Muslims forcing Christians in Baghdad to pay jizya

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” — Qur’an 9:29

An update on this story: “More on Muslims Forcing Christian Assyrians in Baghdad to Pay ‘Protection Tax,'” from AINA, with thanks to all who sent this in:

(AINA) — On 3-18-2007 AINA reported that Muslims were forcing the Christian Assyrians in the Dora Neighborhood of Baghdad to Pay the jizya, the ‘Protection Tax’ demanded from Christians and Jews by Islamic law. AINA has obtained testimony from two residents of Dora and an observer. All names are withheld to protect the safety of the individuals.

Baghdad Observer:

Elements of Al-Qaeda have moved into Dora from Anbar. No security forces are to be seen there, it seems to be abandoned by both Iraqi and Coalition. In Hay Al-Mechaneek (which is in Dora across the bridge) people have been warned by these insurgents to uninstall the satellite dishes since this is “Haram” (forbidden) in Islam. In Dora where christians live in Hay Al-Mualimeen [Teachers quarter] and Hay Al-Athorieen [Assyrian quarter] is where they are telling people to convert, leave, pay “Jizya” taxation.

Email From Dora Resident:

This has been going on for the past week, and it started even before Easter. We talked to many people within the American Embassy and Iraqi Government, but it seems no body really cares, because they have done nothing, or sometimes I wonder if they care at all. Neither the Iraqi nor the US army have any activity there, and they have delivered Dora to insurgents; and above all the US army went and put a camp in the Chaldean church (Babylon Theology College) to raise the hate among those Mislims toward christians, as they are seeing them allies for americans, and that worsen things more.

Testimony of Dora Resident, Currently A Refugee In Syria:

Yes it is true, today a family [name withheld] arrived from Dora/Mualimeen street, and they said some terrorists knocked on their door and when they opened the door they were told to either pay money (jizya) to support the insurgents or convert to Islam, or leave the house within 24 hours or else be killed.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Richard Perle was on PBS last night. An intelligent man, but not intelligent enough. Innocent of history, or at least of Islamic history, convinced that we can transplant “democracy” (what about, he asked, those “three elections” — unaware that those “three elections” were, as Ali Allawi says, not about “democracy” but about the assertion of identity, especially by the Shi’a), apparently not quite aware of Islam as the problem and menace and certainly inattentive to the instruments of Jihad other than mere terrorism, such as Da’wa and demographic conquest and the money weapon, he still clings, wanly, to the belief that this Iraq venture is worth the candle.

    And he invokes Kennedy’s speech — he is shown watching it on television — the one about “pay any price, bear any burden.”

    And he seems to think that is admirable, that makes sense, that should be more than mere inaugural-speech rhetoric. In January 1961, when Kennedy gave that speech, a certain colossal calamity was just beginning in Vietnam. We were, you see, prepared to “pay any price, bear any burden.”

    “Pay any price”? “Bear any burden”? Even if the price is gigantic ($880 billion in past, present and committed future costs, more than all the wars America has fought, save World War II, put together). Even if it hinders, rather than helps, this country and other Infidel lands to pay attention to the money weapon, and to Da’wa, and to demographic conquest?

    The polypragmonic impulse can be seen in Perle’s belief that we should go about the world, without a good knowledge of the sitatuion, and right wrongs. And he apparently, like Wolfowitz with his pillow-talk, was mightily impressed with all those “good Muslims” he has met. Yesterday it was Ahmad Chalabi and Kanan Makiya (“candy and flowers will greet the American liberators” according to Makiya, who forgot, or perhaps refuses to understand, what Islam, what minds on Islam, Sunni and Shi’a, are capable of) and Shaha Ali Riza, and right now, it appears, it is a young Iranian in exile whose tale, admittedly moving, leaves Perle, still enthralled by the idea of changing the world, eager for fresh fields and pastures new in whcih to have the United States “bear every burden” and “pay any price” (not China, not Japan, not Western Europe, not any of the other nations that need oil, or that might be menaced by the world-wide Jihad, but just little old us, transplanting our democracy here and there, with the splendid results — now whittled down from Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations to Iraq the Night-Light Unto the Muslim Nations).

    Henry Jackson, and Dorothy Fosdick, would have been harder, would have been less willing to believe Scharanskian idealism. They would not have been pleased with Richard Perle, who is so careful and insistent to tell the interviewer that he was and is a “liberal Democrat” and that he wants only the best for everyone.

    It’s true. He does want only the best for everyone. And that is his problem. He cannot see that resources are finite, that the menace of Islam is large and growing, and that the best way to deal with it is not to help Muslim countries, but to exploit the fissures, sectariian, ethnic, and economic, within the Camp of Islam.

    Perhaps he will rethink things. He has the leisure to read, and not merely swan about with others who have been in power (he talks to Buchanan, who horribly manages to sound more reasonable than Perle, and to Richard Holbrooke, who not so horribly manages to sound more reasonable than Perle though Holbrooke himself misunderstands what he did in Dayton, or why the bombing of the Serbs was not a triumph but rather excessive and unwise, and he even talks to Scharansky, and dreams of a day when Ali Abbas, the Iranian, can stand in Tehran as free as Scharansky…well, where? Did Russia work out? Has Russia become a “democracy” in any Western sense, or is it reveting to type? And will not Muslim states such as Iraq and Iran also revert to type, unless the conditions are created that will force Muslims, or the most intelligent of them, to make the connnection between the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of their societies and states, and Islam itself.

    Perle does not look as though he has yet engaged in such study, or that he has any sense of the enormity of the mistake of American troops remaining in Iraq beyond the first year. He appears really to believe that “democracy” was brought to Iraq, just like Bush and Rice — but Perle is much more intelligent than either Bush or Rice, and one has a right to expect more.

    What does he make of the condition of Christians in Iraq, as exhibited in the story above? What does he make of the Sunnis who are united in their refusal to acquiesce in the new order? Does he now have an understanding that all those accmomplished,eloquent, westernized Shi’a exiles, who had been out of Iraq for decades and forgotten what Iraq was like, and still have trouble locating the problem of the refusal of its sects and groups to compromise in Islam. For it is the spirit, in Qur’an and Hadith and Sira, of aggression and non-compromise that Islam, with its inculcated worldview with but two categories — Victor and Vanquished — that explains the Suni refusal to acquiesce, and the Shi’a refusal to give up some of the gains made. Bush does not understand this, and the generals are so busy with their counter-insurgency “lessons” (the Lessons of Algeria, the Lessons of Malaysia, the Lessons of Vietnam, the Lessons of Greece) that fail to take into account Islam, or the fact that there is not one insurgency, but many, and that while they may be at cross-purposes with each other, not one of those insurgent groups, nor the government itself, can be considered an unfeigned friend of the Infidel Americans.

    Last night’s program I thought would reveal someone who had recognized his folly and that of others. But it did not. It was, more or less, and unrepentently, the mixture as before.

  2. says

    “polypragmonic”, what does this word mean, or what is it meant to me? It does not seem to exist, is it neologism?
    Sorry to be so polypragmatic.

  3. says

    Eliasalucard said:

    The Muslim Crusade continues….
    Posted by: exsgtbrown
    I believe you mean Muslim Jihad, not Crusade 😉


    I believe he meant “crusade”, and I agree with that term. At this point I dont think it is jihad, but conquest of all infidel lands, therefore it is a crusade.

  4. says

    Crusade as in:

    3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.:

    ….ANd the Muslims are currently doing just that….

  5. says

    would really browns me off is that we have people dying here in the USA who cannot afford medical and his one billion of the billions of dollars that are being dumped into Iraq would vote could go to pay for a summer system of health care for the poor like Canada has maybe it’s time to quit dumping money into countries like Iraq where the people do not want us and are going to try and bleed us of all the money they can before they kill our soldiers

  6. says

    What was that guy’s name? Y’all remember him. He kept the lid on the sectarian divisions in Iraq, and the Shiites knew their palce; he even had a Christian in his cabinet. He was a good counterbalance it Iran; where did he go?

  7. says

    “This is a jihad. They’re not waging war against Christians through the belief in Jesus Christ, like the Crusaders did.”

    Posted by: EliasAlucard..

    …..sorry to burst your bubble…the Muslims are waging a Crusade against the Christians and and other NonMuslims they encounter,,,just like the Muslim Crusaders did.

    Historical facts say that Islam has been imperialistic”and would still like to be, if only for religious reasons. Many Muslim clerics, scholars, and activists, for example, would like to impose Islamic law around the world. Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades.

  8. says

    We pay our jizya to Lebanon not to attack Israel! We pay jizya by giving to Cair charities! Palestinian causes! -That is wild philosophy!exsgtbrown?

  9. says

    There have been various articles on the web about how to engage a mohammedan in debate and/or how to reply to appologists’ arguements about islam. Can someone help me a link? Thank you. the poetess

  10. says

    During a cab ride in Chicago’s Loop yesterday, I noticed the Assyrian Flag and a small cross hanging from the cabbie’s rearview mirror. After ascertaining from him that he was indeed of the indigenous people of Mesopotamia, I said: “God bless, you and your people. I am sorry for what they are suffering.” Having supported the invasion into the Iraqi theater of this world war, I felt a bit guilty that my Christian brothers and sisters were suffering under Sharia. I explained this as best I could and asked if he or most Assyrians would have preferred that Saddam had stayed in power. I was surprised when he answered with an emphatic NO! He said democracy would take a full generation and Americans were forgetful of their own history and the history of freedom in general. While I agreed about my fellow Americans lack of historical and geographical literacy, I said that my own readings these past 5 1/2 years had convinced me that human rights did not spring from ISLAMIC soil –that the very ideologies were at eternal odds with each other. He agreed and then added that Sharia was sh*t and most Moslems didn’t even understand the “perfect man Mohammed” that they followed was “sh*t” for a model. He then said he would love it and would not mind being a Christian minority in an Iraq if the majority were Buddhist! “It is not that I need everyone to be Christian like me. Buddhists don’t blow up everything.” But then again he counseled patience and said that young Iraqis would find a way just as someday the young Persians will find a way to freedom in Iran. All in all an interesting conversation but he was more hopeful than I and seemed strangely more bemused by Islamic Iraqi actions than angry. Perhaps his real belief is that Assyrians should not interfere with their Islamic enemy while he is self-destructing. Maybe like the US South, he believes Assyria will rise again.

  11. says


    “There have been various articles on the web about how to engage a mohammedan in debate and/or how to reply to appologists’ arguements about islam. Can someone help me a link? Thank you. the poetess”

    Unfortunately, there is, to my knowledge, no single source or “Handbook” for debating with Muslims, though some posters (non-experts) at Islam-Watch are in the process of trying to put together such a Handbook, which can be found here (click on the links in green in that index). The goal of the project is to rebut all the well-known Islamic propagandist/apologist myths and half-truths, accomplishing this throughly and concisely.

    Here is an article on How to Debate with Muslims by Ibn Warraq.

    Also on debating issues, see Religion of Peace, scroll down to “Myths of Islam” and “Games Muslims Play”

    Longer articles dealing with common debate topics in regard to Islam at Faithfreedom and Answering Islam

    6 years after 9/11, we still have no Handbook for Infidel Debaters. We very much need expert Islam critics to tackle this project and make it available for the general non-Muslim public ASAP.

  12. says

    “‘polypragmonic,’ what does this word mean?”
    — from a posting above

    Google “polypragmosyne” and “Jihad Watch” for more.

    “Polypragmosyne” is the quality of busybodily interfering here and there and everywhere — the Greeks didn’t like it, especially Aristophane in “The Birds.”

    You can also find an article about it in “Articles” above.

  13. says


    There is no “debating” with a Mohammedan. They have their minds made up. There are no questions allowed. The first line of the Koran is: “This book is not to be doubted.”

    Questioning implies doubt. And debating implies an equality between parties involved.

    Infidels (kaffirs) are not equal to Muslims in the Islamic mind.

    You will merely receive face-saving b.s. to cover up all depredations and terrorism done in the name of the Koran, but no honest replies or rational dialogue.

    They don’t want to be “understood”, only bowed to.


    The only debate is: “When will you submit?”

    Nothing less.

    Save your breath and time and simply strengthen your own beliefs.

    Let them “debate” themselves.

    As each explosion within every Muslim schismic community symbolizes.

    Irrationalism cannot be convinced to be rational.

    Only opposed- until it either erupts or implodes.

    At the moment, we face both symptoms: -attacks by jihadists on the West, and Sunni-Shi’ite internal massacres in Muslim lands.

    Plus, the Mohammedan concepts of: “War is deceit.” and: “Do not take Jews or Christians as friends.” renders all communication with them essentially meaningless.

    You are merely being kept busy wasting your time in “argumentation” while they plan to strike from a different angle.

    It’s a good war tactic, from their part.

    As Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” put it: “Make a noise noise from the North, then attack from the South.

  14. says

    profitsbeard, poetess,

    Debating Muslims in and of itself is usually a waste of time and resources. IMO, the primary purpose of debates with Muslims is to educate a non-Muslim audience, exposing the pro-Islamic propaganda for what it is, not to convert the Muslim. Most of the carriers of Islamic apologetic beliefs in the West are non-Muslims. Many of them, and their friends and families, can be and should be reached with this information.

    Note: The Handbook mentioned in my previous post is intended primarily for a non-Muslim user and audience.

  15. says

    Muslims demand that every one respect their religion yet they do not respect other people’s religions and routinely take Christian and Hindu property and turn it into a mosques, or at least has the last 500 years they do not seem to understand that in order to get respect you have to give respect is not surprising that Muslims would demand protection money after all those away they’ve done it for 1700 years

  16. says

    Islamist, Mohammadan, murderer or rapist…. it’s all the same.

    Nothing in their makeup allows for individual freedom unless it is for the male. Nothing in Islam allows for independent thought. As they become entrenched in the US and other freedom loving countries, they will exert more of their heathen beliefs on our society and force us to relinquish our religious, acedemic and media freedoms.

    We need to restrain them in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan or we shall surely be trying to restrain them in New York, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle and elsewhere in this country.

    They hate us and they hate us in the name of Allah.

    We are doomed to fight them forever.

  17. says

    Simpleton Abdullah says “u peeps make Jizya look so bad when you spend billions every year on dirty pornography.”

    Dirty pornography? Is that Islamospeak for farming magazines?