The Theology of Domination

I wrote recently that the Judeo-Christian moral code is centered on love. This is not a sentimental observation. It is grounded in Scripture. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He gave two answers: love God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36–40). The second answer was not a hedge. It was a reinforcement of the first. In Christianity, love is the full expression of both obedience and righteousness.

I also wrote that the Islamic moral code, which is based not on love but on submission to the will of Allah, functions as an inversion of the Judeo-Christian moral code.

There are times when you understand something intellectually, but do not have an emotional connection to that knowledge. Children, for example, often realize their parents are imperfect at a very young age, but do not feel the emotional weight of that knowledge until adolescence. It is in that moment, the one where the heart understands as well, that we begin to rebel against our parents.

It is only when we emotionally connect to the fact that we don’t know everything either, that our rebellion ends.

When I wrote that essay for White Rose Magazine, I knew I was telling the truth. I suspect that Islamic scholars, reading it from within their own framework, would find little to disagree with on factual grounds. From a Christian point of view the moral architecture of Islam is reversed, and I laid that out plainly. The point I think an Islamic scholar would object to is not the structure of the argument, but the judgment I applied to it. What Islam calls righteousness, I called evil. That is what would offend them, and not because it is inaccurate, but because they believe the West is evil precisely for refusing to invert our morality in the same way.

I understood that intellectually, but I did not connect emotionally to it until White Rose Magazine released the entire issue and I began reading the contributions of others.

In “The Living Legacy of Jihad Slavery,” by Dr. Andrew G. Bostom, I came across a quote from Patricia Crone that stopped me cold:

Captives might also be given the choice between Islam and death, or they might pronounce the confession of faith of their own accord to avoid execution: jurists ruled that their change of status was to be accepted even though they had only converted out of fear.

As soon as I read that, I thought, “Of course Islam views conversion by fear as valid. A person who submits to Islam out of terror is demonstrating a more complete and immediate form of submission than someone who arrives at faith through conviction. Islam is not primarily concerned with belief so much as with submission.”

This led to a deeper realization: Islam does not glorify submission in the way Westerners might assume; and, in fact, it is not the submission itself that is glorified. In many cases, such as rape, the shame falls not on the offender, but on the victim. 

Islam glorifies not submission itself (as I think we assume), but the power to compel submission.

The virtue lies not in being the one who yields, but in being the one who forces others to yield.

This becomes clear when you look at how Islamic law treats dhimmis, a term for non-Muslims living under Muslim rule who are allowed to practice their religion only after paying a special tax. The jizya, or poll tax, is extracted in a manner designed to humiliate. The Qur’an commands that it be taken while the dhimmi feels “subdued” (9:29). Submission in this context is not honored. It is degraded. The very act of being allowed to survive is conditional upon accepting a visibly inferior position in society.

Slavery under Islam follows the same pattern. A slave is not treated as morally elevated by her obedience. She is not praised for patience or humility. She is a tool. Her value is in her function as a symbol of dominance. The master is not righteous because he is kind. He is righteous because he has the authority to command. If the slave is a woman, her body may be used sexually without consent, as long as she is legally classified as ma malakat aymanukum, a Qur’anic term meaning “those whom your right hands possess,” referring to non-Muslim women taken as spoils of war and subject to sexual ownership (see 4:24).

This is a legal category for captives taken in war, and consent is not required from such a woman. Her pain is not a concern. Her submission is the only thing that matters, and, in that submission, the dominant party sees confirmation of divine order.

This same moral framework applies even within Islamic societies when the victim is a Muslim woman. If she is raped, the burden is placed on her to prove that she did not invite the act. If she violated any social code, by walking alone, by going out uncovered, or by leaving home without permission, her assault is often interpreted as a form of moral correction. She is made to submit, not only through the physical violation itself, but through public shame and legal impotence. The man, on the other hand, often faces no consequence at all, especially if he continues to present the outward signs of piety.

Even the historical abuse of boys fits into this same moral structure. While homosexual acts are officially condemned in Islamic law, the rape of young boys, particularly in military or courtly contexts, has appeared throughout Islamic history. In these cases, shame is attached to the boy, not the man. The boy is seen as having been feminized. The act is not regarded as immoral because of what it is, but because of the social role it assigns. Again, the problem is not the violation, but the submission, and, in a world where submission is degradation, the one who forces it is morally ascendant.

All of this reveals something that goes beyond contradiction. It reveals a system where submission is not a virtue for all people, but a condition imposed on others to reinforce the power of those at the top. Islam claims to be a religion of submission, but it never honors those who submit. It only honors those who rule.

Islam’s exaltation of dominance means that submission by fear and force is not just tolerated. It is often preferred over submission by conviction.

We in the West assume that submission must be noble, because, in our worldview, voluntary humility is a sign of moral strength; but, in Islam, those who submit are not celebrated. They are reminded constantly of their inferiority. The one who holds power is the one who is praised, be that Allah, a mullah (a Muslim cleric), or a rapist.

This may help explain why gang rape has been used by some Muslim men in Europe as a means of domination. The repeated violation is not just about lust. It is about forcing submission, both physical and spiritual. The repeated violations are meant to drive her deeper into submission.

Rape, slavery, conquest, and coercion cannot possibly be viewed as moral aberrations in Islam, because, in the core of the religious moral code, they are not stains on an otherwise virtuous system, but expressions of the system working as intended. When submission is extracted by force, and when those who submit are reminded of their lowly station, the social order is, in fact, affirmed.

It is truly the only logical outcome possible in a moral system where obedience is placed above dignity, and where power is exalted above love. This inversion creates a theology in which domination becomes virtue, and in which the suffering of others becomes evidence of divine approval. It dehumanizes the weak while absolving the strong, making hierarchy sacred and cruelty righteous.

Islam is not a religion of humility. It is a religion of enforced order. Once you recognize that, every other contradiction begins to make perfect sense.

These are not perversions of the faith. They are the mechanisms by which it enforces its moral order, and by which it sustains its claim to righteousness through domination.

And once you connect emotionally to this fact, the true horror of this religion which is not a religion suddenly comes fully into view.