The danger of Islamic convictions
The courage of Western convictions
Dr. Wafa Sultan, a remarkably courageous and thoughtful Muslim freethinker, recently debated Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad. Dr. Sultan watched passively while the good Sheik expressed without equivocation his pious views—in full accord with classical, mainstream Islamic doctrine on jihad—and then politely added her own plain spoken commentary in response.
This less than 8-minute video segment, if viewed objectively and dispassionately, could do more to educate the American public on the theory animating the practice of “Islamic international relations,” without any further explanation required.
In brief, the video exchange confirms State Department consul Edward A Van Dyck’s didactic characterization from 1880, before the malign influence of post-modern self-loathing crippled the ability of our diplomatic corps, and policymaking elites to think and act clearly:
In all the many works on Mohammedan law no teaching is met with that even hints at those principles of political intercourse between nations, that have been so long known to the peoples of Europe, and which are so universally recognized by them. “Fiqh,” as the science of Moslem jurisprudence is called, knows only one category of relation between those who recognize the apostleship of Mohammed and all others who do not, namely Djehad [jihad[; that is to say, strife, or holy war. Inasmuch as the propagation of Islam was to be the aim of all Moslems, perpetual warfare against the unbelievers, in order to convert them, or subject them to the payment of tribute, came to be held by Moslem doctors [legists] as the most sacred duty of the believer. This right to wage war is the only principle of international law which is taught by Mohammedan jurists; …with the Arabs the term harby [harbi] (warrior) expresses not only an unbeliever but also an enemy; and jehady [jihadi] (striver, warrior) means the believer-militant. From the Moslem point of view, the whole world is divided into two parts—“the House of Islam,” and “the House of War;” out of this division has arisen the other popular dictum of the Mohammedans that “all kinds of unbelievers from but one people.”
Moreover, Sheikh Bakri reiterates the heinous conception—and practice—concordant with mainstream Islamic law, sharia, and the ugly history of Islamic depredations, that the very lives of non-Muslim “harbis” are licit. The great modern Western scholar of Islamic law, Joseph Schacht described this “legal” concept, succinctly, as follows:
A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, “in a state of war”, “enemy alien”; his life and property are completely unprotected by law…
Finally, Armand Abel, the renowned Belgian analyst of jihad doctrine, elaborated on the extortion inherent to such “treaties” imposed by Islamic imperialists, lest potential non-Muslim victims suffer worse fates as “harbis”—points omitted by Sheikh Bakri.
Thus the [Byzantine] Empress Irene [d. 803] “purchased peace at the price of her humiliation”, according to the formula stated in the dhimma contract itself, by paying 70,000 pounds in gold annually to the Caliph of Baghdad. Many other princes agreed in this way to become tributaries – often after long struggles – and to see their dominions pass from the status of dar al Harb to that of dar al Sulh. In this way, those of their subjects who lived within the boundaries of the territory ruled by the Caliphate were spared the uncertainty of being exposed arbitrarily, without any guarantee, to the military operations of the summer ghazu and the winter ghazu: indeed, anything within the reach of the Muslim armies as they advanced, being property of impious men and rebels, was legitimately considered their booty; their men, seized by armed soldiers, were mercilessly consigned to the lot specified in the Koranic verse about the sword,and their women and children were treated like things.
Below is the full transcript of the English translation but I encourage all to watch the video.
Host: Sheikh Omar, what are human rights under the shari’a? Can you explain this for us?
Omar Bakri: The shari’a has defined human rights for Muslims and for non-Muslims. The non-Muslim has chosen not to accept |the judgments of Allah. Therefore, yes, his rights differ from |those of a Muslim. I say that they are not equal. The other party might disagree with me, that’s fine. That’s her opinion. But Islam gave rights to man, in order to satisfy his needs and take care of his affairs. Muslims and non-Muslims who have previously made a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact, are equal when it comes to citizenship. In other words, they are the same. The Islamic state and the Islamic shari’a, when governed thereby, guarantee their political needs, such as shelter, food, clothing, security, education, and health care, for they are under the care of the Islamic state.
However, this equality does not mean that you are exactly like us. Yes, a non-Muslim under the Islamic shari’a cannot have any rights except those which Allah has legislated for him. Allah has legislated that he may have his belief, religion, clothes, and everything which is needed by all citizens, Muslim or non-Muslim.
Now the Muslim has greater rights and respect because he is Muslim, for Islam is above others, and never below, so the Muslim is above others, and never below.
Omar Bakri (continues): I don’t believe in the equality of man, because men are not equal in the eyes of Allah. He commanded us to not make them equal. For example, I have the right to marry a Christian or Jewish girl, but it is not permissible for a Jewish man |to marry a Muslim girl.
This is correct. I am not calling for equality. When I go to Britain or Europe, I have the same right– my blood and property are inviolable. In exchange, their blood and property are also inviolable through this peace treaty. Their blood and property have no protection except through a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact. Thus Allah has commanded — you can either accept it or reject it.
Wafa Sultan: So when you travel to a Western land you consider it the land of Allah, and you want your beliefs to apply there?
Omar Bakri: Yes.
Wafa Sultan: You want to dictate to the native inhabitants |of the country what they can do?
Omar Bakri: I invite them, and if they accept the command of Allah, then they may do so. If they don’t accept, and kick me out of the country, then we will fight against them. The relationship between us is either a pact of belief in Allah, or a peace treaty, or war. The general rule is that the blood and property of non-Muslims are permissible for us. Their blood and property are not inviolable. It is in their interest to have a peace treaty or dhimmi pact with me. It is in your interest, you who say that you do not believe in Islam, to accept that there be a peace treaty or dhimmi pact between us. The dhimmi pact falls under the Islamic shari’a, but the peace treaty does not subject you to the shari’a. That’s the way it is. Either you accept it, or we live in a state of war. The general rule is that the blood and property |of infidels are permissible for Muslims.
The Prophet Muhammad even said, “I was sent to fight against the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, |and I am the apostle of Allah.” Therefore if he said, “Their blood and property |are inviolable from me,” then their blood and property would be inviolable if they believed in Islam or accepted a peace treaty. It is either through faith or a peace treaty that man lives with his neighbor. But a Muslim coexists with an infidel either through a peace treaty, a dhimmi pact, or a state of war. This is the basic relationship between a Muslim |and an infidel.
Host: Thank you, Sheikh Omar. You went over your time, but it helped us gain a complete understanding of the topic. Dr. Wafa, what do you think about what Sheikh Omar Bakri said?
Wafa Sultan: I think that Sheikh Omar Bakri’s response should be recorded here. He was clear and frank, and explained the doctrine of Islam to the point that there is nothing left for me to reveal of that repulsive truth.
Muslims here in America boast that the human rights recognized worldwide are the same as the rights under Islam. They boast that men’s rights are the same as women’s rights. They boast that Muslims’ rights are the same as non-Muslims’ rights. They boast that the shari’a can coexist with the American constitution. Therefore we should record Sheikh Omar Bakri’s response, for he did not dissemble, but instead manifested the truth of his religion in all its ugliness and hideousness.
Under the shari’a he is required to fight against others until they believe what he believes. Is there anything uglier than this shari’a on the face of the earth? Is there anything uglier than that this should be imposed upon me by force, by arms?
When we tell Americans here that Islam was spread by the sword, Muslims scream that this is not true, that it was spread by tolerance and the free word. But I want to stress what Sheikh Omar Bakri said, for he is a true Muslim, and has revealed to us the truth of Islam without equivocation. All the world should take note of the danger of this doctrine and fight against it with all their strength, for we cannot accept that any man on the face of the earth should force us to believe in his god.