"We crushed the plan to establish Greater Israel. We still have work to do, but we destroyed most of this plan," Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Monday.

Speaking to al-Jazeera, Nasrallah said his organization had weapons capable of reaching every corner of Israel.

Nasrallah told the Qatari TV channel that the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers last summer was planned well in advance.

"Our brothers observed the area of the operation for at least three months. All this time the Israelis did not sense us. Many civilian cars passed through the area but we were not interested in harming or kidnapping civilians," Nasrallah said.

The kidnapping of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev on July 12 prompted Israel to declare all-out war against Hizbullah.

He boasted that he oversaw the operation from Hizbullah's headquarters in the stronghold of Dahiya in Beirut, most of which was destroyed by Israeli airstrikes.

Nasrallah denied comments by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that Regev and Goldwasser were alive.

Kouchner made the remarks on the heels of French-sponsored talks between Lebanon's 14 faction leaders two weeks ago.

"This report is untrue. The French foreign minister did not say that we told him the soldiers were alive but that he understood they were alive. He said we did not answer his request as we told him the issue depended on negotiations and that I was the only one authorized to give details on their status," Nasrallah said.

He refused to say whether the two Israeli soldiers were alive, saying he is not willing to give Israel "something for free."



such a "role model".

can you imagine how the international community would response if israel said the same about the prisoners it has in custody?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3429024,00.html

he needs to be kidnapped or killed
or maybe he needs another divine victory like he got in 2006. but this time the ground forces will get to the Litani river in the first 2 days.

he needs to be kidnapped or killed
or maybe he needs another divine victory like he got in 2006. but this time the ground forces will get to the Litani river in the first 2 days.

the next time there will be no need for ground troops.

woo. hoo. Finally, a Solution.

Wunderbar. Let's go kill some ragheads and incinerate their bodies, so we'll stay in practice for God's chosen day for the neutron-cleansing and annexation of Lebanon. (not)

the next time there will be no need for ground troops.

why's that?

the strategy of air-power alone wasn't successful last time
and it's expensive too

Finally, a Solution.

Ironic that you use those words. Remember that God condones genocide. God even repented of His judgment and stripped a king of his crown for failing to complete a genocide. What's even scarier is that this is part of the sacred texts we generally refer to as the "Old Testament" or "Hebrew Scriptures".

What's even scarier is that this is part of the sacred texts we generally refer to as the "Old Testament" or "Hebrew Scriptures".
You've just implied ... or rather blatantly stated, that Judaism condones genocide.

That is beyond the regular garbage you post here. In Europe, where real genocide occurred, you would have been charged with hate speech for this.

On sciforums, you should be banned for a week... but just like in the UN, where Lybia sits on the Human Rights Council, you're a moderator.

Bitter irony.

sometimes i cant help to think that our world has gone mad.

I love Hezbollah, only because they are successful at defeating/holding back the zionist terrorists. When Israel is erased I would go after them of course. I support their war against Israel.

I love Hezbollah, only because they are successful at defeating/holding back the zionist terrorists. When Israel is erased I would go after them of course. I support their war against Israel.

or maybe theyll come after you first and hang you. ;)

Hezbollah are freedom fighters, fighting Israeli terrorism

Hypewaders: you consider yourself Lebanese, or something right? And you DONT like Hesbollah?:confused:

Hezbollah are freedom fighters, fighting Israeli terrorism

Hypewaders: you consider yourself Lebanese, or something right? And you DONT like Hesbollah?:confused:

if they are so righteous why dont they release any information on the captured soldiers?

You've just implied ... or rather blatantly stated, that Judaism condones genocide.

It's part of the "history", isn't it? What that means about modern Judaism is left to modern Jews. But you and I both know the Amalek rhetoric continues today:

It must be emphasized that nothing has so degraded the Jews as the "peace process." This is precisely the intention of Arafat's terrorist war. Arafat is the Amalek of this generation. Ponder carefully Rabbi Matis Weiberg's commentary on parashat Bishlach, where he refers to Amalek's war against Israel: "Amalek's attack does not take the form of anti-God argumentation. In fact, it takes no intellectually overt form whatsoever-their entire focus is on perception, not reason. They were willing to suffer (great losses) in order to strike a blow at the perceived godliness and prestige of Yisrael..."

Weinberg then quotes from another commentary: "Yisrael left Egypt and God split the sea for them and destroyed the Egyptians; and everyone was in awe of them. Until Amalek attacked. They suffered terrible losses, (but) they deflated the image of Yisrael in the perception of the nations." Weinberg continues:

A terrorist organization may take enormous risks to carry out an operation whose only strategic value is damage to the government's aura of invincibility. The Amalekites do the same. They are the image breakers; they play to the media, utilize communication to manipulate perception. The name of their game is defamation in the literal sense-to defame, tearing down esteem and maligning fame.

In a marginal note Weinberg quotes Emil M. Fackenheim: "The whole purpose of the (Nazi) program was to reduce Israel to excrement. That program included the God of Israel." This, in effect, is the program of Arafat. We see the results of this program: the Temple Mount has been desecrated; suicide bombers reduce Jewish women, men, and children to body parts, and politics continues as usual, flying the banner of peace. This peace is burying the State of Israel. (Eidelberg (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/mar03/eidelberg.htm))

Yes, it is a concern to hear common rhetoric of any war leading toward genocidal talk. And it would be inappropriate for me to give Israel a free pass on this one.

That is beyond the regular garbage you post here.

I'm getting sick of your continued supremacist rhetoric. Don't think I haven't given it thought over the years, dude. But I still don't see how killing or displacing innocent people (e.g. non-terrorists) protects Israeli children. And I know, I know. They forced Israel to kill innocent people, didn't they? Just like they will force Israel to follow through on its Arafat-Nazi-Amalek argument?

In Europe, where real genocide occurred, you would have been charged with hate speech for this.

And? I'm an American. I'm accustomed to having the right to defend myself against criminal charges. The idea of being arrested for what I say does not disturb me tremendously.

On sciforums, you should be banned for a week... but just like in the UN, where Lybia sits on the Human Rights Council, you're a moderator.

We're supposed to fear the holy call to jihad, right? Why not be wary of the idea of holy genocide? Oh, right, right. Jihad = Muslims = bad people. Genocide = Hebrews = good people, good outcome, good reason.

Look, dude, I was raised to consider Jewish people as human beings. This, of course, in a time when anti-semitism in the US persisted openly. I find it very strange that twenty years later, many Jews and Israeli sympathizers are offended at the idea that Jewish people are human.

Humans have faults. Humans make mistakes. If modern Israel had conducted itself differently over the years, I would have greater sympathy for their justifications of recent events. But the Israelis are blowing it in a very human way.

Given that it is considered hateful to question Israeli actions or motives in anything, and given that you routinely advocate abduction and murder (in this topic, even), I'm not inclined to think highly of what you think should happen.

But you and I both know the Amalek rhetoric continues today
Thae quote that follows says nothing about killing all of Amalekites. It only compares Amalekites' own tactics to Arafat's and the Nazis'.

Your quote is empty of anything that resembles a call by Jews for a genocide. And even if you had found some idiot who was inspired by Jewish ancient scriptures to call for genocide, I would say you picked the worst guy to represent Jewish thought. I would also say that you'd projected too much credibility on one nut. It's like saying that Bin-Laden's interpretation of the Qur'an and all the metaphors within it is the way mainstream Muslims interpret it.

But of course, you don't have any such quote.

They forced Israel to kill innocent people, didn't they?
I understand you're trying to present this argument as ironic, but it's not. Israelis live in the real world, not in the debate world, where people can debate on the nuances and principles. In the real world people are forced to make decisions which aren't ideal. The most important thing is that Israelis don't want to kill anyone, but are left with no choice.

We're supposed to fear the holy call to jihad, right? Why not be wary of the idea of holy genocide? Oh, right, right. Jihad = Muslims = bad people. Genocide = Hebrews = good people, good outcome, good reason.
That's just nonsense... come on... do you actually believe this? ... Yes, I think you do. Sad. There is no call to genocide by Jews.

if they are so righteous why dont they release any information on the captured soldiers?The terrorists you refer to as 'soldiers' should be executed. THAT is a righteous move. 2 less thugs that would murder and rampage in the future.

The terrorists you refer to as 'soldiers' should be executed. THAT is a righteous move. 2 less thugs that would murder and rampage in the future.

a better option is to surgically give you a brain.

A better solution would be to put Genji in Gaza with a "gays for Palestine" sign.

Thae quote that follows says nothing about killing all of Amalekites. It only compares Amalekites' own tactics to Arafat's and the Nazis'.

It doesn't need to. The only reason gentiles remember Amalek is that the Scriptures made a point of remembering him. Otherwise, he would have disappeared into the dusts of forgotten history.

The most important thing is that Israelis don't want to kill anyone, but are left with no choice.

Many people "don't want to kill anyone, but are left with no choice". Israeli or otherwise, however, I don't see the profit in killing and terrorizing the innocent. If you make yourself an enemy, people will respond accordingly.

It's like your appeal to emotion about my daughter: If my daughter was in imminent danger, how would killing, displacing, and generally terrorizing innocent people help protect her?

That's just nonsense... come on... do you actually believe this? ... Yes, I think you do. Sad.

Actually, I don't believe it. However, I can't figure out why Israeli sympathizers expect me to look at it that way.

I will reiterate: I was raised to consider Jewish people as human beings. This, of course, in a time when anti-semitism in the US persisted openly. I find it very strange that twenty years later, many Jews and Israeli sympathizers are offended at the idea that Jewish people are human.

Really, it is the most curious flip. I tend to suspect it's not actually a real shift in principle, but that among Israelis and Jews, as with, say, Americans, the corrupt segments within the societies are gaining power again. It's a cyclical thing.

It does, however, present certain challenges. Decent and proper solutions are much harder to find if the one thing that's not allowed is honest examination of the problem.

And it's this point upon which I indict the Israeli mainstream as broadcast to the world. I don't think the Israelis are actually as bloodthirsty as they sound, and watching the American decline under the Bush administration, it is more likely that reasonable voices have been buried under jingoistic crap.

Peace will bury Israel. Okay. Noted.

Israelis are forced to kill innocent people. Okay. Noted.

Neither of these points speak well of Israel or Israeli political philosophy. They wouldn't speak well of anyone who put forth such justifications. (Our American variations, for instance, are no prettier.)

And I'm not going to make an exception for Israel on this one. Americans have committed many atrocities over the years, but I'm having trouble remembering which ones, since the nineteenth century, have been rewarded with the nation's executive office.

I won't hold Israel or Jews to a subhuman standard. I don't see the need to grant them any excessive leniency, either. To what standards should we hold Israel and Judaism?

A better solution would be to put Genji in Gaza with a "gays for Palestine" sign.As a bigot you must assume all gay men wear their sexuality on their foreheads. As usual, that is a wrong assumption and a typical display of rightwing bigoted ignorance and baiting. Sex is not anymore important to me than it is to a breeder. My support for causes around the world are not based on a gay friendly litmus test. That would make my view of the world as narrow and uninformed as yours and Mr Speck's.
Bait all you wish, I support the destruction of the zionist state and it's supporters. I care not if forces in that fight support gay marriage.:rolleyes:

A better solution would be to put Genji in Gaza with a "gays for Palestine" sign.
Before the Hamas coup, Gaza would have elected him to Arafat's old position. ;)

More irony than five simple letters. :D

Norsefire: "Hypewaders: you consider yourself Lebanese, or something right? And you DONT like Hesbollah?"

This is a much more complex thing to ask- harder to answer than a question about whether I like or support a football team. After Hizbullah split with Amal and began shredding Lebanon again as they fought their Shi'a neighbors, I hated them both for their murderous squabbles in the camps. I had higher hopes shall we say. Because I am a political secularist, I once preferred Amal. However, as it became clear to me that Amal is a Syrian puppet aiding and encouraging Syria's agenda to control and possess Lebanon, the spell was broken for me.

I don't consider Hizbullah a fundamentalist-core movement, that is a movement bent on imposing strict fundamentalist Sharia, and don't have any real problem with them; just sad memories. I feel much better about their PR and social-services work in calmer times, where they have done a lot of good. Hizbullah officially keeps a liberal platform:

Islam that we understand (http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/statement01.html) is a message that aims at establishing justice, security, peace and rights for all people no matter what nation, race or religion they belong. We don't have any complex toward others, but we feel the responsibility toward them, to make them understand the essence of our religion away from obligation and fanaticism.

We don't seek the application of Islam by force or violence but by peaceful political action, which gives the opportunity for the majority in any society to adopt or reject it. If Islam becomes the choice of the majority then we will apply it, if not, we will continue to coexist and discuss till we reach correct beliefs.

We hereby affirm that our Islam rejects violence as a method to gain Power, and this should be the formula for the nonislamists as well.

& I am not Lebanese- I just love Lebanon.

Israeli or otherwise, however, I don't see the profit in killing and terrorizing the innocent. If you make yourself an enemy, people will respond accordingly.
Then why don't you apply this standard to the "Palestinians"?

It's like your appeal to emotion about my daughter: If my daughter was in imminent danger, how would killing, displacing, and generally terrorizing innocent people help protect her?
My statement, completely twisted by your own words, really does sound like a weak attempt of appeal to emotion.

You simply fail to see that innocent people aren't being terrorized here. At least it's not the primary or even secondary intention. Although innocent people do tend to get hurt and displaced and even killed, which, as I've said before, the result of imperfect decisions which are made in the real, as opposed to the theoretical debate world.)

I tend to suspect it's not actually a real shift in principle, but that among Israelis and Jews, as with, say, Americans, the corrupt segments within the societies are gaining power again.
If you have experienced (or even followed from far, but consistently) the Israeli politics scene you'd know how preposterous that statement is. It's a dog-eat-dog scene that looks like an Arab vegetable market -- people shout and scream and bitterly hold on to their positions. The peaceniks can't do anything (much) too subversive because the righties won't let them, and the righties can't do much with out lefties, who do hold a large constituency, holding them back.

There is no "taking over by the corrupt", as you put it.

Here's news just from today (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3429885,00.html) -- this done under a Kadima-run Knesset, by the way. A party most of whose members came from the Likud. If anything, that would show that Israelis have ideologically moved to the left, as Kadima is left of Likud.

Decent and proper solutions are much harder to find if the one thing that's not allowed is honest examination of the problem.
That is nothing but grandstanding.


Peace will bury Israel. Okay. Noted.
Israelis are forced to kill innocent people. Okay. Noted.
Peace will save Israel. But we might be talking about a different kind of peace. Or maybe not. I think we both have the same visions for the "final status", more or less.

You're talking about peace as the road to Peace. All Israelis want (maybe except the Kahana Khai crowd) desparately want that same road. But when there is no choice: there is no choice.

To what standards should we hold Israel and Judaism?
Israel should be allowed to fight back, just as any nation would. Same standard (http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=415151&SPID=15663).

Before the Hamas coup, Gaza would have elected him to Arafat's old position. ;)

More irony than five simple letters. :D

HA!
:roflmao:
I only got what you meant on the 2nd read.

As a bigot you must assume all gay men wear their sexuality on their foreheads. As usual, that is a wrong assumption and a typical display of rightwing bigoted ignorance and baiting. Sex is not anymore important to me than it is to a breeder. My support for causes around the world are not based on a gay friendly litmus test. That would make my view of the world as narrow and uninformed as yours and Mr Speck's.
Bait all you wish, I support the destruction of the zionist state and it's supporters. I care not if forces in that fight support gay marriage.:rolleyes:

I'm just speechless...

And FYI: If you're a gay man living in Yesha, gay marriage is the least of your concerns.

I'm just speechless...

And FYI: If you're a gay man living in Yesha, gay marriage is the least of your concerns.

"only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and im not so sure about the first. "

a better option is to surgically give you a brain.

What is wrong with what he said? Dont YOU want two less terrorists in the world?

Where is Yesha?

What is wrong with what he said? Dont YOU want two less terrorists in the world?

another one. they just keep coming in numbers.

Where is Yesha?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesha

It is the Hebrew acronym for Judea, Samaria and Gaza (commonly referred to as "the west bank and gaza" by the world.)

People think that "West Bank" is the name of the territory, all the while it's merely the western bank of the river Jordan.

Where is Yesha?
A bastard name for Occupied Palestine.

Then why don't you apply this standard to the "Palestinians"?

I do. You just choose to not see it that way. You're too busy jumping to conclusions that would be silly were it not for the gravity of their implications.

You simply fail to see that innocent people aren't being terrorized here. At least it's not the primary or even secondary intention.

That's the kind of rhetoric I would expect of the Bush administration. Apathy is not justification. (e.g., "We don't intend that outcome, but we don't care if it comes about, either.")

If you have experienced (or even followed from far, but consistently) the Israeli politics scene you'd know how preposterous that statement is. It's a dog-eat-dog scene that looks like an Arab vegetable market -- people shout and scream and bitterly hold on to their positions. The peaceniks can't do anything (much) too subversive because the righties won't let them, and the righties can't do much with out lefties, who do hold a large constituency, holding them back.

Actually, you've described what I'm talking about rather well.

Think about Americans, for a moment: one of our political frustrations is that few Americans actually vote for evil. But evil is what they get. The people are not prepared to revolt, and so the evil (e.g. corrupt) continue to gain power and prominence.

Here's news just from today -- this done under a Kadima-run Knesset, by the way. A party most of whose members came from the Likud. If anything, that would show that Israelis have ideologically moved to the left, as Kadima is left of Likud.

From the opening of the article:

“Naturally, the Arab peace initiative contains a number of elements that represent the Arab narrative, and the situation is that the Arab League has no intention of standing in for the Palestinians in the negotiations (with Israel),” Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Wednesday.

Consider American high school textbooks as an example. The narrative they tell is actually false, but to include the "tribal narrative" or "black narrative", neither of which are necessarily specific tribal or black positions is so objectionable to some that publishing companies actually will publish "Lone Star Editions", which meet Texas textbook standards. These books continue to tell the Myth of Southern Reconstruction, which casts the slave owners and former Confederate States as martyrs, and also the myriad lies about indigenous tribal culture. In our case, the "tribal narrative" or "black narrative", as such, would be closer to the narrative the documented historical record. Many Americans, for instance, still believe the tribes were savage for their practice of scalping. Few, however, were ever taught--at least until university--that the tribes learned the practice from the whites, who paid bounties on scalps from enemy tribes. Many Americans are aware that the Dutch "purchased" Manhattan Island for about $24; while this is cause for derision against the tribes, few people are ever taught that the sellers had no actual claim on the land--that is, a different tribe lived there. Just try to sell your neighbor's house for $24. The Southern Myths cast slave owners as kindly, generous folk overburdened by stupid negroes, and the Reconstruction Myth itself is a tangled mess of lies intended to cast the reconstruction effort as an attempt to destroy southern whites. The difficulties faced by blacks after the Civil War are unjustly attributed to negro laziness, a notion disputed by the actual historical record. Ever seen Griffith's Birth of a Nation? Give it a try sometime, and see what the lies actually look like; there's a reason the film caused riots. Decades later, those myths persist. Accusations of mass revisionism of history fall through when we see that the "revisionism" is simply a recognition of the historical record.

Complaints about the "Arab narrative", therefore, are just a little bit suspect to my outlook. Certes, they can be justified. But given how Israeli sympathizers tend to flip out over discussion of the late Kadima co-founder Ariel Sharon's career as a terrorist butcher, it's hard to trust the "Israeli narrative", either.

Furthermore, Kadima's own statements are questionable:

A kadima led government will ensure the State of Israel’s security and its continued existence as the eternal national home of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Kadima will preserve and foster the national character of Israel whilst guaranteeing complete equality of rights for the country’s minorities in a manner that will provide a full and balanced integration of its core Jewish and Democratic values. (Kadima Action Plan (http://kadimasharon.co.il/15-en/Kadima.aspx))

Note, please, the italic and boldfaced accents above. "Complete equality of right for the country's minorities" sounds good, but what does it mean in the context of "a full and balanced integration of its core Jewish and Democratic values"?

We do have the answer, and from Kadima:

The overall objective – a sovereign Jewish and democratic state that is a secure national home for the Jewish people – is the maintenance of a solid Jewish majority within the State of Israel. (ibid)

No subdivision of society has "equality of rights" if the state intends to make sure they remain a minority.

Kadima may be left of Likud, but that doesn't seem to mean much.

That is nothing but grandstanding.

If you say so. After all, that's all that counts, right?

I think we both have the same visions for the "final status", more or less.

I would hope. But your insistence that there are no innocent Palestinians being terrorized, your denunciation of justice ("terrorists" lose their status as human), and other aspects of your rhetoric puts that notion in doubt.

You're talking about peace as the road to Peace. All Israelis want (maybe except the Kahana Khai crowd) desparately want that same road. But when there is no choice: there is no choice.

There are always choices. Just because an option seems particularly daunting does not mean it isn't a choice.

Israel should be allowed to fight back, just as any nation would. Same standard.

From the article link you provided:

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego -- and bragged about it?

I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy's side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible. (Thompson (http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=415151&SPID=15663))

I reiterate: It would make no sense whatsoever to terrorize innocent people if the goal is to end the threat.

It's a disingenuous proposition Thompson puts forward.

Now then, as to allowing Israel to fight back according to a common standard, I agree. However, we clearly have different perspectives on the standard. My standard does not justify terrorizing the innocent.

Yalla Ya Nasrallah
We'll kick you in your Shala
We'll send you back to Allah
With all the Hezbollah.

=P

- N

: D

Sounds like God's Victory to me. Hisb in a long, long, time.

Nasrallah is a defender of Lebanon, like all Hesbollah, but of course, the innocent Israel can't do anything wrong...........

..........Except terrorise the innocent, commit terrorist attacks, you know. Hype, if you love Lebanon, you'll love Hesbollah. They saved Lebanon from Israel wiping you off the globe. Syria would help you defend, of course, but that would have been in due time. You are lucky to have those brave men dying in their fight against terrorist israel

"Hype, if you love Lebanon, you'll love Hesbollah."

Then if you love the USA, your pulse must race at the thought of our new Dick.

"They saved Lebanon from Israel wiping you off the globe."

Israel had Lebanon not even as positively as the USA has Iraq. Any of the Lebanese sects could have rained schrapnel on any parade marching to that funky Zion beat.

"You are lucky to have those brave men dying in their fight against terrorist israel"

They were pawns, just like American troops in Iraq.

^^^ I like your thinking:)

They are pawns, but they choose to defend Lebanon. the US troops are only following orders, so they deserve no Glory.

Neither Israel nor the USA will be administering any Arab affairs beyond the Palestinian reservations. If you hear a leader ranting about the Great Satan, or crying crocodile tears over the poor Palestinians, I can offer you a subtle clue: He's entirely full of shit. I know that you understand that being full of shit is not unusual in Mideast political pronouncements. But don't confuse that with what's really going on.

And what's that? that's going on

^^^ I like your thinking:)

They are pawns, but they choose to defend Lebanon. the US troops are only following orders, so they deserve no Glory.

for werent for hezbullah, they wouldnt need defending in the first place. remind me who fired on who first?

On 13 July, the Council debated a draft resolution (S/2006/508) sponsored by Qatar, but the US vetoed it, wanting more time to negotiate the text because it did not reflect important new developments (i.e. the emerging crisis in Lebanon), and because the draft was too "unbalanced".

On 12 July, the south Lebanon based militia Hezbollah crossed the Blue Line, killed a number of Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two. Hezbollah then followed Hamas by announcing that the soldiers were being held hostage against the release of various prisoners detained in Israel. This latter action, widely recognised as a war crime, was denounced almost universally, including by the Secretary-General.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.1985951/k.1BD7/August_2006BRIsraelLebanon.htm

The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several
rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line)
towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the
Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel
and attacked an IDF patrol. Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers, killed three others
and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon. Subsequent
to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line
between Hizbollah and IDF: While the exchange of fire stretched over the entire
length of the Line, it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl and in the Shab'a
farms area. Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue
Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks. In addition to airstrikes on
Hizbollah positions, IDF targeted numerous roads and bridges in southern Lebanon
within and outside the UNIFIL area of operations.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/UNIFIL%20S2006560.pdf

A bastard name for Occupied Palestine.

"Palestine" is just another nickname for Israel. You can't steal what's already yours, can you?

I'm picking up on this exchange:Norsefire: "Hype, if you love Lebanon, you'll love Hesbollah."

Then if you love the USA, your pulse must race at the thought of our new Dick. (Dick Cheney had recently/temporarily assumed Presidential powers)

"They saved Lebanon from Israel wiping you off the globe... They are pawns, but they choose to defend Lebanon. the US troops are only following orders, so they deserve no Glory."

Neither Israel nor the USA will be administering any Arab affairs beyond the Palestinian reservations. If you hear a leader ranting about the Great Satan, or crying crocodile tears over the poor Palestinians, I can offer you a subtle clue: He's entirely full of shit. I know that you understand that being full of shit is not unusual in Mideast political pronouncements. But don't confuse that with what's really going on.

"And what's that? that's going on"

The Mideast is politically capsizing (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17938). There will be many changes of fortune ahead. Rhetoric is loaded, because players are exploiting maximum leverage in an attempt to come out on top, benefit from, or at the very least survive the conflicts being agitated. If you read my last reply above- I think it mostly answers your question.

If you fully believe the pronouncements of Ba'athists in Shammy-town, then you are definitively misled. Arab "leadership" is losing control while American influence and credibility are evaporating. It's Open Season in the Mideast. Keep your head down, but eyes open.

for werent for hezbullah, they wouldnt need defending in the first place. remind me who fired on who first?



Yes, I'll remind you who attacked first. Israel, by estabilishing their criminal nation and attacking their neighbors, they started the whole mess. A liberation organization like Hisbullah have the right to attack the terrorist state

In late May and June 1948, the newly-declared nation of Israel was attacked by her Arab neighbors. As a nation, Israel did not exist prior to the first A-I war. When it is stated that the nation of Israel was attacked first, it is a historical fact. Provocations are another matter. You don't have to skip the major details in order to credibly express opposition to zionist apartheid, or to express how modern mideast wars have not relieved the underlying pressures.

Yes, I'll remind you who attacked first. Israel, by estabilishing their criminal nation and attacking their neighbors, they started the whole mess. A liberation organization like Hisbullah have the right to attack the terrorist state

remind us all, how syria was created, and who is in power there.

Ooo! OOOOO! I know!

France, England, and a misplaced ophthalmologist.

The arab conquests, and ancient history, Umayyads, etc

How was america created? A bunch of fat rednecks on a boat lol!!!!!!!!

And Israel provoked it, so she gets what she put in. If she wants to act a criminal, then criminal acts shall be acted against her. Simple.

How was america created? A bunch of fat rednecks on a boat lol!!!!!!!!

And those fat rednecks have more influence and power over your everyday life than you could ever hope to hold over them.

~String

The arab conquests, and ancient history, Umayyads, etc

How was america created? A bunch of fat rednecks on a boat lol!!!!!!!!

And Israel provoked it, so she gets what she put in. If she wants to act a criminal, then criminal acts shall be acted against her. Simple.

As usual, historically illiterate, the vast majority of people coming to America we anything but fat cats, my original people came here as indentured servants to pay their passage, it took 6 years to work it off, and then they headed into the wilderness, and carved a farm out of the forest, some died the rest lived, and the Arabs in the middle east were a second rate bunch of ass kissers, even then, they were getting their ass's handed to them by the Europeans.

? Super and Buffalo obviously no nothing of history. We shitted on europeans during the conquests, under the Ummayad caliphate, the 5th largest empire in history, Europe was somewhat ours, and america was nothing but a sick and sad little nation of hypocritical ass kissers, OH WAIT nvm yall were still cavemen at the time lol........

The arab conquests, and ancient history, Umayyads, etc

How was america created? A bunch of fat rednecks on a boat lol!!!!!!!!

And Israel provoked it, so she gets what she put in. If she wants to act a criminal, then criminal acts shall be acted against her. Simple.

a totalitarian country man accuse israel of being a criminal state. do you have any knowledge of your country history, or are you really that ignorant?

? Super and Buffalo obviously no nothing of history. We shitted on europeans during the conquests, under the Ummayad caliphate, the 5th largest empire in history, Europe was somewhat ours, and america was nothing but a sick and sad little nation of hypocritical ass kissers, OH WAIT nvm yall were still cavemen at the time lol........


Only number 5, and your bragging? and were are you today, your Umayyad Caliphate lasted from 661 AD to 684 AD, 23 years and never extended into Europe, the extent of your fifth rate caliphate was North Africa, the Middle East, and Southern Asia, and it never challenged the Roman Empire, which lasted from 44 BC, to 1453 AD, and it was Odoacer the son of the Scirian chieftain Edeko, who was a Germanic vassal chieftain at the court of Attila, not a Moslem who ended it.

And a fellow Vlad Drăculea stopped the Moslems in Romania, and that was the farthest they ever got into Europe.

Arabs in the middle east were a second rate bunch of ass kissers, even then, they were getting their ass's handed to them by the Europeans.

You need to learn history, and do some research before you try to look smart.

Super and Buffalo obviously no nothing of history.

You also, might want to know that the word you were looking for was "know" not "no". There is a difference. Amusingly, you were criticizing my intelligence.

We shitted on europeans during the conquests, under the Ummayad caliphate, the 5th largest empire in history, Europe was somewhat ours, and america was nothing but a sick and sad little nation of hypocritical ass kissers, OH WAIT nvm yall were still cavemen at the time lol........

Norsefire-- sadly this will be the last time I debate you. I've come to the conclusion that you are just too immature and ignorant of any relevant facts for me to waste my time on. I have, on occasion, tried to implore you to site relevant facts, but as usual, you engage in "bash the West" and "bash America" which certainly allows you to express your ire, but serves no purpose to the debate. You're obviously blinded by your hatred... which is fine, it seems to serve you well; but, it makes you no better than the people you hate.

No one is denying the glories of Persia's past (when, for the most part, its glories were before Islam destroyed its informed and liberalized people).

The amusing thing is how you think you're insulting us. It's like the poor beggar outside the castle insulting the king inside by calling him weak and infirm out of jealousy and hatred. So, good luck with that. I'd wish you luck, but I doubt it would help.

~String

Only number 5, and your bragging? and were are you today, your Umayyad Caliphate lasted from 661 AD to 684 AD, 23 years and never extended into Europe, the extent of your fifth rate caliphate was North Africa, the Middle East, and Southern Asia, and it never challenged the Roman Empire, which lasted from 44 BC, to 1453 AD, and it was Odoacer the son of the Scirian chieftain Edeko, who was a Germanic vassal chieftain at the court of Attila, not a Moslem who ended it.

And a fellow Vlad Drăculea stopped the Moslems in Romania, and that was the farthest they ever got into Europe.



You need to learn history, and do some research before you try to look smart.

Oh, pardon, but isn't Spain a part of Europe? It was the last time I checked, as well as the southern coasts of Italy. The UMAYAD Caliphate didn't last too long, but the Caliphates as a whole were the strongest of their time during their reign.

Oh, pardon, but isn't Spain a part of Europe? It was the last time I checked, as well as the southern coasts of Italy. The UMAYAD Caliphate didn't last too long, but the Caliphates as a whole were the strongest of their time during their reign.


And they got their ass's thrown out.

As for the UMAYAD Caliphate, being the strongest of their times? were there any other Caliphate in existence at that time to compare the UMAYAD Caliphate too? and compared to the Romans they were fifth rate.

The UMAYAD Caliphate were like a explosion, they came out of nowhere flashed on the world stage, and returned to nowhere, 23 years, in a history of 10,000 years? a pimple on the ass of time.

Strongest of their time in terms of ALL empires that existed during this time. The Caliphates as a whole were the strongest empires of their time

Strongest of their time in terms of ALL empires that existed during this time. The Caliphates as a whole were the strongest empires of their time

Now if you say that three time and click your heels it will come true, it still lasted only 23 years, and the Roman Empire was in extant at the same time, and vastly greater in scope and influence on the world, and long after the Umayyad Caliphate was a fly blown carcass in the desert sun, 23 years versus the Roman Empire 500 years from 44 BC to 1453 AD, and if you care to notice these years surround and overwhelm the poor little short 23 year run Caliphate of the Umayyad.

The Islamic Caliphates AS A WHOLE smartass. They influenced modern Europe (trust me, just look at Spain, France, etc) and Islam has had huge influence on the world. The modern militancy is new and is only caused by the opressive USA and Israel.

Ever heard of the Golden Age of Islam? It was Muslims that found breakthrouhs in Science, Math, Medicine, and Astronomy.

The Islamic Caliphates AS A WHOLE smartass. They influenced modern Europe (trust me, just look at Spain, France, etc) and Islam has had huge influence on the world. The modern militancy is new and is only caused by the opressive USA and Israel.

Ever heard of the Golden Age of Islam? It was Muslims that found breakthrouhs in Science, Math, Medicine, and Astronomy.

Again read your history, the Golden Age of Islam was spread by the sword, militancy has been part and parcel of Islam from its inception, and they had more crusades against the Unbelievers than the Christians had against the Moslems, and it is Islam's own oppressive behavior that has killed the original advances that it made in Science, Math, Medicine, and Astronomy, the past is a bucket of ashes, what has Islam done for the world today?, and as a matter of fact the Inca, Mayans, Toltec, were as, if not more advanced in Astronomy, Math, Science, Medicine, then the Golden Age of Islam.

Again read your history, the Golden Age of Islam was spread by the sword, militancy has been part and parcel of Islam from its inception, and they had more crusades against the Unbelievers than the Christians had against the Moslems, and it is Islam's own oppressive behavior that has killed the original advances that it made in Science, Math, Medicine, and Astronomy, the past is a bucket of ashes, what has Islam done for the world today?, and as a matter of fact the Inca, Mayans, Toltec, were as, if not more advanced in Astronomy, Math, Science, Medicine, then the Golden Age of Islam.

Dear buffalo,

I hopwe all is going ok with you
the fall is not a simplisitic as you make out above, a lot more things happened to put the muslims in the situation they are ultimately in today. Some we need to blame ourselves for and others are to do with outside influences.

Please can you qualify what you mean by Islam was spread by the sword" dont you mean that the empire which had islamic rulers was spread by the sword.

About the crusades against muslims and musklims against non believers. I reckon that the chirstians have killed more non-beleivers than the mulsims, and more muslims than muslims ahve killed christains.

~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

The best example is the Inquisition that followed the reconquest of Spain from the Moors. The Moors encouraged a multireligious society, the Inquisition destroyed it.

[/COLOR]Dear buffalo,

Please can you qualify what you mean by Islam was spread by the sword" dont you mean that the empire which had islamic rulers was spread by the sword.

~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

Splitting hairs Zak, if the ruler was Moslem the Caliphate/Empire was Islamic, and the religion was Islam, and Islam has very specific laws concerning the Dhimmi.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm

No the States that were ruled by Moslem Rulers had Islam as the offical religion of the state, the only other religions that were tolorated, and only if the jizya was paid, the Moslem Leaders did not tolorate any other religions, just look at the represion of the Religions in India when the Moslems invaded India, now this is what I have read about the Dhimmitud;

JIHAD

The ideology, strategy and tactics of jihad constitute a most important part of Islamic jurisprudence and literature. Muslim theologians expounded that jihad is a collective, religious obligation (fard 'ala al‑kifaya) binding the community and each individual (fard 'ala al‑ayn) in different ways according to situations and circumstances.

Here are two definitions of jihad by recognized authorities: Abu Muham*mad Abdallah Ibn Abi Zayd al‑Qayrawani in the 10thc. (d. 966); and Ibn Khaldun in the 14th c.(d. 1406).

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani wrote:

“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax ( jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.1

And Ibn Khaldun:

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” 2

One may ask: Who are the enemies? Here is a definition from al-Mawardi, the great jurist in Baghdad in the 11thc.(d. 1058).

“The mushrikun (infidels) of Dar al-Harb (region of war) are of two types:

First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them in one of two ways that is in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun: the first, to harry them from their houses and to inflict damage on them day and night, by fighting and burning, or else to declare war and combat them in ranks;

“Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays (.....)if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.”3

Jihad may be exercised by pen, speech or money. The 'enemies' are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law and its sovereignty over their lands. The world of infidels is considered as one entity. It is called the dar al‑harb (region of war) until, through jihad, it will come under Islamic rule. The war between the region of Islam (dar al‑Islam) and the region of war is supposed to last so long as unbelief exists. According to Mawardi, the Muslim “should give battle with the intention of supporting the deen [religion] of Allah ... and of destroying any other deen which is in opposition to it: “so as to render it victorious over all [other] deen even if the mushrikun detest it.” (Koran 9:33)4

Islamic law forbids the killing of women, children, the elderly, the sick and the priests, unless they have helped the enemies. It also forbids the mutilation of corpses.

In this same chapter al-Mawardi examines the opinion of different jurists on the booty and on prisoners of war taken by the jihad. “Prisoners of war refers to the fighting men from the unbelievers taken alive by the Muslims.” 5

He distinguish three cases:

1) The inhabitants who convert to Islam after their defeat - in this case they and their lands become part of the dar al-Islam.

2) “The second thing that might occur is that Allah gives victory over them but they remain mushrikun, in which case their women and children are taken prisoner, and their wealth is taken as booty, and those who are not made captive are put to death. As for the captives, the amir has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favour to them and pardon them.”

3) “The third possibility is that the enemy make a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.”

The payment is of two sorts:

1. It is treated as a booty and paid once, but this does not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future when they stop paying.

2. “They make a payment every year in which case it constitutes an ongoing tribute by which their security is established .... It is not permitted to resume the jihad against them as long as they make the payments, because the peace is being maintained by the regularity of these payments. If one of them enters Dar al-Islam, this contract of reconciliation guarantees safety for himself and his wealth. If they refuse to make payment, however, the reconciliation ceases, their security is not longer guaranteed and war must be waged on them - like any other persons from the enemy camp.” 6

According to Abu Yusuf, an important jurist of the 8th c., peace treaties can be signed for four months, and they can be renewed but should not extend for more than ten years.

In another chapter, devoted to the division of the booty, Mawardi states:

“As for land seized by the Muslims, it is of three types:

First, that seized by force and violence, when its inhabitants abandon it by their own deaths, or they are taken captive, or they emigrate.”

“Second, land which is acquired from the inhabitants without violence because they have abandoned it out of fear.”

“Third, land which is taken through treaty.”

- the people convert to Islam or pay the jizya and become dhimmis.7


Among the infidel peoples there are differences. Those who do not possess Revealed Scriptures - and all Arabs - have, in theory, the choice between Islam or death. The others ‑ principally the Jews and Christians ‑ are granted protection status, according to the modalities of the conquest. They become dhimmis ‑ people protected by the law of Islam, by a dhimma.

From Islam’s beginning the universality of jihad was proclaimed. Jihad has not been ordered only against specific groups or for specific times, but - like Muhammad’s mission - it is a universal injunction till the only remaining religion is that of Allah (Koran 2:189). Today many Muslims reject such theories, but there are others who reaffirm the same standardized interpretation and conceptualization of international relations.

For example the late Prof. Ismail al-Faruqi, a Palestinian, who was Professor of Islamic Studies and the History of Religion at Temple University (1968-86), and who also taught at the University of Chicago and Syracuse University. In a forward to Islam and Other Faiths (1998 - a collection of Faruqi’s articles), his former student John Esposito referred to him as “a Muslim trailblazer of the twentieth century” Here is Prof. Faruqi’s position:

“The Islamic state is hoped by all Muslims some day to include the whole world. The Pax Islamica which the Islamic state offers is more viable than the United Nations... Per contra, the Pax Islamica is dominated by law, born out of nature and necessity, has law courts open to all plaintiffs, and is backed by the power of a standing, universal army.

The doctrine of Jihad or Holy War is valid in Islam. A Holy War could be entered into only for two reasons. The first reason is defence .... The second is the undoing of injustice wherever it takes place. Like the Muslim individual within Dar al-Islam, the Islamic state regards itself, and does so rightly, as vicegerent of God in space and time, a vocation which lays a great responsibility upon the Islamic state...to redress injustice wherever men have caused it – even if that has been the other side of the moon. The Muslim regards it as his religious duty to rise up and put an end to injustice. 8

Today many Muslims reject such theories. As for states, only Turkey has officially rejected them. We can therefore affirm that the universality of jihad had implied also the universality of the rules pertaining in the past to the whole territory conquered by jihad.

DHIMMITUDE

Like the rules of jihad, the rules of dhimmitude were elaborated from the Koran, the hadiths and the biographies on the Prophet. Those laws and their religious justification were taught throughout the Islamic Empires. Despite some differences in the four schools of Islamic Sunni jurisprudence, there is a quasi unanimity in matters concerning the dhimmis. The fundamental rulings relevant to them were established quite early. We read of them extensively in Abu Yusuf (731-98), a follower of Abu Hanifa (d. 767) the founder of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. He expounded them in a treatise written for the caliph Harun al-Rashid (786-809). Their implementation over the dhimmi populations is mentioned by numerous Muslim jurists throughout the centuries.

Now we must remember also that for centuries the vanquished populations, mainly the Christians, formed the majorities in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Muslim Empires. Being the targets, along with the Jews, of dhimmitude regulations, Christian chroniclers have left many testimonies of their implementation from the earliest time and in different regions. Hence, the enunciation of the rules that one reads in abstract legal treaties are confirmed by Christian sources which depict their lethal consequences. They reveal their human concretization, adding a perceptive insight that complements the dry legal texts.


The sources on dhimmitude

The literature on jihad by Muslim historians is quite extensive. It describes the conquest and the process of Islamization of Christian lands which integrate the rules of dhimmitude. Hence, the many sources on dhimmitude over the centuries comprise the Muslim legal and historic texts. Jurists from the later Middle Ages and after, usually list the successive ordinances of caliphs, which are usually referred to by Muslim historians and dhimmi sources.

Then there are the dhimmi sources, as I have mentioned, which are not uniform. Some are very meagre because of the disappearance of whole communities in some regions or at some periods, while some are more abundant.

And then there are the numerous testimonies, including diplomatic records, left by Europeans Christian and Jewish pilgrims, as well as travellers, merchants, consuls and other diplomats. These foreigners observed and described the discriminatory rules imposed on the dhimmis, and in general against infidels because they themselves had to conform to these rules. Not being aware of Islamic legislation, their testimonies are thus a valuable confirmation that the rules were enforced.

The characteristics of dhimmitude are manifold. They embrace the whole expression of life and rather than analyse each of them, which is impossible to do in a lecture, I shall instead examine if they belong to a permanent and homogeneous pattern in the dar al-Islam.

Characteristics of dhimmitude

The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: 'land for peace'. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of jihad were ‘protected’, providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority.

The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of 'toleration' is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgres*sion of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied.


The first 'right' is the right to life, which was conceded on payment of the jizya (Koran 9:29), a poll-tax paid with humiliation by the dhimmi.. The refusal to pay the jizya is considered by all jurists as a rupture of the dhimma, which automatically restores to the umma its initial rights of war ‑ to kill and to dispossess the dhimmi, or to expel him, because he has therefore returned to his former status of being an unsubjected infidel.

Hence Abu Yusuf wrote in his book on the kharaj (land tax) that it was not allowed for the governor to exempt any Jew, Christian, or other dhimmis from the jizya: “and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, for their lives and belongings are spared only because of payment of the poll tax." 9

Protection is abolished if the dhimmis rebel against Islamic law, give allegiance to a non‑Muslim power, refuse to pay the jizya, entice a Muslim from his faith, harm a Muslim or his property, or commit blasphemy. The moment the pact of protection is abolished the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. Today, one finds Islamists in Upper Egypt who kill and pillage Copts, because they argue that these dhimmis have forfeited their 'protection' as they no longer pay the jizya.

The Baha'i religion is not protected even today in Iran. In 1994 two Muslims kidnapped and killed a Baha'i. The Islamic court held that as the Baha'is were "unprotected infidels... the issue of retribution is null and void". 10 This means that an infidel has no human rights, unless he is protected by Islamic law.

In the context of its time, the protection system presented both positive and negative aspects. It provided security and a measure of religious autonomy, but in a legal context of discrimination. These rules, mostly estab*lished from the eighth to ninth centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim community's social behavior toward dhimmis.

Political aspects

Because protection was set in a context of war, some rules pertaining to the dhimmis have a military character. Among the military elements of the dhimmi condition is the prohibition for dhimmis to carry or possess weapons. It is mentioned in the earliest legal texts, from the beginning of the Islamic conquest and is attributed to the second caliph Umar b. al-Khattab (634-44). It was confirmed throughout the centuries and in different regions by many witnesses until the 19thc. and, in regions applying the shari’a until the 20thc. Many sources mention the prohibition on carrying arms for Jews and Christians in Palestine 11, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, the Maghreb, and Persia. Its debilitating and tragic consequences were analysed by foreign consuls. Dhimmis became prey to marauding, pillage, and massacre especially during periods of insecurity, such as rebellions and invasions. With the spread of the Islamic conquest, this prohibition was applied also in Anatolia and in the European Islamized provinces. British Consul Blunt noticed in his report to the Foreign Office in 1860 that Christians in the Ottoman province of Macedonia were not allowed to carry arms. British Consul in Jerusalem, James Finn, attributed to this interdiction, the cowardice of dhimmis. William Shaler, the American consul in Algiers (1816-26) mentions the prohibition for Jews and Christians to bear arms. In Yemen, Jews were forbidden to carry arms until their departure to Israel in 1949-50 12.

The deportations of dhimmi populations for slavery or for strategic reasons are mentioned in time of war, and in time of peace. During the Arab conquests many populations were deported as booty, from Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, Armenia and other regions. Muslim as well as Armenian and Coptic sources mention deportations in the 8 and 9th c. during rebellions. Muslim chronicles refer to the deportation of dhimmi population from towns and villages during warfare. Seljuk Turk rulers imposed deportations during the 11th c. from Armenia and Anatolia. Prof. Speros Vryonis 13 has extensively documented this phenomenon for Anatolia, using contemporary Greek and Muslim sources, as did Greek, Serb and Bulgarian historians for the Ottoman period. Deportations from the Holy Land were carried out by Arab tribes in middle of the 10th c., and in Anatolia under the Ottomans during the 15th – 17th centuries 14.

Population transfers motivated by economic causes affected dhimmi populations and were not restricted to newly subjugated or enslaved populations. Some chronicles provide information on these transfers. Departure had to take place on the same day or at very short notice - two or three days - making it impossible for the deportees to sell their possessions. In order to discourage flight, they were counted, closely supervised, and forbidden to move from their new place of residence, generally very far from their places of origin. After all had been deported, their houses were burnt down and the entire village destroyed.



Arakel of Tabriz has recorded the deportation of Armenians by Shah Abbas in 1604 from Julfa, with its terrible hardships, and the killing and abductions of girls and boys. He also describes the expulsion of the Armenians from Isfahan by Shah Abbas II, and the expulsion and forced conversions of the Jews in several cities of Persia at the same time (1657-61). Abraham of Crete, and Armenian priest, witnessed the deportation of Armenians by Nadir Shah in 1735 from the Ararat region. The deportation of Jews from Mashad (1839) and from Herat (1857-59) were described by Mattatya Gargi, the head of the Jewish community of Mashad 15.

Billeting and provisioning soldiers and horses were imposed by laws on dhimmis – another obligation which is stressed in every legal treatise on dhimmis. Abu Yusuf attributed it to the second caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab. Soldiers and beasts had to be lodged in the best houses, or in churches or synagogues, which were then abandoned because they became refuse dumps or stables. In the 19th c. British and French consuls and travelers mentioned this obligation in Bulgaria, Bosnia, Greece, Armenia, Syria and the Holy Land.16

In the Maghreb during periods of instability and a change in monarch, Jewish quarters were plundered, men slaughtered or ransomed, and women and children abducted by tribes massed around the towns. This was witnessed by among others, the American consul Shaler in Algiers in the 1820s, and is described in local Jewish and diplomatic reports in the early 20thc. in Morocco. 17

Abduction of women and children for slavery or ransom in times of war and rebellion, or during peace time raids (i.e., razzias), was recurrent. Documentation is provided in Jewish dhimmi sources, but mainly in Christian chronicles: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, and Muslim. Coptic chronicles of the Middle Ages mention the abduction of Christian children as slaves or as a deduction of unpaid taxes. In Yemen, Jewish children under the age of 12, upon the death of their father, were removed from their families and converted to Islam. The law was retroactive, and was applied until the departure of the Jews to Israel in 1950. However, such practices are theoretically forbidden by Muslim law. According to al-Mawardi: “ One may buy children of people residing in enemy territory, just as one may make them captive, but one may not buy children of dhimmi peoples or take them captive.”18

The revolt of dhimmis restored the rule of jihad, resulting in slaughter of the rebels, and slavery for their women and children. After the Greek and Serb revolts in the 19th c., thousands of women and children were enslaved. At the fall of Missolonghi (22 Apr. 1825) 3.000 to 4.000 Greek women were sold in slavery. Countless Armenians were enslaved during the massacres at the end of the 19th c. and during the genocide of 1915-17.

Religious slavery was widespread throughout the Islamic lands. Christian Nubia was obliged to deliver contingents of slaves from the beginning of the Arab conquest. The Mamluks who ruled Egypt and Syria for centuries, were all non-Muslim slaves, bought or captured. In the Ottoman Empire, for over 300 years under the devshirme system, Christian children were requisitioned annually for slavery in Albania, Greece, the Aegean Islands, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Hungary. In Persia, the koulars or militia slaves represented a similar institution. This system of enslaved Christian militias also existed in Andalusia (Spain), where military slaves were particularly numerous.

Concerning the dhimmi peasantry 19, we see that chronicles from Egypt, Armenia, and Palestine in the 8th and 9th centuries onward describe a similar pattern concerning the taxes and the ransoms levied on the dhimmis, the general insecurity, the usurpation of lands by Arab immigrant tribes, the continuous extortion of the population, and its flight. A similar pattern developed centuries later with the penetration in Anatolia of Turkish tribes from the 11thc. During the early Middle Ages, strict control of the whole village dhimmi population, reinforced by severe penalties for those who fled, was needed to keep the peasants on their lands. Extortion under torture is mentioned in Palestine, Egypt, Armenia, and Mesopotamia. Abu Yusuf alludes to tortures inflicted on the tributaries to extract money by stating that this is forbidden. Coptic and Armenian dhimmis sources describe the same type of tortures.

The same fiscal oppression and the ransoming for security, was observed in the 19th c. for Christians and Jews in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon 20, as well as Mesopotamia, Armenia and Kurdistan, and some European provinces of the Ottoman Empire. It was reported by Edouard Engelhardt 21, the French plenipotentiary minister in Turkey in the middle of the 19th c. The same situation relating to Armenians some decade later is reported by an Anglo-French, and Russian Commission of Enquiry in the Sassun region after the massacres of 1894-95.

The general pattern for the dhimmi peasantry, most frequently discussed in texts related to the beginning of the conquest, concern the conditions of the conquest, the character of the Islamized lands, the fiscal regime, the sporadic deportations, the overall insecurity, and the destruction of churches and synagogues. Even if all those evils were neither continuous nor generalized, and sometimes resisted by the Islamic central power, especially the Ottomans, they were recurrent enough to have destroyed, in some regions, the indigenous non-Muslim peasantry.

Since dhimmitude is the result of a war of conquest, it comprises the study of the jihad rules and of the modalities of the battles and the treatises with conquered peoples. For traditional Muslim jurists the modalities of conquest of each land or city was to determine for all time the jurisdiction to be applied there. Those points are constantly stressed by jurists. Here are some examples:

In the early fourteenth century, churches and synagogues were closed in Cairo and a legal opinion on this matter was requested from Ibn Taymiya, a renowned Hanbali jurist. He confirmed the legality of the closure by referring to the conditions of Egypt's conquest in the seventh century by the Muslims, that is, eight centuries earlier.

In the treatise (1739) of Shaykh al-Damanhuri, an Egyptian scholar from al-Azhar, we read an interesting examination of the opinions of the most prominent Islamic scholars on the building and restoration of churches and synagogues in Islamic lands. All opinions are based on the conditions of the conquest: if the land was taken by violence, by treaty or was occupied by Muslim colonists.

Another example comes from Morocco a century later. From 1836 to 1837 the Jews of Fez had asked the Sultan Abd ar‑Rahman for permission to build a hammam (public bath) in their quarter. The most learned qadis (judges) were consulted; they produced twelve fatwas on the subject, going back to ancient chronicles that described the conditions of the Islamic conquest of the Maghreb more than a thousand years earlier. All of them ‑ with one exception ‑ ruled that Jews could not be granted the right to build a hammam because of the manner in which the conquest of the Maghreb had taken place in the 7thc. As late as 1898, the same request was again refused to the Jews.

Socio-religious aspects

The economic and social domain projects a much wider and deeper pattern of dhimmitude, because one can say that the Muslim peasantry was also – though in a much less severe way - victim of the period’s vicissitudes. In wars, invasions and rebellions, there is a degree of uncertainty. This is not the case with the legal regulations determining the economic and social status of the dhimmis. As there is no time to develop this aspect, I will briefly enumerate them. Many are stated in Abu Yusuf, the rather open-minded 8th century jurist from the Hanafi school.

As we have seen, the jizya was mandatory under threat of jail, conversion, slav*ery, the abduction of dhimmi children, or death. Dhimmis paid double the taxes of the Muslims and were subjected to the most degrading corvées. In North Africa and Yemen, repugnant obligations, such as executioner, grave*digger, cleaner of public latrines and the like, were forced on Jews, even on Saturdays and holy days. Religious restrictions were numerous, ranging from prohibitions in building, repair and enlargement of synagogues and churches to regulations imposing humility, silence and secrecy in prayer and during burial. The destruction, confiscation and Islamization of synagogues, and more often churches, were common and are often mentioned in legal treatises and dhimmi chronicles.

In the legal domain, specific laws ordained permanent inferiority and humilia*tion for the dhimmis. Their lives were valued at considerably less than that of a Muslim. The penalty for murder was much lighter if the dhimmi was the victim. Likewise, penalities for offenses were unequal between Muslims and non-Muslims. A dhimmi had no right to defend himself if he was physically assaulted by a Muslim; he could only beg for mercy. He was deprived of two fundamental rights: the right of self‑defense against physical aggression, and the right to defend himself in an Islamic law court as his testimony was refused. Dhimmis could be judged under the provisions of their own legislation. However dhimmi legislation was not recognized in Muslim courts, whose judgements superseded dhimmi legal decisions.

Dhimmis were forbidden to have authority over Muslims, to possess or buy land, to marry Muslim women, to have Muslim slaves or servants, or to use the Arabic alphabet (confirmed by Colonel Charles Churchill in Syria and Lebanon during 1840-60).

In the social domain dhimmis had to be recognized by their discriminatory clothes whose shape, color and texture were prescribed from head to foot, likewise, their houses (color and size) and their separate living quarters. Dhimmis were forbidden to ride a horse or a camel, since these animals were considered too noble. A donkey could be ridden in towns but only on a pack‑saddle, the dhimmi sitting with both legs on one side and dismounting on sight of a Muslim. A dhimmi had to hurry through the streets, always passing to the left (impure) side of a Muslim, who was expected to force him to the narrow side or into the gutter. He had to walk humbly with lowered eyes, to accept insults without replying, to remain standing in a meek and respectful attitude in the presence of a Muslim and to leave him the best place. If he was admitted to a public bath, he had to wear bells to signal his presence. Stoning Jews and Christians ‑ especially in Arab‑populated regions ‑ was not unusual‑ likewise disdain, insults and disrespectful attitudes toward them were customary. Some regional rules represent an aggravation of this pattern. In Morocco and Yemen, Jews were forbidden any footwear outside their segregated quarter.

These laws are the basic regulations set down in the classical texts on dhimmis and they had to be enforced throughout the lands of dhimmitude. Muslim jurists strongly condemned the alleviation of these measures when it tempo*rarily occurred. Dhimmitude covers more than a millennium of Christian and Jewish history and is a comprehensive civilization encompassing customs, legislation and social behaviour. Its various con*stituents were constantly imposed with lesser or greater severity depending on circumstances ‑ they may be found whether in the Balkans, in Anatolia, in the Levant, Persia, Yemen and the Maghreb.


Thus we can answer the questions posed at the beginning of this lecture as follows: yes, indeed, dhimmitude represents a comprehensive legal system; it was introduced throughout the lands conquered and Islamized by jihad; and it was implemented as recorded in numerous texts, and viewed or experienced by countless witnesses for thirteen centuries.



This comprehensive system has permeated Islamic civilization and culture from its inception, and is being revived today through the Islamist resurgence and the return of the shari’a in some countries. Hence this pattern is not transient but permanent.


Jihad-dhimmitude: a stable and enduring pattern

The considerable number of chronicles written by Muslims and non-Muslims provide copious information on the methods and implementation of jihad over the centuries. These texts make it possible to establish the close correspondence between actual Islamic military practices and the legal and theological prescriptions of jihad. The wars currently waged by Muslim states or through their proxies, in Israel, the Sudan, Nigeria, Kashmir, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other parts of the world, reproduce the classic strategy of jihad. For instance Abu Yusuf mentions the military conscription of pubescent and pre-pubescent children in jihad campaigns. Contemporary examples include: the Iraq-Iran war, the jihad against Israel (intifada), and the Islamist militias in the Sudan. The refusal to return enemy corpses (for example by the Lebanese Hizbollah) conforms to another opinion of Abu Yusuf. Raids on villages, killing of adult males, and the abduction and enslavement of women and children (Sudan, Indonesia), as well as terrorist campaigns against civilians infidels and apostates (Algeria), conform with the opinions of al-Mawardi, mentioned earlier. The victims of such actions are deprived of all rights.

Today, many aspects of dhimmitude remain active or potential political forces. Hence we see a return to the same situation in modern states where the shari’a is applied or constitutes the source of the laws, as in Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and until recently in Afghanistan.

The condition of Christians in some modern Muslim states is inspired by the traditional rules of dhimmitude relating to the laws of blasphemy, mixed marriage and apostasy, or those concerning the building and repairing of churches, and of religious processions. Discrimination in employment and in education occurs, as well in equality between Muslims and non-Muslims in penal law.

A recently published book by Canon Patrick Sookhdeo22 examined the condition known in Pakistan as “bonded labour”. This is of particular interest to the historian of dhimmitude because it was the condition of the Jewish and Christian peasantries, so often referred to in their chronicles from the eighth to the nineteenth centuries. It illustrates the subservience maintained by fiscal exploitation and indebtedness which led to expropriation and a system of slavery. Likewise, Sookhdeo demonstrates how the inferior status of the non-Muslim can validate an abuse, in theory forbidden by law, and make it irreversible, as for example the accusation of blasphemy or the abduction of Christian women. This crime, also perpetrated in Egypt today, has been a permanent feature of dhimmitude.

As a brief conclusion, I would say that there is no public debate yet on the ideology of jihad against the infidels, nor about dhimmitude, because these subjects are simply obfuscated or denied outright. Thus, Dr. Abdel-Mo’ti Bayoumi, the Secretary of the Islamic Center of the prestigious al-Azhar university in Cairo, recently wrote (Al-Musawwar – a mainstream Egyptian weekly, in Arabic - Aug. 23, 2002) in a rejoinder to an article of mine on Jihad (National Review Online, July 1, 2002), that the dar al-harb never existed, which implies then that neither jihad, nor slavery ever existed in Islam. Thus in one stroke of the pen, a reputable Islamic scholar summarily dismissed thirteen centuries of Islamic writings and laws on this subject.

Since the end of the 1960s some professors in Europe and North America teach that jihad wars produced no civilian victims, and that the Muslim armies of conquest were welcomed by their future dhimmis with open arms. This, of course, is the Muslim version of history and it is interesting to see that it is being adopted in Europe. This interpretation is in conformity with the shari’a which forbids any criticism of Islamic law or government, and attributes all evils to the mushrikun (the infidels), hence the necessity of the jihad, whose aim is to impose the Islamic law of justice over the land of Evil - the dar al-harb, the region of war.

Dear buffalo,

Please can you qualify what you mean by Islam was spread by the sword" dont you mean that the empire which had islamic rulers was spread by the sword.

~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

Splitting hairs Zak, if the ruler was Moslem the Caliphate/Empire was Islamic, and the religion was Islam, and Islam has very specific laws concerning Jhaid and the Dhimmi. From this article it seem there is no change in the the view of the Dhimmi in much of Islam.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm

No the States that were ruled by Moslem Rulers had Islam as the offical religion of the state, the only other religions that were tolorated, and only if the jizya was paid, the Moslem Leaders did not tolorate any other religions, just look at the represion of the Religions in India when the Moslems invaded India, now this is what I have read about the Dhimmitud;

JIHAD

The ideology, strategy and tactics of jihad constitute a most important part of Islamic jurisprudence and literature. Muslim theologians expounded that jihad is a collective, religious obligation (fard 'ala al‑kifaya) binding the community and each individual (fard 'ala al‑ayn) in different ways according to situations and circumstances.

Here are two definitions of jihad by recognized authorities: Abu Muham*mad Abdallah Ibn Abi Zayd al‑Qayrawani in the 10thc. (d. 966); and Ibn Khaldun in the 14th c.(d. 1406).

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani wrote:

“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax ( jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.1

And Ibn Khaldun:

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” 2

One may ask: Who are the enemies? Here is a definition from al-Mawardi, the great jurist in Baghdad in the 11thc.(d. 1058).

“The mushrikun (infidels) of Dar al-Harb (region of war) are of two types:

First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them in one of two ways that is in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun: the first, to harry them from their houses and to inflict damage on them day and night, by fighting and burning, or else to declare war and combat them in ranks;

“Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays (.....)if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.”3

Jihad may be exercised by pen, speech or money. The 'enemies' are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law and its sovereignty over their lands. The world of infidels is considered as one entity. It is called the dar al‑harb (region of war) until, through jihad, it will come under Islamic rule. The war between the region of Islam (dar al‑Islam) and the region of war is supposed to last so long as unbelief exists. According to Mawardi, the Muslim “should give battle with the intention of supporting the deen [religion] of Allah ... and of destroying any other deen which is in opposition to it: “so as to render it victorious over all [other] deen even if the mushrikun detest it.” (Koran 9:33)4

Islamic law forbids the killing of women, children, the elderly, the sick and the priests, unless they have helped the enemies. It also forbids the mutilation of corpses.

In this same chapter al-Mawardi examines the opinion of different jurists on the booty and on prisoners of war taken by the jihad. “Prisoners of war refers to the fighting men from the unbelievers taken alive by the Muslims.” 5

He distinguish three cases:

1) The inhabitants who convert to Islam after their defeat - in this case they and their lands become part of the dar al-Islam.

2) “The second thing that might occur is that Allah gives victory over them but they remain mushrikun, in which case their women and children are taken prisoner, and their wealth is taken as booty, and those who are not made captive are put to death. As for the captives, the amir has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favour to them and pardon them.”

3) “The third possibility is that the enemy make a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.”

The payment is of two sorts:

1. It is treated as a booty and paid once, but this does not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future when they stop paying.

2. “They make a payment every year in which case it constitutes an ongoing tribute by which their security is established .... It is not permitted to resume the jihad against them as long as they make the payments, because the peace is being maintained by the regularity of these payments. If one of them enters Dar al-Islam, this contract of reconciliation guarantees safety for himself and his wealth. If they refuse to make payment, however, the reconciliation ceases, their security is not longer guaranteed and war must be waged on them - like any other persons from the enemy camp.” 6

According to Abu Yusuf, an important jurist of the 8th c., peace treaties can be signed for four months, and they can be renewed but should not extend for more than ten years.

In another chapter, devoted to the division of the booty, Mawardi states:

“As for land seized by the Muslims, it is of three types:

First, that seized by force and violence, when its inhabitants abandon it by their own deaths, or they are taken captive, or they emigrate.”

“Second, land which is acquired from the inhabitants without violence because they have abandoned it out of fear.”

“Third, land which is taken through treaty.”

- the people convert to Islam or pay the jizya and become dhimmis.7


Among the infidel peoples there are differences. Those who do not possess Revealed Scriptures - and all Arabs - have, in theory, the choice between Islam or death. The others ‑ principally the Jews and Christians ‑ are granted protection status, according to the modalities of the conquest. They become dhimmis ‑ people protected by the law of Islam, by a dhimma.

From Islam’s beginning the universality of jihad was proclaimed. Jihad has not been ordered only against specific groups or for specific times, but - like Muhammad’s mission - it is a universal injunction till the only remaining religion is that of Allah (Koran 2:189). Today many Muslims reject such theories, but there are others who reaffirm the same standardized interpretation and conceptualization of international relations.

For example the late Prof. Ismail al-Faruqi, a Palestinian, who was Professor of Islamic Studies and the History of Religion at Temple University (1968-86), and who also taught at the University of Chicago and Syracuse University. In a forward to Islam and Other Faiths (1998 - a collection of Faruqi’s articles), his former student John Esposito referred to him as “a Muslim trailblazer of the twentieth century” Here is Prof. Faruqi’s position:

“The Islamic state is hoped by all Muslims some day to include the whole world. The Pax Islamica which the Islamic state offers is more viable than the United Nations... Per contra, the Pax Islamica is dominated by law, born out of nature and necessity, has law courts open to all plaintiffs, and is backed by the power of a standing, universal army.

The doctrine of Jihad or Holy War is valid in Islam. A Holy War could be entered into only for two reasons. The first reason is defence .... The second is the undoing of injustice wherever it takes place. Like the Muslim individual within Dar al-Islam, the Islamic state regards itself, and does so rightly, as vicegerent of God in space and time, a vocation which lays a great responsibility upon the Islamic state...to redress injustice wherever men have caused it – even if that has been the other side of the moon. The Muslim regards it as his religious duty to rise up and put an end to injustice. 8

Today many Muslims reject such theories. As for states, only Turkey has officially rejected them. We can therefore affirm that the universality of jihad had implied also the universality of the rules pertaining in the past to the whole territory conquered by jihad.

DHIMMITUDE

Like the rules of jihad, the rules of dhimmitude were elaborated from the Koran, the hadiths and the biographies on the Prophet. Those laws and their religious justification were taught throughout the Islamic Empires. Despite some differences in the four schools of Islamic Sunni jurisprudence, there is a quasi unanimity in matters concerning the dhimmis. The fundamental rulings relevant to them were established quite early. We read of them extensively in Abu Yusuf (731-98), a follower of Abu Hanifa (d. 767) the founder of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. He expounded them in a treatise written for the caliph Harun al-Rashid (786-809). Their implementation over the dhimmi populations is mentioned by numerous Muslim jurists throughout the centuries.

Now we must remember also that for centuries the vanquished populations, mainly the Christians, formed the majorities in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Muslim Empires. Being the targets, along with the Jews, of dhimmitude regulations, Christian chroniclers have left many testimonies of their implementation from the earliest time and in different regions. Hence, the enunciation of the rules that one reads in abstract legal treaties are confirmed by Christian sources which depict their lethal consequences. They reveal their human concretization, adding a perceptive insight that complements the dry legal texts.


The sources on dhimmitude

The literature on jihad by Muslim historians is quite extensive. It describes the conquest and the process of Islamization of Christian lands which integrate the rules of dhimmitude. Hence, the many sources on dhimmitude over the centuries comprise the Muslim legal and historic texts. Jurists from the later Middle Ages and after, usually list the successive ordinances of caliphs, which are usually referred to by Muslim historians and dhimmi sources.

Then there are the dhimmi sources, as I have mentioned, which are not uniform. Some are very meagre because of the disappearance of whole communities in some regions or at some periods, while some are more abundant.

And then there are the numerous testimonies, including diplomatic records, left by Europeans Christian and Jewish pilgrims, as well as travellers, merchants, consuls and other diplomats. These foreigners observed and described the discriminatory rules imposed on the dhimmis, and in general against infidels because they themselves had to conform to these rules. Not being aware of Islamic legislation, their testimonies are thus a valuable confirmation that the rules were enforced.

The characteristics of dhimmitude are manifold. They embrace the whole expression of life and rather than analyse each of them, which is impossible to do in a lecture, I shall instead examine if they belong to a permanent and homogeneous pattern in the dar al-Islam.

Characteristics of dhimmitude

The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: 'land for peace'. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of jihad were ‘protected’, providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority.

The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of 'toleration' is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgres*sion of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied.


The first 'right' is the right to life, which was conceded on payment of the jizya (Koran 9:29), a poll-tax paid with humiliation by the dhimmi.. The refusal to pay the jizya is considered by all jurists as a rupture of the dhimma, which automatically restores to the umma its initial rights of war ‑ to kill and to dispossess the dhimmi, or to expel him, because he has therefore returned to his former status of being an unsubjected infidel.

Hence Abu Yusuf wrote in his book on the kharaj (land tax) that it was not allowed for the governor to exempt any Jew, Christian, or other dhimmis from the jizya: “and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, for their lives and belongings are spared only because of payment of the poll tax." 9

Protection is abolished if the dhimmis rebel against Islamic law, give allegiance to a non‑Muslim power, refuse to pay the jizya, entice a Muslim from his faith, harm a Muslim or his property, or commit blasphemy. The moment the pact of protection is abolished the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. Today, one finds Islamists in Upper Egypt who kill and pillage Copts, because they argue that these dhimmis have forfeited their 'protection' as they no longer pay the jizya.

The Baha'i religion is not protected even today in Iran. In 1994 two Muslims kidnapped and killed a Baha'i. The Islamic court held that as the Baha'is were "unprotected infidels... the issue of retribution is null and void". 10 This means that an infidel has no human rights, unless he is protected by Islamic law.

In the context of its time, the protection system presented both positive and negative aspects. It provided security and a measure of religious autonomy, but in a legal context of discrimination. These rules, mostly estab*lished from the eighth to ninth centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim community's social behavior toward dhimmis.

Political aspects

Because protection was set in a context of war, some rules pertaining to the dhimmis have a military character. Among the military elements of the dhimmi condition is the prohibition for dhimmis to carry or possess weapons. It is mentioned in the earliest legal texts, from the beginning of the Islamic conquest and is attributed to the second caliph Umar b. al-Khattab (634-44). It was confirmed throughout the centuries and in different regions by many witnesses until the 19thc. and, in regions applying the shari’a until the 20thc. Many sources mention the prohibition on carrying arms for Jews and Christians in Palestine 11, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, the Maghreb, and Persia. Its debilitating and tragic consequences were analysed by foreign consuls. Dhimmis became prey to marauding, pillage, and massacre especially during periods of insecurity, such as rebellions and invasions. With the spread of the Islamic conquest, this prohibition was applied also in Anatolia and in the European Islamized provinces. British Consul Blunt noticed in his report to the Foreign Office in 1860 that Christians in the Ottoman province of Macedonia were not allowed to carry arms. British Consul in Jerusalem, James Finn, attributed to this interdiction, the cowardice of dhimmis. William Shaler, the American consul in Algiers (1816-26) mentions the prohibition for Jews and Christians to bear arms. In Yemen, Jews were forbidden to carry arms until their departure to Israel in 1949-50 12.

The deportations of dhimmi populations for slavery or for strategic reasons are mentioned in time of war, and in time of peace. During the Arab conquests many populations were deported as booty, from Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, Armenia and other regions. Muslim as well as Armenian and Coptic sources mention deportations in the 8 and 9th c. during rebellions. Muslim chronicles refer to the deportation of dhimmi population from towns and villages during warfare. Seljuk Turk rulers imposed deportations during the 11th c. from Armenia and Anatolia. Prof. Speros Vryonis 13 has extensively documented this phenomenon for Anatolia, using contemporary Greek and Muslim sources, as did Greek, Serb and Bulgarian historians for the Ottoman period. Deportations from the Holy Land were carried out by Arab tribes in middle of the 10th c., and in Anatolia under the Ottomans during the 15th – 17th centuries 14.

Population transfers motivated by economic causes affected dhimmi populations and were not restricted to newly subjugated or enslaved populations. Some chronicles provide information on these transfers. Departure had to take place on the same day or at very short notice - two or three days - making it impossible for the deportees to sell their possessions. In order to discourage flight, they were counted, closely supervised, and forbidden to move from their new place of residence, generally very far from their places of origin. After all had been deported, their houses were burnt down and the entire village destroyed.



Arakel of Tabriz has recorded the deportation of Armenians by Shah Abbas in 1604 from Julfa, with its terrible hardships, and the killing and abductions of girls and boys. He also describes the expulsion of the Armenians from Isfahan by Shah Abbas II, and the expulsion and forced conversions of the Jews in several cities of Persia at the same time (1657-61). Abraham of Crete, and Armenian priest, witnessed the deportation of Armenians by Nadir Shah in 1735 from the Ararat region. The deportation of Jews from Mashad (1839) and from Herat (1857-59) were described by Mattatya Gargi, the head of the Jewish community of Mashad 15.

Billeting and provisioning soldiers and horses were imposed by laws on dhimmis – another obligation which is stressed in every legal treatise on dhimmis. Abu Yusuf attributed it to the second caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab. Soldiers and beasts had to be lodged in the best houses, or in churches or synagogues, which were then abandoned because they became refuse dumps or stables. In the 19th c. British and French consuls and travelers mentioned this obligation in Bulgaria, Bosnia, Greece, Armenia, Syria and the Holy Land.16

In the Maghreb during periods of instability and a change in monarch, Jewish quarters were plundered, men slaughtered or ransomed, and women and children abducted by tribes massed around the towns. This was witnessed by among others, the American consul Shaler in Algiers in the 1820s, and is described in local Jewish and diplomatic reports in the early 20thc. in Morocco. 17

Abduction of women and children for slavery or ransom in times of war and rebellion, or during peace time raids (i.e., razzias), was recurrent. Documentation is provided in Jewish dhimmi sources, but mainly in Christian chronicles: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, and Muslim. Coptic chronicles of the Middle Ages mention the abduction of Christian children as slaves or as a deduction of unpaid taxes. In Yemen, Jewish children under the age of 12, upon the death of their father, were removed from their families and converted to Islam. The law was retroactive, and was applied until the departure of the Jews to Israel in 1950. However, such practices are theoretically forbidden by Muslim law. According to al-Mawardi: “ One may buy children of people residing in enemy territory, just as one may make them captive, but one may not buy children of dhimmi peoples or take them captive.”18

The revolt of dhimmis restored the rule of jihad, resulting in slaughter of the rebels, and slavery for their women and children. After the Greek and Serb revolts in the 19th c., thousands of women and children were enslaved. At the fall of Missolonghi (22 Apr. 1825) 3.000 to 4.000 Greek women were sold in slavery. Countless Armenians were enslaved during the massacres at the end of the 19th c. and during the genocide of 1915-17.

Religious slavery was widespread throughout the Islamic lands. Christian Nubia was obliged to deliver contingents of slaves from the beginning of the Arab conquest. The Mamluks who ruled Egypt and Syria for centuries, were all non-Muslim slaves, bought or captured. In the Ottoman Empire, for over 300 years under the devshirme system, Christian children were requisitioned annually for slavery in Albania, Greece, the Aegean Islands, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Hungary. In Persia, the koulars or militia slaves represented a similar institution. This system of enslaved Christian militias also existed in Andalusia (Spain), where military slaves were particularly numerous.

Concerning the dhimmi peasantry 19, we see that chronicles from Egypt, Armenia, and Palestine in the 8th and 9th centuries onward describe a similar pattern concerning the taxes and the ransoms levied on the dhimmis, the general insecurity, the usurpation of lands by Arab immigrant tribes, the continuous extortion of the population, and its flight. A similar pattern developed centuries later with the penetration in Anatolia of Turkish tribes from the 11thc. During the early Middle Ages, strict control of the whole village dhimmi population, reinforced by severe penalties for those who fled, was needed to keep the peasants on their lands. Extortion under torture is mentioned in Palestine, Egypt, Armenia, and Mesopotamia. Abu Yusuf alludes to tortures inflicted on the tributaries to extract money by stating that this is forbidden. Coptic and Armenian dhimmis sources describe the same type of tortures.

The same fiscal oppression and the ransoming for security, was observed in the 19th c. for Christians and Jews in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon 20, as well as Mesopotamia, Armenia and Kurdistan, and some European provinces of the Ottoman Empire. It was reported by Edouard Engelhardt 21, the French plenipotentiary minister in Turkey in the middle of the 19th c. The same situation relating to Armenians some decade later is reported by an Anglo-French, and Russian Commission of Enquiry in the Sassun region after the massacres of 1894-95.

The general pattern for the dhimmi peasantry, most frequently discussed in texts related to the beginning of the conquest, concern the conditions of the conquest, the character of the Islamized lands, the fiscal regime, the sporadic deportations, the overall insecurity, and the destruction of churches and synagogues. Even if all those evils were neither continuous nor generalized, and sometimes resisted by the Islamic central power, especially the Ottomans, they were recurrent enough to have destroyed, in some regions, the indigenous non-Muslim peasantry.

Since dhimmitude is the result of a war of conquest, it comprises the study of the jihad rules and of the modalities of the battles and the treatises with conquered peoples. For traditional Muslim jurists the modalities of conquest of each land or city was to determine for all time the jurisdiction to be applied there. Those points are constantly stressed by jurists. Here are some examples:

In the early fourteenth century, churches and synagogues were closed in Cairo and a legal opinion on this matter was requested from Ibn Taymiya, a renowned Hanbali jurist. He confirmed the legality of the closure by referring to the conditions of Egypt's conquest in the seventh century by the Muslims, that is, eight centuries earlier.

In the treatise (1739) of Shaykh al-Damanhuri, an Egyptian scholar from al-Azhar, we read an interesting examination of the opinions of the most prominent Islamic scholars on the building and restoration of churches and synagogues in Islamic lands. All opinions are based on the conditions of the conquest: if the land was taken by violence, by treaty or was occupied by Muslim colonists.

Another example comes from Morocco a century later. From 1836 to 1837 the Jews of Fez had asked the Sultan Abd ar‑Rahman for permission to build a hammam (public bath) in their quarter. The most learned qadis (judges) were consulted; they produced twelve fatwas on the subject, going back to ancient chronicles that described the conditions of the Islamic conquest of the Maghreb more than a thousand years earlier. All of them ‑ with one exception ‑ ruled that Jews could not be granted the right to build a hammam because of the manner in which the conquest of the Maghreb had taken place in the 7thc. As late as 1898, the same request was again refused to the Jews.

Socio-religious aspects

The economic and social domain projects a much wider and deeper pattern of dhimmitude, because one can say that the Muslim peasantry was also – though in a much less severe way - victim of the period’s vicissitudes. In wars, invasions and rebellions, there is a degree of uncertainty. This is not the case with the legal regulations determining the economic and social status of the dhimmis. As there is no time to develop this aspect, I will briefly enumerate them. Many are stated in Abu Yusuf, the rather open-minded 8th century jurist from the Hanafi school.

As we have seen, the jizya was mandatory under threat of jail, conversion, slav*ery, the abduction of dhimmi children, or death. Dhimmis paid double the taxes of the Muslims and were subjected to the most degrading corvées. In North Africa and Yemen, repugnant obligations, such as executioner, grave*digger, cleaner of public latrines and the like, were forced on Jews, even on Saturdays and holy days. Religious restrictions were numerous, ranging from prohibitions in building, repair and enlargement of synagogues and churches to regulations imposing humility, silence and secrecy in prayer and during burial. The destruction, confiscation and Islamization of synagogues, and more often churches, were common and are often mentioned in legal treatises and dhimmi chronicles.

In the legal domain, specific laws ordained permanent inferiority and humilia*tion for the dhimmis. Their lives were valued at considerably less than that of a Muslim. The penalty for murder was much lighter if the dhimmi was the victim. Likewise, penalities for offenses were unequal between Muslims and non-Muslims. A dhimmi had no right to defend himself if he was physically assaulted by a Muslim; he could only beg for mercy. He was deprived of two fundamental rights: the right of self‑defense against physical aggression, and the right to defend himself in an Islamic law court as his testimony was refused. Dhimmis could be judged under the provisions of their own legislation. However dhimmi legislation was not recognized in Muslim courts, whose judgements superseded dhimmi legal decisions.

Dhimmis were forbidden to have authority over Muslims, to possess or buy land, to marry Muslim women, to have Muslim slaves or servants, or to use the Arabic alphabet (confirmed by Colonel Charles Churchill in Syria and Lebanon during 1840-60).

In the social domain dhimmis had to be recognized by their discriminatory clothes whose shape, color and texture were prescribed from head to foot, likewise, their houses (color and size) and their separate living quarters. Dhimmis were forbidden to ride a horse or a camel, since these animals were considered too noble. A donkey could be ridden in towns but only on a pack‑saddle, the dhimmi sitting with both legs on one side and dismounting on sight of a Muslim. A dhimmi had to hurry through the streets, always passing to the left (impure) side of a Muslim, who was expected to force him to the narrow side or into the gutter. He had to walk humbly with lowered eyes, to accept insults without replying, to remain standing in a meek and respectful attitude in the presence of a Muslim and to leave him the best place. If he was admitted to a public bath, he had to wear bells to signal his presence. Stoning Jews and Christians ‑ especially in Arab‑populated regions ‑ was not unusual‑ likewise disdain, insults and disrespectful attitudes toward them were customary. Some regional rules represent an aggravation of this pattern. In Morocco and Yemen, Jews were forbidden any footwear outside their segregated quarter.

These laws are the basic regulations set down in the classical texts on dhimmis and they had to be enforced throughout the lands of dhimmitude. Muslim jurists strongly condemned the alleviation of these measures when it tempo*rarily occurred. Dhimmitude covers more than a millennium of Christian and Jewish history and is a comprehensive civilization encompassing customs, legislation and social behaviour. Its various con*stituents were constantly imposed with lesser or greater severity depending on circumstances ‑ they may be found whether in the Balkans, in Anatolia, in the Levant, Persia, Yemen and the Maghreb.


Thus we can answer the questions posed at the beginning of this lecture as follows: yes, indeed, dhimmitude represents a comprehensive legal system; it was introduced throughout the lands conquered and Islamized by jihad; and it was implemented as recorded in numerous texts, and viewed or experienced by countless witnesses for thirteen centuries.



This comprehensive system has permeated Islamic civilization and culture from its inception, and is being revived today through the Islamist resurgence and the return of the shari’a in some countries. Hence this pattern is not transient but permanent.


Jihad-dhimmitude: a stable and enduring pattern

The considerable number of chronicles written by Muslims and non-Muslims provide copious information on the methods and implementation of jihad over the centuries. These texts make it possible to establish the close correspondence between actual Islamic military practices and the legal and theological prescriptions of jihad. The wars currently waged by Muslim states or through their proxies, in Israel, the Sudan, Nigeria, Kashmir, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other parts of the world, reproduce the classic strategy of jihad. For instance Abu Yusuf mentions the military conscription of pubescent and pre-pubescent children in jihad campaigns. Contemporary examples include: the Iraq-Iran war, the jihad against Israel (intifada), and the Islamist militias in the Sudan. The refusal to return enemy corpses (for example by the Lebanese Hizbollah) conforms to another opinion of Abu Yusuf. Raids on villages, killing of adult males, and the abduction and enslavement of women and children (Sudan, Indonesia), as well as terrorist campaigns against civilians infidels and apostates (Algeria), conform with the opinions of al-Mawardi, mentioned earlier. The victims of such actions are deprived of all rights.

Today, many aspects of dhimmitude remain active or potential political forces. Hence we see a return to the same situation in modern states where the shari’a is applied or constitutes the source of the laws, as in Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and u