It is claimed that in an Islamic nation, the “non-Muslim minority” (if we do accept the bad translation) is treated as “dhimmi.” In the Western mind this means “second-class citizen.”
But did you know that in the liberal and tolerant West, a Muslim born in the land can be stripped of his citizenship, thrusting him into second-class or third-class status in an instant?
This is what Haroon Siddique reports for the BBC:
Individuals could be stripped of their British citizenship without warning under a proposed rule change quietly added to the nationality and borders bill.
Clause 9 – “Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship” – of the bill, which was updated earlier this month, exempts the government from having to give notice if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so, or in the interests of national security, diplomatic relations or otherwise in the public interest.
So, just like that, one can lose his or her citizenship “without warning.”
Of course, this is not peculiar to the UK. Many have noted that the “citizen tests” one could find throughout Europe, like those in Germany, which ask about your respect for “democracy” and so on, have created a sort of “identity liberalism.” This identity liberalism, armed with “aggressive integrationist policies,” specifically targets Muslims who, by refusing these liberal dogmas, fail the citizen tests and automatically are considered to be illiberals, and therefore, second-, third-, or fourth-class citizens. Indeed this is a universalism which excludes Muslims and any other illiberal persons.
As the author of the article put it, the new situation of revoking citizenship is even more draconian than the case of Shamima Begum, the infamous UK-born lady who joined ISIS. Begum was given notice about her situation by the UK. But now there will be no more “notice” or pseudo-administrative drama involved in the process.
Frances Webber, the vice-chair of the Institute of Race Relations, said: “This amendment sends the message that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants in this country. Their citizenship, and therefore all their rights, are precarious and contingent.
This is the interesting part: “…despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants in this country.” Basically, a Muslim is legally considered an eternal “migrant” in the West. This is all the more egregious given how the Muslim refugee crisis has been created by belligerence of the West and their never-ending wars.
Of course, this is not peculiar to the UK, Europe, or even the liberal West as a whole. Hindu nationalists in India also target Muslims through citizenship. Israel and China as well.
RELATED: De-Secularizing the “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”
All of this should remind the Muslim that contemporary secular systems of government are not the bastions of superior justice and universal equality that they claim to be. Quite the contrary. The Muslim who abandons Islam by promoting or championing such ideological systems will lose in this life and the next.
RELATED: Will the Congress Party and Its Secularism Save the Muslims of India?
Keeping all of this in mind, in Qur’an 3:118 Allah does warn us:
O you who have believed, do not take as guides/protectors those other than yourselves [i.e., believers], for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason.
Muslims who are native to western lands should live in their western homeland similar to how a Russian or Chinese citizen would live in the same country. That means, since the Russian ummah have their own “Russian Federation” and the Chinese ummah have their own “People’s Republic of China”, the Muslim nation (ummah=nation) should have a “Muslim Federation” or “People’s Republic of Islam” (AKA Khіlаfа-Islаmіа or the “United States of Islam”) in the Muslim world.
Most of the Russian and Chinese expats living in the west are patriotic and loyal to their original motherland country instead of their western host country. They consider themselves as belonging to their original homeland (not belonging to their western host nation) and they consider themselves as GUESTS in their western host country.
However, since they are living as guests, they are still respectful and polite with their western host country and its society, even if they disagree with much of its culture and ideology (such as LGBT). If any geopolitical conflict happens between their western host country and their original motherland country, everyone knows that those Russian/Chinese expats will quietly support their original motherland country over their western host country, hence the snooping games often happening between the west and these Eastern superpowers.
That is more or less exactly how Western Muslims should be in the west, i.e. Consider themselves as patriotic expatriate citizens of the “United States of Islam” or “Muslim Federation” or “People’s Republic of Islam” (instead of being patriotic to the western host country or considering their western host country as “their own” country that they “belong to”).
Be polite and respectful with the Western host society, but if any conflict happens, you know which side to quietly support. So don’t be surprised if your host country rеgime makes a lot of snooping and legal restrictions on you, because they know that you’re not truly loyal or patriotic to their nation, just like most of the Russian/Chinese expats living in their country.
Now that you mention Zimmy (dhimmi), I will finally expose a giant lie of the modern world and the elephant in the room that no one ever talks about. If you read the definition of a Zimmy carefully as defined by Islam scholars, you should notice that actually it corresponds almost exactly with the definition of what modern countries call nowadays as “expatriate”, “guest worker”, “immigrant” and “foreign national”. Similarly, the definition of Jizia corresponds nearly to what modern countries call “visa fees” to renew the visa.
In both cases, the Zimmies or foreigners pay a certain amount of money to the government every year (called the jizia or visa fees) in order to be allowed to legally live in the country for the next year and have the right to practice their faith. The zimmy or foreigners or expats have less legal rights compared to another group of people in the country called citizens (such as no right to participate in politics or elections) because they don’t “belong” to the host country, while the citizens “belong” to the host country which is why citizens don’t pay Jizia.
The United States of America, being the саliphatе of the American ummah, is host to millions of Zimmy people who are legally called “foreigners” and “expatriates”, including at least 11 million Mexican Zimmies who must pay their jizia (visa fees) to be allowed to live in the US legally, with freedom to practice their faith but with a second class status compared to the US citizens. If these Mexican Zimmies don’t pay their jizia, they are punished by being called “illegal aliens” and then get arrested and exiled. Similarly millions of Muslims live as Zimmies (expats) in other Muslim countries and are forced pay de facto jizia in the name of visa fees.
This is why I insist that in a true Islаmic country (the United States of Islam), they must strictly apply a citizenship equation of Muslim=Citizen and Non-Muslim=foreigner/expat. Because then the whole concept of Zimmy/Jizia as well as the Ароstacey penalty make perfect logical sense. At best nonMuslims zimmies may have a green card or permanent residency in this country, however Muslims and nonMuslims must never share the same citizenship in this country. Then it makes full perfect sense why Muslims have more legal rights than nonMuslims in a true Islam country.
ZIMMY = EXPATRIATE OR FOREIGNER
JIZIA = VISA FEES TO Renew ANNUAL RESIDENCY VISA
When the Zimmy in the United States of Іslаm accepts Islam then they don’t have to pay jizia anymore, simply because they have naturalized to become the country’s citizens, just like how Mexican and other foreign Zimmies in the USA don’t have to pay for their visa anymore after they naturalize to become US citizens. The so-called modern abolition of the Jizia-Zimmy system is a giant BIG FAT LIE just like the so-called modern abolition of slavery! These things are still being done legally on a large scale today by countries all over the world, but only under a different name!
Yeah that’s right, the shocking truth that you are only waking up to realise now is that millions of Muslims are being legally treated as zimmies and forced to pay de facto Jizіа even in Mесса and Mеdіna (let alone the rest of the Muslim world)! Meanwhile one category of people (those who typically wear long white robes and red checkered headscarf with black halo on their head) are not forced to pay Jizia at all to live in Месса and Меdina, and don’t have to ever worry about getting kicked out (deported) from there, simply because they are lucky enough to be born and brought up in that peninsula and have many generations of ancestry in that peninsula!
“Basically, a Muslim is legally considered an eternal “migrant” in the West.”
But can a muslim be a full citizen in the west? Shouldn’t a muslim consider themselves an eternal “migrant” in the West? After all, muslims are supposed to consider themselves obliged to restore a caliphate which will rule all muslims and when it comes into existence they will be its subjects and be obliged to serve its ends? Shamima Begum joined ISIS because she considered it a caliphate. By doing so she effectively renounced her claim to British citizenship. Why should the British government offer her what she freely refused?
It takes truly islamic chutzpah to announce “”the Muslim refugee crisis has been created by belligerence of the West and their never-ending wars” when one of the habits of muslim states historically has been to invade a neighbouring country and announce that that it is now a muslim country and its inhabitants have the choice of fight, flight or submission. The countries where those choices were offered but which did not become muslim-majority states – India or eastern Europe are obvious examples – are the countries where hostility to islam and muslims are most prevalent. If the caliphate is restored, no doubt its foreign policy will be based on the aspiration to bring the benefits of muslim rule to its neighbours, whether they want it or not, when it can, Don’t be surprised if those neighbours follow a policy of making sure the caliphate will never be able to do that.