Pages

Jump to bottom

33 comments

1 CuriousLurker  Aug 8, 2014 1:40:03pm

Thanks for posting this. I read it yesterday, but didn’t want to Page it because I wasn’t in the mood to deal with any potential fallout.

2 Retrograde  Aug 8, 2014 3:54:01pm

Harris doesn’t get it all wrong . Nor does Cohen get it all right .

3 wrenchwench  Aug 8, 2014 3:59:57pm

re: #2 Retrograde

Harris doesn’t get it all wrong . Nor does Cohen get it all right .

Care to go into detail?

4 Retrograde  Aug 8, 2014 6:29:19pm

re: #3 wrenchwench

You can start here with what Cohen gets wrong and what Harris gets right .

peacewithrealism.org

The notion that anti-semtism or if you will muslim animus towards jews came on the heels of any European incursion , or interference is simply not true . And in the 19 th Century ? Seriously ?
I would also question the last paragraph in Randall’s post re: Bernard Lewis , the sentence seems a bit confused , he agrees wth “severe criticism ” of Lewis’ book ,yet affirms Lewis’ alleged contention that any hatred in Islam for Jews or Judaism is “simply a falsehood ” .

5 Retrograde  Aug 8, 2014 6:32:54pm

Check my last sentence /should be :
any inherent hatred within Islam for Judaism or Jews is simply a falsehood.

6 stuart3e  Aug 8, 2014 8:25:19pm

The linked article refers to Marc Cohen, but it is not by him. It is by Ussaid Siddiqui who presents a confused and, at least in part, dishonest attack on Harris. Siddiqui writes that the Hamas Charter “allegedly” advocates the destruction of Israel and asserts, to refute Harris, “before the [2006] parliamentary elections, Hamas removed the call to destroy Israel from their charter.” (emphasis added)

Siddiqui accuses Harris of discount[ing]” this. With good reason since it didn’t happen.

The omission was only in the Hamas electoral platform. Hamas has not altered, changed, or amended its charter.

Confusing the Hamas Charter and its election manifesto is a an elementary mistake that a competent journalist would not make and which a reputable website like Religious Dispatches should have caught.

Also, Siddiqui writes that Christians make up nearly 20 percent of the Palestinian population. In fact, according to wikipedia, the figure is 6 percent.

More on my blog. newappeal.blogspot.com

7 CuriousLurker  Aug 8, 2014 9:08:54pm

re: #3 wrenchwench

A small selection—apart from the usual links to CAMERA & MEMRI—from the “Useful Web Sites” on the site he linked to:

IV. Education and Research
Dhimmitude: The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule - A website registered to Bat Ye’or, a woman who clearly despised Muslims and was a hero to many of our current anti-Muslim hate bloggers

V. News Magazines and Journals
National Review - LGF links with the National Review tag
World Net Daily - LGF links with the World Net Daily tag
Jewish World Review - Check out their “columnists”—it’s wingnut central

VI. Advocacy
[A couple of dozen hasbara sites…]

XIII. Columnists
Daniel Pipes
Dennis Prager
Mark Steyn
[Lots of other wingnuts…]

There’s lots more stuff, precious little of it from any actual observant, moderate Muslims, and nothing at all from any currently recognized American Muslim scholars. That should be more than enough for anyone to get the general gist of the site.

Oh, and the Contributors page makes claims that can’t be verified and the domain’s whois info is hidden by “private registration”.

I wonder if there’s any connection to the other clique that recently appeared…

8 Retrograde  Aug 8, 2014 9:17:37pm

Ah , now that’s more like it . [ all of the above ]

9 Retrograde  Aug 8, 2014 9:28:25pm

The Hamas Covenant is quite clear as to it’s intention regarding Israel and the Jews . It speaks for itself .

10 Charles Johnson  Aug 8, 2014 9:28:46pm

Robert Spencer and Ali Sina.

11 Retrograde  Aug 9, 2014 7:11:09am

An argument just ain’t an argument unless it’s rife with misinformation and opinion . Spencer drifted off the edge long ago . OHS will do that .. In debate , facts now take a back seat .

12 Charles Johnson  Aug 9, 2014 7:31:52am

It’s true that this piece blatantly misrepresents the Hamas charter. It has not been changed.

13 Retrograde  Aug 9, 2014 10:47:40am

Nor has the Palestinian National Charter which more or less states the same .

14 Retrograde  Aug 9, 2014 10:52:09am

In this respect Hamas =Fatah=PLO +Hezbollah Proclamation = Hamas .
Same song different singers .

15 CuriousLurker  Aug 9, 2014 12:29:10pm

Let’s leave aside Harris’ oft-demonstrated anti-Muslim bias and ignorant misrepresentation of Islamic concepts, and focus instead on what he says about Israel. Everyone defending Harris has taken the time to read the entire original article posted on his website, right?

So can we assume that you also agree with this (emphasis added)?

I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible. [Note: Read this paragraph again.]

And this?

Needless to say, in defending its territory as a Jewish state, the Israeli government and Israelis themselves have had to do terrible things. They have, as they are now, fought wars against the Palestinians that have caused massive losses of innocent life. More civilians have been killed in Gaza in the last few weeks than militants. That’s not a surprise because Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Occupying it, fighting wars in it, is guaranteed to get woman and children and other noncombatants killed. And there’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies. [Note: I was not giving Israel a pass to commit war crimes. I was making a point about the realities of living under the continuous threat of terrorism and of fighting multiple wars in a confined space.]

Harris also fails to make any distinction between innocent Palestinian civilians and members of terrorist groups such as Hamas:

The Palestinians built tunnels through which they could carry out terror attacks and kidnap Israelis.

If someone spoke about Israelis in the same manner there would be much vociferous protest and cries of antisemitism, but when it’s Palestinians? Crickets—the moral outrage suddenly disappears.

I’ll just leave it at that for now.

16 Charles Johnson  Aug 9, 2014 1:41:22pm

I think the piece linked above makes some very good points in response to Sam Harris. But I’m a bit disturbed at what appears to be an attempt to mislead people about the Hamas charter. Quote:

He discounts the fact that in 2006, before the parliamentary elections, Hamas removed the call to destroy Israel from their charter.

That is simply not true at all.

17 CuriousLurker  Aug 9, 2014 2:30:12pm

re: #16 Charles Johnson

As we’ve discussed before before, I don’t think people thoroughly read everything they reference, nor do they attempt to verify facts.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, about which Wikipedia says:

Representatives of pro-Israel organizations have criticized the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs as being aligned with the Arab lobby and as “anti-Israel”. […]

en.wikipedia.org

Has nonetheless quoted senior Hamas leader Khaled Meshal as saying:

When Pastor asked about the Hamas Charter, Meshal replied that it is a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons. […]

wrmea.com

So it’s pretty clear that the charter has not been changed.

It’s really not all that difficult or time-consuimg to find this info, but I suspect advocates on both sides are simply cherry pick the bits that will fit their narratives, knowing that most people aren’t going to spend time validating the info or seeking context.

18 CuriousLurker  Aug 9, 2014 2:40:23pm

Below is a link to an article at The Christian Science Monitor published on February 7, 2012 that offers a basic overview of Hamas by briefly answering the following 5 questions:

1. What are the origins of Hamas?
2. What does Hamas believe?
3. What is Hamas’s relationship with Fatah?
4. How big is Hamas’s power base?
5. What could reconciliation mean for Hamas?

csmonitor.com

19 goddamnedfrank  Aug 9, 2014 4:00:35pm

[deleted]

Why can’t I ever remember which window I have open.

20 CuriousLurker  Aug 9, 2014 4:05:36pm

re: #19 goddamnedfrank

[deleted]

Why can’t I ever remember which window I have open.

LOLOLOL, I’m subscribed to “all comments” for this thread and when I got the email with your original comment, it was like: Wuuuut? *blink*

21 Retrograde  Aug 9, 2014 4:46:23pm

Harris is obviously suffering from mixed emotions . Sorta like a love /hate thing . One thing is for sure , Yes the Hamas Charter has not been changed or altered in the least bit way . So too the Palestinian National Charter of which the language to be removed as a First step by the Palestinains in Oslo has never been altered , even after three votes in the Palestinian National Council rejecting any change in the language calling for Israel’s Destruction . And that really kind of sums up the situation past, present, and more likely than not ,the foreseeable future . There are and will be apologists for both sides and then there is the reality of the truth , the undeniable facts .

22 CuriousLurker  Aug 9, 2014 5:03:45pm

LOL, oh, I see—Harris is just suffering from “mixed emotions”. Let’s ignore his bigotry, which is what the post was originally about, and focus on how awful Hamas is, because that’s always a convenient diversion.

How many times have we seen this tactic before? 10? 100? 1000?

*SMH*

23 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Aug 9, 2014 5:47:46pm

re: #21 Retrograde

What do you think he loves/hates?

24 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator  Aug 10, 2014 12:41:52am

re: #15 CuriousLurker

Regardless of any other debates here: of course no state should be organized around any religion.

25 CuriousLurker  Aug 10, 2014 10:23:27am

re: #24 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator

I’m going to assume you mean a modern democracy, or to be more accurate a constitutional republic (as we understand/define “republic” here in the U.S.) I don’t know a lot about other countries’ laws, so I’ll use the U.S. since that’s what I’m most familiar with.

We’re often told that Israel is “like us” in that it’s a democracy, but it really isn’t. Sure, it’s more like us than many/most of its Mideast neighbors, but there is no religious (or ethnic identity) requirement for someone to become an American. Not so in Israel—as I understand it, there are restrictions on who can make aliyah that are based on halakhic definitions of Jewishness determined by the Chief Rabbinate (e.g. matrilineal descent, formal conversion & observance, etc.)

There’s also the issue of laws regarding marriage, divorce, etc. with the current Israeli ones being based on the Ottoman millet marriage system, in which the religious authorities of each community dictate marriage & divorce laws. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, which says it takes its info from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Religious court verdicts are implemented and enforced - as for the civil court system - by the police, bailiff’s office, and other agencies.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org

There are no civil marriages to speak of, however if two people are both both registered as officially not belonging to any religion, then a civil marriage can be performed. Additionally, Jews aren’t allowed to marry non-Jews (in Israel—AFAIK civil marriages between heterosexual couples performed outside Israel are recognized). More marriage info is available from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv.

IMO, Israel would not be able to maintain it’s identity as a Jewish state if there were a strict separation of church & state there. Sure there may be non-observant secular Jews or even atheists who identify themselves as ethnically Jewish, but I think the religion of Judaism is too intricately entwined with Zionism and the state of Israel to allow it to be completely separated from either one in any meaningful political way.

Note: FWIW, the reason I’m interested in how Israel handles things is because (as a Muslim) I’m curious to see if a state that identifies itself with a specific religion can successfully pull off being considered a modern democratic/constitutional republic. I’m guessing probably not.

26 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator  Aug 10, 2014 11:18:12am

re: #25 CuriousLurker

I’m aware of all these issues. Israel more or less succeeds in functioning as a quasi-secular (imperfect) democracy exactly because it is built on an ethnocultural identity (Jews as a people) first and religious identity second. And it is the religious element that causes most problems - such as the issue of secular marriages that you mention, the issue of having several fundamentalist, hate-spewing rabbis on the state payroll and so on - funnily enough, some of the “bad far right guys” of the Israeli political scene (like Lieberman) have some right ideas about making Israel more secular - such as, indeed, introducing secular marriages.

So of course there is an unfortunate mix of religion and state in Israel, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy per se, only that it is an imperfect one, and thankfully not irreparably so.

Would the full separation of religion and state mean that - as Harris writes - Israel should not be a Jewish state? No, I don’t think so. I never use the phrase “the Jewish state” because I find it extremely ambiguous. But if it is taken to mean a “state, the basis of which is constituted by the Jewish people”, that is, in a descriptive, rather than prescriptive sense, then it’s simply analogous to the way in which France is an “[ethnic] French state” or Germany is an “[ethnic] German state”. It doesn’t mean that ethnic Jewish (French, German, …) citizens have some official privileges over other groups - that would be racist. It only means that such a state takes ethnocultural factors into account when dealing with:

1. language policy; language X is the main/state language of “state X”. Israel is actually quite liberal in this respect, because it has Arabic as a state language, alongside Hebrew.

2. immigration policy; since this policy concerns non-citizens, the criteria for immigration can be ethnicity/language/religion/ideology-based without necessarily being bigoted. Germany provides an easy path to citizenship for ethnic Germans from all around the world; Israel provides a more or less automatic citizenship to Jews (in all senses) as well as to many non-Jews (those with Jewish ancestors, close non-Jewish members of the family of a person making aliyah etc.). All of this doesn’t contradict democratic, secular principles.

3. cultural/educational policies. Any “nation-state” has a right to “focus” these policies according to the standards of the majority. I.e. I expect that in Italian schools children will learn in Italian language and during lessons the focus will be on the Italian history, literature and so on. Of course, certain exceptions can be made for minorities, etc.

I think this is what - admittedly very roughly - constitutes a modern “nation-state”. In this sense there is no contradiction between Israel being a “Jewish state”, and it (potentially) being a fully secular, democratic state. Moreover, I don’t think a fully secular Israel would be all that much different from Israel today (only better). It would have no more problem maintaining its identity than any European state. Therefore I stand by the principle that I expressed above.

27 CuriousLurker  Aug 10, 2014 11:44:22am

re: #26 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator

Interesting. I’ll have to re-read what you wrote a few times and then think about it some more. So then, technically speaking, provided that a state followed the principles you outlined above, then that fully secular, democratic state, could also identify itself as a specifically “Islamic state” or “Christian state” without any…what’s the word I’m, looking for… I guess I mean without a sort of national “cognitive dissonance”?

I dunno, like I said I have to ponder it some more. My American “melting pot” outlook is very uncomfortable with the ideas in your #2 as I cannot imagine the U.S. calling itself a “Christian state”, even though the majority of the country is indeed “ethnoculturally” Christian. (FYI, I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that concept WRT to religion—i.e. if it’s not specifically religious in practice, then why associate it with a specific religion to begin with? It makes my head hurt just to think about it.)

28 CuriousLurker  Aug 10, 2014 11:54:33am

re: #26 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator

So of course there is an unfortunate mix of religion and state in Israel, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy per se, only that it is an imperfect one, and thankfully not irreparably so.

P.S. Before anyone jumps on this, I want to make it clear that at no point did I claim that Israel wasn’t a democracy, only that it was not “like us” (America) in terms of separation of church & state.

29 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator  Aug 10, 2014 12:01:51pm

re: #27 CuriousLurker

In a descriptive, demographic sense US is indeed a Christian state. It’s just a fact, and the one that doesn’t oblige anyone to anything. But since there is no such thing as a “Christian people” (ethnos), there is no analogy with the “Jewish state” in the sense, in which I used it above. Neither is there an “Islamic people” (as such; there are various peoples who are, statistically speaking, Islamic).

So, no, there cannot be a democratic, secular “Christian state” or “Islamic state” in the sense in which there can be a democratic secular “Jewish state” as per my description above. But one state that at least until recently used to be more or less democratic, secular as well as demographically Islamic is Turkey.

30 CuriousLurker  Aug 10, 2014 12:26:24pm

re: #29 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator

Okay, see this is where I get tripped up. To borrow from Wikipedia, which is my understanding of what you mean when you say “ethnos” or “ethnocultural”:

An ethnicity, or ethnic group, is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, myth of origins, history, homeland, language (dialect), or even ideology, and manifests itself through symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc.

en.wikipedia.org

Diaspora Jews have tended to blend in to the various non-Jewish nations in which they lived. For example, I can meet someone who’s Jewish and never even be aware of it if they don’t mention it or have an obviously Jewish last name—we will have a shared language, homeland/national experience, etc. The only thing in which we significantly differ would be out religious beliefs & practices. If both of us were 100% secular, then the differences in religious beliefs & practices would be non-existent and therefore irrelevant.

How are disapora Jews any different in this sense than Muslims or Christians? Why can they be considered part of a “people” but Christians & Muslims can’t? So an Ethiopian Jew and a Polish Jew are part of the same “people”, but an Ethiopian Muslim and a Bosnian Muslim are not part of the same “people”? I know I’m probably trying your patience, but that just doesn’t make sense to me.

31 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator  Aug 10, 2014 3:20:02pm

re: #30 CuriousLurker

Of course, I don’t have the final answers, but the topic is worth discussing so I hope you’ll forgive me a bit more verbosity ;)

While ethnicity is not 100% defined by shared ancestry (obviously), I don’t think there can be an ethnos without significant shared ancestry (statistically speaking; obviously, individual members can belong to an ethnos while having purely “outside” roots; but it’s more of an exception to the rule; also, obviously, members sharing ancestry can “fall away” from an ethnos, e.g. through full assimilation into some other ethnos). Ethnicity is thus a complex interplay between ancestry and culture/self-identification (as well as mutual acceptance). Thus it is understandably hard to define and analyze, and things can get pretty subjective.

Nevertheless, to the question of the Ethiopian Jews.
The example itself is more or less an outlier, and one can always find some outliers which “stretch” the rule. It’s an outlier because of when exactly the Ethiopian Jews became isolated from the main group, which influenced both the very different religious development throughout the centuries and the apparently high level of “mixing” with the non-Jewish Ethiopians. Indeed, the question of the “authenticity” of the Ethiopian Jews, of their Jewish ancestry used to be a controversial topic in Israel. However, that the question of ancestry arose at all, and was so important, underscores what I wrote above.

(Side note: when dealing with hard-to-define concepts, it is always more instructive to first compare not outliers but rather representative examples. In case of Jews it is, I think, crystal clear why e.g. Sephardim and Ashkenazim think of themselves as one people.)

From what I know, the latest analyses confirmed the descent of Ethiopian Jews from ancient Israelites (this need not be an exclusive descent). So, Ethiopian Jews and Polish Jews share ancestry and/or (with maybe some exceptions) at least believe that they share ancestry; they also think of themselves as one people. Bosnian Muslims and Ethiopian Muslims don’t share ancestry. I’m also not sure they think of themselves as one people in the same sense of the word as Jews do. Is the concept of Ummah similar enough?

If we were to assume that a) ancestry doesn’t matter after all, b) the Ummah concept does establish a sort of a Muslim “peoplehood”, then we can accept the existence of a Muslim people as such (not sure this has been done before). In such a case there can be a democratic, fully secular “Muslim state” in the same sense in which there can be a democratic, fully secular “Jewish state”.

32 CuriousLurker  Aug 10, 2014 5:33:00pm

re: #31 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator

Of course, I don’t have the final answers, but the topic is worth discussing so I hope you’ll forgive me a bit more verbosity ;)

There’s nothing to forgive—thanks for taking the time to answer so thoroughly!

I wasn’t aware that there was any controversy over the Ethiopian Jews or I wouldn’t have used them as an example, they were just the first ones I thought of where they would have both Muslims & Jews and be very far removed (culturally, geographically, and linguistically) from European Muslims & Jews.

Muslims don’t really see themselves as sharing ancestry in the same way Jews do, assuming that Ethiopian Jews believe they have a traceable blood ancestry. That said, unity or tawhid is the central defining concept of Islam—the unity/singularity of God, unity of creation & humankind, and the unity of the Ummah. In fact, praying towards Mecca and going there for Hajj is symbolic of that unity. Every Muslim man is to be considered my “brother” and every Muslim woman my “sister”, and we’re supposed to always greet another Muslim with “assalaamu aleikum”, even if it’s a total stranger on the street.

Of course, in practice that doesn’t always happen (it’s more common among converts IMO, maybe because they feel a bit more enthusiastic). In any event the original Muslim Arabs saw themselves as sharing a common ancestor with Jews in Ibrahim (Abraham), and all Muslims, Jews, and Christians—actually, all humans period—would share a common ancestry with Adam. Tha’ts why humans are often referred to as Bani Adam (The “tribe” or children/sons of Adam).

LOL, now that I’ve totally muddied the waters, I’m going to go back and read what you wrote again before I get ready for bed.

33 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator  Aug 11, 2014 12:52:12am

re: #32 CuriousLurker

PS to the whole discussion: I try to avoid the “such-and-such state” labels because I think that any state should be, first and foremost, a state of its citizens. That is why I also insist on secularity, democracy etc. - all the factors that expand the inclusiveness (as it pertains to the citizens). Russia should be a state of the Russian citizens (be they Russians or Ukrainians, Eastern Orthodox, Jews or Muslims, …), Israel - the state of Israelis (Jews, Arabs, Druze, Bedouin…), and so on.

This does not contradict a possible role of a nation-state in preserving/supporting the majority ethnic group in the (hopefully) non-discriminatory way outlined above (through language, cultural, educational, immigration policies).


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 469 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1