Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the World's Fastest-Growing Faith

by Robert Spencer

  Muslim militants in Algeria have targeted that country's small group of Catholics for years. In 1994 they killed a priest, a nun and four missionaries; in 1995, two nuns; in 1996, a bishop and fourteen monks. Many of those who were murdered were trying to establish friendly relations with the Muslim community. Bishop Pierre Claverie of Oran, killed in 1996, "had dedicated his life to promoting dialogue between Islam and Christianity; he was known as the `Bishop of the Muslims' and had studied Islam in depth-indeed to such an extent that ... the Muslims themselves would consult him on the subject."64

  Compass Direct, a global Protestant news service, reported in early 2002 that in Malawi, two local Christians "have been stoned, threatened with machetes and warned by local Muslim leaders that they will be sent back to their original villages as corpses if they continue to hold meetings in their houses." 65

  According to Aid to the Church in Need, in Bangladesh "on April 28, 1998, a crowd-instigated by the Islamists-ransacked and partly burnt down the Catholic girls' college of St Francis Xavier, the churches of Santa Croce and St Thomas in the capital, and the Baptist church in Sadarghat. Some priests, nuns and even ordinary workers have been threatened with death." The occasion for this violence seems to have been a dispute over land:

  The reason for the conflict was a plot of land belonging to the Church which the adjacent mosque wanted for itself. Seven thousand people, incited via a loud-hailer with claims that the mosque had been invaded by Christians and Jews, broke into the St Francis Xavier College, burning books, smashing crucifixes and statues of Our Lady, breaking down doors, windows and ransacking the dormitories.66

  In a notorious incident in Peshawar, Pakistan, Muslim gunmen killed fifteen Christians at Sunday worship on October z8, 2001. Since then other Christians have been attacked and killed in Peshawar; five people were killed and forty wounded in another church attack on March 17, 2002. The entire Pakistani Christian community was terrorized by an al-Qaeda threat to kill "two Christians in retaliation for every Muslim killed in the U.S. military strikes in Afghanistan."67

  Pakistani schoolteacher Cadherine Shaheen was harassed on the job, "pressured to convert to Islam." Finally she was told that she would have to convert to Islam or leave the school. Soon she was accused of blasphemy. All the area mosques posted copies of a poster bearing her name and picture. "You have to understand," says Shaheen. "This was a death sentence for me. It's considered an honor for one of the Muslim men to kill a blasphemer. Just before me, the Muslims murdered a school principal accused of blasphemy. I was next."

  Shaheen went underground, whereupon Pakistani police arrested her father and brothers. Her father, age 85, was traumatized and soon died. Cadherine made her way to the United States. "It's horrible for Christians in Pakistan," she says. "The Muslims take our land, rob our homes, try to force us to accept Islam. Young girls are kidnapped and raped. Then they're told that if they want a husband who will accept them after that defilement, they must become Muslim."68 Egyptian girls report being subjected to similar harassment.69

  Even in the relatively secular Iraq of Saddam Hussein, where Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz is a Chaldean Catholic Christian, the small Christian community faces random violence from the Muslim majority. In 1996 and 1997, Kurds killed over thirty Christians in northern Iraq. Christians are routinely pressured to marry Muslims.70

  Muslim militants despise Libya's Muammar Qaddafi as much as they do Saddam Hussein. Qaddafi has imposed a heretical form of Islam upon Libya, rejecting the Sunnah and hadith. But that doesn't mean he's any more tolerant toward Christians: "The majority of the Christian churches were closed following the revolution of 1969, despite the fact that the words of the Constitution guarantee the liberty of religion. After expelling the Italian and Maltese Catholics, Qaddafi turned the cathedral in the capital into a mosque." 71

  Since the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus in 1974, churches have been despoiled of icons, which have flooded the market in Greece. The Turks have taken over many churches for secular uses, and even tried to convert the fourth-century monastery of San Makar into a hotel. Christian Cypriots are forbidden to come near the building, much less to enter it.72

  Secular Turkey is little better: Muslim militants seem determined to drive all Christians out of the country. In Tur-Abdin in southwest Turkey in 1960, there were 150,000 Christians; today there are just over 2,ooo. There is also terrorism: "on December 3,1997, a bomb exploded in the headquarters of the Ecumenical Patriarch, injuring a deacon and damaging the church."73

  In Nigeria, over two thousand people have been killed in MuslimChristian riots in the city of Jos. All over Nigeria, Muslim militants continue to try to impose the Sharia over the whole country, despite its sizable Christian population. A report warned that in Jos, "the conflict could recur, since Muslim militants are still bent on attacking Christians."74

  In Indonesia, the violent repression of Christians in East Timor is by no means the only case of oppression of non-Muslims. Compass Direct reports that a militant Muslim group, Laskar Jihad, and its allies are waging war on Christians on a large scale. In Java in 1996, Muslims destroyed thirteen churches. Aid to the Church in Need reported an incident emblematic of the differences between Islam and Christianity: "Eight Sisters of the Little Child Jesus, on arriving in Cileduk, a suburb of Java, were attacked by stone-throwing Muslims; they responded by building a care centre for children, an old people's home and a school."75

  Thirteen more churches were torched in Djakarta in 1998 by mobs shouting, "We are Muslim gentlemen and they are Christian pigs" and, paraphrasing the Qur'an, "Kill all the pagans!" One Muslim shouted at an army offer who was trying to protect some Christians to "stand aside and allow Islamic justice to take its course. 1171

  Have the people who commit such acts "hijacked" Islam? As we have seen, it would be hard to make a case that they are bad Muslims. They are simply obeying the Qur'anic injunctions to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Sura 9:5), for "Muhammad is God's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" (Sura 48:29).

  There will be many more such stories, for Islam supports and perpetuates hatred of Christians. Some traditions even suggest that Christians are the worst of all unbelievers-as does one hadith about the lawfulness of marrying unbelieving women:

  Narrated Nafi': Whenever Ibn cUmar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: `Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry Al-Mushrikat (ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah), and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc., to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just a slave from the slaves of Allah."77

  In fact, the worse off the House of Islam is, the more threatened are its Christian minorities. When things are going wrong, Muslims tend to blame the infidels among them for calling down the wrath of Allah. So they purify the land and court Allah's favor by killing them. That may be why Christians in Pakistan and elsewhere have been having a harder time of it lately, when passions are enflamed throughout the House of Islam. That is also why Christians and Jews will always be in danger of persecution in Islamic lands. Until Muslims in general come to view the Qur'an and the hadiths the way Christians and Jews regard some portions of the Old Testament, as limited in their modern application by their historical context, it is unlikely that this situation will change.

  Does the West Really Have

  Nothing to Fear from Islam?

  THERE ARE NOT TWO, BUT THREE CERTAINTIES in human affairs: death, taxes, and jihad. If the West faces any long-term threat from Islam, it stems from the latter, much-abused concept.

  Muslim commentators complain that nothing (except, possibly, the status of women) is more misunderstood and misrepresented in the West than the concept of jihad. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) went so far as to claim that it "does not mean `holy war."" Journalist Ahmed Rashid blames the misunderstanding o
n those universal whipping boys, the Crusaders: "In Western thought, heavily influenced by the medieval Christian Crusaders-with their own ideas about `holy war'-jihad has always been portrayed as an Islamic war against unbelievers." He insists that "militancy is not the essence of jihad."

  What is, then? "The greater jihad as explained by The Prophet Muhammad," says Rashid, "is first inward-seeking: it involves the effort of each Muslim to become a better human being, to struggle to improve him- or herself."2 This much is undisputable.

  Muhammad Sa'id al-Buti, a theology professor at Damascus University, insists that "the essence and core of Jihad ... [has] nothing to do with fighting." He supports this assertion with a pair of hadiths: "Allah's Messenger himself confirms and clarifies this fact by his hadith (saying) A most excellent Jihad is when one speaks a word of truth in the presence of a tyrannical ruler.' He also says, A most excellent kind of Jihad is to carry on against your own self and whim for the sake of the Lord."'3

  If that's what CAIR means in saying that jihad doesn't denote "holy war," they are absolutely right. This spiritual and ascetical struggle is indeed commonly known in Islam by the term Rashid uses for it: the greater jihad.

  But even as they grouse about purposeful Western misunderstandings, Rashid and al-Buti acknowledge that there is also a lesser jihad. This is where the AK-47's come in.

  Lesser jihad cannot be separated from the waging of war. Even Rashid and al-Buti grant this. Jihad can, says Rashid, "become the means to mobilize ... political and social struggle."4 How? By leafleting or holding seminars? Perhaps, but al-Buti is more explicit. He notes the example of the Prophet and his Companions in "waging armed struggle against those who wanted to resist the Islamic da'wah [proclamation of the Islamic message] which followed the norm of communication and dialogue."5 Even CAIR acknowledges that jihad includes "the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense ... or fighting against tyranny or oppression" (emphasis added).6

  In noting that the battlefield jihad must be waged only in selfdefense, CAIR is following Muhammad Abduh and others who tried to bring Islam into line with modern sensibilities. In his commentary on the Qur'an, cAbdullah Yusuf `Ali states that "war is permissible in selfdefence, and under well-defined limits."7 Unfortunately, however, not all currents of Islam have flowed in this direction.

  "I have been ordered to fight"

  According to classic Islamic theology, Muslims can legitimately wage war against those who resist the proclamation of Islam. In his book Jihad in Islam: How to Understand and Practice It, al-Buti (whose theories have ignited some controversy in the Muslim world) considers at great length the question of whether this armed struggle can be undertaken "to avert belligerency" or "to put an end to infidelity."' In other words, is jihad purely defensive, or can it be offensive? (Al-Buti, however, carefully defines "to avert belligerency" in a way that allows for a preemptive strike against a perceived imminent attack.)

  Al-Buti bases his discussion of this question on the Qur'an and these hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim, which have justified Islamic belligerency for centuries:

  Narrated Ibn cUmar: Allah's Messenger said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that La ilaha illallah, wa anna Muhammad-ar-Rasul-Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah), and perform As-Salat [Iqamat-as-Salat (prayers)] and give Zakat so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws, and then their reckoning (accounts) will be (done by) Allah."

  It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.'o

  After a thorough discussion of these hadiths and other elements of Muslim tradition, al-Buti concludes that Muslim forces should not attack unbelievers. They should fight when attacked, or when an attack seems imminent, but that's all. In this conclusion he sides with three of the four major Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali; by his account, all agree that military jihad should only be undertaken to ward off an attack or potential attack.

  But of course, that is precisely what Osama bin Laden says that the September ii attacks were doing. His justifications for his actions have always been theological. In his World Islamic Front statement of February 23, 1998, he laid out a litany of American offenses and then declared:

  All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulama have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al-Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulama]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life.""

  Certainly other imams have disputed his interpretation, although most Muslims who avowed that the September 11 attacks were illegal according to Islam focused on the killing of the innocents-which, as we have seen, bin Laden also has disputed. But the point here isn't that bin Laden is right and others are wrong; it's that his interpretation is firmly rooted in Islamic law. Other bin Ladens can and will use the same laws to make more trouble. The problem, in other words, is that the theory of jihad allows for the unchecked growth of militant groups in Islamgrowth which outmanned and outgunned Islamic moderates are powerless to stop, because to do so would be to turn against Islam itself.

  What's more, the other major Sunni school, the Shafi'i, and the smaller Zahiri school favor offensive jihad. The Shafi'is and Zahiris, according to al-Buti, "proclaimed that the fundamental cause of Jihad is to terminate Paganism."12 This would mean that jihad must continue as long as there are unbelievers, at least according to the Shafi'is. Making war on unbelievers is one of the responsibilities of the Muslim umma. The Shafi'i manual Reliance of the Traveller stipulates that jihad is "a communal obligation" to "war against non-Muslims."

  The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions (0: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.... The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.13 ["N" and "0" denote references to commentaries by Sheikh Nuh `Ali Salman and Sheikh `Umar Barakat, respectively. These parenthetical comments are included within the main text of Reliance of the Traveller, as they appear here.]

  Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire there has been no caliph, but this doesn't mean that no Muslim will dare to declare jihad. Bin Laden has taken it upon himself to declare jihad on his own. (Other Muslim clerics have, however, denied his right to do this.)

  The Shafi'is, in any case, are no fringe group, nor are they newly minted. The Shafi'i juridical rite has been around for more than a millennium: it was founded upon the teachings of the Imam al-Shafi'i, who flourished in the ninth century, and is particularly strong today in Egypt, Syria, India and Indonesia. It was once widespread in Arabia, only to be displaced by the even more militant Wahhabis.

  Moreover, the niceties of theory and theological debate aside, there is little doubt that on matters of jihad the Shafi'is find substantial agreement from, for example, the Wahhabis (who profess the Hanbali school of jurisprude
nce) and many others. Even if they disagree on the textbook occasions for jihad, enough Muslims believe that they have ample cause nowadays to "combat belligerency" that Americans should prepare themselves for a long, hard war.

  Those who claim that jihad is primarily a struggle against sin, or that it only resorts to arms in a defensive mode, are correct, then-but only partially. Likewise, those who think that militant Islam is a Wahhabi creation fail to recognize that even some of the Islamic groups that the Wahhabis condemn as heretics allow for Wahhabi-like militancy among their adherents.

  Three Territories

  Traditional Islamic thought divides the world into three spheres: dar-alIslam, dar-al-Sulk and dar-al-harb-that is, the House of Islam, the House of Truce and the House of War.

  The House of Islam, of course, is the territory where Islamic law holds sway. Dependent upon it is the House of Truce, the area where non-Muslims live in covenant with Muslim rulers; this area, then, is the abode of the dhimmis. (Dr. Mustafa Ceric, a high-ranking Bosnian Muslim cleric, defines dar-al-Sulh as more of an intermediary area, where "the situation is such that Islam or the shariah cannot be implemented fully, but the government should endeavour to put it into practice as much as possible.")"

  About the House of War there is no disagreement. "Non-Muslims," explains Bat Ye'or, "are harbis, inhabitants of the dar-al-harb, the lands of war, so called because they are destined to come under Islamic jurisdiction, either by war (harb) or by the conversion of their inhabitants." The jihad that aims to increase the size of the dar-al-Islam at the expense of the daral-harb is not a conventional war that begins at a certain point and ends at another. Jihad is a "permanent war" that "excludes the idea of peace but authorizes temporary truces related to the political situation (muhadana)."15