”By Jacob Thomas”
My interest in the life of Dhimmis (Christians and Jews) under Islam goes back to my childhood. I am an Eastern Christian from the Levant and I was a Dhimmi. As soon as I became aware of my cultural environment, I discovered that fact. I belonged to a minority group. That’s quite disturbing to a child, especially if it is a constant topic of discussion as it was for me as I listened to my father’s stories at meal times. His experiences while serving as a soldier in the Ottoman Army during WWI were a large part of the subject matter of the many stories he related to his family. By the time I began my schooling, I realized that something quite unusual and troubling must have occurred way back in history to put me in a special category of humanity that was considered to be inferior to others.
My formal education took place when the French were in control of the northern part of the Levant (Syria and Lebanon.) We were taught the history of the Middle East, which took into consideration the many people groups that made up its character. Thus, we learned about all the ancient peoples such as the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Aramaic-speaking people of Mesopotamia and Syria. But no sooner than the French left the Levant after WWII, than the teaching of history, at least in Syria, changed drastically. The country’s leaders were not as enlightened as the European colonists had been about teaching history. The children were soon given a new interpretation of the area’s beginnings. It was as if the Levant’s history actually began with the Arab conquest, and everything that had preceded it was of no consequence!
Many years later, I remembered this shift in educational philosophy when reading V. S. Naipaul’s book “Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among Converted People.” * He described how Islam changes everything including the history of nations its followers conquer:
“Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his. The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil.” P. xi
My background as a Dhimmi child thus left me with a keen and personal interest in the history of Dhimmis. I was therefore intrigued to recently find two articles (24 and 31 May, 2009) in the Arabic-language website of the daily Al-Awan relating to the lives of Dhimmis in 19th century Damascus, which at the time, was an important part of the vast Ottoman Empire. The author had access to several original documents, both in Arabic and in Western languages, with many details that one rarely finds in academic books on Middle East History.
Here are excerpts from the articles, followed by my analysis and comments:
“The plight of Dhimmis living under Islamic rule remained the same for centuries. Their treatment was deplorable. They were regarded as third-class citizens. That changed when the Ottoman Sultan Abdel-Majid proclaimed the Tanzimat or reforms that altered the lives of Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire. These are undisputable historical facts.
“Nevertheless, the claim made by most Arab writers and apologists that “History has never known any kinder conquerors than the Arabs,” is mere propaganda. In fact, to speak about this legendary love and utopian tolerance that portrays Muslims as “United Nations peace envoys” amounts to a falsification of the history of Islam.
“For example, at the very dawn of that history [in Arabia,] the massacre of Bani Quraiza occurred and took the lives of 600 to 900 Jews. Their heads rolled into the trenches they were forced to dig! Another shocking event was the attack on the Jews of the Khaybar Oasis, which resulted in the killing of its men, and the “distribution “of its women as concubines for the victorious Muslim men!
“The reputed Arab ‘tolerance’ manifested itself in the horrific massacre of Imam Hussein,the grandson of Muhammad, by the army of Caliph Yezid bin Mu’awiya, the founder of the Arab Islamic Umayyad Civilization!
It is not my intention to defend Christians and Jews, and to attack Muslims. My goal is to unmask those terrible deeds in Islamic history that have been glossed over by Arab historians who are unwilling to admit their mistakes. Perhaps by pointing to such events, I may succeed in forcing them to adopt an attitude that is in harmony with the rest of the civilized world.
This brings me to my main subject,
“Accounts of the Lives of Dhimmis in 19th Century Damascus under Ottoman Rule.”
“The Ottoman Turks occupied Syria in 1516, after defeating the Mamluks. Their treatment of the Dhimmi population remained unchanged from that prevailing under the previous Islamic regimes until the promulgation of the Tanzimat (Reforms) of Sultan Abdel Majid (1839-1861.)
“These were the regulations that governed the lives of Christians and Jews in Damascus under the Ottoman rule prior to the reforms mentioned above:
“A Dhimmi could not criticize the Qur’an, or claim that it had been altered; he could not say anything derogatory about the Prophet, or Islam; he could not attempt to change a Muslim’s religion, rob him of his fortune, or make an attempt on his life. During a time of war, a Dhimmi must not help the enemies of Islam.
“Furthermore, Dhimmis were required to wear clothes of a different color than Muslims’ clothes, and have belts around the waist. When at their places of worship, the loud ringing of bells was forbidden; when reading their Scriptures, they could not raise their voices; they were refrained from drinking wine in public. Their homes were not allowed to be higher than Muslims’ homes; Dhimmis were not to bury their dead in secrecy and express their grief in low tones without raising their voices. Dhimmis were not allowed to ride on horses, but only on mules and donkeys!
“Any non-compliance with the above-mentioned regulations was considered a breach in the Covenant of Dhimma which made a Dhimmi liable to insults, and sometimes led to his death by the orders of the governmental authorities in Damascus.
“Another example of Christian humiliation occurred in Damascus. When leaving his home, a Christian was required to have a sac slung over his shoulder, in order to be ready to accompany a Muslim on his way to the market and carry (in his sac) the groceries of that Muslim “boss”! Quite often, such a Christian might spend most of his day in this forced and degrading service to unknown Muslims he had met by chance!
“And as these events multiplied, it was the custom among Christian families when visiting their friends to inquire, ‘How many times were you forced today to carry the bag for the Muslims you had encountered?’ And, ‘On your way home, how often were you slapped by Muslims?’
The level of persecution of the Christians in Damascus would increase whenever the Ottomans were fighting European powers. This happened during the Greek revolution early in the 19th century, and in the wars between Turkey and Russia. The height of persecution of Christians took place in Istanbul (Constantinople) when the Sultan ordered the execution, by hanging, of the Orthodox Patriarch and several of his priests on Easter Sunday.
“The conditions surrounding the lives of Dhimmis in Damascus continued to be in state of flux, depending on the wars between the Ottomans and some European powers. Finally, a new and better era began when Ibrahim Pasha, the son of Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt, liberated Damascus on 15 July, 1832, and declared the equality of all the citizens of Damascus, whether they were Christians, Jews, or Muslims.
“Now Christians and Jews were allowed to wear bright colored clothes, and ride horses, and were no longer required to dismount upon meeting a Muslim on the road. Ibrahim Pasha declared that a Dhimmi’s testimony against a Muslim was to be accepted in the courts. All the rules and regulations that had been instituted to humiliate Dhimmis were abolished as Ibrahim Pasha sought to create a secular state in the Levant as inspired by the country he admired so much, namely France!”
Analysis
The author of the two articles, by drawing on original sources describing the life of Dhimmis in 19th century Damascus, has added to the literature of these persecuted people, by going to the actual sources. These sources demonstrated the complete falsity of the claim that Islam’s leaders treated with kindness the conquered peoples who did not convert to Islam.
Comments
Many Western political leaders show their ignorance of Islam when they assume that Islam was or is a peaceful religion. Their public pronouncements of this ongoing theme, does not contribute at all towards a real change in the status of Christians and Jews living in Daru’l Islam. It is therefore heartening to read in an Arabic-language website articles that do not hide the past discriminatory and humiliating status of Dhimmis. Even though in the past the Jewish population of the Arab world was higher, it is now almost non-existent. The change came with the birth of the State of Israel in 1948. As for the Christian population of the Middle East, their numbers are dwindling as well and in an alarming way. Even after the liberation of Iraq from Saddam’s brutal regime, the plight of its Christian population has deteriorated, with thousands being forced to seek refuge in neighboring countries and throughout the Western world.
As I noted in my 7 June, 2009, article, “Islam’s Law of Apostasy in our Globalized World”:
“The relation between Islam and the rest of the world is marked by asymmetry. Muslims may and do enjoy all kinds of freedoms and privileges in the lands of the Kuffar; however non-Muslims are not granted the same rights and privileges when they live in Daru’l Islam. Western politicians don’t seem to notice this anomaly; while most Western academicians don’t appear concerned about this lack of quid pro quo in the Islamic world. In our globalized world, this state of affairs should not continue.”
I am thankful that an Arab intellectual has addressed the readers of Al-Awan, (most of whom are of the rising generation,) by calling upon them to rid themselves of the myths that glorified Islamic history. It is to be hoped that when confronted with the truth, they will be more receptive to the principles that govern countries of the free world. A good beginning would encompass believing all citizens are worthy of dignity, respect and equality.
*Naipaul, V.S. Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among the Converted Peoples. New York: Random House, 1998
The Link to the original Arabic article is: http://www.alawan.org/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%8A%D9%91-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%91,5109.html
Source: www.faithfreedom.org/.../the-intolerable-life-of-dhimmis-in-19th-century-damascus/
IHS
”How happy must it be to kill all your male relatives (father, husband, brothers and uncles), to enslave all your female relatives (mother and sisters and aunts), and to enjoy a wedding on the same day”
By Edmund Pickett
Muhammad was the kindest man who ever lived, according to Muslims. He was filled with love and compassion for all living things. In fact, he was the only perfect human being who ever lived, according to Muslims. If you want to lead a perfect life, you just have to look at Muhammad and do what he did.
I’m no Muslim, but I’ve always yearned to be perfect, so I decided to get myself some sex slaves. Muhammad had several, in addition to ten or a dozen wives. This is all legal according to God’s laws, given in the Qur’an, and God’s laws don’t change. What was legal 1400 years ago is legal today.
There has been a polite tradition in English of referring to these sex workers by the old-fashioned euphemism “concubines,” but we’re not living in the Victorian era, so let’s use plain English. They were slaves and their job was to provide sex. By the way, those dark-eyed virgins waiting for Muslim martyrs in paradise are also sex slaves. If they were only there to serve heavenly tea and cookies they wouldn’t have to be virgins, right?
I’m still wondering about certain practical problems of acquiring my slaves, since Islamic law is not recognized in the United States, but I decided to start researching Islamic sources on the subject, so I’ll know how to handle my women when I do get them. In particular I want to know the kind way to deal with sex slaves. The Qur’an doesn’t have a lot of detailed slave management advice, but that’s not really a problem. There are thousands of traditional stories about the prophet’s daily life and sayings known as hadith, collected after his death by people who knew him. There are six main collections of hadith considered reliable by Muslims and these books have authority equal to the Qur’an. I found just what I needed in the collection known as Sahih Bukhari, in volumes I, IV and V.
After the Battle of Khaybar one of Muhammad’s soldiers named Dihya asked the Prophet if he could choose one of the captive women. Muhammad told him to take his pick, but not long afterwards some other soldiers told Muhammad that Dihya had snagged the hottest babe they had ever seen. The Messenger of Allah immediately ordered the couple to be brought to him. After one look at the slave, named Safiyya, Muhammed told Dihya to choose someone else. Safiyyah was not only gorgeous, she was high-class, the daughter of the chief of the tribe that had just been defeated. Bukhari adds that Safiyyah’s father and all the other men of her tribe had been killed. This means that those who didn’t die in battle were murdered as prisoners. Bukhari also notes that Safiyyah’s husband, Kinana, had just been tortured before being killed. You might be wondering at this point, as I was, how Muhammad (a.k.a. The Soul of Kindness & Compassion) would treat this unfortunate woman.
Wasting few words, Bukhari continues, “Muhammad immediately freed her and married her himself—since she agreed to convert to Islam, she was able to be elevated beyond the portion of a slave. That night Safiyyah was dressed as a bride and a wedding feast was hastily arranged. On the way out of Khaybar that night, Muhammad halted his caravan as soon as they were outside the oasis, pitched a tent and consummated the marriage.”
At this point I began to wonder if I have what it takes to own slaves in the authentically kind Islamic manner. The first un-Islamic thought that occurred to me is that Safiyyah might have preferred a longer engagement. Maybe she would have preferred a little time to mourn her father and her husband, a day or two to adjust to the fact that every adult man in her tribe had just been butchered. The dead would have included her brothers, cousins, nephews, every male above the age of say, fifteen. And perhaps Safiyyah could have used a little time to mourn for her mother, her sisters and all the children of the tribe, who were headed to the nearest slave market. I wondered also if the women and children were forced to watch the murder of their menfolk, but due to his extraordinary kindness I’m sure that Muhammad would have allowed them to look in the other direction. But then, screams carry a long way. When I think about that wedding feast, which Bukhari tells us was “hastily arranged,” I figure that Safiyyah probably noticed that all the guests were from the groom’s side.
But Muhammad’s unbelievable kindness really shines out in this story. After all, he freed her, gave her one thousand gold pieces and an escort of soldiers to take her wherever she wanted to go. She moved to Cairo, well outside Muslim control, and observed the one year period of mourning required by Jewish law. Then Muhammad sent her so many beautiful letters describing his great love for her that she returned to Mecca and married him.
Except I guess I made most of that up. In my version, though, she would have been really free, as in free to leave the man who had erased her tribe, free to accept or reject his proposal of marriage, free to decide if she wanted to bow down to him as the Anointed of God. In Bukhari’s version though, which is unimpeachable truth for Muslims, Safiyyah had a choice of (A.) remaining Jewish, in which case she would still be a sex slave, with the same status as Mary, another sex slave who was Christian, or choice (B.) she could convert and become a “wife” of Muhammad. Saying that Muhammad had set her free is absurd. She was a woman with nothing but the clothes she was wearing, she had no money, no food, no family, no one to protect her and she was surrounded by ten thousand soldiers who knew that God wanted them to kill Jews like her. If Muhammad had truly freed her, in the sense of cutting her loose and then forgetting about her, she would have starved to death or become the slave of some other soldier.
She was never offered freedom and she knew it, from the moment she and Dihya were ushered into the Prophet’s presence. When Muhammad looked her up and down and told Dihya to go pick himself another slave, Safiyyah knew that her future would be providing sexual services to Muhammad. She knew she was going to spend the rest of her life being raped by a man more than thirty years older than she was and that she would have to pretend to enjoy it. She could submit to him as a slave or as a quote, wife, unquote. I imagine that she chose “wife” in the hope that her higher status would allow her to help some of her people, who now had the status of livestock. Perhaps she thought she could convince Allah’s Messenger to choose her mother for a slave also, allowing them to remain together. However, if the Kindest Man Who Ever Lived showed any compassion to his new wife’s family, none of the books of canonical hadith mention it.
Bukhari does however conclude his tale with the truly romantic story of Muhammad pitching a fast tent on the edge of the oasis to sample the charms of his new bride A.S.A.P. Some people might find this a bit abrupt, but Muhammad had needs. Powerful needs. As he explained himself, in another hadith (Ibn Ishaq, 459) “(The Angel) Gabriel brought a kettle from which I ate and I was given the power of sexual intercourse equal to forty men.” In other words, it is Allah’s fault that The Soul Of Compassion was so horny he couldn’t wait to get Safiyyah into the tent.
From our wimpy 21st century viewpoint it might not be pleasant to contemplate that particular sex act, but I think we should try to imagine Safiyyah’s options when she found herself alone in that tent with the butcher of her people, who for some twisted hypocritical reason wanted to think of himself as her “husband.” Resistance would have meant death. She could have merely submitted. She could have let Allah’s Anointed do what he had come to do and hope it was quick…
But she was a woman of high status. Bukhari says that she was “the chief-mistress of the ladies of the tribes of Qurayzah and An-Nadir.” At that point she was the only high-ranking member of her tribe left and it was therefore her duty to do what she could to help her enslaved relatives. But she was now the newest wife of four, and she would be competing with those other three wives and several sex slaves in trying to gain influence with Muhammad. If she were to have any chance of helping what was left of her people, she would have to do more than submit to Muhammad, she would have to thrill him.
Her duty, and I imagine that she understood it, was to make the old murderer fall in love with her.
Sources:
Robert Spencer: The Truth About Muhammad
Sahih Bukhari, vol. I (book 8, #371)
Sahih Bukhari, vol. IV (book 53, #3169) cf. Ibn Sa’d vol.II, 144
Sahih Bukhari, vol. V (book 64, #4242)
See also the Wikipedia entry for Muhammad’s Wives, Safiyyah
Muhammad also had another sex slave named Rihana (or Rihayna), whose story is very similar to that of Safiyyah.
Source; http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/21/muhammad’s-sex-slaves/
IHS
”By Ibn Kammuna”
Introduction
Did you know that the Qur’an told us that the earth was ROUND 1400 years ago? If true, That is indeed a Miracle. The problem is we have plenty of evidence that all Muhammad did is reiterate the common belief of the time that the earth was FLAT. Many Qur’anic verses attest to this fact. In this article I will present the reader with a video (not posted here but available on the original posting) posted by Muslims trying to show that the Qur’an indeed contains passages claiming that the earth is round. The video relies on verses 39:5 and 79:30 (for the second video shown later) in the Qur’an. I will first introduce the video, then I will post the verses. After that I will provide some analysis. A bonus video for laughs is added toward the end of this short article.
Here is the video:
Proving that the earth is round
Here are the Qur’anic verses used in the video:
039.005
YUSUFALI: He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power – He Who forgives again and again?
PICKTHAL: He hath created the heavens and the earth with truth. He maketh night to succeed day, and He maketh day to succeed night, and He constraineth the sun and the moon to give service, each running on for an appointed term. Is not He the Mighty, the Forgiver?
SHAKIR: He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one runs on to an assigned term; now surely He is the Mighty, the great Forgiver.
079.030
YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);
PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth,
SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.
Analysis
First, let us analyze Verse 39:5. The verse is clearly talking about the day and night overtaking each other. You see, Muhammad observed like everyone else during his time that the day and night follow a pattern of gradual change from one to the other. Day and night succeed each other. Note that the verse itself goes against our current knowledge of astronomy. The verse speaks about the sun and the moon running to an assigned term. This is in fact a scientific mistake. The earth is in continuous movement around the sun. The moon moves in a similar manner around the earth as well as around the sun. Muhammad was just repeating the common knowledge of the day which assumed that the moon and the sun move around the earth. Yet, we have Muslims of the twenty first century believing that this verse tells that the earth is round!
Let us move to the second verse, verse 79:30. There is no need for any linguistic acrobatics here. Muhammad is saying the earth is flat. Allah spread it out. This was also common knowledge back then. The earth was believed to be flat. Yet again, Muslims miraculously see that this verse points to the fact that the earth is round!
Bonus for Laughs
Here is a good Muslimah’s video that believes that verse 79:30 above tells that the earth looks like an egg, not just any egg, but an Ostrich egg (I guess an Ostrich egg is the Real Mccoy in Islam). Why Ostrich? I have no idea where an Ostrich egg can be seen in verse 79:30, but an Ostrich is certainly a good bird for an egg choice! Here is the video
Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/quran-says-earth-round
IHS
