The reality of dhimmitude
Robert Houghton
This account by Bat Ye’or of the condition of Christian and Jewish dhimmis
under Islam, taken from “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam”
provides a striking contrast to the benign accounts of Bernard Lewis and
Muslim apologists. HER account is based upon tireless research.
“..These examples are intended to indicate the general character of a system
of oppression, sanctioned by contempt and justified by the principle of
inequality between Muslims and dhimmis…Singled out as objects of hatred and
contempt by visible signs of discrimination, they were progressively
decimated during periods of massacres, forced conversions, and banishments.
Sometimes it was the prosperity they had achieved through their labor or
ability that aroused jealousy; oppressed and stripped of all their goods,
the dhimmi often emigrated.”
“…in many places and at many periods [through] the nineteenth century,
observers have described the wearing of discriminatory clothing, the
rejection of dhimmi testimony, the prohibitions concerning places of worship
and the riding of animals, as well as fiscal charges- particularly the
protection charges levied by nomad chiefs- and the payment of the jizya…Not
only was the dhimma imposed almost continuously, for one finds it being
applied in the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire…and in Persia, the Maghreb,
and Yemen in the early twentieth century, but other additional abuses, not
written into the laws, became absorbed into custom, such as the devshirme,
the degrading corvees (as hangmen or gravediggers), the abduction of Jewish
orphans (Yemen), the compulsory removal of footware (Morocco, Yemen), and
other humiliations…The recording in multiple sources of eye-witness
accounts, concerning unvarying regulations affecting the Peoples of the
Book, perpetuated over the centuries from one end of the dar al-Islam to the
other…proves sufficiently their entrenchment in customs.”
Lewis gives scant attention to the dhimmi institution throughout his
voluminous histories of Islamic civilization, and when he mentions it he
does so in the benignest fashion, making flattering comparisons with the
injustices of medieval Christendom when he has to mention the dhimmis. No
doubt in this Lewis is influenced by his Jewish heritage: he has inherited
bitter memories of the persecution of the Jews in Europe following the
Crusades, and in particular he harbours a sentimental regard for the
Ottomans, who took in the Sephardic Jews when they were expelled by the
Spanish monarchy. What he never mentions is that the Sephardic Jews in the
Ottoman empire were subject to precisely the disabilities that Bat Ye'or
describes above: the institution of dhimmitude was uniform from one end of
the Islamic world to the other. The fact that the dhimmi treaty deprived the
dhimmi of the right to defend himself in an Islamic court meant that
successful Jews were the victims of Muslim extortionists in Turkey and
elsewhere.
Lewis refuses to regard the massacres of the Armenians in the 90s and in
1915 as the retribution imposed on dhimmis who had exceeded the limts
imposed by their dhimmi status, in particular by calling for the help of a
foreign power. Notoriously he refuses to recognize the murder of 1,500,000
Christian Armenians by the Turks as genocide. I believe that this is on
account of his political ambitions (he left the UK because the Foreign
Office wouldn't take him up): he wished to be on good terms with the Turks
and the Muslims in order to have a diplomatic function particularly in
relation to Israel. Thus there is a personal political aspect to the
Islamophilia (linked to a hatred of Christianity) that informs his work. His
lack of political sense is shown by his role as adviser to Bush in the Iraq
war.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote:
> This account by Bat Ye’or of the condition of Christian and Jewish dhimmis
> under Islam, taken from “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam”
> provides a striking contrast to the benign accounts of Bernard Lewis and
> Muslim apologists. HER account is based upon tireless research.
>
> "These examples are intended to indicate the general character of a system
> of oppression, sanctioned by contempt and justified by the principle of
> inequality between Muslims and dhimmis. Singled out as objects of hatred and
> contempt by visible signs of discrimination, they were progressively
> decimated during periods of massacres, forced conversions, and banishments."
It is an unavoidable fact of history that in certain times and places,
dhimmis were indeed subjected to the kind of abuse and discrimination
mentioned by Bat Ye'or. However, those sad realities are examples of
evil actions by sinful men. They are not examples of the manner in which
Allah has ordered us to treat the non-Muslims who live in Muslim lands.
Muslims, like all other human beings, do not always conform themselves
to the ideals that are set out in their religion. The Qur'an, the
Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) and the Shari'ah
require us to treat Ahl al-Dhimmah (covenanted people) in ways very
different from the picture given by Bat Ye'or.
In "Shari'ah: The Islamic Law", a highly esteemed professor of Islamic
law, Abdur Rahman I. Doi, puts it simply and directly:
"The non-Muslims who live in an Islamic state and enjoy all their human
rights, which are enshrined in the Shari'ah, are called Ahl
al-Dhimmah.... [They] are guaranteed the protection of their life,
property and honour exactly like that of a Muslim. ...It becomes every
Muslim's religious duty to protect the life, property and honour of a
non-Muslim since it forms a part and parcel of faith (iman).
Since Dhimmis are protected people, under the pledge of Allah and his
messenger, they are, says Doi, "people of the abode of Islam (dar
al-islam) and hence possessors of Islamic Nationality (al-jinsiyyah
al-islamiyyah)."
Since Dhimmis are under the pledge of Allah (dhimmat Allah), they must
enjoy complete religious, administrative and political freedom.
Dhimmis must be protected from discrimination, persecution, tyranny and
injustice. Muslims are duty bound to hold back their hands and tongues
to avoid injuring Dhimmis.
The Traditions of the Prophet, which inform us of his Sunnah (way) that
we are to follow are unequivocal:
"Whosoever persecutes a dhimmi ...or takes anything from him with evil
intentions, I shall be a complainant against him on the Day of
Resurrection."
"Whosoever hurts a dhimmi, hurts me; and one who hurts me, hurts Allah."
The enormity of the obligation that Muslims have toward dhimmis is well
illustrated by the opinion of the Muslim jurist Ibn Abdin, who argued
that since Muslims are given a responsibility to protect the blood and
property of non-Muslims and since the persecution of weak persons at the
hands of the strong is considered as one of the greatest of crimes, the
persecution of non-Muslims in an Islamic state will be considered to be
a greater crime than the persecution of Muslims by non-Muslims.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Robert Houghton
Of course your whole posting is a distraction from the fact that you say
NOTHING in refutation of Bat Ye'or's appalling account of the world-wide,
age-old institution of the dhimmi. It's the old Muslim trick: when you can't
answer the charge, raise a different issue.
But let's look at your issue. Again we have an example of the Muslim
practice of upside-down thinking. The fact of a leading Australian Muslim
cleric's making a striking public statement, which implied that women who do
not observe the Muslim dress code are responsible when they are raped, is
made the occasion of a denunciation of the Western press: they are wrong for
publicizing this more widely than an Open Letter to the Pope addressed by
Muslim theologians. Thus we see that Islam was WRONGED when the press
published the outrageous statement about dress and rape. It was the
behaviour of the press which was outrageous.
How important was that letter? You quote an article from Islamicamagazine
giving your argument, but Islamica does NOT make available the letter
itself, though it offers several reports. Islamica's actions show that they
do not consider the letter important, whatever they say.
The issue of rape by Muslims is, however, important, though it is not
politically correct to refer to it and the Establishment, the press,
suppress the facts on the grounds that if they were known inter-ethnic
tensions would increase. Throughout Europe there is a new form of rape: rape
for ethnic reasons. In Oslo 2/3 of prosecutions for rape involve an
immigrant male or males, but politicians ignore this and the press do not
report the ethnic background. (For details see "Dhimmi watch", "Western
Muslims' Racist Rape Spree.")
The Australian cleric who made his outrageous statement is only one of many
voicing the same opinion: there are regular reports of Muslim Imams publicly
stating that Western female dress is an incitement to rape, and implying
that rape is a natural and unavoidable male reaction to the sight of female
flesh. The need to end this condoning of rape justifies the press's
interest. It is the statements of these clerics that is an incitement to
rape and it is the statements which are forming the attitude of the
delinquent Muslim youth and their contempt for non-Muslim girls.
Robert
You smear me with the charge of Islamophobia, "the new anti-Semitism".
This term is used as a smear against anyone who criticizes Islam and as
a justification for Muslim victimhood. Internationally moves are afoot,
claiming congruity between opposition to Islam and antisemitism, to
make 'Islamophobia' an internationally recognized crime; this is merely
an attempt to suppress criticism of Islam on a supra-national basis.
Anitsemitism was based on a pseudo-scientific theory of so-called
'race'; but Muslims do not belong to a 'race'.
Antisemitism showed itself in an irrational physical aversion to Jews;
I feel no such aversion to Muslims, indeed I am on excellent terms with
Muslims and have close Muslim friends.
Antisemitism is directed against individual Jews, racially; my
opposition to Islam is directed against the ideology, not individuals.
Antisemitism was fuelled by appalling fantastic libels about Jews,
which were spread in communities of a low level of culture and which
were influenced by distorted Christian interpretations of the
theological position of Jews and Judaism. It is ironic that these very
same appalling antisemitic libels have been taken up by Muslims and are
now broadcast wholesale by the mass media in Arab and other countries.
Nazis fled to Arab countries to escape trial and there took up
government positions producing antisemitic propaganda, including
translations of "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion;"
their work is now coming to fruition - the whole Middle East is
flooded with antisemitic propaganda. My opposition to Islam is not
based upon vile irrational fantasies, but upon information drawn from
the Koran, the hadith and elsewhere: I establish my points with
evidence and reason; on the other hand Islamophobia (a pseudo-medical
term) is by definition irrational.
Naturally antisemitic propaganda was not directed at Jews themselves
but at antisemites and prospective antisemites; what I have to say is
primarily directed at open-minded Muslims. I do not incite hatred of
Muslims.
Why can't you accept that opposition to, and criticism of, Islam might
be reasonable?
Robert
You and those you quote paint a beautiful picture of the idyllic
relationship that the Christian or Jew should enjoy with his Muslim
masters (and they were that precisely: masters of a subject people).You
attribute the wretched reality to the actions of men, and sketch "the
manner which Allah has ordered us to treat non-Muslims who live in
Muslim lands." According to what the Koran says, God ordered Muslims
to fight Christians and Jews until they feel themselves subdued. The
verse I paraphrase is the basis of the whole institution of subjection,
exploitation, degradation and systematic humiliation that Christians
and Jews suffered under Islam for 1200 years until the Ottomans, under
British pressure, attempted to suppress this culture of subjugation in
the nineteenth century.
The institution, based on the Koran, was responsible for the wretched
reality, not the actions of individual evil men.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1162976192.9...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> You smear me with the charge of Islamophobia,
<snip> ...
Comment:-
The natural opposite of the neologism "Islamophobia" is "Islamophile", so
when you use the term "Islamophile" - as you have frequently done in the
past - aren't you then "smearing" those you criticise under your assertion,
in a duplicitous manner?
But tell us why you think your many stridently anti-Islamic posts don't fall
under the "Islamophobe" rubric described in this informative article:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia ?
--
Peace
--
What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a
completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas.
[Anonymous Diplomat]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
Another account of the plight of dhimmis.(In Bosnia from 1463 to 1850
the Bosniak Muslims enjoyed all the privileges of feudalism, the
Christians being their feudal subjects)
In 1850 the British Consul in Sarajevo, James Zohrab, was asked to make
a report on the administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina following
Ottoman reforms. Here is an excerrpt from the report which he sent to
the British Ambassador in Constantinople:
'Discussing the impunity granted to the Muslims by the sultan, Zohrab
wrote:
[Quote from Consul Zobrab starts here]
"This impunity, while it does not extend to permitting the Christians
to be treated as they formerly were treated, is so far unbearable and
unjust in that it permits the Muslims to despoil them with heavy
exactions. Under false accusations imprisonments are of daily
occurrence. A Christian has but a small chance of exculpating himself
when his opponent is a Muslim."
"Christians are now permitted to possess real property, but the
obstacles which they meet with when they attempt to acquire it are so
many and vexatious that very few have as yet dared to brave them.
Although a Christian can buy land and take possession it is when he has
got his land into order [...] that the Christian feels the helplessness
of his position and the insincerity of the Government. [Under any
pretext] "the Christian is in nineteen cases out of twenty
dispossessed, and he may then deem himself fortunate if he gets back
the price he gave."
[Quote from Zobrab ends here]
Commenting on this situation, the consul [Zobrab] writes:
"Such being, generally speaking, the course pursued by the Government
towards the Christians in the capital of the province Sarajevo where
the Consular Agents of the different Powers reside and can exercise
some degree of control, it may easily be guessed to what extend the
Christians, in the remoter districts, suffer who are governed by Mudirs
generally fanatical."
He continues:
[Quote from Consul Zobrab starts here]
"Christian evidence in the Medjlises (tribunal) as a rule is refused.'
This excerpt is taken from an address by Bat Ye'or to the Islamic
Society, 1995 (available on the internet.)
Zuiko Azumazi
news:kevans-9C56E4....@r01.iad01.newshosting.com...
<snip> ...
> It is an unavoidable fact of history that in certain times and places,
> dhimmis were indeed subjected to the kind of abuse and discrimination
> mentioned by Bat Ye'or. However, those sad realities are examples of
> evil actions by sinful men. They are not examples of the manner in which
> Allah has ordered us to treat the non-Muslims who live in Muslim lands.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Sometime it's interesting to read what Bat Ye'or (a.k.a. Giselle Littman)
actually says herself rather than the jaundiced summaries emanating from the
strident anti-Muslim lobby. Here's one linked extract:-
http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id=100520&show_release_date=1
Extract:
Bat Ye'or urged Americans to educate themselves on the history of Islam, to
learn the roots of Islamic fundamentalism, and to become familiar with the
more pluralistic view originally advocated by the prophet Muhammad.
"It is important to guard against anti-Muslim sentiment," she cautioned.
"Not all Muslims are motivated by hatred. Many are fighting against this
ideology, which is medieval," and which "prevents the Muslim world from
establishing normal relations with the rest of the world." Indonesia,
Malaysia and Turkey are examples of moderate Islamic nations.
End extract.
If this is Bat Ye'or's declared position - and I have no reason to believe
that its not -what right do other less knowledgeable commentators have to
whip up anti-Muslim sentiments using her works?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi.
zuiko....@gmail.com
capsaicin
> HER account is based upon tireless research.
You speak as if Lewis's works are NOT based on research while you know
his works are one of the most authoritative and widly used regarding
the history of islam. And about the history of the Ottomans no other
work is as authentic as his.
Plus, he is not considered an islamophil. His account on the subject of
dhimmitude is by representing two myths. He considers persecution of
non-muslims under islam and the golden age of tolerance of the muslims
to be both myths. If one looks at the story of Yeor's childhood (as
represented by herself) then you can find much greater motives for her
to be an islamophobe than for lewis to be an islamophil.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1163079284.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
>> Robert wrote:
>> You smear me with the charge of Islamophobia, "the new anti-Semitism".
>> This term is used as a smear against anyone who criticizes Islam and as
>> a justification for Muslim victimhood. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What is inconsistent here is that Robert falsely accuses Islam and Muslims
of invoking "victimhood as justification", when Robert's original message is
premised on Bat Ye'or's account of dhimmi "victimhood" (i.e. the culture of
victims) in Egypt and elsewhere.
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
"Islamophile" is no more a smear than is "Anglophile" or "Francophile",
neither is it a word of adverse criticism.
"Islamophobia", a word invented for political purposes, means an
irrational hatred (properly speaking irrational fear) of Islam, and is
a mock psychiatric expression. In actual use it is applied to anyone
who criticizes Islam. I fear Islam, but my fear is rational: Islam is
and has been terrible. I am not moved to hate Islam, but have the
gravest misgivings about the motivations of those who have power within
it. I cannot be truly described as an Islamophobe because my objections
to Islam are rational and I am at pains to offer my reasons and
evidence.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:kevans-9C56E4....@r01.iad01.newshosting.com...
<snip> ...
This Dhimmi brouhaha, in the Balkan context, has typically garnered some
topical reaction and angst with the anti-Islam lobby because of this UN
press release by Carl Bildt:-
Quote:-
UN Commissioner to Balkan calls for recognizing Islam as European culture
GEN-BALKAN-COMMISSIONER-BILDT
UN Commissioner to Balkan calls for recognizing Islam as European culture
By Yaseen Rawashdeh SARAJEVO, March 12 (KUNA) -- UN Commissioner to the
Balkans Carl Bildt on Saturday called for recognizing Islam as part of the
European culture, asserting that Muslims in Balkan formed a unique and
positive factor in European affairs.
In a statement on the Balkan Convention for Development and Cooperation,
which took place in Macedonia, Bildt told KUNA that Muslims in the Balkans,
especially in Bosnia and Kosovo, proved that they are characterized with
tolerance and cooperation with other societies, noting that they were
victims of the others, not visa versa.
Bildt, who is the former UN commissioner for Bosnia and former Sweden's
prime minister, said the war in Bosnia proved that Muslims were victims and
did not practice revenge based upon religion or ethnicity, which reinforces
the fundamentals of their religious culture that prevents such practices.
The official expressed dissatisfaction at the thoughts promoting doubts
toward European Muslims or the thoughts that Islam is an abnormal religion
in Europe, stressing that cultural and religious pluralisms are the main
components of all European societies and there is no single European country
occupied by the followers of only one religion or ethnicity.
The official demanded the developing of the Balkans as a whole, calling for
accepting all the region's countries together in the EU to prevent any
issues or conflicts that might be generated by keeping some Balkan countries
outside the EU.
Bildt also called for more conferences and meetings between Balkan countries
and EU representatives, and called for including the region in joint
transportation and economic development projects.
Major political officials and social figures from 12 south-eastern Europe
countries and EU representatives held a number of meetings during the past
two days in Macedonia to discuss development and cooperation issues in the
Balkans. (end) yr.
fhd
KUNA 121638 Mar 05NNNN
Unquote.
Interesting enough the only source that says (the Armenian) James Zohrab was
the British Consul in Sarajevo in 1860 is Robert Spencer. So much for
historical accuracy and tireless research in his much vaunted "Onward Muslim
Soldiers"!
But Robert will try and deny that he directly lifted his original message
from this unreliable and incompetent source, rather than as he suggest Bat
Ye'or, even though he unthinkingly compounded the misleading error by Robert
Spencer.
Robert
Demonstrate where I am guilty of falsehood, distortion by quoting out
of context, and misinterpretation. As it stands you merely smear me
with unsubstantiated accusations. Fariduddien Rice has done the same: I
asked him to do the decent thing and make good his charges or withdraw
them; I received no response. There are nearly 500 postings of mine for
you to attack: go ahead - there is plenty of opportunity for you to
demonstrate the truth of your accusations. In more than a year of
posting no contributor, to my knowledge, has been able to demonstrate
falsehood in my postings. Perhaps you ought to consider whether they
are TRUE not just anti-Islamic.
Yes, what I write IS selective; it cannot help but be selective given
the vastness as a subject of Islam. And my intention is to show that
Islam IS largely false, and if I selectively succeed in that then Islam
IS false whatever else might be said about it.
It is not my concern to highlight the positive side of Islam; it is
Islam's negative side that is such a threat both to the West and to the
unfortunate Muslims themselves. That I neglect the positive doesn't
show that the negative I demonstrate is false. My intention is not to
produce a representative survey of Islam.
Azumazi has not produced any substantive criticism of my postings: his
performances are rhetorical, sophistical, and involve serious
misrepresentaion and distortion.
Anjum wrote:
>
Robert
You are too ready with your accusations of mendacity. As I stated in my
posting, the quotations I made about the condition of the Bosnian
Christians under the Ottomans were taken from Bat Ye'or's address to
the Islamic Society. Just look it up and see. Once again you attempt to
smear me by association, alleging that the source of my quotations is
someone blackened in the mind of your readers. You do this as a
distraction from the fact that you totally ignore the force and point
of the evidence I bring.
Robert
What is at issue is not Bernard Lewis's works, which of course are
based on extensive research, but Bat Ye'or's and Lewis's accounts of
the dhimmis. Lewis in his many volumes touches on the dhimmis - a major
aspect of Islamic civilization - in passing, whereas Bat Ye'or has
devoted years of research and whole volumes to the issue. She is par
excellence the scholar of dhimmitude; comparatively, Lewis is
negligible.
Of course, Lewis has written the standard history of modern Turkey,
which is marred by his failure to acknowledge the genocide of the
Christian Armenians together with Christian Assyrians and others - the
dhimmis.
Throughout his work Lewis systematically softens the adverse accounts
that he is forced to give of Islam and distracts from them by adding
'balancing' comments on medieval Europe about whose Christianity he is
in this context savage. Of course, he is a Jew, who has inherited the
Jewish bitterness about the medieval European persecution of Jews. He
also has a Jewish regard for the Ottomans, who took in the Spanish Jews
when they were expelled by Ferdinand and Isabella. He does not
acknowledge that the Sephardic Jews were dhimmis and subject to
degrading social, legal, and economic disabilities under Islam. In his
old age he has become franker about Islam; he has, for instance, gone
out of his way to scotch the myth of the idyllic multicultural Spain
under the Moors: the Christians and Jews were dhimmis and oppressed as
they were everywhere under Islam.
I do not know whether Lewis is generally considered an Islamophile, but
I consider him such and can give my grounds for that judgment.
Clearly Bat Ye'or is powerfully driven in her books on Islam, but it
doesn't follow from that that she is an Islamophobe. An Islamophobe is
someone whose opposition to Islam is irrational, just as an antisemite
is someone whose dislike of Jews is not based on reason. Bat Ye'or
powerfully gives grounds and reasons and evidence in her hostile
account of Islam.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> "Islamophile" is no more a smear than is "Anglophile" or "Francophile",
> neither is it a word of adverse criticism.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Wrong again Robert, you and the anti-Muslim cabal over at "Dhimmi/ Jihad
Watch" are using the neologism "Islamophile" in a pejorative (quisling)
sense to personally denigrate Professor Esposito and the conciliatory
activities of "The Centre of Muslim-Christian Understanding". To argue that
you aren't using it as an epithet is futile, in the context of the
pronounced anti-Muslim sentiment contained in the many diatribes being
authored by yourself and other sycophants, who unthinkingly cite the
infamous agitprop web-source mentioned above.
Would you say that the vindictive campaign orchestrated by "Dhimmi/
Jihad/Campus Watch" et al, isn't an self-evident attempt to "smear"
the academic reputation of Professor Esposito? Or are you trying to artfully
suggest, for instance, that any devout Christian accused of being an
"Islamophile" wouldn't consider it a "smear" (i.e. an act that brings
discredit to the person who does it) in the current geopolitical climate?
Context is everything. I would expect mature subscribers to conclude from
this polemic.
--
Peace
--
For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the
word meaning it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the
language. [Ludwig Wittgenstein]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1163315601.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> You speak as if Lewis's works are NOT based on research while you know
> his works are one of the most authoritative and widly used regarding
> the history of islam. And about the history of the Ottomans no other
> work is as authentic as his. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What is the referent here? I would expect the "Islamophile" attack on
Professor Bernard Lewis is motivated more by his rejection of the "Armenian
Genocide" thesis than Islam in and of itself. You have to recognise the
Armenian/Melkite connection over at Dhimmi/Jihad Watch. Robert Spencer,
Andrew Bostom, et al, are all senior political members of the Armenian/
Melkite community. If you take the ancient ethnic rivalry between the
Armenians versus the Turks into perspective, it makes their onslaughts much
clearer.
Obviously, it is in the interest of the Armenian/Melkite lobby for them to
try and associate their ancient ethnic hostility against the Turks with
Islam and the wider Muslim community, under the emotional dhimmi/jihad
banner. This is simply political opportunism of the worst kind.
Unfortunately Robert, like many others in their ignorance, have been
intellectually exploited by the carefully disguised "Armenian" propaganda
emanating from the unscrupulous "Dhimmi/Jihad Watch" cabal. That's the
reality.
Robert
The fact that "Islamophile" can be used pejoratively does not mean that
it is a 'smear' word.
Your assertion that I have anything to say about "Islamophile" as an
epithet is a gratuitous falsehood, but perhaps you don't understand the
words "pejorative" and "epithet".
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ..
> You are too ready with your accusations of mendacity. As I stated in my
> posting, the quotations I made about the condition of the Bosnian
> Christians under the Ottomans were taken from Bat Ye'or's address to
> the Islamic Society. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Wrong again Robert, you stated in your original post and I quote from the
appropriate transcript:-
"This account by Bat Ye'or of the condition of Christian and Jewish dhimmis
under Islam, taken from "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam"
...
For confirmation see this link:-
Now, you are saying its from "Bat Ye'or's address to the Islamic Society."
isn't this proof of, as you say, mendacity? Then are you going to apologise
to subscribers now that the accusations have proved to be correct from your
own testimony?
Surfer
>
>It would be interesting to see if the Western governments would
>consider asking their Muslim citizens to become their "dhimmi", that
>is, they would take care of the Muslims, protect their religious
>freedoms within certain agreed-upon limits, and would exempt them from
>military duty so that when they attack those nations where the Muslims
>are in majority, the Western Muslims wouldn't have to go and fight.
>
When a person's religion or philosophy forbids him to participate in a
certain conflict, it should be possible for him to register as a
consciencious objector. This should be possible for Muslims and
non-Muslims alike.
>
>In return, the Muslims would pay extra in their taxes.
>
Consciencious objectors (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) could do that.
Or they could perhaps volunteer for other hazardous duties. Eg
firefighting.
>One of the religious freedoms granted to the Muslims would be the
>setting up of arbitration courts to settle family matters. The costs to
>run these courts would come from the extra tax the Muslims would pay.
>
Even if this were done, I don't see why arbitration for Muslims should
cost any more than arbitration for non-Muslims. Assuming that is the
case, Muslims should not need to pay extra tax.
However, if a separate arbitration system was allowed for Muslim
families, what should happen if a family member decided to switch to a
non-Muslim religion before or in the middle of arbitration?
To disallow this would violate their right to freedom of religion, yet
to allow arbitration between people of different religions, would
require the arbitration process to switch to using secular law.
I guess that would not be a problem if it did not happen too often.
And ideally, arbitration should result in an outcome which all members
would consider to be reasonable. When trying to achieve such an
outcome, harmonising personal opinions may be more important than
application of law.
My conclusion: In principle it should be possible to provide the above
conditions for Muslims, without the need for a special dhimmi status
or tax.
Regards,
Surfer
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Would this be a fair possibility and situation for the Muslims living
> in the West?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This extract from the prestigious magazine "The Economist" gives a sober
summary of the Eurabia thesis:-
Extract:-
Fears about "Londonistan" and so on have helped Europe's far right; on the
other side of politics, a bizarre alliance has sprung up between the
anti-war left and Islamic hardliners. But the respectable centre is split
between France's strict integrationist approach (banning Muslim children
from wearing head-scarves in state schools) and the more tolerant
multiculturalism of Britain and the Netherlands. The debate about Turkey
(and its 71m Muslims) joining the European Union is increasingly a Eurabian
one. Meanwhile, at the centre of all this fuss Europe's Muslims are
themselves riven by inter-generational arguments on everything from whether
there is a European version of Islam to which cricket team to support.
Is Eurabia really something to worry about? The concept includes a string of
myths and a couple of hard truths. Most of the myths have to do with the
potency of Islam in Europe. The European Union is home to no more than 20m
Muslims, or 4% of the union's inhabitants. That figure would soar closer to
17% if Turkey were to join the EU-but that, alas, is something that
Europeans are far less keen on than Americans are. Even taking into account
Christian and agnostic Europe's lousy breeding record, Muslims will account
for no more than a tenth of west Europe's population by 2025. Besides,
Europe's Muslims are not homogenous. Britain's mainly South Asian Muslims
have far less in common with France's North African migrants or Germany's
Turks than they do with other Britons. ...
Europe's Islamic experience will be different from America's: geography and
history have seen to that already. Integration will be hard work for all
concerned. But for the moment at least, the prospect of Eurabia looks like
scaremongering.
End extract.
Full article at this link:-
Of course if you really want a critical op-ed piece of the whole
preposterous "Eurabia" thesis then I recommend that you visit the Word
Press.com link and read the erudite article by Matt Carr:-
http://gess.wordpress.com/2006/08/06/you-are-now-entering-eurabia
--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slimane Zéghidour]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
(re-sent)
<snip>
> Another account of the plight of dhimmis.(In Bosnia from 1463 to 1850
> the Bosniak Muslims enjoyed all the privileges of feudalism, the
> Christians being their feudal subjects)
<snip> ...
Comment:-
According to your thesis, when the Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire invaded and
annexed Bosnia, during this turbulent ("Age of Empires" [sic]) epoch, it was
their imperial ambitions and wasn't the "politically motivated"
manifestation of Holy Roman Empire. When, subsequently, the Ottoman Empire
invaded and annexed Bosnia it wasn't their imperial ambitions but Islam that
was the "politically motivated" cause. If the purported cause was the spread
of Islam, as you are trying to unscrupulously suggest, then how does this
account for Ottoman Empire's invasion and colonisation of many Muslim
countries in the Middle East and North Africa? Not the spread of Islam I
would expect!
Why was it that the Bogomils which constituted a significant part of the
then Bosnia populace, voluntarily embraced Islam subsequent to conquest by
the Ottoman Empire? Wasn't it because they had been systematically
persecuted and oppressed by the Holy Roman Empire for centuries as heretics,
as were the Albigensians and Cathars?
Which would you rationally choose, "auto da-fe" under the Holy Roman Empire
or "dhimmi" status under the Ottoman Empire? Which of these two outcomes do
you think is more tolerant in the minds of mature subscribers?
Tony Cox
> consider asking their Muslim citizens to become their "dhimmi", that
> is, they would take care of the Muslims, protect their religious
> freedoms within certain agreed-upon limits, and would exempt them from
> military duty so that when they attack those nations where the Muslims
> are in majority, the Western Muslims wouldn't have to go and fight.
Western governments *do* take care of Muslims, just like
other citizens. They *do* protect their religious freedoms
within certain agreed-upon (and really very broad) limits.
In both the US and the UK, "conscription" has been abolished,
so Muslims are already exempt from military duty -- like
everyone else, they have to "opt in" if they wish to serve. Even
when the citizenry was conscripted (pre '60 in UK, '73 in USA)
there was always the ability to claim conscientious objector
status. No Muslim is obliged to fight against his will.
> In return, the Muslims would pay extra in their taxes.
In return for *what* ?
> One of the religious freedoms granted to the Muslims would be the
> setting up of arbitration courts to settle family matters. The costs to
> run these courts would come from the extra tax the Muslims would pay.
Muslims can already arrange their religiously-prescribed
inheritance laws according to law.using the current system
(wills, trusts, etc.). There is no need for any special "religious"
courts to administer this.
As for other "family matters", I presume you are talking about
custody disputes in case of divorce? Can you detail a scenario
where the criteria for custody ought to be any different when
"Islamic" justice prevails?
> Would this be a fair possibility and situation for the Muslims living
> in the West?
No. What is fair is an environment where the same laws apply
to people regardless of race, religion or sex. We've too many
historical examples where establishing "privilege" has been
destabilizing and divisive to countenance any more of it.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Wiki makes it clear that Robert's activities here constitute
> Islamophobia (the new form of "anti-Semitism").
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Yes, I did a quick Google search into his article and came up with this
result:-
http://emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/bat.htm
This website turns out to be an "ultranationalistic" Serbian one with
sickening ravings and rants about "Milosevic not being a war criminal", and
typical Islamophobe beat ups about Muslim atrocities in Bosnia, etc, etc!
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/freezer1.htm
Is it any wonder that Robert didn't provide the direct link in his lifted
article. Maybe he was too embarrassed to admit where he got this propaganda
feed.
But Robert artfully suggests elsewhere that Giselle Littman's (a.k.a. Bat
Ye'or) address wasn't based on the contemporary Palestine/Israel conflict at
all, when she actually says, and I quote:-
"We find the same reasoning in the Palestinian 1988 Covenant of the Hamas."
--
Peace
--
Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.
Robert
Your fanciful account of Muslims enjoying 'dhimmi' status in the West
is benign, but it neglects the fact that Muslims cannot settle for such
a status: they are under the obligation to struggle for the
establishment of an Islamic state. This obligation is not just a dead
letter for orthodox Muslims: the Muslim Council of Britain, the leading
organisation 'representing' Muslims, has as one of its aims the
establishment of an Islamic State in the UK. It revealed this in a
deposition to the Government concerning the infamous Religious Hatred
Bill when it requested an assurance that campaigning for an Islamic
State in the UK would not be illegal under the proposed Law.
It is a common Muslim falsification that the jizyah was payable in lieu
of military service. Bernard Lewis calculated that the jizyah was
double the taxation on Muslims: non-Muslims were simply fleeced
whatever the military needs.
Islamic courts are proposed to settle family matters. (This would be
just a first step). The acceptance of these would be the acceptance of
institutionalized injustice for the following reasons drawn from
Islamic Law:
1) The husband is permitted to divorce his wife peremptorily and with
no reason.
2) The wife may not divorce her husband without his permission except
in the case of specific circumstances such as impotence (itself an
injustice).
3) The husband receives custody of the children.
4) There is no division of property.
5) No maintenance is payable.
6) Marital rape is permissible.
klei...@astound.net
Anjum wrote:
> It would be interesting to see if the Western governments would
> consider asking their Muslim citizens to become their "dhimmi",
This has been suggested before, although not seriously. The usual
version is that Muslims get the same rights that Saudi Arabia gives
Christians. I think even Muslims will agree that the Saudis are not the
right model for how to treat dhimmis.
> is, they would take care of the Muslims, protect their religious
> freedoms within certain agreed-upon limits, and would exempt them from
> military duty so that when they attack those nations where the Muslims
> are in majority, the Western Muslims wouldn't have to go and fight.
So far as I know all the western armies are volunteer armies, so no one
is compelled to fight against an enemy they do not want to attack. Most
people in the United States would say that Muslims are already being
taken care off, their religious freedoms are protected and they are
exempt from military duty.
Hence it appears they are already dhimmis. I don't think you mean that.
> In return, the Muslims would pay extra in their taxes.
Why?
> One of the religious freedoms granted to the Muslims would be the
> setting up of arbitration courts to settle family matters. The costs to
> run these courts would come from the extra tax the Muslims would pay.
If you really mean arbitration this is already possible. All the
Muslims have to do is find an arbitrator. But no western nation would
allow these courts any power to compel anyone to obey because they
would offer inadequate protection to women and children (unless, of
course, they abandon the shari'ah).
> Would this be a fair possibility and situation for the Muslims living
> in the West?
It is appears that it is already in place. I have trouble believing I
have understood you correctly because it all seems too easy. Where did
I go wrong?
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Would this be a fair possibility and situation for the Muslims living
> in the West?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Only if Muslims wanted to be treated as second-class citizens in the country
where they live. This is highly questionable. What you hinting at is
institutionalised religious apartheid in practice. The "apartheid thesis",
whether based on race or religion simply doesn't work - if it ever did
anywhere it was practised. Of course, you can dress it up under various
euphemisms such as 'separate development' or the more disingenuous
'co-operative coexistence", but that doesn't make it anymore palatable in
today's world. Muslim leadership really need to re-think this one on purely
pragmatic grounds, in my opinion.
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> What is at issue is not Bernard Lewis's works, which of course are
> based on extensive research, but Bat Ye'or's and Lewis's accounts of
> the dhimmis. Lewis in his many volumes touches on the dhimmis - a major
> aspect of Islamic civilization - in passing, whereas Bat Ye'or has
> devoted years of research and whole volumes to the issue. She is par
> excellence the scholar of dhimmitude; comparatively, Lewis is
> negligible.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Where did the manipulative political neologism "dhimmitude" come from? This
Wiki article provides the essential background:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude
Extract:-
The word "dhimmitude" is a neologism, imported from the French language, and
derived from the Arabic language word dhimmi. The term has at least two
distinct but related meanings describing a certain position of a non-Muslim
in relation to the Islamic world - notably it is a characterization of
non-Muslims as submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation.
Dhimmi (also zimmi, Arabic ???, often translated as "protected") is the
legal status of a free non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance
with sharia - Islamic law. The word dhimmi is an adjective (but used like a
noun in English). It is derived from the noun dhimma, which means "pact of
liability", and denotes the legal relationship between non-Muslim subjects
and the Islamic state. "Dhimmitude" adds the productive suffix "-tude" to
the adjective dhimmi, thus creating a new noun with a meaning (arguably)
distinct from dhimma.
The term entered English-language use after the 1996 publication of the book
"The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude.
Seventh-Twentieth Century"[1] and the 2003 followup "Islam and Dhimmitude:
Where Civilizations Collide"[2] by Bat Ye'or. She is widely thought to have
invented the word[3] but she credits assassinated Lebanese Maronite leader
Bashir Gemayel for the term.
Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton
University, states that:-
"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of
Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the
story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation,
especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of
"dhimmi"-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are
myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the
historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the
extremes."
End extract.
What are the issues based on this essential background information? It would
appear that Professor Lewis believes that the whole "dhimmitude" concept as
invented and articulated by Giselle Littman is simply a MYTH.
Obviously, ranged on the other side of the "myth" divide, we have its
hardline political protagonists, like Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Oriana
Fallacci, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes, and their sycophants, et al, who
have taken up the "dhimmitude" construct - and it's spurious descendent
"Eurabia" - as a scaremongering "conspiracy theory" to whip-up anti-Muslim
sentiment. See this additional Wiki link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
One could say it's more or less a contemporary re-run of Professor Karl
Poppers well known proposition: "historicism" - the reduction of history to
an overt and naive distortion via a crude formulaic analysis usually
predicated on an agenda replete with unsound presuppositions.
Certainly, Giselle Littman is an expert in "dhimmitude" since she invented
the conceptual term in the first place. What does this prove? Nothing, other
than perhaps she's more knowledgeable about in her own "mythical" opinions
than others. But this doesn't prove her revisionist thesis is true, as David
Irving's revisionist thesis, about the holocaust, didn't prove that true.
This Wiki quote summarises the paradoxical situation: "While some
historians like John Keegan and Hugh Trevor-Roper-though disputing Irving's
claim that Hitler had no knowledge of the Holocaust-praised the book as
well-written and well-researched, other historians were more hostile."
Now Robert, has posted a number of anti-Islamic articles with "myth" in the
subject heading or as part of the sub-text, see this link:-
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=author%3Arob...@f2s.com+%22myth%22
In these articles, Robert has artfully attacked Muslims under Islamic "myth"
banner. Now, in reality, he wants to unscrupulously attack Islam under the
mythical "dhimmitude" banner. Isn't this historical revisionism
(illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes) and
dissimulation the awful truth?
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
rejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Surfer
<zuiko....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Which would you rationally choose, "auto da-fe" under the Holy Roman Empire
>or "dhimmi" status under the Ottoman Empire? Which of these two outcomes do
>you think is more tolerant in the minds of mature subscribers?
>
From:
http://www.bartleby.com/81/1099.html
Auto da Fe. [An act of faith.]
A day set apart by the Inquisition for the examination of “heretics.”
Those not acquitted were burnt. The reason why inquisitors burnt their
victims was, because they are forbidden to “shed blood”; an axiom of
the Roman Catholic Church being, “Eccle’sia non novit san’guinem” (the
church is untainted with blood).
From:
http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2002/02/daily-02-06-2002.shtml
Spain's name is forever linked with the Inquisition. But the
inquisition did not begin there. Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX
established the dreaded institution in the thirteenth century to
combat heretical groups. What made the inquisition so terrible was the
severity of both the questioning and the punishment and the lack of
rights granted to the accused. Those who "snitched" on them could do
so secretly. A victim could not challenge the witnesses against him or
her.
When Isabella and Ferdinand united Spain in 1479, they were paranoid
for fear of revolt. When the queen's confessor, Tomas de Torquemada,
of Jewish origin himself, whispered into her ears that Christianized
Jews were secretly practicing their Hebrew faith and corrupting good
Christians, Isabella was horrified and frightened. She asked the pope
for permission to establish the inquisition in Spain. This was
granted.
Under sadistic torture, suspects incriminated other people. These in
turn accused almost anyone they could think of just to please their
captors and win a reprieve from their torment. Every confession added
to the alarm of the Catholic king and queen, suggesting widespread
corruption of the Christian faith. Soon the burnings began.
"Auto da fe" means "Act of Faith." The first Spanish auto-da-fe was
held on this day February 6, 1481, when six men and six women, who
refused to repent of alleged backsliding, were burned at the stake.
They were but the first. 13,000 "heretics" were tried in the first
twelve years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hundreds perished at the
stake. Dressed in a penitent's gown, they were marched in
processionals to the stake and urged to repent even as they were
bound. Those who confessed were strangled before the fire was lit.
Those who refused to admit wrongdoing, or those who defiantly clung to
their "heresies" were burned alive.
As hard as it is to believe, the inquisition ran for 327 years in
Spain. It was not abolished until 1808, during the brief reign of
Joseph Bonaparte. In those three centuries, close to 32,000 people
perished in the flames. About 300,000 others were forced to make some
kind of reconciliation with the church. Even the 1808 "end" to the
Spanish Inquisition wasn't really the end. Incredible as it may seem,
King Ferdinand VII reestablished the dreadful apparatus in 1814! But
six years later, a revolution swept it away--hopefully forever. But
some defenders of the Roman Church were still excusing and justifying
the practice in the twentieth century although it is impossible to see
Christ winning followers by such means. Jesus turned away those who
were not serious about following him.
The apparatus of the inquisition was not restricted to Europe. Spain
exported it to the new world, where men and women were burned in
Mexico and Peru starting in the sixteenth century. Portuguese priests
also operated an inquisition in Goa, India.
====================
Dhimmi status is obviously more tolerant, but multi-faith secularism
would seem best.
Regards
Surfer
klei...@astound.net
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> What you hinting at is
> institutionalised religious apartheid in practice. The "apartheid thesis",
> whether based on race or religion simply doesn't work - if it ever did
> anywhere it was practised. Of course, you can dress it up under various
> euphemisms such as 'separate development' or the more disingenuous
> 'co-operative coexistence", but that doesn't make it anymore palatable in
> today's world. Muslim leadership really need to re-think this one on purely
> pragmatic grounds, in my opinion.
I wonder about the "apartheid thesis". Didn't "institutionalized
religious apartheid" really work in the Ottoman Empire? For several
centuries.
Assuming it did work in a very prominent Muslim example, it will be
hard going to get old-fashioned Muslim leadership thinking in any other
terms. But I don't think these old-fashioned "leaders" are thinking in
terms of Muslim communities embedded in non-Muslim nations. They are
thinking in terms of non-Muslim communities embedded in Muslim
countries.
The two situations are not parallel. Islam would permit genuine
embedded communities within Islamic countries. The Western philosophy
would not. This is not an Islam versus Christianity issue. Western
secular judicial procedure is the problem.
I don't know if all Muslims agree on this, but I have seen it
frequently stated that the shari'ah applies only to Muslims. If that is
the case, then a non-Muslim community with its own judicial code could
be embedded in a Muslim country that follows the shari'ah.
But a Western judicial code applies to everyone. Practically by
definition. This would make an embedded community little more than a
matter of nomenclature.
I believe some modern Islamic political theorists have not recognized
the asymmetry between the two situations and have somehow imagined that
Western law is intended to apply only the those who, in some fashion,
accept it.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Well let's look at two evidential examples from your own recent transcripts
in SRI:-
"The arch-Islamophile Karen Armstrong has this week repeated in the
"Guardian" the claim that "jihad" means spiritual struggle and that it is
distressing to Muslims to hear it said otherwise. As a woman who earns her
living by saying what Muslims want to hear and what Muslims want to hear
non-Muslims among whom they live being told, Armstrong presumably knows the
truth."
"This is false, but so widespread is the falsity broadcast that it is
difficult to
field a refutation, especially because those who touch on the issue are
often disingenuous, or mealy-mouthed Islamophiles. John L. Esposito, a
strongly Islamophile scholar who is staunchly defensive of Islam is to be
saluted for his report on the issue in his book "Unholy War: Terror in the
Name of Islam"
Aren't these two transcripts meant to be "epithets" (i.e. defamatory or
abusive word (s) or phrase) or "pejorative" in nature or context? Doesn't
this irrefutable evidence confirm that it's you who doesn't understand them?
Which only connotes the "mealy-mouthed" and "disingenuous" thematic
contained in their artful utterance. Only an overzealous Islamophobe could
conceivably construe or reason that this self-incrimination as a "gratuitous
falsehood".
Just as these gratuitous remarks from another post of yours aren't intended
as a detestable "smear" on this well-known and devout Christian:-
"You must know that Karen Armstrong is a renegade Catholic nun, now
earning her living as an apologist for Islam. She is also consumed by
liberal, as well as 'religious', guilt. Everything she says must be
checked."
Would a true Christian say such things about their coreligionists?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Someone who wants to offer a healthy criticism will display the
> following characteristics, among others:
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As a matter of record (see link below), Robert has never commented on any of
Adul-Aziz ibn Myatt's posts in SRI (or vice versa for that matter). Why is
that do you think? Doesn't Abdul-Aziz conform more to Robert's radical
Muslim stereotype than any other Muslim subscriber in SRI? What implications
can be drawn from this fact, considering the anonymity of commentators? Who
would gain most under this "agent provocateur" scenario? Who has recently
tried to persuade Muslim subscribers to switch to another Islamic forum?
Verification at this blank search result:-
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=author%3Arob...@f2s.com+%22abdul-aziz%22
Is this all rubbish, just another popular conspiracy theory, a genre, if
not, the overriding one, that appeals to many belligerent subscribers?
What's the truth of the matter?
--
Peace
--
Speculation, theory, what are they but thinking? Can man disdain
speculation, can he disdain theory, without disdaining thought as well?
[Bentham 1824]
--
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
Moderator, how did you come to pass this: it is entirely devoted to the
Inquisition and totally irrelevant to Islam?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1163904819.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> I wonder about the "apartheid thesis". Didn't "institutionalized
> religious apartheid" really work in the Ottoman Empire? For several
> centuries.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
You have hit the jackpot. Yes, religious apartheid did exist under the
Ottoman Empire. But the "Age of Empire" is over, never to return, even in
the Muslim world. Do you think any self-respecting Muslim is going to
sacrifice his national interest or identity for the sake of resurrecting a
defunct and discredited foreign imperialism, albeit Muslim in orientation?
That's the essential dichotomy between imperialism (manifest destiny [sic])
and de facto nationalism in a global Muslim world. Islam is now a global
phenomenon not an regional empire, that's the dilemma that "old-fashioned
Muslim leaders" haven't understood completely. They are still struggling to
pull the defunct "religious apartheid" genie out of the lamp in the absence
of any acceptable global leadership.
Robert
The question which would you choose, auto da fe or dhimmitude under the
Ottomans is, of course, entirely arbitrary and serves no useful
purpose.
Surfer's quotes are from a source of no value and a Protestant
anti-Catholic article. For a well-informed account see the article
"Inquisition" in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
But life for a Christian under the Turks WAS terrible; the devshirne
has already been discussed; what hasn't been mentioned is that there
was a devshirne of girls to stock the Imperial Harem.
The Turks were notoriously cruel in many ways. The Armenians dressed
their girls as boys in order to avoid their being raped by Turkish
soldiers. The Turks burnt their victims (an un-Islamic punishment) in
Bulgaria: they wanted a zone near the frontier inhabited solely by
Muslims so they forced the Bulgarians to 'convert' by burning some and
threatening the others with the same.
Another atrociously cruel punishment was impaling: the victim had a
sharpened wooden rod driven through his body from the anus to the neck;
this was done by skilled executioners who could impale without damaging
vital organs. The rod was fixed vertically with the victim off the
ground. He was left to die where Christians could not avoid seeing him.
Repeatedly through the nineteenth century Christian subjects of the
Sultan were massacred by the tens of thousands while the forces of the
State stood by and did nothing to prevent the outrages - they were
complicit. It was only the repeated intervention of the European powers
that brought things to an end for a time.
The Inquisition affected relatively few, but whole nations suffered for
centuries under the Turks.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> The question which would you choose, auto da fe or dhimmitude under the
> Ottomans is, of course, entirely arbitrary and serves no useful
> purpose.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Your equivocation isn't an adequate or well-reasoned response. Why is "auto
da fe" arbitrary and "dhimmi status" not? Why isn't it useful to compare the
two, so that subscribers can make a reasoned choice about their relative
tolerance level back in mediaeval times? What ethical or moral principle are
you using if you are not making any logical comparisons between mediaeval
practices in the Ottoman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire (Habsburgs)?
Aren't comparisons a useful tool in evaluating truth and justice? Or do you
think the Ottoman Empire should be judged in a one-sided manner? What has
this temporal "clash of empires" got to with Islam, in and of itself? Do you
arbitrarily designate and attribute all imperialist ambitions and conquests
down to a religious common denominator or just those empires who are
predominantly Muslim? What purpose does this serve other than reinforcing
your own whimsical prejudices?
Why do you arbitrarily pick the Catholic Encyclopaedia over the more
enlightened Wiki, Jewish, or the up-to-date Columbia (2001)? See these links
for comparative evaluation of articles:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_da_fe#External_links
http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/AUTO_DA_F%C3%89_(Jewish_Encyclopedia)
http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/Inquisit.html
Extract:-
Most trials resulted in a guilty verdict, and the church handed the
condemned over to the secular authorities for punishment. Burning at the
stake was thought to be the fitting punishment for unrecanted heresy,
probably through analogy with the Roman law on treason. However, the burning
of heretics was not common in the Middle Ages; the usual punishments were
penance, fine, and imprisonment. A verdict of guilty also meant the
confiscation of property by the civil ruler, who might turn over part of it
to the church. This practice led to graft, blackmail, and simony and also
created suspicion of some of the inquests. Generally the inquisitors were
eager to receive abjurations of heresy and to avoid trials. Secular rulers
came to use the persecution of heresy as a weapon of state, as in the case
of the suppression of the Knights Templars.
End extract
I like the opening of this particular abstract "Most trials resulted in a
guilty verdict" in the context of your arbitrary "mediaeval" condemnations
of your Islam and Muslims.
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
klei...@astound.net
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> The "Age of Empire" is over, never to return, even in
> the Muslim world. Do you think any self-respecting Muslim is going to
> sacrifice his national interest or identity for the sake of resurrecting a
> defunct and discredited foreign imperialism, albeit Muslim in orientation?
I wish I could agree.
But I have seen scores of different Muslim proclamations that the
caliphate must be restored. Some of them made right here on SRI.
Either a great number of Muslims, perhaps a majority, are not
self-respecting enough to value their national interest or identity
over the resurrection of Muslim imperialism or we have a very vocal
minority we need to handle with care.
Nostalgia for the caliphate seems to me to be a powerful force in Islam
today. We underestimate it at our peril.
PS: I don't think the Turks would think of the Ottoman empire as
FOREIGN imperialism.
Altway
<klei...@astound.net> wrote in message
> I don't know if all Muslims agree on this, but I have seen it
frequently stated that the shari'ah applies only to Muslims. If that is
the case, then a non-Muslim community with its own judicial code could
be embedded in a Muslim country that follows the shari'ah.
> But a Western judicial code applies to everyone. Practically by
definition. This would make an embedded community little more than a
matter of nomenclature.
Comment:-
I am sure Muslims know the difference between Western Law and the
Islamic Shariah, and that it is part of the Shariah to accept the principle
that
other non-muslim communities can follow their own shariah.
The one (the Western) is made on subjective whims, cultural conditioning or
political grounds, an outcome of the vagaries
and expediencies of a power struggle and though created by persons who hold
power over minories is imposed
on the whole community which has no say in it. The other (the Islamic) is
based or ought to be based on objective or impersonal grounds by persons who
have or ought to have the knowledge, virtue and ability and is applicable
only to those who accept the system on which it is based. This allows for
the coexistence of several different systems of life and the migration of
people to what suits them best.
Freedom of thought and speech, appears to be a hypocritical idea when there
is no freedom of action or behaviour, particularly as opposing ideas simply
cancel each other out allowing the authorities to do what ever they like.
They do this by manipulating opinion by emotional means, contolling
information through secrecy, distortion and invention. In fact governments
of States, though called Democrartic, do a great amount that the people have
no knowledge or control over. This includes experimenting on citizens and
sacrificing them for the profit of the few. The power of those who control
States is increasing and we have an increasingly powerful hidden
dictatorship. This threatens to become a global State that will destroy the
ability of humanity to adapt and develop.
There seems to be no alternative for people but either to submit and conform
or to revolt with violence. Hence increasing disillusionment with Politics
and increasing apathy.
Muslims, those who accept the Shariah, believe that it is, or has the
potentiality of being a far better system than the Western one.
However, it is true that the Shariah has stagnated, being interpreted
according to past conditions, and it has become maladapted to modern
conditions. There is absolutely no justification for this.
Hamid S. Aziz
klei...@astound.net
Altway wrote:
> I am sure Muslims know the difference between Western Law and the
> Islamic Shariah, and that it is part of the Shariah to accept the principle
> that other non-muslim communities can follow their own shariah.
I think that translates into "Only Muslims are required to follow the
Shari'ah of Islam and communities of non-Muslims are free to follow
there own Shari'ah". Which is almost, but not quite, what I originally
said. "The Shari'ah only applies to Muslims" in that now a non-Muslim
might opt to be govern by the Shari'ah. I don't think the difference
matters.
That is no longer in question. What I was suggesting is that some
Muslim thinkers have assumed a symmetry between the shari'ah law and
western law that does not actually exist and from that assumption drawn
misleading conclusions. At this point I would like to instance a real
example, but unfortunately I have none to hand.
Western law is, by design, intended to apply to everyone. It does not
pretend to be based on religious foundations and it has great
difficulty making any provision for separate treatment of different
religious sects. The only non-trivial example I know of in the United
States involves religious pacifists in time of war and in this case
special treatment is extended on a person-by-person basis and not to a
community as a whole.
Hence there is nothing in western law comparable to dhimmis and the
notion is foreign to western law. There is no symmetry. Perhaps in an
Islamic nation other non-Muslim communities can follow their own
sharia'ah. But in a western nation a muslim community cannot follow its
Shari'ah in any way except as a parody.
Whether or not this is a good thing is a different question.
Tony Cox
news:1164602335.8...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Western law is, by design, intended to apply to everyone. It does not
> pretend to be based on religious foundations and it has great
> difficulty making any provision for separate treatment of different
> religious sects. The only non-trivial example I know of in the United
> States involves religious pacifists in time of war and in this case
> special treatment is extended on a person-by-person basis and not to a
> community as a whole.
Exemption from animal welfare laws to permit halal methods
of slaughter. Exemption from Social security taxes for the
Amish, and for ordained ministers. Modification of tax reporting
for some members of religious orders (vows of poverty
exemption). Exemption from drug laws for native American
religious ceremonies. Property tax exemptions for religious
buildings, where only certain state-sanctioned religions qualify.
These are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.
It seems not to be particularly difficult to make provision
for different religious sects.
Not that I agree with any of this of course. But whether Muslims
must answer to the same laws as the rest of us can't be argued
simply by an appeal to precedent.
> Hence there is nothing in western law comparable to dhimmis and the
> notion is foreign to western law.
Perhaps foreign to _modern_ western law, but different
"communities" have been recognized in the not-so-distant
past (remember Indians counting as 3/5 of a white man?); indeed
Indian "reservations" exist to this day under their own special laws.
And one might argue that preference laws for blacks under
"affirmative action" legislation today confers some kind of
"Dhimmi" status upon that community.
> There is no symmetry. Perhaps in an
> Islamic nation other non-Muslim communities can follow their own
> sharia'ah. But in a western nation a muslim community cannot follow its
> Shari'ah in any way except as a parody.
Well, I don't know about that. Most of Sharia is compatible
with western law. Muslims can arrange their inheritance as they
wish, "marry" as many brides as they feel they might need without
sanction, and thumb their noses at credit card offers as much
as they like.
It's particularly in the realm of family law that questions arise. But
in part, this is an issue only because western government has
become so intrusive in recent times. Although one would have
to search way back for instances of western law turning a
blind eye to honour killing, it is not so long ago that "wife
beating" was considered merely to be a "family matter" and
seldom acted upon. We in the west have only within the last
hundred years or so accepted that child welfare is primarily
a state responsibility, rather than that of the extended family.
Of course, there are issues with Shariah rules of evidence and
its draconian punishments. All completely unacceptable to western
society, of course. But then these matters should be of no import
whatever to an _observant_ Muslim, now should they?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1164078142.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
(re-posted)
<snip> ...
> I wish I could agree.
> But I have seen scores of different Muslim proclamations that the
> caliphate must be restored. Some of them made right here on SRI.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Certainly you are right when you say there is a lot of talk and chatter
about the Caliphate (mainly by frustrated Muslim writers who think they are
intellectuals). This generally amounts to lot of wishful thinking rather
than any pragmatic political realism. Take the current tribal, ethnic and
sectarian rivalry in Iraq if you really want a reality check of the "unity
principle" implicit to a "Caliphate" revival. By analogy, there are a still
lot of antediluvian Communists who still believe in Marxist-Leninism come
the Revolution. Theory versus practice isn't just a Muslim dilemma it would
appear.
One could well ask: who cares what the Turks think if your a Kurd, Arab or
Shia!
Nima Rezai
> Certainly you are right when you say there is a lot of talk and chatter
> about the Caliphate (mainly by frustrated Muslim writers who think they
> are intellectuals). This generally amounts to lot of wishful thinking
> rather than any pragmatic political realism. Take the current tribal,
> ethnic and sectarian rivalry in Iraq if you really want a reality check
> of the "unity principle" implicit to a "Caliphate" revival.
Hehe, hi,
I think the only reason why some people have nostalgic views is their being
uninformed.
To summarize the caliphate as a kind of "umbrella" over a period that
oversimplifyingly was called "golden age of Islam" is definitely too much of
white-washing the sad facts.
One should not admire the rise of "islamic" science during the caliphate,
rather than one should wonder HOW science flourished DESPITE the caliphate.
>From reading the stories many caliphs leave an impression of being totally
mentally deranged, a good example being Harun al Rashid.
This guy was everything but definitely no pious muslim or otherwise "good"
human being.
It seems many decades of the nowadays wrongly praised caliphate were nothing
but wild orgies of sex, wine and wastefulness.
We wont ever know in details how the real exemplary islamic era, namely the
lifetime of the Prophet in Medina, was, but the caliphate (apart from few
exceptions) was nothing similar.
As I mentioned in other posts, from what history (mostly Tabari,
Baladhuri..) have to say, the lifetime of the prophet himself was hardly
anything more than a series of raids, battles and expeditions.
It is no surprise that some standard primary source works have names like
"Sira", "Maghazi" etc.
N.