Dhimmis and Incest

I hear a lot crap about Dhimmi-Dee, Dhimmi-Dum. Two things bother me. Read this first and I'll get to the incest in a bit.

First, when non-Muslims in the West start referring to themselves as potential Dhimmis. That's as silly as when progressive Muslims accept the title of 'apostate.' It seems that if you want to assert yourself -- whether you are a non-Muslim seeking to assert yourself over Islam, or a progressive Muslim seeking to assert yourself over extremist Muslims -- you should not use the terminology that your opponent would have you wear. When it comes to the battle of ideas, classification is the most important thing. I will never accept a fundo calling me an apostate. Even if that day I'm a practicing atheist. Think of it in terms of a basketball court. Your opponent says to you, "you're my bitch." You wouldn't go around the rest of the game saying to him, "I'm your bitch." Even if you are winning you probably wouldn't say that. I personally wouldn't. If *you* would, then maybe you really want to be a bitch, in which case I can't help you.

Second, there is a wide-spread misunderstanding about what constitutes a Dhimmi. Having been exposed to a lot of Islamic Law, both pre-modern and modern, I can say that there is not too much of agreement about it. Who constitutes a Dhimmi? Only People of the Book? Ok, but is that Jews and Christians only? Or are Hindus allowed in too since they have the Gita? What about Zoroastrians who don't really have a book but are mentioned in the Quran as People of the Book? Where can you impose Dhimmi status? In an Islamic Tyranny where the population has not participated in the laws? Or only in a democracy where the non-Muslims consent to it via a vote? Finally, it's noteworthy that Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran don't have a "Dhimmi" category. Now, it is true, having gone to a Christian school in Pakistan, that non-Muslims are often treated like shit. But that's not the same thing as Dhimmi status. That's a form of bigotry and racism (in Pakistan the Christians are darker skinned), and in Pakistan it is also very closely linked to classism as well b/c Christians tend to be poor. We should note though that the Pakistani cricket team at the current time has a Christian and Hindu. That seems like progress to me. Anyway, to the point about incest.

I recently heard from an Islamic lawyer a very interesting anecdote which tends to reveal quite a bit about the potential flexibility of Islamic Law. A particular Umayyad Caliph consulted the great Mu'tazila (rationalist) thinker Hasan al-Basri, asking him whether he should do something about the practice of certain Zoroastrians who permitted mother and son to get married (here's your incest) if the father passed away prematurely. Hasan al-Basri responded that a Muslim ruler was not allowed to interfere with the customs of another community, even if he was their king, because other communities had different beliefs. This is very instructive. It should teach all the extremist Muslims today that Islamic Law is quite amenable to a flexible reading. Therefore, those Muslims who wish to make an Islamic Empire and then subjugate non-Muslims as Dhimmis are acting contrary to previous versions of Islamic Law. In short, under the standard they themselves wish to follow, they are wrong.

Personally I think the days of organizing a state under the banner of religion are numbered, and for good reason, and therefore, I would agitate towards redefining Islamic Political Theory towards a more 'secular' position. I have outlined some of these ideas in a post on my blog.