The importance of the psychological aspect of dhimmitude and how it affects our society today, cannot be stressed enough. The idea of dhimmitude may be difficult for people to process however. I wanted therefore to give some more examples to illustrate the presence of dhimmitude in our society.
Since the early Sixties, the feminist movement has been extremely vocal in advocating women’s rights. They launched a huge and successful campaign, for equal pay and rights for women at work. They even became passionate over inconsequential issues such as a woman’s right to work on a nuclear submarine (locked in a tin can with 400 men for months on end).
Why then do they ignore Islamic anti-women issues such as female genital mutilation, honour killings, women being stoned to death for adultery etc? Why does the feminist movement keep a disciplined silence when confronted by Islamic violence to women? The conclusion, feminists have mostly become dhimmis.
The United Kingdom is ostensibly a Christian nation, yet today it is becoming ever less acceptable to celebrate Christmas in public. Councils are refusing to put up Christmas trees and shops are now selling cards saying things like “Winter Wishes.” Even the Red Cross (which was founded by a devout Christian) now refuses to display Nativity scenes in their windows. Apparently the festival of “peace on earth and goodwill to all men,” might be offensive to people of “other” religions.
The BBC now avoids using the terms AD (Year of our Lord) or BC (Before Christ) when quoting dates, as these are derived from Christianity. They instead use the terms CE (Common Era) or BCE (Before Common Era). They are however happy to announce times and dates for Islamic holidays.
These are just a few of the examples of the creeping dhimmitude in our societies, of which there are thousands; but where do these things come from? Is political correctness just a spontaneous occurrence or is it being driven by Islam. If so how could they be achieving this? Is this the hallmark of a stealth takeover of our society by Islam?
These are important questions and we will examine a few of the ways in which Islam could (and I suspect does) influence the institutions of Western societies to facilitate this gradual Islamization. This is a little UK centric although the same trends are in place all over the Western World.
Influencing the Government:
When the Global Financial crisis hit in 2008 the finances of the UK’s banking system were in tatters. Then Prime Minister Gordon Brown panicked and jumped on a plane, presumably to secure cash from his closest allies. Rather than heading for Washington, Brussels or Paris however, he went straight to Riyadh (Saudi Arabia). 
The question is, why would the Saudi’s be willing to provide enough cash to rescue a banking system the size of Britain’s? Even more importantly, what would they be expecting in return? (News Flash: there is no such thing as a free lunch). The GFC was a complete surprise to British politicians. This suggests that it wasn’t the first time the British Government had received Saudi cash (or promises thereof).
We all know how harmful cigarettes are and yet for years, governments have resisted calls to restrict their use. I don’t think any sensible person would think that this has nothing to do with the cash which tobacco companies have lavished on politicians of all stripes.
If a tobacco company can buy favours from a democratic government, imagine how much more influence an entire nation could have. This would be especially true if it happened to be rich with oil wealth.
It would be easy to achieve this influence, even without direct funding. By offering such incentives as preferential contracts to oil companies and weapons suppliers etc. it would be possible to exert considerable influence on democratic governments. It would be particularly effective if these companies were large political donors in their own right.
For example, in the mid 1980’s, an arms deal between Saudi Arabia and the UK was touted as, "the biggest [UK] sale ever of anything to anyone", "staggering both by its sheer size and complexity". Hundreds of millions of pounds were reputed to have been paid in “commissions” alone. Margaret Thatcher’s son was reported to have received twelve million pounds himself. 
The UK National Audit Office investigated the deal, but its findings were withheld. Apparently, this was “the only NAO report ever to be withheld”. 
An investigation by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office was also subsequently dropped, after political pressure from Prime Minister Tony Blair. He was concerned to prevent embarrassment to the Saudis which might endanger future arms sales.
The British Government was prepared to bend over backwards and ride roughshod over its own legal processes to secure this money. What other concessions might they have been prepared to make?
As well as finance, Islam now controls a sizeable voting bloc in the UK, with Muslims now making up more than 3% of the population. With most elections going to the wire these days, a 52% majority is considered to be a landslide.
With a high degree of control exercised by the Mosque over the lives of Muslims, this gives Islam a huge degree of leverage over the government. Tony Blair found this out to his cost when he invaded Iraq/Afghanistan. Whatever your thoughts on the rights or wrongs of this particular incident, the fact remains that Britain’s foreign policy is now being influenced by Islam.
In November 2007, MI5 announced that it was monitoring around 2000 Islamic terror plots in the UK. Presumably there must be a few they don’t know about. Any time the British Government makes a decision which impacts unfavourably on Muslims, they are reminded sternly of the possible retaliation by “extreme elements.” No Government wants to be held responsible for aggravating such an attack.
In Holland, Geert Wilders runs a political party which opposes Islamic encroachment, for all the reasons I have outlined in this book. He lives under 24/7 protection and will for the rest of his life. Few politicians display such courage.
Meanwhile, Back in Arabia….
Mohammed’s behaviour was beginning to have the desired effect on other tribes nearby:
From The Sira:
I777 The Jews of Fadak panicked when they saw what Mohammed did to Khaybar. They would be next, so they surrendered to Mohammed without a fight. Since there was no battle Mohammed got 100 percent of their goods, and they worked the land and gave half to Mohammed each year. They became dhimmis like those of Khaybar.
Islam operates through intimidation. It gains power over people by making them afraid. Once it dominates by fear, it makes demands. These invariably involve a society giving up the ability to defend itself, in return for being allowed to live peacefully.
These demands are usually made incrementally, especially at first and are framed as reasonably as possible. Recent examples were Islamic demands that they not be profiled at airports, or searched by dogs. This despite the fact that most threats to aircraft have come from Islamic groups.
Having capitulated to this demand, governments are then even more vulnerable to terror attacks on planes. This makes them more likely to agree to the next demand, such as the silencing of free speech, further weakening the society’s defences.
As this cycle continues, the Kaffirs become ever weaker while Islam becomes stronger and stronger. The eventual aim, according to a number of the more extreme Islamic groups, is the establishment of Sharia Law, which institutionalizes the Kaffirs as second class citizens, or “dhimmis.”