David Thompson


Blog powered by Typepad

« Too Much Democracy | Main | Friday Ephemera »

July 03, 2008



It's Allah the extortionist.


"Or doesn’t God mind if someone else is forced to pick up the tab?"

Of course God, or at least Allah, doesn't mind. The "person" being imposed upon is an infidel, and hence less than human. Had Miss Jackson been a proper human being, ie a Muslim, then there never would have been an issue to begin with. So it's not so much an imposition as a pious attempt to steer an infidel onto the One True Path by punishing her for her false beliefs and lifestyle! What could be more pleasing in the eyes of God?


Well, insofar as sacralised extortion has been a normative feature of Islamic history and belief, I did wonder if Ms Noah’s demands were more than just arrogant opportunism and were, at least in part, an act of religious observance. Either way, she should have been shown the door, quite emphatically.

The notion of the jizya (the poll tax traditionally extorted from non-Muslims) and the broader notion of the subordinated dhimma are, clearly, monstrous. Their history and implementation should – one would think - be embarrassing to any Muslim of good conscience. No other major religion has codified and sacralised supremacism to the same extent based on its founder’s own example, or enacted it so widely and so violently for so long. But then, Muhammad is the only major religious figure who could accurately be described as both a desert pirate and an opportunist racketeer.

Whether Ms Noah was acting with this tradition in mind is unclear; but the fact her actions conform to it is worth pondering. When other, similar cases arise – and they no doubt will – it would be wise to bear in mind this aspect of Islamic history and belief.


Why would any Muslim find it embarrassing? Allah commands, Muslims (as good submissives) obey. Muslims must obey the thousands of rules that prescribe life down to its minutest detail ("everything not mandatory is forbidden"). Only clerics are allowed to interpret or apply reason to the rules, and even then only if there is not already a ruling on the subject ("the gates of ijtihad are closed"). Islam's only evident moral rule is "if it helps Islam it's morally good, if it impedes Islam it's morally bad". Development of moral reasoning and conscience are, in my opinion, thereby stunted or nonexistent in Muslims. I don't think Muslims have a conscience as a westerner would understand it.

Steve in San Diego

In photographs of Ms. Noah, she radiates smug arrogance.



“Why would any Muslim find it embarrassing?”

Given there are many degrees of religious observance and a range of perceptions among believers as to what Islam is and who Muhammad was, I assume there’s plenty of scope for embarrassment and discomfort. Some Muslims may be unaware of the historical and theological features mentioned above and unaware of Muhammad’s less attractive attributes; others may be aware only of heavily sanitised and misleading accounts, like those of Karen Armstrong, etc. Thus, the dissonance between belief and reality seems a likely source of discomfort of one kind or another.


Ms. Desrosiers is guilty of three unforgivable crimes: she is a white, nominally Christian person who owns a business. She must be made an example of. In the name of Holy Diversity she must be despoiled, humiliated, and driven out.

Kellie Strøm

A sharp post - linked to it here:


You know, it isn't just the religious whose feelings can be hurt, it appears:


Never mind, 'Killer' - £5000 will make it all better, I'm sure.


"insofar as sacralised extortion has been a normative feature of Islamic history and belief"




It’s hard to see any flattering motive for people who demand payouts for “hurt feelings”. What comes to mind first is the term “vindictive whinger”. Once we’re in the realm of “hurt feelings” as a basis for leverage and litigation, vindictive grasping is an inevitable motive, and perhaps the default one.


The jizya is mentioned in the Qur’an (famously 9:29) and in several hadith and its punitive, humiliating purpose is pretty clear from those texts. Jizya was a principle means of financing the major jihad campaigns and thereby the expansion of dar-al-Islam. The tax, which was generally much higher than those paid by Muslims, was a key signifier of non-Muslims’ subservient “dhimmi” status. Andrew Bostom recently quoted the Arabic lexicographer, E.W. Lane, who described the jizya as “the tax paid in lieu of being slain.” In The Laws of Islamic Governance, the 11th century jurist al-Mawardi notes: “The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation… Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes.” Thus, extortion with menaces seems a reasonable description and the connotations of Mafia “protection” are entirely apt.


(See also A.S. Tritton’s The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects, Maxime Rodinson’s Muhammad, A. Ben Shemesh’s Taxation in Islam, Robert Spencer’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and Bostom’s own excellent Legacy of Jihad, which contains many Muslim and non-Muslim accounts of the various jihad campaigns and the sacralised subordination of non-Muslims. Again, the traditional, historical understandings of jihad, jizya and the dhimma are pretty unambiguous.)


"It’s hard to see any flattering motive for people who demand payouts for “hurt feelings”. What comes to mind first is the term “vindictive whinger”."

Indeed. And maybe I'm a little naive, but wouldn't you expect, well, a little more stability from a trained marksman...?

I mean, why not just give the daft mare a frosty scowl and a 'Actually, that's not very funny, is it, Commander!'. Was he worried she'd toss her drink and canape to the side and go for his throat with a plastic fork? He's trained for that, surely..? ;)

Sue R

As everybody these days seems to be going for it and suing for emotional distress, he probably thought he had as much right as the next person.

The comments to this entry are closed.