War and Peace - and Deceit - in Islam
by Raymond
Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
February 12, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/article/2066
Editor's note: Substantial portions of the following
essay made up part of Mr. Ibrahim's written testimony that was presented to Congress on February 12, 2009
Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from
the Islamic world — from the current conflict in Gaza, to the
saber-rattling of nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran — the need
for non-Muslims to better understand Islam's doctrines and objectives
concerning war and peace, and everything in between (treaties, diplomacy),
has become pressing. For instance, what does one make of the fact that,
after openly and vociferously making it clear time and time again that its
ultimate aspiration is to see Israel annihilated, Hamas also
pursues "peace treaties," including various forms of concessions from
Israel — and more puzzling, receives them?
Before being in a position to answer such questions, one
must first appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of mainstream
(Sunni) Islam. Amazingly, for all the talk that Islam is constantly being
"misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" by "radicals," the fact is, as opposed
to most other religions, Islam is a clearly defined faith admitting of no
ambiguity: indeed, according to Sharia (i.e., "Islam's way of life," more
commonly translated as "Islamic law") every conceivable human act is
categorized as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible,
recommended, or obligatory. "Common sense" or "universal opinion" has
little to do with Islam's notions of right and wrong. All that matters is
what Allah (via the Koran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the hadith)
have to say about any given subject, and how Islam's greatest theologians
and jurists — collectively known as the ulema, literally, the "ones
who know" — have articulated it.
Consider the concept of lying. According to Sharia,
deception is not only permitted in certain situations but is sometimes
deemed obligatory. For instance, and quite contrary to early
Christian tradition, not only are Muslims who must choose between either
recanting Islam or being put to death permitted to lie by pretending to
have apostatized; many jurists have decreed that, according to Koran 4:29,
Muslims are obligated to lie.
The doctrine of taqiyya
Much of this revolves around the pivotal doctrine of
taqiyya, which is often euphemized as "religious dissembling,"
though in reality simply connotes "Muslim deception vis-à-vis infidels."
According to the authoritative Arabic text Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam,
"Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically
every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to
say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those
few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. … Taqiyya is very
prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era [p. 7; my own
translation]."
Some erroneously believe that taqiyya is an exclusively Shia
doctrine: as a minority group interspersed among their traditional
enemies, the much more numerous Sunnis, Shias have historically had more
"reason" to dissemble. Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West
today find themselves in a similar situation, as they are now the
minority surrounded by their historic enemies — Christian
infidels.
The primary Koranic verse sanctioning deception vis-à-vis
non-Muslims states: "Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and
allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this
shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard
yourselves against them, taking precautions" (3:28; other verses
referenced by the ulema in support of taqiyya include 2:173, 2:185, 4:29,
16:106, 22:78, 40:28).
Al-Tabari's (d. 923) famous tafsir (exegesis of the
Koran) is a standard and authoritative reference work in the entire Muslim
world. Regarding 3:28, he writes: "If you [Muslims] are under their
[infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them,
with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah
has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the
infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in
authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards
them."
Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second in authority
only to Tabari) writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their
[infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of
this, he quotes Muhammad's close companion, Abu Darda, who said, "Let us
smile to the face of some people [non-Muslims] while our hearts curse
them"; another companion, al-Hassan, said, "Doing taqiyya is acceptable
till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."
Other prominent ulema, such as al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, and
al-Arabi, have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims
can behave like infidels — including by bowing down and worshiping
idols and crosses, offering false testimony, even exposing fellow Muslims'
weaknesses to the infidel enemy — anything short of actually killing a
Muslim.
Is this why the Muslim American sergeant Hasan Akbar
attacked and killed his fellow servicemen in Iraq in 2003? Had his
pretense of loyalty finally come up against a wall when he realized
Muslims might die at his hands? He had written in his
diary: "I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army
is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to
kill."
War is deceit
None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad
himself — whose example as the "most perfect human" is to be tenaciously
followed — took an expedient view of lying. It is well known, for
instance, that Muhammad permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile
two or more quarreling parties, to one's wife, and in war (see Sahih
Muslim B32N6303, deemed an "authentic" hadith).
As for our chief concern here — war — the following story
from the life of Muhammad reveals the centrality of deceit in war. During
the Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers
against several non-Muslim tribes known as "the Confederates," one of
these Confederates, Naim bin Masud, went to the Muslim camp and converted
to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Confederates were unaware of
their co-tribalist's conversion, he counseled Masud to return and try
somehow to get the Confederates to abandon the siege — "For," Muhammad
assured him, "war is deceit." Masud returned to the Confederates without
their knowing that he had "switched sides," and began giving his former
kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate
quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each
other, they disbanded, lifting the siege from the Muslims, and thereby
saving Islam in its embryonic period (see Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam;
also, Ibn Ishaq's Sira, the earliest biography of Muhammad).
More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception vis-à-vis
infidels is the following anecdote. A poet, Kab bin
al-Ashruf, offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse concerning
Muslim women. So Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: "Who will
kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?" A young Muslim named
Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to
get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the
poet. Muhammad agreed.
Maslama traveled to Kab, began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on
this way till his disaffection became convincing enough that Kab took him
into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another
Muslim and, while Kab's guard was down, assaulted and killed him. Ibn
Sa'ad's version reports that they ran to Muhammad with Kab's head, to
which the latter cried, "Allahu Akbar!" (God is great!)
It also bears mentioning that the entire sequence of Koranic
revelations is a testimony to taqiyya; and since Allah is believed to be
the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of
deceit — which is not surprising since Allah himself is described in the
Koran as the best "deceiver" or "schemer" (3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This
phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Koran contains both peaceful
and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones. The ulema
were baffled as to which verses to codify into Sharia's worldview — the
one, for instance, that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256),
or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims till they
either convert, or at least submit, to Islam (8:39, 9:5, 9:29)? To get out
of this quandary, the ulema developed the doctrine of abrogation
(naskh, supported by Koran 2:106) which essentially maintains that
verses "revealed" later in Muhammad's career take precedence over the
earlier ones, whenever there is a contradiction.
But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard
view has been that, since in the early years of Islam, Muhammad and his
community were far outnumbered by the infidels and idolaters, a message of
peace and coexistence was in order (sound familiar?). However, after he
migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the violent
and intolerant verses were "revealed," inciting Muslims to go on the
offensive — now that they were capable of doing so. According to this
view, quite standard among the ulema, one can only conclude that the
peaceful Meccan verses were ultimately a ruse to buy Islam time till it
became sufficiently strong to implement its "true" verses which demand
conquest. Or, as traditionally understood and implemented by Muslims
themselves, when the latter are weak and in a minority position, they
should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses (peace and
tolerance); when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the
Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are
a testimony to this dichotomy.
A Muslim colleague of mine once made this clear during a
casual, though revealing, conversation. After expounding to him all those
problematic doctrines that make it impossible for Muslims to peacefully
coexist with infidels — jihad, loyalty
and enmity, enjoining the
right and forbidding the wrong — I pointedly asked him how and why
he, as a Muslim, did not uphold them. He kept prevaricating, pointing to
those other, abrogated verses of peace and tolerance. Assuming he was
totally oblivious of such arcane doctrines as abrogation, I (rather
triumphantly) began explaining to him the distinction between Meccan
(tolerant) and Medinan (intolerant) verses, and how the latter abrogate
the former. He simply smiled, saying, "I know; but I'm currently living in
Mecca" — that is, like his weak and outnumbered prophet living among an
infidel majority in Mecca, he too, for survival's sake, felt compelled to
preach peace, tolerance, and coexistence to the infidel majority of
America.
War is eternal
The fact that Islam legitimizes deceit during war cannot be
all that surprising; as the saying goes, all's fair in love and war.
Moreover, non-Muslim thinkers and philosophers, such as Sun Tzu,
Machiavelli, and Hobbes, all justified deceit in war. The crucial
difference, however, is that, according to all four recognized schools of
Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity
— until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Koran
8:39). In its entry on jihad, the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam
simply states:
The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal
domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations
is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of
circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be
no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces,
whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are
authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can,
before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more
profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.
Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, the vast
majority of the ulema agree that Koran 9:5, famously known as ayat
al-saif — the "sword verse" — has abrogated some 124
of the more peaceful Meccan verses.
The obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's
dichotomized worldview that pits Dar al-Islam (the "realm of
submission," i.e., the Islamic world), against Dar al-Harb (the
"realm of war," i.e., the non-Islamic world) until the former subsumes the
latter. Internationally renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn
Khaldun (d. 1406) articulates this division thusly: "In the Muslim
community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the
universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert
everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious
groups [specifically Christianity and Judaism] did not have a universal
mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for
purposes of defense. … But Islam is under obligation to gain power
over other nations."
This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the
ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his
Quraish opponents in Mecca, ten years is, theoretically, the maximum
amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels. Based on Muhammad's
example of breaking the treaty after two years (by citing a Quraish
infraction), the sole function of the "peace treaty" (or hudna) is
to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before going on the offensive once
more. Incidentally, according to a
canonical hadith, Muhammad said, "If I take an oath and later find
something else better, I do what is better and break my oath." The prophet
further encouraged Muslims to do
the same: "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on
you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath
and do what is better."
After negotiating a peace treaty criticized by Muslims as
conceding too much to Israel, former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize
winner Yasser Arafat, speaking
to Muslims in a mosque and off the record, justified his actions
by saying, "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement
signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca." In other
words, like his prophet, the "moderate" Arafat was giving his word only to
annul it once "something else better" came along — that is, once
Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive.
Most recently, a new Islamic group associated with Hamas
called Jaysh al-Umma (Islam's army) stated
clearly, "Muslims all over the world are obliged to fight the
Israelis and the infidels until only Islam rules the earth."
Realizing their slip, they quickly clarified: "We say that the world will
not live in peace as long as the blood of Muslims continues to be shed."
Which is it — until Muslim blood stops being shed in Israel or "until only
Islam rules the earth"?
These are all clear instances of Muslims feigning openness
to the idea of peace simply in order to buy more time to build up their
strength.
Here, then, is the problem: If Islam must be in a constant
state of war with the non-Muslim world, which need not be physical, as the
ulema have classified several non-violent forms of jihad, such as
"jihad-of-the-pen" (propaganda) and "money-jihad" (economic); and if
Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty, amiability, even affection
to the infidel, simply to further their war efforts — what does one make
of any Muslim overtures of peace, tolerance, or dialogue?
This is more obvious when one considers that, every single
time Muslims "reach out" for "peace," it is always when they are in
a weakened condition vis-à-vis infidels — that is, when they, not their
non-Muslim competitors, benefit from the peace. This is the lesson of the
last two centuries of Muslim-Western interaction, wherein the former have
been militarily inferior and thus beholden to the latter.
One wonders if the reverse would hold true. If, for example,
the Palestinians suddenly became stronger than Israel and could annihilate
it, if Israel reached out for peace or concessions, would the
(overwhelmingly Muslim) Palestinians grant it? In fact, the answer to this
question is evident in all those countries where non-Muslim groups live as
minorities among Muslim majorities: while living in constant social
subjugation (according to Koran 9:29) they are also sporadically
persecuted and killed — such as the Christian Copts of Egypt who, after
merely assembling for prayer in a condemned factory, found 20,000 rioting
Muslims surrounding them, screaming the Muslim war cry, "Allah
Akbar," while throwing stones at them.
Reciprocal treatment or religious obligation?
Why did Osama bin Laden, who firmly believes in the division
of the world into two entities — Islam and the rest — which must war until
the former dominates the globe, attack the U.S.? The following anecdote
sheds some light: after a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to
Americans saying that Islam is a peaceful religion that wishes to coexist
with others, seeking only to "live and let live," bin Laden, thinking no
non-Muslim would see his letter, castigated them as follows:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this
is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We [Muslims] renounce you
[non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you
believe in Allah alone" [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced
by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is,
battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of
Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or
if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [i.e.,
taqiyya]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this
is great apostasy! … Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the
relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and
hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of
our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them (from
The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
It bears repeating that this hostile weltanschauung
is well supported by mainstream Islam's schools of jurisprudence (i.e.,
there is nothing "radical" about it). When addressing Western audiences,
however, bin Laden's tone drastically changes; he lists any number of
"grievances" for fighting the West — from Palestinian oppression, to the
Western exploitation of women and U.S. failure to sign the Kyoto protocol
— never once alluding to fighting the U.S. simply because it is an infidel
entity that must be subjugated. Indeed, he often initiates his messages to
the West by saying, "Reciprocal treatment is part of justice" or "Peace
to whoever follows guidance" — though he means something entirely
different than what his Western audience thinks.
This is of course a clear instance of taqiyya, as bin Laden
is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing a
secular West (whose epistemology does not allow for the notion of
religious conquest) that the current conflict is entirely its fault only
garners him and his cause more sympathy; conversely, he also knows that if
Americans were to realize that, all political grievances aside — real or
imagined — according to Islam's worldview, nothing short of their
submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be
quickly compromised. Yet the fact is al-Qaeda is motivated more by religious
obligation than reciprocal treatment. Hence the constant need to
lie, "for war," as their prophet asserted, "is deceit."
It should be added that, though the vast majority of the
world's Muslims are not active terrorists, bin Laden's list of grievances
against the West is paradigmatic of the average Muslim's grievances.
However, if they are unaware that, according to Islam — not bin Laden —
animosity towards infidels transcends time, space, and grievances, and
that religious obligation commands the war continue till "all religion
belongs to Allah," they are either ignorant of their own faith, or —
taqiyya?
With friends like these …
Associated with Hamas, denounced by American politicians for
"pursuing an extreme Islamist political agenda," its members arrested for
terrorism-related charges — the Council
on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is another Muslim group which
appears to be less than sincere to its non-Muslim audience; situated in
the U.S., it is also much closer to home. When it comes to the issue of
jihad, perpetual warfare, even doctrines such as taqiyya — indeed, all
that has been delineated in this essay — CAIR has been at the forefront of
not only denying their existence, but accusing of "Islamophobia" and
threatening with lawsuits anyone alluding to them, thereby censoring any
critical talk of Islam.
Could CAIR be taking lessons from the Muslim convert Masud,
whom Muhammad urged to go and live among the Confederate infidels, solely
in order to mislead and betray them, so that Islam might triumph?
The most obvious example of taqiyya, however, comes from an
entire nation: Saudi Arabia. If any nation closely follows Sharia —
including, but not limited to, the division of the world into two
perpetually warring halves, Islam and infidelity — it is Saudi Arabia,
a.k.a. America's "friend." According to Sharia, for instance, the Saudis
will not allow the construction of a single church or synagogue on their
land; Bibles are banned and burned; Christians engaged in any kind of
missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed; Muslim
converts to Christianity are put to death.
Yet for all that, in their attempt to portray Islam as a
"tolerant" religion, a religion that, once again, merely seeks "peacefully
coexist" with others, the Saudis have been pushing for more
"dialogue" between Muslims and non-Muslims, specifically
Christians and Jews (ironically, those two peoples who are currently much
more powerful than Islam). Rather tellingly, however, Saudi Arabia refuses
to host any of these conferences; after all, their prophet Muhammad's
deathbed wish was to expel the
Jews and Christians from the Arabian peninsula; how to re-invite
them now and talk of peace and tolerance? Moreover, surely the Saudis fear
that a real "debate" — not just the perfunctory
talk of "mutual understanding" that permeates these farces — might
take place, once the non-Muslim participants discover that they are not
free to practice their faiths on Saudi soil? The most recent interfaith
conference was held in Madrid, where King Abdullah, despite all the
aforementioned, asserted, "Islam is a religion of moderation and
tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers
of all religions."
Mere days later, it
was revealed that Saudi children's textbooks still call Christians
and Jews "infidels," the "hated enemies," and "pigs and swine." A multiple
choice test in a fourth-grade book asks Muslim children, "Who is a 'true'
Muslim?" The correct answer is not the man who prays, fasts, etc., but
rather, "A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the
infidels" — that is, those same people the Saudis want to "dialogue"
with.
Clearly, then, when Saudis — or other Sharia-following
Muslims — call for "dialogue" they are merely following the aforementioned
advice of Muhammad's friend, Abu Darda: "Let us smile to the face of some
people while our hearts curse them."
Implications
There is also a troubling philosophical — again,
specifically epistemological — aspect to taqiyya. Anyone who truly
believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his
prophet's example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not
experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially
true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and
education: deception becomes second nature.
Consider the case of Ali Mohammad — bin Laden's "first
trainer" and longtime al-Qaeda operative. Despite being entrenched in the
highest echelons of the terror network, his confidence at
dissembling enabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant
for years. People who knew him regarded him "with fear and awe for his
incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute
ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous
belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism." Indeed, this
sentence sums it all: for a "zealous belief" in Islam's "tenets," which,
as seen, legitimize deception, will certainly go a long way in creating
"incredible self-confidence" when lying.
The bottom line is, any Muslim who closely observes Sharia
law — and that is, incidentally, the definition of a Muslim, "one
who submits to (the laws of) Allah" — laws that, among other
bellicosities, clearly and unambiguously split the world into two
perpetually warring halves — such a Muslim will always have a "divinely
sanctioned" right to deceive, until "all chaos ceases, and all religion
belongs to Allah" (Koran 8:39). All Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue,
or even temporary truces must be seen in this light.
Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/war-and-peace-%E2%80%94-and-deceit-%E2%80%94-in-islam-part-1/
and http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/war-and-peace-%E2%80%94-and-deceit-%E2%80%94-in-islam-part-2/
Raymond
Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the
author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts
and propaganda.
Related Topics: Islam |
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment