The Moroccan Myth

[Mediocrates]

From the Columbia Current
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/fall2008/morgan.html

The only woman in the room that Friday night, I peered through the lace mechitza (partition) to see, hear, and absorb the fast–paced prayer chanting of the ten Moroccan men before me. In the middle of the service, the prayers suddenly began to compete with another intensely familiar sound that blared into the room through the windows. The Hebrew chants grew louder as the men tried to overcome the inescapable, melodic call to mosque for Muslims. The Arabic and Hebrew collided—the poignant force of ten devoted, resilient voices raised in unison. The moment lingered in my mind after the call to prayer had ended, as I began to consider the historical significance of such a clashing of sounds.

A moment later, I again peered through the curtain to examine why a man was standing as the rabbi began to speak. Apparently Josh—a fellow study abroad student and American Jew who had agreed to come with me, a curious American non–Jew—was being scolded during the service. He too had been deeply moved by the competing cadences and had thoughtlessly taken his notebook out to capture the experience. Though a religion major who knew that writing is prohibited on the Sabbath, especially in an Orthodox synagogue, Josh later told me that he couldn’t help himself. He received a stern rebuke. After the 2003 Casablanca bombings, the Jewish communities of Morocco had become deeply suspicious of outsiders coming to their services.

Those bombings, carried out by fourteen Islamic extremists, were indeed cause for suspicion. They targeted a Jewish cemetery, a Jewish community center, and an Italian restaurant owned by a Jewish family, as well as the Belgian consulate and a hotel. Forty people died.

The bombings provoked feelings of insecurity and distrust that had been resisted for so many years by the remaining portion of a rapidly dwindling Moroccan Jewish population. The ten men at synagogue that Friday night represented a handful of the estimated 3,000– 5,000 Moroccan Jews living in Morocco today. In 1947, the population was 270,000. To examine why an Arab country that had once welcomed Jews when others forced them out had undergone such a reversal in just 60 years, I took a train to Casablanca to visit the only Jewish museum in the Arab world.

The Moroccan Jewish Museum, a project of the Moroccan Foundation of Cultural Jewish Heritage, sits on the outskirts of Casablanca in a small, unguarded building. It aims to highlight 2,000 years of Jewish history through a variety of displays: traditional Jewish clothing, marriage gowns, and jewelry from the Moroccan cities of Fes and Essaouira; explanations of how Jewish roles transformed over centuries, from serving as mediators between Arab and Berber tribes to operating as jewelers and merchants; and newspapers of the Moroccan–Jewish community written in Hebrew but with Arabic words/script. Exhibits of photographs of Moroccan Jews from the 1960s and of the mellahs, or Jewish quarters, that are found in almost every Moroccan town are particularly prominent in the museum. Most significantly, Essaouira, one among many Moroccan cities with a large presence of Jews for some time, enjoyed a 50% Jewish population before 1948, a statistic proudly delivered to me many times by Moroccans throughout my semester abroad. Yet the museum neglected two obvious pieces of the community’s puzzling history: Israel and emigration. As a 2007 article in the Jewish newspaper The Forward noted, the Jewish population of Morocco decreased by 98% in half a century. Most émigrés in the early 1950s went to Israel. The Casablanca museum does not address the issue. Indeed, its avoidance of Zionism and Jewish emigration raises questions about whether the Moroccan Foundation of Cultural Jewish Heritage is truly engaging with and accurately preserving Moroccan Jewish history.

Part of the museum’s silence is political. Any discussion in an Arab nation of Zionism and Jewish emigration to Israel after 1948 inevitably leads to contentious debate regarding Palestinian rights. But excising Zionism from Moroccan Jewish history ignores both the significant struggle of Jews to reconcile their nationalism with love and pride for Morocco and millennia of Jewish and Moroccan cultural integration.

According to the General Secretary of the Foundation, Simon Levy, the museum’s avoidance of Zionism and Jewish emigration is in fact a way of reclaiming history. Levy told The Forward that Israel “is a catastrophic aspect of the last century of Judaism, because now [Jews] are fabricating a past in the Holy Land.” He added that “In the Holy Land, you have Jerusalem, but during the past fifteen centuries there was nothing...But here in Morocco, every town has a mellah.” In the interview I conducted with Levy he refused to discuss Israel at all.

Other venues, however, were more willing to address it. Soon after my arrival in February, a movie about Jewish emigration was released as the last in a three–film series on Moroccan Jewish history. Directed by Muhammad Ismail, the movie mixes Arabic and French and was entitled Adieu M�res (Farewell Mothers).

Set in 1960 in Casablanca, the movie is a mélange of stories of Jewish families and their reasons for immigrating to Israel. In one of the over–dramatized stories, a young Jewish Moroccan girl falls in love with a Muslim Moroccan boy, gets pregnant, and considers conversion, sending her mother into depression. The mother then convinces her daughter to go to Israel to hide her pregnancy. In another vignette, a man torn between his Moroccan roots and his duty to Israel leaves his family for the Holy Land, planning for his wife and children to rejoin him later.

The movie suggests that the Moroccan Jews leaving for Israel needed to be convinced— they did not go eagerly. The persuasion comes from the recruiter, a Zionist sent from Israel to pressure Moroccan Jews to leave their homes for a higher cause. The ship the Jewish characters take to Israel, the Pisces, is based upon a real ship that tragically sank in 1961 while transporting Jews to Israel. The movie ends with its fall into the ocean, leaving the audience with a sense of the Moroccan Jewish community’s skepticism toward Zionism. At the end, the recruiter stands defiantly at the synagogue and proclaims that the loss of loved ones on that ship will not stifle the flow of emigration.

Yet the movie tells only a partial tale. It makes only one reference to anti–Semitism, when a character says, “It’s not the same here anymore” with regards to Jewish–Arab relations. And the film makes no mention of how Arab nationalism made Moroccan Jews feel unwelcome after the creation of Israel. I started asking Moroccan friends what they had been taught about why 90,000 Jews left in the early 1950s and another 70,000 left in the 1960s. Their universal answer: Zionist recruitment.

Then, I heard a version of the story I had neither read nor heard before. A friend of mine began to tell me that when King Hassan II took power in 1961, he struck a deal with the Zionist Jewish Agency to allow mass emigration of Moroccan Jews to Israel after it had been outlawed in 1956 by Hassan’s father, Muhammad V. This theory of collusion between a corrupt king and Zionist agents reveals the seductive potency of conspiracy in Moroccan society regarding the fate of its former Jewish residents.

Such reliance upon conspiracy masks Moroccan responsibility for the Jewish community’s demise and suggests an unwillingness to confront history with honesty. Even Moroccan Jews to whom I spoke refused to blame Morocco or Moroccans for the mass exodus of their fellow Jews. Instead, they typically placed blame upon the colonial French Protectorate, which exploited ethnic and religious tensions, or mentioned the rumored deal struck between the Zionists and King Hassan II. Though the lament over losing the Jewish community seems sincere among Jewish and non–Jewish Moroccans, their responses minimize the historical impact of anti–Semitism and the repercussions of pan–Arab nationalism. Moroccans tread a thin line between taking pride in their relative tolerance of Jews and ignoring the reality that Morocco never constituted a Muslim–Jewish paradise.

Levy, of the Foundation of Moroccan Cultural Jewish Heritage, wrote in a handout sold at the Casablanca museum that “In 1961–92, when Hassan II came to power, emigration figures soared.” According to him, “the Moroccan government authorized the Jewish Agency to organize large–scale migration.” The Zionism that King Muhammad V had prohibited, probably in an attempt to join his Arab neighbors in boycotting Israel (and maybe to keep the Jews he had called “my children” in 1941), was permitted in the early 1960s by his son, Hassan II. Mr. Levy explained that there were certainly other reasons for the rapid decrease in the population, but that Hassan II allowing “the Jewish Agency to take 100,000 Jews to Israel” in exchange for some unidentified incentive (perhaps money) was a definite source for mass emigration in the 1960s.

[Mediocrates]

Levy also pointed to poverty and lack of economic opportunity to explain the emigration. When the French made Morocco a protectorate in 1912, Moroccan Jews were forced back into ghettos and out of political positions and taught by French Jews to speak only French. Levy maintained that this mandatory separation from their Moroccan heritage was “not what Moroccan Jews wanted” and that it created a divide between Jews and Muslims in Morocco that had not existed before. Indeed, despite bigotry and the ever–looming threat of persecution, Morocco’s Jews had governed themselves in their quarters and traditionally held important roles as merchants in Moroccan society. But after the French left in 1956, the “community’s traditional small trade and peddling circuits” became “obsolete,” driving many Moroccan Jews to search for other economic options, often in Israel.

But Levy admitted that this common anti–colonial refrain did not constitute the whole story. Tensions have simmered between Moroccan Jews and Muslims since the 1400s. Though they often held important positions in Moroccan society, Jews were treated like second–class citizens. In fact, Moroccan Jews did not enjoy full citizenship until Muhammad V granted it after Morocco declared independence from the French.

Levy reluctantly acknowledged that, as is the case throughout the Middle East, Morocco has experienced its share of anti–Semitism in various demonstrations of Arab nationalism and Islamism. He added that these incidents played a part in the community’s mass immigration to Israel, and more recently, to France and the United States. The two worst expulsions of Jews occurred during Israel’s War of Independence and the 1967 Six–Day War. A month after Israel declared its statehood in 1948, violent riots broke out in Oujda and Djerada, two Moroccan cities with high Jewish populations. The pogroms killed 44 Jews and injured many others, souring the reintegration that had begun with Jewish involvement in the Moroccan independence movement. The damage had been done: 90,000 Moroccan Jews left for Israel between 1948 and 1956, and thousands per month left thereafter. King Muhammad V later recognized Jewish involvement in the nationalist movement and granted Jews full Moroccan citizenship, alleviating some of the growing skepticism in Jewish communities after the riots.

The King’s gesture could not sustain the harm caused by the Six–Day War and the surge in Arab nationalism surrounding it. Levy wrote in the museum pamphlet, “the Six–Day War caused 40,000 Jews to leave.” Before 1967 there were still 70,000 Jews in Morocco, but the “boycotts, press campaigns, and assassinations” that resulted from the war served as the irrevocable break. “The harm had been done,” Levy noted. “People who had never thought of leaving, decided to emigrate.” In his view, Moroccan Jews felt “as if their community would slowly be annihilated.” The Sahara Liberation Movement— a territorial dispute in the mid 1970s which began after the Spanish withdrew their colonial claim from the Western Sahara and put most of it under Moroccan control— indicated the strength of Moroccan Jews’ nationalist identity. Levy contends that the Jewish community’s involvement in opposing the Western Sahara separatist group, the Polisario, catalyzed their return to “their rightful place as Moroccan citizens, participating in political life, in the elections,” despite the population’s dwindling numbers.

Today, the narratives that mark the relationship between Moroccans and Moroccan Jews are more uplifting. Though the Palestinian Intifada and the rise of Al–Qaeda increased tensions, Moroccans have demonstrated solidarity with the country’s Jews and have joined forces against terrorism. After the 2003 Casablanca bombings, Muhammad VI, the current king, visited each of the targeted Jewish sites, and was greeted by large, cheering crowds of Jewish and Muslim Moroccans. Moroccans then launched a campaign against Islamic extremism called Touche pas á mon pays (Don’t touch my country). The campaign’s symbol—a red hand with white writing inside in French and Arabic, representing Moroccan unity against Muslim extremists who import the Gulf’s fundamentalism—adorns schools and buildings nationwide. The hand is in the shape of a khamsa (literally meaning “five”) —a symbolic hand prominent in both Jewish and Muslim customs that wards off evil. In addition, international media began to discuss the nomination of Muhammad V to Yad Vashem’s (the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority, created by the Israeli government in 1953) Righteous Among the Nations, which recognizes non–Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews. The King successfully resisted French Vichy attempts to send Moroccan Jews to concentration camps in 1941, and, if chosen, he would be the first Arab ever to receive the honor.

Beyond the institutional recognition of Moroccan Jews, I witnessed Moroccan youth personally expressing their appreciation for their nation’s Jewish history and its impact on modern Morocco. My study abroad professor, Said Graiouid, handed us a few essays written by his Moroccan university English–language students, entitled “Who is a Moroccan?” The answers all envisioned Morocco as a type of melting pot in which being Moroccan means recognizing Jewish Moroccans and their contribution to the country’s identity. Also, in a survey I gave Moroccans on what a democratic Morocco would look like, many claimed that Moroccan democracy would be both “Muslim and Jewish.” Though this response is largely sentimental, considering that Morocco’s Jewish population is at most 5,000 in a total population of over 33 million, it seems to suggest that some Moroccan youth are proud to tout Morocco’s Jewish history as part of the country’s rich cultural milieu. This is all despite the absence of a curriculum covering Moroccan Jewish history in the school system, something Levy is attempting to introduce through his Foundation.

Moroccan respect for Jewish history is palpable, despite it being a topic which many Arab nations shun. After the Casablanca bombings of 2003 and the “Don’t touch my country” anti–Islamism campaign began, the strong showing of solidarity among Moroccans was remarkable. A Jewish citizen interviewed by a Toronto–based Jewish group said at the time: “There was recently a huge march of solidarity in Casablanca... It was such a special feeling and really showed the true spirit of Moroccans. The slogan was ‘Jews and Muslims unified—it’s the only solution.’”

Unfortunately, expressions of kinship with the Jewish community may simply be symbolic gestures. With most Moroccan Jews now living in Israel, France, and the U.S., the apparent pride exhibited by Moroccan youth for the Jews seems like a belated nostalgia for which young Moroccans have little real knowledge or personal experience. But in a country that is 99% Muslim and often in the precarious diplomatic position of maintaining strong relations with the United States and with the Arab world simultaneously, Moroccans’ pride for their Jewish history is noteworthy. Maybe the bar is too low for Arab countries and their attitudes toward Jews, but in Morocco, there is no curtain to peer through when it comes to the exuberant expression of the country’s Jewish history. The call to prayer is loud, but in Moroccan society it seems that being Moroccan, whether Jewish, Muslim, Arab, or Berber, may just be louder.

Above: The Mausoleum of Mohammed V in the capital, Rabat, holds the tombs of King Mohammed V and his two sons, Prince Abdallah and King Hassan II. The latter organized the first meeting of the World Union of Moroccan Jews in Marrakesh just months before he died in 1999.

SARAH A. H. MORGAN is a senior at Barnard College majoring in Political Science. She was in Morocco last semester studying migration and Moroccan Arabic. She can be reached at sm2499@barnard.edu.

[Mil]

The description is very close to that of what happens in Poland and its current 20,000 Jews. Poland is "proud" of its Jewish heritage :)

[andak01]

The description is very close to that of what happens in Poland and its current 20,000 Jews. Poland is "proud" of its Jewish heritage :)

With the rather insignificant difference that the ethnic cleansing of Poland cost millions of Jews their lives while the ethnic cleansing of Morocco measured Jewish deaths in the hundreds, a factor of over a thousand.

That was a rather balanced article which hit all of the factors that I've outlined in the past. I don't see any reason that there won't be a ressurgient population growth among Jews in Morocco and the more so if there are opportunities for them there. The climate is different from what it was in the 40s and 60s. Given the recent real estate boom that is going on there, evidence is that many foreigners want to live there or have a place there.

There are two Moroccan myths. The myth that Moroccan's hands are clean of prejudice, held by Moroccans themselves, and the loose comparisons to ethnic cleansing in Poland and Sudan put forth by Clash of Civilization propagandists. Reasonable people informed by the facts will find that neither rings true.

[Steven]

Reasonable people informed by the facts will find that neither rings true.

Boy andak, you like so many Muslims online actually think that everyone is sitting around waiting for a Muslim to tell us how it "really" is. We are not and here is some advice, don't ever go into politics because you are incapable of changing anyone's mind.

[Yala]

From the Columbia Current
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/fall2008/morgan.html
According to the General Secretary of the Foundation, Simon Levy, the museum’s avoidance of Zionism and Jewish emigration is in fact a way of reclaiming history. Levy told The Forward that Israel “is a catastrophic aspect of the last century of Judaism, because now [Jews] are fabricating a past in the Holy Land.” He added that “In the Holy Land, you have Jerusalem, but during the past fifteen centuries there was nothing...But here in Morocco, every town has a mellah.” In the interview I conducted with Levy he refused to discuss Israel at all.

Simon Levy = Dhimmi

[andak01]

Boy andak, you like so many Muslims online actually think that everyone is sitting around waiting for a Muslim to tell us how it "really" is. We are not and here is some advice, don't ever go into politics because you are incapable of changing anyone's mind.

Newsflash Steven, the forum is not in unanimous solidarity with your viewpoints. In fact, more than a couple are annoyed with you for inturrupting every semblance of intelligent conversation like the Pavlov's dog you are. If you've got anything whatsoever to offer of original thought, please do so. Just saying that nobody cares about me would be without reason if nobody actually did read me or care about me. It sounds too much like you are afraid that they will both read and agree or at least feel that they have come away with a different perspective than the hysterical bigotry which is all you have to put forth.

[Steven]

Newsflash Steven, the forum is not in unanimous solidarity with your viewpoints. In fact, more than a couple are annoyed with you for inturrupting every semblance of intelligent conversation like the Pavlov's dog you are. If you've got anything whatsoever to offer of original thought, please do so. Just saying that nobody cares about me would be without reason if nobody actually did read me or care about me. It sounds too much like you are afraid that they will both read and agree or at least feel that they have come away with a different perspective than the hysterical bigotry which is all you have to put forth.

Newsflash 90% of the board is against you and your propaganda. You have NOTHING to say original as you post the same con over and over. People have heard it for years. Being against the hate of Islam is not bigotry so stop throwing that old and over used excuse around. It does not work anymore. Islam is all about hate and it seen over and over again. Facts are that the recent members are against your propaganda and I do not post for your approval. More then a dozen have sent me pm's of support and I am done fighting with Bararllau and Dayag.

[andak01]

More then a dozen have sent me pm's of support and I am done fighting with Barallau and Dayag.

Ugh. Spell his nick correctly at least. You should have as much intelligence as he has in his fingernail. I suppose you don't realize it since you are so busy spamming for your site.

[Steven]

Ugh. Spell his nick correctly at least. You should have as much intelligence as he has in his fingernail. I suppose you don't realize it since you are so busy spamming for your site.


Oh look childish insults. I have penlty of facts about Islam as does he.

Med said that it was OK and that is what matters, you are not a mod here.

[andak01]

Oh look childish insults. I have penlty of facts about Islam as does he.

Med said that it was OK and that is what matters, you are not a mod here.

I don't claim to be a mod here, and you are the one who keeps bringing it up. Get over it, I certainly have.

[Mil]

By andak01:

With the rather insignificant difference that the ethnic cleansing of Poland cost millions of Jews their lives while the ethnic cleansing of Morocco measured Jewish deaths in the hundreds, a factor of over a thousand.

At least you admit that it was an ethnic directed action.

That was a rather balanced article which hit all of the factors that I've outlined in the past. I don't see any reason that there won't be a ressurgient population growth among Jews in Morocco and the more so if there are opportunities for them there.


That would mean that half of Morocco would already be living somewhere else....

The climate is different from what it was in the 40s and 60s. Given the recent real estate boom that is going on there, evidence is that many foreigners want to live there or have a place there.

I personally don't want to have real-estate in an unstable Arab country.


There are two Moroccan myths. The myth that Moroccan's hands are clean of prejudice, held by Moroccans themselves, and the loose comparisons to ethnic cleansing in Poland and Sudan put forth by Clash of Civilization propagandists.

The reason why there are no Jews in Morocco is because of MOROCCANS!!!! The burden is on Moroccans on the the "Clash" people because there are no Jews in Morocco.


Reasonable people informed by the facts will find that neither rings true.

The facts are that there are no Jews left in Morocco and that's because of Moroccans.

[andak01]

By andak01:

With the rather insignificant difference that the ethnic cleansing of Poland cost millions of Jews their lives while the ethnic cleansing of Morocco measured Jewish deaths in the hundreds, a factor of over a thousand.

At least you admit that it was an ethnic directed action.

While you continue to compare Morocco to Poland.



That was a rather balanced article which hit all of the factors that I've outlined in the past. I don't see any reason that there won't be a ressurgient population growth among Jews in Morocco and the more so if there are opportunities for them there.

That would mean that half of Morocco would already be living somewhere else...

Well in fact some Moroccans ended up in Israel as pretend Jews. Using Israel as a stepping stone to European work papers was more important than religion. Many more are living illegally in Europe.



The climate is different from what it was in the 40s and 60s. Given the recent real estate boom that is going on there, evidence is that many foreigners want to live there or have a place there.

I personally don't want to have real-estate in an unstable Arab country.


What's unstable about a Dynasty that has ruled since 1669? Unless you know something I don't.

[Yala]

What's unstable about a Dynasty that has ruled since 1669? Unless you know something I don't.

Dynasty = Dictatorship

[Mil]

What's unstable about a Dynasty that has ruled since 1669? Unless you know something I don't.

Do we really have different values or you are just playing me? I would rather live in Poland... really - they got a Democracy.

[andak01]

Dynasty = Dictatorship

That may well be true. But your statement was you didn't want to live in an unstable Arab country. If Morocco is at all unstable, it's instability created from the outside by the very policies you so adore. Why would you so resent the thing the people you admire helped to create?

[Steven]

That may well be true. But your statement was you didn't want to live in an unstable Arab country. If Morocco is at all unstable, it's instability created from the outside by the very policies you so adore. Why would you so resent the thing the people you admire helped to create?

What a good Muslim you are. Blame everyone else for the problems of the Islamic world. What a cop out.

Islamic rule book.
1.It is not Islam.
2.Others did it.
3.Play the victim card.

[andak01]

What a good Muslim you are. Blame everyone else for the problems of the Islamic world. What a cop out.

Islamic rule book.
1.It is not Islam.
2.Others did it.
3.Play the victim card.

Islamophobes rule book.

1. All the problems of the world are due to Islam.

2. They are the only actors on the world stage. Everyone else just reacts to what they do.

3. If we don't wake up (read "hate them all"), Western society will perish. Preventing that involves taking up the worst aspects of the enemy and employing them (i.e. torture, intolerance, incitement to hatred). Take away Muslim American freedom of speech, Muslim American freedom of religion, Muslim American right to bear arms, Muslim right to travel freely by employing a wide based set of laws that take those same rights away from everyone else.

Fortunately for everyone here that ship has sailed. America has rejected that path.

[Steven]

Islamophobes rule book.

1. All the problems of the world are due to Islam.
I only blame the ones that Muslims cause in the name of Islam on Islam and Muslims keep giving us ammuniation.

2. They are the only actors on the world stage. Everyone else just reacts to what they do.
They are the only ones who are looking to destroy the West and or impose a set of barbaric laws in the world.

3. If we don't wake up (read "hate them all"), Western society will perish. Preventing that involves taking up the worst aspects of the enemy and employing them (i.e. torture, intolerance, incitement to hatred). Take away Muslim American freedom of speech, Muslim American freedom of religion, Muslim American right to bear arms, Muslim right to travel freely by employing a wide based set of laws that take those same rights away from everyone else.
I never said hate them all, I said end immigration and I know very well how Muslims use the freedoms of the West to advance Islam. You are not conning me or anyone else here. Western society is already being destroyed by Islam, just look at Europe. The Middle East is a sewer and no one needs that here. Non-Muslims should not tolerate the intolerance of Islam.

Fortunately for everyone here that ship has sailed. America has rejected that path.

Wrong, more and more Americans are speaking out Islam and that is a fact.


More and more people are speaking out against Islam because of the actions of Muslims and the best you can do is call them Islamophobes. I guess the Coptic are Islamophobes also. Might as well put the Jews here on that list also.

[andak01]

I guess the Coptic are Islamophobes also. Might as well put the Jews here on that list also.

See Steven, this just underlines why you are such a screaming Mimi. Many Copts probably have a more balanced idea of Islamic relations than you do. They complain about the actions of those they have something to complain about while not seeking to erradicate Islam itself. It's just like my Indian friends here. They understand a legitimate need to shield themselves from attack without hating people who have bear them no ill will.

Of course there are Hindutva and probably the Copt equivalent that wish death to all Muslims. That is not the rule.

[Steven]

See Steven, this just underlines why you are such a screaming Mimi. Many Copts probably have a more balanced idea of Islamic relations than you do. They complain about the actions of those they have something to complain about while not seeking to erradicate Islam itself. It's just like my Indian friends here. They understand a legitimate need to shield themselves from attack without hating people who have bear them no ill will.

I see Coptics all the time blaming Islam for their persecution. They know Islam is their enemy and it is very telling that it is allowed in Egypt. Once again awareness is not hate. You spend your whole life here but do nothing about the hate that comes from Islam. You are just a shield and the mods here know it. They continue to let you post here so that the readers can see the true face of "moderate" Islam. Your personal opinion of me means nothing to me.


Of course there are Hindutva and probably the Copt equivalent that wish death to all Muslims. That is not the rule.

Copts are not persecuting Muslims.

[Yala]

Do we really have different values or you are just playing me?

You really think you guys have the same values or are you just asking a rhetorical question>

[Yala]

That may well be true.

"May" be true?


But your statement was you didn't want to live in an unstable Arab country.

That wasn't my statement. That was Mil's.


If Morocco is at all unstable, it's instability created from the outside by the very policies you so adore. Why would you so resent the thing the people you admire helped to create?

Who are these people I admire? From your statment, I'm to understand that this dicatorship/dynasty which has ruled for hundreds of years has nothing whatsoever do with their own instability?

[andak01]

Who are these people I admire? From your statment, I'm to understand that this dicatorship/dynasty which has ruled for hundreds of years has nothing whatsoever do with their own instability?

And I asked you what instability. The idea that the Berbers are about to rise up and take over is being fomented from without. I personally know Berbers who are quite satisfied with Allah, al Watan wa al Malik. Some of my own family have Berber roots. They openly use their language and express their culture whenever they wish. I've heard it spoken in all parts of Morocco.

Otherwise, the biggest crisis to his father was the fact that his father was the first to recognize Israel and this king fights against terrorists. However, unlike Algeria next door, there is not a large destabilizing Islamist segment. Further, this king has cooperated fully with foreign governments to root out terrorism and has the support and friendship of the United States.

[dayag]

And I asked you what instability. The idea that the Berbers are about to rise up and take over is being fomented from without. I personally know Berbers who are quite satisfied with Allah, al Watan wa al Malik. Some of my own family have Berber roots. They openly use their language and express their culture whenever they wish. I've heard it spoken in all parts of Morocco.

Otherwise, the biggest crisis to his father was the fact that his father was the first to recognize Israel and this king fights against terrorists. However, unlike Algeria next door, there is not a large destabilizing Islamist segment. Further, this king has cooperated fully with foreign governments to root out terrorism and has the support and friendship of the United States.

For those who don't speak Arabic, "Allah, al Watan wa al Malik" means "G-d, the nation, and the king."

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:


If Morocco is at all unstable, it's instability created from the outside by the very policies you so adore. Why would you so resent the thing the people you admire helped to create?

We created Moroccoan Monarchy? You said they existed since 1600s?

Anyways most of Moroccan instabilities come from inside Morocco and not from the outside - which tells me you are simply ignorant about the country you so adore.

Morocco is your normal failed theocratic Monarchy. Nothing to different from many country's in Africa and in the Middle East.

[andak01]

Posted by Andak01:


If Morocco is at all unstable, it's instability created from the outside by the very policies you so adore. Why would you so resent the thing the people you admire helped to create?

We created Moroccoan Monarchy? You said they existed since 1600s?

The Alouites have been in power since then. Before that, there were more than 7 other dynasties.


Anyways most of Moroccan instabilities come from inside Morocco and not from the outside - which tells me you are simply ignorant about the country you so adore.

I'm not ignorant at all. There are plots against the king and there are plots against Obama. But certainly relative to the third world, Morocco is one of the most stable leaderships.


Morocco is your normal failed theocratic Monarchy. Nothing to different from many country's in Africa and in the Middle East.

Morocco isn't a theocracy. It is not run by a theocratic ruling class. The court system is based on the French system. Moroccan lawyers study law, not Shariah. Major national banks in Morocco charge interest. Alcohol is legal and openly sold in every major city. Morocco is different from many other countries in the middle east. It has had a warmer relationship with Israel than other Arab nations, however there is much room for improvement.

[bararallu]

With the rather insignificant difference that the ethnic cleansing of Poland cost millions of Jews their lives while the ethnic cleansing of Morocco measured Jewish deaths in the hundreds, a factor of over a thousand.


How about property loss? or economic damage generally? How about the trauma? Was Morocco as bad as Iraq or Egypt in violently pushing the Jews out? no. But that doesn't mean it was something that your family wouldn't still be traumatized by to this day.

[Mil]

Posted by andak01:


I'm not ignorant at all. There are plots against the king and there are plots against Obama. But certainly relative to the third world, Morocco is one of the most stable leaderships.

:) Are you comparing US to Morocco?


Morocco isn't a theocracy. It is not run by a theocratic ruling class.

It is run by theocratic ruling class.

The court system is based on the French system. Moroccan lawyers study law, not Shariah. Major national banks in Morocco charge interest. Alcohol is legal and openly sold in every major city.

You are telling me that Morocco is a secular state? Like France?

Morocco is different from many other countries in the middle east. It has had a warmer relationship with Israel than other Arab nations, however there is much room for improvement.

Morocco fought Israel in each and every major Middle Eastern war. And it's Morocco's neighbor, Mauritania, which has full Diplomatic relations with Israel.

__________________

[Yala]

And I asked you what instability. The idea that the Berbers are about to rise up and take over is being fomented from without. I personally know Berbers who are quite satisfied with Allah, al Watan wa al Malik. Some of my own family have Berber roots. They openly use their language and express their culture whenever they wish. I've heard it spoken in all parts of Morocco.

I did not call it unstable. Again you are attributing Mil's words to me. I called it a dictatorship.

[Mil]

It reminds me of the conversations we have with our friend Takeo on how the life in the Soviet Union was so wonderful and that all of us - Russian Jews - left USSR/Russia/CIS because we were all "hiding" Zionists. Fun stuff!

[andak01]

Posted by andak01:


I'm not ignorant at all. There are plots against the king and there are plots against Obama. But certainly relative to the third world, Morocco is one of the most stable leaderships.

:) Are you comparing US to Morocco?

From the standpoint of government stability, it's quite stable. They've had fewer assassinations than we have over the past century.



Morocco isn't a theocracy. It is not run by a theocratic ruling class.

It is run by theocratic ruling class.

Where do you get this stuff? What is the theocratic ruling class of Morocco?



The court system is based on the French system. Moroccan lawyers study law, not Shariah. Major national banks in Morocco charge interest. Alcohol is legal and openly sold in every major city.

You are telling me that Morocco is a secular state? Like France?

No. It's not a binary equation. Morocco isn't as secular as France, but it is far more secular than Saudi Arabia or Algeria. There is no comparison.



Morocco is different from many other countries in the middle east. It has had a warmer relationship with Israel than other Arab nations, however there is much room for improvement.

Morocco fought Israel in each and every major Middle Eastern war. And it's Morocco's neighbor, Mauritania, which has full Diplomatic relations with Israel.

Sorry, they fought Mauritania?

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:

From the standpoint of government stability, it's quite stable. They've had fewer assassinations than we have over the past century.

:) Is this your comparison on stability?! Dude, you are funny! In that case Saudi Arabia is even more stable then Morocco. The only time a monarch got killed in Saudi Arabia was by a jealous nephew.

Where do you get this stuff? What is the theocratic ruling class of Morocco?

Moroccan king has two primary roles; first to run the country and second to be the "Defender of the Faith." By faith I assume it means Islam.

No. It's not a binary equation. Morocco isn't as secular as France, but it is far more secular than Saudi Arabia or Algeria. There is no comparison.

You have some very low standards of Morocco if you are comparing it to Saudi Arabia and Algeria :) That only proves my point.

Sorry, they fought Mauritania?

Who fought Mauritania ?

I said that Morocco fought in every major Arab Israeli war. Morocco does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Mauritania, Morocco's neighbor, has diplomatic relations with Israel.

[andak01]

Where do you get this stuff? What is the theocratic ruling class of Morocco?

Moroccan king has two primary roles; first to run the country and second to be the "Defender of the Faith." By faith I assume it means Islam.

That's a traditional role for royalty of any faith. The Queen of England is also the head of the C of E. The King of Norway is the High Protector of the Church of Norway. The King of Spain is also the King of Jerusalem (I just learned). His wife was forced to convert to Catholicism before she could become queen.

In her capacity as queen of the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), Elizabeth II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom) is styled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_noble_styles), "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations), Defender of the Faith". The title, "Defender of the Faith", reflects her position as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England) and she is thus formally superior to the Archbishop of Canterbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_of_Canterbury). The original Latin phrase - Fidei Defensor - is referred to on all current British coins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_coinage) by the abbreviations, F D or FID DEF. This reference was first added to British coins in 1714 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1714), during the reign of King George I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_England). The decision of the Royal Mint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mint) to omit reference to the phrase (and other parts of the monarch's style) from the Florin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florin_(British_coin)) (a pre-decimal British coin) in 1849, caused such a scandal that the coin was replaced.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidei_defensor#cite_note-0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidei_defensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidei_defensor)

[Mil]

By Andak01:

That's a traditional role for royalty of any faith. The Queen of England is also the head of the C of E. The King of Norway is the High Protector of the Church of Norway. The King of Spain is also the King of Jerusalem (I just learned). His wife was forced to convert to Catholicism before she could become queen.

The difference between Queen of England and the King of Morocco is that Queen of England does not run England and king of Morocco is the supreme leader of Morocco. By its own wiki page Morocco is a Constitutional Monarchy (England is a parliamentary Democracy)! Dude - are you really pulling my strings?

[andak01]

By Andak01:

That's a traditional role for royalty of any faith. The Queen of England is also the head of the C of E. The King of Norway is the High Protector of the Church of Norway. The King of Spain is also the King of Jerusalem (I just learned). His wife was forced to convert to Catholicism before she could become queen.

The difference between Queen of England and the King of Morocco is that Queen of England does not run England and king of Morocco is the supreme leader of Morocco. By its own wiki page Morocco is a Constitutional Monarchy (England is a parliamentary Democracy)! Dude - are you really pulling my strings?

The Queen of England and the King of Norway and the King of Morocco are titular defenders of the faith. The King doesn't have any Shariah credentials other than having memorized the Quran, which is pretty common in Morocco. He has a doctorate in law from a university in Nice.

[Mil]

Morocco is a MONARCHY!!!!! Sweden, England, Norway, Netherlands and the rest are all PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES! Do you know the difference?

[dayag]

Morocco is a MONARCHY!!!!! Sweden, England, Norway, Netherlands and the rest are all PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES! Do you know the difference?

Morocco has a democratically elected bicameral parliament.

constitution:
http://www.al-bab.com/maroc/gov/con96.htm

[bararallu]

Morocco has a democratically elected bicameral parliament.

constitution:
http://www.al-bab.com/maroc/gov/con96.htm

Can the King disband the parliament? Rewrite the constitution? In the UK they cant. Who controls the military?

Who makes decisions on keeping: "An Islamic and fully sovereign state whose official language is Arabic, the Kingdom of Morocco constitutes a part of the Great Arab Maghreb."?

Can the Berbers, say, get together and start their own country? If they get enough votes.

[dayag]

Can the King disband the parliament? Rewrite the constitution? In the UK they cant. Who controls the military?

Who makes decisions on keeping: "An Islamic and fully sovereign state whose official language is Arabic, the Kingdom of Morocco constitutes a part of the Great Arab Maghreb."?

Can the Berbers, say, get together and start their own country? If they get enough votes.

Apparently you are defining a country as a "parliamentary democracy" only if the monarch is a figurehead and parliament has all the real power. Thanks for making the distinction clear. I concede the difference.

That said, I don't think the king can arbitrarily change the constitution, but must submit any proposed changes to a referendum (per article 103).

Concerning the Berbers, can U.S. states seceed and start their own country? Could the Arab majority in the Galil vote to seceed from Israel? Does that mean the U.S. or Israel aren't democracies?

[Mil]

The king can do whatever the hell he wants to and the constitution does not apply to him. The parliament in Morocco is very weak with very limited and really defined powers.

[bararallu]

Apparently you are defining a country as a "parliamentary democracy" only if the monarch is a figurehead and parliament has all the real power, not based solely on the existence of a constitution and a parliament. I concede the very real difference.

Well Mil is doing that, and I agree with him. In terms of parliamentary democracies, Scotland and Wales may just leave the UK, and the queen wouldn't have much say in that would she? Neither would the Parliament at the end of the day.


That said, I don't think the Moroccan King can arbitrarily change the constitution, but must submit any proposed changes to a referendum (per article 103).


In my book, those that control the guns, control the voting booths as well.


Concerning the Berbers, can U.S. states secede and start their own country? Could the Arab majority in the Galil vote to secede from Israel?


Not sure if it's apple to apples, but generally why not? While it's not a state, Puerto Rico can leave tomorrow, theoretically by vote. In terms of seceding states, I cant see why not? What if Hawaii wanted to succeed. It's not as if there was a moral issue (=Slavery) that would necessitate a civil war type of response. It would have to be realpolitik, and in the end it would eventually lead to self determination by local voters. Also, there have been times and places when states came and went, Texas for instance.

The difference is that the Berbers are more like Amerinds in the US or Canada (or Mexico). They are the more aboriginal community (as were the Jews and Carthaginians once in the Northern coast) relegated to the outskirts of society in many ways. I guess whether by parliament or by King they don't have a shot at self determination, well for a little while at least. Mauritania is a good model for them though.

[dayag]

...In my book, those that control the guns, control the voting booths as well....

He probably didn't actually say it, but Stalin is supposed to have said: "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

[Mil]

He probably didn't actually say it, but Stalin is supposed to have said: "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

In Russia it was simpler. They simply had one candidate to vote for and all those candidates always got 99.99% of the vote..... Not sure how that worked but I am sure Stalin meant something else.

[andak01]

Let's regroup the wagons folks! We are all agreed I believe that Morocco is a dictatorship. What it is not is a ruthless, self-destructive dictatorship. The king has powers that he never uses, because to use them would indeed destabilize the government.

If someone wants to claim Morocco is a theocracy, then show some evidence. The King makes less of a show of his religion than Bush makes of his. He is at odds with religious extremists. They do not run the government.

Second, I'd like to see any evidence whatsoever that "defender of the faith" is anything other than a title.

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:

Let's regroup the wagons folks! We are all agreed I believe that Morocco is a dictatorship. What it is not is a ruthless, self-destructive dictatorship. The king has powers that he never uses, because to use them would indeed destabilize the government.

dude, were you born in America or somewhere else? what does that mean "it is a ruthless, self-destructive"? Do you really believe in a "Just" dictatorship - a kind and smart king? Are you really that gullible? It's a dictatorship where a ruler is not responsible to ANYONE and can do whatever the f** he wants.


If someone wants to claim Morocco is a theocracy, then show some evidence.


Lets start with the fact that in Morocco it's illegal for Muslims to renounce Islam.

The King makes less of a show of his religion than Bush makes of his. He is at odds with religious extremists. They do not run the government.

Are you comparing an elected American officials to a Monarch?

Second, I'd like to see any evidence whatsoever that "defender of the faith" is anything other than a title.

Really..... dude, are we talking of the same Morocco? Why are you trying to prove to us something that is unprovable?

[andak01]

Posted by Andak01:

Let's regroup the wagons folks! We are all agreed I believe that Morocco is a dictatorship. What it is not is a ruthless, self-destructive dictatorship. The king has powers that he never uses, because to use them would indeed destabilize the government.

dude, were you born in America or somewhere else? what does that mean "it is a ruthless, self-destructive"? Do you really believe in a "Just" dictatorship - a kind and smart king? Are you really that gullible? It's a dictatorship where a ruler is not responsible to ANYONE and can do whatever the f** he wants.

Seriously, you need a dose of Bob Dylan. "You've got to serve someone."

Do you really think that the King of Morocco is beholden to nobody? He wouldn't last a week if he acted that way.




If someone wants to claim Morocco is a theocracy, then show some evidence.

Lets start with the fact that in Morocco it's illegal for Muslims to renounce Islam.

Here is a source that says you are wrong.

page 19

In Morocco, by contrast, voluntary conversion from Islam to other religions my pass unpunished.
...voluntary conversion is not a crime under the criminal or civil codes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HzFZKWc9SCgC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=morocco+apostasy+law&source=web&ots=fFRydmT50h&sig=hflD4qBHF2ye24kjTZboYwyb980&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result (http://books.google.com/books?id=HzFZKWc9SCgC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=morocco+apostasy+law&source=web&ots=fFRydmT50h&sig=hflD4qBHF2ye24kjTZboYwyb980&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result)




The King makes less of a show of his religion than Bush makes of his. He is at odds with religious extremists. They do not run the government.

Are you comparing an elected American officials to a Monarch?

From a standpoint of his public use of religion as a political tool, yes. The King really doesn't make a big show of being Musilm, nor does he exhort his troops to jihad or anything of the sort.




Second, I'd like to see any evidence whatsoever that "defender of the faith" is anything other than a title.

Really..... dude, are we talking of the same Morocco? Why are you trying to prove to us something that is unprovable?

Apparently I'm even unable to prove that there is any difference between WWII Poland and Morocco to you bunch of looneys.

[Mil]

Posted by andak01:

Seriously, you need a dose of Bob Dylan. "You've got to serve someone."

Do you really think that the King of Morocco is beholden to nobody? He wouldn't last a week if he acted that way.


The dynasty lasted for 400 years ruling Morocco!!!!!! Of course he is beholden to no-one.


...voluntary conversion is not a crime under the criminal or civil codes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HzFZKWc9SCgC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=morocco+ apostasy+law&source=web&ots=fFRydmT50h&sig=hflD4qB HF2ye24kjTZboYwyb980&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&res num=7&ct=result

did you read the whole of the article you post.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6256131.stm

It's the BBC.


From a standpoint of his public use of religion as a political tool, yes. The King really doesn't make a big show of being Musilm, nor does he exhort his troops to jihad or anything of the sort.

Are you comparing an elected American Official to a Monarch?

Apparently I'm even unable to prove that there is any difference between WWII Poland and Morocco to you bunch of looneys.

You don't know what happened in Poland and neither do you care for what happened in Morocco. Previously you told us that Jews of Morocco where lured by the Zionists, then you changed your tune and said it was the Zionists and the economy, then it was the Zionists and economy and Moroccons.... Dude, we had these conversations before. Remember?

You are trying to prove to us that a failed third world monarchy of Morocco which is solely ruled by a "Defender of the Faith", who also happens to be descendant of Muhammed himself, is a Just, Democratic, Free, Stable and Secular society. A society which attributes an astonishingly quick disappearance of an entire ethnic group (just 25 years ), which populated the country for the last 2000 years, on everything and everyone but themselves - the primary culprits!!!!! Free and normal societies don't really have this problem of self-reevaluation.... but societies under a dictatorship do.

[andak01]

The dynasty lasted for 400 years ruling Morocco!!!!!! Of course he is beholden to no-one.

Not the US, not France? Noone? Anyway, you make a good case that this is a stable government, unlike what you said before.



did you read the whole of the article you post.

I got as far as "many Muslims disagree with these laws on a number of grounds.


It's the BBC.

Yep, it's the BBC.


Israeli radio said President Ezer Weizman would represent the state at the king's funeral on 26 July.
Furthermore, the meeting between Israeli PM Ehud Barak and Mr Arafat, due to be held at the Gaza check point between Israel and the Gaza strip on the 24 July has been postponed for three days to allow both men to attend the funeral.
[/URL]
[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/402825.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/402825.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/402825.stm)



From a standpoint of his public use of religion as a political tool, yes. The King really doesn't make a big show of being Musilm, nor does he exhort his troops to jihad or anything of the sort.

Are you comparing an elected American Official to a Monarch?

I'm sorry, is such a comparison on any grounds forbidden? We have an American president that constantly refers to his religion in order to garnish favor with his constituents. Can't he be compared to a king who does that only probably less frequently.



You don't know what happened in Poland and neither do you care for what happened in Morocco. Previously you told us that Jews of Morocco where lured by the Zionists, then you changed your tune and said it was the Zionists and the economy, then it was the Zionists and economy and Moroccons.... Dude, we had these conversations before. Remember?

I know. I'm drinking the coolaid, there is no Zionist lobby. There is no Jewish agency.


You are trying to prove to us that a failed third world monarchy of Morocco which is solely ruled by a "Defender of the Faith", who also happens to be descendant of Muhammed himself, is a Just, Democratic, Free, Stable and Secular society.

Hmm. I didn't say 3/4 of that. Stable, yes, I believe I said that. 400 years is pretty stable. Democratic, no, not as far as the king is concerned. They do however have elections.


A society which attributes an astonishingly quick disappearance of an entire ethnic group (just 25 years ),

Not just 25 years. In fact the bulk of them moved prior to 25 years ago.


which populated the country for the last 2000 years, on everything and everyone but themselves - the primary culprits!!!!! Free and normal societies don't really have this problem of self-reevaluation.... but societies under a dictatorship do.

Hmm. So 2000 years, 1300 plus of that under Muslim rule and they evaporate within the last 60 years. I give up. What changed???

[Mil]

By andak01:

Hmm. So 2000 years, 1300 plus of that under Muslim rule and they evaporate within the last 60 years. I give up. What changed???

Good one. Jews have lived in Germany for thousands of years but then one day.... what changed?


Not the US, not France? Noone? Anyway, you make a good case that this is a stable government, unlike what you said before.

Are you comparing Liberal Democracies to a third world Monarchy?



Israeli radio said President Ezer Weizman would represent the state at the king's funeral on 26 July.
Furthermore, the meeting between Israeli PM Ehud Barak and Mr Arafat, due to be held at the Gaza check point between Israel and the Gaza strip on the 24 July has been postponed for three days to allow both men to attend the funeral.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/402825.stm

And what is that supposed to mean? Am I supposed to be eternally grateful? A lot of Israeli dignitaries came out, very similar ones, at king Abdullah's funeral - also a monarch. And king Abdullah, just like king Hassan, participated in each and every Arab Israeli war against Israel - especially Abdullah. So? A bunch of dignitaries at a funeral of a regional political player.

Am I supposed to cry? There are still no Jews left in Morocco.


I'm sorry, is such a comparison on any grounds forbidden?

Lets compare king Hassan to Hitler. Is that forbidden? I would find a lot more similarities between the Furher and the King.... especially on the political arena.


We have an American president that constantly refers to his religion in order to garnish favor with his constituents.

All presidents referred to religion - including Obama.

Can't he be compared to a king who does that only probably less frequently.

:) That's a good one!!!! That's a good comparison factor.


I know. I'm drinking the coolaid, there is no Zionist lobby. There is no Jewish agency.

So do you know what happened in Morocco?


Hmm. I didn't say 3/4 of that. Stable, yes, I believe I said that. 400 years is pretty stable. Democratic, no, not as far as the king is concerned. They do however have elections.

:) In Saddam's Iraq they also had elections. They also have those in Saudi Arabia these days.

[Yala]

We have an American president that constantly refers to his religion in order to garnish favor with his constituents.

Are you referring to Obama?

[Yala]

I'm drinking the coolaid, there is no Zionist lobby.

There is no "Zionist" Lobby. There is an Israel Lobby called AIPAC. It stands for American Israel Public Affairs Committee. There is, however, an anti-Zionist Lobby called Jstreet.

[andak01]

There is no "Zionist" Lobby. There is an Israel Lobby called AIPAC. It stands for American Israel Public Affairs Committee. There is, however, an anti-Zionist Lobby called Jstreet.

I see. And the basis of the state of Israel isn't that it's a homeland for the Jews? It wasn't founded and doesn't function based on that? There aren't Jewish settlements, because it's a purely secular state? OK, then, was that grape flavor or cherry? If I was to do a word search on the AIPAC website would the word Zionism appear? Only 144 articles returned, shucks.

BTW, what's that star thingy on the flag of Israel? What does that refer to?

[dayag]

I see. And the basis of the state of Israel isn't that it's a homeland for the Jews? It wasn't founded and doesn't function based on that? There aren't Jewish settlements, because it's a purely secular state? OK, then, was that grape flavor or cherry? If I was to do a word search on the AIPAC website would the word Zionism appear? Only 144 articles returned, shucks.

BTW, what's that star thingy on the flag of Israel? What does that refer to?

Yes, Zionism is the movement that led to the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.
I think Zionist and pro-Israel are synonymous.

Joe Biden expressed his pro-Israel position by calling himself a Zionist:
“If I were a Jew, I would be a Zionist. I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

[Yala]

If I was to do a word search on the AIPAC website would the word Zionism appear?

You are attempting to use Zionism as a derogatory term. Do you think we were born yesterday?


Only 144 articles returned, shucks.

Gee, you can find more or the same on Ummah.com.
Besides, I am not denying that AIPAC is Zionist, I am saying it is the Israeli Lobby. Zionism is an outdated term that only Arabs and Joe Biden use. It is rarely used in Israel.


BTW, what's that star thingy on the flag of Israel? What does that refer to?

What does this have to do with anything?


OK, then, was that grape flavor or cherry?

I prefer cherry

[andak01]

You are attempting to use Zionism as a derogatory term. Do you think we were born yesterday?

If you think I am de facto using Zionism in a derogatory fashion because I'm Muslim or because I'm more to the left than you, then yes, you were born yesterday. I have never demanded the end of Israel and I have never demanded that Israel renounce their Zionist basis. In that respect, since I accept Israel's existence, I am a Zionist myself. I don't agree with all of Israel's policies, but by no means do I wish to see Israel destroyed.


Gee, you can find more or the same on Ummah.com.
Besides, I am not denying that AIPAC is Zionist, I am saying it is the Israeli Lobby. Zionism is an outdated term that only Arabs and Joe Biden use. It is rarely used in Israel.

I really wouldn't know. "State based upon the concept of a homeland for the Jews." You fill in the current term. Zionism certainly was that term at one time.



Quote:
BTW, what's that star thingy on the flag of Israel? What does that refer to?
What does this have to do with anything?

The primary purpose of the state of Israel is to provide a homeland for the Jews on the site of the Kingdom of David, hence the reference to the marvelous purveyor of the true religion of peace prophet David in its flag. References to how the original boundaries were established are found in Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua (no doubt you know this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Davids-kingdom_with_captions_specifiying_vassal_kingdoms-derivative-work.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Davids-kingdom_with_captions_specifiying_vassal_kingdoms-derivative-work.jpg)

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:

If you think I am de facto using Zionism in a derogatory fashion because I'm Muslim or because I'm more to the left than you,

I don't think you are "left"! You are very much "Right". I am for sex, drugs, rock-n-roll and naked ladies running on the streets. I also support abortion, woman rights, divorce, gay marriage and many other similar social things.... do you? As does Yala and most all people on this forum. If you don't support Israel does not mean you are left!!!! Israel is one of the most "left" countries in this world.

In fact Bush is a lot more on the "left" then you. He removed Saddam and is trying to build a "Left" Liberal Democracy in the very ultra-conservative Arab world.

What is "left" in your mind exactly?

The primary purpose of the state of Israel is to provide a homeland for the Jews on the site of the Kingdom of David, hence the reference to the marvelous purveyor of the true religion of peace prophet David in its flag.

Leave all this prophet stuff to your own religion. Most Jews in Israel are secular. And if you are such an expert you should know that Zionism was 100% secular movement. Many of the founders of Israel were socialists (left), many of whom were communists, marxists, and socialists of every sort of kind. All that explains Israeli socialism, kibbutzim, from birth-till-death care, the welfare and the rest.

References to how the original boundaries were established are found in Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua (no doubt you know this).

What numbers?

[andak01]

I am for sex, drugs, rock-n-roll and naked ladies running on the streets. I also support abortion, woman rights, divorce, gay marriage and many other similar social things.... do you?

sex - as often as possible with my wife
drugs - when needed to cure something
rock-n-roll - love it
naked ladies running on the streets - if there aren't any men watching, that's fine
abortion - don't support it within my own family, but don't believe it's the government's place to regulate it within a secular society. And it would be my wife's choice what to do with her body should she have to make that decision. She's against it because of her religion.
woman rights - absolutely for
A woman has the right to employment if she wishes, divorce if she wishes, marriage to whom she wishes, safety from fear and abuse and self determination.
divorce - are you kidding? There is a Surah of divorce in the Quran.
gay marriage - no. even my libertarian streak can't survive that. However I would support hate crime legislature to protect homosexuals from any kind of attack.

and many other similar social things.... do you? As per above, generally yes.


As does Yala and most all people on this forum. If you don't support Israel does not mean you are left!!!! Israel is one of the most "left" countries in this world.

I don't know how many posts here have accused the left of being anti-Israel. Particularly, you can ask Newsguy about that.


In fact Bush is a lot more on the "left" then you. He removed Saddam and is trying to build a "Left" Liberal Democracy in the very ultra-conservative Arab world.

Seriously??? Iraq is a semi-theocratic Shiite state. There is nothing liberal about it. They don't have freedom of speech and certainly not freedom of religion.


What is "left" in your mind exactly?




The primary purpose of the state of Israel is to provide a homeland for the Jews on the site of the Kingdom of David, hence the reference to the marvelous purveyor of the true religion of peace prophet David in its flag.

Leave all this prophet stuff to your own religion. Most Jews in Israel are secular. And if you are such an expert you should know that Zionism was 100% secular movement. Many of the founders of Israel were socialists (left), many of whom were communists, marxists, and socialists of every sort of kind. All that explains Israeli socialism, kibbutzim, from birth-till-death care, the welfare and the rest.

Indeed a lot of things have changed. And I'm more comfortable with where Israel came from than where some would like it to go to.



References to how the original boundaries were established are found in Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua (no doubt you know this).

What numbers?

Look it up. I'm not going to start another flame war about things I've already posted in the past.

[bararallu]

Seriously??? Iraq is a semi-theocratic Shiite state. There is nothing liberal about it. They don't have freedom of speech and certainly not freedom of religion.

True. And when the Americans pull out the Mullahs are going to have a 10 lane highway running to Qom.

[andak01]

True. And when the Americans pull out the Mullahs are going to have a 10 lane highway running to Qom.

Sadly true, which begs the question of how closely our publicly stated reasons for invading Iraq accord with the Bush administration's actual agenda. My opinion is the they could give a rat's patooti about democracy, WMDs (which they knew didn't exist), self determination, etc. Instead think three letter words that start with "O".

[bararallu]

Sadly true, which begs the question of how closely our publicly stated reasons for invading Iraq accord with the Bush administration's actual agenda. My opinion is the they could give a rat's patooti about democracy, WMDs (which they knew didn't exist), self determination, etc. Instead think three letter words that start with "O".

Bush stopped a genocide as far as I'm concerned (something that Clinton failed to do in Africa, and if we (globally) get into the Iranian boondogle, there is only one person to blame: the illustrious peanut farmer/Israel hater). But occupation is another story. Not everyone that was for invading Iraq was up for any occupation. The Sauds and certainly most of the Gulf Arabs were all for invasion. But thats another story. I think it's a mistake to conflate intentions with causes BTW. There are a lot of loose ends, and who knows in the end where this will lead. Generally speaking, your f*** if you do and your **** if you don't. International affairs 101. :)

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:

sex - as often as possible with my wife
drugs - when needed to cure something
rock-n-roll - love it
naked ladies running on the streets - if there aren't any men watching, that's fine
abortion - don't support it within my own family, but don't believe it's the government's place to regulate it within a secular society. And it would be my wife's choice what to do with her body should she have to make that decision. She's against it because of her religion.
woman rights - absolutely for
A woman has the right to employment if she wishes, divorce if she wishes, marriage to whom she wishes, safety from fear and abuse and self determination.
divorce - are you kidding? There is a Surah of divorce in the Quran.
gay marriage - no. even my libertarian streak can't survive that. However I would support hate crime legislature to protect homosexuals from any kind of attack.

and many other similar social things.... do you? As per above, generally yes.

Yep. Freedom of everything!!!!!

I don't know how many posts here have accused the left of being anti-Israel.

Generally the "left" was always critical of Israel especially coming from the communists (who are considered to be radical left for some reason). Much of it was driven by the Soviet propoganda and sort of ended up that way.


Seriously??? Iraq is a semi-theocratic Shiite state.

:)

There is nothing liberal about it. They don't have freedom of speech and certainly not freedom of religion.

There is a lot more freedom then with Saddam. Is Morocco a "left" country?

[andak01]

There is a lot more freedom then with Saddam. Is Morocco a "left" country?

More freedom for Shiite vigilante groups and for over a million Christians and Sunnis who are now free to live in refugee camps, assuming they got that far alive.

Would you like for a moment to consider the comparative death toll of Jews leaving Morocco to Sunnis leaving Iraq? How many stories of Moroccan Jews being mailed body parts of their children or even their heads are there? How many Jewish bodies were left to rot in the street for fear they might be booby trapped? How many Moroccan Jews said their death prayers every time they left the house and expected never to come home again? Hundreds of thousands??? Everyday for years?

If these Sunni refugees living in Syria and Iran and elsewhere were one hundredth the number and Jewish, we'd know them all by name.

[Mil]

And under Saddam it was better? It was a lot worse and you, as a defender of "left" liberal values, never said a word.

In fact you don't say anything about Morocco political and social system being a "left" activist. Monarchy is definitely a none-Liberal political arrangement.
All you find are apologies. The human rights situation in Morocco is horrible....

You are not "left" or "liberal" at all. You just don't like Bush policies which does not make you left. Haider's party in Austria also does not like Bush and they are right-wing radicals. I really doubt that David Duke likes Bush.

What does it mean to be "left" by your definition?

[andak01]

And under Saddam it was better? It was a lot worse and you, as a defender of "left" liberal values, never said a word.

As a matter of fact, I was fully supportive of the coalition effort that went into the first Gulf War and I would have supported a similar coalition in this war. I condemn the use of chemical weapons against the Shiites and I don't believe we should have sold him those chemicals and that technology to use against Iran.


In fact you don't say anything about Morocco political and social system being a "left" activist. Monarchy is definitely a none-Liberal political arrangement.

No. There are left wing dictatorships as well as right wing ones. Pinoche was a right wing dictator, Hugo Chavez is a left wing one.



All you find are apologies. The human rights situation in Morocco is horrible...

Relative to Iraq??? Afghanistan? Those places we promised with the lives of our American youth to make better?


You are not "left" or "liberal" at all. You just don't like Bush policies which does not make you left. Haider's party in Austria also does not like Bush and they are right-wing radicals. I really doubt that David Duke likes Bush.

I'm pretty sure I'm liberal.


What does it mean to be "left" by your definition?

Left wing is a populist stance. Liberals side with the workers versus the management. We don't believe in management's ability to police itself. We believe that government is not just military and security but also works for social services that aren't profitable for a private entity to maintain.

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:

weapons against the Shiites and I don't believe we should have sold him those chemicals and that technology to use against Iran.

We did not sell him any gas or the technology to make gas Russians and Chinese did all that. Unless you believe KGB works for CIA - in that case it will mean that US sold Iraq gas.

No. There are left wing dictatorships as well as right wing ones. Pinoche was a right wing dictator, Hugo Chavez is a left wing one.

Morocco is a monarchy - a dictatorship. You, as a "Liberal," should oppose this.
Do you?

There is nothing "left" about Hugo. Hugo is a populist - sort of like Hitler. Hitler also gave all Germans work and social welfare net. Adolf was a Social Democrat!

Relative to Iraq??? Afghanistan? Those places we promised with the lives of our American youth to make better?

Provided that older American "Liberals" try to validate a Monarchy by comparing these to Afganistan... I should consider you a serious person?

I'm pretty sure I'm liberal.

I support abortion and gay marriage. Do you? I am for a secular state and I hate places like Morocco ruled by a Monarch who is also a "Defender of the Faith." How about you?


Left wing is a populist stance. Liberals side with the workers versus the management.

No. I know very many conservatives who side with the workers vs. the management.

We don't believe in management's ability to police itself.

You are talking about worker's rights.

We believe that government is not just military and security but also works for social services that aren't profitable for a private entity to maintain.

Everyone believes that.

So let me summarize. You are a liberal because you are for workers rights and socialism. You should have lived in the Soviet Union :)

Any Eastern European would laugh you into the ground :) You are so freaking GULLIBLE!!!!!! Socialism does not mean Liberalism.

Liberalism means attainment of Individual Freedoms from abortion to running naked through the streets. Is there an Arab country where abortion is legal or where you can openly speak against the government all the time?

[andak01]

Posted by Andak01:

weapons against the Shiites and I don't believe we should have sold him those chemicals and that technology to use against Iran.

We did not sell him any gas or the technology to make gas Russians and Chinese did all that. Unless you believe KGB works for CIA - in that case it will mean that US sold Iraq gas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-gate_(Gulf_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-gate_(Gulf_War))


Morocco is a monarchy - a dictatorship. You, as a "Liberal," should oppose this.
Do you?

Not to the point of justifying the human cost of a coup or a civil war.



There is nothing "left" about Hugo. Hugo is a populist - sort of like Hitler. Hitler also gave all Germans work and social welfare net. Adolf was a Social Democrat!

Everybody is Hitler and everywhere is Poland! Groan!!!:tdown:


Provided that older American "Liberals" try to validate a Monarchy by comparing these to Afganistan... I should consider you a serious person?

You never have. The feeling is mutual. If you think we've established a secular state in Iraq, I can't take you seriously.


I support abortion and gay marriage. Do you?

Many economic liberals aren't social liberals. But then, I consider myself a moderate anyway. It's only in comparison to the far right wing-nuts here that I appear radical.


I am for a secular state and I hate places like Morocco ruled by a Monarch who is also a "Defender of the Faith." How about you?

Well, no. I can't be for a secular state and support a state based on preferential treatment of a single religion whether or not they call themselves a theocracy. I can't of good concience condemn all religion based governments with the soul exception of Israel. I could support Israel as a Kahanist semi-theocracy and not condemn existing theocracies, or I could demand complete secularism from all governments including Israel. But I'm not going to support policies which foment revolt and civil war or invasion of theocracies and then ignore the fact of Israel's basis.

I don't support any theocracies, not KSA, not the Vatican City, not Bhutan, not Iran. And I'd prefer if Israel was a purely secular state just like any other. It isn't and it probably never will be. But again, is it worth destroying every country that has a government we don't like? I'm fine with Israel staying like it is rather than the human cost of destabilizing it. Perhaps because of your own mindset that equates criticism with proposed invasions or forced coups and civil wars, you project onto me the desire to overthrow Israel simply because I have some criticisms. On the contrary, all of my wishes can be handled within the structure of what Israel presently is.

This cannard, "you would have liked the Soviet Union"- no I wouldn't have. I spent years reading Solshenitzyn's works detailing the workings of a totalitarian state. Universal healthcare does not equal communism.

[bararallu]

Well, no. I can't be for a secular state and support a state based on preferential treatment of a single religion whether or not they call themselves a theocracy. I can't of good concience condemn all religion based governments with the soul exception of Israel. I could support Israel as a Kahanist semi-theocracy and not condemn existing theocracies, or I could demand complete secularism from all governments including Israel. But I'm not going to support policies which foment revolt and civil war or invasion of theocracies and then ignore the fact of Israel's basis.


I don't know, if tomorrow Bush or Obama said the US will not deal with govt that have religious parties in them, then pretty much overnight the Knesset would look pretty different. And not only on paper. I don't think it is possible in the rest of the Middle East, with the exception of Turkey. And personally I think that would be great. The religious in Israel are a huge nuisance, they should have freedom to practice as they like but not extort the rest of us. The problem is that much larger in Syria and Egypt, supposedly "secular" dictatorships. They have huge counterweights to them politically. The Sauds are out of the ball park. And The Jordanians and Moroccans are somewhere in between.

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-gate_(Gulf_War)

Like I said US did not supply Saddam with any chemical nor biological weapons they used against Iranians. Mustard and Tubun gases used were the same as those which were spread over the trenches of Verdun - way back when. The issue here was the technology to produce and weaponize these gases - which was provided by the Russians and the Chinese.

Not to the point of justifying the human cost of a coup or a civil war.

But you are a "Liberal?!" Are you not?

Everybody is Hitler and everywhere is Poland! Groan!!!

? Hitler was a socialist. As are you.


Many economic liberals aren't social liberals.

Not really. Many social liberals are not for economic freedom.

But then, I consider myself a moderate anyway. It's only in comparison to the far right wing-nuts here that I appear radical.

So now you are not "Liberal" but a moderate. And what is a "right-wing-nut"?


Well, no. I can't be for a secular state and support a state based on preferential treatment of a single religion whether or not they call themselves a theocracy.

Which is Islam in all of the Arab countries and in Iran (which calls itself Islamic Republic).


I can't of good concience condemn all religion based governments with the soul exception of Israel.

?

I could support Israel as a Kahanist semi-theocracy and not condemn existing theocracies, or I could demand complete secularism from all governments including Israel.


You calling Israel, which is a Liberal Democracy, a theocracy? :)

But I'm not going to support policies which foment revolt and civil war or invasion of theocracies and then ignore the fact of Israel's basis.

Are you comparing a Parliamentary Liberal Democracy of Israel, where Prime Minister is elected and can be prosecuted for money fraud in a court, to the Monarchy of Morocco? I don't understand.

I don't support any theocracies, not KSA, not the Vatican City, not Bhutan, not Iran. And I'd prefer if Israel was a purely secular state just like any other. It isn't.

How about the Monarchy of Morocco? Or you are comparing Vatican to Morocco?


This cannard, "you would have liked the Soviet Union"- no I wouldn't have. I spent years reading Solshenitzyn's works detailing the workings of a totalitarian state. Universal healthcare does not equal communism.


Dude - I lived in USSR. We had free healthcare, we had socialism, we had all the workers protected.... USSR was the creation Mr. Marx. Have you actually read Das Capital? I did.

[andak01]

I don't know, if tomorrow Bush or Obama said the US will not deal with govt that have religious parties in them, then pretty much overnight the Knesset would look pretty different. And not only on paper. I don't think it is possible in the rest of the Middle East, with the exception of Turkey.

If it is possible in one place, it is possible in other places, I don't say all.


And personally I think that would be great. The religious in Israel are a huge nuisance, they should have freedom to practice as they like but not extort the rest of us. The problem is that much larger in Syria and Egypt, supposedly "secular" dictatorships. They have huge counterweights to them politically.

They do. But we must understand that we aren't talking about a binary equation, but rather a variable that can change over time. Some Muslim populations are more extremely theocratic than they were 500 years ago when Muslim rule went relatively unchallenged.


The Sauds are out of the ball park. And The Jordanians and Moroccans are somewhere in between.

Agreed.

[Mil]

Some Muslim populations are more extremely theocratic than they were 500 years ago when Muslim rule went relatively unchallenged.

You mean 500 years ago Arabs were more secular?

[andak01]

You mean 500 years ago Arabs were more secular?

They were less extreme than the Taliban is. Yes.

[Mil]

They were less extreme than the Taliban is. Yes.

The didn't have suicide bombing either back then.....

[bararallu]

They do. But we must understand that we aren't talking about a binary equation, but rather a variable that can change over time. Some Muslim populations are more extremely theocratic than they were 500 years ago when Muslim rule went relatively unchallenged.

Right there has been radicalization, and that has a few historic antecedents and also a few very modern infusions, both economic and ideological. I think a lot will actually change in the ME after more of the non Arab Muslim societies get some limelight (e.g., Kurds, Fur, Berbers). The implosion of Iran will also be instrumental, as will the general decline of oil and the petrodollars that come from it. When theocracy and other backwardness is banished from the town square the greater ME will enter modernity. Well thats the rosy side. The not so happy side will be war, civil and otherwise.

[andak01]

I think a lot will actually change in the ME after more of the non Arab Muslim societies get some limelight (e.g., Kurds, Fur, Berbers).

Don't forget Americans. There are now second and third generation of American born Muslims; and, I believe we have a very different take on things. But even among Arabs, the level of radicalism is neither uniform nor unchanging. If certain factors have caused radicalism and anti-semitism to rise then others can just as easily cause it to fall. It's just a matter of what.

[Mil]

So basically Arabs are to have no personal responsibility. Sort of like it's not the fault of all the Arabs that they countries' are dictatorships.

[andak01]

So basically Arabs are to have no personal responsibility. Sort of like it's not the fault of all the Arabs that they countries' are dictatorships.

Well, let's take the case of Iran (not an Arab country, but a case of our support for dictators). A popular leader was replaced by a dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

In the case of KSA and others, the dictatorships have received US support over those who, like Mossadeq, want to nationalize the oil industry.

To say that none of these factors has any effect is as dishonest as would be a claim I've never made, that Arabs aren't responsible in the least for their destinies. Of course they are, and I've never said otherwise, criticizing harshly the regiem in KSA, the actions of Palestinians and of Hizbollah.

[Rob]

Well, let's take the case of Iran (not an Arab country, but a case of our support for dictators). A popular leader was replaced by a dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

You really have to do better than a Wiki article in which their seems to be a whole list of inaccuracies.

[andak01]

Rob, to the point.

1) Do you believe that America and Britain among others have supported dictatorial regiems in Arab countries rather than push for democracy while at the same time claiming that democracy is our number one goal?

2) If so, has this support of dictators had any effect at all on the politics of the region?

To me saying that everything has to do with religion while discounting politics, economics, etc. is pretty damn dishonest.

[Steven]

Rob, to the point.

1) Do you believe that America and Britain among others have supported dictatorial regiems in Arab countries rather than push for democracy while at the same time claiming that democracy is our number one goal?

2) If so, has this support of dictators had any effect at all on the politics of the region?

To me saying that everything has to do with religion while discounting politics, economics, etc. is pretty damn dishonest.

Muslims are always looking to blame others for their own failures.

[andak01]

Muslims are always looking to blame others for their own failures.

People like you are looking to blame Muslims for all the ills of the world. The actions of Muslims do not take place in a vacuum. Muslim extremism wouldn't exist in a vacuum. It requires support from some of the unlikeliest places.

[Steven]

People like you are looking to blame Muslims for all the ills of the world. The actions of Muslims do not take place in a vacuum. Muslim extremism wouldn't exist in a vacuum. It requires support from some of the unlikeliest places.

The Islamic community is responsible as they have done nothing to silence the preachers of hate. I do not blame Muslims for the ills of the world, only for what they cause and that is plenty.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=15

Part 1: 'Islamic Antisemitism'

Alan Johnson: Your new book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, is a 766 page collection of primary and secondary sources, some translated into English for the first time, about the relationship of Islam and antisemitism. It is prefaced by a 200-page interpretive essay written by you. Let's begin with your controversial conclusion. Here it is:

A widely prevalent conception of Islam's doctrinal and historical treatment of Jews rests on two false pillars … (I) In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic history. For Muslims it is not part of the birth-pangs of their religion, as it is for Christians. (II) '…'dhimmi'-tude [derisively hyphenated] subservience and persecution and ill treatment of Jews... is a myth.'] (…) [This] sham castle of glib affirmations—must be swept away if the enduring phenomenon of Islamic Antisemitism is to be properly understood.'

This claim is unusual. Yes, anyone paying attention knows antisemitism is widespread in the Arabic and Islamic world. Holocaust denial is rife, blaming 'the Jews' for 9/11 is common, and as MEMRI has shown, annihilationist sentiments against Jews are routinely expressed in sermons, cartoons, and in the Arabic mass media (even if the mainstream western media is by and large uninterested and uncomprehending about all this). However, most commentators think Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by extremists. Most think the surge in antisemitism is a legacy of modern European antisemitism and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For example, Esther Webman, of Tel Aviv University's Dayan Center, has written that 'antisemitism did not exist in the traditional Islamic world.... Antisemitism is, in fact, a relatively new phenomenon in the Arab world.' Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Looming Tower, claimed that 'Until the end of World War II…Jews lived safely –although submissively—under Muslim rule for 1,200 years, enjoying full religious freedom; but in the 1930s, Nazi propaganda on Arabic-language short-wave radio, coupled with slanders by Christian missionaries in the region, infected the area with this ancient Western prejudice [antisemitism].' Matthias Kuntzel, talking to Democratiya, stated that it was '[d]uring the Thirties and Forties [that] Islamist anti-modernism was poisoned by the Nazi antisemitic mind-set.'

But you reject all this. You claim contemporary antisemitism in the Muslim world is rooted in the foundational texts of Islam itself. Can you please set out your case?

Andrew Bostom: Well, you hit the nail on the head. I do think those conceptions are the heart of the problem. They are, how can I put this, factually-challenged conceptions. They are usually affirmed without substantive proofs being given. The actual data, I think, provides a negative proof. It reminds me of a scene in Woody Allen's film Sleeper. Allen portrays Miles Monroe, the owner of a health food store in Greenwich Village who is cryogenically frozen and he wakes up 20 years in the future. In one scene he is confronted by two doctors, one of whom is very authoritative and claims to be possessed 'of what we know to be true'. He offers Miles a cigarette saying 'Here, smoke this, and be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs. Its tobacco, one of the healthiest things for your body'.

There are incontrovertible and overwhelming hard data – pathological and epidemiological - which demonstrate a major causative role for smoking in both the predominant form of lung cancer (i.e., adenocarcinoma), and premature coronary heart disease. I believe smoking is to these diseases as the Islam in Islamic Antisemitism is to this scourge of Jew-hatred, past and present. It is as destructive to our social and moral health to deny this reality, as it is to human public health disease prevention efforts to deny the causative link between cigarette smoking and adenocarcinoma of the lung, or premature coronary heart disease. That's what I came to conclude from doing my own research for The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.


(32 pages follow)

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:

Well, let's take the case of Iran (not an Arab country, but a case of our support for dictators). A popular leader was replaced by a dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Mossadeq was not "popular" leader but a staunch Iranian nationalist. Why don't you actually read up on how Mossadeq was replaced and how popular he really was.... I recommend you buy some serious literature on that particular subject rather then you getting all this from Wikipedia.

In any case currently Iran is a theocratic dictatorship and has been as such for the last almost thirty years. It's the fault of the everyone else.... I know.

In the case of KSA and others, the dictatorships have received US support over those who, like Mossadeq, want to nationalize the oil industry.

What are you talking about? Saudi Oil is nationalized. In fact all oil across all Middle East is nationalized and has been nationalized for decades..... I think you really don't know sh***t about anything in the region that you defend.

To say that none of these factors has any effect is as dishonest as would be a claim I've never made, that Arabs aren't responsible in the least for their destinies.

Dude - do we live on different planets?


Of course they are, and I've never said otherwise, criticizing harshly the regiem in KSA, the actions of Palestinians and of Hizbollah.

All I heard that Arabs are f***ed up because of everyone else. Understood. Is that what people in your Mosque say?

[andak01]

What are you talking about? Saudi Oil is nationalized. In fact all oil across all Middle East is nationalized and has been nationalized for decades..... I think you really don't know sh***t about anything in the region that you defend.

This from the guy that claims that Iraq is a purely secular state.

[andak01]

All I heard that Arabs are f***ed up because of everyone else. Understood. Is that what people in your Mosque say?

The people in my mosque have better things to talk about than politics.

[Steven]

The people in my mosque have better things to talk about than politics.

Thanks for proving that you and your friends have no intention of trying to change the hate coming from the Islamic world.

[andak01]

Thanks for proving that you and your friends have no intention of trying to change the hate coming from the Islamic world.

Just like when you go to a Catholic masse, they haven't given up the masse in favor of a lecture against pedophilia every prayer time. I do here messages of peace in some kutbahs and I have yet to hear anything anti-semitic. I don't live in Gaza.

[Steven]

Just like when you go to a Catholic masse, they haven't given up the masse in favor of a lecture against pedophilia every prayer time. I do here messages of peace in some kutbahs and I have yet to hear anything anti-semitic. I don't live in Gaza.

Those sicko priests were not preaching from the pulpit to moleste children. If they were I doubt Christians would of sat their silently like Muslims do when their Imams preach hatred. So this comparison is not valid.

Are you actually implying that Gaza is the only place that Muslims are preaching hatred? Because I doubt that Mumbai victims will agree with you.

Is is a fact that there are Mosques here in the United States that are preaching hatred towards non-Muslims. Why don't you go start some protests against them?

[Mosche]

Those sicko priests were not preaching from the pulpit to moleste children. If they were I doubt Christians would of sat their silently like Muslims do when their Imams preach hatred. So this comparison is not valid.

Are you actually implying that Gaza is the only place that Muslims are preaching hatred? Because I doubt that Mumbai victims will agree with you.

Is is a fact that there are Mosques here in the United States that are preaching hatred towards non-Muslims. Why don't you go start some protests against them?

Valid points; excellent question.

[andak01]

Those sicko priests were not preaching from the pulpit to moleste children.

And you're saying that there are imams in America today preaching for people to commit acts of terrorism? That's a pretty bad indictment of our legal system, the FBI, Homeland security, etc.

In fact, very little of the training for terrorism ever went on inside mosques. Mosques have been monitored for some time all over the world. Even Saudi Arabia is afraid of the destabilizing effect of terrorism. Many of its own imams have been arrested for preaching radical Islam.


If they were I doubt Christians would of sat their silently like Muslims do when their Imams preach hatred. So this comparison is not valid.

There are plenty of Christian preachers preaching hatred against Islam. I suppose that doesn't preachers who talk like you.


Are you actually implying that Gaza is the only place that Muslims are preaching hatred? Because I doubt that Mumbai victims will agree with you.

In fact, we are all pretty sure that was a foreign attack. The content of sermons is regulated throughout the Arab world. I assume that is the case in India as well.


Is is a fact that there are Mosques here in the United States that are preaching hatred towards non-Muslims. Why don't you go start some protests against them?

Your assumption is that these mosques are so plentiful that I'm running into them everyday in my own community. That is not the case.

[Steven]

And you're saying that there are imams in America today preaching for people to commit acts of terrorism? That's a pretty bad indictment of our legal system, the FBI, Homeland security, etc.

I know that there have been some calling for sharia over US laws and hate towards non-Muslims. Not to be friends with them. I am not sure if they are calling for attacks here.

In fact, very little of the training for terrorism ever went on inside mosques. Mosques have been monitored for some time all over the world. Even Saudi Arabia is afraid of the destabilizing effect of terrorism. Many of its own imams have been arrested for preaching radical Islam.

Terrorism is just part of it. Hate, not to be friends with non-Muslims and sharia are others.

There are plenty of Christian preachers preaching hatred against Islam. I suppose that doesn't count with you.

I applaud them. They obviously see Islam for the destructive force that is it. Exposing the dangers of Islam is not preaching hatred.

In fact, we are all pretty sure that was a foreign attack. The content of sermons is regulated throughout the Arab world. I assume that is the case in India as well.



Your assumption is that these mosques are so plentiful that I'm running into them everyday in my own community. That is not the case.

I never said that you are running into them. I said that they are here. When do the rallies start? A good starting point would be the Saudi embassy near the United Nations. You can even visit the tree this time of year.

[Mosche]

And you're saying that there are imams in America today preaching for people to commit acts of terrorism? That's a pretty bad indictment of our legal system, the FBI, Homeland security, etc.

Not an endictment at all. In America free speech is protected--even hate speech. Once the indoctrination has taken place, then the encouragement begins.

In fact, very little of the training for terrorism ever went on inside mosques. Mosques have been monitored for some time all over the world. Even Saudi Arabia is afraid of the destabilizing effect of terrorism. Many of its own imams have been arrested for preaching radical Islam.

I don't think that anyone would argue that "TRAINING" took place in the mosques. What we would assert is that the mosques served as recruiting grounds, and as indoctrination facilities.



There are plenty of Christian preachers preaching hatred against Islam. I suppose that doesn't count with you.

Again, free speech is protected in America--even hate speech. If, however, they begin to teach/preach violence or the overthrow of the government, then they ought to be censored/punished.


In fact, we are all pretty sure that was a foreign attack. The content of sermons is regulated throughout the Arab world. I assume that is the case in India as well.

Foreign attack? Exactly! Led by Islamic extremists from Pakistan--an Islamic country.
As for the regulation of sermon content, Arab nations allow hate speech in sermons also! Do they regulate sermons? Absolutely! Imams can say whatever they want to say against the west, or against Jews; they just can't criticize the corrupt governments.

Your assumption is that these mosques are so plentiful that I'm running into them everyday in my own community. That is not the case.

It doesn't matter how many mosques there are, you could still be rallying your friends and aquaintances. If you feel strongly about the message that you are trying to feed to us on an anonymous forum, it seems that you would want to lead your contacts to similar conclusions.

[andak01]

I never said that you are running into them. I said that they are here. When do the rallies start? A good starting point would be the Saudi embassy near the United Nations. You can even visit the tree this time of year.

Given how prevalent you claim terrorism is among Muslims, I must be doing more than running into them, I must actually be one. But then you already said the only difference between me and the Mumbai attackers is that I haven't killed anyone yet. Do you have any idea how you sound???

[Mil]

By andak01:

This from the guy that claims that Iraq is a purely secular state.

Oil in Saudi Arabia and across the entire Middle East is nationalized. Has been for the last few decades. Look it up.

[andak01]

It doesn't matter how many mosques there are, you could still be rallying your friends and aquaintances. If you feel strongly about the message that you are trying to feed to us on an anonymous forum, it seems that you would want to lead your contacts to similar conclusions.

What will astound you is that they don't find what I say shocking or revolutionary. They are already aware that Islam doesn't support terrorism. When I encounter anti-semitism, and I do, I do discuss it and try to change hearts and minds. But the MEMRI view that all Arabs and Muslims do all day is viciate against the Jews is patently false.

[bararallu]

But the MEMRI view that all Arabs and Muslims do all day is viciate against the Jews is patently false.

Thats not what memri does. Most of the press in the Arab and much of the Muslim world is state owned. When there is an anti-semitic segment, it goes under reported in the west. Most Arab world elite say one thing in English or French and quite another in Arabic. If Memri was designed to do anything, it's to illustrate these two things: 1. state complicity in agitating hate against Jews and other minorities, and 2. displaying obvious hypocrisy of Arab politicians, "Academics", regime connected functionaries and state recognized religious authorities. It's not a conspiracy, like the made up crap that is considered reporting in the Arab world, or Paliwood specifically.

[Mil]

There are many Jews who speak both Arabic and Paris as their mother tongue, like those infamous Moroccan Jews, and actually know what the Arabs and the Iranians say. Unless you say that MEMRI is making up what the Arabs say.

[Yala]

The fact that Andak hates MEMRI just proves that it is a successful tool in the war against Arab propaganda and incitement.

On another note, I was reading about this Benny Begin and he looks very promising. I read somewhere (on this site?) that when Oslo was going on he was running around with translations of Arafat's preaching of jihad in Arabic. An early version of MEMRI, if you will. Unfortunately, Israelis were to drunk with peace juice to listen.

[andak01]

The fact that Andak hates MEMRI just proves that it is a successful tool in the war against Arab propaganda and incitement.

The story of Arab propaganda and incitement needs to be told. And that is an effective use for MEMRI. What has happened to an unfortunate extent is that American media is using MEMRI as one of its sole sources of translation. That's probably going to change as there are now many budding journalists learning the Arabic language.


Mil: There are many Jews who speak both Arabic and Paris as their mother tongue, like those infamous Moroccan Jews, and actually know what the Arabs and the Iranians say. Unless you say that MEMRI is making up what the Arabs say.

MEMRI doesn't make it up, but it does translate from a slanted point of view. The real problem isn't MEMRI but lazy journalism. There have been too many journalists in the past that rely on them as a single source of translation and dissemination. When that changes, the coverage of the Middle East will as well.

I have never sought to silence MEMRI; only to have people understand what it is and what it is not. As a disseminator of PALTV anti-semitism to show that up for what it is, it's excellent, as an overview of everything that goes on in the ME, it's lousy.

[Mil]

Posted by Andak01:

What has happened to an unfortunate extent is that American media is using MEMRI as one of its sole sources of translation. That's probably going to change as there are now many budding journalists learning the Arabic language.

That's good! That would mean that MEMRI accomplished what it was designed to do. Dude - there are very many people who speak Arabic and Parsi fluently in this world. More then what you think.


MEMRI doesn't make it up, but it does translate from a slanted point of view. The real problem isn't MEMRI but lazy journalism.


It wasn't designed as a news organization. It's a monitoring organization. And how does it slant translations? If you are referring to "Wipe Israel off" - this has been said and is even confirmed by non-Jewish Iranians. Even on this forum. I know quite a few Iranians myself (non-Jewish Iranians) - and all say the same thing.


There have been too many journalists in the past that rely on them as a single source of translation and dissemination. When that changes, the coverage of the Middle East will as well.

? So 350,000,000 Arabs and 80 Iranians get cheated with bad translations from MEMRI? You think there is ABSOLUTELY no-one else who speaks Arabic? In that sense the Russians can complain about Russian translations or French about French. Dude - there are enough speakers of these languages especially in America.

Why are you keeping people for idiots.

I have never sought to silence MEMRI; only to have people understand what it is and what it is not. As a disseminator of PALTV anti-semitism to show that up for what it is, it's excellent, as an overview of everything that goes on in the ME, it's lousy.

Why don't you read up MEMRI's mission statement. It's there to monitor - nothing else.

[Mediocrates]

I almost never post MEMRI here anymore but anyone who follows them knows that they've a large effort this year to highlight liberal attitudes in the Arab and Muslim press including many op-ed's that frankly, are almost dangerous in their attitudes against the status quo.

[Mil]

Lets buy an elephant.

[andak01]

I almost never post MEMRI here anymore but anyone who follows them knows that they've a large effort this year to highlight liberal attitudes in the Arab and Muslim press including many op-ed's that frankly, are almost dangerous in their attitudes against the status quo.

I've seen those articles posted and I applaud them. I hope this is a new direction. For years, I've seen MEMRI used as a weapon to make it seem like there is nothing by insane sheikhs in the ME. There are insane sheikhs, but most of them have seen the inside of a prison cell by now. The Arab world is changing, perhaps not at the rate we would all want and for motives different than we might hope for, but still support for terrorism is waning.

[Mil]

Like Morocco.... right?

[andak01]

Like Morocco.... right?

The Moroccan government does not support or sponsor terrorism. There are thousands of prisoners rotting in the worst holes Morocco has to offer because they tried.

[Mil]

By Andak01:

The Moroccan government does not support or sponsor terrorism.

That is considered progress?

There are thousands of prisoners rotting in the worst holes Morocco has to offer because they tried.

That's progress!!!!

[Yala]

There are insane sheikhs, but most of them have seen the inside of a prison cell by now.

Oh puleez.

[andak01]

Oh puleez.


The Saudi remarks appear to be confirmed in a recent assessment by the Center for Strategic & International Studies, an independent research group in Washington.
During the first half of 2004, the kingdom fired 44 Friday preachers, 160 imams and 149 prayer callers for incompetence, according to a report released in January. Nearly 1,400 religious officials were suspended and ordered to undergo retraining, the report said.

The Saudis also have begun grass-roots campaigns aimed at promoting stability. Web sites have been created to seek discourse and chats with a younger generation. Cell phone users in Riyadh now are peppered with text messages that reject terrorism. The week of the conference, even the family of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden sought a public moral high ground.

"We strongly condemn all kinds of terror," exclaimed a large newspaper ad placed by the construction company owned by the bin Laden family. The family, close to the royal family, has previously condemned Al Qaeda's activities and said it has no ties to Osama bin Laden, who was stripped of Saudi citizenship more than a decade ago.

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001887.html

Most of the men in the program were arrested in Saudi Arabia or in neighboring countries while attempting to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, terrorist attacks across the kingdom, some aimed at Western targets, have killed nearly 150 people. A recent nationwide raid captured 208 alleged militants, some of whom were planning attacks on oil installations. Saudi media reported that police also discovered eight Chinese-made missiles that purportedly were to be fired at hotels and other buildings.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/21/world/fg-rehab21


Nail Al-Jubeir said Saudi authorities have rounded up hundreds of terrorists since triple car bombings killed 23 people plus 12 bombers at three complexes housing Westerners in Riyadh in May. He also said Saudi Arabia has fired 2,000 imams for spreading hate.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/11/saudi.explosion/index.html

[andak01]

By andak01:

The highest estimate I've seen was over 2 million with the lowest in Casablanca alone around 60,000.

Now it's millions. Why not go for tens of millions?




It was a tremendous outpouring however you cut it.

It dices, it slices and it circumcises. Nothing to cut during a government sponsored event. We saw these in my former homeland.

On May 25, Muslims and Jews marched in a large demonstration in Casablanca against terrorism, with both Muslims and Jews marching together. On May 18, near Essaouira, a number of Jews celebrated a rabbi buried there almost 160 years ago, and the governor of Essaouira attended some of the ceremonies. Other annual Jewish commemorations took place around the country normally.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/relmorocco03.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/relmorocco03.html)

On May 25, 2003, nine days after the attacks, Casablanca was the site of one of the largest demonstrations in the history of the nation. An estimated 750,000 to one million people from every corner of the Kingdom converged upon the city to condemn the attacks and the worldview of those who instigated them. Even people from villages deep in the High Atlas Mountains who had never before ventured down from their ancestral homes took part. They joined hundreds of thousands of their fellow Moroccans to register their rhetorical vote for tolerance and the traditions of the Moroccan nation and against the “obscurantism” that these foreign-inspired acts of murder and destruction represented. “It is crucial to understand the reasons behind how Moroccans were indoctrinated with extremist ideas that harm culture and democracy through practices and behaviors that are alien to Moroccan society,” said Minister Toufiq.

http://www.internationalreports.net/africa/morocco/2003/10casablancaterror.html (http://www.internationalreports.net/africa/morocco/2003/10casablancaterror.html)



And there was another massive demonstration against Al Qaida in 2005.

Also in the millions? Did you demonstrate in front of the Saudi Embassy?

2005: 150,000 Demonstrate Against Al Qaida in Morocco

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/massive-muslim-demonstration-against.html (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/massive-muslim-demonstration-against.html)

[Yala]

The Saudi remarks appear to be confirmed in a recent assessment by the Center for Strategic & International Studies, an independent research group in Washington.
During the first half of 2004, the kingdom fired 44 Friday preachers, 160 imams and 149 prayer callers for incompetence, according to a report released in January. Nearly 1,400 religious officials were suspended and ordered to undergo retraining, the report said.

The Saudis also have begun grass-roots campaigns aimed at promoting stability. Web sites have been created to seek discourse and chats with a younger generation. Cell phone users in Riyadh now are peppered with text messages that reject terrorism. The week of the conference, even the family of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden sought a public moral high ground.

"We strongly condemn all kinds of terror," exclaimed a large newspaper ad placed by the construction company owned by the bin Laden family. The family, close to the royal family, has previously condemned Al Qaeda's activities and said it has no ties to Osama bin Laden, who was stripped of Saudi citizenship more than a decade ago.

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001887.html

Most of the men in the program were arrested in Saudi Arabia or in neighboring countries while attempting to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, terrorist attacks across the kingdom, some aimed at Western targets, have killed nearly 150 people. A recent nationwide raid captured 208 alleged militants, some of whom were planning attacks on oil installations. Saudi media reported that police also discovered eight Chinese-made missiles that purportedly were to be fired at hotels and other buildings.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/21/world/fg-rehab21


Nail Al-Jubeir said Saudi authorities have rounded up hundreds of terrorists since triple car bombings killed 23 people plus 12 bombers at three complexes housing Westerners in Riyadh in May. He also said Saudi Arabia has fired 2,000 imams for spreading hate.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/11/saudi.explosion/index.html

Soooo, you're still going to tell me that "most" of the crazy Imams across the Arab world have been arrested? Why, I can dig up information to counter that in seconds by sourcing your favorite anti-propaganda (arab style) website, MEMRI. Did they ever get around to investigating that Imam who said he wants to kill Mickey Mouse?

[andak01]

Soooo, you're still going to tell me that "most" of the crazy Imams across the Arab world have been arrested? Why, I can dig up information to counter that in seconds by sourcing your favorite anti-propaganda (arab style) website, MEMRI. Did they ever get around to investigating that Imam who said he wants to kill Mickey Mouse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R4zp2ohSPU

Abu Jandal was arrested by Yemeni authorities in connection with the USS Cole bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing) in October 2000,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Jandal

He was captured in the first half of June 2002 by the Moroccan authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowzi_Saad_al-Obeidi

Two days later, Saudi Arabia announced that Al-Rasheed was a prisoner, in custody at Riyadh, on August 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_22), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saud_A.S._Al-Rasheed

Saudi police commandos killed al-Muqrin in a raid in downtown Riyadh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh), along with several associates including: Faisal Abdul-Rahman al-Dikheel (who was also on the list), Turki bin Fuheid al-Muteiry, and Ibrahim bin Abdullah al-Dreiham.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdel_Aziz_al-Muqrin#cite_note-CBCdead-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdel_Aziz_al-Muqrin

Al-Oufi in turn was killed in August 2005, in Madinah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madinah).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_al-Oufi#cite_note-Oufi-0) One other suspect with al-Oufi was killed, and one wounded and captured. In a simultaneous raid in Riyadh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh), four AQAP members were killed and one captured. These raids were made possible by the interception of mobile telephone transmissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_al-Oufi

Al-Ayeri was killed in 2003 in a gun-battle with Saudi security forces as part of the crackdown on Islamic insurgency in Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_insurgency_in_Saudi_Arabia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusef_al-Ayeri

[Yala]

Does any of the above prove that "most" of the crazy Imams have been arrested? There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these crazies. I assure you most are still at their pulpit spewing their venom, and many with gov't backing + support.

[Rob]

The Saudi House is only protecting its own interest. They only started to prosecute racidal imams and terrorists when the monster turned more inwards and attacked internal KSA targets. It is still OK to preach hatred and jihad against infidels and so on, but not against the Saudi House.

[ShimonG]

The Saudi House is only protecting its own interest. They only started to prosecute racidal imams and terrorists when the monster turned more inwards and attacked internal KSA targets. It is still OK to preach hatred and jihad against infidels and so on, but not against the Saudi House.


EXACTLY. What the islamic taqqiya wants us to forget/ignore is that true islam is still preached in saudi barbaria. that includes hatred for the jew, christian and others. the billions of $$ that the barbaric saudis have spent the past few decades establishing their evil and depraved islam all over the world are now going to give the world an up close and personal experience with this evil.

[andak01]

Soooo, you're still going to tell me that "most" of the crazy Imams across the Arab world have been arrested? Why, I can dig up information to counter that in seconds by sourcing your favorite anti-propaganda (arab style) website, MEMRI. Did they ever get around to investigating that Imam who said he wants to kill Mickey Mouse?

What sentence do you suggest for someone who wants to kill a mouse? I know I've killed a couple myself.

As for MEMRI, they never follow up to say how someone they quote is being treated. There's still stuff there from years ago by people who have been arrested or fired from their posts. Like the breast feeding fatwa that circulated the net some months back. The imam who said it was publicly condemned and released from his post. We don't hear about that. And I'm constantly seeing quotes from the leader of Indonesia's radical Islamist group, who, though free today (so far as I know) has spent months in prison.

[andak01]

EXACTLY. What the islamic taqqiya wants us to forget/ignore is that true islam is still preached in saudi barbaria. that includes hatred for the jew, christian and others. the billions of $$ that the barbaric saudis have spent the past few decades establishing their evil and depraved islam all over the world are now going to give the world an up close and personal experience with this evil.

Saudi Arabia did that when backing extremism furthered their causes. Those days are gone. Out of selfish motivation they are making large efforts to reduce that same extremism because of its destabilizing influence and the cost to them on the world stage. As with Pakistan, there are elements of the government and military that still sympathize with the more radical elements, but there have been changes.

A parallel can be drawn to yourself. Your support for hate speech against all Muslims and Islam is driven by the payback you get for Israeli interests. The more hated we are, the more people sympathize with Israel's cause, or so you believe. So you maximize the actions of the radicals and minimize the efforts of those who fight against them day after day by every means in your power.

There is a balance. While I do not support anti-semitic hate speech by anyone in any country, I'm quite comfortable with constructive measures to elliminate terrorism against Israel. And I think those can be achieved by working with those Muslims who are willing to give their lives as many have already to the cause of ridding the world of terrorism.

[Rob]

The imam who said it was publicly condemned and released from his post.

But the hadith was valid, right?

The Mickey Mouse sheikh is still issueing fatwas on his website:

http://www.islam-qa.com/en

[andak01]

But the hadith was valid, right?

The Mickey Mouse sheikh is still issueing fatwas on his website:

http://www.islam-qa.com/en

What hadith? That's mice are dirty animals? That you should throw out food if you find a mouse in it? Europe and Asia have been savaged by plagues caused by these animals. We use them to test drug on and inject cancer cells into them and run all kinds of experiments. Are you against that?

Mickey Mouse I'm OK with, it's Tammy the Tapeworm, Harvey HIV, and Fozzy Bird Flu that I object to. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) never said a word about Mickey Mouse. It's this guy's opinion that an animal that spreads plague and disease shouldn't be raised to a high level among children. And what he said was, if Mickey was a real mouse, we'd kill him. Next time a wild mouse gets into your food, send me pictures of you and the kids playing with it. I'll put it on my refrigerator.

Anyway, it seems that the Pals and the Sauds have their messages mixed. According to MEMRI, the Pals are using Mickey Mouse to preach hatred and now this Saudi is preaching hatred against Mickey Mouse. They need to get their stories straight. Because, as we learn from reading this forum, all Muslims think alike.

[Mil]

Those people in Mumbai targeted Jews for been Jews.

[andak01]

Those people in Mumbai targeted Jews for been Jews.

That's why they belong in prison or in front of a firing squad. I've never said differently. Kudos to anyone who assisted in their capture or in the capture of anyone still free.