D
discipleofJesus
Guest
"However, the dhimmi itself is a controversial subject. This word actually means “protégé” or “protected person.” This is one of the arguments of the modern defenders of Islam: the dhimmi has never been persecuted or maltreated (except accidentally); on the contrary, he was a protected person. What better example could illustrate Islam’s liberalism. Here are people who do not accept Islam and, instead of being expelled, they are protected. I have read a great deal of literature attempting to prove that no society or religion has been so tolerant as Islam or has protected or has protected its minorities so well. Naturally, this argument has been used to condemn medieval Christianity (which I have no intention of defending), on the ground that Islam never knew an Inquisition or “witch hunts.” Even if this dubious argument is accepted, let us confine ourselves to an examination of the meaning of the term protected person. One must ask: “protected against whom?” When this “stranger” lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: against the Muslims themselves. The point that must be clearly understood is that the very term protégé implies a latent hostility. A similar institution existed in early Rome, where the cliens, the stranger, was always the enemy. He had to be treated as an enemy even if there was no situation of war. But if this stranger obtained the favor of the head of some great family, he became his protégé (cliens) and was then able to reside in Rome: he was “protected” by his “patron” from the acts of aggression that any Roman citizen could commit against him. This also meant that in reality the protected person had no genuine rights. The reader of this book will see that the dhimmi’s condition was defined by a treaty (dhimma) between him (or his group) and a Muslim group. This treaty had a juridical aspect, but was what we would call an unequal contract: the dhimma was a “concessionary charter” (cf. C. Chehata on Muslim law), something that implies two consequences. The first is that the person who concedes the charter can equally well rescind it. It is not, in fact, a contract representing a “consensus” arrived at between the two sides. On the contrary, it is quite arbitrary. The person who grants the treaty is the only one who decides what he is prepared to concede (hence the great variety of conditions). The second is that the resulting situation is the opposite of the one envisaged in the theory of the “rights of man” whereby, by the mere fact of being a human being, one is endowed * automatically with certain rights and those who fail to respect them are at fault. In the case of the “concessionary charter,” on the contrary, one enjoys rights only to the extent that they are recognized in the charter and only for as long as it remains valid.* As a person, by the mere fact of one’s “existence,” one has no claim to any rights. And this, indeed, is the dhimmi’s * condition.* As I have explained above, this condition is unvarying throughout the course of history; it is not the result of social chance, but a rooted concept.
For the conquering Islam of today, those who do not claim to be Muslims do not have any human rights recognized as such…"
(bold emphasis mine)
Taken from the preface mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Preface.html of
‘The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam’ by Bat Ye’or mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Dhimmi.html online.
The preface mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Preface.html is by Jacques Ellul.
Jacques ELLUL died in 1994 at 82. A jurist, historian, theologian and sociologist, he published more than 600 articles and 48 books, many of which were translated into a dozen languages (more than 20 into English). From 1950-70 he was a member of the National Council of the Protestant Reformed Church of France. Professor at the University of Bordeaux, his oeuvre includes studies on medieval European institutions, the effect of modern technology on contemporary society, and moral theology. In American academic circles, he was widely known for “The Technological Society” written in the 1950’s (English edition, 1964) and recognized as one of the most prominent of contemporary thinkers.
For the conquering Islam of today, those who do not claim to be Muslims do not have any human rights recognized as such…"
(bold emphasis mine)
Taken from the preface mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Preface.html of
‘The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam’ by Bat Ye’or mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Dhimmi.html online.
The preface mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Preface.html is by Jacques Ellul.
Jacques ELLUL died in 1994 at 82. A jurist, historian, theologian and sociologist, he published more than 600 articles and 48 books, many of which were translated into a dozen languages (more than 20 into English). From 1950-70 he was a member of the National Council of the Protestant Reformed Church of France. Professor at the University of Bordeaux, his oeuvre includes studies on medieval European institutions, the effect of modern technology on contemporary society, and moral theology. In American academic circles, he was widely known for “The Technological Society” written in the 1950’s (English edition, 1964) and recognized as one of the most prominent of contemporary thinkers.
. I’m curious though as to why you believe this could be the case. I admit Buddhism is growing in the states, but it’s growth seems limited compared to other religions. I’m not arguing, just want to see if you clarify this.
