The steady increase
of Muslim population in Europe triggered a debate on the nature of
their settlement within European cities. Officially the existence of
“no-go zones”, or “sharia-controlled
areas” is denied, yet citizens refer to these areas as bad
neighbourhoods at best, and they advise against going into these
areas, because they are unsafe, especially for lonely, loosely
dressed women after dark.
As Daniel Pipes’ experience shows (Pipes
2015), law enforcement officials have a very different opinion about
entering these areas from everyday citizens. Pipes drew the
conclusion that his experience showed that non-Muslim civilians can
enter these zones freely, it is only government representatives that
are targeted by the inhabitants, so he called them partial no-go
zones. It should be noted though, that Daniel Pipes, a western
dressed man – not trespassing the regulations of sharia
– , might draw different kind of
attention at daytime than a lonely western dressed woman, which would
be a breach of sharia
law.
There is a
historical parallel to the existence and functioning of today’s
no-go zones. In the early years of the Islamic conquest of the
Christian Middle East and North Africa, cities and areas came under
Muslim control either by military victory (anwatan),
or the “peaceful” surrender of the kafirs
(solhan).
The difference was that whenever a city surrendered, and a solh
agreement (peace treaty) was signed, its provisions had to be
respected by later rulers. Thus, three different approaches were used
with regards to the conquered population: (a) in places conquered
forcefully (anwatan),
without an agreement, (b) the amsar
al-muslimeen, garrison cities founded
by the Arabs, and (c) the most complicated cases, where the city had
a solh
agreement, but over time the increasing Muslim population changed the
city’s character.
Ibn Abbas’ hadith
obliges
Muslims to obey the original solh
treaties,
but in about the 8th-9th
century, the situation changed and new questions arose. Should the
dhimmis
be allowed to continue their lifestyle even though there are now more
and more Muslims? Could they keep their churches, ring their bells,
sell their pigs and wine? (Levy-Rubin 2011, 63-64) The original
conquerors did not care much about the lifestyle of the conquered
kafirs.
They did not have the necessary manpower and concentrated more on the
ongoing jihad
and the spread of their influence. They established the misr
camps (plural amsar),
separately from the inferior kafirs,
to preserve their morale, protect themselves from the unknown
surroundings and alien cultures, and to prepare for raids and further
conquest. There was no cultural friction as long as there was no
wide-scale interaction between the occupied and the occupiers.
However,
it did not take long for such frictions to unfold. Muslims started to
settle in dhimmi
cities,
and non-Muslim traders settled around the amsar.
A debate started about the interpretation of the hadith,
about what should be considered a misr.
According
to the interpretation that came out winning, any city with a
considerable Muslim population was a misr,
where the life of dhimmis
should
be restricted accordingly. Al-Shaybani and al-Tabari shared this
opinion, and held the view that dhimmis
should
be expelled from the amsar
just
as they were expelled from Medina and later from Kufa by Ali Ibn Abu
Taleb. The only concession that al-Shaybani has given them was that
they could establish their new dwellings at the outskirts of the
city. According to the Hanafi scholar al-Sarakhsi, there are no
secured rights or privileges, and the solh
agreements are only valid as long as Muslims are not the predominant
community in the city. (Levy-Rubin 2011, 65-67)
Immediately
after the conquest, the Muslims were far from being the majority, or
even a significant proportion of the population. However, this
situation changed by the 8th
century. Muslims settled down in cities previously populated only by
kafirs,
and the stipulations of the solh
treaties
were found to be offensive and inappropriate. New regulations had to
be introduced, to meet the demands of the growing Muslim population.
These changing circumstances have led to the standardization of the
legal framework dealing with the dhimmis.
(Levy-Rubin
2011, 68) Needless to say, from the previously mentioned three
approaches, the most restrictive one prevailed, and everything under
Muslim control was considered a misr.
Islamic
doctrine authorizes violence against the unbelievers, and more
specifically the Ahl
al-Kitaab, or
People of the Book, who were given the holy scriptures previously,
but have distanced from its “original” spirit. They should be
humiliated, and confronted until they either submit and pay the jizya
tax,
convert to Islam or die.
Quran 8:39: “And
fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of
it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of
what they do.”
Quran 9:5: “And
when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists
wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in
wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent,
establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed,
Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
Quran 9:29: “Fight
those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not
consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and
who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the
Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they
are humbled.”
It must be noted
that Islam defines all other religions, so it does not matter whether
one considers himself a Jew or a Christian. Christians must abandon
some of the core tenets of their belief not to be considered
blasphemers or polytheists:
Quran 5:17: “Verily
they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of
Mary, is God.'”
Quran 5:72: “They
are surely disbelievers who blaspheme and say: ‘God is one of three
in the Trinity for there is no Ilah (God) except One, Allah. If they
desist not from saying this (blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty
will befall them – the disbelievers will suffer a painful doom.”
Quran 4-171 “O
People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion; nor speak
lies of Allah. The Messiah, Christ Jesus, the son of Mary was (no
more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on
Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in Allah and His
messengers. Say not ‘Trinity.’ Cease and Desist: (it is) better
for you: for Allah is one Ilah (God). (Far it is removed from him of)
having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth.
And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. The Messiah is proud to
be a slave of Allah, as are the angels, those nearest. Those who
disdain His worship and are arrogant. He will gather them all
together unto Himself to (answer)…. He will punish with a painful
doom; Nor will they find, besides Allah, any to protect or save
them.”
The scripture also
encourages Muslims to migrate for the sake of Allah:
Quran 16:41: “And
those who emigrated for [the cause of] Allah after they had been
wronged - We will surely settle them in this world in a good place;
but the reward of the Hereafter is greater, if only they could know.”
These passages from
the Islamic doctrine converge to the same direction – to migrate
into the land of disbelief, to proselytize, and to subdue the
unbelievers. The original hijra was
designed to strengthen the Muslim community in Yathrib (Medina), so
that Muhammad had enough military power to strike back at the
Meccans. After this goal was achieved, migration was not emphasized
anymore, up until the great jihad
conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, and the eradication of
its previously Christian, Zoroastrian, Jewish and several other
cultures. After this point on, the hijra
started again, this time into one of
the amsar, or
garrison cities. The ahadith
emerging from this period clearly indicate the link between migration
and the military needs of the ongoing jihad.
During these times, migration to the amsar
was massive, and entire tribes moved en
bloc to settle in the land of the kafirs.
The migrants (muhajirun) were
also forced to cut their ties to the ancestral lands and to
concentrate entirely on the conquest. (Athamina 1987, 9-10)
If the reader
notices certain similarities with the events unfolding in the 7-8th
centuries, during the Islamic conquest of the Christian Middle East
and North Africa, and what is ongoing today, it is no coincidence.
Jihad and
hijra have
been intertwined and continuously ongoing since the time Muhammad was
forced out of Mecca. It was only halted by European nations in the
17th
century by their scientific and technological superiority. As long as
jihad could
be carried out by spears, bows, and hatchets, that was the preferred
method to eradicate the kafirs.
When face to face combat offers little chance of success, other ways
must be found to reach the same end state.
Today, when Europe
has entirely lost its own identity and is unable to identify a)
itself, b) its enemies, and c) the boundary between the two, the tool
of jihad
is again hijra.
The identity vacuum generates an enormous force that invites Islam
into its emptiness and disorientation. Under such circumstances,
migration is the most efficient way of conquering new lands for
Allah. Just like in the early Middle Ages, superfluous and unruly
tribes and masses of single men are detached en bloc to settle in the
amsar. The
destination of this hijra
is the misr of our time, the Muslim ghetto, which is placed in the
most favourable location to carry out the jihad
of the given time period. It was placed on large flat plains in the
7th century, where Arab light cavalry could have the best effect
against kafir
armies. Today, they are where modern jihad
can be carried out most efficiently, among the soft targets of our
large metropoles.
These no-go zones function with the similar goals
in mind – to prevent the intermingling with the “inferior”
kafirs, to
enforce sharia,
and to prepare for future raids and conquest, just as the Molenbeek
attackers planned their activities against the surrounding areas in
complete safety. They are protected and idolized by local residents.
For the inhabitants of the misr
they are the warriors of jihad,
fighting for the Islamic world order, based on Allah’s rule over
the entire globe. History also teaches us that the relatively
peaceful and tolerant attitude towards a kafir
majority will quickly go to the flush
when the proportion of Muslims and kafirs
change over time. This demographic
change will occur in a couple of decades. There is no reason for us
to think that the corresponding change in the approach towards kafirs
in the amsar will
be any different from the historical example.
Bibliography
Athamina, Khalil. 1987. “A'rāb and Muhājirūn in the Environment
of Amṣār.” JSTOR. Accessed 04 30, 2016.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595909?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Levy-Rubin, Milka. 2011. Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire:
From Surrender to Coexistence. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pipes, Daniel. 2015. danielpipes.org. 12 02. Accessed 04 27,
2016. http://www.danielpipes.org/16322/muslim-no-go-zones-in-europe.
Center for the Study of Political Islam
No comments:
Post a Comment