islamic authoritarianism

• the myth of islamic tolerance in al-andalus
• authoritarianism and liberty
• socialist religions
• fascism is socialism
• papal encyclicals and marx - some extracts
• Frédéric Bastiat and free trade

• citizen's wage
• power, ownership and freedom
• corporate corruption, politics and the law
• British establishment interference with civil liberties during the 20th century—the example of Diana and Oswald Mosley
• oppression, poverty and life expectancy - t.a.s.

introduction
jihad
lying in islam
dhimmi
leaving islam—‘apostacy’
anarchism and islam
end notes

site map

advertising disclaimer

introduction

Some are attempting to make modernised interpretations of the Koran and the associated laws, and to make adaptations to better accord with modern, Westernised, secular society. But there are considerable problems with dogmas that insist that the Muslim religion and the public law are inseparable. As with socialist religions, my intent here is to show some basic Islamic dogmas, while considering whether Islam can adapt to and relate to modern secular society.

The word ‘tolerance’, when used by Muslim apologists, tends to mean “allowed to live by the Muslim masters”.

jihad

“This document states in its preamble, and in articles 24 and 25, that all its provisions are in conformity with the sharia, the religious Islamic law, which has primacy. Moreover, it proclaims that God has made the Islamic community (umma) the best nation - and, hence, its role is to guide humanity. We can see here the differences between the Cairo Declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which does not refer to any religion or to the superiority of any group over another, but stresses the absolute equality of all human beings.

“The institution of jihad belongs to a religious, Islamic domain, outside the realm of Western universalism and secularism. These two domains do not meet. Secular laws can be changed, abrogated, or ameliorated, but jihad regulations are believed to express divine commands. By definition, human beings can neither discuss nor scrutinize the divine will, and so those jihad obligations - attributed by the theologians to Allah - place jihad in the domain of faith. I would like to emphasize strongly that jihad is a special domain of Islamic law. Not all Muslims know it, and many reject its ideology. It would be a great mistake to believe that each and every Muslim identifies with the jihad-war ideology.”
—
“Jihad ideology separates humanity into two hostile blocs: the community of Muslims (Dar ul-Islam), and the infidel non-Muslims (Dar ul-Harb). Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the entire world in order to rule it according to Koranic law. Hence Muslims must wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit. This is the motivation for jihad. It is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels, as was re-emphasized in the Cairo Declaration. The first is a superior group, which must rule the world; the second must submit. The current relevance of this ideology is apparent, and disturbing.”

jihadism - a sane voice on islamism

“It's a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution.”
—
“However, "though neutral on Islam," he continues, "I take a strong stand on Islamism, which I see as very different....Whereas the closest parallels to Islam are Judaism and Christianity, those closest to Islamism are other radical utopian 'isms,' namely fascism and Marxism-Leninism. Islamism is a scourge, a global affliction whose victims include peoples of all religions, [but] Muslims are the main casualties....Moderate Muslims who wish to live modern lives, unencumbered by burqas, fatwas, and violent visions of jihad, are on the defensive and atomized. They must be helped: celebrated by governments, publicized in the media, given grants by foundations." Many of Pipes's articles deal with the plight of moderate
voices in Islam, and he says MEF is in the process of helping form an anti-Islamist Muslim organization.”

Daniel Pipes on Jihad:

“But of course it is bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the jihadists worldwide who define the term, not a covey of academic apologists. More importantly, the way the jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history.

“In premodern times, jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims, then as now the Islamic majority.* It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in Arabic as dar al-Islam) at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims (dar al-harb). In this prevailing conception, the purpose of jihad is political, not religious. It aims not so much to spread the Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power (though the former has often followed the latter). The goal is boldly offensive, and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world.

“By winning territory and diminishing the size of areas ruled by non-Muslims, jihad accomplishes two goals: it manifests Islam's claim to replace other faiths, and it brings about the benefit of a just world order. In the words of Majid Khadduri of Johns Hopkins University, writing in 1955 (before political correctness conquered the universities), jihad is "an instrument for both the universalization of [Islamic] religion and the establishment of an imperial world state." ”

Written since the 7/7 bombings in London during July 2005, the nature of cult recruitment - jihadi bombers [briefing document] gives more current and detail information on this aspect of Islam. For a simple summary of the nuisance actions of Islamism in the modern setting [2005], see on european establishment somnolence in face of the growing islamist death cult nuisance - background to the logic of the situation.

lying in islam

This also known as takeyya, taqiyya, ketman, kitman and other spellings.

lying [from islamreview.com] [1]

“ Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Among these are:

• War is deception; for instance, jihad.
  In other words, the dogmas
  1. demand the spread of Islam,
  2. sanction lying for that purpose, takeyya.
• The necessities justify the forbidden.
• If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two.

“These principles are derived from passages found in the Quran and the Hadith.”
—
“In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts.”
—
“[...] the most tolerant Muslims are not the ones who are educated, but the uneducated people in the countryside, the rural poor, who don’t actually know precisely what is in the Koran, since they cannot read the difficult Arabic. Islamic fundamentalism is very much an urban phenomenon of people who are educated, or able to read the Koran and take it very literally.”

Is Iran hiding a nuclear weapon program?
How is one to negotiate and form agreements with people who justify lying?

The site quoted immediately before is Christianist. However, the claims are not dissimilar from items on Islam-oriented sites. For instance, on lying [from al-islam.org, three pages, heavily referenced]. [1]

related material
ends and means and the individual

dhimmi

From the last cited document:

“[...] 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.”

This later state where the non-believer must submit to the superior islamic rulers is known as dhimmitude. It is often claimed by Islamic apologists that this process, which is mainly applied to “the People of the Book”(Abrahamic religions), shows Islam to be tolerant. But instead dhimmitude shows no such thing, as Islam enforces heavy servility as well as and constant pressure and disadvantages in order to drive any alternative beliefs out of society. [2]

Also quoted in this link, and taken from Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamist newspaper in London, January 27, 2001:

“Upon the establishment of the Islamic State, the whole world will potentially be Dar ul Harb since the foreign policy of the Islamic state is aimed at conquering the world... Once the Islamic State is established anyone in Dar ul Harb will have no sanctity for his life or wealth hence, a Muslim in such circumstances can then go into Dar ul Harb and take the wealth from the people unless there is a treaty with that state. If there is no treaty, individual Muslims can even go to Dar ul Harb and take women to keep as slaves.”

leaving islam—‘apostacy’

From an interview with an author of a compilation of Islamic apostates [4]:

“The Koran does not contain a single humane teaching that was not here before Islam. Mankind will not lose a single moral precept if Islam is not there tomorrow. After consulting the Koran, the hadith, the Prophet’s biography, and Islamic history for years, with a guarded, open mind, I related the past to the present. People tried reforming Islam; it never worked. Again and again, Islam was mortgaged in the hands of killer leadership, while the rest of the Muslim world only said "this is not real Islam".”

The same constant claim made by each failure of socialism. “This was not real socialism.”

Islam does not recognise a difference between religion and politics. For Islam, political decisions must follow the religious edicts.

The standard punishment for apostasy is to kill the apostate. This mental set can be confusing to those raised in advanced countries. Because politics and religion are not differentiated in Islam, rebellion against the religion is treated as a form of treason. In comparison, in advanced nations, even criticising the State is, in the main, regarded as "free speech", being treated as part of the tradition of scientific enquiry and empiric development.

As Bertrand Russell opined:

“Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.......” [Russell, p.74]

anarchism and islam

I also draw to your attention that there are substantial elements of anarchism in Islam. This is discussed in a considerably idiosyncratic book by Rose Wilder Lane, particularly pages 82 – 128. In my view, this anarchistic element is being demonstrated by the almost free-lance mayhem which is currently referred to as the war on terror. It would be well advised that Westerners considered this issue. My impression is that Westerners are approaching this with a communist, secret cell-type model. While there may be similarities, I do not think that that reaches far enough. I have yet to discover a useful modern source exploring this.

The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane
Fox & Wilkes; 1996, pbk 0930073002
$14.95 [amazon.com] {advert}

This book is highly recommended, primarily for its very ‘unusual’ structure. It is the sort of book that is liable to provoke thought and evoke increased insight. However, it is recommended that a substantial flask of salt is kept available.

end notes

1. Both the sites, islamreview.com and al-islam.org, are of general use for research beyond the purposes of this briefing document.
   Other interesting items at islamreview.com:
   
   • position of females in Islam
   • slavery.
   
   It is pointed out that these behaviours are far from limited to Islamic dogma and similar references can be found in the Christianist Old Testament, but they continue to be current in parts of Islam.
   
   
   
2. 
   

   	For a very great deal more, see Islam and dhimmitude: where civilizations collide by Bat Ye’or, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press 2002, pbk 0838639437 $24.95 [amazon.com] {advert} / £14.07 [amazon.co.uk] {advert} 2001, hbk 0838639429 $19.60 [amazon.com] {advert} / £17.21 [amazon.co.uk] {advert}
   This book is recommended. It has a wealth of information on its subject, complete with oceans of references, but it is also hard graft and not recommended to readers of the Daily Slime.

   
   
3. on islam and ‘render unto Caesar’
   [Note: this item is derived from a newsgroup discussion]

   In response to the assertion,

   “The making of laws by a democratic assembly makes sense in Christianity in a way in which it doesn't in Islam. The fact that very few Islamic countries are democracies is not 100% pure happenstance.”

   Christianity has:

   “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto god the things that are god’s.” Matthew 22:21

   Commentary from abelard:

   Big J is regarded as a prophet by Islam.

   There is Islamic comment at islamonline:

   “ To say the fact, such a perverted attitude of this group of Sufis has taken its toll on today’s youth who are driven by ignorance to take all that they hear for granted. Such exaggeration results in weakening the character of the Sufi under the authority of his Sheikh, as the Sufi becomes so helpless like a dead between the hands of his undertaker or the one who washes him. Thus, they develop a negative and passive attitude towards oppression and injustice, thanks to what their Sufi masters tell them that "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and let the Lord of man take care of man." ”

   The writer appears to be criticising ‘render unto Caesar’ as being passivity towards aggression. That looks shallow to me, but it is a possible reading of the dictum for an unsophisticate or a child.

   Later in this linked item, we have:

   “"In fact, there are some examples of good Sufis, [...]”

   This is obvious egocentric authoritarianism, but you will see earlier on in this item,

   “Your eyes have a right on you, and your body and your family (i.e. wife) have a right on you. Give everyone his due right.” Said by Mohammed.

   This could be interpreted as being close to ‘render unto Caesar’.

   Also on Islam and ‘render unto Caesar’:

   “For me, the most glaring gap in the discussion of these two scholars was any recognition of the link between secularism as a western ideology and the common Christian division between religious and temporal affairs. Having grown up unconsciously accepting this framework, I was struck when I first came seriously to read about Islam as a teenager at its more holistic, unified approach. Mohammed was always both a politician and a spiritual leader, and for him the mosque was always a place both for prayer and for discussion of social issues. Islam seems to have no equivalent to Jesus’ exhortation to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s". ”

   While I regard this last text as more shallow, even than the islamonline link, it has ideas which may be worth examining beyond the level of the article (there are other links that I have as yet not bothered to follow).

   In summary, I suggest that the alleged difficulties for Islam with the secular state may be exaggerated.

	4.		Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out by Ibn Warraq (editor) 2003, hbk, Prometheus Books, 1591020689 $19.60 [amazon.com] {advert} / £17.21 [amazon.co.uk] {advert}
		While this book appears useful background, I have only read it in extracts.

email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

© abelard, 2004, 28 april

all rights reserved

the address for this document is https://www.abelard.org/briefings/islamic-authoritarianism.asp

words
prints as 6 A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)