Key Concepts Having Different Meanings for Muslims and Westerners
In this article I shall address four key concepts as generally understood in the free western world and the Islamic world.
---
My
experience when talking to Muslims is that when these (amongst other)
words are used we “talk past each other” in that each is trying to
convey a different concept to the other. Thus I might just as well have
titled the piece “Western concepts misunderstood by Muslims”.
That
said, I also have to acknowledge that some Muslim speakers exploit this
disconnect in order to “say one thing whilst facing west and another
whilst facing east”. In other words they use these “conceptual
discrepancies” for the purposes of Taqiya.
Freedom
The Western viewpoint. In the West “freedom” is used to describe a whole range of things encompassed in civil, political and individual rights.
Perhaps
the most succinct definition of “freedom” is that of Thomas Jefferson:
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
He
went on to say: “I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because
law is often [nothing] but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the rights of the individual.”
Quite
explicit in Jefferson's definition is that all people have equal
rights. Implicit also is that all (non-tyrannical) laws must apply
equally to all people without exception. (This idea was put in British
law as the law acting “indifferently” -as in “without difference” -
towards all people.) Jefferson also neatly balances the sometimes
contradictory ideas of “freedoms” and “rights” which so bedevil much of
modern politics.
Freedoms
are generally understood to be things that the government won’t stop
you doing, whilst rights are things that the government will help
protect for you. In other words the government shouldn’t tell you how to
live your life, but at the same time it should ensure that everyone’s
rights are being equally protected.
The Islamic viewpoint:
The entry on freedom, or “hurriyya”, in the "Encyclopedia of Islam"
describes a state of divine enthralment that bears no resemblance to any
Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the
individual conscience, nor does it speak of rights. According to the
encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is "the recognition of the essential
relationship between God the master and His human slaves who are
completely dependent on Him."
Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as “being perfect slavery to Allah”.
To put it another way, Islamic-style "freedom" is freedom from any form of unbelief (“Khufr”) in Islam.
Is this a cause for concern?
According to the Pew report (2010) 84% of Egyptians favour the death
penalty for apostates from Islam and a slightly greater percentage (90%)
favour religious freedom.
To
the Western mind this is “double-think”. If you favour killing those
who leave your religion, then you don't believe in religious freedom.
Conversely, if you believe in religious freedom you don't kill those who
leave your religion.
To
the Islamic mind there is no contradiction because “religious freedom”
is understood to mean the freedom to practice only Islam, in other words
“freedom from Khufr” (unbelief in Islam).
Thus,
whereas to the Western mind freedom means basically the right to “do
what you want”, to the Muslim mind freedom means “the right to fully
practice Islam” which in turn means the full implementation of classical
Sharia law (including all its discriminatory elements against the
non-Muslim, women etc).
Note:
many Muslims may well want freedom from their dictatorial rulers too
(who often are not very “Islamic” themselves) as seen in the recent
unrest (2011) in the Mid. East and the early stages of the “Arab
spring”. But this is not to say that what they mean by freedom is what
we would naturally assume it to be as has been demonstrated by several
of the “Arab Spring” Countries electing Islamist governments who are
proving to be at least as repressive as their predecessors and in some
cases more so, especially towards non-Muslim minorities.
Peace
Apart
from obvious definition of peace being “an absence of conflict [war]”,
this is a surprisingly difficult concept to truly pin down from any
perspective.
The Western perspective:
The English word “peace” means tranquillity or serenity, silence,
freedom from war, freedom from anxiety, a state of harmony and tolerance
between people etc.
Tolerance,
in its original incarnation was putting up with stuff with which you
did not agree, but - and here's the rub - implicit was that all parties
shared fundamental attitudes to society.
Thus
all Americans (irrespective of their roots) would support “truth,
justice and the American way” (and who could argue with Superman!), all
Frenchmen would accept the principles of “Liberty, equality and
fraternity”. Britain has no such catchy slogan, but perhaps the parallel
would be “for Crown and Country”.
Today,
however, this view has become altered, though perhaps distorted might
be a better choice of word, by the multi-cultural paradigm, which sees
plurality in all things as worthy of toleration and celebration – even
if what we are supposed to tolerate and celebrate is an ideology
antithetical to the Western way of life.
Despite
this, I suspect that all people would fundamentally agree that “peace”
means people of different races, colours and creeds getting along with
each other, with (fundamentally) shared goals and, crucially perhaps, in
a state of tranquillity -i.e. a lack of (mutual) fear.
The Islamic viewpoint:
Ibrahim Sulaiman says, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary
violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected
and enhanced by the rule of [Sharia] law."
Prof.
Dr. Mahmoud Zakzouk in his book “On Philosophy Culture and Peace in
Islam” (available as pdf) devotes an entire chapter to the “The Islamic
concept of Peace”. Clearly I cannot reproduce that here, but he talks
about the “path to peace” and the “straight path to peace”. Both are
allusions to the prayer said in every Rakat of Salah “Guide us to the
straight path. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace,”
(the Muslims) “not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger” (the Jews)
“or of those who went astray” (the Christians). Therefore, underpinning
the Professor's view is that 'peace' is only found by following Islam.
MohammedIslam.org
states: “In Islam peace is advocated as a divine quality to be pursued
in order to achieve the state of felicity that we were in paradise,
man's former dwelling .” Thus peace comes from Allah who, so the Koran
tells us, “is the enemy of unbelievers” K2:98:99 and whose “hatred of
you [non-Muslims] is greater than your hatred of yourselves.” K 4:10.
Also K3:85: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission
to Allah), never will it be accepted [by Allah] of him ...”
This
begs the question: If Allah hates and is an enemy of non-Muslims and
will not accept a religion other than Islam, will he give “peace” to
non-Muslims?
The answer must be “no”.
Therefore,
the Islamic concept of peace revolves, like freedom, around the
practice of Islam and, as a logical corollary, world-peace can only be
achieved when Islam is the only religion in the World: “Say to those who
disbelieve, if they cease (from unbelief), their past shall be
forgiven; but if they return (to unbelief) [i.e. become apostate], the
examples of those punished [killed for apostasy] before them have
already preceded (as a warning). And fight with them [apostates,
non-Muslims] until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism)
and religion will all be for Allah alone, (in the whole of the
world)...” 8:38-39 (Hilali/Khan). Translators interpolations (based on
Tafseer) are given in (), mine for clarity in [].
Is this a cause for concern?
Given that the concepts articulated by the word “peace” are so
different, I believe so. It is not that Muslims are (necessarily) being
deceptive when they speak of “peace”, it is simply that their conception
of what “peace” means and the western concept differ so radically as to
be in-congruent.
Nevertheless,
it also means that a Muslim can speak of peace and truthfully say from
his/her perspective, that “Islam is a religion of peace”, whilst meaning
that Islam seeks to bring all people under its dominion and that by
violent means.
Put
another way: a Muslim can be a sincere “seeker after peace” whilst
trying to undermine and overthrow Western Countries that are not fully
governed by Sharia Law, even if s/he employs violence to do so.
Tolerance
The Western viewpoint:
This has already been covered in the section on “peace” since I regard
it as a prerequisite for peace. But to summarise, western tolerance
could be taken as a “live and let live” attitude, coupled with
political/legal equality for all.
The Islamic viewpoint: Despite the claims of some people that Islam is “intolerant”, this is not strictly true.
Throughout
history Islam has tolerated minority groups within its domain. Indeed,
Islam defines a tolerated (or protected) minority within its society as
“dhimmis” who are tolerated under a “dhimmah” (also spelt “dhimma”)
which is the treaty that sets the conditions of “dhimmitude” on the
minority. Historically, this contract was an explicit document between
the minority and the leaders of the Islamic community.
As
originally conceived, the concept of dhimmitude was only applicable to
Jews and Christians (“people of the book”), and possibly to Zoroastrians
and Magians according to some sources, but for pragmatic reasons over
time the concept was extended to other non-Muslim groups also.
Latterly,
it seems that many if not all non-Muslims existing in Muslim Countries
are regarded as “dhimmis” even without a contract – in other words the
“dhimmah” is implicit rather than explicit, but the consequences of it
still apply. It should be said that being a dhimmi is an improvement
over the alternative, that of being a “harbi”{1}.
Thus to understand what tolerance means within Islam, we have to study examples of dhimmah treaties.
The archetypal dhimmah is the “Pact of Umar”{2}.
I
do not intend to reproduce it here; but apart from a number of
discriminatory conditions, aimed at enforcing the superiority of the
Muslims over the dhimmis, or as the Pact preface words it: “conditions
that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace” it
includes a “hostage” clause, this I do reproduce below:
“If
we [the non-Muslims] break any of these promises that we set for your
benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah [promise of protection] is
broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people
of defiance and rebellion.”
This
clause exists in several versions, but the key point is the principle
that if any dhimmi breaks the rules, all dhimmis become liable for
retaliation. Thus all dhimmis are “hostage” for each others'
behaviour{3}.
It
is also worth noting that “people of defiance and rebellion” are 'fair
game' for Muslims and can be killed, raped, enslaved and despoiled with
impunity{4}.
You
will also note that the conditions of the dhimmah are against the
dhimmis – which indicates that even the Muslims who imposed it intended
that it was inequitable to the non-Muslims. (So much for the oft-stated
canard that Jews and Christians were better treated under Islam than
were the Muslims.)
Although
in theory the breach of any one of the conditions of the dhimmah could
put a person outside the law, in practice not many of the clauses were
so used and the rigorousness with which they were enforced depended on
the attitude of the various rulers. Thus at times, very few rules were
enforced, at others all the rules were.
A
consequence of this was that, in practical terms, the “law” for dhimmis
could change with a change in government or even depending on how
dyspeptic a ruler (or the Muslim mob) felt on the day. Inevitably this
led to great uncertainty and fear within dhimmi communities since they
could never be sure how the authorities (or the Muslim mob) would react
to a breach (putative or otherwise) of a dhimmah – except that it was
usually badly.
Within
the schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) the consensus is that any
criticism of Islam, Allah, the Koran or Mohammed or having a sexual
relations with a Muslim woman{5}, or killing a Muslim (merely harming in
some examples) broke the dhimmah and rendered the whole dhimmi
population liable to being treated as “people of defiance and
rebellion”.
Furthermore,
the dhimmi was expected to pay the “Jizya” (variously translated as a
“poll-tax” - though the dhimmi has no political rights- or, more
accurately, as a “head tax”). Much has been written about it and whether
it was a fair tax or not, on the grounds that non-Muslims are not
required to pay “zakat” (the Islamic charitable wealth-tax).
Maududi, a 20th century Islamic scholar writes:
“They
[Jews and Christians] should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an
end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain
rulers and sovereigns in the land.” (Mawdudi, S. Abul A'la, The Meaning
of the Qur'an, 1993 edition), vol 2, page 183. )
Thus
Maududi sees the purpose of the jizya as being to impoverish
non-Muslims, thus the tax, according to Maududi, is clearly inherently
unfair and onerous.
(Furthermore
the dhimmis were often also subject to Kharaj and Ushr – land and
produce taxes respectively – that often did not apply to Muslims. Thus
even in those periods when Jizya was less than Zakat, the overall
tax-burden on dhimmis was typically still higher.)
According
to AL-HEDAYA Vol. II a Hanafi Sharia manual, the jizya “must be exacted
in a mortifying and humiliating manner … [as] a substitute for
destruction”. The first part is in accordance with K9:29{6}. The second
makes clear that not paying the jizya was also a breach of the dhimmah.
In fact, if the jizya was not paid those not paying it were regarded as
(active) “harbis”{7}.
Thus
we find Ghevond, an 8th century Armenian Christian writing about the
jizya levied by the Abbasid rulers as follows: “the whole population of
the country, smitten with enormous taxes... some suffered flagellation
for being unable to pay exorbitant taxes; others were hanged on gibbets,
or crushed under presses; and others were stripped of their
clothing...”
Had
he been writing in the 14th century he might have spoken about the
Janissaries and the devirsme system whereby Christian boys were “levied”
as a form of jizya to form the Ottoman Sultan's army, just as their
sisters were “levied” to form harems.
Although
alluded to earlier it is worth pointing out that dhimmis had no
political rights in the Muslim state and few legal rights against
Muslims (in some periods no legal rights at all).
All
of that said, it must be stated that provided the dhimmis abided by the
dhimmah (this is sometimes expressed as “obeyed the laws of Islam”) and
paid the jizya, then his/her person, property and freedom to practice
religion (provided no “song and dance” was made about it - another
condition of the Pact of Umar) was guaranteed.
Implicit
here is the idea that the Dhimmi is under an enforced armistice. The
payment of the Jizya grants an often literal stay of execution and the
Dhimmi is allowed, within strict limits, to go about his./her business.
But, as noted, any failure to pay up or any breach of the armistice
conditions (the Dhimmah) and the Dhimmi (and often his/her whole
community) is liable to be treated as active Harbis once more.
Thus
Islam is “tolerant” - provided that the non-Muslim community
(theoretically world-wide) abides by the conditions set out by Islam
which, as we've seen, are inherently iniquitous.
Is this a cause for concern?
Given that the concepts articulated by “tolerance” are so different
(the modern Western understanding: a “live and let live” attitude along
with equal rights in society [legal, political etc.]; compared to the
Islamic concept that non-Muslims are only tolerated within the
“body-Islamic” if they obey strict rules curtailing freedom of speech
and expression{8}, pay a special and often punitive tax and have few or
no legal, political and general social rights) then at least we need to
be clear about what is meant by “tolerance” when this is spoken of by a
Muslim. Again we find incongruence between the concepts expressed by
“tolerance” between the Islamic and non-Islamic way of thinking, which
can lead to misunderstanding.
This
also means that those Muslims who advocate Sharia law for Western
Countries are actually advocating that the non-Muslims (including the
majority of the native population) of those Countries be reduced to a
second/third-class status, as well as expressing continued support for
the continuation of that state of affairs within the Islamic world{9}.
Equality
The Western viewpoint:
In recent years the West has made great strides in the promotion of
equality. The idea that laws and rights should apply to all people
regardless (or in the way old English law put it “indifferently”) to all
people, regardless of sex, race, colour, religion, sexual-orientation
etc.
We
are trying to reach a point where skin-tone, gonads (and how you employ
them) etc. are irrelevant to your position in and value to society.
It
is certainly true that this is “a work in progress” and there are the
inevitable difficulties with balancing different freedoms and rights in
particular, but that this is a worthy goal to attain is not disputed (in
general) within western society.
The Islamic position:
Islam does not believe in societal equality, one the contrary it is a
hierarchical system with the Muslim male at the top, the Muslim female
as a second class citizen who, according to Sharia has no political
voice{10}, is subservient to men{11} and who is, legally speaking, only
half a person{11}. Next in the hierarchy come Muslim slaves, with the
same sexual divisions, though it is debatable as to whether a male slave
has more rights in some respects than a free-woman. Below that come
Dhimmis and then non-Muslim slaves.
Thus Sheikh Muhammed al-Munajjid in the “Islam Q and A forum” writes:
“Those
who say that Islam is the religion of equality are lying against Islam.
Rather Islam is the religion of justice which means treating equally
those who are equal and differentiating between those who are
different... Islam does not regard men and women as equal in matters
where regarding them as equal would result in injustice to one of them.”
Note
that an “injustice” is something that Islam would consider “unlawful”
rather than any concept of natural justice, let alone equality, which is
why women are obliged to wear hijab/burkha{12} and gays face so much
discrimination and persecution{13}.
Despite
this, some Muslim apologists claim that Islam promotes equality.
However, what seems to be really meant is an (assumed) equity of roles,
rights, responsibilities etc.
Thus the Islamic website womeninislam.ws writes:
“In
one sense, equality between men and women is possible and reasonable
because they are both human, with similar souls, brains, hearts, lungs,
limbs, etc. In another sense, equality between men and women is
impossible and an absurdity due to their natural differences in
physical, mental, emotional and psychological qualities, inclinations
and abilities.” [Emphases mine.]
Thus
Islam does not regard true equality as something to be striven for,
rather it regards it either as an impossibility in many areas of life, a
lie against Islam; or at best a concept subsumed by the Islamic concept
of lawful and unlawful (halal and haram).
Is this a cause for concern?
Again, yes. Islam does not have a sense of equality that crosses gaps
such as gender or sexual orientation, on the contrary Islam has a
tightly and religiously defined hierarchy of status (Mussalman; Muslima;
Muslim slaves, male then female; dhimmi, non-Muslim slaves, harbis). It
is true that within each group Islam sees all members of that group as
equals{14}, but this is the extent of equality within Islam.
Whilst
the West is aware in a generalised sense of Islamic inequality – we've
all seen the dutiful, burkha'd Muslima walking 3-4 paces behind hubby
and heard the arguments about the Burkha (“Badge of slavery or sign of
liberation?” etc.), - we are not really cognisant of how thoroughly
stratified Islamic society is, or how “low on the Totem pole”
non-Muslims really are in Islamic society.
Thus
the Western idea of “equality” (part of the French motto, no less) is
also incompatible with the religiously mandated social hierarchy of
Islam.
Conclusion
when
we consider the actual meanings of “freedom” “peace” “tolerance” and
“equality” as articulated by Islam itself, we find that all these
concepts are defined in ways that promote Islamic Supremacy: freedom is
freedom from unbelief; peace is found only in the practice of Islam
including the imposition of Sharia law, and more grandly, that on a
global scale; tolerance is found in subjugating non-Muslims and equality
is only found within the same “band” of the religiously defined social
hierarchy.
Thus
the next time you hear a Muslim speaker explaining how “Islam is a
religion of peace, freedom, tolerance and equality”; at least you will
know what is meant.
Finally
please note that the concepts listed above do not comprise an
exhaustive list of such differences between Western and Islamic
understandings.
---
Footnotes references:
1.
“Harbi” is a person/group/Country that is considered to be a member of
the Dar-ul-Harb (= world of war) and thus “at war” with Muslims and
liable to being killed on sight.
2.
The authenticity of this is contested and it is probable that Umar I
(the second Caliph) was not the author. However, in its most important
parts it mirrors other examples of dhimmahs known. Thus whilst it may
not be “authentic” in that it may not have been authored by Umar, it is
authentic in that is accurately reflects the sort of conditions imposed
on non-Muslim minorities.
3.
A modern example of this “hostage mentality” was the attack on a
Baghdad Church, Iraq, (Dec. 2010) in “retaliation” for the
falsely-alleged kidnap of a Muslim woman in Cairo, Egypt. In the eyes of
the Iraqi attackers dhimmis in Egypt had broken their dhimmah and that
made dhimmis in Iraq equally liable for the “offence”. Thus dhimmitude
(like the Umma) has no geo-political boundaries.
4.
There are so many references in the Koran and Ahadith. See for instance
Koran 4:3, 4:24, 8:66, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, 48:18-20, Sura 8 is called
“Booty - spoils of war”. Also: Bukhari, Vol.4, Bk 52, No.276; Vol.8,
Bk.77, No.600; Vol.1 Bk.8 No.387; Vol.4 Bk.52 No.196. Muslim 8:3432-34
(this hadith says in effect that a harbi's wife can be taken as a
sex-slave by a Muslim).
5.
This is pure tribalism. An ancient aspect of tribal supremacy was to
make sure other tribes could have no access to your females, whilst
obtaining access to theirs. Here we have tribalism on a global scale.
6. K9:29 (part): “... pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
7.
In many ways a dhimmi is regarded as a harbi who, by paying the jizya,
“bought off” the threat of attack by the surrounding Muslims for the
period covered by the payment. Put this way, the Jizya sounds much like a
Mafia style “protection racket” (or vice-versa).
8.
Some (many?) Muslims inherently think of non-Muslims as dhimmis at
best, thus the enshrining within Dhimmas of the “thou shalt not
criticise Islam/the Koran/Mohammed” means that we are breaking the
implicit dhimma they think have with us when we criticise Islam. This,
in my opinion, explains the element of bafflement that many Muslims seem
to have about criticism etc.; the “How dare you attack...” attitude
which probably increases their sense of anger, since we have committed
two “offences” for the price of one: not only have we been 'nasty' about
Islam etc., we've also broken the treaty that guarantees “harmonious”
relations - and our freedom from harm. The hostage clause within
Dhimmahs also explains, the (apparently) “random” attacks that often
occur around the world. (e.g. Burn a Koran in America - kill people in
Afghanistan, 2011). However, none of this provides the slightest excuse
for the violent way in which some Muslims behave in response to
criticism levelled at Islam. Ironically, their behaviour only provides
further ammunition for such criticism.
9.
It should be realised that if western Countries suggested that they
denied Muslims the right to vote, denied them legal representation and
made them pay special taxes for example, all for just being Muslim (in
other words treated them as dhimmis), that the screams of “Islamophobia”
would be shrill, unending and ear-shattering. The irony of this
double-think and use of double-standards is quite breath-taking.
10.
See Reliance of the traveller: o25.3 - 25.7. The only permissible
“rulers” are men, also K4:34; Bukhari Vol.9, Bk.88, No.219;
11. See K2:282, 4:11, 4:34; Bukhari Vol.1,Bk.6:301; Muslim 1:142.
12.
The same Sheikh explains why it isn't “lawful” for a women to expose
the parts of her body by saying: “A woman’s ‘awrah includes her entire
body. The least that can be said is that she should not uncover anything
except her face and hands, and it was said that she should not even
uncover that.” The word “awrah” means “pudendum/genitals”, “defect”,
“weakness/vulnerability”. Here the meaning is that a woman is regarded
as a walking vagina.
13.
Evidence for this is widely available from Islamic preachers on the
web. All schools of fiqh regard same-sex intercourse is in violation of
Islamic law and punishment ranges up to the death penalty (see The
Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, p. 165.), which is specified in
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen (ILGA World Legal
Survey).
14.
Even then “some are more equal than others”. For example a “Hajji” (a
person who has been on the Haj) acquires a certain social cache and
status, as would a Mujahid. Indeed both Koran and Ahadith make it clear
that even amongst the believers in paradise there is still a hierarchy
based on how “pious” they have been and the greatest of all Islamic
“brownie point” earners for status in 'paradise' is to die whilst
piously killing Kaffirs.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment