• French

Is jizya—the money non-Muslims historically paid their Muslim conquerors—meant to buy them “protection,” including from outside enemies, as modern Western academics maintain? Or was it simply extortion money meant to buy non-Muslims their lives, as Islam’s scriptures mandate?

The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).”

In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya of non-Muslims: “If they refuse to accept Islam,” said the Islamic prophet, “demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

Keeping the above in mind, consider the following July 18 report from Reuters:

Islamist insurgents have issued an ultimatum to northern Iraq’s dwindling Christian population to either convert to Islam, pay a religious levy or face death, according to a statement distributed in the militant-controlled city of Mosul…. It said Christians who wanted to remain in the “caliphate” that the Islamic State declared this month in parts of Iraq and Syria must agree to abide by terms of a “dhimma” contract—a historic practice under which non-Muslims were protected in Muslim lands in return for a special levy known as “jizya.” “We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract – involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword,” the announcement said. “After this date [July 19], there is nothing between us and them but the sword,” it said. The Nineveh decree echoes one that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, the former name for the Islamic State, issued in the Syrian city of Raqqa in February, demanding that Christians pay the jizya levy in gold and curb displays of their faith in return for protection.

Note how straightforward the Islamic State’s words are—jizya, conversion, or death—compared to the language of Reuters, which twice invokes the concept of “protection” without explaining from whom: 1) “a historic practice under which non-Muslims were protected in Muslim lands in return for a special levy known as “jizya”; 2) “demanding that Christians pay the jizya levy in gold and curb displays of their faithin return for protection.”

Reuters doesn’t bother to clarify this notion of “protection,” but rather leaves it vague, implying that the protection Christians receive is against some random elements.

The reason for this obfuscation is that Mideast academics in the West have been whitewashing the meaning of jizya for decades. After all, the concept of jizya is one of the most ironclad proofs that Islam is innately intolerant of non-Muslims.

A very typical Western definition for jizya can be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “The Muslim rulers tolerated the dhimmis [conquered non-Muslims] and allowed them to practice their religion. In return for protection [from whom?] and as a mark of their submission, the dhimmis were required to pay a special poll tax known as the jizya.”

Other academics have gone so far as to claim that non-Muslims paid jizya to buy Muslim protection against outside forces. Consider the following excerpt from John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. It essentially makes the idea of being subjugated to Islamic overlords and paying them tribute appear as an enviable position for non-Muslim minorities:

In many ways, local populations [Christians, Jews, and others] found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the “protected ones” (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy (emphasis added) …

The idea that jizya was extracted in order to buy “Muslim protection from outside aggression” is an outright lie—one that, as the equivocal tone of the aforementioned Reuters report indicates, has taken root in the West.

Equally false is Esposito’s assertion that jizya was paid to “exempt them from military service”—as if conquering Muslims would even want or allow their despised “infidel” subjects to fight alongside them in the name of jihad without first converting to Islam.

The root meaning of the Arabic word “jizya” is simply to “repay” or “recompense,” basically to “compensate” for something. According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that “takes the place” of something else, or “serves instead.”

Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money. Instead of taking their lives, they took their money. As one medieval jurist succinctly puts it, “their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya” (Crucified Again, p. 22).

So jizya was, and is indeed, protection money—though protection, not from outsiders, as Esposito and others claim, but from surrounding Muslims themselves. Whether it’s the first caliphate from over a millennium ago or whether it’s the newest caliphate, the Islamic State, Muslim overlords continue to deem the lives of their non-Muslim subjects forfeit unless they purchase it, ransom it with money.

There is nothing humane, reasonable, or admirable about demands for jizya from conquered non-Muslim minorities, as the academics claim. Jizya is simply extortion money. Its purpose has always been to provide non-Muslims with protection from Muslims: pay up, or else become one of us and convert to Islam, or else die.

And it is commanded in both the Koran and Hadith, the twin pillars of Islam.

In short, jizya is an ugly fact of Islam—one that, distort as they may, the academics can’t whitewash away, even as the world stands idly by watching its resumption in the twenty-first century.

By Michael Carl

WND

Middle East and Africa analysts say there is a growing wave of militant Islamic activity in sub-Saharan Africa that is being funded by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.

Hussein Solomon, University of the Free State professor and analyst for the Israel-based think tank Research on Islam and Muslims in Africa, said the expansion of jihad into sub-Saharan Africa is bad news for Christians and other groups who don’t embrace the radicalism.

“We’re going to see more pastors and priests get killed and more churches being burned,” he said. “Because of this, there will be more attacks on churches. There will be more attacks on interfaith groups as well. The radicals are creating hard dichotomies between black and white, between ‘us’ and ‘them.’”

Central African countries are particularly vulnerable, he said, because religious identities reinforce ethnic identities.

Solomon said it’s not just Nigeria, pointing to increased activity in countries such as Tanzania. Mozambique will likely be the next target, he said.

IntelligenceCommunity.com and Consultancy Africa Intelligence analyst Maha Hamdan said the Saudis are deeply involved in the growing jihad. They are using their vast oil wealth to pay for non-governmental groups to go head-to-head with Christian non-governmental groups.

“Islamic development work among non-Muslims is performed as a form of Dawah (the Islamic act of inviting conversion) to gain more converts to Islam. These NGOs have focused their work, first of all, on development and relief issues in Sub-Saharan Africa in the name of jihad and the cause of converting more people to Islam,” Hamdan said.

Solomon said the Saudis are paying the tab for the radicalization.

The Saudis’ Wahhabist-Salafist ideology can be seen in Nigeria’s Boko Haram group.

“The founder of Boko Haram set up a group of schools that were being funded by Saudi charities. This network of schools continues to exist, and Boko Haram recruits directly from those schools,” Solomon explained.

He pointed out that Ansar Dine in Mali is aligned with the group Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. It’s leader, Iyad ag-Ghaly, was a Malian consular official in Saudi Arabia.

Solomon said al-Shabaab is also the product of Saudi funding and education.

But Western governments have hesitated to address the source of the money.

“No one has wanted to deal with these issues because of the widespread belief that they need Saudi Arabia to counter Iran or whatever the strategy of the day may be,” Solomon said. “The problem is that ordinary people on the ground are going to be suffering.”

Hamdan agrees the Saudis are using their wealth to spread militant Islam.

“The ever-growing conversion to Islam in Africa is due to the intensive activity of Islamic NGOs, such as the Muslim World League, based in Saudi Arabia, World Islamic Call, based in Libya, and other organizations, within the continent,” Hamden said.

“The increase in the number of Islamic NGOs can be largely attributed to financial sponsorship from oil-rich Muslim states in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and North Africa.”

Saudi Wahhabists use “community development projects” to make inroads, she said.

“In Africa, Islamic community development projects go hand-in-hand with Dawah and Islamization projects. The main reason for the Islamic NGOs growing involvement in development matters in Africa is their better ability to reach the rural poor population, than government agencies do.

“These same rural poor are also the main target for Dawah and Islamization projects. The primary missionary feature of the Dawah in Africa has been the training of Muslim teachers, leaders, imams and legal experts, alongside building of mosques and of schools attached to them,” Hamden said.

“Future imams and youth leaders have become increasingly involved with the Islamic NGOs after an initial training in Africa. Then, they have been sent by these NGOs for further education abroad in Islamic institutions, universities, and advanced seminaries.

“It is not surprising to find the version of Islam that has been emphasized by these NGOs is Salafist or Wahhabist or other radical versions as propagated in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States. Saudi Arabia, as well as some Salafi elements in other Gulf States, managed through the finance of relief projects, to turn a marginal Islamic trend of Salafism of the Wahhabi school into a worldwide network,” Hamdan said.

Horowitz Freedom Center fellow, author and Middle East specialist Raymond Ibrahim confirmed Solomon’s concerns and said Christians are the targets of the growing jihadist movement.

“Absolutely. It’s especially true in Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Central African Republic and increasingly Tanzania,” Ibrahim said.

Ibrahim said the key to anticipating where militant Islam will have a major impact is to look at the population.

“It’s basically wherever there is a significant Islamic population. However, even in nations where Muslims are the minority, such as Uganda, attacks are certainly not uncommon,” Ibrahim said.

Human rights activist and Shillman-Ginsberg fellow for the Middle East Forum Mark Durie said some Christians have been willing to resist.

“Sometimes Christians have responded to such attacks only with fasting, praying and repentance. Some of these communities no longer exist as Christian,” Durie said.

Ibrahim said there is a familiar pattern of how Islamic movements operate.

“If the Muslims are the majority, for example in Somalia, the Christians and other minorities are being hunted out of existence. Where the populations are split, it’s all-out jihad; Nigeria is a perfect example,” Ibrahim said.

Government officials in these countries need to act to counter the growing threat, Durie urged.

“Christians (and non-Christians) in positions of authority, as in the government, should show strong leadership in resisting insurgent movements using force, but again, avoiding reprisals against non-militants. The strategy of security forces should be to take out key Islamic religious leaders: the sheikhs who inspire, guide and regulate the militants and the flow of religious ideology need to be cut off.

“Special forces should pursue the sheiks through the jungles and deserts if need be, as the highest strategic goal in getting the conflict under control,” Durie said.

Corruption of African governments is widespread, and Solomon noted it’s a major reason military solutions are frequently not enough to fight the spread of jihad.

“The people who want to stop this need to look at the ideology being followed,” he said.

They also need to reform the states in these countries and fight corruption in the governments,” he said. Because of the corruption, millions of dollars go missing every day.

“The French fought al-Qaida in Mali with the military. The U.S. is giving aid to Nigeria, and there are others. The problem is the corruption in those countries that may end up giving the governments there a greater ability to oppress their own people,” Solomon said.

Durie added that Christians should get involved in the process and become pro-active.

“Christians should reach out and form strong relationships with non-militant Muslims in their neighborhoods. They should also resist the temptation to respond to attacks with collective punishment, e.g. if Fulani militants attack your village, that is no reason to launch a reprisal on non-militant Fulanis,” Durie said.

Durie said sometimes violence works against the Muslims’cause.

“Another factor which is significant is that as militancy increases, so also does disenchantment with Islam. More moderate Muslims suffer under radical Islamic rule. Christians, while being willing to fight for their security, should also be ready to witness to Christ,” Durie said.

Durie is optimistic. He said that some of the sub-Saharan regions are seeing a turnaround because of Islamic violence.

“Some of the areas of sub-Saharan Africa you refer to are also notable for significant numbers of Muslims becoming Christians, and in some countries where disenchantment with Islam has ripened, after many years of radical leadership, e.g. Iran, conversions are taking place in vast numbers. So this is potentially a significant factor in bringing lasting change,” Durie said.

Le nouveau "califat" d'Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi – l'État Islamique (anciennement connu comme "ISIS") – a récemment annoncé qu'il a l'intention de suivre les traces du califat d'Abou Bakr Al-Sadiq (632-634), en dirigeant son jihad contre d'autres musulmans. Ces autres musulmans sont connus dans le langage islamique comme des "hypocrites" et des "apostats" (des "modérés" dans la terminologie occidentale).

Cette déclaration a été faite dans le cadre du présent conflit entre Israël et le Hamas, avec certains musulmans demandant que le nouveau "califat" lance un djihad contre l'état juif.

Quelle est la réponse de l'État Islamique? "Allah dans le noble Coran ne nous commande pas de combattre Israël ou les Juifs jusqu'à ce que nous ayons vaincu les apostats et les hypocrites."

Sur l'un des sites web de questions-réponses de l'État Islamique, certains individus ont demandé pourquoi l'État Islamique "ne se bat pas contre Israël, mais au lieu, verse le sang des fils de l'Irak et de la Syrie." Le nouveau califat a répondu:

La réponse est dans le noble Coran quand Allah tout-puissant parle de l'ennemi qui est tout près. Dans la plupart des versets du noble Coran, ce sont les hypocrites, car ils représentent un danger plus grand que les infidèles originaux [non-musulmans de naissance – les juifs et les chrétiens]. Et la réponse se trouve dans Abu Bakr al-Sadiq, qui a préféré lutter contre les apostats au lieu de conquérir Jérusalem [fath al-Qods], qui a été conquise par son successeur, Omar al-Khattab.

Il y a beaucoup à dire sur cette réponse puisqu'elle fait référence à des évènements historiques.

Tout d'abord, c'est vrai. Après que le prophète de l'islam soit mort, de nombreuses tribus arabes qui avaient été soumises et sont devenues musulmanes – le mot musulman signifie simplement "celui qui se soumet" – pensaient qu'elles pouvaient maintenant renier l'islam et ont apostasié. Cela a provoqué la première ridda, ou "les guerres d'apostasie", menées par Abou Bakr al-Sadiq, qui devint le premier calife suite à la mort de Mahomet en 632. Pendant près de deux ans, jusqu'à sa mort en 634, toute l'énergie de son califat a été axée sur le djihad contre toutes les tribus arabes récalcitrantes, les forçant par le tranchant de l'épée de retourner dans le giron de l'islam.

Des dizaines de milliers d'Arabes ont été brûlés, décapités, démembrés, ou crucifiés pendant ce djihad, en particulier par "l'Épée d'Allah" (selon l'histoire islamique). Ce n'est que plus tard, sous le règne du deuxième calife, Omar al-Khattab (634-644), que les grandes conquêtes islamiques contre les "infidèles originaux" – les peuples non arabes qui n'avaient pas encore converti à l'islam (comme les chrétiens, les juifs, les zoroastriens ...) – ont eu lieu.

La guerre islamique contre les apostats, si peu connu en occident, est très connue dans l'histoire islamique. En effet, le Cheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, présentement un leader musulmans très influent, a déclaré sur Al-Jazeera de l'importance de tuer tous les apostats musulmans. Il a correctement déclaré que "si la peine [de mort] pour apostasie aurait été ignorée, il n'y aurait plus d'islam aujourd'hui; islam aurait vu ses dernier jours avec la mort du prophète."

En bref, l'État Islamique déclare maintenant que le plus grand ennemi de l'islam – l'ennemi "le plus près" – est "l'apostat" et "l'hypocrite", car ils sont les plus capables de subvertir l'islam de l'intérieur.

Le phénomène de musulmans "pieux" combattant et tuant des musulmans "mous", ou des chiites et des sunnites luttant un contre l'autre – pendant que l'infidèle observe le tout et s'en tire – a de nombreux précédents à travers l'histoire. Par exemple, dans sa réponse, l'État Islamique a justifié son inaction envers Israël en disant:

La réponse se trouve dans Salah ad-Din al-Ayubi [Saladin] et Nur ad-Din Zanki quand ils ont combattu les chiites en Egypte et en Syrie avant [d'attaquer] Jérusalem. Salah ad-Din a participé dans plus de 50 combats avant d'atteindre Jérusalem. Et il a été dit à Salah ad-Din al-Ayubi: "Vous combattez les chiites et les fatimides en Egypte pendant que les croisés latins occupent Jérusalem?" Et il a répondu: "Je ne vais pas lutter contre les croisés alors que mon dos est exposé aux chiites."

Tous les faits historiques mentionnés par l'État Islamique a pour but d'exonérer le point principale du nouveau califat: "Jérusalem ne sera pas libérée jusqu'à ce que nous ayons fini avec tous les tyrans, les familles [royales], et les pions du colonialisme qui contrôlent le destin du monde islamique."

Quelques observations:

Bien que l'État Islamique essaie de suggérer que seuls les autocrates comme Bachar al-Assad de la Syrie sont des "apostats" et des "hypocrites", et que la plupart des musulmans veulent vivre sous la charia, le fait est qu'un grand nombre de musulmans dans le monde pourraient être considérés comme des "apostats" et des "hypocrites". La plus grande révolution de l'histoire, celle contre les Frères musulmans en Égypte en juin 2013, en témoigne. Ainsi, le jihad du nouveau califat n'est pas seulement contre les "tyrans", mais aussi contre de nombreux musulmans moyen, comme le carnage de cette organisation en Irak et en Syrie en témoigne.

La déclaration de l'État Islamique justifiant sa politique de non-confrontation avec Israël n'est pas très populaire dans le monde arabe et est naturellement dépeint comme une dérobade. En plus, cette déclaration valide l'idée populaire parmi les arabes que les États-Unis se range avec les islamistes dans le but de déstabiliser la région; d'avoir les diverses sectes (les sunnites vs les chiites, les modérés versus les islamistes) se battre entre eux pour diviser et affaiblir la région. Le Dr Ahmed Karima, un des principaux professeurs de jurisprudence islamique à Al Azhar, a déclaré que la position de l'État Islamique au sujet d'Israël prouve que "c'est une création des services de renseignement Américains et Israéliens" et que le nouveau califat "est le plus grand de tous les hypocrites."

Cependant, il y a d'autre, les islamistes en particulier, qui apprécient que l'État Islamique se structure selon le premier califat d'Abu Bakr (la raison pour laquelle son premier calife a choisi ce nom) parce qu'elle opère dans les mêmes circonstances. Naissante et sans beaucoup de soutien, sa mission première, comme Abu Bakr, est de ré-asservir les musulmans à l'islam. Ensuite, ils pourront se concentrer sur les "infidèles originaux."

Pendant que cette approche est temporairement bonne pour Israël (et les autres pays non-musulmans), dans le long terme, un califat pleinement opérationnel et unifié avec des musulmans "réformés" comme voisin n'est pas une belle image. Après tout, l'État Islamique n'est pas en train d'exonérer les infidèles. Il dit plutôt que son tour viendra une fois que le califat sera capable d'un assaut tous azimuts. Au mieux, c'est un répit temporaire.

Le bâtiment sœur, Notre-Dame-du-Salut de l'Église Syriaque Catholique de Bagdad, après une attaque par l'État Islamique en 2010

Selon certaines sources indépendantes, le soi-disant "État islamique" (anciennement "de l'Irak et la Syrie», ou «ISIS»), a récemment brûlé le diocèse catholique syriaque à Mossoul, détruisant toutes ses possessions.

Cela s'est produit peu de temps après que l'organisation ait menacé tous les chrétiens sous son autorité soit de payer la jizya (de l'argent d'extorsion), de convertir à l'islam, ou de mourir.

Moins de 24 heures après que l'État Islamique ait lapidé à mort une femme pour adultère dans la ville de Tabaqa, dans la province de Raqqa, de nouvelles informations en provenance du nouveau "califat" indique qu'une autre femme a été lapidée pour le crime d'adultère dans la province de Raqqa.

Une source a déclaré que l'État Islamique avait annoncé à l'avance qu'ils lapideraient la deuxième femme en public, mais seulement quelques habitants locaux – qui ont été précédemment décrit comme étant «dans un état de terreur" – ont participé. L'État Islamique a alors été obligé d'utiliser ses propres djihadistes pour lapider la victime.

Certains médias arabes ont posté la photo ci-dessus, disant qu'elle a été prises lors de cette dernière lapidation.