Speakers Respond to Controversy; Tell Their Side of Story

I was invited to speak on the subject, “Ideology of Jihad, Dhimmitude and Human Rights,” as was clearly stated on the fliers organizers produced for the lecture. I have written three books on this subject (see www.dhimmi.org and www.dhimmitude.org), and I assumed that if I am invited to lecture at Georgetown University, it is because the organizers are acquainted with my research in this field and expect me to lecture about it, and not on another subject. My three books were mentioned on the fliers and were available for purchase by the organizers, as well as some of my articles put on the back table.

I, therefore, explained the roots of jihad according to Muslim theologians and jurists: its aim, strategy, tactics and rules. This was followed by a short description of the jihad — a war of conquest on three continents and that lasted for over a millennium, from Portugal to India, and Hungary to Sudan, as those jihad-wars, operations, victories and conquests were described in Muslim and Christian chronicles (i.e., Coptic, Armenian, Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.).

Dhimmitude is the direct consequence of jihad since it embodied all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium to the vanquished non-Muslim populations, in particular the Jews and Christians living in the countries conquered by jihad and Islamized.

Then I spoke of the return of the jihad ideology since the 1960s and of some dhimmitude practices in Muslim countries that apply the shari’a law, or are inspired by it. I stressed the incompatibility between the concept of tolerance as expressed by the jihad ideology and in dhimmitude, and the concept of human rights based on the equality of all human beings and their inalienable human rights. My talk lasted 30 minutes, and was followed by a debate.

The Reaction of Muslim Students

There was opposition, sometimes vehement, to the presentation and historical reality of jihad and dhimmitude. Here was a clash of perceptions. Their perceptions were religiously motivated. They would not accept a word of criticism about jihad and dhimmitude. In contrast, I had approached and explained the subject as a matter of human history, like any other similar subject. My vision was pluralistic and based on innumerable testimonies, including the testimony of Muslim chroniclers and observers. It was clear that the students who objected would not accept, nor even tolerate, the perception of the jihad’s victims. They were scandalized, but some of them made great efforts to control themselves, and even apologized for over-reacting.

The Reaction of the Jewish Students

They looked miserable and stunned when the Muslims started to protest and to leave. In a letter of apology to their Muslim colleagues and other offended persons (“Students Apologize for Offensive Speakers,” Oct. 25, 2002, The Hoya, p. 2) Dan Spector (SFS ’04) and Julia Segall (COL ’05) accused me and the other speaker (David Littman) of having “made no effort to make a clear distinction between pure, harmonious Islam, and the acts of a few, who falsely claimed to act in the name of Islam.” This, of course, is pure nonsense. When one studies the laws of the Inquisition, or the Crusades, one does not feel obliged to make a clear distinction between pure Christianity and those historical events. Moreover, Islam was not my subject. I am not responsible if Muslim jurists and theologians based their theory of jihad and dhimmitude on their religious scriptures. I did not discuss their opinion, since this was not my subject.

My Opinion

In a university, the examination of several narratives of history should be encouraged. The Muslim view is exclusively religious, based on the assumption that there is only one interpretation of history, the Islamic one. No criticism of jihad is accepted because it is considered a just war according to Muslim dogma. This attitude imposes the worst rules of dhimmitude on non-Muslims: the refusal of their evidence in Islamic courts. Thus, the historical testimony of the millions of human victims of jihad is refused by this doctrinal attitude. It is the responsibility of university professors to accustom all students to a debate of different ideas and opinions. I did not experience this at Georgetown. It appears that only one vision of history is allowed, and I find this disturbing, even chilling.

Bat Ye’or has published numerous books and articles on the subject of non-Muslims living in Islamic states. She can be reached at batyeor@club-soft.ch.