The origin of the word democracy is Greek and it means the government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Notably the word democracy does not exist in the Arabic lexicon or in other languages spoken by Muslims. They simply had no use for such word and they did not invent it.

In a public talk titled "Islam Is Incompatible with Democracy" delivered on May 19, 2004 Amir Taheri, the Iranian born author and journalist specializing in the ME wrote:

“To understand a civilization it is important to understand its vocabulary. If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.

There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. Even then the Greek word democracy entered Muslim languages with little change: democrasi in Persian, dimokraytiyah in Arabic, demokratio in Turkish.”

Only in recent years the Iranians have invented a new word to say democracy in Farsi. That word is mardom salari or literally the rule of people. This shows their readiness to embrace democracy. After a quarter of the century of radical Islamic rule, the Iranians are tired of Islamic dictatorship and strive to have their freedom. Now they have a word for it too.

In Islamic languages there is no mention of politics either.

Taheri explains:

“The word siassah, now used as a synonym for politics, initially meant whipping stray camels into line.( Sa'es al-kheil is a person who brings back lost camels to the caravan.)The closest translation may be: regimentation.”

In fact there is also no mention of such words as government and state in the Quran.”

Maududi, the contemporary Muslim scholar of reputed authority states: "An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state."

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
- Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Matthew 22:21

and

My Kingdom is not of this world John 18:36

i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).” 3:85

“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.” 8:39,

The purpose however is not to convert everyone to Islam. After all at one point, in the early stages of his prophetic carrier, Muhammad said. “There is no compulsion in religion” 2:256 So the goal is not to forcefully convert everyone to Islam, but rather to establish Islam as the dominant religion and reclaim the land that belongs to Allah.

However, there is a distinction between the believers and non-believers. The believers enjoy the full benefit of the law or what little is there to enjoy. The non-believers do not have the same privileges. Also there is a hierarchy among the non-believers. The people of the book and especially the Christians top the list. These people, that comprise the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans, an extinct monotheistic religion of Arabia, are called Dhimmis. The word Dhimmi means protected. They are not supposed to be killed. Their lives is to be spared. But this protection comes with a cost. The Dhimmis must pay a penalty tax called Jizyah (literally; fine or penalty fee). Jizyah is therefore the protection money. If you want to let us live in peace you must pay us a protection fee.

Islam intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Maududi, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:

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."

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

"...to spare the blood (of the Dhimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country." Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, "Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God's religion. The Qur'anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.' (Qur'an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority." [Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin, The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Volume 945, June 5, 1988.]

A peculiarity of Islam is its ambiguity. Christians for example are considered to be Dhimms and therefore protected, however Christians believe in trinity. According to Islam this is shirk or polytheism. And Quran says:

“Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.” 4:48

Therefore the protection of the Christians is also not guaranteed. Both Jews and Christians that are deemed to be people of the Book and are supposed to be protected if they pay their penalty tax can lose their status and be dealt with like polytheists. Muslims believe that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their holy books therefore their faith is not the faith that was brought to them by Moses and Jesus and hence they are in effect polytheists.

Being people of the book did not save the lives and the rights of the Jews and Christians of Arabia. Muhammad massacred some of them and banished the rest. In his deathbed he requested that all the Hijaz be cleansed from anyone who is not Muslim. This order was carried out by Omar and the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans who according to Muhammad were people of the book where either expelled or killed. .

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Dhimmis who reside in an Islamic country:

1)

Dhimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

2)

Dimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

3)

Dimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.

4)

Dimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

5)

Dimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.

6)

Dimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.

7)

Dimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.

 

 

Apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. This sentence is practiced wherever Muslims are in power and can practice it. In Iran many Baha’is were tortured to recant and executed because their religion was deemed to be a heresy of Islam. Just recently Ann Leslie, a veteran investigative reporter for the British Daily Mail in an article titled “The Murderous Mullahs” reported that Muslim convert to Zoroastrianism were hanged in public in the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Daily Mail newspaper pages 18 - 21, May 25, 2004]

In theory Muslims are not to force anyone to convert to Islam. In practice Muslims are supposed to wage war against the infidels, subdue them and kill them or reduce them into slavery. This will make the non-believers to see the greatness of Islam and they will join on their own volition to avoid discrimination and humiliation.

Once a person converts to Islam, he can under no circumstances leave. A person who leaves Islam will lose his right as a person. His wife will be illegal to him and their marital relationship is considered to be adulterous. Although all Islamic schools agree that the punishment for apostasy is death, how the punishment is applied may vary according to the interpretation of Sharia. Generally the apostate is jailed and is given three days to mediate and repent. If he repents he may be given back his confiscated property and his wife. If he does not he should be put to death. In some cases the time given to repent may be longer but death is the punishment of those who apostatize.

In the case the apostate is a woman, she need not be killed. She must be jailed, beaten and persecuted until she recant and repent.

"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).

Muslims are"Verily, those who disbelieved after their Belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief - never will their repentance be accepted [because they repent only by their tongues and not from their hearts]. And they are those who are astray. Verily, those who disbelieved, and died while they were disbelievers, the (whole) earth full of gold will not be accepted from anyone of them even if they offered it as a ransom. For them is a painful torment and they will have no helpers."
[Quran 3:90-91]

"Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you because they were criminals" [Quran 9:66]

"O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion, Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the Way of Allah, and never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allah which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower." [Quran 5:54]

"O Prophet (Muhammad)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell, - and worst indeed is that destination. They swear by Allâh that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islâm, and they resolved that which they were unable to carry out, and they could not find any cause to do so except that Allâh and His Messenger had enriched them of His Bounty. If then they repent, it will be better for them, but if they turn away, Allâh will punish them with a painful torment in this worldly life and in the Hereafter. And there is none for them on earth as a Walî (supporter, protector) or a helper." [Quran 9:73-74]

"So remind them (Muhamad), you are only one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves. Then Allâh will punish him with the greatest punishment. [Quran 88:21-24]

It seems that the above verse contradicts itself. On one hand the choice of faith is left to the individual and God tells Muhammad that he is not to force faith on them and immediately he makes an exception with those who choose to reject Islam after accepting it. In this verse the punishment in this verse is meted by God and not Muhammad. However Muhammad did punish those to apostatize. The reason for the apparent discrepancy is in the fact that when Muhammad did not have enough power to exert force, he left that to Allah, but when eventually he gained enough temporal powers he made sure his defectors receive justice even in this world.

The following verse is about the Meccans who after accepting Islam did not want to emigrate at Muhammad's behest or wanted to go back to Mecca, to their homes and lives. Muhammad orders his followers to kill the defectors. This is a very harsh sentence against the Muslims who just wanted to go home.

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them," [Quran 4:89]

“They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.” (Q.9:74)

There are also many hadiths that confirm what is in the Quran about the harsh treatment of the apostates. Here are a couple of them.

Narrated Ikrima:
"Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari 4.260)

Narrated Abu Burda:
".... The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" (Sahih Bukhari 9.58, also Sahih Bukhari 9.271)

Muslims are encouraged to proselytize “da’wah” and invite others to convert to Islam. If someone wishes to become a Muslim and his parents try to stop him, those parents can be punished. However if anyone converts a Muslim to another religion he will face severe punishment including death.

As for civic laws about punishment of crimes Muslims and Christians are to be treated equally. For example a Christian caught stealing or committing adultery must be dealt with according to Islamic laws, i.e. he could lose an arm or be stoned to death. However the Christians do not enjoy the same rights that the Muslims have. For example Christians are not allowed to carry weapons, or occupy high ranking governmental posts.

Muslims are trained to have fanatical devotion. They won’t hesitate to do any crime if it is done in the name of Allah. Islam is a moral relativistic religion. It means that stealing, lying, terrorism and even assassinations are acceptable if are done for Allah and his cause.

Maududi has written a book titled The Punishment Of The Apostate According To Islamic Law. He starts the first chapter of this book with these words:

The Problem of the Apostate's Execution from a Legal Perspective

To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. Doubt about this matter first arose among Muslims during the final portion of the nineteenth century as a result of speculation. Otherwise, for the full twelve centuries prior to that time the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it. The whole of our religious literature clearly testifies that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate's execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Khulafa'-i Rashidun), the great Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet, their Followers (Tabi'un), the leaders among the mujtahids and, following them, the doctors of the shari'ah of every century are available on record. All these collectively will assure you that from the time of the Prophet to the present day one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that no room whatever remains to suggest that perhaps the punishment of the apostate is not execution.

Some people have been influenced by the so-called enlightenment of the present age to the point that they have opened the door to contrary thoughts on such proven issues. Their daring is truly very astonishing. They have not considered that if doubts arise even about such matters which are supported by such a continuous and unbroken series of witnesses, this state of affairs will not be confined to one or two problems. Hereafter anything whatever of a past age which has come down to us through verbal tradition will not be protected from doubt, be it the Qur'an or ritual prayer (namaz) or fasting (roza). It will come to the point that even Muhammad's mission to this world will be questioned. In fact a more reasonable way for these people, rather than creating doubt of this kind, would have been to accept as fact what is fact and is proven through certified witnesses, and then to consider whether or not to follow the religion which punishes the apostate by death. The person who discovers any established or wholesome element of his religion to conflict with his intellectual standards and then tries to prove that this element is not really a part of the religion, already proves that his affliction is such that, "You cannot become a kafir (infidel); since there is no other choice, become a Muslim" (kafer natavani shod nachar Musalman sho). In other words, though his manner of thought and outlook has deviated from the true path of his religion, he insists on remaining in it only because he has inherited it from his forefathers.

[The Punishment Of The Apostate According To Islamic Law, Abul Ala Mawdudi; translated and annotated by Syed Silas Husain and Ernest Hahn 1994]

Note that Mawdudi is fearful that the denial of the execution of the apostates could lead to a very dangerous logical consequence and this could lead to questioning the legitimacy of Muhammad as a messenger of God. Mawdudi’s phobia is not unfounded. Islam is designed in a way that nothing can be added to it and nothing can be subtracted from it. Islam stands like a house of cards. If a single card is removed the whole house will come down at once. That is why Islam cannot be reformed. We either have to accept Islam as is or do away with it.

In continuation Mawdudi brings Proof from the Qur’an for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate:

He writes:

“Here I wish briefly to offer proof that will quiet the doubt in the hearts of those who, for lack of sources of information, may think that perhaps the punishment of death did not exist in Islam but was added at a later time by the “mawlawis” (religious leaders) on their own.

God Most High declares in the Qur’an:

But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! They have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (9:11,12)[1]

The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9 God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God’s religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword. In this connection it was said: “If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here “covenant breaking” in no way can be construed to mean “breaking of political covenants”. Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be “confessing Islam and then renouncing it”. Thereafter the meaning of “fight the heads of disbelief” (9:11,12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy.

Next he gives proof from the Hadith (Canonical Tradition) for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate

After the Qur'an we turn to the Hadith. This is the command of the Prophet:

1. Any person (i.e., Muslim) who has changed his religion, kill him.[3]

This tradition has been narrated by Abu Bakr, Uthman, Ali, Muadh ibn Jabal, Abu Musa Ashari, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Khalid ibn Walid and a number of other Companions, and is found in all the authentic Hadith collections.

2. Abdullah ibn Masud reports:

The Messenger of God stated: In no way is it permitted to shed the blood of a Muslim who testifies that "there is no god except God" and "I am the Apostle of God" except for three crimes: a. he has killed someone and his act merits retaliation; b. he is married and commits adultery; c. he abandons his religion and is separated from the community.[4]

3. Aisha reports:

The Messenger of God stated that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim other than for the following reasons: a. although married, he commits adultery or b. after being a Muslim he chooses kufr, or c. he takes someone's life.[5]

4. Uthman reports:

I heard the Messenger of God saying that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three situations: a. a person who, being a Muslim, becomes a kafir; b. one who after marriage commits adultery; c. one who commits murder apart from having an authorization to take life in exchange for another life.[6]

Uthman further reports:

I heard the Messenger of God saying that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim with the exception of three crimes: a. the punishment of someone who after marriage commits adultery is stoning; b. retaliation is required against someone who intentionally commits murder; c. anyone who becomes an apostate after being a Muslim should be punished by death.[7]

All the reliable texts of history clearly prove that Uthman, while standing on the roof of his home, recited this tradition before thousands of people at a time when rebels had surrounded his house and were ready to kill him. His argument against the rebels was based on the point of this tradition that apart from these three crimes it was unlawful to put a Muslim to death for a fourth crime, "and I have committed none of these three. Hence after killing me, you yourself will be found guilty." It is evident that in this way this tradition became a clear argument in favour of Uthman against the rebels. Had there been the slightest doubt about the genuineness of this tradition, hundreds of voices would have cried out: "Your statement is false or doubtful!" But not even one person among the whole gathering of the rebels could raise an objection against the authenticity of this tradition.

5. Abu Musa Ashari reports:

The Prophet appointed and sent him (Abu Musa) as governor of Yemen. Then later he sent Muadh ibn Jabal as his assistant. When Muadh arrived there, he announced: People, I am sent by the Messenger of God for you. Abu Musa placed a cushion for him to be comfortably seated.

Meanwhile a person was presented who previously had been a Jew, then was a Muslim and then became a Jew. Muadh said: I will not sit unless this person is executed. This is the judgement of God and His Messenger. Muadh repeated the statement three times. Finally, when he was killed, Muadh sat.[8]

It should be noted that this incident took place during the blessed life of the Prophet. At that time Abu Musa represented the Prophet as governor and Muadh as vice-governor. If their action had not been based on the decision of God and His Messenger, surely the Prophet would have objected.

6. Abdullah ibn Abbas reports:

Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh was at one time secretary to the Messenger of God. Then Satan seized him and he joined the kuffar. When Mecca was conquered the Messenger of God ordered that he be killed. Later, however, Uthman sought refuge for him and the Messenger of Allah gave him refuge.[9]

We find the commentary on this last incident in the narration of Sad ibn Abi Waqqas:

When Mecca was conquered, Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abi Sarh took refuge with Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman took him and they presented themselves to the Prophet, requesting: O Messenger of God, accept the allegiance of Abdullah. The Prophet lifted his head, looked in his direction and remained silent. This happened three times and he (the Prophet) only looked in his direction. Finally after three times he accepted his allegiance. Then he turned towards his Companions and said: Was there no worthy man among you who, when he saw me withholding my hand from accepting his allegiance, would step forward and kill this person? The people replied: O Messenger of God, we did not know your wish. Why did you not signal with your eyes? To this the Prophet replied: It is unbecoming of a Prophet to glance in a stealthy manner.[10]

7. Aisha narrates:

On the occasion of the battle of Uhud (when the Muslims suffered defeat), a woman apostatized. To this the Prophet responded: Let her repent. If she does not repent, she should be executed.[11]

8. Jabir ibn Abdullah narrates:

A woman Umm Ruman (or Umm Marwan) apostatized. Then the prophet ordered that it would be better that she be offered Islam again and then repent. Otherwise she should be executed.[12]

A second report of Bayhaqi with reference to this reads:

She refused to accept Islam. Therefore she was executed.

 

 

 

Amir Taheri explains why the issue of equality is simply unacceptable in Islam. He says:

“For the non-believer cannot be the equal of the believer.

Even among the believers only those who subscribe to the three so-called Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam ( Ahl el-Kitab) are regarded as fully human.

Here is the hierarchy of human worth in Islam:

At the summit are free male Muslims

Next come Muslim male slaves

Then come free Muslim women

Next come Muslim slave women.

Then come free Jewish and /or Christian men

Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian men

Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian women.

Each category has rights that must be respected.”

Christians are worth more than the Hindus because they are people of the book. People of the book in Islam have a special status. They are called Zimmi (protected). They are protected to live in an Islamic state and practice their religion provided they pay the protection fee Jizyah. If they don’t pay they will lose their privilege of Zimmitude and they will be banished from the land.

Of course a Zimmi does not gain full citizenship in an Islamic state. For example he can’t be a ruler or occupy high ranking positions. He can’t preach his religion to a Muslim, he is not allowed to have a better house than his Muslim neighbors, and there are many other restrictions.

Also it must be noted that paying the fine is not enough. The Zimmi must be humiliated as well. To maintain the spirit of the law, often the Mullah who received the fine slapped or kicked the Zimmi and insulted him verbally. The humiliation is just as important as the fine itself. The injunction of humiliation comes from the following verse.

“Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior" 9:29

Pickthal translate this verse:

“until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

And Shakir’s translation is:

“until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

The word used in Arabic is Sagheroon which means, inferior, humble, subdued, lowly.

حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ

The status of other people in not clearly spelled. Verses such as 8:12, makes one to understand that these unbelievers, pagans and polytheists have no right to live on the Earth that belongs to Allah and that they should be killed.

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” 8:12,

However, most Muslim rulers have been more pragmatic and such people were treated with a certain measure of tolerance and respect. The Zoroastrians were allowed to remain in Iran after the conquest of the Arabs and despite the fact that the their limited status forced most of them to either convert to Islam or emigrate to India, a small group of them were left to practice their faith up until now.

Also in India, despite the fact that the country fell in the hands of Muslim rulers, for several centuries, the Hindus kept their religion and were not force to convert.

This however has more to do with pragmatism than with tolerance. You can’t levy taxes on dead people. So by letting them live, Muslim rulers could ensure a steady flow of income to their coffers. According to a hadith in Abu Dawud Umar is reported saying

“[Allah] fixed stipends for Muslims, and provided protection for the people of other religions by levying jizyah on them [Sunnan Abu Dawud Book 19, Number 2955]

According to another hadith “no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel."

[Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283:]

Non Muslims often were tolerated but they were never treated as equal.

A Muslim can marry a Zimmi woman but no Non Muslim is allowed to marry a Muslim woman. If a girl converts to Islam, her Non-Muslim father loses his privilege to give her in marriage and she must be given away by a Muslim guardian and only to a Muslim bridegroom.

If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims.

Men always have the custody of the children in Islam unless the wife converts to Islam. In that case the non-Muslim father loses his right and the Muslim mother is granted the custody. The goal is that the children must be raised as Muslims. If anyone of their parents is Muslim the children are automatically deemed to be Muslims and if they decide to choose another religion they will be dealt with as apostates.

The Internet site www.islam-qa.com quotes Shaykh ‘Abd al-Kareem al-Khudayr who makes a distinction between Non-Muslims who have peace treaty with the Muslims and those who do not. Those who have the peace treaty must not be killed.

“But with regard to non-Muslims who are at war with the Muslims and do not have a peace treaty with the Muslims or are not living under Muslim rule, then Muslims are commanded to kill them, because Allaah says:

“Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you” [al-Tawbah 9:123]

But this should be in the case of jihaad under the leadership of one of the leaders of the Muslims, or his deputy. [Shaykh ‘Abd al-Kareem al-Khudayr . (www.islam-qa.com)]

Amir Taheri elucidates the incompatibility of Islam with democracy brilliantly.

“Democracy means the rule of the demos, the common people, or what is now known as popular or national sovereignty.

In Islam, however, power belongs only to God: al-hukm l'illah. The man who exercises that power on earth is known as Khalifat al-Allah, the regent of God.

But even then the Khalifah or Caliph cannot act as legislator. The law has already been spelled out and fixed for ever by God.

The only task that remains is its discovery, interpretation and application.

That, of course, allows for a substantial space in which different styles of rule could develop.

But the bottom line is that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation.

Islam divides human activities into five categories from the permitted to the sinful, leaving little room for human interpretation, let alone ethical innovations.

What we must understand is that Islam has its own vision of the world and man's place in it.

To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam.

On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.

Taheri explains how Rumi, the greatest Islamic mystic and luminary was dreaded by the thought that humans run their own lives and be in charge of their own destiny relying only on their own reason. He quotes Rumi who pleads:

Oh, God, do not leave our affairs to us

For, if You do, woe be to us.

Rumi mocks those who claim that men can rule themselves.

He says:

You are not reign even over your beard,

That grows without your permission.

How can you pretend, therefore,

To rule about right and wrong?

Taheri continues:

“The expression "abandoned by God" sends shivers down Muslim spines. For it spells the doom not only of individuals but of entire civilisations.

The Koran tells the stories of tribes, nations and civilisations that perished when God left them to their devices.

The great Persian poet Attar says :

I have learned of Divine Rule in Yathirb ( i.e. Medinah, the city of the Prophet)

What need do I have of the wisdom of the Greeks?””

He then goes on to quote several Muslim thinkers who regarded democracy with horror.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy " a form of prostitution" because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to God.

Sayyed Qutub, the Egyptian who has emerged as the ideological mentor of Safalists, spent a year in the United States in the 1950s.

He found "a nation that has forgotten God and been forsaken by Him; an arrogant nation that wants to rule itself."

Last year Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today's Islamist movement, published a book ( available on the Internet) in which he warned that the real danger to Islam did not come from American tanks and helicopter gunships in Iraq but from the idea of democracy and rule by the people.

Maudoodi, another of the Islamist theoreticians now fashionable, dreamed of a political system in which human beings would act as automatons in accordance with rules set by God.

He said that God has arranged man's biological functions in such a way that their operation is beyond human control. For our non-biological functions, notably our politics, God has set rules that we have to discover and apply once and for all so that our societies can be on auto-pilot so to speak.

The late Saudi theologian, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair, a man I respected though seldom agreed with, sincerely believed that the root cause of all of our contemporary ills was the spread of democracy.

" Only one ambition is worthy of Islam," he liked to say, " the ambition to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of manmade laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation."

He informs those who claim that Islam is compatible with democracy that they are not flattering Muslims.

“In fact, most Muslims would feel insulted by such assertions.

How could a manmade form of government, invented by the heathen Greeks, be compared with Islam which is God's final word to man, the only true faith, they would ask.”

Taheri says:

The common folk, al-awwam, are regarded as "animals "( al-awwam kal anaam!)

The interpretation of the Divine Law is reserved only for the experts.

So not only the average proverbial man of the street is not qualified to decide about his own affairs and must rely on the revealed word for guidance, he can’t interpret those revelations either. The guidance of God revealed to man through his messengers must be interpreted by the khawas, the chosen ones, the learned ones, or in other word the Mullhas.

Taheri continues:

“Political power, like many other domains, including philosophy, is reserved for the " khawas" who, in some Sufi traditions, are even exempt from the ritual rules of the faith.

The " common folk", however, must do as they are told either by the text and tradition or by fatwas issued by the experts. Khomeini coined the word "mustazafeen" (the feeble ones) to describe the common folk.”

Democracy, of course, is compatible with Islam because democracy is serial and polytheistic. People are free to believe whatever they like to believe and perform whatever religious rituals they wish, provided they do not infringe on other's freedoms in the public domain.

The other way round, however, it does not work.

Islam cannot allow people to do as they please , even in the privacy of their bedrooms, because God is always present, everywhere, all-hearing and all-seeing.

There is consultation in Islam: Wa shawerhum fil amr. ( And consult them in matters)

But the consultation thus recommended is about specifics only, never about the overall design of society.

In democracy there is a constitution that can be changed or at least amended.

The Koran, however, is the immutable word of God, beyond change or amendment.

After reminding that of the 57 Islamic nations members of OIC (The Organization of Islamic Conference) none are democratic in the true meaning of the word, Taheri concludes:

“Democracy is the rule of mortal common men.

Islam is the rule of immortal God.

Politics is the art of the possible and democracy a method of dealing with the problems of real life.

Islam, on the other hand, is about the unattainable ideal.

We should not allow the everything-is-equal-to-everything-else fashion of postmodernist multiculturalism and political correctness to prevent us from acknowledging differences and, yes, incompatibilities, in the name of a soggy consensus.”

If we are all the same how can we have a dialogue of civilisations, unless we elevate cultural schizophrenia into an existential imperative.

Muslims should not be duped into believing that they can have their cake and eat it. Muslims can build democratic society provided they treat Islam as a matter of personal, private belief and not as a political ideology that seeks to monopolise the public space and regulate every aspect of individual and community life.”

Unfortunately the advise of Amir Taheri although germane for a Muslim is unacceptable. Islam cannot exist as a religion private belief. There is very little private in Islamic faith. Islam’s raison d'être is to establish the rule of Sharia through an Islamic state. Without that Islam is not Islam. It will collapse and will seize to exist.