Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Why must Maher El-Gohary and his daughter live in hiding, under serious daily threat of death? What crime have they committed? Obviously they have apostatized from Islam, and despite the willful ignorance of the American mainstream media and the deceptions of American Muslim advocacy groups, leaving Islam really does warrant the death penalty according to Islamic law.

But there is more to this as well. Note that the imam shouts about Christians, "Do not shake their hands. Do not go into their homes. Do not eat their food." He is apparently referring not just to apostates, but to all Christians. The Qur'an does say that the idolaters are unclean (9:28) -- the Arabic word used in this verse is مشركون (mushrikun), those who commit شرك (shirk), which is the worst sin in Islam: associating partners with Allah. Christians are the worst practitioners of shirk, since they worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God; thus they are unclean as per this verse.

Christians are also by definition guilty people. As I noted in my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), "The Qur'an calls Jews and Christians 'People of the Book;' Islamic law calls them dhimmis, which means 'protected' or 'guilty' people-the Arabic word means both." While the classic Islamic laws regarding dhimmis are not in force in Egypt today, they're still part of Islamic law, and as such Islamic clerics regard them as the proper status that Christians and other "People of the Book" should assume in the Islamic state. The Arabic word ذمي‎ (dhimmi) is derived from ذمة‎ (dhimma), "'protection, custody'"), and from ذم‎ (dhamma), which means "to blame." Thus the dhimmis are the blamed, or guilty ones.

How is it that "protection" and "custody" can be related to "blame" and "guilt"? Dhimmi does indeed mean "protected," "guaranteed," and "secured," but the semantic connotations of the word pertain to "indebtedness" and "liability." That's according to the online Sakhr dictionary, which is not by any stretch of the imagination an "Islamophobic" publication -- for example, it translates the word "Israel" into "a Jewish country set up on the Palestinian land." So when it says that dhimmi has to do with guilt, it is not reflecting some anti-Muslim bias!

In any case, the Arabic root-word "Z-M-M" (from which "dhimmi" issues) means "the opposite of praise," that is, to "censure," "dispraise too much," "blame," "criticize," "find fault with," "accuse," "obligate," "hold liable," "hold in bad conscience," "accuse," and "hold guilty," etc. And that's not a semantic connotation, that is the meaning, according to the Elias Modern Arabic Dictionary.

And then there is, of course, the experience that dhimmis and intended dhimmis have of dhimmitude. Ask Maher El-Gohary how "protected" he feels.

Spencer vilifies Islam by sensationalizing the topic of dhimma, (or “dhimmitude” as he says). I’ve already taken a massive sledgehammer to this fundamental pillar of his hateful paradigm, and you can see the catastrophic damage I’ve done by reading this, this, this, this, this, and this.

Then I came across this golden nugget, from p.49 of his book:

The dhimmi

The Qur’an calls Jews and Christians “People of the Book;” Islamic law calls them dhimmis, which means “protected” or “guilty” people–the Arabic word means both…Jews and Christians are “guilty” because they have not only rejected Muhammad as a prophet, but have also distorted the legitimate revelations they have received from Allah. Because of that guilt, Islamic law dictates that Jews and Christians may live in Islamic states, but not as equals with Muslims.
Wow. Just wow. Usually Spencer dresses his lie up in half-truths, obfuscation, and sensationalism before he peddles it to his hate-mongering audience. But here we have a case of complete fabrication.

Dhimmi means “protected person” and in no way, shape, or form means “guilty.” One can simply open up an Arabic dictionary to prove that this has absolutely no basis in the reality-based world. For example, here’s what Lisan al-Arab (considered the most reliable Arabic dictionary in the classical age of Islam) says:

ورجل ذِمِّيٌّ: معناه رجل له عهد

(Dhimmi: A person with whom there exists a treaty)

والذِّمَّةُ العهد

(And ‘dhimmah’ means treaty)

قال الجوهري: الذِّمَّةُ أَهل العقد.

(Al-Jawhari says: Dhimmah refers to the people with whom there is a treaty)

وقال أَبو عبيدة الذِّمّةُ الأَمان

(Abu Ubaydah says: Dhimmah means protection/security)

وقوم ذِمَّةٌ: مُعاهدون أَي ذوو ذِمَّةٍ

(A Nation of Dhimmah: The people who sign a treaty, i.e. the people of ‘responsibility’)
You can check any other Arabic dictionary to prove that “dhimmi” does not mean “guilty.” The word “madhmum” shares the same root as “dhimmi”, but so do many other words. To imply that there is a necessary connection between the two is pure idiocy, and proof of one’s ignorance of Arabic. They are quite simply two separate words entirely.
...

Thanks for addressing this Robert.

Also from T. P. Hughes’ A Dictionary of Islam,

1) "ZIMMAH. , pl. zinam, from the root zamm, "to blame." A compact, covenant, or contract, a league or treaty, any engagement or obligation, because the breaking thereof necessitates blame; and a right or due, for the neglect of which one is to be blamed. [...]"

and

2) "ZIMMI. , a member of the Ahlu 'z-Zimmah, a non Muslim subject of a Muslim government, belonging to the Jewish, Christian, or Sabean creed. who, for the payment of a poll— or capitation-tax, enjoys security of his person and property in a Muhammadan country. [...]"

Note: Zimmah = dhimma, zimmi = dhimmi.

The T. P. Hughes dictionary is available free online courtesy of Answering-Islam, see their Index to Islam. The section on the zimmi goes into considerable detail.

The fact that two words share a grammatical (phonlogical or phonetic) root does not mean that they share the same meaning, but in this case the meaning of zimmi and zimmah are directly related since zimmis are defined as members of the zimmah. In Robert's statement in the Politically Incorrect guide (p. 49), he is referring not to covenants generally but to the use of the Arabic word dhimmi (or dhimmis) in Islamic law as it refers to People of the Scripture and others who were subjugated under Islamic law.

The Quran itself in numerous places refers to the disbelief of Muhammad, Allah, and the Quran as the worst crime (6:21, 6:144, 6:157, 7:37, 10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 18:57, 29:68, 32:22, 39:32, 61:7). It literally refers to those who reject the Muhammad, Allah, and the Quran as "guilty" (Pickthall's translation, and others) (e.g., 7:40, 45:31, 74:41, 83:29, 6:147, 54:47).

From the following passage, I'm get the distinct impression that "Allah" considers the People of the Book, and anyone else who rejects the Quran and the messenger (Muhammad), as guilty of something rather serious.

pardon my typo above, "I get the distinct impression..."

As for the punishment for the above-mentioned "guilty" parties (all non-Muslims who disbelieve the Quran and Muhammad), it is not only to be delivered in hell by Allah in the hereafter, but also in this world (e.g., 13:34, 39:25-39:26, 3:56, 22:9). The Quran states that disbelievers will be tormented in this life (13:33-34), they will not escape in the earth (11:20), and that they are cursed by Allah, angels, and men (3:87-88). All humankind (34:28) is expected to obey the message of Muhammad (e.g., 7:157-158, 4:80), and if they don't, Muslims are expected to administer "justice," Allah's punishments, on earth (2:251, 9:14, 9:52, 57:25, 5:32-33).

With all of this in mind, when we turn to the Hadith and Sira, it becomes clearer how Muhammad and his followers reportedly punished the non-Muslims in this world. The invasion and conquering of the Khaybar Jews marks an early form of punishment of the "guilty" non-Muslims, who were subjected to an early form of the dhimma as imposed on non-Muslims by Muhammad.

What follows below in italics are some quoted sections from Muslim jurists cited in Bostom's (2005) edited volume.

The Legacy of Jihad, p. 261. From The Jihad or Holy War According to the Malikite School. Edmund Fagnan.

14… The dhimmi is punished if he “…manifests his religious opinions, if he speaks in a disrespectful manner…”
15… “The protection agreement is breached…when he insults a prophet using expressions permitted by his faith, such as the following which has been reported: ‘He is not the prophet, God did not send him—the Qur’an was not revealed to him—he’s the author of it—Jesus created Muhammad—Muhammad is a poor man: he tells you that he is in paradise, but why, then, could he not defend himself from the biting dogs?’21 The guilty party [in this last case] is put to death if he does not convert.”

The Jihad or Holy War According to the Malikite School. Edmund Fagan. In Andrew Bostom (2005), The Legacy of Jihad. pp. 251-266.
15. Breach of the head tax contract.
“The fate of the tributary who flees to an enemy country and is recaptured [is determined by the imam]; more particularly, he can be reduced to slavery, as long as his flight was not provoked by abusive acts, since in this case he is regarded as being guilty of highway robbery. If a band [of converted infidels] apostatizes and indulges in highway robbery, the individuals who make up the group are treated as [Muslim] apostates.”

The Legacy of Jihad, p. 207. From Shara ‘i’ u ‘l-Islam. Al-Hilli (d. 1277).
“The six conditions to which the infidel tributaries must be subjected are as follows:
…193 A tributary who blasphemes the prophet must be put to death.”
194. A tributary who speaks irreverently about the memory of the Prophet incurs a corporal punishment only, if the terms of the treaty did not include a prohibition of this act.5”
Note 5: “5. Otherwise, the treaty can be dissolved, since it has been violated.”

From Shara ‘i’ u l-Islam, by Al-Hilli (d. 1277), pp. 205-212. in Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad. (This refers to various laws and provisions for dhimmis by the thirteenth-century Shia jurist and scholar, Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Hilli).

“167. Some infidels are permitted to retain the privilege of practicing their religion, in return for a tribute; they are Jews, the Christians, and those whose revealed scripture is of doubtful authenticity, that is, the guebres [Zoroastrians]. Any infidel other than those who profess one of the above-mentioned religions must be compelled to embrace Islam.”
[brackets added]
“[...] 177. When an infidel slave has been set free, he can be compelled to leave Muslim territory or else pay the tribute.”
“[...] 181. An infidel minor, upon attaining maturity, must be compelled to embrace Islam or else to be subjected to the tribute; if he refuses, he is to be reckoned as an enemy and treated as such.”
“222. The infidel woman captive or refugee who has embraced Islam must not be returned, even if she apostatizes, since her conversion brought her into the bosom of Islam.”
“230. An infidel who embraces a religion not recognized by his coreligionists must be prevented from doing so and compelled to choose between Islam and death.”
“234. An infidel who performs publicly an act that is not forbidden by his religion but which is prohibited by the precepts of Islam must be punished according to the precepts of Muslim law with respect to a Muslim.”

K of K note: The section above also states a provision that a non-Muslim woman is to be held captive by Muslim state, even if she, after having embraced Islam, had apostatized.

Spencer wrote:Christians are also by definition guilty people. As I noted in my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), "The Qur'an calls Jews and Christians 'People of the Book;' Islamic law calls them dhimmis, which means 'protected' or 'guilty' people-the Arabic word means both." While the classic Islamic laws regarding dhimmis are not in force in Egypt today, they're still part of Islamic law, and as such Islamic clerics regard them as the proper status that Christians and other "People of the Book" should assume in the Islamic state. The Arabic word ذمي‎ (dhimmi) is derived from ذمة‎ (dhimma), "'protection, custody'"), and from ذم‎ (dhamma), which means "to blame." Thus the dhimmis are the blamed, or guilty ones.

How is it that "protection" and "custody" can be related to "blame" and "guilt"? Dhimmi does indeed mean "protected," "guaranteed," and "secured," but the semantic connotations of the word pertain to "indebtedness" and "liability." That's according to the online Sakhr dictionary, which is not by any stretch of the imagination an "Islamophobic" publication -- for example, it translates the word "Israel" into "a Jewish country set up on the Palestinian land." So when it says that dhimmi has to do with guilt, it is not reflecting some anti-Muslim bias!

In any case, the Arabic root-word "Z-M-M" (from which "dhimmi" issues) means "the opposite of praise," that is, to "censure," "dispraise too much," "blame," "criticize," "find fault with," "accuse," "obligate," "hold liable," "hold in bad conscience," "accuse," and "hold guilty," etc. And that's not a semantic connotation, that is the meaning, according to the Elias Modern Arabic Dictionary.

The fact that two words share a grammatical (phonlogical or phonetic) root does not mean that they share the same meaning, but in this case the meaning of zimmi and zimmah are directly related since zimmis are defined as members of the zimmah. In Robert's statement in the Politically Incorrect guide (p. 49), he is referring not to covenants generally but to the use of the Arabic word dhimmi (or dhimmis) in Islamic law as it refers to People of the Scripture and others who were subjugated under Islamic law.

The Quran itself in numerous places refers to the disbelief of Muhammad, Allah, and the Quran as the worst crime (6:21, 6:144, 6:157, 7:37, 10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 18:57, 29:68, 32:22, 39:32, 61:7). It literally refers to those who reject the Muhammad, Allah, and the Quran as "guilty" (Pickthall's translation, and others) (e.g., 7:40, 45:31, 74:41, 83:29, 6:147, 54:47).

Dhimmi means “protected person” and in no way, shape, or form means “guilty.” One can simply open up an Arabic dictionary to prove that this has absolutely no basis in the reality-based world. For example, here’s what Lisan al-Arab (considered the most reliable Arabic dictionary in the classical age of Islam) says:

ورجل ذِمِّيٌّ: معناه رجل له عهد

(Dhimmi: A person with whom there exists a treaty)

والذِّمَّةُ العهد

(And ‘dhimmah’ means treaty)

قال الجوهري: الذِّمَّةُ أَهل العقد.

(Al-Jawhari says: Dhimmah refers to the people with whom there is a treaty)

وقال أَبو عبيدة الذِّمّةُ الأَمان

(Abu Ubaydah says: Dhimmah means protection/security)

وقوم ذِمَّةٌ: مُعاهدون أَي ذوو ذِمَّةٍ

I'm just pointing out that you're making a big fuss over what Spencer imagines the root of a word is when the reference standards for the Arabic language make it clear what the meanings are:

shafique wrote:Your whole argument now seems to hinge on selectively quoting an intellectual huckster who himself selectively quotes.

...
Notice how Kinana cites (the horribly outdated) T.P. Hughes’ A Dictionary of Islam, and yet he purposely places ellipses [...] in the definition of the word “zimmah” in order to hide the fact that the “blame” (or “guilt”) is attributed to the Islamic state, not the non-Muslim resident. This cannot be a mere mistake on the part of Kinana; it is academic deceit of the highest order. T.P. Hughes’ A Dictionary of Islam reads (emphasis is mine):

Zimmah, pl. zinam, from the root zamm, “to blame.” A compact, covenant, or contract, a league or treaty, any engagement or obligation, because the breaking thereof necessitates blame; and a right or due, for the neglect of which one is to be blamed. The word is also synonymous with aman, in the sense of security of life and property, protection or safeguard, and promise of such; hence ahlu ‘z-zimmah [dhimmis], or , with suppression of the noun ahlu, simply az-zimmah, the people with whom a compact or covenant has been made, and particularly the Kitabis, or the people of the book, i.e. Jews and Christians, and the Majusi or Sabeans, who pay the poll-tax called jazyah. [JAZYAH.] An individual of this class–namely, a free non-Muslim subject of a Muslim Government, who pays a poll- or capitation-tax, for which the Muslims are responsible for his security, personal freedom, and religious toleration–is called zimmi (see the following article).

I predict that the JW minions will give excuses to explain away why their master Robert Spencer will refuse to debate me, instead of urging him to enter into a debate as they always do with other people who challenge his ideas. They already know that Spencer does not stand a chance in a debate with me, which is why they will continue to generate excuses to exonerate him from his intellectual cowardice. This is because deep down inside they know–as does everyone else who has followed his and my writings–what the outcome would be.

Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)Danios of LoonWatch Accepts Robert Spencer’s Challenge to a Debate
Posted on 17 June 2010 by Danios

Once again, Robert Spencer responds to one of my articles but refuses to take my name. I am forever “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.” Spencer says:

And on those rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response, it’s tissue-paper thin. A friend recently told me that he posted a lengthy rebuttal to a pseudo-scholarly presentation purporting to prove false something I said about the meaning of an Arabic word (my friend is a native Arabic speaker); his comment was summarily deleted.

My response is as follows:

1. “And on those rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response”

I’ll take that as a compliment!

2. “it’s tissue-paper thin.”

Of the “ultra soft and strong” variety I hope.

3. “A friend”

I assume you are speaking of Kinana of Khabyar, who like you is an intellectual huckster.

4. “a pseudo-scholarly presentation”

As I said before, this is a bad case of projection: Spencer tries to pass himself off as a scholar despite his lack of scholarly credentials, so he simply assumes that everyone else is trying to do the same. I have never claimed to be a scholar, and it truly amazes me that he would even assume that I tried to be “scholarly” considering I used the word “sh*% hole” in the title of my article. How many scholarly works have you read that speak with such an irreverent tone? The fact that Spencer would even think this speaks volumes about how little he knows about scholarship.

5. “native Arabic speaker”

Is that supposed to impress me? Kinana of Khaybar could be a professor in Arabic for all I care or the Queen of England. None of that changes the fact that he is guilty of academic deceit.

6. “his comment was summarily deleted.”

A lie. I never deleted Kinana’s comment. He never posted it on our site. Instead, he posted it on JihadWatch, and someone posted the link to it on our site, which you will see is still very much there. But let’s even assume–simply for argument’s sake–that I “summarily deleted” his comment. Not only is the link posted by an Islamophobe still on our site, but I myself reproduced the link in my counter-response as well as his response itself!

7. “he posted a lengthy rebuttal”

Let’s recap the debate. First, Robert Spencer claimed in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), that the word “dhimmis” translates to both “protected people” as well as “guilty people.” He went on to say that non-Muslim residents are called “guilty people” (or “dhimmis”) because they rejected the prophethood of Muhammad and altered their scriptures. I wrote an article declaring all this to be a bold-faced lie and proof that Spencer is an intellectual huckster who is guilty of wholesale fabrication.

Both Robert Spencer and his friend Kinana of Khaybar responded to my article. Spencer tried to cover his ass by moving the goalposts: instead of defending his claim that the word “dhimmis” means “guilty people”, Spencer argued that the word “dhimmis” is related to the word “guilt.” Kinana attempted to strengthen this argument by citing various Arabic dictionaries that linked the word “dhimmis” with “guilt.” In my counter-response, I exposed the intellectual chicanery that Kinana was engaging in: he quoted only a part of the dictionary definition, purposefully omitting the critical part which clearly explained that the “guilt” was associated not with the non-Muslim residents as Spencer and Kinana claimed, but with the Islamic state should it violate the rights of the non-Muslim residents.

Furthermore, the claim that the non-Muslim residents were called “dhimmis” because they were guilty of rejecting the prophethood of Muhammad and altering their scriptures is complete fabrication from the conspiratorial mind of Robert Spencer. Neither Spencer or Kinana sought to explain this bit of wholesale fabrication.

My question now is: whose response is “tissue-paper thin”? Will Spencer or Kinana care to defend their academic honesty (or in this case their lack thereof)? My guess is that they will try to avoid issuing “a substantive response” as much as possible.

In the same post, Robert Spencer bellows:

The list of the Leftist and Muslim academics and apologists who have refused my challenge to debate is very long; they know they can’t refute what I say on the basis of evidence, so they resort to broad-based smears and personal attacks — and haughty refusals to debate.

I accept your challenge, Spencer. I agree to a radio debate with you on the topic of jihad and “dhimmitude”, namely chapters 1-4 of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock.

Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear? My guess is that you “know [you] can’t refute what I say” and will “resort to…haughty refusals to debate.”

I predict that the JW minions will give excuses to explain away why their master Robert Spencer will refuse to debate me, instead of urging him to enter into a debate as they always do with other people who challenge his ideas. They already know that Spencer does not stand a chance in a debate with me, which is why they will continue to generate excuses to exonerate him from his intellectual cowardice. This is because deep down inside they know–as does everyone else who has followed his and my writings–what the outcome would be.

Spencer backing down from a debate with me would be curious, considering that he has already conceded that my writings are “rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response.” Spencer, are you saying that you can debate with people so long as they don’t give you a substantive response, in which case you flee?

No matter, I’ll continue to pulverize your arguments in my articles. Speaking of which, I’m almost done with my latest one (on the topic of jihad). Stay tuned.

Spencer and Kinana have already back-pedalled on the subject matter in the header (that Dhimmi = 'guilty people') - but you seem to be holding on to this cherished belief of yours.

Aslama is the verb from which the word Islam derives from. You stated this in a previous post.

The full meaning of Aslama has been posted above. You have been invited to check in any lexicon or dictionary to confirm the fact Aslama also means 'entered into peace'. I see just evasion on your part.

Ergo, once again your Orientalist views have been shown to rely on selective quotations and the wilful ignoring of evidence when posted.

..
Islam is the active participle of the verb 'aslama' and their meanings all derive from the root s-l-m.

In all the quotes you've given, the meaning of Islam is shown to be that of 'Aslama' (the verb) - and in any case is a short-cut to the full meaning which is 'way of life chosen by those who submit to the will of God to find peace' - 'way of life' (i.e. religion) is implied and understood, as is 'will of God'.

However, the 'submit' and 'peace' are integral in the meaning of 'Aslama'.

You are happy that 'religion' is an implicit meaning. You have separately acknowledged that aslama does indeed have a meaning of 'entering into peace' ..

Aslama is the verb from which the word Islam derives from. You stated this in a previous post.

Islam is the active participle of the verb 'aslama' and their meanings all derive from the root s-l-m.

However, the 'submit' and 'peace' are integral in the meaning of 'Aslama'.

Let’s recap the debate. First, Robert Spencer claimed in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), that the word “dhimmis” translates to both “protected people” as well as “guilty people.” He went on to say that non-Muslim residents are called “guilty people” (or “dhimmis”) because they rejected the prophethood of Muhammad and altered their scriptures. I wrote an article declaring all this to be a bold-faced lie and proof that Spencer is an intellectual huckster who is guilty of wholesale fabrication.

Both Robert Spencer and his friend Kinana of Khaybar responded to my article. Spencer tried to cover his peach by moving the goalposts: instead of defending his claim that the word “dhimmis” means “guilty people”, Spencer argued that the word “dhimmis” is related to the word “guilt.” Kinana attempted to strengthen this argument by citing various Arabic dictionaries that linked the word “dhimmis” with “guilt.” In my counter-response, I exposed the intellectual chicanery that Kinana was engaging in: he quoted only a part of the dictionary definition, purposefully omitting the critical part which clearly explained that the “guilt” was associated not with the non-Muslim residents as Spencer and Kinana claimed, but with the Islamic state should it violate the rights of the non-Muslim residents.

Furthermore, the claim that the non-Muslim residents were called “dhimmis” because they were guilty of rejecting the prophethood of Muhammad and altering their scriptures is complete fabrication from the conspiratorial mind of Robert Spencer. Neither Spencer or Kinana sought to explain this bit of wholesale fabrication.