What Are No-Go Zones?

No-go zones in European cities are urban areas with large numbers of immigrants, high levels of unemployment and poverty, chronic welfare dependence, elevated rates of crime, severe social deprivation, and where state authority has broken down. They are ethnic enclaves with high concentrations of Muslims who have become self-segregated from their host country.

No-go zones often are areas of temporal hopelessness and thus breeding grounds for transcendent ideologies, especially radical Islam. Many no-go zones are directly or indirectly controlled by Islamists and Muslim proselytizers who actively seek out young, disaffected youth with the aim of drawing them into networks of Islamic radicalism. As their numbers increase, they impose Islamic norms of dress or behavior in public spaces. Over time, the result is double-segregation: immigrants separate themselves from native Europeans, and natives stay clear of no-go zones to avoid social interaction with these types of immigrants.

In some European countries (Belgium, Germany, and the United Kingdom, among others) no-go zones are primarily located within inner cities, whereas in France they are found mostly in large-scale housing complexes on the outer fringes of the suburban periphery.

The borders of these areas are often informal and unacknowledged, and yet their frontiers are generally known and understood. Not all no-go zones in Europe are entirely off-limits to non-Muslim outsiders, particularly during daylight, but many are lawless and menacing for native Europeans, including police, firefighters, and other state representatives. Jews, women, or people who are openly homosexual are subject to physical danger in these areas at any time of the day. Some media groups trying to “debunk the myth” of no-go zones film these parts with large production crews during the day, but presumably most journalists would not venture into these areas alone at night.

A Taboo Topic

The debate over no-go zones in European cities has been raging for nearly half a century. It is acrimonious and highly politicized. Governmental authorities routinely deny that such areas exist, but confidential police reports, testimonies from security personnel, empirical research, and anecdotal evidence all confirm that parts of major European cities have become pockets of lawlessness where Islamists and criminal migrants have effectively usurped control of the streets from state authorities. Proponents of multiculturalism and mass migration regularly brand those who attempt to raise awareness about these areas as bigots, xenophobes, and “Islamophobes.”

In Britain, for instance, the then-Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, warned about no-go zones, areas across the country that are dangerous for non-Muslims to enter. “There has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism,” he wrote in The Sunday Telegraph.¹ One of the results of this, he argued, was “to turn already separate communities into ‘no-go’ areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.”² Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, affirmed that attempts had been made to “impose an ‘Islamic’ character on certain areas” by, for example, amplifying the Muslim call to prayer.³ Nazir-Ali’s remarks provoked outrage and denial; critics accused him of “talking nonsense,” and “scaremongering”⁴ In a subsequent interview with The Telegraph, Nazir-Ali said that a “spiritual and moral vacuum” in Britain was being filled by radical Islam.⁵ He received death threats and was forced to accept police protection for himself and his family.⁶

This widespread tactic of equating use of the term “no-go zone” with racism, sensationalism, and rightwing populism has for many years effectively shut down serious discussion of this problem, one that is directly associated with the spread of Islam in Europe. Governments are notoriously reluctant to counter Islamic communalism because of the fear of being accused of stigmatizing Muslims.

Parallel Islamic Societies Are Real

From time to time, however, outbreaks of urban violence have cast light on the reality that millions of Muslims live in parallel Islamic societies that exist within their European host countries but operate separately from them.

The first major riots in European no-go zones occurred in September 1979, in the Grappiniere district of Vaulx-en-Velin, a poor suburb (banlieue) of Lyon, France, after police tried to arrest a teenager of North African descent for stealing a car.⁷ The suspect slashed his wrists to make it look like police used disproportionate force against him.⁸ The ensuing riots forced police to retreat.⁹ After that, riots in French suburbs became increasingly commonplace. During the “hot summer” of 1981, riots in the three “Vs” of eastern Lyon (Vaulx-en-Velin, Venissieux, and Villeurbanne) forced the nexus of immigration and urban unrest onto the political agenda.¹⁰ In 1990 and 1993, uprisings broke out again in the same areas.¹¹ The riots raised awareness of the link between migrant youths and urban rebellions, the so-called “malaise in the suburbs.”¹²

Some of the worst unrest in France occurred in October and November 2005, after two teenagers of North African origin were electrocuted when they hid in an electricity substation in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois while hiding from police. Their deaths resulted in three weeks of riots in the suburbs of Paris and other French cities and led to a three-month state of emergency.¹³ Those riots affected 274 towns and cities across France and caused hundreds of millions of euros in property damage. According to French Islamism expert Gilles Kepel, the riots in 2005 marked “a pivotal year, the year of a major shift in French Islamism,” the year “a new generation of Muslims, the third generation, came to the forefront.”¹⁴

In June 2023, riots erupted across France after a 17-year-old was shot to death by police in Nanterre, a suburb of Paris, when he tried to run them over at a traffic stop. Around 40,000 police officers were deployed nationwide to contain the rioting,¹⁵ which caused more than one billion euros in damages.¹⁶ The urban riots showcased the decades-long failure of the French state to adequately integrate millions of immigrants, particularly those with origins in Africa and the Middle East.

Subscribe now

The Etymology of No-Go Zones

The origin of the term “no-go zone” is disputed. Often it is attributed to Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, a think tank based in Philadelphia. In November 2006, he wrote about “The 751 No-Go Zones of France,” places in France that “the French state does not fully control.”¹⁷ The term, however, originated with The Washington Post in September 1979. It described an area in Washington, DC, that was cordoned off by police as a “secure no-go zone.”¹⁸

Its first use in the European context was in April 2002, when David Ignatius, writing in the International Herald Tribune, commented about France: “Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”¹⁹ In September 2004, Senator John Kerry said there were “no-go zones in Iraq.”²⁰ In December 2008, The Economist magazine wrote about Europe’s need to “stop urban ‘no-go’ areas, places that are so much dominated by a single faith that they are virtually off-limits to people of other backgrounds, from developing.”²¹

The term no-go zones became widely used among the general public after January 2015, when two French-born Algerian Muslim brothers attacked the officers of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly magazine, and murdered 12 people and injured 11 others.²² The jihadists were upset about the magazine’s depictions of Islamic prophet, Muhammad.²³ The killings drew public attention to the fact that many French Muslims view satirical drawings of Islam as blasphemy punishable by death, even though sacrilege is not illegal in France, which operates under the principle of secularism (laicite). The attack highlighted France’s struggle with radical Islam and “the apparent desire of some younger, often disaffected children or grandchildren of immigrant families not to conform to western, liberal lifestyles, including traditions of religious tolerance and free speech.”²⁴

In February 2018, German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted there are “no-go” areas in the country. In an interview with the German broadcaster NTV, she said: “There shouldn’t be any no-go areas…there shouldn’t be any spaces where no one dares to go. But such spaces do exist. We have to call them what they are and do something about them.”²⁵

In general, the term no-go zone is rarely used in academic literature or official discourse because it is viewed as ideologically charged and politically taboo. Instead, such areas are usually referred to euphemistically as “ghettos,” “ethnic enclaves,” “parallel societies,” “dangerous neighborhoods” “disadvantaged neighborhoods,” “marginalized neighborhoods,” “vulnerable areas,” “marginalized urban areas,” or “high-risk zones.”

How Many Are There?

Europe is home to at least 1,000 no-go zones, according to government statistics. In France, for example, the government currently describes no-go zones as “Priority Neighborhoods” (quartiers prioritaires de la politique de la ville, QPV). At least 1,362 neighborhoods in France are categorized as QPVs, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE).²⁶ Between 1996 and 2014, no-go zones in France were called “Urban Sensitive Zones” (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS). At the time, there were a total of 751 ZUS, a comprehensive list of which can still be found, complete with satellite maps and precise street demarcations, on a French government website.²⁷

In August 2012, after Muslim youth rioted in Amiens, a city in northern France, and left more than a dozen police officers wounded,²⁸ the French government designated 15 ZUS as Priority Security Zones (zones de securite prioritaires, ZSP).²⁹ By December 2013, that number had grown to 80.³⁰

In January 2020, a French intelligence document classified as “top secret” which was leaked to the media revealed that 150 neighborhoods or “micro-territories” in France are “controlled” by Islamists.³¹ The document, issued by France’s top domestic intelligence agency, the General Directorate for Internal Security (Direction generale de la securite interieure, DGSI), warned that “micro-territories [within France] are becoming Salafized in unlikely areas.”³²

In Germany, police refer to no-go zones as “Dangerous Areas” (Gefahrenzone) or “Dangerous Neighborhoods” (gefahrliche Orte).³³ They are also called “Problem Areas” (Problemviertel), “Hotspots” (Brennpunkte), or “Lawless Areas (rechtsfreien Raumen).³⁴ German media have identified more than 40 “problem areas” (Problemviertel) in the country.³⁵ These are districts where large concentrations of migrants, high levels of unemployment and chronic welfare dependency, combined with urban decay, have become incubators for Islamization.

In Sweden, police designate 65 neighborhoods as “Vulnerable Areas” (utsatt omrade) or “Particularly Vulnerable Areas” (sarskilt utsatta omraden).³⁶

Where Are They?

A Europe-wide study of no-go zones by the Brussels-based think tank New Direction shows that most no-go zones are located in France, but they also exist in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and elsewhere.³⁷ The report focuses on only seventeen of these areas based on recurring mentions in official reports, media, and academic sources, and on eleven selected criteria categorized by crime and violence, parallel societies, and state withdrawal. These include:³⁸

In Belgium, for instance, the Molenbeek neighborhood, one of the poorest districts in the country, has been described as the “jihad capital of Europe,”³⁹ a “police no-go zone,”⁴⁰ and a “magnet for jihadists, gangs, drugs and lawlessness.”⁴¹ The British newspaper The Independent described Molenbeek this way: “As well as being home to many ethnic Moroccans and Turks, Molenbeek is also one of the country’s poorest areas. It has a 30 per cent unemployment rate, and one in four of its 95,000 inhabitants does not have a Belgian passport. Like gang violence, Islamic radicalism has fed on Molenbeek’s marginalisation, despair and festering resentment of authority. Police say the most dangerous among around 30 Brussels gangs come from Molenbeek.”⁴²

Molenbeek has been connected to almost all of Belgium’s terrorism-related incidents in recent years⁴³ and is known as “the Belgian hub of Islamist terrorism.”⁴⁴ The neighborhood “encapsulates all the historical, social, and spatial elements that fuel a suicidal messianism.”⁴⁵

Brice De Ruyver, a security adviser to former Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, said Molenbeek suffers from a cocktail of problems. “Youths are poorly educated, attracted by petty crime, have run-ins with police, and then there is a vicious circle, which leads to recruitment by radical groups,” he said. “We don’t officially have no-go zones in Brussels, but in reality, there are, and they are in Molenbeek.”⁴⁶

In France, many no-go zones in Paris are located within the so-called Red Belt (Ceinture Rouge), working-class suburban areas that historically have been dominated by the French Communist Party, which frequently reaches accommodations with Islamists in exchange for votes.⁴⁷ In some cases, municipal authorities have indulged Islamists by disguising mosques or prayer rooms as “community centers” to circumvent France’s 1905 law on secularism. They have also permitted school cafeterias to serve faith-based ‘halal’ meals and made concessions for female-only time slots at municipal swimming pools. In exchange, they have struck tacit agreements with Islamists to secure a reliable voting base.⁴⁸

Saint-Denis, a notorious Muslim enclave northeast of Paris, has been described as “a parallel state, a state within a state, with its own rules and religious courts, where allegiance to Islam comes ahead of fealty to France.”⁴⁹

In Germany, in an expose titled “Ghetto Report Germany,” Bild, the highest-circulation newspaper in the country, described these areas as “burgeoning ghettos, parallel societies, and no-go areas.”⁵⁰ It described parts of major cities as pockets of lawlessness where criminal migrants have usurped control of the streets from German police. The problems are being exacerbated by the German government, which has relocated hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers and refugees into these areas. Osnabruck Police Commissioner Bernhard Witthaut noted: “We know that these areas exist. Even worse: in these areas, crimes no longer result in charges. The power of the state is completely out of the picture.”⁵¹

Multicultural Illusions

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the deadliest military conflict in human history, European policymakers decided that nationalism was responsible for the carnage. They surmised that social engineering could dilute what it means to be French or German and thus diminish the chances of war in the future. This dubious assumption led to five decades of policies promoting multiculturalism through mass migration to Europe from mostly Muslim countries. The ethnic composition of the continent was permanently changed.

These irreversible policies have eroded the social fabric of France, Germany, and many other European nation states by introducing parallel societies in which ethnic or religious minorities separate themselves from mainstream society and remain segregated rather than become culturally integrated into their European host nations.

In France and Germany, mass migration from the Muslim world has fast-tracked the rise of Islam, as evidenced by the proliferation of sharia courts, polygamy, child marriages, and honor violence. Mass migration has also fueled social chaos, including jihadist terrorism, and rising levels of crime, including mass sexual violence against European women, and runaway antisemitism. The result is a vicious cycle in which many immigrants reject their host countries, and the host societies reject the immigrants, leading to permanent estrangement.

Migration Dynamics

To better understand the nexus between no-go zones and the Islamization of Europe, it helps to distinguish between at least two different categories of non-Western immigrants. On the one hand, there are the recent newcomers, sometimes loosely referred to as first generation immigrants. During the past two decades, millions of mostly Muslim migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have reached European shores. The migration flows accelerated in 2015, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the immigration floodgates and allowed more than 1.5 million refugees and asylum seekers from Syria and elsewhere into countries of the European Union.⁵²

On the other hand, there are the second- and third-generation immigrants who are European-born children and grandchildren of the so-called “guest workers” who arrived in Europe after the Second World War when countries such as France and Germany faced acute labor shortages. The assumption was that the guest workers would eventually return to their countries of origin. Instead, in what is sometimes referred to as the myth of return,⁵³ they stayed in Europe, became permanent residents, and set into motion an endless cycle of chain migration.

In France and Germany, non-Western guest workers hailed mainly from Turkey and from former French colonies in Africa. Many such immigrants lived on the margins of the host society and never properly integrated. In France, millions settled into so-called banlieues, working-class suburbs on the outskirts of large cities. Over time, the banlieues turned into blighted slums with high rates of unemployment and runaway lawlessness. For the original guest workers, moving to the banlieues was a step up the economic and social ladder in comparison to the conditions they left behind in their homelands. For their children and grandchildren, however, living there, where youth unemployment commonly is above 50%, is generally a ticket to permanent despair.

The second- and third-generation migrants who grow up in the banlieues often are effectively stateless citizens. Although they legally are French citizens by virtue of birth, they frequently are regarded as second-class citizens by French society. Many have never left France and do not identify with the culture of their parents or grandparents. They constitute a permanent underclass that numbers in the millions and abhors France and all symbols of the French state.

Subscribe now

No-Go Zone Dynamics

Academic research shows a direct correlation between 1) no-go zones and mass migration from the Muslim world, 2) mass migration and Islamization, and 3) Islamization and organized crime. According to the Brussels-based think tank New Direction, mass migration “has concentrated populations with shared religious norms in urban clusters, facilitating the creation of communities that are religiously cohesive and socially distinct, precisely the environments most associated with no-go zone dynamics.”⁵⁴ The Paris-based Montaigne Institute, in a report about no-go zones in the suburbs of the French capital, concurred that some predominantly Muslim suburbs in Paris are turning into “separate Islamic societies.”⁵⁵

In France, failures of urban policy have contributed to increasing impoverishment in the suburbs. As the state retreated from these neighborhoods, Islamists moved in to fill the void. In some areas with spiraling crime and drug trafficking, municipal governments deliberately ceded control of certain neighborhoods to Islamists, most notably the Tabligh movement, to restore order.⁵⁶ By doing so, Islamists gained social legitimacy that they retain to this day.

In a groundbreaking report titled Banlieue de la Republique, Gilles Kepel, one of Europe’s leading experts on Islamism, described a process within no-go zones in which resentment of France by Muslim youths fuels Islamism: “This resentment is also directed at French society, which they view as racist and discriminatory during their job search; as one puts it: “It was always the color of my face that mattered more than my actual skills.” Feeling devalued, they have sought to rebuild a positive self-image through regular attendance at the mosque…. Islam enables them to construct a new identity, at the risk, at times, of a rupture with French society.”⁵⁷

The report noted that roughly half of all residents in these areas fall below the poverty line.⁵⁸ As a result, these neighborhoods act as “catalysts” for “heightened identity-based tension” and the high unemployment and economic insecurity “often serve as decisive factors driving deviant behaviors (delinquency, violence, drug trafficking), a retreat into an insular religious identity, or even the overt assertion of a social and cultural rupture with French society.”⁵⁹

Poverty, however, is not the main factor in what turns a neighborhood into a no-go zone. In Europe there are many areas with high levels of poverty, but they are not no-go zones. According to New Direction, “the variable correlating with no-go zone dynamics is not economic deprivation, but rather the concentration of foreign-born populations.”⁶⁰ The report stresses: “Poverty is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for the development of such zones.”⁶¹

Belgian political analyst Paul Belien observed the link between Islamism and crime:⁶² “The ZUS are centers of drug trafficking…. Since they [traffickers] operate from within the ZUS the drug dealers are beyond the reach of the French authorities.

“The ZUS exist not only because Muslims wish to live in their own areas according to their own culture and their own Shariah laws, but also because organized crime wants to operate without the judicial and fiscal interference of the French state. In France, Shariah law and mafia rule have become almost identical.”

To address the drug problem and the concomitant rise in violence in no-go zones, the French government spawned the “cultural re-Islamization” movement of the 1990s by encouraging missionaries from Tabligh (the largest pietist movement in Islam) to restore a sense of community. Their fight against drugs provided Islam with a “social, spiritual, and redemptive legitimacy.”⁶³

Islamic Dynamics

The failure of European governments to integrate migrants from the Muslim world has been a boon for Islamists, whose objective is to replace Europe’s liberal democratic order with Islamic law. The purveyors of radical Islam, who oppose Western concepts of freedom of speech and gender equality, scout deprived neighborhoods in Europe in search of socially marginalized youths who feel disillusioned with their lives and for whom Islam fills a spiritual void.

French Islam scholar Bernard Rougier has identified “four forces” that dominate the “Islamist ecosystems” in Europe: The Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligh, Salafists, and jihadists.⁶⁴ The first group is “interested in conquering the institutional political space.” The Tabligh movement is “missionary” in nature, while the Salafists “develop incredible symbolic violence” against European society. “Salafist Islam embraces a break with the values of European societies due to a strict and literal observance of sacred texts,” while the jihadists are directly linked to the “Islamist socialization circles” of the entire Islamic movement.⁶⁵

Islamism in Europe has had a decades-long incubation period, beginning with the civil war in Algeria, a former French colony, during the 1990s. It spiked in the aftermath of the jihadist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, the Danish Cartoon Controversy in 2005,⁶⁶ the Arab Spring between 2010 and 2012, and the declaration of a global caliphate by the Islamic State in 2014. During those years, thousands of European Muslims traveled to war zones in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen to undergo training in jihad. The return of these battle-hardened individuals to their home neighborhoods in Europe led to an increase in radical preaching, especially by Salafists,⁶⁷ but also by the Muslim Brotherhood and Tabligh proselytizers, often with funding from abroad, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt fur Verfassungsschutz, BfV), reports that Germany is home to nearly 30,000 Islamists, around 9,500 of whom pose an immediate threat of attack.⁶⁸ The largest Islamist movement in Germany is Salafism, an anti-secular ideology that seeks to establish a global Islamic theocracy based on Sharia law and is civilizationally incompatible with Western society.⁶⁹

Islamism in Europe is currently being propagated through two main conduits: mosques and social networks on the internet. French Islam expert Gilles Kepel notes that the mosque “serves as the interface” within the Muslim community.⁷⁰ He writes that the first organizational structures for local Islam emerged in the 1980s. This occurred primarily within premises situated on the ground floors of dilapidated large-scale housing complexes in no-go zones. “The management of these spaces is overseen by religious associations; both their attendance and their doctrinal orientation are heavily influenced by the national origin of the association’s founder or president.”⁷¹ Bernard Rougier adds: “On the one hand, there is a legitimate demand for the construction of mosques and the recognition of Islam as a religion, and on the other, the appropriation of this demand by Islamists through networks that have transformed the ‘urban ghettos’ of major French cities into militant enclaves.”⁷² Meanwhile, Muslim youths search the internet for Islamic “authority figures,” including those who have gained first-hand experience in jihad in Islamic warzones in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

Vectors of Islamization

Islamists in European no-go zones use three interrelated tactics to spread their ideology: sharia, halal, and headscarves.

A. Sharia

The most common method to spread Islamism in Europe is through efforts to normalize and enforce Islamic law. Sharia is an all-encompassing framework of Islamic law and ethical principles derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah. It covers every aspect of life, personal conduct, diet, hygiene, clothing ethics, family, finance, contracts, inheritance, governance, criminal justice, conflict, and more, to guide Muslims in their relationship with Allah and society. In Western countries, civil law takes precedence over sharia, but in urban areas with large Muslim populations, sharia is frequently used to adjudicate disputes, often to the disadvantage of women, even though they have equal rights under Western law. Sharia is also leveraged to reject key liberal values, including feminism, homosexual rights, secular education, and legal pluralism. Over time sharia undermines trust in state institutions and promotes active separation from non-Muslim society. Sharia is advanced through several means, including, but not limited to, sharia courts, mosques and Islamic centers, Islamic schools, and Muslim political participation.

Britain, for example, is home to at least 85 sharia courts, unofficial tribunals and councils that apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital, and business disputes.⁷³ Although these tribunals have no binding power under British law, they often operate as parallel legal systems that are establishing legal precedents, especially for couples that have a religious but not civil marriage.⁷⁴ These courts also discriminate against women in terms of divorce proceedings, child custody and inheritance, and domestic abuse.⁷⁵ A BBC documentary exposed the systematic discrimination many women suffer at the hands of Muslim jurists.⁷⁶ The undercover investigation found that sharia courts, which operate in mosques and houses in heavily Islamized areas across Britain, routinely issue rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Islamic law that are at odds with British law.⁷⁷ Those subject to the rulings often feel obliged to obey them as a matter of religious belief, or because of pressure from family and community members to do so.⁷⁸

Sharia is also aggressively spread by Islamic political groups. In July 2011, for example, a British Muslim group in Britain launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities, including what it called “Londonistan”, into independent Islamic states.⁷⁹ The so-called Islamic Emirates Project aimed to turn Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London into autonomous enclaves ruled by sharia and operate them outside of British jurisprudence.⁸⁰ Muslim patrol gangs have also enforced sharia in parts of London by “informing” people that they are in a “Muslim area” and are required to comply with Islamic law.⁸¹

In Belgium, a Salafist group called Sharia4Belgium operated in the country for many years as a legitimate Muslim organization.⁸² The aim was to transform Belgium into an Islamic state and implement sharia throughout the country. It promoted a political vision of the supremacy of Islam by rejecting both democracy and the separation of church and state. In September 2011, Sharia4Belgium established, in Antwerp, Belgium’s first sharia court.⁸³ Leaders of the group said the purpose of the court was to create a parallel Islamic legal system in Belgium to challenge the state’s authority as the enforcer of the civil law protections guaranteed by the Belgian constitution.⁸⁴ The group was formally disbanded after the arrest of its leader, the Belgian-Moroccan Fouad Belkacem, for hate crimes.⁸⁵

Since then, representatives from the ISLAM party (Integrity, Solidarity, Liberty, Authenticity, Morality) have won seats in municipal elections in Anderlecht and Molenbeek. The party openly asserts its aim to turn Belgium into an Islamic state and establish sharia there.⁸⁶ Meanwhile, at least five municipalities within the Belgian capital Brussels are currently believed to be under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.⁸⁷

George Dallemagne, a Belgian Member of Parliament, has warned against growing Islamic separatism in the country:⁸⁸ “Salafism and Wahhabism are visions of Islam that antagonize society, pose a clear and serious threat to social cohesion, and can serve to justify violent acts. It is an intolerant form of Islam, incompatible with Belgium’s norms and values.”

In Germany, Muslim radicals began enforcing sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, the state with the largest Muslim population in Germany.⁸⁹ In what government officials said was a blatant challenge to the rule of law and the democratic order in Germany, groups of young bearded Islamists, some wearing orange traffic safety vests emblazoned with the words “Sharia Police”, declared parts of downtown Wuppertal to be a “Sharia Controlled Zone.”⁹⁰ The self-appointed morality police distributed yellow leaflets that explained the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s sharia zones. They urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to listen to Salafist sermons and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, listening to music, pornography, or prostitution.

German politicians roundly denounced the Sharia Police. “The state alone, and not the self-proclaimed Sharia police, is responsible for the enforcement of laws,” Germany’s then-Justice Minister Heiko Maas, said. “This much is sure: We will not tolerate an illegal parallel justice system.”⁹¹ A senior politician with the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Volker Kauder, added: “We cannot tolerate under any circumstances that self-appointed Sharia police are patrolling our streets and want to dictate to people what they can and cannot do. In Germany, German law is determinative, not Sharia law.”⁹² The men were eventually convicted for violating a Weimar Republic-era law that bans the wearing of uniforms that express political ideology.⁹³ In July 2020, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) upheld the convictions.⁹⁴

Islamists are now attempting to enforce sharia beyond the boundaries of no-go zones, including at public schools. In January 2024, for example, Muslim students at a public school in Neuss attempted to enforce Islamic rules, including gender segregation in classrooms and swimming lessons, and archaic punishments such as stoning.⁹⁵ The upper-level students, referred to as Sharia Police, attempted to force female students to wear headscarves and demanded that school be dismissed early for Friday afternoon prayers. The group also demanded a dedicated prayer room at the school. The case is part of a growing trend of Islamic radicalization in German schools. According to Klaus Kother, deputy chairman of the Association for Education and Training (VBE) in North Rhine-Westphalia: “We are currently seeing a clear trend among Muslim students to behave more religiously, including in terms of observing religious rituals and interpreting the Qur’an. Children from more moderate and liberal Muslim families are suddenly becoming more conservative. Students put each other under pressure regarding headscarves and fasting rules. Ultimately, it’s also about the question: Who is the better Muslim?”⁹⁶

North Rhine-Westphalia’s Interior Minister, Herbert Reul, warned: “Unfortunately, we are seeing these days that parts of our society are yearning for an Islamist theocracy.”⁹⁷

Subscribe now

Ubiquity of Halal

As Muslim populations grow so do their communitarian demands, beginning with the issue of halal food.⁹⁸ In France, for instance, the growth in the Muslim population and the concomitant marginalization of Muslims in French society has fostered an “intensification” of religious practices.⁹⁹ This manifests itself in increased mosque attendance, the systematic observance of Ramadan, and a broad interpretation of halal, which establishes a “moral boundary” between what is forbidden and what is permitted.

French Islam expert Hakim El Karoui noted:¹⁰⁰ “It is as if a small ideological continent were taking shape before our very eyes, complete with its own system of thought, beliefs, economy, social codes, and organizing principle: ‘halal’. This is far more than merely a method of ritually slaughtering an animal; it is, in fact, a way of life. ‘Halal’ goes hand in hand with ‘haram’; within this ‘halal-haram’ dichotomy, anything can be deemed impure, and, consequently, purified. To avoid contamination, one must therefore be wary of ‘haram’. And what holds true for the process of producing meat for consumption extends to life in general: the scope of ‘halal’ today reaches far beyond food, offering the possibility of a ‘halal life.’ Halal consumption, widespread among Muslims, but also among many non-believers of Muslim origin, is increasingly viewed as a symbol of identity and ethics….

“Today, ‘halal’ extends far beyond the mere question of food. Under the influence of Salafism, which seeks to distinguish itself in every respect from the realm of the impure, it is the entirety of daily life that may be ‘halalized’ and subjected to progressive codification: religious norms are applied to diet, clothing, and all social practices, with the aim of establishing a clean break from the rest of the world. The result is the formation of a narrow, insular community, a counter-society.”

French Islam expert Gilles Kepel describes this phenomenon as “the extension of the domain of halal” in which Islamists seek to impose a binary logic: “nothing is neutral; everything is either permitted or forbidden, and whatever is not permitted is forbidden.”¹⁰¹ Kepel has written about the “ubiquity of halal” inside no-go zones and the “explosion of this form of identity assertion.”¹⁰² According to Kepel: “halal establishes a set of rather complex markers to delineate the licit from the illicit. Its boundaries lay claim to an absolute standard, and to sacrosanct prohibitions.

“Within the urban agglomeration, these boundaries are inextricably linked to the dynamics of social enclosure, social control, and the daily moral order that stems from them.”¹⁰³

Kepel notes that the concept of halal extends into school cafeterias: “The first generations of immigrants enrolled their children in these cafeterias, simply asking them not to eat pork. Some of their children, now parents themselves, prefer to avoid the cafeterias for their own offspring because they do not offer halal options. A worrying factor contributing to this alienation: “Learning to eat together at the school table is one of the ways to learn about future conviviality at the table of the Republic.”¹⁰⁴

Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, an expert on Islamist movements in Europe, has described the current young generation of Muslims, those who came of age during the 2000s, as the “halal generation.”¹⁰⁵ She believes that the rise in halal consumption reflects “a retreat into community and a resistance to integration on the part of second- and third-generation immigrants.”¹⁰⁶

Headscarves

One of the most heated debates regarding the spread of Islamism and the associated cultural distancing by Muslims revolves around the wearing of the hijab, a traditional head covering by Muslim women to signify religious identity. The Qur’an does not formally mention female head-coverings, nor does it prescribe a dress code for women. The headscarf debate has spread to every country in Western Europe.

In France, the Muslim headscarf movement began in October 1989, when three Moroccan students refused to remove their headscarves at a middle school in Creil, a city in northern France.¹⁰⁷ After the girls were expelled from school for violating the French policy of laicite (secularism), a nationwide debate ensued about religious expression in schools. The event, which thrust Islam and its practice into the public square, led to a French law banning “ostentatious” religious symbols in public.

Elham Manea, a Swiss-Yemeni human rights advocate, says that the headscarf is most visible and effective means that Islamists use to control women, and that control “is one of Islamism’s main strategies in its pursuit of global dominance. With it, Islamists mark their territory.”¹⁰⁸ She adds: “A large proportion of women and girls are forced to veil themselves by their clan or family. Some are threatened with hell if they refuse to wear the headscarf. Many of these girls suffer in silence as a result. There is also considerable peer pressure in schools. Young women are led to believe that they won’t find a husband if they don’t wear a headscarf or that they will be considered dishonorable.”

Darya Safai, an Iranian-born Belgian MP, warns against trivializing the Islamic veil: “It’s not really a sign of conviction; it’s a sign of oppression against women. We mustn’t conflate things. If a woman wears a headscarf, we can’t really say it’s her choice, because at a certain point, education teaches that a ‘proper’ woman must cover herself. It’s not something we should trivialize, and certainly not in positions of authority.”¹⁰⁹

Demographics: Europe’s Islamic Future

Europe’s immigration and integration problems are symptoms of a far more serious underlying root cause: demographic collapse. In 2024, every single one of the EU’s 27 member states had sub-replacement fertility rates.¹¹⁰ Replacement level fertility refers to the average number of children born per woman at which a population replaces itself from one generation to the next, without immigration. In developed countries, the replacement fertility rate is around 2.1 births per female. In 2024, the EU’s average fertility rate was 1.34 births per woman, continuing a decades-long trend.¹¹¹ When the fertility rate falls below replacement level, the population simultaneously ages and declines, which results in lower numbers of workers available to sustain overburdened social welfare systems.

European policymakers appear to have concluded that rather than creating the economic conditions needed to promote increased fertility, it is easier to make up the labor shortfall through mass migration of largely unskilled single males. Germany, for instance, will need to take in 300,000 migrants annually for the next 40 years to stop population decline, according to a leaked government report.¹¹² The document revealed that the German state is counting on permanent mass migration, presumably from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, to keep the current size of the German population (83 million) stable through 2060. The report implied that Chancellor Merkel’s decision to allow into the country some 1.5 million mostly Muslim migrants between 2015 and 2016 was not primarily a humanitarian gesture, but a calculated effort to stave off Germany’s demographic decline and preserve the future viability of the German welfare state. If most of the new migrants arriving in Germany for the next four decades are from the Islamic world, the Muslim population of Germany could jump to well over 20 million and account for roughly 20% of the overall German population by 2060, according to projections by the Pew Research Center.¹¹³

Mass migration to Europe from the Muslim world guarantees that the twin challenges of no-go zones and Islamization will continue. Estimates on the number of Muslims in Europe vary widely, but in 2026 the figure is conservatively somewhere between 50 million and 60 million.¹¹⁴ In addition to those legally residing on the continent, Europe is home to untold millions of illegal immigrants from Muslim countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The largest Muslim populations (in real numbers) in Western Europe are in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, respectively. In terms of percentage of the overall population, the largest is France (9.1%), followed by Austria (8.3%), Sweden (8.1%), Belgium (6.8%), the Netherlands (5.5%), the United Kingdom (6.4%), Germany (6.5%), and Switzerland (6.1%), respectively.¹¹⁵ If current rates of migration continue, these numbers will swell within the next decade.

A report on radicalization in Germany revealed that nearly half of all Muslims under 40 years of age in the country are sympathetic to Islamism.¹¹⁶ The MOTRA Monitor 2024/25, an annual report funded by Germany’s Interior Ministry and coordinated by the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), found that 33.6% of Muslims under 40 (ages 18–39) are latent (hidden or concealed) supporters of Islamism, while 11.5% are explicit Islamists.¹¹⁷ According to the study, which was released to the public on March 4, 45.1% Muslims in this age group are overt or covert Islamists.¹¹⁸ The report further showed that 23.8% of Muslims (all age groups) in Germany agree with the statement, “An Islamic theocracy is the best form of government.”¹¹⁹ Moreover, 25.1% of all Muslims in Germany agree, “The rules of the Qur’an are more important to me than the laws of Germany.”¹²⁰

In France, a research survey found that nearly half (46%) of Muslims in the country believe that Islamic law (sharia) should be applied in France.¹²¹ Young Muslims (ages 15–24) are particularly religious: 87% said they are devout.¹²² In 2025, one-third (32%) of young Muslims in France said they support the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to Islamize Western civilization.¹²³ More than one-third (38%) of Muslims in France support Islamism, a proportion twice as high (19%) as those who supported Islamic fundamentalism thirty years ago (1998).¹²⁴ The report noted that this “over-religiosity” among Muslims as generations change “completely reverses the classic patterns of secularization.”¹²⁵ This strengthening of religiosity is “primarily part of a process of religions re-affiliation of a segment of Muslim youth to a traditionalist form of Islam.”¹²⁶

The report concludes: “What is most striking about these results is the consistency of the generational gradient: on almost every indicator (religiosity, religious practices, headscarves, rejection of gender mixing, rejection of science, primacy of religious law, adherence to Islamism), young Muslims consistently demonstrate greater rigor and radicalization than their elders. This trend suggests that, far from diminishing over time, the process of re-Islamization will, on the contrary, increase with each generational shift.”¹²⁷

Conclusion

Demographic trends indicate that the challenges posed by no-go zones and Islamization will continue to be a permanent feature in Europe unless current migration trends are reversed and governments reassert national sovereignty over areas now controlled by Islamists. Current political realities are that serious discussions of this issue are politically taboo and dismissed as “Islamophobia.”

Notes

1. Jonathan Wayne-Jones, “Bishop Warns of No-Go Zones for Non-Muslims,” The Telegraph, January 6, 2008, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574694/Bishop-warns-of-no-go-zones-for-non-Muslims.html.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Helen Pidd, “Bishop Under Fire for Attack on Muslim ‘No-Go Areas,’” The Guardian, January 7, 2008, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/07/religion.politics.

5. Jonathan Petre, “Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali Stands By His Views,” January 9, 2008, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575040/Bishop-Michael-Nazir-Ali-stands-by-his-views.html.

6. “No-Go’ Bishop Defends Comments,” February 24, 2008, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7261237.stm.

7. Foued Nasri, “Les transformations urbaines au prisme de ‘ghetto’: le cas lyonnais au tournant des annees 1970-1980,” Mondes & Migrations, No. 1349, April-June 2025, 29-35, https://journals.openedition.org/mondesmigrations/627.

8. Nasri.

9. Foued Nasri, “Les transformations urbaines au prisme de ‘ghetto’: le cas lyonnais au tournant des annees 1970-1980,” Mondes & Migrations, No. 1349, April-June 2025, https://journals.openedition.org/mondesmigrations/627.

10. “L’ete des Minguettes 1981 «Les rodeos de la colere»,” Radio France, June 22, 2017, https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/affaires-sensibles/l-ete-des-minguettes-1981-les-rodeos-de-la-colere-7720633.

11. Olivier Pironet, “Banlieus: Chronologie 1973-2006,” Le Monde Diplomatique, No. 89, October-November 2006, https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/mav/89/PIRONET/14098.

12. “1990, les emeutes de Vaulx-en-Velin,” Institut national de l’audiovisuel, October 4, 2010, https://www.ina.fr/ina-eclaire-actu/1990-les-emeutes-de-vaulx-en-velin.

13. “Decret n° 2005-1386 du 8 novembre 2005 portant application de la loi n° 55-385 du 3 avril 1955,” Legifrance, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000263710.

14. Gerard Grunberg, “On Gilles Kepel’s book, Terror in France,” Telos, December 21, 2015, https://www.telos-eu.com/fr/societe/sur-le-livre-de-gilles-kepel-terreur-dans-lhexagon.html.

15. “More Police, Armored Vehicles Will be Deployed to Contain Riots in France,” Le Monde, June 30, 2023, https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/06/30/french-pm-says-all-options-being-considered-to-restore-order_6040117_7.html.

16. “Emeutes: un milliard d’euros de degats, selon une premiere estimation du Medef,” BFM Business, July 3, 2023, https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/economie-social/emeutes-un-milliard-d-euros-de-degats-selon-une-premiere-estimation-du-medef_AD-202307030873.html.

17. Daniel Pipes, “The 751 No-Go Zones of France,” Lion’s Den: Daniel Pipes Blog, November 14, 2006, https://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france.

18. Tom Dalzell, ed., Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English (New York: Routledge, 2008), 698.

19. David Ignatius, “Wake Up to the Problem: Separate and Unequal in France.” The New York Times, April 27, 2002, https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/27/opinion/IHT-wake-up-to-the-problem-separate-and-unequal-in-france.html.

20. “Kerry: Bush Avoiding Reality in Iraq,” Associated Press, September 24, 2004, https://www.foxnews.com/story/kerry-bush-avoiding-reality-in-iraq.

21. “Muslims in European Cities: A Case for Vigilance, Not Despair,” The Economist, December 4, 2008, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2008/12/04/a-case-for-vigilance-not-despair.

22. “Les terroristes avaient revendique des 10 heures leurs attaques sur BFM-TV,” Le Monde, January 8, 2015, https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/09/eux-charlie-hebdo-moi-les-policiers-le-temoignage-des-terroristes-sur-bfm-tv_4552997_3224.html.

23. Soren Seelow, “Attentat a «Charlie Hebdo» : «Vous allez payer car vous avez insulte le Prophete»,” Le Monde, January 8, 2015, https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/08/vous-allez-payer-car-vous-avez-insulte-le-prophete_4551820_3224.html.

24. Caroline Wyatt, “Paris Attack Highlights Europe’s Struggle with Islamism,” BBC News, January 7, 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30717728.

25. “Angela Merkel im Interview: “Ich kann Erfolg sehr gut teilen”,” NTV, February 26, 2018, https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Ich-kann-Erfolg-sehr-gut-teilen-article20309326.html.

26. Clement Cohen and Aurelie Potin-Finette, “Portrait des nouveaux quartiers prioritaires de la politique de la ville en France metropolitaine,” Institut national de la statistique et des etudes economiques, August 28, 2024, https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/8236231.

27. Priority Neighborhoods: Their Mapping Data (Les quartiers prioritaires : leur cartographie et leurs donnees), https://sig.ville.gouv.fr/atlas/ZUS.

28. “Amiens Riots Spark Fears of Economic Unrest,” France 24, August 18, 2012, https://www.france24.com/en/20120814-amiens-riots-spark-fears-economic-unrest-france-police-unemployment-underprivileged.

29. “Securite : la liste des villes que l’Etat veut securiser,” Le Parisien, August 4, 2012, https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/securite-la-liste-des-villes-que-l-etat-veut-securiser-04-08-2012-2113408.php.

30. “Combien de ZSP?” French Interior Ministry, https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Archives/Archives-des-actualites/2013-Actualites/ZSP/Combien-de-ZSP.

31. Stephane Joahny and David Revault d’Allonnes, “Islamisme: Emmanuel Macron cherche un plan,” Le Journal du Dimanche, January 19, 2020, https://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/islamisme-emmanuel-macron-cherche-un-plan-3943893.

32. “150 quartiers sont “tenus” par les islamistes, selon un document classe secret-defense,” Valeurs Actuelles, January 19, 2020, https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societe/150-quartiers-sont-tenus-par-les-islamistes-selon-un-document-classe-secret-defense.

33. “Pravention kompakt,” Verlag Deutsche Polizeiliteratur GmbH, https://www.polizei-dein-partner.de/service/praevention-kompakt.html.

34. “No-Go-Areas in Deutschland: In diese Viertel traut sich selbst die Polizei nicht,” Focus, August 22, 2015, https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/nicht-nur-duisburg-betroffen-no-go-areas-in-deutschland-in-diese-viertel-traut-sich-selbst-die-polizei-nicht_id_4895620.html.

35. “No-Go-Areas in Deutschland: In diese Viertel traut sich selbst die Polizei nicht,” Focus, August 22, 2015, https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/nicht-nur-duisburg-betroffen-no-go-areas-in-deutschland-in-diese-viertel-traut-sich-selbst-die-polizei-nicht_id_4895620.html.

36. “Lagesbild over utsatta omraden,” Polisen, December 2025, https://polisen.se/ce52d3d6cb949b9725f5fbe25439d450/siteassets/dokument/organiserad_brottslighet/utsatta-omraden/lagesbild-over-utsatta-omraden-2025.pdf

37. New Direction, “No Go Zones: Immigration, Islamisation, and the Rise of Parallel Societies” (Brussels: New Direction, 2026), 11, https://newdirection.online/2018-publications-pdf/ND_report_EN-NoGo.pdf.

38. Ibid., 11.

39. “Hele wereld wijst naar ‘jihad-hoofdstad’ Molenbeek,” Nieuwsblad, November 16, 2015, https://www.nieuwsblad.be/regio/brussel/sint-jans-molenbeek/hele-wereld-wijst-naar-jihad-hoofdstad-molenbeek/61197654.html.

40. Leo Cendrowicz, “Paris Attacks: Visiting Molenbeek, the Police No-Go Zone that was Home to Two of the Gunmen.” The Independent, November 17, 2015, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-attacks-visiting-molenbeek-the-police-nogo-zone-that-was-home-to-two-of-the-gunmen-a6735551.html.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Jean-Pierre Stroobants, “Molenbeek, la plaque tournante belge du terrorisme islamiste,” Le Monde, November 16, 2015, https://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2015/11/16/molenbeek-la-plaque-tournante-belge-du-terrorisme-islamiste_4810617_3214.html.

45. Bernard Rougier, “Les territoires conquis de l’islamisme,” (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, January 2021).

46. Ibid.

47. Benoit Breville, “Why Parisians Fear and Loathe Saint-Denis,” Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2022, https://mondediplo.com/2022/08/10stdenis.

48. Ibid.

49. Hugh Fitzgerald, “A Report from Hell: Seine Saint-Denis (Part One), New English Review, December 13, 2018, https://www.newenglishreview.org/a-report-from-hell-seine-saint-denis-part-one/.

50. Franz Solms-Laubach, Larissa Krueger, and Kai Weise, “Ghetto-Report Deutschland,” Bild, April 10, 2016, https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/problem/ghetto-report-deutschland-45300680.bild.html.

51. Soeren Kern, “Police Warn of No-Go Zones in Germany,” Gatestone Institute, August 1, 2015, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6264/no-go-zones-germany.

52. Tina Hildebrandt and Bernd Ulrich, “In the Eye of the Storm,” Die Zeit, September 20, 2015, https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-09/angela-merkel-refugees-crisis-chancellor.

53. Jorgen Carling, “Myth of Return,” The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism, December 30, 2015, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118663202.wberen228.

54. New Direction, “No Go Zones: Immigration, Islamisation, and the Rise of Parallel Societies” (Brussels: New Direction, 2026), 26, https://newdirection.online/2018-publications-pdf/ND_report_EN-NoGo.pdf.

55. Gilles Kepel, Leyla Arslan, and Sarah Zouheir, “Banlieue de la Republique,” (Paris: Institut Montaigne, 2011), https://www.institutmontaigne.org/ressources/pdfs/orderfile/banlieue_republique_resume_institut_montaigne%20(1).pdf.

56. Arnaud Lacheret, “Montee de l’islamisme radical et banlieues populaires.” Radicalites, La Ville. Instituts d’Etudes Politiques (IEP), November 2017, https://hal.science/hal-01629934v1/document.

57. Ibid., Kepel, 21.

58. Ibid, 20.

59. Ibid.

60. New Direction, “No Go Zones: Immigration, Islamisation, and the Rise of Parallel Societies” (Brussels: New Direction, 2026), 22, https://newdirection.online/2018-publications-pdf/ND_report_EN-NoGo.pdf.

61. Ibid.

62. Paul Belien, “Sensitive Urban Areas,” The Washington Times, January 16, 2008, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/16/sensitive-urban-areas/.

63. Luc Bronner, “The Growing Presence of Islam in the Suburbs,” Le Monde, October 4, 2011, https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/10/04/banlieues-de-la-republique_1581976_3224.html.

64. Bernard Rougier, Les territoires conquis de l’islamisme” (The Conquered Territories of Islamism), (Paris: PUF, January 2020).

65. “A Shocking Book Denounces the ‘Takeover’ of Certain Neighborhoods by Islam,” Valeurs Actuelles, January 2, 2020, https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societe/un-livre-choc-denonce-la-prise-de-controle-de-certains-quartiers-par-lislam.

66. On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons depicting Muhammad to challenge self-censorship regarding criticism of Islam. Publication of the cartoons caused widespread protests across the Muslim world and sparked a global debate about the limits of free speech.

67. Salafism is a movement that seeks to return Islam to is mythological origins by emulating the Salafs, an Arabic term that means “predecessors” or “ancestors.” The term refers to the first three generations of Muslims (the companions of Muhammad, their followers, and the following generation).

68. Verfassungsschutzbericht 2024, Bundesamt fur Verfassungsschutz, June 2025, 204, https://verfassungsschutzberichte.de/bund/2024.

69. Ibid., 222-223.

70. Gilles Kepel, Leyla Arslan, and Sarah Zouheir, “Banlieue de la Republique,” (Paris: Institut Montaigne, 2011), 28, https://www.institutmontaigne.org/ressources/pdfs/orderfile/banlieue_republique_resume_institut_montaigne%20(1).pdf.

71. Ibid., Kepel, 28.

72. Bernard Rougier, Les territoires conquis de l’islamisme (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), 2020.

73. Denis MacEoin, “Sharia Law or ‘One Law for All’?” Civitas Institute for the Study of Civil Society, June 2009, https://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf.

74. David Torrance, “Sharia Law Courts in the UK,” House of Commons Library, May 1, 2019, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2019-0102/CDP-2019-0102.pdf.

75. Pragna Patel, “The Sharia Debate in the UK: Who Will Listen to our Voices?” Open Democracy December 14, 2016, https://www.opendemocracy.net/sharia-debate-who-will-listen-to-us/.

76. “Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils,” Panorama, BBC One, April 22, 2013, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rxfjt.

77. Soeren Kern, “Britain’s Sharia Courts: “You Cannot Go Against What Islam Says”,” Gatestone Institute, April 23, 2013, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3682/uk-sharia-courts.

78. Ibid.

79. Soeren Kern, “Britain’s Islamic Emirates Project,” Hudson New York, July 21, 2011, https://kern.pundicity.com/9961/britain-islamic-emirates-project.

80. Ibid.

81. “Muslim Patrol Gang: Police Arrest Three More after Homophobic Video,” The Guardian, January 23, 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/24/muslim-patrol-gang-arrests-homophobic-video.

82. Soeren Kern, “Let’s Turn Belgium into an Islamist State,” Gatestone Institute, December 19, 2011, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2682/belgium-islamist-state.

83. Soeren Kern, “Islamic Sharia Law Court Opens in Belgium,” Gatestone Institute, September 15, 2011, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2425/belgium-islamic-sharia-law-court.

84. Ibid.

85. “Sharia4belgium stopt ermee,” De Standaard, October 8, 2012, https://www.standaard.be/binnenland/sharia4belgium-stopt-ermee/45250726.html.

86. Isabelle Louette, “Le parti ‘Islam’ espere que la Belgique deviendra un jour un etat islamiques,” RTBF, October 29, 2012, https://www.rtbf.be/article/le-parti-islam-espere-que-la-belgique-devienne-un-jour-un-etat-islamique-7865358.

87. “”Les Freres Musulmans ont infiltre la politique”: une deputee N-VA affirme que 5 communes sont deja sous le controle des islamistes,” RTL Info, June 1, 2025, https://www.rtl.be/actu/belgique/politique/les-freres-musulmans-ont-infiltre-la-politique-une-deputee-n-va-affirme-que-5/2025-06-01/article/751813.

88. “Salafisme et wahhabisme sont une menace serieuse pour le vivre ensemble,” RTBF, February 14, 2017, https://www.rtbf.be/article/salafisme-et-wahhabisme-sont-une-menace-serieuse-pour-le-vivre-ensemble-9529518.

89. “Islamisten grunden ‘Scharia-Polizei,’” Bild, September 4, 2014, https://www.bild.de/regional/ruhrgebiet/salafismus/scharia-polizei-37540336.bild.html.

90. Ibid.

91. “Bundesregierung will gegen „Scharia-Polizei” vorgehen,” Bild, September 6, 2014, https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/salafismus/bundesregierung-alamiert-ueber-wuppertaler-scharia-polizei-37561412.bild.html.

92. Ibid.

93. “Urteil vom 11. Januar 2018 - 3 StR 427/17 - LG Wuppertal,” January 11, 2018, https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/Strafsenate/3_StS/2017/3_StR_427-17.pdf.

94. “Urteil des Landgerichts Wuppertal im Fall ‘Shariah Police’ rechtskraftig,” July 20, 2020, https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/2020092.html.

95. Christian Schwerdtfeger, “Schuler spielten sich als „Scharia-Polizei” auf,” Rheinische Post, January 11, 2024, https://rp-online.de/nrw/panorama/gesamtschule-in-neuss-schueler-spielten-sich-als-scharia-polizei-auf_aid-104902983.

96. Christian Schwerdtfeger, “Sorge vor wachsendem Islam-Einfluss an NRW-Schulen,” Rheinische Post, January 21, 2024, https://rp-online.de/nrw/panorama/neuss-scharia-polizei-an-schule-in-neuss-v5_aid-104905495.

97. Ibid.

98. Halal is an Arabic term that means “permissible” or “lawful” under Islamic law (sharia). It refers to actions, behaviors, or consumption items (most commonly food) allowed for Muslims. Sharia requires Muslims to refrain from forbidden substances, including alcohol and pork. The opposite of halal is haram, which means “prohibited” or “unlawful.”

99. Ibid., Kepel.

100. Hakim El Karoui, La fabrique de l’islamisme, Institute Montaigne, September 2018, 475, https://www.institutmontaigne.org/ressources/pdfs/publications/la-fabrique-de-islamisme-rapport.pdf.

101. Kepel, 475.

102. Kepel, 14.

103. Kepel, 14.

104. Kepel, 108.

105. Kepel, 468.

106. Kepel, 468.

107. Camile Bichler, “30 ans de l’affaire du foulard de Creil : le voile de la discorde,” Radio France, October 3, 2019, https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/30-ans-de-l-affaire-du-foulard-de-creil-le-voile-de-la-discorde-7058333.

108. Helene Aecherli, “Islamisten zielen zuerst auf Frauen,” Cicero, April 5, 2018, https://www.cicero.de/elham-manea-islam-islamismus-koran-kopftuch-nikab-frauenrechte-feministinnen.

109. “”Les Freres Musulmans ont infiltre la politique”: une deputee N-VA affirme que 5 communes sont deja sous le controle des islamistes,” RTL Info, June 1, 2025, https://www.rtl.be/actu/belgique/politique/les-freres-musulmans-ont-infiltre-la-politique-une-deputee-n-va-affirme-que-5/2025-06-01/article/751813.

110. “Fertility Statistics,” Eurostat, February 19, 2026, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Fertility_statistics.

111. Ibid.

112. Soeren Kern, “The Islamization of Germany in 2017: Part 1” Gatestone Institute, January 11, 2018, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11728/germany-islamization-2017.

113. “Europe’s Growing Muslim Population,” Pew Research Center, November 29, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/.

114. “Europe’s Growing Muslim Population,” Pew Research Center, November 29, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/; “How the Global Religious Landscape Changed from 2010 to 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/how-the-global-religious-landscape-changed-from-2010-to-2020/. In 2016, Pew estimated there were 27.8 million Muslims in Europe, or 4.9% of the overall population. In 2020, that number had grown to 45.5 million, or roughly 6% of the overall population. This increase of approximately 19,730,000 during four years, or 4.9 million per year, seems somewhat high, and could be attributed to mass migration, counting errors, or changes in Pew’s methodology.

115. “Religious Composition by Country, 2010-2020,” Pew Research Center, June 9, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/feature/religious-composition-by-country-2010-2020/.

116. MOTRA-Monitor 2024/25, March 4, 2026, https://www.motra.info/motra-monitor-2024-25/.

117. Ibid.

118. Ibid.

119. Ibid.

120. Ibid.

121. “Etat des lieux du rapport a l’islam et a l’islamisme des musulmans de France,” Institut francais d’opinion publique (IFOP), November 18, 2025, https://www.ifop.com/article/etat-des-lieux-du-rapport-a-lislam-et-a-lislamisme-des-musulmans-de-france/.

122. Ibid.

123. Ibid.

124. Ibid.

125. Ibid.

126. Ibid.

127. Ibid.

Daniel Pipes is the founder of the Middle East Forum and the author of more than a dozen books on Islam and the Middle East, including In the Path of God (1983) and Militant Islam Reaches America (2002). He has spent more than five decades studying Islamic political movements and is among the most widely read analysts of Islamism in the English-speaking world. This interview was conducted by Danny Burmawi, founder of the Ideological Defense Institute. The response was prepared by Brother Rachid, IDI Fellow.

Burmawi: Last year when we first met, I asked you why you consistently use the term “Islamism” rather than “Islam.” You answered in part that the entire Islam/Islamism debate ultimately comes down to two fundamental questions: those skeptical of Islamism as a concept ask, “Was Muhammad a Muslim or an Islamist?” Those advocating it ask, “If you give up on Muslims reforming Islam, how will you battle Islamism?” Please clarify and expand on what you meant.

Pipes: “Was Muhammad a Muslim or an Islamist?” Islam’s founder was a plain Muslim, not an Islamist. Islamism, a totalitarian ideology, emerged a century ago in the penumbra of fascism in Italy and communism in the Soviet Union.

“If you give up on Muslims reforming Islam, how will you battle Islamism?” Dismissing anti-Islamist Muslims undercuts their effort to offer a moderate alternative.

Burmawi: In this issue, we argue that Islamism is not a separate ideology but simply Islam itself. We present Islam as a complete “House” in which religion, prayer, fasting, personal piety, is only one room. The other rooms: politics, sharia, governance, jihad, and total societal control, are equally integral to the structure, all built according to the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Hadith. Those who fully occupy the political, legal, and jihad rooms are not “Islamists” living in a different building; they are the most consistent Muslims. How do you respond?

Pipes: The very most extreme of Islamist groups, ISIS, learnedly draws on precedents from 1,400 years ago and quite accurately applies them to modern life. Its emergence in 2014 alienated most Muslims, who do not wish to emulate its bizarrely anachronistic behavior, including, to take one example, its treatment of Islamic rules on slavery as fully valid today. This is not consistency but crazed and widely rejected extremism.

Burmawi: What are the canonical scriptures of “Islamism”? Aren’t they exactly the same as those of Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith? Who is the prophet of Islamism, isn’t it the same Prophet Muhammad? What are the authoritative interpretation texts that Islamists rely upon, aren’t they the same core tafsirs and fiqh texts used in mainstream Islam for fourteen centuries? Doesn’t the use of the term “Islamism” deceive people into thinking it is some kind of fringe or modern deviation, when in reality it represents the most fundamental and authentic presentation of classical Islam?

Pipes: Of course, Islamism shares the same sources with other interpretations of Islam. Likewise, Thomas of Torquemada shared the same sources of Christianity as Pope Francis. Your question reminds me of a quote by an Egyptian professor of philosophy, Hasan al-Hanafi: the Qur’an “is a supermarket, where one takes what one wants and leaves what one doesn’t want.”

Burmawi: Do you agree that the linguistic and conceptual distinction between Islam and Islamism has become the dominant paradigm in Western policy and academia?

Pipes: No, I see wide rejection of the distinction, from US Rep. Randy Fine preferring dogs over Muslims to leftists screaming “Islamophobia” in response to critiques of Islamism.

Burmawi: In our judgment, this distinction hinders the West’s ability to understand and respond to the civilizational challenge posed by Islam and has, perhaps unintentionally, served as a shield for the House itself. Your response?

Pipes: The Islam/Islamism distinction has a crucial role in developing an effective response to Islamism. First, modern secular states can fight an ideology but not a religion, they cannot become crusader states. Just as they previously fought fascism and communism, they can now fight Islamism. Second, only anti-Islamist Muslims can offer a modern, moderate alternative to Islamism. The distinction permits an alliance between them and non-Muslims. The Western victors in World War II distinguished between Germans and Nazis, and therefore could rely on Konrad Adenauer to build a peaceful Federal Republic of Germany. Third, Muslims deserve the same rights and duties as every other citizen, neither special rights nor unique disabilities.

Burmawi: The term Islamism originally emerged during the Enlightenment as largely synonymous with Islam itself; today it carries multiple and often conflicting meanings. The Iranian scholar Mehdi Mozaffari has even described it as a URO, an “Unidentified Religious Object.” Given the lack of a single agreed-upon definition, how can the term be useful analytically?

Subscribe now

Pipes: Yes, as Martin Kramer has shown, the word has had a long and colorful career. But so have many other words that evolved over the centuries and acquired a specific meaning today. When I was young, the adjective gay meant happy; now the noun means homosexual. By the way, Islam is also difficult to define: does it include the Ahmadiyya? Alawism? The Nation of Islam and its derivative groups? As for defining Islamism: an ideology that claims to solve all modern problems by reverting to a medieval law code, the sharia.

Burmawi: Pew Research Center surveys show significant majorities in many Muslim countries support the implementation of sharia in some form. If support for sharia is a defining feature of Islamism, does that not imply that a majority of Muslims worldwide would qualify as Islamists, and if so, does the term not lose its utility?

Pipes: No and no. The sharia has two components, private and public. The former concerns personal cleanliness, prayer ritual, food consumption, and sexual relations. The latter concerns authority, justice, taxation, and warfare. To some degree, most Muslims follow the private sharia; this alone does not make them Islamists. In contrast, demanding the application of public sharia nearly always signals an Islamist mentality, from the privileging of Islam and Muslims to the waging of jihad.

Burmawi: You have often argued that “radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution,” and that the West should support moderate Muslims. Can a Muslim truly be “moderate” while continuing to affirm the full authority of the Qur’an and the Prophetic Example as perfect and eternal models for all aspects of life?

Pipes: Yes. Plenty of Muslims follow the private sharia and not the public one. They pray five times a day but have no intention of going off to war to acquire slaves. A pious Muslim need not be an Islamist.

Burmawi: Looking at Europe today, do you believe the continent still has the cultural confidence and political will to halt the expansion of “political” Islam into its neighborhoods, or have they passed the point where containment is realistic?

Pipes: It might. We are still at the beginning of a long story. Should indigenous Europeans decide to halt or reverse the Muslim presence, they can do so, they outnumber Muslims by roughly 14 to 1. If they decide they have had enough of Islamism, they can do what they want to fight it.

Burmawi: You have dedicated more than five decades to studying and warning about Islamism. As you look back, what has been the most important lesson you have learned?

Pipes: I have come to recognize Islamism’s variations. My first book on the topic, In the Path of God, treated what in 1983 was called the Islamic revival as basically a single phenomenon. Only with time did the full range, including its criminal and lawful variants, from Al-Qaeda to the Gülen movement, become apparent.

Burmawi: If you could sit down with your younger self in the 1970s, just beginning this journey, what would you tell him about the true scale and character of the threat?

Pipes: Islamism is not confined to Africa and Asia but threatens globally. Until the crisis over Salman Rushdie’s 1988 novel The Satanic Verses, I did not fully appreciate the Islamist potential in the West. I count myself as the third analyst to recognize this danger, following Bat Ye’or and Steven Emerson.

A Response by Brother Rachid

On Moving Goalposts

Dr. Pipes argues that Muhammad was a Muslim rather than an Islamist because Islamism is a totalitarian ideology that emerged a century ago, in the shadow of fascism and Soviet communism. But Muhammad was by any serious measure a totalitarian ruler, and the system he established, Islam as a governing order, functioned as a totalitarian system from the first day of the Medinan state. To exclude him, Dr. Pipes adds a time qualifier: Islamism requires modernity. But if the defining characteristic of Islamism is its totalitarian claim over all domains of life, Muhammad and his successors satisfy it. Adding “modern” as a criterion does not define the concept, it functions as a device to insulate the tradition’s founding period from the scrutiny the concept was designed to provide.

The argument that those who reject the word “Islamism” are trying to condemn all Muslims indiscriminately is a false premise. The West has pressured Muslim societies to abandon specific practices, public amputations, slavery, the execution of apostates, without the Islam/Islamism distinction. Saudi Arabia did not curtail certain practices because Western analysts distinguished between Islamism and Islam; it did so because of external pressure and consequences. The distinction was not needed.

On What Majority Opinion Proves

Dr. Pipes uses ISIS’s rejection by most Muslims as evidence that its practices are not genuinely Islamic. But Islam is not defined by what most of its adherents prefer at any given moment. The Qur’an itself acknowledges that jihad was prescribed even when it was disliked by the early community (Qur’an 1:216). Slavery was practiced across the Muslim world, including in Saudi Arabia, until 1961, not because it was popular but because it was held to be religiously legitimate. It was abandoned under external pressure, not internal theological revision. A generation that grew up after abolition may find slavery repugnant, but that does not make it non-Islamic by the tradition’s own standards. Al-Azhar, for all its criticism of ISIS, did not excommunicate it. It declared differences, the kind of differences that exist among many Islamic schools without removing any of them from the faith.

On the Torquemada Analogy

When pressed on the fact that Islamists use exactly the same sources as mainstream Islam, the same Qur’an, the same hadith, the same tafsir tradition, the same fiqh texts, Dr. Pipes compares this to Torquemada and Pope Francis sharing Christian scripture. The analogy fails. Torquemada represents a specific, eventually repudiated episode in Christian history, not a continuous foundational precedent tied to Christianity’s origins. What is called Islamism is not a modern deviation from an otherwise peaceful tradition. It is the continuous, mainstream institutional expression of how Islam has governed wherever it has had the power to govern, from the Medinan state through the Rashidun caliphate, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans, and the contemporary states that designate sharia as a primary source of legislation.

Subscribe now

On the Shielding Effect

Asked directly whether the Islamism concept shields Islam from criticism, Dr. Pipes does not answer the question. He instead lists three advantages of the distinction. The shielding effect is precisely what the question was about. When a scholar criticizes “Islamism” while the practices being criticized, the apostasy penalty, the hudud criminal system, the subordination of non-Muslims, exist continuously within Islamic jurisprudence, the terminological choice locates the problem in a modern deviation rather than in a 1,400-year tradition. That is the shield.

His three advantages: the claim that modern secular states can fight ideologies but not religions is a false dichotomy. Nobody is proposing that states declare war on a religion. The argument is that states addressing Islamic violence should be permitted to name the tradition from which that violence draws its authority, rather than being required to attribute it to a modern perversion of an otherwise peaceful faith. Cooperation between non-Muslims and reform-minded Muslims does not require the Islamism distinction. Mahmoud Mohammed Taha addressed problematic elements within Islamic texts directly and paid for it with his life, not because he used the wrong terminology but because the tradition’s own enforcers recognized him as a genuine threat to its authority.

On the Pew Data

Dr. Pipes distinguishes between private sharia (personal practice) and public sharia (governance and law), arguing that support for the former does not make someone an Islamist. The Pew questions, however, were not about personal practice. They asked whether respondents wanted sharia implemented as the law of the land. Majorities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Morocco, and Bangladesh answered yes. By Dr. Pipes’s own definition, that demanding public sharia signals an Islamist mentality, large portions of these populations would qualify as Islamists. At that scale, the distinction between Islamism and Islam is not a useful analytical tool. It is a label applied to a minority severe enough to be politically problematic while the majority holding identical doctrinal positions is categorized differently.

The Underlying Disagreement

Dr. Pipes’s framework rests on the premise that there exist, in substantial and politically meaningful numbers, Muslims committed to the full authority of the Qur’an and the Prophetic Example who do not support the public sharia, Muslims whose faith is genuinely compatible with the foundational premises of liberal democratic order. IDI’s framework holds that such Muslims exist as individuals but not as a theologically grounded tradition, because the authoritative sources of Islam do not provide the basis for permanently renouncing the public sharia. They can be set aside tactically, as the tradition’s own jurisprudence on treaty-making and circumstances of weakness demonstrates. They cannot be renounced as invalid without departing from the tradition’s own authority structure.

This is not a disagreement about the moral worth of individual Muslims. It is a disagreement about the nature of the tradition they inhabit and what realistic reform of that tradition would require. Dr. Pipes believes reform is possible and that the West’s support for anti-Islamist Muslims is the mechanism that makes it more likely. IDI believes that what is called reform, if it genuinely reaches the tradition’s foundational architecture, requires the kind of break with authority that the tradition’s own mechanisms are specifically designed to prevent, and that policy built on the expectation of that reform arriving in time to matter is policy built on hope rather than evidence.

Subscribe now

About Dr. Bostom

Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS is an American physician, epidemiologist, and scholar of Islamic history and doctrine. He is widely known for his research on jihad ideology, Islamic law, and the historical treatment of non-Muslims under Islamic rule. He is the author and editor of several influential works, including The Legacy of Jihad, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, and Sharia Versus Freedom.

Click Here to download “Islam and the Persistence of Antisemitism” by Dr. Andrew Bostom.

To access the full journal, follow this link

Subscribe now

Dr. Robert Spencer is founder and director of Jihad Watch, and author of more than thirty books about Islam, including The History of Jihad, The Critical Qur’an, and Muhammad: A Critical Biography. This interview was conducted by Danny Burmawi, founder and chief executive of the Ideological Defense Institute.

Burmawi: Dr. Spencer, thank you for joining us for the inaugural issue of The IDI Journal. Your work has been instrumental in exposing the doctrinal roots of jihad and Islamic supremacism for over two decades. We are honored to have your perspective in this first edition.

Spencer: Thank you, Danny. I’m honored to be here.

Burmawi: You have spent decades arguing that the problem is Islam itself, not a distortion called “Islamism.” Yet critics often say that by focusing so heavily on doctrine, you downplay the role of culture, politics, economics, and human agency. Isn’t it possible that many Muslims are simply behaving like normal human beings shaped by their circumstances rather than being strict adherents to a 7th- century blueprint?

Spencer: Of course. In fact, I’ve said exactly that many, many times. You’ll find in many of my speeches on YouTube I speak about Muslims, like everyone else, being susceptible to a wide variety of influences, priorities, desires and goals, with the religious impulse being just one of these. That is an obvious and undeniable fact.

However, the truth of it actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether the political, supremacist, expansionist and violent aspects of Islam can really be separated, as “Islamism,” from Islam proper. There is not now and never has been such a distinction within Islamic theology and law, and even today, there is no major sect or school of jurisprudence that does not teach that under certain circumstances, Muslims must wage jihad, understood as physical warfare with guns and other weapons, in order to establish the hegemony of sharia over a hitherto non-Muslim entity.

The desire to separate “Islamism” from “Islam” stems from nothing within Islam itself, but from the impulse of non-Muslim Westerners to regard Islam as a benign entity having to do purely with spiritual matters, and to exonerate Islam from the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings by consigning those to the realm of “Islamism,” which is understood to be a certain adulteration or bastardization of the genuine, benign Islam. This is just wishful thinking on a grand scale.

Finally, as far as the charge goes that in focusing on Islamic doctrine, I downplay the role of culture, politics, economics, and human agency, I am merely correcting the glaring deficiency of mainstream analysts. They routinely ignore the role of Islamic doctrine altogether when they examine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran’s conflict with Israel, terrorism in the West, and many other issues.

Islamic doctrine actually plays a decisive role in all of those, so I am correcting their myopia and error of omission.

Burmawi: You frequently cite the example of Muhammad in Medina as the normative model for Islamic behavior. But some scholars argue that the Meccan period, the peaceful, persecuted phase, represents the “true spirit” of Islam, and that the Medinan period was a temporary adaptation to circumstances. How do you respond to those who claim the House of Islam is more flexible and context- dependent than you present?

Spencer: Here again, scholars who argue that the Meccan period takes precedence over the Medinan are engaging in wishful thinking, if not outright deception. This is not my judgment, but the consensus of Islamic theology across the various sects and schools of jurisprudence. The Tafsir Anwarul Bayan explains the traditional view: “While the Muslims were in Makkah, they were weak and few in number, never possessing the capability nor the divine permission for Jihad (religious war). After migrating to Madinah, they received the order to fight their enemies in defense, as a verse of Surah Hajj [sura 22 of the Qur’an] proclaims: ‘Permission (to fight) has been granted to those being attacked because they are oppressed [Qur’an 22:39]. ’Later on the order came to fight the Infidels (kuffar) even though they do not initiate the aggression.”

The Tafsir Anwarul Bayan is a twentieth-century exposition of the Qur’an, but this view of the three stages of development of the Qur’an’s teaching on warfare is quite ancient. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains (in Ibn Hisham’s ninth-century recension of his work) that there is a progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he says, the Muslims preached tolerance, because they were a small, powerless band that depended upon the indulgence of larger forces. When the Qur’an says, “To you your religion, and to me my religion,” (Qur’an 109:6) it isn’t generously granting to non-believers the right to practice their own religions. It is demanding that tolerance from the non- believers.

When the Muslims gain political and military power, however, they stop preaching tolerance. The second stage of the Qur’an’s teaching on warfare, Ibn Ishaq explains, is defensive jihad. “Permission is given to those who fight,” says the Qur’an, “because they have been wronged, and Allah is indeed able to give them victory.” (Qur’an 22:39) Even that, however, was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”

The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (Qur’an 2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s”, that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. “Fight them,” says another Qur’an passage, “until persecution is no more and religion is all for Allah.” (Qur’an 8:39) The Muslim community passes from one stage to the next as its numbers grow. Only when the community is small and weak, lacking political and military power, does it preach tolerance. When it becomes more powerful, the more violent stages come into play.

This was not just the idea of Ibn Ishaq alone. The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizya, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively, only “those who fought him”, but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.) Many other Islamic authorities say the same, and this is the consensus of the various schools of jurisprudence: that offensive jihad, i.e., the Medinan sections of the Qur’an, are Allah’s final word on this matter, and thus warfare, not peace, is the fundamental stance of Muslims toward non-Muslims. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but it isn’t.

Burmawi: You have long criticized the term “Islamism” as misleading. However, many analysts argue that the distinction, even if imperfect, has practical value: it allows the West to work with Muslims who genuinely reject jihad and sharia supremacy. By rejecting the distinction entirely, don’t we risk alienating potential allies and making the challenge appear even more insurmountable?

Spencer: I don’t see why that would be so. Don’t the Muslims who reject jihad and Islamic supremacy know that these are core features of Islam? The value of basing foreign or domestic policies on fiction and fantasy seems limited at best: at a certain point, reality will reassert itself. And in fact, that is exactly what is happening now. The European Union has brought in millions of Muslims, assuming that they were not “Islamists,” or that only a tiny minority were “Islamists,” and that there would be no problem with assimilation, as the non- “Islamist” Muslims would readily adopt European secular values. In reality, however, what the West regards as “Islamism” includes integral aspects of Islam, and now Europe is discovering, to the horror of many, that the continent is now full of “Islamists.” Assuming that “Islamism” was distinct from Islam didn’t stop the “Islamists” from streaming in.

Burmawi: In your work you emphasize that jihadists are the most faithful Muslims. Yet we see millions of Muslims living peaceful, integrated lives in the West who do not engage in violence or political Islam. Are they truly living in the same “House,” or have they effectively created a different, diluted version of Islam that the doctrinal House cannot fully account for?

Spencer: If they have created a different, diluted version of Islam, where is it? Where is their different Qur’an? Their different Muhammad? Where is their theological system articulated? Where is there a distinction made between the mosques of this new sect and those of the older sects, a la the distinction between churches of different denominations? I’ve never seen a sign for an “American mosque,” or a “different, diluted mosque.” There are indeed millions of Muslims living peaceful, integrated lives in the West, and many of these have discarded sharia values and adopted Western values.

Many, however, have not, and there is also quite a bit of overlap between the two camps. Mujahida bint Usamah was a British doctor who took full advantage of the educational and career opportunities women have in Western countries. But after becoming devout in her observance of Islam, she gave up her medical career and headed for the Islamic State. The heart-stopping photo on her Twitter feed showed the doctor posing happily with a severed head. Her caption?

“Dream job, a terrorist doc.”

Maher “Mike” Hawash was a popular and wealthy Intel executive in Portland, Oregon, a pillar of his community and the very model of a moderate, assimilated American Muslim. The Wall Street Journal stated that he had “fully integrated himself into the mainstream community where he lived. In many respects he had attained the American dream. He owned his own home and was respected at microchip-maker Intel, one of the U.S.’s preeminent high-tech giants.

He was exceptionally popular and known in the community for his volunteer activities.”

However, Hawash began to grow devout in his observance of Islam, and as he became more zealous in his observance of the religion, he began to change, until ultimately he served time in prison for recruiting Muslims to join al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There are so very many such stories. On March 3, 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, rented an SUV and drove it onto campus, trying to kill as many students as he could.

Taheri-azar killed no one, but he did injure nine people. In court later, he said he was “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.” He wrote a detailed letter attempting to explain his actions, ascribing them entirely to his newfound Islamic faith: “In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate. To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah.”

He wrote a series of letters, detailing how he had turned from a life of debauchery and dissipation to service to Allah, and jihad, simply by reading the Qur’an. These letters were noteworthy for being entirely the result of his own study. He had not been involved with campus Islamic groups. He was not known to have frequented the local mosque. He presented his conclusion that Allah required him as a believer to do violence to unbelievers entirely as the result of his study of the Qur’an. How did he miss the book’s allegedly benign teachings?

Why did all these Westernized Muslims (and there are many others) ultimately turn to jihad? Hadn’t they adopted a different, diluted version of Islam? If so, why did they finally determine that such a version of Islam was deficient?

Burmawi: Some argue that the West’s own secularism, moral relativism, and loss of civilizational confidence are the primary reasons it is vulnerable to Islamic expansion, not the strength of the Islamic House itself. To what extent do you believe the crisis is driven more by Western self-loathing than by the inherent nature of Islam?

Spencer: Both are responsible. If not for the inherent nature of Islam, there wouldn’t be so many Muslims in Europe or North America who have contempt for Western laws and no hesitation regarding stealing from, raping, or even killing non-Muslims. But there wouldn’t be so many supremacist and violent Muslims in Europe in the first place it hadn’t been for the West’s secularism, moral relativism, and loss of civilizational confidence. The current leaders of the European Union and the leftist political and media establishment in general will go down in history as the destroyers of European civilization. They couldn’t have done it, however, without help from their jihadi friends.

Burmawi: You have been sounding the alarm for over twenty years. Looking at current trends in Europe and North America, demographic change, institutional capture, and political correctness, do you sometimes worry that your warnings may have come too late?

Are we already past the point where the House of Islam can be meaningfully contained inside the West?

Spencer: My warnings didn’t come too late in the 1990s or even in the early 2000s. But they were not heeded then, and now the problem has grown exponentially worse. The House of Islam cannot be meaningfully contained inside the West; there will be increasing pushes to institute elements of sharia until the whole thing is in force and Muslims wield all of the political power. There will likely be civil wars here and there to try to prevent that, but we are way past the time when the problem of Islamization and the spread of sharia could have been solved peacefully by means of changing immigration policies.

The large-scale disenfranchisement and demonization of those who oppose mass migration policies and the growing and increasingly aggressive Muslim communities and sharia enclaves in the West mean that the future of Europe and Canada, and possibly also of the United States, is Islamic. The native population lacks the will to resist, having been endlessly told that to do so is “racist,” “fascist,” and “Islamophobic,” and even if it recovers that will, it is rapidly losing the strength to take any effective and peaceful action.

Burmawi: If the “House of Islam” framework is correct and the problem is doctrinal at its core, what realistic hope is there for the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world? Is the only long-term solution mass conversion or mass defection, or do you see any viable path for large- scale internal reform?

Spencer: For twenty-five years and more I’ve been hearing about how Islamic reformers will change Islam from within. Or that “it’s time for the vast majority of moderate Muslims to step up and make themselves heard.” Yet the reformers have for the most part turned out to be deceivers, intent on fostering complacency and ignorance among non-Muslim Westerners by making them think that the vast majority of Muslims reject jihad and sharia, and the moderates have never shown themselves to be anything but non-observant or semi- observant Muslims. “Muslims against terror” protests repeatedly brought out only a handful of Muslims at best. If the West’s fantasies about Islam and “Islamism” were true, we would expect, twenty-five years after 9/11, to see a massive anti-terror movement within Islam, comprising tens of millions of Muslims. There is nothing even close to that, and there will not be, due to the nature of Islam itself.

Burmawi: After more than thirty years and thirty-two books dedicated to this fight, what frustrates you most about how the West continues to misunderstand or mishandle the Islamic threat?

Spencer: The determination to believe fantasies rather than reality.

Thank you, Danny. I much appreciate the opportunity to explain these issues to a larger audience.

Subscribe now

Ideological Defense Institute

THE HOUSE OF ISLAM

The House of Islam: The Case Against the Islam/Islamism Divide is the inaugural issue of The Ideological Defense Institute Journal, a new publication dedicated to examining the doctrines, movements, and ideological conflicts shaping the future of the West…

Read more

2 months ago · 10 likes · IDI

Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Yathrib in 622 CE, the Hijra that marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, was preceded by thirteen years of increasingly dangerous tension in Mecca. His followers had disparaged the Nabataean gods and goddesses, calling for the destruction of the idols housed in the Kaaba. The religious offense was inseparable from an economic one: Mecca, situated in an arid valley with no agricultural capacity, depended entirely on pilgrimage and caravan trade. Pilgrims brought offerings to the shrine; Meccan merchant caravans reached as far as Yemen and Syria. The destruction of the idols, as Muhammad demanded, threatened to end the pilgrim traffic and alienate Arab tribes throughout the region on whose goodwill the trade routes depended.¹

The town of Yathrib offered an escape from this impasse. At eleven camel-days distance from Mecca, Yathrib’s oasis had been settled by Jewish communities in two distinct migrations: the first following the Babylonian Exile in 586 BCE, the second after the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE.² Approximately two centuries before Muhammad’s arrival, a dam collapse in Yemen had driven a clan led by the matriarch Qayla northward to Yathrib with her two sons, Aws and Khazraj, and their extended families. By Muhammad’s time, their competition for dominance had deteriorated into sustained civil war. Yathrib’s Jewish clans, having taken sides with one Arab faction or the other, found themselves drawn into the same conflict, Arab fought Arab and Jew fought Jew at the Battle of Bu’ath, with only the Nabataean tradition of sacred months providing a fragile truce.³

It was against this backdrop of exhaustion that representatives of both Arab factions approached Muhammad at Mecca with a specific proposal. They needed a neutral arbitrator, a third party with no local loyalties who could settle disputes and bring peace. “Maybe God will unite us through you,” one representative told him. “We shall tell our people to accept your religion, and if God gathers them together around you, no man will be more powerful than you.”⁴

Upon reaching Yathrib, Muhammad established the Pact of Medina with the settlement’s five major communities: the Arab clans of Khazraj and Aws, and the three main Jewish clans, the Qaynuqa, the Nadir, and the Qurayza. The Pact, preserved most fully in Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, consisted of two distinct sections.⁵ The first established the Muslim community, both the Emigrants from Mecca and the Medinan Arabs, as a single political entity with binding rules: no believer was to avenge an unbeliever against a believer; believers were friends to one another to the exclusion of outsiders; and, the provision whose structural significance would become apparent immediately, all disputes were to be referred to “Allah and His Messenger.” This clause placed Muhammad at the apex of Medina’s judicial system from the first day of his arrival.

The second section addressed the Jewish clans. The Jews were to have “the right to help and equality.” The Jew was “not to be wronged, nor his enemy aided.” The Jews would “have their religion and the Muslims theirs.” The city and its surrounding oasis would be “a sanctuary for all parties to the pact.” Disputes would be referred to “God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God.”⁶

Within a decade, Muhammad had exiled two of these three Jewish clans and massacred the third. The Pact’s provisions for the Jews were not a durable framework for coexistence, they were a transitional instrument that served his purposes until the power differential made them unnecessary.

THE JEWISH TRIBES OF MEDINA

Read more

The Islamic theological-juridical system rests on three layers of authority in strict hierarchical relationship. The first and foundational layer is the Qur’an, understood within all schools as the direct, verbatim word of God, preserved without alteration and binding for all time. This is not a contested position even within the self-described reforming movements; the divine origin and perfect preservation of the Qur’an is the single most consistently enforced doctrinal position across all schools and centuries. Any challenge to the Qur’an’s divine authorship, completeness, or eternal applicability is treated as kufr, unbelief, of the most serious variety.

The second layer is the Sunnah, the recorded words, actions, and tacit approvals of Muhammad, transmitted through chains of narrators and collected in the canonical hadith compilations. Where the Qur’an commands prayer without specifying its form, the Sunnah supplies the form; where it commands punishment for theft without specifying the threshold, the Sunnah supplies it. Its authority is treated as effectively divine because Muhammad’s conduct is understood as divinely guided. Rejection of the Sunnah as a source, as the Qur’anist movement attempts, is treated by all four Sunni schools and by Shia jurisprudence as bid’ah (heretical innovation) at minimum, and apostasy in many rulings.

The third layer is fiqh, the jurisprudential tradition produced by the great legal schools over the first four centuries of Islam. The four Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) and the Shia Ja’fari tradition systematize the rulings derivable from the Qur’an and Sunnah into a legal architecture covering worship, commerce, family law, criminal penalties, governance, and the law of jihad. Fiqh is human interpretation, a point reformers have used as an entry point for change, but its millennium of accumulated consensus (ijma) renders it authoritative. To reject established fiqh is to reject the consensus of the scholars, which is itself treated as a form of heresy.

What makes this system distinctive is how it handles interpretive authority. The key concept is ijma. Jurisprudence treats the consensus of qualified scholars as binding, derived from the hadith “My community will not agree upon an error.”¹ Once a ruling achieves consensus over centuries, it becomes effectively irreversible: a scholar who argues the consensus was wrong must either charge the scholars themselves with error, bordering on challenging the prophetic promise, or claim that the textual evidence was misread, which requires overturning centuries of accumulated interpretation. A scholar who argues that a ruling was too restrictive, that the death penalty for apostasy was historically contingent and no longer applicable, must overcome the full weight of ijma, risking the charge of bid’ah or riddah. A scholar who argues that a ruling applies more broadly or forcefully, that individual Muslims may carry out the apostasy penalty when the state fails to, occupies murkier ground, and the system has no equivalent mechanism for censuring his maximalism. The interpretive space is therefore bounded on the minimalist side by sharp, well-enforced walls and left largely open on the maximalist side. The logical consequence is that the system’s internal pressure consistently pushes toward maximalism rather than restraint.

The Asymmetry

The record of the system’s enforcement activity against those who reduce textual authority is extensive, consistent across political contexts, and institutionally rooted. The following cases represent a systematic pattern across multiple countries, decades, and legal traditions. Farag Foda, a secular Egyptian intellectual who argued against the imposition of sharia, was assassinated in June 1992. Five days earlier, the Al-Azhar Scholars’ Seminar had published a statement declaring his political current a danger to the nation, and a senior Al-Azhar figure, Mahmoud Mazrou’a, had published an article branding him an apostate who had dedicated his life to fighting Islam. In a 2017 interview, Mazrou’a described meeting Foda’s future killers the night before the murder: they asked the ruling on killing an apostate; he told them it must be done, and that if the ruler will not act, the obligation falls on ordinary Muslims.² At trial, the senior Al-Azhar scholar Muhammad al-Ghazali volunteered for the defense, testifying that Foda was in the ruling of an apostate, that apostates are forfeit of blood, and that the defendants’ only offense was “encroachment on the authority of the judge in applying the hadd.”³ The killers confirmed that this testimony was sufficient for them. They used it correctly, seeking scholarly authorization, receiving it through legitimate channels, and acting on it as religious compliance.

Access the full Journal here:

Read more

The term “Islamism” has achieved near-universal adoption in Western policy, media, and academic discourse without achieving anything close to universal agreement on what it means. This paper traces the word’s history, from its eighteenth-century origin as a straightforward synonym for Islam, through its long disappearance from scholarly use, to its deliberate reinvention after the Iranian Revolution as a conceptual instrument serving specific geopolitical needs. “Islamism” was designed to do classificatory work, to separate Islam-as-religion from Islam-as-politics, insulating the former from scrutiny while localizing all difficult questions in the latter. The paper demolishes the historical, etymological, and definitional foundations of this separation and concludes that the category should be abandoned.

Ideological Defense Institute

THE HOUSE OF ISLAM

The House of Islam: The Case Against the Islam/Islamism Divide is the inaugural issue of The Ideological Defense Institute Journal, a new publication dedicated to examining the doctrines, movements, and ideological conflicts shaping the future of the West…

Read more

2 months ago · 10 likes · IDI

Read more

ABSTRACT

The terms political Islam, Islamic governance, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic Salafism, Hakimiyya, international Islamism, and Islam as religion and state are not competing concepts pointing to different phenomena. They are synonyms for a single reality: orthodox Islam as it has always understood itself and expressed itself when it has had the power to do so. This paper argues that the conceptual separation between Islam and political Islam is analytically indefensible, historically without foundation, and directly contradicted by the tradition’s own most authoritative contemporary voices. Drawing on a systematic comparison between sharia and modern constitutional law, and an examination of constitutional provisions across Muslim-majority states, the paper demonstrates that political Islam is not Islam’s aberrant politicization but its foundational and persistent institutional expression. The evidence has been publicly available for decades. The West has chosen not to read it.

THE SYNONYMS FOR A SINGLE REALITY

Read more

The West has consistently misread Islam’s expansion into liberal societies by treating Islam as a religion in the Western sense, private belief distinguishable from politics, law, and governance. This paper argues that categorization is false. Islam, as constituted in the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the jurisprudential tradition, is a total civilizational system, a House, in which religion is one room among several, inseparable from sharia, governance, economic regulation, social control, and expansion through jihad. Examining each structural component in turn and tracing the architecture from the Rashidun period through its contemporary expression, the paper concludes that the distinction between ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ Islam is not a distinction between two different systems or two interpretations, but between faithful adherence and nominal adherence to the same one.

The Western Misreading and Its Consequences

There is a specific intellectual error at the foundation of Western engagement with Islam, one that is not accidental, not the product of ignorance, and not easily corrected by more information alone. It is the error of category: the assumption that Islam is a religion in the sense that Christianity is a domain of private conscience and personal practice, distinguishable from and in principle subordinate to secular political authority.

This assumption has a history. Western political thought arrived at the separation of religious from civil authority through a specific and traumatic historical process: the Wars of Religion, the Peace of Westphalia, the philosophies’ systematic critique of ecclesiastical power, and eventually the constitutional settlements that placed religious practice under the protection of the state while simultaneously removing it from the state’s own governing logic. The experience was so formative and so paradigm-shaping that it produced a general theory of what religion is, a theory in which the Thirty Years’ War functions as the empirical premise and the separation of church and state as the necessary conclusion.

When Western observers, policymakers, and scholars apply this framework to Islam, they are not making a neutral analytical move. They are projecting a historically specific category, the privatized, politically subordinate religion of post-Westphalian Europe, onto a tradition whose foundational texts, institutional history, jurisprudential development, and normative self-understanding all point in the opposite direction. The result is a systematic misreading whose consequences have been documented across a generation of failed integration policy, inadequate security frameworks, and diplomatic engagements built on the assumption of a “moderate Islam” awaiting liberation from its “extremist” distortion.

The architecture of Islam as actually constituted, as the Qur’an establishes it, as Muhammad instantiated it in Medina, as the classical schools of jurisprudence developed it across fourteen centuries, and as its most faithful contemporary adherents understand it, is not a chapel with political implications. It is a House: a total civilizational order in which the spiritual, legal, political, economic, social, and military dimensions are not merely related but structurally unified, designed from the foundation to operate as an integrated and indivisible system.

This paper examines that architecture room by room.

The Foundation

Ideological Defense Institute

THE HOUSE OF ISLAM

The House of Islam: The Case Against the Islam/Islamism Divide is the inaugural issue of The Ideological Defense Institute Journal, a new publication dedicated to examining the doctrines, movements, and ideological conflicts shaping the future of the West…

Read more

2 months ago · 8 likes · IDI

Every structure rests on a foundation, and the foundation of the Islamic House is a single, uncompromising theological premise: sovereignty belongs to God alone. The Arabic term is hakimiyya, divine sovereignty over all human affairs, without exception or remainder.

The Qur’anic basis is explicit and repeatedly emphasized. Surah Yusuf (12:40) states: “Legislation (hukm) belongs only to Allah.” Surah Al-An’am (6:57) reinforces: “The decision is only for Allah.” Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:44) draws the consequence with maximum clarity: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers (kafirun).” Verse 5:45 repeats the judgment for wrongdoers (zalimun), and 5:47 for transgressors (fasiqun). The structural implication is total: a legal or political system that derives its authority from any source other than divine revelation is not merely imperfect or incomplete, it is, by the Qur’an’s own terms, an act of unbelief.

This is the foundation on which everything else in the House is built, and it is precisely what makes the Western concept of “secular Islam” a structural impossibility rather than merely a theological innovation. In the Christian tradition, the distinction between sacred and secular authority has a textual basis: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21). The New Testament does not contain a theory of governance; it contains a theory of salvation. Christian rulers from Constantine onward imposed their own theories of governance onto a tradition that had not provided one, with predictably violent results, but also with the eventual possibility of separation, since the tradition’s foundational texts did not require their union.

The Islamic foundation provides no equivalent basis for separation. The Qur’an is not merely a guide to personal salvation; it is, by explicit self-description, a complete “guidance for mankind” (Qur’an 2:185), containing specific rulings on commercial transactions, criminal penalties, inheritance, warfare, and the governance of non-Muslim subjects. These are not analogies or allegories; they are legal prescriptions. The tradition has understood them as such from the beginning, and the jurisprudential schools that developed over the first three centuries of Islamic civilization treated the task of deriving law from revelation as the primary intellectual enterprise of the tradition.

The twentieth-century political theorist who gave hakimiyya its most systematic modern expression was Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, the Pakistani founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, who argued that sovereignty in Islam admits of no human component: “In Islam, the legislative power and the sovereignty belong to Allah alone.”¹ Maududi was not inventing a new doctrine; he was giving systematic political form to a premise present in the tradition from its foundation. Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood theorist whose work has served as the primary intellectual source for jihadist movements since the 1960s, drew the consequence explicitly: any society not governed by God’s law is a society in a state of jahiliyya (pre-Islamic ignorance), and the Muslim’s obligation is to work toward its transformation.² These are not fringe positions; they are the logical development of the tradition’s foundational premise.

The Load-Bearing Walls

If hakimiyya is the foundation, sharia is the load-bearing walls, the legal framework that gives the House its shape and keeps it standing. The most consequential misconception in Western discourse about Islam is the treatment of sharia as a set of religious guidelines, roughly analogous to canon law or Jewish halakha, that a Muslim community applies internally while remaining subject to the civil law of the surrounding society. This understanding is not merely incomplete; it inverts the tradition’s self-understanding.

Classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) does not recognize a distinction between religious and civil law. It recognizes a distinction between acts of worship (ibadat), prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, Zakat, and transactions (muamalat), commercial law, family law, criminal law, and the law governing relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. Both categories are equally divine in their origin and equally binding in their authority. The jurist’s task in both domains is identical: to derive the correct ruling from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, consensus (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas). There is no secular sphere to which sharia is inapplicable; there are only domains where the relevant rulings have or have not yet been worked out.

The comprehensiveness of the classical tradition is not a matter of scholarly dispute. Joseph Schacht, the Oxford legal scholar whose work remains the authoritative introduction to Islamic law in Western academia, was explicit: “Islamic law is the epitome of Islamic thought, the most typical manifestation of the Islamic way of life, the core and kernel of Islam itself.”³ Wael Hallaq, perhaps the most distinguished contemporary scholar of Islamic legal history, describes fiqh as “a total discourse” that “regulated virtually all areas of human life.”⁴ These are not polemical observers; they are the tradition’s most careful scholarly analysts.

The specific rulings that follow from sharia’s totalizing scope are not peripheral to the present analysis, they are its substance. Surah An-Nisa (4:65) states: “But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves.” Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:49) commands the Prophet, and by extension, the Muslim community, to judge according to what Allah has revealed and to beware of their inclinations. The message is structural: the community of believers is not one legal jurisdiction among several; it is the jurisdiction that supersedes all others.

The criminal law provisions illustrate the depth of this structure. The hudud offenses, adultery (punishable by flogging for the unmarried and stoning for the married), theft (amputation of the hand), apostasy (death), highway robbery, and wine-drinking, are specified directly in the Qur’an and the Sunnah and are held by the classical tradition to be non-derogable: they cannot be reduced, commuted, or replaced by human legislation without departing from the tradition’s foundational premises.⁵ The family law provisions, polygamy (up to four wives, Qur’an 4:3), a husband’s right of unilateral divorce (talaq), women’s reduced inheritance share (Qur’an 4:11), the permissibility of striking a disobedient wife (Qur’an 4:34), are similarly grounded in revelation and maintained across all four major Sunni legal schools, not as cultural accretions but as divine rulings.⁶

The argument sometimes advanced, that these rulings represent one interpretation among several equally valid alternatives, is not supported by the tradition’s own internal authority structure. The four major Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) differ in their application of specific rulings, but they agree on the framework: Sharia governs all human activity, its source is divine revelation, and human legislation that contradicts it is invalid. This is not a minority position held by radicals; it is the mainstream consensus of the tradition across its entire intellectual history.

The Economic Engine

The House of Islam is not merely a political and legal structure; it is also an economic system, and the economic system is as structurally integrated into the whole as any other component. Two mechanisms define this integration: the mandatory alms tax (zakat) and the prohibition of interest (riba).

Zakat is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, which places it at the center of the tradition’s religious obligations. But its function within the total system extends beyond personal piety. Surah At-Tawbah (9:60) specifies the categories of permitted zakat expenditure: the poor, the needy, those employed to collect it, those whose hearts are to be reconciled (a category that classical jurists understood to include political allies and potential converts), those in bondage (for emancipation), those in debt, for the cause of Allah (fi sabil Allah, a term that classical jurists extended to jihad), and travelers. The “cause of Allah” expenditure category created a legitimate and institutionalized funding mechanism for military expansion within the religious tax system itself. This is not a modern jihadist innovation; it is a classical jurisprudential consensus.⁷

The prohibition of riba (interest, Qur’an 2:275–278) creates a structural incompatibility between the Islamic economic framework and the interest-based financial systems of Western economies. The incompatibility is not merely practical, a matter of finding Islamic-compliant alternatives for specific financial instruments. It is foundational: an economic system built on the time-value of money and the compounding of debt operates on premises that the Islamic tradition holds to be divinely forbidden. The development of Islamic finance, sukuk bonds, murabaha contracts, ijara leasing arrangements, represents an attempt to navigate this incompatibility while maintaining both economic functionality and formal sharia compliance. But it also represents the tradition’s insistence on maintaining a distinct economic jurisdiction: the Muslim who participates fully in the Islamic economic framework remains economically embedded in the House rather than fully integrated into the surrounding economic order.

The Surveillance Mechanism

A totalizing system requires a mechanism for internal enforcement, and the Islamic House provides one in the concept of hisba, the duty to “command the good and forbid the evil” (al-amr bil-ma’ruf wa’l-nahy ‘an al-munkar). The Qur’anic basis is Surah Al Imran (3:110): “You are the best nation produced for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.”

In its classical jurisprudential development, hisba was not merely a spiritual aspiration but a public institution. The Muhtasib was an official appointee whose responsibility was to enforce commercial ethics, public morality, and correct religious practice in the markets and public spaces of Islamic cities.⁸ The institution extended the reach of sharia into the everyday texture of public life in a way that no formal legal system alone could achieve.

But the more consequential dimension of hisba is its individual application. The hadith in Sahih Muslim (hadith 49) records the Prophet as saying: “Whoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart, and that is the weakest of faith.” This command turns every Muslim into a potential enforcer of the community’s normative standards. It creates a distributed social control mechanism that operates horizontally through community pressure as well as vertically through official enforcement.

The contemporary expression of this principle ranges from the Saudi Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (the religious police, or mutawwiin), which enforced gender segregation, prayer attendance, and dress codes in public spaces until its enforcement powers were significantly curtailed in 2016, to the social pressure that operates within Muslim diaspora communities in Western cities to maintain Islamic dress, prayer, and dietary practices even in the absence of formal enforcement.⁹ The mechanism adapts to context, but its structural function, the elimination of a genuinely private sphere where Islamic norms do not apply, remains constant.

The Expansion Mechanism

Jihad is the expansion mechanism of the House, the theological and legal doctrine that obligates the Muslim community to extend the domain of Islamic governance into territory not yet under its authority. Its centrality to the tradition is not a matter of selective reading or radical interpretation; it is documented in the Qur’an, the hadith, and the classical jurisprudential tradition with a density and consistency that makes the claim to marginality impossible to sustain.

The Qur’an’s jihad verses are not contextual instructions to a specific community in a specific historical emergency; they are legal rulings addressed to the Muslim community as such, with their abrogation and application worked out by the classical jurists across the tradition’s first three centuries. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:216) declares: “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you.” Surah At-Tawbah (9:5), the “Verse of the Sword,” commands: “When the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.” Surah At-Tawbah (9:29) extends the obligation to the People of the Book: “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.”

The classical jurists divided the world into two domains: Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, territory governed by Sharia) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War, territory not yet under Islamic governance). The obligation of jihad, understood in its primary classical meaning as armed struggle to extend the domain of Islamic governance, was held to be a collective obligation (fard kifaya) on the Muslim community as a whole, meaning that if sufficient members of the community fulfill it, the rest are released from individual obligation; but if no one fulfills it, the entire community is in a state of sin.¹⁰ This is not a fringe position; it is the consensus of all four major Sunni legal schools and the mainstream of classical Shia jurisprudence.

The distinction that Western discourse typically draws between “defensive” and “offensive” jihad, arguing that Islam permits only the former, does not survive contact with the classical sources. Ibn Rushd (Averroes), the twelfth-century Andalusian jurist and philosopher celebrated in the West as a transmitter of Greek rationalism, wrote in his jurisprudential work Bidayat al-Mujtahid: “Most scholars agree that offensive jihad against non-Muslims who have not attacked Muslims is an obligation.”¹¹ Ibn Khaldun, the fourteenth-century Tunisian historian and sociologist, was equally direct in the Muqaddimah: “In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”¹²

The hadith record is consistent. Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith 2785) records the Prophet’s statement: “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith 25) records: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish prayer, and pay zakat.” These are not metaphors; they are the legal foundation on which fourteen centuries of Islamic jurisprudence on warfare has been built.

The jihadist who reads these texts and draws the obvious conclusion is not a deviant who has misread the tradition. He is, by the tradition’s own internal standards, the most consistent reader. What Western discourse calls “Islamism,” the political program of extending Islamic governance through organized violence or institutional subversion, is the tradition’s mainstream logic applied with particular thoroughness and urgency. The “moderate” who rejects it has not found a better reading of the tradition; he has decided, for personal, cultural, or prudential reasons, to occupy fewer rooms than the blueprint provides.

Dhimmitude and Subordination

A totalizing House that encounters populations unwilling to convert requires a mechanism for managing their presence without compromising the House’s fundamental hierarchy. This mechanism is the Dhimmi system, the legal framework governing non-Muslims who live under Islamic governance and who have accepted a subordinate but protected status in exchange for payment of the jizyah (tribute).

The Qur’anic basis is Surah At-Tawbah (9:29), which specifies that People of the Book (Jews and Christians) may be fought until they pay the jizyah “while they are humbled” (wa-hum saghirun). The condition of humiliation is not incidental; it is structural. The classical tradition developed this condition into a comprehensive set of disabilities, codified most systematically in the “Pact of Umar,” a set of restrictions attributed to the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, that defined the terms of Dhimmi existence: prohibition on building new houses of worship or repairing existing ones beyond their current state, prohibition on ringing church bells or practicing religious rituals publicly, prohibition on riding horses (donkeys were permitted), requirements to wear distinctive clothing, requirements to give way to Muslims on the street, and prohibition on holding public office over Muslims.¹³

The Dhimmi system is not a form of tolerance in the sense that Western liberalism understands tolerance, the equal standing of all beliefs in the public sphere, protected by the state’s neutrality. It is a form of protected subordination: the non-Muslim is permitted to exist, to practice his religion privately, and to maintain his community, but he does so as a second-class subject of an Islamic political order that does not consider him its equal, in principle or in practice. The protection is real; the subordination is equally real.

The modern relevance of this architecture is not historical. When the Islamic State captured Mosul in June 2014 and Raqqa in March 2013, one of its first acts was to issue Dhimma contracts to the remaining Christian populations of these cities, requiring payment of jizyah in gold, prohibiting the ringing of church bells, requiring distinctive dress, and prohibiting public religious practice, citing Surah 9:29 and the Pact of Umar explicitly.¹⁴ Western commentators described these measures as “un-Islamic” and evidence of ISIS’s perversion of the tradition. What they were, in fact, was the literal application of the classical tradition’s mainstream rulings, carried out by people who had read the jurisprudential texts and applied them to a context in which they had the power to do so. The basement, as designed, was reopened and reoccupied. This is not a pathology of the tradition; it is the tradition operating as intended.

Apostasy and the Non-Voluntary Jurisdiction

The most decisive architectural proof that the House of Islam is a political jurisdiction rather than a voluntary religious community is the treatment of the exit. In a voluntary religious association, a church, a synagogue, a temple, membership is freely chosen and freely relinquished. The state does not criminalize departure, and the tradition does not mandate lethal response to it.

In the House of Islam, the exit door is locked. Ridda (apostasy), the abandonment of Islam by a Muslim, is specified in the hadith as a capital offense. Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith 6922) records the Prophet’s command: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” All four major Sunni legal schools affirm the death penalty for apostasy for men; Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali schools also affirm it for women (Hanafi jurisprudence prescribes imprisonment until repentance for women).¹⁵ The tradition does not present this as a harsh measure imposed reluctantly on an extreme case; it presents it as the necessary enforcement mechanism of a community bound by a divine covenant that cannot be unilaterally dissolved by the individual.

The implications for the present analysis are structural rather than merely humanitarian. A community that kills those who leave is not a religious community in the voluntary sense; it is a political jurisdiction, one that asserts total authority over those born within it and enforces that authority through violence when challenged. The apostate is not being punished for incorrect belief (which would be a theological matter); he is being punished for abandoning allegiance to a political-religious order, which is a political act, the Islamic equivalent of treason.

As of 2023, the death penalty for apostasy is encoded in the statutory law of Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen; imprisonment for apostasy is a legal penalty in additional jurisdictions including Malaysia, Jordan, and Brunei.¹⁶ In Muslim-majority societies without formal apostasy laws, social enforcement through family pressure, community ostracism, and extralegal violence effectively maintains the locked exit in the absence of formal legal mechanism. The door is locked from the inside, and the locking mechanism has not been dismantled.

The Original Proof of Concept

The claim that the House of Islam as described above is the original, intended, and normatively correct architecture, rather than a subsequent distortion of a purer, more spiritual founding vision, can be tested against the historical record of the tradition’s first generation.

The four Rightly Guided Caliphs (Rashidun), Abu Bakr (r. 632–634 CE), Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634–644 CE), Uthman ibn Affan (r. 644–656 CE), and Ali ibn Abi Talib (r. 656–661 CE), were Muhammad’s closest companions, present throughout the formation of the Medinan community. They are held by the Sunni tradition as the most authoritative interpreters of the Prophet’s intentions, second only to the Prophet himself. Their conduct constitutes the original proof of concept.

Abu Bakr’s first act as caliph, following Muhammad’s death in 632 CE, was to launch the Ridda Wars, military campaigns against tribal confederations that had submitted to Muhammad personally and sought to withdraw their political and financial allegiance (specifically, their payment of zakat) after his death. Abu Bakr’s refusal to distinguish between religious faith and political-financial allegiance is the founding statement of the tradition’s rejection of any such distinction. He did not argue that tribes could maintain their faith while withdrawing from the political system; he argued that withdrawal from the political system constituted apostasy, and he went to war to enforce the unity of the House.¹⁷

Under Umar, the House expanded at a pace that remains historically extraordinary. The Byzantine province of Syria fell between 634 and 638 CE. Egypt was conquered between 639 and 642 CE. The Sasanid Persian Empire, one of the two great powers of the ancient world, was effectively destroyed between 633 and 651 CE, its last emperor killed by his own subjects while fleeing Islamic armies. In each case, the conquering armies operated under the framework of Jihad as established in the Medinan period: offer Islam, then the Dhimmi status with jizyah, then war.¹⁸ The expansion was not incidental to the religious project; it was understood by its participants as the fulfillment of the divine mandate established in the texts examined above.

The caliphate system that emerged from this period institutionalized the integration of religious and political authority in a single office. The Caliph was simultaneously the political ruler of the Muslim community, the military commander-in-chief, and the guarantor of the tradition’s correct interpretation and practice. The religious scholars (ulama) served as advisors, judges, and legitimators; the judges (qadis) were appointed by political authority and ruled by religious law. There was no institutional church distinct from the state because there was no state distinct from the religious community. The ummah, the political community, and the legal jurisdiction were a single entity, as Muhammad had designed them to be in Medina.

The House in its Modern Forms

The House of Islam has not been demolished. It has been refurnished, renovated, and in some cases strategically remodeled, but the load-bearing walls remain standing, and the foundation of hakimiyya has not been replaced.

Saudi Arabia represents the most explicit contemporary expression of the original blueprint. The Basic Law of Governance (Royal Decree No. A/90, 1992) states in Article 1: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic State. Its religion is Islam. Its constitution is Almighty God’s Book, the Holy Qur’an, and the Sunna (Traditions) of the Prophet.” Article 7 adds: “Government in Saudi Arabia derives its authority from the Book of God Most High and the Sunna of His Prophet.” This is not a nominal religious reference; it is a structural statement about the source of legal authority. The religious establishment (the Council of Senior Scholars) exercises genuine authority over legislation, and the legal system applies sharia directly across all domains, including the hudud criminal penalties that most Muslim-majority states have formally suspended.¹⁹

Iran under the Islamic Republic represents the Shia variant of the total House, institutionalized through the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) developed by Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian Constitution of 1979 (amended 1989) establishes the Supreme Leader, a senior religious jurist, as the highest authority in the state, with jurisdiction over the military, the judiciary, foreign policy, and the religious establishment. This is the most radical modern institutionalization of the House’s architectural principle: the religious hierarchy is not separate from the political administration, it is the political administration.²⁰

Pakistan was established in 1947 explicitly as a state for the Muslim population of the Indian subcontinent, the political expression of the principle that the ummah constitutes a political as well as a religious community. Pakistan’s constitution declares Islam to be the state religion, prohibits legislation repugnant to Qur’an and Sunnah, and maintains blasphemy laws that carry the death penalty under Article 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code.²¹ The Pakistani case demonstrates that the House does not require a caliphate or a formal theocracy to maintain its structural integrity; the nation-state model can be adapted to serve as the House’s political form.

Qatar operates what might be called a strategic Majlis, maintaining formal sharia governance domestically while simultaneously hosting a major American military base, financing Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood internationally, and projecting soft power through Al Jazeera and international sports sponsorship. Qatar’s constitution designates sharia as the principal source of legislation. Its maintenance of relationships with both Western powers and Islamist movements illustrates the House’s capacity for strategic flexibility without structural compromise: the rooms remain intact; their public presentation varies by audience.²²

The UAE represents the most sophisticated contemporary architectural experiment, what might be called strategic sovereignty. Abu Dhabi has actively opposed the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islamism across its regional interventions (Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Somalia), invested heavily in counter-extremism infrastructure, and built the Abrahamic Family House as a public statement of religious coexistence. Yet the UAE’s personal status law remains anchored in sharia, its legal system maintains Islamic criminal provisions, and its public culture enforces Islamic behavioral norms in significant domains. The UAE has locked the most violent residents out of the House’s public spaces while maintaining the House’s foundational architecture. It is, in the metaphor of this paper’s framework, a renovated fortress rather than a demolished one, proof that the rooms can be selectively closed without the blueprint being withdrawn from the library.

The Accessible Blueprint

The preceding analysis makes the position of the “moderate” Muslim legible in a way that the standard Western binary of moderate versus extremist obscures. The moderate Muslim is not the practitioner of a different religion from the jihadist. He is the resident who has chosen, for reasons of personal temperament, cultural formation, prudential calculation, or genuine moral conviction, to occupy fewer rooms than the blueprint authorizes.

This is a real and important distinction, the moderate who lives only in the religion room and the jihadist who occupies all of them are not equivalent moral actors, and policy that treats them as such is both analytically wrong and practically counterproductive. But the distinction is a distinction of occupancy, not of architecture. The blueprint remains the same. The rooms the moderate has chosen not to enter are still there, still described in the foundational texts, still validated by the classical jurisprudential tradition, and still available to anyone in the community who decides to read the plans and take them seriously.

This is the structural paradox of the “moderate” as a political asset for the West. The moderate is genuinely moderate, genuinely committed to a version of Islam that does not pursue political dominion, does not endorse violence against non-Muslims, does not seek to impose sharia on surrounding society. He is also, by the tradition’s own internal standards of authority, on weaker theological ground than the jihadist who cites chapter and verse for every position he holds. The moderate’s moderation is not well-grounded in the texts; it is a position maintained in spite of the texts, through a variety of interpretive strategies, contextualizing the Medinan verses as time-bound, prioritizing the Meccan spiritual verses over the Medinan political-legal ones, emphasizing the hadith of mercy while de-emphasizing the hadith of warfare.

These are genuine attempts to live in a tradition whose full architecture the modern moderate finds uninhabitable. But they are always vulnerable to the challenge of a more literalist reader who says: you are choosing to ignore the plans. The Medinan model is sitting on the library shelf, authenticated by fourteen centuries of scholarly consensus, waiting for the generation that decides to pick it up and build with it.

As long as the Prophet Muhammad is held to be the perfect model (uswa hasana, Qur’an 33:21), as all orthodox expressions of Islam require, and as long as his Medinan political and military career is acknowledged as part of that model, as the tradition universally insists, the blueprint cannot be permanently decommissioned. It can be archived, temporarily ignored, or selectively applied. It cannot be declared invalid without making a claim that the tradition’s own internal standards of authority do not permit.

Conclusion: The Blueprint Remains in the Library

The argument of this paper does not require the conclusion that every Muslim is a jihadist, that every mosque is a jihadist institution, or that Muslim immigration is identical to military invasion. It requires a considerably more modest and more consequential conclusion: that the House of Islam, as constituted in its foundational texts and developed in its classical jurisprudential tradition, is a total civilizational system whose load-bearing walls, divine sovereignty, comprehensive legal authority, economic regulation, social control, an expansion mechanism, a framework for subjugating non-Muslims, and a locked exit, are not peripheral features that can be removed without the structure collapsing. They are the structure.

The jihadist is not a deviant who has distorted the tradition. He is the resident who has read the full plans and decided to live in every room. The moderate is not the representative of a different, purer Islam. He is the resident who has chosen to occupy fewer rooms, for reasons the tradition does not validate and cannot authorize without departing from its own foundational premises.

Western policy built on the assumption that the moderate represents the real Islam and the jihadist a distortion of it will always fail to address the actual challenge, because the actual challenge is not a population of bad actors within an otherwise compatible civilization. It is a civilization whose architectural blueprint is structurally incompatible with liberal democratic order at the level of foundations, not ornament. The foundation of hakimiyya rejects the popular sovereignty on which democratic governance rests. The load-bearing walls of sharia reject the human-made, democratically revisable law on which constitutional order depends. The locked exit door of apostasy law rejects the freedom of conscience on which religious liberty is premised.

Adelle Nazarian is a fellow at the Ideological Defense Institute

1. Notes

2. Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, The Islamic Law and Constitution, ed. Khurshid Ahmad, 7th ed. (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1980), 147–148.

3. Sayyid Qutb, Milestones (Ma’alim fi al-Tariq) (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1990), 47–76. For the intellectual genealogy of Qutb’s hakimiyya concept and its derivation from Maududi, see William Shepard, “Sayyid Qutb’s Doctrine of Jahiliyya,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 35, no. 4 (2003): 521–545.

4. Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), 1.

5. Wael Hallaq, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1–2.

6. The non-derogability of hudud penalties is a consensus position in classical fiqh; see Rudolph Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1–30.

7. The Qur’anic basis for Qur’an 4:34 (”strike them”) and its jurisprudential treatment across the four schools is documented in Kecia Ali, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 117–152.

8. On the classical interpretation of “fi sabil Allah” as including military expenditure, see Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 55–79.

9. Michael Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 13–38; on the Muhtasib as institution, see 448–495.

10. On the Saudi mutawwiin and their curtailment after 2016, see Thomas Hegghammer and Stéphane Lacroix, “Rejectionist Islamism in Saudi Arabia: The Story of Juhayman al-’Utaybi Revisited,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39, no. 1 (2007): 103–122.

11. On jihad as fard kifaya in classical jurisprudence, see Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955), 55–82; and David Cook, Understanding Jihad (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 1–48.

12. Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid, trans. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee as The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer, 2 vols. (Reading: Garnet Publishing, 1994–1996), 1:454. The passage is discussed in Patricia Crone, God’s Rule: Government and Islam (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 362–363.

13. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz Rosenthal, 3 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), 1:473.

14. The Pact of Umar (also known as the Covenant of Umar) exists in several versions; the most widely cited is translated and analyzed in Milka Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: From Surrender to Coexistence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 56–82.

15. The ISIS Dhimma contract issued in Mosul in July 2014 is documented and translated in Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, “The Islamic State and the Christian Question,” Middle East Forum, October 2014. See also Wood Graeme, “What ISIS Really Wants,” The Atlantic, March 2015.

16. The cross-school consensus on the apostasy penalty is documented in Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law, 63–70; and in Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 50–90.

17. US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2023 (Washington, DC: USCIRF, 2023), 14–18; Pew Research Center, “Which Countries Still Outlaw Apostasy and Blasphemy?,” May 28, 2014 (with updates through 2023).

18. On the Ridda Wars and their significance for the integration of religious and political authority, see Fred Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 82–90; and Hugh Kennedy, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2016), 51–60.

19. The expansion under Umar is documented in Kennedy, Prophet and the Caliphates, 67–105; and Robert Hoyland, In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

20. Saudi Arabia, Basic Law of Governance, Royal Decree No. A/90 (1992), Arts. 1, 7, available via Constitute Project, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Saudi_Arabia_2013.

21. Islamic Republic of Iran, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979, amended 1989), Arts. 5, 57, 107–112; translated version available via Iran Chamber Society.

22. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973, as amended), Arts. 1, 2, 31, 227–229; Pakistan Penal Code, Sec. 295-C (blasphemy provisions).

23. Qatar, Constitution of the State of Qatar (2004), Art. 1 (”Qatar is an independent sovereign Arab State. Its religion is Islam. Its constitutional system is democratic.”); Art. 1 also designates sharia as a principal source of legislation.

    ---

Ideological Defense Institute

THE HOUSE OF ISLAM

The House of Islam: The Case Against the Islam/Islamism Divide is the inaugural issue of The Ideological Defense Institute Journal, a new publication dedicated to examining the doctrines, movements, and ideological conflicts shaping the future of the West…

Read more

2 months ago · 8 likes · IDI

THE SACRED ORDER BENEATH IT ALL

From the earliest moments of consciousness, human beings have looked to the heavens, to the rhythms of the seasons, to birth and death, suffering and joy, and asked: What is behind this? Who am I within it? Theology begins here, not as dogma but as orientation, the instinct to seek coherence, to interpret the invisible, and to make moral sense of existence.

But this raw impulse must be shaped. It requires language. It requires stories. It requires authority. And so theology crystallizes through narrative. It is encoded in origin myths, epics, hymns, rituals, sacred laws, and divine names. A society’s theology emerges not simply from individual contemplation but from what it collectively chooses to remember, repeat, and revere. What it fears. What it blesses. What it believes the gods, or God, require. Over time, these narratives form belief. They are taught to children, inscribed in temples, enforced by kings. And eventually they cease to be remembered as responses to mystery; they are declared as reality itself. This is how theology becomes civilization’s bedrock. Its truths are no longer argued; they are assumed. No longer explored; they are enforced.

Because of this, every civilization carries a theological foundation, even when it is not named as such. These ultimate convictions form the moral architecture of a society, determine its direction, and set its boundaries. Behind every renaissance, every revolution, and every collapse lies a vision of the world, and of the ultimate order that gives it meaning, whether named as God or conceived in secular terms.

In the earliest civilizations, theology and power were inseparable. In Mesopotamia, kings ruled by divine sanction;¹ in Egypt, the pharaoh was regarded as the god incarnate. Law, economy, and daily life were all downstream from cosmology. Justice was not an abstract concept but the maintenance of cosmic balance as decreed by the gods.² The rise of empires was read as divine favor, their downfall as divine judgment. For these ancient peoples, religion and politics were not two spheres that could be separated, they were a single fabric.³

The Greco-Roman world carried this fusion forward in new ways. What we now call “philosophy” did not emerge in opposition to religion but as its child. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did not begin their inquiries by rejecting the gods, but by asking what kind of cosmos the gods had made and what kind of human life would be worthy within it.⁴ Reason was not a rebellion against the sacred but a means of refining its understanding. Rome inherited and reshaped this synthesis: Greek philosophical categories were absorbed into Roman civic religion, sacralizing law, elevating citizenship, and presenting order itself as a divine mandate.⁵

Judaism was the first great rupture in ancient religious thought. It introduced a sovereign Creator, transcendent yet just, who established a moral order and declared that every human being, regardless of status or origin, was made in the image of God.⁶ This was an ontological revolution. Human dignity was no longer earned or granted by the state; it was inherent. Christianity built upon this foundation, universalized it, and carried it across cultures and continents, making explicit what Judaism had inaugurated: that human value is not tied to bloodline, tribe, or empire, but to creation itself.

This idea, that all people are equal before God, did not remain a doctrine. It erupted into history. Over centuries, it inspired the abolition of slavery, the sanctity of life, the defense of the poor, the elevation of women, and the moral architecture of human rights. It laid the foundation for modern democracies. But that transformation was not instant. For centuries, the Church itself became the new institution of power. Eventually the tension between power and principle erupted: the Reformation shattered the monopoly of sacred interpretation and unleashed the modern West. It was the religious revolution Luther led in Wittenberg that inspired a political one.⁷

The printing press was a philosophical earthquake. For the first time, ideas moved faster than armies. The Enlightenment did not discard religion; it unleashed its consequences. The conviction that man could reason morally apart from clerical control, that conscience could challenge kings, that nature itself was governed by law, all of this emerged from the fusion of Judeo-Christian theology and Greek philosophy. These ideas gave birth to the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and laid the groundwork for human rights, limited government, and constitutional democracy.⁸

But the same power that builds can also destroy. When theology goes unchallenged, or when false gods are enthroned, civilizations deform. Nazi Germany declared that ultimate reality was race; blood and soil, not human dignity, became the foundation of existence. This was a theological claim: it redefined what it meant to be human. Hitler did not need a god in heaven; he enthroned the Fatherland in its place. Marxist-Leninist communism sought to erase the divine altogether, but in doing so enthroned a new absolute: history itself. The Party was its high priest, interpreting the will of the future, purging heretics, promising utopia on the far side of obedience. Even postmodernism, which declares that there is no absolute truth, enthrones a god of its own: the individual becomes sovereign, lived experience becomes scripture, and those who question the anti-structure are not debated but excommunicated.

Whether we admit it or not, every system is theological at its root. Even the claim “there is no god” is a theological claim. The question is never whether theology shapes a civilization. The only question is which theology, declared or hidden, true or false, liberating or oppressive, is doing the shaping. Strip away the surface of any civilization and you will find a god. It may be the state. It may be the race. It may be the collective will, the historical dialectic, or the prophetic leader. But someone, somewhere, is speaking in absolutes. And absolutes always come with rituals, enforcers, doctrines, and consequences.

PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIA

The Arabian Peninsula before Islam was no godless wasteland. It was a spiritual ecosystem, a living theater of theological imagination. The gods were tribal guardians, war patrons, fertility figures, and protectors of commerce, as real as the sand underfoot and as territorial as the clans that invoked them. In Arabia, theology was geography. Every valley had its sentinel. Every tribe its chosen god. The sacred was not universal but fractured, not transcendent but local.⁹

The Kaaba in Mecca was the central node in this network, but not the only one. Shrines stood in Taif, Sana’a, Dumat al-Jandal, and elsewhere, each sheltering its own idols. Long before Islam, Mecca’s sanctuary housed hundreds of deities. During sacred months, tribal violence was suspended, and Mecca became a venue for commerce, legal settlements, poetry competitions, marriage alliances, and rituals of purification. Practices such as pilgrimage, circumambulation, fasting, sacrifice, and even ritualized raiding followed sacred calendars and were embedded in the region’s theology.

Among the most venerated deities was Hubal, chief god of the Quraysh. Equally revered were the three great goddesses, al-Lat, al-‘Uzza, and Manāt, invoked across tribal lines. These goddesses acted as intercessors with a distant high god often called Allah, not exclusive or personal, but vague, cosmological, absent from daily devotion.¹⁰ Divinity was layered: local gods near and active, higher gods remote and indifferent. Faith was not orthodoxy but loyalty. This theological imagination gave Arabia depth, tradition, and identity, but no unity. The very power of tribal religion made it incapable of transcending tribe. The richness of its religion became its ceiling: it preserved but did not evolve, affirmed but did not transcend, bonded but did not unite.

THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE SACRED

As the theological imagination of Arabia reached its limit, rich in ritual, embedded in kinship, but paralyzed by division, a new voice rose from the hills of Mecca. It spoke in the name of one God. But that voice did not emerge from a void. It grew out of the soil it claimed to transcend. Islam was not a break from Arabia’s religious past; it was its reassembly.

The longing for unity was real, politically and cosmologically. Tribes were weary of vengeance and fragmentation. Arabia’s sacred order was too crowded to carry a single vision forward, yet too revered to be discarded. What was needed was not invention but integration, something powerful enough to unify without appearing foreign. In that tension, Islam found its opening. It resolved Arabia’s civilizational deadlock by gathering scattered gods under a single banner, centralizing sacred authority in one man, and transforming tribal religion into a system of submission. Its brilliance lay not in creating from nothing, but in fusing what already existed: tribal theology, Arabian ritual, and the hunger for sovereignty.

But unification required legitimacy. Allah was already present in Arabia’s vocabulary, a distant high god, acknowledged but rarely worshiped.¹¹ Muhammad did not invent this deity; he elevated him, stripping the hierarchy of intermediaries and declaring Allah alone worthy of worship. Still, a high god without narrative was an empty throne. For a backstory, Muhammad turned to Judaism. Jewish communities had long been present in Medina, Khaybar, and Yemen, recognized, even by enemies, as a people of the Book.¹² Muhammad borrowed their framework wholesale: he retold the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Joseph; adopted their terms; echoed their dietary laws; and placed himself within their prophetic arc. Allah became not just the god of Arabia, but the God of Abraham. The Kaaba was rebranded as Abraham’s sanctuary.

Yet beneath the monotheistic shell, Arabia remained.¹³ The gods were gone, but their functions survived. Tribal loyalty became submission (Islam). Military allegiance became jihad. Tribal codes became Sharia. Oral poetry became Qur’an. Islam did not reject Arabia’s theological architecture; it institutionalized it.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the infamous incident of the Gharānīq, the “Satanic Verses.” Early sources like Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, and al-Waqidi recount that, under pressure from Quraysh, Muhammad once recited verses acknowledging the goddesses al-Lat, al-‘Uzza, and Manāt: “These are the exalted gharānīq, whose intercession is to be hoped for.”¹⁴ The pagans rejoiced. But Muhammad later retracted the verses, claiming Satan had inspired them. The impulse it reveals is unmistakable: Muhammad’s aim was unity, and for the sake of cohesion he was willing, at least briefly, to make space for the old gods. Islam was not simply a message; it was a merger, built from existing materials: the narratives of the Jews, the rituals of the pagans, the tribal ethos of Arabia, and the political calculus of survival.

THE MISSING ELEMENT

Long before Muhammad rose from Mecca with a message of divine unification, another figure emerged from the deserts of Arabia who attempted, in his own way, to reshape the fractured tribal world into a single political body. His name was Kulayb ibn Rabi‘ah,¹⁵ a powerful chief of the Banu Taghlib, whose ambition marked one of the earliest recorded attempts to transform Arabia from a tribal mosaic into a centralized monarchy.

Kulayb had traveled south into Yemen’s settled kingdoms and glimpsed what structured rule could look like. He consolidated authority across northern Arabia, asserting himself as a sovereign above the tribes rather than a negotiator among equals. He fortified his power with visible symbols of permanence: a stronghold, a settled seat of power, surrounded by walls. But even more radical was his decision to prohibit tribal raids, the lifeblood of the desert economy and a ritual of honor embedded in Arab theology. Raiding (ghazw) was not simply opportunistic theft; it redistributed wealth, affirmed valor, and provided cohesion. By outlawing raids, Kulayb was disrupting the sacred rhythm of life. He governed by decree but offered no theological framework to sanctify his authority. In a land where theology and kinship were inseparable, he tried to rule by power alone.

The collapse came, as it often does in Arabia, over a camel. When Kulayb killed a she-camel that had strayed into his territory, the act triggered the Basus War, a forty-year blood feud. Kulayb was assassinated by his own brother-in-law in a revenge killing that symbolized the tribal order reasserting itself against centralized power that had failed to speak in sacred terms. Kulayb failed because he offered Arabia a political structure without sacred legitimacy. Muhammad failed for the first ten years because he offered sacred claims without political power. The two men, separated by a century, fell at opposite ends of the same truth: in Arabia, neither power without the sacred nor the sacred without power could unite a people.

FROM WARNER TO RULER

Muhammad began his public mission in Mecca around 613 CE with a bold theological claim: that there was only one God, Allah, and that he was His final messenger. He challenged the authority of the tribal gods, condemned idol worship, and warned of a coming judgment. But his message arrived without tribal backing, military strength, or enforceable law. In a culture where power was visible and strength was existential, such a message was perceived as weakness, a surrender of agency.

He had no ground to rule, no army to enforce, no tribe to defend him. He had only verses. The tribes of Mecca tolerated him, then slowly began to isolate him. His early followers were mostly the poor, the enslaved, and the marginal. His own tribe, Banu Hashim, protected him out of kinship obligation,¹⁶ not conviction. But when his uncle Abu Talib died, even that fragile shield began to crack. His movement was weak, and the city’s elite simply waited for his voice to disappear. And it nearly did.

If Muhammad had remained in Mecca, he would have been remembered, if at all, as a failed preacher with grand claims and no ground. But then came the Hijra, the migration to Yathrib, later known as Medina. There he was no longer a mere prophet; he became a political leader. The Constitution of Medina established him not just as a spiritual voice, but as the head of a city-state.¹⁷ With that came the authority to govern, to punish, to legislate, and to protect. The Kaaba, once the center of idolatry, was reimagined as the original sanctuary of Abraham. The qibla, once directed toward Jerusalem, was turned back toward Mecca.¹⁸ And the structure of tribal raiding was revived under a new name: jihad.

Raids were launched on Quraysh caravans. Blood was now spilled in the name of Allah. The theological message had not changed, but its force had. The revelation had found a sword. Islam was no longer a message that threatened to tear down the Arab tribes; it became one that reinforced them. Their rituals were restored, their honor affirmed, their territorial logic embedded in a larger religious framework. Muhammad succeeded where Kulayb failed because he completed the equation. He didn’t just offer a god; he offered their world, sanctified. His vision of Allah did not float above Arabia. It descended into it. It looked like Arabia, spoke its language, followed its seasons, used its law, rewarded its warriors, preserved its structures, and simply replaced its names.

THE MESSENGER WHO BECAME THE MESSAGE

Muhammad’s migration to Medina in 622 CE marks more than a geographic or political turning point. It represents a seismic shift in the structure of Islamic authority itself. In Mecca, Muhammad claimed the role of a nadhir (warner). But in Medina, with military power, economic control, and legislative authority in his hands, he ceased to be merely the messenger of the message. He became its embodiment, its sole interpreter, and its center. From this moment forward, Islamic praxis developed what might be described as a functional binitarianism: Allah remained ultimate in theory, but Muhammad became the necessary mediator, interpreter, and access point through whom divine will was revealed and enforced. While Islam formally rejects the Christian Incarnation, in practice it elevated Muhammad to a status not entirely unlike that of Christ, not divine, but indispensable.

This centrality is most evident in how Muhammad’s biography (sira) and actions (sunnah) eclipse the Qur’an in shaping Islamic law and moral consciousness.¹⁹ The Qur’an alone is insufficient to establish rulings. It is the hadith corpus, records of his words, deeds, and tacit approvals, that forms the primary tool of jurisprudence. In practice, Islamic law is not Qur’an-centric but Prophet-centric. Even the Qur’an itself reflects this transformation. The early Meccan surahs are poetic, apocalyptic, and theocentric. The Medinan surahs shift toward legalism, community organization, warfare, and submission to the authority of the Prophet.²⁰ Surah 4:80 asserts, “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah,” effectively fusing prophetic authority with divine command.

In the biblical model, the prophet is a vessel, not the message itself. The Hebrew Bible recounts with ruthless honesty the failures of its prophets: Moses’ disobedience, David’s adultery, Jonah’s rebellion. Their imperfections do not disqualify them, because authority resides in the divine source, not in the man. The New Testament continues this pattern: Peter denies Christ, Thomas doubts, Paul rebukes Peter publicly. Even the later founders of Christian traditions are not beyond critique, Luther’s anti-Semitism is condemned by Lutherans,²¹ Calvin’s role in the death of Servetus is rejected by Presbyterians. In Judaism and Christianity, the man serves the text. In Islam, the text serves the man.

This reversal shapes the entire Islamic system. The Qur’an cannot be read in abstraction, subjected to historical-critical inquiry, or philosophically reconstructed. Its authoritative reading is already embedded in Muhammad’s life. His words and deeds are the interpretive grid, and that grid is fixed. If he made war, war is sanctified. If he ordered assassinations, those are jurisprudential precedents. If he expressed hostility toward Jews or Christians, that hostility becomes doctrine. The Sunnah records his campaigns, his treatment of captives, his punishments, not as anecdotes, but as templates.

This explains Islam’s distinctive sensitivities. Across the Muslim world, blasphemy laws exist not to protect Allah, but to guard Muhammad’s honor. Cartoons of God provoke little reaction; cartoons of Muhammad provoke riots. The earliest assassinations ordered by his followers were not against idolaters but against poets who mocked him personally: Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak. The offense was not rejection of God but insult to the Prophet.²² Islamic soteriology confirms this orientation: Jews and Christians, monotheists who affirm the God of Abraham, are nonetheless condemned in the Qur’an as kuffar, not because they deny God, but because they deny Muhammad. The Shahada makes this explicit: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.” Without Muhammad’s name, God’s name is inert.

This is why Islam cannot be apolitical if Muhammad was political. And he was. His community was not a church; it was a state. Every major domain, governance, warfare, taxation, punishment, treaty-making, finds precedent in his actions. In this sense, Islam is not simply the preservation of a message. It is the institutionalization of a life. Muslims are not called to obey abstract principles but to emulate a man whose every decision is sacred precedent. This fusion transforms Islam from a religion into an ideology. When the messenger becomes inseparable from the message, worship shifts from transcendent devotion to immanent enforcement, not a faith that liberates, but an ideology that governs, demanding allegiance, regulating society, and measuring salvation by submission to authority.

THE ANATOMY OF A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY

The concept of ideology has been one of the most contested in political theory. Since its coining by Destutt de Tracy in the late eighteenth century as a “science of ideas,”²³ it has carried shifting connotations. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines a political ideology as a set of beliefs and principles that form a comprehensive worldview on how society should be organized and governed, providing a blueprint for a preferred social and economic order by explaining how things are, how they ought to be, and what methods are best to achieve that ideal state.²⁴ This makes political ideology more than philosophy or belief. It carries a program for power. Its architecture can be recognized through three defining elements:²⁵

First, core values: a system of belief that governs all spheres of life. Second, political goals: a strategic vision for power and expansion. Third, strategies: mechanisms of institutional enforcement. Wherever all three converge, the line between religion and political ideology collapses, and it is here that Islam must be examined.

On core values: political ideologies begin with axioms. In Marxism, this is the struggle between classes; in liberalism, the sovereignty of the individual. Islam’s foundational axiom is the absolute sovereignty of Allah (tawhid), which is not confined to metaphysics. The Qur’an, Hadith, and subsequent legal tradition make clear that this sovereignty must manifest in governance, legislation, and judicial authority (Qur’an 12:40).

On political goals: the Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes the duty to establish Allah’s rule on earth, as in 9:33: “It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion.” This is not symbolic. The concept of Dar al-Islam (the abode of submission) versus Dar al-Harb (the abode of war)²⁶ illustrates that Islam is not content to remain a private faith; it defines itself in terms of jurisdiction and territorial reach.

On strategy: Islam established institutional mechanisms to enforce its vision. This is made explicit in Qur’an 9:29:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

And Qur’an 8:39:

“Fight them until there is no more fitnah, and religion is entirely for Allah.”

Here, non-compliance is not merely condemned, it is met with sanctioned coercion: conversion, political subjugation through the jizya tax, or war. Classical commentators such as al-Qurtubi emphasize that this command is absolute, not confined to any particular time, place, or people. It establishes a permanent principle of enforcement.²⁷

Unlike Christianity, whose sacred texts do not prescribe a political order and whose early church spread apart from state power, Islam’s institutional form was conceived from the outset within the apparatus of the state. The first four Caliphs (Rashidun), particularly Abu Bakr and Umar, fused military, judicial, and legislative authority into one office. Later, the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties expanded this into bureaucratic empires. Islamic law was not simply applied by the state; it was the state. And unlike Judaism, whose Talmud orders life for a covenantal people within a particular land, Islam added what Judaism never claimed: universality. Islam fused what the others kept separate, comprehensive law, universal expansion, and institutional enforcement. This is the signature of a political ideology.

THE ENDURING SHADOW OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

If ideology is a belief system that not only explains the world but seeks to dominate it through organized authority, then history becomes its most powerful witness. From the death of Muhammad in 632 CE until the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, the ummah lived under a continuous political structure that asserted not merely a religious identity but legal authority, territorial governance, military expansion, and socio-political hierarchy. This unbroken lineage is the spine of Islamic history. The Islamic state was not an intermittent experiment; it was a continuous, institutionalized reality.

Initially centered in Medina, it expanded under the Rightly Guided Caliphs, assumed imperial form under the Umayyads, developed administrative sophistication under the Abbasids, defended its realm through the Seljuks and Mamluks, and extended global reach under the Ottomans. Dynastic names varied, but the essential aim never changed: to preserve and implement Allah’s law over society. This continuity explains one of the defining traits of Islamic history: crises were rarely defined by lapses in spiritual fervor, but by the loss of state power. For Islamic civilization, legitimacy was never derived primarily from moral perfection but from the state’s ability to uphold Sharia,²⁸ maintain order, and extend Islamic control.²⁹ This is why rulers with dubious personal conduct were still recognized as legitimate: they governed in the name of Islam. Ibn Khaldun articulated this reality in the fourteenth century: “The strength of religion is dependent upon the strength of the state.”³⁰

From the early caliphs to the Ottoman sultans, governance was the tangible manifestation of Islam’s claim over all domains of life. This governing legacy ended in 1924 when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk formally abolished the Ottoman Caliphate.³¹ It was not simply the termination of a political office but the rupture of a fourteen-century-old assumption that Islam must rule. Across the Islamic world, the event was seen as a theological catastrophe, the suspension of God’s presence in history, a void where divine authority no longer had a representative on earth. From that point forward, movements of every kind, pietistic, revivalist, and militant, emerged to fill the vacuum. Yet the consensus remained: without Islamic governance, Islam itself was incomplete.

NOTES

1. Nicole Brisch, “Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond,” Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures (University of Chicago, 2011), isac.uchicago.edu.

2. Pharaoh: Born of the Gods – E5,” National Gallery of Victoria, ngv.vic.gov.au.

3. Beau Branson et al., “The Intertwining of Philosophy and Religion in the Western Tradition,” in Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion (Rebus Community, 2020).

4. Jan Garrett, “Homer’s Gods, Plato’s Gods,” Western Kentucky University, people.wku.edu.

5. Early Roman law was clearly intertwined with religious ritual. The ius civile (civil law) applying to Roman citizens was deeply bound to religion; its rituals and formalism (e.g., mancipatio, a formal property transfer) trace back to Etruscan, ritualistic origins.

6. “Judaism on the Worth of Every Person,” Jewish Virtual Library, jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

7. “Revolution in Wittenberg,” Britannica, britannica.com/biography/Martin-Luther.

8. “Did America Have a Christian Founding?,” The Heritage Foundation, June 7, 2011, heritage.org.

9. “Arabian Religion,” Britannica, britannica.com/topic/Arabian-religion.

10. “The Goddesses of Pre-Islamic Arabia (Al-Lāt, Al-‘Uzzā, Manāt),” Academia.edu.

11. “The Pagan Origin of the Word ‘Allah,’” bible.ca/islam.

12. “Judaism in Pre-Islamic Arabia,” Cambridge Core, cambridge.org.

13. “The History and Significance of the Meccan Hajj: From Pre-Islam to the Present,” Leiden University Scholarly Publications.

14. “Al-gharānīq al-‘ulā,” Sūrat al-Najm 53:19–20. Ibn Ishaq, Sīrat Rasūl Allāh; al-Tabari, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk (vol. VI, 107–112); cited via al-Waqidi. Related narrations on the mass prostration appear in Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 2, Book 19, Hadith 176–177; Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 385).

15. “Kulayb b. Rabīʿa,” Encyclopaedia of Islam Online.

16. “Abū Ṭālib,” Encyclopaedia of Islam Online.

17. “The Constitution of Medina,” Oxford Bibliographies, oxfordbibliographies.com.

18. “Qiblah, Islamic Direction, Prayer, Kaaba,” Britannica, britannica.com/topic/qiblah.

19. “Sunnah | Definition, Significance, & Examples,” Britannica, britannica.com/topic/Sunnah.

20. “The Difference Between the Meccan and Medinan Surahs in the Qur’an,” meforum.org.

21. “Luther and the Jews: A Record of Oppression and Hatred,” Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, lcms.org.

22. Uri Rubin, “The Assassination of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf,” Oriens 32 (1990): 65–71.

23. “Antoine-Louis-Claude, Comte Destutt de Tracy,” Britannica.

24. “The Definition of a Political Ideology,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/ideology/.

25. Andrew Heywood, Politics, 4th ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 28–29, “Concept: Ideology.” Defines ideology as “a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides a basis for organized political action,” specifying three features: diagnosis of the present order, a desired future, and a route to change.

26. “Dar al-Islam / Dar al-Harb,” Joukowsky Institute, Brown University.

27. In his commentary on Qur’an 9:29, al-Qurtubi (d. 1273 CE, a prominent Maliki scholar) emphasizes the broad, unqualified scope of the command to fight. altafsir.com.

28. Sharia: the body of Islamic law derived from the Qur’an, the hadith (traditions of Muhammad), and centuries of juristic interpretation. It covers both personal religious practice and social, political, and legal matters.

29. Sex, Wine, and Animals: The Caprices of the Caliphs,” raseef22.net.

30. “Religion and the State in Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah,” Academia.edu.

31. “The Turkish Republic of Kemal Atatürk,” Britannica, britannica.com/biography/Kemal-Ataturk.

    ---

Danny Burmawi is the Chief Executive of the Ideological Defense Institute.

ADAPTED FROM ISLAM, ISRAEL AND THE WEST: A FORMER MUSLIM’S ANALYSIS

The House of Islam: The Case Against the Islam/Islamism Divide is the inaugural issue of The Ideological Defense Institute Journal, a new publication dedicated to examining the doctrines, movements, and ideological conflicts shaping the future of the West.

The volume examines:

• The political and theological architecture of Islam

• The historical invention and modern function of the term “Islamism”

• Muhammad’s Medinan state as the enduring model of Islamic governance

• Sharia, jihad, apostasy, and the limits of internal reform

• Islamic antisemitism

• Muslim parallel societies and no-go zones in Europe

• The role of Western Muslim apologetics in preventing reform

• Policy recommendations for defending open societies

The issue also includes extensive interviews with Robert Spencer and Andrew G. Bostom, and a a point-counterpoint exchange with Dr. Daniel Pipes, presenting sharply different perspectives.

Written by scholars, former Muslims, policy analysts, and individuals who have lived under Islam, The House of Islam offers a direct and uncompromising investigation of one of the most consequential ideological questions of our time.

Download Here:

Read more