The Spanish Government’s President spoke about that support in phone calls to both to the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the Alawite ruler of Morocco (what do Erdogan and King Mohammed VI have to do with Norwegian murder? No Muslim was murdered, no Moroccan or Turkish citizen was murdered or hurt…), in which he reiterated his commitment to the alliance of civilizations as the only way possible for a north-south agreement. Zapatero argues that both Turkey and Morocco meet the requirements set by the EU to join their project.
18 comments:
I'm guessing there are people who think we are being ridiculous and over-the-top when we call Leftist politicians "Dhimmis".
But, what is this if not an example of Dhimmification?
I have three comments:
1. The comments by Zapatero made no reference to Norway and he was planning this a long time before. I am a Spanish dual-national and read the rediculous items that simply make-up stuff.
2. Do you actually know what the word dhimmitude means? Are you aware that it is a recent creation by the likes of Spencer and that the average Muslims has never even heard of it? It is a sorry excuse of a term that belongs in the books of bigots and hate.
3. I actually do not support either Turkey or Morocco becoming part of the EU, which I believe is already to large and anyhow the concept of an EU other than economic shares and legal-balancing simply fails.
Ironically Morocco and Turkey have less unemployment than Spain and Spain has asked for support from Morocco to allow easier access to Spaniards looking for work over there!
Hi Claudia.
Meet the new Young Turk........At your own peril?
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=enjoy-your-new-young-turk-2011-07-26
Claudia,
“gesture of conciliation with the Islamic world?” So we should ignore every Turkey and Morocco have done, and are still doing, and just let them join the EU?
Hello:
The interesting thing is that Norway is NOT a member of the European Union. And he linked the announcement to what had happened. If Norway has a problem with the Islamic world, why the EU should make a "gesture of conciliation with the Islamic world"?
Pastorius: in his case, it's just a case of idiocy and stupidity. I remember when he said at the UN that "the earth belongs to the wind". This is just the same.
Damien Charles:
1. So, he has made them after the massacre as a "gesture of reconciliation with the Islamic world", after saying that "requires a European shared response". It's something clear to me, they are linked and that, even if he thought he should ask for their entry, this was a very good ocasion, as in Spanish we say, "aprovechando que el Pisuerga pasa por Valladolid". Maybe for you they are not related, but they are for Zapatero...
2. I don't mind if "Dhimmitude" exists as a word or it doesn't. The fact is that all throughout the Islamic world, non-Muslims live as second-class citizens, suffering persecution for believing in a different religion or not believing in anything. ANd that if a Muslim leaves Islam and converts to another religion, is persecuted and harrassed much more that the non-Muslims are.
3. I don't support them because, apart from what you point out, it's a European Union and I don't think these countries are European at all.
We are not speaking about economics here. Yes, Spain is not in a very bouyant situation, mainly because of this gentleman from the "Alliance of Civilizations", who has been catastrophic for Spain. We are speaking mainly about Human Rights, democracy and freedom, three conditions I don't see in any of those countries, though Turkey is much more developed in them than Morocco, for obvious reasons.
MFS: Thanks for the link, I will read it. Zapatero's relationship with Erdogan has been very good since the beginning.
Damien: Yes, apparently, for Zapatero, they meet all the requirements... something that is absolutely false.
Claudia said "The fact is that all throughout the Islamic world, non-Muslims live as second-class citizens, suffering persecution for believing in a different religion or not believing in anything".
That is a sweeping generalisation that does not actually fit the bill. Sure in some places they very well do suffer but not all or even "most". A good example is in fact Morocco and Turkey. I know Morocco very well and that is certainly not the case.
I reject the term dhimmi as illogical, inacurate and more to do with what some self-proclaimed anti-jihadists and hate-for-profiteers use to raise tension and has nothing to do with reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
A dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي ḏimmī IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː]), (collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-ḏimmah/dhimmah, "the people of the dhimma or people of the contract") is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia law. Linguistically, the word means "one whose responsibility has been taken".[1] This has to be understood in the context of the definition of state in Islam, which is different from the current definition of citizenship of a state. The dhimma is a theoretical contract based on a widely held Islamic doctrine granting special status to adherents of Judaism, Christianity, ("People of the Book") and certain other non-Muslim religions. Dhimma provides rights of residence in return for taxes.[2] Dhimmi have fewer legal and social rights than Muslims, but more rights than other non-Muslims.[3] They are excused from specifically Muslim duties, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation.[4]
Under sharia law, dhimmi status was originally afforded to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. The protected religions later came to include Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Hindus and Buddhists.[5][6] Eventually, the largest school of Islamic legal thought applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, Saudi Arabia.[7]
Damien,
You write: I reject the term dhimmi as illogical
I respond: That is not a decision which is up to you.
The word Dhimmi is from the Arabic. It is an Arab Muslim concept.
The word Dhimmitude is a French Neologism.
You are wrong.
The concept of the Dhimma is in the Koran.
And, it is accepted by contemporary Islamic scholars and thinkers:
Views of contemporary Islamic scholars on the status of dhimmis in an Islamic society
Ayatollah Khomeini in his book On Islamic Government indicates unequivocally that non-Muslims should be required to pay the poll tax, in return for which they would profit from the protection and services of the state; they would, however, be excluded from all participation in the political process.[37] Bernard Lewis remarks about Khomeini that one of his main grievances against the Shah was that his legislation allowed the theoretical possibility of non-Muslims exercising political or judicial authority over Muslims.[38]
Allameh Tabatabaei, a prominent 20th century Shia scholar, commenting on a hadith that claims that the verse 9:29 has "abrogated" other verses asking for good behaviour toward dhimmis, states that "abrogation" could be understood either in its terminological sense or its literal sense. If "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should deal with dhimmis strictly in a good and decent manner.[39]
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in Mizan that certain directives of the Qur’an were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad against peoples of his times, besides other directives, the campaign involved asking the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam.[40][41]
The Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi states in the selection of the Tafsir Nemooneh that the main philosophy of jizya is that it is only a financial aid to those Muslims who are in the charge of safeguarding the security of the state and Dhimmis' lives and properties on their behalf[42]
[edit] Views of prominent contemporary Muslims on the status of dhimmis in an Islamic society
Legal scholar L. Ali Khan points to the Constitution of Medina as a way forward for Islamic states in his 2006 paper titled The Medina Constitution. He suggests this ancient document, which governed the status of religions and races in the first Islamic state, can serve as a basis for the protection of minority rights, equality, and religious freedom in the modern Islamic state.[43][44]
Dr. Zakir Naik, a prominent Islamic preacher from India, has stated that "as far as the matters of religion are concerned we know for sure that only Islam is the true religion in the eyes of God. In 3:85 it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong? And when worship is also wrong? Thus we will surely not allow such wrong things in our (i.e. an Islamic) country."[45]
Damien Charles: So, it doesn't happen in Morocco, hein?
Three links (but there are a lot more):
Christian convert serving 15 years for conversion
“He became a Christian and didn’t keep it to himself,” said a Moroccan Christian and host for Al Hayat Television who goes only by his first name, Rachid, for security reasons. “He shared it with people around him. In Morocco, and this happened to me personally, if you become a Christian you may be persecuted by your family. If you keep it to yourself, no one will bother you. If you share it with anyone else and start speaking about it, that’s another story.”
Crackdown on Christians, what has changed?:
Moroccan Christians are banned from entering official churches and have to pray in hiding. They also have to be married and buried under Muslim law.
Christian proselitism is terrorism, Moroccan ulemas say:
7,000 Moroccan ulemas (Islamic scholars) rejected in a common message the Christian proselitism in their country and considered it even like a “moral rape” and “religious terrorism” that “tries to divert Moroccan children from their faith”.
Why do this happen? Because they are second-class citizens. Of course, not in the sense of Saudi Arabia, but non-Muslims (specially converts as I said), are not equal to Muslims: even just saying "I'm Christian" can be considered "proselitism".
So, I respect very much your experience and knowledge in Morocco, but that doesn't mean you know about the non-Muslim citizens' situation. Just to clarify: you're a foreigner, so, except if you go on preaching through the streets, they are not going to tell you anything at all.
I can also put down some links on Turkey on the subject, that are sufficient evidence that non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims. But also being a secular republic has made them less clear than in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Something that is changing under AKP party and Erdogan.
"Why Do this happen?". Good Lord: that hurts. That should be "Why does this happen"....
Claudia,
Damien is also a Spaniard. I think English is his second language, and he seems to do pretty well with it.
Pastorius,
I'm not Spaniard, you must be talking about Damien Charles QC.
Two comments.
Firstly, there is actually not one "dhimmi" legislation in any total Sharia implemented nation except for Somalia which we can agree is not really at present a real State. Saudi Arabia and Iran have a status for "foreign nationals". That is why I repeat, Muslims do not even know the term "dhimmi" and it exists only for the record books and a few radicals. Using that phrase now is only by those with an agenda.
Secondly all the links regarding Morocco are from a blog called T&P and frankly is questionable both in its accuracy and is subject to a certain part of the Spanish community that always likes to attack Morocco, it is the Spanish version of political-evangalism. I know it because I both study it, have watched and studied legal cases against themm.
In addition, as mentioned, I work with Moroccans and watch legal processes in that country - that is why I know the details are a sham. Unfortunately El Pais is controlled by supporters.
T&Ps items have almost no links (other then themselves) which tells much. Morocco does make it quite clear that Christians visiting or residing are welcome, they can practice their faith but missionary roles and attempting to convert is forbidden, it is a clear law.
Commments about churches being banned is misleading, unoficial churches created by missionaries breaking the law is certainly band.
If we say that freedom of changing religion is an issue, then yes that is, but the context is important and ignored and thus the strength of any case to implement change simply fails.
There are many churches in areas with Christians (for expats, tourists and yes there are Moroccan Christians) and building them is not an issue either, the rule simply is that if a community warrents it because of size and have the money no problem.
The most misleading item is the one about Jamaa Ait Bakrim whos case is well known. As even the item in Compass pointed out he is an "outspoken convert" and was charged under three laws, attempting to convert, public nuisance and disrespecting community sensitivities. He basically purposefully attempted to convert a group of youth whom were the ones to report him. He burnt two light poles in his town to raise a crowd and once gathered declared Islam as being "of the devil". He asked for it.
The only people making reference to problems in Morocco are in fact evanglists and missionary groups and I can see why they are unliked, to be honest. Though I disagree with not allowing conversions and I would like open faith discussions, I ask how would you like it if people come to your country and tell you that your faith is wrong or evil and only thiers' is "the only way". Add to that, countries like Morocco are heavily based on family unity and strength both socially and economically. I suspect the Moroccan reason for being strict on this issue is for the purpose of keeping that cohesion solid.
For me it comes down to showing a good example, not a criminal one, that works. Convert Moroccans in Spain exist and they have done so from good examples of family and faith over here.
I wrote the blog T&P for the most part of it. It's not that "I like to attack Morocco", it's that Spain (and if you are a Spanish national you should know it) have a lot of problems coming from that country: ranging from a) drug trafficking b) illegal immigration c) islamism and terrorism (in fact, most of the March 11th bombers were Moroccan nationals living in Spain).
Anyway, you say:
If we say that freedom of changing religion is an issue, then yes that is, but the context is important and ignored and thus the strength of any case to implement change simply fails.
There are many churches in areas with Christians (for expats, tourists and yes there are Moroccan Christians) and building them is not an issue either, the rule simply is that if a community warrents it because of size and have the money no problem.
The most misleading item is the one about Jamaa Ait Bakrim whos case is well known. As even the item in Compass pointed out he is an "outspoken convert" and was charged under three laws, attempting to convert, public nuisance and disrespecting community sensitivities. He basically purposefully attempted to convert a group of youth whom were the ones to report him. He burnt two light poles in his town to raise a crowd and once gathered declared Islam as being "of the devil". He asked for it.
He asked for it? He asked for being in prison for 15 years for preaching Christianity? In Spain, not even Abdoulwahab Houzi, the Islamist imam from Lérida, who has been even accused by the Muslims of his community of having an Islamist police who enforces Sharia Law in the city and preaches Jihad and hate against non-Muslims. So, just consider the difference.
I ask how would you like it if people come to your country and tell you that your faith is wrong or evil and only thiers' is "the only way".
Islamist are already doing this in our country, telling people what they should do and what they shouldn't. The difference is that this convert wasn't going to kill anybody, while Islamists are preaching Jihad one day and the next. If you don't see that difference, then you have a real problem.
Lastly:
Unfortunately El Pais is controlled by supporters.
By supporters of whom? Because El País is a leftist newspaper, who has supported Zapatero and the Socialists, because its main director Juan Luis Cebrián, is actually a staunch Social-democrat. So, considering that Zapatero has been in so good terms with Morocco (it was the first country, he visited when he was elected President), I would be very surprised (in fact, it is very hard to believe) that they would say anything at all bad or which could give a bad impression about Morocco.
Pastorius: He can be an Spanish national, but implying that I attack Morocco just because I feel just like that, it's somewhat wrong. I don't like Morocco, because it's far from being a democracy, because there is no respect for Human Rights (ask Saharauis or dissidents or critics to the King), among other things (like the ones I said before).
Anyway, I understand more after I have seen he is from Gibraltar.
Pastorius, doing that paying day job thing, asks me to post the following comment, verbatim:
I know she (Claudia) is right because I have worked with her for about six years now, and she thoroughly sources her work.
And, that I think what Damien said to her is not only ignorant but insulting.
But, that is his manner, until he reaiizes you actually know what you are talking about.
If I seemed insulting it was not my intention, but simply put the reality on the ground is very different to the item in question.
The fact is anyone with a bit of knowledge, particularly a Moroccan knows that he is breaking the laws and what is coming, thus he got what was coming. There is flagrant and there is smart, he was the first.
Yes I know what comes from Morocco and what comes to Morocco as well. I work regularly in Ceuta and have an associate based there now and at least half his work is related to disputes in some form or another with Moroccans including drugs related. It should be pointed out, for the record, that Morocco is a source country for drugs but the vast majority of smugglers and importers into Europe are in fact Europeans and I do mean ethnically so as well.
There are more radical Islamists in Europe from Morocco than actually in Morocco. It is often said in that country that Europe somehow accepted their garbage. I blame our countries and not Morocco whom actually do not tolerate radicals and act harshly. You talk about Houzi and that is the point, why do we accept him in Puerta del Sol yelling his stuff? We need to deal with it, but at least get the facts correct.
One of the biggest con-jobs that we face in Spain has a history (and for all you not associated with the country, it is now only eight years ago that school books have been taken off the shelves that ignored or distored Andalusi (Moorish) history. The fact is that politics, not reality, covered the Saharan story. Basically Saharans living in Spain, paid by Algeria and political elements tried to keep a war going in southern Morocco. The fact is that the Polisario was a terrorist group. Its leadership were born in southern Algeria or even in Morocco (the current leader was born in Marrakesh) and yet no claim to Southern Algeria was made, just Morocco.
I watched with dispair at the continuous reporting of eventst that neither took place or were exagerated and it still happens. Early this year it reached a climax when El Pais and others reported deaths in a demonstration in a south Saharan city with the assumption that any denial by Morocco would be false because Spanish newspapers said it did - until two German reporters who were present at the time pointed out that it was total fabrication.
As far as I am aware, Morocco has had in place not only Human Rights legislation, but eleven years of reconcilliation discussion that have been applauded by the UNHR, is the only Arab nation with a full Womens and Family and laws that meet UN standards and now it is about to hand over constitutional powers to the Parliament. It has a lot still to go but in comparison to many countries, it is doing very well. My worry is that they are in the political-party arena immature with 35 parties, but have had regular elections that are seen as very transparent.
Damien,
You write: The fact is anyone with a bit of knowledge, particularly a Moroccan knows that he is breaking the laws and what is coming, thus he got what was coming.
I ask: What/Who do you mean?
In reference to the Moroccan Christian whom chose to burn some lightpolls in his town to gather attention and then start trying to convert the town.
He knows very well that it is not only against the law but will upset the locals to no end. He did it in the attempt to provoke his own arrest for his church's benefit.
I rather destest those fundamentalist churches that push like that, they simply give both Christianity and in general the western world a bad name. If one's faith is strong, that in itself is the best form - it is called example.
There are two issues here. The first is what we all know, that converting Muslims within a Muslim nation is universally illegal, frowned upon and will anger the population more than most things. Secondly that there are groups out there that will "go out of their way" to test it.
So we may not like the law but it is there and provoking will not get results except an opportunity for press back home - which is why it was done (not saving souls or spreading the Gospel) and thus people will suffer abroad for home politics that leads to fund-raising.
That is sickening.
Post a Comment