re: #5 CuriousLurker

BTW, I didn’t say it wasn’t a Muslim issue, I said it’s not part of Islam. There’s a difference there. If a Haredi Jew attacks a secular Jew based on his interpretation of Judaism/Halacha, then it may be classified as a Jewish issue, but I think Jews would take issue with it being filed under the category of Judaism (if there were such a category). I could be wrong though.

I see the difference and I understand its importance. I also understand the sensitivity to the issue; clearly, to you it is not “part of Islam” (at least as far as I understand Islam, which I admit is not very far). Personally, if a Haredi Jew attacks a secular Jew for solely religious reasons, I cannot see any way around filing it under “Judaism”. All that underscores is that there are many viewpoints under the umbrella of a single religion, along with extremism, zealotry and intolerance to the point of violence. When ultra-Orthodox Jews spit on women praying at the Western Wall in a way the ultras disapprove, it is a Jewish issue, and viewed by some of the parties as reflecting values that are “part of Judaism”. It is a question of perspective. I would prefer that Judaism be interpreted as more inclusive, and would claim that the actions of the Haredim in this instance are “not part of Judaism”. They, however, would disagree.

Similarly, I would much prefer to believe that the actions described in the article are not “part of Islam” from any Muslim’s point of view; however, I am not sure that is true.