Islam 101 - Part 4

ISLAMIC LAW

Muslim spokesmen and apologists today routinely state that mainstream Islam is "moderate" and peaceful, and that the jihadists are acting on their own unique twistings of Islamic teaching that have no basis in how the majority of Muslims view their religion.

Such spokemen have failed to take into account the rulings of Islamic jurists throughout the centuries. All the mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach today that Muslims must fight jihad warfare to establish Islamic hegemony over the whole world. Take, for example, these quotes from the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence - Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi and Shafi'i - to which the majority of the world's Muslims belong, but bear in mind that these things are taught among the Shi'ites also.

The Maliki jurist Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani said:

"Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."

The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya said:

"Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words ( e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare)."

The Hanafi school teaches:

"It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war...If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."

And finally, the Shafi'i scholar Abu'l Hasan al-Marwardi said:

"The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the House of War) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them...in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun...Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger...it is forbidden to...begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached."

These rulings are centuries old, but they have never been revised by any Islamic authority and remain the same today. Jihadists cite them to make their case and make recruits among traditional Muslims. In 2003, the Sharia Council of the State Defense Council of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria published an article in its underground publication "Jihad Today" which quoted three of the four schools of jurisprudence to argue for jihad against the Russians in Chechnya. Although only two Islamic countries in the world today implement full Islamic law (Iran and Saudi Arabia), these rulings still remain on the books, ready to be picked up and re-used at any time by anyone with the will to carry them through. It is noteworthy that all the quotes above echo Muhammad's own command that non-Muslims first be invited to accept Islam or dhimmitude before being fought.

Proof that this isn't all just ancient history comes from Egypt. The Al-Azhar University in Cairo is the highest spiritual authority in Sunni Islam - that is, for nearly a billion Muslims around the world. In 1991, the University certified a Shafi'i manual of Islamic law as conforming "to the practise and faith of the orthodox Sunni community". The manual, "Umdat al-Salik" ("Reliance of the Traveller") defines jihad as "warfare against non-Muslims" and goes on to spend eleven pages describing how this warfare must be fought, echoing the language seen in the quotations above. If the highest authority in Islam believes that this manual conforms to Islamic orthodoxy, what does that say about the "moderation" of mainstream Islam?

Muslims often attempt to debunk the whole "Violent Islam" critique by saying that the Qur'an forbids murder, in much the same way that the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill". They point to this passage: "Whosoever killeth a human being, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32) However, they don't mention that this verse isn't addressed to the Muslims at all, but to the Children of Israel, and is in the past tense. It comes as part of a warning to the Jews not to make war on the Muslims or they will face terrible punishment. The passage goes on to say: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." Suddenly it doesn't sound so peaceful, does it?

But in any case, Islamic law has a somewhat unbalanced and hypocritical approach towards murder. According to "Umdat al-Salik", anyone who deliberately murders another person should be fiercely punished. However, no such punishment is necessary for "a Muslim killing a non-Muslim". This has led to unfair punishments being meted out against Christians in Muslim countries where such laws are enforced. In general, Islam makes it a rule that Muslims should not kill each other, but does not extend these rules to non-Muslims living in their domains.

In my first article I contended the idea that Islam forbids the killing of the innocent by pointing to an incident in Muhammad's life. But what does Islamic law say on the matter? It is anything but clear-cut. The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya summed it up above when he said that the innocent should not be killed "unless they actually fight with words ( e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare)." With innocent people defined in such elastic terms, jihadists can justify many of their terrorist actions by simply saying that the people they are killing aren't innocent on Islamic grounds. Osama bin Laden justified the 9/11 atrocities by saying that "the American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq". He went on to say that these tax dollars also go towards aid to the hated Israelis, and that the American people choose these policies by voting for their elected candidates. By such definition, there is no such thing as an innocent American. Jihadists also commonly assert that there are no innocent civilians in Israel, since simply by virtue of being in Israel they are "trespassing" on Muslim land and so can legitimately be killed. When Western Islamic spokesmen publically condemn "terrorism" and attacks on "innocent civilians", they are doing nothing to prevent the jihadists from believing that they are acting justly, since the jihadists believe that their victims are neither innocent nor civilians, and can point to Islamic sources to justify this.

The final area of Islam I am going to cover, although not so much a legal issue, concerns religious deception. Muhammad himself said "War is deception" (Bukhari v.4, b.56, no.3030, and others) and a couple of passages in the Qur'an seem to suggest that Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims during a time of war ( e.g. 3:28). This has been developed culturally by Muslims as part of the doctrines of taqiyya (lying about religious beliefs) and kitman (partial truth-telling with the intention to mislead). "Umdat al-Salik" offers a tidbit on this when it says, "Lying is permissible when there is a legitimate desired end. And the legitimate desired end may be a personal one."

What are the implications of this? There could be many. Those Muslims who profess publically to be moderate may actually be practising taqiyya and lying about their beliefs in order to fool Westerners into thinking they are moderate. There have been several cases of high-ranking imams in Britain and America who have publically denounced Muslim terrorist attacks and then have been caught out in private secretly supporting them. Does this mean that every moderate Muslim is lying? Absolutely not, but it's a possibility that some are, and it demonstrates that people would be right to be suspicious. Certainly no one will think to ask these people some difficult questions. People should not assume, however, that any particular Muslim is lying about their beliefs unless there is evidence to support this.

Ultimately, only actions from moderate Muslims, not hollow words, will prove their moderation or lack thereof. If they set up initiatives in schools and mosques to teach rejection of Qur'anic literalism and the kinds of Islamic legal issues I have outlined above, and assist local and national law enforcement in finding and catching jihadists, then we can believe their claim to be moderate. Until then, it is perhaps best to be cautious.

Next week: Islamic history vs. Christian history - which is the more bloodstained, and which is more of a threat today?