That's funny, according to mentally challenged Challenger, a majority of Americans that are strong supporters of Israel are crazy right wing brainwashed people.
Americans see Palestinians as a small part of a greater worldwide problem that modern civilization is having with Muslims.
True story dude.
What IS funny is that most Americans wouldn't be able to Identify Israel on a map of the Middle East!
They don't need to know where a place is located to know what the conflict is really about, and who the players are.
Israel represents freedom, democracy, Western values and coexistence and Palestinians represent Islamism and Muslim intolerance and terroristic violence.
Israel represents what Apartheid South Africa represented, oppression and racism. There is no democracy that doesn't allow half of the people under its control to vote.
Wrong again. For apartheid you need to look at Islamic shitholes, like the animals want to create in the "Islamic Khalifate of Palestine":
Classification of Non-Muslims:
In his article, "
The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State," Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah remarks that legists classify non-Muslims or infidels into two categories:
Dar-ul-Harb or the household of War, which refers to non-Muslims who are not bound by a peace treaty, or covenant, and whose blood and property are not protected by the law of vendetta or retaliation; and
Dar-us-Salam or the household of Peace, which refers to those who fall into three classifications:
1)
Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the
Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.
2)
People of the
Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like
Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.
3)
Musta'min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A
Musta'min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay
Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a
Musta'min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.
This study will focus on the laws pertaining to
Zimmis.
Islamic Law and Zimmis
Muslim
Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the
Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The
Hanbalites and the
Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God.
Hanifites and
Malikites affirm that the
Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.
Zimmis and Religious Practices
Muslims believe that the
Zimmis are
Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of
shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi,
Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.
According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on
Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:
1)
Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
2)
Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
3)
Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
4)
Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
5)
Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
6)
Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
7)
Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
Marriage and Children
A Muslim male can marry a
Zimmi girl, but a
Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.
If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a
Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his
Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.
The Witness of Zimmis
Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other
Zimmis or
Musta'min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the
Shari`a, a
Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly,
"The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah - may He be exalted - said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers'." A
Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a
Zimmi has falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed by
Zimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of
Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same
Zimmi whose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against the
Zimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the
Shari`a,
"By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness..." All he has to do is to utter the Islamic
confession of faithbefore witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.
Business World
The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter
"if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).
In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:
Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:
Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 63:8}.
Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.
Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:
"entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim."
In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers' College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur'an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:
Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.
`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a
Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked:
"Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?" Then `Usaymi adds:
Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them... for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.
