Syed Abul Ala Maududi, an internationally influential twentieth-century Islamic scholar and Pakistani political leader, explained that this verse “means that it is lawful for a believer, helpless in the grip of the enemies of Islam and in imminent danger of severe wrong and persecution, to keep his faith concealed and to behave in such manner as to create the impression that he is on the same side as his enemies.” In severe circumstances, “he may even state that he is not a believer.”120
This outright and explicit deception goes far beyond the Christian idea of mental reservation that St. Raymond of Penyafort (1175-1275) first enunciated:
I believe, as at present advised, that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other’s silence. Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say “He is not at home,” or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testament. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. Nor is St. Augustine really opposed to any of these methods.121
This amounts to allowing for misleading but strictly true statements to be employed in extreme circumstances, in order to stave off an even greater evil than the deception itself. Muslims would argue, of course, that their doctrine is the same: One may resort to deception only in extreme circumstances, and even then only in the service of justice.
In the case of Islam, however, justice is equated with positive Islamic law, underscoring a vision of the good that is markedly different from that of the Church. These differences can be found at the very heart of Islam’s moral framework, particularly in Islam’s directives regarding how Muslims should treat non-Muslims.
Stealing from unbelievers? Fine
The Qur’an’s punishment for theft is draconian: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from God; God is All-mighty, All-wise” (5:38).
But the Qur’an also contains instructions for the distribution of the spoils of war: “Know that, whatever booty you take, the fifth of it is God’s, and the Messenger’s, and the near kinsman’s, and the orphans’, and for the needy, and the traveler, if you believe in God and that We sent down upon Our servant on the day of salvation, the day the two hosts encountered; and God is powerful over everything” (8:41). This “booty” comes from warfare against unbelievers.
At one point, Muhammad signs a treaty with the Quraysh, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which many of his followers saw as a defeat for the Muslims. To mollify them, Muhammad presented them with a Qur’anic revelation promising future victories and much booty: “When God was well pleased with the believers when they were swearing fealty to thee under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down the Shechina upon them, and rewarded them with a nigh victory and many spoils to take; and God is ever All-mighty, All-wise. God has promised you many spoils to take; these He has hastened to you, and has restrained the hands of men from you, and that it may be a sign to the believers, and to guide you on a straight path” (48:18-20).
In Islam, the spoils are an essential component of warfare. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad once wrote to a conquered Jewish tribe, the Banu Janbah, in great detail about the spoils that he and the victorious Muslims were owed: “Verily, for the Apostle of Allah will be the booty which you receive on making peace (with some party) and every slave you get, as well as animals and other objects, except that which the Apostle of Allah or his envoy remits. Verily, it is binding on you to pay one-fourth of the yield of your date-palms, and one-fourth of your game from the rivers, and one-fourth of what your women spin.”122
In addition to the spoils of war, Islamic law mandates the plunder of the conquered and subjugated infidels (dhimmis) as well, in the form of a poll tax or tribute (jizya) that non-Muslims must pay: “Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden—such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book—until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled” (9:29).
In that spirit, Muhammad is recorded as once having written to a Christian ruler:
I will not fight against you unless I write to you in advance. So, join the fold of Islam or pay the jizyah. Obey Allah and His Apostle and the messengers of His Apostle, honor them and dress them in nice clothes. . . . Provide Zayd with good clothes. If my messengers will be pleased with you, I shall also be pleased with you. . . . Pay three wasaq of barley to Harmalah.123
The jizya was so important to the early Muslims that the caliph Umar (d. 644) once told his people, “I advise you to fulfill Allah’s dhimma (financial obligation made with the dhimmi) as it is the dhimma of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e., the taxes from the dhimmi.)”124
Many Muslims still regard it in the same way today. The last Islamic empire, the Ottoman Empire, abolished the dhimma and the jizya in 1856, when as “the sick man of Europe” it could no longer withstand Western pressure to do so. However, the subjugation of the People of the Book and their payment of this tax to the believers remain part of Islamic law as all eight of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach it.
Consequently, calls to re-impose the jizya, or attempts to do so, periodically reappear among Muslims. In March 2007, Muslim gangs knocked on doors in Christian neighborhoods in Baghdad, demanding payment of the jizya.125 In December 2011, Yassir Al-Burhami, a leader of the Salafists, an Egyptian movement of rigorist Muslims, reiterated some of the classic Islamic laws regarding the dhimmis: “Appointing infidels to positions of authority over Muslims is prohibited. Allah said: ‘Never will Allah grant the infidels a way [to triumph] over the Believers’” (Qur’an 4:141). He also declared that the Muslims of Egypt should begin again to collect the jizya from the Christians:
Can the Christians of Egypt be compared to the Jews of Al-Medina? The case of the Jews of Al-Medina is one example of the relations between the Muslims and the infidels. The Muslims can implement any form of conduct used by the Prophet Muhammad. When the Prophet Muhammad was still in Mecca, he dealt with the infidels in a certain way, and when the Muslims are weak, they should deal with the infidels this way. “Refrain from action, pray, and pay the zakkat.”
In many infidel countries, such as occupied Palestine, we instruct Muslims to do just that. We are not telling the Muslims in Gaza to launch rockets every day, which would lead to the destruction of the entire country. We tell them to adhere to the truce.
When the Prophet Muhammad first arrived in Al-Medina, he signed a treaty with the Jews without forcing them to pay the jizya poll tax. This was necessary at the time, but when they breached the treaty, he fought them, and eventually, he imposed the jizya upon the People of the Book.
The Christians [of Egypt] can be dealt with like the Jews of Al-Medina. This is possible.126
The Coptic Orthodox priest Yohanna Qulta responded to this suggestion with firm resolve: “We will oppose this fiercely, to the point of martyrdom. Returning to the Middle Ages is out of the question. We will not turn to the U.N. or to the Western countries but to Al-Azhar, to Islamic moral values, and to the vast majority of Muslims, who are moderate. Gone are the days of paying the jizya, the days of slavery.”127
Despite Fr. Qulta’s confidence in the moderate majority of Muslims, Islamic hardliners have always exploited the texts and teachings of Islam in order to call moderate believers back to a more rigorous observance of their faith. For support they can appeal to the words of the Qur’an and to the example of Muhammad—Muslims who believe in a peaceful pluralistic society cannot.
Meanwhile, there are other forms of collecting the jizya, even before an Islamic state is established in any given land. Muslim immigrants
in Europe exist on the dole in large numbers, with the active encouragement of Muslim leaders, who tell them that taking money from the infidels is their right, in lieu of the payment of the jizya.128
Thus, Islamic morality excuses lying, stealing, and disloyalty to one’s parents (and more), provided such acts are committed against non-Muslims.
Devaluing of non-Muslims
Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man, although a Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim woman (since it is assumed that the woman will enter her husband’s household). Meanwhile, conversion from Islam by either spouse immediately annuls the marriage. This is in accord with the general dichotomy in Islam between Muslims and non-Muslims: The convert from Islam has left the community of “the best nation ever brought forth to men” (Qur’an 3:110) and joined that of “the unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolaters,” who are “the worst of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6).
This contrast is consistent throughout the entirety of Islamic teaching, in which there is nothing comparable to the Christian call for universal charity. Indeed, with regard to charitable works in particular, Islamic law expressly forbids the zakat, the alms that all Muslims are required to give, to be given to non-Muslims.129
The devaluation of the lives of unbelievers doesn’t end there. In fact, Islamic law states that the lives of non-Muslims are literally less valuable than those of Muslims. This comes in the context of blood money, an indemnity that Islamic law allows a person who has killed someone to pay to the family members of his victim, if they are willing to accept it. The amount to be paid depends upon the religion of the victim, with the indemnity for non-Muslims heavily discounted.130
A leading Muslim authority in Iran, Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh, actually defended the idea that a non-Muslim’s life was worth less than that of a Muslim in his critique of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution. . . . Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash. . . . Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim . . . then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain. . . . Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed. . . . Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.131
Thou shalt not kill . . . except . . .
Once the unbeliever’s life is devalued, it is not a large jump to considering it lawful to murder them under certain circumstances.
And slay not the soul God has forbidden, except by right. Whosoever is slain unjustly, We have appointed to his next-of-kin authority; but let him not exceed in slaying; he shall be helped (17:33).
Note all the caveats. This is not quite equivalent to “Thou shalt not kill.” Anyone with even the most glancing awareness of Catholic tradition and the Christian tradition in general knows that absolute pacifism has been a minority view. Christians, at least since the time of Constantine, have acknowledged a right to self-defense for individuals and nations, and have distinguished between murder and killing that could, for various reasons, be justified.
Thus, the problem with Qur’an 17:33 is not that it allows for killing under certain circumstances, and that it speaks of those who are “slain unjustly,” which opens up the possibility that others might be slain justly. The problem is the way in which the Qur’an and Islamic law determine the justice of a particular slaying.
One of the most famous verses in the entire Qur’an is known in Islamic tradition as the “Verse of the Sword”: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate” (9:5).
The “sacred months” were four months of the pre-Islamic Arab calendar when, by mutual agreement of the otherwise warring Arab tribes, fighting was forbidden. The Muslims are here commanded to fight against the idolaters, which would include Christians, until they “repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms.” These are three of the well-known Five Pillars of Islam: the confession of faith (shahada), signifying repentance from one’s previous life of ignorance and alienation from the true faith of Islam; the regular performance of five daily prayers; and almsgiving, required annually from Muslims as a percentage of their income. Thus, this passage is saying that Muslims must fight against those whom Islam considers to be idolaters until they convert to Islam (or, if they are “People of the Book,” submit to dhimmitude).
The most notorious part of this verse, “slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” recurs two other times in the Qur’an. In one passage, Allah gives the Muslims the same instructions, to slay those who have expelled them from their homes and persecuted them:
And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors. And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them—such is the recompense of unbelievers—but if they give over, surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers. (2:190-193)
This passage is one of the foundations for the frequent Muslim apologetic claim that the Qur’an allows for fighting only in self-defense, since Allah does not love aggressors. Some schools of Islamic jurisprudence, however, teach that non-belief in Islam is itself an act of aggression, since Islam is the original religion of all mankind, and no one can reject it in good faith. Maulana Bulandshahri, an Islamic scholar who has written a contemporary commentary on the Qur’an, explains: “The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah.”132 This would be a defensive war, for unbelief in Islam is inherently aggressive.
In any case, Muslims must fight against those who have expelled and persecuted them until “there is no persecution and the religion is God’s.” This is an open-ended call to make war against non-Muslims solely on the basis of their not being Muslims. For “the religion” will not be entirely “God’s” until all people accept the truly divine religion, which is Islam. Furthermore, Islam does not envision a world that is entirely Muslim until the end times, when Jesus returns and “breaks the crosses”; consequently, this directive to fight until “the religion is God’s” (repeated in Qur’an 8:39) is an open-ended command to remain in a state of warfare with non-Muslims, and to work toward their subjugation under the Islamic law, until the consummation of all things.
The third occurrence of the “slay them wherever you find them” phrase in the Qur’an refers to the “hypocrites,” who initially accepted Islam but then rejected it:
How is it with you, that you are two parties touching the hypocrites, and God has overthrown them for what they earned? What, do you desire to guide him whom God has led astray? Whom G
od leads astray, thou wilt not find for him a way. They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper. (4:88-9)
This verse offers Qur’anic support for Muhammad’s pronouncement of a death sentence on those who apostatize from Islam: “If anyone changes his religion, kill him.” These hypocrites who are trying to lure other Muslims to discard their faith as well are not to be befriended until they “emigrate in the way of God,” in other words, until they leave their homes in Mecca and join the Muslim community in Medina. The death penalty for apostates is still part of Islamic law, taught by all eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence: the four principal Sunni schools, the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi, and Hanbali; the smaller Ibadi school that is found principally in Oman; the even smaller Zahiri school; and the Shi’ite Jafari and Zaidi schools.
This strikes at the heart of the Catholic idea of the dignity of every human person and the right of that person, endowed by God with free will, to exercise his conscience without coercion. Islam claims that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) but hedges around this apparent concession to religious liberty and the freedom of conscience with so many caveats, not least among them being onerous restrictions on the freedom and livelihood of non-Muslims in the Islamic state, that it becomes effectively meaningless.
Pope Benedict XVI has written, “Muslims share with Christians the conviction that no constraint in religious matters, much less the use of force, is permitted.”133 This is certainly true, although all too often honored in the breach. However, Islamic doctrine does not consider the depriving of non-Muslim dhimmis of basic rights, or the death penalty for apostates from Islam, to be “constraint in religious matters.” The convert from Islam is free to continue in his apostasy and be killed, and the dhimmi is free to continue as a non-Muslim in the Islamic state, suffering institutionalized discrimination. The death penalty for apostasy and the second-class status mandated for dhimmis are not considered constraint but simple justice.
Not Peace but a Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam Page 11
