Islam 101

ISLAM OPPRESSES RELIGIOUS MINORITIES

“[T]he taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin.”
(Jalaloddin As-Suyuti, 1445-1505 AD)

In my first series of articles, I made brief reference to the system of the dhimma, which institutionalises discrimination and oppression against non-Muslims in Muslim lands. But what does this entail in practice?

Dhimmis are non-Muslims (particularly the People of the Book: Jews and Christians) living under Islamic rule. Islamic law dictates that while dhimmis are free to practise their own religions in an Islamic state, they are only allowed to do so under severely restrictive conditions which emphasise their second-class status at every turn and are designed to make sure the dhimmis “feel themselves subdued”, as per Qur'an 9:29:

“[Dhimmis] are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum" [the traditional Muslim greeting “peace be with you”]; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, [or] to ring church bells or display crosses, recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches.” (Umdat al-Salik)

Furthermore, “If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.”

The “non-Muslim poll tax”, of course, is the jizya, also referred to in Qur'an 9:29. This was the cornerstone of the dhimmi system, and provided the main source of income for many Islamic empires throughout history. Some have erroneously compared the jizya to zakat, a Muslim charity tax, claiming that while dhimmis paid the jizya, Muslims paid zakat. Unfortunately for such apologists, though, the only similarity between the two is that they are both taxes. Zakat was usually 2.5% of a Muslim's annual earnings and was enforced loosely and with certain concessions available, with the money going to the poor and needy in the Muslim community. By contrast, the jizya was often set so high that dhimmis could not afford to pay it; it was collected by force and the funds went directly towards financing the Islamic state.

The jizya was also, historically, a good way of continuing the institutionalised humiliation of the dhimmis. It was often collected as part of a demeaning and belittling ceremony in which the Muslim tax official would hit the dhimmi over the head as he placed the money on the scales. The thirteenth-century jurist an-Nawawi directed that “the infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector; the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks.”

Likewise, many Islamic scholars expressed the view that dhimmis should be made to feel inferior, with Ibn Kathir declaring that the dhimmis must be “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”

It was largely because of the jizya that several prosperous non-Muslim populations were whittled down to tiny, despised minorities. Because of this unbearable tax, many dhimmis chose to convert to Islam in the hope that their lives would be improved. As a result, some religious demographics virtually vanished from the face of the Earth. For example, the Assyrian Christians, who were once all over Central Asia and the Middle East, are now largely confined to Iraq, where they face continuous persecution from Muslim radicals. Similarly Zoroastrianism, once the dominant religion in Persia, is now virtually non-existent except as a tiny minority in Iran.

Islamic apologists often point out that Islamic law forbids forced conversion, based on the Qur'an: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256). By mentioning this, they hope to make the case that early Islam's violent expansion was against the principles of the religion. But while this verse is in any case open to some interpretation, it is also beside the point. By and large, Islam did not spread by Muslims forcing non-Muslims to convert (although this did often happen). What spread by the sword was the hegemony of the Islamic legal system, which institutionalised discrimination against non-Muslims in the form of the dhimma. Subsequently, being a dhimmi was such an oppressive and horrible way to live that many dhimmis chose to convert. So the religion was not forced on them, but at the same time it was their only path to a livable existence.

Apologists have also been known to dredge up instances in which certain caliphs or Islamic rulers relaxed the dhimmi laws, or even cases where Jews and Christians achieved things of importance, or rose to levels of high authority, while living in Muslim lands. However, this hardly speaks volumes for Islamic tolerance. If the oppressions were sometimes lifted, it was not because Islam moved away from them. In fact, the dhimmi laws were still on the books, ready to be reinforced at any time, and often when they were relaxed Muslims would riot and rebel, complaining of a “breach of sharia”. Certainly, the dhimma was enforced by Muslim rulers throughout history more often than it was not.

Others even go as far as to suggest that even if non-Muslims were oppressed in the Middle Ages, this is nothing compared to how medieval Christians treated Jews. And it is true that Christianity has a history shamefully mired by anti-Semitism. Many popes forced oppressions on the Jews which were very similar to those inflicted on dhimmis. However, there is nothing in Christian tradition which mandates the subjugation of Jews, and many popes also relaxed or abolished these laws. There may have been much anti-Semitism in Christianity's past, but it is not as constant as in Islamic history. And in any case, Christian oppression of Jews was usually not as harsh as dhimmitude. For example, while the dhimma forbids Jews from publicly celebrating their religious festivals, Gregory X decreed in 1272 that Jews under his “protection” could do so, and he also opted for a form of fairness in not allowing Jews and Christians to testify against each other – whereas sharia law allows a Muslim to testify against a dhimmi, but a dhimmi cannot testify against a Muslim.

Modern jihadists are open and unreserved about their desire to see sharia law implemented in the West, and this would undoubtedly include the re-institution of the dhimma. Numerous clerics and scholars, such as Sheik Marzouq Salem al-Ghamdi in a sermon at a mosque in Mecca in 2002, have called for the dhimma to be re-instated. If the jihadists or their non-violent sympathisers were to get their way, non-Muslims would be discriminated against as part of judicial law. This is one reason why all non-Muslims, no matter their faith or lack thereof – and indeed, all Muslims of good will, also – should do their utmost to ensure that this intolerant system is never allowed to take root in the West.

Unfortunately, too many remain indifferent.

Next time: If you're a Muslim male, you're free from oppression under sharia, right? Wrong.