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;
A site devoted to author Bat-Ye'0r: Dhimmis and Dhimmitude
Here is a nod to your earlier statement;
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.
This is an excerpt from a jewish on-line library on the myths of Islam;
Quote:MYTH âAs 'People of the Book,' Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.âMyths & Facts Online -- The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries
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 â 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 â 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.
A site devoted to author Bat-Ye'0r: Dhimmis and Dhimmitude
Here is a nod to your earlier statement;
Quote: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 â sometimes, it is true, entirely theoretical â 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 Yeâor 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.