The Pact of Umar, and the status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands

From domini.org, here is the text of the Pact of Umar, which spelled out exactly the "tolerance" granted (note the term "granted") to Christians (and Jews) in Muslim lands, and was the guideline for dhimmitude, the "pact of protection" Jews and Christians were bound to live under, or face death. It is commonly attributed to the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (reigned 634-644), but for a number of reasons that seems too early; it is more likely to be a product of the reign of Umar II (717-720), who was considered to be a pious and good caliph (unlike those other corrupt, impious Umayyad caliphs, the later Abbasid histories sniffed). Needless to say, he was not known for his tolerance and lassiez-faire attitudes! For that matter, his predecessor Umar I was infamous for his fanatical zeal for Islam and desire to destroy the unbelievers.

Herewith, the text:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar, Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas [i.e. names starting with Abu ("father") or Umm ("mother")].

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists.

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

This, boys and girls, is what is really meant when Muslims and Muslim apologists wax poetic about the vaunted tolerance of Islam. There are plenty of accounts (reproduced in books such as Bat Ye'or's The Dhimmi, as well as her other books) by Western travelers to the Ottoman Empire in the 1800s that report that Christians and Jews were still following the rules laid down in this document, such as having to wear distinctive clothes, not being able to openly practice their religion or fix their churches or synagogues, and being made to feel their humiliation and inferiority to the Muslims in every way, such as being shoved out of the middle of the street to walk at the muddy side of the road--the middle was only for Muslims. This is what Arabs insist that Jews now living in Israel would be happy living under in a Palestinian state. This is what Islamists really mean when they talk about how non-Muslims would be "tolerated" in an Islamic state, today! I'm not talking about whether it was/was not better than Christian Europe at that time, I'm talking about the fact that plenty of Muslims see this as a fair, reasonable example of "tolerance" today, in this day and age! This "tolerance" would consist of: not being forced to convert to Islam at the point of a sword, being judged by their own religious courts (no secular law here!), and that's about it.

I find the condition mentioned of non-Muslims not teaching their children the Qur'an to be rather interesting. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the spectacle of Christians and Jews trashing their holy book and beliefs. Even today, Muslim writers for a non-Muslim audience will very rarely tell the whole truth about exactly what is in Qur'an or Hadiths or Shari'ah, possibly because it might cause the non-Muslim to become disgusted with Islam; they just don't have the right attitude to really "understand" it correctly and so must be kept from the truth. (Bizarrely enough, I have found that generally the more a non-Muslim actually knows about Islam, Qur'an, Hadiths and Shari'ah, not whitewashed BS, the more they dislike and distrust Islam, unlike most other religions, where familiarity more often breeds closeness and understanding).

The condition of Jews and Christians not being too loud with their religious services and not being allowed to offend Muslim sensibilites, as well as the prohibition of building new churches or fixing old ones, really gives the lie to the "freedom of religion" claimed by Muslims and Muslim apologists (which just means the right not to be slaughtered and/or forced to convert to Islam, in this usage). There is an incident described in Ibn Battuta's Rihla, the book describing his travels, that demonstrates the attitude of Muslims towards non-Muslim practices very well. While traveling through Kaffa, in what is now the Crimea in Russia, he heard the church bells begin to ring. Alarmed, Ibn Battuta hurried to the minaret of the nearest mosque and began chanting the Qur'an and call to prayer in an effort to drown out the satanic clamor, which was not allowed in Muslim lands. Eventually the local Muslims persuaded him to come off his high horse--or rather, tower. In another incident, while at a Turkish court he loudly denounced a Jewish physician who had a high rank for daring to seat himself above the Qur'an readers. Non-Muslims had to know their place, after all.

In addition to the conditions described above, the testimony of a non-Muslim was not allowed in a Muslim shari'ah court, so if a Jew or Christian had a case against a Muslim, he would have to get Muslim witnesses, since his own testimony was disallowed (on the grounds since that he had rejected Islam, the self-evident truth itself, and since the Jews and Christians had falsified their scriptures, everything he said and did was suspect). They also had to pay the jizya tax, prescribed in the Qur'an itself (9:29) and which proved a sizeable source of income for the state, to the point where the rulers often did not want too many people converting to Islam, for fear they would loose too much money in jizya revenues! This tax could be backbreakingly high, serving as a "persuasive reason" to convert to Islam (the claim that Islam did not "force" people to convert is disingenious at best; not only were there quite a few cases of forced conversions, all the conditions and restrictions certainly made life inordinately difficult for those who didn't convert to Islam, and were a direct cause of the eventual conversion of most of the Middle East, which had formerly been mostly Christian, to Islam). Sometimes Jews and Christians would not be allowed to stand in the rain, as they were najjas, "filthy," and would contaminate the rainwater (even today some Shi'a Muslims will wash a dish or glass used by a non-Muslim seven times, once with water mixed with dirt, as they would to something licked by a dog, to remove the impure filth left by the kafir). There were countless other ways to make the non-Muslims know their place in Muslim society--at the bottom (except maybe for the slaves and women of all religions).

Traditionally, if Jews or Christians tried in any way to improve their situation, they were often claimed to be in breach of the dhimma pact, which meant that their lives and property were fair game for Muslims. Nevertheless, sometimes a select few Jews and Christians would rise to high rank in the government (though typically as an advisor, as opposed to someone wielding official power, which was reserved for Muslims). They were much like the "court Jews" in Europe, who were honored and became wealthy while the vast majority of their coreligionists lived in poverty and squalor. Sometimes, if the populace felt that a Jew or Christian was too high up in the state hierarchy, they would riot against the group in question, such as the 1066 riots in Granada against the Jews, sparked by the murder of Joseph ibn Nagrela, a Jew who served as vizier to the ruler, in which the entire Jewish population of Granada was massacred. When Europeans began to trade and travel extensively in the Middle East in the 18th and 19th centuries, Muslims fumed at the "special protection" (meaning being treated better than canine manure) Western Jews and Christians often demanded and got for their Eastern co-religionists as the price of doing business. And it should be noted that, according to traditional Islamic law, the Jews who eventually threw off Muslim rule and founded the state of Israel would be considered to be in breach of the dhimma contract, meaning that they could be killed at will. Such a nice, tolerant doctrine, don't you think?

It must be noted that conditions changed depending on place and time, usually at the whim of the ruler, some of whom were much more tolerant than others, although the ones considered to be "good" by the religious leaders were usually fanatical zealots vis-a-vis the kafir peoples living in their lands. For example, in India, the Mughal ruler Akbar the Great (ruled 1556 to 1605) was held in high esteem by Hindus for his tolerance of unorthodox religious views, even going so far as to start his own religion, and for his abolishment of the jizya tax on Hindus, but he was savaged by the ulema as a heretic. Later, Aurangezeb (ruled 1658 to 1707) was held in high regard by Muslims, who saw him as a real warrior and defender of the faith, while Hindus shuddered, and still do, at his unrelieved brutality, slaughtering thousands of Hindus and demolishing their temples, building mosques on their sites. And anyway, would you find it tolerable to have your most fundamental rights at the mercy of the ruler of the day, whose opinions might change at any time? There's a reason that human rights are today considered universal and inviolate, not subject to whoever happens to be ruling at the time (at least in theory, anyway; reality is often less pleasant, but at least it's a start).

Note that the preceeding discussion typically only applied to Jews and Christians, with some Zoroastrians sometimes thrown in. Those not of the "people of the Book" were typically offered the choice between Islam and death, as prescribed by three of the four Sunni schools of law. The fourth, Hanafi, says that those of any religion may live as dhimmis. This was the school followed in India, and the main reason it was adopted seems to have been because there were just too many Hindus to kill (even today, Hindus make up 80% of the population of India, roughly 800 million people). Buddhists and Buddhism, being pacifist, were utterly destroyed in the lands conquered by Islam, and Sikh gurus were tortured and killed by Indian Muslim rulers, as were their followers. And then there is Iran's treatment of Baha'is and Pakistan's treatment of Ahmadis, both considered heresies from Islam in that they follow "new" prophets that came after the absolute final prophet, Muhammad, and so are not granted any freedom of religion, instead often being persecuted.

Though in many Islamic countries the status of non-Muslims is not quite as dim as it was in the past, that is due to the adoption of Western codes of law including equal citizenship for those of all religions. And even so, the position of non-Muslims is often quite unhappy, such as with the Copts in Egypt, who are discriminated against and treated poorly by the government, the Armenians who were massacred by the Turks during WWI, the Jews run out of Arab countries after the foundation of Israel, many with nothing but the clothes on their backs, the precarious situation of Christians in Lebanon, the special rights given to the 52% of Malaysians who are Muslim and denied to non-Muslims, and so on. Many Muslim countries have no problem with religious minorities because said minorities no longer exist--Turkey is now 99% Muslim, Pakistan is close to it, North Africa has hardly any Jews or Christians left, and so on.

Eventually this record must be at least acknowledged by Muslims and condemned, instead of extolling how Muslims were exceedingly tolerant, respectful, and kind to non-Muslims in a fantastically rosy version of Islamic history, where the lands of Islam were not only more tolerant than Europe during the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, but the status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands compares very well with the status of religious minorities in modern states today, where those of all religions or none have the same rights and are equal citizens! (Can you say "delusional"?) Many even claim that the Jews were/would be happier under "tolerant, enlightened" Muslim rule than under their own rule in the state of Israel! Nothing will change as long as this shameful record and the sufferings of non-Muslims under Muslim rule are honestly acknowledged, instead of constantly changing the subject to European intolerance and the Spanish Inquisition. At the very least, there needs to be some sort of statement like, "That was then, it was a cruel age and they didn't know any better, and this is now, and we know better now." If that is done, then perhaps there can be the start of understanding and honest discussion between Muslims and their victims, though I have to say I'm not overly optimistic, given what I've seen and read from Muslims, who are more likely to fret about discrimination against Muslim minorities than give a thought to the discrimination against non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Perhaps someday more Muslims will eventually be mature enough to be able to acknowledge the sufferings of others at Muslim hands.

(This topic always puts me in a particularly bad mood, because I have yet to see a Muslim really acknowledge this problem; instead it's all deny, deny, deny, with Muslims, of course, cast as the "true" victims, no matter what was done to others. It's yet another example of the "double standards" problem. And the non-Muslim apologists are the worst, especially considering how their own co-religionists were treated under Islam, and how they themselves would be treated in an Islamic state--unless they converted to save their own skins.)

Freethought Mecca

This is one of my favorite sites, although it is more than a little blasphemous! It is run by two Americans who converted to Islam and then left. It has a sense of humor, something sadly lacking in most writings involving Islam, and also well-researched essays into the origins of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islamic history. This essay, "Naked Reinterpretations, Veiled Redefinitions" goes into much of the territory I've explored below, including a critique of Asma Gull Hasan, which I reviewed on May 3rd (not sure how to get a link there, but if you scroll down you should see it), and it describes much the same difficulties I had with her work.

Comments

Comments are back up again (courtesy of Backblog). I used to have them at first, but they would often malfunction. I hope I have it right this time! Fire away your comments!

Now to work on the links...

The Mysterious Disappearing Archives

Since Blogger so often eats my archives, I'll post them here:

02/09/2003 - 02/15/2003
02/23/2003 - 03/01/2003
03/02/2003 - 03/08/2003
04/13/2003 - 04/19/2003
04/20/2003 - 04/26/2003
04/27/2003 - 05/03/2003
05/04/2003 - 05/10/2003
05/11/2003 - 05/17/2003

Unfortunately, I don't know why Blogger sometimes sends these links off to "Page Not Found." I am at a total loss as to how to get them back, but Blogger's infamous unreliability doesn't help! (Maybe this is their way to get you to upgrade to Blogger Plus!)

Hopelessly Ignorant Apologists for Islam, Muslim vs. Western Worldviews, etc.

OK, one more rant...

Sometimes one will come across someone who will extoll the tolerance, high culture and harmony of Islamic culture, often in Andalusia, Spain, but also in Baghdad, Cairo, India, etc. However, when confronted with facts that perhaps it wasn't a Utopian paradise, said evidence is simply ignored. In fact, you will sometimes get a rant about how "bigoted" and "racist" you are for mentioning these less-than-pleasant facts.

While Muslims sometimes act like this, I'm thinking more of the non-Muslim apologists, who sometimes seem to have such a high opinion of Islam and its history as the brightest, most dynamic, most tolerant culture ever, that one wonders why they don't just run down to their nearest mosque and pronounce the Shahada (the profession of faith that makes one a Muslim). While this does happen once in a great while, it doesn't happen nearly enough to account for most of the new-found "fans" of Islam.

Of course it really has nothing to do with Islam, it has to do with feeling self-righteous, more tolerant and more enlightened than others who don't have such a rosy picture of Islam, as evidenced by the willful blindness to anything that contradicts the perfect picture. And the fact that it is Islam that is the subject doesn't mean much either; it just happens to be the culture-du-jour from being in the news so much. It could just as easily be about African, Chinese, or Indian culture.

Another more sinister reason for these views is, bluntly, as a sledgehammer to whack away at Western civilization and culture, and since Islam has traditionally been the "enemy of the West," locked in countless struggles with Europe, it is the perfect weapon. I find the most ironic part of the whole thing to be the fact that the apologists, while bashing at the West with Islam, constantly attribute modern Western values to medieval Muslims, such as freedom of religion, peaceful coexistence of all religious groups, freedom of inquiry and speech, women's rights, nonviolence (jihad as "peaceful struggle") and the like. Even while trashing everything the West stands for, they can't get far enough away from Western values and thought-patterns to see that Muslim views on the above are very different and come from a worldview 180 degrees opposed to theirs, instead acting as if Muslims were just Westerners at heart who just happen to have different clothes and prayer rituals. And the whole "trashing of Western culture" just seems so much the product of Western thought, self-examination (even if hopelessly misguided) and rebellion against the way things are (I can't think of any other cultures that trash themselves so much--usually they gloat about how great they are or were, coupled with a strong regard for tradition, while the modern West tends to prefer the "new"). Yes, unfortunately, political correctness is a very Western phenomenon, no matter how much its proponents think they are rejecting Western values (though of course other groups and cultures are more than happy to adopt it if they see some gain for themselves in it). If any of these apologists actually really understood what Islam has traditionally been all about, I suspect the sympathy level would go down to something approaching their low opinion of Christian fundamentalists (though, given some of what I've read, maybe not--that would require honest research and thought, not endless axe-grinding).

Islam comes from a totally different worldview, one that states that the highest value is to submit oneself to the will of Allah, to follow His rules (the shari'ah), and to fight for the triumph of Islam, which could mean fighting to bring non-Muslim nations under the dominance of Islamic law, fighting to replace a corrupt Muslim ruler with one who more fully follows the Shari'ah, or working to spread Islam. The ultimate goal for Muslims is a home in Heaven, this life is really only deception and illusion, as the Qur'an says. And the way to enforce adherence to the Shari'ah is the threat of Hell, which will envelope those who do not accept Allah and His Will (women dressed in black shrouds in 120 degree Farenheit heat say, "The fire of Hell is hotter" when asked why they do it.). It's really a very medieval worldview, which went out of fashion hundreds of years ago in the West. All-important Western concepts of individual rights (freedom of speech and religion, the freedom of individual women to live their lives as they please), as opposed to group rights (the right of Islam to impose the law of Allah, the Shari'ah on the whole world, a duty that Allah Himself has entrusted the Muslims with), and the separation of religion and state coupled with a concept of religion as something strictly personal and private, simply are not a part of this worldview. Instead, Islam is the most important thing, not something to be kept private but something to base all of society around, especially the state.

Westerners really don't have any current, living, breathing frame of reference for dealing with this worldview. Instead you get a lot of "Well, Muslims are just like us." Many are, in fact, and have become very modern, but there's often also at least a little of this medievalism that still hangs around. And with many, many Muslims, some living in the West, this medievalism is thorough. Westerners often have a hard time believing that there could be anyone who could actually believe in such a worldview, so they don't take it seriously, instead claiming that, for example, the motives of Muslim terrorists are political, not religious. And Muslims in their turn also often see everything in terms of their worldview, thinking that non-Muslims are involved in a great "war against Islam." Without some kind of real understanding of what is at stake and what people actually believe (not this politically correct "we're all the same" BS, and endless whitewashing of Islamic history and beliefs), there will never be anything resembling peace and understanding.

And I'm willing to say that such peace and understanding may not even be possible, given that the two worldviews are not compatible. Either Muslims accept Western views, which many are in fact doing and which may even be inevitable (for example, even among many of the Islamists wanting to establish Islamic law in their own countries, women are becoming politically involved, refusing to accept the old views that women should stay at home and let the men take care of politics), or Muslims decide to leave non-Muslims alone (no more offensive jihad), or, least likely of all, the West adopts the Islamic worldview. Of the three, I think the first is the most likely, at least among Muslims who have been steeped with Western values. The other choice is for Muslims and others to continue fighting until the end of time, and I don't think that's a very pleasant or desireable outcome, even if some Muslim jihadis hoping to conquer the world and bring it under the only authentic law, that of Allah, think it is!

Muslim PR

Muslims sometimes say that doing something or other (such as commit terrorist acts) will give Islam "a bad image" (the way some say it, it seems as if there is no other reason to do or not do something!) For example, the 9/11 attacks gave Islam a "bad image" (to put it lightly). Suicide bombers blowing up buses in Tel Aviv and yelling "Allahu Akbar" give Islam a "bad image" (it's not so much that they're slaughtering women and children, they're "defaming Islam!" and putting the Palestinian cause in disrepute).

That said, CAIR and other Muslim groups in the US seem to be going out of their way to be as offensive as possible, making me wonder if they actually understand American values and viewpoints. For example, they constantly use the "victimization" claim, about how they are being looked at funny and discriminated against, as well as more general complaints about how "the West" has horribly victimized Muslims for hundreds of years. Although this kind of complaining may play well among the politically correct, it will not get you very far with most Americans, who hate whiners and those who blame everybody but themselves for their problem. Also, holding on to 500-year grievances is generally not considered a productive use of one's time or energy.

Also, the double standards mentioned in the post below help even less to endear Muslims to Americans. Another major problem is the refusal to unequivocally condemn terrorism done in the name of Allah, instead utilizing weasel words like "it's bad, BUT..." followed with some excuse or humiliation that is supposed to excuse or minimize it, or claiming that it isn't really "terrorism" but "freedom fighting" (such as the suicide bombers), or indulging in tu quoque, claiming, "Well, the Oklahoma City bombing was by a white Christian!" (totally ignoring the fact that while the said bombing had nothing to do with Christianity, the attacks in question have everything to do with Islam), or flat-out insisting that they shouldn't have to apologize for other Muslims' actions (but are often all too quick to notice any offense against those other Muslims).

Then there are the Islamic fundamentalist statements that not infrequently make their way out from these Muslim organizations, wishing for the day when America is under Islamic law, or when the whole earth is under the control of Muslims. This for sure isn't going to win you any friends. Neither is the constant trashing of American values and lifestyles seen in Islamic publications, as well as the admonition not to "imitate the infidels," for fear of corrupting Muslims' Islam, or the often harsh divide between Muslims and non-Muslims, as when the Qur'anic injunction to not take the unbelievers for friends is taken quite literally. Muslims must make an effort to adapt to American society, and many have done so. But the Islamic organizations in question often take the opposite tack, insisting that America must bend to their demands, which will not win friends but only breed distrust and dislike.

To improve Muslim PR in the US (and elsewhere, when applicable), I have the following suggestions for CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MSA and the like (which do not necessarily represent all American Muslims):

*Stop playing the "victim," which only breeds resentment and distrust among other Americans, especially when Muslims screaming jihad were in fact involved in horrific acts against Americans.

*Condemn violence in the name of Islam completely and unequivocally, without making excuses or secretly raising funds for terrorist groups, or actively shielding terrorists.

*Fully accept American notions of democracy, separation of religion and state, freedom of religion (no death sentences for apostates!) and the secular law as the law to be followed (instead of claiming that since it's "man-made" law, Muslims are not bound to follow it--a sure recipie to have Muslims considered traitors). Also, the first loyalty of American Muslims must be to America, not the "ummah" (the worldwide "nation" of all Muslims), which means no more asking of Imams if it is OK for American Muslim soldiers to fight other Muslims.

*Calling for worldwide Islamic rule, or for the US to be transformed into a Muslim country run by Islamic law must cease and become unacceptable.

*Instead of whining about "racial profiling" and "discrimination" in the wake of 9/11 and other terrorist acts, offer wholehearted cooperation to ferret out the terrorists and their organizations.

*Some effort to quiet or at least denounce the endless hatred preached from Muslim lands against "the West" and "the Jews" would be nice, since so many American Muslims still have ties to their countries of origin, and this condemnation coupled with a refusal to bring these views into America, instead of openly propagating them in Muslim magazines, newspapers, and books, as well as Friday khutbas (sermons).

*Taqiyyah (the practice of lying to infidels, often to get them to lower their guard about Muslims who may be about to attack) must be ended.

That would do for a start, to get the feeling that American Muslim organizations were in fact attempting to be Americans, instead of seeing America as simply "dar al-harb," a land of the infidels, just a place to park oneself temporarily and try to spread Islam, feeling no loyalty to the country even if a naturalized citizen.

I have to admit that I don't have much hope that these things will really happen, at least not with the present American Muslim organizations. I suspect new groups of American Muslims would have to be formed to actually carry them out, and often I'm pessimistic that there are that many Muslims in the US who would be willing to do it. I'd like to be proven wrong, though.

Double Standards

One thing that is sure to turn Americans and Westerners against Muslims, whether living in the West or elsewhere, are the double standards for Muslim vs. others' behavior. "Special rights" for Muslims violate everything the US stands for, and I can guarantee will not be tolerated by the citizenry. Already people are upset. Some examples of what I mean:

*While religious beliefs of Christians (and often Jews) are looked down on and considered to be a mark of unsophistication by some elites, Muslim religious belief is often not seen in this way, instead as a positive expression of their culture.

*Prayer in schools by Christians and Jews is an absolute no-no in US public schools, yet some schools give Muslims special prayer rooms and/or let them off for prayer.

*Any criticism of Islam is attacked as "Islamophobia" or "racism" (even though Muslims are in no way a race) by Muslims, while their own publications criticize, denigrate, and ridicule other religions (such as Christianity and Judaism; Hinduism is also a target).

*Hand-wringing over whether Muslims are discriminated against or have their beliefs denigrated, contrasted with total indifference to what Muslims do to others, whether attacking others or discriminating against them or inciting hatred towards them (the infamous Nazi-levels of Jew hatred thoughout the Arab world and even in the West, ignored by organizations like CAIR while getting very upset by any criticism of Islam or Muslims, even when the person in question is a convicted terrorist or murderer).

*One-way "dialogues" in which Christians and Jews are told they must be more accepting and tolerant of Islamic beliefs and practices, while Muslims are NOT told they must accept and tolerate other beliefs, instead they are more likely to be told, or claim, that they are "victims" of the West and Western imperialism (cf. John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University).

*This one is one of my pet peeves -- Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals are excoriated as being the most unenlightened brutes on earth for their views (anti-abortion, the importance of religion in daily life, the missionary activities, etc.), trying to force their religion and beliefs on everyone else, while Muslims, who have similar or more extreme views and who also feel the need to proselytize endlessly, are given an absolutely free pass, even praised for their "diversity." (Exception given to those that do see the danger from Islamic fundamentalism.) It is disheartening to me to see some parts of the Left, liberals, etc., totally sell out what are supposed to be their "core" issues (abortion rights, women's rights, gay rights, freedom of expression) on the altar of being "sensitive" to Muslim concerns and "cultural relativism.". I cannot and will not support any group or organization that won't uphold their vision of human or women's rights in ALL cultures, instead of claiming that somehow, people in other cultures just don't have those rights because of their culture ("women in Muslim cultures are happy wearing the veil and being under the control of men, and we don't have any right to judge" -- while Muslims have no problem judging Western women as "whores" who can be had at any price, and Western culture as completely degraded and decadent.) Since I support women's rights in all cultures, I find "cultural relativism" to be quite an ugly thing, especially since Muslims sure don't subscribe to it--they (generally) think Islam is the greatest and that all should live under it!

*Subset of the above -- complaining about how some (typically "Christian fundamentalists" or "the religious right") want to "turn the clock back" on women's rights in the US, but ignoring or refusing to condemn the low status of women in Muslim lands, or even in Muslim enclaves in the West. Or excoriating "pro-lifers" and their arguments, while giving respectful attention to strict Muslim views on abortion rights. (Special kudos for those groups who denounced the treatment of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and groups working to improve the status of women in Muslim lands.) Similar is the claim that women in the West are really no less oppressed than those in the worst Islamic hellhole, suggesting that the person in question really needs to get out more and see more of the world.

*Whitewashing of Islamic history, while the same atrocities committed by others are denounced. For example, slavery in the Americas is rightfully denounced as one of the worst tragedies in human history, but Muslim slavery is often portrayed in a somewhat positive light, with claims that Muslim slaves were treated well and often freed. The fact that the Arab African slave trade lasted for over 1,000 years and was often unspeakably brutal is not mentioned. In the PBS program "Islam: Empire of Faith," the devshirme, the stealing of Christian children from their parents to serve as slave soldiers was portrayed in a rather positive light, and it is claimed that it allowed those born of poor families to rise to high status in the army. What if it was claimed that African slaves were done a "service" by being enslaved and brought to the Americas? Also, while Western imperialism and colonialism, which lasted for a relatively short period of time (about 30 to 200 years, depending on the place) is denounced as pure evil and the cause of all problems in Muslim lands today, Arab imperialism and conquests, which lasted much longer, is positively portrayed (the greatness of the Arab Empire is extolled), and even the Turks, whose empire lasted over 500 years and covered the vast majority of the Arab world, are not berated for their imperialism.

*Outrageously, some Westerners actually either apologized for or even supported the death-fatwa on Salman Rushdie for publishing The Satanic Verses, because it "offended Muslim sensibilities," while Muslims make all kinds of statements offending Western sensibilities! I guess the right of Muslims not to be offended or feel uncomfortable, in this view, outweighs the right of Salman Rushdie (and other writers critical of Islam) to live! So much for "freedom of speech and expression." Similarly, there are many critical books written about how Judeo/Christian sources are unreliable, and there are documentaries on PBS about the current status of Biblical studies, while in all too many Islamic studies programs, the Muslim sources are taken at face value, not to be questioned, and PBS shows mostly sugary documentaries about Islam, such as Islam: Empire of Faith and Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet, both of which are sold on Islamic websites, and were explicitly seen by Muslims as da'wah tools (calling to Islam, proselytization). (This Atlantic article, which I have linked to before, has some info on this subject).

*Complaints about how poorly Muslims are treated in non-Muslim countries and discriminated against, with no comment on the discrimination and lack of freedom of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. Or else there will be a bland comment about how Islam "allows religious freedom" and is tolerant of other religions, but with no detail given (the Pact of Umar, which I will cover soon, spells out just how "free" non-Muslims were), contrasted with, for example, the Inquisition, with not a word said about pogroms and massacres of Jews and Christians (and others) in the Muslim world, or about the condition of dhimmitude, the second (or more like third) -class status of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule, which is often flat-out denied. ("Everyone lived in peace and harmony together in Andalusia and Turkey! Never mind that there are numerous reports of the poor status of Jews and Christians, as well as stuff like the 1066 massacre of the Jews of Granada, or the numerous reports in the 19th century of just how dismal life was for non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.) In any case, the traditional Muslim conception of the "dhimmi," even though it may have been better than being burned to death under the Spanish Inquisition, is emphatically not an acceptable model for religious "tolerance" today, no matter how much Muslim apologists may claim it is--only total equality, and not "protection," is acceptable.

*Finally, excusing of or completely ignoring Muslim atrocities against non-Muslim or Muslims, while any action by non-Muslims against Muslims is a horrific outrage, a war crime on the scale of WWII or the Holocaust (frequently denied by many Muslims, incidentally).

Muslims must have the same rights as everyone else--no more and no less. If nobody can pray in school, that means Muslims can't have special rights to pray either. If Christians and Jews are allowed to take their holidays off, so can Muslims. If Christianity can be criticized and trashed, so can Islam. Muslims must also be held to the same standards of behavior--no more excusing of terrorist acts, while the same things done by someone else would be cause for complete and unequivocal condemnation. Muslims and non-Muslims must have the same rights in Muslim societies, just like Muslims are first-class citizens of the US and other nations. Only in this way will Muslims and non-Muslims be able to coexist and live in harmony.