 Shorrosh, Dr. Anis, 30 Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions, 286 Shultz, George P, 123, 214 Sigha, 127, 370, 416 Singapore, 167 Sirat Rasoul Allah, 41, 62, 317, 367 Sistani, Ayatollah, 35, 99, 117, 118, 126, 127, 129, 132, 145, 239, 334, 336, 356, 370 slave, 106, 107, 108, 123, 124, 321, 323, 334, 339, 396, 406 slavery, 27, 106, 108, 109, 123, 125, 174, 175, 269, 363, 364, 365, 399, 406 Slovakia, 167 Slovenia, 167, 251 soft jihad, 216 Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, 249 Somalia, 9, 167, 168, 210, 216, 217, 218, 219, 233, 272, 274, 346, 365 Some clerics call for killing Afghan Christian, 243 Some Notes on Land, Money, and Power in Medieval Islam, 121 South Park, 302, 303 'South Park' aims at censors, hits Bush, Jesus, 302 Southern Kordofan Annex, State of Southern Kordofan, Final and approved Text of 21st December, 2004, 219 Southern Philippines Question – The Challenge of Peace and Development, 269 Soviet Union, 9, 137, 210, 216, 233, 249, 251, 256, 257, 262, 263, 281, 305 Spain, 37, 269, 276, 277, 288, 327 Stevens, Cat, 31, 184 Strategic Consequences of Armenian Genocide, 255 Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan, 346 Study: U.K. at ‘risk’ for supporting Iraq war, 282

Saudi Arabia, 12, 25, 32, 38, 89, 92, 109, 130, 153, 155, 209, 211, 214, 215, 218, 219, 227, 271, 272, 304, 306, 334, 419 Saudi Arabia: Kingdom on Edge, 212 Saudi king cracks down on photos of women, 211 Saudi Minister of Education and Delegation Sign Cooperative Agreements with University of Arkansas, 215 Scholar Warns West of Muslim Goals, 93 Schools in Thailand Under Ethnic Siege, 271 Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government, 176 secular government, 207, 241 Sellassie, King Haile, 318 Senegal, 304 Serbia, 167, 250, 251, 252, 259 Serbian, 233, 250, 252, 259 Serrano, Andres, 337 Settlers clash with Israeli troops, 225 sex, 70, 106, 128, 130, 131, 134, 136, 161, 239, 318, 399, 401, 402, 404, 406, 417 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, 202 Shabbat, 72, 344 Shafii, Sunni school of thought, 330, 334 Shari’ah, 6, 8, 15, 16, 26, 33, 39, 65, 98, 103, 108, 117, 118, 119, 123, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 136, 145, 146, 148, 149, 156, 157, 159, 167, 181, 190, 210, 218, 233, 240, 246, 247, 248, 253, 265, 303, 309, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 358, 359, 362, 363, 365, 366, 370, 411, 412, 413, 415, 416, 417, 419 Shayki, Shiite school of thought, 330 Shiite, 5, 33, 34, 35, 63, 64, 87, 89, 103, 127, 129, 183, 210, 227, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 282, 284, 296, 304, 341, 353, 355, 356, 361, 370, 410 Shiite Cleric may be a force after Saddam, 34 Shi'ite temporary marriages regain popularity, 239 Shiites, 33, 34, 35, 36, 61, 64, 65, 88, 89, 98, 99, 117, 128, 206, 210, 236, 237, 238,

430

Terror Group Filling the Void, 272 terrorists, 10, 33, 101, 102, 103, 141, 211, 240, 249, 250, 263, 277, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 361 Terrorists Train for Seaborne Attacks, 270 Thailand, 37, 270, 271, 272, 309 Thailand & International Islamic Front, 309 Thailand PM: Hambali was Plotting, 272 The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 43, 333 The Arabs in History, 97 The Beachhead: How a Mosque for ExNazis Became Center of Radical Islam, 262 The Beneficent, 313 The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian, 355 The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, 255 The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response, 255 The Burning Tigris: When the Tigris Burned and the Euphrates Ran Red, 255 The Case For Israel, 226 The Clash of Civilizations, 303 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, 15, 49, 51, 59, 63, 66, 68, 77, 84, 100, 120, 143, 157, 196, 197, 198, 241, 258, 315, 325, 326, 327, 341, 343 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, 15, 55, 77, 86, 104, 134, 136, 173, 192, 193, 195, 198, 205, 307, 343, 349, 350, 351 The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 74 The End of History, 9 The Evolution of Philippine Muslim insurgency, 269 The Final Call, 27 The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, 98 The Formation of the Soviet Union, 249 The Glorious Koran, 48, 111 The Great War, 260 The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire, 254

Sudan, 27, 33, 38, 105, 106, 108, 119, 155, 167, 216, 218, 219, 254, 258, 305, 307, 334, 345, 365 Sudan: In the Name of God (Repression continues in northern Sudan), 119 Sudetenland, 280 Suicide Bomb at Funeral Kills 14: Official's Brother Slain 2 Days Earlier; Allawi Vows Hard Line, 306 Sukarnoputri, Megawati, 272 Sunan Abu-Dawud, 55, 64, 78, 79, 80, 92, 114, 118, 124, 142, 153, 159, 201, 292, 320, 335, 350, 411, 413, 417, See Hadith Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, 64, See Hadith Sunan Nasa’i, 64, See Hadith Sunan Tirmidhi, 64, 142, 343, See Hadith Sunni, 5, 33, 63, 64, 87, 89, 90, 103, 127, 179, 180, 237, 238, 239, 240, 296, 302, 304, 334, 341, 342, 355, 356, 361, 410, 417 Sunnis, 33, 35, 54, 63, 64, 65, 88, 89, 99, 103, 127, 128, 206, 210, 237, 238, 239, 240, 284, 304, 330, 339, 342, 353, 355, 356, 411, 416, 418 Swaggart, Jimmy, 30, 31 Sword of the Shia, 356 Symbol of Insurgency, 356 Syria, 38, 43, 112, 209, 221, 223, 226, 227, 293, 297, 299, 304, 350 Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures, 293 Tackling Another Major Challenge in Iraq: Unemployment, 361 Tafsir, 330 Taheri-azar, Mohammed Reza, 100 Taliban, 10, 32, 86, 87, 210, 243, 347, 361 Talmud, 52, 72, 331, 333, 344 Tanakh, 52 Taoists, 40, 83 Taqiyya, 87, 88, 89, 90 Taxi driver had earlier Metro traffic charges, 101 temporary marriage, 54, 65, 89, 127, 128, 129, 239, 240, 371, 375, 376, 377, 379, 380, 412, 416 ten Boom, Corrie, 89

431

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 278, 281 The Satanic Verses, 26, 141, 184 The Tongue of the Arabs, 45 theocracy, 177, 178 Things for which Wudhu is Obligatory, 336 Thousands protest French ban on scarves, 230 Three car bombs kill up to 43 in Iraq, 284 Tipitaka, 337 Tongue of the Arabs, The, 45 Top Egyptian diplomat in Iraq seized, killed by insurgent group, 307 Torah, 52, 53, 84, 331, 337 Trans-Jordan, 221, 223 Trdat, King, 253 Treaty of Paris, 269 Treaty of Versailles, 205, 278, 279 tribalization, 250, 254 Troops Mobilize for Iraqi Balloting, 241 Tunisia, 38, 166, 187, 282 Tunisia, Constitution of, 187 Turkey, 6, 14, 38, 123, 155, 173, 205, 207, 208, 209, 219, 220, 221, 238, 255, 256, 257, 260, 261, 300, 301, 304, 306, 346, 349 Turkish campaign seeks to educate girls, 207 Turks, 205, 207, 208, 250, 252, 260, 261, 304 Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, 50 Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad, 50 Tyndale, William, 48 U.A.E.. See United Arab Emirates U.K.. See Britain U.S. – Saudi Alliance appears strong, 93 U.S. Marines take command of troops in Najaf, 237 U.S. Muslims react to furor with deft diplomacy, 206 Umar, Caliph, 43 Umar, The Pact of, 112, 113, 115 Ummah Islamia, 28

The Gulag Archipelago, 249 The Heritage Foundation, 170 The Hiding Place, 89 The History Place, 279 The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary, 36, 48 The House of ‘Imran, 47 The Implementation Modalities of the Framework Agreement on Wealth Sharing, dated 7th January, 2004, 219 The Implementation Modalities of the Protocol on Power Sharing, dated 26th May, 2004, 219 The Islamofascist Agenda, 181 The Jew in the Medieval World, 112 The Koran for Dummies, 15, 16, 20, 43, 49, 52, 53, 54, 66, 67, 78, 83, 85, 91, 101, 102, 103, 105, 115, 135, 137, 157, 177, 183, 189, 194, 196, 197, 198, 202, 206, 253, 287, 312, 325, 326, 332, 333, 335, 338 The Koran, English Translation, with Notes Only, 46, 323 The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, 127 The Life of Muhammad, 367 The Meaning of the Qur'an, 59, 94, 314, 318, 324 The Merchant of Venice, 146 The Middle East for Dummies, 44, 122, 218, 222, 223, 225, 226, 235, 254 The Mufti of Jerusalem, 262 The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, 20, 92 The NIV Study Bible, 27, 45, 141, 145, 309, 334 The Opening, 313, 314 The Pact of Umar, 112, 113, 115 The Petroleum Bomb, 123, 214 The Phony War, 281 The Pollster, 234 The Prohibition, 135, 323, 324 The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law, 308, 309 The Qur'an: The First American Version, 48 The right question: Do we take his words seriously?, 223

432

What about Germany?, 258 What is the Koran?, 59, 60, 141 What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, 121, 152, 204 Whithers, Bill, 244 Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power 1919-1933, 278 Why are Palestinians still living in refugee camps? Where are they from and why don't they go home?, 224 Why I am Not a Muslim, 50 Wives of the Prophet, 324, 394 Woman sentenced to stoning freed, 129, 265 Woolsey, James, 123, 214 World War II, 23, 90, 205, 222, 252, 256, 260, 262, 264, 277, 278, 281, 295 Yahya, Col. Mohammad, 14 Yemen, 38 Yildirim, Selahattin, 208 Yugoslavia, 23, 28, 222, 250, 251, 252 Yusuf Islam Issues A Formal Statement On The Rushdie Affair, 184 Zaid, Abu, 141 Zakah, 69, 72, 403 Zarqawi, Abu Masab, 14, 240 Zaydi, Shiite school of thought, 330 Zionism, 21, 221, 223 Zionist, 221, 226, 257 Zogby, James, 234 Zogby, John, 234 Zoroastrians, 56, 57, 376

UN council OKs resolution to act on Sudan crisis, 219 UNC Attack Suspect Wanted to Punish Gov't, 100 United Arab Emirates, 137, 155, 166, 304 United Kingdom. See Britain United Nations, 82, 217, 222, 236, 261, 267, 302, 338, 353, 405, 407, 409 United Nations Human Development Report 2005, 168 United Nations Operations in Somalia I, 217 United Nations Operations in Somalia II, 217 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 338, 405 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, 338, 398 University of Arkansas, 215 University of North Carolina, 100 Usmani, Mufti Taqi, 190, 191 Usuli, Shiite school of thought, 330 Vatican to Muslims: practice what you preach, 301 Veda, 337 Violence Spreads Over Muhammad Caricatures, 295 Walton, Sam, 19 War and Slavery in Sudan, 108 Waziristan, 297, 347 We want to Die More than You want to Live, 250

433