The Long Decline of Islam, Part One
or "Postitions of Strength: Part One" :)
It has been suggested on this site that my well-deserved derision of the steadfast adherence by some to ignorant misconceptions about the decline of Islamic society and its role in modern terrorism should be limited to being done “from a position of strength” and that to not do so would be to somehow ignore
The First Law of Holes, or perhaps multiple sagging library shelves of erudite people refuting this observation.
Indeed.
To wit, I have endeavored to post the first in a series of several exercises which will help us to understand how historic Qur’anic interpretation and its incorporation into Muslim thought, jurisprudence, and national policy have led to a long, sad decline resulting in a society that for years has slowly fed on itself, only to discover that it can no longer sustain itself by cannibalism, and has turned…...
again on the surrounding world.
This is not to defame Muslims, but rather to emphasize what is commonly and increasingly being recognized by
an increasing number of modern Muslims, but also many
respected non-Muslims, as well: that Islam must change in order to be compatible with the rest of the modern world. The Islamic world was once the zenith of world advancement and knowledge, both culturally, and militarily. To compare such a civilization to the accomplishments and supremacy, of say,
the Sioux nation, (rolls eyes) is ridiculous in the extreme. But the world left Islam behind, and there it remains,
through no fault of the rest of the world. There are, perhaps, reasons external to Islam, historically, which have accelerated the decline, but the inability of Muslim society to extricate itself from the decline is
directly attributable to Islamic interpretation itself. There is no reason, of course, that they necessarily have to follow the pattern of the West (ie Reformation) to reform, as Lewis points out, but failure to do something will likely result in tragedy the world over, and
ultimately the destruction Islam as an entity.In the first installment, I will address some basics of Islamic thought, law, and views towards unbelievers in Muslim controlled territory which ultimately shaped the missed opportunities and inability to cope with a modernizing world which characterizes much of Islamic society today. These thought pattern and beliefs, directly attributable to interpretation of the Qur’an, will become important as we examine Muslim interactions with the rest of the world in the second installment. The second will concentrate primarily on the Muslim world starting about 1100-1200, with some limited attention to its early conquests and the Crusades. I will, (hopefully) tie it all together with the modern era in the third. I don’t know when that will be.
While certainly what I am about to present could fill volumes, I will try to summarize the major points as succinctly as possible, but probably the best way to begin is to describe the relationship between religion and government in historic Islam. All quotations from the Koran, including links to the Koran, are taken from the Shakir or Yusuf Ali edition.
"An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state." This statement by
Sayyid Abu'l-A'la Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar until his death in 1979, underscores the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. He summarizes the difference between them:
1) An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
2) Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state
"should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology." Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.
3) An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law "Shari`a" guarantees to non-Muslims "certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology." Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they "become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government."
The above view is the representative of the
Hanifites, one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The other three schools are the
Malikites, and the
Shafi`ites , and the
Hanbilites (the strictest and the most fundamentalist),. All four schools agree dogmatically on the basic creeds of Islam but differ in their interpretations of Islamic law which is derived from four sources:
a)
Qur'an (read or recite): The sacred book of Muslim community containing direct quotes from Allah as allegedly dictated by Gabriel.
b)
Hadith (narrative): The collections of Islamic traditions including sayings and deeds of Muhammad as heard by his contemporaries, first, second, and third hand.
c)
Al-Qiyas (analogy or comparison): The legal decision drawn by Islamic Jurists based on precedent cases.
d)
Ijma' (consensus): The interpretations of Islamic laws handed down by the consensus of reputed Muslim scholars in a certain country.
Textual laws prescribed in the Qur'an are few. The door is left wide open for prominent scholars versed in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and other Islamic discipline to present their Fatwa (legal opinion) as we will become relevant in the context of Islamic history. These things are important because not only did they frame the basis of Muslim society with other entities within the Islamic empire, it also framed how Muslims would subsequently react to elements without.
Now, regarding this, it should be noted that Islamic states view non-Muslims in one of three ways:
1) Zimmis /Dhimmis (“those in custody”) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant. This stature can be traced to a contract between Khalifa Omar II and the Jews and Christians of Arabia. The dhimmi began as an object of plunder in war and proceeded to be the property of the Muslim conqueror who would reduce him to slavery. An exception could be made if the dhimmi agreed to pay jizya or a poll tax regularly.
2) People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Dhimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.
3) Musta'min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta'min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta'min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War. I am primarily going to concentrate on the laws pertaining to Dhimmis.
Now before we go further, it should be noted that discussions about Islam, particularly in the context of its approach to Islamic law and violence, typically revolve around certain verses in the Qur’an, such as
the 164 jihad verses, or verses advocating violence, like
2:190-193, 2:224, 2:216, 3:157-158, 3:169, 3:195, 4:101, 4:74-75, 4:89, 4:95, 5:36, 5:54, 8:12-17, 8:59-60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 47:4, 61:4, to name a few. The critic will argue that Islam is not the only religion with such verses, which is correct in part, but a debate for another venue. Such discussions are often fruitless, anyway, as they often devolve into patently absurd, unsupportable accusations, such as Rwandan Genocide as an example of Biblically motivated violence. For that reason, I will try to limit isolated Qur’anic verses except when they have been used by Islamic scholars for the basis of jurisprudence, particularly where applicable to sudden disruptions of Islamic interactions with foreign societies. The Qur’an, it should be noted, is very inconsistent in its approach towards unbelievers, due in large part to Muhammad’s own inconsistency. In addition, the Qur’an is arranged from shortest to longest verses rather than in any chronological order, so it is difficult to discern whether the opinions for the basis of Islamic belief changed over time or with new situations. For example, in conversations about Islam, a Muslim may argue that, according to the Qur’an, "There is no compulsion in religion"
(2:256). A critic may reply with a
very different passage (Sura 9:29).To this the Muslim replies, "Yes, it says to fight those who do not believe, but it is referring to unbelievers who attack Islam." Thus, according to many Muslims, Islam fights, but only in self-defense. So who’s right? The solution to the debate can be found in a historical examination of Islam. It is true that Muslims are only permitted to attack when threatened, but history shows what the early Muslims considered a threat. Amir Tahiri, the editor of Politique International of Paris made an observation recently of the current state of affairs. He stated of the 30 wars going on at the present time (October 2001), 28 involve Muslim people fighting either non-Muslims or even other Muslims! This is not unique throughout history. Anything other than complete submission to Islam was regarded as a threat to Islam, and so anything other than complete submission was met with extreme hostility. Even poetry and song lyrics, when used against Muhammad,
were enough to warrant a sentence of death. The inherent problems with trying to construct a coherent framework of foreign policy around this are massive, and the results of failure to do so immediately obvious in modern context. I will give several actual examples of this in the next installment. Someone said, “a fool fights a war on two fronts, but only the heir to the throne of the King of Fools fights a war on multiple fronts.” Yet that is what the Islamic Empire has historically done.
Returning, however, to the issue of the day to day interaction of Muslims with non-muslims, culturally and economically, there are a number of issues that could be discussed: dhimmis and their religious practices, personal law (like marriage and divorce), and civic law, all of which are important in their own right), but I want to emphasize several which had direct practical application to Islam’s failure to interact with a changing world, which are most notably: political rights and duties for non-Muslims, business interaction with non-Muslims/ employing/using non-Muslims, the basic relationship of Muslims and dhimmis, and apostasy.
1) Relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims: (these are true even now in the vast majority of Muslim countries)
A Muslim is not allowed to:
1. emulate the Dhimmis in their dress or behavior.
2. attend Dhimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.
3. lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Dhimmi's faith.
4. work for Dhimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.
5. make any endowment to churches or temples.
6. carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.
7. address Dhimmis with any title such as: "my master" or "my lord."
A Muslim is allowed to:
1. financially assist the Dhimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.
2. give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Dhimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.
3. eat food prepared by the People of the Book.
4. console the Dhimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.
5. congratulate the Dhimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Dhimmis' faith, such as: "May Allah exalt you," "May Allah honor you," or "May Allah give your religion victory."
Why is this important? Bernard Lewis writes:
“In the Muslim view, the remoter lands of Europe were seen in much the same light as the remoter lands of Africa—as an outer darkness of barbarism and unbelief from which there was nothing to learn and little even to be imported, except slaves and raw materials. For both the northern and the southern barbarians, their best hope was to be incorporated in the empire of the caliphs, and thus attain the benefits of religion and civilization. For the first thousand years or so after the advent of Islam, this seemed not unlikely, and Muslims made repeated attempts to accomplish it.”
Because of those limitations of interaction and feelings of utter superiority (which was justified, as for almost 1000 years, the Muslim military stood unchallenged), Islam was unable to adapt when it found itself overtaken scientifically, and then militarily, by the Christian West. Islam taught that there was nothing to learn from the West, and continued to teach this even as the Ottomans began to lose battle after battle. More moderate Islamic scholars suggesting aggressive diplomatic representation in the West (which was against Islamic law- "No Muslim shall live in infidel lands" because of the risk of apostasy. and allegiances with one Christian nation against another to better position the Islamic world were marginalized. In addition, the business practices that Islam limited itself to contributed to this as well.
2) Political rights
Understandably, non-Muslims were not allowed positions of power in the Islamic empire. This did, however, differ greatly from many other civilizations of the same era. The Islamic state is/was an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably needed to be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur'an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council. Most schools of the Shari`a hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.
Mawdudi, however, was a more moderate voice. He says,
"In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur'an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur'an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim."
Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,
"It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work."
This was not a popular view historically, and it has since fallen out of the mainstream once again, if it was ever there in the first place. The Ottoman Empire did, at one point, adapt itself out of some of the practices which had so limited it ability to accommodate the menagerie of cultures it conquered. But not, apparently, fast enough to make up for the vast leaps that Christendom to the West had made, nor could it continue to solve its problems as it had historically had, with military and economic might.
3) business practices
The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter
"if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? "(Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:
Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:
Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qur’anic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 63:8}. Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.
Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:
"entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim."
In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers' College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur'an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:
Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.
`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Dhimmi as a treasurer, and remarked: "Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?" Then `Usaymi adds:
Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them... for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.
4) Apostasy
Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. When you reject the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur'an indicates:
"How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur'an 3:86-89)
Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Dhimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry.
Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari:
"It is reported by `Abaas ... that the messenger of Allah ... said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him."In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks,
"The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence." A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. Additionally, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment. Apostasy is, then, a great crime, still and historically punishable by death. This concern has motivated a great deal of Islamic thought. Because of the risk of apostasy, Muslims were not to live in the lands of the infidel; foreign diplomacy and observation thus went one way: West to East.
This severely limited the ability of Muslims to stay current with rapidly changing cultural trends as the world expanded, and different cultures, technologies, alliances, and resources were discovered and traded for the first time.I know this was long, but I think there are a number of good references here. As many of you may have suspected, this is not the first time I have detailed on this subject. In the next installment, I will detail some of the major events in Islam’s interaction with the West which resulted form the above. Some, but not primary, attention will be given to Islam from its inception to after the Crusades.
Hope this is edifying, everyone. RT, feel free to leave it in the side column for reference, if you so desire.
