Top Menu

Jews and Muslims: It’s Complicated

moroccan-jews

Original Guest article by Mehdi

This article is not intended to explain the differences between Islam and Judaism, nor is it an attempt to provide a comprehensive narrative of Jewish-Muslim relations globally. This article is based on personal impressions and an analysis of a common history that will analyze the relational dynamics between Jewish and Muslim communities where they have coexisted.

I began writing this article based on the impression that something has been broken, 13 centuries of positive coexistence between Muslims and Jews has been erased in half a century. A common history is on the verge of extinction; like a family quarrel leading to a gradual distancing, cousins moving apart, to the point that they have stopped being a family. We have become all too familiar to events such as the most recent instance of Israel “mowing the lawn in Gaza,” devastating and massacring countless innocents and in a tit for tat Israelis have also been killed (e.g. the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers last summer or the attack on a synagogue last November in Jerusalem).

This is the contemporary backdrop of a complicated and rich history and hence it is impossible to have a completely objective and comprehensive discussion. The main difficulty is not in addressing the different angles or perspectives, it is putting passions aside for a moment, and reflecting on what united Muslims and Jews. Therefore, readers of this article are kindly asked to indulge the author, whose objective is to tell a story, and remind people of how close Jews and Muslims have been throughout history, and the level of greatness of the civilization that they built together; it is the memory of these achievements that can provide a framework that would help fix the contemporary problems, and build something new.

Morocco and a few personal reflections

Before jumping into the historic perspective, I would like to write a few lines about my personal background. I grew up in Morocco, where Judaism has historically been very present (in fact long before Islam’s arrival in the 7th century, most historians estimate its existence to 2000 years). There are many reminders of Morocco’s rich Jewish history, from historical figures such as Al Kahina, Joseph Toledani, or more recently, Jewish Moroccans like: political activist Abraham Serfaty (anti-zionist Marxist militant, who spent many years in jail as a political prisoner), anti-Zionist militant Sion Assidon who is BDS’s main representative in Morocco, to a very different personality such as André Azoulay, on the other side of the political spectrum (businessman and king’s adviser, also in charge of relationships between Morocco and the Moroccan Jewish diaspora in the USA, Canada, France or Israel), writers such as the late Edmond Amran El Maleh, or the hugely popular humorist Gad El Maleh whose jokes are known by heart by most Moroccans. Jewish cuisine, humor, music are also part of Moroccan identity, for instance the Moroccan Andalusian classical music and its poetry often includes a clear Jewish dimension (as in this moving wedding song), several orchestras play this music in Israel after Moroccan Jews emigrated there. Even in some mosques in the south, stars of David can be seen as they were a form of recognition for the Jewish artisans who contributed to building those mosques. Sights like these are pretty common in Morocco:

Star_David_MoroccoCoin collectors in Morocco (as I have been) are also used to seeing Stars of David on coins that date back to the first half of the 20th century or before, since Jewish artisans of Essaouira produced coins for Moroccan currency.

Coins_MoroccoTo these historical reminders, I add personal memories and stories coming from my father and my grandmother who lived in Sefrou, a town that had a significant Jewish population. My grandmother, a very conservative and proud woman, very clear about her Muslim identity, never had a single negative word about Jews. She always cherished memories of her neighbors, getting angry with people who made any sort of anti-Jewish remarks. I always found it interesting to notice how my father and grandmother, both quite religious were immune from any anti-Jewish prejudice unlike other more “secularized” family members.

My father was proud to tell me about my grandfather, a judge, who had great respect for Judaism, who once received a Muslim who wanted to marry a Jewish woman and wanted him to convince her to convert to Islam. My grandfather asked him a few religious questions (that the man answered poorly), and then told him: “I have enough on my plate trying to make people like you and in this town better people and Muslims! Why would I push this woman to abandon a religion she is probably very happy with? Leave this woman alone, marry her and do your best to become a better Muslim. Respect her faith, remember that Moussa PBUH is also a prophet of ours”.

My father and my late grandmother would usually tell me other positive stories about their life with their Jewish neighbors, and also with sadness, about their neighbors’ sudden and surprising departure. I will come back to this point later on, as there is a history behind it, but this recollection of events is essential, and is consistent with what many Moroccans remember from the 1950s and 1960s.

Jewish_Moroccan_WomenI was personally privileged to have this background and insight into Moroccan history; I was never attracted by any anti-Jewish sentiment thanks to the education I received and the positive image of Jews relayed by my family. I was able to differentiate, due to this education, between the policies carried out by the Israeli state in the name of Jews and what most ordinary Jews stand for. I went on to have many Jewish friends, I also recall many experiences traveling where I would meet (on an airplane, a hotel restaurant, or during a dinner with acquaintances) Israelis of Moroccan origin, and how they had a great smile when they found out I came from Morocco, leading to very friendly discussions involving humor, food, or just culture. This helped me grasp how history did impact people’s lives, creating a huge distance, but at the same time, how a lot of common background was still there making us close.

I also remember a funny anecdote that happened to a late uncle. He planned a business trip to India, and had his ticket booked by a third party who did not pay attention to the stops on the way. My uncle was on his way to India, enjoying his flight, and was stunned to hear the flight crew announce that the plane was about to land in Tel Aviv, at a time when Israeli-Arab wars and tensions were at their peak, he was mad and refused to leave the plane. The plane crew gave up on convincing him to leave the plane while it prepared for the rest of the trip. Staff was sent to clean the plane, my uncle still angry, sat alone waiting, when suddenly he heard a voice speaking in a typical Moroccan dialect, asking him, “Brother, why are you sitting here by yourself? Can I at least go get you some water or an orange juice?” Yes, members of the cleaning staff were Jews born in Morocco.

Growing up in Morocco in the 1980s, there were very few Jews left (at least compared to the 300,000 Moroccan Jews who lived in the country during the 1950s). The previously important community was now a small group of people, mostly living in Casablanca. In the little town in south east Morocco where I grew up, the only Jews were the charming tailor and his wife. At the same time that a new generation of Moroccans had few Jewish acquaintances, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was omnipresent on TV: Moroccans watched coverage of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the Sabra and Chatila massacres, the repression of the first Intifada, the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, which distorted the image of the Jew for many young Moroccans. While their parents would identify Jews as their neighbors, their children would be tempted to think of them first as the Israeli soldier now repressing their Palestinian brothers. I would later realize that many Jews (not only Israelis) identified the Muslim as a potential terrorist, a mirroring of the distorted way in which Moroccans viewed Jews; it’s clear, distance and headlines creates fear and misunderstanding.

The official history in Morocco as told in the media and books, emphasizes the Muslim nature of the country and is evasive regarding its Jewish history. The official history is not aggressive or Antisemitic in any sense but it diminishes the important Jewish role in Morocco’s history, reducing it to a few anecdotes and personalities. We often discussed these questions in more depth at the end of history courses in high school with our teachers but they were brief mentions in our textbooks. While I acknowledge that my personal experience and the general context in Morocco was different from other Arab countries, something was missing. Recently, a new generation of historians and artists has dug into this poorly written history.

Jewish_Moroccan_Interfaith

Other Arab countries also look towards their Jewish history with different backgrounds and perspectives, this interest in itself is a positive step and shows that Muslim-Jewish coexistence in MENA exists.

These initiatives do not change the fact that there are many problems, especially as the suffering of the Palestinians is as deep as ever, any long term improvement and prospect of coexistence will be accompanied by a just solution that addresses these sufferings (and not with a so-called peace process focused only on security measures, totally evading Palestinian people’s daily lives).

Nevertheless, these initiatives shed light on a rich common history that no longer is burning as bright as it used to but still deserves to be recounted.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    • Mehdi

      Look I am not here to tackle any issue on what is divine and what is not, I am not a theologian and just provide my views. And I don’t consider the bible wrong, there are many bridges between the Qur’an and the bible. the argument as to what is divine in Christianity is not up for me to decide, Christians get to decide on that. Regarding the nakba yes there is difference between fleeing and being kicked out of a village but the overall process that took place is still the same and thoroughly documented. All of that is drastically different from the Jews who left morocco, their villages were not bulldozed after they left, they often took time to sell their belongings or asked their neighbors to take care of of some of their business or their relatives’ graves. During the nakba, in several cases people ran away and left food cooking, there is no comparison between these cases. Again the eviction of Jews in Jerusalem or Gaza can be slightly compared to the nakba, not the departureof Jews from Morocco. As for your other question, why do you want to ask me about martyrdom? It’s not as if it was a central topic that Muslims think of everyday.

    • Mehdi

      I don’t deny the Hebron riots at all and I try to address the tensions in the next articles, as for whether Palestinians fled through direct expelling or fear, there are different estimates, but the fact that people left after hearing for instance about Deir Yasin doesn’t decrease the Haganah/Irgun’s responsibility. As for what date is eligible to commemorate, it’s up for the Palestinian to decide on it. Regarding feminism and human rights my take is that the law should grant equality for women, it’s the case in most Muslim countries, but the equality isn’t always there in reality (as in several Western states) , this has to be fought, and there are issues in many Muslim countries around women’s rights, but as noted by Fatema Mernissi, many Western commentators are only interesting in finding oppressed Muslim women to confirm their prejudice. In the end there is no a mechanical relationship between Islam and these issues just like when FGM is wrongly related to Islam (for instance the cases of sexual harrassment in Egypt are very recent and tell more about social issues and contemporary problems in Egypt). I had written a piece some time ago on the Arab world and addressed women’s role within societies, it’s a complex issue https://www.loonwatch.com/2014/03/on-the-arab-spring-thinking-beyond-the-moment-i/ As for what is divine, Muslims consider the Quran divine and thus non changing, but its interpretations are subject to debates. Thereare also debates as to what is changing or not outside the Quran, there are theologians who consider sharia as subject to changes and others who disagree, the scope of ijtihad is subject to debate, there are several differences within madhabs, Islam is not monolithic. As for debating an ex Muslim, I am here debating with you and taking time to respond, so I’m open to discussions, but I’m not keen on discussing with someone just because he claims he’s an ex-muslim, if the person has interesting points to make or ask then I don’t have any issue with responding.

    • Mehdi

      Thanks for the response and for speaking honestly. Regarding Moroccan Jews, in the movie “Tinghir Jerusalem” I mentioned in the article, the director interviews one of the Mossad agents who was involved in the covert operations, the man explains that a significant part of his work was about convincing Jews that they would soon be in danger and that Morocco wasn’t a safe place for them in the future. Many Moroccan Jews in the movie explain their decision to leave as spiritual, some as economical, some explained that they had concerns in the longer term because of the I/P conflict. Not that the Oujda/Jerada or Petit Jean massacres weren’t a factor, but most of the departures took place over 10 years afterwards, many people also link these events to the overall unrest during the final fight for independence (from around 1947 to 1956 and followed by several years of instability) where there were many riots, bombs, killings, etc. Besides, the Jewish communities as most of the Moroccan society back then were mostly rural and provided little room for individual decisions, such decisions were usually made by groups and people rarely decided whether to leave or stay individually. Usually, when the Jewish communities in place Tinghir decided to leave, it was very difficult for people to stay as opposed to US Jews who have more options nowadays. It’s no wonder that the Jews who stayed were mostly residing in cities. The situation was different in other Arab countries, I will come back to this later on, and I do not want to evade any Arab responsibilities, but it’s very different from what happened during the Nakba, which was a military eviction of Palestinians (mostly done even before the official creation of Israel and the resulting war). I see this kind of comparison a lot but it usually feels more like a justification of the Nakba, especially now that the official discourse of “The arabs decided to leave as their leaders told them to” doesn’t stand anymore. If there is one thing that can be compared to some extent to the Nakba, it’s the eviction of Jews from Jerusalem or Gaza during the 1947-49 war, that can be considered comparable, but not the other cases. Regarding feminism, there are many views on LW, I am personally not against all forms of Western feminism, it depends what we talk about, but people tend to forget that Arab and Muslim women face different challenges historically. Western feminism was focused on issues like women’s vote which never was a big topic in Muslim countries as they were granted that right in almost all countries at the independence. The other focus was on abortion right and topics like domestic violence, the access to the work market, wage equality, etc. In most Muslim countries, the debates were on different issues, or on different terms, for instance there have been many feminist organizations fighting back against patriarchal interpretations of religion, but from a Muslim point of view, and successfully so. And there are many organizations who collaborate with Western feminism, but this is not and will never be a copy-paste, Muslim women are finding their own paths and don’t need to be lectured on what is best for them. Women’s conditions are obviously different depending on the countries, there are many factors at play such as demographics too (in Morocco for instance the gradual shift from a rural to a mostly urban society has done a lot to change women’s lives in terms of family structures, birth ratio or access to work), in the end women do have options and they find their own ways. As for Islam priding itself with not changing, I have to disagree, the Quran does not change and will never change, but there are debates taking place everyday on how to interpret it, you can find many heated discussions on many topics, the tradition of ijtihad is at the heart of Islam and has never disappeared. Islam is not immune from debates and rightly so. That said, there are (just like for other religions) different interpretations, people against the principle of ijtihad or in favor or restraining it, but that doesn’t mean that Islam is monolithic or hasn’t changed since the 7th century. The high variety of religious practice accross the Muslim world is a proof.

      Regarding debating a non-Muslim, just to be clear, I debate people with different views everyday, I am currently reading a book promoting atheism, I have several childhood friends who consider themselves agnostic or atheist, I am not close minded when it comes to reading or debating other view. My point is that I am yet to hear or read something new and refreshing from people who call themselves ex-Muslims, I have already read many views coming from such people, and most of it is quite ordinary, not to say dull. I think that many of them get publicity and attention which is disproportionate in regards to their intellectual merits. I have read much more interesting points coming from long-time atheists or agnostics, or from people from other religions. Again, this is my personal appreciation of things.

    • bobbert

      I was wrong to bring up the issue of FGM, and i admit that i am far more ignorant on this issue that you guys are. I apologize.

      The expulsion of jews from arab/muslim countries was a major historical event and thus complicated. Antisemetism was likely the strongest theme. Of course israel and the moroccan government collaborated to get the jews out. hundreds of thousands of people cannot easily leave a country without the government’s permission. But with permission or no, the jews would not have left unless they did not feel safe. jews in america can leave for israel at any point, but by and large do not because they dont feel the need. What caused the need? perhaps it was the riots that killed 44 jews in Oujda and Djerada. Now there were a lot of factors that led to this event. as you said it is complicated.

      I ask you for a second, to take a look at the flight of the palestinians (i hate using the word naqba if you like i will explain why). look at it the same way you look at the jews fleeing arab nations. as you said, its complicated. its not as easy of a story as “jews went and ethnically cleansed 750,000-800,000 palestinians from their land”. in both cases crimes were committed, i am not even trying to equate the two, but apply your own logic to the palestinian issue and you will see where alot of jews are coming from.

      As i stated before, I understand your disagreements with modern feminism. I have plenty of issues with them as well. I am not saying that you must force all of you women to walk around in bikinis in front of men, and i am not saying that you should encourage promiscuity. but i do think that you should allow people more choices. I think the biggest difference between islam and judaism/christianity is that the latter acknowledge that times change, and thus so should a faith. we have a pope who is openly talking about letting priests marry, which would be a HUGE shift. nuns no longer wear habits. judaism is slowly moving towards allowing women clergy. it has changed quite fundamentally over the years. islam prides itself on never changing. for me, thats concerning since it was founded in the 7th century.

      as for debating ex muslims. I understand the futility of debating an atheist. in the end, religion is a matter of faith, and that will be the fundamental disagreement. but if a muslim converted to christianity for example, you would not be curious as to what it was about islam, or what it was about christianity that caused him to leave? I personally would welcome such a challenge to any of my beliefs, and i would welcome you to challenge them. I bet we could quite honestly debate the israel-palestine issue for hours and be better friends because of it. I mean no offense, and apologize if i come across as aggressive, but it was said “I believe our arguments can withstand scrutiny and open debate”. but if you had the opportunity to discuss islam with someone who did not find your arguments convincing you would have no interest? it just seems rather closed minded to me.

    • Mehdi

      Thanks for these comments, Ilisha did pick several points, I won’t need to answer all your points but wanted to address some. Regarding the departure of Jews, I will come back to that in the next articles in the series, but it wasn’t a deliberate eviction in the same way as the nakba, it was a coordinated operation between Israeli and Moroccan authorities, (Yachin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yachin) and confirmed by historians such as Yigal Bin Nun, nothing remotely similar to the fate of the Palestinians (link in French sorry http://www.terredisrael.com/infos/interview-de-yigal-bin-nun-sur-lemigration-des-juifs-du-maro/).

      The circumstances in other Arab countries were different and the resulting big picture is complex, and can’t just come back to Arab or Muslim anti-semitism, there were many factors in there. I hope the article when posted will help debate these matters. There were Arab responsibilities in what happened and there is some blame to be laid in there but it’s not just a case of mass Anti-semitism.

      I wanted to address the point you made on FGM, this wikipedia post shows the countries where it is prevalent, in fact it does not exist in most Muslim countries (the first time I heard of it was when reading a novel, I was horrified to the point of running to ask my mother about it), and when present, FGM is often a practice that is shared by different religious, as for instance in Egypt or African countries in Sahel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country

      Regarding feminism, Ilisha made a valuable point about the difficulty to re-import Western feminism as-is in Muslim countries, but that doesn’t mean that Muslim women have no options, here’s one example and there are others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism

      As Ilisha rightly points, LW involves a community of people with different sensibilities, we don’t always agree on everything but you were able to debate with Ilisha and I do hope you will continue doing so, debates are essential and highly welcome. I don’t think that anyone pretends that Muslims should not be criticized, as long as criticism remains fair and as long as we talk based on facts, and if possible with mutual respect (and even then we still try to debate).

      Last but not least, as for debating with an ex-Muslim, the main question I want to ask is debating what precisely? I would never consider asking a Christian friend if he/she wants to debate an ex-Christian, same for Jewish friends, and same for agnostic or atheists. People should be left free to decide if they want to remain Muslim or not (as pointed by Ilisha), but why on earth do I need to debate them just because they left Islam? It’s not as if Islam was a secret mafia holding people hostage, it’s a religion that involves 1,6 billion people with very different views and sensibilities.

      Welcome to the comment section in LW.

  • Mehdi

    Thanks for posting these answers

Strange Bedfellows: Extremists, Bigots, and the Quran

somebeliefs

Original guest article by Michael Elwood and Tarik Abdallah

Recently, there’s been a lot in the news as to whether extremists like ISIS are being true to the message of the Quran or not.

Some, like Rep. Keith Ellison and Prof. Rashid Khalidi claim that groups like ISIS take verses of the Quran out of context in order to justify their objectionable beliefs and practices (see: Islamic State group uses only half of a Quran verse to justify beheadings — see what’s in the other half). Others, like Sam Harris and Bill Maher, claim that so-called moderate Muslims either don’t know what their own scripture says (as incredible as that sounds!), or they’re simply lying about the “violent” and “hateful” contents of the Quran. We contend it’s extremists like ISIS, and critics of Islam like Harris and Maher, who are lying about the contents of the Quran. Below, we’ll give an overview of how they do this by taking verses out of context in order to make them appear to be advocating “violence” and “hate”.

First, we’d like to point out that taking verses out of context isn’t the only way that extremists try to justify violent and hateful interpretations of the Quran. There are two other ways that this is often accomplished. One way is to play on verses that are allegorical, or that can have more than one meaning, and try to tease a violent or hateful interpretation from them. The Quran itself mentions this:

“He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses – which constitute the essence of the scripture – as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, “We believe in this – all of it comes from our Lord.” Only those who possess intelligence will take heed” ~ Quran 3:7

In their footnote for 3:7, Prof. Edip Yuksel, Prof. Martha Schulte-Nafeh, et. al., point out that the verse about verses that can be interpreted in more than one way, can itself be interpreted in more than one way (See “Quran: A Reformist Translation”):

“The word [mutashabihat] can be confusing for a novice. Verse 39:23, for instance, uses mutashabihat for the entire Quran, referring to its overall similarity — in other words, its consistency. In a narrower sense, however, mutashabihat refers to all verses which can be understood in more than one way. The various meanings or implications require some special qualities from the person listening to or reading the Quran: an attentive mind, a positive attitude, contextual perspective, the patience necessary for research, and so forth.

“It is one of the intriguing features of the Quran that the verse about mutashabih verses of the Quran is itself mutashabih — that is, it has multiple meanings. The word in question, for instance, can mean ‘similar’, as we have seen; it can mean, ‘possessing multiple meanings’; it can also mean ‘allegorical’ (where one single, clearly identifiable element represents another single, clearly identifiable element).”

An example of a verse that can be interpreted in more than one way is 2:106. In this verse, some translate the word “ayah,” which means “miracle,” as “verse” in order to justify abrogating Quranic verses that are inconvenient for them (more on this later). An example of verses that are allegorical are the verses that describe heaven and hell, like 47:15. In this particular instance, the Quran actually tells us that the description is an allegory (mathalu):

“The allegory of Paradise [mathalu al-jannati] that is promised for the righteous is this: it has rivers of unpolluted water, and rivers of fresh milk, and rivers of wine – delicious for the drinkers – and rivers of strained honey. They have all kinds of fruits therein, and forgiveness from their Lord. (Are they better) or those who abide forever in the hellfire, and drink hellish water that tears up their intestines?”  ~ Quran 47:15

In his book, “The End of Faith,” and on his website, Sam Harris often cites these verses as evidence of what he calls “religious hatred” and “otherwordliness” in the Quran (see Honesty: The Muslim World’s Scarcest Resource). There are a few problems with this, however.

First, as his fellow atheist Joshua Oxley points out, these verses use imagery to portray the torments of hell:

“The verses cited aren’t quite as scary as he makes them out to be. Many of them use violent imagery–fire, mostly–to convey the judgment that us unbelievers will experience at the hands of God. Not at the hands of men and women on earth. But at the Last Day. Why should this constitute a particular kind of Islamic violence. . . . Does that scare you? It doesn’t scare me. These passages put the power into Divine hands to judge and cast out, not human. I couldn’t care less, unless individuals start citing that verse in hopes of having my head. At that point, it’s not the ‘unified message’ of the text that is to blame, but an inconsistent interpretation by the religious believer. And those are two very, very different things.

“Harris, quite frankly, presents Scripture here as a fundamentalist would. It is a dry, topical understanding, devoid of historical or textual context, that makes proof-texting possible. There is no room for interpretation, for conversation, for nuance. No different schools of thought. It’s decided, ‘The text as a whole says X’. Islam becomes a robotic, artificial existence, and humankind mere automatons. And I feel like Harris should know better. When you have a bigger audience to speak to, you take on the responsibility of presenting yourself and others with as much integrity and honesty as possible. And this article just doesn’t measure up. . . .

“Please, anyone and everyone, don’t take Harris’ analysis as your own understanding of Islam. I have to say something. This atheist, who is not a Qur’anic scholar, but who was lucky enough to spend four year in undergrad studying Islam, is interested in the Muslim and secular communities engaging in dialogue over real issues. Poorly-reasoned critiques, more diatribe than discourse, will never get people to the table. And in a society with a profound ignorance of the nature of Islam, it’s even more dangerous to promulgate some of the worst misconceptions.

“Everyone deserves to be as generously understood as possible, and it’s about time the Muslim community got similar treatment from our secular circles. If I read a Muslim thinker picking any secular text apart in this kind of manner, I’d be equally miffed.” ~Joshua Oxley, When You Just Shouldn’t Say Anything: Sam Harris and the Qur’an

Second, Harris isn’t categorically against torment. He’s just against the torment of non-Muslims (or infidels as he likes to call them) in an afterlife he doesn’t believe in, by a God he doesn’t believe in. But as he has said in his book “The End of Faith,” and in a Huffington Post article aptly titled “In Defense of Torture,” he’s all for the torment of Muslims in this life.

It’s hard to understand how the torment of some non-Muslims in the afterlife constitutes “religious hatred,” but the torment of some Muslims in this life doesn’t constitute “secular hatred”.

Third, despite Harris’ subjective impression that the Quran is full of “otherworldliness,” the objective reality is quite different. The number of times the Arabic words for this life (dunya) and the afterlife (akhira) both occur in the Quran exactly 115 times (see “Quran: A Reformist Translation”). It reminds me of the Christian apologist Dave Miller who tried to demonstrate that the Quran, unlike the Bible, emphasizes hell more than heaven. He wrote:

“While the Bible certainly emphasizes the certainty and inevitability of eternal punishment, it places the subject in proper perspective and provides a divinely balanced treatment.”   ~ David Miller, Hell and the Quran

But despite Miller’s subjective impression of the Quran placing an emphasis on hell, the objective reality is quite different. The Arabic words for heaven (jannah) and hell (jahannum) both occur in the Quran exactly 77 times (see “Interpreting the Qur’an: A Guide for the Uninitiated” by Clinton Bennett). If that’s not “balanced treatment,” what is? It should also be pointed out that Christian apologists claim that overall the Quran, unlike the Bible, is more violent (see Dark passages: Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don’t answer till you’ve taken a look inside the Bible, also see Danios’ article: What the Quran-bashers Don’t Want You To Know About The Bible).

Another way extremists and critics try to justify violent and hateful interpretations of the Quran is to just ignore or explain away “peaceful” and “loving” verses in the Quran. One of the ways they try to accomplish this is by claiming that all the “peaceful” and “loving” verses of the Quran have been conveniently abrogated. Verse 2:106, mentioned earlier, “critics” claim can be interpreted in more than one way through abrogation. Many also claim verse 9:5 abrogates all the other “peaceful” and “loving” verses. However, some scholars disagree:

“A popular argument against such a reading of the text is based on the claim that verses such as 22:39-40 and 2:190 have been abrogated by the so-called ‘verse of the sword,’ 9:5. Proponents of this argument generally cite the portion of the verse, which says, ‘then kill the polytheists wherever you find them,’ claiming that this abrogates any previous verses that seem to restrict fighting and killing non-Muslims. However, this argument is problematic for two very important reasons.

“First, as John Burton has clearly demonstrated, there is no agreement among Muslim scholars, past or present, on the nature of abrogation, or on the specifics of the abrogating and the abrogated.[16] More important to the present discussion, however, is the fact that a literal reading of 9:5, in the surrounding context demonstrates that its message is the same as that found throughout the Qur’an.” ~ Prof. Aisha Musa, Towards a Qur’anically-Based Articulation of the Concept of ‘Just War’

For a lengthier treatment of abrogation, see Dr. Israr Khan’s article Arguments for Abrogation in the Qur’an: A Critique. Also see the article Abrogation, the biggest lie against the Quran.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

    • syed ali

      and so called hypocritical Christians want New Testament law in the U.S. heck most of the southern U.S.A. wants it and no one is concerned about that?

    • Laila Muhammad

      in Algeria in the 90’s Algerians voted in a Islamic party the army nullified the results and alegerian/French paramilitary units dressed as muslims murdered thousands of rural muslims…..ensuring no more muslim govt….in sudan western/israel helped the Christian militias create their own state [south sudan]…today these same sources trying to split north Nigeria [muslims] from south Nigerian[Christians]…by funding book haram [a Nigerian paramilitary unit] next election should have been a muslim per rules that alternate the office…but west/Israel who have close ties with Christian president of Nigeria goodluck do not want a muslim president in may Nigeria election by funding the book haram they hope no one votes for a muslim candidate oy vey

  • MichaelElwood

    Hilary Scott wrote: “I don’t care about silly religious arguments – heaven and hell are products of men. You’re both wasting your time imo.”

    Dontcha just love it when people say they don’t care about “silly religious arguments”. . . and then proceed to engage in “silly religious arguments”!

Central African Republic: What Really Happened and Why Does it Matter?

CAR Militia

People hide from gunfire near a church during a Feb. 18 firefight between African peacekeepers and fighters from the anti-balaka militia in Bangui, Central African Republic. CNS photo

This is the second article in a Loonwatch exclusive series entitled, This is Africa. The first article set the stage for understanding the scramble for Africa’s abundant resources, and is recommended as a prerequisite: Bleeding Africa: A Half Century of the Françafrique

by Ilisha

The Central African Republic (CAR) has fallen from the headlines, but what is happening there must not be forgotten. Beyond sensationalism, sound bites, and reflexive, self-serving narratives, what really happened and why does it matter?

It matters because the people have suffered and because they continue to suffer. It matters because the same macabre scenarios keep playing out, again and again. In CAR, Nigeria, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and beyond. Each conflict has a particular context, distinct from the others, but we are often led to believe they all intersect with Islam.

As violence raged across CAR, most of the major media focused myopically on the religious angle. We were told rebels known as the Seleka, comprised exclusively of Muslims, launched a blood-soaked campaign in March of last year and deposed the country’s Christian president, viciously attacking innocent Christian civilians in the process. After months of violence and unprovoked attacks, we were told, Christian militias formed to defend themselves against further attacks by Muslims. Violence subsequently spiraled out of control, leading to gruesome scenes of innocent people, including children, being slaughtered in the streets.

Violence reached unprecedented levels in December of last year. By March of this year, the UN reported most Muslims had been “cleansed” from the Western part of the country. The Muslims, according to this narrative, essentially brought about their own demise. Sure, it was the extremists who started it all, but isn’t it always the Muslims, striking out “in the name of Islam”?

What does it mean when people claim violence is done “in the name of Islam”? This accusation relies on assumptions that are rarely challenged. It seems we’re so conditioned to simply accept that religion in general, and Islam in particular, are the root cause of violence all over the world, most people have stopped asking critical questions.

Religion causes violence, and especially the religion of Islam. Everyone “knows” that. But is it true?

The real story behind the headlines is far more complex, and includes parties barely mentioned in the dominant narrative. Foreign countries, most notably France, played a significant role in the conflict as well, and not just as a peacekeeping force. The missing pieces shape the narrative with the contours of nuance, and prompt the questions that are rarely asked, even by journalists.

Why did the Muslims of CAR suddenly launch a civil war in the Central African Republic? What did they stand to gain? Why is it so easy for so many people to believe that Muslims, Africans, and especially African Muslims, spontaneously indulge in bloodletting for no apparent reason? We are told the Muslim minority started kicking up dust and perhaps lopping off heads, just as we’ve come to expect.

For many, this curious narrative seems to spark no curiosity. We can simply assume the much-vaunted “free media” will tell us the unvarnished truth. Except that they often don’t, as well shall see.

False Religious Binary

We know there are Christians and Muslims in CAR because, collectively, these groups are the stars of the show. The protagonist and the antagonist in the drama that unfolded, reaching a tragic climax with the blood of the innocent.

Pitting Christians and Muslims against one another makes good headlines in the current climate. Blaming religion for all the world’s problems is popular among the elites and broad swaths among the masses as well, and within that context, Muslims have taken center stage. The Muslims are allegedly always picking on Jews and Christians, and even Hindus, Yazidis and atheists. All non-Muslims are supposedly fair game. But for the West, it is the Christian victims who tug hardest at the heart strings. Christianity may be barely relevant in the West, but the hollowed out tradition still resonates when “jihad” is on the march.

The problem with the this Christian-Muslim binary is that it’s false.

The religious composition of CAR is more complex than a Christian majority and a Muslim minority. According to the CIA World Fact book, the religious breakdown in CAR is 35% indigenous beliefs, 50% Christian (25% Protestant, 25% Catholic), and 15% Muslim. An annotation explains “animistic beliefs and practices strongly influence the Christian majority.” At best, Christians comprise a small majority, heavily influenced by animist beliefs, while more than a third are animists outright.

Animists? You can be forgiven for not having the slightest notion what an animist is, even if you were absorbed daily in the news of CAR. Animists complicate the narrative. Animists don’t tug at heart strings. Animists are not part of the agenda, and so they mostly disappeared. Human rights matter mostly as props that distract us from the major plot, and for that role, animists don’t make the cut when the local Christians will do nicely.

Despite the glaring omission of animists from the lurid tales of bloodshed, there are some obvious clues suggesting the influence of their beliefs. Cannibalism is not a Christian practice, yet we have seen several gruesome examples of “Christians” killing and eating their Muslim victims, a phenomenon also seen in Nigeria. Ouandja Magloire stands out in a crowd for his stunning barbarism. A mob of angry Christians murdered a Muslim passerby and desecrated his corpse. Among the perpetrators was “Mad Dog” Magloire, who ate the victim’s leg, and then saved a portion of the flesh for later, as if parts of the corpse were restaurant leftovers.

Magloire reported he put the leftover flesh of his victim between two halves of a baguette and ate it, with a side of okra. Mad Dog Magloire would have been a public relations bonanza for the hate brigades, if only  he had been a Muslim. Months ago, when a Syrian rebel bit into the heart of his victim, we saw headlines like this: Syrian Jihadist Eats Human Flesh In The Name Of Allah.

In the name of Allah? Where are the headlines accusing Mad Dog Magloire of feasting on a leg sandwich “in the name of Jesus”? In fact, neither Christianity nor Islam sanction cannibalism.

Ritual cannibalism is found in some streams of animism, where eating a part of a defeated enemy’s body is thought to pass the dead person’s spirit to the conqueror. This peculiar detail is largely ignored by the Western media, which does not bother to delve into why these nominal animist-influenced “Christians” have indulged in this horrifying spectacle on more than one occasion.

“The Muslims”

One thing the major media are clear on is who started the conflict in CAR. “The Muslims” are to blame, and any violence that has come in response is their own fault. Sure, we concede, some of the Muslim victims are not personally responsible, but collectively, the implication is the Muslims had it coming.

But who are “the Muslims” in this scenario?

The Seleka rebels are not a homogeneous group of local Muslims who have suddenly erupted into random violence “in the name of Islam.” In fact, foreign mercenaries under the Seleka umbrella, largely from neighboring Chad and Sudan, have flooded the country, joining dissident factions of rebel groups that have banded together as Seleka. An estimated 1000-2000 armed mercenaries streamed into CAR. According to some reports, the ranks of the Seleka rebels swelled to as many as 25,000.  To put the relative strength of that force in perspective, consider the country’s entire army is comprised of only about 3,500 soldiers.

The Seleka do include some locals, not all of whom are Muslims. Some are non-religious rebels, thugs, and opportunists who have joined widespread looting and vandalism during the latest round of unrest. While there have been atrocities that appear to be religiously motivated, some of the rebels are clearly driven by non-religious motives, and have on occasion attacked Muslim communities as well. Multinational Force of Central Africa (FOMAC) troops that operated outside Bangui confirmed to Human Rights Watch that Seleka fighters in their zones were majority Chadian or Sudanese.

The Backdrop

Despite being almost the size of France, CAR is a sparsely populated country of only 4.5 million people. Porous borders and weak state authority leave the country vulnerable to infiltrators from neighboring countries, including Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan. Marauding foreign intruders often raid local villages, poach wildlife, and sometimes join local bandits known as “zaraguinas” for concerted crime sprees.

We are expected to believe criminal thugs and mercenaries are not motivated by self interest, but rather by religion. Paid mercenaries, we are to assume, are working “in the name of Islam” rather than following the orders of their paymasters in Chad, the Sudan, and elsewhere. In other words, we are being asked to set common sense aside and reflexively blame the local Muslims in particular and Islam in general for all of the unrest we see in the news.

Yet both Muslims and Christians in CAR have acknowledged historical co-existence between religious communities, and pointed to political factors as the driving force behind the conflict:

“The religious leaders warned against this risk. Political leaders have not paid attention to these warnings. They wanted to antagonize the Central African Republic along religious lines in order to remain in power.” ~ Catholic Bishop Nestor Desire Nongo-Aziagbia of Bossangoa, Central African Republic

In the country’s capital city of Bangui, local Muslims expressed similar sentiments regarding the relatively peaceful relations between Muslims and Christians prior to descent into civil war:

“It’s not a conflict between Muslims and Christians. We are one nation,” said Ahmet Adam, son of the local imam.

“Here, we [in Bangui] have a mixture of populations that do not exist in other areas,” said Bash, a 28-year-old Muslim resident. “This diversity has prevented us from sinking into violence. We grew up together, people have intermarried. Here, you can find a child with a Muslim name in a Christian home because the father is Muslim.”

Serving briefly as interim prime minister, Nicolas Tiangaye also confirmed CAR’s history of peaceful co-existence:

“Religious communities that have always lived together in perfect harmony are now massacring each other. The situation must be stopped as soon as possible.” ~ CAR Interim Prime Minister Nicolas Tiangaye

If religious communities in CAR have always “lived together in perfect harmony,” what has changed? What is the catalyst for this apparent spontaneous eruption of “religiously-motivated” violence? In a rare departure from the dominant narrative of a Muslim-led holy war, the Christian Science monitor concluded:

“This is neither jihad nor crusade. Fighting in the CAR is over political power, with the capitol city Bangui as the prize.” ~ Chaos in Central African Republic is about power, Christian Science Monitor

If the fighting is really about political power, then why is it so often portrayed as a holy war? Who is jockeying for political power in the Central African Republic and why? Political power is merely vehicle to the real prize: Africa’s abundant natural resources. As we discussed in the first article in this series, competition is emerging at a time when the Western imperial powers are poised to to sink their teeth deeper into the fat of African riches.

The next article in this series explores the economic dimension of the conflict in CAR. In other words, we will assert that what is supposedly being done “in the name of Islam” obscures what is really being done “in the name of greed.”

< Previous Article                           Next Article >

, , , , , , ,

    • Guess – BDS

      With the aftermath result of the uprising, I understand the sentiment of nostalgia for the past. And yes it is known what follows usually when the maniacally “Westcentric” imperialists interferes. But how is dictatorship supposed to be toppled then, as reactionary dictators wont even allow peaceful protest without resuming to force?

    • Jekyll

      I have no damn idea what these boys are talking about.

    • Anonymous

      You should, but be prepared for some of the sadist imagery in the history of animation Im not going to spoil anything ; )

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      I’ve read the books but I have yet to watch the anime series.

    • Anonymous

      Meh I never cared for it, Now full metal alchemist was a damn good series

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      Meathead.

    • Razainc_aka_BigBoss

      It seems like him. To be fair the people he threatened are the ones he saved.

    • golden izanagi

      that could be him though in the times I watched gundam wing when it was on toonami I don’t remember seeing him with that expression at all as he was always just glaring most of the time, and threatening to kill people who invite him to birthday parties.(no I’m not kidding about that)

    • HSkol

      Nerd.

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      You mean Lelouch? Code Geass was a fantastic series.

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      You gotta love that Scott Atran quote. XD

    • Anonymous

      i have no idea who half of these people are except for the Joker and leolich

    • Razainc_aka_BigBoss

      Is that Heero Yuy beside Char

    • Friend of Bosnia

      And stupid. Shows the typical cops’ and secret service narrow-mindedness. As if someone who tries to infiltrate with subversive or terrorist intent wouldn’t try his best to appear as incomspicuous ads possible, and in this case, for an islamist terrorist to look the least Islamic possible. Stupid jerks.

  • Mehdi

    Thanks for the praise

Twitter Agent Provocateur “Ahimla Jihada” Exposed As Fake

Original guest post

by Shibli Zaman

Recently, Twitter was abuzz with its latest agent provocateur tweeting in support of the orcs of our time, ISIS.

Ahimla_Jihada_ISIS

I’ve emblazoned the image with the word “Fake” in order to avoid spreading this nonsense uwittingly.

The tweets of this person declaring her undying devotion and love for ISIS from right here within the borders of the United States garnered some pretty ludicrous responses. After all, ignorance only begets ignorance.

Fake_isis_Twitter

On the blogosphere it was much worse. There were serious efforts to locate her and murder her:

Fake_isis_pic_blog

In this crazed flurry of suggestions to bomb Mecca and Medina, to kill Muslims, and to even go as far as attempting to find and kill this girl, these folks overlooked a glaring detail that I was able to discern in 5 minutes. “Ahimla Jihada” is fake. Twitter apparently discovered this early on and any attempt to access the Twitter account @ahimla2 will reach this page:

Fake_ISIS_Twitter2 So who is she? First and foremost, the name “Ahimla” doesn’t exist in any language on earth. Google it. All you will get are nutters plotting to kill this phantom or results thinking you misspelled the Indian city “Shimla”.

You won’t find a single person on earth named “Ahimla”. People have all kinds of crazy names. Frank Zappa named his kids Dweezil, Moon Unit, and even —as awesome as it is— Rodan. Ving Rhames named his kid Reignbeau. Yes. Pronounced “Rainbow”. David Duchovny named his kid…well…Kyd. But the twit behind this fake Twitter account had to use the one name that just didn’t exist on planet earth. Finally, the last name “Jihada”? That really took a lot of thought.

As for the picture, herein is something very sad and a lesson in sleuthing fabricated propaganda on the internet. Bookmark the URL https://www.tineye.com/ right now. Using this website you can upload any image and it will search the internet for every instance of the image and even similar images going back for years.

I always use this site whenever I get images over social media allegedly portraying atrocities committed in some crisis point of the world. A majority of the time those pictures end up being lifted from something completely unrelated to what they are purported to represent. Don’t get duped! I hope everyone will start using this site to verify the authenticity of images that make claims with an objective of manipulating public opinion.

In this case I was able to find the source of this poor girl’s image. It was taken on April 1, 2009, five years ago, by a photographer who thought this girl’s infectiously cute smile would make a great picture. It was lifted from his Flickr account. Here’s the link to the original post:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/24124408@N08/3652365479/

Note, that he titled the picture “Angel Face”. How both ironic and tragic is it that this young girl’s angelic face was used to represent such great evil by someone who can be described as no less than a diabolical liar. Not only is this innocent girl’s life in danger but there are clearly people ready to exact violence upon any girl who even looks like her. That would be any Muslim woman who wears a scarf.

In the end, there are two critical details to be gleaned from this:

First, in the absence of any American-Muslims supporting such terrorist organizations they found the need to fabricate such a person. American-Muslims deserve a pat on the back for this. We have all kinds of crazies just like anyone else, but we should be proud that these incognito Islamophobes couldn’t find a real extremist to retweet. They had to fabricate one.

Second, it should make everyone painfully aware of what we’re up against. There are dubious forces from an increasingly belligerent political Right who are out to brainwash, by hook or crook, the American public into hating their fellow citizens of the Muslim faith and to justify a foreign policy in the “10/40 Window” that has tarnished America’s reputation globally and needlessly puts our men and women in uniform in harm’s way. It’s high time we fight misinformation with information.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

    • Theresa Jensen

      Thank you for this page. I am a Christian who has been blessed with the friendship of a Muslim from Pakistan during his time in the Midwest as an exchange student. I have enjoyed this page since then now that I am a recovered hater, promoter of brain rot. We do not agree on our eternal futures, but I believe that Love is the answer to life’s problems, and there is no place for hatred in God’s plan. Hate is 100% based on senseless, arrogant fear.

    • Jekyll

      Q: Why did Disneyland Paris experience some difficulties at the beginning? A: Because every night, after the fireworks, the French would surrender.

    • Mehdi

      Ok my pleasure

    • Salaams Mehdi, and thanks for clearing that up.

    • Mehdi

      My point was related to guns, I did learn karate and defended myself a few times in the past. The problem I refer to is guns, I believe that getting a gun for self defense doesn’t make people safer and ends up making matters worse, with general increases of accidents and also overall violence within society. As it’s the case in the US and Latin America, there are less guns in Asia and Europe and I feel safer from that sense. As for the point on knives, I have a 2 year old kid, having him near even a knife worries me indeed, I will teach him how to handle that but much later, that was a point to highlight the issue on guns.

  • Exactly right. A few weeks ago I was looking for a local mosque after moving, and I came upon a message board–a decidedly anti-Muslim one–in which posters were using one of the mosque-finders (salat-o-matic or IslamFinder or some such) to find Muslim organizations in their locales. Then they began making “plans” on what they intended to do with this information. My blood ran cold. I’ve read that expression many times and felt it plenty over the course of my short thirty-nine years, but never until that point had I truly felt it like this. If I wasn’t already a firm believer in arming my household (the Prophet saw mandated the study of martial arts, which in His (saw) time consisted of horsemanship and archery), that would have made me into one. Of course as a veteran and someone who grew up surrounded by guns I have my own cultural biases, but since I live in my homeland that doesn’t worry me too much…

Poll: Americans Like Jews Most, Muslims Least

Anti-Muslim Hate USA

A recent Pew Poll revealed that Jews are viewed most warmly by Americans. Muslims hit rock bottom, just below atheists.

How Americans Feel About Religious Groups

Cross posted from Pew Forum

Jews, Catholics and evangelical Christians are viewed warmly by the American public. When asked to rate each group on a “feeling thermometer” ranging from 0 to 100 – where 0 reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating – all three groups receive an average rating of 60 or higher (63 for Jews, 62 for Catholics and 61 for evangelical Christians). And 44% of the public rates all three groups in the warmest part of the scale (67 or higher).

Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons receive neutral ratings on average, ranging from 48 for Mormons to 53 for Buddhists. The public views atheists and Muslims more coldly; atheists receive an average rating of 41, and Muslims an average rating of 40. Fully 41% of the public rates Muslims in the coldest part of the thermometer (33 or below), and 40% rate atheists in the coldest part.

These are some of the key findings from a Pew Research Center survey conducted May 30-June 30, 2014, among 3,217 adults who are part of Pew Research’s new American Trends Panel, a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults.

Both Jews and Atheists Rate Evangelicals Negatively, but Evangelicals Rate Jews Highly

Attitudes among religious groups toward each other range from mutual regard to unrequited positive feelings to mutual coldness. Catholics and evangelicals, the two largest Christian groups measured here, generally view each other warmly. White evangelical Protestants give Catholics an average thermometer rating of 63; Catholics rate evangelicals at 57. Evangelicals also hold very positive views of Jews, with white evangelical Protestants giving Jews an average thermometer rating of 69. Only Jews themselves rate Jews more positively. But that warmth is not mutual: despite evangelicals’ warm feelings toward Jews, Jews tend to give evangelicals a much cooler rating (34 on average).

Christians and Jews Are Rated More Favorably by Older Americans Than by Younger People; Other Non-Christian Faiths Are Rated More Positively by Younger People

Christian groups and Jews receive higher ratings from older Americans (those ages 65 and older) than from younger Americans. By contrast, other non-Christian groups receive their highest ratings from younger Americans. Adults under the age of 30, for instance, give Muslims a neutral rating of 49, on average, whereas older adults give Muslims significantly more negative ratings (42 among those ages 30-49, 36 on average among those 50-64, and 32 among those 65 and older).

These patterns may partly reflect that there are more Christians among older Americans than among younger people. In Pew Research surveys conducted this year, fully 85% of Americans ages 65 and older describe themselves as Christians, compared with just 59% among adults under 30 (32% of whom identify as religious “nones”).

Jews Rated Most Positively by Whites; Evangelicals and Muslims Viewed More Favorably by Blacks than Whites

Jews receive their most positive ratings from whites, who give them an average rating of 66. Jews also are rated favorably by blacks and Hispanics (with each group giving Jews an average rating of 58). Evangelicals also are rated positively by all three groups, with their highest average rating coming from blacks (68). Muslims receive a neutral rating from blacks (49 on average), but they are rated more negatively by whites (38). Hispanics’ ratings of Muslims fall in between (43).

These findings may reflect the racial and ethnic composition of religious groups. Many blacks describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, for instance, and 23% of Muslims in the U.S. are black, according to the Pew Research Center’s 2011 survey of Muslim Americans. Fully 94% of U.S. Jews are white, according to the Pew Research Center’s 2013 survey of U.S. Jews.

Politics and Religion: Partisans’ Views of Religious Groups Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party tend to rate evangelicals very positively (71 on average). They also express warm feelings toward Jews (67 on average) and Catholics (66). The warmth Republicans feel for evangelicals may reflect the fact that many Republicans and Republican leaners are themselves evangelicals. Among those who are not evangelical Christians, evangelicals receive an average rating of 62. Mormons receive a neutral rating from Republicans and Republican leaners (52 on average), while Buddhists receive a rating of 49 and Hindus a rating of 47. Republicans and Republican leaners view atheists and Muslims much more negatively than they view other religious groups.

Democrats and Democratic leaners express warm feelings toward Jews (average rating of 62) and Catholics (61). Buddhists also are rated favorably (57 on average) by Democrats. Evangelicals receive an average rating of 53 from all Democrats and Democratic leaners, but this drops to 45 among those who are not evangelicals themselves. With the exception of Jews, all of the non-Christian groups asked about receive warmer ratings from Democrats and Democratic leaners than they do from Republicans.

Familiarity With People of Different Faiths

Fully 87% of U.S. adults (including 85% of non-Catholics) say they personally know someone who is Catholic. And seven-in-ten people (including 63% of non-evangelicals) say they know someone who is an evangelical Christian. Because Catholics and evangelical Christians are such large groups, it is to be expected that most people would know someone from these groups.

Most Americans also say they know someone who is Jewish (61%) or an atheist (59%), even though these groups are much smaller than Catholics and evangelical Christians; roughly 2% of U.S. adults identify religiously as Jewish, and a little more than 2% identify as atheists. Other small groups are less familiar to most Americans. For example, 44% of Americans say they know someone who is Mormon, and 38% say they know someone who is Muslim. Mormons constitute about 2% of the U.S. adult population, and Muslims roughly 1%. Roughly one-in-four adults or fewer say they know a Buddhist (23%) or Hindu (22%); these groups each account for roughly 1% or less of the overall population. Knowing someone from a religious group is linked with having relatively more positive views of that group. Those who say they know someone who is Jewish, for example, give Jews an average thermometer rating of 69, compared with a rating of 55 among those who say they do not know anyone who is Jewish. Atheists receive a neutral rating of 50, on average, from people who say they personally know an atheist, but they receive a cold rating of 29 from those who do not know an atheist. Similarly, Muslims get a neutral rating (49 on average) from those who know a Muslim, and a cooler rating (35) from those who do not know a Muslim.

Read the full report here.

, , , , , , ,

    • Rafasa Arandas

      So…most Jews dislike Christians while most Christians love Jews?

  • jkings

    Thanks for understanding friend. How can we try and reach these people to teach them love and not hate? If they think that we are only infidels, and only worthy of death and destruction, this is not easy. Does anyone have any ideas about how to reach these young men that feel they need to do violence to those that they see as infidels? They hate us so much that its hard to even imagine reaching them at this point.

France bans pro-Palestinian protests

French Palestine Rally

Anyone caught defying a French ban on pro-Palestinian protests is subject to stiff penalties, including steep fines and up to three years in prison.

French officials cited security concerns as a justification, after thugs from the French Jewish Defense League (LDJ) violently attacked pro-Palestinian protesters in an apparent attempt to silence them. Instead of safeguarding the democratic rights of protesters, the French government has rewarded LDJ violence with a decisive victory, using the law as a vehicle to achieve what street violence could not.

France bans pro-Palestinian protests

Cross post from Mideast Eye

PARIS – France’s socialist government provoked outrage on Friday by banning protests against Israeli action in Palestine. It is the only government in the western world to enact such a restriction and one of the few in the world to stop public outcries of support for the cause.

In what is viewed as an outrageous attack on democracy, Socialist Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said mass demonstrations planned for the weekend should be halted.

Cazeneuve said there was a “threat to public order”, while opponents said he was “criminalising” popular support for the Palestinian people.

Thousands were set to march against the ongoing slaughter in Gaza, calling for an immediate end to hostilities in which civilians including many children have been killed.

But Cazeneuve said that he feared that there might be a repeat of the fights between “ultra” Jewish vigilantes and pro-Palestinians, which broke out after a demonstration last Sunday.

Referring to the main Paris march, Cazeneuve said: “I consider that the conditions are not right to guarantee security.”

He welcomed a legal procedure instigated by the Paris police to ban the march, despite it already being widely advertised.

Cazeneuve also advised other prefects across France to examine planned marches on a “case by case” basis, and to ban “if appropriate”.

But Michele Sibony, of the Jewish Union for Peace, said: “By outlawing free speech by pro-Palestinian demonstrators, France puts itself in a unique position in the world and Europe.”

And Youssef Boussoumah, of the Party of the Indigenous of the Republic (PIR) said: “France is criminalising any show of solidarity with the Palestinian people.

“This is an absolute outrage, it is a continuation of attempts to muzzle the Palestinian people and to get them and their supporters in France to surrender absolutely to Israel’s oppression.”

Sylvie Perrot, another pro-Palestine activist from Paris, said: “Fascist states stop people demonstrating against wars – it is beyond belief that French Socialists are following their example.”

There has been a similar reaction on Twitter, where people expressed their anger with the decision.

Translation: “I am under shock demonstrating for Palestine in France is forbidden !!!!!! Where are we? Where is democracy????”

Anyone who turns up for what will amount to an illegal demonstration faces up to a year in prison, and a 15,000 euro fine.

If they hide their faces to avoid being identified, this sentence can be increased to three years, and a 45,000 fine.

Even those who publish details of an illegal rally on social media face up to a year in prison, and a 15,000 euro fine. This can be increased to seven years and a 100,000 fine if the postings lead to violence.

On Friday night lawyers for a number of groups hoping to campaign on behalf of Palestine on Saturday lodged an appeal against the ban in a Paris court.

There were false claims made last week that synagogues in Paris had been targeted by pro-Palestinian demonstrators, with worshipers trapped inside by the protesters. However, videos subsequently came to light showing armed vigilantes from a group called the Jewish Defence League (LDJ) baiting demonstrators into fights.

No LDJ members were arrests, despite evidence emerging that they were fighting and smashing up property in full view of the police.

Six pro-Palestine protestors were arrested for a variety of public order offences, although controversy has marred the arrests as the protesters insist they were nowhere near the Paris synagogues in question. 

A judicial enquiry is set to be launched into the false allegations made about the synagogue attacks. The synagogues were undamaged in the clashes.

– See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/france-bans-pro-palestinian-protests-1232695839#sthash.Vcrw4X7S.dpuf

, , , ,

    • Stel En

      They ask for all the rights. But do they allow a single Buddhist or Hindu temple in their countries.

    • I feel a little annoyed sometimes when I see these passive Muslims not doing anything to either educate people about Islam, or thinking that Islam is just worship and doesn’t include outreach to non-Muslims or Dawah (we love to label them kuffar and condemn them to hell but how about inviting them to Islam?) or waiting for something terrible to happen and then feeling victimized. I agree it’s changing, insha’Allah for the better.

    • Ilisha, it’s not that I don’t believe in the power of protests. I have attended a few myself. It’s just that I think Muslims need to step up to the plate A LOT. Protesting in France and fighting with your countrymen about Israel will not help that much. I think Muslims have been afflicted with all this distress for a reason. We don’t open ourselves up and invite people to Islam. Just look at the US. I see masjids as closed spaces where people just go for Iftaars and worship. I see very few masjids that do open houses, open Iftaars or try to actively engage everyone around them and YES invite them to Islam. I heard in a durus that it’s every single Muslim’s task to invite a non-Muslim to Islam. USA is a superpower and controls most of the world. We are blessed to be in there. You can’t fight them, change them. I do agree with everything you say but in this month of Ramadan, I want every Muslim to actively recruit Muslims. We will see how longer US will support the terrorist activities of Israel once the demographics change. I know that’s not the complete and the one and only route but at least people should make it a significant route. Educate about Islam!

    • Tarig Musa

      Democracy is fake! You have one of 2 or 3 choices and when in power all of them do the same things. It’s a sham designed to give you the illusion of choice my friend.

    • What you say is good but I tend to think that protest, peaceful or not, is not going to affect anyone in any way. Perhaps, I have become too cynical but I have lost complete hope in how the business regarding Israel has been conducted for the past few decades.

    • The French must wonder why the French (the pro-Palestinians and the pro-Israelis) fight about a foreign piece of land. Kind of unfortunate it is, whatever is happening in Palestine (the massacre) and how it has divided what would have been people of the same country (French in this case). The more I think about this, the more I tend to think that the Palestinians are not going to get justice. Perhaps we will need a divine intervention (God says enough is enough) because the US will never withdraw support and the more we fight in all different countries with our own country mates (meaning the pro-Palestinians vs. the pro- Israelis in US, France, other places in Europe), the more it doesn’t solve anything. Just thinking out loud what the solution will be. The Arab countries around Israel are useless – if somebody got to give, it will be Israel and they won’t do that. The strategy has to change because the current one doesn’t work.

    • Diego Hernandez

      Another ludicrous example of “whatabouttery”. France is now criminalising freedom of assembly. I think we’re right to expect better of a centuries old EU nation with a UN Security Council permanent seat than an unstable Arab nation.

      FYI, North Africa and West Asia were severely destabilised by French interference in the 19th and 20th centuries. In order to shirk the payment of its debts to Algiers and its merchants, France used the pretext of the Algerian dey hitting a French diplomat with a fan to justify invading and colonising the place. The French leadership started a bloody war of conquest and a began 130 years of brutal occupation because of a fucking fan.

      The French were very enthusiastic about the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Treaty of Sevres, which sliced West Asia up and prevented it from becoming the stable, prosperous region it could have been. The Suez Crisis as well, which resulted in Nasser’s anti-democratic tendencies exacerbating. France gave Israel assistance for the development of a nuclear weapons programme, a decision which still threatens a nuclear escalation in West Asia. France pumped a lot of armaments into Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during its war with Iran.

      It’s hard for “Arabs” countries to develop democracies if there are all these military juntas, personality cults, theocratic paramilitaries and absolute monarchies being propped up by the likes of the USA, UK and France. Incidentally, France has done a bit more of this propping up in recent days.

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/uk-egypt-france-defence-idUKKBN0FO0JN20140719

    • Just_Stopping_By

      I’m actually quite glad to see the protesters. It should not surprise you that I don’t fully agree with the protesters, though I do share some of their views. But I strongly believe that they should have the right to peacefully express those views. And, the more the violence and death is publicly protested and mourned, the more the pressure to end them.

      “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ~ Incorrectly but commonly attributed to Voltaire. I’m more of a wimp, so I will defend that right with my keyboard, but defend it nonetheless.

      Thanks for highlighting the response to an attempt at political censorship.

    • Heinz Catsup

      It’s bad enough they ban religious clothing but this?

    • Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!

      France finally returns to her bloody roots among Robespierre and the sans-culottes. They were not the biggest fans of free speech then; it’s only logical that current policies will reflect this.

    • Iman

      Can you explain to me what part of democracy works?

    • Anonymous

      I wouldn’t call Democracy fake, most of the time it works, but it has a tendency to be abused by those who profit out of human suffering.

      Similar to Socialism, in theory it could work, but in reality its a nightmare.

      What France’s doing is in-spite of democracy not the result of it.

    • Iman

      This incident is another example that the west democracy is fake like Rome’s democracy . Democracy exist among the elites not the people.

    • Anonymous

      It shows hypocrisy on part of the French government.

      If an Arab or Muslim nation did the same thing, we will never hear the end of it on the media.

      If the French really cared about public safety, they would separate the protesters to different parts of the city, or use the police to find the vandals and hologins who started the fights.

      As such, this law is an affront to freedom of expression and speech

    • Iman

      “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ” Voltaire . Can you imagine the media, If any Arab or Muslim country did what France did today.

    • sasboy

      These are the kind of draconian laws that make me grateful I have never been to France, never intend to go there and probably never will go there.

    • Mohamed Al Saadoon

      Hitler must be giggling in his grave.

    • mindy1

      So rather than protecting people you tell them to shut up? :/

    • Gravitytr1

      The french keep showing their true values again and again but nothing seems to be done about it.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      Gotta love those French values.

Oral Traditions in Islam and Judaism

passover_wideweb__430x289

Original Guest Post

by JustStoppingBy

Both Judaism and Islam rely on oral traditions that explain and put texts into context and can help counter misperceptions of the religions.

One of the sources of Islamophobia and Judeophobia is the selective quoting of religious passages that, either taken out of their literal context or without the context of how they have been interpreted, suggest that the adherents of Islam and Judaism repeat and harbor seemingly harsh views.  When the literal context is missing, sometimes just referring to the preceding or following verses is sufficient to counter any misconceptions and let a stereotype go.  In other instances, the religions’ oral traditions may help elucidate how adherents read those verses.

As Passover approaches, I want to highlight two well-known (at least among Jews) portions of the Jewish oral tradition that appear at the Passover seder and how, in broad terms, they relate to some well-known portions of the Islamic oral tradition because they are used by adherents to help put other texts into context.  The Passover seder relates the story of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt.  Within the story, there is a listing of the ten plagues with which the Egyptians were smitten.  As each plague is recited, Jews either spill a drop of wine or use a finger (more traditionally) or utensil to take a drop of wine from their cup and discard it on a plate or napkin.  It is not clear how far back the common explanation for this ritual goes, though it is at least as far as Rabbi Yitzhak Ben Yehuda Abarbanel, or Don Isaac Abarbanel. (1437-1508) who wrote, “The custom is to drip drops of wine out of the cup when counting the plagues to indicate that our joy is not whole because on our account an entire people was punished. Even though the enemy deserved that defeat, it does not cause us real joy.”

My guess is that the explanation, if not the tradition itself, developed over time.  A likely reason is that Jews saw a “difficult text,” or one that can have multiple interpretations, and wished to emphasize the interpretations that resonated with their view of their religion’s morality.  A similar portion of oral history that works its way into many seders  is a midrash, or interpretation of the Torah, found in the Talmud that describes what was happening in Heaven as the Red Sea closed over the Egyptian army that was pursuing the Children of Israel: “The ministering angels wanted to chant their hymns, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said, The work of my hands is being drowned in the sea, and shall you chant hymns?”  As is the case with many midrashim, some Jews take this as a literal revelation and others as a story made up later to provide a moral lesson.  For my purposes here, it does not matter which it is.  Rather, what matters is that hundreds of years after this midrash was first recorded, Jews find it worthwhile to retell every year because it provides context for our understanding of an important Jewish text.

Turning to Islam, I would like to highlight a few portions of its oral history.  One I take from an essay by Imam Shamsi Ali, who writes, “Our oral history records Muhammad’s last sermon as containing the following guidance: ‘Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another.  No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another.  You are brothers.’”   I chose this quote not because of its meaning, but because of how Imam Shamsi Ali explicitly ties it to the oral history.  Still, an Internet search shows that this is indeed a popular quote, appearing in numerous locations.  That should not be surprising given that it is the type of quote that should resonate with Muslims when thinking about the moral messages provided by Islam, with the equality of human beings being one of those messages.

A second piece of the Muslim oral tradition was cited by Arsalan Iftikhar in his interview with Loonwatch: “…we should be reminded of a well-known Islamic parable that tells the story of the Prophet Mohammed and his interactions with an unruly female neighbor, who would curse him violently and then dump garbage on him from her top window each time he walked by her house. One day, the prophet noticed that the woman was not there. In the spirit of true kindness, he went out of his way to inquire about her well-being. He then went on to visit his unfriendly neighbor at her bedside when he found that she had fallen seriously ill.”  This is indeed a well-known parable, found frequently on the web, including in comments at Loonwatch.

But, here is one potentially surprising thing about this particular story: it is not clear that it is authentic.  While there are similar stories, some investigations of this particular one have yielded results such as “I have not found a basis for this specific incident in the books of hadeeth or reliable works of prophetic biography, and it seems as though this story has become popular on the tongues of people without any source to support it, and Allah knows best” as well as “although the record of this particular incident is found in almost all the books of ‘Seerah’ or biography of the Prophet (saws) and is oft-repeated by the Muslims, to the best of our knowledge there is no record of this specific incident in any of the authentic and established Books of Sunnah. And Allah Alone Knows Best.”  As with the midrash on the angels preparing to rejoice, for my purposes it does not matter if this story is authentic.  The fact that this story is so popular even without it being found in what may be called the reliable or authentic hadith or Books of Sunnah only strengthens the point that Muslims repeat this story not because they are “forced” to because it is part of canonical literature that must be repeated, but, rather, they repeat it because its message resonates with their view of the morality of Islam.

Another reason that I chose the quotation provided from Imam Shamsi Ali is the further observation provided by his co-author, Rabbi Marc Schneier, in one of his essays in the same book.  Rabbi Schneier writes, “Most Jews and most Muslims, however, are simply unaware of the good news that the other side has an oral tradition that moderates the sometimes harsh language of the written law.  The ignorance among the majority in both faiths allows the demagogic purveyors of hate to peddle their poison virtually unchallenged.”

Compare this with a statement by one such demagogic purveyor of hate, Robert Spencer, who has written, “Rabbinic Judaism ever since the destruction of the Temple had evolved non-literal ways to understand such commands, while in Islam such literal interpretation is still very much alive.”  In fact, Spencer is misleadingly inaccurate on both counts: Judaism had evolved non-literal ways of interpreting “problem texts” before the destruction of the Temple, and there are both literal and non-literal interpretations of “problem texts” very much alive in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.   It is the latter point, however, that is the more important.  By suggesting solely that there are literal interpretations of “problem texts” in Islam, Spencer hides the existence of similar interpretations in Judaism and Christianity as well as the many Muslims who highlight stories such as Muhammad’s concern for a woman who would throw trash on him (whether the story is literally true or not) as a lens through which they interpret any texts that could be read to call for retaliation for aggressive acts.  As Imam Shamsi Ali writes in one essay, “The guidance found in scripture is not meant to be taken only literally.  … Our stance is that though the Qur’an is sometimes exact, to extrapolate the wisdom in its passages, we need not see the texts as simply static, literal words.”

Strikingly, the Qur’an has no problem citing Jewish Oral Law.  “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” Qur’an 5:32.  The reference may be to Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 (“Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one should say to his fellow, ‘My father was greater than yours…’”) or potentially other similar references such as Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a).  Whether one  believes an Islamic interpretation that Qur’an 5:32 was revealed to Muhammad, or a secular one that the ayah  repeats something that Muhammad heard, this ayah shows a continuity of belief and a tie between the oral Jewish tradition (which by that point had been written down) and written Muslim tradition.

Yet for some “demagogic purveyors of hate,” as Rabbi Schneier calls them, this is not a sign that Muslims view the Qur’an as part of a continuous revelation sometimes referencing Jewish and Christian scriptures.  Instead, these Islamophobes claim to “find further proof of plagiarism of apocryphal Jewish literature; this time in the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin” or title a section of an anti-Islam screed “Plagiarism in Quran,” citing the same passages.   If only the Qur’an had managed to avoid the charge of plagiarism by introducing the text by saying something like “We decreed upon the Children of Israel.”  Oh wait, it did!  Presumably, the demagogic purveyors of hate would not be satisfied with anything short of a footnote and embedded hyperlink in the text when it was compiled over 1300 years ago.

Certain Islamophobes who accuse the Qur’an of plagiarism in this verse, despite the explicit reference to a decree to the Children of Israel, seem less concerned with how Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:12 (“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”) does not reference Tobit 7:15 (“And what you hate, do not do to anyone”) or a well-known (among Jews) saying of Hillel the Elder (traditionally c. 110 BCE, died 7 CE): “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”  One notable demagogic purveyor of hate, Ali Sina, has written, “There is nothing in the Quran and Hadith that would make us believe that Islam is compatible with the Golden Rule.”  Actually, Wikipedia provides a dozen quotes from the Qur’an and Hadith that are variants of the Golden Rule.  The one that struck me the most was one that echoed Hillel: “A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: ‘As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]’ —Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146.”

All three of the Abrahamic faiths thus not only cite the Golden Rule in some form, but have traditions citing it as a maxim that sums up the morality of their religious texts or beliefs.  It is only by being selective in what they cite from the written and oral traditions that the demagogic purveyors of hate could hope to obscure this commonality.   Instead, it is worth taking the time to review the full range of the traditions of each religion, notably those cited repeatedly by their adherents because they resonate with their view of their religion’s morality.  And then, it is time to let the stereotype, and the stirrup, go.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    • Chameleon_X

      There is no need to debate me, since I agree with you already. I am just emphasizing the point that the Arabic word “Hadiths” should always be translated as the (now) English word “Hadiths”. Why obscure what the Quran is saying with distortions like “idle tales” and “statement”? “Hadiths” = “Hadiths”. It is really that simple – a tautological certainty, in fact.

    • Anna

      The same goes for Christians, Jesus is God, son of God, God is the Trinity… it is very relevant to them and the only way… does it make it a Fact or Truth? Nope… To each their own… God will judge…

    • Anna

      The Quran pronounces the word Hadith or Hadithi exactly how it is spelled in English. The meaning Hadith is what Allah calls the Quran as well. Here is a verse to show you an example…

      31:6 “But there are, among men, those who purchase idle (Arabic: Lahwal) tales (Arabic: Hadith), without knowledge, to mislead from the path of God and throw ridicule (on the path): for such there will be a humiliating penalty”

      39:23 “God has revealed the best statement (Arabic: ahasana l-Hadithi) in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects): the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble at it; then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of God’s praises. Such is the guidance of God: He guides with it whom He pleases, but such as God leaves to stray, can have none to guide”..

      45:6-7 “These are God’s revelations that We recite to you with truth. So, in which statement (Arabic: Hadith) after God and His verses (Arabic: Ayatihi) do they believe? Woe to every sinful fabricator”

      Listen, at the end, I really do not care what people believe or follow, I am responsible for my own soul, nor do I want to discuss religion or debate it.

    • A Muslim Guy

      If I haven’t rebutted anything so far, then i don’t think I ever will at this rate. With all due respect, i find your arguments ridiculous and your reasoning beyond silly. There are so many blatant inconsistencies with your line of thinking and with your misinterpretation of texts. Given the overwhelmingly clear and direct evidence that Muhammad (pbuh) is to be obeyed and followed, arguing this any further only lends undue importance to the contrarian position, and it causes me to pull more hair out of my head! “To you be your way, and to me be my way.”

    • Just_Stopping_By

      Yes, that’s it. I see that two of her commenters pointed out that the article is fake. Thanks.

    • Anna

      These English words should be correct, The verses were studied In Arabic to extract the correct English words. But of course in Arabic is the original words. However, it is the message in the verses of it’s meaning is my point. People are following what they fathers told them and that too is warned about. At the end, people can believe what they want, I absolutely would never take Hadith as a source or knowledge, because God commanded us not to. It is almost like disrespecting our Lord. Great tweets…

    • Chameleon_X

      Michael, excellent analysis, as always. You may be surprised, but I basically agree with your position (I think) 100%. See my other two posts on this thread already, where I addressed my position on hadiths. I am not sure if you are aware of all the occasions where the Quran specifically mentions — and unequivocally condemns — “hadiths” (other than the “hadith of the Quran”). Please see my Twitter links for those verses, which were critical to refining my view to where it is today. I was amazed to see how often the literal Arabic word “HADITHS” is used in the Quran without any ambiguity whatsoever. This is what finally sealed the last piece of the puzzle for me. The Quran could not possibly be more clear that elevating hadiths to the status of God’s law is horribly wrong — and, as Anna argues, potentially even a form of idolatry. When we do so, we bow to the words of men, and not just to the words of God. Muslims must bow to no man.

Police Faked Evidence in Shaima Alawadi’s Alleged “Honor Killing”

Husband ordered to trial in Iraqi American s death Yahoo News

In this March 27, 2012 file photo, Kassim Alhimidi, left, looks on alongside his son, Mohammed Alhimidi, during a memorial for his slain wife.

by Ilisha

During a pretrial motion hearing March 25, El Cajon police detective Darren Forster made a startling admission. He testified that he doctored a photograph so it would appear that Kassim Alhimidi was nearby when his 32-year-old wife, Shaima Alawadi, was brutally murdered in their home on March 21 of 2012.

Police admitted that they drove the suspect’s red van to the scene and staged a photo, altering the date stamp. The motive for fabricating evidence, according to Forster, was to coerce a confession from Alhimidi, who has consistently maintained his innocence.

Police Chief Ed Aceves later said deception is commonly used by police and is allowed if officers “follow the rules within the constitution and case law.” He did not want to comment on the specifics of the Alawadi murder case.

“People don’t confess to things they didn’t do in most cases,” Chief Aceves said, but conceded there are exceptions if people are “worn down from hours and hours of questioning.”

Aceves said ultimately is it up to the courts to determine whether or not police have gone too far.

What’s particularly interesting about this new development is that last July, the judge in the case said street-camera footage indicating Alhimidi might have driven a short distance from his home the morning of the murder and parked his car was for him “the most persuasive evidence” in the case. Referring to Alhimidi’s claim he had gone for a drive to relax at the time of the murder, San Diego Superior Court Judge Lantz Lewis said, “It appears to be a lie,” and ordered Alhimidi to stand trial for his wife’s murder.

Justin Brooks, a law professor and head of the California Innocent Project in San Diego said that while he objects to police lying to obtain confessions, courts have upheld the practice. However, it is illegal to present falsified evidence in court. Yet it appears the doctored photograph placing Alhimid’s van near the scene was submitted to the court and influenced the judge’s decision.

It is unclear what impact this new revelation will have on the case. Don’t expect to read news of this latest revelation on anti-Muslim hate blogs, whose agenda would be best served by Alhimidi’s conviction.

First thought to be a hate crime against the family of Iraqi Muslim immigrants, the story generated an outpouring of support from around the world. However, rumors a hate crime was staged to cover up the true nature of the murder began to circulate almost immediately, and become more widespread as police began to zero in on Alawadi’s husband as the prime suspect.

Professional outrage peddlers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer immediately seized the opportunity to portray the initial outpouring of sympathy as naive, politically correct capitulation. Surmising almost from the start that the case was really an “honor killing,” anti-Muslim bigots could hardly contain their glee when Kassim Alhimidi was arrested. Treating the arrest as the equivalent of a conviction, they began gloating, thrilled they could exploit Shaima Alawadi’s brutal murder to vilify Islam and the Muslim community.

In this country, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In concert with David Yerushalmi, Pamela Geller has devoted herself in the past to a campaign ostensibly aimed at protecting the American legal system from “creeping sharia.” Yet she didn’t hesitate to discard much-vaunted bedrock legal principles to convict Alhimidi right from the start. She spoke emphatically of the murder as an “honor killing” perpetrated by Alawadi’s husband and “rooted in Islamic teachings and culture.”

Even if Alhimidi is ultimately convicted of Alawadi’s murder, what is the basis for assuming the crime was motivated by some notion of family honor? It seems for Geller, the honor motive can simply be assumed whenever the perpetrator is a Muslim.

Geller’s claim that honor killing is rooted in “Islamic teachings” is false. She and Robert Spencer have in the past fabricated “evidence” to falsely implicate Islamic doctrine as the culprit behind honor killings. We have repeatedly debunked their “talking points,” in articles here, here, and here

Mona Eltahawy and Raquel Saraswati* (featured in the Islamophobic Clarion Fund’s upcoming movie, “Honor Diaries“) echoed anti-Muslim bigots in this exchange regarding the murder on Twitter.

There are developments in the case that cast doubt on both the original “hate crime” narrative, and the subsequent “honor killing” counter narrative. Months earlier, Enrique Cervantes witnessed and documented an interesting series of events that may be related. In a written essay he described a young couple having sex in the backseat of a car in front of his home in broad daylight the previous November.

“I could see bodies in it, rocking around, the car shaking back and forth, and it’s not even one o’clock,” Cervantes later said of the scene in an essay for the San Diego City Beat.

The couple Cervantes described happened to be Shaima Alawadi’s 17-year-old Fatima Alhimidi and her 21-year-old boyfriend, Rawnaq Yacub. Reports suggest Yacub is of Christian Iraqi origin, and that Fatima may have been struggling with her parents to avoid an arranged marriage to another man. According to Cervantes, the couple stayed at the scene until police arrived, and the girl’s mother came to take her away.

Further details of family strife, including the possibility Shaima Alawadi may have been contemplating divorce, have emerged since the start of the investigation, fueling further speculation about possible motives for the murder. Details were made public after a police affidavit was leaked to the New York Times.

Records show a neighbor spotted a suspect fleeing the area at 10:30 a.m., about 45 minutes before the victim’s daughter, Fatima Alhimidi, called 911 emergency service to report the attack. The suspect was described as a “…dark skinned male, in late teens or early 20’s, 5 feet 7 inches in height, 150 lbs., skinny build, with dark blue or black hoodie, carrying a brown donut shaped cardboard box run west from the area of the victims house…”

The affidavit also refers to a text message allegedly intercepted by police in possession of  Fatima Alhimidi’s mobile phone during her questioning. The message read, “The detective will find out tell them [can’t] talk.” What’s interesting is that affidavit does not specify the phone number or name of the person who sent the text, referring only to a “yet unknown suspect.” 

Was the text message sent by her father, Kassim Alhimidi, who is now suspected of the murder? The wording of the affidavit is vague about the name and telephone number of the sender. However, Alhindi’s defense attorney, Richard Berkon Jr., has pointed out his client does not write or speak English.

For that matter, how could Alhimidi have written the note found at the scene of the murder, which read “Go back to your country, you terrorist.” If the crime was staged by Kassim Alhimidi to look like a hate crime, did he have an English-speaking accomplice pen the note for him in English?

Despite widespread speculation, we still do not know who murdered Shaima Alawadi. Defense Attorney Berkon also noted there is no forensic evidence linking his client to the crime. No blood or glass was found on Alhimidi’s body or clothing, or in his car. Alhimidi has cooperated throughout the investigation, and had voluntarily returned to the US after burying his wife in Iraq, expressly stating he had nothing to hide.

It doesn’t make sense, your honor,” Berkon told Lewis. “The real killer is still out there.

Opening arguments in Alhimidi’s case are scheduled to begin on April 1.

*Note: Raquel Saraswati denies any close involvement with the Clarion Fund but her participation with the group, giving them a platform, is extremely troubling and problematic. Clarion Fund and Rabbi Raphael Shore have a long history of extreme Islamophobia, having produced “Obsession,” “Third Jihad,” and the warmongering “Iranium.” –Emperor

Related:

Honor Killing and Even More Proof You REALLY Shouldn’t Trust Robert Spencer’s “Scholarship”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    • jules2u

      You might want to read that passage correctly, it does not state that her head is to be shaved, but rather that it would be as disgraceful as if she had cut or shaved her hair. Major difference. But then again, under the new convenient those beliefs were no longer a part of Christianity.

    • Amie

      Unfortunately, some Muslims do commit those crimes and give fuel to the fire.

    • EugeneSavoy

      The photo was used for the police interview to get the suspect to admit that he was in the area. The tactic worked because Alhimidi changed his statement to admit that he was in the area after denying that he was…

      The jury deliberated less than two days before delivering a verdict that split the family. Alawadi’s mother, Rehima Alhussanwi, said she was convinced Alhimidi was the killer.

      “In Iraq, normally if he kills her he is supposed to be killed in the same way,” she told reporters through David, the translator.

      The eldest daughter, Fatima, declined to speak with reporters but her attorney, Ron Rockwell, said she felt “outraged and utterly betrayed” that the defense suggested during the trial that she may have been involved in the killing.

      “Although we love our father,” Fatima said in a statement read by her attorney, “we also hate what we believe he did.” http://tinyurl.com/pksqphl

      The UN Population Fund conservatively estimates that honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. http://tinyurl.com/lg3yggp

    • April

      Cowards these “honor” killers be. They proclaim their duty to their beliefs, then lie to cover themselves. There’s no “honor” in that, my friends.

    • Laila Muhammad

      if the quran says ‘100 lashes for both adulturers if 4 witnesses produced….and that afterwards adulturers can only marry other adulturers then these people are indeed still alive and well after their punishment…..just because Saudi iran sudan Pakistan passed laws giving stoning as a punishment which is the torah punishment doesn’t make them correct….same for death to apstacy quran clear ‘no compulsion in religion’….islam is the best religion but with some of the worst followers…thanx

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      The way you frame this is odd. First, I don’t think there is a liberal united front on these issues. Take some Atheists, especially of the “New Atheists” variety, they don’t just expect condemnation of violence, they expect condemnation and ridicule of sacred figures and texts.

      I also think you are making some assumptions here. Who are Liberals to talk about Freedom of Expression? Some are quite happy to stifle it when it doesn’t suit their ends. I’ll point out that there are many periods where critical views of Islam and sacred figures were prevalent in Muslim principalities. There is the famous instance of debate, back and forth between Ibn Hazm and Jewish interlocutors in the form of books of criticism and refutation of each others respective religions.

    • Mehdi

      Totally agreed, the problem is that people in front of him weren’t interested in debating this.

    • Razainc_aka_BigBoss

      From Tariq Ramadan comments on the matter I think he wanted to start a discussion on reform from a inside prospective rather than coming at it from outside. But he wanted a more broad based discussion on things like rights, race , power, poverty, etc… so he did not want to focus on solely one issue hence why he called for a moritorium so a more broad based discusion on Islamic ethics can take place. Also he wanted to seriously ask Muslims if it is even compliment with Islamic principles to implement it considering they way it would used. But he has stated that he is against.

    • Jekyll

      Probably more than just a connection…Elthway is in the wings…

    • Just_Stopping_By

      In reverse order of you comments:

      You are correct that there are indeed typically limits on what one can say, such as rules against libel and slander. I think we can debate whether there are innate rights that may be taken away by authorities or whether there no rights until authorities grant them. I’m much more in favor of the former view, but if we ultimately wind up in the same place, that distinction may not be that important.

      On your first paragraph, I agree without any reservations whatsoever. I just wonder how many of the people who make the “Jesus and Mo” type of comments, as you describe them, do so out of deliberate spite and how many are so clueless not to see the problem with that. I think that Maajid Nawaz falls into the second group. Another way to say that is that (in my view) he is so out of touch with typical Muslims that he can’t even see why what he tweeted would be considered offensive by many of them. Maybe if someone explains it to him really slowly, he’d catch on and not try to dig himself further into a hole by attempting to defend or minimize the meaning of his actions.

    • Rights

      Excellent points. The “Jesus and Mo” type of comments are an immediate turn off for me. And as you know there is much worse stuff that some people say about Muhammad. Such stuff tortures the Muslim mind, and the haters of Muslims and Islam know that very well, which is likely one reason they do it.

      As for people having the right to say those things, that is obviously in the context of rules and regulations that humans have made in certain parts of the World, the West in general. But in allowing the right to say things, the West is not definitive either. Even in legislation there is no such thing as the absolute right to say anything that one wants to, otherwise how could we have the libel lawsuits.

    • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

      Exactly, its about the intentions, the back ground of the individual, their track record.

    • Tanveer Khan

      I’m a panda.

    • Mehdi

      A side note on racism and bigotry, history shows that forms of racism are in constant evolution. For instance antisemitism in the middle ages (which often put Jews and Muslims in the same basket) had nothing to do with European in the 19th century or the racial version that led to the Holocaust and so on. Similarly, Islamophobia is very different now from the Orientalism that went along with colonialism, and the types of racism depend a lot on the countries where they occur. So it makes it difficult to find the right type of response, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an important to keep fighting, but I doubt racism in general will ever go away.

    • Jekyll

      Who is a bigot ? And in what aspect is ones bigotry another’s tradition ? And ideally would not lessening of oeole being Muslims themselves reduce islamphobia sigh sigh all around

    • Just_Stopping_By

      “First, I’m not a scholar and never claimed to be. Yes, but often your comments are erudite enough to make people think you are a scholar of Islam!

      “But we’re not endorsing a particular interpretation,… As with the “litmus test” string, that’s probably not quite what you mean. For example, presidents often say that there is no litmus test for appointing judges, and they usually are claiming (whether true or not) that they are not looking at positions on abortion. But, if a candidate had a public record of repeatedly saying that it would be unconstitutional to ban violent, forcible rape and they would overturn any conviction based on a law against such rape, you can be pretty sure that no president would ever nominate that person to be a judge. Similarly, I am confident that if someone said that Islam endorses violent, forcible rape, you and others would strongly argue that such a position is against any reasonable interpretation of Islam.

      Maybe you’ll disagree with me, but I think we all have litmus tests when the position is abundantly clear (for example, no violent, forcible rape), and then get more nuanced as issues are less clear (how many times must someone ask another person out before it becomes harassment, and does it matter if the response was “no, not ever” or just “no” or “I’m not interested right now” or a non-response?)

      So, would it be fair to say that there are some doctrines that you feel are clearly unIslamic under any reasonable interpretation (for example, Muslims worship the moon or a moon god) and others that may depend on the sources (for example, Qur’an, different sets of ahadith, sunna) one relies on?

    • Jekyll

      So the goal is to eradicate islamphobia

    • Rights

      Ilisha, this is not to respond to you, it is just that I didn’t know where to position my comment.

      To all talking about the litmus tests: What litmus tests? And to determine what? In chemistry the term has very precise meaning. Are we talking about a definitive test to determine whether someone is a Muslim? Christian? Jew? Patriot? Islamophobe? The discussions have been a bit too abstract.

      Ilisha, I say a million dittos to your last sentence.

    • Mehdi

      The problem with litmus tests or such tests in general are the intention of the person who puts you at test and also the premise of the question. If the intent is to get you to fail, you are trapped from the beginning.

      The example of Ramadan with stoning happened to him vs Sarkozy and he was trapped, he was asked the question in prime time with the intent of using any ambiguous word (or seen as such) to then portray him as a barbarian. He should not have gone to that program which was not a debate but an electoral meeting for Sarkozy.

      As you said, one of the main problems for Muslims nowadays is we are assumed as guilty until proven otherwise, and it’s difficult to handle differently the cases where the person is simply poorly informed and where it makes sense to help inform (after all many Non-Muslims are just misinformed and are open to learning and understanding), whereas in many cases we face people who are not interested in finding anything out… There is no much that can be done with the latter except standing up peacefully and answering their hatred, calmly, sometimes with derision, and sometimes ignoring them.

    • Nur Alia binti Ahmad

      I absolutely agree with you. I do not feel personally obligated to answer for any violent act committed in the name of Islam, and I refuse to own it. What the anti Islamic apologists want is to be able to claim that Islam is the cause of criminality, and not the criminal looking for an excuse to justify his own acts. What anti Islam apologists want by wanting all Muslims to apologize for a criminal act in the name of Islam is a way to claim that Islam is the cause of violence by using those Muslims who didn’t participate directly in the act know Islam is violent, and are admitting that by apologizing.

    • Jekyll

      (sigh) as you say…can’ but help see how this would never really help Muslims in the long term anyway the purpose of this website is as you said…made abundantly obvious from time to time.

    • Just_Stopping_By

      “Even if we accept litmus tests, and I have some serious reservations, do you think it’s fair to single out one group more than others?”

      Of course not. What I say about litmus tests or quasi-litmus tests should apply equally, or be rejected equally if you disagree with me, for any and all groups.

Bleeding Africa: A Half Century of the Françafrique

Africans Greet China.jpg

Liberian children hold Chinese flags before the arrival of China’s president Hu Jintao in Monrovia.

The first article in the Loonwatch original series, This is Africa.

by Ilisha

Africa is rich with abundant, untapped natural resources. Yet decades after achieving formal independence from colonial rule, most African countries remain poor and unstable.

According to the dominant narrative, the West continues to reluctantly shoulder White Man’s Burden, tirelessly intervening to save the Africans from their own endemic savagery. Offering generous aid and even putting their own troops in harm’s way to quell the never-ending scourge of violence, the enlightened West continues efforts to spread the light of  “freedom and democracy” across the dark continent.

Meanwhile, various incarnations of “Islamic extremists” are equally devoted to their mission, terrorizing innocent people and plunging one country after another into chaos with their gruesome madness. Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Ansar Dine in Mali, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb, and most recently, the mysterious Séléka in the Central Africa Republic, bring misery to the already bleak African landscape.

This stark binary is the dominant narrative distilled: simplistic, sensational, self-serving and highly misleading. This series is aimed at offering in-depth analysis and alternative perspectives, including some African voices that have emerged via the growing English-language media based in Africa. 

Three times larger than the United States and spanning some 50 countries, the continent of Africa is an enormous and daunting topic. It’s hard to know where to begin. But when it comes to present-day intrigue and exploitation, perhaps the best place to start is not in Africa, but rather in France.

French Dependence on Africa

Most people in the West probably think of Africa as being dependent on Western largess, not the other way around. After all, the Western countries are prosperous enough to take care of their own and even lend a hand to developing nations, while African countries struggle with widespread poverty.

In fact, many countries depend on African resources to sustain their economies and ensure future growth. France in particular has a tremendous stake in its former African colonies, as consecutive French leaders have openly confessed:

‘Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”  ~ Former Prime Minister François Mitterrand, in 1957

“…without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power” ~ Former French President Jacques René Chirac, in 2008

“…a little country [France], with a small amount of strength, we can move a planet because [of our] relations with 15 or 20 African countries…” ~ Former French minister Jacques Godfrain, in 2011

We have to speak the language of truth: African growth pulls us along, its dynamism supports us and its vitality is stimulating for us… We need Africa.” ~ Speech by French finance minister Pierre Moscovici, December, 2013

“…France, along with Europe, would like to be even more involved in the destiny of your continent..tomorrow’s economy will heavily depend on the strength and vibrancy of African businessesThe goal I have set is to double the level of trade between France and Africa in five years. ~ Speech by Current President François Hollande at the Elysée Summit for Peace and Security in Africa, December, 2013

Current French President Francois Hollande wants to double trade with Africa within five years, in the hopes of creating some 200,000 jobs in his country. While Africa accounts for only about 3% of French exports, it is an important supplier of oil and metals vital to French interests. For example, one-quarter of France’s energy production depends on uranium from Niger.

French energy companies are also key players in markets in South Africa, Egypt and Algeria, while the French telecommunications firm Orange has stakes in Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Mauritania, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Congo, and Senegal. French cosmetic companies, including L’Oreal and Pernod Richard, also have a strong presence in the consumer sector in various African countries, and several French companies operate air, land, and sea transportation and shipping. French companies also have significant interests in tropical commodities and agriculture, just to name a few of their commercial endeavors in Africa.

Almost a quarter of a million French nationals are living as expats in Africa, and the country shares cultural and linguistic ties with broad swaths of the continent. The African states help sustain France’s image as a major, influential world power, as alluded to in the statements of French leaders. Francophone African regimes have been a source of votes in support of French objectives at the UN, and key allies in international negotiations and joint intelligence and military operations.

France now faces competition from other emerging powers making enticing offers to African leaders, who are increasingly eager to accept more advantageous arrangements, most notably in the case of China. However, Francophone African countries remain tethered to France by various mechanisms traced back to direct colonial rule.

The Colonial Legacy

Colonialism never really ended. The widely shared assumption in the West is that former colonies have enjoyed self rule for decades, and by now, they should have blossomed into stable, flourishing democracies. If they have failed, they have only themselves to blame. This myth persists because the sophisticated schemes of neocolonial rule are largely hidden from public view.

The Western imperial powers did not simply hand lands and resources back to the native people with no strings attached. On the eve of granting formal independence to their former colonies, the Western imperial powers devised agreements that were allegedly designed to help the new nations transition successfully into modern, prosperous nation states. Half a century (1960-present) is a very long “transitional” period.

Françafrique: The Servitude of the Colonial Pact

Mamadou Koulibaly, professor of economics and former speaker of the Ivorian Assembly, has expounded on the details of this lopsided agreement between France and its former colonies in his book, The Servitude of the Colonial Pact. Based primarily on Koulibaly’s book, this section highlights ways the French virtually enslave and exploit their “former” colonies.

When they gained formal independence, France created a currency for fourteen African nations in West and Central Africa called the CFA (an acronym for Communauté Financière Africaine). There is the West African CFA and the Central African CFA. To add a veneer of legitimacy to the CFA franc, it was entrusted to African banks. However, African control of the currency is an illusion. The CFA franc is African in name only.

The French did not have to devise their scheme from scratch. The Nazis had already taught them some lessons in plunder during the German occupation of France in the 1940s. The Nazis had also used currency manipulations and tentacles lodged deep in the banking system to siphon wealth from France to subsidize German expansionist military adventures.[1] A similar model was deployed by the Soviet Union to exploit Eastern Europe under the so-called Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance, better known in the West as the Warsaw Pact.

To this day, the French Treasury effectively controls both CFA currencies. The Colonial Pact requires each of the fourteen member states to keep 65% of their foreign currency reserves in the French Treasury, plus another 20% for financial liabilities. This means 85% of the money is in the French treasury, leaving the African nations with access to only 15% of their own foreign currency reserves.

If they need access to more than the 15%, which they almost always do, they must request a loan from France. These nations not only have to borrow their own reserves from France. They also must pay commercial interest rates on the loans. France profits both from the investment of other nation’s reserves, and the interest they charge for lending a portion of the reserve to the countries that funded it in the first place.

However, even this lopsided arrangement is bounded by restrictions. A cap is placed on the credit extended so each member country can borrow only up to a maximum determined by the amount of their public revenue in the preceding year. They cannot borrow more, regardless of their financial needs. Remember we are talking about the access member nations have to their own foreign reserves.

A fixed value currency artificially maintains a zone of economic influence, limiting the ability of African countries to control their own currencies. The French Treasury, which invests African money in its own name on the Paris stock exchange, has the final say on all CFA arrangements. It is the French Treasury that makes crucial decisions, such as controlling the money supply (how much is printed) and scheduling currency devaluations.

The French government devalued the CFA franc by 50 percent in 1994. This meant that workers’ wages were cut in half overnight and the price of imported goods, particularly medicines, rose steeply. However, the French had told their allies in the ruling classes of the decision in advance. They saw their wealth double in a day by converting their money into Western currencies.

Suffocating control over the African wealth does not stop with the currency and banking system. The Colonial Pact also stipulates that the French must be given first right to buy or reject any natural resources found in the land of the CFA countries. Even if the African countries can fetch higher prices elsewhere, they can’t sell to anybody until France has its fill. If there is anything left over, only then can it be sold to other buyers.

A similar requirement applies to the award of government contracts in the African countries. French companies have first dibs. A free market economy would allow Africans to benefit from competitive contracts with other countries, which may offer more favorable terms than the French. Obviously, that sort of “free market” maneuvering does not serve French imperial interests.

Recolonizing Africa

The ailing French economy has increased pressure on French leaders, who have in turn tightened their grip in a campaign some have dubbed the “recolonization” of Africa, perpetuating the myth of some phantom era of genuine independence. Perhaps more than ever, the French, along with the rest of Europe, are casting greedy eyes on African resources as their own economies unravel.  Recent statements about “increased trade” in cooperation with “strong allies” is imperial lexicon signaling increased neocolonial plunder, facilitated by complicit regimes.

French troops intervened militarily in Africa 19 times between 1962 and 1995, and 35 times in the last 15 years, including recent invasions of Cote d’Ivoire, Libya, Mali and most recently, the Central African Republic. Intervention is almost always sold to the public on the grounds of “humanitarian intervention.” Evidence suggests the real purpose has almost always been to prop up pro-Western regimes or to install new petite bourgeoisie governments subservient to French interests.

Assault of the Chinese Win-Win Agreement

Foreign competition for Africa’s resources is fierce. The African people, who obviously should have first rights, have long attempted to wrestle control from the colonial powers. As is the case with colonized people all over the world, many African leaders realize the importance of advancing their interests as part of a united front. Pan-Arab, Pan-African and Pan-Islamic solidarity have been advanced at one time or another to throw off the colonial yoke.

Perhaps no one recognizes the power of solidarity movements as much as the imperial powers themselves, who have always depended heavily on divide-and-conquer strategies to keep the boot on the necks of their subjects:

“France views Pan-Africanism as a threat to Western interests in Africa in general and French interests in Africa in particular.”  ~ French Defense Report, October, 2012

Any effort to unite against the imperial powers is vigorously opposed. But indigenous resistance is not the only obstacle. France and the rest of the imperial vanguard also face a new threat from China. The Asian Tiger has growing investments in Africa and a competing win-win strategy that has attracted considerable African interest. Countries like South Africa, CAR, and Angola have signed co-operation agreements in defense, minerals, and energy with China and other emerging powers.

Instead of rigged elections, coups, massive theft, debt slavery, devious scheming under the cover of lies, and ultimately, absolute subjugation of Africans, China seeks partners to not only bring profits to China, but truly aid in African development and eventual genuine independence. China’s African win-win policy includes reduced-interest loans, debt-forgiveness, grants, shared investments, and plans to help African countries eliminate poverty and consolidate their independence. [2] If the final result is stable, prosperous nations, the Chinese have expressed hope that a robust middle class will in turn provide a consumer market for Chinese goods and services.

In the unlikely event Chinese ambitions can be curtailed in the long run, other emerging powers, including Brazil, Russia, India, and Turkey, will continue to present new challenges to the near monopoly France and other Western imperial powers have enjoyed for decades.

France is not the only Western imperial power alarmed by Chinese ascendancy:

“China’s reach in Africa has grown dramatically in the past decade, and the rate of increased Chinese trade and investment in Africa is truly staggering. Between 2000 and 2010, trade between China and African nations grew by more than a thousand percent…the average rate of growth in China’s trade with Africa outpaced that of the U.S. by more than 100%. China clearly sees Africa for what it is – a continent of immense opportunity….

…The U.S. government must pursue an aggressive strategy that aims to capitalize on the vast array of opportunities in Africa. We simply cannot afford to lose out to China in the private sector, and – in the public sector – we must ensure that our values are not undermined by China’s expansive political and economic agenda.” ~ Senator Christopher CoonsOpening Statement: Chairing Senate Foreign Relations African Affairs Subcommittee hearing entitled, “China’s Role in Africa: Implications for U.S. Policy”

Traditional Western imperial powers are trying desperately to secure and expand their own regional ambitions while containing the influence of China and other emerging powers. Simplistic narratives fed to the public are betrayed by the ruthless calculus of the imperial powers howling endlessly about “Islamic terrorism,” yet never missing an opportunity align with Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in the name of political expediency.

Fabled advocacy for human rights, freedom, and democracy for African countries manufactures popular consent for French, British, and American intervention in Africa. The ever-present threat of “violent jihad,” whether real, imagined, or manufactured, provides a handy pretext for aggressive neocolonial subversion, invasion, and long-term, systematic dominance.

With this background in mind, this series can address events in specific African countries. The next article will explore the behind-the-scenes role of France in the tragic events that have recently unfolded in the Central African Republic.

[1] Götz Aly, Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (New York: Holt, 2008), 80-83

[2] Robert I. Rotberg, China Into Africa: Trade, Aid, and Influence (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009), 32-34

Next Article >

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

    • Krankerdelic

      Very, very informative, thank you very much!

    • Matt longhouse

      The article failed to discuss the French role in the Rawandan genocide; the centre right government in France armed the Hutus indiscriminately

    • Rights

      I have been missing out on this thread. Good job, Ilisha. Very hard work. I read every word.

      I certainly hope that the competing new comers in Africa, notably China and India, don’t play the same games as did the European colonialists – greed, selfishness, plundering, subjugation, usurpation, and the like. And I hope Africa fully capitalizes on its relationships with these new players to develop its economies and education. I know of at least one precedent in which China has been playing its hand with as genuine a heart as a nation could – Pakistan. If you ask the Pakistanis who their best friend in the World is, they almost invariably say China. But they do not have kind words for the US and Saudi Arabia as Pakistan’s friends, despite much aid from these two nations. But I do recognize that no nation can be, nor it has to be, entirely selfless in helping others.

    • Mehdi

      I would agree with both of you… One of the points about China is that it brings in competition and gives local governments options that they didn’t have before when they could only decide to award contracts to Western companies. But this won’t fix one of the core issues of African economies, they are built on the principle of selling natural resources to former colonialist powers in exchange for money and political support, switching with China may change the amounts and nature of the support (win-win deals being a change of nature) but it won’t fix the problem of the economical structures, the fact that most contracts still end up in corruption towards the elites, and the win-win contracts being sometimes not that useful (not all roads are good for the population). There have been some local riots against Chinese contractors recently and it’s a sign that deals are not always win-win. In the end, African economies need a transformation that goes beyond these deals. So switching to China or other countries is a step in the right direction as it debunks the Western hypocrisy, but it is absolutely not enough… Much more is needed.

    • Mehdi

      Ah sorry, no idea

    • Jekyll

      Antony Beevor

  • Mehdi

From Moses to Moses: Traversing two Maimonides Quotes on Muslims

Crodoba

A monument in Cordoba, Spain, Maimonides’ birthplace, honoring its famous resident.

March 30 marks the birthday of Moses Maimonides. As such, it seemed to be a good time to discuss two of his quotes that have been used in discussions of Islam and Islamophobia in part due to the range of views that seem to be expressed in them by the same author.

Original Guest Post

By JustStoppingBy

Recently, Robert Spencer tried to make a distinction between Allah and God, arguing that “even though they may share a name, any examination of the particulars of Christian and Islamic theology reveals that the deities in question are quite different in character.”

Note that Spencer does not say that Christians and Muslims have “different views of the same deity” but discusses “the deities in question.” In doing this, he invites the reader to reach the conclusion that the “Muslim Allah” is not the same as the “Christian God.” Danios has already provided a thorough explanation on the use of the term Allah by Jews and Christians in pre-Islamic times. As Danios points out, a common Islamophobic response is to claim that Muslims appropriated the term Allah while referring to a different entity, perhaps a moon god, but not to the god that Jews and Christians worship.

To further create a distinction between Allah and the Christian God, Spencer has asked whether the hajj is an act of apostasy based on his claims that the rites involved in the hajj are of Hindu origin. Of course, it is widely accepted that polytheists made pilgrimages to Mecca and that the Ka’bah was a pagan shrine that contained idols before the advent of Islam, including a belief that pre-Islamic pilgrims to Mecca, “[w]ith all their polytheism and idolatry, they too used to circle the Ka’bah and kiss the Black Stone.” So, even if Spencer were right, that would not seem to be a particularly Earth-shattering revelation.

Since many who propound this “deities” theory won’t listen to Danios perhaps they will listen to some other views. We can start by moving a little away from the Christian-Muslim deity distinction that Spencer wants to draw and referring to a statement by perhaps the most renowned post-Biblical Jewish scholar, Rabbi Moses Maimonides (Rambam). In Responsa #448, Maimonides writes as follows (ellipses in Wikipedia, bolding added; alternate translation also available):

The Ishmaelites are not at all idolaters; [idolatry] has long been severed from their mouths and hearts; and they attribute to God a proper unity, a unity concerning which there is no doubt. And because they lie about us, and falsely attribute to us the statement that God has a son, is no reason for us to lie about them and say that they are idolaters … And should anyone say that the house that they honor [the Kaaba] is a house of idolatry and an idol is hidden within it, which their ancestors used to worship,then what of it? The hearts of those who bow down toward it today are [directed] only toward Heaven … [Regarding] the Ishmaelites today – idolatry has been severed from the mouths of all of them [including] women and children. Their error and foolishness is in other things which cannot be put into writing because of the renegades and wicked among Israel [i.e., apostates]. But as regards the unity of God they have no error at all.

Maimonides’ life covered various phases of Muslim-Jewish relations. Maimonides was born in Córdoba in 1135, at the tail end of the longest potential extent of the “Golden Age” of Spanish Jewry, which saw the blossoming of Jewish culture and the attainment by individual Jews of high positions in commercial and public life. As a result of the Arab political dominance, Maimonides knew Arabic, read many texts in Arabic, and composed many of his most famous works in Arabic and referred to God as Allah in his Arabic writing.

In 1148, Córdoba was conquered by the Almohads, an Berber-Muslim dynasty that revoked the dhimmi status of Jews. There is, no doubt, much debate about the quality of the life of a dhimmi, but scholars have noted that “in any historical case, these relatively abstract and general provisions of the dhimma could and did materialize as either a tolerant and even liberating arrangement, or at the other extreme, a culturally repressive policy within which religious freedom is a hollow formality.” (María Rosa Monocal, The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain,” p. 73. Garibaldi reviews the book here.) Life for Jews under the Almohads went from the previous tolerant and liberating arrangement to the other extreme, with the result that “[m]any Jews were forced to convert, but due to suspicion by the authorities of fake conversions, the new converts had to wear identifying clothing that set them apart and made them available to public scrutiny with many forced to convert or go into exile.” The point of this is not to dwell on history, but to put Maimonides’ responsa into context. It was written not by someone who had experienced only positive relations between Muslims and Jews, but who had also witnessed among the harshest of relations. And one should note that after fleeing Córdoba, Maimonides eventually again found himself in a place where he could establish good relations with Muslim authorities, becoming court physician to Saladin.

So, what does Maimonides have to say about how Muslims view God? Returning to the quote, we see that Maimonides says that “[idolatry] has long been severed from their mouths and hearts.” This, is in fact the same story told in Islam’s view of its own history: before Muhammad, the Ishmaelites (as Maimonides refers to them) in and around Mecca were idolaters. But, since the advent of Islam, “they attribute to God a proper unity.” The Islamic term for a “proper unity” is tawhid, which, in essence, is not just a superficial form of “unity” but a “proper unity” that has an influence on Islamic philosophy and jurisprudence. It is also possible that Maimonides was even distinguishing between the “proper” Jewish and Muslim view of God’s unity and what he would consider the “improper” Christian view of a trinitarian unity. Nowhere does Maimonides even suggest that Muslims are worshiping some different deity or that they do not share the Jewish view of God’s character.

Maimonides further argues that “should anyone say … [the Kaba’a] is a house of idolatry and an idol is hidden within it, which their ancestors used to worship, then what of it? The hearts of those who bow down toward it today are [directed] only toward Heaven.” This can be read as a pre-rebuttal to arguments made by Robert Spencer about the Kaba’a and the hajj based on views, true or not, about their pre-Islamic origins. As Maimonides points out, if Muslims view Allah as the same god Jews view in Heaven and direct their prayers accordingly, pre-Islamic history does not affect their monotheism. Say what you want about any possible idol remnant in the Ka’bah or the etymology of the term Allah, it is clear that the “hearts of [Muslims] today are only toward Heaven.”

Now, why is Maimonides such an interesting person to quote from when countering Spencer’s Islamophobic rhetoric? For one thing, Spencer’s polemical partner Pamela Geller has also quoted from Maimonides, believing that it helps the position that she and Spencer take in general and in her fights about her ads about a choice “between the civilized man and the savage” in particular. Here is a quote she uses, from Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen:

Let Ye understand, my brothers, the Holy One Blessed HE through the trap created by our iniquities cast us amongst this nation, the people of Ishmael [Muslims] whose oppressiveness is firmly upon us and they connive to do us wrong and despicably downgrade us as the Almighty decreed against us (Deuteronomy 32:31, “Your enemies shall judge you”).

There never came against Israel a more antagonistic nation. They oppress us with the most oppressive measures to lessen our number, reduce us, and make us as despicable as they themselves are [Psalms 120:5].

Geller, misleadingly introduces this quote by saying that Maimonides “said this of Islam.” She further introduces the purely religious term Muslims in brackets where Maimonides referred to the “people of Ishmael,” a term that could have ethnic, political, and/or religious connotations.

On the religious aspect, while Maimonides did not accept Islam, it is clear from the earlier quote that he fully accepted that Muslims, or Ishmaelites, were monotheists whose hearts are directed only toward heaven in prayer. Instead, the conflict he describes is a political one, in particular with the Yemeni Shi’a of the time. Ultimately, “Maimonides interceded with Saladin in Egypt, and shortly thereafter the persecution came to an end.”

There are a few additional points worth noting in this quote from Maimonides. First, the reference to “the people of Ishmael” may sound like a form of generalization today, but no more so than the positive references to Ishmaelites in the first Maimonides quote or his reference to Jews as Israel in the second.

Second, unlike Geller, Maimonides does not attempt to create a picture in which one side is civilized and the other savage. Indeed, Maimonides describes Israel’s exile as a “trap created by our iniquities.” Traditionally, this referred to the “baseless hatred,” or the religious and political disputes, mistakes, violence, and venom that existed at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple and the onset of the Exile. Thus, Maimonides’ approach was not to turn a political dispute or suffering persecution into a basis for misrepresenting the religious views of others. Nor did he argue that those of his religion were pure and those of another religion were not; rather, he pointed out sinful behavior in both. In Maimonides’ view, monotheism was a good quality, and, from the first quote, we see that he was able to acknowledge what he saw as the good in his political opponents rather than feeling the need to suppress any of those qualities or actions as if his entire position would fall apart if his political adversaries had any good side. In addition, when Maimonides corresponded with a community of Jews who were being persecuted by a Muslim majority, he made a point of noting that even the Jews who then felt persecuted should not ignore their group’s own history of hatred and violence, including political mistakes that were part of the reason for their exile.

While there are aspects to the two quotes from Maimonides that one can agree or disagree with, they do reflect an overall attitude that contrasts sharply with those of Spencer and Geller.

While Maimonides had political differences with various Muslim groups, he did not seek to mischaracterize their religion or their religious beliefs. For there can be no true peace with the Other without recognition of the truth of their beliefs and behavior and honest dialogue based on those truths, a sharp contrast to the insidious Spencer/Geller policy of no peace, no truthful recognition, and no honest dialogue. Compare Maimonides’ recognition of Islam’s positive monotheistic quality, even when he disagreed politically with Muslims, with Spencer, who has argued that “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim,” meaning that in his view, the only morally good Muslim is one who is not an Islamically good Muslim.

In terms of lessons for today, it may be helpful to see how Maimonides separated the political battles he faced from the opportunities to engage in religious prejudice against the beliefs of the Other. This did not mean that he refrained from political activity, as seen by his appeal to Saladin. But, neither did he refrain from standing up for the truth about another group’s religious beliefs. In viewing how Maimonides conducted these two fights, perhaps it can be said that the lesson is that we should fight our political battles as if there were no religious prejudice, and we should fight religious prejudice as if there were no political battles.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    • el turco

      Coming very late to this, but one important point. Any verse from the Tanakh which refers to G-d must be understood in light of the specific Hebrew term used. Ignoring this context is why so many outside of the Rabbinic tradition read henotheism into the text.

    • Truthteller

      I as well!

  • Just_Stopping_By

    We like confusion!

Powered by Loon Watchers