Tax / Jizyah

You wrote: I'm sorry this just doesn't make sense. I dont think ANY government allows ANY segment of its public to form small militias, and take up arms. That does not make a stable/peaceful society.

FYI "Taking up arms" does not mean simply mean owning a gun - it means to 'wage war', "prepare to fight" etc.
So there is a big diff b/w just owning a weapon/gun/sword versus 'taking up arms'.

EVEN MUSLIM individuals will be hindered by the govt from forming small militias of thier own, and 'taking up arms'
on thier own, without any formal warfare .

Flip the coin. Do you think ANY non-muslim govt would allow muslims to 'take up arms' on thier soil? would they
allow militias to be formed? No sensible govt/authority would allow that.

Actually, they've been doing it on U.S. soil for quite some time. There are Muslim groups who get together and practice organized weapons tactics on private land in America. I'm surprised you are unaware of this fact.

I suppose you've never heard of the Bill of Rights?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You wrote: The 'taking up arms' rule is a standard for all.

As for 'dont allow nonmuslims to protect themselves' - thats baloney. Under Shariah, a nonmuslim has as much right to individually defend him/herself from danger, as a muslim. They have the legal right to go to court, and sue a muslim for any harm.

They are just not allowed to 'take up arms' against fellow citizens or revolt against the givernment, or side/fight for the enemy nations of thier govt. Something which was VERY COMMON in older times, hence this law was put into place. The nonmuslims, during times of war, would side with the other nonmuslim armies against the ruling muslim govt.

This rule does not apply to weapons that are used for safety/personal defence/hunting etc.

At what point did Muhammad make it mandatory that a court-of-law determine if someone may be executed? Or are you simply reinterpreting laws from 1400 years ago and trying to apply it to modern times and modern standards? If I recall, Muhammad never used a court system for Ka'b al-Ashraf.

Many times the dhimmi were required to do more than just pay a tax. If you recall, the Jews of Khaibar were forced into submission and threatened with exile. They begged to remain in their homes in exchange for 50% of their production. Eventually, after the death of Muhammad, one of the Muslim rulers (I forget which one now) expelled the Jews from Khaibar. They weren't even allowed to live in their original homes.

And the dhimmi were allowed to practice their religious beliefs subject to restrictions, the entire point of it was to provide material proof of the dhimmis' subjugation under Islamic rule. It was a tax simply to abase the dhimmi.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Legal_and_social_status :

In his classic treatise on the principles of Islamic governance, the 11th-century Shafi'i scholar Al-Mawardi divided the conditions attached to ��dhimma�� on top of the requirement to pay tribute into compulsory and desirable. The compulsory conditions included prohibitions on blasphemy against Islam, entering into sexual relations or marriage with a Muslim woman, proselytizing among Muslims, and assisting the enemies of Islam. The desirable conditions included a requirement to wear distinctive apparel, a prohibition to visibly display religious symbols, wine, or pork, ringing church bells, or loudly praying, a requirement to bury dead bodies unobtrusively, and finally, a prohibition on riding horses or camels, but not donkeys.[42] The latter restrictions were largely symbolic in nature and were designed to highlight the inferiority of dhimmis compared to Muslims.[43] In reality, the nature of the conditions imposed clearly point to an interest in safety. For example:

- A Dhimmi was not allowed to build anything higher than a couple of stories high. It was common knowledge at this time that higher ground holds the advantage in a battle or war.

- A Dhimmi could use donkeys rather than horses or camels. This is because a horse or camel, at that time, is the equivalent of a tank today and creates an advantage in warfare. Allowing Dhimmis to use a donkey ensured that they were able to continue transporting things and to avoid hindering their ability to earn income.

Friedmann holds that the principle that "Islam is exalted, and nothing is exalted above it" (as Bukhari puts it) had many practical effects on the relationship between Muslims and unbelievers in Muslim lands.[44] According to Lewis, it would have been a theological and logical absurdity for traditional Islamic societies to give the "same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it."[45]

The treatment of dhimmis, including the enforcement of restrictions placed on them, varied over time and space, depending on both the goodwill of the ruler and the historical circumstances. The "dhimma" was the most oppressive in Morocco, where Jews were subjected to what Norman Stillman called "ritualized degradation",[46] as well as in Yemen and Persia.[47] The periods when Islamic states were strong generally coincided with more relaxed attitude towards dhimmis; however, treatment of non-Muslims usually became harsher when Islam was weak and in decline.[30]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-stillman109-47"[48] Over time, the treatment of dhimmis tended to develop in cycles, such that periods of when restrictions imposed on dhimmis were relaxed were immediately followed by the periods of pious reaction when such restrictions came to be enforced again.[49]

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Humiliation_of_dhimmis