Dhimmitude - Of Course...

 

I guess my initial reaction to Hamas' claim that a civil war was erupting filled me with a certain sense of hope.

After the Hamas Cabinet took power last month, Abbas tried to take control of all Palestinian security forces. Hamas responded with a plan to form its own shadow army made up of militants and headed by a top fugitive Israel has been hunting for years.

Abbas promptly vetoed that plan, and Hamas' political chief, Khaled Mashaal, accused him of cooperating with Israel and the United States and "plotting against us."

Mashaal's comments sparked demonstrations and violence throughout the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday. The two sides traded gunfire and hurled stones and firebombs, and Fatah leaders warned the unrest could deteriorate into civil war.[...]

In a meeting that ended early Sunday, Hamas and Fatah officials said they would take steps to end the fighting.

"The two movements have agreed to call on our Palestinian masses to stop all displays that might lead to tension," Fatah official Maher Mekdad said, reading a joint statement. "They agreed to work together to strengthen national unity."

'National unity' in their effort to bring about the destruction of Israel, naturally.

Interior Minister Said Siyam said Saturday he would pursue plans to create a shadow army — despite Abbas' veto — and would meet with its designated head, fugitive Jamal Abu Samhadana, to discuss when he would take charge.

In an interview with the London-based Sunday Telegraph, Abu Samhadana said the force would form the "nucleus of the future Palestinian army."

"We have one enemy," Abu Samhadana said. "They are Jews ... I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people."

And he is right; it would be silly for the West to read too much into the current unrest. It's about getting paid. So, the initial spark of hope quickly gives way to the better knowledge, that there is no change of heart any where near on the horizon.

However, let's enjoy the brief moment when "thousands of Fatah supporters shout anti-Hamas slogans, and when more than 4,000 people — Palestinian security officers and Fatah supporters — march in the West Bank town of Jenin, chanting anti-Mashaal slogans. Dozens of security officers and Fatah gunmen fired weapons into the air."

Right, enough of that.

One thing struck me after digesting these recent events:

Palestinians see no conflict or show any sign of perceived moral dilemma between seeking and receiving high quality medical treatment from Jewish Doctors and Surgeons in Israel's hospitals whilst at the same time wishing every Jew dead and Israel gone.

So, I ask myself, why is it that despite the fact that Palestinians value Israel's hospitals, where they get complicated medical procedures done, despite the fact that they recognize and appreciate the superiority of Jewish medical expertize, any such sentiment seems to have absolutely no mitigating effect on their determination to kill every last Jew as soon as it is in their power to do so.

In Nazi Germany, Germans equally acknowledged the often superior quality of Jewish Doctors and Jewish scientists as a whole, but that did not stop the Nazis from persecuting every Jew as soon as possible; indiscriminatly.

Granted, the Nazis could and Palestinians can't as yet. And presumably Germans had choice of talented and reputable 'Arian' Doctors, so you could argue, that they had the luxury of choice.

But despite my hunch, that one could take this line of argument quite a bit further, I shall leave it there, as it really served as a mental stepping stone to the point of my post today.

Palestinians and Muslims as a whole, who wish Israel destroyed and all Jews dead, have no problem with this paradox.

So why is there no conflict for Muslims? The answer has at its core the Islamic concept, or better, doctrine of Dhimmitude.

Robert Spencer's succinct explanation serves as a good reminder: "Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race."

When the Palestinians, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood and Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad assure us that they want good relations with the West, we must not forget that they mean good relations with those, who they consider part of the Dar ul Harb, meaning the part of the world which still awaits the establishment of the saving religion, as opposed to Dar ul Islam, "where Islam prevails, where salvation has been announced, where the religion that ought to reign is practiced" (Armand Abel).

We must not forget that it is their absolute conviction, that the West is, as Armand Abel, the esteemed mid-20th century Belgian scholar of Islam, reminds us, "...not populated by people who had a natural right not to practice Islam, but rather by people destined to become Moslems who, through impiousness and rebellion, refused to accept this great benefit. Since they were destined sooner or later to be converted at the approach of the victorious armies of the Prophet’s successor, or else killed for their rebelliousness, they were the rebel subjects of the Caliph".

Every statement from Hamas and all the usual suspects must always be understood and scrutinized in this context.

Bin Laden's claim in the audiotape broadcast Sunday via Al-Jazeera, that the West's decision to cut funds to the Palestinians proved that the United States and Europe were conducting "a Zionist crusader war on Islam", is an interesting variation. But of more interest is Hamas' effort to distance itself from al Qaida:

A Hamas spokesman said the militant group's ideology is vastly different from al-Qaida's but noted that international sanctions could anger some Muslims.

"It's natural that this tension is going to create an impression that there is a Western-Israeli alliance working against the Palestinians," Sami Abu Zuhri said, adding that Hamas wants good relations with the West.

What he really means to say, is that if we, the Infidels, the Dhimmis, dare to withhold the poll tax, the 'protection monies' owed to the Believers, we should not be surprised that it will fuel the anger of all Muslims the world over.

Make no mistake about it. The 'aid monies', so termed by EU and US authorities, is received as commutation monies; the money extorted from the Infidels—the jizya poll tax—in exchange for being allowed to cower in their homes, practicing their faith out of sight; the monies used to fund the jihad war chest.

In the meantime the Foreign Minister loses $450 000 in cash. Ahem.

Comments

[Kenny Pierce]

Jeremy,

Never be too impressed because you hear that someone has delivered a valedictory address in Latin at Princeton, for two reasons.

1. It's the salutatorian's speech that's given in Latin, not the valedictorian's. Though to be the salutatorian at Princeton is, I grant you, intrinsically impressive.

2. Every salutatorian gives his speech in Latin, including those who don't know Latin -- which is most of them. (A fellow classics major gave the salutatorian's speech my senior year, and it was a hilarious piece of work, but only myself and the other six or seven classics majors knew how funny it was.) The vast majority of Princeton graduates are unable to read their own diplomas. Yet the salutatorian's speech must, by tradition, be given in Latin.

So the salutatorian (when he isn't a classics major) writes his speech in English and takes it to the classics professors, who translate it for him.

It's still a very impressive sight for the parents, though. When your kid is graduating from Princeton, you take your seat in the bleachers with your program, and the music starts playing, and the graduates including your kid march in and sit down. And then you get to the one line in your program that says, "Salutatorian's speech," and you're blown away by how smart these kids are -- because the salutatorian stands up and gives this speech in Latin, much to the enjoyment and amusement of all those well-educated Princeton students, who laugh at the jokes and cheer at the parts that talk about how smart they all are or whatever the hell it is the salutatorian is saying, not that you have a clue because you, not having a Princeton education yourself, can't understand Latin.

What you don't know is that the graduates' programs are not like yours. Where your program says, "Salutatorian's speech," their program has the entire speech written out word for word. With footnotes. Footnotes that say things like, "Laugh here," and, "Cheer here..."

[grinning] When I think of Princeton -- which I have visited exactly once since I walked gratefully off of its grounds back on June 6 of 1989 -- that seems (unfairly, I know) to pretty much sum up the pretentiousness of the institution...and the degree to which the pretentiousness seemed to me unjustified. Though I have to say that the classics department rocked; so at least the six or seven of us in that major got good educations.

[Saul Davis]

Jeff: You said: "Given the history of Judeo-Christian civilization, one in which "peaceful co-existence" has been sorely lacking, does the trait that Saul identifies as a "center piece" really resonate with Christians? Not being a Christian, I really can't say." My discussion related to modern time; historically, there had been many instances when many Christians persecuted Jews, and limited acts of kindness to other Christians of like persuasion -- not even to all other Christians. I believe that this trait -- gratitude/recognition of kind acts -- does resonate with many Christians today, and has in the past, based upon many sources I have read; but your statement is missing the point I believe Alexandra made, and to which I responded; that is, the Muslim mentality in the PA appears to be that even those who provide kindness, medical treatment and save lives, should be killed in the most brutal fashion; I am unaware of ANY instance where a Christian was treated by Jewish doctors, and returned to kill those who treated him/her; I cannot recall similar acts of penultimate depravity (although the Nazis and Communists [neither of whom could be recognized as followers of Chritian philosophy] were an exception to this point). I cannot recall any situation with a Christian demonstrating such a complete lack of gratitude to the extent of the Muslims in the PA. I think that was one of Alexandra's points; it was definitely mine.

[igout]

Jeff,
Maybe the administration is logically bound to believe Islam is inherently a nice peaceable religion, from their major premise that democracy is the natural state of humanity everywhere. It's eyewash of course.

[Jeff Durkin]

Factional fighting among the Palestinians is nothing new; this latest round seems to reflect Fatah's assessment that they are losing their support, both among the Palestinians and with their state and non-state supporters in the region. It is, obviously, not anti-Hamas, in the sense of a rejection of Hamas goals, as it is, in Alexandra's words, "about getting paid." Fatah and Hamas have different infowar strategies - the appearance of rationality and peaceful intentions versus an appeal to Islam and a reliance on more violent, more immediate "direct action" - but the same goal; the end of Israel.

As to the larger point, that the Islamic world is motivated by a totalizing ideology and that their relations with other cultures is never a matter of peaceful coexistence, but rather a question of waiting until the "inevitable" conversion to the "one true religion," I couldn't agree more. Which is why the reluctance of the Administration to get over the infowar campaign based on a faulty interpretation of Islam - that it is a "religion of peace" that has been "hijacked" by "radicals" (the President repeated this nonsense yesterday) - is so difficult to understand. It should be obvious to even a casual observer of Islam, that one of the goals of the religion is to replace non-Islamic cultures. Does that mean that this is the only possible interpretation of Islam for a believer to hold? No; no more than every Christian has to be a Catholic. However, given the structural traits of Islam - a melding of state and Church, a moral system that trumps civil law, a bent towards theocracy - it is hard to see how Islam can change into an ideology compatible with the dominant Western/globalization worldview.

Basically, the Muslims and we in the West want the same thing; a world that runs by our ruleset. And, the Western and Islamic rulesets are not compatible. That is why trying to overlay some elements of the West onto Islamic societies is so difficult and, probably, doomed to failure. We can see in the OTs/PA what can happen when you have the vote without a reasonable body politic or a stable culture to go with it (I would argue that Palestinian culture, based as it is on a revisionist goal, is inherently unstable; it is made up of people and structures who are waiting for a moment in history - the destruction of Israel and the retaking of "their" lands - when they can start to become a society). You can see what happens when you have the trappings of a Western bureaucratic structure, without the "buy-in" to the concept of professionalism; i.e., that one's position within the arms of governance is not simply an opportunity to self-enrichment and that the system has a value beyond any one person, leading to a critical mass of individuals within the system who perform their tasks and of individuals outside of the system who believe it functions for them and the good of the group.

Does every person have a desire for "freedom in their souls" as the President has said? Sure, why not...but what does that mean? For many Muslims, I would gather the "freedom" they want is freedom from contact with the West, freedom from "horrible" Western ideas like equality for women or a government that is responsible to the citizenry, and, in the case of Israel, freedom from the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

Until we accept that a) we are involved in a war between our civilization and the Islamic civilization and that b) victory is not just a handful of votes in Iraq or Afghanistan; it is the destruction of Islamic civilization, as it exists today and of Islam as an ideology of governance, as opposed to a faith and personal moral code, than we will have a very hard time prosecuting this war to a victorious conclusion. While I do not think that we will see an Islamic victory, a long-term stalemate - punctuated by short wars, terrorist attacks and so forth - would lead to security related changes in our socio-cultural structures and economic instability that would negatively impact our way of life. To keep with the language of Alexandra's post, while I do not see Americans reduced to the status of dhimmis, until that concept is no longer an 'operational' part of the Islamic ruleset, our war will never end.

Oh, and one short comment on something written by Saul;
"I believe that a center piece of Judeo-Christian philosophy is the recognition of a good deed performed by another, and the feeling of gratitude for that act; that type of philosophy generally leads to peaceful co-existence and reciprocating acts of kindness; when that philosophy is lacking, as is apparent from the facts that underlie your article, it would appear that a true negotiated peace and true peaceful coexistance is impossible..."

Given the history of Judeo-Christian civilization, one in which "peaceful co-existence" has been sorely lacking, does the trait that Saul identifies as a "center piece" really resonate with Christians? Not being a Christian, I really can't say.

That actually leads to an interesting - to me - question; what are the core components of Christianity, in both theory and in practice?

Finally, since we are discussing the Arab-Jewish conflict, the Jewish Virtual Library has a new publication online, Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. It is available at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/cover.html

Well worth checking out.

[Darrell]

Dhimmitude. $73/bbl oil. Anyone see any connection?
Anyone curious about the "new players" that drove up oil futures prices starting in 2004 before the election? The Left was involved, but was it their money alone? Could Arab money behind the scenes have been used to manipulate the market? Wouldn't bad news coming out of the Middle East and Venezuela help the process? And Iran? Just imagine if the Left had any influence over the MSM! Are we paying for our own execution and funeral? What would you do with an extra $1 Trillion a year?(the total world oil bill has risen from around $442 Bllion to $1.5 Trillion). Questions. Maybe it's time for some answers? If we were at war, we'd demand it!

[Jeremayakovka]

Bravo, epaminondas and Saul Davis!

[Saul Davis]

Alexandra: Thank you for another excellant post; I believe that a center piece of Judeo-Christian philosophy is the recognition of a good deed performed by another, and the feeling of gratitude for that act; that type of philosophy generally leads to peaceful co-existance and reciprocating acts of kindness; when that philosophy is lacking, as is apparent from the facts that underlie your article, it would appear that a true negotiated peace and true peaceful coexistance is impossible; the only peace that can exist with those who are so demonstrably anti-social and lacking in gratitude is a peace through strength and fear. The difficulty here is that the World will not allow the Israelis that option, the Israelis by nature appear to be unable to effectuate that option except as a defensive or limited retaliatory measure, and the Islamists recognize that weakness. The same appears to be true with those in power here. Kindness is useless against those who use that character trait of their enemies as a weapon. When the world will begin to understand the Islamist mentality -- their thought processes and philosophy -- we will wake up and take the battle to the Islamists. I am not too optimistic that the wake up call will come any time soon. As long as we act upon the belief that Islamists think and act the way we do, we will never be able to live in true peace with them.

[epaminondas]

MarchH I got your reason ...

you said .."We are so afraid of the truth that we seek any other answer"

What are we afraid of?
Not losing, not being killed ...we are afraid of what we MIGHT think we see in the mirror if we win, if we do all those things that winning compels.
That fear is what drives the inner 'death wish' of the critical progressives. If you look at who they hate and decry, it is always those who DO, ACHIEVE, ACT , because their assumption is, if you act, and you succeed, then you must have done something bad. Must be bad.
Therefore if we accept the evil around us and are compelled to to act and win....

[Jeremayakovka]

MarcH mentions James Burnham (I keep hearing his name. The New Criterion published an appreciation of him a few years ago: he delivered a valedictory address at Princeton -- in Latin!) and "the apparent death wish of our civilization."

We should take this last question seriously. Whittaker Chambers, another ex-Communist, was convinced that the West was sick beyond saving. And he arrived at that opinion only after what was then called "The Great War." That's without the Depression, WWII, the German, Soviet, Chinese, Cambodian camps. And I wonder whether it takes people with more of a European formation (like say, Alexandra, via her father and other Old World influences) to drive these questions home to a primarily American audience which temperamentally is oriented toward the new, the latest, the next horizon.

Funny how a post that attempts to isolate "Hamasstan" on the political landscape -- I mean, "Palestine" -- leads to the big "civilizational" questions. Yet that's where my thoughts wander today. (Like Burnam and Chambers, I'm an ex-Communist myself, so now and then I'm prone to long, hard looks in the mirror.)

[Jeremayakovka]

Sadly, but with eyes wide open, I don't see a way for the Palestinians out of their bloodlust at this point except being starved and/or pounded into submission.

[MarcH]

This post raised the question for me of why it is that Western elites and Westerners in general buy into the Cole/Esposito/Armstrong view on Islam rather than the Armand Abel, Bat Ye’or, Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes, etc. view.

I came up with the some tentative reasons (neither original nor profound) which I have found to be cited with great frequency:

1. We Westerners are so arrogant that we believe that Muslims must be re-acting to our insults rather than following their own ancient rule book;
2. We are so afraid of the truth that we seek any other answer;
3. We are so secular that we can’t understand their worldview based on a belief in an ultimate truth and metaphysical reality;
4. The worldview of our elite opinion and policy makers is strongly influenced by subtle funding from oil producing states and oil revenue recycling based industries ($40 million to Harvard, Saudi prince’s purchase of 5% of Fox, etc.; and,
5. 60’s leftists in positions of influence in MSM and academia are so anxious to destroy traditional Western society that’ll they’ll use Jihad as a battering ram to do it and damn the consequences.

I expect that these reasons are superficial. The great political scientist and anti-communist activist James Burnham in his book “Suicide of the West” closely analyzed numerous self-inflected Western wounds in the struggle with Communism but could not identify the ultimate reasons for the apparent death wish of our civilization. The encouraging thing is that twenty years after publication of SoW and only a few years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, President Reagan awarded Burnham the Medal of Freedom.

[North by Northwest]

I remember the strong language used against the EU early April when the decision was made to withhold the 'aid' monies. "Withhold OUR money and you will experience the same kind of boycott as you have seen against Danish products throughout all Islamic states..."

Well, it seems that didn't quite happen that way. Who knows, maybe it's because the powers to be took solace in Europe's willingness to assume Dhimmitude status by outlawing terms like 'Islamofascism' or 'Islamic Terrorism'.

[Francis W. Porretto]

I believe it was Demosthenes who said that once you've broken a man, it's no small matter to make him whole. The Muslims have been broken by Islam, and the consequences are worldwide.

In a world in which all are either masters or slaves, to imagine oneself to be neither, but rather a free and self-respecting individual, must be incredibly difficult. Where, after all, are one's models to come from? Yet this is the world of Islam, where everything is either compulsory or forbidden, and the authorities are answerable to no one.

That doesn't excuse Muslims' savageries or perfidies, of course. We might well have to kill many and cordon off the rest to end the threat they pose to civilized lands. But it does seem to explain why so few of them are capable of anything but wild brutality or abject submission.

[Darrell]

Of course, Alexandra, if YOU want to wear that big hat and call yourself an admiral, things might be different...Expect a salute.

[Darrell]

I see a parallel between this subject and your "Big Love" post. Just as the US does not recognize any marriage other that that between one man and one woman, we don't recogonize our "dhimmitude." Call yourself an admiral and wear a big hat if you wish, but we aren't going to salute you. We never will. And by "we," I mean me, of course. I'll leave that to Jimmy Carter and his ilk.