Comments on: Time for a Christian-Jewish-Muslim Witness Against Anti-Semitism

By: Maximilian

Maximilian — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:47:07 +0000

Sally, if anyone has but a strained interpretation that negates and justifies, for example, the quote I posted in my first comment, I’d gladly listen to it.

By: Sally Rogers

Sally Rogers — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:59:32 +0000

Maximillian, I have read similar assertions by many who are very concerned about violence inspired by Muslims. The fact that people make such assertions does not make them true. I understand the concerns that motivate such positions, but there are quite obviously many Muslims who disagree with you. Perhaps it would be wise to listen to them as they explain why and how they understand their faith, (who would, for instance, contextualize Mohammed’s fight with a particular tribe of Jews, and balance those statements with pro-Jewish events in the Quran and Sunnah) rather than listening only to those who assure us that it’s impossible for them to believe as they do.

Of course, if you do believe that all Muslims believe only the worst possible interpretation of their religion, then I guess there’s no point in discussing the matter. There’s just the matter of how to cope with the hundreds of millions of people who apparently hold implacably homicidal views.

By: Howard Nelson

Howard Nelson — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:02:20 +0000

Perhaps the only real hope to prevent a massive, bloody conflict between jihad-centric Muslims and everyone else, is for another Badshah Khan (1890-1988), The Frontier Gandhi, to arise.
Also known as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, he organized and led a long non-violent struggle against British rule in then northern, mainly Islamic India. A great soul-brother and comrade of Mahatma Gandhi, he inspired a following of ten’s of thousands of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Parsees, and Sikhs in his campaign for independence, peace, and justice for all.
His life story is highlighted in the DVD documentary by T.C. McLuhan, titled, “The Frontier Gandhi: Badshah Khan–A Torch of Peace.” See Wikipedia and http://www.thefrontiergandhi.com for more info.
Badshah Khan as quoted from the site: ” No word means more to a Pakhtun than honor so I will harness this honor and show my people that real honor and freedom lie in the power of non-violence.”

By: Maximilian

Maximilian — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:45:32 +0000

Sally: From my very limited knowledge of Islam, I’ve learned that there is an incredible amount of diversity in it, at least as much as among various Christian groups.

Not true. There is no liberal Islam, or even a moderate Islam.

Sally: I’m sure there is support in the Quran and Haddith to support anti-Semitism, even though it’s also possible to find in those sources some very positive and friendly positions toward Jews.

When you’ve got claims that the Muslims will fight against the Jews until the Day of Judgment, and that stones and trees will cry out to Muslims to come kill the Jews hiding behind them, what ‘positive and friendly position’ can negate and redeem that?

Sally: I guess the most you can do is to hope that the pro-Jewish arguments are more persuasive and popular than the anti-Jewish ones.

Since the Sunna record Muhammad killing 700 male members of a Jewish tribes and selling their wives and children into slavery, I doubt very much that people who hold this man in high esteem will ever cease being at war with Jews, or non-Muslims, for that matter. See the prophecy of Muhammad himself in my first post.

By: David Alexander

David Alexander — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:08:27 +0000

One problem too is that much of the worse texts in the Quran are later chronologically and a general principle of exegesis acknowledged broadly, for instance by Islamic scholars at Al Azhar University in Cairo, is that if there is a perceived conflict between earlier surahs and later surahs, the chronologically later surahs trump the earlier ones. Muhammad was more peaceable in Mecca, more powerful and militant in Madinah. The Quran is roughly inbackwards chronological order with the earliest surahs in the back. Muhammad at first reaches out to the Jews but they reject his interpretations of the Torah and his claims of inspiration. Here we have rival interpretations of religious texts encoded in a text itself. An attempt is made to poison Muhammad by a Jewish woman. At one point he orders the slaughter of 800 surrendered Jews and takes a Jewish woman to bed that night whose husband, father, and brothers have been slaughtered that day. Jews are called the descendants of pigs and apes in the Quran.

By: David Alexander

David Alexander — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:37:07 +0000

It seems to me the best we can hope for is an alliance of like-minded, humane individuals in these religions agreeing to censure and oppose anti-Semitism. If Jews in their reading of the Gospels believe there is anti-Semitic material there but make an alliance with Christians who do not understand that passage in that way, that is fine. They and similarly Muslims can make common cause for a commonly perceived good. I don’t think however that taking a relativistic perspective about religious texts really honors a religion or the human intellect. One can certainly plead genuine ignorance but willingness to look the other way when a text disagrees with your position so long as others do is a perhaps a therapeutic tactic and a peacemaking tactic which may in the long run serve a false peace more destructive than open discussion. Perhaps a ‘naked public square’ is not trusted in such matters?If Mein Kampf, which everyone agrees is anti-Semitic, were to be interpreted by a sect of followers in a non-anti-Semitic way, or even anti-anti-Semitic way, this would meet the requirements for this approach to religious texts, but it would still leave one problem: the text.

By: Sally Rogers

Sally Rogers — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:28:17 +0000

From my very limited knowledge of Islam, I’ve learned that there is an incredible amount of diversity in it, at least as much as among various Christian groups.

And even more confusing, there is no real clergy, procedure for “ordaining” a religious leader, hierarchy or structure. So just about anyone (at least among men) who cares to hold themselves out as a religious leader can do so, as long as they can find someone to agree with and follow them.

So to say that some position is not “really Islamic” seems to be an overstatement. I’m sure there is support in the Quran and Haddith to support anti-Semitism, even though it’s also possible to find in those sources some very positive and friendly positions toward Jews. From what I can tell, it’s equally “true” to pick out either an anti-Jewish reading or a pro-Jewish reading of those sources and traditions.

I guess the most you can do is to hope that the pro-Jewish arguments are more persuasive and popular than the anti-Jewish ones.

By: David Alexander

David Alexander — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:17:57 +0000

“I’m not a Muslim. I have no idea whether Hawali is teaching real Islam or fake Islam. That’s a theological question, one that only Muslim theologians can answer.” How then does one convert to Islam if you cannot tell what is true Islam from what is fake Islam before you convert? Soft gloves with religion banish religion from public discourse by removing questions of truth from the table.

By: John

John — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:10:19 +0000

> “The cleric in the video does not speak for Islam; and Christians, Jews, and others in the United States must not suppose that he does.”

I’m not a Muslim. I have no idea whether Hawali is teaching real Islam or fake Islam. That’s a theological question, one that only Muslim theologians can answer.

Similarly, I don’t expect Muslims to be able to say whether Nestorians or Chalcedonians had the true understanding of Christ’s natures, or whether Jesus loves First Baptist of Midlothian more than Second Baptist of Midlothian.

I am an historian, and an Arabist, so I can say this: These views are not typical historically. There is an indigenous dislike of Jews and Christians. It waxes and wanes. But it can be found in some of our earliest sources. The blood libel, though, is first encountered only in 1840, in Damascus, imported from Europe through the mediation of Arab Christians.

As to Awdah’s message. It’s really not terribly remarkable in the Arabic-speaking Middle East, and now elsewhere, especially in Pakistan. It entered theological discourse in the 1930s, and really took off under Soviet influence in the 1960s.

Today, you can buy books on this topic in very nearly every Islamic bookstore in Egypt. In some countries, one often finds them on television. Egyptian and Saudi state-run media are notorious. In the 1950s, the king of KSA use to give visitors beautifully-bound copies of the Protocols, while Egyptians recently made a 40-part miniseries of the Protocols.

Do all Muslims believe such ideas? No, not in my experience. In some countries they’re common; in others, rare.

By: David Alexander

David Alexander — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 02:07:33 +0000

I think that uniting against anti-Semitism will be easiest for the Jews, harder for Christians, and the hardest for Muslims. “His disgusting beliefs are not drawn from Islamic sources…” This is just not entirely true if you want to characterize the sources of the man’s anti-Semitism and not just an isolated single soundbite manifestation. In dealing with religious sources, Muslims have a lot more difficult Quranic and Hadith texts and sunnah life examples to deal with than the few New Testament texts such as Matthew 27:25, “Let his blood be upon us and upon our children!” Muhammad’s interactions with the Jews was increasingly bad, eventually atrocious, and does it really do good to deflect scrutiny from these sources by well wishing averral of their spotless purity by a non-Muslim? Maybe that is an exaggeration of what you wrote but it is a little surprising for me to read Robert George, the great conservative thinker, making what seems to me a liberal line or ploy for unity which downplays truth for the sake of unity. But I think it is wanting to think the best.

I like this post for calling attention to the essential ugliness and unacceptability of Muslim anti-Semitism. This cleric is not exceptional unfortunately in the Middle East. A little more exploration of MEMRI’s archives of examples of anti-Semitism will show more and more how pervasive it is. As Bernard Lewis wrote, never before in history except in the case of Nazi Germany has the anti-Semitic rhetoric reached this level of virulence and pervasiveness. Most I think are not aware of the level of anti-Semitism in day to day life in the Middle East (and of the anti-Israel stance of most Muslims. In Arabic broadcasts such as on Al Jazeera Jerusalem is always referred to as al-Quds muhtelah, ‘occupied Jerusalem.’)