«What Drives Islam to be the Religion of War?»

Mais um excelente artigo de Sultan Knish:

«Why is Islam constantly a source of war, violence and discord? The problem simply enough is theological, because to its followers the validity of Islam is directly connected to its physical supremacy. As followers of the purported "final revelation" to mankind, Muslims not only have the obligation to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world, their religion is only meaningful to the extent that they can carry on the work begun by Mohammed.

Since Islam derives meaning primarily from physical supremacy, war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, one must feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether it is by providing money and resources to the Jihadists or to be a Jihadist yourself. Because Islam is expressed in physical supremacy, violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion. And anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior touches on Islamic insecurities as blasphemy.

When Muslims explode into outbursts of violent rage over seemingly petty things like a cartoon or a teddy bear named Mohammed, it is because to them, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy. Because Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, and anything that challenges that supremacy is a direct attack on their beliefs. What the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, or the resurrection of Jesus for the Christian-- is the physical dominance of Islam to the Muslim. It is the basis and fulfillment of his faith.

Therefore by waging war on the infidels, by planting a minaret in one of their cities, by forcing non-Muslims into a submissive position-- to the Muslim this is an act that affirms the truth and power of Islam. By causing infidels to "lose face", the Muslim fulfills the Koranic verse which promises that Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam supreme over all religions. By contrast when Islam "loses face", an act of blasphemy has been committed, which can only be righted religiously by killing the non-Muslims, thereby forcing them to lose face and once again affirming the physical superiority of Islam.

This creates the cycle of violence that the media loves to harp on so much, but it is not the result of Western oppression, it is the result of Muslims feeling oppressed if they are not on top. When your belief system explicitly proclaims its wille zur macht, its Will to Power, the idea of multiculturalism and co-existence becomes a joke. To co-exist with non-Muslims is itself blasphemous for a Muslim, which proclaims "Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends" (Koran 5:51) and whose final command was to ethnically cleanse the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula. Islam does not co-exist, for its followers its truth can only be found in conquering non-Muslims.

Whereas most religions can accept being in the inferior position, because their fundamental faith in spiritual, rather than material-- Islam has little to it but the material. Even its paradise exists in the form of the sort of physical pleasures that its followers crave, fancy robes, exquisite banquets, golden couches, and of course that famed appeal to the dedicated Jihadist, "curvaceous virgins... and an overflowing cup" (Koran 78:33-34). Islamic Heaven is essentially a grossly exaggerated version of the kind of loot that Mohammed's followers expected to find by following him in the first place, gold, jewels, silk, spices and young girls.

The gang of throat slitters who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres across the region were given a religious incentive that would transcend death. Even if they died in battle and would not live to enjoy all the jewels, overflowing cups and girls-- the Koran promised it to them in heaven anyway. One can imagine the gang or robbers, escaped slaves and ambitious desert rats trailing after Mohammed across desert dunes, their minds filled with the feverish promises of rich loot from the caravans they were raiding. And in the feverish heat, the idea that they would receive even better loot if they were to die in battle, making death preferable to life, would have actually seemed plausible.

Out of such such petty greed and lust did Islam initially expand. Its code was that of the tribesman, to lose face or engage in vendetta. Except Islam's face and vendetta did not involve a single man or a clan, it came to involve over a billion people, who found meaning in working toward the final conquest of Islam. The global triumph of a desert raider's clumsily hammered together mass of Jewish and Christian beliefs and tribal customs and legends, and his own biography, used as a tool of conquest, forging temporary unities out of quarreling tribes and clans.

And now Islam's vendetta is worldwide. Every insecurity translates into a provocation. Every jealous impulse never satisfied explodes into violent rage. Every conflict for thousands of years breeds a new vendetta. Did Muslims once live somewhere? They must reclaim it, for to fail to do so is blasphemous and a betrayal of Allah and Mohammed's mission. Did Muslims never live somewhere? Then they must go there now, and raise up minarets and proclaim the superiority of Islam, for to do otherwise is a failure to expand the borders of the Ummah, which is a betrayal of Allah and Mohammed's mission.

The very existence of people living free and happy, free from Islamic dominion, is blasphemy. Blasphemy that must be remedied by bringing them into Islam, or under the rule of Islamic law. Either one enforces the supremacy of Islam, because it is not absolutely necessary that everyone believe in Islam. As a matter of fact it would be rather inconvenient as there is little point on being on top, if there isn't anyone on the bottom. A world filled with nothing but Muslims, would deny the Believers the chance to lord it over the infidels. What matters though is that everyone be subservient to Islam, whether as Muslims or Dhimmis.

Meanwhile people who were once under Islamic dominion living free of Islam, is worse than blasphemy, it is an insult and an attack on Islam. That is what is behind the Muslim homicidal obsession with Israel, which had until recently been in Muslim hands under the Ottoman Empire. However even nations such as Spain, which had been lost to the Ummah long ago, still inspire rage. The liberation of the Jews from Islamic dominion is a particularly sore point, but not the only one. For all that the Koran rants about Jews and Christians, its ultimate aim is worldwide.

The intersection of Islam and Terrorism is not coincidental or the result of specific political moves made by non-Muslim nations, as the conventional narrative claims. It is the inevitable result of Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist, which when combined with the honor-shame code of a tribal culture, drives it compulsively toward war and conquest. The actions of non-Muslim nations serve only as variables to create a context within which the supremacism of Islam expresses itself. These contexts may vary as often as the justifications used in a Bin Laden video. But the context itself is irrelevant in the larger history and theology of Islam. Because in the end, the problem of Islamic violence is the problem of Islam.»

Menos blogues e mais livros (5)

De Efraim Karsh, o edificante, por vezes surpreendente, Islamic Imperialism.

«Onde fica Jerusalém Oriental?»

Nas últimas semanas foi tema quente o estulto e hipócrita incómodo da administração Obama supostamente causado pela intenção do município de Jerusalém de construir um complexo habitacional, alegadamente numa "zona da cidade disputada pelos palestinianos" ― a propósito desta expressão, diga-se que todo o território de Israel se encontra numa zona disputada pelos palestinianos, razão que os leva a rejeitar sistematicamente as proposta para o estabelecimento de dois estados: pretendem um só estado, muçulmano, judenrein (purificado de judeus) e com os cristãos subjugados, à semelhança do que acontece hoje nos territórios sob a autoridade palestiniana; um estado palestiniano, do rio (Jordão) ao mar (Mediterrâneo).

Onde se situa, então, Ramat Shlomo (רמח שלםה) o local do absurdamente controverso projecto habitacional?
É ver e confirmar noutras fontes, se não se acredita no disparate.
Repare-se, a talhe de foice, na localização um outro projecto, igualmente controverso há alguns meses, o de Gilo (גלה).

«We’ve heard a lot of talk about “Arab East Jerusalem” and how upset the Obama administration is about Israel building in it. The only problem is, the building that Israel announced last week is NOT East Jerusalem – Ramat Shlomo is North Jerusalem! And six months ago, the Obama administration was yelling about Gilo – that is in South Jerusalem. So, is the Obama administration trying to make Israel look bad by distorting the truth? Take a look at this map of Jerusalem, courtesy of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, of Jordanian East Jerusalem before Israel won the land back in 1967. Ramat Shlomo is clearly directly north of the city, and Gilo is southwest of the city.»

Map of Arab East Jerusalem, 1948-1967.
Note the locations of Israel's construction, far from East Jerusalem.

In Middle East Facts Weblog, sítio a seguir.

Incompetência ou malevolência?

Charles Krauthammer, no National Review Online, sobre o incidente burocrático transformado em crise diplomática, e de como isso ocorreu:

«Why did Pres. Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?

And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don’t bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.

But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a ten-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.

(...) Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move (...).

Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.

The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Clinton’s spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.

Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace — literally dying for peace — since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)

Israel made peace offers in 1967, in 1978, and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton’s own husband testifies to the remarkable courage and vision of the peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu’s defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a “peace process” — now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state — the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions — such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948 — before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.

Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its GDP is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called “unprecedented.”

What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.

Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That’s why the Obama administration has to resort to “proximity talks” — a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat’s groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.

And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?

Now that’s an insult.

So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies? (...)

Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world — and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that insists brazenly on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historic, and now present capital?»

Israel e a Península Ibérica: terras de conquista muçulmana

Um pequeno e precioso video. Logo nos primeiros segundos, o xeque Ali Al-Faqir expõe, com toda a clareza, a causa do conflito israelo-muçulmano e estabelece uma importante relação, especialmente para nós, portugueses, entre este conflito e a pretensão muçulmana de reconquistar a Península Ibérica: ambos os territórios ― Israel, por um lado, Portugal e Espanha, por outro ―, já foram dominados pelos muçulmanos e, segundo o pensamento muçulmano, em virtude dessa circunstância histórica, serão terra muçulmana para sempre.

Já o tenho dito: estamos na segunda linha da ofensiva de dominação islâmica, logo a seguir a Israel e a outros territórios onde os conflitos armados já estão em curso, como a Somália, o Sudão, o Quénia, a Nigéria, etc..

Recúo da Administração Obama no julgamento de terrorista?

Segundo reporta o Jihad Watch, a Administração Obama parece preparar-se para recuar na decisão de julgar Khalid Sheik Mohammed em tribunal comum.
Boas notícias:

White House: Hey, let's try the 9/11 jihadis in military tribunals

Great idea! Why didn't anybody think of it before? "White House reconsiders holding terror trials in civilian court," by Julian E. Barnes and Christi Parsons for the Los Angeles Times, March 5 (thanks to Mackie):

The White House is considering an end to its effort to prosecute the suspected Sept. 11 plotters in a civilian court and may send them instead before military tribunals, in an apparent retreat from President Obama's pledge to overhaul the Bush administration's detention policies.

Last year, the Obama administration announced it would try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others in federal court in New York. That step came after Obama overhauled interrogation policies and ordered the shutdown of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But safety concerns about the trial have grown, and support for holding the trial in New York has eroded.

"It is politically untenable," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity because a decision had not been made. "No place wants to hold a trial."...

Anti-sionismo ou anti-semitismo?

Diálogo ou imposição de uma perspectiva?
Universidade como centro de saber ou como terreno de propaganda?

Mosab Yousef: palestiniano, espião israelita (2)

Video da entrevista com Sean Hannity, no qual Yousef é ainda mais explícito no estabelecimento de uma relação entre o islão e a violência e descarta liminarmente a existência de um islão moderado, destacando que a boa índole dos homens e mulheres muçulmanos é corrompida pelo islão.



Veja Mosab Yousef: palestiniano, espião israelita.

Via Tundra Tabloids.

«O Turbante e a Suástica»

Documentário do canal Arte sobre o Grande Mufti de Jerusalém, Amin Al-Husseini, instigador da violência árabe na Terra Santa, aliado de Hitler, para quem arregimentou muçulmanos bósnios e turcófonos, grande entusiasta da «Solução Final para a Questão Judaica na Europa».
A aliança entre a suástica e o crescente, entre os verdes e os castanhos, muçulmanos e nacional-socialistas.

The Turban and the Swatika part 1 of 2 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

The Turban and the Swastika 2 of 2 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Mosab Yousef: palestiniano, espião israelita

Mosab Hassan Yousef é filho do xeque Hassan Yousef, um dos fundadores do Hamas e um dos seus líderes na Cisjordânia. Durante 10 anos colaborou com o Shin Bet, os serviços secretos israelitas para os assuntos de segurança interna.
Após cessar a sua colaboração com a polícia secreta israelita, refugiou-se nos EUA. Entretanto convertido ao cristianismo, conta agora a sua história num livro a publicar recentemente, parte de cujas revelações expôs ao Haaretz, em entrevista publicada em dois artigos.
Aqui deixamos dois excertos, onde Yousef fala do conflito israelo-árabe, nas suas raízes religiosas islâmicas, assim como na belicosidade intrínseca do islão:

«"(...) I did everything out of a sense of mission, in order to save human lives," Mosab Yousef says. "Take, for example, Jamal Taweel, a senior figure in Hamas. If I had not worked for the Shin Bet, Taweel would now be dead. He was due to be assassinated, but because I was the one who provided the information about his location, he was arrested. He spent a few years in prison and maybe will hate me now, but he is now free, lives with his family and is the mayor of El-Bireh. I am not exaggerating or showing off," he says in the phone call from California. "I supplied priceless information. No one but me was capable of obtaining it."

Aren't you afraid now after exposing all this?

"I will not lie by saying I am not afraid. But I am motivated by the fact that I saved hundreds of people - Israelis, Palestinians, Americans. That gives me the strength to go on. I am not a Zionist and I did not work for the Zionists. I am not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. I worked for my God, who is the father of all human beings wherever they are. I do not want to go back to that work. I chose to leave, because after 10 years of fighting terrorism, I understood that it is not the problem. Of course, it is important to fight terrorism, but if I think about the long term, the only way is not to do battle against suicide bombers but against their motivation: namely, their God.

"Many people think the terrorists' motivation is the Israeli occupation, the corruption, but all that is just the backdrop. It is not the root of the problem. The occupation is like the rain that falls on the soil in which the seed has been planted, but it is not the seed itself. The root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not lie in security or politics: It is a war between two gods, two religions. Between the God of the Torah and the God of the Koran. The Koran teaches that this is Waqf land - a sacred endowment which must not be given up. The Torah taught the Jews that this is their land and must not be given up.

"It follows that there will be no peace in the Middle East. Israel's problem is not with Hamas or with any other organization, nor with the interpretation Hamas reads into the Koran. It is with the god of the Koran. After all, even a moderate Muslim who reads the Koran must read that the Jews are the sons of apes and that the infidels must be killed. The Palestinians must stop blaming Israel, or the West, for all their problems. If they want true freedom, they must free themselves from their God."

You sound completely pessimistic. What about a Palestinian state?

"That is not a solution. Today we do not have a leadership worthy of ruling, not Hamas and not Fatah. The Palestinians move between the corrupt leadership of Fatah, and the Hamas leadership, which sends them all to die. Besides, Hamas cannot make peace with the Israelis. That is against what their God tells them. It is impossible to make peace with infidels, only a cease-fire, and no one knows that better than I.

"The Hamas leadership is responsible for the killing of Palestinians, not Israelis. Palestinians! They do not hesitate to massacre people in a mosque or to throw people from the 15th or 17th floor of a building, as they did during the coup in Gaza. The Israelis would never do such things. I tell you with certainty that the Israelis care about the Palestinians far more than the Hamas or Fatah leadership does. Israel withdrew from Gaza, and instead of the place being built up and cultivated, look what happened there. We need to take a break from these leaders. And I call on the government of Israel: Never accede to Hamas demands " (...)»

Videoteca do islamismo: juventude universitária muçulmana nos EUA

Mujahidin da palavra.
Eis o que nos espera, aos portugueses, dentro de poucos anos: uma horda de muçulmanos agressivos e cheios de confiança, cientes de que os seus actos provocatórios e anti-sociais não terão consequências, que qualquer iniciativa para os punir ― quer na esfera académica, quer na judicial ― será mais uma ocasião de se reclamarem vítimas de discriminação.
É assim nos EUA; é assim em França, na Holanda, na Suécia e na Noruega.
Fossemos mais ricos, enquanto país; tivéssemos um estado social generoso como estes e outros países europeus para ser parasitado, e estaríamos por cá na mesma.
A nossa relativa pobreza material permite-nos estar alguns decénios atrasados no grau de islamização em relação aos EUA e à Europa abastada; espero que sejamos capazes de redescobrir a nossa riqueza cultural e moral para reagir a tempo.



Sobre a jihad cultural, ler Stealth Jihad, de Robert Spencer.

Via Jihad Watch.

Videoteca do islamismo: «É preciso ensinar os nossos filhos a odiar» (4)

Ver Videoteca do islamismo: «É preciso ensinar os nossos filhos a odiar», Videoteca do islamismo: «É preciso ensinar os nossos filhos a odiar» (2), Videoteca do islamismo: «É preciso ensinar os nossos filhos a odiar» (3).

Videoteca do islamismo: cristianicídio islâmico em Gaza

Destaque para estas palavras do general Kamal al-Tarzi, seguidas de dois versículos do Alcorão que as ilustram:

«When we come and say that members of the Christian community in Gaza, the institutions, associations and churches have been attacked by unrecognized extremist Islamic groups ultimately, in one way or another, in effect they are all one group with different names.
They all have the same approach, based entirely on the Koran.»

Alcorão 9:123

«Ó fiéis, combatei os vossos vizinhos incrédulos para que sintam severidade em vós; e sabei que Deus está com os tementes.»

Alcorão 9:29

«Combatei aqueles que não crêem em Deus e no Dia do Juízo Final, nem [se] abstêm do que Deus e Seu Mensageiro proibiram, e nem professam a verdadeira religião daqueles que receberam o Livro, até que, submissos, paguem o Jizya.»

Via Tundra Tabloids.

Videoteca do islamismo: «É preciso ensinar os nossos filhos a odiar» (3)

Doutrinação islâmica das crianças para o terrorismo suicida.

A palavra shahid, é usualmente traduzida por mártir, opção altamente discutível, uma vez que o martírio, tal como é entendido pelos cristãos - logo, é nesse contexto que a palavra é usada na língua portuguesa -, não é uma morte autoinfligida, mas sim a consequência da firme disposição de não renunciar a Cristo, embora o significado literal da expressão árabe seja o mesmo do da expressão grega que está na origem da palavra portuguesa mártir, que significa testemunha. O mesmo se passa com a palavra shahada, testemunho, usada para designar tanto o ritual de conversão ao islão, no qual o novel muçulmano dá testemunho da sua fé, como o conceito de morte autoinfligida, a qual tem como consequência, a morte de infiéis.
A diferença é substancial: enquanto no martírio propriamente dito o mártir é a única vítima - para mais involuntária, ainda que a situação seja aceite com resignação, até com alegria sobrenatural -, o acto do shahid só assume uma dimensão teológica se dele resultar a morte de não-muçulmanos, de kufar.



Via Vlad Tepes Blog.

Para uma verdadeira compreensão do islão: os dhimmi: judeus e cristãos sob domínio islâmico

Excelente artigo de Jim Gerrish, no Church and Israel Forum, sobre o estatuto dos judeus e dos cristãos sob domínio islâmico.
Nota: este blogue dispõe de um tradutor automático do inglês para português (i.a.), situado na coluna da direita.

«THE DHIMMI - JEWS AND CHRISTIANS UNDER ISLAM

(...) [T]here is no way to fairly assess today's situation [n.ed.: da relação entre muçulmanos e não-muçulmanos no Médio Oriente, que não diferem substancialmente das que se estabelecem no resto do mundo] without looking back over the last 1,300 years. Then the present tables were turned and Muslims ruled exclusively in the Middle East. The little-known facts of this dark and gruesome history have been well concealed and are only now gradually being brought to light. One excellent source book has become available in English over the last few years. This epic work was written by Bat Ye'or and is entitled, The Dhimmi (this is a term reserved for Jews and Christians under Islam). This work is not just a volume of idle speculation, but reflects the painstaking presentation of nearly 200 documents verifying the condition of both Christians and Jews under the rule of Islam. There are other works, of course, but in this article we will rely heavily upon this fine and comprehensive work of Bat Ye'or.

During the first half of the seventh century AD, Islam was becoming entrenched in the desert area which we know today as Saudi Arabia. Islam's ugly side was quickly made apparent as the prophet turned against the Jews at the oasis of Khaybar, near Medina. After much destruction and bloodshed, the Jews surrendered under the terms of a treaty known as the dhimma. Subsequently, all the Jews and Christians of Arabia submitted to the Muslims under the terms of a treaty similar to the one granted at Khaybar.

It was during this early period that the concept of jihad, or holy war, began to be developed. The Muslims considered all areas controlled by Islam as the dar al-Islam, or the "territory of Islam," while all areas controlled by infidels were known as the dar al-harb, or the "abode of war." Since Muslims felt Islam was destined to control all the earth, there could be no permanent peace made with infidels.

As Islam and its holy war burst from the confines of Arabia, many peoples were forcefully confronted with it. Islam swept across the Holy Land, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa in its early years. Generally, polytheists were given the choice of conversion or death. However, Jews and Christians, or "the people of the Book" as they were known to Muslims, came under special consideration. Based upon the previous treaty at Khaybar they were called dhimmi, people who were allowed to live and even to adhere to their religions, but all this for the benefit of Islam. They were doomed to remain second-class citizens, living, it seemed, for the sole purpose of demonstrating to all, the superiority of Islam over conquered religions.

From this point on the dhimmi were always at the mercy of the Muslim rulers, and subject at all times to the whims of Muslim mobs. The dhimmi status seemed to always hang in peril. In fact, in AD 640, the status of the dhimmi was revoked throughout the whole Arabian peninsula and the remaining Jews and Christians were expelled.

Soon the dhimmi status, for what it was worth, was applied to Jews and Christians in many conquered lands of the Middle East. The dhimmi began to be more clearly defined by Muslim law and by common practice. There were several things that came to define the dhimmi status in Muslim lands.

ASPECTS OF THE DHIMMI STATUS

1. Oppressive taxation

In each conquered land, the Jews and Christians were allowed to remain and cultivate the land in exchange for the payment of a tax to the local Muslim ruler. This tax was called the Kharaj. This system was designed to remind the tenants that Islam owned the land. Their national identities and histories were blotted out and soon became virtually nonexistent. They were forbidden to possess arms and thus became totally dependent upon the occupying Muslim power. In some areas, such as Morocco, this system became so oppressive that the Jews of that area were virtual serfs even as late as 1913, and were, literally, the property of their Muslim masters.

In addition to the Kharaj tax, the dhimmi were subjected to the poll tax or Jizya. This tax had to be paid in person by each subject, and it had to be paid in a public and humiliating manner. It was common for the dhimmi to be struck on the head or on the nape of the neck as he paid the tax to demonstrate the superiority of Islam.

The dhimmi were also victimized by higher commercial and travel taxes. In addition they were often victims of extortion and blackmail at the hand of their own rulers. Often, greedy rulers required them to pay an avania, or protection money. This was simply a sum of money extorted from the Jewish or Christian communities, under the threat of persecution. This practice of having to pay for their own protection soon became the norm for dhimmi communities in Muslim lands.

2. Social and legal discrimination

Dhimmi peoples were generally excluded from holding public office; were kept from many professions and high positions; or from being elevated, in any way, over Muslims. The most degrading jobs, such as cleaning the public latrines, fell to the dhimmi. Yemenite Jews, until they immigrated to Israel in 1950, were still required to clean the public latrines and remove dead animals from the city streets.

In the courtroom, the evidence of a dhimmi could never be accepted in testimony against a Muslim. Thus it was often necessary for the dhimmi to hire Muslim "witnesses" for his court appearance. The dhimmi was not allowed to raise a hand against his Muslim masters, even if raised in self defense. Such a thoughtless act would often result in the death penalty. In many Muslim lands, Jews were routinely beaten and abused in the streets. They could only beg for mercy and attempt to flee their persecutors. They did not dare defend themselves.

To further clarify their inferior status, the dhimmi were required to wear special clothing. The type of clothing varied from country to country, but always it seemed to be designed to make Jews and Christians appear inferior and foolish. In many countries the Jews were even required to go barefoot. They were also required to walk to the left of the Muslims. They were almost universally forbidden to ride horses, and even when riding donkeys, they were required to dismount upon meeting a Muslim. Jews and Christians were often confined to special quarters, and these areas were usually shut up after dark. They were not allowed to enter certain streets of Muslim cities. This practice continued in Persia, Yemen, and North Africa until the nineteenth century. These dhimmi ghettos were frequently the scenes of awful pogroms and persecutions by infuriated Muslim mobs. At the whim of local rulers these pitiful quarters could be confiscated and emptied on short notice. Whether they lived inside or outside of these quarters, the houses of dhimmi could never be taller or more elaborate than the houses of their Muslim neighbors.

3. Religious discrimination

In Muslim lands, the construction of new churches and synagogues was generally forbidden. The restoration of certain pre-Islamic structures was permitted so long as they were not enlarged or transformed. Dhimmi places of worship were often ransacked, burned or demolished at the whim of the Muslims. This trend has continued right up through modern times. In Saudi Arabia, the government bulldozed the last Christian church in the kingdom in 1987. It was a unique 12th century structure found near the Yemen border.

Liturgical forms were strictly controlled. It was generally prohibited to ring church bells, sound shofars (ram's horns used in Jewish ceremony), publicly display crosses, icons, banners and other religious objects. Early photos taken during the middle of the nineteenth century confirm that even the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem had been stripped of both its cross and belfry.

In many Muslim lands, Jews and Christians had to bury their dead without mourning. Dhimmi graves had to be specially marked lest a Muslim should accidentally pray over the grave of an infidel. The cemeteries of the dhimmi were not respected since they were considered as being from the realm of hell. Commonly they were desecrated or even destroyed completely, as occurred in Jerusalem during Jordanian rule (1948-1967). At that time the Jordanian army used Jewish gravestones from the Mount of Olives to line their latrines.

The dhimmi had to take great care to show respect to Muslim holy places. In North Africa, if Jews and Christians entered a mosque it was considered a capital offense. It was not even permitted for them to look into a mosque when passing by. Any such accusation, whether true or false, could cost the dhimmi his life. This was especially the case in all charges of blasphemy. The dhimmi communities were religiously harassed and sometimes forced to convert. For instance, in Yemen, it was required that every Jewish orphan child be converted to Islam.

Of course, marriage or sexual relations between dhimmi and Muslim women called for the death sentence, although Muslim men could marry a dhimmi woman. To the Muslim, there was something about the dhimmi that was unclean and impure. This concept affected all Muslim relations with dhimmi peoples.

Muslim concepts concerning the dhimmi may seem primitive and grossly discriminatory to the modern mind. However, these concepts are still very much alive in Muslim thinking, and are particularly evident in current ideas of jihad. The Islamic idea of world dominion has changed very little since the days of Muhammad. Involved in the Islamic concept is the complete military, religious and political domination of conquered peoples (which should ultimately include the whole world); Arabization of these peoples and nations; the absolute claim to their lands; the suppression of their historical, religious, and political traditions; and the extinguishing of their cultural and social aspirations.

It is unthinkable for Muslims that conquered peoples should rise up and throw off the yoke of Islam or that land once in the domain of Islam should ever be lost to that domain. According to Islamic thinking, once a region has been conquered for Islam, it is always Islamic and must be re-conquered from the infidel, regardless of the passage of time.

HOW DO THESE CONCEPTS AFFECT ISRAEL?

These territorial concepts are best illustrated by the jihad which has raged against Israel. Israel is a tiny island surrounded by a sea of Islam. Not only was Israel once within the domain of Islam⁽¹⁾, but until the current immigration wave, over 60 percent of her inhabitants were descendants of dhimmi, whether they were refugees from Arab countries or indigenous to the land. Israel's declared independence and her subsequent victories over confederated Islamic armies in 1948, 1967 and again in 1973 shook the Islamic world to the core. Egypt's President Nasser well expressed Islamic feeling when he said, "To the disaster of Palestine there is no parallel in human history."

Since jihad can be expressed in many ways, including military, economic, political, educational means, etc., it is not surprising that the modern jihad against Israel embodies and promotes many of the age-old dhimmi concepts. The tiny nation of Israel has been oppressed militarily since its birth by surrounding Muslim nations. There have already been five major wars in the Middle East over this matter, and there continues to be a very active campaign of terrorism against Israel even as peace conferences are in session.

Israel is also oppressed economically. It has been estimated that the Arab economic boycott of Israel has cost the tiny nation some $45 billion in the past forty years. This does not include an additional $24 billion lost in foreign investments. This boycott also continues despite all the current peace processes.

Israel is considered a pariah, an outcast, in the Muslim Middle East. The presence of a sovereign Jewish people on the land is considered a defilement and a sin. Thus, the only solution open to Islam is that the Jews must be pushed into the sea and the land cleansed.

As in the ancient days of the dhimmi, the history and culture of Israel is denied and even eradicated whenever possible. Rich Arab nations have exerted considerable pressure in this regard. Airline and even US State Department maps have been known to exclude Israel entirely. Reference books have often presented slanted views. In recent months Hannan Ashwari, spokeswoman for the Palestinians, has boldly stated for the worldwide TV audience that she is a true descendant of the first Christians, and that they were Palestinians. This of course is lie, since her Arab people did not inhabit the land of Israel for almost six hundred years after the New Testament era. By such statements, history is murdered and so is truth. These are just other sophisticated attempts to deny a supposed dhimmi people their own culture and history.

Thus the jihad rages on and on, even in this modern day. But for Islam to succeed in its plan of total world domination, there must be a people who are willing to play the part of the dhimmi. There must also be a people who have somehow allowed the love for truth to slip from their hearts.»

⁽¹⁾ - A Península Ibérica encontra-se na segunda linha nas pretensões islâmicas à reconquista de território perdido.

Videoteca do islamismo: «É preciso ensinar os nossos filhos a odiar» (2)

E estão a ser bem sucedidos nesse intento:



via J. Robert Howell.

Ver Videoteca do islamismo: «É preciso ensinar os nossos filhos a odiar».

Videoteca do islamismo: «É preciso ensinar os nossos filhos a odiar»

Via Atlas Shrugs no Twitter:

Uma lição sobre a visão muçulmana dos judeus

Via Vlad Tepes.

O Hamas por si mesmo

Via Muslims Against Sharia, no canal de televisão do MEMRI, o MEMRI TV, no YouTube.

O suicídio da democracia

Segundo noticia o ABC, um partido político muçulmano, recentemente fundado em Espanha, está em vias de concorrer às eleições locais em cidades consideradas de especial relevo:

«El Partido Renacimiento y Unión de España (PRUNE) - primera formación islámica con vocación de implantarse en toda España -, se organiza contrarreloj con el objetivo de lograr representación en municipios claves tras las elecciones de 2011. La formación, promovida por Mustafá Bakkach, hombre próximo a Rabat, aspira a recoger apoyos no sólo entre los casi 1.300.000 musulmanes residentes en España (...)

El partido se gestó a principios de año en Granada, «con una vocación claramente de ámbito nacional y no para afianzarse solamente en una localidad o región autónoma», se afirma en su boletín interno «Ruta». (...)

El Islam como base

La formación reconoce que luchará por lograr sus objetivos «desde la consideración del Islam como fuente de dichos principios», esto es, «tendrá en cuenta el Islam en su actuación política, considerándolo como factor determinante para la regeneración moral y ética de la sociedad española». Ello no contradice, asegura, su acatamiento a la Constitución y su rechazo al terrorismo como medio de hacer política. (...)

Recientemente ha abierto una sede en Asturias, donde se inició la Reconquista, lo que se interpreta como todo un enunciado de intenciones. Se une así a la que el PRUNE ya tiene en Granada. Ahora, en una segunda fase, intentará establecerse también por el resto de Andalucía, así como en Madrid, Cataluña, Extremadura, Valencia y Murcia. Comunidades todas ellas en las que ya existe una amplia población musulmana, integrada por españoles conversos pero, sobre todo, por inmigrantes. La mayoría de ellos son de origen marroquí. Estos últimos no podrían votar en la actualidad, pero se da la circunstancia de que el Ejecutivo de Zapatero intenta firmar con las autoridades de Rabat un convenio de reciprocidad, en virtud del cual los ciudadanos del país magrebí podrían votar en España y nuestros compatriotas residentes allí hacer lo propio. Estos convenios lo acaba de rubricar el Gobierno con países que tienen en España una amplia bolsa de emigrantes.

En medios gubernamentales no se oculta cierta preocupación, y no porque se considere que a día de hoy esta formación esté en disposición de lograr una fuerte implantación. (...)

Lo que más preocupa en estos momentos al Ejecutivo es que este partido pueda predicar la no integración en núcleos urbanos con amplia presencia musulmana. En municipios en los que ya son una mayoría, los musulmanes tratan ya de imponer sus propias costumbres. De controlar algunos ayuntamientos, las costumbres podrían adquirir entonces el rango de normativa municipal. (...)»

Alguns pontos da notícia são particularmente preocupantes.
O próprio conceito de partido islâmico ou muçulmano, embora possa parecer similar ao dos partidos ditos da democracia-cristã, não o é, como o demonstra o facto de os cristãos não votarem maciçamente nestes partidos.
No cristianismo, pelo menos no ocidental - tanto quanto julgo saber, no cristianismo ortodoxo oriental as coisas são algo distintas - o princípio da separação entre Igreja e Estado está assente nas palavras de Cristo, no famoso episódio dos Evangelhos no qual Jesus responde aos fariseus que se deve dar a César o que é de César e a Deus o que é de Deus (cf. Mc. 12, 14-17, i.a.).
O caso do islão é completamente distinto. Mafoma era líder religioso, militar e político. Seguindo o seu exemplo, o islão tem tendência a constituir formas de organização política onde religião e poder político se concentram, das quais o califado é o exemplo mais notável.

Acresce que o islão, através da divisão do mundo em dar-al-islam - Casa do Islão, onde o islão marca o modo de viver - e dar-al-harb - Casa da Guerra, onde impera a infidelidade (segundo a perspectiva islâmica) -, define o conceito de nação, a umá, não em função da partilha de um conjunto de características culturais - a língua, a cultura, etc. -, como acontece nos estados ocidentais modernos, mas unicamente em função da adesão à fé islâmica. Um cristão árabe de Jerusalém não pertence à umá; um muçulmano sueco radicado em Los Angeles, pertence.
O sentido de identidade, que decorre da pertença a uma comunidade tão radicalmente distinta, em inúmeros traços definidores, da sociedade de acolhimento, faz temer que os muçulmanos se aglutinem eleitoralmente à volta de partidos islâmicos.

Um outro problema, com este relacionado, é aflorado na notícia, quando se faz referência ao risco, assinalado pelas autoridades políticas espanholas, de institucionalização do isolacionismo islâmico - tendência das comunidades muçulmanas, que pode evoluir, em circunstâncias políticas e demográficas favoráveis, para a secessão.

Um outro problema, talvez o mais grave, dos focados na notícia, nada tem a ver com o islão em si mesmo, mas com a decadência das sociedades ocidentais - efeito da ideologia do multiculturalismo, e é a informação de que o governo espanhol se prepara para assinar convénios com vários países árabes que permitirão aos emigrantes residentes em Espanha, oriundos desses países, votar nas eleições espanholas (não fica claro se em todas as eleições).
O acréscimo de votantes muçulmanos que a aplicação desses convénios acarretaria, teria um impacto brutal no mapa eleitoral espanhol, conseguindo-se com duas assinaturas o que por outras vias - a guerra, a luta demográfica ⁽¹⁾ - custaria sangue e demoraria décadas.

Os fundadores do partido demonstram saber como beneficiar das vantagens que o sistema democrático espanhol lhes proporciona. Sabem que, desde que os documentos escritos do partido não desrespeitem a constituição espanhola, têm total liberdade de acção, até para desprezar essa mesma constituição - praticando discriminações várias dentro da comunidade islâmica, violando a lei espanhola no domínio da lei da família (casamentos forçados, casamentos de menores), apelando ao isolacionismo em relação aos não muçulmanos e à secessão apenas oralmente e em língua árabe, como fazem nos EUA, sem qualquer reacção das autoridades, como fazem em relação à questão israelo-muçulmana, fazendo declarações de paz, durante o dia, em inglês, e de guerra eterna, durante a noite, em árabe - em aplicação, aliás, dessa desconcertante doutrina islâmica, a taqiyya, a qual não só permite, mas encoraja aos muçulmanos que mintam em defesa dos interesses da fé islâmica.

A democracia é um regime frágil. As democracias avançadas têm mecanismos de autodefesa. Se estes mecanismos de defesa forem descurados, o totalitarismo triunfará.

⁽¹⁾ - "Un día millones de hombres abandonarán el Hemisferio Sur para irrumpir en el Hemisferio Norte. Y no lo harán precisamente como amigos. Porque comparecerán para conquistarlo. Y lo conquistarán poblándolo con sus hijos. Será el vientre de nuestras mujeres el que nos dé la victoria" (Houari Boumedienne, en la ONU, 1974).

Via La Yijad en Eurabia.