Dhimmitude
Dhimmitude is a pejorative term that refers to people in the West who, in the opinion of users of the word, are guilty of surrendering to Islam. Islam, it would appear by reading the profferings of people who use the term, is the greatest evil out there and it seeks to insist that all non-Muslims under its sway live in conditions analogous to the worst varieties of dhimma; that is to say, subjugation for non-Muslims. As a dhimmi (as I understand it), certain rights were protected to varying degrees depending on the secular political situation but, in all variants, there was an exclusion from the political arena inasmuch as the decisions could only be taken by Muslims.
I mention this in light of the debate around my post on Liberal Conspiracy and, more broadly, the furore around Dr Rowan Williams’ comments on sharia. My favourites come from the Daily Mail website, which includes this gem from ‘Alastair’
What so many Muslims seem to conveniently forget is that Britain is not an Islamic country. If they want to live under Sharia law, they should go back to an Islamic country. If you live in Britain, obey its laws’
As I have tried (at length) to point out, sharia law is not necessarily a replacement for current law; it is not even a single entity. Rather, it is a manner of thinking. Much of the opposition to Dr Williams’ remarks is Islamophobic inasmuch as it is based on an irrational fear of Islam. Much of the rest, as above, is on this idea that you have to accept Britain as is and that the laws, as they are, are a positive expression of ‘Britishness’ and that any deviation from that is to be stepped on while people who want to live differently should be grateful for being able to associate with Britons. This unBritishness, according to the Bishop of Winchester, extends to homosexuality. Sounds a bit like… dhimmitude.
Earlier in the same thread, ‘David’ (no relation) said:
Oh yes, Lambeth Palace says the Archbishops comments are too academic for the population at large.
QED.
xD.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The question, as one commenter at my blog said, is not whether it’s Islam or any other religion or social philosophy – it’s the nature of the attempt to smother the local culture and implant its own.
In this context, “alien” seems an appropriate word.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
James, that is ridiculous. Smother the local culture and implant its own? Firstly, a third- or fourth- generation culture is the local culture. Secondly, the fact that someone does something doesn’t stop me going to the pub (or however else I might choose to celebrate my culture). Thirdly, the local culture isn’t, as it’s a mish-mash of immigrant communities that have individuals that are integrated to a greater or lesser degree. Given that the Vikings first arrived in Britain around 790 and still haven’t integrated fully (Up Helly Aa), this idea of integration seems hopeful at best. Fourthly, why should they adopt our ‘culture’? If they want to, great. If they don’t, I’m still going to eat in their restaurants and attend their festivals.
Even if you don’t accept that (wait for the word ‘tranzi’ from Matt Sinclair), I think that the attempts to stop this ’smothering’ are resulting in immigrants feeling that they’re being stepped on and aren’t welcome in a country that they feel (rightly) is their own, leading to resentment and extremism.
xD.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Immigrants must know that they are guests, Dave, just as I do here. They enjoy my diversity from their norm but I’m still a guest.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
James,
That’s probably the core of where we disagree. I’m afraid my mind is mush at the moment, so there probably won’t be a decent reply until the weekend. Watch, as they say, this space.
xD.