.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Sunday, February 26, 2006

The Chained Duck [Le Canard Enchaine] on European Union Pusillanimity facing the Cartoon Riots

It's curious that a satirical paper makes more sense on the Danish Cartoons crisis than most of the so-called "serious" European newspapers:

We can't say whether Muhammad is rejoicing among the virgins of Paradise over the course taken by the affair of the Muhammad caricatures. But, most assuredly, his most radical zealots can feel happy. That these extremists have succeeded, in Syria, in Iran, in Palestine [sic!] or in Lebanon, in dedicating themselves to appealing for murder or massacre --almost without punishment-- and have left embassies to burn, is certainly not very surprising, if we agree that (see the previous Canard) these demonstrations took place with the blessing of those countries that have instrumentalized the "just anger of the believers." On the other hand, what is more surprising is the attitude of the European states, including our own, which are reacting in this affair as if they were guilty.

Even our great specialists in martial boasting and the warlike chin are not raising their voices. Chirac has kept on about the "wounding" character of the drawings but has not said one word about the attack on the French embassy in Teheran. Villepin [French prime minister] did not make a speech about it at the UN. He is saying nothing. Douste, the foreign minister, does no more, and we are still waiting for a diatribe from the minister of religion, Sarko [Sarkozy], about zero intolerance!

On the part of Europe [that is, the EU], things are not, if one dares say so, much brighter and shinier, Visiting the Gulf countries, before hearing the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Palestinian [sic!] leaders on this subject, Javier Solana, high representative of European Union foreign policy, did not come with his words strong and high but with his head low. Like the accused in a court. Not one word of protest, no legal demand, as is ordinarily done for less than that [the cartoon riots against EU embassies]. Before he had even opened his mouth, the Organization of the Islamic Conference proposed to him right off that he have the European Parliament vote "laws against Islamophobia," a "code of conduct for the European media," and "a code of international communications that would define the limits of freedom of expression in the domain of religious symbols." Nothing less! He barely escaped a demand for excuses.

In short, a Danish newspaper publishes twelve not very good newspaper cartoons, which unleashes the delirious chain reaction that we are familiar with, which has caused ten collateral deaths, wild destruction of embassies, has obliged Denmark --not to recall its ambassadors to the abovementioned countries, but-- to evacuate them for "reasons of security," and the only European [that is, EU] reaction, is to look like it's beating itself mea culpa, and letting itself be preached to, to be called to religious order. To be sure, the trip [Solana's] is not over yet. And, beyond the old debate over freedom of expression and freedom of religion, it shouldn't mean unleashing a war, further poisoning the affair or adding more to it, but defusing a crisis and calming the game. For all that, it is far from certain that the low profile, the timorous attitude, the lack of a clear, determined position facing Islamic fundamentalism and unacceptable threats, are the most appropriate method.

On account of Iraq and of his personal religiosity, this position is that defended by Bush, who calls for a "responsible attitude by the European countries." But if this "responsibility," under the pretext of calming "a feeling of uncontrollable anger," is to turn the other cheek after having taking a violent, undeserved slap, it is as ineffective as it is risky. Before this affair subsides by itself, this kind of behavior might have the secondary effect of giving countries like Syria, Iran and their partners the assurance that they can continue to instrumentalize "blasphemy" for the welfare of their political interests.

And they will be able to do this with the certitude that on the first occasion, and with a new pretext, they can begin again tomorrow. They have already understood it. It is not necessary to draw a cartoon for them.
Eric Emptaz, Le Canard Enchaine, 15 fevrier 2006 [translation revised 2-28-2006]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note that Le Canard Enchaine is criticizing not only the repellent lowlife Solana but George Bush junior as well. It seems that George is willing to tolerate the intolerable, at least if it comes from Arabs or other Muslims. Neither the EU states nor the EU foreign policy establishment [Solana] nor the US Government has been in solidarity with Denmark, or with the principle of free speech. After viewing Bob Simon's pro-Muslim fanatic propaganda piece on Sixty Minutes about this issue, it seems that a major US TV network is propagating against freedom of expression.
After all, the cartoons were rather mild. By reacting as they did, the Muslim mobs confirmed the view of themselves elsewhere as fanatic maniacs.
Regarding the proposals made to Solana by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, see the previous post here. By the way, Sarkozy is minister of interior [police], not of religion. There is no ministry of religion in France.

- - - - - - - -
Coming: The Jewish majority in Jerusalem in 1853, poems of Zion, Jews suffering as dhimmis, etc.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Creeping Pro-Islamic Tyranny, the Danger of the European Union

Mahomet etait simplement un mec --
de la Mecque
analyste hierosolymitain

The European Union, like the UN, once embodied hopes for a better future. The EU seemed to promise a reinvigorated Western civilization with nations formerly hostile living at peace and in harmony, prosperous and enjoying freedom, while oppressed and libelled minorities like the Jews would enjoy understanding and safety. Again, like the UN, the EU obviously represents the opposite of what it once promised. Today, the EU actively promotes Arab war against Israel, not simply war, but acts of mass murder against Jewish civilians. It funds the "Palestinian Authority" in the amount of some 480 million euros, that is, the equivalent of more than 1/2 billion dollars per year. PLO/PA violations of agreements with Israel are overlooked, as are the stipulations of the "road map" which the EU itself is a party to. Consider the road map provision that terrorist groups must be disarmed and dismantled. Yet, Britain and France support, whether openly or surreptitiously, Hamas control of the PA zones.

Meanwhile, in Europe itself, EU governments use state-owned communications media to slander Israel and the Jews, thus inciting local Muslims, who outnumber Jews in both France and the UK, to attack Jews. For example, state-owned TV in France has agitated against Israel which has led to hundreds of attacks against local Jews by local Muslims. The latest case is the murder of Ilan Halimi, kidnapped and tortured and left for dead by a mainly Muslim gang. Indeed, France2, the TV broadcaster, fostered the legend of the death of the Arab boy in Gaza, Muhammad al-Dura, by the shots of Israeli troops. About five French Jews have been murdered by French Muslims since broadcast of the Muhammad al-Dura hoax in the fall of the year 2000.

However, not only is the EU Judeophobic, but it now turns out that it is the enemy of its own traditional peoples and their freedoms. This has appeared in the Danish cartoon affair. Denmark has not been supported against worldwide Muslim efforts to attack and punish the whole Danish nation for cartoons published originally by one newspaper. Denmark has not benefitted from EU solidarity. Instead, the EU foreign policy establishment, led by Javier Solana, has sought to kowtow and humiliate itself before Muslim, especially Arab, rage, and to adapt itself to Islamic views of how the world and society should be run. Solana traveled to Saudi Arabia --a country that enforces Quranic law [the Shari`ah] against non-Muslims within its territory-- to meet the secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ihsanoglu. Solana does not regularly complain against the humiliations and injustices against the non-Muslims in Arabia, representing the dhimma system, much like the apartheid system in South Africa, although based more on religion than on skin color or biological race. Instead, Solana goes there to appease Muslim prejudices. The English-language Saudi paper, Arab News, greeted him in an insulting manner: "Don't you think that you should have come four months ago?" Solana went to appease the Arabs and Muslims in their outbursts of rage over the cartoons.

Ihsanoglu gave Solana five proposals that would have gravely curtailed freedom in Europe, just incidentally humiliating the Europeans. And Solana did not reject these proposals out of hand. According to LeFigaro [2-14-06], they were:
1- the European Parliament in Strasbourg must "vote laws against Islamophobia" [The Arabs and Muslims of the OIC don't seem to mind their own Judeophobia and Christianophobia. The Judeophobia, by the way, is often expressed in newspaper cartoons.];
2- the EU and the OIC must "support a resolution at the UN which should be inspired by existing resolutions combatting defamation of religions." [A resolution against defamation of religion, including Judaism, may or may not exist at the UN, but if there is one, it has never been enforced against the Arabs who defame Judaism all the time.];
3- It is necessary "to adopt a code of conduct for the European media which takes account of Muslim sensitivities." [Indeed, let's all be sensitive, even to Muslims. But would the Muslims be pleased if reciprocity were demanded from them, since the Muslim media are constantly insensitive to non-Muslims?];
4- The UN must adopt "an international communications code" which "should define the limits of freedom of expression in the domain of religious symbols." [Perhaps the Arabs could demonstrate how such a code should work by enforcing respect for the symbols of other religions in their own state-controlled media. Doesn't Solana know what the Arab/Muslim cartoonists do in their own countries to insult other religions and non-Muslim peoples?]
5- The article in Le Figaro speaks of "five proposals to protect the Islamic religion" that Ihsanoglu supposedly made to Solana. However, the article in fact only presents four proposals. Was the reporter counting wrong or was there a fifth proposal that French readers might have found so repellent that they would have been angered against Solana and the Arabs, and therefore that proposal was left out?
Whether there were five or only four proposals, the four published in LeFigaro were on the whole so outrageous and so hypocritical on the part of the Arabs and the OIC that Solana should have left the Arab domain at that point and not continued on his trip to Egypt, Jordan, and the "palestinian authority" zones. The state-controlled press in those countries offends constantly in the ways mentioned above. Solana should have rejected the proposals out of hand and gone home right away. But he was the one who initiated his trip and he probably knew what he would meet up with. So he kept up his mission of self-humiliation. He told a press conference that the EU had advised its members to use "the UN human rights commission." This is another Solanian insult to the intelligence, another sign of "human-rights" mania. It would be hilarious if it were not so sad that an influential politician can talk such absurdities.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia behind the Islamic Cartoon Rage -- US State Department [Condoleeza Rice & Co.] Does Not Seem to Know, Blaming Only Syria and Iran
Just by the way, the article in LeFigaro brings another little detail, a little factoid, that is of interest in a different way. Condoleeza Rice, US Secretary of State, charged Syria and Iran with fomenting the Muslim rage, the furor islamicus, over the Danish Muhammad cartoons. They had done this, she said, in order to divert attention from their own disputes with the international community and to generally foment trouble [in Iran's case, the issue of producing an atomic bomb, in particular; in Syria's case, the murder of Rafiq Hariri, especially]. Dr Rice's charge was no doubt true. But LeFigaro tells us what she left out. "The OIC has been at the head of the protests since the second publication of the drawings by a Norwegian newspaper on 10 January." But the OIC has its headquarters in Saudi Arabia, the Land of Our Good Friends the Saudis. So it wouldn't be nice to complain about the role of the OIC, nor would it be nice to complain about the role of Egypt either, since Egypt is another Good Friend of the USA. Nevertheless, the former Egyptian ambassadress to Denmark, one Mona Omar Attia, incited Islamic violence against Denmark. On 3 February 2006, after Danish PM Rasmussen held a meeting with Islamic ambassadors in order to calm the waters, Miss Attia declared that Rasmussen's words were insufficient and that "his country must do more in order to placate the whole Muslim world" [Il Foglio, 21 Febbraio 2006, insert 1]. "No one in the world can make believe," she said, "that he can't intervene with his own media." Two months before, after the cartoons had been published in the Egyptian paper, al-Fajr, without eliciting a reaction, she threatened the Danish government that she would bring the episode of the cartoons to the attention of the Muslim masses throughout the world. "I am very offended and very angered by these drawings," she said. And she warned the Danes not to underestimate "the power of the Islamic world, when it wants to make an economic boycott, too." And lastly, she was the one who made contacts with the Arab League for a group of Muslim clerics from Denmark to present the argument for joint action against Denmark and to agitate the mobs. She got the needed visas for them, and one of her proteges, Abu Laban, the imam of Copenhagen, said that, "The Egyptian embassy played a fundamental role" [Il Foglio, 2-21-2006, insert 1]. Yet, Condi Rice didn't want to tell the truth about Our Good Peace-Loving Friends in Egypt.

- - - - - - - - -
Coming: Le Canard Enchaine on the cartoons and Javier Solana's humiliation of the EU and the West, the Jewish majority in Jerusalem in 1853, poems of Zion, etc.

Monday, February 20, 2006

The Cartoon Crisis, the Death of the Innocent Civilian, & the Future of Civilization

The outburst of worldwide anger among Muslims over the 12 cartoons published in a Danish newspaper is very revealing about the nature of the Muslims' attitude toward humanity and civilization. The reaction to the Arab riots by the European Union officially and by several EU governments separately has been very dangerous and damaging.

Javier Solana went off on a journey to Arab/Muslim countries last week as a humble supplicant and penitent, as if those 12 cartoons in a Danish paper justified the outbursts of Islamic rage and violence. Begging the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC], a certain Ihsanoglu, to tell him what could be done to end the crisis, he heard proposals that would curtail freedom of the speech and the press, and would cast the West as the guilty party in the affair.

Among the press responses to Solana's trip, Le Canard Enchaine [the Chained Duck], the French satirical paper, was the only --or one of only a few-- to perceive the true nature of Solana's mission and the potential disaster it represented. The OIC was demanding the right to censor any publication or public expression that might offend Muslims. I thought of this while watching the classic French play, Le Cid by Corneille, last week at the Comedie Francaise in Paris. Among other things, the play celebrates the victories of infidel Castilian armies over the Arab/Muslims of Spain, then called the Moors. Those defeats humiliated the Arabs at the time. Hence, could this play be banned from performance if the OIC gets its way? Now, if they can ban Le Cid or other hostile theatrical representations of Islam and the Arabs, then we Jews all the more so have the right to demand that Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice be forbidden to be played. This is something to think about for those who would accept the Muslim demands.

Let us now consider the problems raised by the Muslim reaction to the cartoons.
1) Muhammad was indeed a man of violence and this view of him, indeed his brutality and cruelty, are reported by the Muslim hadith [compilations of Muslim lore and legend about Muhammad]. So by reacting so violently against cartoons suggesting that Muhammad inspired terrorism, the rioting Muslims are following in the footsteps of Muhammad as Islamic tradition views him, and they are also supporting the assertion, made by at least one of the cartoons, that he inspired terrorism. In other words, they are rioting against the truth, as it is reported by their own tradition; they complain about "Islamophobia." But the truth itself is Islamophobic;
2) They are quite obviously assailing freedom of speech, of the press, and of expression. This in itself is a danger to civilization. This has been widely discussed.
3) They themselves regularly slander and libel others, especially Jews, in cartoons and in other ways. They are complaining about something which Arabs themselves regularly do. This aspect has gotten a fair amount of attention, though not enough, during the present affair. Aryeh [Arie?] Stav, an Israeli author, made a compilation of anti-Israeli cartoons published in the Arab press since the Oslo accords. Joel Kotek of Belgium wrote an essay on the subject for the World Jewish Congress.
4) The fourth danger, which has unfortunately been little --if at all-- discussed during this affair, is that by attacking the nation of Denmark, in word and deed, on account of twelve cartoons published in Jyllands Posten, they are helping to destroy the concept of the "innocent civilian," for they are saying that all Danes are guilty, or all French, all Norwegians, all Italians, etc. They are demanding collective punishment for the acts of a few which they consider offensive, rightly or wrongly. Again, this demand for collective punishment of whole nations is a threat to civilization. Now, recall that one of the charges so often made against Israel is that Israel conducts "collective punishment" of Arabs in Judea and Samaria for the acts of a few. However, the Arabs themselves and defenders of Arab terrorism in the West have often argued that there are no innocent Israelis, therefore Arab terrorism against masses of Israeli civilians is justified. It seems that they want it both ways; "collective punishment" by Israel, or anything that Israel may do that can be even remotely construed as "collective punishment," is reviled. On the other hand, the Arabs are allowed to carry out collective massacres of Israeli civilians, of men, women, and children, including little babies. One of the major offenders in that regard is the well-funded, well-connected "International Solidarity Movement," that seems to find it so easy to obtain permission to use the premises of American universities for their nefarious meetings, rallies, agitprop and organizing sessions, etc. In France, a major offender is the so-called "Committee for a Just Peace in palestine." The Arab acts of mass murder, widely reported throughout the world, together with the commonplaces excuses for or "understanding" of these acts in the West, both on the part of governments [Sweden, France, UK, Norway, the EU, etc.] and of insidious, well-funded "non-governmental organizations," whose funding sources often include governments, and very rich foundations and individuals, combine to put to death the very notion of the "innocent civilian" which they so commonly brandish as a propaganda weapon against Israel. Further, I am quite aware that while the mass murder acts against Israeli civilians were the first to gain notoriety and widespread approval, the same has happened in other countries. For example, there were Muslim terrorist attacks on the Paris subway back in 1996, which were guided quite conincidentally, by terrorist masterminds in Britain. Since then, mass murder attacks have come in the USA, Kenya, Tanzania, Spain, the UK itself, India, even the Arab kingdom of Jordan, Iraq, etc. The Arabs and their friends are murdering the very notion of the "innocent civilian." Meanwhile, they exploit the "collective punishment" notion against Israel.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: Le Canard Enchaine and Le Figaro on Solana's sinister mission to kowtow to the Arabs. Slaves captured from Darfur in the 19th century, the Jewish majority in Jerusalem in the 19th century, etc.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

The Basic Rules of Dhimma

UPDATED at bottom 3-2-2014

The dhimma was the code of rules governing life for the non-Muslim subjects in the Muslim state. It also told Muslims how to treat the dhimmis. The dhimma could be described as a system of oppression, humiliation, and pecuniary exploitation of non-Muslims by the Muslim state.
Like any body of law, the dhimma was subject to changing interpretations at different times and places. For instance, in early Islam only peoples of the Book [ahl al-Kitab] were to be tolerated, as inferior subjects in the Muslim empire. Zoroastrians were added to those to be tolerated at an early stage. But polytheists were forbidden and were to be annihilated. However, when Muslims conquered parts of India, the exploitative, oppressive toleration of the dhimma was extended to the Hindus, probably since there were so many of them, too many to be annihilated.

Here are the basic rules of dhimma:
1- taxes: dhimmis had to pay a tax per head on each adult man, usually called jizyah. There was also a tax for dhimmis to pay on real estate, including agricultural land, called kharaj. Since the dhimmi farmer or peasant had therefore to pay two taxes, both the jizyah and the kharaj, his situation became very difficult and this led to dhimmi abandonment of farm lands, and sometimes to conversion to Islam. Conversion was not allowed in the very early period of the Muslim conquests, since the policy was to keep Muslims and conquered peoples separate, with the Muslims living off the tribute and loot. However, later in the Umayyad period conversion seems to have been first allowed.
2- dhimmi peoples could retain a certain communal autonomy under their own religious leadership which was of course subject to Muslim overlordship. This was called the millet system in the Ottoman empire
3- a Muslim woman could not marry a non-Muslim man; that is, a dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman, but the reverse was allowed
4- a non-Muslim could not possess a Muslim slave, but the reverse was very much allowed
5- the child of a mixed marriage must be a Muslim
6- the blood price for a Muslim --who had been murdered-- was higher than that for a non-Muslim who had been murdered
7- Non-Muslims could not build new places of worship, hold religious processions, ring bells
8- Non-Muslims could not make converts among Muslims
9- Dhimmis could not bear arms
10- Dhimmi garments must differ from Muslim garments
11- Dhimmis had to always show respect and deference for Muslims, such as dismounting from their donkeys when encountering a Muslim on the road
12- the testimony in court of a dhimmi was worth half of the testimony of a Muslim

Of course, not all of these rules were applied at every time and place in the Islamic domain. After all, it was difficult for Muslim troops to penetrate the Maronite mountain villages in Lebanon if they were situated high enough up in the mountains and had a good defensive position. On the other hand, the regular taxes on dhimmis, jizyah and kharaj, were supplemented at various times and places by irregular taxes, extorted fees, exactions, forced bribes, etc. These rules and other rules enforced on dhimmis at various times and places in the Islamic domain as elaborations of the dhimma, should be compared with the apartheid system formerly in effect in South Africa. There is great similarity between dhimma and apartheid, although dhimma was not formally based on skin color or biological race, although there was a racial-ethnic element and there were color prejudices in Islamic society. As skin color and racial prejudices, consider the depiction of Blacks in the Arabian Nights [1001 Nights] Tales, an Arab book easily available in translation in Western countries. Bernard Lewis has written books on race and slavery in Islam, which are helpful. As to ethnic prejudices, the Arabs have traditionally considered themselves superior to other Muslims, and have used the term shu`ubiyyah, meaning non-Arab nationalism among peoples converted to Islam, in a derogatory, pejorative sense [one of the first issues of the Middle East Journal, back in 1946 or 1947, had an article on this]. This topic is especially important now that the Arabs and other Judeophobes, Leftist neo-Nazis, Rightist neo-Nazis, academic mad professors and liars, are charging Israel with apartheid. Other charges have failed, so they have made up the apartheid charge. This is a gross lie, which anyone living in Israel is aware of. Apartheid was a social system in South Africa based on skin color and biological race. Blacks were forced to ride on separate buses and trolleys, were not allowed to eat with whites in restaurants, paid lower wages for the same work, etc. None of this true in Israel. Since Arabs are not so visibly distinct from Jews in physical appearance, as Blacks and whites were in South Africa, how could they be kept off the buses? We may ask how Arab suicide bombers got on the buses. Arabs eat in the same restaurants as Jews. Many Arab students are studying at the Israeli universities, etc. The apartheid charge is a sign that Communist and Nazi Judeophobia and Judeophobic techniques have merged. The dhimma system can be considered in fact a model for apartheid, although it is not exactly the same of course.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: more on Jews in Jerusalem, Poems of Zion, etc.

UPDATING 32-2014  The Dhimma is still very much alive and kicking and oppressing non-Muslims. The ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and ash-Sham (= Levant)] has imposed dhimma rules on Christians in the al-Raqqa region of eastern Syria as part of their jihad. Anyone who believed that the Middle Ages were over and done with has another think coming [here]. This is not to imply any moral superiority on the part of the Bashar Assad regime in Syria. The article at link contains a list of dhimma rules which the ISIS just imposed in al-Raqqa.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Collecting the Poll Tax [Jizyah] in Baghdad, circa 1100

The terms of payment of the poll tax [jizyah] reported here are different from those reported for Jerusalem around 1700 by Gedaliah of Semyatich. Gedaliah reported that the same, identical amount was demanded from both rich and poor among the Jews. The account below by Obadiah the Norman Proselyte for Baghdad around 1100 shows differential jizyah rates for rich and poor.
The law of the poll-tax, collected yearly by the Caliph's official from the Jews, was as follows: Every Jew belonging to the wealthy class had to pay four and a half dinars in gold; a Jew of the middle class two and a half, and a Jew of the poorest a dinar and a half. When a Jew died, who had not paid up the poll-tax to the full and was in debt for a small or large amount, the Gentiles did not permit burial until the debt of the poll-tax was paid. If the deceased left nothing of value, the Gentiles demanded that other Jews should with their own money meet the debt owed by the deceased in poll-tax; otherwise (they threatened), they would burn the body.
[ This is a continuation of the quotation in the previous post from Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands; also quoted in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), p 206]
Funny isn't it, that most of the Left, which claims to be against exploitation and against the rule of money, is so sympathetic to aggressive Islam, even understanding jihad.Yet, the Arabs/Muslims were eager to collect tribute from the dhimmis, even demanding payment of the jizyah for a Jew who had died without paying it, from the surviving Jews. The Quran orders that Muslims fight the unbelievers [jihad] until they are brought low and pay tribute [Quran 9:29 in most editions]. There does seem to be a curious greed for filthy lucre lurking in the good Muslim's soul.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: Rules of the dhimma; More on Jews in Jerusalem, Poems of Zion, etc.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Humiliating Dhimmis -- Perfectly Acceptable in Traditional Islam

The code of dhimma in Islam, starting with the so-called Pact of Umar, the set of Muslim laws governing the treatment of and obligations of the non-Muslims in the Muslim state, contains a number of provisions humiliating the dhimmis and restricting their freedom, compared with the dignity afforded to Muslims and with the freedoms allowed to Muslims.
Ironically perhaps, Muslims worldwide in February 2006 are violently protesting cartoons published in a Danish paper that humiliate Islam and Muhammad, the Muslim prophet. They demand punishment for the cartoonists and for all of Denmark and all Danes, a form of punishment that is regularly called "collective punishment" if it is applied by Israel in the slightest degree for the sake of basic self-protection. Some outsiders recall that cartoons insulting Jews and what Jews consider holy, as well as Israel, are regular features of the Arab press. Sometimes the United States too is insulted or even attacked [9-11] in a most outrageous manner.

Here is an account of Muslim/Arab humiliation of Jews in Iraq in the eleventh century:
Prior to this, the ruler of Baghdad, whose name was al-Muqtadi, had given full authority to his vizier, Abu Shuja, to make a change in policy regarding the Jews living in Baghdad. Now he (Abu Shuja) had already sought on many occasions to destroy them, but the God of Israel had thwarted his intention, and on this occasion too, he protected them from his fury.

He (Abu Shuja) directed that yellow badges should be affixed to the headgear of every Jewish male. In addition to the badge on the head, another of lead, the weight of a silver coin, was to hang round the neck of every Jew. The lead pendant was to be inscribed with the word "dhimmi" indicating that the Jews were tribute bearers. He also imposed that every Jew should wear a distinguishing belt around the waist. Abu Shuja imposed two distinguishing signs upon Jewish women. Each woman had to wear one red shoe and one black shoe. Furthermore, each woman had to have a small copper bell on her neck or on her shoe which would tinkle so that all would know and differentiate between the women of the Jews and of the Muslims. he assigned cruel Muslim men to watch over the Jewish men and cruel Muslim women to oversee the Jewish women, in order to oppress them with every sort of insult, humiliation, and contempt. The Muslims would mock them, and the common rabble, together with their children, would beat Jews throughout all the streets of Bagdad.
[quoted from Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1979), p 251]
This account was written by a famous medieval convert to Judaism (converted 1102). He was called Obadiah the Norman Proselyte, since he was a Norman from southern Italy [not from France], the town of Oppido. Southern Italy and Sicily were conquered by Normans in the Crusading period. His original name was Iohannes and he was in fact a priest, a man skilled in musical notation, and with a talent for languages. No one was allowed to convert to Judaism in Christian Europe, so he had to go to the Islamic domain to convert to Judaism. In the Islamic domain, it was forbidden of course for a Muslim to convert to another religion, but dhimmis of one faith [i.e., Christians] were allowed to convert to another dhimmi faith [i.e., Judaism]. But dhimmis as such had to pay their tribute to the Muslim state, Christians as much as Jews. So the treasury of the Islamic state did not lose out by such conversions.
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: collecting jizyah in Baghdad, Jews in Jerusalem, poems of Zion, etc.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Zionists Are Jews Who Have Betrayed the Dhimma, the Covenant for Islamic Protection of Dhimmis

Islamic law [shari`ah] provides for "protection" for "peoples of the Book" [ahl al-kitab] who are allowed to live in the Islamic state with their persons and property protected on condition that they pay a yearly head tax [per adult male] called jizyah to the Islamic overlords. This follows from a Quranic verse [9:29 in Pickthall's translation and other editions]. Here the Muslim believers are commanded to fight the unbelievers, referring here to people of the Book, until they are brought low --humiliated-- and pay tribute. If the dhimmi did not pay his tax his life was forfeit. The account of Gedaliah of Semyatich and other records show how this tax and other exactions were required or collected from the dhimmis [see previous posts]. There is a whole set of humbling restrictions which dhimmis were also required to observe. If dhimmis revolted against the Arab-Muslim empire, then they were considered to have broken the covenant of protection, the dhimma, which as we know was a system of monetary exploitation and social subjugation. Dhimmi revolt means, to the Muslim, a violation of the dhimma and therefore, the dhimmi's life is no longer considered "protected."

If their lives are no longer considered "protected" then the Muslims may take their lives. This was the substance of a resolution made at the World Islamic Congress in Rabbath-`Ammon [`Amman], Jordan, 22 September 1967:
Jews in Arab countries: The Congress is certain that the Jewish communities living in Islamic countries do not appreciate the Moslems' good treatment and protection over the centuries. . . The Congress declares that the Jews residing in Arab countries who contact Zionist circles or the State of Israel do not deserve the protection and care which Islam provides for the free non-Moslem subjects [NOTE: subjects not citizens] living in Islamic countries. Moslem Islamic Governments should treat them as aggressive combatants. Similarly, the Islamic peoples, individually and collectively, should boycott them and treat them as deadly enemies.
[quoted by Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue (Tel Aviv: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, 1978), p 33]
In other words, Jewish civilians [=subjects] living in Muslim states can be treated as "aggressive combatants" if they in any way "contact Zionist circles." This can be interpreted as contacting Jewish charitable organizations which are based in the United States or France, or as showing sympathy for Israel in any way. Now, how are "aggressive combatants" treated generally throughout the world? They are either taken prisoner and/or shot and perhaps killed. One of the innovations of recent years is that many Arabs living in Western countries now believe that they can treat Jews in those countries as "aggressive combatants" and "deadly enemies."

The Academy for Islamic Research at its Fourth Conference, held at al-Azhar University in Cairo, backed up the resolution of the Islamic Congress in various speeches. The argument of Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra, an Egyptian, is below:
It may be said that they (the unbelievers) are non-Muslim subjects living in our midst, and therefore we have to take care of them. Within this group are cited the Jews, residing in certain Muslim states, the head [rulers, leaders] of which, together with men in authority, favour them with amity and shield them from the masses of Muslims. But we say to those who patronize the Jews that the latter are 'dhimmis,' people of obligation, who have betrayed the covenant in conformity with which they have been afforded protection. . . These people have broken their covenant and violated their pledges; how, then, are we going to retain our obligation to protect them?
[Abu Zahra is quoted in DF Green, ed., Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel: Extracts from the Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research (Geneva: Editions de l'Avenir, 3rd ed., 1976), p 61; also in Bat Ye'or, "The Dhimmi Factor in the Exodus of Jews from the Arab Countries," in M. Shulevitz, ed., The Forgotten Millions: The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands (London & New York: Cassell, 1999) p 45]
As early as 1950, an Arab writer, `Abd-al-Rahman Sami `Ismat, had accused Jews in Arab countries of being a Fifth Column:
Let no one advise us to exonerate from Zionism the Jews in the Arab countries who pretend to be innocent, no matter how wretched and degraded they appear to be, for they are Zionists like the rest of the Jews of the world. . . If they conceal their Zionism for a while, they will reveal it at a suitable opportunity. . . They are nothing but a fifth column in every country. [quoted in Roumani, op. cit., pp 33-34]
Here all Jews living in Muslim countries are considered to have violated the dhimma pact. Thus, the lives of all of them are forfeit. There are no "innocent civilians" among them. "Innocent civilian" is a concept reserved for Arab non-combatants who may be killed in the course of legitimate Israeli military operations. Jews are not "innocent civilians," whether in an Arab country or in Israel or anywhere else, neither for Muslims nor for the Western sympathizers of Arab/Islamic jihad. The life of any Jew living in the Land of Israel, even those who are non-combatants or even totally incapable of combat --such as children, babies, the elderly, women-- is considered forfeit and rightly subject to cancellation by Muslims. That is, Muslims have the right to kill them.
And where are the Western professional humanitarians?
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: the BBC and the Holocaust, Jews in Jerusalem under Muslim rule, poems of Zion

Friday, February 03, 2006

Jewish Population in 19th Century Jerusalem

British historian Tudor Parfitt reports a Jewish majority in Jerusalem by the late 1850s.

". . . by the 1850s the Jews were the majority in the city. . . "

"But in the course of the nineteenth century a remarkable change took place. Between 1800 and 1882 when the first Zionist settlers arrived in Jaffa -- the Jewish community in Jerusalem grew from 2,000 to about 18,000 (out of a total population of 35,000). From the 1830s the Jews constituted the largest single community and from the late 1850s the Jews constituted an overall majority in the city. This, it must be stressed, was before the immigration inspired by modern political Zionism. Moreover, these figures do not really give a full idea of the scope of the immigration because the mortality was so high at any given point that very considerable immigration was needed just for the size of the community to stand still. "

On account of the Tanzimat reforms pressed upon the Ottoman Empire by the Western powers [including Russia], by the late 19th century conditions had improved for the subject or dhimmi peoples in the Empire. For instance, the jizya [head tax on dhimmis] was abolished by the end of the century.

"Under these new circumstances the Jewish presence in the city became more and more pronounced. New synagogues, 'yeshivot,' schools, colleges, as many as seven or eight hospitals and many poor houses were erected in the Jewish quarter and soon the Jews became too numerous for the walled city and spread into the surrounding countryside thus founding what is today the Israeli city of Jerusalem. In the early 1870s Charles Tyrwhitt Drake wrote: "The number of Jews in Jerusalem is increasing by 1,200 to 1,500 p.a. [= per annum]-- now they are spreading all over the town and outside the walls. Now there are 130 houses outside the walls where four years ago not more than 20 would have been found. . . the Moslem quarter Bab Hutta [north of the Temple Mount and southeast of the Damascus Gate] and the part near Bab el-`Amud [Arabic name of Damascus Gate] are now inhabited by many Jews, though only four or five years ago not one was to be found there. Some of the Jews even share houses with Muslims. They have the greater part of the town and are buying land wherever they can find it.'"

In other ways too the Jewish presence was making itself felt. . . the languages that were heard in the streets included the languages used by the Jews, viz., Ladino, Yiddish, and Hebrew. . . A traveler walking casually around the streets of the Old City a hundred years ago would have been struck most by the overwhelming Jewish presence in the city.
[Tudor Parfitt, "The Jewish Presence in Jerusalem: 1800-1881-Jerusalem before Zionism," in Peter Schneider and Geoffrey Wigoder, eds., Jerusalem Perspectives: A Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Outline of the Holy City (Arundel, West Sussex: The London Rainbow Group, 1976), pp 7, 9]

Previous posts on the 19th century Jewish majority are here, aqui, ici, and qui.
- - - - - - - -
Coming soon: More on Jews in Jerusalem, poems of Zion
Also coming: the Jewish exodus from Arab states