For arguments sake if we consider your view quote: "isn’t the word meant to refer to those unbelievers who are second class citizens, and who...in Islam...it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against." Un-quote.
Do you feel that this alleged DHIMMI 'discrimination' in Islam is worse than present day Caste system where any of the Hindu hereditary classes whose members have no social contact with other classes; or that of Segregation, where enforced separation of ethnic groups in a community were enforced, like we witnessed in Bosnia?
Legend: Dhimmis were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims and acknowledging Muslim supremacy.[6] Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"[7] (but now lower under the Muslim rule[8][9][10]) and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of the dhimmi's subjection.[7] Negative attitudes towards Dhimmis existed partly due to the "normal" feelings of a dominant group towards subject groups, partly due to the contempt Muslims have for those who they perceive have willfully chosen to refuse to accept the truth (convert to Islam) while the opportunity to do so exists; and partly due to certain specific prejudices and humiliations. The negative attitudes however rarely had any ethnic or racial components.[11] Various restrictions and legal disabilities were placed on Dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[12] Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character.[13] Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs,[14] although persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical.[15] While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe":[16] for example, in contrast, Dhimmis rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions they were free in their choice of residence and profession.[17]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
Legend: Jihad has a wider meaning in Islamic literature. It can be striving to lead a good Muslim life, praying and fasting regularly, being an attentive spouse and parent or working hard to spread the message of Islam.[2] Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defence of Islam, the holy war.
Islamic scholar Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the greater jihad. ("Jihad al-akbar"). Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadeeth, in which Muhammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against unbelievers to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur'an and other writings.[5][6]
2006-12-03 03:03:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Hafiz 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
As I read the definition, it seems that dhimmi are second-class citizens, but are afforded a number of protections that non-muslims do NOT enjoy in many places in the Middle East today.
2006-12-03 10:55:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by actuator 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
Muslims are taught to lie if they believe lying will help spread islam. They know certain aspects of islam will cause most people to reject islam if muslims tell the truth. Like Hitler, muslims try to hide their true intentions until they have the power to enforce their will. Look at Sudan, where arab muslims have black African (mostly Christian) slaves now, and are committing genocide in their attempt to spread islam by the sword, following the example set by muhammad himself once muhammad had the power to abandon his pretense of peaceful intentions.
2006-12-03 10:49:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
This sort of thing terrifies me and I can only hope it is not true. I am NOT an infidel and refuse to be treated as one! Merry Christmas!!
2006-12-03 10:55:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by maria bartoninfrance 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
yes . they will pay with there lives when the Messiah comes
2006-12-03 10:51:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋