Racism from high ranking Rabbis across Israel who are stating that racism is a part of Judaism and Jews shouldn’t rent apartments to Arabs. Imagine if they were Muslim?
We must also take note of those voices speaking out against such rhetoric and pronouncements because many are opposed to the language used by these Rabbis.
Top rabbis move to forbid renting homes to Arabs, say ‘Israel belongs to Jews’
(Haaretz)
A number of leading rabbis who signed on to a religious ruling to forbid renting homes to gentiles – a move particularly aimed against Arabs – defended their decision on Tuesday with the declaration that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews.
Dozens of Israel’s municipal chief rabbis signed on to the ruling, which comes just months after the chief rabbi of Safed initiated a call urging Jews to refrain from renting or selling apartments to non-Jews.
Signatories include the chief rabbis of Ramat Hasharon, Ashdod, Kiryat Gat, Rishon Letzion, Carmiel, Gadera, Afula, Nahariya, Herzliya, Nahariya and Pardes Hannah, among a number of other cities.
“We don’t need to help Arabs set down roots in Israel,” Rabbi Shlomo Aviner of the Beit El settlement, said on Tuesday. Aviner explained that he supported the move for two reasons: one, a Jew looking for an apartment should get preference over a gentile; and two, to keep the growing Arab population from settling too deeply.
“Racism originated in the Torah,” said Rabbi Yosef Scheinen, who heads the Ashdod Yeshiva. “The land of Israel is designated for the people of Israel. This is what the Holy One Blessed Be He intended and that is what the [sage] Rashi interpreted.”
He added that he did not see the move as racist so much as segregationist. “The world is so big and the State of Israel is small, that God intended it for the people of Israel and the whole world covets it. That is the injustice.”
Upon news of the religious ruling, Meretz faction whip Ilan Ghilon immediately asked the attorney general to dismiss each of the rabbis who had signed their names.
“We are witnessing an epidemic of racism and xenophobia and we must act firmly,” he said.
Deputy Knesset chairman MK Ahmed Tibi decried the letter as a “mass crime [committed] by a group of racist rabbis who should be given intensive course in Jewish history.”
The entire group should be tried for “incitement to racism,” added Tibi, “Muslim clerics have recently been tried or fired from their jobs for much less but the rabbis are able to pursue their unruly behavior without concern.
Haifa Mayor Yonah Yahav termed the ruling the “real desecration of God’s name. It is bringing hatred against those with whom we have chosen to live our lives.”
Nazareth Mayor Ramiz Jaraisy also decried the moving, declaring that “whoever thinks it damages one side is mistaken. We are all children of the land. Both nations must search for common ground and not bring about escalation.”
In their ruling, the rabbis called on the religious community to voice support Safed Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who could face trial for incitement against Arabs for initiating the move against renting to gentiles.
Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman has also asked Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman to begin the process of suspending Eliyahu immediately from his post as municipal rabbi.
Politicos from the national religious sector believe that the mass of prominent figures who signed on to the ruling – all of whose salaries are paid by public funds – will send a message to the attorney general to take Eliyahu’s position seriously.
The rabbis’ letter prompted by Eliyahu, which was first published months ago and reprinted in October, urges Jewish owners of apartments to reconsider renting their properties to Arabs since it would deflate the value of their homes as well as those in the neighborhood.
“Their way of life is different than that of Jews,” the letter stated. “Among [the gentiles] are those who are bitter and hateful toward us and who meddle into our lives to the point where they are a danger.”
The rabbis also urge neighbors of anyone renting or selling property to Arabs to caution that person. After delivering the warning, the neighbor is then encouraged to issue notices to the general public and inform the community.
“The neighbors and acquaintances [of a Jew who sells or rents to an Arab] must distance themselves from the Jew, refrain from doing business with him, deny him the right to read from the Torah, and similarly [ostracize] him until he goes back on this harmful deed,” the letter reads.
December 7th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
The truth comes out eventually.
———————————-
Not related to this article.
What if they were muslim: Attackers set kindergarten ablaze in Mexican border city http://goo.gl/lsRbP
December 7th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
These Rabbis are part of the mainstream Orthodoxy and many lay people know that what they say is essentially a tenent of their faith, we have to empower those voices who oppose this and counter it with other interpretations that are pluralistic and non-discriminatory.
December 7th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
It’s good to see the condemnation in Israel that this generated…but it’s frightening that members of a group that so very recently faced such intense racism and hatred should practice it themselves.
It’s Loons like these that feed hatred on both sides.
December 7th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Emperor,
The question is, is this only news because Israel claims to be a democracy? Would it even be news if it were a theocracy?
This raises the questions, if Israel were a theocracy would the secular elite who rule Israel be able to questions the Rabbi’s rulings? or would they be more acceptable because Israel is a theocracy?
another subject it raises is, how does this square with Mecca and Medina, two theocracies, where non Muslims are not even allowed to enter leave alone rent? or live? If Muslims condemn this, how then can they justify their own religious segregation in the Holy cities?
Does anyone know, in Vatican city, are non Catholics allowed to buy? or rent property? To my knowledge they are not.
To say that racism began in the Torah, (where God did tell the believers to segregate themselves from unbelievers) raises the troubling questions of other religions. Does it mean that racism in this case religious segregation is called racism, also ends with the Torah? or does it continue in Christianity, Bahaism, Druzizm, Islam?
The Druze do not even allow any kind of conversion to their religion. They’re a mix of Jewish and Islamic religon, and where as Judaism does accept converts, and actively converts non Monontheists to the Noachide laws, the Druze do not allow ANYONE to convert to their religon. Do we have any Druzim here? What about the Muslim laws that ban Muslim women from marrying non Muslim men?
I mean where religion is concerned, where does condemnation begin, and where does it end, when it comes to religious segregation,
If we have any imam’s or senior religous figures here, i’d appreciate some responses. Thanks.
December 7th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
“O people, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognize one another. In God’s eyes, the most honoured of you are the ones most mindful of Him: God is all knowing, all aware.”
[Surat al-Hujjurat 49:13]
“Say [Prophet], ‘You who follow the Jewish faith, if you truly claim that out of all people you alone are friends of God, then you should be hoping for death.’ But because of what they have stored up for themselves with their own hands they would never hope for death; God knows the wrongdoers very well.”
[Surat al-Jumuah 62:6-7]
December 7th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
BMD,
“How does this square with Mecca and Medina?”
Racism has nothing to do here with whether one can enter Mecca or Medina. The Rabbis are claiming one cannot rent in Safed to an Arab because he is not Jewish, i.e. it is about “ethnicity,” a Jew who may not believe in Judaism or practice it but is one due to birth and his bloodline would be able to rent, not the case for an Arab.
Mecca and Medina on the other hand, at least those portions that are considered sacred “Haraam” are not disallowed to people based on race but on belief.
December 7th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
@ Beautiful Muslim Doll
Mecca and Medina are pilgrimage sites for Muslims so it is perfectly fair to prevent non-Muslims from coming to the city to proselytize; there is no reason to come to Mecca or Medina unless you are a Muslim pilgrim. It is a special circumstance only for Mecca and Medina. Conversely, there is no reason for a Muslim to go to the Vatican or the Western Wall to cause trouble. Every religion should be allowed to have their sacred spaces where they can worship without activists coming to cause trouble.
As for Jerusalem, each faith should have its sacred spaces in the city respected. These racist rabbis don’t want Arabs in the entire country even though Arabs have lived there for hundreds of years, and they believe they are superior to the Arabs on the basis of RACE.
Prophet Muhammad explicitly forbade racism: “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.”
[Farewell Sermon]
December 7th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
BMD – Racism started when Cain killed Abel (or is it the other way around). But to claim it is a high ideal to be upheld by a religion is wrong.
Ideally, as Muslims belong to all races and the Prophet Muhammad specifically condemned preference based on race – there should be no racism among Muslims.
However in reality, Muslims take on the cultural color of the land where they live and incorporate some of these prejudices. For instance, there has been a historical (and misplaced) deference shown to Arabs for their language and as being from the same land as the Prophet Muhammad. Or in India where some Muslims not only condone untouchability but actively practice it as well. Variants of the caste system still exist in pockets of Pakistan (an Islamic country). And then there is the uber-nationalism of the Persians, Egyptians and Turks.
PS: I am not a religious figure. Just thought about it for a while
December 7th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Schmorgus
“Racism has nothing to do here with whether one can enter Mecca or Medina. The Rabbis are claiming one cannot rent in Safed to an Arab because he is not Jewish, i.e. it is about “ethnicity,” a Jew who may not believe in Judaism or practice it but is one due to birth and his bloodline would be able to rent, not the case for an Arab.”
Are you saying that if they called it religous segregation instead it is more acceptable? They said gentiles, which means non Jews, and no it’s not just an ethnicity, otherwise, Jews wouldn’t be all colours and races. That is rather a lame arguements that anti Zionists use to justify their stance. I’m not saying you’re doing that here, but your assertion here is incorrect, because those gentiles or “Arabs” as you said, (though not what the Rabbi’s said) converted to Judaism would they be able to rent? If the answer is yes, then it’s not an “ethnic” problem, it’s a religious one. They would be able to, which nullifies that argument.
As for the Jews being secular and non practicing that doesn’t mean they’re non Jews, Secular Muslims who are non practicing are still Muslims, and can enter Mecca and Medina, an onlooker can complain it’s due to their “muslim blood” and it’s racism, but it’s not, it’s due to their Muslim faith, ie. even someone like Asra Nomani can enter Mecca and Medina.
December 7th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
BMD,
There is a difference which you seem to be underplaying, Jews who are merely “non-practicing” can still be Orthodox, that isn’t the comparison. There are Jews who don’t believe in G-d, they don’t believe in Judaism, take Bernard Henri-Levy, for them it is a culture, an ethnicity of descent from specific tribes or people. Bernard Henri-Levy would be able to rent whereas an Arab (gentile) would not be able to rent in Safed.
Every religion whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism has its sacred places which are centers for their faith community, these are spaces that are exceptional in which access is only given to those who are believers.
The problem in Israel doesn’t exist in Mecca or Medina, these are not places that have living generations that were ousted from their ancestral homes, lands, etc. and in which a current conflict is raging and where land is being appropriated and annexed and cantonized.
Furthermore, the point is Israel does not claim to be a theocracy, it is a Democracy with laws and regulations against discrimination so your quibbling is a mute point. In fact Israel apologists are the foremost of those who parlay Israel and Judaism as a standard for the world when in fact they are not as this case exemplifies.
One point that one does not convert, to Judaism, there is no word in Judaism for convert. Instead to phrase the Lubavitchers, Ger means one who “joins the Jewish people.” http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3002/jewish/How-Does-One-Convert-to-Judaism.htm
December 7th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
I fail to see the moral equivocation between Muslims protecting their holy sites from troublemakers and Israelis ethnically cleansing indigenous Arabs from their homes through grave breaches of international law.
December 7th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Sometimes, BMD, it is better to not say anything so that pointless arguments dont begin. Having said that, you’re probably going to start something anyway so I’m kind if afraid of leaving a comment about this article because you’re going to over analyse it and challenge every minute detail for absolutely no point.
Here the Rabbi says it’s okay to not rent to someone, only becuause they are Arab. That’s racism. I don’t see what the problem is with that statement but you probably will find one
December 7th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
By the way, a good comparison for the Mecca situation is the Holy of Holies in the Jewish temple in which only the High Priest could enter. Normal Jews or Gentiles were forbidden from entering their sacred place.
December 7th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Fool. What is he talking about, ‘setting down roots in Israel’? Palestinian Arabs have only been living on that land for over a millennium.
December 7th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
WTF?!
December 7th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Justin
“I fail to see the moral equivocation between Muslims protecting their holy sites from troublemakers and Israelis ethnically cleansing indigenous Arabs from their homes through grave breaches of international law.”
Muslims protected their holy sites, by relocating all the INDEIGENOUS non Muslims from Mecca and Medina.
All of Israel (according to Torah) is a Holy site for Jews. Some of the laws they were given on Sinai are only binding in Israel, they can only really practice their religion in Israel not in the Galut.
December 7th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Mosizzle
“Here the Rabbi says it’s okay to not rent to someone, only becuause they are Arab. That’s racism. I don’t see what the problem is with that statement but you probably will find one”
it’s a false accusation.
The problem with that is because it’s not about race, or rather because they are Arabs, but because they see them as linked to their external enemies who don’t recognise their right to a state. That is not racism, that is fear, and one could argue understandable.
That’s not to say I condone, the ban of course, as the more sensible Rabbi’s have said, it doesn’t have to mean that, i’m just saying it’s linked to the bigger problem of them thinking Arabs won’t accept them as a nation and want to annihilate them.
That is very different to plain racism.
December 7th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
It’s racism with a reason. It doesn’t change the fact it was racism. Nazis were racist agianst the Jews because they did fear them as external enemies and that does not justify their racism. They are still racist. (I’m not comparing between Nazis and Israel). Many Muslims are anti-semitic because they link all Jews with Israel and their actions against the Palestinians and that doesn’t excuse their anti-semitism.
“That’s not to say I condone, the ban of course, as the more sensible Rabbi’s have said, it doesn’t have to mean that, i’m just saying it’s linked to the bigger problem of them thinking Arabs won’t accept them as a nation and want to annihilate them.”
That’s my point. If you agree with what everyone is saying why do you have to over-analyse what we say and cause a big fuss over technicalities.Nobody’s perfect. We say “its racism” you say “no its racism for a reason”. Why waste everyone’s time with an argument that doesn’t need to happen.
December 7th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
I’m certainly no Muslim ‘scholar’ or Imam; I’m just a neophyte in understanding Islam – though since January of this year, most of my time has been spent reading from Muslim sites and books (including especially the Qur’an). From what I’ve been able to discern, during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), there was no religious segregation in Medina or Mecca – and it does not even appear to have been envisioned. So I’m not at all sure that present day religious discrimination in those cities is at all defensible.
With regard to “Israel” and Jerusalem, however, it must always be kept in mind that Zionist Jews have stolen that land from its rightful inhabitants, forcing them out of the homes they inhabited, and viciously murdering many of them. To speak of preventing the non-Jewish Palestinians from “taking roots” in the area is the height of absurdity, since it is the Zionists Jews who are dispossessing the lawful Palestinian inhabitants and are themselves seeking to “take root” where they have no lawful right.
Some of the most vehement and outspoken opponents of the “state of Israel”, and defenders of the Palestinians, are in fact Orthodox Jews. Many (if not most) religious Jews insist that seeking to form a Jewish state in Palestine or anywhere else is an insult to God and the Torah. They acknowledge that it was God who kicked them out of the land for their sins; and it is not their right to seek to take it back until God Himself restores the land to them without any intervention on their part. God (according to Orthodox Jewish theology) will restore the Jewish nation to its glory when He sends Messiah – at which time not only will Jewish glory be restored, but the glory of God will fill the whole earth. Until Messiah comes (in Jewish theology) the Jewish people must humbly submit to God’s chastisement and not seek to return to their land. Judaism not only MAY be practiced outside the land of Palestine and Jerusalem; it MUST be so practiced until God Himself restores them to their land by sending Messiah. And non-religious Jews have no claim at all to God’s blessing in the land, because only those who are of the FAITH of Abraham are the recipients of the blessings of Abraham.
Therefore, these Orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism actively pray for the dissolution of the Israeli state, and support the Palestinian cause against the Israeli atrocities. I would give you links to several sites of Jews against Zionism, but I understand my comment won’t go through if I attempt that. So I’ll give you one site as a ‘fer instance’: http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm It makes for very interesting reading for those who think that Jews just naturally support “Israel” and despise the Palestinians.
Thankfully, the article made it clear that those 50 Rabbis don’t represent the generality of Jews.
December 7th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
@ Beautiful Muslim Doll
Those indigenous non-Muslims were relocated away from Mecca and Medina because they plotted with the Quraysh to annihilate the early Muslim community. Why are you making ignorant arguments akin to Robert Spencer?
December 7th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
“schmorgus Says:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
These Rabbis are part of the mainstream Orthodoxy and many lay people know that what they say is essentially a tenent of their faith, we have to empower those voices who oppose this and counter it with other interpretations that are pluralistic and non-discriminatory.”
None of the Abrahamic religions is supposed to be “pluralistic.” It’s preposterous to say that atheists, agnostics, hindus or buddhists are equally as correct as fellow Muslims. Similarly, Christians will divide the world between their own brethren and non-Christians and Jews will divide the world between Jews and Gentiles.
Whether we like it or not, religious discrimination isn’t just acceptable, it’s the sine qua non of the Abrahamic faiths.
Now, the problem with the Jewish identity is that the ethnicity and the religion has become intertwined so when they discriminate against non-Jews, it becomes racism.
We wouldn’t want liberal Jews to force us to accept their vision of a liberal Islam, so who the F are we to “empower” the real Jews to misinterpret their own religion, so that we can feel accepted and comfortable enough to snuggle with one another?
December 8th, 2010 at 3:53 am
To those who are citing racism as a reason here is Rabbi Eliyahu in his own words,
————–
Rabbi Eliyahu: Islam is ‘Zionist,’ It Promises Israel to Jews
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/140572
Rabbi Eliyahu: Islam is ‘Zionist,’ It Promises Israel to Jews
by David Lev
Most Muslims today are not very knowledgeable in the basics of their religion, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Chief Rabbi of Tsfat, told Israel National News in an interview. The outspoken rabbi, son of the revered late Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, has been in the Israeli media recently, some villifying him over a ruling he gave against renting homes to Arabs.
‘)
“If Muslims were knowledgeable”, he continued, “they would realize that G-d has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, and they would stop fighting a historical imperative, and acknowledge what their own religious literature says – as the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 did”.
“Mohammed says very clearly that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and that G-d will gather them up out of exile at the end of days. This is true Islam; and Muslim clerics who say otherwise are using their religion to incite, and act against the wishes of G-d,” Rabbi Eliyahu says.
Although he was speaking to Israel National News, Rabbi Eliyahu’s message is aimed primarily at Muslims themselves – and he told them exactly what he thinks in another interview, in the Israeli Arabic language newspaper Al-Sanara. The paper asked to interview Rabbi Eliyahu after the halakhic ruling he issued forbidding Jews in Tsfat to rent apartments to Arab students studying in a college on the city. In that ruling, Rabbi Eliyahu cited numerous cases of harassment, theft, personal crimes, and worse, against Jewish residents of the city.
“This is not something I made up,” Rabbi Eliyahu told Al-Sanara. “This was said by rabbis 100, 500, and 1,000 years ago. These are the words of G-d Himself, and we have no right to change those words,” he told Al-Sanara. Despite this, he told the paper, there was no racism whatsoever behind this position. “We believe in treating all people fairly, as they were all created in the image of G-d. But Arabs who support Hizbullah and Hamas certainly cannot be expected to be regarded as ‘good neighbors’ by us,” he told the paper.
“In my interview with Al-Sanara, I stressed the words of the Koran, citing four different portions where the angels or Mohammed state clearly that G-d has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people,” Rabbi Eliyahu explained to Israel National News. “Most Muslims, I have found, do not have a good knowledge of their religion, and many have not even read the Koran. When they have a religious question they ask a sheikh, but the do not know their own faith. If they did, they would know what Mohammed said about the Land of Israel belonging to the Jews.”
That wasn’t necessarily the case in the past, said Rabbi Eliyahu. “In my opinion, the Arabs who fled Israel when the state was established in 1948 left because they knew the truth,” he said. “The story that they left because the Arab leaders told them to flee for a few days while they destroyed the Jews was invented later. But the Arabs of Israel were not fools – here in Tsfat we had lawyers, accountants, and other professionals, who would not have been foolish enough to leave their homes because some politician from Jordan or Egypt told them to.”
The reason they left, he said, was because they knew the truth. “They understood that G-d had fulfilled their promise to the Jewish people, and the time had come to leave,” Rabbi Eliyahu said. “A truly religious person knows they cannot fool G-d. This is one issue that both the Tanach and the Koran agree on – that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. I appreciate Al-Sanara for giving me the opportunity to tell Muslim readers the truth.”
December 8th, 2010 at 4:16 am
Justin,
“These racist rabbis don’t want Arabs in the entire country even though Arabs have lived there for hundreds of years, and they believe they are superior to the Arabs on the basis of RACE.”
Prove that please, as everything i have seen regarding these rulings points to another reason. The rejection of Israel’s existence, and the fear that Arabs side with Hezbollah etc. For example, is Rabbi Eliyahu’s (the one who originally made the ruling) explanation of his ruling, the root of his anger seems to be the denial of their right to exist as a state and not racism,
“Those indigenous non-Muslims were relocated away from Mecca and Medina because they plotted with the Quraysh to annihilate the early Muslim community. Why are you making ignorant arguments akin to Robert Spencer?”
i’m more inclined to say, your comments are in line with Robert Spencer’s because they assume racism to be the case (which you have yet to prove) and your out of context use of two Surah’s (49:13 and 62:6-7) which are irrelevant here, because these Rabbi’s don’t claim to be the only link to God, Judaism does recognise other Monotheisms as routes to God. Nor is their decision based on racism.
In fact what you said above, justified what those Rabbi’s are saying. The reasons are the same, (they feel under threat) because their country is not recognised.
First of all, The Prophet allowed, Christians and Jews into his Mosque in Medina. During the lifetime of the Prophet there was no ban on Christians and Jews in the Holy Cities. The first Caliph relocated all thre residents of Medina and Mecca, and it included the indigenous Christians and Jews too, not just the Quraysh. The point is, the relocations occurred AFTER the death of the Prophet, not during his lifetime.
If you think that relocating the INDIGENOUS non Muslims from Mecca and Medina is justified because they posed a threat to Muslims, then indigenous rights to land mean nothing, so there is no point in even bringing that up like you did, if it can be waived aside for religious reasons. the Quraysh for example are not a threat today, but non Muslims today are not allowed to enter, leave alone buy or rent property in Mecca or Medina.
———–
Safed rabbis urge Jews to refrain from renting apartments to Arabs
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/safed-rabbis-urge-jews-to-refrain-from-renting-apartments-to-arabs-1.320118
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu is the son of the late Mordechai Eliyahu, who once served as the chief Sephardic rabbi of Israel. Shmuel Eliyahu has been indicted in the past for incitement stemming from controversial remarks about Arabs. After a Palestinian suicide bomber killed nine people and wounded 50 on a bus at the Meron junction in northern Israel in August 2002, Eliyahu called on the Academic College to expel its Arab students.
“You can say the word ‘racist’ 20 times,” Eliyahu once told an interviewer.
————-
December 8th, 2010 at 4:32 am
Schmorgus
“Furthermore, the point is Israel does not claim to be a theocracy, it is a Democracy with laws and regulations against discrimination so your quibbling is a mute point. In fact Israel apologists are the foremost of those who parlay Israel and Judaism as a standard for the world when in fact they are not as this case exemplifies. ”
You are right, and that is the only valid argument here, that Israel is a democracy and thus cannot practice religuos apartheid. This makes perfect sense coming from those who do not recognise religuous rights to land, atheists, secularists, non religuous people support international law, etc.
At the same time remember, there is a large part of the Israeli electorate who want a theocracy. They don’t want a democracy, they want a theocracy based on the laws of Torah.
however it makes no sense coming from a Muslim, you cannot on one hand insist that Muslims are looking out for our own interests in declaring Mecca and Medina forbidden to non Muslims, and then cry foul when another religuous group (recognised in Islam by the way) want the same rights
————–
Emperor,
I have a question, the heading here says
“Top rabbis move to forbid renting homes to Arabs, say ‘Israel belongs to Jews’ (Haaretz)”
you then go on to say
“Racism from high ranking Rabbis across Israel who are stating that racism is a part of Judaism and Jews shouldn’t rent apartments to Arabs. Imagine if they were Muslim?”
The implication here is that Muslims do not practice religuous segregation.
I was wondering how that squares with the ban on Non Muslims entering, leave alone buying or renting to non Muslims in Mecca or Medina?
Does it mean you object to Mufti’s declaring Mecca and Medina as belonging to Muslims?
December 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am
I wondered about that first point too
honour people of the book and all that stuff
December 8th, 2010 at 9:53 am
@ Beautiful Muslim Doll
There is no comparison between Muslims protecting their holiest sites and the Israeli government’s consistent track record of illegal occupation, war crimes, and racial discrimination. Rabbi Yosef Scheinen said “Racism originated in the Torah.” What more proof do you need? You are an apologist for radical Zionists who do not want to live in peace with Arab neighbors. Your comparison between the situation in Medina 1400 years ago and the modern violent imposition of the Israeli state belies the history of those two events, and your takfir of Art shows me you are probably just an anti-Muslim concern troll who is just using the name Beautiful Muslim Doll. You ask Emperor questions like you really care but you’ve just shown you want to argue in favor of radical Zionism.
December 8th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Sourin who sounds a lot like BMD you say,
“None of the Abrahamic religions is supposed to be “pluralistic.” It’s preposterous to say that atheists, agnostics, hindus or buddhists are equally as correct as fellow Muslims. Similarly, Christians will divide the world between their own brethren and non-Christians and Jews will divide the world between Jews and Gentiles.”
I take exception to this interpretation of what the Abrahamic religions are supposed to be. You also impose a meaning on my usage of “pluralistic” that I am not advocating. A division between Jews and non-Jews does not mean that a Faith can’t support, in fact encourage diversity or pluralism without fading into relativism.
What you are saying is that these systems should look at each other with contempt as bound for Hellfire and therefore no better than dirt, and what I am saying is that within all these Faiths there is a broad spectrum of interpretation, including an interpretation for pluralism steeped in tradition.
Within Judaism there is also a long tradition advocating pluralism, a voice that used to be stronger in the past, but now amongst mainstream Orthodoxy such racism as the above is manifest because of the wedding with Zionism.
We wouldn’t want liberal Jews to force us to accept their vision of a liberal Islam, so who the F are we to “empower” the real Jews to misinterpret their own religion, so that we can feel accepted and comfortable enough to snuggle with one another?
As I state above a plural understanding of ones faith or view of the other doesn’t necessarily have to be “liberal,” if it makes you feel better it can also be Conservative.
“We” are humans, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists who are concerned for the welfare of our fellow human, who want peace and not endless war, intolerance, racism and contempt. “Empowering” through inter and intra religious dialogue, creating friendships, through funding organizations whose vision aligns against perpetual war, and who stand consistent for peace, salam, shalom, by wanting for your neighbor what you want for yourself. The Golden Rule, something lost on many of the torchbearers of intolerance from amongst the “misinterpreters” of the Abrahamic Faiths.
Lastly, I personally don’t believe there should be a problem for non-Muslims to visit Mecca and Medina and even reside there. The portion of the city’s that are considered “Haraam” (sacred) are not more than a few kilometers.
Anyway, your equaling the sanction of racism in Democratic Israel to Theocratic Saudi rules in Mecca and Medina is a false equivalence and a non-starter, so you are essentially blowing hot air for no perceived good reason than to further a sort of strange Muslim Zionism akin to the self-appointed Imam Abdul Hadi Palazzi of Italy, which seems to be universally rejected by Muslims across the Globe.
December 8th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
“There is no comparison between Muslims protecting their holiest sites and the Israeli government’s consistent track record of illegal occupation, war crimes, and racial discrimination. ”
in the torah the israelite method of warefare was to leave no one alive to breath.the amalekite people on the other hand
1 Samuel 30:1 Then it happened when David and his men came to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had made a raid on the Negev and on Ziklag, and had overthrown Ziklag and burned it with fire; 2 and they took captive the women and all who were in it, both small and great, without killing anyone, and carried them off and went their way. 3 When David and his men came to the city, behold, it was burned with fire, and their wives and their sons and their daughters had been taken captive
showed a much higher standard of humaneness .
December 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“within all these Faiths there is a broad spectrum of interpretation,
including an interpretation for pluralism steeped in tradition.”
———————————————————————
The only time an “interpretation of pluralism” becomes the dominant
orthodox position is when the religion in question has relinquished its
grip on the affairs of a state and its citizens’ personal affairs.
There was no “pluralism steeped in tradition” in Christian Europe of
the Middle Ages or during our so-called Golden Age. Admittedly, we did
a much better job of protecting the religious minorities, but even so
they certainly weren’t of equal social status as Muslims.
Jews have traditionally advocated liberal, pluralistic views only because
prior to the existence of Israel, they had been mostly scattered across Middle East and Europe as suspicious, 2nd class minorities. The obstacles to their lives have been the impetus behind their many literary contributions to humanity, which necessarily had a liberal slant trying to encompass all of humanity in a fold.
Once Israel was forced onto the Palestinians, the Jewish people finally
had a taste for self-determination and it has become their turn to do the
subjugatin’ Old Testament style.
Sure there are always going to be exceptions to this rule; bless their
hearts. But you had better take religion out of the equation if
pluralism is what you’re after, unless you’re ready to wrestle with
some embarrassing and glaring inconsistencies. It’s not hard to see why the boundaries of tolerance can be tested when you’re living side by side with people who believe you’re going to hell for not believing in the divinity of Jesus, or because God chose them and not you.
———————————————————————
“Lastly, I personally don’t believe there should be a problem for non-Muslims to visit Mecca and Medina and even reside there….
Anyway, your equaling the sanction of racism in Democratic Israel to Theocratic Saudi rules in Mecca and Medina is a false equivalence and a non-starter…”
———————————————————————
Yeah that’s great; unfortunately yours is of a minority opinion. And
many reasons can be given as to why non-Muslims shouldn’t be
allowed in our HOLIEST sites. Also, Israel is about as “democratic” as the
Democratic People’s Republic, at least for the Israeli Arabs/gentiles.
Israel is a Jewish state through and through and is more theocratic
than they’d have us believe; the Israeli Orthodox Rabbis certainly seem to
think so.
Even so, the actions of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia or Islamic Republics of
Iran and Pakistan, don’t justify Israel’s religious discrimination. But to continuously point out Israeli JEWISH dirty laundry when ours is starting to pile up and stink, greatly vitiates our point.
December 8th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
BMD, just curious. Are you Muslim or Jewish?
December 8th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
It seems like the issue is that these Rabbis are asking other Jews to not rent to non-Jews – this would effectively prevent non-Muslims from living where they have not personally lived previously.
December 8th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
State the obvious. And I think you meant Non-Jews in the last sentence.
The point is that this is pure racism. The Rabbis are discriminating against Arabs simply because they’re Arabs. Even the rest of the Jews in Israel find this decision to be wrong, so there’s no point for you to defend this Rabbi like you tried to defend the Rabbi that called for the destruction of Palestinians by plague. That Rabbi apologised for his statements and accepted that they were wrong, making you look like a bit of an idiot.
And here the Rabbi is saying racism is an essential part of Judaism, using the Torah to justify his racism but note how this site does not in any way imply that this is the true face of Judaism and emphasises the moderate Jewish voice instead. There is no way JihadWatch would do the same for Muslims if an Imam justified his racism without the Quran. Now which one is the hate site?
December 8th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
BMD – Each year only 3 million Muslims get the opportunity to do the Hajj out of 1200 million Muslims. So realistically, if all the Muslims were to perform Hajj it would take 400 years to do so. It is a fundamental article of the Muslim faith that those who are able perform the Hajj.
I am not sure how you can pragmatically square a required Muslim ritual with the needs of a few thousand non-Muslim tourists to stand and gawk around. Non-Muslims do not have a religious obligation to be at Mecca or Medina – the Muslims do.
During the time of the Prophet Muhammad, there were Jews, Christians, Haneefs and Idol-Worshippers living in Mecca and Medina and the Prophet made no attempt to move them out of the cities (except as Jihadbob would like to point out in a few specific cases of treachery). He even had a delegation of Christian priests stay inside the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina. So I do not think that segregation or removing of non-Muslims from the cities is a matter of faith. If they can live in that milling throng of Muslims going one way while they go another way (I would say good luck to them).
December 8th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
The point is that this is pure racism. The Rabbis are discriminating against Arabs simply because they’re Arabs.
That’s ludicrous. Jews can’t be racist against Arabs, they’re both Semites, dontchya know?
But this doesn’t appear to be about race but religion.
But correct me if I’m wrong.
December 8th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
“Let there be no two religions in Arabia.”
- Muhammad
December 8th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Yup, with Jews still existing in Yemen till this day…
December 8th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
“But this doesn’t appear to be about race but religion.”
Arab refers to a member of the Arab race. Jew can refer to a member of the race and religion. Any person born of a Jewish mother becomes Jewish, in terms of his ethnicity, but he may become an atheist and still remain a Jew. It’s complicated. It generally doesn’t seem to be about religion just some paranoia about an Arab demographic explosion.
Many Israeli Arabs are Christians, they too are discriminated against.
“We don’t need to help Arabs set down roots in Israel,” Rabbi Shlomo Aviner explained that he supported the move for two reasons: one, a Jew looking for an apartment should get preference over a gentile; and two, to keep the growing Arab population from settling too deeply.”
The Rabbis are concerned, as are many Europeans, that because Arabs have more children that they will overtake the Jews and control Israel.
I would like to mention that this behaviour contradicts a verse I found from the old testament:
Exodus 22:21 “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.”
December 8th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Arab refers to a member of the Arab race. Jew can refer to a member of the race and religion.
***************
So you’re saying if the Arabs converted to Judaism they’d still have problems finding an apartment?
December 8th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
That’s ludicrous. Jews can’t be racist against Arabs, they’re both Semites, dontchya know?
Jews and Arabs are both Semites, but they’re not the same ethnicity or race. Similarly, Chechens and Russians are both white but there is anti-Chechen racism in Russia. There’s also racism in Japan between the native Japanese and immigrant Koreans and Chinese.
You seem to have a warped understanding of the words “racism” and “Semite”.
December 8th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Yup, with Jews still existing in Yemen till this day…
Probably a bad translation or your anachronistically associating our modern conception of Arabia to what Arabia was during the time of Muhammad.
December 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Please forgive JihadBob. He’s just desperate to defend racism.
December 8th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. They’re both Semites, so Jews can’t be racist against their Pal-Arab brethren.
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/anti-islamic-refutations/muslims-arent-anti-semitic-racists-arabs-2444
Muslims aren’t Anti-Semitic, otherwise they would be racist against Arabs too;
December 8th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. They’re both Semites, so Jews can’t be racist against their Pal-Arab brethren.
You sound like an eight-year old.
I’ve already addressed this. Jews and Arabs are both Semitic, but are different ethnicities/races with tensions between them. Just like Russians and Chechens, and the Chinese and Japanese.
Really Bob. It’s not that hard to understand.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Did you read the link?
It spells it out for you.
According to the Muslim forum, Jews and Arabs are of the same race, so Arabs can’t be anti-Semitic. That’s what the link says – I didn’t see any Muslims/Arabs take issue over that.
Now, are you willing to admit that you are wrong – that if Arabs can’t be anti-Semitic because they’re of the same race as Jews, then Jews can’t be racist against Arabs.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
JihadBob’s posts seem to be getting more and more desperate.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
The day he actually cites something a Muslim says to support his own arguments, is the day that things can’t get any worse.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
That site does a bad job of defending the blatant racism that exists in the Arab World by using rubbish logic. Reminds me of what you are doing right now.
“So you’re saying if the Arabs converted to Judaism they’d still have problems finding an apartment?”
Unless they get plastic surgery, they still look Arab which means they will still get discriminated against in modern, democratic, secular Israel. Also, there are many legal and religious hurdles in becoming a Jew. It can take years to have your conversion recognised by the Israeli government, and efforts are underway by Orthodox rabbis to make even these conversions through the courts impossible. The traditional opinion is still that you have to be born a Jew to be a Jew.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
You think some random thread with about three comments is irrefutable proof? Talk about clinging to straws… Even the Rabbi is against you on this one.
Racism originated in the Torah,” said Rabbi Yosef Scheinen, who heads the Ashdod Yeshiva. “The land of Israel is designated for the people of Israel. This is what the Holy One Blessed Be He intended and that is what the [sage] Rashi interpreted.
This BBC article and Israeli civil rights group also disproves your point.
Christian or Muslim Arab citizens of Israel make up 20% of the population.
But the civil rights quoted polls suggesting half of Jewish Israelis do not believe Arab citizens of Israel should have equal rights.
About the same amount said they wanted the government to encourage Arab emigration from Israel.
In another poll, almost 75% of Jewish youths said Arabs were less intelligent and less clean than Jews.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136068.stm
Dawood is right. The desperate loon is desperate.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
The BBC article is called “Israeli anti-Arab racism ‘rises’”.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
MYTH
“Arabs cannot possibly be anti-Semitic as they are themselves Semites.”
FACT
The term “anti-Semite” was coined in Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Marrih to refer to the anti-Jewish manifestations of the period and to give Jew-hatred a more scientific sounding name.1 “Anti-Semitism” has been accepted and understood to mean hatred of the Jewish people. Dictionaries define the term as: “Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews” and “Hostility towards Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, economic and political discrimination.”2
The claim that Arabs as “Semites” cannot possibly be anti-Semitic is a semantic distortion that ignores the reality of Arab discrimination and hostility toward Jews. Arabs, like any other people, can indeed be anti-Semitic.
From the Jewish Virtual Library. Clear refutation that racism between Jews and Arabs cannot exist.
December 8th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Man, is JihadBob ever getting desperate. So there’s this thread on a random Muslim forum that tries to justify their antisemitism with a JihadBob-esque argument…therefore every Muslim here at Loon Watch believes the same thing. Reminds me of the recent pathetic argument of our other resident psychic.
December 8th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
He likes to cite ‘tu quoque’ etc. when they occur in other poster’s arguments but is himself guilty of ‘affirming the consequent’ and the ‘argument from generalisation’.
December 8th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
schmorgus Says:
“These Rabbis are part of the mainstream Orthodoxy and many lay people know that what they say is essentially a tenent of their faith, we have to empower those voices who oppose this and counter it with other interpretations that are pluralistic and non-discriminatory.”
What would be the point of countering these views if they are indeed mainstream and orthodox, unless we are going with the anthropological assertion that “orthodox” does not necessarily mean “correct”? But who are we to judge what is correct doctrine in Judaism. We should, however, allow Jews to determine what their own religious tradition ultimately says.
Beautiful Muslim Doll Says:
“The question is, is this only news because Israel claims to be a democracy? Would it even be news if it were a theocracy?”
Israel is much like many Muslim totalitarian regimes claiming to be democratic republics or Iran, which is a theocracy masquerading as an Islamic Republic. Israel is a is best described as theocratic nationalism or a nationalistic theocracy; it is not a democracy, except in name only.
“another subject it raises is, how does this square with Mecca and Medina, two theocracies,”
Since you like being technical, strictly speaking, since the ‘ulama have been co-opted by the state, Saudi Arabia is in fact a hereditary monarchy which is in fact a despotic autocracy since the form of governance can appear to be democratic, theocratic, or socialist, even though everything is at the whim of the monarchy or ruling family. Oddly enough, the Saudi government represents the historical caliphate AFTER the death of the Prophet(as).
“where non Muslims are not even allowed to enter leave alone rent? or live? If Muslims condemn this, how then can they justify their own religious segregation in the Holy cities?”
i think you are conflating religious “segregation” with racism here and in your other posts. A site that is holy, primarily because it a place of pilgrimmage, should not be a tourist attraction for non-believers.
“The Druze do not even allow any kind of conversion to their religion. They’re a mix of Jewish and Islamic religon,”
That’s not accurate.The Druze are a mystical offshoot of Isma’ili Shi’ism. Any resemblance to Judaism is akin to the similarities between Islam and Judaism.
“If we have any imam’s or senior religous figures here, i’d appreciate some responses. Thanks.”
i’m not exactly an Imam,though i have led prayers, but i am studying to be a Islamic scholar. Right now i am a religious scholar, a religious anthropologist specializing in Islamic anthropology, so you can take my opinion for what it is; an opinion
“If the answer is yes, then it’s not an “ethnic” problem, it’s a religious one. They would be able to, which nullifies that argument.”
Yes an Arab who converted to Judaism would be rented to but it is still an issue of ethnicity. When ethnicity is intertwined with religious affiliation as it is with Judaism, ethnicity becomes fluid, especially since race has no biological basis whatsoever, anthropologically speaking. An Arab who converts to Judaism but does not practice is still an Arab. Yet a Jew who is a Jew because of lineage can still be Jewish even though he never practices the religion. As you can see the situation is not all that simple.
If you still think this is more an issue of religious separation rather than simple racism, then we should talk about Ashkenazi attitudes towards Sephardic Jews in general and the attitude of Western European Jews towards Eastern European Jews, Yemeni Jews and Ethiopian Jews.
“Secular Muslims who are non practicing are still Muslims,”
“Secular Muslim” is a strange, convoluted, confused category that can be roughly divided into two categories:
1.Non Muslims with a Muslim background/heritage.
2. Practicing Muslims who believe in secularism
Non practicing “Muslims” are non Muslims and i don’t envision a non-Muslim(“non practicing Muslim”) wanting to fulfill a tenet of a religion that he/she neither believes in or practices. Also, wouldn’t it in fact be racism if “looking Muslim” allows one to enter Mecca and Medina. How else would a non Muslim enter the holy sites except by trickery? Are you aware of the Saudi government protocols for entering the Holy Cities? Asra Nomani is not a good example since she professes Islam. Would Ali Sina be allowed in the Holy Cities? What exactly is the difference between a “non practicing Muslim” and an apostate, in your view?
“Muslims protected their holy sites, by relocating all the INDEIGENOUS non Muslims from Mecca and Medina.”
i think we had this “argument” with jihad bob. The difference between forced deportation/expulsion/relocation and massacre and trickery in order to forcefully change the demographics of Palestine in order to transform it into an overnight Jewish State, legitimizing its illegal creation,the difference is monumental. And seeking to maintain this demographic by discriminating against Arabs is racism. i understand where you are coming from and i agree that it is religious segregation as well. However, all religious segregation is not racism. In this case, it is.
“All of Israel (according to Torah) is a Holy site for Jews. Some of the laws they were given on Sinai are only binding in Israel, they can only really practice their religion in Israel not in the Galut.”
Yes, but the Jews believe that god gave them the land, and gave it to them in perpetuity; And they corrupted the Torah to reflect this. The Qur’an says about them:
Qur’an 2:75 Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the word of Allah, then altered it after they understood it, they know(this).
Qur’an 2:79 Woe! then to those who write the Book with their own hands then say, This is from Allah; so that they may take it for a small price. So woe! to them for what their hands write and woe! to them for what they earn.
Many Muslim Zionists such as Tawfik Hamid are trying to use the Qur’an to support their Zionism. Are you a Muslim Zionist?
“however it makes no sense coming from a Muslim, you cannot on one hand insist that Muslims are looking out for our own interests in declaring Mecca and Medina forbidden to non Muslims, and then cry foul when another religuous group (recognised in Islam by the way) want the same rights”
i think you are making a false analogy here. i find it disheartening that you can find moral equivalence between the barring of non Muslims from Mecca and Medina and the systematic,morally reprehensible disenfranchisement of Palestinians by the Jewish State.
—————–
Mosizzle, NassirH and Jihad Bob, i think you all are missing a basic component of racism. Along with a belief in the superiority of one’s perceived racial group comes the perception that one’s ethnic group does in fact constitute a separate race. Jews and Arabs, although separate ethnic groups, all belong to the same race. Equating anti-Semitism with racism against Jews only is wrong. Arabs can be racist against Jews if they see themselves as separate from Jews, racially, but Arabs cannot logically be anti-Semitic, just anti-Jewish racists.
Unless we arguing here that Jews who are racist against Arabs are also ant-Semitic. In that case Arabs cannot be anti-Semitic and neither can Jews, but their can be racism on their parts toward other Semitic groups if the other group is perceived to belong to another race. We have to remember though that the word Semite is very ambiguous in meaning, yet more refers to a separation based on language rather than heredity. Similarly,the case between Chechens and Russians and native Japanese and immigrant Koreans and Chinese are cases of ethnocentrism, not necessarily racism.
Allahu A’lam
December 8th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
This has nothing to do with religion, “inheritance” of land, or mecca and medina, this is about oppression, plain and simple. Much like the oppression of african americans through out history, if you tell them they can be nothing but a handy man, that they can’t have their own business, that they can live peacefully only if they know their place. It is done to dehumanize them.
Isrealis(not all of them) want to dehumanize the arabs, the christians, the muslims, the albanians, etc, they are lower class humans, and they should know their place, and a “good” jew should know that they are superior. Oppress, dehumanize, humiliate, then they will know their “place”
December 9th, 2010 at 8:54 am
“In my interview with Al-Sanara, I stressed the words of the Koran, citing four different portions where the angels or Mohammed state clearly that G-d has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people,”
the qur’aan says,
“And We declared in the Zabur (i.e., the Psalms) which followed (Our declaration in) the Zikr (i.e., the Torah) that it is (only) those servants of Mine who are righteous in their conduct who would inherit the (Holy) Land.” (Al-Qur?an, 21:105).
the condition they have to meet to inherit the land is righteounes.righteouness as DEFINED by the Qur’aan, right?
December 9th, 2010 at 9:27 am
If the Rabbis are against Jews renting apartments to non-Jews, then this is not a case of racism.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:35 am
i think you are making a false analogy here. i find it disheartening that you can find moral equivalence between the barring of non Muslims from Mecca and Medina and the
The Koran records orders given directly from Allah for Muslims to prohibit non-Muslims from worshiping at their house of worship because Muslims had now taken them over:
It is not for the idolaters to inhabit God’s places of worship, witnessing against themselves unbelief; those — their works have failed them, and in the Fire they shall dwell forever.
Only he shall inhabit God’s places of worship who believes in God and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms, and fears none but God alone; it may be that those will be among the guided.
These were Pagan places of worship before Muslims conquered Mecca – and even before Muhammad, his father and his father’s father were born.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:37 am
JihadBob’s statement above is analogous to saying, “If the law is against Rosa Parks sitting in the whites-only area of the bus, then its not racism”
December 9th, 2010 at 9:49 am
JihadBob said, “It is not for the idolaters to inhabit God’s places of worship”
And Jihadbob very deviously used the meaning ‘places of worship’ for Masajid or mosques in the original text. The prohibition is specifically for mosques and not cities or countries. How many churches would allow Muslim preachers who denounce the divinity of Christ to live and preach within?
December 9th, 2010 at 9:54 am
And Jihadbob very deviously used the meaning ‘places of worship’ for Masajid or mosques in the original text.
Uh, no Syed. The places of worship were Pagan sites of worship that Muslims took over and turned into Masjids.
Specifically, the Grand Mosque in Mecca.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:55 am
heathcliff – remove the part in braces and you will have the real meaning of 21:105. If it was (holy) land it would have been defined so by a modifier to indicate it. It is general ‘ardh’ meaning earth – see ‘ardh’ rhymes with ‘earth’ as well
December 9th, 2010 at 10:01 am
JihadBob likes to defend racist Rabbis and racist 7th century Quraysh idolaters. Anything ANYTHING is justified to hate on Muslims. What a goon!
December 9th, 2010 at 10:07 am
JihadBob said, “The places of worship were Pagan sites of worship that Muslims took over and turned into Masjids.”
Well JihadBob – Are the Quraysh complaining about that?
December 9th, 2010 at 10:16 am
JihadBob said, “The places of worship were Pagan sites of worship that Muslims took over and turned into Masjids.”
Lets turn the argument around. The Vatican is built on land that had a circus, a pagan cemetery and shrines to ancient Roman gods. Did they ever allow a pagan roman zombie clown to become a pope? – I didn’t think so!
December 9th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Pagan is an offensive word. Just in case you guys didn’t know. Stop throwing it around.
December 9th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Hamza – I never knew! I am curious to read why you find the word ‘pagan’ offensive? Why is it offensive and to whom?
December 9th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Pagan offensive? Lol, please explain.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Lets turn the argument around. The Vatican is built on land that had a circus, a pagan cemetery and shrines to ancient Roman gods. Did they ever allow a pagan roman zombie clown to become a pope? – I didn’t think so!
Let me know where this ties in with the Muslims throwing Pagans out of their place of worship and turning it into a Masjid.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:12 am
There are pagans still around that love to use that word to describe themselves. There are even neo-pagans and people who describe themselves as witches.
“If the Rabbis are against Jews renting apartments to non-Jews, then this is not a case of racism.”
The Rabbi accepts that it is racism and justifies it using the Torah, your Old Testament. If an Imam said the same then it would be front page news.
Just for fun:
Imaam al-Sarkhasi (may Allâh have mercy on him) said: there is nothing wrong with a Muslim renting his house to a Dhimmi (Jew or Christian living under Islamic law) to live in. If he drinks wine there or worships the cross, or brings pork into the house, there is no sin on the Muslim for that because he did not rent the house to him for that purpose. The sin is on the renter who does that, as he does it without any intention on the part of the landlord, so there is no sin on the landlord. (Al-Mabsoot, 16/39).
December 9th, 2010 at 11:18 am
“Let me know where this ties in with the Muslims throwing Pagans out of their place of worship and turning it into a Masjid.”
It was built by Abraham as a Muslim mosque and house of prayer to Allah. The Meccans inherited it and added other pagan gods. Muhammad simply restored it back to the mosque.
You’re trying to make it seem as if the Muslims randomly decided to kick someone out of their place of worship and occupy it. (You might have confused early Muslims with modern day Israel). What about America today, Churches built on Native American land, their sacred sites that were confiscated by the American government.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:35 am
JihadBob asked, “Let me know where this ties in with the Muslims throwing Pagans out of their place of worship and turning it into a Masjid.”
I will let you know if you tell me if there are any pagan Quraysh around that are demanding their place of worship back … You didn’t get the point – are there any pagan roman zombie clowns around today that are demanding the Vatican back? There’s you – but you are not demanding the Vatican back, are you? LOL
December 9th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
It was built by Abraham as a Muslim mosque and house of prayer to Allah.
Really? Do you have evidence for that?
The Meccans inherited it and added other pagan gods. Muhammad simply restored it back to the mosque.
Muhammad/Muslims threw the Pagans out of their own place of worship, barred them from returning, and converted it to a Muslim house of worship.
You didn’t get the point – are there any pagan roman zombie clowns around today that are demanding the Vatican back?
That’s assuming that the Vatican was built on or taken from Pagans who were actively worshiping there.
December 9th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Jihadbob said, “That’s assuming that the Vatican was built on or taken from Pagans who were actively worshiping there.”
Well just lets hope that the Pagan cemetery its built on doesn’t have active inhabitants.
December 9th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
By the way JihadBob, when is Robert Spencer going to debate Danios?
December 9th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
When JihadBob clearly loses an argument he begins to change to subject and judge 7th century Muslims by standards his own religious figures couldn’t meet.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/robert-spencer-of-jihadwatch-becomes-desperate-against-loonwatch/
Like I said—the desperate loon is desperate.
December 9th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
wow! jihadbob has totally turned this around, now we are no longer concentrating on jews not renting to [b]christians[/b] but why muslims don’t allow non-muslims in mecca/medina. these places are not part of the issue,the issue is that the jews are using their religion to oppress a people. i am guessing you are a christian, so, why are you making this about muslims? in palestine, both muslims and christians are equally oppressed, they equally live in poverty, humiliated, and murdered.
you allow your ignorance, hatred, and stupidity to cloud your judgement. your stupidity is blazingly obvious in the fact that instead of seeing the truth in what is happening you turn it around and make it into muslims are evil.
December 9th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
so many messages, Muhammed Al Haq, i’ll answer your points when i have more time, let me deal with Justin first
Justin
“ You are an apologist for radical Zionists who do not want to live in peace with Arab neighbors.”
No, i didn’t say i approve of what they said, i was saying they are not motivated by racism. Which Arab neighbors want to live in peace with them? You said they don’t want to live with their neighbors, like their neighbors recognise and accept them? like they face no threat? The decisions they take are based on their belief that their neighbors don’t want to live with them. Do you think they would make these decisions if their neighbors accepted and welcomed them? I don’t think they would.
“and the Israeli government’s consistent track record of illegal occupation, war crimes, and racial discrimination.”
Yes, the SECULAR government, which by the way rejects the religious crowd and the Rabbi’s, (and not just these ones cited above). The Likud led government, are propped up by American extremists. The settlements are funded out of America,
“ Your comparison between the situation in Medina 1400 years ago and the modern violent imposition of the Israeli state belies the history of those two events, and your takfir of Art shows me you are probably just an anti-Muslim concern troll who is just using the name Beautiful Muslim Doll.”
I don’t believe Art was a Muslim, his first comment wasn’t something that a Muslim would believe in. But I concede I may be wrong, and if so, I certainly don’t believe in his version of Islam if he was a Muslim, and if you do then you are the one with the problem. Why was his comment deleted if you are lauding him?
Are you saying you agree with what he said?
and it also shows me that YOU are comitting Takfir, by insinuating that i’m not Muslim. Take a look in the mirror before accusing others.
“ You ask Emperor questions like you really care but you’ve just shown you want to argue in favor of radical Zionism.”
You have comprehension skills, I asked you to prove what the Rabbi’s said was based on racism, and you cite this, “Racism originated in the Torah.” The context of which they say this is made clear if you bother to look. If there is a threat to their well being, then they have to get rid of the threat. Here is the Rabbi who originally made the ruling, which the others are following,
And yes I would still like Emperor to answer my question, why wouldn’t I care?
Rabbi Eliyahu:
“Despite this, he told the paper, there was no racism whatsoever behind this position. “We believe in treating all people fairly, as they were all created in the image of G-d. But Arabs who support Hizbullah and Hamas certainly cannot be expected to be regarded as ‘good neighbors’ by us,” he told the paper.”
That doesn’t sound like a racist comment to me.
“There is no comparison between Muslims protecting their holiest sites and the Israeli government’s consistent track record of illegal occupation, war crimes, and racial discrimination. Rabbi Yosef Scheinen said “Racism originated in the Torah.” What more proof do you need?”
Of course there is a comparison. The laws they use in the Torah to protect their Holy sites (all of Israel is Holy to them) has the same basis on as to why the first Caliph relocated all the non Muslims from the two cites. It was so they wouldn’t pose a future threat. If there is a threat, then you remove the threat. Or are you saying that only we have the right to protect our Holy sites and nobody else?
By the way, did you agree with what Art said? If you do, then it means you’re just pretending that the Rabbi’s are motivated by racism rather than an existential threat, that is something that anti Zionists like to pretend is the case, because like Zionist extremists, they believe the other don’t have the right to exist.
December 10th, 2010 at 12:51 am
@JihadBob
i think you are making a false analogy here. i find it disheartening that you can find moral equivalence between the barring of non Muslims from Mecca and Medina and the
“The Koran records orders given directly from Allah for Muslims to prohibit non-Muslims from worshiping at their house of worship because Muslims had now taken them over:”
How deceptive of you to truncate what i wrote to support your bogus argument.Why not post the whole quote?:
i think you are making a false analogy here. i find it disheartening that you can find moral equivalence between the barring of non Muslims from Mecca and Medina and the systematic,morally reprehensible disenfranchisement of Palestinians by the Jewish State.
Could it be because you were doing just what the quote states?; finding a moral equivalence. You think the situations are the same. Are you justifying the racism of Israelis against Arabs, based on the non existent racism of Muslims with respect to Mecca and Medina? As i said religious segregation isn’t necessarily racism. In the Israeli case it is both religious segregation and racism.
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 10:01 am
i think you are making a false analogy here. i find it disheartening that you can find moral equivalence between the barring of non Muslims from Mecca and Medina and the systematic,morally reprehensible disenfranchisement of Palestinians by the Jewish State.
That Pal-Arabs voluntarily left what would become Israel to Pagan Arabs having their place of worship taken from them?
Do you at least acknowledge the Koran calls for the theft of the most important center for Pagan worship?
December 10th, 2010 at 10:33 am
“They drove out cultures before them, in the early Amurru invasions; so they were driven out. ”
The so-called “early Ammuru invasions” had happened centuries before the Israelite entry into Canaan, so let’s look at some parallels to see exactly what Mr. Miller is trying to justify. The land on which all homes in the United States now sit was once occupied by native Americans, some of whose descendants are PRESENTLY MAKING DEMANDS that this land be given to them. Those demands are both unrealistic and unfair, because the wrongs that were admittedly done to ancestral native Americans were perpetrated in most cases CENTURIES AGO by people no longer living, so why should the present owners of this land, who may themselves be unrelated to those who took it, be penalized for what early European settlers did to native Americans ancestors, who themselves had very likely driven away predecessor tribes in order to acquire the land they are now claiming should be theirs? Should we try to determine who the very first occupants of any given tract of land were and then look for descendants and let them have the land despite the investments in time, work, and money that the present owners may have put into making improvements on the land? Mr. Miller can go anywhere in the world he wants to, and when he gets there, whoever lives on the plot of land he stands on in all probability would not be direct descendants of the original occupants of that land, because the history of the world is a history of tribal migrations that resulted in one ethnic group displacing another group. That is just an unfortunate fact of history, which although unjustifiable by modern standards of morality, is nevertheless historical reality. I find it morally archaic for Mr. Miller to argue that the ancestors of the Amorites had driven away earlier occupants of Canaan, so it was fitting and proper to drive them out. According to this logic, Mr. Miller would have no basis to complain if someone should drive him away from his land and take possession of it.
….
can everyone see what kind of a phukin hypocrite jihadbob is?
“Do you at least acknowledge the Koran calls for the theft of the most important center for Pagan worship?”
DO you ask the same question to your land grabbing hebrew god?
December 11th, 2010 at 1:49 am
JihadBob,
“That Pal-Arabs voluntarily left what would become Israel to Pagan Arabs having their place of worship taken from them?”
That sentence was incoherent. What do mean? Are you really suggesting that the Arabs voluntarily left the land that their ancestors had inhabited for centuries? That’s beyond laughable, but i will give you a chance to provide your evidence. You think that’s comparable to the pagan Arabs having the Ka’ba removed from their custodianship? i thought the argument was whether that was a case of case of racism and religious segregation in the same way that Israelis denying rents to Arabs in Israel is both religious segregation and racism. are we moving the goalposts again?
“Do you at least acknowledge the Koran calls for the theft of the most important center for Pagan worship?”
That’s an entirely different argument. But i’ll bite. Are you admitting that the Zionist Jews stole Palestine from the Arabs in order to create their apartheid-theocratic,masquerading as democratic-human rights violating-terrorist State? See what a difference words can make? If you are still clueless, see your use of the words “Pal-Arabs” and “theft” above.
Allahu A’lam
December 11th, 2010 at 3:54 am
Israel is NOT theocratic any more than modern Turkey is, as it is not governed by Halacha law. “Ethnocracy” or “Herrenvolk democracy” would be more appropriate terms to describe Israel’s system of government.
December 11th, 2010 at 7:36 am
“That Pal-Arabs voluntarily left what would become Israel to Pagan Arabs having their place of worship taken from them?”
Why the hell would they do that? Did the Native Americans voluntarily leave also?
It wasn’t their place of worship. It belonged to the Muslims. The Meccans were at one point Muslims, following monotheism, and worshipping as Abraham did in that mosque. Then they added other Gods and converted it to a polytheistic temple. Remember, they weren’t Kaafirs, they were Mushrikeen, they did believe in God but added on other Gods alongside him, they too believed that the Kaaba was built by Abraham for the worship of Allah. The Muslims captured the Kaaba and restored it to its original state.
“Do you at least acknowledge the Koran calls for the theft of the most important center for Pagan worship?”
The Kaaba was not the centre of the Pagan World. Paganism isn’t an organised religion. For example, the English pagans would worship around Stonehenge, and many still do.
December 12th, 2010 at 10:07 am
That’s an entirely different argument. But i’ll bite. Are you admitting that the Zionist Jews stole Palestine from the Arabs in order to create their apartheid-theocratic
But land wasn’t ‘stolen’ from the Pal-Arabs. So we can dismiss your comparison.
On the other hand, we see the Koran calls on Muslims to steal a place of worship that was currently in use by Arab polytheists and convert it to a Maasjid.
That’s theft and it’s a war crime.
December 12th, 2010 at 10:30 am
“On the other hand, we see the Koran calls on Muslims to steal a place of worship that was currently in use by Arab polytheists and convert it to a Maasjid.”
It’s not a theft if you take back what was rightly yours. A theft would be Christians taking land from the Natives and hence you have countries like the USA, Canada and Australia where an entire race of people were eliminated and an alien culture was planted. Even though Islam spread to Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan, you can still see their cultures and varieties in clothing, food, music and art.
Funny how you don’t condemn the polytheists stealing of God’s house of worship as a war crime. Your hatred of Islam has led you to ally yourself with a nation of baby killers. Wouldn’t be the first time Islamophobes have allied themselves with criminals.
December 12th, 2010 at 10:32 am
So they just passed it over then bob? Hmmmmm……
And you once again bring up the whole Mecca thing as some sort of ‘justification’. Please tell me how converting a Mosque back to it’s proper use after it had been taken by polytheists compares to blatant kicking people off their land that they had been on for generations. Did Jesus not ‘reclaim’ the Temple from the money changers? It is a similar thing here, someone using a holy place for what it is not meant for and it being taken back to it’s rightful purpose.
December 12th, 2010 at 10:37 am
And, bringing the discussion back to the topic of this article, what do you have to say of this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10656890
Jewish settlers buying Arab land from poor Palestinians by using their economical power in order to remove the Arab population of East Jerusalem and make the whole city more “Jewish”. This is all while these Rabbis ban Arabs from buying or even renting property because they want their cities to not turn Arab. All I see is Jews using the extraordinary wealth that they have accumulated, ready to sacrifice millions in order to remove a race that they do not like.
As well as that, how do you feel about them naming one of the houses Beit Yonatan after Jonathan Pollard who was caught spying in the US for Israel. It isn’t the first time that Israelis have honoured people that have caused great harm to the Western countries that support them. Seems like Israel isn’t the best ally when it takes your money and sends spies to your country and when they are arrested honour them as heroes even though they’re guilty of treason. How will you condemn this Jew-qiyya?
December 12th, 2010 at 10:46 am
“Did Jesus not ‘reclaim’ the Temple from the money changers? ”
Nice point, Jack. Another example is the Maccabean revolt when a Jewish army recaptured the Temple that King Antiochus had turned into a pagan temple where Greek Gods were worshipped. The Jews defeated the King and rededicated the temple to the one true God by removing the false idols. The Jews had “stolen” an important centre of pagan worship.
Perhaps JihadBob should condemn this incident also. Especially since this incident is remembered every year during Hanukkah.
December 12th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
JihadBob,
ROTFL!You are just too easy.
Let’s recap:
i said: i think you are making a false analogy here. i find it disheartening that you can find moral equivalence between the barring of non Muslims from Mecca and Medina and the systematic,morally reprehensible disenfranchisement of Palestinians by the Jewish State.
Barring non Muslims from Mecca and Medina is religious segregation. It is not racial segregation,apartheid. We are talking about whether what Israelis are doing to Arabs by denying them rents and pressuring other Israelis to so the same, with Rabbis justifying it using their holy scripture. You are shifting the goalposts, as usual.
One is a case of religious segregation, the other is racism. Get it? i see why you so adamantly denied that Jews could be racist against Arabs since they are both Semites. It is necessary to your argument, because it reduces both situations you are comparing to a comparison of incidences of religious, rather than racial, segregation. Nice try.
Falsely equating religious segregation to racial discrimination shows the lengths you will go to to demonize Muslims. Additionally, the statement was initially directed to Beautiful Muslim Doll, who seemed to be comparing the Meccan/Medinan situation to how the Israelis acquired/created their State. Not only is it a false analogy, but there is no moral equivalence.
Furthermore in your attempts at finding a moral equivalence, you suggested that Muslims stole the Ka’ba and Masjid from the polytheistic Arabs, whereas the Palestinians voluntarily left Palestine to what would become the Israelis to form Israel. Of course that is laughable, but here is where your logic fails and i expose your hypocrisy. If we are to assume that the situation in Mecca with respect to the Masjid is the same as the circumstance of how Israel became Israel(which of course we are not, just playing your little game here),then theft will be understood as removal from land or place of worship previously occupied by another. You say the Pagan Arabs of Mecca were displaced by the Muslims, so that is a theft. The Palestinians were displaced by the Israelis, so isn’t that also a theft?:)
Or, in your never-ending dedication to double-standards, is it theft when Muslims do it, but rightfully taking back what was theirs when the Jews(or any non Muslims) do it? It has already been explained to you how the Masjid was originally a Muslim house of monotheistic worship, no idols. You discount that because you think it’s just fanciful, ad hoc Muslim legend. Yet you swallow, hook, line and sinker the obvious lie certain Jews have told: People(Palestians: descendants of Phillistines, other Canaanites, and Arabs)who have occupied a land for centuries,in some cases millenia(Phillistines and other Canaanites),leaving it to the Jews voluntarily. Why were there wars then, if it was a voluntary evacuation on the part of the ‘Pal-Arabs”? And of course you ignore true analogies such as the circumstances of the Native Americans and the Aboriginals of Australia. i suppose they consented to be driven away from their homes and lands too?
i said: That’s an entirely different argument. But i’ll bite. Are you admitting that the Zionist Jews stole Palestine from the Arabs in order to create their apartheid-theocratic
And you said: But land wasn’t ‘stolen’ from the Pal-Arabs. So we can dismiss your comparison,
because you couldn’t see past your own hypocrisy and bigotry to realize that was satire highlighting the futility of false analogies. But it is telling that you put the word stolen in quotations. Seems like an interesting Freudian slip there. i think that you are playing devil’s advocate as usual and you know that the land was indeed stolen from the Palestinian Arabs, and you know my argument cannot be as easily dismissed as yours..
“That’s theft and it’s a war crime.”
i of course wasn’t aware that theft was a war crime. Be sure to tell that to your Zionist Israeli allies
i also await your response to Mosizzle, who clearly points out the devious schemes of certain Israelis who want all Arabs out of Israel.
Allahu A’lam
December 13th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
“Deuteronomy 9:4 After Yahweh your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “Yahweh has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that Yahweh is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, Yahweh your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 6 Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that Yahweh your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.”
questions for jihad boobs
1.what is the logic behind stealing land from wicked people and then giving it stiff-knecked jews?
2. where does the babile say that israel ORIGINALLY was a place for monethistic worshipped? it says no such think, god of the bible has an obession with piece of land, drives out polythiests, replaces them with stiff knecked people who ALSO practice polythiesm. is it a surpise that jesus always says “moses say this… i say this…” but you never hear from jesus’ mouth ” god you were wrong to give land to these stiffed knecked people”
3.The Old Testament tells us that israelites “did that which was evil in Yahweh’s sight,” and their “evil” became so bad that Yahweh at times sent them into foreign captivity. had god revealed about himself to the pagans in the “holy land” do you think they would have turned out stiff knecked as the jews?
4. where is the proof that god made any promise to abraham?
5. is it not possible that a jew made up deu 9:4 to justify land grabbing?
December 13th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
According to biblical accounts, ancestors of the Israelites had voluntarily LEFT Canaan over four centuries earlier (Genesis 46), so any claims that they had to the land would have been dubious indeed.
december 10th i quoted ex- christian Farrell Till
The land on which all homes in the United States now sit was once occupied by native Americans, some of whose descendants are PRESENTLY MAKING DEMANDS that this land be given to them. Those demands are both unrealistic and unfair, because the wrongs that were admittedly done to ancestral native Americans were perpetrated in most cases CENTURIES AGO by people no longer living, so why should the present owners of this land, who may themselves be unrelated to those who took it, be penalized for what early European settlers did to native Americans ancestors, who themselves had very likely driven away predecessor tribes in order to acquire the land they are now claiming should be theirs? Should we try to determine who the very first occupants of any given tract of land were and then look for descendants and let them have the land despite the investments in time, work, and money that the present owners may have put into making improvements on the land? Mr. Miller can go anywhere in the world he wants to, and when he gets there, whoever lives on the plot of land he stands on in all probability would not be direct descendants of the original occupants of that land, because the history of the world is a history of tribal migrations that resulted in one ethnic group displacing another group.
December 13th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
“On the other hand, we see the Koran calls on Muslims to steal a place of worship that was currently in use by Arab polytheists and convert it to a Maasjid.
That’s theft and it’s a war crime.”
I WOULDn’t reason with you, i would kick the shit out of you then kill you.
December 13th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
beautiful muslim doll reminds me of a bitch who likes to make lots of assumption. a few months back i posted from a jewish website similarities between islam and judaism, the bitch (bmd) assumed that i stole the list from an anti islamic website. i would kick the shit out of bmd aswell
December 13th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
what funny is that the bitch (bmd) didn’t say that she’d assumed that i took the list from anti islamic website, she said I DID copy n paste the list from an anti islamic website and then provided the readers here a link to the anti islamic website.
December 13th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Stallion , why don’t you say what you really think….
December 13th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
And they accuse Muslims of being misogynists..
December 14th, 2010 at 7:59 am
“I WOULDn’t reason with you, i would kick the shit out of you…”
Woah. Calm down man. No need to make death threats. That should be deleted before Spencer uses that one comment to make it seem like Loonwatch is a hate site. He’s done it before, he’ll do it again.
But seriously, chill out.