The idiot rabi strikes again: Non-Jews exist only to serve Jews

This idiot man is a scholar of the Talmud, and yet he is a shame to humanity.  He is the Sephardi chief rabbi of  Israel.  In case you do not know it, this idiot chairs the Shas party that holds the balance of power in the Israeli parliament, and some of his more idiotic followers in several ministerial positions in the Israeli government as well.

You can read about his 'credentials' on Wikipedia.  But reading these quotes would tell you more about him.  And there is nothing there to brag about: neither morally and humanly.  You can imagine how his followers implements his attitudes in the way they treat goyim, i.e., non-Jews who are under their thumbs in Israel or anywhere else.  Goyim, by the way, does not only refer to Arabs and Muslims.
Goyim is ALL non-Jews.  That is the rest of humanity.

The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews, according to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas’s Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardi adjudicator.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.

According to Yosef, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews.


“In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

The rest of humanity is simply like donkeys own by the Jews: preserved by God only to that Jews do not loose their assets.


This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said. “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created,” he added.


Yosef’s Saturday night sermons have seen many controversial statements from the 90-year-old rabbi. In August, Yosef caused a diplomatic uproar when he wished a plague upon the Palestinian people and their leaders, a curse he retracted a few weeks later, when he blessed them along with all of Israel’s other peace-seeking neighbors.

This is not a man that issues fatwas while hiding in a cave, or from a dilapidated structure targeted by our drones because he is spreading hate.  He is a BIG figure in Israel, He is a king maker in the parliament.  He schmoozes with the presidents, prime ministers, and foreign leaders.  In other worlds, he is not an outcast.


And when Israel behaves towards its 'goyim' non-Jewish population, as well as Arabs, Muslims and the rest of the worlds as if they do not count for anything, one may wonder: it is just me , or do they look like they have taken this idiot's advice and religious opinions to heart?


Khaled

Other related posting:

•  If you are an Orthodox Jew spiritual leader, it is OK to say such things.
• The mindset may sound Saudi, but the tongue speaks Hebrew!!
• Red Alert: The Arabs Are Spreading. STOP the Arabs!!!
• Israeli rabbi: Honey-pot sex is kosher for female Mossad agents

Link to Original Article in the Jerusalem Post and another relevant article about extremist rabbis:

• Yosef: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews
• Settler Rabbi: Celebrating Murder of Palestinians ‘Great Mitzvah’

Israel military: Flotilla killings justified (God is OK with that, the Rabbi thinks)!

Israeli Military Declares Gaza Flotilla Killings Justified

Israel has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians: men, women and children without a second thought or remorse. So, what's a few more Turks killed in the big scheme of Israeli policies?

Besides, a Rabbi knows best when is comes to what pleases God, and the rabbi said it is OK.

Chabad rabbi declared his 'Godly' view of where Judaism stands:

I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.

The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).

The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. First, the Arabs will stop using children as shields. Second, they will stop taking hostages knowing that we will not be intimidated. Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.

Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.

Rabbi Manis Friedman
Bais Chana Institute of Jewish Studies
St. Paul, MN

So, living by the Torah leads the 'Light unto the nations' to prevail over the rotten ones who advocate not killing children or destroy places of worship (The opinions of the despicable rabbi were taken verbatim from an 'Ask the Rabbi' article in Moment Magazine,  Summer of 2009).

Nice religion that 'man-of-god has'.

And, by the way, the nice Rabbi has not - and will not - be declared a terrorist, charged with hate incitement, a hate crime or even 'a hate-misdemeanor'.  And he will never get deported to the only homeland he believes in that was promised to the likes of him.

And the followers that flock to his hate-spewing place of worship and pay money to keep him 'productive' will always be secure from harassment, FBI interrogations, and surveillance by our security agencies.


Khaled

Liberté, égalité, fraternité: Fake, fake, and.... fake?!

Human societies are nothing if not... 'human'.

Part of being human is, unfortunately, being pretentious and dishonest, as well as posturing and self righteousness. There are no exception to that rule whether you are talking about Afghanistan, Egypt, The United States or, in this case, France.

The arrogance of French culture pops up every now and then giving the impression that the French have 'invented' freedom, equality and brotherhood of Man. That does not mean that a lot of minority have not found home and homeland in France over the years. But the 'convulsions' that erupt occasionally from the dominant ethnic group under the pretense of preserving the purity of the 'French value of secularism' still reveals they are just like everybody else in the planet: flawed humans.

I totally supported their effort to ban Niqab (face-hiding head-cover worn by some very conservative Muslim women, and is a social tradition regardless of religiosity in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan).

I supported the ban simply because Niqab is a dysfunctional social habit. That is not the case for the usual headscarf worn my a large number of Muslim women. And regardless of whether it is worn out of religious belief or simply as a social habit (which is a very common situation even in many non-Muslim rural societies), it is not a dysfunctional tradition unless it is enforced by coercion on women.

Some French, at least a vocal faction, have a different attitude towards a woman wearing a headscarf, especially if the style suggests she is a Muslim: they consider it backward, threatening, and above all anti-secular, whatever on earth that means.

I do not judge a woman as morally superior just because she wears a headscarf or a man because they wear a beard. But I do not hold it against them either.
That is the whole point of freedom of choice. And that is the point of judging the deed not the appearance.

A recent report on the British Gaurdian Online (see link at the end of the post) talked about how a leftist radical anti-capitalist politician, Olivier Besancenot, has caused an uproar in France and has drawn vocal opposition even from leftist/liberal groups for his 'fielding of a headscarf wearing 21 year old Muslim woman' as an election campaign running partner. The report mentioned few things about that young woman, Ilham Moussaid (see photo). And from what they list, she should not be any threat to French society and its value. After all, she is independent, politically active, supports abortion, supports leftist causes, and actually at a young age of 21 years, is the NPA anti-capitalist party treasurer.

But for the 'puritanistic' secularists, the limited scarf she wears is a threat to secularism that is too grave to ignore. And just because Marx and Trotsky did not see positive value in religion, people with strong sense of social justice and who care for the poor and weak out of their religious convictions, are not accepted as comrade worriers for social justice causes.

A "leading feminist group announced it would file an official complaint against the NPA's list of candidates in the Vaucluse département to protest against what it called an "anti-secular, anti-feminist and anti-republican" stunt".

Those who want to defend feminist and social justice causes need to shed their religion - all aspects of it. Social justice as a result of a religious sense is 'no good'.

This is similar to rejecting the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' as a moral argument just because it had religious root.

I am sure if the scarf was worn as a a part of an African attire - not an uncommon combination- it would have been seen as a manifestation of the great motto of France "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" in the land that thinks it invented freedom for all.

But, worn by a Muslim woman? Oh, no. That is a threat Western civilization.

It is not uncommon to see xenophobia, racism and pure hatred manifest itself under glorious slogans. It was American, Samuel Johnson, who said in 1779 that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".

And for decades, patriotism and other moral values including religion have commonly been refuge not only of scoundrels, but also of those moral cowards who would rather use a respectable facade for their hatred, racism, xenophobia, greed for power and domination, (and more recently hate for Islam and Muslims). That occurs not only in the US, but in the West, the East and everywhere.

That is no less despicable that a cowardly soldiers holding human shields in front of them while shooting at or searching for the enemy.

I am sure many French would not feels the same way that the 'militant secularists' feels- at least I hope most would not. But it is usually the unhappy loud militant bunch that make the headlines in France like everywhere else. Another reminder how human societies are just that: human.

And that applies to the French too.

Khaled

The guardian full article can be found here:

• Election candidate in headscarf causes uproar in France

And this is an article from France with more nuanced insight of the politics behind the choice.

• France24 - Far-left party reveals ‘veiled’ female candidate

And the opinion of Olivier Besancenot himself, in his own words can be found her

• Olivier Besancenot, "What I Actually Said to Le Figaro regarding the Headscarf"

Religious leader of the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis speaks on the Fort Hood massacre

Earlier today I was cc'd on an email exchange between several of the Interfaith Partnership (IFP) of St. Louis and Imam Minhajuddin, Imam (i.e., religious leader) of the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis (IFGSL). The email was a reply from Imam Minhaj to an earlier message he received from the IFP and Faith Beyond Walls of St. Louis.

I found his reply to be worth sharing with you and the public, and he kindly granted my request to post his reply on this blog. It will be an excellent addition to the ongoing public discourse American Muslims are having with their non-Muslim fellow citizens about the the sad events that took the lives of 13 innocent victims (and injured over 3 dozen others) nearly on November 5, 2009 in Texas at the hands of Major Nidal Hassan, an American Muslim military psychiatrist currently indicted before military court for first degree murder of 13 victims of that massacre.

The message below is copied verbatim from the Imam's email, and I only trimmed the last section which listed quoted from Sheila Musaji's article listed at the end of the copied section. It referred to quotes of numerous American Muslim organizations about the events.

---------- Beginning of Quote from Imam Minhajuddin message.

Dear Cynthia Holmes, Batya Abramson Goldstein, and all our other interfaith partners,

Thank you so much for your kind and comforting words.

Indeed this is truly a trying time for Muslims in America and all over the world. First of all, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this unspeakable tragedy. The light of their lives was snatched away in a moment of cruelty. We mourn with them and pray for peace and justice for them. May God be with them all.

Secondly, we, American Muslims, are just as horrified as anyone else by this, and all, senseless acts of violence against innocent people. We condemn these actions and pray for the victims of this madman who committed acts of treason against both God and our country. In my capacity as a Mufti and scholar of Islamic Law, I can confidently state that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever in our religion for such an unconscionable act of terror.

Even if the alleged facts may be true : that he was harassed and taunted by fellow soldiers for being Muslim; that being deployed to Iraq was his “worst nightmare”; that he tried very hard to get out of the Army but his requests to end his enlistment were repeatedly turned down; that he argued with other fellow soldiers about the legitimacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; nothing whatsoever can justify the murder of innocent unarmed fellow soldiers.

• "Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice" (Quran, Chapter 5, Verse 8),

• "For not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. So repel their evil deeds with that which is best in the sight of God. Then, behold! The one who had enmity for you, and for whom you had enmity, may become a most intimate friend. Yet none shall attain this but those who are patient in suffering. And none shall attain this but one endowed with a magnificent share of goodness. But should there be any insinuation by Satan to instigate you to do otherwise, then seek refuge in God. Indeed, it is He who is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. (Quran 41:34-36)

• “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.” [Quran, 4:35]

No true Muslim could ever commit such a crime against humanity. As Muslims, we are reminded that to take one innocent life in the sight of God is as if one has killed all of mankind.

• "Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (Quran 5:32)

Muslims are also commanded to keep their oaths when given.

• "O you who believe! Fulfill all contracts, treaties and covenants with God and with people." (Quran 5:1)

Thankfully, besides our friends from the interfaith partnership like yourselves, many amongst the political and military leadership of our country also understand this fact and can make the distinction between the teachings of Islam and the actions of a madman. In fact, many of them have expressed sympathy for the plight of Muslim Americans who have to survive this general backlash. Army commander Gen. George Casey has expressed concern over the impact that this act could have on the 2,000 Arab-Americans serving in the armed forces. He understands that not only do these Americans have the right to serve their country, but they can serve it in unique ways through their linguistic and cultural experiences as American Muslims. Criminalizing all for the crime of a deranged individual does our nation (and Muslims) a deep disservice.

However, unfortunately this is precisely what is happening at Ft. Hood and elsewhere in certain cases. Mikey Weinstein, a retired officer and activist for religious freedom in the military, forwards this communication from the wife of an American Muslim serving in the military:

“…I wanted to let you know what life has been like for myself, being an American-Muslim military spouse, over the last few days here at (name of military installation withheld), since the Ft. Hood incident. When I first learned of this, I was sitting in the PX food court with my best friend whose immediate reaction was, “ No offense to you, but Muslims shouldn’t even be allowed in the U.S. Army”. Wow, this was from my best friend here! I have heard this and similar sentiments repeatedly from various “friends”, as well as people insisting it’s really a terror plot.

Since this happening, my Muslim husband, who is deployed to Afghanistan, has been put on duty to build a chapel on his base, as well as being told not to associate with the Afghan nationals that work there. I went shopping at the commissary and had people mumbling under their breath but loud enough to ensure that I could hear, things like, “get out of our country”, “go back to your country”, “ F-ing Muslims”, “G-Damn Muslims,” and several other expletives you can insert there. Now people don’t just stare at you when they see you go by wearing hijab, they glare. Last time I checked, I was born in this country, this is my country, and my husband is serving it and continues to serve it despite the harassment and racism he encounters. He proudly serves despite the fact that our family pays a higher price for it than many others.”
(Quotations taken from theamericanmuslim.org)

I would highly recommend all of you to take some time out to read the following two very eloquently written articles by our own local Muslim journalist and founding editor of the online Journal, "The American Muslim", Sister Sheila Musaji. She has done exhaustive research and her works deserve recognition.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/fort_hood_tragedy_islam_and_america
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_must_condemn_religious_extremists1/0017733

---------- End of Quote from Imam Minhajuddin message.

Please follow the link listed above to read Sheila Musaji excellent articles and for the full text of many American Muslim organizations statements.

Khaled

Saving Somalia is closer once women avoid using Bras!!!

Some fundamentalists are smart. Most are just plain dumb. Their knowledge of religion - whichever religion they exploit to express their anger and desire for power - is mostly spotty, and lack awareness of the breadth and diversity of opinions that all religions developed over time.

Most of the dumb fundamentalists think that they know exactly what God wants even though they do not even have first hand knowledge of their holy book- only the selected passages 'appropriately' translated from original languages, unspoken by most fanatics, and re-iterated ad nauseum and spoon fed to them in sermons and indoctrination classes by their manipulative leaders.

To me it is a blessing that most religious fanatics are stupid enough with no ability to prioritize, to plan strategies or even develop a sense of reality. Can you imagine the horror of facing an enemy with the fanaticism of Somali 'Shabaab' organization with the organizational smarts of AIPAC for example?

Even their smart leaders and scholars are sometimes so detached from reality that their ability to effectively guide their followers toward real world solutions becomes severely impaired.

I recall an interesting story, I heard from a source I totally trust, about a pious and very scholarly elder Muslim clergy whose comment after being informed about the scandal of Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was (and I am slightly paraphrasing): "Poor girl. That would ruin her chances of getting married."

While that may sound funny, it is truly sad because that clergy was the guide of many people to implementing and living their religion in a world that he knows very little about its inner workings.

A less funny story is told in this article by Alaa Al-Aswany, and renowned Egyptian writer, that I read in English on the British Independent website. I invite you to read the article from which I selected some paragraphs to present below:

Somalia is in the grip of famine and chaos but officials there are inspecting bras By: Alaa Al-Aswany

The Shabaab movement in Somalia controls large parts of the south and centre of the country, and because officials in this movement embrace the Wahabi ideology they have imposed their views on Somalis by force and have issued strict decrees banning films, plays, dancing at weddings, football matches and all forms of music, even the ring tones on mobile phones. Some days ago these extremists carried out a strange operation: they arrested a Somali woman and whipped her in public because she was wearing a bra. They announced clearly that wearing these bras was unIslamic because it is a form of fraud and deception.
......

In fact this excessive interest in covering up women's bodies is not confined to the extremists in Somalia. In Sudan the police examine women's clothing with extreme vigilance and arrest any woman who is wearing trousers. They force her to make a public apology for what she has done and then they whip her in public as an example to other women.
.....
Firstly, the extremist view of women is that they are only bodies and instruments for either legitimate pleasure or temptation, as well as factories for producing children. This view strips women of their human nature. Accusing the Somali woman of fraud and deception because she was wearing a bra is the same charge of commercial fraud which the law holds against a merchant who conceals the defects of his goods and make false claims about their qualities in order to sell them at a higher price.
......
The use of women's naked bodies to market commercial products in the West is merely another application of the idea that women are commodities. Anyone who visits the redlight district in Amsterdam can see for himself how wretched prostitutes, completely naked, are lined up behind glass windows so that passers-by can inspect their charms before agreeing on the price. Isn't that a modern-day slave market, where women's bodies are on sale to anyone willing to pay?
.....
Throughout human history, strictness towards women has usually been a way to conceal political abuses and real crimes. Somalia is a wretched country in the grip of famine and chaos but officials there are distracted from that by inspecting bras. The Sudanese regime is implicated in crimes of murder, torture and raping thousands of innocents in Darfur but that does not stop the regime from putting on trial a woman who insisted on wearing trousers. It is women rather than men who always pay the price for despotism, corruption and religious hypocrisy.
.....
What is really saddening is that the Wahabi extremism which is spreading throughout the world with oil money and which gives Muslims a bad image is as far as can be from the real teachings of Islam. Anyone who reads the history of Islam fairly has to be impressed by the high status it accords to women, because from the time of the Prophet Muhammad until the fall of Andalusia, Muslim women mixed with men, were educated, worked and traded, fought and had financial responsibilities separately from their fathers or husbands. They had the right to choose the husband they loved and the right to divorce if they wanted. Western civilisation gave women these rights many centuries after Islam.Finally, let me say that religious extremism is the other face of political despotism. We cannot get rid of the extremism before we end the despotism.Democracy is the solution.

Please read the full article on the Indeopendent website (below).

Links:

Alaa Al-Aswany: When women are sinners in the eyes of extremists
Somalia is in the grip of famine and chaos but officials there are inspecting bras

Custom-made Religion and 'Child Brides': What is Prophetic tradition (Sunna) and what is not?

Last month the saga of the Saudi father ('father' used here in a very loose sense) who married his 8 year old daughter to one of his acquaintances as a 'dept-repayment' was on the Arabic and international media. The mother, who opposed the marriage filed to annul the marriage before a local court but her request was denied and the 'legality' of the transaction was upheld. The judge said he tried to convince the husband to divorce the girl, but the husband refused.

The outrage in Arabic and international circles led the prince of Qaseem, the province in which the shameful transaction has taken place, to intervene by assigning a new judge to the case. But rather than make a judgment on the illegality of such marriage, the judge conducted intense negotiations leading to out-of-court settlement that involved financial compensation for the husband. Not surprisingly, the father will not face any penalty (You can find details here and here).

Such idiocy in Qaseem, a province considered to be the heartland of Saudi Islamic fundamentalism, is protected under Saudi law. Actually, Saudi legal system does not have a problem with an 8 year old girl marrying a 50 year old man as a payment for her daddy's dept. That same legal system is not troubled either by marrying 9 year old boys. For them Islam said it is OK to do that. Regulating that is, for many, un-Islamic.

According to newspapers, the senior clerics of Saudi Shura Council may consider setting a minimum age for marriage - a revolutionary concept by Saudi legal standards. Unfortunately that is by no means certain. And moreover, it will require re-programming segments of the population to un-think that marrying little girls (or boys) is the normal Islamic practice (for example see here for an interesting discussion - Sorry, but that article is in Arabic only).

My concern with weird behaviors like those practiced in Saudi society (for example child brides, not allowing elections, and banning women from driving) is that behavior of Saudi society tends to masquerade as the proper Islamic practice. Sadly, Saudi 'norms' make it very difficult for level-headed Muslims to fight such anomalous practices in other Muslim societies. The Saudi kingdom has, geographically peaking, the Islamic Holy places. But that does not make the social norm of Saudi society Holy.

Custom-made Islam - specifically tailored to suit the desires of whoever is in power in many backward Muslim societies - is a common practice. In the name of Islam we see things that range from closing girl schools in Afghanistan and attacking Shia in Pakistan to atrocities against civilians and foreigners in Algeria.

Custom-made Islam is used to support independence in southern Philippines yet to resist independence or separation movements in southern Yemen. It is used to revolt against American forces in Iraq but to promote acceptance of their presence in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. It is used to topple Pakistani government, while making people submit obediently to Saudi and other oppressive Arab governments.

Part of the problem is the greed for control and power that is made easy using a religious facade in traditionally religious societies (see my previous posting on Alternative Islam, for example), but that is not the whole problem. Frequently it is the desire to 'find religion' in practices that are not of religious nature. Age of marriage seems to be one of those situations.

The root of the problem of marriage age usually goes back to the little we know in Islamic history about how young Aisha, the Prophet's wife, was when the Prophet married her. I will not get into the details and the controversies about it because, truly, it is irrelevant to my discussion of the issue.

What is relevant is how practices by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were considered a prophetic tradition or Sunna (i.e., Prophet's acts to be adopted as part of the religion). Age of marriage was never an issue in the Quran. There was no hints to it, no allusions to it, nothing about it - nothing at all.

And regardless of what the Prophet did (which is not even established with certainty) when he married Aisha, it was not anything that raised the ire of people around him, people who endangered their lives and social status by following him, and who believed in him as a result of what they have known about him as a role model and an example for morality.

That is to say, whatever he did by marrying Aisha was seen as normal and followed a contemporary societal norm and was not viewed as a violation of that norm. And just because the Prophet followed prevalent social norms, that alone does not make them Religion.

He used camels and horses for transportation. He did not sleep on beds, and he did eat the prevalent foods (except what was clearly prohibited in the Quran such as pork and alcohol) . He socialized with his companions in the way that was befitting a decent civilized person by their standards. There was no running water in his time and no indoor pluming in his hime. And as for bathrooms; bathrooms were in the open outdoors. He was not opposed to the medical practices of his time, nor to the lack of organized school system.

He delivered the message he received from God and he prohibited the practices that appeared to contradict God's message. Then, he accepted the rest of life - in my mind without making a religious ruling about it. He was explicit about what God wants, and equally explicit delivering God's prohibitions and we should follow those. As for the rest of worldly life tools and norms, it is up to us to decide what suits our times, as long as we are not obvious violating the message of Islam.

Many Muslim societies have moved on and regulated marriage and other aspects of social life. Most of those societies do not claim that their choices for societal rules represent Islam. And that is good for Muslims and, above all, is good for Islam. The worst religion is that which casts people's own desires as God's commandments.

أَفَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَهَهُ هَوَاهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى عِلْمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلَى سَمْعِهِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلَى بَصَرِهِ غِشَاوَةً فَمَن يَهْدِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ

"Hast thou ever considered [the kind of man] who makes his own desires his deity, and whom God has [thereupon] let go astray, knowing [that his mind is closed to all guidance] ...?" (Quran, chapter 45:23)

Very few of today's Muslims would forgo indoor pluming, traveling by plane or sleeping on beds as a way to follow the Prophet's foot steps. I can attribute not following the prophet on those issues to the belief that when the Prophet washed, traveled and slept in a different way, he was not legislating religion. Rather, he was adopting an acceptable social norm that did not violate Islam as he knew it.

Why then do hyper-religious Muslims think that wearing a particular kind of clothes, using fingers to eat, or a particular aroma of perfume is a religious matter (Sunna) while those same people sleep in beds, travel by plane, drive fancy cars and have marble-floored indoor bathrooms; while the prophet pbuh choose different way to sleep, to travel, and to use the bathroom?

And why would their even be fear of violating Islamic rules by setting an age limit to marriage in Saudi Arabia on in other fundamentalist Muslim circles?

I am not naive to think that deciding on marriage age limits is the biggest problem facing Islam today. But I think that the way we approach a solution to that issue as well as other 'fake' religious issues is a reflection of where the soul of Islamic thinking is heading. And that should be an issue of grave concern to all Muslims today.

Khaled

Willful ignorance, like eternal victimhood, is a bliss - Part 1

Gaza war of 2009 is not a very well-kept secret.

The number of victims may be disputed, but very few will deny that a large majority of the 1500 Palestinian killed by Israel were innocent children, women and men. Most of the world have seen the Israeli military exercising a campaign of vengeance against Gaza people.

What may be a sliver of hope - if you are still capable of seeing anything positive in that blood bath - was that all over the world, anti-Israel sentiments were flaring. The world (East and West) is gradually coming to see Israel as the aggressor and oppressor in the puddle known as the Israeli-Palestinian (I-P) conflict.

Even in the traditionally 'cold-blooded' Northern Europeans, anti-Israel feelings are growing rapidly. From Amsterdam where an visiting Israeli officer was shoe-pelted (after which the paranoid officer said ''Today shoes, tomorrow guns'') to Sweden where the Israeli ambassador was also shoe-pelted, and where Davis Cup matches in Malmo - Sweden's third largest city - could not be held with fans in the stadium as the city was boiling with demonstrations against Israel, calling for boycotting Israel and protesting the presence of the Israeli tennis team.

One Israeli tennis player expressed his shock after demonstrators tried to disrupt Sweden-Israel tennis match. According to Haartz, he said "Sweden protest was first time I felt anti-Israel hate".

But to express shock at the civilized world reaction to massacres of innocent Palestinians by one's own country is truly confusing. Is it naïveté, childish innocence, or ignorance? Or does it represent a more profound pathology that pervades the Israeli collective memory and perception?

It is hard to feel confused as to why the European street is unhappy with Israel. The European protesters over the last several months were not very subtle. They explicitly say why they are unhappy with Israel. In Sweden, they did not mince words:

' 7,000 people gathered at a square in downtown Malmo to hear speeches condemning Israel's offensive in Gaza and urging support for Palestinians. Sweden's Left Party leader Lars Ohly told the crowd that the European Union and the rest of the world "should boycott the racist regime in Israel." Chanting anti-Israel slogans, the protesters then marched toward the Baltic Hall arena, where some of them tried to break through the police barrier.' [Full article here]

Still, some old and wise Jewish community leaders insist that the real reason is not that simple.

The leader of the European Jewish Congress said Wednesday the main blame for growing antisemitism across the continent was the economic crisis, not the Gaza war.
[European Jewish] Congress President Moshe Kantor said that what he believes anti-Semitism levels unseen since World War II had nothing to do with Middle East issues.

And as usual, the Defamation League, aka Anti-Defamation League (ADL), foams around the mouth accusing the Malmo City council of using the tennis matches "as a device to express anti-Israel bias."

The political ignorance of a tennis-centered athlete is understandable. But the ' leader of the European Jewish Congress' ? This wise leader and the eternally-angry Foxman of the ADL are never tired of the same slogan: It has nothing to do with what Israel does. They hate us because they will always hate us for one reason or the other.

This sounds like circular logic to me, but for a lot of other people, it is the undisputed truth. And in some sick sense, it is a handy justification for having absolutely no critical appraisal of what Israel does. If, in that kind of traditional wisdom, the conclusion is known [they will always hate us], then what is the point wasting energy trying to find another reason [for example, Israel is doing something that is really so bad that people get angry at Israel]?

True antisemitism is the hate of Jews for no reason other than their being Jewish. If Israel occupies land, oppresses people and kills innocent Palestinians, I think some civilized humans have the right to be angry, or even mad, at Israel and its supporters for what Israel is are doing.

Are there true anti-Semites? Certainly. But nine times out of ten, that charge is hurled at someone who dares to criticize Israel (unless they are Jewish, then they get charged with being self-hating Jews).

But, let us go back to the perception gap between what Israel does, and what its supporters see.

Israeli as well as pro-Israel media in January and February of 2009 were studded with articles trying to understand the unusual 'public relation failure' of Israel in recent months. Some articles reached the conclusion that 'no matter how you sweeten it, Israel was the villain in that fight, and thus the world reacted appropriately'. Others blame the propaganda failure on the usual and eternal suspect: antisemitism.

Gideon Levi wrote recently a very interesting article about the Tennis Match events in Sweden, titled "Has anyone in Israel asked why the Swedes hate us?". It is a must-read, and it discusses the reason for pervasive and unreal sense of innocence some Israelis have, and the real anger the world outside Israel feels.

A more pointed article by Akiva Eldar has an even more provoking title: "Is an Israeli Jewish sense of victimization perpetuating the conflict with Palestinians?". It reviews an academic research done in Israel on that sensitive topic: perpetual victimhood. the principal researcher is Daniel Bar-Tal, one of the world's leading political psychologists - probably soon to be pronounce a self-hating Jew.

The article concludes with specific statistics about the 1948 partitioning and the lack of awareness of objective facts about that era by a large portion of Israeli society.
[For sake of brevity, reviewing these 2 articles was moved to Part 2 of this posting - see below]

The articles by Gideon Levi and Akiva Eldar are excellent assets for anyone that has interest in the psychology of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This psychological aspect of the conflict is, in my opinion, the single most important obstacle to the resolution of the problem. From it stems ALL the evils chronically afflicting that sad part of the world.

A quote I heard once in a conversation about Israeli Palestinian issues is an illustrative example of the short link between victimhood and criminality. A defender of the Israeli position thought that the following statement that he attributed to an Israeli politician summarized the wisdom of his stance:

"I hate Palestinians because they make us kill their children".

Wow. In ten words he expressed hate, admitted murder, dumped all the blame on the ones whose children he murdered and came out with clean conscience feeling like a victim.

Brilliant..

Khaled

I presented a brief review of these 2 articles here:

Willful ignorance, like eternal victimhood, is a bliss - Part 2

Links to original articles:

• Is an Israeli Jewish sense of victimization perpetuating the conflict with Palestinians? - Haaretz - Israel News
• Gideon Levy / Has anyone in Israel asked why the Swedes hate us? - Haaretz - Israel News

Willful ignorance, like eternal victimhood, is a bliss - Part 2

Part 2 is a brief presentation of two excellent articles mentioned in Part 1 of this posting

Gideon Levi wrote recently a very interesting article about the Tennis Match events in Sweden, titled "Has anyone in Israel asked why the Swedes hate us?". It is a must-read, and it discusses the reason for pervasive and unreal sense of innocence some Israelis have, and the real anger the world outside Israel feels.

The world is always against us, period. But the world is not against us - to the contrary: The truth is that there is no other nation toward which the world is so forgiving, even today. Yes, today. Granted, world public opinion is very critical, sometimes in a way that's unique to Israel, but most governments (except Venezuela and Turkey, but including Egypt and Sweden) are far from being in sync with the public opinion in their countries. The official world continues to be sympathetic to Israel, regardless of its actions. The rise of Hamas, the increase in hatred for Islam in the West, the American hegemony - all this helps in strengthening the support, and we know how to make the very most of it.

And in a scathing criticism of the role of media manipulation in manufacturing the apparent sense of innocence amongst Israelis, he adds:

What's the difference between national tennis player Andy Ram and national tennis player Thomas Johansson? Johansson and his angry fans saw real pictures from Gaza; Ram and his complacent fans never did. Had Ram seen them, maybe he, too, would demonstrate. But he, like most Israelis, was spared this discomfort, thanks to the gung-ho Israeli press.

He is not shy of recognizing that the truth about what Israel does would lead normal people to protest the horror of what they witnessed Israel doing to the Palestinians.

Can we and Ram really criticize those who were horrified by the pictures from the war? Can we reproach those who dare to protest against the people responsible for those scenes? Are we demanding that the world remain silent once again?

A more pointed article by Akiva Eldar has an even more provoking title: "Is an Israeli Jewish sense of victimization perpetuating the conflict with Palestinians?". It reviews an academic research done in Israel on the sensitive topic of perpetual victimhood by Daniel Bar-Tal, an eminent Israeli political psychologists - probably soon to be pronounce a self-hating Jew.

Israeli Jews' consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering.

"Most of the [Israeli] nation retains a simplistic collective memory of the conflict, a black-and-white memory that portrays us in a very positive light and the Arabs in a very negative one," says the professor from Tel Aviv University. This memory, along with the ethos of the conflict and collective emotions such as fear, hatred and anger, turns into a psycho-social infrastructure of the kind experienced by nations that have been involved in a long-term violent conflict..."

That study goes back in history to assess the collective memory of Israelis about what happened in 1948.

"The study demonstrated that widespread support for the official memory testifies to a lower level of critical thinking, as well as belief in traditional values, high identification with Jewish identity, a tendency to delegitimize the Arabs, and support for taking aggressive steps against the Palestinians."

Bar-Tal, while also critical of the violence committed by Hamas, sees the stance of the average Israeli as "[relying] primarily on prolonged indoctrination that is based on ignorance and even nurtures it."

In his opinion ... the general public is not interested in knowing what Israel did in Gaza for many years; how the disengagement was carried out and why, or what its outcome was for the Palestinians; why Hamas came to power in democratic elections; how many people were killed in Gaza from the disengagement until the start of the recent war; and whether it was possible to extend the recent cease-fire or even who violated it first.

The context of the Holocaust memory is a central part of the Israeli psyche:

"Nets-Zehngut and Bar-Tal find a close connection between the collective memory and the memory of "past persecutions of Jews" ("the whole world is against us," and the Holocaust). The more significant the memory of persecution, the stronger the tendency to adopt Zionist narratives. F"

The article concludes with specific statistics about the 1948 partitions and the lack of awareness of objective facts about that era by a large portion of the Israeli society.

The articles by Gideon Levi and Akiva Eldar are excellent assets for anyone that has interest in the psychology of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and both have implications for Jewish culture outside Israel as well. This psychological aspect of the conflict is, in my opinion, the single most important obstacle to the resolution of the conflict.

From it stems most if not all the evils chronically afflicting that sad part of the world.

Khaled

Par1 1 of this posting can be found here.

Links to cited articles:

Is an Israeli Jewish sense of victimization perpetuating the conflict with Palestinians? Akiva eldar - - Haaretz - Israel News

Has anyone in Israel asked why the Swedes hate us? - Gideon Levy - Haaretz - Israel News

Extortion as a political ploy: from Sudan to our US Congress

The Morality of politicians is always suspect. And for most of us, a politician of integrity and solid principle is the exception rather than the rule. This applies everywhere, and regardless of religion or ethnicity.

Two news items, from very different parts of the world, were cases in point for me.

The first case comes from one of the most forsaken places where bloodshed, rape, ethnic cleansing and vicious starvation have been the norm for over a decade. That place is Darfur. the northwest territory of Sudan. Nothing compares to the scarcity of food and morality in that part of the world than the dearth of information about the truth of what has been going in Darfur. The true story underlying ethnic, social and economic strife there has never been told adequately by unbiased and honest people. The little that is truthful about the situation there is lost in the midst of the widespread lore about it, lore that depends on where you are on the planet, and on what your favorite media outlet is. On the one hand you find islamophobes and hardcore pro-Israeli groups who championed the cause of the poor people of Darfur as a way to sustain the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feelings in some parts of the West. Their popular narrative is that 'Muslim Arabs' are committing genocide against 'black Africans', forgetting the simple truth that on both sides, Sudanese people are Africans and black. Moreover, most of the displaced and starved people of Darfur are actually Muslims too.

The horror described in darfur is real, but the descriptors of the victims and perpetrators are expedient.

On the other hand, you find the apologists for any government or group lead by an Arab or a Muslim whose first knee-jerk reaction is to blame 'Crusaders, Zionists, and Colonialists' for any evil in the world without giving a damn about the truth in the matter under study. They easily rush to defend those with Muslim names without spending a moment to figure out for themselves if those Muslims are on the right path or not.

Frequently, those apologists rush to the defense of Muslims accused by Western and non-Muslim agencies, forgetting - or ignoring - that the victims of the accused Muslims are frequently their own people - who mostly are also Muslims. In the zeal to defend some of their own, they trample on the rights of the victims amongst their own.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir, on war crimes charges over six-year counter-insurgency campaign in Darfur that claimed 150,000 lives in some estimates.

And, like any other dictatorship in that part of the world, the leadership manages to get the people to 'erupt in spontaneous demonstrations' defying the world, and announcing their loyalty to the 'infallible' leadership [that, in my opinion, generally runs their economy, civil rights and national interests in the ground for one decade after the other].

And like any cruel dictator that gets stuck in a corner, they resort to extortion.

Al-Bashir has actually decided that his response to the international charges and warrants -- be it right or not -- would not be by logical discourse and setting fact-finding mutually agreeable missions and in legal and public opinion arenas, but would be to ban tens of the largest international humanitarian groups from providing food and services to the beleaguered people of Darfur.

I guess for such a leader and his apologists, starving few more thousand people to death in the area he is accused of committing war crimes against seems like a rational response to the ICC charges.

So, this is happening in a part of the worlds we think of as backward, clannish, and full of zealots. How about one of our politicians doing the same thing? It is not as inconceivable as you may think it is.

Less than 2 months ago, Israel waged a large scale destructive campaign against Hamas in Gaza. The horror inflicted on Gaza Elderly, women, children and non-combatant civilians has not been forgotten. The whole world saw first hand the cruelty of the Israeli Military in their desire to punish Gaza for 'harboring Hamas', or punishing Hamas militants by killing their families, neighbors and destroying their impoverished cities.

While that was a form of extortion (and even war crimes as per the pending law suits against Israel in some European courts at present), it is not the extortion I am talking about here. I am talking about something closer to home; something committed by our tax-dollar salaried employees that carry the title of 'honorable' representative of the US people.

Few weeks after the pace of Gaza war slowed down (it is not over yet, in case you have not been following the news) our new Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, did something that makes sense, and is actually admirable. Clinton announced that the US is dedicating $900 millions of aid for Gaza reconstruction effort. This is a rare instance where the American government has engaged in such a high profile effort that truly aims at helping Palestinians in distress, despite the US government ideological disagreement with those in authority in Gaza.

I admired the announcement, and it gave me some hope that finally we, Americans, can reach to the average person on the Arab street in a way that positively influences their lives without our help being conditional. To put it simply, we are helping because they need our help. This simple announcement by Clinton showed a level of political maturity that I pray will continue so that our moral integrity is revived after years of dormancy, and years of the usual expediency especially in our Middle East foreign policy.

But a US congress person could not help but try to throw the wrench in the gearbox. According to Haaretz in an article titled Proposal in Congress: No Gilad Shalit, no Gaza aid, "Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada drafted a petition to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which demanded that the financial aid be delayed for as long as the rocket fire continues and Shalit remains in captivity."


In the eyes of the 'honorable' representative Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Gaza people are collectively responsible for the Israeli soldier's return. Never mind that Israel failed to find him or save him over 3 years despite its military might, the thousands or tens of thousands of Israel's agents operating in the Palestinian territories and despite Israel's total control over all borders and communication lines in and out of the poor Gaza strip. Still, the average Gaza person should be held hostage -- in the eyes of the honorable representative -- till they bring back the Israeli soldier.

In the eyes of the congress woman, described by Haaretz as "a Jewish politician well-known in Congress for her support of Israel", extortion of the poor people of Gaza is a legitimate thing to do -- although expedient seems a more appropriate word than legitimate. In her eyes, the desire to support Israel gets her to petition to block one of the few resolutions in recent history that we, Americans, can use to show that we stand with innocent people regardless of who is oppressing them, be it Omar Bashir or Israel.

Her co-sponsor for the extortion petition, the 'honorable' Mike Coffman of Colorado, said that "Giving the money to the Palestinians residing in the Gaza Strip is no different than giving the money directly to Hamas...".

These 'honorable ones' are paid from my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of my fellow Americans, to represents our American interests. I would love to see how they see their petition (promoting the suffering of 1.5 million Palestinians till they produce the Israeli soldier) as serving the American public relations effort, American national interests or American foreign policy long term goals.

The distance between the President of Sudan and some of our members of Congress is vast, but extortion at the expense of the poor and oppressed seems like a useful political ploy of universal appeal.

As for my tax dollars paying the salaries of the honorable pair: does any one know how I can get my money back?

Khaled

In the piles of hatred around us, glimpses of tolerance and friendship still show every now and then.

Richard Silverstein is probably one of the last Jews on the planet that should receive hate mail from a Muslim or an Arab. If you do not believe me, check his web site or his contribution to the British Guardian.

Of course he gets a lot of hate mail, but almost exclusively from right wing Jews or ardent pro-Israel fundamentalist Christian. Over the years, he stopped taking it personally. And with his political knowledge and religious background as a practicing Jew he knows how to handle that kind of hate.

Yesterday he got something of a rarit for him - hate mail from someone with an Arab Muslim name. The letter was profane, abusive and full of flawed logic, but above all spewed a tremendous amount of hatred. And rather than post the hateful letter as an example of how bad an Arab and a Muslim can be, he did not publish it but shared it with some of his Muslim friends, even suggesting that it may be form a radical anti-Arab who wanted to smear Arabs and Muslims by using a pseudonym.

Some of his eloquent Muslim friends wrote a beautiful reply to the stupid letter, and only then, Richard Silverstein was able to publish both: the ugly letter, followed by a most beautiful and eloquent reply from Jafar Siddiqqi, Richard's Muslim friend, to the angry hateful person.

Few hours later, I came across an article that puts an Israeli military Rabbi into awful (but well-deserved) light. This hateful 'man-of-God' was inciting Israeli troops to violate their own code of conduct, show disrespect for civilian safety, and was promoting the worst kind of racist violent attitudes toward Gaza Arabs during the last Israeli Massacre. This was an extreme example of Jewish radicalism using scripture and religious authority, encouraging young soldiers to commit unspeakable crimes.

While I know things like that exist, highlighting them carries the inherent risk of inciting equally hateful attitudes towards all Jews, not only those involved in a particular situation. I did not feel comfortable using that extreme example on my blog, and I communicated my feelings to Richard Silverstein. His response was almost instantaneous. He sat down, and wrote a scathingly critical posting about the horrible Rabbi and his hateful message, with the same eloquence and enthusiasm that his Muslim friend used in responding to the hateful Muslim Arab that insulted Silverstein and Jews in General.

I did not mention that as an example of a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours type of relationship, but rather as an example of friendship and mutual respect between smart, fair-minded and well-informed people of different faiths and political affiliation realizing that what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong, regardless of who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.

Our Muslim community in St. Louis should remember that lesson very well. I this city, and soon after September 11, 2001 when Muslims and Muslim institutions and buildings were subject to threats by zealous brainless angry mob, Jewish and Christian interfaith partners of the Muslim community in St. Louis came to the Mosque on Weidmann road, to show support, and offer help protecting our mosque.

During the same difficult times, a Christian neighbor and a Jewish colleague of mine offered, independently, to take care of my children after school until the end of workday of myself and my wife's. My children were old enough to stay by themselves at home, but our friends felt that it may give us more peace of mind they took care of them while we were not at home. Our Christian neighbor also asked his son, who went to the same school with my older son, to keep an eye on my son during recess in case other students harass him in the school yard.

What I mentioned above is not just one or two feel-good examples. Behavior like that SHOULD be the norm expected from people who are civilized, honest and have faith of any kind.

Respecting, befriending and protecting people of other faith is not just a practical short-term tactic, it is not even just a long term strategy; it is simply what God mandates.

"As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably." (Chapter 60:8)

God was very clear in the Quran, that even though there would be conflicts with the people of the Book (Christians and Jew), it has to remain clear in the minds of Muslims that generalizing to all Jews and Christians is NOT the what He enjoins since He know that among them would be the righteous that deserve kindness and friendship.

"[But] they are not all alike: among the followers of earlier revelation there are upright people, who recite God's messages throughout the night, and prostrate themselves [before Him]. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous." (Chapter 3:113 & 114)

The nut cases on all sides are small in number, but they are loud, obnoxious and hateful to the rest of us no matter what our religion is. We need each other, moderates, from all faiths, or we, moderates, are doomed to extinction, or total submission.

Khaled

Links:

• Israel’s War Against the Palestinians Hurts Jews Too - Richard Silverstein
• IDF Chief Rabbi Teaches Torah to Terrorists, Advises Soldiers to Show Palestinian Civilians ‘No Mercy’ - Richard Silverstein
• IDF rabbinate publication during Gaza war: We will show no mercy on the cruel - Haaretz

You may want to take a look at an earlier post of mine:

• Extremophobia: The hate that may save the world

Another Record Added to the Israeli Black History of Aggression

Will Israel be any safer after this???

With a one-day death toll of over 270 Palestinians, Israel has achieved another record: The bloodiest day in the history of Gaza.

Click on this heart-breaking picture from BBC or here to see a painful video on the BBC website or click here to see more pictures.

The BBC also a collection of official quotes from different parts of the world. They follow the usual pattern. US and UK are at one end. Iran and Arab countries are at the other end. Russian, UN and EU somewhere in the middle.

No thought process. No analysis. Just the usual pre-packaged knee-jerk statements.

The only quotation that is worth reading is the one by the Vatican official spokesman, Rev. Rederico Lambardi:

"Hamas is a prisoner to a logic of hate, Israel to a logic of faith in force as the best response to hate.
One must continue to search for a different way out, even if that may seem impossible."

Will they ever learn?

Khaled

Extremophobia: The hate that may save the world

Just in case anyone thinks that I am picking on Muslim extremists exclusively - in view of many of my previous posts - I want to assure everyone that I am an 'equal-opportunity' extremophobe (just remember that I am the first to coin that term).

Fundamentalists come in all religious (and secular) flavors. They all flavors have several common characteristics

• they have an unyielding belief that they - personally - are absolutely right all the time
  
• they believe 'the others' are always wrong all the time
• they are entitled to better treatment and more secure rights than anybody else, just because they are who they are
  
• they believe that their goals are always so legitimate and pure that any and all means are justified achieving them
• critical thinking for them only mean criticizing members and ideology of the 'other team'
  
• and of course their understanding of their own ideology is the only accepted gold standard for justice, truth and even humanity.

Over the years I have met, known, read about and listen to many extreme fundamentalists: Muslims, Jewish, Christians and secular. They always shared many if not all the characteristics I mentioned before.

When I read about or listen to Jewish extremists like Meier Kahane, Dov Lior or Avigdor Lieberman I am always amazed that I feel I am in the presence of one of their archenemies, the Muslim extremists. When I hear the words of John Hagee, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell I go through a subconscious 'search and replace' mode - substituting Muslim Jargon for Christian Jargon - and right away the logic and conclusions sound like they could be part of a fundamentalist Muslim cleric anywhere in the world.

It does not take a lot of brains to see how racists, ultra-nationalists. and xenophobes also seem to fall very comfortably with the group that satisfies the above-mentioned criteria.

They, all, seem to have their brains frozen in time at a stage of late childhood and early teenage before the switch for concrete to abstract thinking takes place. Unfortunately, their means and influence on half-brained followers is usually more extensive than what their extremist infantile understanding of the world.

Hating extremists, or more precisely hating their way of thinking and dirty means of achieving their goals, should unite the rest of us. It is a lot easier for us to hate 'the extremists of the others', but we will not rid the world of their influence until with equally hate the extremists of our own kind. They are equally dangerous and moreover, they are more in symbiosis with other extremist that with moderates of their own kind.

Moderates of the world unite - You will lose nothing but your extremists.

Khaled

A Jew Re-redfining Jihad: a lesson in cross-cultural communication

Most Muslim know very well what Jihad means. We know that it is not about beheading 'infidels' - whatever 'infidels' mean. We know it is not about forcing the world into submission to an Islamic Caliphate. And above all, we know its meaning is more about deep and very personal struggle with one's own desires and inclinations than about war and bloodshed.

That true Jihad is not the Jihad that the Western media talk about. Islamic Jihad has been redefined for us as an ugly hateful and scary ideology that the civilized world must eliminate. And, as some Islamophobes propagate, if eliminating all Muslims is the price needed to eliminate Jihad, it is a small price to pay to save the Civilization of Mankind.

I, and 99.99% of Muslims in the world, have not done anything that helped tarnish the meaning of the word Jihad. But I am certain we do not do enough to restore the word to its real glory either. Many Muslims have legitimate grievances against Israel, former and current colonial powers, international media, international religious bodies, .. etc, etc. Many of us, though, have little experience in presenting our cases and causes in a way that is conventional and accepted by centers of power in the world. We are even miserably less experienced in communicating with the average person in Europe and North America, where public opinion has serious impact on the decision making of current super powers.

Many of us take a 'defiant oppositional stance' that alienates many of the non-Muslims that could be our allies in straightening the record, and in addressing the grievances that Muslims legitimately have.
Learning the skill of cross-cultural communication is probably the single most important goal that good Muslims should aspire too to help the cause of Islam.

This is not an innovation into Islam. This is a directive that God has made as part of the Quran over 1500 years ago:

• "CALL THOU (all mankind] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner ..." (Ch 16.125)
• "AND TELL My servants that they should speak in the most kindly manner [unto those who do not share their beliefs] ..." (Ch 17.53)
• "But [since] good and evil cannot be equal, repel thou [evil] with something that is better - and lo! he between whom and thyself was enmity [may then become] as though he had [always] been close [unto thee], a true friend!" (Ch 41.34)

Wisdom, good exhortation, speaking in kindly manner, and repelling evil deeds with good ones have been the eternal advice by God that many, even most, of us have not followed closely with sad consequences for all of us.

Many of us accuse the West of double standards when they judge Arab and Muslim causes - a legitimate charge in many cases. But we rarely look at the way we judge issues ourselves. Many of us are profoundly guilty of the same thing we accuse the west of: having double standards. Yet we do not easily and willingly identify it in our own behavior and the behavior of other Muslims. It is not healthy to scream loudly to complain of what many of our own practice with our complicit approval, attempts at justification, or at best benign negligence.

Speaking up against our own for injustices they commit is an Islamic duty. God is very explicit in enjoining us to stick to one standard: upholding truth and justice no matter who is at fault:

• "... Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious..." (Ch 5.8)
• "... when you voice an opinion, be just, even though it be [against] one near of kin..." (Ch 6.152)
• "... Be ever steadfast in upholding equity, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk." (Ch 4.135)

For those who are still reading, it is about time to know what any of this has to do with re-redefining Jihad by a Jew.
while doing my daily world newspaper tour I came across this title in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

"This year, this Jew is embracing Jihad"

And before you start wondering about any subliminal hidden vicious meaning for the title let me tell you: He is not talking about fighting till death against Muslims, Arabs or Palestinians. He is not talking about beheading the enemies of Israel, and he is not talking about establishing a Jewish theocratic Caliphate in Muslim Land.
He is actually, and simply talking about Jihad the way it was meant to be in the glorious days of Islam "... [as it] has been used in the Koran in its root meaning, i.e. to strive and to strive for betterment of society, to spread goodness (maruf) and contain evil (munkar)."

I would not quote every great sentence in the article, otherwise I will be quoting a lot. I promise you this: you will feel a lot better after you follow the link at the end of this posting and read the article in its entirety.
A Jewish Journalist embracing Jihad in the pages of the major Israeli Newspaper ... How did this happen?
Simply he came a across two Muslims who followed the teachings of the Quran that I mentioned earlier:

First, use wisdom when presenting you case and,
Second, be fair in judging the world: you own and the others.

Bradley Burston simply came across an article (see link below) by Asghar Ali Engineer explaining true Jihad, and how different it is from what some violent Muslims claim it to be. He also came across a Muslim, Peter Dames, commenting on the latest violence between Arabs and Jews in Akre, Israel, during the cerebration of Yum Kippur.

Peter Dames wrote:

"As a man who practices Islam, I have to say both sides ought to be ashamed of themselves. Why are you committing such crimes? In the name of religion? No, I don`t think so, because God-fearing men contemplate God throughout their day.

This has got to end. We are children of Abraham - not children of Satan. People, wake up! Monotheism is under attack because of such actions. Let not ignorance prevail over your emotions but rather let your intellect achieve peace, love, stability & closeness to God. Let's stop pointing fingers. Let's forgive and forget and live for the future for the sake of our children. Salaam/Shalom/Peace everyone. - Petere Dames"

Wouldn't it be great if we read more articles by non-Muslim journalist embracing Jihad? Or at least using the the word the way it was meant to be? Unfortunately, this is not going to happen until we have a lot more Muslims embracing Jihad the right way, communicating their understanding to non-Muslims the right way, and applying justice using the same standards accross the board.
It is about time to 're-redefine' Jihad.

Khaled

Links:

Read Bradley Burston's article here:

This year, this Jew is embracing Jihad - by Bradley burston in Haartez.

Burston is one of my favorite journalists of the Israeli daily Haaretz. I may not always agree with him, but he rarely talks like an ideologue and, mostly, the reader feels he thinks of the issue at hand, then decides how he should react and what to write about it. No foregone conclusions, and no prejudging.

Also, check the article that moved him to writing the article listed above:

Making Mockery of Jihad - by AsgharAli Engineer