Dhimmitude @ MindSay 
I have found an English subtitled and English language version of Geert Wilders’ Movie Short Fitna at the Exposing Islam blog. Whatever you think about Wilders’ politics as to place on the political pole – Rightwing or fringe Rightwing – Fitna utilizes the words, pictures, sound bytes and film excerpts of what Islamic people holy men following the Quran.
Global Islam (radical and so-called moderate) has worked hard to squelch this Movie Short to be broadcast on television. Islamic pressure even pressured Wilders’ webhost to not allow Fitna to be shown under its ISP. It will be interesting how long LiveLeak will allow having Fitna shown since the West seems to be dhimmified into petrification at the complaint of Islamic organizations in the West and in the Middle East.
Fitna was put together under the sponsorship of a Dutch citizen however it is a Wake-up America, nay a Wake-up World moment. Wake-up for Islam is using victimization as an excuse to curb Freedom of Speech. Republican Representative Peter Hoekstra has made this clear in his opinion about how Islam threatens the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech in America. Insults and critical speech has been allowed against questionable faiths that are more like cults and political ideologies from the Left and the Right in America for quite some time. It has only at the cry of Islamophobia (i.e. the accusation of hate speech) by Islamic organizations as well as domestic and foreign mullahs and imams has Freedom of Speech has been criticized.
What is the worry of the West and Freedom of Speech critical of Islam? It is the dhimmified fear of global rioting and violence by the so-called religion of peace when offense is taken. Our modern sense of political correctness has allowed the criticism of Christianity, Judaism, Capitalism, Communism, Nazism, Democracy and other faiths. Yet when the potential of malicious violence looms at criticism of Islam the West slinks under a rock rather than stand for hard fought principles of Democracy and Liberty.
AGAIN I SAY, “WAKE-UP!’
LIVELEAK VERSION. (I had to hit refresh to get the page to come up on my browser.)
There is evil in this world. Philosophically evil may be perceived many different ways or to relatively not exist at all. Of course this is all bogus mindsets.
Evil can be known by the fruit it produces. Evil crosses theological concepts yet most theologies condemn the fruit of evil even when exacted by theological adherents.
The central theme of most of the world’s major religions is peace, tranquility and some kind of deliverance or escape from an evil world to a Heaven or union with God or the All.
Guess which religion promises a Paradise of worldly pleasures of selfish sex for the males that die exacting evil violence on combatants and innocents alike? Guess which religion promises Paradise for being in submission to its deity and prophet while simultaneously its adherents plunder innocent people and rape women?
You will not find this in the Scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism or even in eclectic faiths as Baha’i. You will find this in the assumed holy scriptures of Mohammedanism.
Mohammedanism will call all who do not believe in Allah and its prophet Mohammed as evil and doomed to judgment. Mohammedanism will fabricate lies about Christianity and Judaism as the people of the Book and allow them to live only if they promise submission to Allah. The current goal of the majority of Middle Eastern Mohammedans is the death of monikers Great Satan (America) and the little Satan (Israel). Mohammedanism wiped the existence of Buddhism from Afghanistan and ancient India. Mohammedanism tortured and murdered polytheistic Hindus in genocidal numbers until it was decided for convenience sake to extend dhimmitude and the jizya tax on the Hindus to perpetuate empire.
What is evil? It is a group of people that practice a religion stuck in the Middle Ages time zone while the present is the 21st Century. What is evil are the Mohammedans residing in Western nations and yet subscribing to Wahhabi tenets that believe nothing in Mohammedan theology is valid after 1000 AD (by Christian reckoning).
What is ludicrous is judging Mohammedanism by Western values of Freedom and Liberty when those very principles are used to encourage Mohammedan supremacy at the expense of Freedom and Liberty.
There is an incredible intrusion on Freedom of Speech being perpetrated on college campuses. A group of Resident Assistants (RA) made a video parody of Mohammedan hostage takers speaking in cartoonish voices. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) contacted Long Island University to inform this insensitivity needs to be addressed.
The University bowed to the dhimmitude of CAIR and promptly fired the RA’s for failing to be sensitive roll models for students in the Dorm.
Imagine that! CAIR demands sensitivity to Mohammedan terrorists who torture and behead American and Jews. Long Island University agrees with CAIR. Long Island University should be caring more about the sensitivity of Americans to the terrorists that CAIR supports and simultaneously claims to represent the peaceful Mohammedans living in America. CAIR is an oxymoron: it supports terrorism privately and claims to be a moderate Islamic (I prefer Mohammedanism – I am a Christian) to the American government and media in public.
I was alerted to this hypocritical travesty by Anti-CAIR via an e-newsletter:
News & Analysis
004/07 February 8, 2007
CAIR: Offended by Rubber Duck
On February 7, the “Newsday.com” web site carried a story about college employee’s being fired over a video they posted that insults Islam.
The video, by five student resident hall assistants (RA’s), mocked real-life terrorists by holding a rubber duck, “Pete”, as hostage. The five spoke in exaggerated accents, wore terrorist garb, and were generally insensitive to Muslim terrorists.
How do we know that they were insensitive to Muslim terrorists?
Simple: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) got involved.
In the words of CAIR’s spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper: “It’s something that needs to be addressed”.
Really? Five students mock Muslim terrorists (We assume they are mocking Muslims, else why would Hooper get involved?), and this is “something that needs to be addressed?”
Parroting CAIR’s attitude, university provost Joseph Shenker said that student RA’s "…function as role models and as teachers for the other students…"We expect them to be instructing our students on being sensitive regarding all groups.”
There we have it. Student RA’s are expected to be sensitive to all groups; including Muslim terrorists.
Shenker continues: “I think the tape was an insult to the victims and families involved in hostage situations.”
If so, why didn’t Newsday.com find a beheading victim to interview?
Would it be because they are all dead at the hands of Muslim terrorists?
As to the families, there were none mentioned in the article. Even so, we find it very hard to believe that anyone would mind mocking Muslim terrorists.
Except CAIR
Imagine that!
Yes, imagine that. Academia is more concerned about Politically Correct Mohammedan sensitivity than the sensitivity of Americans murdered and executed by radical Islamist terrorists. The very organizations approved by CAIR.
I recently found out dhimmi is pronounced zim-mee. I always pronounced it as dim-mee. This is a word that all Americans and Westerners should become extremely familiar with. In nations in which Mohammedanism is the predominant religion, it is still practiced. It is an Apartheid system that way pre-dates anything once Caucasian ruled South Africa came up with. Indeed, dhimmitude may make Apartheid appear tame.
************************************
Dhimmitude for Dummies
By Victor Sharpe
Front Page Magazine
Sourced from: American Congress For Truth
Ask one hundred people in the United States what a dhimmi is and perhaps two or three might know. In Western Europe the number would be slightly higher because of latent memories of battles fought against invading Moslem armies over hundreds of years.
In 732, Charles Martel led his Frankish forces at Tours to victory against an Islamic invasion of France, which nearly destroyed Christian Europe. Similarly, Islam was ousted from Spain in 1492 after an occupation of the Iberian Peninsula by the Moslems for hundreds of years. Sadly, the Spanish Christian monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand, and the Portuguese a few years later, also expelled the Jewish community although the Jews had lived in Spain and Portugal for many centuries and had never posed a threat to either Moslem or Christian sovereignty.
In Italy, Islamic power was brought to an end when the heavy Turkish galleys were defeated by Venetian galleasses at the great naval battle of Lepanto in 1571. And the Moslem Ottoman power, which at its height again threatened all of Western Europe, was barely turned back at the gates of Vienna on 11 September 1683 by a coalition of European armies. Incidentally, could there be a connection between 9.11.1683 and 9.11.2001, or is it just coincidence?
These were four major defeats by Europe of Islamic attempts of conquest and subjugation set against a history of victorious Moslem invasions and conquests that had been the hallmark of Islam since its founding in the seventh century.
But what of the peoples and nations that fell under Islamic occupation? For them the story was one of forced conversions to Islam, slavery, death and the Islamic institution of dhimmitude.
This is the word that describes the parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated, non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second class citizens in order to avoid enslavement or death. These peoples and populations were known as dhimmis, and if such a status was not humiliating enough, a special tax or tribute, called the jizya, was imposed upon them and upon all dhimmis.
Dhimmitude is the direct outcome of jihad, which is the military conquest of non-Islamic territory mandated by Allah as a spiritual obligation for every individual Moslem and Moslem nation.
From its beginnings in the seventh century, Islam spread through violent conquest of non-Moslem lands. In the eighth century, a formal set of rules to govern relationships between Moslems and non-Moslems was created based upon Moslem conquests of non-Moslem peoples. These rules were based upon jihad, which established how the Moslems would treat the conquered non-Moslems in terms of their submission to Islam.
Jihad can be pursued through force or other means such as propaganda, writing, or subversion against the perceived enemy. The so-called enemies are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law or its spread, mission, or sovereignty over them and their land.
Propaganda and subversion are the very means now being employed against the West and Judeo-Christian civilization, and Islamists have shown themselves to be brilliantly adept at manipulating the gullible and uninformed western media in pursuit of their aims of world domination.
As I have written in previous articles, non-Islamic lands are considered the dar al-harb, the house of war, until they submit to Islamic rule and enter the dar al-Islam. The ‘infidel’ falls into three categories: those who resist Islam with force, those living in a country that has a temporary truce with Islam, and those who have surrendered to Islam by exchanging land for peace.
Since the Oslo Accords, successive Israeli governments have been guilty of the now thoroughly discredited notion of “land for peace” in which Israel gives away land but never receives peace. Even the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan are cold at best and the lands given away to Lebanon and the Arab Palestinians has been a calamitous error. The belief that Moslem Arab powers respond to overtures of peace by ending their aggression is but a mirage in the desert. This is proven time and again to be a delusion and is, in fact, a classic example of the mindset and behavior of the dhimmi.
A non-Moslem community forced to accept dhimmitude is condemned to live in a system that will only protect it from jihad if it is subservient to the Moslem master. In return, it is guaranteed limited rights under a system of discriminations that it must accept, or face forced conversion, slavery, or death.
In the early years of the Islamic conquests, the tribute or jizya was paid as a yearly poll tax, which symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Jews and Christians were awarded a different status than other faiths. They were considered to be under protection as “people of the book.” People of non-monotheistic faiths, pagans, or atheists were simply to be exterminated.
According to Mitchell G. Bard, who has written extensively on the subject and produced the excellent rebuttal to Arab and pro-Arab propaganda in his book, Myths and Facts, “... dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman (though a Moslem man could take a non-Moslem as a wife).
“Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices as that might offend the Moslems.
“The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Moslems, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Moslem, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself the dhimmi would have to purchase Moslem witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Moslem.
“Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later.”
By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Moslem lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice-Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:
“The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.”
The concept of jihad is not something now discarded by Islam as a quaint belief appropriate to the distant past. On the contrary, it is a cardinal belief in the 21st century for Moslems based upon Koranic injunctions. It is believed in by millions of Moslems around the Third world, as much as by Moslems living in America, Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It is a belief, passionately held, that one day the entire world will become Islamic and accept completely the will of Allah.
It is vital, therefore, that the general public in every non-Moslem country be made aware that Moslems consider themselves in a perpetual state of war with their non-Moslem neighbors. If Islamic armies are unable to defeat what they consider the “infidels,” (that’s you and me), then a period of truce exists, which has several conditions. These include allowing Islam to be propagated, and if a non-Moslem nation forbids it or rejects mass proselytizing to Islam, then that nation will be considered as subject to holy jihad.
Sheikh Zayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaida’s second in command, recently invited America to embrace Islam. The invitation is always given, according to some experts, prior to a major assault upon the “infidel nation,” because any rejection is considered by Moslems as an empirical reason to wage war upon the non-Moslem state; in this case the United States of America.
It is nearly impossible for sophisticated and secularized Western and European elites to understand or accept such medieval concepts, let alone the idea that a religious war is being waged against them. But their dismissal and amused disregard of what is taking place is as calamitous as that exemplified by the myopic politicians in Britain and America before the Second World War.
The lone voice in the wilderness at that time, Winston Churchill, appealed in vain to the political leaders who had not the ears to hear or the eyes to see the growing fascist menace during the 1930s posed by Germany and Italy. He called one such British politician an “epileptic corpse,” and reached back through his prodigious memory to find a poem, which characterized the failure of the Baldwin government in 1935 to re-arm. The apt poem was, The Clattering Train, which could equally be applied to the later appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax.
“Those in charge of the clattering train, the axles creak and the couplings strain. The pace is hot and the points are near and sleep has deadened the driver’s air. The signals flash in the night in vain, for death is in charge of the clattering train.”
Western notions of peaceful co-existence between states, human rights and liberal democracy are all alien to the bin-Ladens and Zawahiris of the Islamic world. Hizbullah, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Al Qaida, ad nauseum, all reject Judeo-Christian civilization as being in theological error. For them, the entire human race must embrace Allah’s pre-eminence and the Moslem believer is the divine instrument to bring about the Umma (worldwide Moslem community) in whatever way possible, including warfare and terror.
Jihad has reappeared as a way of wiping out the humiliation the Arab and Moslem world has felt as Western power became ascendant, especially after the defeat of the Ottoman Turkish Empire at the end of the First World War.
With a fabulous and never ending flow of petrodollars pouring into Arab and Moslem coffers, the belief among Moslems is that the time is now right for Islam to reassert itself in dominating the world and bringing it to Allah through all out war, including nuclear war, if necessary.
The corollary to jihad is dhimmitude. This is what appeasement by non-Moslems to Islamist threats and terror leads to. Winston Churchill would have been shocked but not surprised at the craven appeasement displayed by today’s elitists in the European political echelons.
It is in marked contrast to the manner in which their ancestors confronted an earlier existential Islamic threat when they defeated decisively the Moslems at Tours, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Lepanto and Vienna.
But without a similarly decisive defeat of present day Islamist aggression and Islamo-fascism we may all be faced, sooner than we think, with the choice of forced conversion to Islam or subservience and wretchedness as dhimmis.
Better, therefore, for us all to be aware of the facts and not also be dummies.
Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace.
Further study: Dhimmitude.
I read from Pedestrian Infidel that President Bush has caved in about the term “Islamic Fascist.” Pedestrian Infidel based its analysis on an AP story about remarks President Bush made about terrorists:
STATE DEPARTMENT President Bush has avoided repetition of a term that angered Muslims.
Responding last week to the foiling of an alleged plot to blow up flights between Britain and the United States, Bush said, "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists."
That triggered immediate objections from the Council of American-Islamic Relations, and another objection today from the government of Saudi Arabia.
In a statement after its weekly meeting, the Saudi Cabinet "warned against labeling Muslims with accusations of terrorism and fascism."
Bush didn't repeat the reference to "Islamic fascists" at the State Department today, referring instead to "individuals that would like to kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives." [Emphasis Added]
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Still considering the alternatives to Bush, he is the best man for the job (as of 2004 anyway). It is a good thing Bush has to give way to another Republican in 2008, he is shooting the image of tough on terror and rogue states all to hell. I am deeply disappointed to read that Bush utilized different terminology for using one point of actual clarity - Islamic fascists.
Pedestrian Infidel is so upset that he entitled his post “Dhimmi Bush Bows To His Saudi Masters - No More 'Islamic Fascists'.” I understand this frustration for Bush has slowly seemed to back off the tough guy image as of late. I suspect the Lame Duck President is caving into politics because he knows someone else will have to finish what he started. I certainly hope it is a Republican that has the cajones to address the evil that is Islamofascism, regardless of what Wahhabi influenced Saudis say.
On the other hand I suspect a Democrat might try to sell Michigan to Saudi Arabia or Iran as Appeasement for calling off the Islamofascists dogs.