>> Thanks for your input. I guess if you were the decision maker, no one would speak out against Islam.
Uh ... where did I say THAT!?!
I said that I think “awareness weeks” are condescending useless tactics that will have no effect, whatsoever, on stemming Islamic fundamentalism. It’ll make the organizers of the “awareness” campaign feel better about themselves (the actual goal of most of these liberal tactics) ... but it will have no effect on the cause.
We’ve had awareness weeks about homelessness, poverty, breast cancer, AIDS, global warming, etc., etc. ... name ONE actual benefit that has come from any of these pedantic displays. None of these “causes” have improved because of awareness ...
Lets come up with an idea that will actually make a difference - not a meaningless display like an awareness week.
>> Dhimmitude may become you, but it doesn’t become me.
Is that even a word? I’m well read, well educated, and reasonably well spoken ... its not often that someone uses a word that I’ve never seen before. Kudos.
H
I think this “awareness week” stuff is being held only on college campuses. It’s not a bad idea, IMO. Colleges have been going left for a while now. Horowitz has been focussing on what’s happening at colleges, whether it’s the professors, curriculum, freedom of speech, you name it.
>> Dhimmitude may become you, but it doesnÂ’t become me. Is that even a word? IÂ’m well read, well educated, and reasonably well spoken ... its not often that someone uses a word that IÂ’ve never seen before. Kudos.
Well, respectfully, You are very much in need of the awareness week being proposed in this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude
The word dhimmitude is a neologism, imported from the French language, and derived from the Arabic language word dhimmi. Dhimmi (also zimmi, Arabic ذمي, often translated as "protected") is a legal status of a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia — Islamic law. The word dhimmi is an adjective (but used like a noun in English). It is derived from the noun dhimma, which means "pact of liability", and denotes the legal relationship between non-Muslim subjects and the Islamic state. "Dhimmitude" adds the productive suffix "-tude"(as in "attitude" or "servitude") to the adjective dhimmi, thus creating a new noun with a meaning (arguably) distinct from dhimma. Depending on the author, the term has several distinct, but related meanings. Its scope may be historical only, contemporary only, or both. It may encompass the whole system of dhimma, look only at its subjects (dhimmis), or even apply it outside of any established system of dhimma.
Etymology
The term is said to have been invented in 1982 by the Lebanese Maronite militia leader Bachir Gemayel, in reference to perceived attempts by the country's Muslim leadership to subordinate the large Lebanese Christian minority. In a speech of September 14, 1982 given at Dayr al-Salib in Lebanon, he said: "Lebanon is our homeland and will remain a homeland for Christians . . . We want to continue to christen, to celebrate our rites and traditions, our faith and our creed whenever we wish . . . Henceforth, we refuse to live in any dhimmitude!"[1] A Christian supporter of the secular nationalist Syrian Social Nationalist Party assassinated Gemayel shortly after he gave the speech.
The concept of "dhimmitude" was introduced into Western discourse by the writer Bat Ye'or in a French-language article published in the Italian journal La Rassegna mensile di Israel in 1983.[2]. The term was used in English as early as 1985 in a book review by Prof. James E. Biechler in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, in which he praised Ye'or's work, commenting that "Perhaps the single most significant contribution of the author is her definition and development of the concept of 'dhimmitude'".[3] Ye'or further popularised the term in her books The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude. Seventh-Twentieth Century[4] and the 2003 followup Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide[5] After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the term became far more widely used, particularly in discussions about Islamism.
Associations and usage
The associations of the word "dhimmitude" vary between users:
Bat Ye'or originally defined dhimmitude as the condition and experience of those who are subject to dhimma, and thus not synonymous to, but rather a subset of the dhimma phenomenon.
It may be simply a replacement for the relatively little known (compared to dhimmi) noun dhimma, coined to carry the same meaning. This has already widely happened in French usage where, as in English, "-tude" is a productive suffix.
A more recent pejorative usage variant of "dhimmi" and "dhimmitude" divorces the words from the historical context of jihad and applies them to situations where non-Muslims in the West are allegedly championing Islamic causes above others'. "Dhimmi" is treated as analogous to "Quisling" within this context. See, for example, the site Dhimmi Watch.
Sample views
Bat Yeor's definition:
"As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the Infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad. By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. As they were forbidden to possess weapons and give testimony against a Muslim, they were put in a position of vulnerability and humility."[6]
Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that
"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."[7]
Robert Spencer author of the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance defines dhimmitude as :
Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.[8]