Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 04:40 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 02:45 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:39 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 05:47 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?

 (Read 5734 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     OP - December 04, 2008, 08:50 AM

    Dhimmitude is it really a part of Islam or just scaremongering?

    I have read a lot of articles by critics of Islam who bang on about Dhimmitude and the Jizya. How non muslims are supposed to be discriminated against in an Islamic state.

    Lots of people like Robert Spencer and other dubious characters cite the doctrine of Dhimmitude as proof positive that Islam is a totalitarian idea.

    If they are right about Dhimmitude then I have to say I agree with them that Islam is more than just an ultra conservative superstition and more like a fascistic ideology but how much of this is actually true?

    Hass you seem to know your scripture insideout. Is it true that Dhimmitude is an intrinsic part of Islam, is it traditional and authentic or merely an add on by the extreme Wahabis?

     parrot 
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #1 - December 04, 2008, 09:41 AM

    Hass you seem to know your scripture insideout. Is it true that Dhimmitude is an intrinsic part of Islam, is it traditional and authentic or merely an add on by the extreme Wahabis?

    It is true. 

    Two caveats however:
    Firstly, the exact rules were not the same everywhere - e.g. in some places one couldn't own property, had to wear identifying markers (e.g. yellow star of David), couldn't own a horse, couldn't bear witness against Muslims etc. - but in some places one could own property for example.

    What Robert Spencer etc. tend to glide over is the fact that other religions at the time (e.g. Christianity) tended to treat people worse.
    The only difference being that other religions died out or changed - unlike Islam.
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #2 - December 04, 2008, 10:21 AM

    It's true. wikipedia it. There are plenty of hadiths that support it, and ayat too.

    I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #3 - December 04, 2008, 02:34 PM

    Dhimmitude is it really a part of Islam or just scaremongering?


    Sadly this is part of Islamic ideology. I've done a entire chapter on Dhimmitude in the project I'm working on. I'll reproduce it here (in multiple posts because of length.)

    ---------------------------------------------

    Islam for Dhimmis

    One must go on jihad at least once a year. One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them or drown them. If Jews and Christians are enslaved, their marriage is revoked. One may cut down their trees and must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide.

    The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle. Jews, Christians, and Majins must pay the jizya and on payment must hang their head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits him on the protuberant bone beneath his ear. Their houses may not be higher than the Muslims'. The dhimmi may not ride a horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road and must wear an identifying patch, even women. Dhimmis must hold their tongue......


    Al-Ghazali (1058-1111)
    (The most celebrated scholar in the history of Islamic thought)


    As Islam grew, the governance of the ?conquered' needed to be formalised. In the Qur'an and Hadith it is clearly stated by Muhammad that those (Jews and Christians) conquered should submit to Islam, or pay the Jizya protection tax or be killed. For the Pagans (which included Hindus and Buddhists) however, the choice was reduced ? submit to Islam or be killed. In other words Islam will tolerate the continued practice of Judaism and Christianity within its state but certainly not any involving polytheism or idol worship. As this theory was not practical with the conquest of India, though 70 million Hindus were killed during Islamic rule there, Hindus by and large were allowed to continue practicing their religion once their Jizya tax was paid.

    A non-Muslim in an Islamic society is referred to as a dhimmi (pl. dimam) living in a state of dhimmitude. A dhimmi is basically a protected person by dint of the fact that he pays his poll tax with humiliation. In essence it is a form of extortion on non-Muslims to subvert them and a method of raising funds for Islamic expansionism.

    Should western societies start falling under the governance of Islamic rule as many experts are predicting is inevitable in the next 50-100 years, the life of non Muslims will be subjected to dhimmitude with strict rules and regulations, as has been prescribed throughout Islamic history.

    The basis for life as a dhimmi was formalised under the caliphate of Umar, who when Syria was captured, drew up a pact with their leader to determine how their Christian population would exist under Islamic rule. These rules and regulations, based on the Qur'an and Hadiths, have become the norm in such societies for the last fourteen hundred years and formalised in a document known as the Pact of Umar.

    Those who did not convert to Islam were forbidden from the following:
    - Building and repairing places of worship or residences for monks
    - Closing doors to Muslim passers-by and travellers requiring board and lodging for up to three days
    - Sheltering or hiding anyone considered to be an enemy of the Muslims
    - Teaching the Qur'an to non-Muslim children. (because it would be taught incorrectly)
    - Displaying their religion publicly
    - Converting anyone to their religion
    - Preventing anyone from converting to Islam
    - Sitting should a Muslim wish to sit
    - Trying to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their clothing or hairstyle
    - Mounting on saddles
    - Bearing or carrying any kind of arms
    - Engraving Arabic inscriptions on their seals
    - Selling fermented drinks
    - Displaying crosses or religious books in the roads or markets
    - Raising voices when following the dead
    - Burying their dead near the Muslims
    - Taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims
    - Building houses taller than those of the Muslims
    - Striking a Muslim

    Agreeing to these terms which are still relevant in today's Islamic societies, means that non-Muslims receive safety from the Muslims. Should there be any violations, the culprit forfeits protection as a dhimmi, and becomes liable to the penalties for contempt and sedition; in other words, death. Inability to pay the Jizya tax usually resulted in payment in the form of children, taken as slaves whose value would be deducted from the tax owed.

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #4 - December 04, 2008, 02:39 PM

    (...Cont'd)

    The concept of blood money was advocated by Muhammad in the Qur'an (4:92) and many places in the Hadiths (e.g. SB 71:665). That is, in the case of murder the perpetrator would pay the victim's family, money as compensation for the crime. To illustrate what life is worth in Islamic states, based on blood money, a review of compensation classified by religion and gender in Saudi Arabia, reveals the following disproportionate figures:
    - Muslim man        100,000 riyals
    - Muslim woman       50,000 riyals
    - Christian man      50,000 riyals
    - Christian woman    25,000 riyals
    - Hindu man           6,666 riyals
    - Hindu woman         3,333 riyals

    So even today in the 21st century we have as a result of Islamic teachings, the devaluation of human life based on religion and gender. We have a society where a Muslim man is worth twice as much as a Muslim woman; he is worth 2,900% more than a Hindu woman, 300% more than a Christian woman and 1,400% more than a Hindu man.

    As a dhimmi or even a Muslim woman under Islamic rule, you are basically a second/third/fourth class citizen. Muslim nations cannot accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because much of it conflicts with their ideology of subjugation of non-Muslims and viewing all other nations as dar-ul-harb, awaiting conquest and conversion.

    But why should there be a need to treat non-Muslims as lower class citizens in an Islamic state? Do the scriptures indicate that those who do not accept Islam are not on an equal footing with those that do? The Qur'an itself is very informative regarding the nature of disbelievers and how they are to be treated.

    Allah says in Q 8:55 that, Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve. Essentially Allah divides mankind in two groups placing the non believers in a position lower than even the vilest of animals. Muslims consider the pig to be a despicable animal and their God places those who do not accept him even beneath such a creature. What equal opportunity could possibly afford a non-believer in an Islamic society?

    In Q25:44 we are told by Allah that, They are but as the cattle - nay, but they are farther astray? Non-Muslims are even more astray in life than cattle.

    In many verses persons not accepting Muhammad's revelation are referred to as deaf, dumb and blind, Q6:39, Q2:171, Q2:18. In Verse Q 7:177 they are labelled as evil, Evil as an example are the folk who denied Our revelations.

    In Q7.179 Allah says those who disbelieved were created for hell. Therefore their destination already seems pre-determined at the time of their birth. Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle, nay more misguided: for they are heedless of warning. Such men are more foolish than even cattle.

    Staying with the theme of animal analogies, Muhammad continues his tirades against the dhimmis by referring to them as dogs, Q7:176 His likeness is as the likeness of a dog: if thou attack him or leave him he pants with his tongue out. Such is the likeness of the people who deny Our revelations.

    In Qur'an 2:65 Muhammad states that because the Jews broke the Sabbath, Allah transformed them into apes and pigs. This punishment is again reiterated in Q5:60 where we read, those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil? Here Allah transforms those whom he curses into apes and pigs. Verse 2:88 informs us of whom Allah curses; Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Basically Allah curses everyone not obedient to him even those who use false hair SB 60:409. Those who partake in things forbidden by Allah are also subject to transformation into apes, Q7:166 So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed! In SB 54:524 Muhammad informs us that, A group of Israelites (Jews) were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But they were cursed and changed into rats. Essentially, once you are not a Muslim you are likely to be cursed and subsequently converted to some form of animal.

    Idolaters, presumably because they constantly likened to pigs, rats and apes, cannot approach the sacred mosque because they are impure or dirty. Q9:28 The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship.


    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #5 - December 04, 2008, 02:42 PM

    (...Cont'd)

    Dhimmis in an Islamic nation must be treated harshly because they are destined for hell. In Qur'an 9:73 Allah tells us, Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell.

    Allah goes on to inform the Muslims in his Qur'an that the non-Muslims are unintelligent and should be fought against even if the Muslims are outnumbered, Q8:65 Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because disbelievers are a folk without intelligence. What equality can there possibly be for dhimmis if they are considered as being dummies (without intelligence) by Allah?

    Those who do not accept Islam are covered in a perpetual state of darkness and Allah shines no light on them. Q24:40 The Unbelievers' state is as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.

    Furthermore the non-Muslim who do not remember Allah are each assigned a devil as a companion, solely for the purpose of leading them astray. Qur'an 43:36-7 provide the details, And he whose sight is dim to the remembrance of Allah, We assign unto him a devil who become his comrade who hinder him from the path. Basically each and every non-Muslim is walking around with a devil as a friend continuously being diverted from the right path. No Muslim, knowing the true devil infested nature of disbelievers or dhimmis, could possibly befriend, employ or place in a position of authority any one of them.

    In fact Allah in numerous places throughout the Qur'an exhorts the Muslims to not take friends from among the disbelievers. A few of these are:
    - Q3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends
    - Q3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for friends non-Muslims
    - Q4:89 So choose not friends from the unbelievers
    - Q4:144 O believers! Choose not disbelievers for friends
    - Q5:51 Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends

    Muhammad claims that the disbelievers' ears, eyes and heart were not receptive to his message therefore he destroyed their townships to teach them a lesson regarding the superiority of his revelation.

    Q 46:26-7 Their ears and eyes and hearts availed them naught since they denied the revelations of Allah; and what they used to mock befell them. And verily We have destroyed townships and displayed for them Our revelation.

    The Qur'an clearly reveals that the conquered dhimmis had Muhammad's revelations forced onto them because they did not open their hearts (yes, no brains required) to Allah's message. Either they accepted Islam or lived as dhimmis - subdued, paying the extortion tax or choosing death.

    The equality of all human beings regardless of race, religion or ability is a given in any civilised community. However in a society under Qur'anic decree, this is not so. The verses above clearly indicate that. non-Muslims are the lowest and vilest of all creatures, who are deaf, dumb and blind. But there are some verses that directly indicate their inequality.

    In Qur'an verse 6:49 Allah says, But as for those who deny Our revelations, torment will afflict them... Say to the disbelievers: Are the blind man and the seer equal? Here Muhammad is asking, are the disbelievers who will taste the rewards of torment, equal with those who belief. He uses the analogy of a blind person to insinuate that disbelievers are blind but believers can see, hence they are not equal. Even more pointedly though, for Allah to consider the blind person less equal as a human, is sadly, very short sighted.

    Are the believers and non-believers alike? Muhammad asks, Q28:61, Are these two alike? One to whom We have made a goodly promise, and one to who on the Day of Judgment is brought for punishment? Again Muhammad suggests, by way of a rhetorical question, that believers are not comparable to the unbelievers who will be punished on judgment day.

    In verse Q38:28 we have Muhammad again asking a sly question as to the similarity of treatment deserved by those who believe compared with those who do not. Shall We treat those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, the same as those who do mischief on earth? Shall We treat those who guard against evil, the same as those who turn aside from the right? We know very well that the disbelievers turn away from the supposed right path and also cause mischief in the land. Therefore shall the disbelievers be treated similarly to the believers? The answer from the Qur'an is clearly, no.

    The talk of Islam ruling peaceably and living side by side with non-Muslims throughout its history is nonsensical. Only if the conquered nation subjected itself to suppressive laws and payment of Jizya with humiliation or converted to Islam, could there possibly have been any form of peace in an Islamic society.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #6 - December 04, 2008, 04:36 PM

    Hass you seem to know your scripture insideout. Is it true that Dhimmitude is an intrinsic part of Islam, is it traditional and authentic or merely an add on by the extreme Wahabis?

    It is true. 

    Two caveats however:
    Firstly, the exact rules were not the same everywhere - e.g. in some places one couldn't own property, had to wear identifying markers (e.g. yellow star of David), couldn't own a horse, couldn't bear witness against Muslims etc. - but in some places one could own property for example.

    What Robert Spencer etc. tend to glide over is the fact that other religions at the time (e.g. Christianity) tended to treat people worse.
    The only difference being that other religions died out or changed - unlike Islam.


    Brucepig, I don't think I need to add much to what hupla just said above - apart from the fact that the rules surrounding the treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic State is largely defined by Sunnah - not the Qur'an - and so most Muslims today would see it as very much open to interpretation - and some would reject it entirely. Few Muslims would believe such things should be implemented as they were at the time of the prophet or during the Middle Ages. Only the most hard-line of the literalists and fundamentalists such as the Salafis/Taliban types would.



  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #7 - December 04, 2008, 05:59 PM

    Quote
    Brucepig, I don't think I need to add much to what hupla just said above - apart from the fact that the rules surrounding the treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic State is largely defined by Sunnah - not the Qur'an - and so most Muslims today would see it as very much open to interpretation - and some would reject it entirely. Few Muslims would believe such things should be implemented as they were at the time of the prophet or during the Middle Ages. Only the most hard-line of the literalists and fundamentalists such as the Salafis/Taliban types would.


    So Spencer and co are right but it's not in the Koran so moderates have a get out clause of sorts?

    When you say the Sunnah do you mean Hadiths or is it actually in the Koran? Yes AGhazali you give Koranic quotes that advise discrimination and separatism but is that the state institutionalised discrimination of dhimmitude. As far as I know Judaism has similar separatist talk in it's holy books but it's not a fascistic state ideology just some old bollox open to interpratation. 

    If it's not in the Koran I can see how it could be bypassed by the reform minded Muslims but if it is in the Koran maybe the more vocal opposition to Islam is warranted.

    I'm still trying to make up my mind if the militant vocal opposition to Islam is actually warranted.

    I don't mean the BNP type of opposition, I mean the Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins opposition.

    They are very much of the opinion that Islam is at it's root an intrinsically militant, imperialistic, totalitarian and dangerous ideology that needs to be beaten in a war of ideas through debate, conversational intolerance and ridicule where necessary. 

    I dislike Islam like I dislike Christianity as in I hate the fact that people get to browbeat the public with their superstition and the rules of engagement mean that we are not allowed to tell them what we think. 

    As you say in your vids Hass Islam is not going away but if Dhimmitude is really a traditional part of Islam then the more militant critics have a valid point.

    I'm of a mind that the more we all speak out about  bad ideas the less they are acceptable and the more the reformists are spurred on to get the reforms through but it is difficult when Islam is an identity as well as an ideology because vocal opposition to Islamic ideas becomes an attack on Muslims in the minds of the Muslim community. Catch 22

    Oh the confusion!!!

     parrot Huh? Huh?
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #8 - December 04, 2008, 06:06 PM

    Thank you Ghazali, I was looking for the Umar's laws for dhimmitude.

    Hello Bruce,

    Of couse everything Ghazali stated could be swiped under the rug of history or under the rug of some local Saudi custom law that is not representative of (True Islam (tm))

    So I would like to relate what A.Ghazali stated compared to what we have today on the Street:

    Here are the laws of Umar, the Second Khalif and One of the most influencial muslims:

    The basis for life as a dhimmi was formalised under the caliphate of Umar, who when Syria was captured, drew up a pact with their leader to determine how their Christian population would exist under Islamic rule. These rules and regulations, based on the Qur'an and Hadiths, have become the norm in such societies for the last fourteen hundred years and formalised in a document known as the Pact of Umar.

    Those who did not convert to Islam were forbidden from the following:

    - Building and repairing places of worship or residences for monks
    Today in Egypt, you can not repair a church without an approval from hosni mubarak, the President. Any violators will and do get their repairs torn down + further damages. This often happens even with the signed approval.


    - Closing doors to Muslim passers-by and travellers requiring board and lodging for up to three days
    No longer present or relevant

    - Sheltering or hiding anyone considered to be an enemy of the Muslims
    Happens in reverse, which is much worse. Anyone muslims kidnap to convert, are hidden and sheltered form the dhimmis.

    - Teaching the Qur'an to non-Muslim children. (because it would be taught incorrectly)
    No longer occurs. But the reverse does: non muslims are forced to memorize koran else they do not pass the national exams.

    - Displaying their religion publicly
    No law against it. However there is a lot of friction about displaying religious symbols on both sides. A christian will put a piccture of a fish, a muslim will put a shark with the shahada written on the shark.

    - Converting anyone to their religion
    You will be put in a jail and beaten up and raped. Your kids will be taken away from you. Unless ou are filthy rich to hire your own security before you apostate.

    - Preventing anyone from converting to Islam
    Same as above.


    - Sitting should a Muslim wish to sit
    Interpreted as preventing a muslim from converting a location where he prayed, to a mosque. Still very active today.

    - Trying to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their clothing or hairstyle
    The reverse is applied today.

    - Mounting on saddles
    - Bearing or carrying any kind of arms
    No Christian in Egypt is allowed an arms license today. The fundies know that and put that in consideration on their way to harrass/attack a christian gathering.

    - Engraving Arabic inscriptions on their seals
    irrelevant today.

    - Selling fermented drinks
    Very strong restrictions still in place. And the hypocrite pig used to allow certain types of alcohol depending how they were distilled and what fruits were used to ferment.

    - Displaying crosses or religious books in the roads or markets
    Those will be torn down and erased if within arms reach.

    - Raising voices when following the dead
    - Burying their dead near the Muslims
    True. Except during the 1967 & 1973 wars, soldiers were buried together, that generation also did not care about islam as much. That changed today.

    - Taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims
    - Building houses taller than those of the Muslims
    - Striking a Muslim
    In any dispute or even if you are just going to renew your license, if you have 'Christian' written on your national licenese, you will be 'served' last and/or harshest.

    So unfortunately Bruce, the old, archais, and often local dhimmi rules Ghazali came up with, are today, still too actively followed in our present dhimmi  society.


    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #9 - December 04, 2008, 06:17 PM

    Agreed with Hassan that the treatment of Dhimmis is also largely based on Sunna. However I need to add the following conditions:

    First - Koran is 6200+ verses with a large amount of repetition and superfluous text. So 'most' of islam is larely based on hadith and sunna. Koran is just not enough to create a religion.

    Second - Koran does not contain *any* concepts or threads of ideas, that a theocratic lawyer can pick from the koran, in favor of a dhimmi. That is a very serious statement I am making. So I am going to rewrite it: The best theocratic lawyer can not build a case from the koran against the sunna used against dhimmis. The koran is just not built this way.

    Any 'decent' text that a competent lawyer can pick from  the koran in favor of a dhimmi, can be countered by any run of the mill imam punk who can read Arabic. the *only* way a rule against dhimmi can be countered is if, the lawyer, the mosque imam punk, and the judge, all agree that the koran is wrong or incomplete.



    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #10 - December 04, 2008, 06:28 PM

    Ahhh Mr Baal the famous Pact Of Umar. A dictator from a bygone era. No doubt a Saddam of his time.

    Yes yes it's all horribly inhuman but it's not in the Koran thank Buddha.

    The thing is with Islam is by Western standards even moderate Muslims are extreme as in the believe that the Koran is the perfect word of god. So if Dhimmitude isn't actually in the Koran it can be given short shrift but if it is it's eternal.
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #11 - December 04, 2008, 06:40 PM

    When you say the Sunnah do you mean Hadiths or is it actually in the Koran? Yes AGhazali you give Koranic quotes that advise discrimination and separatism but is that the state institutionalised discrimination of dhimmitude. As far as I know Judaism has similar separatist talk in it's holy books but it's not a fascistic state ideology just some old bollox open to interpratation. 

    No modern Judaism is "just some old bollox open to interpretation", but how it was meant to be interpreted was as a "fascistic state ideology" (though limited in geographical scope).  

    In this respect Islam is like Judaism was - though in my opinion, with more revulsion of the "outsiders" (goyim/kuffar) than Judaism.

    Judaism was forced to reform (in my opinion) by external social pressure - the diaspora and the fact that Jews lived for hundreds/thousands of years as the oppressee rather than the oppressor.  That level of pressure does not exist on Islam - (except in parts - e.g. Russia), and proper Islam is able to reassert itself over the reformed bit given the chance.

    In my opinion, in the same way that it would not be possible to literally follow the Torah without setting up a discriminatory State against non-Jews, the same applies with the Qur'an.  However, no state (not even Israel) pays that much attention to the Torah, whereas many pay that much attention to the Qur'an .

    Basically Spencer (etc.) is correct to point to dhimmitude as a real and actual problem - but it is presented in a simplified fashion.
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #12 - December 04, 2008, 06:44 PM

    So if Dhimmitude isn't actually in the Koran it can be given short shrift but if it is it's eternal.

    That's like saying that because Mein Kampf doesn't go into details about the Final Solution, that the anti-Semitism there can be "given short shrift".  I'd say that the Final Solution is the logical end point of the anti-Semitism contained therein - in the same way as Dhimmitude is the end point of following Qur'anic exhortations.
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #13 - December 04, 2008, 06:50 PM

    When you say the Sunnah do you mean Hadiths or is it actually in the Koran? Yes AGhazali you give Koranic quotes that advise discrimination and separatism but is that the state institutionalised discrimination of dhimmitude. As far as I know Judaism has similar separatist talk in it's holy books but it's not a fascistic state ideology just some old bollox open to interpratation. 

    No modern Judaism is "just some old bollox open to interpretation", but how it was meant to be interpreted was as a "fascistic state ideology" (though limited in geographical scope).  

    In this respect Islam is like Judaism was - though in my opinion, with more revulsion of the "outsiders" (goyim/kuffar) than Judaism.

    Judaism was forced to reform (in my opinion) by external social pressure - the diaspora and the fact that Jews lived for hundreds/thousands of years as the oppressee rather than the oppressor.  That level of pressure does not exist on Islam - (except in parts - e.g. Russia), and proper Islam is able to reassert itself over the reformed bit given the chance.

    In my opinion, in the same way that it would not be possible to literally follow the Torah without setting up a discriminatory State against non-Jews, the same applies with the Qur'an.  However, no state (not even Israel) pays that much attention to the Torah, whereas many pay that much attention to the Qur'an .

    Basically Spencer (etc.) is correct to point to dhimmitude as a real and actual problem - but it is presented in a simplified fashion.



    Modernity, war and thousands of years of torture moderated Christianity and Judaism.

    Lets hope it wont be the same story all over again. Well lets hope modernity wins and war/torture is left on the shelf but judging by Iraq, Mumbai, 911, 7/7 etc etc it seems history repeats.
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #14 - December 04, 2008, 07:33 PM

    I'm of a mind that the more we all speak out about  bad ideas the less they are acceptable and the more the reformists are spurred on to get the reforms through


    I think that is very true.
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #15 - December 04, 2008, 08:29 PM

    Ahhh Mr Baal the famous Pact Of Umar. A dictator from a bygone era. No doubt a Saddam of his time.

    Yes yes it's all horribly inhuman but it's not in the Koran thank Buddha.

    The thing is with Islam is by Western standards even moderate Muslims are extreme as in the believe that the Koran is the perfect word of god. So if Dhimmitude isn't actually in the Koran it can be given short shrift but if it is it's eternal.

    Hello Bruce,

    Well, I just associated the pact of Umar with current present practice.

    I also stated that the koran is not opposed to the pact of Umar. As in, the koran can not abrogate the pact of Umar.

    Now to the worst point: That if you are to come up with laws based on koran, you will come up with a set of laws similar to Umar's laws.

    We can not ignore that Umar was One of the writers of the Koran. It is his book. It is more his book then it is Muhammad's book. Umar did not come up with the laws from thin air. At best, he came up with the koran from thin air. But it is an impossibility to locate a single law Umar made that contradicts koran and is not inspired from his own book.

    Now, you as a dhimmi, how will you live your life if the majority of your society is not allowed to accept you as a friend or councel (as per koran)?

    If only your kids are allows to convert to the True Deen (no compulsion), but not the other way around?

    If you, the minority, are supposed to pay some resource (Jizya), to the majority, more then them for the purpose of reducing you in humiliation? According to sunna , you pay this for protection (Racket), according to koran, you only pay this out of humiliation (Ethnic Cleansing).

    If many parts of the koran, can not be explained without a reference to hadith & sunna? How do you now intend to activate the koran alone without its supporting reference books?

    Many points to consider Bruce, beside just wishing for the koran to be a good and innocent book.

    I am going to appeal to our common leftist-leaning roots and remind you that people are inherently good using whatever tools they have available. It is not the people that corrupt the doctrine. It is the doctrine of people from the 7th century, that corrupts people today.


    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #16 - December 06, 2008, 09:54 PM

    I saw a prog by Rod Liddell, I think it was, the other day on Al Andalus. He reckoned, but didn't give his sources, that Muslims could own christian or jewish slaves, jews could own only christian or jewish slaves and christians could own only jewish or christian slaves.
    I have a question: If a christian or jewish slave, owned by a muslim, wanted to convert to islam, would that slave have been freed? The inference is of course, could a muslim afford to lose slaves through conversion or was there some official mechanism whereby slaves were given the withwhereal to buy their freedom if they converted.
    Comments please.

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #17 - December 07, 2008, 01:49 AM

    A counterpoint to India where muslims 'didn't bother' was North Africa where the Almohad Dynasty forcibly converted Christians and Jews.

    I saw a prog by Rod Liddell, I think it was, the other day on Al Andalus. He reckoned, but didn't give his sources, that Muslims could own christian or jewish slaves, jews could own only christian or jewish slaves and christians could own only jewish or christian slaves.
    I have a question: If a christian or jewish slave, owned by a muslim, wanted to convert to islam, would that slave have been freed? The inference is of course, could a muslim afford to lose slaves through conversion or was there some official mechanism whereby slaves were given the withwhereal to buy their freedom if they converted.
    Comments please.


    Conversion didn't = being freed, whether dhimmi or not.

    Slaves could usually buy their freedom.

    In other words Dhimmitude didn't affect this much.

    "...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
  • Dhimmitude fact or fiction?
     Reply #18 - September 16, 2014, 01:49 PM

     pccoffee

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »