QuoteOriginally posted by: menceyI see your point but I do not totally agree with that. The statement of Z " Dhimminitude is bad because ........." is appropriate but incomplete. The statment of Y is brilliant from a rethoric point of view but at the same time is a fallacy because implies that compliance to US law can be compare to compliance to Islamic law. It is debatable, but from my point of view is like comparing apples to oranges. US law is based on the principle that all men are equal in front of law, Islamic law is based on the principle that men are not equal in front of law (either by sex or religion). Therefore cannot be compared.I expect that there is some difference in what you mean when you write "cannot be compared" and what I take it to mean. To me, any two things can be compared; the usefulness of doing so, however, might be limited in many cases. In the case under consideration, Z had rather thoughtlessly pointed out with outrage two aspects of dhimmitude that were also shared by virtually every other government system. Y's comment highlights this fact, and it can be seen as eliciting a clarification of Z's position: it would serve no interest other than a dishonest one to have people outraged at dhimmitude because it requires obedience to laws and payment of taxes, but this is precisely what Z's comment directed.I must disagree with you, however, on the basis of US law. It is only under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (enacted in the middle of the 19th century), I believe, that the concept of "equal protection of the laws" is introduced to US law. Recall that slavery was allowed until the 1860s and racial discrimination until at least 1954 in the US. There are statements about all men being created equal in the American Declaration of Independence, but this document, and particularly this phrase from the document, has no legal weight in US law, and indeed it was not regarded as any sort of impediment to enslaving Africans nor exterminating Native Americans (about the latter of which, further reading of the Declaration of Independence gives a clearer notion of what really was going on ...).By and large, there are two bases for US law, at least as far as they are relevant to a comparison with the sharia of Islamic law: supremecy of individual rights over government authority; and a general democratic process for creating and implementing laws. While it might, at first glance, seem that the immutable, divine nature claimed for Islamic law stands in stark contrast to US law, this is not entirely so, because there is no general statement in US law of what are the "individual rights" that governments must not abridge. A few of them are directly stated, but the Constitution very clearly indicates that the statement of a few of them should not be construed to deny the existence of others. So, we have these supreme things, with no statement of what exactly they are or where exactly they come from; the main difference with sharia is that sharia explicitly states what its supreme rules are.The real difference comes into play with democracy. (I'm not familiar at all with sharia, but I think that, within the limits imposed by the many immutable, divinely given laws of sharia, democracy or at least government for the benefit of the people in general is preferred, which is not too different from US law.) "Democracy" is a very miss-used word these days: what it really is is government by the majority; but when it is used in the news it is generally meant to indicate a system of individual rights and justice in addition to some form of majority-determined elections. We commonly accept that democracy is "fair," or at least more "fair" than anything else, but it really is not inherently so: in a pure form, the majority could just decide to exterminate minorities and be fully compatible with democracy.The real difference, I think, is that in US law, everything is mutable, including the supposedly supreme "individual rights" that are recognized. I tend to think that this is far preferable -- I can't believe that at any time anyone had the ability to get everything exactly right, as supposedly Muhammed did -- but it does have its drawbacks.This said, the point not made by Z is important: sharia holds that there are (at least) two classes of people: the faithful, and infidels. And the faithful are assumed to do (or at least to try to do) everything right while the infidels are at most tolerated. This is clearly a raw deal for the infidels. US law at present does not have such a bifurcation, but it also has fewer ultimate guaranties of protection for minorities.