Tag Archives: dhimmi

Sharia Compliant: Bruce Crumley, Paris Bureau Chief For TIME Magazine

Dhimmie of the Month or Asshole of the Month?

That choice is all yours, dear readers. Bruce Crumley  seems to believe that the suit he wears makes him an adult who is “sensitive” enough to understand Islamic terrorism, and  if it wasn’t for our  ” childish, Islamophobic, idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts”  which force Muslims to firebomb newspapers they don’t like,  we could all sing kumbaya and pretend we like each other.

Next he’ll be blaming Parisian women for their rapes for not  “voluntarily” covering up with a burqa.  Yes folks, that’s where we are headed with dim bulbs like this…… ( thanks to KGS for the reminder….)

Diana West:

What journalist wouldn’t want to be Paris Bureau Chief for Time magazine, or anything else? Sounds so glamorous. But look closer and the job qualifications — sharia-compliance — are more than a little off-putting, certainly as exemplified by the man with the job, Bruce Crumley, on weighing in on the bombing of Charlie Hebdo. Poor man. Full-blown, late-stage and terminal Dhimmitude.

Excerpts from his Time piece:

1) “Not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy …”

2) It’s “hard to have much synpathy for [Charlie Hebdo] after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam.”

3) The “issue was certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot.”

4) “…do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.”

5) “If that weren’t enough to offend Muslims sensitive to jokes about their faith, history helped raised hackles further. In 2007, Charlie Hebdo re-published the infamous (and, let’ face it, just plain lame) Mohamed caricatures initially printed in 2005 by Danish paper Jyllands-Posten.:

6)”Apart from unconvincing claims of exercising free speech in Western nations where that right no longer needs to be proved, it’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists.”

7)” It’s yet to be seen whether Islamist extremists were behind today’s arson, but both the paper’s current edition, and the rush of politicians to embrace it as the icon of French democracy, raises the possibility of even moderate Muslims thinking “good on you” if and when militants are eventually fingered for the strike.”

8)”So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the “illegal” bit,Charlie Hebdo‘s current edition is all of the above, too.”

A hopeless case.

Four years ago, Charlie Hebdo was one of the few European publications willing to reprint a Danish newspaper’s controversial Muhammad cartoons.

The New York Slimes, Washington Compost, La-La Land Times, and every other gutless publication that didn’t have the belly to run the innocuous Danish cartoons should be hanging their heads in shame.

Michael Coren:

Sometimes islam makes me want to scream!

 But there’s some good news also:

Firebombed French paper reprints Muhammad cartoon that got it bombed

 Defiance in the face of Islamic supremacist intimidation and thuggery. Bravo. “French paper reprints Mohammad cartoon after fire-bomb,” by Brian Love for Reuters, November 3:

Time Magazine calls for censorship, blames victims of Islamic attack on French magazine that lampooned Muhammad

Robert Spencer:

In my article at Front Page today I wrote this: “The worst aspect of this firebombing is that there are certain to be voices in the West over the next few days – some of them no doubt quite prominent and respected – who will call on Westerners to be more ‘sensitive’ toward Muslims, and to end this unacceptable hurting of Muslim feelings by drawing cartoons of him and making him the honorary editor-in-chief of a comedy magazine.”

Continue reading Sharia Compliant: Bruce Crumley, Paris Bureau Chief For TIME Magazine

Backlash Watch

After arresting five  Muslim men  who planned an armed terrorist attack on a Sydney army base to further the cause of Islam by killing as many people as possible, Dhimmi in Chief  Simon Overland finds it necessary to run to the next mosque and assure Muslims that there is nothing to worry about:

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland has visited a Melbourne mosque to assure worshippers they are all Australians and shouldn’t feel like second-class citizens.

Mr Overland went to the 8 Blacks prayer centre in North Melbourne, believed to have been attended by three of the five men charged this week over terrorism offences.

Many Muslims have said they fear reprisals following the counter-terrorist raids in Melbourne on Tuesday that resulted in the five, all of Somali and Lebanese background, being taken into custody.

How nice!  Simon Overland emulating George W. Bush!  Remember how good ol’George took his shoes and socks off a day after 9/11 to tell us all that Islam ‘is a religion of peace?’

The Muslims  of course, are “embarrassed and shocked” that the suspects once attended a mosque that’s home to Australia’s top Muslim cleric, Sheik Fehmi Naji El-Imam. (Sydney Moonbat Herald)

Terrorism plot: suspects in court

Five men being questioned over an alleged terrorist conspiracy had sought a religious ruling to authorise an attack in Australia, a court has heard.

Shereen Hassan, the vice-president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, says Muslims have been shocked by the raids and are calling for calm amid fears of a backlash.

“But we have faith that the overwhelming majority of Australians will not react in this way and remain calm,” she said.

“[We] urge the wider community and the media to respect the privacy of the families concerned.

“The overwhelming majority of Australian Muslims unequivocally condemn all forms of terrorism.”

Mohamed Baaruud from the Somalia Advocacy Action Group says the community cannot believe some Somali Australians have been implicated.

“We are all shocked,” he said.

“This is the last thing we were expecting.”

ABC News

Continue reading Backlash Watch

Paki Terror

Hussein Obama:

“throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Muslim Mob Kills Wife, Children of a Christian Man in Pakistan

Police, fearing the influential local religious leader behind the killings, refuse to file murder complaint.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 8 (CDN) — A Muslim mob in Jhelum, Pakistan murdered the wife and four children of a Christian last month, but local authorities are too afraid of the local Muslim leader to file charges, according to area Muslim and Christian sources.   Eye on the World has the story>>>

Only Allah is compassionate, but not to unbelievers:

No soup for you, infidel: Pakistani soup kitchen won’t serve Christians

Apologists for Islam like to quote Qur’an 2:256, which states that there is “no compulsion in religion.” There are, however, myriad forms of coercion, from the jizya tax mandated by Qur’an 9:29 to oppressive dhimma laws, and of course, outright warfare and all of its provisions for plunder, captivity, slavery, and rape (sex with captives and slaves, per Qur’an 4:24).

That same dynamic is in play here: There is no compulsion in religion, but they’ll do their utmost to make non-Muslims “an offer they can’t refuse.” “Punjab soup kitchen forbidden to Christians,” from Asia News

Pakistan sentences woman to be stoned to death for “illicit relations”: walking together with a man

Just as the media outrage over the planned stoning of an accused adulteress in Iran is winding down, with the predictable claims that Islam doesn’t sanction stoning, more Misunderstanders of Islam crop up, this time in Pakistan.  Daily Times

Pakis suicide bombers “kill more than 100”

“Nothing to do with Islam” –  Islam is a religion of peace, can’t blame all Muslims,  the profit of Islam never killed anyone,  real Muslims would never do a thing like this……” (fill in the rest yourself……………………….)

(BBC) The death toll in a double suicide bombing in a Pakistani tribal village on the border with Afghanistan has risen to more than 100, officials say.

Pakistan: Hindu boy drinks from water cooler near mosque; outraged Muslims drive Hindus into cattle pen

A classic case of how Muslims treat dhimmies, subjugated peoples:

A civilized, stable society requires anger management, not to mention a well considered set of priorities. The sense of entitlement to rule, and to retaliate against the slightest insults, and the imperative to wage jihad to achieve and maintain dominance promote neither quality. Lacking those, one finds scenes like this. “Hindus hounded into cattle pen in Karachi,” from Asian News International, July 9 (thanks to JW):

In an incident which showcases the brutal hatred with which Hindus are seen in Pakistan, at least 60 members of the minority community, including women and children, were forced to abandon their house in Karachi’s Memon Goth area just because a Hindu boy drank water from a cooler outside a mosque.

Continue reading Paki Terror

Dhimmitude at a hundred miles an hour

Real Stories of Muslim Dominance in Europe: a Warning to America

Anders Gravers/FSM

Jihad slice by slice

I am here to warn Americans about two Muslim war strategies: the salami method, slice by slice so no one opposes; and secondly, the dominant behavior method of the Muslims. They have used these two strategies in Denmark and Europe for 30 years now. In fact, Islam would never have achieved such a stronghold in Europe if it had not been for the European dhimmies.

What is a dhimmi then?

The basic understanding of a dhimmi is a person who is under Islam’s so-called protection and pay Muslims, “jizya”, a kind of “protection money”. A lot of Christians live under very bad conditions as dhimmies all over the Muslim world but today I will use the word dhimmi in another way.

We use dhimmi to describe mainly left-wing multicultural people who are Muslim appeasers. When I think about these dhimmies I always think of the old Winston Churchill quote: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Continue reading Dhimmitude at a hundred miles an hour

Oppressed Christians are fleeing the "Islamic World"

                 

Who wants to be a dhimmi and pay the jiziyah?

Christians try to emigrate from Islamic world; others want them to stay and play martyr

After all, as one Muslim opines, Christians fleeing the Muslim world is simply bad PR for Muslims. “Christian Middle East exodus worries churches,” by Carol Glatz for the Catholic News Service, JW

VATICAN CITY — The need to find ways to stop the slow, yet steady departure of Christians from the Middle East has come into greater focus recently.

Continue reading Oppressed Christians are fleeing the "Islamic World"

Your fawning offends Islam, Archbishop… not your Christianity

 

This is Peter Hitchens’ Mail on Sunday column

*  Looks like Peter Hitchens has his heart in the right place, but when it comes to Islam he is quite ignorant…

Dhimmi, Lunatic or both?

When did we go soft? When did we develop our national tendency to cringe before we are even hit, to apologise for existing?

What’s most striking about the past 50 years of our history is how we have given in without a fight to those who want to revolutionise our society.

It is all very well going on about Winston Churchill, but Archbishop Rowan Williams is a figure much more representative of modern Britain.

This prelate whimpered last week that Christianity was ‘offensive’ to Muslims.

Offensive? I know we have been urged to stop being horrid to this inept, terrifyingly well meaning man – and it really is nothing personal – but he does rather ask for it.

* A very good description for this disgraceful clown in robes…

A few months ago he mused on the possibilities of allowing a little light Sharia Law in this country.This is, I suppose, a point of view. I just can’t work out why the leader of a Christian church should hold it.

The same goes for the Lord Chief Injustice, Lord Phillips, whose entire career and substantial salary are based on centuries of Christian-based law.

If it is anyone’s job to suggest Muslim law should get a toehold in Britain, it isn’t his.

Continue reading Your fawning offends Islam, Archbishop… not your Christianity

The Dhimmi, Dhimmitude & the Jiziyah

submission21.jpg

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]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmA4lsxYJ1Q[/youtube]

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.”

More

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.

*

Link: TURKISH POGROM AGAINST THE GREEK POPULATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE 6-7 SEPTEMBER 1955
*

* 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.”

More

*

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 I.vi).

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.

References:

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