All posts by sheikyermami

Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement

* The ruling socialist elites in the UK and other European nations are in the process of replacing their native population with a Muhammedan proletariat. The ever vigilant Fjordman suggests that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement.


* Brussels Journal:

An American friend of mine has proposed that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement. I have hesitated with supporting this because it sounded a bit too extreme. However, in more and more European cities, the native population is being pushed out of their own neighborhoods by immigrant gangs. The natives receive little or no aid from their authorities, sometimes blatant hostility, when faced with immigrant violence. In an age where the global population increases with billions of people in a few decades, it is entirely plausible, indeed likely, that the West could soon become demographically overwhelmed. Not few of our intellectuals seem to derive pleasure from this thought.

Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia has documented how the European Union is actively allowing Muslims to colonize European countries. The next time EU leaders complain about China’s treatment of minorities, I suggest the Chinese answer the following: “Yes, we represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to subduing the indigenous people of Tibet, but you represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to displacing the indigenous peoples of an entire continent.” There is no love lost between me and the Chinese Communist Party, an organization responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its citizens, but even Chinese authorities do not actively seek to displace their own people with violent Muslims. European authorities do.

In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn’t open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it’s one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as “racism and hate speech.” To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it’s as if we don’t even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having “democratic” governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why?


* Update:

Ireland and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Seeing that the latest genetic research suggests that today’s ethnic Irish (and British) are the descendants of the people who arrived in Ireland (and Britain) after the end of the last Ice Age (around 16,000 years ago) with only a little admixture with later groups (i.e. Vikings and Normans) . . .

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

More from Hibernia Girl

The Dhimmi, Dhimmitude & the Jiziyah


Al-Zamakhshari, a Mu’tazili author of one of the standard commentaries on the Qur’an,[34] said that “the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say “Pay the Jizyah!” and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck.”[34]

Islamintern”—brings to mind a remarkably candid assessment by the 18th century Moroccan Sufi “master” Ibn Ajibah (d. 1809) from his Koranic commentary, whose work I was made aware of by my colleague, Dr. Mark Durie.

Describing unabashedly the purpose of the Koranic poll tax (as per Koran 9:29) of submission for non-Muslims brought under Islamic hegemony by jihad, Ibn Ajibah makes clear the ultimate goal of its imposition was to achieve what he called the death of the “soul”, through the dhimmi’s execution of their own humanity:

[The dhimmi] is commanded to put his soul, good fortune and desires to death. Above all he should kill the love of life, leadership and honor. [The dhimmi] is to invert the longings of his soul, he is to load it down more heavily than it can bear until it is completely submissive. Thereafter nothing will be unbearable for him. He will be indifferent to subjugation or might. Poverty and wealth will be the same to him; praise and insult will be the same; preventing and yielding will be the same; lost and found will be the same. Then, when all things are the same, it [the soul] will be submissive and yield willingly what it should give. [Tafsir ibn ‘Ajibah. Commentary on Q9:29. Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn `Ajibah]

* The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.–

Sufi saint Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624), letter #163

Islam Online: jizya is “fair”

The imposition of jizya upon non-Muslims is mandated by the Qur’an 9:29:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[16]

Wiki has some useful entries too

Spencer on Hot Air:

Ibn Kathir says that the dhimmis must be “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.” The seventh-century jurist Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab stated: “I prefer that the people of the dhimma become tired by paying the jizya since He says, ‘until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement.’” As-Suyuti elaborates that this verse “is used as a proof by those who say that it is taken in a humiliating way, and so the taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin.” He adds, however, that “this is rejected according to an-Nawawi who said, ‘This manner is invalid.’” Zamakhshari, however, agreed that the jizya should be collected “with belittlement and humiliation.”


There is a desire to equate Zakat with Jiziyah to emphasize the fairness of the Islamic fiscal system. The Muslims pay Zakat and the non-Muslims Jiziyah. But the analogy is fallacious. The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.
From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.

Note that both have jizya as double the rate of zakat, as per The Hedaya.

And of course the bottom line is that radical Muslims who are working to impose Sharia on Muslim and non-Muslim states, will endeavor also to reimpose the jizya. In the name of the equality of rights of all people, this must be resisted.”

* Here’s how the jiziyah really works:

In 1942 the “Varlik Vergisi” law imposed a wealth tax on property. The provisions of the law were enforced with exceptional zeal only against the non-Moslem minorities at confiscatory rates. Eg Greeks were taxed at 156 percent of annual income and Moslem Turks at 4.96 percent. The Varlik effectively deprived the community of its wealth with massive numbers of property and businesses being transferred to Moslem hands.

Another example:

On the twentieth of Maskaram Theodore and all his troops and officers [the Byzantines] set out and proceeded to the island of Cyprus, and abandoned the city of Alexandria. And thereupon ‘Amr the chief of the Moslem made his entry without effort into the city of Alexandria. And the inhabitants received him with respect; for they were in great tribulation and affliction… And ‘Amr became stronger every day in every field of his activity. And he exacted the taxes which had been determined upon, but he took none of the property of the churches, and he committed no act of spoliation or plunder, and he preserved them throughout all his days. … And he increased the taxes to the extent of twenty-two batr of gold till all the people hid themselves owing to the greatness of the tribulation, and could not find the wherewithal to pay…. And none could recount the mourning and lamentation which took place in that city: they even gave their children in exchange for the great sums which they had to pay monthly. And they had none to help them, and God destroyed their hopes, and delivered the Christians into the hands of their enemies. The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu Chapters CXX-CXXI


The position of Jews and Christian dhimmis in Al Andaluz, the Moorish paradise according to Ahmed ibn Said ibn Hazm (father of the ibn Hazm):
Non-payment of the Jiziya by a dhimmi made him liable to all the Islamic penalties for debtors who did not repay their creditors; the offender could be sold to slavery or even put to death. In addition, non-payment of the jiziya by one or several dhimmis – especially if it was fraudulent – allowed Muslim authority to put an end to the autonomy of the entire community to which the guilty party belonged.



* John Quincy Adams on Islam:

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, […..] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE…. Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant … While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

(Capitals are in the original — the boldfacing has been added for this blog post.)

The behavior of radical Islamist terrorists has nothing to do with Iraq or Israel. It’s been going on since the seventh century.


“I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.”

(c. 1790) By Alexis de Tocqueville.


Jihad, Jiziyah & Dhimmitude in India

India was dominated by the Hanafi and Shafi’ite schools through the 1000-year period of the brutal jihad conquests, colonization, and imposition of the Sharia on the Indian subcontinent. No Muslim school of jurisprudence ever fostered an “easy, open acceptance of non-Muslims.” All sanctioned jihad and jihad-imposed dhimmitude, with the greatest degradation to be imposed upon the idolatrous Hindus, Animists etc.
Indeed, it was by dint of their vast numbers alone that the Hindus were even granted dhimmi status, as they should have according to Islamic law simply been given the option of conversion or death, but this proved impractical (although their dhimmi status remained a point of contention amongst Muslim jurists for centuries as prominent Shafi’ites, including Sufis favored conversion or death). Sir Jadunath Sarkar, for example, a pre-eminent historian of Mughal India, wrote the following in 1920 regarding the particularly debasing imposition of the Koranic poll-tax (cf. Koran 9:29) upon the indigenous Hindus of the Indian subcontinent.

As the learned Qazi Mughis-ud-din declared, in accordance with the teachings of the books on Canon Law: ‘The Hindus are designated in the Law as ‘payers of tribute’ (kharaj-guzar); and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By these acts of degradation are shown the extreme obedience of the zimmi [dhimmi], the glorification of the true faith of Islam, and the abasement of false faiths. God himself orders them to be humiliated , (as He says, ‘till they pay jaziya) with the hand and are humbled…The Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive…No other religious authority except the great Imam (Hanifa) whose faith we follow, has sanctioned the imposition of jaziya on Hindus. According to all other theologians, the rule for Hindus is ‘Either death or Islam’.
The late (d. 2002) scholar K.S. Lal records this translation, ‘…and should the collector choose to spit into his mouth, opens the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it..’ Lal notes, further that , “Actual spitting in the mouth of the non-Muslims was not uncommon”. Lal cites a poem by Vijaya Gupta (1493-1519 C.E.), which includes the line, ‘The peons employed by the qazis tore away the sacred threads of the Brahmans and spat saliva in their mouths’.

*  Andrew Bostom comments on Tony Blankley’s “Journey Into Islam,”


Wolfgang Bruno: Islamic Dictionary for Infidels

Interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, Hassam El-Masalmeh from Palestinian Jihadist organization Hamas confirmed the organization’s plan to re-institute the humiliating jizya, a blood ransom poll-tax (based on Qur’an sura 9, verse 29), levied traditionally on non-Muslims vanquished by Jihad. Arabic lexicographer E.W. Lane, based on a careful analysis of the term, states that: “The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain.”

This subjugation of non-Muslims to religious apartheid and second class citizenship in their own country is part and parcel of sharia, Islamic law. And this option is only available to Christians and Jews, not Hindus, Buddhists or others, who have only the choice between embracing Islam or death. Muslims feel ”oppressed” when they can’t fully practice their religious laws in the West. But since these laws ultimately require the subjugation of non-Muslims, “freedom of religion” for Muslims essentially means the freedom to make others unfree.

According to Tibi, “world peace, the final stage of the da’wa (call to embrace Islam), is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is “temporary truce” (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of “temporary”).”

These words are mirrored in the ideas of many Islamic groups today. “[President] Bush says that we want to enslave people and oppress their freedom of speech,” says Abu Abdullah, a senior member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation. “But we want to free all people from being slaves of men and make them slaves of Allah.” “Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate – I would not say terrorize – the enemies of Islam,” says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist. “And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam,” he says, smiling. “This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light.”



A previous article (by Robert Spencer) on Jizyah and Zakat:

“I have often encountered, in person and on radio shows, Muslims who claim that the jizya, the special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, was actually less than zakat, the Muslim obligation of charitable giving. This is patently absurd on the face of it, of course, since innumerable respected historians (including A.S. Tritton, Maxime Rodinson, and Bat Ye’or) have noted that it was money from the dhimmis, not from Muslims, that financed the early Islamic empires; indeed, Muslims paid nothing at all into the state treasury in the days when there were large populations (i.e., in Egypt and Syria) of conquered dhimmi Christians. Rodinson even points out in his biography of Muhammad that at certain times conversions to Islam were forbidden, as they were destroying the tax base! If the jizya had really been less than zakat, human nature being what it is, we would have seen large-scale conversions of Muslims to Christianity in the great Islamic empires — but of course we don’t, because who would want to exchange the position of the dominator for that of the dominated?

Nevertheless, today people read propaganda like Edward Said instead of history like Bat Ye’or, Tritton, and Rodinson, so they may be misled by this that recently appeared at IslamOnline (thanks to Ali Dashti for the link):

Non-Muslims are called dhimmis and were required to pay a levy or jizya. The jizya was not paid as a bribe for practicing their faith, but rather as compensation for not serving in the army, protection for Crusading armies and tribal warfare. While most so-called journalists scream that the jizya is a tool of inequality, they fail to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay.

This assumes that jizya and zakat are equivalent, and other Muslims assert, as I have said, that the jizya is actually less than zakat. So let’s look at the record:

For non-Muslims in Muslim societies, there was not just jizya, but kharaj, the land tax. Tritton in The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects equates the two: “Hafs, another governor of Egypt, announced that all dhimmis who abandoned their religion would be free from kharaj, which is jizya” (pp. 35-6). It is important to remember the two names because while the jizya was generally set at a fixed amount by the jurists (although this was highly adjustable), the kharaj was another matter. In the Hedaya, an Islamic legal manual, in a discussion about the purchase of land by a dhimmi, it declares: “it is lawful to require twice as much of a Zimmee [dhimmi] as of a Mussulman [Muslim], whence it is that, if such an one were to come before the collector with merchandise, twice as much would be exacted of him as of a Mussulman” (Hedaya

Also Andrew Bostom has sent me these illuminating extracts:

The voluntary character of the zakat contribution as a religious duty is emphasized by Qudama in the beginning of Chapter Thirteen, where he states that Muslims are trusted with the declaration of what is due from them, in contradistinction to other taxes which are compulsory and pursuable. The Saudi law by charging Muslims with this religious tax is following the old precepts who lay down that the rate of the tax is fixed in accordance with the persons from whom it is collected, i.e., from a Merchant of a foreign country 10 per cent, from a merchant of an allied country 5 per cent, and from a Muslim 2.5 per cent.
That’s from A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation in Islam Volume II, Qudama b. Ja’far’s Kitab Al-Kharaj. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1965, p. 14.

And this:

There is a desire to equate Zakat with Jiziyah to emphasize the fairness of the Islamic fiscal system. The Muslims pay Zakat and the non-Muslims Jiziyah. But the analogy is fallacious. The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.
From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.

Note that both have jizya as double the rate of zakat, as per The Hedaya.

And of course the bottom line is that radical Muslims who are working to impose Sharia on Muslim and non-Muslim states, will endeavor also to reimpose the jizya. In the name of the equality of rights of all people, this must be resisted.”

[Posted by Robert at September 20, 2004]

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 12, 2008 11:49 AM

Two additional remarks. The payment of the jizyah was not only to collect revenue on which the Islamic state depended, but had to be made in conditions, as Lal says but that are not detailed in the quotation above, would demonstrate to one and all, Muslim and dhimmi alike, the inferior status of the dhimmi. The dhimmi was supposed to appear with the payment, and in many places he would be struck on the side of jaw, or otherwise. Not, that is, merely symbolically. In India where Hindus had to pay both zakat and jizya, one practice deserves mentioning (this may be in Lal, or on Sarkar, or elsewhere): the Hindu, treated as a kind of dhimmi even though, as a polytheist, he did not actually count as a member of the ahl al-Kitab or “people of the Book” (who, therefore, could be allowed to survive, and not convert, as long as they fully complied with their dhimmi status), would find that a Muslim would spit into his open mouth — quite a sign of his status.

There is something else. The payment either of jizyah, or the land-tax, kharaj, is only the best-known of the many disabilities, economic, political, and social, which dhimmis had to endure. Examples include the requirement that clothing of Christians and Jews, and their dwelling-places, bear marks indicating that they were either Christians or Jews. The zunnar, or belt, often blue, of the Christians, or the yellow star of the Jews (Hitler borrowed his idea from the “tolerant” court of Abbasid Baghdad), helped to identify people. And why would not need to identify them? Well, suppose one of them did not obey the rules pertaining to dhimmis. For example, dhimmis could not ride on horses, but only on donkeys, and only side-saddle, and they had to dismount whenever they came upon a Muslim. Dhimmis could not repair or build new houses of worship. Dhimmis could not testify against Muslims in court, so if there were any quarrel, the Muslim would always win. And there were of course always the threat that if even a single dhimmi did not fulfill an obligation, or violated some prohibition, not only he, but his entire community could suffer.

Of course, even with this the massacre of whole communities — such as that of all the Jews in Grenada in 1066 — still went on, despite the payment of the “protection money” (Islamic defenders phrase it, rather cunningly, as “money spent for protection” — as if the Christians and Jews were merely paying for the local police, or fire department, rather than paying Muslims off for “protection” against Muslims themselves, who otherwise would be even harsher, and possibly kill those not conforming to the requirements of dhimmitude.

Among the Christians in the Balkans, and Bulgaria, the Ottoman Turks practiced the devshirme, the forced levy (kidnapping, really, by the Ottoman state) of Christian males to be trained up for service to the Ottomans. Although some (e.g. Bernard Lewis) present this as a rather innocuous fate, and Lewis goes so far as to suggest that Muslim parents were envious of the Christian children who were “recruited” (Lewis’ preposterous word) by the Ottomans (sounds more like agents from Istanbul fanned out, offering fat contracts in the manner of a Yankees agent in Santo Domingo than it what it really, and heart-rendingly, was — but then Lewis has never fully confronted the Ottoman treatment of non-Muslims, instead offering couleur locale, and some nunc pro tunc backdating of Kemalism). While everyone finds reason to admire Kemal Pasha (and his friendshp with his dentist, Dr. Grunberg), and everyone is grateful that the Jews booted out of Spain so cruelly sought, and found refuge in, among other places (remember a little place called Amsterdam, and some of those portraits of rabbis by Rembrandt?), and of course in Salonika (where these Sephardic Jews replaced a previous group of Jews who had much earlier been forced to leave by the Ottomans) and elsewhere, gratitude has its limits, or should, in the historian who prides himself on his icy objectivity.

The most comprehensive statement of dhimmitude can be found in the works of Bat Ye’or, especially “Islam and Dhimmitude,” and above all, for its calm sobriety about the legal regime,, Antoine Fattal’s “Le statut legal des non-musulmanes en pays d’Islam.” Unfortunately, the latter remains to be translated into English from the French — apparently, those students of Islam in this country who know of the book either are hiding its existence, or are of the old school, and assuming that their graduate students can easily read French. But Fattal’s work is useful, if intelligently englished, everyone — not least for those people presuming, in American law schools, to teach something they call “Islamic Law” but which is really theology. They at least ought to give a full accounting of how, under the Shari’a, non-Muslims are to be treated — it is of increasing relevance today. It may be Europe’s future. Why not find out now what that future holds in store?

Posted by: Hugh at September 20, 2004 1:17 PM

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 12, 2008 11:53 AM

Dhimmitude Law and You: Social and Religious Aspects

Dhimmitude, the Islamic institution of the treatment of Jews and Christians in Islamic state (Q 9:29), was abolished upon European intervetions—colonial as well as diplomatic. As Muslims turn toward orthodoxy and are poised to dominate the world, including the West, in the not-too-distant future, it is an opportune time to have a look at what it means to be a dhimmi under Islam…

Remember, Dhimmitude is the position (allowed culture) of the non-Muslim under a comprehensive Islamic legal system that regulates every aspect of the non-Muslims’ lives and fixes their theological, legal, social, economic and political role—with no possibility of change as allah’s laws remain forever. Dhimmis are utterly subjugated and degraded. Despised dhimmis are war booty (fay) and ‘possessions’ of the Muslim community as distinct from slaves owned by an individual. (see Dhimmitude: What is it? and Dhimmitude laws and you:  economic and political aspects.)

A notable aspect of dhimmitude is the unending humiliation and degradation of dhimmis which involves their differentiation and segregation from Muslims. The humiliation is justified by koranic verses and hadiths and perpetuated through laws and practices enforced by rulers and ordinary Muslims who abuse Dhimmis.   Bat Ye’or notes that the degradation is a religious duty maintained by a “series of ordinances meticulously governing, down to the smallest detail, the organization of degradation that is sacralised into an ethical code” (p. 81) and applied to dhimmis at all times over the whole dar al-Islam according to numerous sources (Muslim and dhimmi). Periods of relief were exceptional and temporary. (p. 90). The entire array of abuses has been noted for Hindus  (eg Bostom p. 32-35), Africans, Europeans including eastern Europeans , those in the middle–east and Asia. The Islamic loathing for others is openly expressed today even in the west in both physical (violence, rape, stealing, terrorism) and verbal abuse (sluts, offspring of criminals., filthy kufar…) (see articles on this site).

Listen to undercover mosque to hear Muslims living freely in the west speak of non-Muslims with the utmost loathing.

Dhimmitude is in certain aspects worse than slavery (Ye’or p. 89, Bostom quote p. 34). Islam takes religious rivalry to a new level of loathing and violence (the difference between Islam and others will be discussed in dhimmitude:myths and dhimmitude today). These aren’t isolated incidents but practices that extended over the Islamic world over centuries into today and are soundly based on Islam’s text.

Social aspects

1)  Humiliation:

paying Jizyaa) Humiliating the Dhimmi is a practice regarded as a good deed or religious duty.  Degradation of Dhimmis is written into many laws (Ye’or , lecture 2002)

b) Shi’ite populations regarded dhimmis as so impure they were forbidden to go out in the rain or handle foodstuffs or indeed contact them in any way even indirectly for fear of transmitting their impurity (Ye’Or p 103).

Servility and humiliation are displayed even by religious leaders, even in 19th century Turkey (Ye’or p 107). Travellers from Europe noted the humility, terror, distress and panic of dhimmis under Islam  into the 20th century including for the Serbs for some time after they were freed (Ye’or p 107, 108)  AND it continues today.

c) Dhimmis must have a humble appearance  (Ye’or p 94), lowered eyes, hurried pace, silent.  They had to give way to Muslims and stand in their presence (p100, 103)

d) If a dhimmi raised his hand to a Muslim he faced death or amputation (Ye’or p. 103)

e) Cursing a Muslim is punished by death

Ye’or (p. 97) notes an 18th-century fatwa forbidding even a raised voice in the presence of a Muslim plus demands that  dhimmis be punished and rendered to a state of degradation and abasement.

A progressive young Turk, writing in a Parisian Muslim review 1912 stated:

The Musulman religion is in open hostility to all your world of progress’…… A Christian …as a blind man….. to speak to him would be a humiliation for our intelligence……. contact with them is a defilement of our bodies, any relation with them a torture to our souls, though detesting you…

The piece continues stating that they are happy to take our knowledge, weapons etc! (Bostom, p. 74).   (Oh, they’re just too shy to say they really like us!)

2)  Abuse in greeting

a)  They are not greeted with “as-salamu ‘alaykum” (Reliance, 11.5 (3), p. 608). Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) notes Mohammad’s command to force Jews and Christians into the narrowest ally on the road and not initiate the ‘Salam.’  (Bostom, p. 129)

3)  Muslims Take Dhimmi children:

44Sex slaves for the Mussulman: captured women are “booty”…

(Infidel women and children were taken freely as booty - Reliance: Shafii law dealing with Jihad, O9.13, p. 604. “when a child or woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled“, i.e. the Muslim male can have sex with her.)

a) A Yemini law decreed that all Jewish orphans or fatherless children (taken from mothers!) ‘revert’ to Islam based on Islamic dogma claiming all children are born Muslim!  Any parents or children who attempted to evade this horror of forced removal of children faced violence, torture or ransom. It continued into 1950 when Jews left Yemen for Israel (Bat Ye’or, p. 65, 88)

Remember Mohammad had the Jewish poetess Marwan killed and her children taken and brought up Muslim! (Sirat Rasul’allah p. 675-76)

b) Ottoman Devshirme institution where at least 1 in 5 Christian children were taken from the conquered eastern and central European countries  to use as Janissaries (fighters) and forced into Islam (From the 13 hundreds until theoretically abolished in 1658). This sick practice aimed to destroy the Christian populations, force conversions of children and parents attempting to avoid this horror and to use Christian children as fighting fodder. Certain despicable writers have attempted to claim this provided a social advantage to such ‘lucky’children when any advantage in being Muslim could readily be obtained by VOLUNTARY conversion to Islam—these people did NOT want to convert!

Severe punishment ensued if Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, and Armenian fathers (often aristocrats) and orthodox priests did not bring their sons.

c) Ottoman ichoghlani system where younger children aged 6-10 were taken to the sultans’ residences and subjected to exacting discipline and forced to perform arduous tasks for 14 years. This continued into the 18th century. (Bat Ye’or  p 60). A similar process occurred in Persia with Christian ‘slaves’.

d) children were also taken for harems and slavery.  Children were taken in lieu of jizya.

Such workforces, constantly fed by further raids, (including from Africa and piracy), maintained Islamic domination and enhanced Islamization.  Children didn’t know who they were or where they came from and had no ties or power and hence were incapable of any rebellion.

4)  Restricted clothing, signs on homes

They (non-Muslim subjects) must wear clothes that distinguish them from Muslims, wearing a wide cloth belt.  (Reliance, o11.5 (2), p. 608)

Reliance t3.7 (p. 804) states ‘Be honest in your clothes and dress.  It is an outrage to allah to appear to his servants in the guise of the righteous while secretly contradicting it with the works of the wicked.’

The Qadi, Ahmad b. Talib (9th century) compelled the dhimmis to wear upon their shoulder a patch of white cloth that bore the image of an ape (for Jews) and a pig (for Christians) and to nail onto their doors a board bearing the sign of a monkey (Al-Maliki 11th C. Tunisian historian)

Many dhimmis had to hang  a lead seal,  (Bat Ye’or, p. 68, Bostom  p. 30 ) or other identifying object around their neck.

Many laws/ordinances detailing the types of clothing are given in Ye’or pp91-96 with severe penalties for anyone who didn’t comply eg beating, beheading. Clothing regulations listed the colour, style and type of cloth (coarse), the colour and type of hat and the type of footwear ( none, rough sandals…) and a 16th century dictate demanded hanging for any who made hats like the Jews.  (Ye’or,  p. 94). There were few places in space and time where such regulations didn’t exist.  Such regulations existed into the 19-20th century in many areas. (eg Bat Ye’or, p. 96). European travellers were frequently shocked by the discriminatory clothing and the associated abuse of the wearer plus other forms of abuse of dhimmis.  Hindus were also forced into discriminatory clothing. (Bostom, p. 34)

In Yemen Jews were forced to wear distinctive clothing until 1950 when they emigrated to Israel.

Others, including non-Muslims, have followed this practise, eg Hitler and some medieval Christian groups.   The Taliban attempted to make Hindus wear ‘marked’ clothing.

Conversely of course Muslims couldn’t wear the clothes of non-Muslims  eg Hadiths: Muslim 24:5173-74  and Abu Dawud 32:4067;  Shahid & Spencer, p. 70.

5)  Harassment

Bat Ye’or, Bostom, Spencer, Sookdheo, Karsh (p. 26) and others have detailed the endless, pervasive verbal and physical  and legal abuse of dhimmis of all religions eg Zoroastrians (Bostom, p. 36-37).

6)  Ideas of equality viciously put down

Within the Balkans and later  Anatolia itself, attempted emancipation of the dhimmi peoples provoked violent, bloody responses against those ‘infidels’ daring to claim equality with local Muslims.. The massacres of the Bulgarians (1876)… Armenians (1894-96)…. frank jihad genocide against Armenians  during world War 1 (Bostom, p. 75).

In 1840-1860, Christians in Lebanon/Syria who ‘rose above their station’ and Christian peasants who were sick of servitude felt the combined wrath of Druze, Muslim Turks (Ottomans) and Sunni and Shiite groups resulting in the massacre of 7000-11000, some say over 20,000 with the destruction of over 300 villages, hundreds of churches and monasteries with rape, pillage, enslavement and ‘refugee’ status for over 100,000. Witnesses write of the “systematic cruelty, ‘unparalleled barbarity’, and blood rose to the ankles… and  gurgled through streets” (read the detailed story at THIS SITE).

The list of massacres is endless and added to daily as others continue to be obliterated from areas under Islamic control.

7)  Only inferior means of travel allowed

a) They (dhimmis) must keep to the side of the street (Reliance law 11.5 (4), p. 608).  “they (Jews) had to draw aside to the left, their bodies humbly bent over, on pain of being harshly beaten”  (quoted in Bat Ye’or, p. 96). Dhimmis must pass Muslims on the left or impure side! Abuse, stone throwing, hitting, and hindering the dhimmis path are all allowed.

b) Dhimmis cannot ride horses as this would elevate them above Muslims – in some cases camels and even donkeys were forbidden (Ye’or, p. 96; Karsh, p. 26). Only pack saddles with wood stirrups could be used and dhimmis had to sit with both legs on one side only and dismount when a Muslim approached and often could not ride in the town.

An 18th-century British consul travelling through Cyprus wrote of his experiences as he was forced to ride in substantial discomfort on a donkey and forced to dismount before entering the town. A Danish scientific expedition wrote that even Europeans feared walking in Cairo as they witnessed even Muslim servants beating Christians and Jews who failed to alight fast enough as the slave’s Muslim owner approached and that non-Muslims were forbidden from walking in certain areas as they profaned  Muslim sites. (Ye’or, p. 97-98)

Bat Ye’or reports an 18th century decree that forbids travelling by horse or a boat with 3 oars –and also demands special dress as a religious and political necessity  to enforce an attitude of  humility and abjection in dhimmis (p. 95). The same conditions reappear in ALL legal texts concerning the dhimmis (Ye’or, p. 97)

The prohibition on dhimmis riding horses remained in force for Jews into the 20th century in Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Persia, Yemen. (Ye’or, p. 98).

c) Dhimmis must vacate their seat for a  Muslim. (Karsh, p. 26)

8)  Limitations on building

They must not build higher or as high as the Muslims buildings, though if they acquire a tall house is not razed (Reliance, 11.5 (5), p. 608). Dhimmi houses must be smaller and lower than Muslim homes.  Bat Ye’or also notes that dhimmi homes were often restricted to certain areas, humble in appearance, dark coloured, (Ye’or, p. 101)

Limitations on religious freedom

9)  Dhimmis must hide any evidence of their religion

a) They are forbidden to openly display wine or pork (A: to ring church bells or display crosses) recite the torah or evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays; (Reliance 11.5 (6), p. 608)

Hagia Sophia
The primary church in Constantinople, Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), was inaugurated after being rebuilt by Emperor Justinian I (527-65). After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 Hagia Sophia became a mosque (see added Muslim minarets)  and is now a museum. The church of Hagia Sophia was once the most important church of the Christian East.

Even at home dhimmis cannot pray or read their sacred books aloud in case a Muslim hears them.   All visible or audible displays of their religion are banned. The prohibition against any display is applied today to all media –radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, books nor can their religious information be sold in public places or markets. (Shahid, in Spencer p. 63, 69;  Bat Ye’or p86, 87)

b) They are forbidden to build new churches (Reliance, 11.5 (7), p. 608) and often to repair old ones. (likewise in the Hedaya, Vol. 11 (Hanafi law), see Short, notes section)

Generally only churches built before Islam’s takeover can be repaired (though not extended) if the people surrender and keeping their churches is included in the peace agreement, but not if taken by force when all non-Muslim religious buildings can be destroyed.

Muslims at any time, can and do demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer (Shahid in Spencer, p. 63, destruction began with the Arab conquests –Ye’or, p. 82,83). Dhimmis pay large amounts of money in an incessant struggle to build or protect religious sites eg ‘ruinous extortion’ in Palestine (Ye’or, p 85). Fees were charged for access to holy sites throughout the Holy Land into the 19th century plus road taxes for travellers (Ye’or, p. 82-86).

Bat Ye’or notes the massive destruction of magnificent basilicas and innumerable monasteries from Andulasia to Iraq in the 8-10th century alone p. 82-83 long before the crusades and at a time we are told is Islam’s ‘golden age’ of tolerance and development! In some areas Jews were completely wiped out and in a few areas flourished around their constantly threatened synagogues. The few areas of ‘tolerance’ are the ones we hear about while the huge areas of complete destruction are ignored.  Ye’or p 83 writes:

“It would be impossible to list all the places of Jewish and particularly Christian worship which were Islamized and banned to their former owners”

The destruction, confiscation and Islamization of synagogues, and more often churches, were common and are often mentioned in legal treatises and dhimmi chronicles. (Ye’or, lecture 2002).

In Palestine today, Christian churches are defiled, graves violated (including exhumations and mutilations) and followers attacked (Ye’or, p. 236-37).

Churches, temples, indeed the religious sites of others have been destroyed by Islam across the Islamic world and in every place where Muslim numbers allow such destruction, right up to the present, including some of the holiest sites eg the tomb of the Hebrew patriarch Joseph by Palestinians 2000 AD; Ancient churches in Cyprus 20th century;  churches burnt to the ground across Africa and the destruction of Buddhist and Hindu temples and sculptures even in the 21st century. Note the recent attacks (26/11/08) by 20,00 Muslims on Copts in Cairo who, after 5 years, were able to use a factory as a church. (LINK)

c) Crosses etc cannot be displayed on churches or homes (Shahid P63) *It is forbidden from hindering a fellow dhimmi from converting to Islam (OK to become Muslim but deadly the other way!) (Shahis p 64)

d) On pain of death, dhimmis cannot proselytise to Muslims.  No dignity even in death:

e) Dhimmis are forbidden from loud or obvious displays when burying dead.  Cemeteries can be plundered even today. Only Muslim souls should be granted peace and even condolences differ for Dhimmis compared to Muslims (Bat Ye’or  p87)

10)  Limitations on residence and entry

a)  Infidels cannot reside in the area or towns around Mecca, Medina and Yamama for more than 3 days (when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need). (Reliance of the Traveller; 11.6, p. 608). Supposedly under Umar in 640, all Jews and Christians were expelled from the Arabian Peninsular to make it entirely Islamic.

b)  A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan sacred precinct under any circumstances, or enter a mosque without permission. (Reliance of the Traveller; 11.7, p. 608-9). A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan sacred precinct under any circumstances Dhimmis were often restricted to certain areas:  In Yemen into the 20th century Jews were restricted to limited areas and forbidden from leaving the country. (Ye’or, p. 101)

Often entry to towns was prohibited. People who ignored restrictions risked loss of property and death (Ye’or, p. 101). Even within towns certain areas were often off limits to dhimmis. Dhimmi enclaves could lack lighting and rubbish collection (Yemen Ye’or, p. 103).

11)  Limitation on marriage; Child custody

a) Muslim men can marry Jewish or Christian women but their children are Muslim. A Muslim woman is forbidden from marrying a non-Muslim (Reliance, m6.7 (5) p529; Shahid in Spencer p65 ).

b) If a husband is a dhimmi and the wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce and she gets custody of the children (see law above and Reliance, m13.3 (c) p. 552, custody to a Muslim; Shahid ibid.)

c) A Muslim husband has the right to restrict his wife to the home –this can be used to stop dhimmi wives from attending their religious sites (Reliance; m10.4 p. 538; Shahid ibid)

12)  Rape of dhimmi women by Muslims

7520 AL-RISALA (Maliki Manual) 37.27 A CHRISTIAN RAPIST

If a Christian rapes a Muslim woman he is to be killed immediately by any Muslim.But a Muslim cannot be executed on account of a non-believer (see notes in Walter Short, The Jizyah Tax: Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law?, notes, repeated in Spencer, p. 82)

13)  Forbidden from joining the army

a) Dhimmis cannot join the army unless there is an indispensible need for them  – they cannot assume leadership roles but are considered mercaneries  (Shahid in Spencer, p. 63)

I wish Muslims were forbidden from joining our military, police etc as both our soldiers and non-Muslim citizens would be much safer!

Yes, obviously ‘converting’ to Islam would save you from this inhumane treatment but Islam itself is a totalitarian system that controls all aspects of an individual’s life.

Violation of the dhimma ‘pact’ and consequences:

If the dhimmis break any of the rules of Islam or fail to pay the poll tax then their ‘agreement with the state’ has been violated (Reliance of the traveller; Shafii law 11.9 p609).  Many things may be regarded as ‘violating the agreement, e.g.

* Committing adultery or simply marrying a Muslim woman (Reliance, 11.10 (1), p. 609)

* Concealing spies of hostile forces (Reliance, 11.10 (2), p. 609). In fact Dhimmis had to be hostile to European Christians etc as any apparent association could result in bloody reprisals (Ye’or p. 58)

* Leading a Muslim away from Islam. (Reliance of the Traveller, 11.10 (3) p 609).  As we know, an apostate from Islam also looses their life– “The punishment by death in the case of apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence” (AbdurRahman I Doi, ‘Sharia: the Islamic Law’, London, 1984, cited in Spencer p. 64)

* Killing a Muslim (Reliance of the Traveller, 11.10 (4), p. 609)

* Mentions something impermissible about allah, the prophet or Islam. (Reliance, 11.10 (5), p. 609)  Blasphemy laws are used to great effect in the Islamic world eg Pakistan to destroy others and are also in use in Australia where the Victorian ReligiousVilification laws TODAY are used to gag any criticism of Islam—pure sharia, pure dhimmitude!

* even Christening your children was considered a violation of the covenant resulting in a loss of ‘protection’ from jihad ( Sookhdeo, Global jihad, Muslim quote, p. 242)

The pact of Umar where the Jews supposedly signed a pact despite being unable to read or write Arabic, states:

…these are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return from safety and protection.  If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.

Ibn quadama (12th century Muslim jurist): A protected person who violates his protection agreement, whether by refusing to pay the tribute (jizya) or to submit to the laws of the community …makes his person and his goods ‘licit’ ie halal or fair game to be killed, captured or stolen by Muslims.

And when your agreement has been violated, the caliph (or ruler) may decide between death, slavery, release or ransom –death is avoided by conversion! (Reliance, 11.11. p. 609; o9.14, p. 604)

Shiite text:  Al-Muhaqiq al-Hilli (1206-1277), well known ‘twelver’ shia scholar in his authoritative work on Imami law (The laws of Islam in matters of the Permitted and forbidden) defines the enemies against whom it is obligatory to fight as

1) Rebels who fight against the imam,

2. Dhimma (Jews, Christians, other people of the book  who breach the provisions of their pact with the Muslims),

3.  All other kinds of infidels and non-believers (Sookhdeo, Global Jihad, p. 79).

Violate your pact and expect death, a massacre of your tribe, enslavement and rape, looting, destruction, and expulsion from your land. Bat Ye’or notes the revolts and the consequences including the almost constant, endless rebellions and slaughters in Spain (Gee, wasn’t it all huggy, kissy and lovely?); the destruction of Christianity in Africa, the Maghreb, and Yemen; the destruction of Palestinian villages, crops, and plantations and the massacres, enslavement and  torture of people (indigenous Jews/Christians)  according to Arabic, Jewish, Coptic, Syriac and Latin sources, first by Arabs, then by Turks (Ye’or, p 62-64).

The ‘scorched earth’ policies, slaughter and slavery are used today in Africa against non-Muslims (and against black Muslims by Arab ones). Churches burn in Iraq and Christians are killed. Hindus are attacked in Bangladesh, Kashmir and India, Buddhists in Thailand….. westerners anywhere possible…

Yes, there’s more but if you have read the great books by Bostom, Ye’or and others or just viewed the summary in the articles on dhimmitude so far, then you know the horror coming if we allow Islam/Muslims to gain control.

Look at the Maldives where all are forced to be Muslim and any who deviate are punished by the state and lose everything including citizenship. Look at Malaysia where all Malays are forced to be Muslim, conversion out of Islam is forbidden and others viciously discriminated against yet both these countries are called ‘modern democracies’ by dhimmi imbeciles in the west!

The vile attitudes, practices and laws of Islam towards others is reflected everywhere Muslims go. As their numbers rise, Muslims increasingly demand that their supremacist, religious apartheid system be put into operation. The devastating effect of Islam begins with the first Muslim/dhimmi collusion –and there’s plenty of that everywhere!

Have a peep at the dhimmi victims gallery to see what dhimmitude looks like TODAY.Dhimmi Victims Gallery

This article first appeared at Australian Islamist Monitor.


1)  Al-Misri, Ahmad ibn Naqib,  Reliance of the Traveler:  A classic manual of Islamic sacred law. (In Arabic with facing English Text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller), Aamana Publications, Maryland, 1994

2)  Bostom, Andrew (edit), The legacy of Jihad.  Islamic holy war and the fate of the Non-Muslims, Prometheus Books, New York, 2005

3)  Karsh, Efraim, Islamic Imperialism: A history, Yale University Press, 2006.

4)  Shahid, Samuel, Rights of non-Muslims in an Islamic State, in Spencer, Robert (edit).  The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, Prometheus Books, New York, 2005

5)  Short, Walter, The Jizyah Tax: Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law? notes (This article is repeated in Spencer, Robert (edit) The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

6)  Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rusulallah, Translated by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, 2001.

7)  Sookdheo,  Patrick.  Global jihad:  The future in the face of militant Islam, Isaac Publishing, USA, 2007

8)  Spencer, Robert (ed.) The Myth of  Islamic Tolerance:  How Islamic Law treats non-Muslims, Prometheus Books, New York, 2005

9)  Ye’or, Bat. Islam and dhimmitude:  Where civilisations collide, Madison, Teaneck Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005.

10)  Ye’or, Bat.  Lecture 10 October 2002 Brown University. Dhimmitude Past and Present: An Invented or Real History?

The Koran – internet version of three English translations and hadith can be read HERE& HERE

Jihad News Hour

Moe is back!


Austria: Asim off the hook!

On October 1, 2007, Asim C had tried to gain access to the US embassy carrying a backpack filled with hand grenades, fuses and nails, but fled and abandoned his bag when he was stopped as he went through metal detectors at the entrance. Asim C told Vienna’s provincial court he wanted to be a US informer and “hand over the dangerous substances” to the US authorities, as he had “faith in the United States, because they fight terrorism.”


Weapons for ‘peaceful purposes’ only:

Counter-terrorism police seize large cache of illegal weapons in Austria

VIENNA, Austria: Austrian counterterrorism authorities have seized 300 illegal weapons and 12,000 rounds of ammunition in raids on six private homes west of Vienna.

Police in the province of Lower Austria will not say exactly when the raids were conducted, but they issued a statement Tuesday describing the operation as one of the largest of its kind in the region.

Officials have been questioning six suspects in connection with the weapons cache.

Investigators say the weapons include Russian-made machine guns and 61 illegal handguns.




Anti-Islam conspiracies will be crushed by defenders of faith

PAKPATTAN, April 7 (APP): District’s general secretary of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Rana Abdul Rauf has urged the Muslims to fight for the supremacy of Islam and their faith.

He said that conspiracies being hatched by anti-Islam forces would be foiled and crushed with iron hand.

Meanwhile, District Ameer of Jamaat Ahle hadith, Qari Muhammad Yaqoob Tahar, while talking to newsmen here on Monday, demanded that the government should ask ambassadors of Denmark and Holland to leave the country.

He stressed that ambassadors of Denmark and Holland should be expelled from the all the Muslim countries of the world and appealed for complete ban on imports from these countries.

Pakistan police: Muslim workers beat Hindu man to death for alleged blasphemy

* Just another day in Islamistan:

KARACHI, Pakistan: Police say Muslim workers at a factory in Pakistan have beaten to death a Hindu colleague after accusing him of blasphemy against Islam’s prophet.

Karachi police chief Niaz Siddiqui said workers at a leather factory fatally beat the 27-year-old Hindu man on Tuesday after a debate about religion became heated.

Siddiqui said the laborers told police that the victim was defaming the Prophet Muhammad. Police said they prevented the mob from burning the corpse and are investigating several people for suspected murder.

Herald Tribune

UK: Muslim sex offenders could opt out of treatment programme ‘because it’s against their faith’


* Because old Moe was a sex-offender too, and following Moe can’t be wrong… 

Muslim sex attackers could be spared a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged.

Rapists, paedophiles and other dangerous sex attackers are expected to discuss their crimes with others during jail sessions designed to stop them reoffending.
But Muslim inmates have complained they should not be made to undergo the Sex Offender Treatment Programme group therapy.

Now the Prison Service’s Muslim advisor, Ahtsham Ali, has said there is a “legitimate Islamic position” that criminals should not discuss their crimes with other people.

An “urgent review” has been ordered, and Muslims could be allowed to opt out of this part of the treatment – despite completing a full programme often being a condition of release.

The convict said: “I have always insisted that it was against Islamic teachings to discuss your offence to anyone, let alone act it out within a peer group.”

* Why punish Muslim sex offenders at all? They are only following their prophets teachings…

More from the Daily Mail

Paedophile Changes Name And Converts To Islam In Jail

A PAEDOPHILE has converted to Islam and changed his name behind bars.

Paul Falconer, 40, now insists bosses at Peterhead prison call him Mohammed Farooq instead.
Falconer’s case made legal history when his five-year-old victim gave evidence by video link to a court 40 miles away to ease her ordeal.
He was jailed for almost eight years for sexually abusing her and another girl. His ex-wife was last night shocked at his identity swap.
Mum-of-two Melanie White, 41, raged: “Paul should not be allowed to go by any other name. People should be warned about this in case he tries to hide his past when he gets out.”

More (if you can stand it)

Amsterdam: Unbelievers are dogs, sez Mosque chairman

“Islam is good, other beliefs are also good. But if you don’t believe, that is not good, then you only eat and sleep, then you’re just like an animal, such as a dog.”

The children and escorts did not react at first. Only when they were back in school, when asked what they had learned, the students answered: that we are dogs.

The rest of the trip was fun and educational and the children had been treated hospitably.

But now its all a big ‘misunderstanding’


Meet Joseph Cohen aka Yousef Khattab

NEW YORK, N.Y. — A New York City cabbie who operates an extremist Islamic anti-American Web site that features violent images — including mocking the deaths of GIs in Iraq — says he’s doing the country a service by “exposing the truth.”
Yousef al-Khattab, who runs from his home in Queens, told FOX News that he also wants the U.S. to embrace Islam and Sharia Law, which prohibits alcohol and can include stoning to death or severe flogging for pre-marital sex and adultery.

Jihad Watch


Alan Colmes with Muslim Extremist Yousef al-Khattab!

"Sharia finance is Jihad with Money", sez Melanie Philips

Alex Alexiev on National Review Online sets out the reasons why sharia finance — described by Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi as ‘jihad with money’ — is a serious threat to the west:

* Melanie Philips in the Spectator:

The legitimization of sharia in the West and its gradual imposition in Muslim communities and beyond is a key objective of sharia finance, and there is no doubt it has already made huge strides. …

Notably, for those Muslims who cannot engage in physical jihad using force of arms, sharia requires that they support jihad financially. This is what sharia finance is all about.


Far from being a legitimate investment vehicle, sharia finance facilitates religiously sanctioned support for terrorist organizations — as well as providing radical Islamists with highly paid sinecures as sharia-finance board advisors in the sanctum sanctorum of capitalism, all the while that they are pursuing a subversive campaign to destroy it.

Predictably, none of this is even remotely disclosed by any of the dozens of Western banks promoting sharia finance today, which obviously exposes them to huge non-disclosure risks ranging from fraudulent misrepresentation, to material support for terrorism.


And not disclosed either by Gordon Brown, whose stated ambition is to make London the global centre of Islamic banking (reported to be yet another brilliant wheeze from Ed Balls). Of all the manifestations of the Islamisation of the west (see this piece by Dan Rabkin on the acceleration of Londonistan) sharia finance is perhaps the most deadly, because it effectively sells the west to Islam, and the most difficult to stop — because for the financiers and politicians in the west who are thus selling it, all they can see are the trillions of dollar and pound signs being dangled enticingly before their eyes.


Picture of the week: The Peace of Islam


Is the peace of the grave… 

Afghan cemetery…


Sleepwalking into Islamisation

Dail Mail, 8 July 2008

Melanie Philips

Three years after the London Tube and bus bombings, it is alarming beyond measure to record that Britain is even now sleepwalking into Islamisation. Some people will think this is mere hyperbole. However, that’s the problem. Britain still doesn’t grasp that it is facing a pincer attack from both terrorism and cultural infiltration and usurpation.

The former is understood; the latter is generally not acknowledged or is even denied, and those who call attention to it are pilloried as either ‘ Islamophobes’ or alarmists who have taken up residence on Planet Paranoia.

Certainly, the police and security service have been foiling plot after plot and are bringing to court a steady stream of Islamist radicals –an improvement without doubt from three years ago. And so, particularly within the British elite, people think that things are broadly under control.

They fail to realise that the attempt to take over our culture is even more deadly to this society than terrorism. They are simply blind to the ruthless way in which the Islamists are exploiting our chronic muddle of well-meaning tolerance and political correctness (backed up by the threat of more violence) to put Islam on a special — indeed, unique — footing within Britain.

As a result, the steady Islamisation of British public life is either being ignored or even tacitly encouraged by a political, security and judicial establishment that is failing to identify the stealthy and mind-bending game that is being played.

The official counter-radicalisation programme illustrates the problem. The Government wants to tackle radicalisation within Britain’s Muslim community by winning hearts and minds within that community. Its strategy is based on isolating the extremists and encouraging the moderates.

The problem, however, is that it doesn’t understand what Muslim extremism is. Believing that Islamic terrorism is motivated by an ideology which has ‘hijacked’ and distorted Islam, it will not acknowledge the extremism within mainstream Islam itself.

The reason so many older British Muslims are traditionally moderate is that they were brought up in the Asian subcontinent under a tamed form of Islam, deriving from centuries of colonial rule, which glossed over much of the teaching of the religion.

The Government believes that Islamic radicalism can be countered by teaching authentic Islam to Muslims. But since Islamic radicalism is based upon those very authentic religious precepts, this will undoubtedly have the effect of radicalising people who otherwise would never have thought in this way.

The Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) was set up to put into effect the Government’s aim of ensuring moderation in the mosques. This was always unlikely, given that members of Islamist groupings were on the steering committee. Although MINAB’s chairman, Manazir Ahsan, presents himself as a reformer, he is the director of the Islamic Foundation, which follows the writings of Maulana Maududi — who preached an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of unbelievers who should be made to live in a state of subordination to Islam.

Similarly, Dr Ataullah Siddiqui, the Government’s chief adviser on Islamic Studies, is a senior member of the Islamic Foundation. A report he wrote for the Government last year, Islam at Universities in England, which was publicly welcomed by the Prime Minister, urged that among other special privileges for Muslims, they should be allowed to teach Islamic subjects in British universities and that non-Muslims should be banned from doing so.

In any event, the universities are steadily being Islamised, with academic objectivity in the teaching of Islam and Middle East studies being set aside in favour of indoctrination and propaganda.

A report by Professor Anthony Glees due to be published in the autumn will argue that extremist ideas are being spread by Islamic study centres linked to British universities and backed by multimillion-pound donations from Saudi Arabia and Muslim organisations.

He says: ‘Britain’s universities will have to generate two national cultures: one non-Muslim and largely secular, the other Muslim. We will have two identities, two sets of allegiance and two legal and political systems. This must, by the Government’s own logic, hugely increase the risk of terrorism.’

Even more terrifying is the increasing Islamisation of the police. It has been reported that up to eight police officers and civilian staff working in the Metropolitan Police and other forces are suspected of links to extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, with some even believed to have attended terror training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan. One suspected jihadist officer working in the South East has been allowed to keep his job despite being caught circulating internet images of beheadings and roadside bombings in Iraq.

No less disturbing is the fact that the police are intentionally bringing Islamists into the force in the utterly misguided belief (shared by many in the security service) that they can help counter Islamic radicalism.

Commander Robert Lambert, who until this year ran the Metropolitan Police Muslim Contact Unit, observed that terrorism could not be fought by contact with moderate Muslims but through partnerships with Salafists (Sunni extremists who believe in Islamic supremacy over the secular state) — one of whom was actually an officer in his own police department.

Commander Lambert believed that this would enable the police to understand the way extremists thought before they committed any acts of terror.

But it surely goes without saying that an officer who is committed to the overthrow of the West, and its replacement by an Islamic society poses a security risk of the first order. For a police counter-terrorism specialist to be promoting this situation beggars belief.

Deeply alarmed sources have furthermore told me that, in the overriding concern by police forces to hire more ethnic minority officers, they have junked vetting criteria — particularly when it comes to hiring Police Community Support Officers, who after two years can become fully fledged police officers with no further vetting required. The result, say these sources, is that the security of police operations is potentially compromised.

Moreover, there have been disturbing examples of the police protecting Islamic extremism. In 2007, the Channel Four Dispatches programme uncovered evidence of incitement to murder of homosexuals, the killing of British soldiers and hatred of ‘unbelievers’ going on below the official radar in ostensibly respectable British mosques.

But instead of prosecuting such fanatics, the West Midlands Police first tried to prosecute the programme makers and then accused them of selective editing and distortion and undermining community cohesion — a libel for which the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were subsequently forced to apologise.

A report by the Centre for Social Cohesion on honour killings and similar violence revealed that several women’s groups, particularly in the Midlands and northern England, say they are often reluctant to go to the police with women who have run away from home to escape violence, because they cannot trust Asian police officers not to betray the girls to their abusing families.

In February, Christian evangelists Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham were handing out Bible extracts in Alum Rock, Birmingham. They were stopped by a Muslim Police Community Support Officer, threatened with arrest if they carried on preaching in ‘a Muslim area’, and warned that they might get beaten up if they came back.

What on earth is happening when, in the heart of England, a British police support officer, employed by the British state to enforce the law of England, aggressively prevents Christians from preaching the established faith of England on the grounds that this is now a ‘hate crime’?

When the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, warned that Britain was developing Muslim nogo areas, he was denounced as Islamophobic.

The Establishment queued up to say they didn’t recognise the Britain he was describing. But British public life is progressively being Islamised, with Muslim radicals in areas with large concentrations of Muslims increasingly intimidating non-Muslims.

After a vicar in East London, Canon Michael Ainsworth, was beaten up by three Muslims in his own churchyard in March, it was revealed that there had been many attacks on churches in the area by such youths, who on one occasion shouted: ‘This should not be a church, this should be a mosque.’

Yet last month, one of the youths in the Ainsworth attack walked free after a judge accepted his claim that the attack was not religiously motivated.

Sharia law is steadily encroaching into British institutions. Last week, Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said it could play a role in some parts of the legal system. This followed comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury who declared that Muslim families should be able to choose between English and Islamic law in marital and family issues.

But the fact is that Britain is already developing a parallel sharia jurisdiction in such matters, with a blind eye being turned to such practices as forced marriage, cousin marriage, female genital mutilation and polygamy; indeed, welfare benefits are now given to the multiple wives of Muslim men.

Meanwhile, the courts still appear to be bending over backwards to appease Muslim radicalism. Last month, a judge freed from prison Abu Qatada, the most important Al Qaeda operative in Europe and the lynchpin of numerous European terror attacks, who was being held pending deportation to Jordan to stand trial.

His release on bail — into a kind of house arrest — followed an Appeal Court ruling that he could not be deported to Jordan because any prosecution there might have been obtained as a result of a witness being tortured — a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Why do the British authorities appear to go out of their way to thwart efforts to fight and defeat jihadi terror? While Islamists are being appeased, the Christian church is being discriminated against. The Bishop of Rochester said that the decline of Christian values was destroying Britishness and had created a ‘moral vacuum’ which radical Islam was filling

In reply to this cri de coeur from a civilisation under siege, Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, maintained it was right that more money and effort was spent on Islam than Christianity because of the threat from extremism and homegrown terrorism.

But Islamism will be repulsed only if Britain once again regains the confidence of its own culture, heritage and traditions. And these are based on Christianity.

Ms Blears’s lamentable comment graphically illustrates the problem. While the ordinary people of Britain are increasingly aghast at the way their country is being transformed by Islamism, the political, judicial, security and intellectual elites are busy denying the nature of the danger and making it far, far worse through a combination of extreme ignorance, arrogance and sheer funk.

The Islamists launched their jihad against the West because they perceived it was so weak and confused it would not possess the wherewithal to defend itself. When it comes to Britain, they never spoke a truer word.

This is an abridged version of a new foreword to an updated edition of ‘Londonistan
by Melanie Phillips, published in the UK by Gibson Square.

Westergaard cannot save his ass by selling out Wilders


*   ‘Copyright’ is just a lousy excuse, it will not make Kurt Westergaard any more popular with those who want to kill him. For Westergaard, to threaten Wilders with legal action because Wilders used his Muhammad image in ‘Fitna’ is plain silly, it shows that he understands nothing about Islam….


 “You can’t just steal other people’s works. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it’s all about copyright,” Mr Westergaard said.

“I won’t accept my cartoon being taken out of its original context and used in a completely different one.”

Mr Westergaard has been in hiding since Danish police in February said they had foiled an assassination attempt against him.

*   Good luck, you Schmuck. You are a coward and your popularity among the counter jihad movement just dipped 90%.

Link:  Lawsuits all round


* Ask Salman Rushdie, Westergaard: Rushdie tried to kiss and suck and make up, but he failed, miserably:


 Rushdie: I was deranged when I embraced Islam

SIR SALMAN RUSHDIE has confessed that he pretended to “embrace Islam” in the hope that it would reduce the threat of Muslims acting on the fatwa to kill him.

The author issued a statement in 1990 in order to defuse the row about his novel The Satanic Verses, which had provoked Muslims across the world. He claimed he had renewed his Muslim faith, had repudiated the attacks on Islam in his novel and was committed to working for better understanding of the religion across the world.

However, in an interview to be broadcast next month, Rushdie now claims his reversion to the religion of his birth was all a “pretence”.

Speaking to the psychothera-pist Pamela Connolly in a forthcoming TV programme, Shrink Rap on More4, he says: “It was deranged thinking. I was more off-balance than I ever had been, but you can’t imagine the pressure I was under. I simply thought I was making a statement of fellowship. As soon as I said it I felt as if I had ripped my own tongue out. It became the moment I hit rock bottom. I realised that my only survival mechanism was my own integrity. People, my friends, were angry with me, and that was the reaction I cared about.”



Dutch Judge clears Geert Wilders of spreading hate

* An idiotic accusation: how can Wilders be accused of ‘spreading hate’ when all he does is hold up a mirror for  the Muhammadan mob to see how vile, how hateful and demented they are?


Here’s the article from ‘Islam Online’

“Fascist” Islam, “Barbaric” Prophet Legal 

The Hague – A judge has ruled in a case against MP Geert Wilders brought by the Dutch Islamic Federation that Mr Wilders is not guilty of spreading hate, although his statements are provocative.
The Islamic Federation wanted a judgement on the Freedom Party’s leader after he compared the Qur’an to Mein Kampf. However the judge ruled that members of parliament have to be able to express their opinions strongly.

* Spencer comments: If jihadists didn’t use the Qur’an like Mein Kampf, it wouldn’t occur to anyone to make this comparison. No one is comparing the Bhagavad Gita to Mein Kampf.

The democrat party D66 want the Lower House to investigate exactly what Mr Wilders told the cabinet about his film Fitna. Two ministers and Mr Wilders disagreed during a Lower House debate on the anti-Qur’an film last week about what was said during a meeting in November.
A record of the meeting says the ministers were concerned about the end of the film in which Mr Wilders said he intended to tear out pages of the Qur’an and burn them in the fireplace. Mr Wilders accused the ministers of lying. D66 leader Alexander Pechtold says it is bad for the image of politics when an MP and the cabinet get into a situation like this. Last week the conservative VVD called for an investigation.


Here’s the Islam Online version of this memorable event:

AMSTERDAM — A Dutch court ruled on Monday, April 7, that branding the faith of 1.5 billion Muslims as “fascist” and insulting their Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as “barbarian” do not incite religious hatred.
“The contested remarks are not seen as unlawful,” the court said in a four-page verdict cited by Agence France-Presse (AFP).

The Dutch Islamic Federation (NIF) had asked the court to ban MP Geert Wilders from making such comparisons, accusing him of inciting hatred and violence against Muslims.

The court said the far-right lawmaker was within his legal rights.

“The defendant’s freedom of speech has been the decisive factor in this matter.

Five Ways to Defend Qur’an: Qaradawi

“Seen in this light, it cannot be said that the defendant with the comments he made, although they are provocative, is inciting hatred or violence against Muslims.”
The court defined fascism as “a collective term for ideologies which fundamentally embrace a totalitarian political system which leaves no room for people with other ideas.”

The ruling seemed to suggest that the court believes Islam is one of these totalitarian ideologies.

The court also claimed that the Muslim group failed to disprove that Islam consists of beliefs that are in contradiction to democratic principles.

 Read it all


What's wrong with Barrack Hussein Obama?

Thanks to Gramfan:

Watch this flick and let us know…

* via LGF:

What Obama doesn’t want you to know: His Kenyan Muslim Father was a Die-Hard Communist!


Obomma’s  ‘pastor & spiritual adviser’ Wright turns out to be a ‘former’ Muslim!

Thanks to Gramfan:

WTF???  The same hate, the same bile: who guessed it? Sheik Yer’mami stated weeks ago that Obama is (still) a Muslim, and here on this blog we also stated that Wrights ‘church’ is a front either for the NOI or  the Muslim brotherhood.

Now Infidels are cool just exposed Obomma’s hate-preacher for what the really is:

Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.’” 


PrestoPundit has found a 1965 paper written by Obama’s father, in which he advocates:

— 100% taxation

— communal farms / the elimination of private farming

— the nationalization of businesses owned by “Europeans” and “Asians”.

— “active” measures to bring about a classless society

PrestoPundit is calling it the “Rosebud” of the Obama campaign: Barack Obama hid his father’s socialist and anti-Western convictions from his readers.

India: Islamic Clerics Denounce "Terrorism in all its forms"

* Back in February, the fanatical Deobandi sect pulled the same stunt, widely celebrated by the inept Media, since the myth that Islam is somehow a ‘Religion of Peace’ must be kept alive at just about any cost.


* Deoband denounces terrorism in all its forms

* Now, if the wankers from the ‘free press’ had bothered reading the whole text of this statement, they might have realized that what these Islamofascist creeps are denouncing is the imaginary “terrorism” perpetrated against them.

“In All Its Forms”

via LGF

Hyderabad, April 6 (IANS) A massive public meeting organised by Islamic madrassas here has condemned terrorism in all its forms and urged Muslims to develop good relations with other communities.

Prominent religious scholars from Andhra Pradesh and other parts of the country addressed the meeting attended by thousands at the Nizam College Grounds Saturday night.

Organised by the coordination committee of madrassas of Andhra Pradesh, the meeting, which continued till late in the night, said Islam or Muslims had nothing to do with terrorism and blamed government policies for terrorism.

* But Islamic terror has its roots in the Koran. And the actions of the prophet of Islam is to be emulated by every believing Muslim. Terror in Muhammads own words


While pointing out that Islam unequivocally condemned terrorism by describing the murder of innocents as the killing of entire humanity, a resolution passed at the event said the ‘repression on innocent people and injustice’ promoted terror.

Leaders of Muslim groups including Tameer-e-Millat, Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiatul Ulema addressed the meet, which was presided over by Moulana Abdul Azeez, president of the coordination committee of madrassas.

Eminent religious scholar Moulana Khaleel-ur-Rehman Sajjad Nadvi from Uttar Pradesh said anti-Islamic forces were trying to malign Islam and Muslims by linking them to terrorism.

He said that the West was targeting Islam by linking it with terrorism as Islam stands against all forms of exploitation. He advised Muslims to act with restraint and hold on to Islam firmly as the world is a testing place for them.

While praising Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Moulana Hameeduddin Auqil Hussami, a popular religious leader in Andhra Pradesh, hit out at Home Minister K. Jana Reddy for backing police action against innocent Muslims and even women.

* Delusional BS for imbeciles…


And this is how the ‘ummah’ really feels:

Pakistani Motoon poll: 62% say “Kill the Cartoonist and the Editors who published it”

The Tiny Minority of Extremistsâ„¢ always come out in front:

What should be the response of Muslim Ummah to the blasphemous caricatures published in Denmark?

1 Boycott Danish products and Services 23 11.68%

2 Expel Danish ambassadors from Muslim countries 10 5.08%

3 Kill the Cartoonist and the Editors who published it 123 62.44%

4 Ignore this nonsense and keep preaching Islam with peace 41 20.81%


In light of the above, this Dutch imam is equally disingenous:


Dutch Mosque Leader: Muslims Are Responsible For Creating Enemies Of Islam

* What he is really saying is “don’t wake up any sleeping dogs. We are here and we are here to stay, in ten, twenty years we’ve achieved critical mass, then we control the judiciary and the institurions,  that’s the time to go on the attack, not now… 

The imam of Al-Sunnah mosque in The Hague Sheikh Fawwaz Junaid has said Muslims themselves are responsible for creating the enemies of Islam. The Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jang quoted Sheikh Junaid as saying that the hatred and opposition faced by Muslims in today’s world are created by themselves.

According to the report, the imam said the Muslims’ conduct itself should be the standard to be judged by non-Muslims. However, he said Muslims themselves are involved in disgraceful behavior and activities which give non-Muslims an opportunity ‘‘to raise a finger on Islam.’’

Source: Roznama Jang, Pakistan, April 4, 2008

25,000 Pakistanis rage at Fitna, Motoons


“They call this freedom of expression, but it’s freedom of aggression,” keynote speaker Munawwar Hasan, a leader of the main Islamic party Jamat-e-Islami, told the crowd as it chanted “God is great.” […]

But police officer Syed Suleman estimated Sunday’s crowd at 25,000, while organizers claimed more than 100,000 people turned out.

Wearing head bands inscribed “We are ready to sacrifice our lives for the sanctity of the prophet,” they marched for two kilometers (more than a mile), then gathered on Karachi’s main street to listen to speeches.

They also burned an effigy of Wilders as speakers said their government should sever diplomatic ties with Western countries supporting the publishers of cartoons defaming the Prophet Muhammad.