Let's assume Cyrus, Chris, and nicky are right

[Gamblor]

and the War in Iraq, the War in Israel, etc. etc. are not the results of an Islamofascist plot.

How many Israeli, American, Jewish, and Christian lives are you prepared to risk, if by the slimmest of chances you happen to be wrong?

[nicky g]

Huh?

[Gamblor]

If Israel assumes fault, and believes the Arabs just want to live in peace alongside their Jewish neighbours, they can easily pull out of the Territories within hours. They can knock down the Security fence within days, and can begin integration of Arabs into Israeli society almost instantly.

Now, how many Israelis will die if, in fact, the Arabs were planning to take over the state as a Muslim or Arab dictatorship and intend to establish Muslim dominance?

If there is even one chance in a thousand (you're a gambling man, obviously), that the Arabs have no interest in peace with a Jewish state, how many Israelis will die before the IDF can re-mobilize? Are their lives worth the risk?

[nicky g]

I'm not quite sure if you're asking about what might happen if Israel withdrew and allowed a Palestinian state to be established in the occupied territories, or if a binational state with full rights for all Palestinians were to be created.

If it's the first there's no way such a state could begin to pose a real threat to Israel militarily, and would never be allowed to.

If it's the second, what's the danger? That Palestinians would rise up and start slaughtering Jews? I can't see them getting very far if they tried. What possible good would this do them? Couldn't Israeli Arabs try that now of they wanted? Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to think an entire nation of millions of people have been secretly plotting this all along?
Even if all this fails to convince you, the obvious answer then is a two-state solution, which a majority of Palestinians favour.

I'll respond with my own question: how long does the conflict need to go on, and how many more people need to die, before Israel tries the most obvious solution, the one advocated by virtually the entire world - ending the occupation? 3000 people have died in the current intifada, at the very least 100000 in the conflict since it began, and many more too if the status quo carries on. I can't see anything like that many people being killed before the IDF could remobilise in your "plot."

[Gamblor]

If it's the first there's no way such a state could begin to pose a real threat to Israel militarily, and would never be allowed to.

1) It's not just the 4 million Palestinians in one state. It's the 300 million Arabs in 22 states.

2) Just because it doesn't pose an existential threat the the State of Israel itself, if it even attempts what I believe it would, at least thousands of Israelis would die. Maybe not the whole state, but thousands nonetheless.

That Palestinians would rise up and start slaughtering Jews? I can't see them getting very far if they tried. What possible good would this do them?

Don't put it past them. They blow themselves up in supermarkets. How brilliant do you need to be to do that? Even if you accomplish your political goal, you don't get to enjoy it! Even if they don't get very far, will "not very far" save the lives of the couple thousand they still manage to get? See, the smart, thing that they've done, is intellectualize the "intifada", which means they attach all sorts of political-speak such as "occupation" (which doesn't exist - again, disputed lands), ethnic cleansing, etc. to their cause. Which is a nice way of masking what it really is, genocide. The other Arabs don't have to because right now they're stocking up arms while the Israelis take their time with the Palestinians. When the Israelis are weakest, when worldwide support is at an alltime low, they'll be ready.

Couldn't Israeli Arabs try that now of they wanted?

For the most part, they're smart enough to know not to bit the hand that feeds them. And having adopted Western attitudes prevalent in Israel, they're mostly pretty good decent people.

Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to think an entire nation of millions of people have been secretly plotting this all along?

It's no secret nicky. Come on.

how long does the conflict need to go on, and how many more people need to die, before Israel tries the most obvious solution, the one advocated by virtually the entire world - ending the occupation? 3000 people have died in the current intifada, at the very least 100000 in the conflict since it began, and many more too if the status quo carries on.

As long as it needs to in order to ensure no Palestinian incitement, no terrorism, and the Palestinians to not demand the Territories be judenrein

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If it's the second, what's the danger? That Palestinians would rise up and start slaughtering Jews?

Last I checked, that's already what's happening.

[Cyrus]

...next time I need some help to load up a question with a straw man carrying a red herring.

[MMMMMM]

nickyg: "Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to think an entire nation of millions of people have been secretly plotting this all along?"

Gamblor: "It's no secret nicky. Come on."

Well not the entire nation...but now add the vast numbers of Arabs in other states who have been planning and looking forward to this ever since...pre-1948: the Grand Mufti and Hitler and other assorted Jew-haters,...post 1948: countless imams, political leaders, bigots and lunatics...and of course the Elder Terrorist-Politician Professional-Victim Thief-Centimillionaire himself: Yasser Arafat.

[Gamblor]

[nicky g]

"1) It's not just the 4 million Palestinians in one state. It's the 300 million Arabs in 22 states."

What difference would another 4 million make to 300 million? Why would they need to wait for a Palestinian state to annihilate Israel?


"2) Just because it doesn't pose an existential threat the the State of Israel itself, if it even attempts what I believe it would, at least thousands of Israelis would die. Maybe not the whole state, but thousands nonetheless."

How, exactly? How does Palestinian state in teh West Bank and Gaza=thousands of dead Israelis?

"It's no secret nicky. Come on"

Dear me.

[nicky g]

Mmmm; ignoring the fact that, both as a percentage of their population and in actual numbers, vastly, vastly more Palestinian civilians have died thatn Israelis, I think Gamblor was talking about something bigger; some kind of attempt by all Palestinians rather than just Hamas and IJ activists to wipe out the Jews in Israel along genocidal rather than terrorist lines.

[Gamblor]

What difference would another 4 million make to 300 million? Why would they need to wait for a Palestinian state to annihilate Israel?

Because when the Palestinians try it, they can claim "despair and trauma" over suffering an "occupation" for a hundred years. If the organized Arab states attempted their own little nakba, they could not afford to be marginalized by the UN and more importantly the American government.

Same reason they're all secretly dancing when another British or American embassy is bombed. You ever notice how sweaty they are when they get on al-Jazeera and show the world their crocodile tears?

How, exactly? How does Palestinian state in teh West Bank and Gaza=thousands of dead Israelis?

It gives the terrorist groups a chance to organize. Can you see Arafat rounding up the thousands of Palestinians who have been fighting his war for the last few years (his participation, financially or motivationally notwithstanding)?

[nicky g]

They can and do organise now. Regardless of the fact that much of their support would disappear following the end of the occupation, the reality is that Israel would reinvade long before the casualties started to match those of the current intifada.

[Gamblor]

Regardless of the fact that much of their support would disappear following the end of the occupation

This is the occupation they are referring to:

End the Occupation (http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide5.html)

the reality is that Israel would reinvade long before the casualties started to match those of the current intifada.

Isn't that telling? It's simply a numbers game to you, because in reality, you have nothing at stake here. 3000 Palestinians dead, 1000 Israelis dead, so therefore the Palestinians deserve sympathy and the Israelis should be vilified.

[MMMMMM]

Their support quite possibly wouldn't disappear following the end of the occupation; it might well increase. The Palestinians/Arabs have never given up on the dream of someday destroying Israel and taking all that land (tiny though it is). The closer they get to military vantage points and the more they are able to organize, the sooner Israel will face more attacks. I don't think you realize how deep and strong anti-Jewish sentiment runs in the Middle East, and that it existed long before Israel was even formed. A lot of Arabs have always hated the Jews: plain and simple. The Grand Mufti conspiring with Hitler to destroy the Jews wasn't due to Israel, because Israel didn't yet exist. I think you may underestimate the depth and strength of anti-Semitism, nicky. Even if Israel turned into the nicest country in the word to the Palestinians, but the Palestinians and Arabs got the chanced to completely destroy Israel and kill countless Israelis, you can bet they would do it. The past Arab world wasn't happy about the Jews and the modern Arab world would be happy to see them all dead. Not speaking of every Arab; just of many--more than enough to do the job. And you can know this is true by reading actual reports from the Arab press on www.MEMRI.org (http://www.MEMRI.org) The breadth and depth of Arab anti-Semitism is astounding and it has been around for countless generations.

[nicky g]

"Isn't that telling? It's simply a numbers game to you, because in reality, you have nothing at stake here. 3000 Palestinians dead, 1000 Israelis dead, so therefore the Palestinians deserve sympathy and the Israelis should be vilified."

Victims on both sides deserve sympathy, and the killers on both sides deserve vilification. Given that the Palestinians have suffered vastly more than the Israelis, both in terms of numbers killed and wounded (estimated to ba around 40,000!) as well as the disruption to their daily lives, and given that it's Israel ocupying Palestine and not the other way around, I don't think it's unreasonable
to sympathise more broadly with the Palestinians. But I don't see what this has got to do with my assertion that the Israelis would not allow a terrorist campaign that caused major casualites against Israel to carry on from an independent Palestinian state. Perhaps you could elaborate.

[nicky g]

"And you can know this is true by reading actual reports from the Arab press on www.MEMRI.org (http://www.MEMRI.org) "

Hardly. There are 300 million people in the Arab world; MEMRI simply spotlights the extremists amongst them. Given that the press is far from free in most Arab countries, one can't take most of what is written in the press as representative of popular attitudes anyway.

[Gamblor]

But I don't see what this has got to do with my assertion that the Israelis would not allow a terrorist campaign that caused major casualites against Israel to carry on from an independent Palestinian state. Perhaps you could elaborate.

That was the point of my original question!

Given Palestinian society's inclination towards violence as a means of achieving political goals, and given the establishment of a Palestinian state, and given the Palestinian goal of eventually ending the occupation of all of Israel...

How many Israelis are you prepared to risk if the Palestinians resort to another, more organized terrorist campaign (upon establishment of their state), before the IDF can redeploy?

[Gamblor]

Since when do popular attitudes matter in a sea of tyrannical dictatorships?

Memri highlights state-run, mainstream news media outlets. Given all the whining and bitching about bias in the free Western media, imagine what it's like when there are no dissenting voices! What you see on Memri is all they know! There's no other news that gets in, and they have no contact with Israelis, so what else could they possibly think other than what they are spoon-fed?

[nicky g]

And my answer is two-fold: a. such a thing would not happen; and b. if it did, the Israeli governemnt would not allow it to happen, and would reinvade well before the casualty toll reached current levels - hence fewer people would die under such a situation than do now, as the situation would quickly revert to what it is now; hence it would be risking fewer deaths from terrorism than occur under the staus quo.

[nicky g]

"Since when do popular attitudes matter in a sea of tyrannical dictatorships?"

Whether they do or they don't wasn't the question; M was using MEMRI as proof of popular attitudes, which it clearly isn't.

No Arab governemnt would dare attack Israel because a. they'd be guaranteed to lose b. they would risk nuclear retailiation, c. the Arab world is completely disunited, and d. most don't actually give two hoots about the Palestinians for anything beyond propaganda purposes and are happy to keep receiving US bribes to maintain cordial relations.

[MMMMMM]

The fact that there are so many numerous articles in the Arab presses with strong anti-Semitic statements does not necessarily indicate that is the prevailing attitude amongst Arabs, but it does show that such attitudes are widespread and entrenched (even if not majority). And it doesn't take a majority to kill: it only takes enough people for the job. And there are far more than enough willing Arabs to do it should they get the chance. If say 15% of Arabs would like to see the Jews eliminated that's nowhere near a majority but it's still 45 million people. And that's a lot of people.

[MMMMMM]

I was using MEMRI as proof of popular attitudes but not majority attitudes. And with all those state-sponsored reports in the Arab presses calling for destruction of the Jews, and imams all around calling them sons of pigs and monkeys and calling on Allah to please destroy the Jews: that's popular attitudes. And if the Palestinians/Arabs could suicide bomb from closer vantage points you can bet they would. Also, the Arab world is disunited but most are largely united in a range from mild dislike to outright hatred of the Jews. The milder ones are still taught that nobody, especially the Jews, are the equals of Muslims, and their laws hold that non-Muslims are noyt equal before the law. So saying an Arab army wouldn't attack Israel for fear of retaliation is right, but that wouldn't stop them from trying to do it from within via suicide bombers etc., and Iran's President has spoken of solving the problem of Israel with one or two nukes. So just because some Arabs or Muslims aren't prejudiced against Jews doesn't mean that Arab anti-Semitism isn't widespread and vitriolic.

[MMMMMM]

Every time the Palestinians have gained concessions they have used the time and space to consolidate, strengthen their terrorist organizations, and then launch further attacks. Their goal is clear: all of Israel, step-by-step, and temporary peace as a means to consolidate for further war. Arafat said as much some time ago in a meeting with his own, probably you (or at least Gamblor) can recall this as I don't have the quote or link.

[Gamblor]

a. such a thing would not happen;

Blatantly false argument.

I have showed you what the Palestinians mean when they say "Occupation" via that slide show - here it is again, in case you missed it.

End the Occupation (http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide1.html)

Now, what happens if the IDF were to ethnically cleanse Jews from the West Bank? Well, one doesn't have to look far to find the answer. According to Yahoo! News, Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020611/
wl_nm/mideast_palestinian_poll_dc_1), 51% of Palestinians see the elimination of Israel as a goal. 68 percent said they approved of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. 59% percent of respondents said the Israeli raids had boosted their approval of the militant Islamic group Hamas, who happens to reject the existence of the State of Israel.

Why don't you check out Palestinian Public Opinion Polls (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/index.html). And blaming attitudes on the "Occupation" is like blaming the manager for firing the guy who shot up that factory last year.

But perhaps the most telling are the following, according to the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2002/p6ejoint.html), On a personal level, under conditions of peace, 65% of the Israeli Jews would invite a Palestinian friend to their home, and 58% are willing to visit a Palestinian friend in his home. Thirty seven percent of the Palestinians would invite, and 37% would visit an Israeli colleague.

Furthermore, if it did, the Israeli government would not allow it to happen, and would reinvade well before the casualty toll reached current levels - hence fewer people would die under such a situation than do now, as the situation would quickly revert to what it is now; hence it would be risking fewer deaths from terrorism than occur under the staus quo.

Are you insane? Would you not agree that a single death (Jewish or otherwise) is a tragedy? Whether it's 1 or 1000 Israelis, it's disgusting, and it's the cause of Arab terrorists, 100%. Every death means more and more pressure in Palestinian territory. The only way to stop them is to break them down, to show them they won't gain anything by murder. Period. Then we can negotiate whatever it is they want.

[nicky g]

"And if the Palestinians/Arabs could suicide bomb from closer vantage points you can bet they would."

How can they get any closer than they are now? Hamas and IJ already can and do launch suicide bombs from the West Bank.

"their laws hold that non-Muslims are not equal before the law."

With the probable exception of Saudi Arabia, I don't believe this to be true of any Arab state. From US State Department 2002 report on religious freedom.

Egypt: "The Constitution provides for freedom of belief and the practice of religious rites; however, the Government places restrictions on this right. Under the Constitution, Islam is the official state religion and the primary source of legislation. Accordingly religious practices that conflict with Islamic law (Shari’a) are prohibited. However, in Egypt the practice of Christianity or Judaism does not conflict with Shari’a and, for the most part, members of the non-Muslim minority worship without harassment and maintain links with coreligionists in other countries."

Jordan: "The Constitution provides for the protection of "all forms of worship and religious rites in accordance with the customs observed in the Kingdom, unless such is inconsistent with public order or morality;" however, the Government imposes some restrictions on freedom of religion. The Constitution also provides that "there shall be no legal discrimination with regard to Jordanians' rights and duties based on race, language, or religion;" however, those who are members of religions not recognized by Shari’a law (members of religions other than Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and those who convert from Islam may face legal discrimination and bureaucratic difficulties in personal status cases."

Syria: "The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice; however, it imposes restrictions in some areas."

Morrocco:
"The Constitution provides for freedom of religion and, although Islam is the official state religion, Jewish and Christian communities openly practice their faiths; however, the Government places certain restrictions on Christian religious materials and proselytizing, and several small religious minorities are tolerated with varying degrees of official restrictions. The Government monitors the activities of mosques and places other restrictions on Muslims and Islamic organizations whose activities are deemed to have exceeded the bounds of religious practice and become political in nature."


UAE: "The Federal Constitution designates Islam as the official religion, and Islam is also the official religion of all seven of the constituent emirates of the federal union. The Federal Constitution also provides for the freedom to exercise religious worship in accordance with established customs, provided that it does not conflict with public policy or violate public morals, and the Government generally respects this right in practice and does not interfere with the private practice of religion"

All of these reports contain exceptions and note problems but I couldn't find any reference to any laws holding that Jews and Muslims are not equal before the law.

[nicky g]

"goal is clear: all of Israel, step-by-step, and temporary peace as a means to consolidate for further war. Arafat said as much some time ago in a meeting with his own, probably you (or at least Gamblor) can recall this as I don't have the quote or link. "

In all honesty, I recall no such thing.

[Gamblor]

The Palestinian National Covenant:
The liberation of Palestine, from the Arab viewpoint, is a national duty to repulse the Zionist, imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine. Its full responsibilities fall upon the Arab nation, peoples and governments, with the Palestinian Arab people at its head.

Arafat in The Washington Post, Mar 19, 1970
The goal of our struggle is the end of Israel, and there can be no compromise.

Arafat on Jordanian Television, Sep 13, 1995 (the same day that the peace agreement ceremony was
held in Washington D.C.)
Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and
every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there,
and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can
get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.

King Hussein of Jordan, on Arafat:
Who never comes to a bridge he can't double cross.

Sheikh Ikrima Sabri - PA Appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, on PA Television, Jan 11, 2001
We are discussing the current problems and when we speak about Jerusalem it doesn't mean that we have forgotten about Hebron or about Jaffa or about Acre..we are speaking about the current problems that have priority at a certain time. It doesn't mean that we have given up... We have announced a number of times that from a religious point of view Palestine from the sea to the river is Islamic."

Side note: Does anyone else see the absurdity in liberating "Palestine", the name bestowed by the Roman invaders, from "imperialists"?

Arab Member of Knesset Abdel Maleh Dahamshe, PA Television, Sep 1, 2000
We exaggerate when we say 'peace'... what we are speaking about is 'Hudna', a temporary ceasefire.

Faisal Husseini, Arafat's Representative at Orient House in Jerusalem, Ma'ariv, July 13, 2001
Our agreements with the Israelis are like the Trojan horse. I explain to our people that this is the only way to get into the walls of Jerusalem, like the wooden horse the Greeks used against the Trojans.

That should settle that matter.

[nicky g]

I'm not going to comment on anything prior to Oslo, as stated objectives have clearly changed since then.

"Sheikh Ikrima Sabri - PA Appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, on PA Television, Jan 11, 2001
We are discussing the current problems and when we speak about Jerusalem it doesn't mean that we have forgotten about Hebron or about Jaffa or about Acre..we are speaking about the current problems that have priority at a certain time. It doesn't mean that we have given up... We have announced a number of times that from a religious point of view Palestine from the sea to the river is Islamic." "

There's no mention of any form of violence here. If some Palestinians want to campaign for an Islamic state on the territory of mandate Palestine that's their right, providing they do it peacefully.

"Arab Member of Knesset Abdel Maleh Dahamshe, PA Television, Sep 1, 2000
We exaggerate when we say 'peace'... what we are speaking about is 'Hudna', a temporary ceasefire. "

No context here. I've no idea what he's talking about - a specific initiative or the entire situation. No indication of whether he endorses this either.

"Faisal Husseini, Arafat's Representative at Orient House in Jerusalem, Ma'ariv, July 13, 2001
Our agreements with the Israelis are like the Trojan horse. I explain to our people that this is the only way to get into the walls of Jerusalem, like the wooden horse the Greeks used against the Trojans."

Oslo offered the Palestinians limited sovereingty in various areas - but not in East Jerusalem which is one of their demands, and which is not within the pre-1967 borders of Israel. It is therefore impossible to say from this quote whether the representative is talking about a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories as a Trojan horse for taking all of Israel, or whther he means accepting offers of limited sovereignty in various areas as a springboard to full sovereingty in all of the Occupied Territories. Again no mention of violence to achieve this.

[Gamblor]

There's no mention of any form of violence here.

Again no mention of violence to achieve this.

Do they really need to bother mentioning violence? Come on now, nicky, you know damn well violence is the strategy. Don't make believe they're all so innocent, regardless of what Israel does.

And why didn't you address what the king of terrorists himself, Arafat, said?

[MMMMMM]

You mean reading those excerpts doesn't make clear to you that non-Muslims are not equals under the law?

All those "exceptions" are big goddamned deals. Can't proselytize for any religion but Islam, can't build any church with a steeple higher than a mosque...and "those who convert from Islam may face legal discrimination and bureaucratic difficulties in personal status cases."" I mean c'mon. "Exceptions and problems"--jeez nicky how about if in England, Christians had all kinds of special problems and exceptions related to their religion--legally speaking? What if it was a CRIME to tell a non-Christian about the gospels and salvation? How you can think that is equality under the law truly baffles me. And that is just a partial list of great inequaities under the law. Do non-Muslims enjoy the same rights in court on all matters? No. I mean get real here please. And further, the essence of Sharia is not only iron-handed clerical rule, but legal discrimination against religions other than Islam in order to ensure that Islam retains its status as the official state religion. Sharia takes religious law and makes it state and political law: period.

[nicky g]

The "exceptions" didn't refer to Jews in any of the cases I mentioned. That there is not total religious freedom in all Arab countries I don't deny. That Jews are unequal before the law with Muslims in any of the states I looked at, I found no evidence for. Your mention of Sharia ignores the fact that a. there are various interpretations of Sharia and b. most countries in the Arab world aren't ruled by it. Having a state religion is hardly evidence of inequality before the law; the head of state in teh UK is also ead of the church, for example. Not something I approve of, but not evidence of legal discrimination either.

[nicky g]

"Do they really need to bother mentioning violence?"

Yes. There's such a thing as politics, you know.

"And why didn't you address what the king of terrorists himself, Arafat, said? "

I find it hard to beleive that even someone so ridiculous as Arafat would make such a public statement in that context. I did a search on the quote and could only find it quoted by pro-Israeli organisations and only in that form, by itself - not once with any context, any other quotes from the same interview etc. I'd like to see the original source, the quote in context, and other possible tranlsations of what was originally said, which was presumably in Arabic; "final blow" is the only part that implies violence and I wonder what the phrase in Arabic was. If it turned out that what he said was not distorted or misquoted in anyway, I agree that would be extremely damning of Arafat and the PA. I still don't believe it would be a remotely realistic or feasible plan, however.

[nicky g]

"Would you not agree that a single death (Jewish or otherwise) is a tragedy? "

Of course I would, and the fact is that people are continuing to die in great numbers as the occupation continues. The most obvious solution is to end it; I don't believe any more people would be likely to die as a result of ending it than are likely to die if it continues. As for ethnically cleanisng Jews from the West Bank, I have no preoblems with Jews in the West Bank. I have a problem with religious maniacs living on land and using resources that have been stolen from and are forbidden to the Palestinian population.

[MMMMMM]

"Rights of Non-Muslims
in an
Islamic State

By Samuel Shahid

FOREWORD

Recently a few books have been written about the rights of non-Muslims who are subjugated to the rule of the Islamic law. Most of these books presented the Islamic view in a favorable fashion, without unveiling the negative facet inherited in these laws.

This brief study attempts to examine these laws as they are stated by the Four Schools of the Fiqh (jurisprudence). It aims at revealing to the reader the negative implications of these laws without ignoring the more tolerant views of modern reformers.

Our ardent hope that this study will reveal to our readers the bare truth in its both positive and negative facets.

S.S.


The Witness of Zimmis (1)
(Definition: Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant).

"Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta'min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, "The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah - may He be exalted - said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers'." A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility....

Zimmis and Religious Practices

"...According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

1)
Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

2)
Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

3)
Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.

4)
Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

5)
Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.

6)
Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.

7)
Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries...."

Apostasy In Islam

...Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: "It is reported by `Abaas ... that the messenger of Allah ... said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him."

In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, "The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence."

A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.

Civic Laws

Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief's hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons..."

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

The Jizyah Tax: Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law? by Walter Short

Introduction

It is an oft-repeated assertion of Muslims that other faith-communities have always been treated with respect and dignity by in a genuine Islamic State. Indeed, as one peruses Islamic literature, this claim is noticeable for the frequency of its presence. For example, the Muslim author Suzanne Haneef state about Islam's attitude to other religious communities:

...Islam does not permit discrimination in the treatment of other human beings on the basis of religion or any other criteria... it emphasises neighborliness and respect for the ties of relationship with non-Muslims ...within this human family, Jews and Christians, who share many beliefs and values with Muslims, constitute what Islam terms Ahl al-Kitab, that is, People of the Scripture, and hence Muslim have a special relationship to them as fellow "Scriptuaries". [1]

Similarly, the German convert Ahmed von Denffer, examining the position of Christians in Islam, states that 'It is thus clear that, seen from the legal perspective, Christians are entitled to have their own prescriptions.' [2] From what he terms 'the Societal Perspective', he tackles the problem of Surah Maidah 5:51 which warns against taking Jews and Christians as 'friends':

On the other hand, Christians being ahl al-kitab may not be harassed or molested for being non-Muslims. It is true that the Qur'an warns against taking Jews and Christians as friends, but that does not mean they should be molested or harmed because of their being non-Muslims. [3]

So far, all very positive, but both Haneef and von Denffer are Muslims residing in the West, thus interacting with Christians, and addressing a Western audience. Thus, their approach will be conditioned by that reality. A somewhat different attitude is exhibited by a Muslim writer based in Saudi Arabia, a state governed largely by Islamic law, and which forbids all expressions of religious liberty:

In a country ruled by Muslim authorities, a non-Muslim is guaranteed his freedom of faith.... Muslims are forbidden from obliging a non-Muslim to embrace Islam, but he should pay the tribute to Muslims readily and submissively, surrender to Islamic laws, and should not practice his polytheistic rituals openly. [4] (Emphasis mine)

In this paper I will examine aspects of Islam's attitude to non-Muslims, especially the Jizyah tax, to consider whether Haneef's claim in particular is valid. My emphasis will be on Islamic law, since that practically regulates everyday relations. Since Muslims in the West, as much as in the Muslim world uphold the divine character of the Shari'ah, based as it is primarily on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and uphold the Islamic State with Islamic Law as the ideal society, it is important to see what this would mean in practice for non-Muslims, if the Caliphate was ever restored and applied to the West.


bb]The value of human life[/b]

In the West, at least in constitution terms, however inadequately outworked in practice in some places, the equality of human beings is a fundamental assumption – 'all men are equal before the law'. For this reason, Justice is often depicted in statues as blindfolded; the class, religion or race of anyone is irrelevant – the law, at least in terms of its goal, applies equally to everyone, and safeguards everyone equally.

In Islamic law, however, this is simply not the case. The life of a Muslim is considered superior to that of a non-Muslim, so much so that whilst a non-Muslim killing a Muslim would be executed, the reverse would not occur. [5] This is despite the fact that murder is normally considered a capital offence in Islam, with regular executions in most Muslim states. This inequity is also demonstrable in the blood rate paid to non-Muslims where murder or injury has occurred, which is half that of a Muslim. [6] Effectively, this ruling means that a Muslim need not fear the usual retribution for murder if he kills a non-Muslim. The law deliberately and consciously does not protect non-Muslims as it does Muslims. The position of Islamic law is not that human life is sacred, but that Muslim life is so.

2. The value of evidence

What we have just stated about Justice becomes very pertinent when considering evidence in a court. Haneef's assertions can be immediately questioned by pointing to the fact that in Islam, the court testimony of a non-Muslim is considered inferior to that of a Muslim, a practice given official sanction in countries like Pakistan. [7] This means in practice that if a Muslim offends in some way against a Christian, whether by stealing from the latter, inflicting injury or even committing rape, the Christian must gain at least another Christian witness even to match the testimony of the Muslim, and even then in practice the assumption is that the latter is a more credible witness. This rule also carries the insulting presumption that non-Muslims are intrinsically dishonest, and unreliable witnesses per se.

Obviously, this considerably disadvantages non-Muslims, and becomes of practical import when we consider the frequent charges of blasphemy used by Muslims against Christians in places like Pakistan, which usually have an ulterior motive (often personal or land disputes). Legal conditions such as these give unscrupulous Muslims the idea that it is 'open season' on minorities. A similar ruling endangers the inheritance rights of Christian wives of Muslims. [8] Again, this gives opportunity to dishonest Muslim relatives of a widow.

3. The value of human dignity

What we have just examined becomes very important when we consider the issue of human dignity. It almost naturally follows that if the life of a non-Muslim is considered inferior to that of a Muslim, the dignity of the former will be held in the same lack of esteem. Rape in most Muslim countries usually results in execution for the offender where the victim is a Muslim. Where the victim is a non-Muslim, and the perpetrator is a Muslim, this is not the case. [9] Thus, the honour of a Christian woman is not considered equal to that of a Muslim woman. This ruling is quite chilling.

A particularly objectionable ruling concerns the Christian wife of a Muslim man. Their difference in religion precludes their common burial place. Moreover, if she be pregnant at time of death, the foetus, being considered Muslim, cannot be buried in a Christian cemetery, and thus the woman may not be buried there either, and so must be buried in a 'neutral' place. [10] Even in death, Christians are sometimes denied dignity.

4. The value of human property

The right to the defence of personal property is usually considered a fundamental liberty, and its violation by theft is punishable in all societies, again, irrespective of the religious identity of the thief or his victim. This is not the case in all circumstance in Islamic law. The situation is somewhat ambiguous at times, especially if items haram to Muslims are concerned. [11]

Another ruling, however, suggests that if a Muslim stole an item from a Christian, such as a gold crucifix, and then stated that he did so in order to destroy this 'infidel' object, he may escape prosecution. [12] Hence, there is nothing clear-cut in Islamic law which protects the property of Christian subjects, as would be the case in most Western systems which protects all property per se, whatever people's race or faith.

5. Religious liberty

Most Western constitutions today guarantee complete religious liberty, in opinion, practice and propagation. A person is perfectly free to hold or change his opinions, or even hold no religious opinions whatsoever. Under Islamic law, however, this is not the case. Whilst a person may be free to be a Muslim, Jew, Christian or Zoroastrian, he may not hold other religious opinions, as the ban on paganism illustrates. [13]

Moreover, whilst a non-Muslim may change his religion to Islam or one other 'Scriptuary' faith, a Muslim who converts from Islam faces execution. [14] It follows from this that Christians are forbidden to proselytise Muslims, though no such reciprocal ban exists on Muslims. This also affects marriages, since if a Muslim apostatises, the marriage is dissolved, and there is at least one recent example of this in Egypt, where a liberal Muslim was declared apostate by a court, and his marriage dissolved, necessitating the couple's removal to the West, illustrating that the ruling is not merely theoretical. [15]

Most blatantly, whilst the post-war era, especially since the 1970s, have seen an energetic upsurge of mosque construction in the West, there has been no corresponding development in Christian religious buildings in the Muslim world, since Islamic law permits only the repair of existing buildings, forbidding the construction of new ones. [16] The same ruling forbids any Christian presence whatsoever in the Arabian peninsula, so we can see the anomaly that whereas the Saudis recently constructed a giant mosque in Rome, there is no possibility of reciprocity for the Roman Catholics (or anyone else) to build even the smallest chapel in Saudi Arabia. The issue is not simply one of reciprocity; national Christians in the Muslim world are denied this right as well, whereas Muslims may freely construct mosques.

6. The Jizyah Tax

The American Revolution was fought on the principle 'no taxation without representation', the idea being that constitutional equality was a precondition for the sovereign exercise of levying taxes. The only basis for different levels of taxation is socio-economic distinction, but even here the tax is identical in character, is levied without regard for one's communal origins. The principle of distinction in progressive taxation is ability to pay. The tax imposed does not punish a businessman for his success. Refusal to pay will result in fines or imprisonment, but never execution. Furthermore, the tax he pays grants him entitlement to the full protection of the state, and thus full and equal citizenship. The goal of the tax is the same with everyone - the enabling of the state to provide for the security and well being of all its citizens.

This is not the case with the Jizyah, which is a tax that the Dhimmi uniquely had to pay. It has its origins in Surah Tauba 9:29, where it is explicitly revealed as a sign of the subjugation of conquered non-Muslims. [17] Hence, the tax is clearly a tribute, and a sign of subjection, in no way equivalent to the alms tax Zakat. Yusuf Ali's comment on the Jizyah clarifies this:

1281 Jizya: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi'i suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. But see the next note. (9.29)
1282 'An Yadin (literally, from the hand) has been variously interpreted. The hand being the symbol of power and authority. I accept the interpretation "in token of willing submission." The Jizya was thus partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, its symbolic character predominated. See the last note. (9.29)

Abul 'Ala Mawdudi, Qur'anic exegete and founder of the Islamist Pakistani group Jama'at-i-Islami was quite unapologetic about Jizyah:

...the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of Jizya. For it is obvious that a maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like. [18]

He interprets the Qur'anic imperative to Jihad as having the aim of subjugating non-Muslims, to force them to pay the Jizyah as the defining symbol of their subjection:

... Jews and the Christians ...should be forced to pay Jizya in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way. [19]

The consequence of this is that in an Islamic State – specifically the Khilafah – non-Muslims should be denied Government posts, since the state exists for the Muslims, who alone are true citizens, whilst the non-Muslims are merely conquered residents, and the Jizyah signifies this:

That is why the Islamic state offers them protection, if they agree to live as Zimmis by paying Jizya, but it can not allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and establish them on others. As this state of things inevitably produce chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring an end to their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order. [20]

Differences of taxation demonstrate distinctions in citizenship. As a symbol of subjection, it signifies that the state is not really the common property of all its permanent residents, but only the Muslims. The non-Muslims are conquered outsiders. It demonstrates their inferior condition. It also punishes them for their disbelief in Islam. Islamic law makes it very clear that the Jizyah is punitive in character. [21] Further, it is to levied with humiliation. [22] Hence, it is in no way comparable to Western tax systems. Even progressive taxation is not a 'punishment' for economic success, nor is any tax specifically humiliating in character.

This illustrates that essentially, in an Islamic State, the non-Muslims are in a worse situation than prisoners out on parole, since they are still being punished – they are not considered 'good, law-abiding citizens' however exemplary their conduct, but rather criminals given day-leave. Their crime is their faith. [23] Moreover, their crime is capital in nature – they deserve death. [24] This demonstrates the unique character of the Jizyah tax – unlike Western taxes, payment does not grant equality and liberty to the payee, but rather merely permission for another tax period to live; failure to pay it results in death. Again, it is rather analogous to a convict on parole regularly visiting the police station or parole officer to register. This is different from the case of someone in the West who refuses to pay his tax for whatever reason; he is punished, though it must be stated not by execution, for breaking the law. The reverse is true with the Jizyah – the tax itself is punishment, and the payee lives in the permanent condition of being punished for his faith until he converts. Essentially, non-Muslims live under a permanent death-threat.

Conclusion

Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination could the situation of non-Muslims under Islamic law be seen as one conferring equal citizenship, whatever Muslim apologists claim. Similarly, only a leap of fantasy could ever believe that such a situation is one that non-Muslims would welcome. The honour, dignity, equality and even the lives of non-Muslims are by no means guaranteed under Islamic law. The Jizyah tax in particular demonstrates the constitutional inferiority and humiliation such a legal arrangement confers. For non-Muslims, it is rather like permanently walking under the sword of Damocles, ready to fall at any moment. If Muslims wish Christians and others to regard an Islamic political order as something attractive, their scholars had best engage in a some heavy work of ijtihad to revise those elements of Islamic jurisprudence and legislation which are particularly offensive to non-Muslims."

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-5.html

[nicky g]

For goodness sake M: none of these states are "Islamic" states in that sense.

[MMMMMM]

In Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and in some other countries or regions governed by Shari'a, many such laws are in effect. For instance airport officials have been known to rip crosses off the necks of visitors arriving in Saudi Arabia since it is illegal to display the cross.

[nicky g]

Maybe, I don't know. I doubt very much that dhimmitude and the jiyzha are enforced in Pakistan. But last I checked we were talking about Arab states, and I'd specifically mentioned "with the probable exception of Saudi Arabis". You said that Jews were unequal before the law in Arab states. Saudi Arabia possibly excepted, I've yet to see any evidence of this.

[MMMMMM]

If under the law the testimony of womem and non-Muslims in court carries less weight than a male Muslim's testimony, they are clearly unequal before the law. I am fairly sure this is the case in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and in some other regions and countries.

Not being able to worship freely and publicly is unequal under the law.

Not being able to talk encouragingly to a Muslim about other religions is unequal under the law.

Not being able to criticize Islam is unequal under the law.

It being a crime to convert out of Islam, but not out of other religions, is unequal under the law.

I believe these are not uncommon laws in some Islamic countries today.

[nicky g]

Most of these things aren't true of most Arab countries. I've already given you Saudi Arabia. I don't think everything you've written is true of Pakistan, but I'm not going to bother arguing over it given it's not an Arab country.

[MMMMMM]

Do you think it is permissible to talk encouragingly to Muslims about other religions in most Arab countries today (proselytizing)? I would bet that is not true in most Arab countries today--even, and I'm just guessing here, in some of the more liberal ones like Kuwait.

[nicky g]

I don't know. I don't know why you'd regard Kuwait as particularly liberal. Given that we've been arguing about the status of Jews before the law, and the Judaism in general does not try to attract converts, I don't see this as a particularly important issue.

[MMMMMM]

It's not only Jews under the law in Muslim countries; it's all non-Muslims. They do not have equal religious rights or equal rights to freedom of expression--and that's a very big deal indeed.

[ACPlayer]

Most of MMMMMMMMM talks about is not true in Pakistan (or in most Muslim countries today), except for the status of women in some cases. They are probably 100 years behind America in treatment of women and about 40 years behind in the treatment of minorities. Rest of it is MMMMMM usual myopic rantings.

Note however that in Sharia women in a marriage are provided rights for centuries that have only just become true in the West. Specifically I am thinking of property rights in divorce. Just as the Talmud provides for a framework for the lives and community of Jews, so does Sharia for Muslims. We in America, thanks to liberal thinking, have slowly done away with various aspects of the fabric of this society, sinking us into a moral vacuum -- it is this vacuum that the Mullahs rant about (as do the extreme christian right -- there is remarkable similarity in their crticisms of the decay of family values).

Lastly, Saudi Arabia one of our biggest friends is probably the worst Arab country in terms of systematic mis-treatment of its people. Our support of Saudi and Egypt over the past 30 odd years is the single biggest contributor to our security threats. Iraq and Afghanistan (except that Bin Laden ended up there) are diversions.

Attacks on Muslims by some "conservatives" are a distraction for political purposes. MMMMMM fear of Islam is a displacement of the fear he feels from a possible terrorist attack -- or he just likes to read his own writings.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, I think if you will investigate further, you will find that Shari'a laws regarding divorce are also very prejudiced against women. I was not aware of the property rights you mention--and of which it is a relief to hear--but I think those rights probably pale in comparison with other Shari'a laws regarding Islamic divorce and women's rights within marriage and regarding women who desire divorce. Bear in mind that, in many of these societies and under Shari'a, women are virtually considered the property of the male members of the household or of their husbands. So I think there is much more to be found if you would peel the onion further, as it were.

[ACPlayer]

The Muslim laws require that the property settlement formulae be spelled out in detail at the time of the marriage and approved by the Imam. So while it may be easy for the man to obtain a divorce, the property settlements are well structured.

Generally speaking the Muslim laws are very benign, in the absence of a crime. They create the fabric of a society that has survived hundreds of years.

The laws do discriminate against women as seen from the prejudiced western eyes. Although as pointed out in a different thread two major islamic coutries have had female leaders. Of the major western coutries I believe that only Ireland (is Ireland a major western coutry?) has had a female head. Israel is the only middleeast country with that privilege.

[ACPlayer]

This is simply not true (as long as you exclude Saudi) about mustlim countries.

For example in pakistan are some of the most holy sites for the Sikh religion. Since India and Pakistan were formed (in a remarkably bloody separation) the Sikh's have continued to be able to maintain their temples in Pakistan undisturbed for 60 years.

Even in Iraq the suppression of Shi'ites was not so much for their religious beliefs but from fear of their getting political powers and to maintain Saddam's power.

The Central asian countries which are Islamic have Jewish populations that live peacefully within them.

From what I can tell, your complaints are collections of various single problems that have occurred in different parts of the world through history -- mostly in the middleeast and ignore the Muslims living in Asia.

[MMMMMM]

"The laws do discriminate against women as seen from the prejudiced western eyes."

The laws do discriminate against women, period.

Did U.S. slavery laws "discriminate against Negroes as seen from prejudiced European eyes"--or did they discriminate against Negroes, period?

[MMMMMM]

Complete hogwash, ACPlayer--being able to maintain temples only means so much. If you don't have complete freedom of religious expression, and cannot to talk to Muslims about your religion (proselytizing of Muslims is forbidden and a crime), there is no equality. It's BS that Muslims can proselytize Christians and Jews but Christians and Jews commit a crime by proselytizing Muslims. You are an apologist for institutionalized bigotry.

[nicky g]

Forbidding proselytizing for some religions and not others is wrong, I agree, though in all honesty I see that as a relatively minor problem compared to other problems in the Arab world - I think political free expression is far more important. It's also relatively irrelevant to Jews, which is what I think we were discussing. I personally don't see how you can go from "Non-Islamic proselytisizing is forbidden in some Arabic countries" to "Palestinian Arabs want to wipe out Jews." It isn't forbidden in all Arab countries however; I've not researched it enough to say whether it is in most. So far I've found out that it is illegal in Kuwait, but isn't in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon or Morroco, though it is frowned upon in some of these to various degrees. In Syria all "aggressive" attempts at religious conversion are "discouraged" (the report doesn't elaborate) including by Muslims as far as I can gather, as it's regarded as tending to inflame inter-communal relations, which I sympathise with to a degree.

[MMMMMM]

"I personally don't see how you can go from "Non-Islamic proselytisizing is forbidden in some Arabic countries" to "Palestinian Arabs want to wipe out Jews."

I don't, and I don't recall precisely how we got on this topic. However, anti-Semitic sentiment is quite prevalent amongt Arabs even if it may not be the majority attitude. Just read some of those sermons and editorials cited in MEMRI--and there are tons of those to choose from. Also I don't think it unreasonable to presume that there is more anti-Semitism amongst Palestinians than even amongst Arabs in general.

[ACPlayer]

I am not apologizing for anything. I am just stating what the situation is.

Note that for example when a christian church was attacked in Pak a few years ago the govt of Pak recognized it and treated it as a criminal activity.

The real bigotry is condemning a religion based on half truths and incomplete knowledge. It is a far more fruitful exercise for the westerners to focus on improving the practice of the religions of the west and improving our social structures.

[ACPlayer]

It would be interesting to discover if the arab anti-semitism is actually anti-jewish or anti-zionist. My personal suspicion is that this anti-semitism (a funny term as it covers most Arabs) is actually anti-zionism. Given my stated views that the basic premise that Israel was formed under is flawed -- I for one can understand an anti-zionist sentiment by the persecuted Arab and palestinian populations.

In most of the Ottoman empire for example Jews were allowed to live and practice their religion. Yes there wer special taxes they had to pay, but were never as far as I can tell treated in the way for example Jews were treated in Spain, where they were forced to choose between leaving the country or converting.

[MMMMMM]

Even in Egypt, I believe, church steeples cannot be built higher than mosque minarets. A Coptic church was recently the target of government forces.

It would be nice if you had a clue what you were talking about.

I condemn bigotry in all forms--especially institutionalized bigotry. And condemning bigotry, or bigoted institutions, is not itself bigotry. It's awareness and decency. Those who refuse to do so are the ostriches, with their heads in the sand; the ignorant; the apologists; or the true bigots.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer,

The Jews were treated like sh*t.

Arab anti-Semitism has existed for a very long time, and so has Muslim discrimination against non-Muslims, even being elevated to an institutionalized form. It's disgusting, and you should get off your politically correct blind horse and condemn it instead of apologizing for it. The worst of it is that it goes on to this day, and countless human beings suffer under it, while liberal elites maintain that it's OK because it's "just another culture." One main reason it still persists is because of lack of sufficient condemnation of it, both internal and external.

[nicky g]

M,
You really are a contrary fellow. There is a lot of antisemitism in the Arab world today, and I condemn unreservedly. But I find it perverse that you spend so much time and effort condemning the treatment of Jews in the Islamic world in the past, regardless of the fact that Jews were treated better there than anywhere else. Furthermore, discriminatory treatment of Christians and Jews - though preferential treatment compared to other non-Muslims - is not what people commonly understand by antisemitism, which usually implies a singling out of Jews as Jews (rather than protected non-Muslims, along with Christians) for persecution. Why don't you ever go off on one about Christian antisemitism, which has been far more pernicious?

[Gamblor]

I personally don't see how you can go from "Non-Islamic proselytisizing is forbidden in some Arabic countries" to "Palestinian Arabs want to wipe out Jews."

You can most certainly go to "Jews do not have a right to self-determination", though.

[nicky g]

How?

[Gamblor]

See "Jewish History in a nutshell".

[ACPlayer]

Contrary = Politically correct way of saying closed minded bigot.

[MMMMMM]

"Why don't you ever go off on one about Christian antisemitism, which has been far more pernicious?"

Because today the most pervasive and pernicious anti-Semitism tends to run in the Muslim and Arab worlds.

[MMMMMM]

Nay, ACPlayer,

Nay, ACPlayer,

Nay, ACPlayer, nay:

Your words are full of nothing

And your thoughts are full of hay.



P.S. John Cole is not permitted to read this post

[ACPlayer]

Nay! This is truly a change.

WHat I usually hear from you is the sound that the horse makes froms its other end.

[ACPlayer]

As usual you are dead wrong about this.

Under Islamic Law there is the practice of Khula, where the wide can ask for and MUST be granted divorce. The husband cannot rejoin the wife if she exercises her rights of Khula.

Further Islam instructs the followers that in the case of Talak (divorce initiated by husband) the husband must provide for the wife and let her have the property she is due.

Until recently in this country, divorce was a disaster for women and in some states where community property laws are weak it is still a disaaster for women.

Learn a few facts to cure yourself of your bigotry, rather than spewing out the half truths based on alleged readings and knowledge.

[ACPlayer]

Muslims are not allowed to convert out of Islam and this conversion is punishable by death under Islamic law.

Obviously the society should therefore make it impossible for another religion to try and convert a muslim as this is liable to lead to his death.

Obviously the real crime here is the death penalty, we should all do away with it. Perhaps the US should take the lead and ban it here first.

[MMMMMM]

"Muslims are not allowed to convert out of Islam and this conversion is punishable by death under Islamic law.

Obviously the society should therefore make it impossible for another religion to try and convert a muslim as this is liable to lead to his death.

Obviously the real crime here is the death penalty, we should all do away with it. Perhaps the US should take the lead and ban it here first."

You don't think it is wrong for the state to legislate religious views and religious behavior? You think it is OK that it be a serious crime for Muslims to convert out of Islam?

Maybe you should be living in the 11th century. You show no compassion for the oppressed, nor do you assign any blame for oppressive laws to the institutions that uphold them.

Under your reasoning, it seems OK to have bigoted laws, and for the state to control people's thoughts and beliefs under pain of punishment, as long as that punishment is not capital punishment.

You think it is OK that it is a crime for Muslims to convert out of Islam: ACPlayer, do you realize that people are born into Islam, that they are considered Muslims by birth, that they never "chose" that religion in the first place? Yet if, as an adult, they choose to become a Christian, or a Buddhist, or an agnostic or atheist; they have committed a crime? Do you understand? And you somehow think this is OK???

[MMMMMM]

Obviously our perceptions differ greatly.

May your days be filled with pleasant music and soothing sounds.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, you wrote above: "Until recently in this country, divorce was a disaster for women and in some states where community property laws are weak it is still a disaaster for women."

Well what does this mean to you?! You try to tell me I am wrong in saying Islamic divorce laws are in many ways unfavorable to women, then you post that!

For your further education here is a quote and a link from equalityinmarriage.org :

"Muslims

Islam also has complex religious laws governing divorce, in which women do not have equal rights. Karamah, Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, is drafting an Islamic marriage contract model Islamic marriage contract that would be recognized in American courts."

http://www.equalityinmarriage.org/wdrelig.html


Islamic Divorce Laws

http://al-islam1.org/laws/divorce.html

[Gamblor]

Obviously the real crime here is the death penalty, we should all do away with it. Perhaps the US should take the lead and ban it here first.

Hey, America isn't the centRE of the world! The death penalty is already banned in dozens of countries, including, most notably, Canada.

[ACPlayer]

Maybe you should be living in the 11th century. You show no compassion for the oppressed, nor do you assign any blame for oppressive laws to the institutions that uphold them.

Shows your true bigotry when you are comparing being Muslim to being oppressed.

That is their religion and their society.

It does not bother me in the least that this is part of their law. Other than the death penalty which is clearly wrong in all cases.

[ACPlayer]

Basically I am saying that your judgementalness is strictly one way based on your hatred rather than on facts. It is called bigotry (see earlier thread).

[MMMMMM]

"Shows your true bigotry when you are comparing being Muslim to being oppressed."

Many Muslims today are calling for reform of Islam. Some Muslim authors have had to write under assumed names due to death threats. Do you think these Muslim (and ex-Muslim) authors are calling for reform because they are "bigoted"? No? Well neither am I--they (and I) are just calling for reform where it is sorely needed.

"That is their religion and their society."

Pardon me, ACPlayer, it's not "their society" to many of those oppressed under it, now, is it? Were the slave states just "Deep South society" even though Negroes were first enslaved, then later denied civil rights even after being freed?

"It does not bother me in the least that this is part of their law. Other than the death penalty which is clearly wrong in all cases."

No doubt you also think that the barbaric Islamic custom, in some regions, of forced female genital mutilation of young girls (clitorectomy), which ensures that as adults these women cannot ever reach orgasm, is an acceptable custom as well--because it is "part of their society."

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, you are mistaking my hatred of tyranny, for bigotry. And where an institution promotes and upholds bigotry, it deserves condemnation for that, from ALL members of the human race.

[ACPlayer]

As I said once before, the Muslims will take care of evolving their societies.

We should be concetrating on things like doing away with the death penalty here in America, improving the lives of battered women here, making sure that all poker players have access to healthcare, ensuring that children are not lost in the foster care systems of florida, solving problems that exist in our society rather than adventuring in parts of the world that we do not truly understand.

The hubris exhibited by your attitudes reflects your bigotry.

[MMMMMM]

"As I said once before, the Muslims will take care of evolving their societies."

Sure, and to hell with everyone suffering presently oppressed and suffering--eh, ACPlayer? Never mind too, that some Muslims are pushing for reform--why give them any support? And never mind that we are all members of the human race first; and Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, or 'other', second.

"We should be concetrating on things like doing away with the death penalty here in America, improving the lives of battered women here, making sure that all poker players have access to healthcare, ensuring that children are not lost in the foster care systems of florida, solving problems that exist in our society rather than adventuring in parts of the world that we do not truly understand."

Well then why don't you try to understand, ACPlayer?

"The hubris exhibited by your attitudes reflects your bigotry."

An incredibly shallow view, and a wrong statement.