Omega Letter Christian Intelligence Digest
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 Dhimmis United Against America
'Dhimmitude' is the status mandated for non-Muslims, primarily Christians
and Jews who live under Islamic rule.
The word 'dhimmi' means 'protected people' who, under Islamic law,
are free to practice their religion in an Islamic regime.
However, dhimmis are also subject to rules and regulations designed
to ensure 'they feel themselves subdued' as mandated for dhimmis under the Koran.
For the West, it is a good news, bad news scenario. The bad news is
that the jihadist goal is to make dhimmis of us all. The good news is that we are getting good at it.
Dhimmi communities have survived for centuries under Islamic rule,
as Islamic apologists are fond of pointing out, with barely a peep of protest in all those years.
Of course they lived quietly -- it was better than not living at all.
For a dhimmi under Islamic rule to protest would be suicidal.
Dhimmitude has a curious effect on dhimmis, something similar that
of the Stockhold Effect on hostages.
The phrase, 'Stockholm Effect' was coined following a bank hostage
situation in Sweden. Researchers discovered the hostages had come to identify, even sympathize, with their captors. It was
a kind of traumatic stress reaction.
Dhimmitude imposes a similar reaction. Assessment:
Many of Saddam's Useful Idiot Squad in the West, having suddenly been
thrown out of work, have offered their services to Islamic jihadists in exchange for voluntary dhimmitude.
And, like victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, they've come to identify,
and even sympathize, with the aims of their masters.
An anti-war group called "United for Peace and Justice" claims to
represent 1,300 local and national anti-war groups across America. They are planning a massive demonstration against the White
House, promising to 'take it over' until the Bush administration 'leaves'.
According to their lengthy press release, America is a criminal organization
victimizing Islam.
"It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people
of the world from the U.S. dictators," states the release. "Murder for occupation and theft of land is illegal. Murder of
journalists is criminal. Remove the traitors who have stolen the U.S. budget and used it to commit international crimes against
humanity.
"If we were being bombed and our journalists were being murdered here
in the U.S. by a foreign country's military, we would hope that the people of that country would stop what they are doing
and go to their president's office and demand that it was stopped. If we were the ones burying thousands and thousands of
our family members and watching the destruction of the homes, schools, churches and offices that we had worked for decades
to build, we would hope that someone, somewhere would care enough to do something for us. We must stop the criminals in our
government NOW."
America is a government of the people. The 'criminals in our government'
were PUT there by the American people -- ipso facto, if they are criminals, then we are criminals.
And America is a criminal organization worthy of the best efforts
of the jihadist enemy.
© http://www.omegaletter.com
Friday, February 24, 2006 How To Be a Dhimmi, Without Even Trying.
. .
I had a most interesting conversation with my brother yesterday regarding
the Danish cartoons and the global Islamic rioting that followed it.
My brother and I love to discuss the things that are going on in the
world. Being brothers, we can be blunt with one another.
That's what makes those conversations fun. We don't get to have these
conversations as often since I moved to North Carolina. It showed.
I was astonished to hear him mount an impassioned criticism of the
Danish press for printing the cartoons and inflaming Islamic sentiments.
He waxed forth with rhetorical questions about how 'we would feel'
if Danish newspapers posted blasphemous cartoons about Jesus, and so forth.
He went on to warn of the dire consequences that might ensue should
we inflame the passions of the moderate Islamic world, and said that, even in a free country, the press should have suppressed
the cartoons 'out of respect for Islam'.
I was still picking my jaw up off the floor when I noticed his eyes
seemed to be slightly out-of-focus and his voice had taken on a monotone quality. (Then I remembered his only sources of information
are CNN and the CBC.)
Like I said, we are brothers, so I didn't have to sugar-coat my response.
"Want me to play that back to you so you can hear how completely you've
been brainwashed?"
"Have not!"
"Have so!"
"Oh, yeah?"
"So, in your view, then, you are saying that "out of respect for Islam"
we should submit to Islamic censorship when it comes to what is insulting to Islam?"
"Well, I don't like the way you put it, exactly, but yes."
"Did you see the cartoons?"
"No."
"How did they offend Islam? I mean, specifically. What about them
was offensive?"
"They made the moderate Muslims mad. They didn't have to print them."
"If YOU don't know what made them mad, then how would you know if
you did something to make them mad?"
"Ummm. . . I don't know the whole Koran."
"So, then, your argument expands to include the Western world gaining
a rudimentary understanding of the Koran so as to avoid giving offense?"
"Well, it wouldn't hurt."
"So, your argument expands to exposing the West to Koranic teachings
so that nobody inadvertently gives offense to a religion that the West owes respect. While we're on the subject, didn't Dad
always teach us that respect is something that has to be earned in order to be genuine? What, exactly, has Islam done to earn
your respect? Let's be fair. What has Islam done to earn global respect? You know, like Christianity has earned global respect
for say, its charity. America is the most philanthropic country in the world, for example."
"Ummm, I don't know. Let me think."
"No, I mean, really. If the West owes Islam respect it doesn't grant
any other religion, including Christianity or Judaism, you must be able to articulate some reason why."
"I hate it when you do that!"
"So, we should learn a religion that we respect for reasons we can't
define, so as to avoid giving offense to 'moderates' to prevent them from rising up and killing us? Those who do, like the
cartoonists, should be punished? And if you offend Islam because you failed to learn the lessons of the Koran, should you
be punished?"
"Wow! Did I say that?"
"Calling these cartoons "unacceptable," and censoring ourselves "in
respect" to Islam brings the west into compliance with a central statute of Islamic sharia law. That's not respect. It's submission."
Assessment:
After our conversation, I started reading some of CBC's archived coverage
of the Danish cartoon uprising and it was easy to see where my brother got the 'submission' soap to wash his brain with.
Leading headlines like "Protests of Cartoons of the Prophet Escalate
in Islamic World" and "Tens of Thousands of Palestinians Demonstrate Against Prophet Cartoons" covered stories that centered
on the offense rendered Islam's "Prophet" while each reference to Mohammed conformed to the proper Islamic title of "The Prophet
Mohammed."
Noted one story, "Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of
the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet, absolutely forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, even positive images, in
order to prevent idolatry."
It is worthy of noting that the CBC story is incorrect. Islamic law
does NOT 'absolutely forbid depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. (That prohibition varies by sect within Islam.)
