RAYMOND IBRAHIM ON ISLAMIC “DHIMMITUDE”: WHY PROFESSING CHRIST IS BECOMING A “HATE CRIME” IN THE WEST

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

What is the source of dhimmitude — which in many ways paralyzes responses to Islam — in the West?

First a definition: “dhimmitude,” which was coined by the late
Christian president of Lebanon, Bashir Gemayel, and popularized by
writer Bat Ye’or, is a neologism based on the Arabic word, dhimmi —
that is, a non-Muslim (generally a Christian or Jew) who falls under
Islamic rule and, as a price for maintaining his religion, accepts an
inferior social standing. Simply put, the dhimmi must know his or her
place and never rock the boat, including by seeking equal rights with
Muslims.

While this is the classic and original manifestation of dhimmitude, a
new and unprecedented form has arisen in the West: in the Muslim world,
where might naturally makes right, Muslim majorities impose an
inferior status onto non-Muslim minorities; but in the West, it is the
West itself — or at least homegrown elements — that in certain fields
impose an inferior status on a non-Muslim majority.

The question becomes, Why? Why would a stronger civilization impose
the unjust and supremacist stipulations of a weaker, hostile
civilization, onto itself, and thereby paralyze itself against that same
hostile civilization?

The answer is evident in the words of an ancient strategy: “The enemy
of my enemy is my friend.” The Western elements that are forever
protecting and empowering Islam, and which operate under various names —
“Liberals,” “Leftists,” “Marxists,” “Progressives,” “Social Justice
Warriors,” etc. — ultimately care little about Islam; rather, Islam is
for them a tool to combat their real and much closer enemy: Christianity, and the mores and civilization borne of it and culminating in the West.

This is evident everywhere and in a myriad of forms. Most recently,
the British government “refused to say whether telling people about the
Christian faith could be a hate crime.” Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a UKIP
peer, asked the House of Lords if they would “confirm unequivocally
that a Christian who says that Jesus is the only son of the one true God
cannot be arrested for hate crime or any other offence, however much it
may offend a Muslim or anyone of any other religion?” Government
spokesperson Baroness Vere of Norbiton responded by equivocating, saying
that the legal definition of “hate crime” has been the same for the
past 10 years.

But as Pearson explained in a later interview, the current definition
of “hate crime” is subjective and revolves around whether the “victim”
feels offended — thus leaving the door wide open to charging those who
proclaim Christ and the Trinity of committing a hate crime, especially
vis-à-vis Muslims, who adamantly object to the claim, as Pearson himself
acknowledged: “Certainly the stricter Muslims do feel offended by
Christianity and our belief in Jesus being the only Son of the one true
God.”

Pearson also pointed to a double standard in how “hate crimes” are
applied: “You can say what you like about the Virgin Birth, the miracles
and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but as soon as you say ‘come on,
is Islam really the religion of peace that it claims to be,’ all hell
breaks loose.”

Indeed, and there is a reason for that: unlike Islam — which many
Western elite feel no (direct) connection to and thus no threat
therefrom — Christianity is the faith of their forefathers; it is ever
present in their societies, judging them — and they hate it for it. But
rather than seek to suppress it openly, they operate indirectly,
including by propping up always angry and easily “offended” Muslims
against it, while they play the role of “impartial” secularist or
progressive — people who will make themselves (meaning others, notably
Christians) walk on eggshells lest the “feelings” of the “other” are
hurt.

From here one understands why liberals and progressives who forever
whine against any vestige of traditional (“oppressive”) Christianity
habitually make common cause with Islam — despite the latter’s truly
oppressive qualities. Feminists denounce the Christian “patriarchy” —
but say little against the Muslim treatment of women as chattel;
homosexuals denounce Christian bakeries — but say little against the
Muslim execution of homosexuals; multiculturalists denounce Christians
who refuse to suppress their faith, including by banning Christmas
phrases and images, to accommodate the religious sensibilities of Muslim
minorities — but say little against the entrenched and open Muslim
persecution of Christians.

From here one understands the ultimate reason why domineering Western
elements are imposing the unjust and stifling effects of dhimmitude on
and thus making the West weak and vulnerable:  “The enemy [Islam] of my
enemy [Christianity] is my friend.” As this most recent example from the
UK shows, Muslims are now even being used to make the central claim of
Christianity — which the progressive elite especially despise hearing as
it convicts their godless lifestyle — a “hate crime.”