Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (I)
Section 1.
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 several 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 weakened court protections, 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.
The inferior status of Infidels can vary significantly, according to the versions of Shari’ah adopted in different times and places. 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: [1]
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!
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 manner in which this document legitimizes 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, after conversion and learning the Koran’s language, if they were horrified by what they read, they would no longer be able to leave Islam without risking their lives. Moreover, by inhibiting the ability of non-Muslims to understand the Koran, The Pact of Umar made sure that Infidels remained blissfully unaware of Islam’s deep hostility toward them.
The Pact of Umar also makes sure that Infidels stand 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.
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. Moreover, the violation of any portion of this pact by any individual is 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 initiate massive Islamic retaliations that target entire nations, or more.
In addition, just as Infidels are not allowed to defend themselves from Muslim attacks, they also do not have the same protection from murder that Muslims enjoy, as many hadiths explain, [2] 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 applies when a Muslim slave kills 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 him 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 leaves the door open to murder without a meaningful punishment. According to these rules, a free Muslim, who wishes to kill a Jew or Christian, may simply tell one of his slaves to do it for him. He then “punishes” the slave by selling him to a friend and handing the proceeds to the victim’s family. This is 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 that of the system above. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the payment schedule for blood-money is: [3]
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
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman
With the Saudi Riyal being worth about 27 cents in 2006, these prices can be quite attractive for an oil-rich Muslim irritated by an Infidel. For while the possibility of death hangs over anyone who kills a Muslim, the penalty for killing an Infidel is simply a murder tax.
The above schedule makes the murder of Infidels 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 silenced quite reasonably. 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 becomes clear that Islam was never opposed to colonialism. Muslims do not rail against European colonization because colonization is wrong. Rather, what outrages them is that they, the rightful colonizers, were instead colonized by Infidel Europeans.
When Muslims colonize a region, their propaganda takes truly Orwellian forms. The most Orwellian term is “the House of Peace,” itself, which refers to the Islamic world, a region that has, since inception, 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,” 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.
Similarly, Islamic newspeak can also turn the concept of freedom on its head, as revealed in the explanation of Jihad found in The Koran for Dummies: [4]
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.
This quote confirms that it is indeed more accurate to translate Dar al-Islam as “House of Submission” rather than “House of Peace.”
Also, note how the above quote 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.
Historically, non-Muslims have 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…much booty…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:
PICKTHAL: In the name of the merciful and compassionate God.
[8.1] 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: [5]
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4328:…My father took a sword from Khums 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 its use.
The taxation of infidels who live in the House of Submission
As we have already seen, the Koran states:
[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: [6]
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:…We said to ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, “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. [7] What follows are excerpts on the subject from a version of Shari’ah issued by a fatwa of Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah, Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani.
You may recognize Sistani. He is the “moderate” who has been representing Iraq’s Shiites throughout Iraq’s occupation by Coalition forces. He is also the man who nearly started an uprising against the Coalition in early 2004 when he decided that government control was not being handed to Iraqis quickly enough. This is his fatwa on the treatment of Infidels:
VI. Spoils of War[8]
1837. If Muslims fight against the infidels by the command of the Holy Imam (A.S. [9]) 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 Zimmi[10] 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 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 Section VI told believers that, if Sistani declared an insurgency against the Coalition government (essentially forming his own alternative government), then 20% of the booty captured would be paid to his alternative government, after he takes whatever he feels is his fair share of the spoils. If, however, Shiites conducted an insurgency without his approval, then he laid claim to all of the spoils. Section VII says 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.
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 Hudud[11], or Hudd crimes, the only crimes punishable by death:
Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Number 4152: [12]…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: [13]…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: [14]…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.”
Sistani’s Shari’ah adds further insight on how to deal with an Apostate’s family and estate: [15]
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. [16]
2457. If a woman becomes an apostate after marriage, her marriage becomes void…
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 non-Muslims 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 Islam requires such harsh punishments for Apostates? Obviously, Islam’s laws regarding Apostates are designed to compel Muslims not to change their religion.
You may be wondering whether Shari’ah’s anti-Apostasy laws have force today. Absolutely! Rashid Khalidi affirmed this disturbing fact in his book, Resurrecting Empire, in a section that was intended to say something negative about the United States. In trying to portray the U.S. presence in the Middle East as an infiltration, intended to establish an American empire, he inadvertently makes a very different point: [17]
Where the United States was involved in the Middle East, 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. Three 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. [18]
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. [19]
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: [20]
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. [21] 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.
Islam’s call for death to its 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: [22]
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 laws that are not Allah’s, and look forward to the day when Shari’ah is the law of the land. These 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 place 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 only temporary 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 considered unstoppable. Unfortunately, its medieval methods of communication and transportation, along with its centralization of power in the Sultan, and its custom of beginning all military campaigns from Constantinople, made it impossible for the Empire to project itself beyond certain limits. [23] 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. Revenues from non-Muslims declined as Infidels within Ottoman territory either emigrated or converted to Islam, reducing the supply of non-Muslims to exploit. [24]
3. Revenues from the remaining non-Muslims declined as they reduced their productivity in response to excessive taxation. [25]
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 in 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 the facts reveals that the Empire itself was the culprit. Consider:
A voyage from Europe, around Africa, and to India was long, hazardous, and expensive compared to one that crossed the Mediterranean to Egypt, traversed to the Red Sea, and then sailed to India. Yet this shorter route was unable to compete with the hazardous route around Africa. 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 advantageous 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 their 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.” [26]
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 section of this book entitled The management 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. [27]
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 the West’s 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, [28] Muslims have found a new economic engine that can turbo-charge the venerable 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.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1:
[1] The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, by Jacob Marcus, New York: JPS, 1938, pages 13-15
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Struggling against evil, page 253.
[5] A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4329.
[6] A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 404.
[7] 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 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 was issued by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, of Iraq. See http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=3&lang=eng&part=3.
[8] Islamic Laws, on the topic of Khums: sections entitled Spoils of War and Land Purchased by a Non-Believer Zimmi from a Muslim. See http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=3&lang=eng&part=3. Select “Khums” from a drop-down menu, and then select “The Spoils of War” and “Land Purchased by a Zimmi from a Muslim” from sub-menus.
[9] A.S. stands for Ali Sistani, the author of this fatwa.
[10] An Infidel living under the “protection” of an Islamic government. An alternative term for Zimmi is Dhimmi.
[11] Also referred to as Hudood.
[12] Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17, and Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Numbers 4153, 4154, and 4155.
[13] A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57.
[14] 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.
[15] Islamic Laws, on the topic of Marriage: section entitled Miscellaneous rules concerning marriage. See http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=3&lang=eng&part=3. Select “Marriage” from a drop-down menu, and then select “Miscellaneous rules concerning marriage” from a sub-menu.
[16] 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.
[17] Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 1, entitled The Legacy of the Western Encounter with the Middle East, page 32.
[18] Sudan: In the Name of God (Repression continues in northern Sudan) , Human Rights Watch, November 1994 Vol. 6, No. 9.
[19] 1995 Amnesty International report on Iran, covering the period of January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995
[20] Condemned Iranian gets last chance, by Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press.
[21] Iranian professor freed from jail, by Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, The Guardian (U.K.).
[22] 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.
[23] For example, sieges of Vienna always failed due to 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.
[24] 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.
[25] 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) .
[26] The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 6, entitled The Modern Middle East, page 92.
[27] See History of the Suez Canal link on www.suezcanal.com, the official website of the Suez Canal.
[28] The Petroleum Bomb, by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Mechanical Engineering, October 2005.
Recent Comments