Bismillahi ar-Rahman ar-Raheem
As we have pointed out elsewhere in this site, we would be addressing this concept called “dhimmitude” and by Gods will, we will be performing a psychoanalysis of it upon the minds of those who invented the term. What we will do is to provide in-depth coverage on the intracacies of what the actual people of apostasy and anti-islamist have actually employed the term for. The following is a meaning given by the site “dhimmitude.org”
The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule
Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word “dhimmitude” as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye’or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word “dhimmitude” comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning “protected”. Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari’a.
This similarity, which includes also regional variations, has created a uniform civilization developed throughout the centuries by all non-Muslim indigenous people, who were vanquished by a jihad-war and governed by shari’a law. It is this civilization which is called dhimmitude. It is characterized by the different strategies developed by each dhimmi group to survive as non-Muslim entity in their Islamized countries. Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad.
Dhimmitude encompasses the relationship of Muslims and non-Muslims at the theological, social, political and economical levels. It also incorporates the relationship between the numerous ethno-religious dhimmi groups and the type of mentality that they have developed out of their particular historical condition which lasted for centuries, even in some Muslim countries, till today.
Dhimmitude is an entire integrated system, based on Islamic theology. It cannot be judged from the circumstantial position of any one community, at a given time and in a given place. Dhimmitude must be appraised according to its laws and customs, irrespectively of circumstances and political contingencies.
What we have found in our research between the speech given above and contrasting it with how this term has been implemented in various discussions are brought forth in the following observatory notes which are as follows
1. This term, in essence, was unilaterally formed in the mind of Bat Ye’or, who happens to be a zionist, to describe the thought of the non muslim groups within the civilization of Islam. The purpose of this gross endeavor was to ensure and to relinquish the validity of the views of these non muslim minorities, when it came in the form of praise for the freedom they received in Islamic society and the lack of tyranny that came from Islam which most other civilizations employed, to be useless in the face of dhimmitude. In other words, anything remotely propagated by these non muslim communities within the Islamic state that outlined the actuality of the shariah and how it treated its minorities (being defined by anti-islamists as “subjects”), is being marginalized by this neologic term to render such descriptions to be the by-product of “dhimmitude” and therefore not really worth academic overview.
2. The employment of this term resinates within the anti-islamist movements like the apostates of Islam and radical pundits like Spencer, Pipes, Brigette Gabriel, the Clarion Fund, The Heritage Foundation, and the list goes on. In other words, within the academic field of actual historians and specialists in the field, this term does not signify a reality.
3. The ONLY body of speech that is not deemed as a “by-product” of dhimmitude are only those recorded statements of history by non muslim minorities who spoke negatively about their dealings with Islam and its law. This should right away lead any objective observer on this topic to comprehend the fact that this term “dhimmitude” is inherently geared towards a policy of anti-Islamicism by its very nature. In essense, this term is clear hyperbole of the “sedistic aftermath of jihad wars”
So that one does not have to bother themselves with the priority of varifying the speech of the apostates and the anti-islamist in how they are employing the term, we will, God Willing, provide lucrative coverage for them and comment on the sophistry of their conclusions.