Dar al-Hotel California

Some time back, I read of a purported tenet in Islam that asserts that any land that has once been under Muslim rule is forever after deemed part of Islam, no matter if it was later conquered (or liberated, depending on your point of view) by non-Muslims, and no matter if no Muslims live there. While I see several rejections of this on line, I do find it interesting in its parallels with Sharia law's rules regarding apostasy. Which are: you can't leave.

[I]t is legally impossible to leave Islam in all Middle Eastern countries, it is considered to be a punishable crime under Sharia law, and the death penalty can be applied in a handful of countries like Saudi-Arabia or Iran.

While non-Muslims are tolerated in Muslim society (they are called Dhimmis and are subject to a tax called Jizya), apostates (i.e. people who renounce a religious belief) are considered criminals.

The land-aspect version of this "one-way street" falls under the sobriquet 'Dar al-Islam.' Literally, "house of Islam." If we are to believe the tenet I mention at the top of the article, then Spain and Portugal, which were part of the 9th century Islamic Caliphate, can be claimed by modern-day Islamists. As can all land once part of the Ottoman Empire, including such very non-Muslim countries as, Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia, North Macedonia,Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine, and parts of Russia.

The residents of those nations aren't about to say "hey, you've got this wacky idea, but since we are considerate sorts who believe in cultural relativism, we'll respect your traditions and grant you dominion over our lands."

And no one other than an Islamist would expect them to.

Except in the case of Israel, of course. That tiny sliver of desert land in a giant swathe of present-day Muslim nations is considered such a gross violation of Dar al-Islam that the West's self-styled Best-and Brightest are outraged to the point of overt Jew-hatred. Which, if we are to be honest, is the source of that outrage, not the result.

Under stress, people's true colors shine through. The 10/7 massacre has revealed a deep and virulent vein of antisemitism in the folks who have spent the past couple decades insisting they are the defenders of the oppressed. I dare you to name a people in history with a longer and more widespread history of oppression than the Jews. Hatred of Jews and blaming them for all that's wrong in their societies is core curriculum for Middle Eastern and North African muslims, inculcated from birth, but what excuse do rich Western progressives have? They really should know better.

One-way religion and one-way land ownership. A chunk of lyrics from the Eagles' classic Hotel California came unbidden to my forebrain as I ideated this blog post.

We are all just prisoners here
Of our own device
And in the master's chambers
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives
But they just can't kill the beast
Last thing I remember
I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man
"We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave!"

There's a whole lot of metaphor there in looking at Islamic tenets. For another correlation, consider how Egypt and Jordan have rejected the notion of receiving Palestinian refugees from Gaza.

Humans are social creatures. This is an evolutionary adaptation, and it has resulted in too many examples and categories of societal sorting to count. These sortings range in size from tiny groups to nations of a billion or more. The degree of liberty found in these varies widely. In today's context, one aspect of liberty comes to mind:

The right of departure.

Where voluntary departure from a social group is restricted or hindered (via overt or "soft" forms of pressure), liberty suffers. Groups that have to rely on voluntary membership are far more apt to respect their members than groups whose members are locked in. We criticize homeowners' associations for their intrusive and coercive behaviors, we lament cults and sects that "trap" members by threatening social shunning for anyone who dares to leave, and we routinely point out that Soviet-era socialism was "so good" that it would shoot at people who tried to leave without permission. A society where your continued adherence to the state religion is legally codified isn't one that's apt to prioritize individual liberty or human rights.

This analysis by Cato affirms that conclusion, with personal freedom in Muslim countries averaging far lower than in Europe or North America, and well below the world average.

It's safe to conclude that the one-way-street aspect of Islam isn't particularly conducive to fostering individual liberty, to put it mildly. That this also suffuses attitudes regarding land and national borders is a related criticism and concurrent problem. This means that compromise with such cultures will always be a temporary accommodation.

It also means that Islamists that claim to support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian matter should land very low on the trust rankings. It assures that, barring a total global collapse of Islamism in favor of a moderate, Westernized form (as we'd seen in some places in the Middle East prior to the rise of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and the 1979 revolution in Iran), eternal, armed vigilance is the only choice Israel has. Ditto for the West.

Another's religious or political beliefs are of no matter to me, as long as those beliefs don't prompt infringement of individuals' rights. Your choice of religion, big or small, is entirely up to you, and within the tenets of liberty. It's when you seek to impose your views, via coercion of some sort, that you lose me. Restricting another's right to leave your religion, or your group, or your community, or your nation, is anathema to liberty, and will never get my support or advocacy.