Book
Review:
Islam and
Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide
Islamic
conquests resulted in a multitude of second-class citizens
known as Dhimmis and a state of mind called ‘dhimmitude’. |
Islam,
we are told is a ‘complete and completed system,’ ordained by
God and conveyed to humanity by His Final Prophet Muhammad. The
Word of God (The Quran) and the Acts of Muhammad (The Hadits) lay
down the rules—sacred as well as secular—for all people and
for all times. These are binding on believers as well as
non-believers. This may appear strange until one recognizes that
the ultimate goal of Islam is to bring the whole world under its
sway. The instrument for achieving world domination is Jihad, and
the legal code for ruling the Islamic lands (Dar ul-Islam) is the
Sharia— loosely translated as the Islamic legal canon. The
Sharia treats some non-Muslims living in Dar ul-Islam as dhimmis (‘protected flock’), whereby they are granted limited
protection as second-class citizens under debilitating conditions.
Islam and Dhimmitude by the Egyptian born Bat Ye’or is
a masterly study of the state of the Jews and Christians as
Dhimmis, and the peculiar ‘Dhimmi Civilization’ that it gave
rise to. (
Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide
by
Bat Ye’or, translated from the French by
Miriam Kochan and
David
Littman. 2002. Farleigh Dickinson University Press, Associated
Universities Press, Cranbury, NJ, USA and Gazelle Book Services,
Lancaster, England. 528 pages. Price $60 HB, $19.95 PB )
Jihad
and its threat to peace are widely recognized today, thanks in
part to the September 11 attacks on the New York World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, though several Indian scholars drawing
upon their country’s historical experience with Islam have long
been highlighting its dangers. The goal of Jihad is to bring
countries under non-Muslim rule (Dar ul-Harb) under Islamic rule
(Dar ul-Islam). Recognizing that a newly conquered land is bound
to have a substantial non-Muslim population, the Sharia provides
for laws to govern them. They essentially become dhimmis. At
first, it was meant only for ‘People of the Book’— or Jews
and Christians, soon including Zoroastrians because Iran was
rapidly conquered by the Arabs. Somewhat later, when Islamic rule
came to parts of India, Hindus were given grudging recognition as dhimmis
though, as idolaters, they were not entitled to it. But
expediencies of politics and governance forced Islamic rulers of
India to bend the rules of Sharia against the blandishments of the
clergy.
This
brings up an interesting issue: the idolatrous Hindus whose choice
under Sharia was limited to ‘Islam or death,’ were much more
successful in resisting the onslaught of Islam than the
‘protected’ Jews and Christians. Even the Zoroastrians of
Persia, then a great empire ruled by the Sassanids, had to migrate
to Hindu India to keep their faith alive. Hindus and Hinduism
proved much more resilient than these ‘Religions of the Book’
and their adherents. Hindus never stopped fighting the imposition
of Islam and finally defeated it though at great cost in terms of
both land and people. It is a battle that still rages. It accounts
also for the extraordinary hatred of Hindu India borne by Muslim
‘leaders’ in India and Pakistan— for it is a living reminder
of Islam’s failure. All this suggests that one is better off
having Islam as enemy than ‘protector’. The protector
inevitably turns predator and eventually consumes its protected
flock.
This
point, that dhimmitude emasculates the dhimmi population by sapping its will to fight, would have been brought more
clearly into focus had the author included India in her study,
which she has not. To her credit she recognizes the limitation by
noting: “I realize that my study of dhimmitude remains
incomplete because it is limited to Jews and Christians. It should
be supplemented by the dhimmitude of the Zoroastrians, located in
an inferior category, and that of Buddhists and Hindus, considered
as idolaters. A few books on this subject have been published in
India. The picture they paint is similar to that in regions west
of the Indian subcontinent.” (p 23) The last statement ignores
the struggles waged against Islamic imperialism in India from
Vijayanagar and Shivaji to the Sikhs, to the ultimate overthrow of
Islamic rule. (This is intended not as a criticism of the book,
but to point out that such a study can be a fertile field for
Indian scholars.)
Within
the scope of her study, i.e., limited to the lands west of the
Indian subcontinent, the author is original, comprehensive and
profound. In her words, “Like a giant jigsaw puzzle scattered
over the world, the different elements of the diversified dhimmi civilization should be collected to show an evaluation and a
comparative analysis of regional particularisms in order to
produce a better understanding of the whole. I have tried to
gather the specific data of dhimmitude in different sectors of
life. This analytical inventory throughout time and space may
confuse the reader, but it is essential for framing the world of
dhimmitude.” (p 23) Resolving the occasional confusion is amply
repaid by the author’s scholarship and insights.
In
the process the author explores and exposes areas of knowledge
that are regarded as taboo by academics and even world leaders.
This taboo should be seen as part of the dhimmi attitude
internalized by non-Muslims— that one should accept Islam and
Muslims on their own claims, even when they act like a state
within a state in non-Muslim lands. Muslim minorities in countries
as far apart as India, Great Britain and the United States have
largely succeeded in imposing the Sharia view on national
institutions, especially education. “The Islamic conception of a
jihad spreading peacefully without bloodshed is repeated
and taught in Western universities. This interpretation feeds an
ideal vision of Islamic society and nourishes the nostalgic desire
for its future restoration.” (p 313) Many Western academics have
made a profitable career propagating this view, followed in their
footsteps by their Indian counterparts.
The
author summarizes the underlying principles of the West’s
dhimmitude in the following words: (1) Historical negationism
consisting of suppressing in a page or a paragraph, one thousand
years of jihad which is presented as a peaceful conquest,
generally welcomed by the vanquished populations. (2) The omission
of Christian and, in particular, Muslim sources describing the
methods of conquest: pillage, enslavement, deportation, massacres
and so on. (3) The mythical historical version of “centuries”
of “peaceful coexistence,” masking the process which
transformed majorities into minorities, constantly at risk of
extinction. (4) An obligatory self-incrimination for the Crusades,
the Inquisition, imperialism, colonialism, Israel and other
intrusions into the dar al-Islam. (5) Servile criticism of
the rational tools of historical knowledge, created by earlier
European Orientalists and historians. (pp 315-16)
All
this will seem familiar to Indian observers. One of the more
disagreeable facts that the author brings to light is the
collusion of Christian organizations, including the Greek Orthodox
Church, and now the Vatican and the Church of England, in
conditioning the West for dhimmitude. They have in effect accepted
the legitimacy of dhimmitude in return for security and profit. As
the author observes: “The dhimmi Churches developed an
Arabized interpretation of the Gospels, combining traditional
anti-Judaism with the psychological conditioning of dhimmitude…
This Islamization of the Jewish sources of Christianity,
disseminated through dhimmi church networks, popularized the
Islamic version of the Arab origins of Christianity.” (pp 320
– 21)
This
too will seem familiar to Indians, as when a leading Indian
politician attributed the advaita propounded by Sri
Shankaracharya to Koranic inspiration! There are other parallels
as well. Pope John Paul II, during his visit to Egypt and
Jerusalem, respectfully attended Muslim service without saying a
word about the horrors inflicted on Coptic Christians. Likewise in
India, he took the Indian Government to task for mainly imaginary
atrocities against Christian minorities, while maintaining stony
silence over the daily massacre of Christians in Islamic countries
like Pakistan and Indonesia. This was taken a sordid step further
by Church ‘leaders’ in India when they colluded with Muslim
fundamentalist organizations like the Pakistan-based
Deen-dar-Anjuman in engineering Church bombings with the sole
purpose of discrediting the Indian Government. They seem driven by
their hatred of the ‘heathen’ Hinduism as much as their
Western counterparts by historic anti-Judaism. This will prove
self-destructive, for as the author observes: “… any
delegitimization of Israel by Western political currents
reinforces delegitimization of the West. If Israel ought not to
exist by de jure, the same reasoning must apply to Europe,
America, and any other place in the world; …Thus the history and
ideology of dhimmitude has tied Jews and Christians into an
indissoluble bond.” (p 313) One many add Hindus, Buddhists and
every other non-Muslim people to the group.
This
indicates that Christian organizations, beleaguered by declining
fortunes in the ‘Christian’ West, are prepared to go to any
length just to survive. The Church lives in constant fear of
losing Rome to Islam as it lost Jerusalem to the Arabs in the
first millennium and Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in the
second. This existential fear is not helped by the presence of
Islamic armies in Kosovo, a hundred miles from Trieste on the
Italian border, aided and abetted by NATO and the US with their
lopsided priorities. In the long run, this dhimmi state of mind
poses a greater threat to the world than Islamic warriors. And as
a state of mind rather than anything physical (like Jihad), it is
also harder to combat.
That
this is not just of historical interest but of profound
contemporary significance is clear from the general policy of
appeasing Islamic sentiments being followed by the West. On this
the author observes: “Today, the United States and Europe
compete for the favor of the Muslim world by once again abandoning
the victimized peoples to its mercies. The Gulf War against Saddam
Hussein on the question of oil interests (1991) was redeemed by
the destruction of Yugoslavia and the creation of new centers of
Islamist influence in the heart of the Balkans… The war to
annihilate Serbia was intended to punish the crimes of Milosevic
and his regime, but the media campaigns endeavored to calm the
anti-Westernism in the Muslim world and of Muslim immigrants in
Europe. It also helped to gain forgiveness for the war on Iraq by
a strong pro-Muslim counterbalancing policy in the Balkans.” (p
338) Even the terrorist state of Pakistan has gained from the
West’s dhimmi mentality. Had India been a small country instead
of a major power occupying a strategic position, she might have
shared the fate of Serbia to ‘redeem’ the destruction of the
Taliban in Afghanistan. But there is no room for complacency here,
based on the naïve belief that the West will follow a moral
course.
All
told, Bat Ye’or’s concept of dhimmitude is an inspired
discovery that sheds light on how whole nations may be manipulated
by fear and greed. Or as Brigadier Malik of Pakistan put in his
seminal The Quranic Concept of War (sponsored by General
Zia ul Haq, the Founding Father of Talibanism): “Once a
condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained,
hardly anything is left to be achieved… Terror is not a means of
imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we
wish to impose upon him.” Dhimmitude is nothing but negationist
accommodation rooted in fear. Indian scholars should follow Bat
Ye’or’s example and launch a study of dhimmitude using the
vast body of literature left behind by Muslim conquerors. The
dangers of failing to confront the truth are manifold. As Gibbon
wrote of the Greeks— by valuing security more than freedom, they
ended up losing both, freedom and security.
|