Leaving Islam



Page 2


modify these perfectly clear declarations.  “When they speak about jihad, they may speak clumsily and mix up the various stages, distorting the whole concept of jihad in an effort to use the Qur’anic text to establish general principles and rules for which there exist no justification.  This is because they regard every verse of the Qur’an as if it were the final principle of the din.  This group of thinkers, which is a product of the sorry state of the present Muslim generation, has nothing but the label of Islam, and has laid down its spiritual and rational arms in defeat.  They say, ‘Islam has prescribed only defensive war’ and think they have done some good for their faith by divesting it of its method[.]”[1]

Jihad is arguably the secret of Islam’s “glory” and the key to its past success; thus, its laws must remain permanently in place until Islam has destroyed all obstacles in its quest for universal sovereignty and domination.  “Since the objective of Islam is a decisive declaration of man’s freedom, not merely on the philosophical plane but also in the actual life, it must employ jihad.  It is immaterial whether the homeland of Islam – in the true Islamic sense, dar al Islam – is in a condition of peace or whether it is threatened by its neighbors.  When Islam calls for peace, its objective is not a superficial peace requiring only that the part of the earth where the followers of Islam are residing remain secure.  The peace of Islam means that din (i.e., the law of society) be purified for Allah, that all people should obey Allah alone, and every system that permits some people to rule over others be abolished.”[2] 

Muslims: The Chosen

The laws of jihad cover the entire relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims and it admits only two such relationships, non-Muslims must either accept Islamic domination, or they must fight, since Muslims cannot accept peace on any other terms.  Islamic thought divides the world into only two great camps, the dar al Islam, the land of Islam and the dar al harb, the land of war.  Within the dar al Islam, other religions are allowed to exist, but only under the strict laws of dhimmitude that are derived from the laws of jihad. 

The people who have surrendered to Muslim conquest, but retain their native religion (so long as they are not “idol worshippers or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book”[3] are referred to as dhimmis.   They live under the “protection” of Islamic law and must be obedient to it, though they may retain their own religious laws and practices.  Dhimmis must pay the jizya or poll tax to the Muslim state, “must be distinguished from Muslims in dress; may not build higher or as high as Muslim buildings; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, to ring Church bells or display crosses, recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of funerals and feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches.”[4]  

The contract of protection is also violated if a dhimmi “commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her; conceals spies of hostile forces; leads a Muslim away from Islam; kills a Muslim; or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam.”[5]   In that case, the dhimmi’s status reverts to that of prisoner of war and he may be killed, sold into slavery, ransomed or released at the pleasure of the caliph,[6] who traditionally ruled as king and “Pope” at once.

Rendering the non-Muslim well nigh helpless under the Islamic system is the law stating that no dhimmi may bear testimony in an Islamic court against a Muslim.  Dhimmis in general may not hold any position of authority over Muslims.  Furthermore, dhimmis may not arm themselves, nor appeal to any outside power for aid.  The Turkish Armenian Christians made the mistake of appealing to the British in the years before they were liquidated following World War I.[7] 

The draconian nature of Islamic law toward non-Muslims goes a long way in explaining how a small minority of Muslim conquerors could, over the centuries, become a ruling majority in lands once occupied by thriving populations of Christians, Jews and Hindus.  The pressure on these populations to either convert or emigrate was enormous.

Qutb lived during a time when communist influence in Egypt was at its height.  Referring to Islam as a political party he writes, “In the world there is only one party of Allah; all others are parties of Satan and rebellion.”[8]   The “community of believers,” or umma, is thus an elite group of “insiders” – a ruling class predicated on membership in, and loyalty to, a political religion.  The Islamic Party would thus function in much the same way as National Socialists in Germany or the Communist Party in Russia or China functioned.  There is a “Party of Allah” currently vying for power in democratic Turkey .


A Muslim must have no loyalty except his loyalty to fellow Muslims, nor has he a homeland except where Islamic law dominates.  Muslim loyalty to the nation-state must be secondary and even subordinate to Muslim loyalty to other Muslims and to Islam.  Thus, when American Sergeant Hasan Akbar cried, “You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children,” before lobbing a grenade into an army tent, killing two officers and wounding fifteen servicemen in Kuwait on March 22, 2003,[9] he was talking about his fellow Muslims.  “Our countries,” did not refer to America , the land of his birth, but to Muslim lands.

Qutb quotes the Qur’an in which the notion of brotherhood is defined in the negative:

  You will not find the people who believe in Allah and the Hereafter taking as allies the enemies of Allah and His Prophet, whether they be their fathers or sons or brothers or fellow tribesmen.[10]

“Grouping according to family and tribe and nation, or race and color and country, are residues of the primitive state of man.”[11]  Under Islam, the “blood and soil” concepts of nationalism are swept away.  “Nationalism here is belief, homeland here is dar-al-Islam, the ruler here is Allah, and the constitution here is the Qur’an.”[12]   The correct Islamic attitude toward the “outside world” is one of unremitting hostility in which no compromise is possible.  Islam demands total world-revolution.  It cannot be circumscribed within certain territorial boundaries and remain at peace with “outsiders.”  Nor can this revolution be brought about gradually, through only “a little change in the established order. . . . The truth is, that Islam not only changes concepts and attitudes, but also the system, modes, laws, and customs since this change is so fundamental that no relationship can remain with the jahili way of life, the life mankind is now living. . . . If someone loves to deceive himself or to deceive others by believing that Islam can be brought in line with this jahiliyyah, it is up to him.  But whether this deception misleads others [into thinking they can live at peace with Islam outside the Islamic system] or not, it cannot change anything of actual reality.  This is not Islam, and the deceived are not Muslims.  Today a prime task of the Call to Islam is bringing these ignorant people back to Islam and make them into Muslims all over again.”[13]  He goes on, “the chasm between Islam and jahiliyyah is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”[14]


One of Qutb’s crucial “milestones along the road” to world Islam became a reality when the mujahideen of Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden and other successors of the Muslim Brotherhood including the Islamic scholar Shaykh Abdullah Azzam and Ayman al-Zawahiri, created the government of the Taliban after their defeat of the Soviet army and its communist puppet state.  This pure Islamic state was to be a model for the world that would then spread all across the globe.  The actual reality of this extremely oppressive state has perhaps underlined for moderate Muslims the fact that this archaic

Page 4

[1] ibid. pgs. 45-46  

[2] ibid. pg. 51  

[3] Reliance of the Traveller, The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri (d. 1368) Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, Revised Edition, 1994) pg. 607  

[4] ibid. pg. 608

[5] ibid. pg. 609  

[6] ibid. pg. 604  

[7] For a thorough discussion of dhimmitude, see Bat Ye’or’s, Islam and Dhimmitude, (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Lancaster , UK , 2002)  

[8] Qutb, Sayyid, Milestones (American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, IN. 1990) pg. 101  

[9] Spencer, Robert, Onward Muslim Soldiers ( Regnery Publishing , Washington , DC. 2003) pg. 3 

from Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2003

[10] Qur’an 58:22

[11] Qutb, Sayyid, Milestones (American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, IN. 1990) pg. 109

[12] ibid. pg. 110

[13] ibid. pg. 118

[14] ibid. pg. 120





Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.