When confronted with the realities of dhimmitude, most Muslims respond (if they will admit at all that non-Muslims faced discrimination, harassment, intolerance and worse in Islamic societies) that all that is a historical relic, with no contemporary relevance. It is thus refreshing to encounter someone in the Islamic world who knows that it is still very much part of the agenda of the global jihadist movement.
Note also that he is absolutely correct about the distinction between believers and unbelievers. The Qur’an declares that “never should a believer kill a believer” (4:92) and “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” (48:29).
From MEMRI, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
In an article titled “The Arab Silence on Darfur Revisited,” Abu Khawla, a human rights activist and former chair of the Tunisian section of Amnesty International, points out that pan-Arabism is the chief culprit for the lack of Arab reaction to the “horrendous crime being committed by their fellow Arabs in Sudan.” In his view, the only effective way to counter the pan-Arab “propaganda of hate-mongering and deceit” is to mobilize the Arab liberal movement.
And here is the salient statement from Abu Khawla:
“Why did these fundamentalist havens try to hide the truth about the Darfur massacre? For starter, we should notice that the matter wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow among Muslim public opinion had the slaughter targeted non-Muslims. Fighting infidels until they either convert to Islam or submit to Muslims as ‘Dhimmis,’ i.e., citizens of second class status under Islamic rule, and pay the ‘Jezya’ (a poll tax), is still considered by Islamists to be a religious duty. And the above-mentioned status of Dhimmitude is exclusive to the ‘peoples of the book,’ namely Christians and Jews. Animists, Hindus and other ‘heretics,’ are all considered ‘Najus’ (filthy), i.e. fit for extermination. Today’s animists in Southern Sudan as well as Bah’ai and Ismailite sects in most Islamic countries are learning about it the hard way.
“But Darfur is different, since it is a slaughter of Muslims even though they are non-Arabs of African descent. Why? In order to be able to answer this question, we need to make a difference between theory and practice. In theory, Muslims aren’t allowed to slaughter other Muslims. The much-vaunted reference here is the Koranic verse stating that ‘only faith and piety will make a difference between an Arab and an ‘Ajami’ (non-Arab).’ This explains to a large extent the historic animosity between Islamism and pan-Arabism. While the latter refers to the Arab nation, Islamists refer to the Islamic ‘Ummah,’ considering Arab nationalism as a source of ‘fitnah’ (sedition).
“The practice, however, tells a very different story. Slavery is among the most horrendous means by which Arabs subjugated non-Arab Muslims, especially those of African descent. The practice was widespread in Saudi Arabia until the mid-1960s when it was abolished due to intense international pressure.”