Aziz Poonawalla on sharia courts

I agree with Aziz that "dhimmitude" is not a term that is likely to advance the discussion.

Any term such as this is shorthand for specific concerns and problems, and it is very convenient to use shorthand, but I think, personally, it is better to be as specific and precise as we can be when we are talking about problems such as whether the "Sharia" courts will result in less social cohesion in the UK, or whether they will lead to abuses.

I think specific criticisms are also harder to label and dismiss than slogans and shorthand.

I pondered the issue of Sharia tribunals a bit before reading Aziz's post. When I read what Aziz wrote, I discovered that his analysis was substantially identical to what I had thought through. Provided that these tribunals have the same role as any other form of civil arbitration chosen by the parties, it should be OK.

One more data point. Some local bar associations in the US have groups that provide mediation services for Christians in disputes with other Christians who take seriously the prohibition against going to law before unbelievers that's contained in 1 Cor. 6. Mediation is not the same thing are arbitration, of course, but the point is that this concept is not entirely foreign to the Christian experience.

I agree, Irenaeus, and I suppose the flip side of the use of the term "dhimmitude" is well-meaning people who talk about the Muslim tradition of "tolerance" and protection of religious minority groups. In medieval Spain, for instance.

Personally, I wouldn't ever want to be "tolerated" or protected by a group that had conquered my country, especially given that tolerance or protection could be removed at will.

Jewish courts do not rule on the basis of a law that Jews are laboring to impose upon the whole of British society. Sharia courts are.

Therein lies a crucial distinction, and one that Sharia advocates fail to mention.

An ideology that endeavors to supplant our laws, culture and religious beliefs poses a dangerous threat and is not a candidate for coexistence.

Worldwide, Islamic fundamentalists continue to make inroads into Western culture, political structures and in the economic system, while, at the same time, insisting on severe and outrageous punishments for even minor violations of sharia or Islamic law.

It is unprecedented that a minority group that freely immigrated to the United States and Europe of its own accord is now endeavoring to overhaul Western civilization to its Koran-dictated, specifications. The West, particularly America, has a tradition of welcoming people from other cultures and practitioners of different religions. However, immigrants have always assimilated and strengthened American society rather than demand that we adopt their ways at the expense of our own.

Dhimmitude is a rude, pointless word, offensive each time it is used. It grossly oversimplifies, and explains next to nothing.

The word dhimmi (plural dimam) literally means "protection, care, custody, covenant of protection, compact; responsibility, answerableness; financial obligation, liability, debt; inviolability, security of life and property; safeguard, guarantee, security; conscience" and ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety.

It was designed to set limits upon how much a Muslim conqueror could demand from or injure a defeated enemy nation. It's doubtless true that a certain amount of contempt was practically inherent in the word, but no more than the common contempt that conquerors hold for the conquered.

Simply put, in exchange for paying the capital taxes, populations afforded dhimmi status could not be forced to convert, to surrender their homes, or be placed under any of the more severe and grievous punishments levied by winners over losers in most circumstances. It attempted to formalize a princple of magnanimity in victory.

Had the West had such a concept in mind during the Treaty of Versailles, the nightmare of Hitler and the Third Reich might have been avoided. Had we such a concept in mind during the 1800s, the brutal forced migration and extermination of the Native American population might have been reduced.

It is by no means perfect, of course. And yet, in principle, it simply applies a concept close to chivalry between a victorious Muslim nation and a fallen non-Muslim people.

Rod regularly uses it to trivialize and mock those who attempt any kind of accomodation or understanding with Islamic culture, no matter how mild or reasonable.

Saying something like "I believe that Great Britain is being unreasonably accomodating to its Muslim population, and in so doing harming their own cultural integrity." is lengthier, but more honest, and doesn't misuse a foreign religious term for the express purpose of mocking that religious culture.

" And yet, in principle, it simply applies a concept close to chivalry between a victorious Muslim nation and a fallen non-Muslim people."

when the muslims approached persia they gave the persians a choice: convert and have peace, or do not convert and experience war. i think we really need to not neglect these little facts. and the muslim attitude toward dhimmis had less to do with chivalry than practicality, non-muslims were the overwhelming majority.

"But I take Aziz's point. Let me ask the room: is "dhimmitude" more often a term of clarification or obfuscation?"

"Muddying" might be a better descriptor. It's use here often has the same connotation and effect as "Christianist" or "theocrat" has when used in discussion of the political agenda of the Religious Right.

The problem is that the Islamic courts have already gone beyond civil issues. Domestic violence is a criminal matter and those courts are already ruling on that. And the talk sounds like they are going to start looking at more "minor" crimes. How long until non-Muslims who live in largely Muslims areas are going to end up show up before these courts because the majority is going to put pressure on them?

"Dhimmitude" as coined by Bat Ye'or is unconscionable invective. We really should not offend Mohammedans by using it. We need another term which covers bloodthirsty conquest, servile subjugation, confiscatory taxation, barbaric punishment, perennial abject humiliation, profanation of churches and their conversion into mosques, desecration of Christian cemeteries, impressment of Christian sons into the Mohammedan armies, and abduction of Christian daughters into the seraglio.

Were it not for Charles Martel at Tours, Ferdinand and Isabella at Granada, Pope Pius V and the coalition at Lepanto, and Jan Sobieski at Vienna, there would not be such a glaring lacuna in Western vocabularies.

In fact, I don't think there is any such thing as dhimmitude. Though the Oecumenical Patriarch might disagree.

Roland, you're quite correct. While we're at it, perhaps we could find a word less offensive to Christians than "Crusade". You know, something else to describe bloodthirsty, greed-driven conquest, servile subjugation, slaughter of both Jews and Muslims until the streets of the Holy City were awash in blood, barbaric punishment, profanation of mosques, and even the eventual pillage of Christian cities that were from a different sect than their own, such as the rape of Constantinople.

While we're at it, we could also use some better terms to describe the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Blood Libel against the Jews, the war in Northern Ireland, the Conquistadors and all that messy business about the destruction of the Inca et. al., the Slave Trade, the martyrdom of the Knights Templar, the Church's looking the other way on the rise of the Nazi Party, and a slew of other topics.

And before the inevitable "You can't equate Islam and Christianity" yada yada, yes you can, although you might have to compare different periods of time to equate them.

Christian history has been every bit as bloody, every bit as violent, every bit as vile as Muslim history. They just got a late start, and haven't quite caught up in some ways.

And, as you know, your use of the term "Mohammedans" is equally inflammatory, carrying to Muslim ears the equivalent bigotry as "Mackeral-Snapper", "Bible Thumper", "Holy Roller", etc. Yet you use it knowingly, since your intent is to offend. This by itself demonstrates you aren't interested in any kind of good faith effort, but merely desire to lash out in a childish and desultory manner against those who believe differently than do you.

You're a smart guy, Roland. It's a shame you can't see past your own prejudices. Try reading some of the Sufi saints, or Rumi, or even a modern work entitled "Men in Black Dresses". All demonstrate the reality that, although all the ugliness present in Christianity is present in Islam as well, that beauty, peace, and love can equally be found in both traditions.

JPL wrote: Christian history has been every bit as bloody, every bit as violent, every bit as vile as Muslim history. They just got a late start, and haven't quite caught up in some ways.

My reply: Yes, it has. But Christians have quit trying to spread their faith at the point of a sword. Muslims, not so much.

On the issue of moral equivalence of Sharia and Beth Din courts, Beth Din courts don't sentence rape victims to be stoned to death for adultery. Sharia courts do.

As Harry Truman might say, using the term "dhimmitude" isn't giving Muslims hell. It's telling the truth, and they think it's hell.

Which shari'a? **Whose Justice?** (McIntyre)

The problem is that there is no islamic principle of human rights (no major Muslim country approved the UN charter, the wrote their own instead), only a concept of a voluntarist deity whose one and only means of communicating his inscrutable will are the men (in Shia islam the Imam, in Sunni any four adult males) known as the taliban (scholars) who interpret the collection of the prophet's (PBUH) wisdom proverbs known as the Koran, and the narratives on what they are to be taken to mean (the Hadith). In comparison, womanhood has a far elevated status in Christian jurisprudence, and any woman living in a Western democracy should be able to enjoy the dignity endowed by her Creator as encoded in our civil Laws, not be tyrannized by the nominalism of generations of creeds propagated by the discordant offspring of a Mohammedan harem. Islam infantilizes. It has no place in determining the financial or family welfare of women and children domiciled in the West. The commercial practices, on the other hand, of businesses under shari'a is the purview of the parties to the contract - if their idea of virtue is to share risk without cost (interest) they are free to handle that risk any way they see how. It is not the business of Western enterprises to circumvent the commercial prudence of our culture in order to siphon off shari'a-kosher "dividends" from Islamic mutual funds, rather than report regular interest-earned profits (and be taxed and regulated under our laws) accordingly.

The greatest threat is to those who take faith serioulsy: under shari'a an apostate is a condemned man. The infidel has no right to life. Quibble if you will about inheritence demi-quotients for females or wife-beating as a domestic discipline, I want to know what happens to the voiceless and vulnerable: the pre-pubescent girls who refuse to "go-along to get-along" and are murdered by their own kith and kin with narry a bat of the eylashes from their Anglo-saxon neighbors? Is this what we have become enured to already? Dhimmitude is too mild a term - we are cowards of the first order!

Quibble or just argue and be as politically correct as you all want to be about what is acceptable language or acceptable terminology but it's still wrong. No religiously based court (no matter what the religion) should be used in the place of a state court. That is a basic violation of the separation of church and state. Or to be politically correct maybe we should now term it separation of religion and state. Most religions when interpreted in a fundamentalist manner are hell for women. People may object to the term "dhimmitude" but I have no problem with it being used in this case or in Rod's post about the Muslim courts in England. These courts and the Jewish courts should be prohibited.

My past experience has taught me that argument here is largely pointless. My experience is that Crunchy Con's are often well-educated, but so blinded by their own bias that they learn little that doesn't support their initial position.

I assure you that I can cite chapter and verse from the Quran, with little effort, which repudiates your statement, Roland. The Quran demands that People of the Book be treated with respect, and allowed to worship as they so desire. It states authoritatively that there can be no compulsion in religion. It demands that war only be in self-defense, and is to be ceased the moment the enemy desists. It states many other such things. But, much like the Bible, sections of it are full of vengeance and violence and condemnation as well. It is neither more nor less bloody that the Hebrew Bible.

Like the Bible, and truthfully all other books, what the Quran says depends a great deal on what part of it you read, and what you bring to the text.

I'm sorry a man of your learning would stoop so low as to demean and insult the central figure of another faith, who is greatly honored by millions of moral and decent people, not terrorists or fanatics.

I of course recognize the bloody reality of historical Islam, as I recognize too its glories and successes. I do the same with Christianity. It is true that FEWER Christians today desire to force their faith upon others at the point of the sword. One only need read Ann Coulter to see that not all have such an enlightened position. Some Muslims would spread their faith this way. But the vast, vast majority would not, seeing the Quran's injunction to have no compulsion in religion as central, and seeing its more bloody invocations as a product of their time, much like the Hebraic injunction to kill every man, woman and child of the Caananites would be viewed by modern-day Jews.

Perhaps consider the reading I suggested, or consider the works of Queen Rania of Jordan.

On one level, I tend to think that abuse of Muslims is a good thing, and that we therefore need more, not fewer, derogatory words.

Nevertheless, "dhimmitude" is not the correct term for what is happening in Western Europe. "Dhimmi" are "protected people", who are Christians or Jews, living under Islamic rule. It is worth pointing out that, for atheists, pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., dhimmitude is not an option, the only choice being Islam or death. Therefore, in the UK, "dhimmitude" is actually an understatement of the horrors that would accompany Islamic conquest.

However, the condition towards which the UK is currently drifting is not dhimmitude, but something more like ethnarky or intranational Balkanisation, in which each ethnoreligious group follows its own laws, with its own punishments, and must therefore be largely segregated. Such arrangements are not historically uncommon, but also not make desirable or unavoidable.

Irenaeus: "Judaism and Islam are two very different things, not simply similar particular instantiations of the generic genus of "religion.""

You are very wrong about this, and najib is right. Judaism has much more in common with Islam than with Christianity. Among the Abrahamic religions, Christianity is the best of a bud bunch.

Finally, I wonder whether there is any Christian history of setting up private courts, with binding arbitration for members. I seem to remember a passage in one of Paul's epistles condemning CHristians who involved in legal action with other Christians.

JPL, I can go through and show you how those verses are and have been generally interpreted by Muslims. It's not just that there are bloody verses in both the Bible and Koran. It's their context and how they are applied.

Anyways, Poonwalla is a doubtful commentator in my view. Back in 2003 he was claiming that Israel was developing genetic weapons to kill only Arabs.

From an post no longer at CoB:
"...perhaps even more alarmingly, Israel has been developing what can only be called a Weapon of Mass Genocide (WMG) - a bioweapon targeted at Arabs which would leave Jews unaffected"

This set off a flurry of posts over at Winds of Change. Read the whole thread to see Aziz duck and weave and avoid simple questions. Make sure to read the whole thread because what seems to be Aziz saying he was wrong actually is not the case.

Roland, can you not see the irony of calling me out for stereotyping Crunchy Cons as often educated, but with little learning due to their biases, while you continue stereotyping Muslims and Islam in such a vilely offensive manner that were we discussing Jews, you'd be speaking of their "big noses" and "cheapness"?

The Quran (and I swear you're coming up with these aberrant transliterated spellings simply to drive me insane) is absolutely replete with references to violence. AS IS THE BIBLE! The Hebrew Bible alone contains over 600 references to brutal violence. Within it's pages "God" demands the genocide of multiple peoples, the conquering of their lands, the slaughter of populations down to the last woman and child, the sacrifice of countless innocent animals, the murder of children by their parents, the murder of children for mocking an old man's baldness, the murder of homosexuals, the murder of adulterers...the list goes on and on. And this doesn't even consider the acts NOT commanded by God, but performed by his faithful. These are all palpably, absolutely present, not metaphorical, and most are commended by "God". The fact that God commanded these acts is considered divinely inspired truth by the majority of Christians.

Of course, that's not all the Bible has to offer. This same God, oddly enough, demonstrates deep compassion and love. At first, it is directly only towards his own people, Israel, but over time, we see that openness and love spread to others as well. The war-god becomes the law-giver. The law-giver comes to demand justice from the heart, not mere following of ritual. And the God of Justice eventually morphs into the God of love, as early as Amos, but most evident in the teaching of Christ.

The Quran is the same. Although having its fair share of violence, it includes verses such as:

"Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians...and (all) who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." The Qur'an, 2:62

“There is no Compulsion in Religion”
(Al Qur’ān, 2:256)

And from the Hadith, or saying of Muhammad, we have such things as:

"Allah is Forbearer and loves forbearance in all matters.''

"And verily, whosoever shows patience and forgives that would truly be from the things recommended by Allah.''

And many, many others.

Now, you are certainly correct in your comments concerning Quranic criticism, in comparison to Biblical criticism. And yes, I have no doubt that when modern critical approaches to the Quran are undertaken, it will be found merely the work of men, as I believe the Bible to be as well, with all the amendments and errors that process entails.

You are correct that the violence we have seen from Christians betrays the message of Christ, and continues to do so. And yet Christians have justified it using the violence in their scriptures, as in the case of Westboro Baptist Church. Violence equally betrays the genuine message of Muhammad, and yet is justified by some through scripture.

And you are also correct there are enormous forces for intolerance at work in the Muslim world, which do threaten free thought, speech, etc.

But these realities do not define the totality, or even the majority of Islam, any more than their Christian equivalents define Christianity, now, or in the past.

The simply reality is that the vast number of modern Muslims are decent, loving people. They have no interest in conquering others, wouldn't support any type of "dhimmitude", do not support terrorist agendas, etc. They have the same range of feelings towards other cultures and religions that Christians do, which is to say from abject fear and hatred to loving acceptance. I would certainly give modern Christian cultures an edge in peacefulness and tolerance, but attribute this far more to our living conditions and governance, both of which have been retarded in the Muslim world by both colonialism and some of the more backward trends in Islam itself.

You speak that violence betrays the Christian message. Doesn't the kind of name-calling and provocation you engage in here equally betray that faith? Do you really believe that Christ would support your mocking, insulting, and vilifying a figure held sacred by millions of people, in ways that even the vast bulk of non-religious scholars would state are simply untrue?

One could just as easily twist the truth to state that Christ, the bastard child of a Palestinian whore, led a band of ignorant, illiterate peasants and died the death of a criminal coward for betraying his people and faith.

It simply twists the truth to serve one's own agenda.

Stereotyping is definitionally never more than a partial truth, whether applied to Crunchy Cons or Muslims. If you insist on comparing the worst of one faith to the best of another, it only reveals your terror of those who differ from you. When the best of Islam is compared to the best of Christianity, much beauty and commonality can be seen. The worst of each is terrible.

You loathed people who stole and mocked a consecrated Host, even when those people in no way believed in Christianity. You felt they had no right to mock what you consider sacred. Why then do you do the exact same thing by vilifying a man whose followers recite a blessing each time they merely speak his name? Can you not see the gross hypocrisy in demanding that unbelievers respect your faith even if they violently hate it, and yet you do not do as much for other faiths?

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

JPL, your most recent post is terrific. It cuts through a lot of the back-and-forth that I personally find annoying, as to whose religion is worse, or who has been more oppressive or hegemonic. The fault is not in our religion or in our stars, but in ourselves, to paraphrase Shakespeare.

The problem is not with Islam or Christianity or Judaism, or any other religion, the problem is with human nature. I think we should resist any narrative that locates evil in any one religion, race, nationality, or group and continue to affirm that the evil is within us all, as well as the potential to resist it.

JPL: Quran ... I swear you're coming up with these aberrant transliterated spellings simply to drive me insane.

Get hold of yourself now. As a dévoué of the classical languages, I abhor the use of Q sans U. But let's be tolerant and not quibble about qiblas. Besides, haven't you circumcised an apostrophe there? Your laryngeal fricative clearly needs remedial work.

I have no doubt that when modern critical approaches to the Quran are undertaken, it will be found merely the work of men

You are rashly putting your life in danger then. Mohammedans believe the Coran is the dictated eternal word of God. This is one of Ratzinger's chief reasons for thinking that dialog with them will bear little fruit. The other of course is their attribution to God of caprice to the exclusion of reason. All those Aristotelian mustard seeds withered upon the dry sands evidently.

Violence equally betrays the genuine message of Muhammad,

You are either a master of irony of delusional. If the latter, I blame my aberrant spellings.

One could just as easily twist the truth to state that Christ, the bastard child of a Palestinian whore, led a band of ignorant, illiterate peasants and died the death of a criminal coward for betraying his people and faith.

Actually, one might say this with little torque on historical truth. It is a common secularist exegesis of the Gospel. It has its roots in the Talmud, as you are undoubtedly aware.

the vast number of modern Muslims are decent, loving people.

Yes. I agree with you wholeheartedly here. Whether the vast majority of the ulama is so, I will suspend judgement. That the jihadis clearly are not should be self-evident by now.

Do you really believe that Christ would support your mocking, insulting, and vilifying a figure held sacred by millions ...

I have neither mocked, insulted nor vilified. I have stated historical truths. You can look it up. But were I more Christlike I might have quoted: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." But I lack His humility and charity.

You loathed people who stole and mocked a consecrated Host, even when those people in no way believed in Christianity. You felt they had no right to mock what you consider sacred.

You must have me confused with someone else. I only posted a couple of humorous comments about a simulated auto-da-fe for P.Z. Myers. As I remember, one poster took me to task for that.

you continue stereotyping Muslims and Islam in such a vilely offensive manner that were we discussing Jews, you'd be speaking of their "big noses" and "cheapness"?

I consider this beneath replying to and so I pass over with scorn your puerile slur.

Rod,

My post in reply to JPL is "awaiting approval". Not sure what happened.

JPL,

If I can retrieve my post from the bowels of my browser or network cache I will post it, otherwise I must concede the last word on this subject to you.

Sincerely,
Roland

The uses of Batei Din (proper plural in Hebrew) in the US are essentially a matter of private arbitration, which is perfectly legal under any auspices. The parties agree beforehand to take their dispute to the Bet Din and to accept its decision. A sharia court could conceivably function in the same way. For all I know, there may already be sharia courts in the US functioning that way.

The Bishop of Rochester, making sense:

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2008/09/anglican-bishop-nazir-ali-on-sharia-law.html

And a recent lesson on apostasy from Jordan:

"Jordan: Father repeatedly stabs daughter, crushes her head with Rock"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022787.php

(Note especially the "call-in" responses to this story on a local M.E. television station.)