Three Faces of Islam

Paul Stenhouse*

Published in Australasian Catholic Record

Islam's history and nature is far too complex to be treated in a brief study. The very term Islam' is equivocal - its sects far exceed in variety and number the almost uncountable sects of Protestant Christianity. To speak indiscriminately of 'Muslims' as if all Muslims believed the same thing, or as if Islam and the Qur'an meant the same thing to all of them, is misleading.

Muhammad is reputed to have foretold this proliferation of opposing sects, each claiming allegiance to him and quoting the Qur'an in Support of their contradictory views. According to Abdullah Ibn Omar, Muhammad said: 'Truly, what happened to the Israelites will happen to my people. The Israelites were divided into seventy two sects, and my people will be divided into seventy three. Every one of these sects will go to Hell except one'. Mishkat, i,vi,2.

Even the Sunni, numerically Islam's largest sect, who apply to themselves (as, needless to say, do all the other sects) the title of najiyah or 'those who will be saved', are divided into four major sects, depending on the country in which they live and who founded them:

#Hanafiyeh, found in Turkey, Central Asia and North India; founded by Abu Hanifah.

#Shafiyeh, founded by Muhammad Ibn Idris al-Shafi'i; found in South India and Egypt.

#Malakiyeh, found in Morocco, and in North Africa; founded by Malik.

#Hambaliyeh, found in Eastern Arabia and parts of Africa, founded by Muhammad Ibn Hambal.

Among the sects there are some who believe that Ali, Muhammad's cousin, adopted son and son-in-law, murdered by a Sunni, was a prophet like Muhammad; others believe him to be God; some believe in transmigration of souls; some say that it is lawful for a Muslim to fight against his Imam; some say God is indifferent to the acts of men; some say that the Qur'an is not divine; some say that God has not revealed his will to mankind; some say there is no punishment for sin; some say there is no such thing as fate or predestination in the world; some accept God's law, but not that of Muhammad; some say God will never forgive sinners; some say Muhammad was not a prophet; some say that hell and heaven will be annihilated; some say that once a person has repeated the Muhammadan creed he is saved; and so on.

Islam presents itself differently to different people depending on the country, and the political system, in which it takes root. Its many different faces reflect, too, the social, cultural and ethnic diversity of those who accept, however loosely, that the Qur'an is God's revelation and Muhammad is God's prophet.

The First Face of Islam

To non-Muslims, especially Westerners living under a democratic system, Islam (under whatever form they encounter it) can appear to be simply another mystical but basically tolerant religion, based on the Oneness of God, propagated by bards and prophets against a background of colourful eastern potentates who inhabit mysterious desert regions generally closed to 'unbelievers'. The desert badawi, or the village fallah, ceasing their journeying or cultivating to unroll their prayer mats and honour Allah by prayer five times a day, or showing hospitality to the stranger, offer a religious example that can appear most appealing to one in search of truth through simplicity.

Non-Muslims with an academic or religious background, and little first-hand experience of life in an Islamic country, often see this mystical and romanticised face of Islam. This is a view frequently presented on TV and in the de-Christianised print media, where 'Muslim' architecture, poetry, philosophy, mysticism, morality and social customs are presented in a sympathetic, not to say exotic, light, that renders them most attractive; particularly by comparison with abandoned Christian (Catholic) learning and values.

Certainly, there is much to be said for the mystical depths of much of the Qur'an teaching. One need only cite Muhammad's emphasis on prayer, and the utter 'otherness' of God which is a refrain in the Qur'an, as well as the lofty moral precepts which the Qur'an imposes on its adherents.

In the last century, the Rev. Bosworth Smith described the Qur'an as '. . . a book which is a poem, a code of laws, a book of common prayer, all in one; . . . reverenced by a large section of the human race as a miracle of purity of style, of wisdom and of truth.' With such a judgement one cannot but agree.

And for westerners living cheek by jowl in fairly cold climates, the fascination with desert heat and immensity, and camel, with remote, hidden, cities, and wandering nomads, is undeniable.

But such a simplistic view of Islam is misleading. The injunction in Sura (Chapter) 4 of the Qur'an, that sand may be used for purification when water is not available, demonstrates the desert origin of both the teacher and the teaching, and should sound a cultural warning note for those 'with ears to hear'. Like 'Islamic' architecture, poetry, philosophy, ethics and politics, the Qur'an did not evolve in a vacuum. It owes an immense debt to Jews and Christians, to Persian, Egyptian and other sources, that is hardly ever acknowledged. And not all that Muhammad absorbed from these sources came to him in an unadulterated form. Arabia or at least that desert region south East of what today is Jordan was held to be a 'hatchery' of Christian heresies almost 300 years before Muhammad was born, in the time of St Epiphanius (315-403 AD). And Arabian culture and ideas provided a further filter for the myriad ideas that came to the Meccan born trader who came to believe himself to be God's chosen prophet.

People forget, if they every knew, that Muhammad lived in the sixth century after Christ; he was born around 570 AD and died in 632 AD. His religion is largely eclectic, and ingeniously suited to the mentality of the desert arab tribes with whom he traded, and whose prophet he considered himself to be. His doctrines, which, variously interpreted and applied, have become the doctrines of the various sects which claim the name 'Muslim', have exercised an enormous influence down the centuries; and, in particular, have influenced the ways different religions and races view each other.

Jewish scholars have rightly noted that the Qur'an owes much to Jewish Talmudic teaching (i.e., to the Judaism of Arabia as crystallised in the Talmud, the various Midrashim and Targums) - even more than it does to the Old or New Testaments. As far as we can tell from the Qur'an, Muhammad seems not to have had access directly either to the Old or the New Testaments. The oldest translation of the Old Testament into Arabic post-dates Muhammad by more than two hundred years; and the first translation of the New Testament in Arabic dates from around the same time.

Muhammad was, however, in close touch with Nestorian Christians, and had heard many of the apochryphal legends of Christians and Jews. These he incorporated into the Qur'an along with moral and political statements that reflect their Jewish and Christian sources, and also Muhammad's preoccupation with winning over the stubborn people of Mecca to his new religion.

The sources that Muhammad drew upon were, over and above the more poetical sections which were of his own composing, the legends of his time and country, Jewish traditions and Nestorian Christian traditions of Arabia and southern Syria.

In later periods of his life, no one would dare speak critically of the 'divinely inspired' Qur'an. But earlier on, as the Qur'an itself proclaims, the people of Mecca and elsewhere spoke of it as the work of a (mere) poet, a collection of antiquated legends with which they were familiar, and even a work of sorcery.

Muhammad was concerned to refute these charges, and returns to them regularly in the Qur'an: Sura 34 'he is not insane'; Sura 68 'he did not forge the Qur'an'; Sura 52 'he is not a madman, sorcerer, poet nor imposter'; Sura 26 'he is not a liar'; Sura 51 'he is not mad, nor an imposter'; Sura 46 'he is not a forger' etc.

Although the Meccans were eventually silenced, and defeated in war, they knew enough of Muhammad's private history to disbelieve and disprove his claims to have received divine revelations, and to accuse him of having dictated what he had himself learned from teachers. The Meccans were explicit, naming names. Thus they claimed that Salman al-Farasi (Solomon the Persian) taught Muhammad about heaven and hell, and supplied the imagery used in the Qur'an which has close analogies with that of the sacred books of the Zoroastrians, the 'pagan' religion of Persia.

Muhammad's first wife, Khadijah and her cousin Waraqah Ibn Naufal Ibn Asad Ibn 'Abdi 'I-'Uzza were both originally Christians, and are reputed to have been familiar with the sacred books of both Christians and Jews, Waraqah remained a Christian (some sources describe him as a Bishop) until his death. According to Abdu 'I-Haqq the commentator on the Mishkat, Waraqah translated the Gospels into Arabic. If this be true, then that translation has been lost. Muhammad also knew a Christian monk, Sergius (al-Buhairah) and would have had contact daily with Christian slaves around Medina and Mecca. As well there were various Arab Christian and Jewish tribes in the area of Mecca.

From the Qur'an one may conclude that the Christianity, Nasraniyah, with which Muhammad was familiar was that of the sectaries; not official, Catholic Christianity, Masihiyah. The term for Catholic Christians, Masihi, is never found in the Koran. While the liturgy and customs of the sectarian Christians may not have differed much from that of the Masihiyun their understanding of doctrine was substantially affected by their remoteness, and their heterodox background.

Muhammad also travelled to Bostra in Syria on at least two occasions and had plenty of opportunity of meeting with oriental Christians and Jews and seeing their liturgies. The Minaret copied the Christian belfry, and the Muezzin's voice replaced the bell that called the Christians to Mass or the Offices; the fast of Ramadan replaced the Christian Lent and Advent fasts, and even the call to pray eight times a day (five times obligatory, three times voluntary) copied the Christian Office prayers of Matins, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline. Some think the prayer regulations copy the Jewish customs directly, but whichever be the case, the influence of Judaeo-Christianity is apparent.

Just as Muhammad wanted his desert people to have a book like the Jews and Christians, so he wanted his religious practices to be as close to those of the 'unbelievers' as possible, while repudiating the doctrines of Jews and Christians which he found unacceptable. He denied that Abraham was a Jew (Muhammad claimed he was an Hanif or 'orthodox' Muslim) and rejected what he understood by the Christian belief in the Incarnation.

Many of the doctrines and social precepts of the Qur'an resemble Judaism, and the tenets of Christians who inhabited that part of Arabia: the Unity of God; the ministry of angels; an inspired Law; laws concerning marriage and divorce, slaves, and the 'lex talionis'; the degrees of affinity; the stoning of adulterers; the Qibla, or direction of prayer (See I Kings 8,29); etc.

The view that Muhammad's teaching is 'simple' cannot be sustained if one reads the Qur'an with care. We suffer the disadvantage of there being no critical edition of the text, and none seems likely, as this has not been tolerated by officials of any sect. Moreover, Ibn Abbas quotes the Prophet as saying, '(The Angel) Gabriel taught me to read the Qur'an in one dialect, and when I recited it, he taught me to recite it in another dialect, and so on until the number of dialects increased to seven.' Mishkat, ii,ii. Muhammad seems to have permitted his early followers to learn the Qur'an in their own dialect, but by the time of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph and successor of Muhammad (died 634 AD), so many divergences had arisen that he asked Zaid Ibn Sabit to collect all the teachings of the Qur'an, which he did 'from the leaves of the date, and white stones, and the breasts of those who remembered it' and Abu Bakr kept them. Uthman, third Caliph (died 656 AD) finally had the Qur'an written down and circulated. Unfortunately he ordered that all other collections and copies antedating his own should be destroyed: and his copy was written in Quraish - the dialect of Mecca.

The language of the Qur'an is beautiful. Written in prose, the sentences generally end in a continuing rhyme called saj' where component parts of a period are balanced and cadenced by the varying rhyme which interrupts the sense and encourages repetitiousness which a westerner may find irritating, but which is easily tolerated by the Eastern mind and ear.

One doubts that Muhammad's doctrines would have been accepted so readily, had it not been for the rhetorical dress in which they are presented. This delights the listener with its harmony of expression and fascination of rhythm and rhyme, natural to the Arabic language. So natural, in fact, that much of what is attributed to Muhammad must in reality he attributed to the Arabic language of his day

Muhammud unquestionably offered his people a priceless gift - a literary jewel, whose unity of thought, directness and studied style, combined with a uniformity of expression and somewhat deficient imaginative power, points to the fact that the verses (called ayat) are the product of a single mind.

The prophet claims on a number of occasions in the Qur'an that he is illiterate (see Suras 29, 7, 62), something modern scholars doubt in view of the time and knowledge, to say nothing of general culture, that would have been required to work up his material into chapters and make them suitable for public recitation. The claim of illiteracy seems to be a subtle reinforcement of the more important claim that the Qur'an was God's work, not his.

The first face of Islam is a composite face: Jewish, Christian and newly emerged Muslim. It is, for all its attractiveness, but a partial view of the reality that is the religion of Muhammad. In particular, account must be taken of the fact of the influence of heterodox Christianity as it developed in the Arabian peninsular.

A Second Face of Islam

Some non-Muslims, again living in a Western democracy, but ignorant of history, or prone to self-doubt, and given to the all too-common psychological ploy of 'projectivism', sometimes see only the face of an idealised Islam that like the great monotheistic religions of Christianity and Judaism possesses its book of revelation, the Qur'an. This 'holy book' is placed on the same level as the Old and New Testaments and such an Islam is seen as susceptible to dialogue, and willing to concede 'points of convergence' to other faiths, if only they will make concessions.

Some find this view, which is not-uncommon, extremely attractive. It permits some disenchanted non-Muslims cheerfully to attack 'evils' allegedly committed by non-Muslims against an idealised Islam of the past, apparently open to dialogue but for the obtuseness of Christians and Jews, without having to face up to what is real in past or present Islam.

Even dedicated and prayerful Christians and Jews who long for 'dialogue' in a fraternal sense with Muslims, based on our common descent from Abraham, and our common belief in One God, must accept the reality of the Qur'an, must also attempt to fathom Muhammad's reasons for what he taught, and face up to the paramount obstacle to 'dialogue': the fact that most Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and that its word is law: and irrevocable.

The Qur'an undoubtedly possesses many points of doctrine in common with Judaeo-Christianity: belief in life after death, belief in 0ne God, in the value of almsgiving, the repudiation of idolatry, the condemnation of the practice of female infanticide, belief in a resurrection, and in heaven and hell; condemnation of fornication and adultery; etc.

But, in its understanding of these doctrines the Qur'an hardly ever coincides with either the Jewish or Christian belief. And Muhammad strenuously denied the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation, (Sura 18] Trinity, (Sura 4) and the Divine Motherhood of Mary (Muhammad thought that Christians believed Mary to be a goddess. Sura 5).

Despite the fact that Muhammad was bidden to treat his opponents with mildness (Sura 7) the prophet still decreed (Sura 2) that 'infidels' (i.e. Jews, Christians and idolaters) were to be warred against; and warned Muslims against friendship with non-Muslims: 'O true believers, do not establish close friendship with others besides yourselves'. (Sura 3) and again (Sura 5) 'O true believers, take not the Jews or Christians for your friends'.

Christians are declared to be 'infidels' (Sura 5): 'They are infidels who say, Truly Christ, the son of Mary, is God'. The claim of Christians and Jews that they are children of God is denied in the same Sura, Muhammad mistakenly thinking that Jews and Christians considered them selves to be divine beings: 'The Jews and Christians say, we are the children of God and his beloved. Answer, Why therefore does he punish you for your sins? No, but you are men, created by him'. (Sura 5) None of these passages offers much room for dialogue or negotiation.

In Sura 3, Muhammad declares that Islam is the only true religion in God's sight. As Islam' means 'submission', or 'resignation', to the will of God, there is a sense in which Jews, Christians and Muslims alike can claim to be followers of Islam. Curiously, during Muhammad's Meccan period, the term Islam' was applied impartially to the three Monotheistic religions, and even the term 'Muslim' was applied to Jews and Christians along with Muhammad's followers, for they all believed in one God. In Sura 27, the Queen of Sheba and Solomon also are descibed as Muslims.

This situation did not last, and before long Muhammad was describing Jews, along with idolaters, as 'the most violent of all men in hatred against true believers...' (Sura 5) and, inconsistently describing Christians those closest in love to Muslims (Sura 5): 'You will indeed find those most likely to entertain love for the true believers are those who say, We are Christians. This is because they have priests and monks among them, and because they are not inflated with pride'.

If one considers dialogue with Muslims on doctrinal matters, two tendencies have to be avoided: one, of minimizing the position of Islam as presented in the Qur'an so as to highlight its error; and the other, of playing down the truth in order to win over Muslims to acceptance of a non- Muslim point of view.

In 1964, in his Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI set the stage for true dialogue, in these words: 'We refer to the adorers of God according to the conception of monotheism, the Muslim religion, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God... Honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that there is but one true religion, that of Christianity . . . but we do nevertheless recognize and respect the moral and spiritual values of the various non-Christian religions, and we desire to join with them in promoting common ideals of religious liberty, human brotherhood, good culture, social welfare and civil order'.

Before progressing further in discussing this second face of Islam, as a religion allegedly open to dialogue, we must distinguish between the various interpretations of the Qur'an, for not all sects view it in the same way. If Muslims, like Protestants or Orthodox wish to dialogue with the Catholic Church, they know whom to address, and on what terms. It is we Catholics who find it hard to know with whom to dialogue, and about what. The Qur'an is interpreted by Muslims in one of at least three ways:

  1. Tafsir - clinging tenaciously to the letter of the text and explaining it according to the obvious meaning: the preferred method of the Sunni Muslims;

  2. Taawil - goes beyond the letter to an inner, allegorical or 'fuller' sense. This is favoured by the Shiite Muslims.

  3. Istinbat - tries to extract a mystical, symbolic sense from the text.
    This method of the Sufis is rejected by main-stream Muslims.

In what has gone before and what follows, we assume That when speaking with Muslims it is one or other branch of the Sunni with whom we are dealing, and it is the tafsir that they apply when discussing the Qur'an. But the difficulty of discussion with differing Islamic sects about the Qur'an which they view from a multiplicity of angles, is self-evident. As is the fact that one can never ignore the primary place in Muhammad's thinking that opposition to polytheism and idolatry (shirk) played; and his close relationship with non-official Christianity.

Having made the above points, one hastens to add that there is some light on the horizon. One cannot look simply at the negative side of Muhammad's teaching; the positive offers rays of hope - under God - of some co-operation and understanding. There are truths in the Qur'an which are linked with Jewish and Christiann revelation. And, as Francesco Gabrieli says, the palm tree of Islam was nourished on a humus of mixed up dogmas, catechetical tools and rites, sectarian Christian in origin. 1 The yeast that fermented the religious awareness of the founder of Islam cannot have vanished without trace, nor be without some potency still, if it can be fanned into life.

As a counter balance to some of the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian passages quoted earlier, we find that Muhammad promised that Jews and Christians would not go to hell like the unbelievers (Sura 67) and the polytheists (Sura 5) provided they believe in Allah and in the Last Day (Sura 5); like the true Muslims they will be rewarded by their Lord and have nothing to fear and regret. (Sura 2)

Muslim Commentators insist, however, that this latitude was later abrogated by the prophet, who decreed that none but Muslims would be saved.

Be this as it may, one point on which some dialogue may be possible is the fact that the genuine Christian doctrine of the Trinity, rejected by Muhammad again and again, has nothing in common with the hated shirk or polytheism. Christians, like Muslims, believe in the Oneness of God. For Christians, the three Persons of the Trinity share but one Nature. The Qur'an undoubtedly does not represent the official Catholic doctrine either on the Trinity, the Divinity and Messiahship of Jesus, or the Divine Maternity of Mary. Thus, no Catholic Christian could refuse to subscribe to the following statement in the Qur'an (Sura 6) which is supposed by Muslims to be anti-Trinitarian: 'Say: Will you testify that there are other gods besides Allah? Answer: No I will not testify to such a thing'.

Nor could any Catholic quarrel with Muhammad's rejection of what he regarded as the attempt of Christians to create a Trinity of gods: Allah, Jesus and Mary, the mother of Jesus. In Sura 5 we find an imaginary dialogue between Allah and Jesus: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind, Worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?' To which Jesus does not hesitate to answer, 'Glory to you. How could I say that to which I have no right. If I ever said so, you would have surely known it ...I spoke to them of nothing except what you bade me. That is, serve Allah, my Lord and your God. And whilst I was in their midst I watched over them...'

Nothing in official Catholic doctrine ever gave the impression that Christians worshipped three gods. The view which Muhammad is attacking in the Qur'an is a caricature of Christian doctrine. This grotesque notion seems to have arisen, given Muhammad's background, from his conclusion that if Mary was Jesus's mother, and God was his Father, then Mary must form part of the Trinity. This presumed relationship, Father, Mother, Son (not dissimilar to the primitive El, Ba'al and Astarte of the Canaanites) offended the rigidly montheistic faith of Muhammad.

Pagan Arab tribes worshipped a female deity, Allat, a feminine reverse of Allah - as well as gods called Al'Uzzah and Manat: something that the great Arabian prophet (along with all Catholic Christians) could not tolerate.

Muhammad's complaints were not with official Christianity of his day but with a form of Christianity that was tainted by heresy. This should give some grounds for hope that eventual dialogue on this key doctrinal difference between Islam and Christianity may be possible. Especially as Muhammad himself, towards the end of his life, showed himself willing to accept the fact that Allah could have a son, if it could be proven with certitude: 'If the Merciful had a son, I would truly be the first of those who would worship him' (Sura 43)

A willingness on the part of Christians and Jews to dialogue with Muslims in order to bring the truth to light, would bear much fruit provided it be undertaken realistically. The over-simplification to which we referred at the beginning of this section, is an injustice against those non- Muslims who have suffered under Islam in the past, and renders us impotent before a militant anti-Christian and anti-Jewish Islam today. If doctrinal absurdities could be eliminated, then a more serene atmosphere would be created and Muslims would be encouraged not to label all non- Muslims instinctively as kafirun or 'unbelievers' and Christians especially as 'polytheists', justifying all the hate, and physical and political violence they have had to endure since Islam was imposed by force on the peoples it encountered. And mutatis mutandis, the same can be said for the way Jews have been treated under the Qur'an which regards them as 'infidels' for allegedly having corrupted the Sacred Scriptures under Ezra.

A Third Face of Islam

A third view is that of non-Muslims living as minorities in an Islamic country where the Sharia or Islamic law based on the Qur'an is obligatory. The face that Islam presents to these non-Muslims depends very much on the character of those in power, the level of education and culture of the Muslim inhabitants, and the degree to which the Qur'an is applied literally.

To non-Muslims living in Egypt, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Syria or even our close neighbour Malaysia, the face that Islam presents is frequently one of a religion that is fundamentally intolerant of others, a political system posing as a religion, endowed with many beautiful maxims interspersed in its holy book, the Qur'an, with other maxims of a ferocity, racism and intolerance unequalled in 'religiious' writings. In these countries, non-Muslims are merely tolerated persons, discriminated against in the most basic ways, denied citizenship rights, and refused the comfort of their own, non-Muslim, religion and its priests, rabbis or other leaders.

On the other hand, in Morocco (sadly an exception) non-Muslims are not just tolerated - they are treated with respect. They may not be 'citizens' in the normal sense of that word but they are not discriminated against as in most other Muslim countries.

To understand the situation in which non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries find themselves one must remember incidents that occurred in 627 and 628 AD during the latter period of Muhammad's fight with the people of Mecca. A Jewish tribe of the Qurayza which had remained neutral in the conflict was attacked. When the tribespeople refused to convert to Muhammad's new religion they were seized and, according to Muslim sources, taken to the market place of Medina. There trenches were dug and between six and nine hundred of the men were beheaded. One only converted to Islam. The prophet then divided the women and children among the Muslims of Medina as slaves.

Muhammad then attacked the oasis of Khaybar about 140km NW of Medina. Going to the oasis at night, the attackers caught the tribesmen, again Jewish, as they were setting out to cultivate their fields. The palm groves were burned down and after a siege lasting a month the inhabitants surrendered under the terms of a treaty called the dhimma. By this treaty, Muhammad spared the lives of the people and allowed them to remain Jews provided they gave him half their produce; and he reserved the right to break the treaty and expel them whenever he wished. 'The land belong to Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad)' declared the prophet.

After some time, all the Christian and Jewish tribes of Arabia submitted to Muhammad's demands under the terms of a dhimma similar to that entered into at Khaybar. Non-Muslims were expected to provide assistance to Muslim armies, and also to pay a tax called Jizya which was to be given to Muhammad and his followers. Also they were to make space available in Churches and Synagogues if Muslims wanted to pray there. The dhimma which fixed the relationship of non-Muslims to Muhammad and his successors served as a model for all later treaties entered into between Muslim armies and people living in territories they overran and put to the sword.

From the time of Muhammad until now the term dhimmi means a person who is allowed to live in a Muslim country provided he and his family pay the capital tax and keep an extremely low profile. Under those circumstances a dhimmi enjoys protection and safety, not as a right in a Muslim country, but as a privilege.

The jihad or holy war seems to have begun as a way of justifying the taking of spoils in Muhammad's wars against the Meccans and others who rejected his claim to be a prophet. Later it became a war of conquest aimed at the conversion of 'infidels' and the appropriation of their property and persons. Truces are sometimes permitted, but 'infidels' have to choose between death, conversion or paying the tax.

The Jihad extends world wide, and all peoples are divided either into dar al-Harb - the land of War' - by which is meant any country belonging to non-Muslims that has not yet been subdued by Islam; or the dar al-Islam - the land of Islam', signifying a country where all the precepts of the Qur'an are observed strictly.

Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and all western, free, democratic countries are, in Islamic terms, dur al-Harb or lands of War' where Muslims may legitimately, in fact are obliged, to do all they can to bring about the dominance of Islam. Any war-like act against non- Muslims in a dur al-Harb - which has no legal right to exist - is lawful and just. Participation in the jihadis regarded by Muslim theologians as obligatory on all true believers who can fulfil their duty either by fighting militarily, or contributing money, or writing against the 'infidels' or be- ing militant for Islam in other ways. All people in the dar al-Harb who will not embrace Islam are to be allowed to live only as dhimmits. Whatever they possess properly belongs to the Muslims, who may lawfully claim it.

Lest anyone living in a western country imagine that a dhimmi, or tolerated non-Muslim in an Islamic country today is accorded more respect nd rights than in the past, the following statements by the Ayatollah Seyyid Ruhollah Khomeini, the present ruler of Iran, will cast some light:

'An Islamic government is government by Divine Right; its laws cannot be changed, modified or challenged.' 2

'The legislative power is held exclusively by the Holy Prophet of Islam; none other than he can impose a law; any law that does not stem from him is to be rejected'. 3

'Holy War (Jihad) means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories.
It is possible that it may be declared after the formation of an Islamic government worthy of the name, under the direction of an imam or at his command. It will then be incumbent upon every able-bodied adult man to volunteer for this war of conquest, whose final goal is the domination of Qur'anic law from one end of the earth to the other.' 4

'Eleven things are unclean: urine, excrement, sperm, blood, a dog, a pig, bones, a non-Muslim man or woman, wine, beer, and perspiration of the camel that eats filth.' 5

In a telegram sent in July 1972 to the late President Sadat of Egypt, the Conference of Catholic and Orthodox Copts complained of the fact that the Ministry of Waafs, or Muslim Ministry of Religion, had announced a planned persecution of non-Muslims 'which can only lead to our annihilation'.

The Conference called for restrictions on the building of new Churches to be abolished; for entrance to Universities to be based on final exam results in secondary school, and not on 'interviews'; for University courses not to be conducted in Mosques and Islamic centres only; for negative reporting of Jewish and Christian religious news to stop; for discrimination against Christians and Jews in employment in Universities, Institutes of Advanced Studies, specialized schools etc, to stop; for books attacking the Christian faith, and particularly the Old Testament, to be discouraged; for legal attack on Christians from attaining high posts in government to cease. 6

On the 14 September 1982, Bashir Gemayal, three weeks after his election as President of Lebanon declared: 'Yasser Arafat has transformed the church of Damour into a garage. We forgive him, and though they defiled, sullied and pillaged the church of Damour, we will rebuild it. Had we been in Egypt or Syria, perhaps we would not have had even the right to rebuild a destroyed church. Our desire is to remain in the Middle East so that our church bells may ring our joys and sorrows whenever we wish. We want to continue to baptise, to celebrate our rites and traditions, our faith and our creed whenever we wish. We want to be able to testify to our Christianity in the Middle East.

'So that Lebanon may truly be the Lebanon we desire, it must necessarily remain the land of freedom, the homeland of civilization. Otherwise it will resemble Yemen or those countries wherein there remains not the slightest trace of our existence; nor the least reason for it.

'As a Christian part of the Middle East we want to be different from others, and possess a land which, without being - let it be repeated - a Christian national homeland, shall be a country for Christians where we may live in dignity, without being forced by anyone to deny our faith, as we were in the time of the Turks when we were obliged to walk on their left because we were Christians. We do not want to be forced to wear any sort of discriminatory badge on our body or our clothes; and we do not want to be transformed into citizens existing in the 'dhimmitude' of others. Henceforth we refuse to live in any dhimmitude. We no longer wish to be under any protection.' 7

That afternoon, Bashir Gemayal was assassinated.

The conditions under which non-Muslims live under all Islamic regimes is well documented, and need not be detailed here. But because they are never allowed citizenship rights, and their word cannot be taken in a court of law against a Muslim's, their legal rights are precarious; and persecution at all levels, psychological, economic, religious and physical, is common. There are, to take but one example, more than 250,000 Christians in Saudi Arabia, allegedly a pro-Western country; but with no democratic traditions. Most of these Christians are Catholic. There are only five priests in the country. They are not present in their capacity as priests, but under cover of Aramco, as employees. There are no Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues or Hindu or Buddhist Temples in Saudi Arabia. They are prohibited by law, as is the very presence of non-Muslim priests or ministers. Mass is celebrated in workers' camps, in private homes, or in Embassies. And very discreetly, lest the Muslims become enraged. When Muslims migrate to non-Islamic countries they claim every advantage under the law (and are granted it). Little mention is made of their inconsistency in demanding as a right that they be able to build Mosques in Sydney and Rome, and set up Islamic centres throughout Australia and the Pacific, in Europe and the Americas, while at the same time denying even the most basic rights to non-Muslims living under Islam.

The difficulty non-Muslims experience in living in autocratic regimes under Islamic law (not a single Muslim ruler in the Middle East has been elected by a democratic process) is compounded by the fact that many Muslims pick and choose which Qur'anic precept to stress according to their mood. Thus while alcoholic drinks are forbidden to foreigners and Muslims alike, it is well known that Muslims (in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc.) consume vast quantities of alcohol privately.

The truth of the matter is that while Muhammad prohibited alcohol (Sura 5), Al-Newaji, writing of the golden age of Islam under the 'Abbasid Caliphs of Baghdad, despairs of finding room in his book for all the Caliphs, Wazirs and secretaries addicted to drinking the forbidden beverage 8; and the recent presence in Australia of an Arab Prince whose horse won the 1986 Melbourne cup obliges us to point out that in the same breath with which he condemned alcohol, Muhammad condemned gambling. And Muslim Kings, Sheikhs, Presidents as well as the managers of their oil wealth cannot be unacquainted with those Suras in the Qur'an which forbid usury - which in its Qur'anic sense means any interest on money loaned. The foregoing are merely random examples among a multitude that could be chosen to illustrate the intolerance and 'double speak' that characterises Muslim relations with non-Muslims.

In conclusion: the many faces of Islam need sympathetic and careful scrutiny by concerned non-Muslims. Much of the religion of Muhammad is praiseworthy; many of his moral precepts were both just and timely. At a spiritual level, Muslims, Jews and Christians have many grounds on which they can bring their longing for spiritual brotherhood closer to fruition. But as long as Islam continues to be intolerant of other religious and political systems, and perseveres in its goal of world domination, then the prediction of Teilhard de Chardin (in 1952) will continue to be verified. 'The Allah of the Koran will remain a Bedouin god; he will never be able to attract to himself the energies of any really civilised man'.9



Footnotes

  1. 'La Culla dell'Islam' in Saggi Orientali, Coll. di Letteratura 'Aretusa,' II Caltanisetta-Roma, Sciascia, 1960, p37.

  2. Khomeini, S. R., Principes poliliques, philosophiques. Sociaux et religieux. Translated and edited by J. M. Xaviere, Paris, 1979. Quoted, The Dhimmi, by Bat Ye'or, Fairleigh Dickinson, London and Toronto, 1980, pl9.

  3. Op. cit., p20.

  4. Op. cit., pp22-23.

  5. Op. cit., p59.

  6. For the English text, see Masriya, Y. "A Christian Minority" In, Case Studies on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; A World Survey, IV, The Hague, 1976.

  7. This speech was recorded at Deir-Salib, and can be found in The Dhimmi, ed. cit. pp403-404.

  8. Halbah. P99, 11. 24-27

  9. Cf. Rideau, Emile, Teilhard de Chardin: A Guide to his Thought. Collins, 1967, p634


* Father Paul Stenhouse MSC, PhD (Syd), is Editor of Annals. For reasons of space, in this article footnotes have been kept to an absolute minimum. The few that are here have been included because it is realized that the reader may wish further elucidation.

Answering Islam
Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page