Islam’s Political Ideology 1

Islam’s Political Ideology:

An Unresolved Ancient Conflict the West Still Ignores

 Islam’s Political Ideology 2

Abstract

The political motivations of Islam have one end: to bring all people to Islam by

implementing Sharia Law across the globe. Reforming the political aspects of Islam is

not possible without reforming the religious convictions central to its belief system.

Western societies are both voluntarily and involuntarily relinquishing freedoms to placate

these aggressive political Islamic demands. Forced and self censorship of Western culture

prevents an open and honest debate of the true intentions of the ideology behind political

Islam. Western politicians and political analysts must openly challenge the political

ideologies of Islam in order to defend civil rights that are contrary to Sharia law.
 Islam’s Political Ideology 3

Islam is not just a religion, but a political ideology that conflicts with the Judeo-

Christian values on which Western governments are based. For centuries Western

civilizations have evolved by struggling to resolve issues of discrimination based on any

combination of gender, color, race, creed, social class, or nationality. Recent struggles of

women’s rights, religious persecution, slavery, and various forms of discrimination and

oppression have made contemporary Western citizens reluctant to address any issues that

may offend a group of people based gender, color, race, creed, social class, or nationality.

Openly questioning the political aspirations of Islam is largely considered a parallel to the

Nazi persecution of Jews or the oppression of African-Americans during the days of

segregation and slavery in the United States. Is questioning the political ideology of Islam

offensive to general Muslim sensibilities? Is questioning the political aspects of Islam the

same as questioning the religious aspects of Islam? Is an open discussion of political

Islam vital to the preservation of equal rights and freedoms for Western citizens? The

answer to all of these questions is yes. Understanding the political ideology of Islam is

the first step in approaching an open, honest debate based on facts and using mutual

respect and consideration for others.

Understanding Islam begins with studying its founder. Muhammad was born in

Mecca in the late 6th Century to the pagan tribe of the Quraysh. When he was 40 years old

Muhammad claimed that he started receiving apparitions from the angel Gabriel who

started relaying the literal word of God (Allah). Gabriel told Muhammad that he must

recite the word of Allah to the rest of humanity. The Arabic word for recite is Koran (or

Quran). It is important to note that although Jewish and Christian scriptures are believed
 Islam’s Political Ideology 4

to be divinely inspired they are open to interpretation, however, Muslims do not believe

the words of the Koran are Muhammad’s interpretation. The Koran states that it is the

literal word from Allah and an exact copy of the “Mother of the Book” which eternally

resides in Paradise with Allah (85:21-22). The Koran states, “And verily, it [the Koran]

is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom.” (43:4).

The words of the Koran are timeless and unchanging; “free from any flaw” (39:28). Most

of Muhammad’s early revelations of the Koran involved peace and generosity, but there

were also commands to abandon the idols Muhammad and his tribe worshiped. When

Muhammad called together the elders of his tribe and relayed the divine messages, the

Quraysh rejected and harassed Muhammad and his followers. Ultimately Muhammad and

his followers left Mecca and traveled to Medina where two rival tribes of the Quraysh

(Aous and Khazraj) offered protection. One of the most significant aspects of

Muhammad’s immigration to Medina is that it marks the beginning of the Islamic

calendar. Many religions start their calendar on the birth, or death, or even the first

revelation of the main religious leader. In Islam the calendar starts with Muhammad’s

rise as a warlord. In addition to protection the tribes of Medina were open to

Muhammad’s teachings and he gained strength in supporters. The increase of believers

coincided with Muhammad’s teachings; as more people followed him, the less tolerant

his revelations became of nonbelievers. Eventually Muhammad’s later revelations

became violent against all who rejected Allah and the prophet of Islam, as seen in the

Koran’s famous verse of the sword:

And when the sacred months have passed, kill those who join other gods with

God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for
 Islam’s Political Ideology 5

them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer,

and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious,

merciful. (9:5)

Eight years after fleeing Mecca Muhammad was the leader of a military force 10,000

strong. With Medina conquered and 10,000 soldiers willing to die on the battlefield for

Allah’s carnal paradise, Muhammad returned to Mecca to conquer the Quraysh.

Some of the early Muslim followers were confused how the eternal and

unchanging words of Allah claim that Muslims should let nonbelievers live in peace, then

turn around and demand Muslims to fight nonbelievers where they find them.

Muhammad explained this oxymoron with the following passage from the Koran

(narrated by Allah):

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We

substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power

over all things? (2:106)

Thus if any contradictions are found in the Koran, the most recent revelation supersedes

the older. This is misleading since the Koran is not written in chronological order; the

chapters are arranged in size; usually from the longest chapter to the shortest.

As a warlord Muhammad controlled a rapidly expanding territory which did not

separate the religious laws of Islam with the political laws. There was only one law for

the entire community: Sharia Law. Sharia law started when Muhammad told his

followers (usually using a revelation of the Koran) what should be done to please Allah

and avoid disobedience. There were also times when followers would ask Muhammad

questions and Muhammad would respond with either a new revelation or he would
 Islam’s Political Ideology 6

reference a previous one. At times Muslims did not understand the revelations, so they

watched and memorized Muhammad’s example. An account of what Muhammad said or

did is called a hadith. The majority of hadiths were compiled to create Muhammad’s

biography called the Sunnah. The Sunnah became very valuable to Muslims, especially

after Muhammad’s death since the hadiths could be used as a model for behavior. After

Muhammad died his deputy (called caliph) was appointed to lead the Muslim followers.

Caliphs relied on the Koran and Sunnah to make laws and settle conflicts in

Muhammad’s absence. Over time the caliphs and Muslim theologians enforced Sharia

law based on three sources: The Koran, the Sunnah, and the hadiths. In Islam the Koran

is the literal word of Allah and cannot be changed. The Sunnah contains the words and

deeds of Muhammad as written by his followers. The Hadiths are a collection of accounts

from eye witnesses describing Muhammad’s words and decisions regarding his everyday

life (the Sunnah is comprised mostly by hadiths). The Koran is impossible to understand

by itself, the Sunnah and hadiths are required to interpret what Allah expects from his

followers. Muslim clerics and theologians largely discourage the general Muslim

population to question or doubt the literal word of the Koran or the example of

Muhammad, and without open dialog in the Islamic community there is little possibility

of reform for Sharia law.

Accepting Islam and living under Sharia law is an acceptable option for Muslims,

but the non-muslims who find themselves under Sharia law seldom elect it. Muslims have

an obligation to spread Islam according to Muhammad’s example and teachings.

Muslims believe that Muhammad is the perfect man because the Koran calls him “an

excellent model of conduct” (33:21). Unfortunately for non-Muslims this includes the
 Islam’s Political Ideology 7

concept of dragging nonbelievers to paradise in chains: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The

Prophet said, ‘Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in

chains.’”(Bukhari, 2007). In 2003, the United States helped the government of

Afghanistan write the new constitution based on the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, the Afghani leaders included an article that states: “In Afghanistan, no law can be

contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” (Tschentscher,

2004). The addition of this article officially implemented Sharia law over all citizens

regardless of their individual religious beliefs.

What is life like under Sharia Law? The primary factor under Sharia law is the

religious affiliation. Dhimmi is a protected status for nonmuslims who live under sharia

law. A Muslim has significantly greater rights and privileges than a dhimmi.. Dhimmis

must pay a special tax (jizya tax) to the Muslim overlords, and in exchange the Muslims

provide protection. The dhimmis not only have to pay the jizya, but they must also be

made to feel subdued by the superiority of Islam. The following explanation comes from

Al-Maghili, a fifteenth century Muslim theologian:

On the day of payment {of the jizya} they {the dhimmi} shall be assembled in a

public place like the suq {place of commerce}. They should be standing there

waiting in the lowest and dirtiest place. The acting officials representing the Law

shall be placed above them and shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems

to them, as well as to others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to

take their possessions. They will realize that we are doing them a favor in

accepting from them the jizya and letting them go free. (Ye’or, 1996)
 Islam’s Political Ideology 8

Even after the jizya is paid and the public humiliation is over, there are still many

restrictions on the dhimmi. Al-Damanhuri, a seventeenth century head of Al-Azhar

University in Cairo (the most prestigious center for learning in the Muslim world) offers

the following summary:

... just as the dhimmis are prohibited from building churches, other things also are

prohibited to them. They must not assist an unbeliever against a Muslim ... raise

the cross in an Islamic assemblage ... display banners on their own holidays; bear

arms ... or keep them in their homes. Should they do anything of the sort, they

must be punished, and the arms seized. ... The Companions [of the Prophet]

agreed upon these points in order to demonstrate the abasement of the infidel and

to protect the weak believer's faith. For if he sees them humbled, he will not be

inclined toward their belief, which is not true if he sees them in power, pride, or

luxury garb, as all this urges him to esteem them and incline toward them, in view

of his own distress and poverty. Yet esteem for the unbeliever is unbelief. (Ye’or,

1996)

In modern day Islamic countries the jizya tax is no longer officially required; however,

the dhimmis are still subjected to restrictions and bias from government officials who, by

law, are Muslim.

An important legal precedent set by Muhammad that is often ignored by modern

western analysts and politicians is the call to conversion. Before a Muslim can fight a

non-Muslim in combat, the Muslim has an obligation to give the enemy a chance to avoid

the conflict. A major point of interest is that the onus is on the non-Muslim to avoid

fighting. After Muhammad conquered and subsequently settled in Mecca, he sent

 Islam’s Political Ideology 9

emissaries to the heads-of-state that boardered the Muslim territories and invited them to

accept Islam or risk war. In the 21st century Muslims are still expected to extend the

courtesy of an invitation to Islam before engaging in hostilities. An often overlooked

modern day example of a Muslim invoking Muhammad’s call to conversion is by Osama

Bin Laden. In November 2002, Osama Bin Laden’s “Letter to America,” clearly

contained this call to conversion, “(Q2) As for the second question that we want to

answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? (1) The first thing

that we are calling you to is Islam.” (Laden, 2002). Bin Laden’s call to conversion is a

direct result of Muhammad’s command as recorded here by Sahih Muslim:

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the

Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an

army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah... He would say

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who

disbelieve in Allah… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite

them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also

accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept)

Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against

them. … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree

to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax,

seek Allah's help and fight them. (Muslim, 2007)

The Koran’s verse of the sword (9:5) and Sahih Muslim’s above hadith clearly gives the

nonbeliever three options; to convert, become a dhimmi, or fight.

 Islam’s Political Ideology 10

What should the West do with this knowledge of the deeply ingrained political

ideology contained within every major Islamic school of jurisprudence? Using the

conquered nonmuslim societies of the 7th to 11th centuries as a reference; ignoring the

political ideologies and military strength of Islam is an imprudent decision. The crusades

were destructive, bloody, and provided countless opportunities for Christians and

Muslims to abuse power, but to claim the crusades were unnecessary for the preservation

of Western civilization is mendacious. Bernard Lewis, internationally recognized as one

of the century’s greatest historians of the Middle East, writes, “A more accurate

description [of the crusades] would present them as a long delayed, very limited, and

finally ineffectual response to the jihad.” (Lewis, 2004). Another historian, author

Gregory M. Davis writes a brief summary of the jihad after the conquest of Jerusalem in

1099:

Following the very bloody capture of Jerusalem in 1099 by the Latin armies and

the establishment of the Crusader States in Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the

Muslim and Christian forces fought a see-saw series of wars, in which both

parties were guilty of the usual gamut of wartime immorality. Over time, even

with reinforcing Crusades waged from Europe, the Crusader States, strung out on

precarious lines of communication, slowly succumbed to superior Muslim power.

In 1271, the last Christian citadel, Antioch, fell to the Muslims. No longer having

to divert forces to subdue the Christian beachhead on the Eastern Mediterranean,

the Muslims regrouped for a 400-year-long jihad against Southern and Eastern

Europe, which twice reached as far as Vienna before it was halted. In geostrategic

terms, the Crusades can be viewed as an attempt by the West to forestall its own
 Islam’s Political Ideology 11

destruction at the hands of Islamic jihad by carrying the fight to the enemy. It

worked for a while. (Davis)

Almost 700 years after the first crusade was launched the Islamic jihad seemed poised to

conquer Christian Europe. The Muslims were turned away at the battle of Vienna in

1683, less than 100 years before the United States became a country. Did the crusades

provoke the Muslims to jihad? Was the Christian provocation strong enough to incite

jihad over hundreds of years and all the way to Vienna? No. The jihad observed by the

West today started almost 1400 years ago when Muhammad returned to Mecca, and it

has been in various forms of activity since.

Are all Muslims actively hunting down nonbelievers to extermination? Of course

not, as with every form of belief, either religious or political, there is a wide range of

understanding and zeal. Most Muslims are as content as any nonbeliever to live side by

side in harmony; to make an honest living and enjoy life with friends and loved ones as

peacefully as possible. However, according to the 2009 Pew Global Attitudes Project

report there are some Islamic countries that have opinions most Westerners should find

disturbing. The majority of Pakistanis surveyed approved of stoning adulterers, cutting

off hands of thieves, the death penalty for leaving Islam, and giving [legal] power to

religious judges; all of which have legal precedent in the Koran and Sunnah.
 Islam’s Political Ideology 12

(Pew Research Center, 2009)

The simple western response to this report may be to vacation somewhere other

than Pakistan, but what are the broader implications? Are the people of Pakistan

misunderstanding their own religion? Is Pakistan in a minority of Islamic countries that

share these opinions? Do the attitudes reflected in this report influence Western

immigration policies? According to the United Nations Statistics Division census data,

the birth rates and emigration rates of Islamic countries is generally higher than Western

countries. The 2007 census data reflects two ends of the spectrum with Afghanistan at 48

births per 1000 and Germany with 8. The remaining data of this report concludes that in

general the Islamic countries weighted higher birthrates than Western ones (UN Census).

Another census report, from the United States Census Bureau, estimates Crude Birth and

Death, Net Migration, and Growth Rates. This report establishes that Near and Middle

Eastern countries will see emigration growth while Europe and North America will see

immigration growth between 2009 and 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau). Assuming that only a
 Islam’s Political Ideology 13

tiny minority of Muslim immigrants entering Western countries agree with the survey

from Pakistan, how can the West protect itself from the few Muslims with political jihad

mentality? What if the majority of Muslims immigrants agree with the political jihad

mentality?

The first line of defense for Western Civilization is Freedom of Speech. Political

Islam has been disassembling this defense while the Western politicians and political

analysts are discouraged to question the political motivations of Islam. Questioning the

political ideology of Islam goes against the conventional wisdom that Islam is a religion

of peace, and most politicians and analysts fear being labeled as hate mongers,

warmongers, Islamophobes, or racists (even though Islam is not a race). There are

resolutions and declarations currently under evaluation in the United Nations sponsored

by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). These resolutions and declarations have

restrictions on freedom of speech that impact all UN member countries. Robert Spencer,

a leading anti-Islamization expert writes:

Durban II -- the UN’s upcoming second World Conference on Racism, Racial

Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. A draft declaration declares

that “defamation of Islam” should be a criminal offense, even when it takes place

under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national

security.” (Spencer, 2009)

As an example: under this draft declaration, it will not be a criminal offense if Iranian

clerics Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi and Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi

Golpayghani wanted Iranian president Ahmadinejad to reconsider his decision regarding

the appointment of women to the Iranian cabinet (AFP, 2009). It will be a criminal
 Islam’s Political Ideology 14

offense if a person implies that the Koran’s views on the inferiority of women (4:34) and

Muhammad’s treatment of women in the hadiths are influential in the leading Iranian

clerics recommendations.

Aside from the West’s external pressure from the OIC and similar organizations,

there are pressures from within western groups. Self censorship has resulted in cancelled

movie screenings, operas, art shows, book signings, and guest speakers. In February

2009, Dutch Member of Parliament and leader of the Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, was

refused entry to England because of British claims that Wilders incites hatred. This claim

is based on a film Wilders made called “Fitna.”. The movie contains video news footage

of Muslims performing acts of violence while citing the Koran. Linking the violent

passages in the Koran with Muslims performing violent acts made Wilders an extremist

to the United Kingdom’s home office.

Even in the United States there is a change that political Islam can believe in.

Explained by Robert Spencer:

The Obama Administration has now actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech

resolution at the United Nations…. the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and

Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national,

racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or

violence.”….

“Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder -- or more precisely, in

the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to

silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding

Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against
 Islam’s Political Ideology 15

tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of

imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some

ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are

tyrants, however benevolent they may be… the implications are grave. The

resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,”

which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad

doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- for that, not actual negative stereotyping or

hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the

Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when

people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed

Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert

Wilders and others report about such expositions, that’s “negative stereotyping.”

(sic)

But we still have the First Amendment, right? Legal expert Eugene Volokh, in an

excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn’t that easy to dismiss this.

“If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech,” he

explains, “presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the

U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from

adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that

constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.” He adds

that in order to be consistent, “the Administration would presumably have to take

what steps it can to ensure that supposed ‘hate speech’ that incites hostility will

indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs

 Islam’s Political Ideology 16

supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in

principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes

(or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such

changes).” (Spencer 8/2009)

Changing the Constitution of the United States of America because other countries do not

approve of the freedoms guaranteed by it is not conducive to the president’s oath to

defend the Constitution.

The evidence of Islam’s political ideology over the past 1400 years is consistent

and has affected every country in the world. Speaking out against the violent or political

tenets of Islam can result in negative repercussions ranging from something as mild as

being labeled an islamophobe or as severe as death. Ultimately this leaves Western

society in a precarious position. Either the West can fight for the freedoms Western

governments provide, or the West can let freedom diminish as politicians and analysts

pretend that political Islam poses no real threat. Fear of violent backlash from Muslims

who rage and riot at the thought of questioning any facet of Islam is no excuse to avoid

an open and honest debate. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1755, "Those who would give

up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor

Safety." (Franklin, 1755)

 Islam’s Political Ideology 17

Reference

AFP, Tehran. (2009, August 24). Iran islamists object to women ministers. Retrieved

from http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/08/24/news0516.htm

Bukhari, Sahih. (2007). Volume 4, book 52, number 254. Retrieved from

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith

/bukhari/052.sbt.html

Davis, Gregory. (n.d.). Islam 101. Retrieved from http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-

101.html

Franklin, B. (1755). Liberty quote. Retrieved from

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm

Laden, O.B. (2002, November 24). Letter to america. Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Lewis, B. (2004). The Crisis of islam: holy war and unholy terror. NY, NY: Random

House.

Muslim, Sahih. (2007). Book 019, number 4294. Retrieved from

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith

/muslim/019.smt.html

Pew Research Center. (2009, August 13). Pakistani public opinion. Retrieved from

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=265

Spencer, Robert. (2009, April 3). The UN’s jihad against free speech. Retrieved from

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/04/spencer-the-uns-jihad-against-free-

speech.html#more
 Islam’s Political Ideology 18

Spencer, Robert. (2009, October 8). Obama declares war on free speech . Retrieved from

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33869

Tschentscher, A. (2004, January 26). Constitution of the islamic republic of afghanistan.

Retrieved from http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/af00000_.html

UN Census. (n.d.). Undata_export_20091030_122459250. Retrieved from

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_PHC/default.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). International data base (idb). Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/region.php

Ye’or, Bat. (1996). The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: from Jihad to

Dhimmitude. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.