Top Menu

Yossi Gurvitz: IDF Colonel-Rabbi Implies Rape is Permitted in War

Rabbi_Colonel_Eyal_Karim

Rabbi Colonel Eyal Karim

Israeli journalist Yossi Gurvitz describes himself as a former Orthodox Jew who claims to have seen the “light” and turned atheist at the age of 17. We are unfamiliar with his work but received this tip from a reader regarding one of his recent articles.

It is titled, IDF Colonel-rabbi implies: Rape is permitted in war. Colonel Eyal Qarim was questioned, (seemingly while not in uniform) about whether rape is permitted in war, and his answer implied that it was allowed.

Now I am unfamiliar with halacha or Jewish law, but my guess is it is a system as varied and expansive as Sharia’. Most likely you can find any opinion under the sun within halacha and so I am sure many will insist that the opinion proffered by the IDF Rabbi is not the only one, and is not the position of the IDF.

However, looking at the question and answer it exposes a troubling indication that an IDF Colonel Rabbi who was once being considered for the position of Chief Rabbi held the view that “rape is permitted in war.” More over it is not the first time that extremely problematic views have been expressed by influential IDF Rabbis.

It also brings us back to the question, “what if they were Muslim?”  If a prominent Muslim scholar had offered such an opinion one can be assured that it would be all over MEMRI.

Gurvitz omitted the whole question from the reader to the Rabbi, but we provide an approximate translation via. Google for context:

There have been various wars between nations, such as the First World War, for example, different nations fought each other, and no one was particularly good for the Jews or bad for the Jews…

But if they had captured a village and there were Jews and Jewish girls were raped, it is considered, rightly, a disaster and tragedy to the girl and family.

If yes, rape in war is considered a shocker. How, then was I told that a long, beautiful woman is allowed, according to some authorities, even before the process described in the Torah, I mean, surrender and lay with it created, and only then take her home, etc.?

This seems contradictory. After all, if rape is considered a civil war and not something shocking, why, apparently, Jews allowed?

Is it allowed in our days [sic] for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape girls during a fight, or is such a thing forbidden?

Now it’s very clear that the questioner is asking whether or not rape is allowed in war time. This is the answer that Rabbi Qarim gave (translation via. Gorvitz):

“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […]

As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut. Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot in the original – YZG), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra in the original  -YZG), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”

Gorvitz comments on this:

Wow. Herein lies a hornet’s nest. The first is that according to Qarim, the rape of female prisoners is not just permitted, it is also essential to war; the success of the whole at war relies on it.

….

Another problem is that Qarim invokes here the usual apologetics of those who speak of “Jewish morality”: he claims war is a conflict between nations, not individuals, and that the individual has no importance at war. The raped woman is not a woman, is not a person, has no feelings and if she feels pain it is unimportant: she is not a woman or a person, just an individual of an enemy tribe whose misfortune was to be captured. Furthermore, Qarim says that rape during wartime is immoral if carried out by a rival tribe – but all Jewish wars are, by definition, mitzvah wars. If the rape of the defenseless is part and parcel of “Jewish morality,” it’s not hard to reach the conclusion it is inferior to all modern morality systems. It is also worth noting (Hebrew) that “Jewish morality” is a by-product of German blood and iron romanticism.

Yet a third problem is that, essentially, Qarim says there is nothing which may be prohibited in war, if it is done “for the success of the whole.” We know that the killing of armed combatants is permitted (this is, after all, the essence of war), and we now learn that, for His Blessed Name, the rape of women is also permitted. Then we must ask ourselves whether it is also permitted, for the sake of victory, to also kill unarmed people. Children, for instance, who we have good reason to think may seek one day vengeance for the death of their fathers and brothers and the torturing of their mothers and sisters. The notorious book “Torat Ha’Melekh” answered in the affirmative; it would be interesting to know what Qarim thinks, and whether there is anything he thinks a Jewish soldier ought not to do for victory.

But the real problem here is that Eyal Qarim is an IDF colonel (Aluf Mishneh), and is a senior officer in the Military Rabbinate, i.e. is in a senior position in the IDF religious edicts apparatus. I’ve sent the following questions to the IDF Spokesman:

  1. Is the rape of women during wartime agreeable to the IDF Ethics Code?
  2. If not, why does a prominent military rabbi promote it?
  3. If not, does the IDF intend to end the service of Col. Qarim, or bring charges against him?
  4. How does the IDF Spokesman intend to deal with the anticipated damage to its image in the international arena, resulting from Col. Qarim’s ruling?

Frankly, I did not expect an answer, but surprisingly enough an enraged officer from IDF Spokesman New Media Unit called me. His official response was that Qarim was not an officer in active service when he wrote that ruling, and furthermore that my question “disrespects the IDF, the State of Israel and the Jewish religion,” and hence his unit will no longer answer my questions.

I told him that, as an Israeli citizen, I considered Col. Qarim to be a ticking time bomb, which will blow up in the IDF’s face should a soldier rape an enemy woman: it would automatically be seen as official policy. I told him this happened in the past. He vehemently denied it, and wouldn’t listen.

I think that the fact that Qarim was on hiatus at the time – earlier he was the religious officer of a crack unit, Sayeret Matkal (commando unit) – is unimportant. What is important is that the Military Rabbinate chose to re-call an officer who wrote such a ruling to active service. Qarim was briefly considered a candidate for the position of the Chief Military Rabbi. This is the face of the IDF in 2012, and this is the face of the rabbis it chooses to employ. There are certainly more humane rabbis than Qarim; yet somehow these are not the rabbis who are promoted.

, , , , , , , , , ,

    • syed ali

      This is disgusting.

    • Believing Atheist

      One more thing I wish to say is that this Rabbi has a messed up view of halakah.

      Rabbi S. Yisraeli stated that international conventions on what is permitted and forbidden in war are halakhically valid. Rape is forbidden by Geneva Convention. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits wartime rape and enforced prostitution. These prohibitions were reinforced by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

      @A&A,

      Btw, I think you misunderstand my views. I do not justify all of Israel’s actions. I for instance, oppose the occupation, oppose the blockade, oppose settlements, etc

      However, I just wanted to make it clear that the IDF seldom rapes Palestinians as the report states and this Rabbi is just a loon/extremist for implying what he implied.

    • Aspie and Atheist

      Words matter: A new language for peace Israel’s propaganda machine carefully chooses its words to assert illegal ownership over Jerusalem and Palestine.

      http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212991046211479.html

      Israel maintains only “administrative control” over Jerusalem – illustrated by the fact that embassies, even the US embassy, are in Tel Aviv – although the government assert they “possess” the city [GALLO/GETTY] The words which people use, often unconsciously, can have a critical impact upon the thoughts and attitudes of those who speak and write, as well as those who listen and read. Dangerously misleading terminology remains a major obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

      It is normal practice for parties to a dispute to use terminology which favours them. In this regard, Israel has been spectacularly successful in imposing its terminology not simply on Israeli consciousness and American usage but even on many Arab parties and commentators. It has done so not simply in obvious ways like use of the terms “terrorism”, “security”, “Eretz Israel” or “Judea and Samaria” but also in more subtle ways which have had and continue to have a profound negative impact on perceptions of legal realities and other matters of substance.

      The current initiative by Palestine to upgrade its status at the United Nations from “observer entity” to member state or, temporarily failing that, “observer state” is commonly referred to, by both supporters and opponents of this initiative, as an effort to “achieve statehood” or “recognition of statehood” through the United Nations. It is nothing of the sort.

      The State of Palestine already exists in accordance with the relevant principles of international law. It meets all the conditions for sovereign statehood set forth in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, and more than two-thirds of the 193 member states of the United Nations, including 16 of the world’s 20 most populous states, now recognise the State of Palestine as a sovereign state.

      The State of Palestine has simply been under the occupation of another state for more than 44 years, as Kuwait was, without ceasing to exist, for seven months two decades ago.

      ‘Ending the occupation’

      Palestine’s UN initiative seeks to level the legal and diplomatic playing field and, thereby, to enhance the chances of finally negotiating an end to the occupation. The issue and objective are not “achieving statehood” or recognition thereof, which can only be accorded individually by other states, but “ending the occupation”. With the expiration on January 26 of a three-month diplomatic “freeze” consented at the request of the Quartet, this last-chance effort to save a “two-state solution”, if it can be saved, should resume soon.

      In this context, journalists who refer to all or parts of occupied Palestine as “lands which the Palestinians want for their future state” are, consciously or unconsciously, siding with the mostly Western minority which views Palestine as an aspiration rather than as a state under occupation. More shockingly, even some high Palestinian officials still refer thoughtlessly to “our future state”. Both under international law and in the eyes of most of the world’s other states, Palestine is not a “future state” but an existing state under occupation by another state.

      “Israel can no more ‘cede’ title to occupied Palestinian lands than a squatter can cede title to an apartment which he has illegally occupied.”

      Commentators on all sides speak of Israel’s “ceding” territory occupied in 1967 to the Palestinians. The word suggests a transfer of land by its legitimate owner. Unless there are reciprocal exchanges of territory in a final peace agreement, the issue of Israel’s “ceding” territory to Palestine does not arise. Israel can withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory, but to “cede” property one must first possess legal title to it.

      Israel can no more cede title to occupied Palestinian lands than a squatter can cede title to an apartment which he has illegally occupied. In reality, it is Israel which continues to insist that Palestine cede to Israel indisputably Palestinian lands forming part of the meager 22 per cent remnant of historical Palestine which Israel did not conquer until 1967.

      There is also much talk of “concessions” – “painful”, “far-reaching” or otherwise – being demanded from Israel. The word suggests the surrender of some legitimate right or position. In fact, while Israel demands numerous concessions from Palestine, Palestine is not seeking any concessions from Israel. What it has long insisted upon is “compliance” – compliance with agreements already signed, compliance with international law and compliance with relevant United Nations resolutions – nothing more and nothing less.

      No “concessions”, only “compliance”

      Compliance is not a concession. It is an obligation, both legally and morally, and it is essential if peace is ever to be achieved.

      The Palestinian territories conquered by Israel in 1967 are still frequently referred to as “disputed”. They are not. They are “occupied” – and illegally so, since the status of “perpetual belligerent occupation” which Israel has been seeking to impose since 1967 does not exist in international law. While sovereignty over expanded East Jerusalem, which Israel has formally annexed, is explicitly contested, no other state has recognised Israel’s sovereignty claim and Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the rest of the West Bank is, in both literal and legal senses, uncontested.

      Israel has never even purported to annex these territories, knowing that doing so would raise awkward questions about the rights (or lack of them) of the indigenous population living there. Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank in favour of the Palestinians in July 1988. While Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years, it never asserted sovereignty over it.

      “Israelis have come to believe that Israel currently possesses sovereignty over Jerusalem. It does not. It possesses only administrative control.”

      Since November 15, 1988, when Palestinian independence and statehood were formally proclaimed, the only state asserting sovereignty over those portions of historical Palestine which Israel occupied in 1967 (aside from expanded East Jerusalem) has been the State of Palestine.

      Misleading language has been particularly destructive with respect to Jerusalem. For years, Israeli politicians have repeated like a mantra that “Jerusalem must remain united under Israeli sovereignty”. Understandably, Israelis have come to believe that Israel currently possesses sovereignty over Jerusalem. It does not. It possesses only administrative control. While a country can acquire administrative control by force of arms, it can acquire sovereignty (the state-level equivalent of title or ownership) only with the consent of the international community.

      Israel does not “possess” Jerusalem

      The position of the international community regarding Jerusalem, which the 1947 UN partition plan envisioned as an internationally administered city legally separate from the two contemplated states, is clear and categorical: Israel is in belligerent occupation of East Jerusalem and has only de facto authority over West Jerusalem.

      The refusal of the international community (even including the United States) to recognise West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, evidenced by the maintenance of all embassies accredited to Israel in Tel Aviv, vividly demonstrates the refusal of the international community, pending an agreed solution to the status of Jerusalem, to concede that any part of the city is Israel’s sovereign territory.

      There can be no question of Israel relinquishing or transferring sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem for the simple reason that Israel currently possesses no such sovereignty. Indeed, the only ways that Israel might ever acquire sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem are by agreeing with Palestine on a fair basis for either sharing or dividing sovereignty over the city (or doing a bit of both) which is recognised as fair and accepted by the international community or by agreeing with the Palestinians to transform all of historical Palestine into a single, fully democratic state with equal rights for all who live there, in which case the Jerusalem conundrum, as well as most of the other perennial roadblocks to peace intrinsic to any potential “two-state solution”, would cease to pose any problem.

      This legal reality is of fundamental intellectual and psychological importance for Israeli public opinion. There is a world of difference for an Israeli leader between being perceived as the person who achieved Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem for the first time in 2,000 years and being perceived as the person who relinquished some measure of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem. It could be a life-or-death distinction.

      “Justice” in the peace process

      One word which has been too rarely used in connection with the “peace process” (and which should be invoked more often) is “justice”. For obvious reasons, it is never used by Israeli or American politicians as a component of the “peace” which they envision. Yet a true and lasting “peace”, as opposed to a mere temporary cessation of hostilities, is inconceivable unless some measure of justice is both achieved and perceived, by both sides, to have been achieved.

      It is high time for all involved to recognise and speak clearly about these fundamental realities. The clarity of thought necessary to achieve either a decent two-state solution or a democratic one-state solution would be greatly enhanced by clarity of language, by taking care to use terminology which both reflects reality and facilitates, rather than hinders, the achievement of both peace and some measure of justice.

      Source: Aljazeera English News

    • Aspie and Atheist

      @Geji,

      I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    • Aspie and Atheist

      @Believing Atheist,

      How are jews being dehumanized. And sorry to tell you, but it is a fact that Israeli soldiers and settlers murder Palestinians almost on a daily basis.

      I’d like to ask a question- who are you? Why do you keep defending and justifying Israeli policies?

Robert Spencer Fail: Tries to Use Death of Pope Shenouda III to Promote Sectarianism and Islamophobia

JihadWatch’s anti-Muslim fear-mongering director Robert Spencer likes to selectively highlight the most egregious and sectarian statements by Muslims to further his hate agenda against Islam/Muslims.

In the wake of the death of the Coptic Pope Shenouda III he posted a piece about how a cleric named Wagdi Ghoneim said that the death of Pope Shenouda was a “relief” because the Pope caused “sectarian strife” and sought to make Egypt into a “Coptic state.”

To address that specifically, I wonder if the irony is lost on Wagdi Ghoneim, he accused Pope Shenouda of having furthered “sectarian strife” but by writing what he did he himself engaged in “sectarian strife.”

While there are small fringe groups of Copts who wish to turn Egypt into a Coptic state, trying to push this concept as emerging from the Pope, or the mainstream of Copts is similar to the “Islamization” myth that ironically Spencer and his acolytes regularly engage in. The Pope himself was a nationalist and opposed “foreign intervention” and stated that while Copts are “marginalized” in Egypt they are not “oppressed.”

That said, the main point I want to highlight is the fact that Robert Spencer is attempting to shift focus from the overwhelming support and expressions of condolences and grief from Muslims for the passing of the Pope. He chooses one cleric and tries to attribute it as the general feeling of Muslim Egyptians.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.

High ranking Muslim politicians, scholars, clerics, intellectuals and lay people expressed their sympathy and sadness at his passing.

“His holiness lived and died as a loyal patriot to his country,” Parliament Speaker Saad el-Katatni, an Islamist, told a joint meeting of the two chambers of parliament Saturday.

Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, the highest seat of religious learning in the Sunni world, offered his condolences to the Egyptian people for such a great loss, saying,

“Egypt has lost one of its rare men at a sensitive moment when it most needs the wisest of its wise – their expertise and their purity of minds.”

Egypt Mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa also mourned the deceased pontiff as a great Egyptian and patriot, saying,

“His death is a tragedy and a great loss for Egypt and its people of Muslims and Christians.”

Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm and the party with the largest majority in parliament stated,

“The Freedom and Justice Party sends its deepest condolences to the Egyptian people and our Christian brothers over the death of Pope Shenouda III,” FJP leader Mohamed Mursi said.

Presidential contenders such as Amr Moussa and Ahmed Shafiq also expressed their sadness,

Presidential aspirant Amr Moussa said he was saddened by Pope Shenouda’s death.

“We have lost a great value and a pre-eminent pope,” said Ahmed Shafiq, another presidential contender, and a Mubarak-era prime minister.

For more see: Egypt Muslims Mourn Pope Shenouda’s Passing

Here is a picture of Egyptian Christians expressing their thanks and reciprocating the “love” they received at the death of their leader:

Pope_Shenouda_Muslim_Christian_Unity

Egyptian Christians stand in front of a picture of the late Pope Shenouda III after receiving condolences from both Muslims and Christians. Signs read in Arabic (H/T: ZH): “We feel your love. Thank you, Muslim brothers and sisters”

, , , , , , , , ,

    • dominicdecocco

      @Pat Condell

      Mr. Condell has proven through his Vlogs that he is incompetent at thinking. The major crises that are effecting the UK are related to horrendous socio-economic management of which Muslims are not the problem: we have not caused unemployment and saturated education system nor did we cause the recession!

      If Condell gave a damn about the UK and the rest of the world, he would advocate on tackling these issues not non-existent threats that Muslims are trying to takeover the world.

    • Just Stopping By

      @CriticalDragon1177 and @Solid Snake:

      I believe that you are misreading Pat Condell. He states, “I[‘]m glad that this site exists, [as it] is proof of what [re]tards the Islamophobia industry are [sic]” meaning that he believes that those in what he would call the industry of exploiting Islamophobia are mentally deficient. (Compare to Finkelstein’s “Holocaust industry” as a group said to exploit something real and negative.)

      I don’t know Mr. Condell’s comedy, but I wonder if it is as difficult to parse as his comment above. To be a good comedian, one should be a wit. Based on the clarity of his writing here, Mr. Condell may be only half that.

    • Solid Snake

      @Pat Condell

      Not sure if sarcasm or change of heart…what’ll it be Mr. Comedian?

    • Pat Condell

      Im glad this site exists, proof of what tards the Islamophobia industry are.

    • Géji

      @Arab Atheist Says: atheism “cult”?

      Come on Arab Atheist, when did atheists become overly sensitive as religious nuts tend to get?? would it be that maybe after-all Atheism is just “the new” religion on the block? — But anyway, I do see Atheism as a cult, just like I do see religions are themselves. Don’t take it the wrong way, I certainly did not mean as “insulting” way or anything, I know the word “cult” often get a bad reputation and a negative connotation, but there is also a neutral definition of the word, that state any ideology that cultivates it’s own “Believe” system, including of course Islam, can be called a cult, and it doesn’t necessarily mean in negative sense, of course others may disagree with me on this, but that’s how I see it.

      > “To me, my religion, to you, yours”

      For sure Arab Atheist, for sure, and I never suggested otherwise in my previous post, peace be with you brother.

    • Arab Atheist – ملحد عربي

      @Géji atheism “cult”? لكم دينكم ولي دين To me, my religion, to you, yours

    • Géji

      It’s funny how the Christian nuts like Spencer always see Islam as the ‘big threat’ to their ideology and the one that most likely ‘convert’ Christians, not realizing it is actually the atheism cult that has done far more damage to Christianity in taking big junks out of European Christians to make it it’s own. Aren’t like half of Europe secular atheists?

    • @Emperor,

      Actually come to think of it, the man has been betraying those principals since day one of his bigoted crusade.

    • @Emperor

      I’m so glad I now see Spencer and his ilk for what they really are. Spencer betrays the very principals he claims to hold dear by doing this.

    • Zakariya Ali Sher

      I doubt Spencer wants a Coptic state in Egypt. Yes, he is a Christian nut, but he is also a decidedly sectarian one. I don’t see him recognizing (or respecting) the sanctity of the Coptic Pope’s title. He wants to bring everyone into communion with Rome, with the Roman Pope as first among equals. While Spencer may try to portray himself as sympathetic towards Copts and Assyrians, it is only because they are surrounding by a Muslim minority. You’ll notice he doesn’t go around supporting the Russian, Bulgarian or Finnish Orthodox Churches. Indeed, his cohorts and counterparts in Europe seem to be anti-Slavic immigration as well.

    • crow

      I’m tired of Spencer and the white trash that post on his site. It makes me sick when I see the violent garbage they post while claiming to be “Christian” or talk proudly about teaching their family to hate Muslims.

    • Abdul-Rahman

      Spencer is a lying, hatemonger of course. The vast majority of Egyptians of all backgrounds have always promoted inter-religious harmony in Egypt. That is why after the Coptic church was bombed in January 2011 in Alexandria there were huge mourning rallies of Egyptian Muslims condemning the bombing and standing with their Coptic brothers and sisters (often holding banners with the Crescent and Cross intertwined). It was also widely reported that many Egyptian Muslims then volunteered to act as “human shields” at different Coptic churches throughout Egypt as a symbol of unity, and many of these volunteer “human shields” were Egyptian Islamic scholars and religious students from the Muslim al-Azhar University in Cairo.

    • Garibaldi

      @Cloud, you are correct he has said as much, he fears Islam as a threat to his faith:

      “Islam itself is an incomplete, misleading, and often downright false revelation which, in many ways, directly contradicts what God has revealed through the prophets of the Old Testament and through his Son Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh… For several reasons… Islam constitutes a threat to the world at large.” [5]

      “We wanted Catholics to become informed about Islam because not only is Islam the church’s chief rival in terms of religion but Islam is a serious threat to the peace and well-being of the Western world in general,” [6]

      http://spencerwatch.com/spenceritis/

      I agree he does want to see a Coptic state in Egypt as surely as he wants to see a Christian state in the US.

    • cloud

      Robert Spencer would love to see a Coptic state in Egypt, I’m sure he would also love to see a Christian state here in the U.S, people forget that apart from being an Islamophobe he’s also a religious nut. He tries to hide his pro Christian bias by saying things such as Islam is anti-freedom, anti-human rights, anti-women etc. but the real reason is that in his mind he feels that Islam is a threat to his own religious belief, but he knows that if he frames his argument around that no one would take him seriously. At the end of the day Robert Spencer and his silly views are irrelevant and as one academic put it. they will end up in the dustbin of history.

    • Al

      Silly Spencer…

    • Garibaldi

      Good point @Just Stopping By.

    • mindy1

      RIP sir, and may peace reign in Egypt

    • Just Stopping By

      “I wonder if the irony is lost on Wagdi Ghoneim,…”

      Actually, the real irony is that Spencer is having a fit that someone is accusing a minority religous group of trying to take over a country and remake it in its image. It would be nice to think that Spencer now sees how wrong such accusations are, but I won’t hold my breath.

See, We Told You: Geert Wilders Xenophobia is Not Limited to Muslims

Still my favorite picture of Geert Wilders

Far-right populist Geert Wilders has made a name for himself through his anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric, and for this reason he is, to quote Robert Spencer, one of the “heroes” of the anti-Muslim movement.

We have consistently pointed out however that Geert Wilders and his allies are not one stop bigots. Behind the “acceptable” attacks on Muslims is hidden a wider xenophobia against ‘the other.’ A bigotry which if not born out of any consistent ideological character is definitely a reflection of the realization that playing on the fears of the majority may lead to positive results at the ballot box.

Wilders and his party, the PVV are riding a wave of popularity through the launch of an anti-Polish/anti-Eastern European website which has been the cause of much controversy and embarrassment in the Netherlands. After launching the site it was reported that the PVV,

would gain 24 seats in parliament if elections were held today, the number of seats the party currently holds, says pollster Maurice de Hond. Geert Wilders’ populist far-right party is the third largest party in the Netherlands.

Wilders’ PVV site displays,

news clippings with bold headlines blaming foreigners for petty crime, noise nuisance – and taking jobs from the Dutch. “Are immigrants from Central and Eastern countries bothering you? We’d like to hear from you,” it says.

The Dutch government has distanced itself from the website but this hasn’t ebbed the disastrous PR that Wilders move has generated.

Besides criticism from ten European ambassadors and the European Commission, the Dutch public has also expressed concerns about possible repercussions. Poles are calling for a boycott of Dutch products.(emphasis mine)

The issue was taken to the European parliament which just yesterday announced its ‘dismay’ and formal response to Wilders most recent populist move:

EP condemns PVV website, exec puts ball in Netherlands’ court

By Gaspard Sebag in Strasbourg | Wednesday 14 March 2012 (Europolitics.info)

Representatives of the political groups in the European Parliament, on 13 March, unanimously called upon the Netherlands’ Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, to condemn a website launched by his far-right political ally, the PVV party headed by Geert Wilders. Said website, up since early February, urges Dutch citizens to report problems they experience with nationals of Central and Eastern European countries. “Unacceptable,” “a disgrace,” “scandalous” – said MEPs. The European Commission, for its part, announced it would not get involved from a legal point of view and leaves the responsibility of assessing the lawfulness of the website to the Dutch authorities. A joint parliamentary resolution will be put to the vote, on 15 March (see box).

The EPP, which counts among its ranks the junior partner in the Netherlands’ government, the centre-right CDA, was particularly vocal. “We cannot tolerate, from a party that takes part in a coalition government, a call to hatred against nationals from another member state. That is unacceptable,” said EPP leader Joseph Daul (France).

Despite the fact that Rutte is part of the Liberal political family, ALDE Chair Guy Verhofstadt (Belgium) was unequivocal about condemning the “silence” of the Dutch government and the message sent by the website. “My group has nothing but contempt for Mr Wilders’ initiative.” Recalling the need to be even-handed in criticising populist tactics, Verhofstadt lumped together French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Wilders. “I wonder who is the extreme-right wing candidate [in France], is it [Marine] Le Pen or Sarkozy?” he asked.

Reactions from other political group leaders all condemned Rutte’s passivity, whose hands are tied by his need for Wilders’ support, and who thus claims it is not a governmental issue. S&D leader Hannes Swoboda (Austria) called for the website to be closed down. Polish deputy Jacek Kurski (EFD) said Rutte’s lack of reaction is “scandalous”. “The prime minister [of the Netherlands] is not taking up his responsibility,” said Marije Cornelissen (Greens-EFA, Netherlands). “The prime minister ought to have directly condemned this website,” said Peter van Dalen (ECR, Netherlands), adding, however, that the EP holding a debate on this issue is “too much honour” for Wilders.

Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who had already condemned the PVV website in February, welcomed the comments made in the plenary chamber. “It is unacceptable that EU citizens become target of xenophobic attitudes because they have exercised their right to move from one state to another,” she said. Reding also called upon on the Dutch authorities to “fully investigate the lawfulness of the website under Dutch law and Union law”.

According to Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE-NGL, France), this is not enough. “You continue to refer to member states and their tribunals but I thought that the Commission was the guardian of the treaties, that freedom of circulation and non-discrimination were part of the European values,” she said. “I notice that certain values are more important than others and that in economic matters when the free circulation of goods and capital is concerned, competition barriers the Commission is prompter to condemn,” added Vergiat.

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

    • Just Stopping By

      @Believing Atheist says, “This will be my last and final comment on LW.” No!!!

      “last and final”? You can’t leave on such a redundant comment!

    • Believing Atheist

      I hope LW publishes this new article exposing Geert Wilders by Radio Netherlands:

      It’s not every day that a member of parliament decides to leave his or her party and go it alone. So Hero Brinkman’s defection from the Freedom Party was bound to make news.

      Yet, this defection is more newsworthy than most. For one thing, it removes the parliamentary majority that the current coalition held in the lower house. The two parties forming the minority coalition, the VVD and CDA, depend on support from the Freedom Party (PVV) in parliament. Together, the three parties had 76 seats. With one now gone, they control just half the lower house.

      Prime Minister Mark Rutte might take solace in the fact that the opposition does not firmly control the rest of the seats either. He already has the tacit support of the two-seat right-wing religious SGP party. Moreover, Brinkman has promised to continue to support “the best government this country has ever had”. Still, Brinkman’s defection is a bombshell for the PVV.

      Wilders is the party; the party is Wilders Discipline is the PVV’s mantra. Geert Wilders runs an extremely tight ship and with good reason. After all, the PVV was the second right-wing populist party to emerge in 21st-century Dutch politics. The first, List Pim Fortuyn, captured 26 seats at its first parliamentary election, joined a coalition government and then fell apart in an avalanche of petty bickering.

      Wilders, himself a VVD defector, knew he did not want to create something new only to see it disappear in a similar fashion. Everything about the PVV guards against revealing even the slightest hint of chaos. It is not a political party in the traditional sense. With just one member – Wilders himself – the PVV holds no conferences. Wilders delegates only to a handful of trusted colleagues, who are anyway limited in what they can do on their own.

      First chink in the armour Brinkman’s defection is the first major chink in this armour of rock-solid discipline. Until now, he has remained loyal even after voicing criticism. Brinkman came out publicly against one-man rule a few years ago, when he called for more democracy within the party. Though rebuffed, he pursued efforts to start a youth movement. Even after that project was reigned in, Brinkman stuck by Wilders. Until now, that is. Brinkman is not only the first PVV MP to defect (a number of provincial politicians have left). He comes from the core group that began with Wilders in 2005. He was also one of the most visible MPs.

      Core group The damage to Wilders goes beyond a dent in the public image of an extremely disciplined party. Wilders loses a colleague who dared to talk back. PVV MPs say their meetings are free-flowing exchanges of information. But, given Wilders’ autocratic control, it is hard to imagine all MPs feel free to express their opinions. Brinkman claims he was comfortable standing up to Wilders. In the long run, the party leader may end up missing his opinionated feedback.

      Secrets exposed Now Brinkman is sharing his opinions with the outside world. Less than 12 hours after announcing his defection, Brinkman indicated that the PVV receives substantial amounts of money from ‘US lobby firms’. This was long suspected, but has yet to be proven. The party is under no legal requirement to divulge its sources of funds.

      Brinkman also accused his former party of political opportunism, stigmatising groups such as Muslims and Eastern Europeans for political gain. The controversial PVV website for registering complaints about Eastern Europeans was not well thought-out, he said, particularly from a group wanting to be seen as a responsible, governing party.

      More criticism to come? Brinkman is by no means finished criticising his former party. He has announced that he is writing a book about the PVV.

      Only once before, in its nearly seven years of existence, has the PVV had to deal with an insider revealing its inner workings. Towards the end of 2009, a journalist published a series of diary entries based on her experience working undercover in parliament for the PVV. The damage was primarily personal and psychological – nothing close to what a confidant could reveal in a kiss-and-tell memoir.

      So, besides Brinkman, are there others? For now, he appears to be alone. He was the only PVV MP who openly called for more democracy in the party. All accounts of his last weeks indicate he had little support in the caucus, but claims support from a few of his former colleagues. They just don’t dare to speak out. What effect will his example have on the others?

      A vulnerable time Brinkman’s defection comes at a vulnerable time for Wilders. He is involved in intense negotiations about a new round of austerity measures, measures he himself does not want and which will be unpopular with his constituents. He has now lost his strongest bargaining chip – pulling out of the governing construction and taking the country to the polls. With a party weakened by defection, Wilders may now be stuck with whatever he can get at the negotiations. http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/first-chink-geert-wilders%E2%80%99-armour

      This will be my last and final comment on LW. Thank you LW for tolerating me and posting many of my comments on your blog. Forgive me for any of my transgressions and I wish you the best of luck in combating bigotry and anti-Muslim sentiment.

    • Benjamin Taghiov

      Muslims face most racism in Sweden

      Muslims are exposed to the most racial harassment in Sweden, according to a new report from the Board of Integration.

      Seven out of ten reports of ethnic discrimination came from people with a Muslim background, and almost 40% of those questioned in the survey said they had witnessed verbal abuse directed at Muslims.

      The report, Racism and Xenophobia in Sweden, also showed an increasing intolerance of immigration.

      “If you look at the whole period from 1999 to 2004 there has been a significant increase in the number of people who want to close Sweden’s borders to immigration, from 35% to 45.5%,” said the report’s author, José Alberto Diaz.

      But the picture painted by the report is complex. While one in five respondents said that they were “negatively inclined towards people who they did not consider belonged in Sweden”, the support for anti-immigration political parties, such as the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) and the National Democrats (Nationaldemokraterna) is declining.

      One in four said they could consider voting for such a party, down from almost one in three in 1999.

      Two thirds of those questioned rejected the notion that Sweden is a racist country, and fewer people then five years ago believe that racism is increasing. In 1999, 56% said they believed racism was rising, but by 2004 this had decreased to 46%.

      http://www.thelocal.se/2363/20051025/

      ______________

      Sweden’s Jews, Muslims face web hate rise: study

      The number of xenophobic web sites have almost doubled since 2007 and Jews and Muslims wearing apparent religious symbols are subjected to significant discrimination in Sweden today, according to a new report from the Living History Forum (Forum för levande historia).

      “Sweden as a whole is a tolerant country but this report shows that racism is growing and is being professionalized on the internet. There is today a small but growing minority that harbour hatred against Muslims and Jews,” minister for integration, Erik Ullenhag, wrote in a statement on Monday.

      The report, which was requested by the government and carried out by the Forum, also shows that an increased number of racist web pages have been created in recent years and that prejudice is being spread through schoolbooks.

      According to the report, the number of racist sites in Sweden has almost doubled in two years. In 2009 there were around 8,000 xenophobic Swedish sites whereas today the authors of the report estimate an increase to 15,000.

      This follows a EU-wide trend where right wing extremist groups are using the internet to spread hate-propaganda.

      According to the report, these are characterized by anti-Semitic and Islamophobic views, where conspiracy theories are the most recurring elements.

      The Jewish group is often cast as world conspirators whereas the Muslim group is seen as physical occupiers, actively are on their way to taking over society through mass-immigration and rising nativity figures.

      The Jewish community in Sweden consists of some 20,000 individuals and the Muslim community of 300,000. Fresh crime statistics show that there were 161 reports of crimes with anti-Semitic motives and 272 with Islamophobic motives last year.

      But according to the Forum it is difficult to get a fair idea of the situation from these statistics as they are based on police reports and the authors believe there may be many more unrecorded cases.

      “Above all this study shows that research and follow-ups into preventative actions regarding intolerance against Jews and Muslims is sorely needed,” said head of Forum for Living History, Eskil Franck, in a statement.

      According to Ullenhag, Swedish authorities must further their knowledge about what causes the hate against these groups to grow in Sweden and how they should meet it. That, he said, is the aim behind the investigation regarding xenophobia that the government launched earlier this spring.

      “We have learnt from experiences in other European countries that all the forces who want a tolerant society need to be active in the public debate. Prejudice against Jews and Muslims can never be normalized,” said Ullenhag.

      When American research centre Pew recently investigated the development of religious conflicts and oppression worldwide between 2006 and 2009, Sweden distinguished itself as a country where hostilities related to religion are increasing the most.

      http://www.thelocal.se/35692/20110822/

    • dude

      You are fully right but it would be appreciated if things are not being fueled. The situation in Holland is tensed and a lot of foreigners are not safe here anymore…and in this regard you can think of absolutely anything, the range is wide. If things will be fueled, those people will be put in danger because the Dutch lost the control over the situation.

    • Eslaporte

      thank you for your link to the meldpuntpw. I have now started a campaign in my own country to ban yellow hair dye. It helps disguise identity and seems to make people crazy, adopting as they do, aryan type superiority complexes.

      I have begun to see my shrink since I think that I am beginning to suffer from yellowdyeophobia. http://oskarfreysingerwatch.blogspot.com/

    • @JD I live near the mosque of the Islamic Society of Southeastern Wisconsin. It has been their since the 1980s and nobody has trouble with it…

      I knew that the Netherlands would make trouble in the EU eventually. It’s rather sad. The country used to be a champion of human rights in the world. The country used to stand for international justice. Now – its foreign policy is based crafted on “clash” thesis, which will led to conflicts and wars.

      The Dutch were led to believe that “Pim and Theo” were heroes by being loud and obnoxious in the hate of their own country, as well as minorities. The Dutch tradition of tolerance was admired in the world. The country now hate foreigners, all foreigners.

      What is really funny is that foreigners built the Netherlands and the Low Countries.

      The reason why this has not be condemned by other political parties is that in the Dutch political system one party does not condemn the actions of another party. This is to not step on toes so that one’s own party can be included in a future governing coalition or consideration of policy proposals in the Tweede Kamer. This is part of the reason why the Islamization myths go unchallenged.

      Well – there is a Meldpunt PVV – http://meldpuntpvv.nl/

    • Christian-friend

      I see in the future….Greet Wilders blaming the country’s woes on anyone who isn’t blue eye and white, then shaking hands with a Neo-Nazi officer and praising Hitler!

    • Aspie and Atheist

      How about “live and let live.” Guess what, Muslims in the west are not trying to impose their views on anyone, they are just trying to live their lives according to their principles. But Europeans don’t want to see them, they don’t want any visibility of anything other than themselves. Europeans need to get over their superiority complex and face the horrors of their racism and colonial past, and realize that they’re no better than anybody else. Then maybe they could appreciate diversity instead of fearing it.

    • Yep! You were right. Bigots rarely are one stop bigots.

    • Of course the south dakota bill is unconstitutional JD and I must agree with you. The law is so patently silly that it will surely not last. I refer of course to Hosanna Tabor that the Supreme Court of the USA decided just last month.

      Courts will enforce provisions of religious codes if these relate to the governance of the religion. For example, the hiring of clergy as clergy will not be determined by fair employment practices.

    • Garibaldi

      I’m not too surprised about South Dakota to say the least.

      Thanks Khusboo, we’ll have to post this.

    • here is an interesting site that shows Geert Wielders:

      first as a long haired creepy brown haired and eyed loon,

      second as a brown eyed regular guy loon

      third to his latest incarnation as a blond blued eyed perfect aryan man loon.

      http://oskarfreysingerwatch.blogspot.com/

    • khushboo

      BREAKING NEWS EMPEROR:

      Did you know that last week history was made in Florida? The anti-Sharia bill that was supposed to become law died in the Florida Senate after passing in the Florida House by a vote of 92 to 24.

      Now the lawmakers who helped kill the bill are under attack by anti-Muslim hate groups. Can you take 30-seconds to thank those Florida Lawmakers who did the right thing?

      I just used the website

      http://stopsb1360.org to send an email to Thank the lawmakers who helped stop this bad law. It was really easy and it TOOK ME LESS THAN 30 SECONDS

      http://action.unitedvoices.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9953

    • mindy1

      @South Dakota?? Really, this is what they focus on??

    • Sam

      Under the bill Daugaard signed, however, courts will be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under French law or ancient Roman law or under the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules, but they won’t be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under the requirements of someone’s religious beliefs

      Hilarious!!!

    • NurAlia

      So…flipping a coin to settle a dispute if the parties agree is illegal now?

    • JD

      South Dakota Governor Signs Unconstitutional Anti-Muslim Bill

      http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/13/443666/south-dakota-governor-signs-unconstitutional-anti-muslim-bill/?mobile=nc

      Yesterday, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) signed an unconstitutional law that purports to target courts applying religious law, but which is almost certainly part of a broader push by Islamophobic advocates to fight the imaginary problem of courts substituting Islamic law for American law. The brief bill Daugaard signed provides simply that “[n]o court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”

      Although this bill does not specifically call out any particular religion for ill treatment, it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court explained in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, “the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.”

      While it is uncommon for American courts to apply religious law, it is not unheard of. Private parties sometimes enter into contracts where they agree to resolve their disputes under something other than U.S. law, and individuals sometimes write wills devising their property according to the tenets of their faith. Under the bill Daugaard signed, however, courts will be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under French law or ancient Roman law or under the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules, but they won’t be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under the requirements of someone’s religious beliefs. This is discrimination “against some or all religious beliefs,” and is therefore unconstitutional.

    • JD

      Opponents of Proposed Mosque Clash with Islamic Society Organizers

      http://brookfield-wi.patch.com/articles/opponents-of-proposed-mosque-clash-with-islamic-society-organizers

      Fears that a mosque would bring religious extremists, and even ties to terrorism, surfaced Tuesday when leaders of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee arrived at an Eagle Forum meeting meant to rally Brookfield residents against the proposal.

      After the president and executive director of the society introduced themselves, the meeting at the Brookfield Library turned to debate, focused first on traffic concerns, but soon moving to attacks on the religion of Islam.

      “My fear is what is being taught there,” said a woman who did not want to give her name.

      “Our God is not your God,” one man said.

      “What is it about your religion that draws so much extremism and hatred?” another asked.

      Islamic Society of Milwaukee President Ahmad Quereshi and Executive Director Othman Atta answered their questions, alongside three members of the Brookfield-Elm Grove Interfaith Network.

      “You are our brothers and sisters of humanity,” Quereshi said. “We are not the people advocating for hatred and violence. We’re here as American citizens.”

      About 40 people showed up for the meeting, which forced the group outside into a standing circle where Janet Spiewak, president of the Eagle Forum of Wisconsin, first addressed them.

      She advised the group to leave religion out of their arguments and focus on the construction of the building and traffic it would bring. Aldermen also have warned opponents to stick to non-religious concerns.

      “We’re not fighting against a religion,” Spiewak said. “Concentrate on the traffic and zoning issues.”

      The Eagle Forum of Wisconsin’s website includes as part of its mission: “We must also be vigilant against external threats from rogue nations and radical Islamists.”

      Spiewak urged those present to voice their concerns to their aldermen.

      “Make yourselves heard,” she said. “You have 14 aldermen and a mayor who want to slip something past.”

      The Islamic Society of Milwaukee already owns the land at 16650 and 16730 W. Pheasant Dr., which is northeast of the intersection of Calhoun Road and North Avenue. But they still have several hurdles to pass before moving forward.

      After a public hearing tentatively scheduled for May 7, the plans will go before the Plan Commission for discussion and possible action on a required conditional use permit. If approved there, it will go to the full Common Council.

    • mindy1

      A hater who hates what a shocker/sarcasm

    • @Emperor

      I hope at least one of his supporters has found out about that website and what he has said earlier and maybe for the first time started to question everything Wilders was telling him. Maybe if he does not share his anti Eastern European views, it will lead him to doubt that he is as wise as he is made out to be. That might lead him to eventually reject Wilder’s bigotted views when it comes to Muslims.

ADL Urges Chief Rabbis to Denounce Spitting at Christians

If Muslims were committing this disgusting practice you can be sure that the hatemongers would be up in arms declaring Islam a “vile and intolerant” religion. They would also claim that this is the “pure Islam, etc.”

ADL urges chief rabbis to denounce spitting at Christians

The Anti-Defamation league (ADL) called on the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to publicly denounce “the repulsive decades-old practice by ultra-Orthodox Jews of spitting at Christian clergymen they encounter in the street.”

“This repulsive practice is a hateful act of persecution against another faith group and a desecration of God’s name according to Jewish law,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “This display of hate and bigotry has no place in Israel and is inimical to Jewish values of treating all people with respect and kindness.”

The ADL sent Chief Rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger a letter, urging them to meet with Haredi leaders to put a stop to this practice and to cooperate to educate their community about respect for other faiths and coexistence.

Spitting Jews Ultraorthodox

, , , , , , , , ,

    • Truth Hurts

      I wonder what the Raving Rapturists think of this, probably not much as they just want to destroy the world ASAP.

      The alliance of ultra-Zionist extremism are an odds & sods bunch of rival ideologies engaging in the LCD opportunist expediency.

    • rocky

      god bless israel yahoo

    • mindy1

      Seriously??? Why are my fellow Jews acting like haters??? WE FORMED ISRAEL TO ESCAPE THAT CRAP, AND NOW YOU ARE DOING IT??? WTF D:

    • Nur Alia

      oh come on…

      You have to ‘educate’ people not to spit on others? I think that is a sign of an uncivilised, barbaric society.

    • Sam Seed

      ‘Caution: Spitting Zone’. LOL!

  • LOL!

    That pic at the bottom is hilarious. One of the few funny pics I’ve seen on Loonwatch. Wouldn’t mind an injection of satire now and then to lighten up the depressing articles

Rabbi Manis Friedman on Treatment of Arabs

Manis Friedman

Manis Friedman

The article below is from 2009, but it goes well with Danios’ series on how “Jewish Law” can be interpreted by some in a bellicose and genocidal manner. Can one imagine if the below were said by a mainstream Muslim scholar? All hell would break loose. (hat tip: DE)

Popular Rabbi’s Comments on Treatment of Arabs Show a Different Side of Chabad

By Nathaniel Popper (Forward.com)

Like the best Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis, Manis Friedman has won the hearts of many unaffiliated Jews with his charismatic talks about love and God; it was Friedman who helped lead Bob Dylan into a relationship with Chabad.

But Friedman, who today travels the country as a Chabad speaker, showed a less warm and cuddly side when he was asked how he thinks Jews should treat their Arab neighbors.

“The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle),” Friedman wrote in response to the question posed by Moment Magazine for its “Ask the Rabbis” feature.

Friedman argued that if Israel followed this wisdom, there would be “no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.”

“I don’t believe in Western morality,” he wrote. “Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.”

Friedman’s use of phrasing that might seem more familiar coming from an Islamic extremist has generated a swift backlash. The editor of Moment, Nadine Epstein, said that since the piece was printed in the current issue they “have received many letters and e-mails in response to Rabbi Friedman’s comments — and almost none of them have been positive.”

Friedman quickly went into damage control. He released a statement to the Forward, through a Chabad spokesman, saying that his answer in Moment was “misleading” and that he does believe that “any neighbor of the Jewish people should be treated, as the Torah commands us, with respect and compassion.”

But Friedman’s words have generated a debate about whether there is a darker side to the cheery face that the Chabad-Lubavitch movement shows to the world in its friendly outreach to unaffiliated Jews. Mordecai Specktor, editor of the Jewish community newspaper in Friedman’s hometown, St. Paul. Minn., said: “The public face of Lubavitch is educational programs and promoting Yiddishkeit. But I do often hear this hard line that Friedman expresses here.”

“He sets things out in pretty stark terms, but I think this is what Lubavitchers believe, more or less,” said Specktor, who is also the publisher of the American Jewish World. “They are not about loving the Arabs or a two-state solution or any of that stuff. They are fundamentalists. They are our fundamentalists.” Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a regular critic of Arab extremists, said that in the Jewish community, “We are not immune to having these views. There are people in our community who have these bigoted, racist views.”

But, Foxman warned, Friedman’s views are not reflective of the Chabad rabbis he knows. “I am not shocked that there would be a rabbi who would have these views,” Foxman said, “but I am shocked that Moment would give up all editorial discretion and good sense to publish this as representative of Chabad.”

A few days after anger about the comment surfaced, Chabad headquarters released a statement saying that, “we vehemently disagree with any sentiment suggesting that Judaism allows for the wanton destruction of civilian life, even when at war.”

The statement added: “In keeping with Jewish law, it is the unequivocal position of Chabad-Lubavitch that all human life is G-d given, precious, and must be treated with respect, dignity and compassion.”

In Moment, Friedman’s comment is listed as the Chabad response to the question “How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors?” after a number of answers from rabbis representing other Jewish streams, most of which state a conciliatory attitude toward Arabs.

Epstein said that Friedman was “brave” for stating his views so clearly.

“The American Jewish community doesn’t have the chance to hear opinions like this,” Epstein said, “not because they are rare, but because we don’t often ask Chabad and other similar groups what they think.”

The Chabad movement is generally known for its hawkish policies toward the Palestinians; the Chabad Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, rejected peace accords with the Palestinians. Rabbi Moshe Feller, the top Chabad rabbi in Minnesota, said that the rebbe taught that it is not a mitvah to kill, but that Jews do have an obligation to act in self-defense.

“Jews as a whole, they try to save the lives of others,” Feller told the Forward, “but if it’s to save our lives, then we have to do what we have to do. It’s a last resort.”

Friedman is not a fringe rabbi within the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. He was the English translator for the Chabad Rebbe, and at the rebbe’s urging, he founded Beis Chana, a network of camps and schools for Jewish women. Friedman is also a popular speaker and writer on issues of love and relationships. His first book, “Doesn’t Anyone Blush Anymore?” was promoted with a quote from Bob Dylan, who Friedman brought to meet the rebbe.

On his blog and Facebook page, Friedman’s emphasis is on his sympathetic, caring side. It was this reputation that made the comment in Moment so surprising to Steve Hunegs, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council: Minnesota and the Dakotas.

“Rabbi Friedman is a best-selling author who addresses some of the most sensitive issues of the time,” Hunegs said. “I intend to call him and talk to him about this.”

But Shmarya Rosenberg, a blogger and critic of Chabad who lives a few blocks from Friedman in Minnesota, says that the comment in Moment is not an aberration from his experiences with Friedman and many other Chabad rabbis.

“What he’s saying is the standard normal view of a Chabadnik,” Rosenberg said. “They just don’t say it in public.”

For his part, Friedman was quick to modify the statement that he wrote in Moment. He told the Forward that the line about killing women and children should have been in quotes; he said it is a line from the Torah, though he declined to specify from which part. Friedman also said that he was not advocating for Israel to actually kill women and children. Instead, he said, he believed that Israel should publicly say that it is willing to do these things in order to scare Palestinians and prevent war.

“If we took this policy, no one would be killed — because there would be no war,” Friedman said. “The same is true of the United States.”

Friedman did acknowledge, however, that in self-defense, the behavior he talked about would be permissible.

“If your children are threatened, you do whatever it takes — and you don’t have to apologize,” he said.

Friedman argued that he is different from Arab terrorists who have used similar language about killing Jewish civilians.

“When they say it, it’s genocide, not self-defense,” Friedman said. “With them, it’s a religious belief — they need to rid the area of us. We’re not saying that.”

Feller, the Chabad leader in Minnesota, said that the way Friedman had chosen to express himself was “radical.”

“I love him,” Feller said. “I brought him out here — he’s magnificent. He’s brought thousands back to Torah mitzvah. But he shoots from the hip sometimes.”

Contact Nathaniel Popper at popper@forward.com.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Nemo Fish

    @mindy1

    I love your idea. But the human race has always been able to create bigots, racists, and extremists throughout the generations. Racism survives but it takes a different shape. A better idea is to genetically engineer human beings by isolating the gene responsible for extremism, or wait until evolution does that on our behalf, but the result is not guaranteed

Muslamic Ray Guns Being Used in Stealth Jihad

Well it is green you know?

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller’s heroes, the EDL at it again, lets watch this genius:

Obviously the bloke is a little drunk…at least I hope he is. At the end of the day this group is a nativist, racist organization that doesn’t want to see any non-Whites or Muslims around.

Of course you know that it had to be autotuned:

, , , , , , , , ,

    • sadia

      EDL – English Drugaddicts League – now its easy to understand why they behave in the way they behave! Booze, Drugs and Abuse is what the EDL is capable of. Its no surprise only their similar kind (read:pam and company) will stand by them!

    • Mosizzle

      ThruSriLankanEyes,

      John is sympathising with this EDL loser and believes that such anti-Muslim bigotry is acceptable — in it’s “context”. Yes there are some people who exploit the welfare system but John, in his attempt to justify hatred of Muslims, has used a completely ridiculous 50% figure. We find these stereotypes throughout the British media, that all Muslims live off the state, steal the jobs, rape women, blow up stuff etc etc.

      Sometimes I do think that if there were less Muslims, perhaps there would be less Islamophobia. But that is irrelevant now, as Muslims are here and we can’t do anything about that. In general, Muslim immigration to the UK seems to have slowed down. The Islamophobes are only worried about the Muslims that are already here and god forbid should they have children — their population would increase!

      There’s nothing that can be done about the 2 million or so Muslims in the UK. But people can control their hatred towards them.

  • ThruSriLankanEyes

    @ John Maxwell

    John, on a certain level, I do agree with you. Speaking as a Sri Lankan Muslim, I can say that moving to the UK has now become almost trendy amongst Sri Lankan Muslims. Almost every SL Muslim and his brother is off to the UK these days

Donald Trump Says there is a Muslim Problem, Wants Obama’s Birth Certificate

Donald Trump is gearing up to run for president and is attempting to play to the uber-Conservative base of the Republican party. He questions Obama’s birth certificate, says “it might say he’s Muslim,” and also thinks there is a “Muslim problem,” to buttress this point he says he has been opposed to the “Ground Zero” mosque since the beginning. Talk about opportunist, if you look in the dictionary it might have Donald Trump’s sleaze ball face next to the definition.

Trump: World Has a ‘Muslim Problem’

by Hiram Reisner (Newsmax)

O’Reilly asked Trump whether there is a Muslim problem in the world.

“Absolutely, absolutely — I don’t notice Swedish people knocking down the World Trade Center,” Trump said. “I came out very strongly against the mosque being built virtually across the street.

“The fact is, it was so insensitive when they announced the mosque in that location,” he said. “Don’t forget, that’s my territory — Manhattan. When they announced the mosque in that location, I couldn’t believe it.”

Trump said although there is a world Muslim problem, it does not reflect on all Muslims.

“And that’s the sad part about life, because you have fabulous Muslims — I know many Muslims, and they are fabulous people, they’re smart, they’re industrious,” he said. “Unfortunately, at this moment in time, there is a Muslim problem in the world.”

Turning to the issue of Obama’s birth, Trump said at first he hadn’t contested the president was born in Hawaii, but circumstances made him think twice. He also said it is wrong to demonize people who question the need for Obama to produce proof.

“People have birth certificates . . . now, he may have one, but there is something on that birth certificate — maybe religion, maybe it says he’s a Muslim — or he may not have one,” Trump said. “But I will tell you this: If he wasn’t born in this country, it’s one of the great scams of all time.”

, , , , ,

    • It’s been clear for a very long time that Obama has a core set of beliefs that he religiously (no pun intended) sticks to. Trouble is, he doesn’t seem to realize that his ideas have destroyed everything they have touched repeatedly throughout history. It’s alright… if we survive until next year, the difficult road to Reconstruction -I use that word on purpose- can begin.

    • Trump needs to concentrate on his life and figure out why he had two failed marriages.Who wants a president to run a country when he can’t run a home?(Just saying.)….

    • Dehnus

      “But I will tell you this: If he wasn’t born in this country, it’s one of the great scams of all time.”

      Really? That’s how I think about your hair.

    • Ibrahim Shareef

      I desperately want to make a witty “you’re fired” reference here at Trump’s expense. Yet, I fail. Help me out.

  • Mosizzle and Dawood,

    I really think west actually skims through Armed forces websites, forums, chat rooms,and blogs for his info. And I am sure these sources are themselves informed by the likes of sites like “JihadWatch”. That blunder with the non-existent Arabic word “naqeesh” reminds of how Iraqis and Somalis got labeled as hajjis.

    They attached a pejorative meaning to a term that has high honor for Muslims. I think that that armed forces slang and West’s mistake are indicative of how Western armed forces twist what they hear of/from the natives and return to their respective countries acting as “experts” on Islam and/or Arab culture. Like I said, they’re over there killing people and trying not to get killed, not making jumu’a salat in a masjid or sitting in the circles of the mashaykh. They’re too busy trying to save us from ourselves and bring us the light of Freedom and Democracy, remember

Daily Star Reporter Quits Over Fictional Anti-Muslim Stories

This is pretty bad even for a tabloid.

Daily Star reporter quits in protest at tabloid’s ‘anti-Muslim’ coverage

The Daily Star has been accused of printing fictional stories by a disgruntled reporter who has resigned over its “hatemongering” anti-Muslim propaganda.

In a resignation letter, Richard Peppiatt said he was leaving after the Star gave sympathetic coverage to the far-right English Defence League last month.

Peppiatt admits producing a number of fictional stories about celebrities during his two years at the tabloid, a practice he implies was sanctioned by his seniors.

The reporter, who was once made to dress up in a burqa, now accuses the paper of inciting racial tensions and Islamaphobia. “You may have heard the phrase ‘the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil sets off a tornado in Texas’,” Peppiatt wrote to the proprietor, Richard Desmond, in a letter seen by the Guardian.

“Well, try this: ‘The lies of a newspaper in London can get a bloke’s head caved-in down an alley in Bradford.’ If you can’t see that words matter, you should go back to running porn magazines.”

Desmond’s media empire has included pornographic magazines and adult TV channels as well as Express newspapers, Channel 5 and celebrity magazines. Desmond has said he was not consulted before the decision to publish the front-page story and editorial about the EDL.

Peppiatt tells him in his letter: “The weight of your ownership rests heavy on the shoulders of everyone, from the editor to the bloke who empties the bins.”

Peppiatt, who handed in his resignation this week, said the “incendiary” suggestion the EDL was planning to field election candidates was known to be an exaggeration. “But further up the newsprint chain it appears a story, too good to allow the mere spectre of reality to restrain, was spotted,” he wrote.

The EDL story is one of a number of prominent articles published by the Star that Peppiatt claims were made up, including some of his own. The reporter was recently involved in stories claiming Rochdale council had spent taxypayers’ money on “Muslim-only squat-hole loos”. In fact, the toilets were neither paid for by the local authority or “Muslim-only”.

“I was tasked with writing a gloating follow-up declaring our post-modern victory in ‘blocking’ the non-existent Islamic cisterns of evil,” Peppiatt wrote. The Press Complaints Commission later ruled the story was inaccurate and misleading.

The reporter also quotes Kelly Brook, who recently complained about the number of fabricated stories she reads about herself on the internet. She said: “There was a story that I’d seen a hypnotherapist to help me cut down on the time I take to get ready to go out. Where do they [journalists] get it from?”

Peppiatt wrote: “Maybe I should answer that one. I made it up. Not that it was my choice: I was told to.” He said he had “plucked” the story about Brook’s experimentation with hypnotherapy from his imagination, adding: “Not that it was all bad. I pocketed a £150 bonus.”

In a list of “my other earth-shattering exclusives” for the Star, Peppiatt recalls producing articles about Michael Jackson, the pop star Robbie Williams and Katie Price which he said had no factual basis.

He also admits making up a story suggesting that Matt Lucas was on suicide watch following the death of the comedian’s former civil partner. Lucas won substantial damages in court. Peppiatt criticises the Star’s editorial judgment in his letter, accusing it of hypocrisy, and “arranging the day’s news based on the size of the subjects’ breasts”.

He adds: “On the awe-inspiring day millions took to the streets of Egypt to demand freedom, your paper splashed on: JORDAN … THE MOVIE. A snub to history? Certainly,” he writes. “An affront to Journalism? Most definitely.”

As a young reporter desperate to make his name in Fleet Street, Peppiatt concedes he took to his commissions “with gusto”, but now questions the ethics of what he was required to do, suggesting he was at times promoting an anti-Muslim agenda.

“On order I dressed up as John Lennon, a vampire, a Mexican, Noel Gallagher, St George (twice), Santa Claus, Aleksandr the Meerkat, the Stig, a transvestite, Alex Reid. When I was ordered to wear a burqa in public for the day, I asked: ‘Just a head scarf or full veil?’ Even after being ambushed by anti-terror cops when panicked Londoners reported ‘a bloke pretending to be a Muslim woman’, I didn’t complain.

“Mercifully, I’d discovered some backbone by the time I was told to find some burqa-clad shoppers (spot the trend?) to pose with for a picture [with me] dressed in just a pair of skin-tight M&S underpants.”

Peppiatt’s letter concludes by criticising Desmond for not providing greater resources. “When you assign budgets thinner than your employee-issue loo roll there’s little option but for Daily Star editors to build a newspaper from cut-and-paste jobs off the Daily Mail website, all tied together with gormless press releases.

“But when that cheap-and-cheerful journalism gives the oxygen of publicity to corrosive groups like the EDL … it’s time to lay down my pen.”

The Daily Star rejected Peppiatt’s claims, implying he may hold a grudge against his employer after being “passed over” for several staff positions. It said: “Regarding the paper’s coverage of Islam, he never voiced any disquiet over the tone. For the record, the Daily Star editorial policy does not hold any negativity towards Islam and the paper has never, and does not endorse, the EDL.”[Peppiatt] refers to a Kelly Brook story – in fact he approached and offered the newspaper that story, vouched for its accuracy, and then asked for and received an extra freelance fee for doing so,” the statement said.

The Star also claimed that Peppiatt had been warned by senior reporters after suggesting he would make up quotes.

, , , , , , , ,

    • Khushboo

      ^thanks for the info. I’m glad CNN covered this atleast.

    • corey

      chances of this story being on jihad watch would be very slim unless they can somehow spin it as being somehow a “stealth jihad” tactic.

    • jacque

      Muslim tries to help out Jews against Christian fundamentalists.

    • Ahlam

      Terry Jones response.. if there is any… to the murders he is responsible for will probably be along the lines of “Waah Waah Wahh… I’m so depressed by what I did.. I am going to go jump off my wallet!” *facepalm*

    • Khushboo

      @ Suley, errr…I’m confused. Am I pretending that these MUSLIM extremists were wrong to kill UN staffers?? why don’t you tell me what I’m thinkin since you’re such an expert that you know me better than I know myself. You’re so thick headed that it’s not worth my time arguing with you so I GIVE UP! I would like to move on to other issues please Thank you very much! I can never get my time back. *sigh*

    • Slevdi Davoteca

      He is responsible for these murders. Directly.

      He knew that his action of burning the Koran would wind up a percentage of Muslims in the world who would go bonkers and kill people. Yet he still did it. I find that unforgivable, especially in the name of free speech. All rights come with responsibilities.

      We can argue until the cows come home about whether these Muslims should know better or not, but the fact is we all know they don’t. That is why we shouldn’t play with fire like this. The consequences were totally predictable. This man has incited people to violence and people died as a result. He should be arrested and tried for that crime.

    • “Just pretending that that their moral code is bankrupt,”

      Sometimes I wish this site had a Private Message feature so that people could deal with their personal beefs.

      Suleyman I am sure you understand takfir. Because we are very reluctant to declare someone who says “La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad rasul Allah”, and “I am Muslim”, out of the fold of Islam for their behavior, some Muslims don’t like to hear the extremists being labeled “not religious” or even “non-Muslim”. It brings up the ancient debate of whether major sins take one out of the fold of Islam. However, we must be very careful to scrutinize if what we say makes it seem like ghuluw(extremism) is legitimately within the limits of Islamically permissible behavior. Ghuluw is a clear indication of moral degradation leading to moral bankruptcy, so we must be careful never to link ghuluw to Islam in any way.

      “Silence is not an option when a crime is done in the name of Islam”

      I agree with you on this, but this is a site dedicated to Islamophobia. As I told Dan, constantly bringing up Muslim crimes on a site like this is counterproductive and it looks like tu quouque deflection.

      Remember two things:

      (1)Explanation is not the same as justification. None of the Muslim posters here has ever justified the crimes committed by Muslims, committed in the name of Islam or not.Just because we give reasons for a behavior in order to bring about an understanding of the cause of that behavior does not mean we support the behavior itself.

      (2)Apologetics is not whitewashing, covering up or lying. The popular vernacular has turned the colloquial meaning of “myth” into “falsehood”, and now “apologetic” is equated with “lie”, both of which are inaccurate. Apologetics is the intellectual defense of a position. Calling someone an apologist, with the negative connotation intended, is the usual smear tactic of the Islamophobes, who rely on negative, differential meanings since the majority of their audiences are average people. Please be careful what we call fellow Muslims just because they disagree with our position. Calling someone a non-Muslim because of their behavior is a bit extreme, but calling their behavior irreligious is not, so labeling someone an apologist because of the latter is a bit inappropriate.

      Allahu A’lam ———————————

      “This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)

    • Solid Snake

      “If they do it in the the name of Islam, it obligates us to either correct them (after giving them a trial and punishment, which in this case merits the death penalty unless the victims family forgives them) or to applaud them.”

      yes I completely agree that we should punish them. As for your classifying Muslims into two groups I disagree: there are those who cannot act for many reasons, those who can act but do not, those who do act, those who ignore it, and those who applaud it. As for those who cannot act, they should make dua for the Muslims to be guided. Those who can act but do not we should advise them and encourage them to fight extremism. We should pray for the safety for those that do combat extremism.

      Again I disagree with you on another point. We all know that there are certain actions that can cause you to leave the fold of Islam. And killing inoccent Muslims and non Muslims is one of those actions. So yes we can label them as kuffaar they have spilt the blood and took the lives that Allah has prohibited from being take .

      As for ” It isn’t Islam of course, that is not what I said, but where are the riots condemning them abusing Islam?” Riots are forbidden in Islam due to the destruction, chaos, and injuries that occur as a result. If you mean where are the voices speaking out against extremist Muslims then for a start you have the writers and readers of loonwatch, scholars worldwide from Saudi Arabia to North America. I mean it’s obvious no one is applauding them or making excuses for them. Understanding the particulars of their situation as some readers have commented is another thing entirely.

    • Suleyman

      What makes the Afghan attacks particulary heinous, Sam Seed, is that the government actually saw fit to publish pastor terry Jones video on the news. Something the MSM in the west did not do. The Aghan govt itself is responsible for this if the media is state controlled. Hamid Karzai should be in the dock if Afghan media is state controlled., along with the men who comitted this crime, and all those who were inciting it. The strictest punishments should go to those who were doing it in the name of Islam to deter Islam being abused. Let them comit their crimes in the name of their ugly, misogynistic worse than animal like tribal culture.Not in the name of Islam.

    • Mosizzle

      Let it go, Suleyman, we all agree that what the Afghan protestors did was wrong. We may have different opinions as to what is responsible (personally I blame the people who were inciting the violence in Afghanistan), but that is less important.

      We, as Muslims, are outraged that such atrocities are being committed in the name of our religion.

    • Suleyman

      Solid Snake Wow, either you do not know the concept of moral code or you are ignorant of the Muslim moral code. Those are the only two reasons I can think of tht would prompt u to make such a baseless statement. It’s actually really an embarressing fallacy, what your saying in a nutshell is that since these people did it in the name of Islam, however that would maybe twisting Hadith/ayat or just yelling Allahu Akbar, that what they are doing is in compliance with Islamic moral code. That’s what u are basically saying. “it makes their moral code Muslim” wow….

      No, I did not say that their actions are within the limits prescribed for Muslims. I said;If they do it in the the name of Islam, it obligates us to either correct them (after giving them a trial and punishment, which in this case merits the death penalty unless the victims family forgives them) or to applaud them.

      Now we can sympathise with Afghani’s because of the occupation, (Russian, then American) and their suffering because of drone attacks, American criminal army tactics, but not their misognyistic tribal ways, expecially if they do it in the name of Islam. It isn’t Islam of course, that is not what I said, but where are the riots condemning them abusing Islam?

      Are you suggesting we should keep quiet, with the byline, “oh they’re tribals, and they are occupied?” To hell with their tribal ways, which are actually forbidden. Wasn’t tribalism outlawed by Al Rasool (PBUH)? I think it is about time we raised armies ourselves against miscreants like these.

      Just pretending that that their moral code is bankrupt, and giving them a sly pat on the side for their “tribal” ways, with a wink like Sam Seed just did, is not an option.

      KhushbooSuley, you sound like a typical Islamophobe calling me an “apologist”. I don’t think you’re comprehending what I posted. Lookee, Khushboo really does suffer from a bad case of pretending and insisting on what others are what he wants them to be, rather than what they are. I am no more an Islamophobe than Afghan extremists are non Muslims.

    • corey

      besides I haven’t heard news of muslims in america rioting in the streets because of what Yosemite sams older cousin did.

    • corey

      besides haven’t heard news of muslims in america rioting in the streets because of what Yosemite sams older cousin did.

    • Mosizzle

      Wow, that’s 7 commenters so far on this thread that agree that the behaviour of the Afghan protestors was totally unacceptable. Some of the above commenters are completely hostile to the idea that Islam encourages such uncivilised behaviour. How does this go with Robert Spencer’s belief that this is a “Leftist pro-jihad site” made up of “Islamic Supremacists” and “Stealth Jihadis”? Yeah, thanks for bringing this up John.

      A lot of people throw around the extremist label willy-nilly. Let’s reserve it for the true Muslim extremists that pose a threat to Islam in general as well as the countries in which they live.

    • jacque

      Dan states, “I can understand why Arab countries only allow state-appointed imams and khutbahs. If Pakistan and Afghanistan had state-appointed imams and khutbahs, perhaps such fanaticism would not be widespread.”

      Most Arab countries allow state-appointed imams so that those religious leaders will not say anything bad about the regime. Dictatorships have to be concerned about their image. In Saudi, you can be jailed for making or writing critical comments about the royal family. Saudi uses Islam to control its population.

      Look at one state that did not have state-appointed Mullahs. That would be Iran. The movement against the Shah began by Imams criticizing the regime in the mosques and then it grew from there. The Arabs probably saw this and realized they needed to control the religious leaders in their respective countries.

      As for Afghanistan, how is appointing Imams going to help? Most of the educated class left the country almost fourty years ago. The only religious leaders left are the ones who combine Islam with tribal law that is embedded in the region.

      Though I disagree completely with you on that topic, I fully agree with you on the subject of Terry Jones. I will use the Salman Rushdie angle. By putting a fatwa on his head, Rushdie received a ton of publicity and became famous. That fame made him very wealthy and put him on a pedestal where he did not belong. It would have been better if nothing had been said against him. The Satanic Verses probably would not have sold well and he would have faded into oblivion. The same can be said of Jones. If you don’t give him any attention, he’s nobody, so why make him into a somebody.

    • Solid Snake

      And no I am not an apologist nor do I sympathize with any form of extermisim or extremists. No man is above the law whether he is a Muslim or Non Muslim. I condem all forms of extermisim and extremists.

      It sure is a pity that we have to throw out such disclaimers on a site dedicated to stopping extremisim, It should be obvious, I guess The loons are out in full force on the threads here.

World Net Daily worries that if you eat “halal” food you’re eating food sacrificed to idols

WND, the wacky right wing Evangelical website is forwarding the myth that halal food is sacrificed to idols. They also peddle the conspiracy that Americans are going to be forced to eat halal food. The piece from God Discussion is an excellent rebuttal.

World Net Daily worries that if you eat “halal” food you’re eating food sacrificed to idols

(God Discussion)

Pastor Mark Biltz over at World Net Daily worries that you might inadvertently eat “halal” food in the good old US of A–a country of many cultures—food he says is sacrificed to idols, and “catch” Islam like a virus.    Ignorance of Islam is at its highest in this comment by Pastor Biltz:

At issue, says Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries in Bonney Lake, Wash., is eating food that’s “halal,” in other words “lawful” or “permitted” for the Muslim diet.

Muslims join many Jews and some Christians in avoiding the consumption of certain animals such as pigs and birds of prey, but those of the Islamic faith also have their meat blessed in the name of their god, Allah.

“From the Christian standpoint, Allah would be an idol,” Biltz told WND.”

From a faith standpoint, “Allah” IS God, NOT an idol.  Allah.org states:

Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.

The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing and nothing is comparable to Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Quran, which is considered the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112 which reads:

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone.”

The Quran also condemns the worship of idols, same as the Christian God:

The Quran reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the worshippers of man-made objects, it asks:

“Do you worship what you have carved yourself?” (37:95)

“Or have you taken unto you others beside Him to be your protectors, even such as have no power either for good or for harm to themselves?” (13:16)

Moreover, the term “Allah” is used by Arabic speakers of all Abrahamic faiths (let us not forget that Islam is a branch from the same tree as Christianity and Judaism).  That means that Mizrahi Jews, Eastern Catholics,  Ba’hai’s, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as Arabic speakers, use the word “Allah.”

As for WND’s and Pastor Biltz’ worry that you and I are eating “halal” food unawares, every day we eat Jewish kosher food and it hasn’t hurt anyone. World Net Daily can’t even get the halal process right.  The halal process goes like this:

Halal Meat – The Process
The slaughtering rules (dhabh in Arabic) for Halal, which are based on Islamic teachings, ethics and jurisprudence need to strictly follow the guidelines below:
-
The premises, equipment and machinery must be classed according to Islamic Shariah (Law) before any production takes place
A trained Muslim man should slaughter the animal in a licensed slaughter house with the implementation of all the hygiene and animal welfare regulations
The slaughterman must be a mature and pious Muslim of sound mind who fully understands the fundamentals and conditions relating to Halal slaughter and must be licensed by the Meat Hygiene Service
The animal/bird must be fed and grown on natural vegetarian diet
The animal/bird must be alive, healthy and free from any disease or injury at the time of slaughter. This should be certified and checked by a veterinary surgeon
The animal’s skin or fur and bird feathers must be clean prior to slaughter and free from faeces, dirt or other unhygienic substances
The animal/bird should be fed and should not be hungry or thirsty before slaughter
The animal should not be slaughtered in front of other animals and no blood seen so that no stress or discomfort has been caused to the animal
The animal should be handled gently and individually
The knife should be very sharp and clean and should not be sharpened in front of any animal before slaughter
The Muslim slaughterman says the following before slaughtering: in the name of Allah, Allah is greatest (Bismillah, Allah Akbar)
The cut to be done in the right anatomical position in the throat by cutting the two carotids, the two jugulars, the windpipe and the gullet, but without cutting the spinal cord
All blood should be allowed to be drained from the carcass
A specific time should be allowed till the animal ceases any movement
De-feathering, de-skinning and evisceration can be done afterwards
Any unlawful meat like pork should not contaminate Halal meat. Separate knives, equipment and utensils should be used for Halal meat

So don’t worry, folks. Eating halal meat isn’t going to make you a involuntary Muslim anymore than eating kosher food unawares makes you an involuntary Jew.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

    • Stupid beyond belief. If I eat jalepenos will I start spaeaking Spanish? What an idiot!

    • UK Muslim

      Are Arab Christians who worship Allah idol-worshippers & what about their Bibles?

    • jdb

      Christians do not consider the Jews and Muslims God to be the same as theirs, to them Jesus is God, the son, and the holy ghost. And if you don’t believe that,then you don’t believe in the same God.

    • Daniel

      In the Aramaic New Testament (the language Jesus spoke), God is “Allah”.

      I am no longer surprised at the appaling ignorance of supposedly educated pastors.

    • Yearp, they don’t want people to know that in M’asia and Indo Christians both use the word ‘Allah’ but also use other phrases such as ‘Massallah’ and ‘Ins’allah’. Same goes for, of course, Arabic speaking Christians. However, it’s possible if not probably that the writers of this article don’t consider the groups we are both talking about true Christians and as people who need to be ‘rebirthed’ or whatever it is they do to them so we are kinda talking to the wind…

    • Masa

      Jack,

      Legally, yes. My point was that while these people – as mentioned in the article – are still going around talking about ‘Allah’ being the name of some idol, or some sort of ‘moon god’ getting a hefty promotion, their co-religionists in say, the rest of the world, have embraced ‘Allah’ as another way to refer to ‘God’.

      Its unbelievable how these loons go all apesh*t over the silliest things.

    • I thought they got it Masa, didn’t the High Court in KL revoke the previous judgment?

    • Masa

      “From the Christian standpoint, Allah would be an idol,” Biltz told WND.”

      Interesting… at the same time, Christians here in Malaysia are trying to get approval for their usage of ‘Allah’ in their religious texts, ceremonies, etc.

    • Daniel

      Ironically, the Apostle Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians that eating meat sacrificed to idols does not defile a Christian, and it is a sign of weakness to think that it does.

      Double the irony that Islam is far more iconoclastic than Christianity, which views images of God as ok.

  • Farlowe

    Vegetarianism is the answer to all this.

Iowa Voters Still Believe Obama is a Muslim

It looks like Sean Hannity and company are getting wackier by the minute. Here a panel group of caucus voters from Iowa say they believe Obama is an evil Mooslim.

, , , , , , , , , ,

    • Jack

      Obama should turn Muslim just to piss them off and be done with these allegations. I’m surprised they didn’t bring up his birth certificate.

      But you know what it is? These people inform their world view by the antics of Glenn Beck and Fox News. So they don’t see a people’s revolt against a corrupt and autocratic leadership that has left them poor and on the outside. They see a move towards a second Iran. They’ve been spoon-fed these bogeyman stories about the Muslim Brotherhood, and they’d like Obama to come out and say he’ll never allow Egypt to turn into a theocracy.

      Of course, the next question then would be: so what are you going to do about it?

      The other day, I heard Bill ‘O Reilly saying he wanted a Reagan-like stance on Egypt from Obama. A slogan like: “Mr. President, tear down this wall!” So, apparently, Obama is damned if he does side with the Egyptian people and damned if he doesn’t. Because if he does: then obviously he must be favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood, him being a ‘secret Muslim’ and all; and if he doesn’t openly side with the Egyptian people, he’s too passive and not statesmen like.

      Also, these people have no clue that Hosni Mubarak has been our dictator for the last thirty years. He was our guy, preventing radical Islamists from taking over, and ensuring Egypt’s peace-treaty with Israel would endure. Unfortunately, he also suppressed his own people, putting any viable opposition to his rule in prison. For God’s sake he tortured people on our behalf. So how could one expect the US President to switch sides overnight and cheer on the crowds OR call on Mubarak to repress them in the wake of these popular uprisings?

      The Egyptian ruling power is already groaning and moaning that America isn’t very loyal to long standing allies like themselves. How do you think it looks to other dictators in the region (and beyond) that are backed by the US? You can bet they’re scratching their chins and think: hmmm… maybe I should be looking out for new patrons. Spread my risks. If the US turns on me, I’d still have China or Russia to back up my reign.

      All this is obviously way beyond the Iowa Republican opinion panel.

      So sad: we used to think of Archie Bunker as a mock figure. A relic of the past. But with the resurgence of right-wing Republicanism from the eighties on, their bigotry has become a force to be reckoned with.

    • khushboo

      Whoopi Goldberg of “The View” was extremely angry with this Iowa Group saying that not only were they wrong about Obama being a Muslim but that it doesn’t matter even if he is a Muslim. Even Elizabeth Hasselbeck agreed with her.

    • Jack

      Loved this one:

      “I think he believes America is at fault for the world’s problems. I think he doesn’t see the good that America does in the world.”

      Yeah, like dismantling Iraq so that it could become the chaotic, depleted plutonium ridden hell-hole it now is; or making war in Afghanistan, or bombing Pakistan, or supporting dictators all over the world, or supporting Israel and it’s wars and colonialist policies.

      These people are suffering from a serious case of ignorance, and are in serious need of some Chomsky.

  • AJ

    Hey Y,

    If you are a woman, I had something like this in mind:

    http://bloodworthweb.blogspot.com/2010/08/burka-debate-if-bit-late.html

    And then you can sing along loudly or perhaps have all windows in your car down and play loudly:

    THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND words and music by Woody Guthrie

    Chorus: This land is your land, this land is my land From California, to the New York Island From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters This land was made for you and me

    As I was walking a ribbon of highway I saw above me an endless skyway I saw below me a golden valley This land was made for you and me

    Chorus

    I’ve roamed and rambled and I’ve followed my footsteps To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts And all around me a voice was sounding This land was made for you and me

    Chorus

    The sun comes shining as I was strolling The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling The fog was lifting a voice come chanting This land was made for you and me

    Chorus

    As I was walkin’ – I saw a sign there And that sign said – no tress passin’ But on the other side …. it didn’t say nothin! Now that side was made for you and me!

    Chorus

    In the squares of the city – In the shadow of the steeple Near the relief office – I see my people And some are grumblin’ and some are wonderin’ If this land’s still made for you and me.

    Chorus (2x)

    I have not tried it with burka on, but sing it all the time with my hijab on and windows up

Powered by Loon Watchers