The Mythical Moderate Muslim

[humus_sapiens]

The Mythical Moderate Muslim
by Yashiko Sagamori

[...]
The official, politically correct point of view says that Islam is just another monotheistic religion, not that different from Judaism or Christianity. If that is true, then moderate Muslims must exist, just like moderate members of other faiths. However, moderate members of other faiths do not require sacrificial mollification — that's basically how we tell moderates from extremists. Therefore, either moderate Muslims are mythical creatures, or we need substantially different criteria to identify them. That dilemma alone should make us suspicious as to whether Islam is “just another religion”. Obviously, it is important that we determine how a moderate Muslim can be distinguished from a Muslim extremist.

Why not ask Muslims themselves? Irshad Manji, a young Canadian author, has published a book titled The Trouble With Islam. Since we don't hear too many Muslim voices criticizing their religion, her book deserves our attention. This is what the author herself says on her promotional website (http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/the_book_index.html): I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists. But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam the literalism is mainstream.

Apparently, the terms literalism and fundamentalism in the quotation above are used interchangeably, as synonyms of religious extremism. Unfortunately, the author fails to mention the most important difference between “literalists” in Islam and other religions. Evangelical Christians may believe that heaven is reserved for them alone. Ultra-Orthodox Jews may display intimate understanding of the murkiest places in the Talmud. I have no idea what extreme fundamentalist Buddhists do that sets them apart from their moderate coreligionists. What I do know however is that no religion except Islam pursues the idea of physical extermination of those who believe differently. The concept of holy war is unique to Islam. Jihad is the absolute monopoly of Muslims. There is no parallel to it in any other religion in the world. (Yes, I have heard about Crusades, but Christianity does not mandate them, and do you know when the last Crusade ended?)

So, here we have it in plain English, as simple as A, B, C:
A. According to the Koran, holy war against the infidels is a sacred duty of every Muslim.
B. According to Ms. Manji, mainstream Muslims interpret Koran literally.
The conclusion is inevitable: C. Mainstream Muslims perceive war against the infidels — meaning you and me — as their sacred duty.

Once you understand that, you don't need books to explain to you what exactly the trouble with Islam is. The trouble with Islam derives from the fact that mainstream Islam openly calls for murder of all infidels. That's why Islam is not “just another religion”. That's what, in my view, allows to classify all its followers as extremist.

What then, besides our stubborn, groundless faith in the general goodness of our fellow human beings, leads us to believe that moderate Muslims are not just a figment of our imagination? How do they manifest themselves in the real world?

It would be utterly useless to look for them in Gaza, Judea, or Samaria. Unlike bin Laden, terrorists occupying Israeli lands do not live in caves. They live in small towns, villages and crowded refugee camps where everyone knows everything about everyone else. They couldn't survive for a day without popular support. When someone gives them a reason to doubt the sincerity of his support, they label him a collaborator and murder him on the spot. Indeed, the PA-sponsored educational system guarantees that innocent children are indoctrinated in the most murderous variety of Islamic extremism — thereby losing their innocence — at the earliest possible age. Therefore, in Israel, a moderate Muslim is a dead Muslim, which is bad news for those who want us to believe that there is a peaceful solution to the continuing Arab war against Israel.

Let's look elsewhere. Afghanistan, liberated by the United States from the medieval tyranny of the Taliban is about to publish the draft of its first constitution. Their new constitution is going to be firmly based on Islamic principles. The country itself is soon to be renamed the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. We wouldn't call a Jew or a Christian who wanted his religion to become the basis of his country's constitution a moderate, would we? Here, in the United States, we value the separation of church from state so much that we launch court battles to remove the Ten Commandments and every reference to God from everything that is even remotely related to the government. If Islam is “just another religion”, shouldn't the same criteria apply to Muslim countries? And if the same criteria do apply, we have to conclude that President Karzai installed in Afghanistan by the American military and unable to survive now or in the foreseeable future without the American military presence, is not a moderate Muslim, but an outright religious extremist. His “Very correct” remark to Mahadir's call for the extermination of Jews shows that he is a political extremist as well. Therefore, the only practical question regarding Afghanistan is why did the United States have to waste lives of its soldiers and tens of billions of dollars in order to replace one bunch of Muslim extremists with another? It might have been worthwhile had it improved our security at home, but, as we know, that didn't happen. Therefore, we have to conclude that the United States has once again won a battle but lost the war. Next, the same will inevitably happen in Iraq.

The desperate search for moderate Muslims goes all around the world. It is especially urgent in Europe whose face is being irreversibly altered by mass immigration from Islamic countries. Recently, the British government appealed to the growing British Muslim community to isolate extremists in their midst. It's not hard to predict the response. Actually, there will be no response, because everyone in any Muslim community is an extremist. Such is the nature of Islam, and the only thing that I find hard to comprehend is the self-imposed blindness of the British government. Apparently, such is the price of liberalism and political correctness. Bye-bye, Europe. We are next.

I don't think World War II could be won if the Allies, instead of eradicating Nazism, attempted to replace Nazi extremists with moderate Nazis. Actually, nobody was looking for moderate Nazis during World War II. But those were simpler, purer times. Today, the mythical moderate Muslim remains the focal point of the US foreign policy in the Middle East. The blind faith in his existence has already led the United States to many monumental failures, and many more are to be expected in the future. Meanwhile, the moderate Muslim, along with Big Foot, the unicorn and the Loch Ness monster, remains more elusive than a cure for cancer: there is at least a theoretical possibility that a cure for cancer can be found one day, unless of course Islam takes over and drags us all down into its own endless Dark Ages.

Full text: http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/MMM.html
Check out that excellent website.

[andak01]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
The trouble with Islam derives from the fact that mainstream Islam openly calls for murder of all infidels.

A total crock. There is absolutely no verse of the Quran or Hadith that calls for extermination of anyone who isn't actively attacking and endangering Islam itself. Believe me, I have researched all of the verses that non-Muslims claim are the excuse for violence in the Muslim world today. None of them is a call to extermine all infidels.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-reli...sts?page=63#63

The most taughted is from Surah Tauba.

KILL THE INFIDELS WHERE YOU FIND THEM!!!!

OOOOOOOH!

OK, I'm sitting here with my sword ready to kill infidels. But before I go, I want to check Surah Taubah to make sure I'm doing things right.

http://www.ishwar.com/islam/holy_quran_(yusuf)/sura009.html
http://www.ishwar.com/islam/holy_quran_(pickthall)/sura009.html

There it is!!! Yusef Ali translates: "...slay the Pagans wherever ye find them..." and Pickthall translates: "...slay the idolaters wherever ye find them..."

I'm not so sure that Christians are idolaters after all, let me read the whole verse.

{9:5
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. }

Well that pretty much is what we were thinking right, convert or die. Let me read on, just to make certain.

{9:6
And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.}

Wait just a second! If they just listen and don't convert, I don't get to kill them. Let me make a note.

{9:7
How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.}

Hold the phone! What's this about a treaty? I thought I got to kill ALL the infidels (unless they convert, or listen to Allah's word). Better go back.

{9:1
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.}

So this clearly only applies to people I've made a treaty with. Well, only governments make treaties, so that limits the idolaters to be killed to:
- Those who have made a treaty with Muslims
- AND who broke the treaty
- AND Who do not convert
- AND who refuse to listen to the word of Allah )

(9:2
Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).)

Four months? Are we perhaps talking about a historic event??? More LIMITS!
- Those who have made a treaty with Muslims
- Who do not convert
- AND who refuse to listen to the word of Allah
- After four months

{9:3
And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,}

{4
Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).)

More conditions:
- Those who have made a treaty with Muslims
- Who do not convert
- AND who refuse to listen to the word of Allah
- After four months
- AND who have broken the treaty

You mean I have to love them, even though they didn't convert and I didn't KILL them? That doesn't sound like the Islam I've been hearing about!

(9:13
Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first ? What! Fear ye them ? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers)

This doesn't make sense for a prescription for killing. "folk who broke their solemn pledges and purposed to DRIVE OUT THE MESSENGER???" Muhammad (SAW) has been dead for 14 centuries. This must then be a historic context, not referring to ANY living infidels.

THAT is the "sword Surah", and my sword is still by my side. Following it to the letter doesn't permit me to kill anyone that isn't already dead.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by andak01
A total crock. There is absolutely no verse of the Quran or Hadith that calls for extermination of anyone who isn't actively attacking and endangering Islam itself. Believe me, I have researched all of the verses that non-Muslims claim are the excuse for violence in the Muslim world today. None of them is a call to extermine all infidels.

Andak,
Your research, passion and quotes are very soothing, but completely irrelevant. What we witness today is not a religion (one's personal relations with god), but rather ideology of conquest (forcing one's views onto others) and has to be dealt with as such.

Obviously, the Islamic extremists and despots read (or at least claim) the same holy books as you quote above. Until we see effective working opposition to Islamic extremism from within, the pearls of wisdom such as above are simply propaganda denying, excusing and defending this extremism.

[andak01]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Andak,
Your research, passion and quotes are very soothing, but completely irrelevant. What we witness today is not a religion (one's personal relations with god), but rather ideology of conquest (forcing one's views onto others) and has to be dealt with as such.

I have come to speak of it as a set of personality cults, for Bin Laden, for Saddam and for Arafat. The strongest tie to these is a shared anti-semitism and hatred of America.

This week, I was on a business trip and became aquainted with an Indonesian born Catholic. Once he realized I was an American Muslim, he asked me some questions and we began to talk. What surprised me was that he spoke almost glowingly of Saddam. He said he understood why the Iraqis and others were behind Saddam because of Saddam's refusal to give into America. He spoke with sadness about the state of affairs between the Muslims and Christians in Indonesia, but told me that he was allowed to pray his Christian prayers in a mosque in Sulawese. He said the Muslims and Christians there prayed in the same room, because at the time, there was no Christian church and the Muslims had donated space at the mosque.

Obviously, the Islamic extremists and despots read (or at least claim) the same holy books as you quote above.

They read the Quran, but I have never known one of them to quote Surah Tauba as a justification to jihad. That's because they don't interpret that verse in that fashion. Rather they quote verses about enjoining good and prohibitting evil. But unlike my own interpretation, they actively strive to force non-believers to act as they act. As I have stated, I do not extend intolerance beyond my fellow Muslims. For example, I would mention something to a Muslim if I saw him drinking alcohol, but not to anyone who has not already made a commitment to follow those prohibitions.

http://muttaqun.com/enjoingood.html

Until we see effective working opposition to Islamic extremism from within, the pearls of wisdom such as above are simply propaganda denying, excusing and defending this extremism.

I see. So interpreting the Quran in a moderate and peaceful fashion is an aid to those who deny it??????? What kind of solipcism is that?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01


I see. So interpreting the Quran in a moderate and peaceful fashion is an aid to those who deny it??????? What kind of solipcism is that?

I agree with andak01's claim that a moderate interpretation of Islam is possible and there are moderate Muslims.

However, the author of the article is also correct in saying that an extreme interpretation of Islam is plausible, that Islam appears to require jihad against non-Muslims, and that a very large minority of Muslims interpret Islam in this fashion.

The fact you point out--that you have to read passages in context--illuminates part of the problem. Most people don't read or comprehend in this fashion. They take isolated statements and run with them.

Therefore, it's up to moderate Muslims to conduct jihad against those who blow up innocent people in the name of Islam. Were they to devote more energy to this task and less to explaining why Islam is innocuous, we might see some progress. Better yet, if many of them devoted more energy to fighting terrorism and less to inciting hatred of Jews and Israel, we might even see a turnaround.

[Frans_1]

There is absolutely no verse of the Quran or Hadith that calls for extermination of anyone who isn't actively attacking and endangering Islam itself.

And with that little qualification, you've just put yourself firmly on the side of all the Muslim led terror attacks and murders. You've inserted that qualifiying clause, in one form or another, a number of times already in various discussions. Once "you" decide we "are" - actively attacking.... the justification naturally follows. Your religion is so sacred no questioning of it's ideas, unlike with Judaism or Christianity, is to be tolerated .

Who is to say Osama bin Laden religious opinion upon who is actively attacking and endangering Islam itself is not much more valid than your, Andak's, opinion . After all you unlike any of those fellow Muslims of yours weren't born into Islam, merely a convert, a white southern American at that. (if memory serves).

Lets put it this way, the Moderate Muslim who speaks and argues in English blows smoke into everyones eyes whereas the non moderate Muslim sets bombs. Got to do what you can.

Your Jihad is also about "holy ink, other than holy bombs, remember ?

(by Ibrodsky) Therefore, it's up to moderate Muslims to conduct jihad against those who blow up innocent people in the name of Islam. Were they to devote more energy to this task and less to explaining why Islam is innocuous, we might see some progress. Better yet, if many of them devoted more energy to fighting terrorism and less to inciting hatred of Jews and Israel, we might even see a turnaround.

You are being a politician there. No bad intent , but you keep saying that And Andak will keep giving you his standard reply....

"Those who blow up innocent people in the name of Islam" are NOT the enemy of Moderate Muslims or Less Moderate Muslims or More Moderate Muslims. Why would people who blow smoke, jihad against those who blow up ? Their real enemy are guys like Abu Afak and others . Hence Andak's big efforts.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
And with that little qualification, you've just put yourself firmly on the side of all the Muslim led terror attacks and murders.

I could give you at least ten reasons why that isn't true. Suicide and the killing of innocent women and children is against Islam.

You've inserted that qualifiying clause, in one form or another, a number of times already in various discussions. Once "you" decide we "are" - actively attacking.... the justification naturally follows.

Well, yeah. Even our own American legal system allows for self-defense. But it doesn't go beyond that. In the American system, you can't chase a burgler down the street and shoot him after he has run out of your home. In Islamic fiqh, the fighting must end when the other side offers truce.

Your religion is so sacred no questioning of it's ideas, unlike with Judaism or Christianity, is to be tolerated.

Well, if its ideas were even remotely what you think they are, I would question. They simply aren't.

Who is to say Osama bin Laden religious opinion upon who is actively attacking and endangering Islam itself is not much more valid than your, Andak's, opinion.

Obviously, you are the one saying that. But you don't memorize verses of the Quran, pray five times a day and spend time at a mosque. I do. You don't speak with Muslims on a daily basis from around the globe. I do. This evening, for example, I broke fast with a Malaysian couple, a man from Pakistan, a French convert and my wife from Morocco. Last week, it was a couple from Chad and an India Muslim.

Your Jihad is also about "holy ink, other than holy bombs, remember?

I do remember, and I'm glad you do too.

You are being a politician there. No bad intent , but you keep saying that And Andak will keep giving you his standard reply...

I guess that was meant for Ibrodsky. My opinion, Ibrodsky doesn't have a political bone in his head, at least when it comes to me. He's always said what is on his mind.

He may think that moderate Muslims are a possibility without accepting that I am one for all I know.

[humus_sapiens]

Andak,
Perhaps you are more "moderate" than the heads of 57 Moslem states who did standing ovation to Mahathir Mohammed's speech.

The Taliban, OBL, HAMAS, etc. are expanding Islam with a sword. Actually, Islamism, but it seems the majority of Muslims have mental block distinguishing the two. You are expanding Islam with a pen. They win - you benefit. You win - they benefit.

Pretending that today's Islam is not in need of deep reforms and adding fog of irrelevant quotes and idealistic propaganda puts you on the other side of the barricades, as far as I am concerned. Sorry.

[andak01]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
The Taliban, OBL, HAMAS, etc. are expanding Islam with a sword. Actually, Islamism, but it seems the majority of Muslims have mental block distinguishing the two. You are expanding Islam with a pen. They win - you benefit. You win - they benefit.

Hardly. If I had been around in Riyadh for the latest attack, I would be one of the victims. If I had been in WTC (where I did work for a short time many years ago), I'd be dead. If I had been in Bali, I'd be dead. If I had worked any of the embassy's or with the Red Cross in Baghdad, same story.

Surely you recognize that there is nothing in it for me to praise a group of people who wants to kill all Americans Muslim or not. My praise has been for the police that shoot at such people and for the judges that sentence them to death.

What's more, these groups would define me as a non-believer because of many of the things I say on this board, particularly in defense of Israel or the Jews.

The groups you mentioned don't expand Islam by one iota. And they have cost tens of thousands of Muslims their lives. Though it may confirm your worst fears to believe it, that's not where I sit.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Andak,
Perhaps you are more "moderate" than the heads of 57 Moslem states who did standing ovation to Mahathir Mohammed's speech.

The Taliban, OBL, HAMAS, etc. are expanding Islam with a sword. Actually, Islamism, but it seems the majority of Muslims have mental block distinguishing the two. You are expanding Islam with a pen. They win - you benefit. You win - they benefit.

Pretending that today's Islam is not in need of deep reforms and adding fog of irrelevant quotes and idealistic propaganda puts you on the other side of the barricades, as far as I am concerned. Sorry.

Shhhh!
The truth is dangerous and we may discourage all these 'Moderates' .... /condoners/fans.

[Communication]

This is something I prepared for a Muslim from Egypt over a year ago. I have used it many times since, because the questions she raises are taken from quotes that came from a book by a now thankfully dead Israeli named Israel Shahak, who was a lunatic and probably very well paid (by the Ford Foundation, which is somewhat of a coincidence because of reports in the news about the Ford Foundation recently). In any event, I'm posting it here for a reason and that reason is to show you what I went through having to defend Judaism against people who read in what appeared to be a perfectly scholarly study endorsed by Edward Said no less, that Judaism is a hateful religion....

*****

That is the last time I ever go on to a Muslim chatboard again. This took me FOREVER!!!!


Hanan: I am gonna name you several laws against non-jews:



Me: This took me a VERY long time! I had to consult with an Orthodox rabbi and do my own independent research. There are offensive passages in the Talmud, which more often than not reflect the personal experiences of a particular Sage (many of them were treated with great cruelty by the Romans and other non-Jews, some of them watched their teachers murdered by the Romans. This is always considered by Talmudists when analyzing the merit of a particular passage. You can see the same thing happening these days with the Muslim Clerics’ interpretations of Sharia- especially as it concerns Jews). And there are, as we know from our most recent history, some Jewish fringe groups who interpret traditional Jewish writings in a hateful, xenophobic manner. There are many mutually contradictory passages in the Talmud, and a great deal depends on methods of interpretation, including a knowledge of the allegorical usage of words. The respected Orthodox rabbis have never allowed the immoral Talmudic interpretations that some of the fanatics like Meir Kahane and his followers attribute to Judaism. Moreover, the Talmud is not unique in containing offensive material. A hostile scholar could easily produce a “Christianity Revealed” or “Islam Revealed” to provide a basis for a (similarly unjustified) anti-Christian or anti-Islmaic campaign. I have read the Koran and I have also read some recent Islamic legal opinions as they relate to infidels. The ones involving Jews are particularly offensive.


If you are interested in learning more about the Talmud, I recommend “The Encyclopedia Talmudica,” founded by Rabbi Meyer Berlin (Bar-Ilan). In it, you will be surprised to find that the Talmud teaches that non-Jews are to be loved in the same manner as Jews; in particular, robbing a non-Jew is the same as robbing a Jew; the non-Jewish sick are to be visited just as the Jewish sick; and so forth. All this is in very direct contradiction to the assertions of many anti-semites, who tells us, over and over, that all religious Jews teach hatred (and worse) of non-Jews.

So to get to your inquiries:

Hanan:
1) according to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital
offence, a Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is
however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of
Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man; whn the victim is a
Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is
guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a
court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all. (R.
Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef 'Yoreh De'ah 158.
The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victime is ger
toshav, that is a 'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three
Jewish witnesses to keep the 'seven Noahide precepts'.)

Me:
Taking the life of any human being is forbidden. The Talmud teaches that this prohibition was first declared in Genesis and applies to all mankind. Everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, commits a grievous sin if he takes the life of another human being. The Talmud teaches: "Therefore Adam was created alone in the world [i.e. humanity started from a single individual] to teach that whoever destroys one person, it is considered as if he has destroyed an entire world, and whoever saves one person, it is considered as if he has saved an entire world, and to establish peace among all creatures so that no one will say 'my ancestor was greater than your ancestor' ..." (TY Sanhedrin 22). A similar teaching regarding the enormity of the crime of murder was learned by the sages from an analysis of the biblical text describing the murder of Abel by Cain (Gen. 4:10): "The blood of your brother cries out to Me ..". The word 'blood' can be understood as plural in the original Hebrew text and the rabbis teach that the reference is to both "his [Abel's] blood and the blood of his descendants". These Talmudic teachings have been largely absorbed by all civilized nations.

What our teacher Maimonides meant when he wrote that he is not executed in a court of law is that he is nevertheless punished by Heaven. Rabbinical courts did not have authority over cases involving non-Jews. Cases involving non-Jews were tried in non-rabbinical courts, and if they did not get tired in those courts, then they were tired in heaven. Rather than allowing this murderer to receive a minor punishment, his punishment is left to Divine providence. G-d will punish this sin appropriately because it is out of the court's hands.
It may be of interest to quote the words used by the ancient rabbinical courts to caution witnesses before they testified concerning capital offenses (the following quotation is based on the Rambam, Hilchot Sanhedrin
12,3, who based his ruling on Talmudic teachings):
".. know that [in case of execution by false testimony] his blood and the blood of his descendants to the end of all time [will be upon the false testifier] ... that is why Adam was created a single person in the world to teach that whoever destroys a single person from this world is deemed to have destroyed an entire world ..... behold all people who walk on this earth were created in the form of Adam .... the faces of every one of them is different from that of his fellow man and therefore each one can say 'the world was created on my account' ..."


Hanan:
--> From booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli
Army, whose area includes the West Bank (by Chief Chaplain): "When our
forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a
raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable
of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may even
should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted,
even if he makes an impression of being civilised ... In war, when our
forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah
to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly
good."

[Communication]

Me:
Ugh! This is such dishonest! Here, I will demonstrate that in no way does the Talmud permit or encourage killing gentiles. Rather, it strictly forbids killing anyone, Jew or gentile.

What you are refering to, and I wish you would have provided me with a cite, is the following:

R. Shimon ben Yochai taught: Kill [even] the good among the gentiles. Talmud Sofrim 15:10

While this passage seems to advocate the genocide of all non-Jews, it must be remembered that this is a single passage extracted from a long and thorough study. Without seeing it in its original context, a simple reading is both incorrect and unsound scholarship, and taken out of context, is erally just an attempt to deface the message of R. Shimon ben Yochai.
The original teaching is as part of a study of the book of Exodus. At this point, the Jews have left Egypt but have not yet crossed the Sea of Reeds. The Egyptian people, after suffering through ten long and difficult plagues, have decided to pursue the Jewish people rather than let them go.
R. Shimon ben Yochai was discussing a case of war. The G-d-fearers among the Egyptians allowed their animals to be used in battle against the Jews. Presumably, these people went along with their animals and drove the chariots. Thus, the G-d-fearers, the "good" among the gentiles, were doing battle with the Jews. To this R. Shimon ben Yochai said that, when in battle, do not try to spare the lives of those opposing soldiers who are fine, upstanding people. Kill any enemy soldier, regardless of their character. This contextual approach to understanding R. Shimon ben Yochai's statement is how the post-Talmudic literature has read this statement [see Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 26b sv Velo; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:1]. Reading R. Shimon ben Yochai's teaching as a single-sentence imperative to kill all gentiles is simply wrong and is not how Jewish scholars have ever understood it.

Hanan:
2)Book of Maimonides: "As for Gentilews with whom we are not a t war
... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if
they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen
falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written:
'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' but [a Gentile] is
not thy fellow.

Me:
According to Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits- Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth), the rabbinate had ruled clearly that not only can the Sabbath be violated under such circumstances, but such violation would be a religious duty, to save a non-Jewish life no less than a Jewish life. Teshuva, December 1995, Kislev 5756)


Hanan:
Maimonides: 'and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to heal a
Gentile even for payment...'

Me:
This is on its’ face ridiculous. Maimonides was a court physician to the Saladin sultan of Egypt and Syria. Bare in mind that he treated Arab patients even though he and his family were driven from Spain after the Muslims came to power.


Hanan:
3)'A gentile woman must not be helped in childbirth on the sabbbath,
even for payment; nor must one fear hostility,even when [such help
involves] no desecration of the sabbath.' - the Shulhan 'Arukh


"It is all right to deceive Gentiles rather than treat them, so long as
'hostility' can be averted
...in modert times most Jewish dotors are NOT religious and do not even
know of these rules...

Me:
As Shmuel said: It is forbidden to deceive anyone, even an idolatrous gentile. Talmud Chullin 94a

This statement is affirmed in Maimonides' famous legal work the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Deiot 2:6) and in the Shulchan Aruch (code of law - Choshen Mishpat 228:6). The concept is evident throughout Jewish literature. A few other places where it can be found as law are: Rabbi Yom Tov ben Avraham Alashbili, Chiddushei HaRitva, Chullin ad. loc.; Rabbi Yehudah HaChasid, Sefer Chasidim, 51; Rabbi Eliezer from Metz, Sefer Yerei'im, 124; Rabbi Elazar Azkiri, Sefer Chareidim, 29:20; Rabbi Yehudah Rosannes, Derech Pekudecha, 2:36:2; Rabbi Moshe from Coucy, Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol (Smag), 1:74, 2:155; Rabbi Yonah from Gerona, Sha'arei Teshuvah (Gates of Repentance), 3:184; Rabbi Shmuel Eidels, Chiddushei Maharsha - Chiddushei Aggadot, Chullin ad. loc.
There is, perhaps, no clearer denunciation than the following of Maimonides in his commentary to the Mishnah:
And similiarly, lies, tricks, subterfuges, cheatings, and circumventions of gentiles are forbidden. They said [as quoted above] 'It is forbidden to deceive anyone, even an idolatrous gentile' and even more so when it can lead to the desecration of G-d's name. For that is a great sin and imbues in a person bad traits. And all these wicked actions G-d explained that He will be disgusted with them and with those who perform them, as it says: (Deuteronomy 18:12) "For anyone who does these is an abomination of G-d."


Hanan:
4) 'If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of
three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a
minor aged only nine years and one day - because he had wilful coitus
with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through
her a Jew got into trouble'(taken from Talmudic Encyclopedia,
Maimonides, op.cit., 'Prohibitions on Sexual Intercourse' 12, 10)


--> Gentile women are presumed to be prostitutes (Maimonides, op. cit.,
- every gentile woman is regarded as N.Sh.G.Z(slave, Gentile,
prostitute...)

Me:
I’ve never heard this and I couldn’t find anything on it. But it sounds so stupid! Moses married an Ethiopian woman. God did not rebuke Moses for this marriage to a black woman; rather, He exonerated Moses, saying, "My servant Moses . . . is faithful in ALL mine house" (Num.12:7, KJV). Moses had NOT SINNED. But God did punish Miriam and Aaron for their wrong, self-righteous attitude about Moses' marriage. "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them" (verse 9). God struck Miriam with the loathsome disease of leprosy (verse 10), and it remained on her seven days until she was forgiven her transgression (vs.11-15). When the Talmud speaks of “gentile” women, more often than not, it speaks of a specific group of women-the Hittites, Gergaes, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- the seven nations occupying Canaan (Deut.7:1). The reason for this aversion was because they had committed every possible sexual perversion and degenerative practice in the name of their gods and goddesses. So it had more to do with religion than race, and the fear that these women would turn Jewish men away from God.

Righteous gentiles have a place in the world to come.
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4 based on Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1; Talmud Sanhedrin 105a

It says (Job 37:23): "With justice and an abundance of kindness, He does not deal harshly." G-d does not withhold reward from gentiles who perform His commandments.
Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:1

I could go on and on about this last point.


Hanan:
And so forth. This is the reason why I doubt everything that you or
you-like say...

Could you please comment on that?

Me:
Enough said!

Hanan:
I can imagine how people who would read this - the non-jews - would
feel - really bad and maybe that is one of the reasons for that
'anti-semitism' as you call it.

Reason why I didn't post this on this forum is because I didn't want to
"spread the hatred" or just to be unfair - I hope you value that.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by andak01
If I had been around in Riyadh for the latest attack, I would be one of the victims. If I had been in WTC ...

And the point is...?
Please realize that they do not value human lives, their own or others', in order to instill terror and expand borders. In the name of Islam, I am forbidden to even visit Saudi Arabia - the ancient home of many Jewish tribes (RIP). Its "tolerance" prohibits us from visiting some of the holiest places to the Jews across the ME, and murders the Jews in their ancient homeland - for more than a century.

What's more, these groups would define me as a non-believer because of many of the things I say on this board, particularly in defense of Israel or the Jews.

I do appreciate that. If only it were not the Muslims in the first place to defend Israel and the Jews from!

The groups you mentioned don't expand Islam by one iota. And they have cost tens of thousands of Muslims their lives. Though it may confirm your worst fears to believe it, that's not where I sit.

See above about respect of innocent lives. So, they hijack what you stand for, and you just allow it to happen, drifting along, wherever they take you and millions like you, with no serious opposition. A few brave Muslims do fight for their faith against being hijacked, but not you. You blame and fight America and Israel with pen and perfect English.

[andak01]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
And the point is...?
Please realize that they do not value human lives, their own or others', in order to instill terror and expand borders. In the name of Islam, I am forbidden to even visit Saudi Arabia - the ancient home of many Jewish tribes (RIP). Its "tolerance" prohibits us from visiting some of the holiest places to the Jews across the ME, and murders the Jews in their ancient homeland - for more than a century.

If you read my posts, I have unswervingly committed myself to that cause. I have even come up with proofs based on the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that this should not be. I repeat those proofs frequently in front of my Muslim friends and aquaintances and have been very well received. Recently, an Indonesian man told me of his experience as a Catholic boy, of being allowed to pray with other Christians inside the mosque on the island of Sulewesi. THAT is the proper example of Islam.

I do appreciate that. If only it were not the Muslims in the first place to defend Israel and the Jews from!

Please no offense. You'll have to explain this sentence. I'm not sure I understand.

See above about respect of innocent lives. So, they hijack what you stand for, and you just allow it to happen, drifting along, wherever they take you and millions like you, with no serious opposition.

Just last week, I gave a speech in a mosque comparing Martin Luther to Ibn Taymiyah and stating that, though both were learned men, each had started a movement which spun into a great deal of anti-semitism and that said anti-semitism was a distortion of the teaching of each religion.

A few brave Muslims do fight for their faith against being hijacked, but not you. You blame and fight America and Israel with pen and perfect English.

Thanks for the compliment, I ain't done lernin' yet.

I don't fight America. Just like Islam is far more than the I/P delemma, so America is a lot more than the war on terrorism. People who believe either one of those distortions are in for a rude awakening. There are a lot of great things about this country that are being consumed in this war. I don't agree with this administration and their methods. That's a long way from being totally anti-American. And I DO blame Bin Laden, Saddam and others as well as America for causing this mess. But they don't operate in a vacuum.

World diplomacy does not now, nor did it ever consist of a war of good versus evil. That's what theocracies (almost always hypocritically) SAY they are doing. Now empires, THEY always tell you it's good versus evil.

There is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. - Benjamin Franklin

http://patriot.net/~carey/afa/latinc...tes.htm#caesar
Nam si violandum est ius, regnandi gratia violandum est: aliis rebus pietatem colas
If you must break the law do it only to seize power: in all other cases observe it.
-Cicero, De Officiis, III, 12

Nihil tam munitum qoud non expugnari pecunia possit.
No place is so strongly fortified that money could not capture it.
-In Verrem, I, ii, 4

Silent leges inter arma
In time of war the laws are silent.
-Pro Milone, 11

Miraris, cum tu argento post omnia ponas, si nemo praestet quem non merearis amorem?
Can you wonder, when you rank everything after you money, that no one renders you the love which you do not earn?
-Ibid., 86

Nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus.
We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies for them.
-Ibid., 9

Men servasse ut essent qui me perderent?
Did I save them that they might destroy me?
-Armorum iudicium

I'm really proud of the spirit of our troups, but not the reasons for which they were sent there in the first place.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by andak01
If you read my posts, I have unswervingly committed myself to that cause. I have even come up with proofs based on the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that this should not be. I repeat those proofs frequently in front of my Muslim friends and aquaintances and have been very well received. Recently, an Indonesian man told me of his experience as a Catholic boy, of being allowed to pray with other Christians inside the mosque on the island of Sulewesi. THAT is the proper example of Islam.

How idyllic! It seems Islam is some kind of all-you-can-eat buffet.

No offense Andak, but please, this is not about you. I believe your efforts are sincere and I do appreciate them. Unfortunately, Islamism shows its ugly face daily and I am sick and tired to hear Jewish children and elderly being slaughtered around the world.
"Innocent" Muslim charities being abused and money flow to terrorists at alarming rate.

As I said earlier, unless I see working vocal opposition from the inside, I remain pessimistic and the future of the most growing "religion" seems very bleak. The quotes, the speeches (directed at the Western audience) will remain an emtpy sound at best, or cloud of distractive fog otherwise.