As the very antithesis of our God-given rights to freedom, liberty and self-determination, the anti-religion of Islam is, in and of itself, slavery. Speaking honestly and openly about Muhammad and Islam, as revealed through Islam's own books, may be punished by the death penalty for "blasphemy" by statute in several Islamic States. If a follower of Muhammad exercises his God-given freedom of self-determination and chooses to leave Islam to begin a life in Jesus Christ, or even to have no religion at all, the punishment is death for "apostasy" by statute in several Islamic States. The simple fact of the matter is, that if Muhammad's followers had not been intimidated into accepting the chains of Islam or face punishment, the counter-Gospel, history-devoid, geographically impossible anti-religion of Islam would have in all likelihood died with Muhammad.

At a minimum, in Islamic countries that do not yet impose the death penalty for apostasy, a person who chooses to leave Islam stands to be disowned, disinherited, unemployed and ostracized by their community, friends, and even by their own family. Little doubt this is primarily a reflection of the jealousy that those stuck in the bondage of Islam feel, toward one of their former brethren who has broken free of the chains of Islam, and its vain rituals. Particularly when that individual is given a new heart, and begins a new life in the freedom they find in Christ Jesus, as so many of their former brethren have discovered.

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

If any of the above angered you, as you search your heart, can you see that your anger may be rooted in the bondage that you suffer, making you jealous of others that are free? Take this young former Muslim even in Canada for example, that left Islam when he began a life in Jesus Christ, whose own mother had him thrown off of a 3rd floor mall balcony:

Apostasy in Islam from petewaldo on GodTube.

The above didn't even get into the bondage that so many women suffer in Islam as "maids" of their "masters" (video) - that is, husbands. (video link and print transcript)

Sura 2:223 your wives are as tilth (farmland) unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will...

Let alone that all a Muslim husband has to do in Islam, is say "I divorce you" three times, and it is done. In Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, even by text message. Needless to say it is a far different matter for Muslim wives who wish to divorce their husbands. One has to wonder how many homes of Muslim couples, even in the west, are deeded in the name of the husband alone.
The Islamic Practice of Slavery (URL)

In regard to actual physical slavery, the Islamic practice of capturing and enslaving Africans (and others) has gone on for 1400 years without interruption in places like the Sudan, and continues unabated, to this day. This is because slavery remains sanctioned by the Quran, and as his follower's example Muhammad himself captured innocents as "booty" of his imperialistic conquest, and enslaved them and traded in slaves to finance his war machine.

Bukhari B34, #432 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?"

Tabari VIII:39 "Then the Messenger of Allah sent Sa'd bin Zayd with some of the Qurayza captives to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms."

From this perspective, we can see why some of Muhammad's followers might view the slavery of dhimmitude, as a privilege! The practice of capturing Africans (and others) and pressing them into slavery, wasn't "officially" abolished in Saudi Arabia and Yemen until 1962, UAE 1963, and Oman not until 1970, but only in response to outside pressure. Yet while supposedly abolished in the UAE for example, consider what life is like for those on whose backs the opulent luxury of Dubai was built, let alone what can happen to a non-Muslim traveler who chooses a Muslim ruled destination like Dubai. Or the slaves..... err migrant workers..... that are dying at the rate of one per day to build the Olympics in Qutar.

From WikiIslam:  "A comparison of the Islamic slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts. While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade. Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.
While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%!
While almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for sexual exploitation as concubines, in harems, and for military service.
While many children were born to slaves in the Americas, and millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the USA to this day, very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survive.
While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated, and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth."

Sura 33:50-51 - "O prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war ... this only for thee, and not for believers [at large]; we know what we have appointed for them as to their wives and the  captives whom their right hand possess; - in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And God is oft-forgiving, most merciful.

Regarding the spiritual reason for Islamic slavery and dhimmitude, as opposed to freedom, liberty and the right to self-determination of all citizens regardless of race or religion - the very antithesis of Islam - please refer to the home page.

Sahih Muslim Hadith: "It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is purified (of menses or delivery) in case she has a husband, her marriage is abrogated after she becomes captive.

Bukhari B59 #459: Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

As we consider more context the question would seem to have been more about the prices that pregnant, as opposed to non-pregnant, captives would bring:

Bukhari B34 #432: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Further confirmed:

Bukhari B93 #506: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

It is better that they should not interrupt the sex act, but rather complete it for the sake of the person that is not yet conceived, and thus as in the news from Christianity Today reports (further clarified by inserting the politically incorrect "[Muslim]"):

"Once again, women are the targets. In mid-March, [Muslim] rebels assaulted three women gathering firewood and cut off their ears, lips, and breasts."  
"Starting in 2003, Janjaweed [Muslim] Arabs, a Sudan-backed [Muslim] militia, have driven 2 million villagers from their homes in ethnic-cleansing attacks designed to suppress local rebels."
"Eyewitness accounts detailing the [Muslim] militia attacks are horrifying. 'They killed my 3-year-old son right in front of my eyes,' one father from West Darfur said. Since last fall, women have reported more than 500 rapes. Three women said five [Muslim] militiamen beat and raped them last August. The women said, 'After they abused us, they told us that now we would have Arab babies. And, if they would find any [more] women, they would rape them again to change the color of their children.'"

Muslims capturing female slaves, apparently not solely for one's personal abuse, but for prostituting them as well:

Sura 24:33:...But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),     

So if your slave chooses to share in the "gain" then prostituting one's slave would seem perfectly all right, but even if "anyone compels them", Allah is forgiving. Pretty convenient god for a band of 7th century imperialistic, cutthroat thieves. There are some followers of Muhammad who believe that verse indicates that it is the woman that was forced into prostitution that would need "Allah's" forgiveness, rather than her master that compelled her, and no wonder since so many Muslim women (and others) are punished for being the victims of rape. As hard as it is for a person that lives in a civil society to imagine, to prosecute a rapist under Islamic law requires four witnesses against the rapist, in order for him to even be charged with the crime. This while the victim is charged with adultery, for having admitted to being raped, by bringing the charges against her rapist (in an Islamic judge's words at the 6:25 minute mark in this video):

Western Welfare as a Jizya Tax (URL)

There are more subtle ways that western infidel non-Muslims are enslaved in dhimmitude to Muhammad's followers. If you have ever wondered why it is that so many followers of Muhammad are on welfare, here is the famous English cleric Anjem Choudary on the subject, in England's Daily Mail:  

"Hate preacher pocketing £25,000 a year in benefits calls on fanatics to live off the state"

"Anjem Choudary, who in the past has planned to disrupt the minute's silence on Remembrance Sunday, also openly mocked hard-working Britons, calling them 'slaves'."

"The father-of-four takes home more than £25,000 a year in benefits and lives in a £320,000 house in Leytonstone, East London.
He told a crowd of around 30 fanatics: 'People will say, 'Ah, but you are not working'. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar (non-Muslim).
'So we take Jihadseeker's Allowance. You need to get support.'"

In other words his going on welfare is a way for him to collect, what is effectively a jizya tax that is owed to him, by his western non-Muslim infidel dhimmi dupes. Muhammad's follower's obligation to live off of western welfare - which then offers them the time to plan the terrorism of Islamic jihad, and engage in the lies and dissimulation of dah'wah (proselytizing). While at the same time this parasitism by Muhammad's followers, of the economies of free countries, simultaneously contributes to the destruction of those western economies. A win, win, for Islamic Jihad! Then presumably, eventually every formerly free country in the world, can become just another Islamic sharia law ruled, multiple concubine and wife beating, little girl genital mutilating (FGM), Christian and Jew murdering, church burning, Islamic slave state. Thanks to their dhimmi dupes that run western governments, we non-Muslim infidels are considered to be slaves in dhimmitude to the followers of Muhammad, who should naturally expect to be entitled to live off of the fruit of our labor. That is, should expect to maintain western infidel non-Muslims as slaves, to support themselves.
Dhimmitude (URL)

The more one investigates what it is like for a non-Muslim to be "subdued", and "submitted" to the dhimmitude of an Islamic slave state, the more one realizes that the money paid by non-Muslims in the form of the so-called "jizya" tax for the "protection" of those subjugated to Muhammad's followers, is akin to the Mafia selling "protection" to legitimate business owners. That is, buying protection from the same guys that are collecting the money. Traditionally, "dhimmis" (those subjugated) were sometimes slapped across the face as they paid the tax, to reinforce the extent of one's humiliation and submission, while the term "jizya" literally means "penalty". On the subject of the Mafia a great read is "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America" by P. David Gaubatz that explores documents that were recovered from the trash of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. The following embedded video is Frank Gaffney’s, "Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within", with DVDs available at the Center for Security

Regarding the lies of Islamic dissimulation, rather than what it is actually like to live under Muslims in a Muslim ruled society, this title provides an apt summary, from
"Myths and Politics: Origin of the Myth of a Tolerant Pluralistic Islamic Society."

The following is from a Wikipedia bio page regarding an Egyptian born Brit that writes under the pseudonym of Bat Ye'or, meaning "daughter of the Nile".
"She has provided briefings to the United Nations and the U.S. Congress and has given talks at major universities such as Georgetown, Brown, Yale, Brandeis, and Columbia.[1][8]"
"She described her experiences in the following manner:
I had witnessed the destruction, in a few short years, of a vibrant Jewish community living in Egypt for over 2,600 years and which had existed from the time of Jeremiah the Prophet. I saw the disintegration and flight of families, dispossessed and humiliated, the destruction of their synagogues, the bombing of the Jewish quarters and the terrorizing of a peaceful population. I have personally experienced the hardships of exile, the misery of statelessness - and I wanted to get to the root cause of all this. I wanted to understand why the Jews from Arab countries, nearly a million, had shared my experience.[5]"
"Dhimmitude is the direct consequence of jihad. It embodie[s] all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium on the vanquished population, Jews and Christians, living in the countries conquered by jihad and therefore Islamized. [We can observe a] return of the jihad ideology since the 1960s, and of some dhimmitude practices in Muslim countries applying the sharia [Islamic] law, or inspired by it. I stress ... the incompatibility between the concept of tolerance as expressed by the jihad-dhimmitude ideology, and the concept of human rights based on the equality of all human beings and the inalienability of their rights.[13]"

The following indented text is from Bat Ye'or's home page, which is available at the following link, at which we suggest you pursue this heavily researched subject, through links to many articles:

"Dhimmitude can only be understood in the context of jihad, because it originates from this ideology. Infidels who submit without fighting to the Islamic armies, are granted a pledge of security. They are protected from the jihad laws against infidels which command killing, slavery, ransom or deportation for the enemies. Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognized only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."

"Today the resurgence of traditional Islam revitalizes the spirit of jihad against the dar al-harb and of dhimmitude for the non-Muslim minorities."

If any doubt Muhammad's followers modern-day return toward dhimmitude simply consider what has been happening to Christians in Gaza, after international anti-Zionist powers turned it over to Islamic rule after ending the protection of the democracy of the Israeli Jewish State, by compelling Jews to abandon Gaza in exchange for yet another false promise of peace. Promises that can always be expected to be false, because Muhammad did not consider a contract between a Muslim and a non-Muslim to be binding ........ on the Muslim.

Sahih Bukhari 9:89:260 If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better.

Additional websites on the subject of dhimmitude:

From Fordham University: Islam and the Jews: The Status of Jews and Christians in Muslim Lands, 1772 CE.

From The Jizyah Tax: Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law? 
Dhimmitude Explained (URL)

Jewish History Sourcebook: Islam and the Jews: The Status of Jews and Christians in Muslim Lands, 1772 CE. Link to the article at Fordham University

    "In 1772 a Muslim scholar in Cairo was asked how Jews and Christians should be treated. The answer is found in this selection, issued four years before the American Declaration of Independence. This answer is not law, but only the opinion of a conservative Muslim. The opinion is in Arabic."


What do you say, O scholars of Islam, shining luminaries who dispel the darkness (may God lengthen your days!)? What do you say of the innovations introduced by the cursed unbelievers [Jewish and Christian] into Cairo, into the city of al-Muizz [founder of Cairo, 969] which by its splendor in legal and philosophic studies sparkles in the first rank of Muslim cities?

What is your opinion concerning these deplorable innovations which are, moreover, contrary to the Pact of Umar which prescribed the expulsion of the unbelievers from Muslim territory? [This is exaggerated. Umar exiled the infidels only from Arabia.]

Among other changes they have put themselves on a footing of equality with the chiefs, scholars, and nobles, wearing, like them, costly garments of cloth of India, expensive silk and cashmere fabrics, and they imitate them even in the cut of these very garments.

In addition, whether through necessity or otherwise, they ride on saddles which are of the same type as those of chiefs, scholars, and officers, with servants at their right, at their left, and behind them, scattering and pushing back Muslims for whom they thus block the streets.

They carry small batons in their hands just like the chiefs. They buy Muslim slaves, the offspring of Negro, Abyssinian, and even white slaves; this has become so common and so frequent among them that they no longer consider this offensive. They even buy slaves publicly, just like the Muslims.

They have become the owners of houses and build new ones of a solidity, durability, and height possessed by neither the houses nor mosques of the Muslims themselves. This state of affairs is spreading and is extending beyond all proportions. They contribute for the extension of their churches and convents; they seek to raise them higher and to give them a strength and a durability which even the mosques and the monasteries themselves do not have.

Christian foreigners, foes who solicit our tolerance, settle in the country for more than a year without submitting themselves thereby to taxation and without renewing their treaties of protection. The women of the tolerated non-Muslim natives liken themselves to our women in that they deck themselves in a garment of black silk and cover their faces with a veil of white muslin with the result that in the streets they are treated with the consideration due only to respectable Muslim women.

Ought one to allow these things to the unbelievers, to the enemies of the faith? Ought one to allow them to dwell among believers under such conditions? Or, indeed, is it not the duty of every Muslim prince and of every magistrate to ask the scholars of the holy law to express their legal opinion, and to call for the advice of wise and enlightened men in order to put an end to these revolting innovations and to these reprehensible acts? Ought one not compel the unbelievers to stick to their pact [of Umar]; ought one not keep them in servitude and prevent them from going beyond the bounds and the limits of their tolerated status in order that there may result from this the greatest glory of God, of His Prophet, and of all Muslims, and likewise of that which is said in the Qu'ran?

Be good enough to give us a precise answer, one based on authentic traditions.
Dhimmitude in Practice (URL)

The Answer Of The Shaikh Hasan Al Kafrawi, The Shafiite [Professor of canon law in Cairo, d. 1788 CE]

Praise be to God, the guide of the right way!

The decision given by the Shaikh ar-Ramli [a great Cairo legal authority, d. 1596], by the Shaikh al-Islam [the Muslim religious authority in Constantinople], and by the learned scholars whose decrees can hardly be written down here, may be worded as follows: "It is forbidden to the tolerated peoples living on Muslim territory to clothe themselves in the same manner as the chiefs, the scholars, and the nobles. They should not be allowed to clothe themselves in costly fabrics which have been cut in the modes which are forbidden to them, in order that they may not offend the sensibilities of poor Muslims and in order that their faith in their religion should not be shaken by this. [Poor Muslims may regret their faith when they see how well-dressed the Christians and Jews are.]

"They should not be permitted to employ mounts like the Muslims. They must use neither saddles, nor iron-stirrups, in order to be distinguished from the true believers. They must under no circumstance ride horses because of the noble character of this animal. The Most-High has said [Qu'ran 8:62]: 'And through powerful squadrons [of horses] through which you will strike terror into your own and God's enemies.' [A verse of the Qu'ran makes a good support for a law. Verses may even be torn out of their context.]

"They should not be permitted to take Muslims into their service because God has glorified the people of Islam. He has given them His aid and has given them a guarantee by these words [Qu'ran 3:140]: 'Surely God will never give preeminence to unbelievers over the true believers.' Now this is just what is happening today, for their servants are Muslims taken from among men of a mature age or from those who are still young. This is one of the greatest scandals to which the guardians of authority must put an end. It is wrong to greet them even with a simple 'how-do-you-do'; to serve them, even for wages, at the baths or in what relates to their riding animals; and it is forbidden to accept anything from their hand, for that would be an act of debasement by the faithful. They are forbidden while going through the streets to ape the manners of the Muslims, and still less those of the cities of the religion. They shall only walk single-file, and in narrow lanes they must withdraw even more into the most cramped part of the road.

"One may read that which follows in Bukhari and Muslim [religious authorities of the ninth century]: 'Jews and Christians shall never begin a greeting; if you encounter one of them on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot.' The absence of every mark of consideration toward them is obligatory for us; we ought never to give them the place of honor in an assembly when a Muslim is present. This is in order to humble them and to honor the true believers. They should under no circumstances acquire Muslim slaves, white or black. Therefore they should get rid of the slaves which they now have for the), have no right to own them. If one of their slaves who was formerly an infidel, becomes a Muslim, he shall be removed from them, and his master, willingly or unwillingly, shall be compelled to sell him and to accept the price for him.

"It is no longer permitted them to put themselves, with respect to their houses, on an equal footing with the dwellings of their Muslim neighbors, and still less to build their buildings higher. If they are of the same height, or higher, it is incumbent upon us to pull them down to a size a little less than the houses of the true believers. This conforms to the word of the Prophet: 'Islam rules, and nothing shall raise itself above it.' This is also in order to hinder them from knowing where our weak spots are and in order to make a distinction between their dwellings and ours.

"They are forbidden to build new churches, chapels, or monasteries in any Muslim land. We should destroy everything that is of new construction in every place, such as Cairo, for instance, founded under the Muslim religion, for it is said in a tradition of Umar: 'No church shall be built in Islam.' They shall no longer be permitted to repair the parts of these [post-Islamic] buildings which are in ruins. However, the old buildings [of pre-Islamic times] which are found in a land whose population had embraced Islam need not be destroyed. They shall not, however, be enlarged by means of repairs or otherwise. In case the tolerated peoples [Jews, Christians, etc.] act contrary to these provisions we will be obliged to destroy everything that has been added to the original size of the building. [Only pre-Islamic churches and synagogues may be repaired; new ones must be torn down.]

"Entrance into Muslim territory by infidels of foreign lands under the pact guaranteeing protection to the tolerated peoples is permitted only for the time necessary to settle their business affairs. If they exceed this period, their safe-conduct having expired, they will be put to death or be subject to the payment of the head-tax.[Jews and Christians of foreign lands must pay a special head-tax if they wish to remain permanently in Muslim lands.] As to those with whom the ruler may have signed treaties, and with whom he, for whatever motive, may have granted a temporary truce, they form only the smallest fraction. But they, too, must not pass the fixed limit of more than four months [without paying the tax], particularly if this occurs at a time when Islam is prosperous and flourishing. The Most-High has said [Qu'ran 2: 2341: 'They should wait four months,' and he has again said [47:37]: 'Do not show any cowardice, and do not at all invite the unbelievers to a peace when you have the upper-hand and may God be with you.'

"Their men and women are ordered to wear garments different from those of the Muslims in order to be distinguished from them. They are forbidden to exhibit anything which might scandalize us, as, for instance, their fermented liquors, and if they do not conceal these from us, we are obliged to pour them into the street."

This which precedes is only a part of that which has been written on this subject, and if we should wish to mention it all here it would take too long. But this brief recital will be sufficient for those men whose intelligence God has enlightened, to whom he has given the breath of life, and whose inner thoughts he has sanctified. Now let us beg the Sovereign Master of the world to extend His justice over humanity universally, in order that they may direct all their efforts toward raising with firmness the banner of the religion.

In a tradition of the sincere and faithful [Calif Abu Bekr, 632-634] it is likewise said: "The abolition of a sacrilegious innovation is preferable to the permanent operation of the law." In another tradition it is also said: "One hour of justice is worth more than sixty years of ritual." The verses of the Qu'ran and the traditions are very numerous on this subject, and they are known by all the faithful. God has cursed the former nations because they have not condemned scandalous things; and He has said [Qu'ran 5:82]: "They [the children of Israel] seek not at all to turn one another from the bad actions which they have committed. 0 how detestable were their actions. But He has punished these men because of their obstinate conduct." The Most-High has also said [Qu'ran 9: 1 131: "Those who bid what is right and forbid what is wrong, who observe the divine precepts, will be rewarded. Announce these glad tidings to the Muslims."

May the Most High God admit us to the number of this company and may He lead us in the paths of His favor. Certainly God is powerful in everything; He is full of mercy to His servants; He sees all.

Written by the humble Hasan al Kafrawi, the Shafiite. [1772 CE]

Non-Muslims living with and under Muhammad's followers today, suffer far less civil treatment than even the above article suggests. Simply web search - "churches burned" by muslims or consider the ongoing slaughter of Christians in Nigeria.

From The Jizyah Tax: Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law?

"1. The value of human life

In the West, at least in constitution terms, however inadequately outworked in practice in some places, the equality of human beings is a fundamental assumption – 'all men are equal before the law'. For this reason, Justice is often depicted in statues as blindfolded; the class, religion or race of anyone is irrelevant – the law, at least in terms of its goal, applies equally to everyone, and safeguards everyone equally.

In Islamic law, however, this is simply not the case. The life of a Muslim is considered superior to that of a non-Muslim, so much so that whilst a non-Muslim killing a Muslim would be executed, the reverse would not occur. [5] This is despite the fact that murder is normally considered a capital offence in Islam, with regular executions in most Muslim states. This inequity is also demonstrable in the blood rate paid to non-Muslims where murder or injury has occurred, which is half that of a Muslim. [6] Effectively, this ruling means that a Muslim need not fear the usual retribution for murder if he kills a non-Muslim. The law deliberately and consciously does not protect non-Muslims as it does Muslims. The position of Islamic law is not that human life is sacred, but that Muslim life is so."

Much more