Dhimmitude! What the Word Means and What It Should Mean for Us

     Two years ago, I was blissfully ignorant of the word dhimmitude. Then I opened my email and read a message breathlessly telling me that, if I didn’t act upon it by preventing the growth of the Muslim population, Western Civilization was doomed. Since I was never told specifically what I had to do to keep Muslims from procreating (throw cold water on them, perhaps?), I suppose Western Civilization is doomed. (Another word comes to mind: Dhammitall!)
     From time to time, I continue to receive messages from panic-stricken people in a Kevin McCarthy mode about Muslims out to get us all. (See video below.)  Recently I decided to look into the word. 

(Link to YouTube video)

     Before I consulted Internet sources, I used my linguistic talents, along with the excited message I’d received, to figure out what I could.

     The suffix –tude at the end of the word indicates that it’s a noun of Western origin. Hmm, I had been told that it was a Muslim word. (I’ll bet you didn’t know that Muslim was even a language.) This indicated to me that dhimmitude, which is often spelled with an exclamation point, is not a word Muslims use but one that certain non-Muslims use about Muslims.

     I should say something about the diacritical mark. Many words that come into English from foreign words have odd little marks called diacritical marks. Some examples are the tilde in the word señor, the cedilla in the word façade, or the acute accent in the word élan. Some words, such as resume (or résumé), may be spelled with or without the diacritical mark. I suppose dhimmitude (or dhimmitude!) is another example; but I must say that the exclamation point is the strangest diacritical mark I’ve ever seen.

     The word dhimmitude was coined by two Lebanese politicians—neither of them Muslims—attempting to transform fear and hatred into votes in 1982. The suggestion was that Muslims wanted to subordinate the majority Christian population to Muslim control.  Since one of these two demagogues was murdered, it appears that they succeeded in stirring up hatred, though not with the result they had intended.

     A writer calling herself Bat Ye'or took the ball and ran with it. In a book review, Prof. James E. Biechler wrote of her, "Perhaps the single most significant contribution of the author is her definition and development of the concept of 'dhimmitude.'” (link)  That definition, simply put, is that dhimmitude is the system by which Muslims control non-Muslims. (Note the emotionally loaded word control.)

     Bat Ye’or isn’t her real name any more than Batman is Bruce Wayne’s real name; and, unlike Batman, she doesn't wear black underwear over her face. Her real name is Gisèle Littman (link)  Many converts to Islam display their change of religion by adopting Middle Eastern-sounding names. If that’s what Bat Ye’or was thinking, she was a bit unclear on the concept.

     Thus we have it that the person most responsible for our understanding of the word dhimmitude was someone who devoted her life to writing books bashing Muslims. Yet we’re told that dhimmitude is a—(ahem!)—Muslim word.

     The word dhimmi is an Arabic word that is used by Muslims. Its basic meaning is, “protected ones.” It refers to a system by which the religious and cultural freedoms of non-Muslims are protected in predominantly Muslim societies.

     A word of caution is necessary here. There are at least six branches of Islam: five are Sunni and one is Shiite.  They’re as different from one another as Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, Amish, Pentecostals, and Mormons. While we can make certain general statements, we can expect occasional variatons.

     According to Muslim concepts of dhimmi, non-Muslims (known as dhimmis) may, for example, consume pork or alcohol, but not in public. Dhimmis are also excused from other obligations to which Muslims are held, but they’re equal under the laws of property, contract, and other obligations. Dhimmis are exempt from paying taxes, but they do have to make payments in lieu of taxes. In some countries, these payments are called tribute; in others they’re called contributions, charity, or something else. The essential difference between payments from Muslims and payments from dhimmis lies in what the payments are called.

     While non-Muslims during the Middle Ages generally were subject to the same military duties as Muslims, they weren’t required to participate in religious wars.  Thus, when the crusaders invaded Palestine, Christians and other non-Muslims were not required to participate in the defense of the Holy Land.

     A few centuries earlier, after the Roman Empire fell, and Muslims assumed control over Palestine, Jews living there tended to see this change as a “change for the better.” Because Jews were given greater protection under Muslim rule than under Christian rule in Europe, many Jews moved to Palestine.

     Just as those of us in the West have a concept of a republic—that each person, however much in the minority he may be, has rights that must be protected within society—Muslims have this concept of dhimmi, which is based on a similar idea. For more information on this concept, click here. 

     Today, Jews are found living throughout the Middle East. For example, Iran has one of the world’s largest Jewish populations.  In the Middle East, Iran's Jewish population is second only to that of Israel, the latter of which is mostly of Central European rather than those of Abrahamic origin more commonly found in Iran. Zoroastrians, Christians, and Jews are reserved seats in the Iranian Majlis (Parliament). (link)  

     It’s worth noting that, Sharia banking is preferred to Western-style banking because the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah forbid usury. In Sharia banking, the banker invests rather than loans; thus, the banker doesn’t make money unless the client—known in the West as the “borrower” or the “Muppet” (video and video)—makes money. Derivatives are forbidden under Sharia banking. A similar arrangement is available for private borrowers. I haven’t heard of even one predominantly Muslim country to suffer the toxic, Goldman Sachs-style banking scandals that have rocked the entire Western world since 2007.  

     I’m certainly glad that the Internet trolls and Islamophobes got me interested enough to learn about Islam for myself. Without really intending to do so, they caused me to gain much more respect for the Muslims than I’d previously had.  I hope you have as well.

    While researching for this article, I ran across some video clips that should serve as a lessons for us all.  In the first, Christians in Egypt form a protective ring around Muslim worshipers.   

      In the next, Egyptian Muslims form a protective ring around Coptic Christian worshipers.  (I'm sorry.  Some technical difficulties are preventing me from uploading videos today.  Click the link below.)
(here) 
     In the United States, a Muslim is injured coming to the aid of a Jewish stranger who is attacked by ten alleged "Christians."  (Same as before.  Please click the link.)  (here)

     Now, I wish someone would coin a word to describe the system of “control” under which Americans currently live. We pay our taxes to Wall Street, fight wars for Israel, depend on the corporate-owned media for our news, and look to Monsanto for our daily bread.  There has to be a better way.

If Being a Muslim were an Impeachable Offense

     If being a Muslim were an impeachable offense, would there be enough evidence against Barack Obama to remove him from office? Let's look at the facts.

     The accusation that Barack Obama is a Muslim takes two forms. The first is simply that Obama is a Muslim. The second is that he is a devout Muslim, which, we are told, is worse. Those who claim that their hatred of Islam is a way of defending Christian civilization are suggesting, then, that lack of religious commitment is more Christian than commitment.

     Just what do Muslims believe that supposedly makes them such horrible people that their enemies are forever demanding their annihilation? To the point, does Barack Obama adhere to those supposedly abominable beliefs?

     The religious laws the Muslims follow—variously called Sharia Law or Koranic Law—was lifted almost verbatim from the Law of Moses; that is, Mosaic Law or the Torah. The Law of Moses is still found in the Christian Bible and the Torah today. Many Jews favor the Talmud, which they generated during the Babylonian Captivity. Many Christians claim that, since they live under Grace and not the law, Old Testament law doesn't count except when it supports the beliefs of their religious denomination.

     With regard to religious practices, the biggest difference between Muslims and the rest of us is that they still follow the Law of Moses. (If you seem to hear strains of “Give Me That Old Time Religion,” you're getting the point.)

     Now let's compare Barack Obama's behavior with what we find in the Koran—or, if you prefer, the Old Testament.     You're well aware that Jews and Muslims don't eat pork. In fact, neither Jews nor Muslims use eating utensils that had touched pork or eat food that has been prepared by hands that may have touched pork during preparation. The Muslim term for ritually "clean" food is halal (lawful); the Jews call it kosher (clean).

     Are you aware that Barack Obama hosted a Hawaiian luau at the White House, and that the customary roast pig was on the menu? (See link.)

     Are you aware that Barack Obama ate a meal at a traditional Southern country restaurant in the Deep South? Since pork was one of the items on the menu, Obama's meal was prepared by hands that had touched pork.

     According to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim beliefs, the husband is supposed to be the religious leader of the family. When Michelle Obama and their two daughters visited Vale, Colorado, Michelle ordered short ribs. Either Mr. Obama fails the test of Muslim manhood by allowing this forbidden practice, or he fails the test of Muslim manhood by not caring.  (See link.)
     Sharia and Mosaic Law also forbid the eating of reptiles and amphibians. In the photo above, you will see Obama eating frog legs. (Link)

     I won't look into the question of whether Obama eats rabbits or non-piscine seafood. Sunni Muslims are allowed to eat those foods.

     Then there's the Muslim prohibition on drinking alcoholic beverages. Not content with merely drinking alcoholic beverages, Obama actually brews beer in the White House.  (Link)
     You may not be aware of this—I certainly wasn't—but Islamic law forbids the keeping of dogs as pets. (Link) Nonetheless, Obama keeps a pure-bred pooch named Bo. (Link)

     If I may digress for a moment for the sake of cultural education, American Presidents are expected to keep pets at the White House. It makes them seem more human to the voters. Even if Mr. Obama isn't legally the President, he's expected to put on a convincing act. We don't know what will happen to Bo when Obama leaves the White House.

     When Bill Clinton entered the White House, he brought a cat called Socks. When he left the White House, he dumped socks on one of his secretaries. She probably was Socks's real owner anyway. One can imagine that Monica Lewinsky may have been turned off if she'd seen cat hairs on Bill Clinton's lap.

     It's against the laws of all three religions for a man to look upon a woman with lust. Here we have pictures of Obama visually appreciating two women's butts, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy looking on with bemused approval.

     Aren't Muslims supposed to be virulently opposed to homosexuality?   Didn't Obama come out in favor of homosexual "marriages"?

     Obama did appoint a supposedly “devout” (there goes that word again) Muslim to a position in America's home-grown Gestapo, the Department of Homeland Security. That one appointment led Islamophobes to wail, gnash their teeth, pour ashes on themselves, and claim that this was proof that Obama was a Muslim. Shoot, man, he appointed 32 dual-citizenship Israelis to higher positions than that, and very few people accused Obama of being Jewish.
     Maybe you've heard of Sharia-compliant banking.  (If not, here's a crash course for you.)  Under Mosaic Law (now known as Sharia Law), dishonest weights and measures are forbidden, and so is usury.  Although these requirements are still in the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, only the Muslims still take them seriously.

     Under "Western" banking, bankers create "money" out of thin air, agree with other bankers as to how much the notes will be worth, and lend the "money" to innocent "customers."  The "customers" post as collateral something of value so that they can receive this funny money.  The "customers" have to repay the loan, not with "money" that the "customers" have created out of thin air, but with money they've had to earn.  The bankers then receive something for nothing.
     In the meltdown of 2008 through the current date, here's what happened:  The bankers lied to people in order to get them to borrow funny money that they'd never be able to repay with real money.  After the victims defaulted, the bankers took their victims' homes away from them.  The victims lost everything.  The bankers lost nothing and gained people's homes.  It was the bankers who then bribed dishonest congressmen to steal even more money from the taxpayers to "repay" the bankers for their supposed losses.  The bankers were then able to invest real money into still more enterprises, many of which were overseas.

     Under Sharia Law, this travesty would never have occurred.  We would have had honest money and fair banking practices.  If it somehow has occurred, executives for Goldman Sachs and other banksters would have been lucky just to have their hands cut off for stealing or their tongues cut out for lying.  Instead, Obama packed his administration with those crooks.  A Muslim would never have done that.

     Oh, let's not forget: Muslims are supposed to be terrorists, or so we're told. Is there any evidence that Barack Obama supports terrorism?  Well, yes, come to think of it, there sure is.

     Under America's Constitution, the federal budget is proposed by the President. Each year since he has been in office, Obama's budget proposals have included $3 billion to support a terrorist regime. This regime routinely bombs schools and private homes, and they even use white phosphorous against them.

     International law doesn't forbid the use of white phosphorous to illuminate an area at night or for use as a smokescreen. An American general once said that white phosphorous is not useful as a weapon of war because "there are more efficient ways of killing people."  We may take it, then, that white phosphorous is more effective as a weapon of terror. Canadian writer and activist Naomi Klein and others have seen where the terrorist regime that Obama supports had used white phosphorous on grade schools.  (See link.)

     Who are the victims of the terror attacks that Mr. Obama supports with our tax dollars? Who are the terrorists?

     The victims are the Palestinians in Gaza. Yes, the victims are predominantly Muslim. The terrorists are a gang of anti-religious war criminals whose actions make a mockery of the Law of Moses, even as they hijack the biblical name of Israel.

     Yes, Mr. Obama uses American tax dollars to support terrorism, but he's clearly not a Muslim.