Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Parodite »

Pasted from other thread where it was off topic.
Parodite wrote:
Enki wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Enki wrote:Monster_Gardener The problem with your quote about dhimmitude is that the other side was never any better than that. Europe used catapults, burned books and enslaved people.
Hate to be pedantic (j/k I love it!) but this use of the term "dhimmi" is a product of the Breivik reading list. The actual term meant people who didn't have to serve in the military, and so paid an extra tax. Correctly speaking it means "protected" and you could argue that all civilian citizens of a given country are "dhimmis" with regards to their government.

Spencer, Steyn et al use it to mean "ruled by Muslims." Truly a fate worse than death, except for the large swathes of history when it was the best case scenario (as you observed).
Thank you for explaining this. That makes a lot of sense.
Not a totally good clarification though. A Dhimmi simply means a non-Muslim. But it is true non-Muslim communties were given rights and protection, as well as some restrictions that were however minor. In general a tolerant environment for minorities especially in comparison with say the Roman Empire.

That doesn't mean however that Dhimmis, i.e. non-Muslims always and everywhere enjoyed those rights and protection under Islamic rule. Nor do people in general welcome an army at their doorstep saying: "Surrender! Then I will tolerantly rule over your life!" Islamic empire was as ruthless as any against those that rejected the offer or resisted it once the rule became fact. And because minorities with strong identities tend to resent being ruled by others as they perceive it, dhimmies were also not allowed to bear arms because you don't want armed revolts to arise. As to gun laws, the Islamic empire more resembled modern Europe than the USA :P

So I'll have to agree that using the term dhimmi as to represent maltreatment of non-Muslim minorities in Islamic empire to be bad choice. But people who associate dhimmitude with something bad, probably do so because they are of the opinion that those non-Muslims should not live under Islamic rule tot begin with, and live their lives independently on a different territory , to be free from the whims of the ruler of the day.
Last edited by Parodite on Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deep down I'm very superficial
anderson
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by anderson »

No, dhimmi literally and practically means "protected."
If a conquered group ended up not being protected, by definition they would not be dhimmis.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Parodite »

anderson wrote:No, dhimmi literally and practically means "protected."
If a conquered group ended up not being protected, by definition they would not be dhimmis.
But it referred to non-Muslims in practice? Where there Muslim dhimmies? Where the non-Muslims not being dhimmies?
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Dhimmis-A Brief History of Profit Centers for Prophet Perps

Post by monster_gardener »

Parodite wrote:Pasted from other thread where it was off topic.
Parodite wrote:
Enki wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Enki wrote:Monster_Gardener The problem with your quote about dhimmitude is that the other side was never any better than that. Europe used catapults, burned books and enslaved people.
Hate to be pedantic (j/k I love it!) but this use of the term "dhimmi" is a product of the Breivik reading list. The actual term meant people who didn't have to serve in the military, and so paid an extra tax. Correctly speaking it means "protected" and you could argue that all civilian citizens of a given country are "dhimmis" with regards to their government.

Spencer, Steyn et al use it to mean "ruled by Muslims." Truly a fate worse than death, except for the large swathes of history when it was the best case scenario (as you observed).
Thank you for explaining this. That makes a lot of sense.
Not a totally good clarification though. A Dhimmi simply means a non-Muslim. But it is true non-Muslim communties were given rights and protection, as well as some restrictions that were however minor. In general a tolerant environment for minorities especially in comparison with say the Roman Empire.

That doesn't mean however that Dhimmis, i.e. non-Muslims always and everywhere enjoyed those rights and protection under Islamic rule. Nor do people in general welcome an army at their doorstep saying: "Surrender! Then I will tolerantly rule over your life!" Islamic empire was as ruthless as any against those that rejected the offer or resisted it once the rule became fact. And because minorities with strong identities tend to resent being ruled by others as they perceive it, dhimmies were also not allowed to bear arms because you don't want armed revolts to arise. As to gun laws, the Islamic empire more resembled modern Europe than the USA :P

So I'll have to agree that using the term dhimmi as to represent maltreatment of non-Muslim minorities in Islamic empire to be bad choice. But people who associate dhimmitude with something bad, probably do so because they are of the opinion that those non-Muslims should not live under Islamic rule tot begin with, and live their lives independently on a different territory , to be free from the whims of the ruler of the day.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Rhapsody.
A Dhimmi simply means a non-Muslim.
With much due respect, this is incorrect.

A dhimmi is/was a non-Muslim who was paying his protection money to the Muslim Mafia/Mob and obeying the Muslim Mob rules.

Being a dhimmi was usually preferable to death/living as a Jew in near mid 20th Century Germany :twisted: but IMVHO not always preferable to paying protection money to the Italian Mafia ;) in that with the Muslim Mob you got punched in the jaw even if you did pay the protection money while as long as you paid on time the Italian Mafia did not break your legs........

Other nuances....... Such as Dhimmitude was supposed to be open only to Jews and Christians and was supposed to be a tool for pressuring them to convert as well as a way to make non Muslims show respect/money.......... And it was a VERY good tool to that effect..... Not as many Jews and Christians in the ME as there used to be.....

But as usual money corrupts and when you are dealing with an evil like Islam, that can be a VERY good thing ;) :lol: ......

Originally the option was supposed to be "Convert or Die" for Non Muslims who were not Christians or Jews/People of the Book but murder by hand can be VERY hard work and when you can tax instead of killer the temptation for non total fanatic Muslims became irresistible......
So Hindus, Zoroastrians and others became de facto Profit Centers for Prophet Perps ;) oops I mean People of the Book.........

And it gets funnier....... Muslim Mob Magnates got dependent on that People of the Book Protection Money and the Fun they had collecting it so much so that when some Dhimmis wanted to become late adopters ;) of the Malignant Muslim Meme and thus fellow Muslim Monsters not having to pay the Protection Money etc. the Muslim Magnates would try to prevent it... :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If Muslims in the West or in Israel were placed under equivalent rules today, Muslims would have to walk or ride bicycles* to the IRS office and stand in line to get punched on the jaw by the tax collector with death penalty possible for non payment, would not be allowed to live in a house higher than any Christian or Jewish house nearby, would have to wear a Crescent Moon badge on clothing of a special color, they would NOT be allowed to build new Mosques or repair old ones without special permission and would NOT be allowed to caterwaul ;) from a minaret **to call Muslims to pray. Would have to keep the night parties during Ramadan & at EID as quiet as a mouse on cotton ;). In some places, Muslims would not be allowed to go outside when there was rain or snow for fear that rain drops or snowflakes would splash from them on to Christians or Jews and give them cooties ;) :twisted: making them unable to take communion or go to Synagogue without using a mikvah... Muslim life would not be worth much in many places because the blood money/were gild fine for murdering one could be viewed as a hunting license by wealthy non Muslims and even that could be discounted...In real bad places, if a Muslim under the domination of a Christian Mob family was killed by a Christian or Jew from a different Mob Family, a Muslim under the domination of the murderer's family would be killed instead of paying a fine.... More: kidnapping of Muslim Boyz to make Special Mob Commandos..... Girls for Fun, Fun, Fun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooties

*might not be allowed to have a seat........

**Probably no minaret at all especially after Sigmund Freud's Pioneering work on Phallic Symbols
Last edited by monster_gardener on Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Marcus »

Received this in my email not five minutes ago . . anyone know whether it's true or not? The material in the Snopes link (scroll down) is ambiguous as to whether Muslims would qualify for exemption or not.

Great, huh? No wonder they used the camouflaging effects of 2,000 pages...

The word 'Dhimmitude" is found in the new health care bill;
so what does it mean?

Thought this was interesting and worth passing on.

Dhimmitude -- What does it mean?

Obama used it in the health care bill.
Now isn't this interesting?
It is used in the health care law.

Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into
Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the
healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists.. It is
a REAL word.

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations
conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims
in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of
converting conquered remnants to Islam.
ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim
diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from
the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the
penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be
"gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are
specifically granted exemption based on this.
How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens
placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and
even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I
refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis
Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health
needs paid for by the de facto government insurance.
Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.

I recommend sending this on to your contacts.
American citizens need to know about it --

snopes.com: Health Insurance Exemptions
Apr 13, 2010 ... Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling
non-muslim populations ... The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of
Dhimmitude and Sharia ...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive
a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Ibrahim »

Rhapsody wrote:Pasted from other thread where it was off topic.
Rhapsody wrote:
Enki wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Enki wrote:Monster_Gardener The problem with your quote about dhimmitude is that the other side was never any better than that. Europe used catapults, burned books and enslaved people.
Hate to be pedantic (j/k I love it!) but this use of the term "dhimmi" is a product of the Breivik reading list. The actual term meant people who didn't have to serve in the military, and so paid an extra tax. Correctly speaking it means "protected" and you could argue that all civilian citizens of a given country are "dhimmis" with regards to their government.

Spencer, Steyn et al use it to mean "ruled by Muslims." Truly a fate worse than death, except for the large swathes of history when it was the best case scenario (as you observed).
Thank you for explaining this. That makes a lot of sense.
Not a totally good clarification though. A Dhimmi simply means a non-Muslim.

You're wrong right away, that is not what "dhimmi" means.


Anyway at this point I'm guessing everybody has made up their minds as to who is a better authority on Islamic history.
Last edited by Ibrahim on Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Ibrahim »

I would also add that the title of this thread contains a made-up word - "dhimmitude" - that is a product of anti-Muslim propagandists and has no real meaning in Islamic history or even in Orientalist Western study of the Islamic world. I've never seen an intelligent or educated person use it sincerely.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Parodite »

Ibrahim wrote:I would also add that the title of this thread contains a made-up word - "dhimmitude" - that is a product of anti-Muslim propagandists and has no real meaning in Islamic history or even in Orientalist Western study of the Islamic world. I've never seen an intelligent or educated person use it sincerely.
Okay, so let's take dhimmi to mean the legally "protected" status of non-Muslims under Islamic rule and go from there. Unless you have a better way to put it.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Ibrahim »

Rhapsody wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:I would also add that the title of this thread contains a made-up word - "dhimmitude" - that is a product of anti-Muslim propagandists and has no real meaning in Islamic history or even in Orientalist Western study of the Islamic world. I've never seen an intelligent or educated person use it sincerely.
Okay, so let's take dhimmi to mean the legally "protected" status of non-Muslims under Islamic rule and go from there. Unless you have a better way to put it.

That's how I did put it.

Ibrahim wrote:The actual term meant people who didn't have to serve in the military, and so paid an extra tax. Correctly speaking it means "protected" and you could argue that all civilian citizens of a given country are "dhimmis" with regards to their government.
anderson
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by anderson »

Marcus wrote:Received this in my email not five minutes ago . . anyone know whether it's true or not? The material in the Snopes link (scroll down) is ambiguous as to whether Muslims would qualify for exemption or not.

Great, huh? No wonder they used the camouflaging effects of 2,000 pages...

The word 'Dhimmitude" is found in the new health care bill;
so what does it mean?

Thought this was interesting and worth passing on.

Dhimmitude -- What does it mean?

Obama used it in the health care bill.
Now isn't this interesting?
It is used in the health care law.

Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into
Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the
healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists.. It is
a REAL word.

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations
conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims
in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of
converting conquered remnants to Islam.
ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim
diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from
the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the
penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be
"gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are
specifically granted exemption based on this.
How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens
placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and
even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I
refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis
Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health
needs paid for by the de facto government insurance.
Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.

I recommend sending this on to your contacts.
American citizens need to know about it --

snopes.com: Health Insurance Exemptions
Apr 13, 2010 ... Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling
non-muslim populations ... The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of
Dhimmitude and Sharia ...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive
a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President.

That provision is transparently about the Amish.
Muslims don't even have a uniform stance about insurance in general, or health insurance specifically.
RPM
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by RPM »

anderson wrote:No, dhimmi literally and practically means "protected."
If a conquered group ended up not being protected, by definition they would not be dhimmis.
What does this mean? Protection from whom?

Does Dhimmis have the same right as muslims in legal system , worship etc?

can they build a new church?
anderson
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by anderson »

RPM wrote:
anderson wrote:No, dhimmi literally and practically means "protected."
If a conquered group ended up not being protected, by definition they would not be dhimmis.
What does this mean? Protection from whom?

Does Dhimmis have the same right as muslims in legal system , worship etc?

can they build a new church?
Protection from external threats, same as Muslim citizens. Some external empire or kingdom attacks your people, the Muslim army rolls up to set things straight. That kind of protection.

Non-Muslims had latitude to arrange themselves according to their own religious laws. There were parallel court and legal systems.
The freedom of religion business is off the topic, but generally it was recognized. It was part of the general contract of society. Pay your taxes, and you will be safe and you will be free to live your lives.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Parodite »

Ibrahim wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:The actual term meant people who didn't have to serve in the military, and so paid an extra tax. Correctly speaking it means "protected" and you could argue that all civilian citizens of a given country are "dhimmis" with regards to their government.
Ok. Understand your point, we all pay taxes in return for protection of life and rights. Check. Jut some questions then.

Is it true that non-Muslims were not allowed to bear arms? Were Muslims allowed to bear arms?

Is it true that non-Muslims had to wear certain cloths as to be recognized as non-Muslims?

The fact that they didn't have to serve in the army, was that "charity" or perhaps a consideration inspired by the idea that non-Muslims might not be as loyal as Muslims?

Was the interpretation and application of dhimmi law always and everywhere the same? Was the protection that dhimmi law was supposed to give enough, mostly enough, sometimes enough?
Deep down I'm very superficial
RPM
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by RPM »

Parodite,

In quiet few cases , the literal interpretations didnt take place by muslims. The muslim rulers of India used hindu soldiers extensively and effectively. Mongol armies that frightened europe & middle east were repelled thrice by Allauddin Kilji using hindu generals & soldiers.

On the otherside, in the recent past egypt & bangladesh have seen violence against dhiimi places of worships (coptics & buddhists) led by islaimic clerics/mobs.
RPM
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by RPM »

anderson wrote:
RPM wrote:
anderson wrote:No, dhimmi literally and practically means "protected."
If a conquered group ended up not being protected, by definition they would not be dhimmis.
What does this mean? Protection from whom?

Does Dhimmis have the same right as muslims in legal system , worship etc?

can they build a new church?
Protection from external threats, same as Muslim citizens. Some external empire or kingdom attacks your people, the Muslim army rolls up to set things straight. That kind of protection.

Non-Muslims had latitude to arrange themselves according to their own religious laws. There were parallel court and legal systems.
The freedom of religion business is off the topic, but generally it was recognized. It was part of the general contract of society. Pay your taxes, and you will be safe and you will be free to live your lives.
Thanks for the reply.

Since muslims are the rulers / enforcers in this case , 'protection' may mean cessation of warfare . I dont think that this is protection from external threats - since that would imply threats against muslim rulers themselves.
anderson
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by anderson »

RPM wrote:
anderson wrote:
RPM wrote:
anderson wrote:No, dhimmi literally and practically means "protected."
If a conquered group ended up not being protected, by definition they would not be dhimmis.
What does this mean? Protection from whom?

Does Dhimmis have the same right as muslims in legal system , worship etc?

can they build a new church?
Protection from external threats, same as Muslim citizens. Some external empire or kingdom attacks your people, the Muslim army rolls up to set things straight. That kind of protection.

Non-Muslims had latitude to arrange themselves according to their own religious laws. There were parallel court and legal systems.
The freedom of religion business is off the topic, but generally it was recognized. It was part of the general contract of society. Pay your taxes, and you will be safe and you will be free to live your lives.
Thanks for the reply.

Since muslims are the rulers / enforcers in this case , 'protection' may mean cessation of warfare . I dont think that this is protection from external threats - since that would imply threats against muslim rulers themselves.
No. For example, the places with a lot of non-Muslims tended to be on the frontiers, the newly conquered areas.
Unanswered attacks from outside on those areas would not harm the core of the empire, but it would undermine the non-Muslim citizens allengiance to the central government and their likelihood of continuing to pay taxes and increase the likelihood of them switching allegiance to foreign powers.

The medieval world was a dangerous place; offering safety from the hordes outside the borders was a good way to secure peaceful allegiance.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Ibrahim »

RPM wrote:
anderson wrote:
RPM wrote:
anderson wrote:No, dhimmi literally and practically means "protected."
If a conquered group ended up not being protected, by definition they would not be dhimmis.
What does this mean? Protection from whom?

Does Dhimmis have the same right as muslims in legal system , worship etc?

can they build a new church?
Protection from external threats, same as Muslim citizens. Some external empire or kingdom attacks your people, the Muslim army rolls up to set things straight. That kind of protection.

Non-Muslims had latitude to arrange themselves according to their own religious laws. There were parallel court and legal systems.
The freedom of religion business is off the topic, but generally it was recognized. It was part of the general contract of society. Pay your taxes, and you will be safe and you will be free to live your lives.
Thanks for the reply.

Since muslims are the rulers / enforcers in this case , 'protection' may mean cessation of warfare . I dont think that this is protection from external threats - since that would imply threats against muslim rulers themselves.
You are incorrect in this case. The increased taxation was to pay for defense of the entire state, which non-Muslims were not obligated to personally engage in. If Baghdad is attacked by the Mongols, the Christian and Jewish communities there have as much of a stake in defending the state as anyone else. Its the same as paying taxes which are spend on national defense today.

Historical note: shortly after the initial "Arab Conquest" phase the levy system was seldom used, and defense was primarily undertaken by professional soldiers or the Islamic equivalent of knights, but the entire male population was always technically available for levy in time of war, excluding non-Muslims who paid higher tax rates instead.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Ibrahim »

Also, could we re-phrase the thread title so that it doesn't use a made-up word from Anders Breivik's manifesto?
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Parodite »

Ibrahim wrote:Also, could we re-phrase the thread title so that it doesn't use a made-up word from Anders Breivik's manifesto?
What title you suggest?
Deep down I'm very superficial
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Ibrahim »

Rhapsody wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Also, could we re-phrase the thread title so that it doesn't use a made-up word from Anders Breivik's manifesto?
What title you suggest?
"Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history"
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Parodite »

Ibrahim wrote:
Rhapsody wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Also, could we re-phrase the thread title so that it doesn't use a made-up word from Anders Breivik's manifesto?
What title you suggest?
"Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history"
Better.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Jnalum Persicum

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

.

" Dhimmitude " :lol:

.

The term was coined in 1982 by the Lebanese President and Maronite militia leader Bachir Gemayel, in reference to perceived attempts by the country's Muslim leadership to subordinate the large Lebanese Christian minority. In a speech of September 14, 1982 given at Dayr al-Salib in Lebanon, he said: "Lebanon is our homeland and will remain a homeland for Christians… We want to continue to christen, to celebrate our rites and traditions, our faith and our creed whenever we wish… Henceforth, we refuse to live in any dhimmitude!"

The concept of "dhimmitude" was introduced into Western discourse by the writer Bat Ye'or in a French-language article published in the Italian journal La Rassegna mensile di Israel in 1983.[4] In Bat Ye'or's use, "dhimmitude" refers to allegations of non-Muslims appeasing and surrendering to Muslims, and discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim majority regions

.


Are we talking of that piece of lavender Bachir Gemayel ? ?

The guy who aliened with War criminal Sharon to massacre all those woman, children and old man in Shabra camp ? ?

May he rot in hell

Amen

look, guys

let go, let go

Concentrate on something more tangible @ home


.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Dhimmitude under Islamic rule

Post by Parodite »

RPM wrote:Parodite,

In quiet few cases , the literal interpretations didnt take place by muslims. The muslim rulers of India used hindu soldiers extensively and effectively. Mongol armies that frightened europe & middle east were repelled thrice by Allauddin Kilji using hindu generals & soldiers.

On the otherside, in the recent past egypt & bangladesh have seen violence against dhiimi places of worships (coptics & buddhists) led by islaimic clerics/mobs.
Yes, I suspect the total picture cannot be but.... diverse.

My assumption: In different places and times non-Muslims will have experienced different qualities of life, from relative harmony to outright discrimination and coercion, with causes being as diverse. As is the case for most minorities anywhere. "All was fine", or the "all was bad" usually are unrealistic descriptions, as well as colored by our own filters.

Even if we read all research on the life of non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history, still one important source of information will never be available: the actual lives of the thousands of people that we cannot ask questions, let alone live with them long enough to get that high-res sense about their realities at the time.

Historic accounts can give a good context and necessary framework, but without the thousands of personal stories and experiences that we will never know.. the end result has to be sketchy and rather bloodless. Historic research by its limited powers to extract high-res information from the past, easily results in unintentionally stereotyping events or periods as "this" or "that" because the discovered knowns are more interesting and compelling than the unknowns... of which there have to be plenty.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Ibrahim »

Except that they did write extensively, particularly in the Mughal empire, Andalusia, but also to some extent under the Arab and Ottoman caliphates/empires and in Perisa.

I would also subdivide this subject into pre- and post-WW2, since the history of minority groups in the Muslim world is relatively uniform pre-WW2, and then rapidly changes at that time, owing to the actions of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the foundation if the state of Israel, etc. I'm not commenting on the post-WW2 stuff, which is an even more complex topic with greater amounts of information to draw on.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Non-Muslims under Islamic rule in history

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Paying taxes for religious support, military protection and civil order is not such a strange thing, especially in the relatively wild Arabia of Muhammad.

In 17th century England Catholics and Reformed church members were required to not only pay tithes to the Church of England, but also to attend Anglican services every Sunday - a type of Christian dhimmitude.

I really don't understand why this historical jizya business causes such rancor when ancient tax schemes were rarely fair or honest. At least they weren’t entrapping camel caravans with red light cameras.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Post Reply