Muslimischer Suprematsanspruch

Vorgestern kam es in Amsterdam zu muslimischen Ausschreitungen. Der Ausloeser war folgender Vorfall:

The riots followed the death of 22-year old Dutch-born Bilal Bajaka, of Moroccan descent.

On Sunday, Bajaka entered the police station of Slotervaart, stabbing two police officers with a knife.

Although having sustained serious injuries, one of the officers, a policewoman, shot and killed her alleged attacker on the spot.

The two police officers were later brought to the hospital where their condition was described as „serious but stable.“

Aus Sicht der muslimischen Randalierer haetten sich die Polizisten friedlich erstechen lassen muessen. Kein Akt von Gewalt gegenueber einem Muslim kann geduldet werden, auch wenn es sich eindeutig um Notwehr handelte.

Das erinnert natuerlich an die Strassenkaempfe in Paris vor zwei Jahren: Der Ausloeser war damals, dass zwei Straftaeter auf der Flucht vor der Polizei um’s Leben kamen. Aus Sicht der muslimischen Randalierer haette die Polizei die beiden nicht behelligen duerfen. Nicht-Muslime haben nicht das Recht, gegenueber Muslimen das Gesetz durchzusetzen. Das wurde auch deutlich ausgesprochen:

He describes the nightly presence of the CRS, the French riot police, as provocation.

„If they didn’t come here, into our area, nothing would happen,“ he says. „If they come here it’s to provoke us, so we provoke back.“

Auch in den USA scheint das muslimische Verstaendnis zu sein, dass Muslime nicht nach den Gesetzen des Staates behandelt werden duerfen:

Many in the Capital District’s growing Muslim community are outraged.

Members of Albany’s Muslim Solidarity Committee say they will do everything in their power to ensure Glenn Suddaby doesn’t receive the nomination. The activists formed their group after the arrest and conviction of Mohammad Hossain, an Albany pizza shop owner, and Yassin Aref, an Albany imam.


„We consider this was a great injustice, really, against Muslims and against the principles on which the U.S. stands, really“ Shamshad Ahmad said at the mosque.

Aref used to be the imam at the mosque. But he and Hossain, a fellow mosque member, will spend the next 15 years in prison.


Niemand scheint anzufechten, dass die beiden in einem rechtsstaatlichen Verfahren verurteilt wurden. Dennoch ist es aus muslimischer Sicht eine „grosse Ungerechtigkeit“, dass die beiden ueberhaupt verhaftet wurden.

Dhimmitude Past and Present : An Invented or Real History?


The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: ‚land for peace‘. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of jihad were ‘protected’, providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority.

The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of ‚toleration‘ is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgres­sion of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied.


In the context of its time, the protection system presented both positive and negative aspects. It provided security and a measure of religious autonomy, but in a legal context of discrimination. These rules, mostly estab­lished from the eighth to ninth centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim community’s social behavior toward dhimmis.

Because protection was set in a context of war, some rules pertaining to the dhimmis have a military character. Among the military elements of the dhimmi condition is the prohibition for dhimmis to carry or possess weapons. (…)


(…) A dhimmi had no right to defend himself if he was physically assaulted by a Muslim; he could only beg for mercy. He was deprived of two fundamental rights: the right of self‑defense against physical aggression, and the right to defend himself in an Islamic law court as his testimony was refused. Dhimmis could be judged under the provisions of their own legislation. However dhimmi legislation was not recognized in Muslim courts, whose judgements superseded dhimmi legal decisions.


2 Antworten

  1. Danke fuer den Tip, das ist ein sehr guter und gut geschriebener Text.

Kommentar verfassen

Bitte logge dich mit einer dieser Methoden ein, um deinen Kommentar zu veröffentlichen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d Bloggern gefällt das: