A dhimmi is a qualifying infidel who has turned down an “invitation” to accept Islam, for which refusal the Muslims, by command of Allah, not to mention personal affront, should kill him. As an act of gracious magnanimity and mercy, though, the Islamic state “protects” such a qualifying infidel by conditionally suspending Allah’s command to kill him. The infidel “qualifies” for dhimmitude on the ground of being one of what Islam terms “people of the Book,” i.e., people who, “have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.” Note that by the logic of Islam, while Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians can be offered dhimmitude, Sikhs cannot be “people of the Book,” since their sacred text, the Guru Granth Sahib, dates from later than the Qur’an, which was the “final revelation.” According to Shari’a, the Guru Granth Sahib, “neither [is] nor could be a Book.” Sikhs, therefore, do not “qualify” for dhimmitude.
It is a commonplace in the West to describe dhimmis as “second-class citizens.” This might be because the only frame of reference that we generally have for conceptualising those statutorily disadvantaged in our society is citizenship, enfranchisement and human rights. But dhimmitude does not arise out of a context of citizenship, a social accomplishment of post-barbarian societies, reaching its mature form during the Enlightenment. Dhimmis are not second-class citizens or any kind of citizens at all. Citizenship is not a barbarian concept.
Dhimmitude is the Islamic manifestation of the barbarian practice of extracting idle benefit or pleasure from someone whose life is already forfeit. The Maya were a barbarian culture, while the Nazis descended into barbarism. Both Mel Gibson, in his Apocalypto, set in 16th century Yucatán, Mexico, and Steven Spielberg, in his Schindler’s List, set in the Kraków Ghetto, Nazi-occupied Poland, plausibly depict forfeited lives in fictional scenes of target practice on living humans, such people being, in a true sense, living dead. In dhimmitude, it is a question of how long the dhimmi can totter between dying and converting to Islam, without breaking any of the oppressive dhimma (the “protection” contract) stipulations, at which point he would automatically be killed anyway.
The closest modern analogue to the dhimmi is not the second-class citizen, but the nonperson, especially where some benefit is extracted from the non-person’s continued existence, such as working to death, e.g., in a mine or slave-labour camp, sex-slavery, galley-slavery, entertainment, e.g., hand-to-hand combat to the death, or medical experimentation. One of the most comfortable and least recognisable contemporary forms of non-personhood is membership of the French Foreign Legion, given that Legionnaires are not permitted to surrender their weapons under any circumstances. They are compelled to fight to the death.
Dhimmitude is a barbaric form of living non-existence. The essence of living non-existence is that the person’s death is a non-event. In the perverted value-system of Shari’a, the dhimmi is a “protected person,” under the Islamic state. Shari’a stipulates the terms of dhimmitude and, as barbarian deals go, these are pretty generous. The Shari’a manual, Reliance of the Traveller, does give the impression of dhimmitude as a stable, if extremely burdensome, condition, although the specifics are sometimes down to the whim of the caliph. It would seem as if the law is clear and once a “qualifying” infidel has opted to “pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued,” the dhimmi will know where he stands and can settle down to a life of familiar daily abuse without surprises. All he needs to do is avoid any wrong moves and he is free to live out his life as a dhimmi, even practising his religion — sort of.
However, Islam is not driven by how it treats dhimmis, nor is Muslim behaviour determined by it. Islam exists to destroy all religions and subjugate all humanity to itself. “Strive in the cause of Allah until all religion is for Allah alone,” is not set aside by the dhimma. The offer of “protection” is made to the infidel man. His wives and daughters remain potential broodmares for Muslims, who can abduct them willy-nilly, rape them, convert them to Islam and marry them off to Muslims. But if Muslims are known for anything, then it is that no agreement they make with infidels is sacrosanct. The dhimma is no exception.
Muslim apologists tend to describe dhimmis as “protected peoples,” citing the stipulations of Shari’a. But the Muslim is not only superior to the infidel, he is a supremacist, i.e., he must dominate and abundantly demonstrate that domination in his day-to-day encounters with infidels. What chance that in the real world, the Muslim is going to restrain himself for the sake of a dhimmi? The Muslim alone sets out the terms of the “protection contract.”
Regardless of what the Shari’a stipulates, Muslim hatred towards and contempt for the infidel is a fundamental Islamic principle that has little room for the legal niceties of the dhimma, especially since a dhimmi cannot testify in his own defence against a Muslim, and can lose his life for the temerity of defending himself against Muslim physical assault, even by running away. The dhimmi is compelled to stand or lie there, and beg for forgiveness while the blows and kicks rain down on him. The dhimmi must scrupulously observe the terms of this contract while the Muslim can basically ignore it. For the dhimmi to do otherwise is to bring on his own murder. By no definition can such a condition be described as citizenship — of whatever class.
The “protection” lavished on the dhimmi is designed to “persuade” him to do the decent thing and not take lifelong advantage of the Muslims’ generosity. Eventually, when the dhimmis are thoroughly impoverished and broken by the conditions of their dhimmitude, especially from the jizya poll tax extracted in exchange for this “protection,” the Muslims tire of indulging the dhimmi’s obstinacy and kill them anyway.
A dhimmi’s death is a non-event, as is that of a nonperson. This is where to start when conceptualising the dhimmi. Once the dhimmi dies, there is no formal recognition that he has ever lived. The Chinese conception of animals is that they are “moving objects,” which underlies the appalling cruelty to which animals are subjected in China. Non-personhood is the human equivalent of “moving objects.”
While dhimmitude is not a free-for-all condition, this is only so because the possibility of the non-person adopting Islam remains for as long as he remains alive. But all infidels, whether dhimmis or not, are already subhuman in the eyes of Muslims, the infidel’s life being worth less than that of the Muslim. The dhimmi’s death, therefore, is not about the dhimmi’s life ending, but about the Muslim’s effort to spread Islam, in this instance, coming to an end with nothing to show for it.
Citizenship is an entirely different social form, premised as it is on the autonomous individual. The partial curtailment of the citizen’s rights and legal protections can result in such a citizen ending up in a “second-class” position vis-à-vis other citizens. Even where such curtailment of rights and freedoms might be severe, as in statutory or customary racial or gender discrimination, such severity, nonetheless, does not render the citizen a nonperson.
A second-class citizen’s life is not forfeit, and he or she is actually in a position to take such action as they believe will lead to an improvement in their condition, even if such action comes at great personal risk. The second-class citizen protesting against second-class citizenship does not, by doing so, become free-for-all, on the contrary, he is able to testify in his own defence in court. Unlike the dhimmi, the second-class citizen’s life remains sacrosanct and killing him would be murder. For the dhimmi to as much as raise an arm to parry a Muslim’s blow in self-defence is to immediately render himself free-for-all; his killing is a non-event.
Seeing dhimmitude as merely second-class citizenship greatly incapacitates those facing the prospect of dhimmitude, such as, currently, the citizens of the West. It would be far more helpful to examine the adequacy of our own modern frame of reference when attempting to conceptualise a social form particular to a pre-mediaeval barbarian society.
Kay says
An important and clearly written article. I hope it will be widely read.
Robert Gorter says
I spread almost all articles posted by Jihad Watch on FaceBook en among my friends,,, I have lived off and on in Muslim countries and I see the terrible consequences in our societies….
t. says
Absolutely true, Robert.
A well-written article and above all, precise in describing the real status of infidels living among a majority of Muslims, Anjuli.
LLetto says
This informative article helped me to understand a most important concept, status.
Ferd III says
Yes it is apposite, in effect Dhimmitude is more akin to slavery where the Infidel has no free-will, no rights, no life worthy of the name. It is a manifestation of the Bronze Age Barbaric ideals which informs Muhammadism.
“Dhimmitude is the Islamic manifestation of the barbarian practice of extracting idle benefit or pleasure from someone whose life is already forfeit. The Maya were a barbarian culture, while the Nazis descended into barbarism. Both Mel Gibson, in his Apocalypto, set in 16th century Yucatán, Mexico, and Steven Spielberg, in his Schindler’s List, set in the Kraków Ghetto, Nazi-occupied Poland, plausibly depict forfeited lives in fictional scenes of target practice on living humans, such people being, in a true sense, living dead”
Buraq says
A ‘keeper’! I’ve added this article to my archive of JW articles that concisely and accurately describe and explain Islam. Invaluable!
Daniel Triplett says
Me too. Another excellent piece Anjuli. Thank you for helping us understand and gain ground against Islam.
SAFI says
Absolutely correct. A dhimmi (or “zimmi” in ottoman) is not a “second-class citizen” as is often described but rather a “protected” (for now…) non-citizen (non Muslim) who’s happened to find himself on a land which his Muslim masters conquered . “Dhimmitude” is a neologism invented by author Bat Ye’Or, but in both the folk culture and historiography of the nations that lived under islamic rule (eg the Balkans) that period is mostly known simply as the years (or centuries) of “slavery”…
gravenimage says
“dhimmitude” was coined by Bat Ye’Or, but “dhimmi” and “dhimma” are Islamic. dhimmitude just aptly describes the state of living under the crushing dhimma.
Halaku says
Status: Temporarily spared with death sentence suspended till the next extortion.
Jaladhi says
So much for the Islamic apologists view of “dhimmi” and its second class status as if the second class status doesn’t matter and hence Islam/Muslims are given a pass on their vile acts!
The following para from this article succinctly provides a lesson to the West :
>”However, Islam is not driven by how it treats dhimmis, nor is Muslim behaviour determined by it. Islam exists to destroy all religions and subjugate all humanity to itself. “Strive in the cause of Allah until all religion is for Allah alone,” is not set aside by the dhimma. The offer of “protection” is made to the infidel man. His wives and daughters remain potential broodmares for Muslims, who can abduct them willy-nilly, rape them, convert them to Islam and marry them off to Muslims. But if Muslims are known for anything, then it is that no agreement they make with infidels is sacrosanct. The dhimma is no exception.”<
Muslims never ever keep their promises to anybody – the history is full of it!!
Will the West ever learn??
Quazgaa says
Every time I read an Anjuli Pandavar’s article I’m left thinking, that’s it, this is her best to date.
Every next time, Miss Pandavar proves me wrong.
gravenimage says
Yes–her contributions here are very important.
DHazard says
I love Merriam Webster’s definition of “dhimmi”:
a person living in a region overrun by Muslim conquest who was accorded a protected status and allowed to retain his or her original faith
Overrun being the important word. This is “protection” exactly the way the Mafia provided it. You give us money and we won’t rape your daughter. In the end it probably wasn’t the humiliation that caused so many Christians to fold and become Muslim but the unpredictable and often impossible burden of the jizya. The jizya is probably the most obvious sign that Islam is not a religion but a racket/cult/sadist organization, and that Muhammad didn’t have a regular job.
keith O says
“People of the book”, well as Pagans have no “book” and hand everything we know and do down by word of mouth and oral traditions,, that must mean we are infidels.
BEST NEWS IV’E HEARD ALL DAY.:)
gravenimage says
These people are often treated *even worse* than dhimmis. They only have an ipso facto form of dhimmitude if there are too many of them to murder.
Tony Naim says
The gravest mistake is to consider Dhimmitude as a concept pertinent only to Christians and Jews in Muslim countries. While it represents a general Islamic view of the people of the book wherever they are. Dhimmitude is the practical application of the Koran of Medina. It is the actual legalization of Islamic supremacy over Christians and Jews, wherever they are, NOT only in Islamic countries. It is the engine that drives militant Islam, it is an apartheid system based on discrimination, prejudice and hatred. It is a LEGAL and a POLITICAL tool, therefore , it must be faced by a counter political and legal measures, and a military one as well, if necessary.
Abolition of Dhimmitude will end the war on terror and will lead to the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state in the Middle East .
gravenimage says
Sadly, I don’t see Muslims ever abandoning forcing Infidels into dhimmitude. It is a core part of Islam.
Tony Naim says
Ibn Qayyem el-jouziya is the 14th century imam who wrote the book:” Ahkam Ahl el-zumma “
Or Laws of Dhimmitude. Effectively translating the norms and values of the Medina verses into a legal and political tool within Sharia.
For the American public to have a clear idea about the standing of Christians and Jews in Islam, this book must be translated into English.
gravenimage says
Tony, the Pact of Omar predates even that:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/pact-umar.asp
Kepha says
I admit the mistake of using “second class citizn”. Dhimmitude is a far worse condition.
eduardo odraude says
Yes, I used “second class citizen” and sometimes “third class citizen.” Anjuli Pandavar makes clear the inadequacy of those expressions as descriptions of dhimmitude. Dhimmitude means being a nonperson.
James Lincoln says
eduardo odraude,
I believe that Adolf Hitler also considered a Jew to be a “nonperson” – which led to the Holocaust…
gravenimage says
Dhimmis Are Not Second-Class Citizens
…………
Yes–as Anjuli Pandavar notes, dhimmitude is *far* worse than this. Such “protection” can also be revoked at any time, as Muslims can react to rumors or deliberately lie and say that such unbelievers are violating the Dhimma even if this is untrue. That’s what all the ridiculous charges of Infidels “burning the Qur’an” or “insulting the prophet” are about.
This often happens when Muslims want to steal the property of dhimmis, or want to take their daughters, or even when they are just bored.
eduardo odraude says
Thank you to Anjuli Pandavar for clarifying the dhimmi concept. I’m surprised that I never, in all the years since 9/11, noticed what you point out in this article. Now that you have pointed it out, it’s plain as day that dhimmi status doesn’t mean being a second class citizen. It means being a nonperson.
Gene Easley says
The United States is already a communist nation and living under Noahide law (many presidents have already signed it into law) so it is already illegal to be a Christian. Digital tattooing, tracking/tracing all proliferating out of the fake Covid-19 plannedemic will result in a communist Chinese style social credit score system and imprisonment if we refuse Covid-19 vaccines. Islam and sharia might have a small role in the future transitional shadow United States it will be crushed just like in China when we go full blown communist. We are living in a time that the battle is good vs evil and Jesus is the only One who can save us.
Jewcat says
It/ seems that the word ‘subhuman’ might be a better translation of dhimmi?
Igor Slamoff says
This article is ahistorical, since dhimmitude varied greatly depending on circumstances.
Here are some excerpts from a history of Sind — in contemporary Pakistan — after the Arab conquest, which occurred in the 8th century, at the same time as the Arab conquest of Spain.
Here are some excerpts from a history of Sind — in contemporary Pakistan — after the Arab conquest, which occurred in the 8th century, at the same time as the Arab conquest of Spain.
The Arabs granted a rebate on jizyah in cases of hardship, and when they learned that it was the custom to withhold 3% of tax receipts for non-Muslim religious mendicants, they adopted the custom. “Al-Hajjâj was more interested in a steady and secure cash flow than in conversion”
When Buddhist priests asked for permission to repair their temple, the Arabs didn’t say either yes or no, they looked the other way.
“the policy of both the conquest and the settlement focused on the submission of’ the Sindîs’ and not their conversion”
Since the Arabs usually adopted local customs including restrictions on certain castes, converting to Islam did not usually offer the vaunted equality that some authors allege was the main attraction of converting. Up to the Ismaili period, there is “no indication that the Arabs engaged in active proselytism of any kind”.
Source: MacLean, Derryl N. (1989), Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill, ISBN 90-04-08551-3
PhD thesis at Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, 1984
Halaku says
The greed of the Muslims and the huge Kuffar population resulted in the proliferation of dhimmies in India. A jiziya tax paying dhimmi was more valuable than a convert.
Halaku says
Mahmud of Ghazni slaughtered the Ismailis in Sindh. He fought and killed Hindu soldiers in the battlefield but did not engage in mass murder of Hindus. In fact he appointed some of them like Tilak, as his generals and provincial governors, who later converted to Islam.
Stephen G. Gerzof, MD says
The BEST description, not only of the Dhimmi as the ‘products of conception’ of the Islamic mind, but an indictment of EVERYTHING Islamic, including its own inflated self-image, core beliefs, and religion-based racism.
Steve Gerzof, MD
Bob Heffley says
Thank you for this, the most thorough explanation I have read. In my presentations about Islam, I am guilty of referring to “second class” citizenship. However, I refer to dhimmis as third class citizens. I usually wait for someone in the audience to ask who are the second class citizens. Muslim women, of course. Going forward, I will add your more specific details. Thanks again.
Jim says
Thank you for such a relevant, informative post. As an infidel having no interaction with Muslims, this information is as relevant as fire escape procedure.
Ade Fegan says
The call to prayer is an invitation to islam is it not ?
Does then failure to comply condemn us to dhimmitude ?