On Dhimmitude and the Zakat

From here:

squeezethejuice (Muslim): There is nothing wrong or immoral with Jizya, b/c those paying also get benefits that even we Muslims are not entitled to. And should always be comparable in amount to the amount of zakat that Muslims are expected to donate; same order of magnitude. Among the benefits, for example, they are exempt from joining the Muslim army and potentially fighting defensive wars against their own Christian or Jewish brethren, even those who have committed acts of violence against innocent Muslims. What ISIS and the others don’t understand about Jizya is that we Muslims are bound to offer security & protection to those paying it, i.e. no threats or anything. And there are more ways to pay Jizya than just money. While the Jews are rich and will never be in this situation, poor Christians can offer their young daughters in marriage to Muslims, and of course we should consider their Jizya paid for the next 5 years if they have done so. Angemon (non-Muslim): Zakat is 2. And it’s not that non-Muslims were exempt from joining the Muslim army – the Janissaries were originally non-Muslims abducted from their families – because they had a special status. It’s that Muslims were too afraid of letting non-Muslim owning weapons (for fearing a rebellion) or letting them fight (especially when Muslims were fighting against he native trying to get their land back). Think about it: if non-Muslims were paying the same amount of tax as Muslims and not being drafted to the army them human nature would cause Muslims to convert out of Islam and not the other way around. When Muslim conquered a new land they were in minority so they couldn’t risk letting the conquered getting their hands on weapons and starting a rebellion. And can you imagine a Muslim leader, indoctrinated to believe that Jews and Christians are always scheming against Muslims, let’s say, Christians from a land he just conquered to fight against Christians who were trying to drive the Muslims out of their lands? Why would Christians being forced into battle against their own people side with the Muslims? No, non-Muslims were forbidden from owning weapons and fighting because Muslims feared for their safety. Would they need to fear for their safety if they treated non-Muslims fairly? Even if we were to overlook the jizya, there are plenty of degrading conditions in the pact of Umar that make it quite clear that non-Muslims in a Muslim state don’t have the same rights as Muslims. Heck, let’s let Abu Waleed explain by his own words how “wonderful” life is for non-Muslims in a Muslim state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJM_fPlWFgI Besides the barrage of lies about jizya and the status of non-Muslims in a Muslim state, poor stj makes a remark about Jews that was probably straight out of a deleted scene from Borat. What do you think it would happen to a Jew who couldn’t afford to pay the jizya in the hands of someone who seems to think all Jews are rich? We know what happened to Kinana when he told Muhammad he had no treasure hidden. He was tortured with fire on his chest and, since he neared death without saying anything, Muhammad had him beheaded. And since Muhammad is the example Muslims are supposed to emulate… stj also seems to believe that it’s ok for poor Christians to sell their daughters into marriage with Muslim men as payment for the jizya. So much for “security and protection”, non-Muslim women in a Muslim state are to be used as chattel for the enjoyment of Muslim men. Notice that he said that “There is nothing wrong or immoral with Jizya” because those who pay it, even if they do so by selling their daughters into marriage, are entitled to the “benefits” explained by Abu Waleed in the above video, so he doesn’t see anything wrong or immoral with using non-Muslim women as currency. So remember, if you think it’s immoral to sell a girl into marriage to someone who will regard and treat her as subhuman trash you’re an “Islamophobe”.

Note the Youtube video above. That is exactly what dhimmitude is supposed to be under the Islamic state, and for centuries, non-Muslims probably had to live in dhimmitude. However, state-imposed dhimmitude has been dead since about 1900. Even in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, it does not exist. I believe some form of dhimmitude was enforced when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It looks like ISIS is trying to impose some sort of dhimmitude on the Christians under its rule. The Shia are faring war worse. ISIS simply kills any Shia they can get their hands on. They do the same thing to any Alawite they can get their hands on in Syria. ISIS also kills Yezidis at random and on sight. Both Yezidis, the Shia and the Alawi are considered to be heretics. When ISIS took over the Druze region of southern Syria recently, a number of Druze villages were ordered to convert to Sunni Islam or die. The villages duly converted. In truth, Druze really isn’t even Islam, although it looks a bit like it. Some Christians have also been given the “convert or die” or the “convert, leave or die” option by ISIS in Syria. Since dhimmitude for all intents and purposes has not existed for 115 years, it seems a bit silly to rant and rave about how Muslims force all non-Muslims into dhimmitude when they are the majority because it is simply not true. However, these Al Qaeda radicals do indeed want to bring back dhimmitude is some form or another. Jihadis have raided Christian homes in the Dora region of southern Baghdad and ordered Christians to pay the zakat or be killed. After ISIS took over a town in Syria recently, they ordered all Christians to pay a zakat. The zakat was quite a hefty amount, and most of the Christians did not have it. As you can see in the video, the purpose of dhimmitude is to make life as a non-Muslim under Muslim rule so awful and humiliating that many non-Muslims simply convert to Islam to get out from under the oppression. All of the arguments for the zakat are false. It’s not a protection tax; instead, it is more like a Mafia protection racket. The non-Muslims are told to pay protection fees to the Muslim Mafia. If they don’t pay up, bad things are going to happen just like if you refuse the pay the Mafia’s protection tax. There is no humanitarian aspect to this tax. The Muslims have always lied about what happened in the countries they conquered. In most lands it was the same story. Gradually, over time, more and more non-Muslims converted to Islam, although Spain, the Balkans and India were exceptions. The Muslims say that more and more infidels simply embraced Islam over time, apparently because it is so groovy. That’s clearly not what happened. They were terrorized into converting via dhimmitude. Egypt has a large number of Coptic Christians. However, under Mubarak, they were not allowed to repair their churches when they started to fall down. This is one of the tenets of dhimmitude – Christians are not allowed to repair existing churches nor are they allowed to build new ones. Also the periodic terror that is inflicted on non-Muslims in many to most Muslim countries can be seen a form of dhimmitude.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

25 thoughts on “On Dhimmitude and the Zakat”

  1. The Shia are faring war worse. ISIS simply kills any Shia they can get their hands on.
    Remind Dota and myself to stay away from Iraq and Syria for awhile. 😀

    1. I would like to visit Karbala as a tourist instead of a pilgrim, absorbing the history of the place. That’s not going to happen with these Wahabi dipshits running amok.

      1. Me too…Well, after I am sure my head won’t end up involuntarily separated from my body.
        My Mom was actually almost born there. This was of course before Saddam kicked all the “Persians” out.

  2. On a side note, I am conceived that most of these “Takfiri” types in the UK having connections to Western intelligence agencies.

        1. Possible, but the results are consistent with other statistics and evidence.
          In this poll http://strawpoll.me/2041653/r small perky boobs (like those of a young girl) were rated more attractive than big ones. In this poll http://strawpoll.me/1834738/r a girl’s face was rated as more important than her body. Combined with the results of this study http://www.epjournal.net/articles/facial-olfactory-and-vocal-cues-to-female-reproductive-value/ in which men rated the faces of girls aged 11-15 the most attractive* this strongly suggests than men would find a 12yr old more desirable than a 20yr old. There’s also biological reasons to expect men to prefer 12yr olds over 20yr olds to do with future reproductive potential and what not.
          So, while it’s possible people have been shitting me about, the more the evidence is self-consistent and all points in the same direction the less likely that is.
          * The results only show a small preference for girls that young but considering how strong stigmatised attraction to minors is the true rating is likely to be significantly higher.

  3. The Muslims say that more and more infidels simply embraced Islam over time, apparently because it is so groovy. That’s clearly not what happened. They were terrorized into converting via dhimmitude.
    Apologists for historical Muslim imperialism and various postcolonial leftist types always try to depict dhimmitude as soft, peaceful, and even “tolerant.”
    First of all, just like the Islamophobes they oppose, they treat “Islam” as some monolithic, benevolent force. For them, historical “Islam” consists of almost entirely the Abbasid Renaissance, and represents science and progress.
    Never mind that various other Islamic dynasties such as the Almohads, Ottomans, and Mughals contributed little to nothing to science or intellectual advancement.
    Also, leftists always hold non-Western societies to much lower standards of “tolerance” than they do Western ones. When analyzing majority white countries, they aggressively scrutinize the number of minorities who have positions of power, how well the media represents them, how integrated they are, shit, even “microaggressions,” etc.
    However, when assessing the “tolerance” of any historical Muslim society, the mere absence of pogroms and massacres is enough to classify such such a society as tolerant. Thing is, historical Muslim societies were certainly not “tolerant” in the pluralistic, multicultural sense that liberals and leftists use the term today.
    Dhimmitude basically meant that Christians and Jews were allowed to more or less practice their religion and be left alone so long as they paid their special tax and accepted Muslim supremacy/knew their place. They were certainly not equal, and they were not treated with the kind of liberal dignity that minorities are afforded in today’s Western societies.
    For example, in Islamic Spain, the leaders of the Christian and Jewish communities would have to present themselves to the Muslim ruler every now and then and submit themselves to a humiliation. Likewise, in the Ottoman ruled Balkans, Christians were not allowed to bear arms, and had to dismount from their horses in the presence of a Muslim. Muslims who killed Christians were given a slap on the wrist and simply had to pay a fee, without even having to appear in court. Needless to say, a non-Muslim who killed a Muslim would be subjected to severe punishment.
    Islam also emphasized segregation between Muslims and minorities, not integration.
    Etc, etc.
    Basically, Muslims would “tolerate” minorities so long as they accepted an inferior and degrading status. Minorities certainly wouldn’t have been able to become professors challenging “Muslim privilege” or “microaggressions.” I have a hard time imagining that various apologists for dhimmitude would actually want to live as minorities within the Muslim system

  4. The purpose of dhimmitude was probably to provide a strong incentive to convert. When they conquered the middle east, they didn’t immediately convert everybody by the sword (they were permitted to do this with the ‘polytheists’ but not ‘people of the book’) but over a period of time nearly everyone converted. So in a way, this is better than just saying convert or we’ll kill you, which might not have even been practicable in a Christian majority country. They used coercion instead of violence and it worked.

    1. To my understanding early on the “Arab” Muslims were at a crossroads over allowing for non-Arabic converts. The “Dhimmini” was simply a way of fleecing money out of the “Ajam,” i.e non-Arabs.
      For instance, it took over two centuries for most of Persia to convert. It was hardly a forced process. With the Arabs benefiting from non-Arab/Muslim taxation, and with non-Arabs wanting to a)not be taxed and b)be social equals.
      So if anything, “Dhimmitude,” to use the neologism, was at least early on a means of keeping oppressed people FROM converting.

      1. I was with you until the last sentence. If the non-Arabs wanted not to be taxed and to be social equals that’s an incentive to convert.

        1. Correct. But you are assuming that at least in the early stages of Islam, that a non-Arab, i.e an “Ajam,” which literally is slang for one who cannot speak Arabic, would be allowed to convert. Arabicness and the Islamic identity were virtually one in the same in the first century or two of the existence of Islam as a religion.
          There is a reason why Islam spread through “Semitic” speaking lands so rapidly, but slowed down in non-Semitic/Hamitic places.

        2. I believe you it was a way of fleecing money but whatever the intentions, the taxes and dhimmitude in general was the reason so many converted in the end, no?
          I didn’t know they didn’t allow converts at first. Was there a central policy change at some point or did they just gradually let people in?

        3. The religion simply evolved, splintered and matured, like all religions do. By the time of the Crusades, it was no longer an “Arabic” religion. It was effectively ruled by Asiatic Turks for the remainder of the millennia.
          Ironically, it is Gulf Arabs like the Saudis. who are noted for their racism and chauvinism towards none Arabic speaking Muslims, even to this day. to them, the Koran is written in Arabic, and therefore to be a Muslim, one must effectively speak Arabic. They are one in the same to them. The closer one is to the original Arabic tribes, the higher the status.
          Or so I understand it.

  5. And yes, in the end the taxes are the pressure that got a lot of cultures to convert…That, and the good old fashioned sword…The religion of peace, my ass.
    The basic tenant of Islam, which separates it from Christianity, is the notion of us vs them. Us being Dar al-Islam, i.e the house of peace/Muslims/ etc…And everybody else, i.e Dar al-Harb, the house of war.
    Christianity wants to save everyone’s souls. Judaism wants to save only the asses of it adherents. Islam is at a permanent state of war with everyone else.
    Mind you these are all archaic concepts to us in the 21st century…At least one would think.

    1. Cyrus pretty much nailed it. It was pretty much understood by the early Muslims that Islam was Judaism for Arabs. The Ummayad dynasty did actively try and discourage people from converting but I suspect that many converted simply to avoid paying taxes. Things changed with the rise of the Abbasids where Islam began to outgrow it’s Arabic roots and emerged as a world religion like Christianity. Consider that Muhammad once said that anybody who spoke Arabic was an Arab. This meant that non Arabs could attain honorary Arab status by learning the language. Islam began as ethnic Arab religion, but didn’t stay that way. This was a prudent strategy as Muhammad needed all the help he could get and some of his key allies were non Arabs (Salman Farsi and Bilal come to mind)
      As for Dhimmitude, it was obviously meant to communicate a vae victis attitude but was no different from the tributes demanded by other conquerors throughout history. Also bear in mind that many of the dimmitude laws existed on paper but were never enforced. The Moghuls never enforced it and I believe the Abbasids relaxed those laws as well.
      I believe the House of Islam vs the House of war idea died away with the Ummayyads. The seamless blending of Islamic and Hindu motifs on the Taj Mahal would indicate that Muslims had left that idea in the dustbin of history. Not to mention the syncretism of the Han Kitab which blended Islam with Confucianism, to cite just a couple of examples of the top of my head.

      1. Hey Dota.
        When I lived in the Bay Area, they had Sufi centers in Berkley and Oakland. Some of the followers dresses in clothes I would best describe as “Hollywood Ottoman”…Not sure if they considered themselves “Muslim,” but I think they did.
        Black “Nation of Islam” types operated a chain of bread markets around town. Just goes to show religions evolve, in this case American culture.

  6. Robert you are partially wrong on saying the typical conversion phenomenon did no occur in Spain, Balkans, and India.
    In the Muslim-ruled parts of Spain most Christian eventually converted and adopted Arabic but they were kicked out, killed, or converted back to Christianity by the reconquest of the Spanish Catholic monarchies/kingdoms. Such a reconquest did not occur in former Christian lands like Syria, Iraq, and Egypt and thus you have Arabic-speaking Muslims (whose ancestors were local Christians) as a majority.
    In the Balkans, the typical Arab-style conquest (of culture/religion) did not occur to the same extent but a significant amount of Slavs and Greeks did convert to Islam and adopted Turkish. These converts and their descendants made up as much as 60% of the population in Greece and Bulgaria according to Ottoman censuses just before the independence of those two nations. These converts to Islam and their descendants were eventually kicked out/killed/converted to Christianity by their fellow Christian countrymen and sometimes by the Russians who led various (“crusading”) expeditions into Bulgaria and other Balkan territories.
    In India, the Arabs never really conquered it. It was more like the Persians and Turkic peoples and later native Islamized kingdoms that led the Islamic conquest of India. Most of the converts to Islam from among the Indians were usually nobles or the lower castes (correct me if I am wrong here). The conditions here would have obviously been different since the majority of Indians at this time were Buddhists or Hindus. The Muslims were typically “convert-or-die” towards the Buddhists but surprisingly tolerant of the Hindus who were a lot of times considered to be “People of the Book”. Other times however, they were viewed as polytheist pagans who were given the stark choice of conversion or death. India was never really reconquered by Hindus, it was always in a perpetual state of conquest and reconquest between the Islamic states of northern India and the Hindu states of southern India. It was ironically the British that put an end to this and unified the subcontinent under their rule and later gave it up as a unified Hindu-majority state, with the Muslim-majorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh breaking off.

    1. Only 0.8% of Muslims in India belongs to lower caste. Most of the converts to Islam were Buddhists, upper caste hindus (especially Kshatriya) and economic backwards people (due to jizya). Compare to Buddhists, Hindus were highly resistant and Islamic invaders killed close to 60-80 millions Hindus.
      The idea that hindus are people of Book came because of failure of Islam to make them convert and loss of power of Muslims to Marathas and Sikhs by 1760 AD. By the end of century some Muslims started advocating Hindus as people of the Book.
      When Britishers came major powers were with Marathas and Sikhs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)