The message
July 7, 2005
The attacks in London this morning have made clear the pattern of Islamicist terror; we are, here in America, treated to a macabre parade of attacks against our allies, with the knowledge that the only time we won’t be next is when the radicals are all dead—by our hand or those who have decided to free themselves from their tyranny.
The tragedies of today have made me ask: Who’s next? It is no doubt that we are, somewhere down the savages’list, but who’s immediately next? We can expect the clamor outside the gates to reach a defeaning crescendo, while we watch in horror as our allies get attacked and the ones who will be the new dhimmi are left alone, to live rather silently as their freedoms are slowly whittled away by initially negligible demands until such time that they no longer recognized themselves, after all that appeasement.
The question then, is will we fight and die free or live comfortably under the dhimmitude that the tyrants offer?
The question, of course, may all be for naught. As Lair Simon writes today:
Want to know what we are? Want to know what we are when we go about our daily lives, looking out for one another, getting along without slitting the throats of our neighbors or blowing up buses full of innocent people for what we perceive as wrongs halfway around the world? Want to know what you are when a nutcase with a bomb or a C-4 vest loaded with ratpoison-soaked shrapnel wants to shred you for the reward of a 72-virgins orgy in Paradise?
WE ARE ALL INFIDELS!
I, like he, could not be expected to say something like “today, we are all British/Spaniards/Irish/Filipino,” but I am not without sympathy towards our greatest ally across the Atlantic. Today, we are once again reminded that we are all infidels.
More opinions from: Wretchard, Zombyboy, and Kathy Kinsley while consolidated roundups can be found from Instapundit and Bryan of AWS.
UPDATE: My friend across that Atlantic, Podz, responds, and has a follow-up. In the comments to the first link I left a lengthy reply.
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.
Dhimmi: People “protected” from jihadis because they have paid a head tax so that they won’t be killed as a spoil of conquest. The concept of dhimmitude itself, despite your lengthy treaties on it being an “entire integrated system based on Islamic theology” has but a few important concepts one needs to be aware of:
First, Christian or Jewish dhimmi are not free to practice their faith in public, nor are they free to do so in private unless it is in the most discreet of manners.
Second, there are no dhimmi who are not Christian or Jewish. Infidels who are “not of the book” are still, well, killed.
Finally, the whole concept of dhimmitude is to avoid the whole mess of having to kill everyone in the way. Besides, it would be more profitable for triumphant jihadis who impose sharia law to make money out of the people they have conquered. That and I think there IS something about killing someone who has surrendered, ya?
I’d sooner die free than live that way, man.