Good News for Jews: Jews are allowed to live as dhimmies under Islamic rule!

Any buyers?

Occupiers can change nationality, says Qorei
Mohammed Mar’i | Arab News —

  • From our “why can’t we all just get along” department:
RAMALLAH: Ahmed Qorei, the head of Palestinian negotiating team with Israel, said that Jewish occupiers could live under Palestinian law and can become Palestinian citizens. “(Former US Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice told me she understood our position about Ariel but that Ma’aleh Adumim (an Israeli settlement in part of the West Bank that would become part of a Palestinian state) was a different matter,” Qorei said in an interview yesterday with the Israeli daily Haaretz.

“I told her, and (former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi) Livni, that those residents of Ma’aleh Adumim or Ariel who would rather stay in their homes could live under Palestinian rule and law, just like the Israeli Arabs who live among you. They could hold Palestinian and Israeli nationalities. If they want it — welcome,” Qorei said when asked if Israel would agree to evacuate Ma’aleh Adumim’s 35,000 occupiers.

payjiziyaThe jiziyah is to be paid on demand, while the dhimmi must feel humiliated and subdued. The dhimmi has to tremble with fear and will be struck behind the jaw-bone while being spat at. The Muslims curse him…

“Israeli settlements in the heart of the territories would be a recipe for problems. Israel evacuated all the settlements in Yamit and in the Gaza Strip. All the prime ministers who negotiated with Syria, including Netanyahu, agreed to evacuate all the settlements from (the Golan) Heights. So why is it so difficult for you to evacuate the settlements in the West Bank?”Qorei added that “negotiating the annexation of Ariel to Israel is a waste of time. Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev must also be part of Palestine. Any agreement must guarantee our territorial contiguity; leave historical sites in our hands, especially Jerusalem, as well as natural resources, especially water.”

Sanitizing Abu Mazen

Moderate‘ ‘Palestinian‘ PresidentMahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen will be meeting with American President Barack Hussein Obama at the White House on Thursday, where the President will attempt to ‘bolster’ the ‘Palestinian leader.’

The Washington Post is cooperating with the White House in its effort to make Abu Mazen appear to be something that he is not: a peacemaker.

Abbas, 74, a longtime aide to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, took over after Arafat’s death in 2004 and won election on his own the following year. Trained as a lawyer and historian, Abbas came to power from a career spent burrowing into the fine points of peace talks.

Historian? Some historian….

Abu Mazen is a Holocaust denier

More from Carl in J’lem

Fitzgerald: Spending money like dhimmis

Why should the American government be spending, have spent or committed, nearly two trillion dollars to bring “good government” to Iraq? Why should it have spent $65 billion on the malevolent government of Egypt? Why did American taxpayers pay, not only for that Mercedes 600 that so impressed him with its “smooth ride,” the one that son-of-plucky-little-king-Hussein King Abdullah of Jordan picked him up in, but also for billions of dollars in aid to Jordan? Jordan’s population is said to be possibly the most fervently anti-American in the world. To take advantage of untariffed textiles it can send to America, Jordan’s Arabs — divided between the “Eastern Palestinians” who are called “Jordanians” and the “Western Palestinian Eastern Palestinians” who are called “Palestinians” — own factories where non-Arabs are employed and exploited, in what American labor investigators have called the “worst” labor conditions, amounting in many cases to slavery, they have ever seen.

Why does the American government continue to fund the Fatah warlords, those Slow Jihadists who are still, nominally, in control of their fellow Arabs in the Arab-occupied “West Bank”? And why is it that the American government (with a little help from other NATO states) has come to be expected to lavish further tens of billions on the permanently meretricious and malevolent — generals or rabble-rousing zamindars, it hardly matters — government of Pakistan?

And why does this money, once it starts to flow — to Egypt, to Jordan, to “the Palestinians,” to Pakistan — come so quickly to be regarded as received, as by right, and given, as by necessity or duty? All Western or Infidel aid, whenever given, for whatever ostensible purpose, becomes that dutiful tribute that the Infidel donors are afraid — afraid! — to cut, for fear of offending those (look at Egypt, look at “the Palestinians”) who have come to expect that tribute from the Infidels to be paid. There is not a single example, anywhere, of a serious and permanent diminishment, or still better, ending of such aid — aid that helps improve the military capacity of the Muslim recipients. Could Pakistan have paid for its nuclear project without Western aid to sustain it? And when it is non-military aid, it merely frees up other money that can be diverted to support whatever local Jihads that recipient-state or regime is most directly involved in furthering.

It is maddening that that Infidel aid — given by Infidel states even as they must endure paying ever greater sums to the oil-producing Muslims who share, with their fellow Muslims, almost nothing of the trillions they take in (and are quite content to see the Infidels pick up the Infidel Man’s Burden) — becomes routine, unquestioned, a veritable matter of right, something that, once the Infidels start to supply it, they have to keep supplying it. And the Muslims who receive this aid do so not without any felt gratitude, but with the sense that this Infidel aid is in the natural and just order of things, which for them, in the deepest sense, it is.

Historically , the payment of the jizyah was not only to collect revenue on which the Islamic state depended, but had to be made in conditions that 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.

Consider the historical data and the present nature of “foreign aid.” Compare and contrast.

2 thoughts on “Good News for Jews: Jews are allowed to live as dhimmies under Islamic rule!”

  1. A sheikh, settlers and MPs meet in Hebron Hills tent

    Sheikh Farid al-Jabari of Hebron grew up on stories of close ties between Arabs and Jews.

    Dhimmi Jews & Euro dimbulbs are told that Jews are allowed to live. Under Islamic law. Until the Muslims decide its enough and murder them.

    In keeping with that tradition, he hosted an unusual gathering of Palestinians, settlers and conservative European parliamentarians on Thursday afternoon in his large tent, set back from the road in the South Hebron Hills.

    High Court of Justice to debate Migron on July 15
    In the heat, flies buzzed over plates of grapes, peaches and plums laid out on silver trays on the red oriental carpets that adorned the tent’s floor.

    “I come from a generation that lived with the Jews peacefully in a brotherly relationship,” Jabari, 64, said, as he looked out at his visitors.

    He wore a white robe and a white keffiyeh. At times during the two-hour meeting, he held prayer beads in his hands as people spoke. At other moments, he smoked.

    Among those who sat to his right were representatives of Hebron’s Jewish community – Noam Arnon and David Wilder. They sat, like all the guests, on red cushions set up on the floor.

    To Jabari’s left were Samaria Regional Council head Gershon Mesika and spokesman David Haivri. Austrian parliamentarian David Lasar and Belgian parliamentarian Filip Dewinter were also there. Shas MK Nissim Ze’ev was briefly present.

    Mesika first meet Jabari in Brussels at a conference on the sidelines of the European Parliament about Middle East peace.

    Mesika noted that it was symbolic to be part of a meeting in a tent with Jews, Muslims and Christians, in the same place where Abraham had lived.

    “Only a wise leader like Sheikh Jabari could bring together the sons of our father Abraham,” he said.

    But Arnon and Jabari have been meeting for close to four years. Arnon said that just before Rosh Hashana, Jabari had prevented Palestinians and anarchists from destroying the Hazon David synagogue, a small outpost on the edge of Hebron.

    “A few later we visited him and gave him a certificate of merit,” Arnon said.

    “Since then there have been warm ties between us and we meet regularly,” he said.

    He has brought many other people to meet with him as well.

    Arnon added that he views Jabari as a brave man and a friend.

    Wilder, who also has recently started to visit Jabari, said he was surprised when Jabari called him right before Shavuot to wish him a happy holiday.

    Arnon said that both he and Jabari oppose a Palestinian state.

    Jabari is not a Zionist, said Arnon. He is advancing his own Muslim ideas. “But,” he added, “they come together in some ways with our ideas.”

    Jabari recalled a meeting he held in his home in 2008 with Hebron settlers. “We spoke honestly.

    We put everything on the table. What are our requirements and needs,” he said.

    After that, he said, “people [Palestinians] turned against me.”

    However, their resistance did not deter him.

    “This is a small ball that keeps rolling,” he said. “I hope we made progress in changing the way of thinking for some people who did not have anything to do with the peace process.”

    Jabari added: “The Israeli nation is ready for peace. The Palestinians want peace.

    “I just hope that we can lift this occupation…We would like to feel our dignity and freedom.”

    Jabari later explained to The Jerusalem Post that his vision for the future was not two states, but one democratic state for all of its citizens in which Jews and Palestinians lived as equals.

    Although he has never been to the United States, he imagines a state like it in Israel and the Palestinian territories with a similar type of democracy.

    “There won’t be two states,” he said, as he looked out at the surrounding hills through an open flap in the tent. It is not possible, because Islam does not allow its followers to relinquish land, he said.

    “In our religion, Tel Aviv is like Hebron,” he said.

    The land belongs to God and the entire Muslim world, he said.

    “I cannot sign away something that is not mine,” he said. But he can live together with Jews in one state, in which Palestinian rights and Jewish rights are preserved.

    He said that if in the US, the son of a student from Kenya can become president, then in this region Jews and Palestinians can live together as equals in one country.

    “This will happen,” Jabari said.

  2. Bassam Madany On Jacques Ellul’s Early Recognition, And Alarm, Over A Resurgent Islam


    Jacques Ellul’s View of Islam & Dhimmitude

    By Rev. Bassam M. Madany

    During the latter part of the twentieth century, I became aware of the writings of the French scholar Jacques Ellul. Two of his works, “The Technological Society” (reflecting his sociological analysis) and “The Meaning of the City” (his Christian testimony,) illustrate his deep convictions in the two fields of sociology and theology.

    However, I am more deeply indebted to the late Professor Ellul for his invaluable exposition of the global challenge of Islam, which he enunciated in two “Introductions” to books by Bat Ye’or. Most recently he wrote a Foreword to her book “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude,” which was published in 1996. He gave a brief, but poignant analysis of a subject that, prior to the publishing of Ye’or’s books, had received very little attention in the West.

    A decade earlier, Professor Ellul contributed a frank analysis of the shocking nature of Dhimmitude in a Preface to Bat Ye’or’s “The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam” published in 1985. It is this Preface that I will review below.

    Prior to my “discovery” of Bat Ye’or’s works, I had read three books in English on the plight of Dhimmis (Christians and Jews) under Islam. One was Edward Wakin’s, “A Lonely Minority: The Modern Story of Egypt’s Copts.” New York: William Morrow & Company, 1963.

    Fifteen years later, I read with appreciation Robert B. Betts’ book, “Christians in the Arab East: A Political Study,” Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978, in which he described the desperate condition of the Arabic-speaking Christians in the Middle East.

    Then, the Anglican Bishop and Arabist, Kenneth Cragg, dealt at length with the subject in “The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East.” Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991.

    Professor Ellul began his discussion of Dhimmitude by pointing to the sensitive nature of the subject. Islam’s leaders have never regarded their treatment of non-Muslims as a problem. In fact they claim that the populations which were overcome by the Futuhat (conquests) were treated in a kindly manner and granted “protection,” i.e. “Dhimma.”

    Furthermore, until recent times, this whole topic was rather academic, since it dealt with the past when Islam ruled great areas of the world under the successive caliphates of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Ottoman Turks. But soon after WWII, things began to change. As Professor Ellul put it,

    “That which was related to Islam and the Muslim world was believed to belong to a past that, if not dead, was certainly no more alive than medieval Christianity… And then, suddenly, since 1950, everything changed completely.”

    It is true that Kemal Ataturk abolished the Caliphate in 1924, and established the secular Republic of Turkey, but his action was not well-received throughout the rest of the Muslim world. In India, for example, the movement of Khilafat, i.e. the re-establishment of the Caliphate arose; a phenomenon that showed the unwillingness of Indian Islam to live without the symbol of the unity of the Umma. So, when the British Raj was about to grant independence to India, its Muslim leaders demanded that the country be partitioned between Muslims and Hindus. Jacques Ellul pointed to the tragic events that accompanied the birth of Pakistan, an event of tremendous importance in the modern renaissance of political Islam:

    “One ought not to forget that the terrible war of 1947 in India between the Muslims and Hindus was fought on a purely religious basis. More than one million people died, and since massacres had not taken place when the Muslims had lived within the Hindu-Buddhist orbit, one may presume that the war was caused by the attempt to set up an independent Islamic republic.”

    This latent Islamic imperialistic impulse expressed itself as Muslims began to flex their economic muscles thanks to their control and exploitation of the major sources of petroleum.

    “It has transformed the face of the world in less than half a century. And we are now witnessing a vast program to propagate Islam, involving the building of mosques everywhere.”

    At present, to speak about the evils of Dhimmitude is no longer acceptable. The moment one broaches this subject strong feelings are easily aroused among Muslims. Nevertheless, we cannot remain silent about an institution that has impacted the lives of millions of non-Muslims during the last 1400 years. Having set forth the context for the discussion of Dhimmitude, Jacques Ellul proceeded to explain the value of Bat Ye’or’s book:

    “It is within this context that Bat Ye’or’s book, The Dhimmi should be placed: and it is an exemplary contribution to this crucial discussion that concerns us all. Here I shall neither give an account of the book nor praise its merits, but shall simply indicate its importance. The dhimmi is someone who lives in a Muslim society without being a Muslim (Jews, Christians, and occasionally “animists”). He has a particular social, political, and economic status, and it is essential for us to know how this “refractory” person has been treated.”

    The trouble with Dhimmitude is that it is rooted in a Qur’anic tradition, and was codified in the legal arrangements that covered every aspect of the lives of non-Muslims living within Daru’l Islam. It cannot be altered or changed without doing violence to the very essence of Islam. Non-Muslims do not and cannot have the same rights as Muslims. By their very persistence in remaining as non-believers living under the rule of their Muslim conquerors, they give evidence to their stubbornness and faithlessness. Thus a non-Muslim is regarded as a Kafir (non-believer) or a Mushrik (a term used today mainly for Christians who, in the Muslims’ view, believe in three gods.)

    When writing on the subject of Dhimmis and Dhimmitude, one has to do more than discuss the etymological meaning of the Arabic word; for it is inaccurate to claim that it designates the status of “protection” for Christians and Jews living under Islam. It is not an inherent right for a Christian, a Jew, or a Zoroastrian; in Islam, it remains a given or a granted right that can be revoked any time! This is a very important point that Ellul makes:

    “However, the dhimmi itself is a controversial subject. This word actually means “protégé” or “protected person.” This is one of the arguments of the modern defenders of Islam: the dhimmi has never been persecuted or maltreated (except accidentally); on the contrary, he was a protected person. What better example could illustrate Islam’s liberalism. Here are people who do not accept Islam and, instead of being expelled, they are protected…When this “stranger” lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: [protected] against the Muslims themselves.”

    After dealing with the criticisms of some Western scholars of Bat Ye’or’s “The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam,” Professor Ellul ended his Preface with these words:

    “If I have dealt with the criticisms at some length, it is because I feel that is important in order to establish the “scholarly” nature of this book. For my part, I consider this study to be very honest, hardly polemical at all, and as objective as possible (always bearing in mind the fact that I belong to the school of historians for whom pure objectivity, in the absolute sense, cannot exist). The Dhimmi contains a rich selection of source material, makes a correct use of documents, and displays a concern to place each situation in its proper historical context… The Muslim world has not evolved in its manner of considering the non-Muslim, which is a reminder of the fate in store for those who may one day be submerged within it. It is a source of enlightenment for our time.”

    Jacques Ellul’s concluding words sounded an alarm not only for his fellow-French citizens, but for all the European states where large numbers of Muslims have settled, and altered the social and political landscape. He died in 1994, a decade before the publication of Ye’or’s latest book, “Eurabia,” another great work on the subject of Islam and the West. Nevertheless, we remain greatly indebted to the introductory “essays” he contributed to the two books of our expert on “Dhimmitude,” the indefatigable Bat Ye’or. I look forward to more writing from her. Her output thus far has been most enlightening and has helped immensely in informing her readers about one of the most important subjects of our twenty-first century.


    Jacques ELLUL died in 1994 at 82. A jurist, historian, theologian and sociologist, he published more than 600 articles and 48 books, many of which were translated into a dozen languages (more than 20 into English). From 1950-70 he was a member of the National Council of the Protestant Reformed Church of France. Professor at the University of Bordeaux, his oeuvre includes studies on medieval European institutions, the effect of modern technology on contemporary society, and moral theology. In American academic circles, he was widely known for “The Technological Society” written in the 1950’s (English edition, 1964) and recognized as one of the most prominent of contemporary thinkers.

    Books on Dhimmis and Dhimmitude by Bat Ye’or:

    The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, by Bat Ye’or, Preface by Jacques Ellul. Published in 1985 by Associated University Presses, 440 Forsgate Drive, Cranbury, NJ 08512

    The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, by Bat Ye’or, Foreword by Jacques Ellul. Published in 1996 by Associated University Presses, 440 Forsgate Drive, Cranbury, NJ 08512

    Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, by Bat Ye’or. Published in 2002 by Associated University Presses, 440 Forsgate Drive, Cranbury, NJ 08512

    Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, January 30, 2005), is about the transformation of Europe into “Eurabia,” a cultural and political appendage of the Arab/Muslim world. Eurabia is fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-American, and antisemitic.

Comments are closed.