Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[kandrathe]

State Department - Qatar
State Department - Qatar on Religious Freedom
Freedom House - Survey on Qatar

I think most anyone could manage 150,000 citizens with their wealth. 75% of their population are foreign help, there to do the cooking, cleaning, and handle the oil supply. Still, it seems rather oppressive from a western POV. Kuwait seems slightly better, at least for men.

[Occhidiangela]

The {Qatari} Constitution provides no explicit protection for freedom of religion and the Government continues to prohibit public worship by non-Muslims; however, it permits private religious services by people of the book (Christians and Jews). The official state religion follows the conservative Wahhabi tradition of the Hanbali school of Islam.

I'd say that spells it out rather clearly. Freedom House's assessment, in your third link, seems optimistic.

--Occhi

[kandrathe]

Yeah, I saw the Wahabi reference as well. The Koran also differentiates the treatment of people of the book, which does not call for their deaths, but treats them as subjugates. The laws in UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yeman and others, still protects only muslim citizens.

This is an excerpt from a jewish on-line library on the myths of Islam;

MYTH  “As 'People of the Book,' Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.”

This argument is rooted in the traditional concept of the "dhimma" ("writ of protection"), which was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Yet, as French authority Jacques Ellul has observed: "One must ask: 'protected against whom?' When this 'stranger' lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: against the Muslims themselves."

Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were usually allowed, as dhimmis (protected persons), to practice their faith. This "protection" did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to acknowledge openly the superiority of the true believer — the Muslim.

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the "tribute" (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi.

Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims, or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non-Muslim as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were forced to wear distinctive clothing and were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices — as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi also had to show public deference toward Muslims; for example, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.

Myths & Facts Online -- The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries
A site devoted to author Bat-Ye'0r: Dhimmis and Dhimmitude

Here is a nod to your earlier statement;

Every society and religion has developed its own form of fanaticism, particularly during periods of expansion, or internal unrest. In the Judeo-Christian societies, however, the separation of politics and religion — sometimes, it is true, entirely theoretical — has permitted intolerance and oppression to be challenged. The men who fought for the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of the Jews were Christians. Jews and Christians struggled side by side for the recognition of human rights. A similar progressive movement has yet to appear in the Muslim world, which has never acknowledged the oppressed dhimmi, or recognized that the degradation of the dhimmi represents a crime against humanity. The Muslim intelligentsia has failed to condemn both jihad as a genocidal war, and dhimmitude as a dehumanizing institution, which together resulted in imperialism, slavery, and the deportation of populations, whose historical and cultural patrimony were totally destroyed. If Muslims continue to avoid meaningful self-criticism of their own history of jihad and dhimmitude, it will be impossible for Islam to accept non-Muslims as full equals, and past prejudices will continue to be rampant.

Jihad Conquests, Islamism today -- By Bat Ye’or and Andrew Bostom

Edit: Another compelling link I found written by an Islamist about the lack of humility in the west. What I found most profound was a total abandonment by this Brit of an understanding of personal freedom. What is most maddedning about any religion is when it is force fed. Freedom to me means that when it comes to personal choices, where there is no damage beyond ones self, one must be allowed to choose for themself. Yes, there are consequences for debauchery, or dressing and acting laciviously, but they too are personal choices. In our free societies there are places that rival the decadence of ancient rome, but we can choose not to go there.

[Jester]

Please do not take this as support the practices of the Arab state governments (which, undoubtedly, include plenty of discrimination against all other religious types, most recently Jewish), or support for fundamentalist Islam. They certainly have much to answer for. However...

Relying on us-israel.org for anything, let alone factual information about Islam, is a dubious proposition at best. They have nothing to gain by portraying Islam positively, and everything to gain by portraying it negatively. The more Islam is seen as to blame for the middle east's troubles, the less flak they get for the situation in the occupied territories. Now, this argument swings both ways, and Arab leaders who deflect every question with "oh, but zionism" should be equally brought to account. But that doesn't put the Israeli lobby in any better a position, as far as impartial analysis goes.

National Review might even be worse; they don't even pretend to offer a factual account. Dhimmi.org appears to be a subsidiary of the Jewish Internet Association, again very likely to be heavily biased against Islam.

Not that it might not be true. Just that skepticism is required by the bucketful.

Jester

[kandrathe]

Yes, skepticism always. It requires one to assess the content of the message, rather than judge the message by the messenger. I'm not willing to assume that either the Jews or the Muslims are outright lying, or distorting the truth. The truth might exist between the extremes, but objective sources without skin in the game are hard to find. As for sources in general, I find intelligent articles written by both conservatives and liberals -- what is hard is to find open minded people willing to discern the good from both sides.

As for Dhimmi's -- I did not find an Islamic source. Bat Ye'or was a Jewish Egyptian whose citizenship was revoked when 2 yrs old. Obviously, the persecuted Dhimmi Jew or Christian is most likely to raise this as an issue, and Bat Ye'or has dedicated her career to commentary on this social injustice. My assumption is that if someone is motivated enough to write extensivly about it, they must be trying to sell me something. That is, to convince me that their POV is correct. I would love to find an Islamic commentary on the injustice or justification for Dhimmitude. She is probably THE world recognized authority on the topic, and yes, she happens to be a Jew.

Do I buy the sack of goods that Hamas is selling on the purity and goodness of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, no. Do I buy the bag of goods from Isreal that a blind, 67 yr old man in a wheel chair was so dangerous that he deserved to be bombed after leaving his mosque, no. Am I outraged by Isreal, yes.

[eppie]

QUOTE 
Than I don't like the lies that are used: wasn't it Cheney who was in charge of making a fake moon-landing movie in the case the real-one failed? 


That is an old conspiracy theory that has little or nothing to do with VP Cheney. It was the subject of a Hollywood film called "Capricorn 1" starring James Brolin and OJ Simpson.

You are right I had something wrong in my brain. That of the moon landing was Rumsfeld.

That brings me to the something else:

apparantly Rumsfeld yesterday admitted that they wanted to bomb Iraq because afghanistan did not have enough "targets". Anybody knows more about this?

[kandrathe]

{I posted this here because it didn't belong on the discussion on Christianity. :) I am responding to Jesters argument about repetitive results, leading to conclusions. }

1) Abu Abbas is given shelter in Baghdad.
2) Abu Nidal and the ANO is given refuge in Baghdad.
3) Complicity in supplying false passports to people like Ahmed Ajaj, and Ramzi Yousef.
4) Saudi airliner hijackers sheltered by Saddam.
5) Abu Musab al Zarqawi after being wounded by the US in his al Queda poisons training camp Afghanistan, gets his leg amputated in Baghdad.
6) Abu Musab al Zarqawi sets up a base, aided by Abu Wael, in Northern Iraq devoted to harrassing Kurds, but also training in use of posions like ricin, and cyanide.
7) Terrorist cells in Britain, France, and Spain are linked to Zarqawi and planning operations using poisons, and botulin toxins.
8) The evidence of the interviews of the two individuals by Jonathan Shanzer which his conclusion is that Abu Wael is Colonel Saadan Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Aani of the Iraqi Secret Service (ISS / Mukhabarat).
9) The implications of the evidence contained on the intercepted communique of February, 2004.
10) Allegations and confirmations by detainees of the use of the facility at Salman Pak.
11) Importation of massive numbers of foreign fighters from Syria, with Syrian sponsored visas.
12) Links of the ISS to assassinations and attempted assassinations.

Was Saddam and Iraq's links to terrorism as compelling as those to Iran, or Syria or persons in Saudi Arabia? I would say no. But, still I see some room for the possibility that Iraq had links to al Queda. I think part of my skepticism is that I believe al Queda is really a morphing coalition of like minded Jihadists, where each individual may have many affiliations. I also can see the possibility that each of these affiliations is a separate Iraqi decision to further their State goals and does not indicate the trend that they are State sponsors of Terrorism. I believe though, that there is enough evidence to keep my mind open about the possibility that Iraq was complicit.