Islam’s Stark Division of the World

 “Islam’s Stark Division of the World - The ideas presented so far in this book do not simply exist in the minds of people. They have very definite consequences in reality, especially in terms of how some Muslims view the world and how they act on this worldview. Recently, a photograph appeared of a building in an area under the control of the Islamic State (ISIS). On it, the following statement was spray-painted: “The Khilafah (Caliphate) will not have borders, only fronts!” 153. This succinctly captures the venerable Islamic idea that the world is divided into two abodes “The Land of Islam” (Dar al-Islam) and “The Land of the Sword” (Dar al-Harb). These phrases are not directly found in the Qur’an itself, but the basic idea behind them is certainly present within Islam’s holy text. The Qur’an is chock-full of exhortations for believers not to befriend, or ally with, unbelievers. Believers are instructed to fight and subdue unbelievers–as we have seen. This leaves the obvious question: What are Muslims to make of jurisdictions that have not been brought into a state of subjugation? The answer of the hadiths is clear–they are not to live in perpetual peace with them but should, instead, seek to bring them under the sway of Islam. The very stark “Land of Islam/ Land of the Sword” division of the world is the result of this basic idea and has been taken from a variety of authoritative Islamic texts. As such, it exerts a powerful influence on the way in which many Muslims view the world. The Reliance of the Traveler, the revered manual of Islamic jurisprudence, renders ‘Dar al-Harb “enemy lands” and enjoins Muslim rulers bordering such lands to do their utmost to extend the sway of Islam by any means possible, including, of course, armed conflict154. The main point of the “House of Islam/ House of the Sword” division is the fact that those in Muslim lands should never be content to live in perpetual peace with countries and territories bordering them. Temporary truces may be entered into, but The Reliance of the Traveler makes it clear that Muslim rulers and individuals living in territories bordering that of unbelievers should strive hard to extend the geographical spread of Islam and that permanent peace is not an option155. Hence, the ISIS graffiti stating that there can only ever be “fronts” and not borders can be seen as reflecting a firmly established part of orthodox Islamic doctrine. Is the “House of Islam/ House of the Sword” division an antiquated curiosity from the history of Islamic jurisprudence? Certainly not. A simple look at an atlas will clearly demonstrate that it is a perilous thing to be living in a country dominated by unbelievers bordering a state dominated by Muslims. As Samuel Huntington famously pointed out in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, “Islam has bloody borders” 156. As might be expected, Huntington, one of the most prominent political scientists of the modern era, was roundly criticized for this statement. He responded to his critics by saying: “I made that judgment on the basis of a casual survey of intercivilizational conflicts. Quantitative evidence from every disinterested source conclusively demonstrates its validity” 157. Huntington is surely correct. Only the most scrupulous ignoring of the evidence can bring one to a point of denying that adherence to the Muslim faith is a major driver of bloody conflicts all over the world. The following is a very brief rundown (focusing mostly on current conflicts) of areas where Islam borders territories dominated by followers of other religions or ideologies and the resulting conflicts: • Islam bordering African Christianity and Tribal Religions: Sub-Saharan Africa is subject to a deadly insurgency led by “Boko Haram” in Nigeria and neighboring countries (this group is formally known as the “Group of the People of Sunnah and of Preaching and Jihad” and now bills itself as the “Western Province” of the Islamic State) 158. In addition to this, we can also cite the decades-long jihad launched by the Islamist Khartoum government against non-Muslim tribes in southern Sudan159 and the repeated attacks by the Somali Muslim group Al-Shabab160 against Christians in Kenya. • Islam bordering Hinduism: Islam’s contact with Hinduism led to one of the bloodiest campaigns of religious persecution in the history of the world. Since Hindus cannot be described as “People of the Book” (a title reserved for those who received revelations from Allah before the coming of Islam), they could not be offered the Qur’anic alternative of conversion to Islam or the payment of a tax after being conquered (Qur’an 9: 29) 161. In the eyes of many of the Muslim conquerors of India, this led to an even starker choice–namely conversion or death. The result was carnage on an unimaginable scale. In his seminal work, The Growth of the Muslim Population in India162, Indian historian KS Lal estimates that up to 80 million Hindus perished at the hands of the Muslim conquerors of India between the 11th and 16th centuries. The deep antipathy of many Muslims towards Hinduism is still alive and well. It led to the bloody partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 and is a definite factor in the decades-long conflict on the Indian-Pakistani border and in Jammu and Kashmir. It was, therefore, no surprise that when a group of Muslim terrorists slaughtered 164 people in the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008, they framed their “justification” for the attacks using the classical language of jihad and in virulently anti-Hindu terms163. • Islam bordering the Slavic/ Orthodox Civilization: The repressive policies towards minorities within the Soviet Union placed a definite dampener on insurgent activities on the Islamic/ Slavic fault line, but the breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’ s led to a huge spike in separatist activities (with the conflict in Chechnya being one of the best known of many examples that could be cited). Insurgent groups are, very often, quite explicit as far as their desire to establish Islamic states is concerned. Perhaps the most notorious incident in this part of the global jihad occurred in September 2004, when a group known as the “Islamic Brigade of Shaheeds” (Martyrs) took hundreds of children and adults hostage in a school in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia. The resulting siege led to the death of 385 people, including many school children. The attackers made it clear that their actions were designed to start a war with Russia that would lead to the establishment of an Islamic Emirate in the North Caucasus164. • Islam bordering Chinese Civilization: Although the conflict between the Chinese government and Uighur Muslim rebel groups in the far-Western Province of Xinjiang do not often make the headlines outside China, it is, nonetheless, an intractable conflict that is gradually spilling over into the Han Chinese heartland (e.g., several large scale knife165 and car ramming attacks166 were perpetrated by Uighur separatists in China’s east in recent years). The Uighur separatist group behind a spate of such attacks, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, makes no secret of the fact that they see the creation of an Islamic state in the far-west of China as their ultimate objective167. • Islam bordering Southeast Asian Buddhism: Thailand is overwhelmingly Buddhist, but its four southern provinces (bordering Malaysia) are home to a significant number of Muslims. The result should not be surprising in light of what was discussed above. A deadly insurgency, again very much couched in the classical language of jihad, has left 6300 Thai Buddhists dead and, perhaps, twice as many injured over the past decade. The stated aim of the insurgents is the creation of an Islamic state in Southern Thailand168. • Islam bordering Judaism: Out of all the conflicts listed in this section, readers would probably be most familiar with the Arab-Israeli conflict. What is perhaps less well-known is the deep theological undertones that this conflict has from an Islamic perspective. The Qur’an declares that the Jews are the worst enemies of the Muslims (Qur’an 5: 82) 169 and statements by Palestinians, therefore, often do not simply target Israelis, in particular, but Jews in general170. In making these statements, Palestinian Muslim leaders are able to draw on a deep well of hatred and invective. As we have seen, the charter of the “liberation movement” HAMAS explicitly references one of the most murderous anti-Jewish Hadiths (Sahih Muslim Book 41 Hadith 6985) in their “justification” for the denial of Israel’s right to exist: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him” 171. The theologically inspired hatred of many Muslims toward the Jewish people is further demonstrated in the alarming spike in anti-Semitic attacks perpetrated by followers of Islam across Europe172. • Islam bordering Southeast Asian Catholicism: Mindanao, the largest island of the southern island group of the Philippines, has several Muslim majority areas on its western side. What follows should, by now, be depressingly familiar. An insurgency against the Philippines government headed by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has led to the death of 120-150,000 people since 1969. Even the 1989 declaration of a “Muslim Autonomous Region” in Muslim majority areas by the Philippines government did not put a halt to the bloodletting. In classic “no borders, only fronts” style, Muslim insurgents are continuing to make it clear that their ultimate objective is to see the creation of an Islamic state on the entire island of Mindanao173. • Islam and the West. The results of Islam’s encounters with Western civilization hardly need to be highlighted. Over the past decade and a half, many of the major cities of the West have endured attacks by people inspired by the Qur’an’s “verses of violence”. A partial list includes: New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, Madrid on 11 March 2004, London on 7 July 2005, Boston on 15 April 2013, Paris on 13 November 2015, Brussels on 22 March 2016, Orlando on 12 June 2016, Nice on 14 July 2016 and Manchester on 22 May 2017. This very brief and incomplete rundown should make it clear that Huntington was entirely correct in his assessment that “Islam has bloody borders”. The idea of the “Dar al Harb” is alive and well. In fact, one of the most reliable predictors of the likelihood of a border conflict is the presence of a Muslim majority neighbor. The power of the idea of Dar al-Harb to inspire such conflicts should be honestly acknowledged by those seeking to manage and contain violence around the world. It should also give pause for thought to those who blithely dismiss Islamic violence as simply being the result of elements of Western foreign policies (this topic will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.15.) 3.11. Migration for the Sake of Allah In the section above, we had a look at places where Muslim societies share borders with non-Muslim ones. The question naturally arises on whether countries that do not share borders with Islamic societies will simply be left alone by the global jihad. The string of attacks on Western targets listed above suggests that this is certainly not the case. Full-frontal attacks are not, however, the only way in which non-Muslim societies must be targeted according to the Qur’an and the hadiths. Another strategy is much more insidious and also particularly relevant given the current global climate: Migration. According to the Qur’an, emigration and “jihad in the cause of Allah” were two sides of the same coin for the earliest Muslims, including Muhammad. The origins of Islam as a belligerent political entity can, in many ways, be traced back to the hijrah or migration of Muhammad and a band of his followers from Mecca to Medina. This event is seen as so important in the development of Islam that it represents the starting point for the Muslim calendar. The pattern of viewing migration as a precursor to jihad left deep traces in the Qur’an. For example: • “Those who have believed and those who have emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah–those expect the mercy of Allah” (Qur’an 2: 218) 174. • “Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided–they are allies of one another” (Qur’an 8: 72) 175. This strong praise given to the earliest Muslims who migrated in order to advance the cause of Islam gives modern Muslims a strong example to follow. It is interesting to note that this example means that migration with a view to undermine and eventually take over non-Muslim societies was seen by early Muslim theologians as the one exception to the general rule that Muslims should always seek to live under Muslim rule. This viewpoint was strongly reinforced by a hadith in which Muhammad says: “There is no migration (after the conquest), except for jihad and good intentions, and when you are called for jihad, you should immediately respond to the call” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4 Book 52 Hadith 42) 176. It is, therefore, an accepted part of the Muslim belief system that it is permissible to live under non-Muslim rule as long as the understanding is that you are to subvert the non-Muslim society and even take up arms against it if necessary. I am obviously not suggesting that all Muslims in non-Muslim countries see this as their ultimate reason for being there, but we do need to understand that there are some for whom this is true. Indeed, there have been Muslim groups who have made emigration for the sake of jihad a key part of their identity. The name of the, now banned, U.K. Muslim group Al-Mujahiroun (responsible for about 50% of terror attacks carried out in or originating in the U.K.) 177 translates as “the emigrants” and it refers straight back to the Qur’anic verses that were cited above counseling “emigration in the cause of Allah”. Members of this group repeatedly made it clear that they had no loyalty whatsoever to the United Kingdom and that they saw the ideal of seeing the “black flag of Islam” flying over 10 Downing Street (home of the British Prime Minister) as their reason for being in the U.K. 178. All of the above should make for very sobering reading in light of the fact that most Western countries are experiencing unprecedented levels of inward migration from Muslim societies. In some cases, (e.g., the refugee crisis caused by the Syrian civil war), people are being allowed to enter Western countries without even the most basic background checks being conducted. I am not, for one moment, suggesting that every single refugee or migrant from a Muslim country settling in the West are doing so with the intention to subvert their host countries for the sake of Islam, but some clearly are. Are such people carefully screened out? Given the sheer numbers and the level of denial in the West regarding the intentions of Islam, it is highly unlikely that anything more than the most rudimentary checks are carried out. This has been all too graphically confirmed by the fact that some of the perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks passed through Greece, sheltered by the stream of refugees that were entering Europe from Turkey179. We have to face up to some very serious questions on the issue of Islam and migration. There must obviously be some among the stream of Muslim migrants entering Western nations who take seriously Muhammad’s words that “there is no migration except for jihad”. If so (and it would be foolish in the extreme to suggest otherwise), what percentage are we comfortable with? 20%? 5%? Even if we settle for the ludicrously low percentage of only 1%, it means that Germany (which took in 1 million migrants from the Muslim world in 2015) has imported 10,000 people during a single calendar year who will do everything in their power to overthrow the German state. How will the current crop of Western politicians explain their rash actions to the next generation when these Qur’an 2: 218 type “emigrants” (i.e., those who have emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah) 180 begin to unleash carnage in the name of Islam? 3.12. An “Islamic State” that has “Nothing to do with Islam”?–A Case Study In order to bring everything that was said about the indisputable link between Islam and violence into focus, it might be good to end this section with a bit of contemporary application. In recent years, Western leaders have fallen over themselves to denounce the “Islamic State” group (which controlled large parts of Iraq and Syria) as somehow un-Islamic. A representative quote is this one from former President Barack Obama: “We are not at war with Islam but with those who ‘perverted Islam’” 181. According to this line of reasoning, ISIS is simply an aberration that cannot find any justification in the teachings of Islam for the actions of its members. In fact, some media organizations are so confident in their understanding of the finer points of Islamic theology that they’ve taken it upon themselves to deny the claims of some of the most devout Muslims on the planet that they are acting for Islam by routinely referring to ISIS as the “so-called Islamic State” 182. It would be rather comforting if ISIS was, indeed, simply some strange aberration with no link whatsoever to classical Islamic teaching. However, if you have read this far you would be very aware that things are not nearly as simple. In fact, ISIS prides itself on its orthodoxy and on the way in which it adheres to the Qur’an and Sunnah (example of the prophet) in all that it does. In doing so, they do not merely latch onto a fringe tradition within Islam, but can, as has been seen, quote from centuries of interpretation and commentary on the Qur’an to justify their actions. The following are some of the actions in which ISIS engages (and that are often cited as examples of just how un-Islamic they are). I will now show how each of these practices can be justified from the Qur’an, hadiths and commentaries on the subject. It should be clear from this that to dismiss ISIS as having “nothing to do with Islam” is highly problematic. It also raises the basic question of how we can even begin to hope that our enemies will be defeated if we are in complete denial about the nature of their guiding ideology: • Declaring a religious war against those who do not accept Islam: “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah,” [in other words, if they become Muslim–PT] “let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” (Qur’an 9: 5) 183. • Giving defeated civilians the choice of conversion, exile or paying a tax on non-Muslims: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture–[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled” (Qur’an 9: 29) 184. • Calling for the conquest and total subjugation of non-Muslim societies through a religious war: “It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah’” (Sahih Muslim Book 1 Number 33) 185. • Keeping sex slaves: There are several verses in the Qur’an that make it clear that Muslim men are permitted to have sex with those whom “their right hand possesses”. For example: “O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]” (Qur’an 33: 50) 186. This extends, according to a very troubling hadith, to the rape of captive women. “We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl’ (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: ‘We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?’ So we asked Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: ‘It does not matter if you do not do it (withdraw before climaxing), for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born’” (Sahih Muslim Book 8 Hadith 3371) 187. • Executing apostates from Islam: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” Statement by Muhammad according to Sahih Bukhari Volume 9 Book 84 Number 57188. • Beheading those whom they regard as enemy combatants: There are several instances where beheading is held up as the desired response to opposition from unbelievers. In Qur’an 4: 74, it is directly commanded: “So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until you have inflicted slaughter upon them” 189. In Qur’an 8: 12, the link between terror and beheading is used to “inspire” Allah’s angels and, by extension, his followers: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip” 190. • Crucifying Opponents: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land” (Qur’an 5: 33) 191. • Executing Homosexual People: “Narrated By Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did (i.e., practice homosexuality), kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done” (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4447) 192. • Destroying graves and non-Muslim places of worship: “Do not leave an image without obliterating it, or a high grave without leveling it” (Sahih Muslim Book 11 Hadith 120) 193. • Corporal punishment of “disobedient” women: “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance-[first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them” (Qur’an 4: 34) 194. I realize that many readers have, perhaps, gone through the list above with a chill going down their spines. If the actions of ISIS, as arguably the most violent Islamic group of recent times, were, indeed, based on a legitimate reading of the key texts of Islam, what does that say about the possible impact of these very same texts on other Muslims? Would it not be fair to say that it would incline at least some of those other Muslims to violence in the name of Allah? This has to be the inescapable conclusion to the material presented above. Even if only a tiny percentage of Muslims decide to be obedient to verses such as these, we are still left with millions who are seeking to do the rest of us harm for the sake of their religion. This is exactly the conclusion that so many people in our society desperately want to get away from with their continued insistence that there is no link between the teachings of Islam and violence. I trust that you will agree with me, after reading the material in this section, that the “nothing to do with Islam” position represents nothing less than a wrongheaded denial of the facts. And yet, there are still some who desperately try to find explanations and excuses to absolve Islam of any blame for the violence done in its name. It is to some of these objections that we will turn in the next chapter.”

— Nothing to do with Islam?: Investigating the West's Most Dangerous Blind Spot by Peter Townsend