Wednesday, September 30, 2009

National Geographic's Blunder Regarding Non-Muslims under Muslim Rule

We have seen the treatment of Muslims afforded by Western countries: England has bent over backwards for Muslims, even asking their police to grant them leniency when accusing them of crimes; Hawaii has instituted a state-wide "Islam Day"; Why, President Barak Obama even held an Iftar Dinner for Muslims, as newspapers in Pakistan will proclaim.

But what if the tables were turned? What if non-Muslims were under Muslim rule? Would they be afforded equality and protection of their rights, or would they be second-class citizens?

It should take no more than one look across the pond to see what is happening to dhimmis around the world. Non-Muslims face persecution in many Muslim states, ranging from restricted practice of their religion to mass genocide.

But some argue that these atrocities against the rights of non-Muslims have nothing to do with Islam. In fact, they are a product of residual local culture. "Islam is peace!" they say, "It affords equality and justice for all!"

Even National Geographic, in their June 2009 article titled "The Christian Exodus from the Holy Land, said regarding the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem:

"(Non-Muslims) were allowed to worship as they pleased... (they) converted to Islam anyway, preferring its emphasis on a personal connection with God..."
Unfortunately, there is a problem with this perspective: it ignores virtually everything about Islam. As we have pointed out before, Sharia stems from the Qur'an, and in its final days of revelation, the Qur'an commanded that Christians and Jews be fought until they are humiliated (9:29). Sharia thus calls for active antagonism towards non-Muslims.

But Umar left an even more explicit account for how non-Muslims are to live under Muslim rule. Below is an account of the Pact of Umar as found in Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Maluk, 229-230

We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

  • We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells,
  • nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
  • We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers.
  • We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
  • We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
  • We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
  • We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.
  • We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
  • We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
  • We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.
  • We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
  • We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
  • We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
  • We shall not sell fermented drinks.
  • We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
  • We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
  • We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.
  • We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly.
  • We shall not raise our voices when following our dead.
  • We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets.
  • We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
  • We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
  • We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
  • (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."
If Islam becomes the majority, and its rule is imposed on non-Muslims, I would not be surprised to see the example of the "Rightly Guided Caliphs", such as Umar, being emulated and instituted.

For now, let's just hope for accurate media portrayals of Islam and an enlightened populous at large.


GreekAsianPanda said...

I read that article in National Geographic; "The Forgotten Faithful." It was pretty good. But a couple of days ago I got my new issue of National Geographic Magazine and they have a section where they always post responses from readers of Nat Geo, and this time on that issue with the Christian Exodus article. A Muslim said that the artical was biased against Islam. "...Any scholar who mentions the brutal Christian Crusades would mention Salah al-Din." She said Salah al-Din was a Muslim who kicked out the crusaders and returned the battered Jews, Muslims, and Christians and restored their places of worship, and made sure all three religions were protected. "That makes me, as a Muslim, proud. And he only did what Islam taught him to do," she said. I'm not sure how the article was biased against Islam. Perhaps it's because when the Crusades were mentioned the author didn't talk about the good things Muslims did during the Crusades or something.
I'm no scholar on Islam and I don't know much about the Crusades, but I know this: the Crusaders were going against Jesus' teachings. I know certain Muslims who comment on this blog would object to that.

Ali said...

// Why, President Barak Obama even held an Iftar Dinner for Muslims, as newspapers in Pakistan will proclaim.//

Actually, this was started up by president bush.

Ali said...

//the Crusaders were going against Jesus' teachings. I know certain Muslims who comment on this blog would object to that.//

Strange, the christians go really wild when we say the same about the taliban and al-queda, even though numerous muslim scholors have condemned the actions of these groups.

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Ali said...
//the Crusaders were going against Jesus' teachings. I know certain Muslims who comment on this blog would object to that.//

Strange, the christians go really wild when we say the same about the taliban and al-queda, even though numerous muslim scholors have condemned the actions of these groups.

September 30, 2009 6:55 PM

ubiquitouserendipity says: okay ali, let's start from scratch. the crusades were wrong, as was the moslum desecration of ancient cultures and religions. so now we are even. bad for bad makes bad.

now that we are even, letting go of long past sins, let's consider who now are the ONLY terrorists active in the world today? those ubiquitious hate-filled mohammedans. therein lies the problem. everywhere in the world YOU GUYS are terrorizing and killing and maiming and raping and pillaging in the name of your false god mohammed and his cosmic bell-boy allah.

the only "moderate" mohammedans are in the west (and not all by any stretch who are in the west are "moderates"). and as far as i'm concerned, i take your book for what it says,,, for you guys. so whenever one of you speaks of the peaceful religion of mohammed, i know it is a lie.

you guys say you don't drink, but it's always another round of shots of taqqiya with you guys. drunk on deceit and hate is how i see you folks.

may the G_d of love and light, HE Who abides in unapproachable light, bless your heart and mind, and may His Holy Spirit draw you to the Savior, Jesus Christ the Lord. Peace, in His love, papajoe

minoria said...

The Muslim woman who wrote about Saladin doesn't know the whole truth.His original idea was to kill all the poeple in Jerusalem.This comes from a Muslim historian wrote about it by the way.He wrote about 100 or 150 years after the event.


Either her Muslim scholars did not know of that detail or they chose not to write it since it was contra-propaganda.The reason why he didn't do a massacre was because the leader of the defense of Jerusalem threatened to kill all the Muslims in Jerusalem in his power(I think it was 5,000) and destroy all the mosques.

So Saladin decided to get money out of it by saying he would let all who paid a certain small sum go free and leave the city.


But still some 15,000 did not have the money.I know Saladin felt pity and paid for,I think,around 1,000.But the others were sold as slaves.As you can see Saladin was no saint,he had his kind moments and his cruel moments.He was certainly no "knight in shining armor" or "pure example of chivalry."If a Muslim doubts what I have stated he can verify.


That is what happens when you read in the newspapers or popular magazines about "how Saladin acted differently."They are written by people who have not investigated enough.So they perpetrate a myth about how Saladin was so wonderful.

minoria said...

The problem regarding the Muslims who condemn Al-Qaida for example is that almost always they are at the same time in favor of SHARIA law.But Sharia law in any of its different forms is anti-human rights since it discriminates non-Muslims.It is a fact.

In fact,in 1990 no less than 57 Muslim countries,I think all in the world,signed the CAIRO ISLAMIC DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.It limits human rights to Sharia law.


Every week there is a program by QARADAWI,who is a Muslim cleric.He openly approves of killing innocent civilians in Israel,he has said it publicly.For him the suicide bombers of Hamas and Hizbullah are martyrs who go to heaven.The show is watched by I think 10 million people.For him no Israeli,even children,is innocent.Check him out on the Internet.QARADAWI is BIG,a star,in the Muslim world.


So why is he still in Al-Jazeera?Is it not supposed to be a serious news channel?Can you imagine a KKK Grand Wizard having a show in CNN or the BBC?


Those Muslims who condemn it are,in general,I think,sincere.They are shocked by the killing of innocents.Yet those same people in general have no trouble with the discrimination of non-Muslims under Sharia law.Why?For them Islamic law is the law of God,and to be aganst it means you can end up in hell.That is where they are in a DEAD END:they have to convince non-Muslims that Sharia law does not promote violation of our human rights.But it does.It is an IMPOSSIBLE task.You can not "SQUARE the CIRCLE."

mkvine said...

I just gotta say two words: Dearborn Michigan

Fernando said...

Hi Ali...

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Ali said:

"Strange, the christians go really wild when we say the same about the taliban and al-queda, even though numerous muslim scholors have condemned the actions of these groups."

Ali, the problem with just "saying the same thing" is that Islam's teachings are different from Christianity's. Jesus never promoted violence. Never did Jesus command his disciples to kill or harm anyone.

Muhammad, on the other hand, was immersed in violence and commanded it in response to virtually all problems. To simply say "Well, Islam doesn't teach violence!" wont cut it.

A scholar or a Muslim (perhaps you yourself) would have to show how to reconcile all of the violent Islamic commands with a peaceful interpretation of Islam in today's world.

I'd love to see that happen. Sincerely,

IslamSINS said...

1Pe 5:6 Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time
1Pe 5:8-11 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world. After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.
To Him be dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Our God, YHWH, the God of Israel, reigns. Muslims can pretend all they want, but they cannot change truth. They also cannot enter Heaven until they repent of Islam and turn from the corpse in Medina to the Living Christ, God in the flesh.

If "might makes right", Christ would have instructed His sheep to use a sword. Heaven cannot be taken by force, nor by humiliating and subduing Christians. The gift of eternal life has been offered to all, but it only comes through Jesus Christ. Christ said when the Comforter comes, He will convict the world of sin. Why? Because we drink, curse, smoke, fornicate? No, but because we have not believed in the only Christ, sent to pay the sin debt of the world.

Muslims can bully and "pact" Christians for a little while, but they're trading their eternal souls for some brief, earthly dominance.

Jesus Christ will not be bullied when He returns as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Please, Muslims, forsake the myopia of Muhammad's Islam; it cannot grant you eternal life, but it will curse you with eternal death.

The Fat Man said...

GreekAsianPanda Said ...
I don't know much about the Crusades, but I know this: the Crusaders were going against Jesus' teachings. I know certain Muslims who comment on this blog would object to that.

First the crusades all though dressed in Chrisianity, had nothign to do with Christ. They were a response to the 4 centuries of islamic expanisim, and conquest of the Roman Empire. Had the feudal states been able to keep it together and had they maintained a united front against the Arab Islamic imperialim, islam would of been destroyed.

We the civilized world must stop bickery amongst ourselves to confront this threat that is not only outside our borders but is now with in them.

This is not a christian verses islam thing. If you belong to any of the following groups, ISlam is your enemy.

11.any other ist, or group that is not Islamist.

Islam is also a enemy of the various sects of islam. What determines what is true Islam is what ever group is left standing after the blood dries and the dust settles.

Islam is against Civilization, and must be eradicated from the face of the earth. Mohamed and his merry band of followers need to be reduced to what Parents tell there children to get them to eat there vegatables.

"If you dont eat your vegatables then Mohamed and his companions will come at night and snatch you away."

ashraf said...

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Jesus never promoted violence. Never did Jesus command his disciples to kill or harm anyone.

Then throw out the stories from bible written by authors other than your lord jesus.Can you do that mr.Nabeel?

Royal Son said...

Ashraf - Would you throw out the Quran which was not written by Mohammad ?