Daniel Pipes makes some important observations about Raed Al-Banna and the implications of his actions in this FrontPage piece (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
According to a remarkable article by Scott Macleod in the April 4 issue of Time Magazine, the suicide bomber who carried off the worst atrocity in Iraq since the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime was a 32-year-old Jordanian who had lived for two years in California.Ra’ed Mansour al-Banna was born in Jordan in 1973 and grew up in a religious, economically prosperous merchant family. He studied law at the university, graduating in 1996, and then started his own law practice in the Jordanian capital of Amman. After three years, he gave it up and in 1999 he worked a half year without pay for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Amman, helping Iraqis who fled Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.
In 2001, sometime before 9/11, Banna received a visa and moved to the United States, where he apparently lived in California for nearly two years, moving from one unskilled job to another – factory worker, bus driver, and pizza maker. According to his father, Ra’ed even worked “in one of the Californian airports.” If Ra’ed did not make it economically, he seemed to fit in well, traveling to such destinations as the Golden Gate Bridge and the World Trade Center, growing his hair long, and taking up American popular music....
Ra’ed al-Banna’s biography inspires several observations:
(1) When it comes to Islamist terrorists, appearances often deceive. That Banna was said to “love life in America,” be “not very religious,” and be interested in “building a future for himself” obviously indicated nothing about his real thinking and purposes. The same pattern recurs in the biographies of many other jihadis.
(2) Moving to the West often spurs Muslims to despise the West more than they did before they got there. This appears to be what happened with Banna.
(3) Taking up the Islamist cause, even to the point of sacrificing one’s life for it, usually happens in a discreet manner, quite unobservable even to a person’s closest relatives.
In brief, Banna’s evolution confirms the point I have made repeatedly about the regrettable but urgent need to keep an eye on all potential Islamists and jihadis, which is to say Muslims.
Read it all. Important links in the original.
I posted a link to an Islamic website(muslimway.com) which talked about Dawah
and the Khalifah, that's the practise of trying to convert non-Muslims to Islam and also establish
an Islamic State within Non-Muslim nations.
One key piece of advise is to portray Islam in a peaceful light and tell people it's the "True" religion of God(Allah) send to us by Muhammed.
The hidden danger is left for the point where you're in so far that leaving makes you an apostate to be killed under Shariah law,at this stage the new convert should be introduced to learning Arabic to fully understand the Quran.
This explains how good little American boys
blindly sail down the river of peace only to
find themselves in an Middle east Mosque learning about Jihad and Shaheed(Dieing for Allah's cause)
to slaughter the infidels and enemies of Islam.
Sorry Mr.Hooper,I've poured over hundreds of
Islamic websites and hypertext-links and Islam
is a plan for Global domination through Shariah law after all opponents are killed to bring peace among a Muslim-only World.
Just one problem,Muhammed assumed that because he easily kill women and children with his small army that the rest of the infidels would just roll
over and die,we tasted freedom and the price so
while Muslims kill for Allah to get off the Earth
and go to paradise,Westerners will die for our childrens future right here in NorthAmerica.
Hitler had it good with little Countries made up of farmers with no weapons to defend themselves,his brave campaign came to an end
once a real enemy arrived and slapped around those misogynistic Jew-hateing girly men in the
battle fields of the Father Lands.
NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE
Religious inspiration can be taken to the extreme in all religions. However, Muslim extremists externalize their personal experience by sharing it with the rest of us in the form of death or enslavement. Muslims in the West must be carefully watched because any one of them could have a "religious revelation" and decide to "share" a personal moment.
I've spent a lot of time lurking on Muslim websites and apparently there problem, why they hate the west, is sexual frustration. They can't get dates with western women, but whine about muslim women getting dates with men.
Western men dating muslim women is a big danger, and one of the reasons for conversion. It seems that western men are not objectively validated, (sharing that similarity with muslim men) and need a submissive and compliant wife to make them feel "manly" and "vital" (to "feel like a man") of course a muslim male can marry a western woman easily, but a western male (an unbeliever) must convert to marry a muslim woman.
I also take note that the vast majority of Christian men who convert to Islam are Catholics, and the reason for that seems to be that both religons are patriarchial, and misogynistic.
For instance: Anti-abortion activism is essentially patriarchal. It insists that the woman's egg, once fertilized, is immediately a person and that the woman loses control over her body by virtue of being impregnated by her husband's sperm. It is men who dictate to the woman that she must carry the fertilized egg to term, must be a mother once impregnated by a man. For extreme anti-abortionists, even a woman who has been raped or is in danger of losing her life if she tries to give birth must be forced to bear the child. A rapist can make a woman be a mother whether she likes it or not, because his maleness gives him prerogatives not withdrawn by his mere criminality.
Modern Christianity is of course "looser" than Islam, and women do have more freedoms, but being raised in a strict patriarchial society, expecting women to be submissive, and watching the example of a dominated mother, must produce a lower expectation of women, as well as fear and disgust of a society that has options for women.
Islam can thus be attractive to such failed and weak personalities, because it dogmatically and demonstrably prohibits such options to women.
No sooner did I type that than I went back to watching Discovery Times, Reinventing the Taliban, and there was a muslim woman saying that the whole thing with Islamic men is controlling women.
Pretty much my observation with all "family values" types (Jew and Christian).
Again, Pipes's article, if not some of his conclusions, misses out at least two important facts about Ra'ed Al-Banna, that his grandfather was Hassan Al-Banna, co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and that Al-banna's parents hosted a martyr's wedding in celebration of their son's "surprising" martyrdom, so I have a very hard time believing the father's account of things. Robert posted the MEMRI.org article by Nimrod Raphaeli describing the animosity between the Iraqis and Jordanians following these same celebrations a few days ago after I drew it to his attention.
ala-sux: Perhaps you should have a closer look at the Talmud in order to know what Judaism really is, the same way you have examined Islam:
http://www.christusrex.org/www2/talmud-exposed/talmud.htm
The primary difference I see is one of proseletyzation and degree. Islam instructs to convert, subjugate, or kill. The worst things that Judaism says are:
-There are no bad consequences to killing non-Jews
-If a non-Jew hits a Jew, the non-Jew must be killed
-Jews should steal from non-Jews.
-Jews have superior legal status to non-Jews
-Jews may lie to non-Jews
-Non-Jewish children are animals
In fact, most of these statements can be listed on a couple of pages, whereas you could literally put all the anti-social Muslim religious quotes in a book. So, it's an order of magnitude difference.
A fortunate aspect of Judaism is that it has eugenic breeding practices for intelligence. This has spillover effects in the countries with Jews, as they contribute to science (look at Nobel Laureates), and even by enriching themselves through the capitalist system, enrich others at the same time. Figuring out where the capital should go is useful to society. Far better to be financing a Henry Ford than a buggy whip manufacturer. In fact, through this intelligence it becomes less necessary for Jews to resort to the criminal behavior that their holy book allows.
In addition, IQ is negatively correlated with whether religion is important or not to a country. Which is probably why you see so many ethnic but not practicing Jews in Western societies. Which means that they aren't going to necessarily think obeying all of the above teachings of Judaism is necessary.
So while it's advisable to make sure you take all commercial precautions when dealing with Jews, I don't think a pogrom is advisable. I don't feel the same way about Muslims.
An appropriate analogy might be: if Christians or non-religious people were farmers, Jews are like honeybees - they provide your farm with benefits even though they might sting you if you aren't careful. Whereas Muslims are like a plague of locusts - they rape, pillage and destroy, creating no good of their own.
Ala-sux: Another website you might want to have a look at is this:
http://www.come-and-hear.com
It's like jihadwatch but for the Talmud. Until I looked at that I was 100% in favor of Jews, despite being conned personally by one and my own father being conned. Growing up with multiculturalism, I always dismissed his advice not to trust them as unfounded. I stand corrected.
Again, I don't think that Jews are a threat to the same extent as Muslims. It wouldn't be easy to do anything like a mass coordinated massacre of people as was done in the Passover these days, what with police forces, the military, and a second amendment.
2468:
On the day that 19 Jews hijack airplanes
and slaughter civilians while praising God,that's when I'll read the Talmud to compare theory to actions.
In the mean time I can assure you that I would
board a bus or plane full of Jews long before
I'd board either if i saw all the passengers
were muslims,also,since about 50 percent of the Jews were wiped of the Earth 60 years ago it's no surprise that seeing practising Jews is rarity.
Currently jews make up only 0.00077 percent of the worlds population,equally amazing they are said to be running the world and out to oppress 1,200,000,000 Muslims .
This means that for every Muslim there's
0.0042 of a Jew threatening their life,truely scary that Allah would put all those Muslims in such danger of a fearce enemy.
2468
Your comments are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, and otherwise annoying. They are also untrue. On top of that, they are mindblowingly ignorant.
To be clear, none of the below are true:
-There are no bad consequences to killing non-Jews
-If a non-Jew hits a Jew, the non-Jew must be killed
-Jews should steal from non-Jews.
-Jews have superior legal status to non-Jews
-Jews may lie to non-Jews
-Non-Jewish children are animals
This is also not true:
A fortunate aspect of Judaism is that it has eugenic breeding practices for intelligence.
I don't like your insect analogy either. You don't know point A about reading the Talmud, so don't even try it.
For a refutation of 2468's comments, go to:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/
'Response to anti-Semites' posting of Talmud "Quotes"
and other anti-Semitic fabrications and distortions'
and click on the link:
'A response to "THE TALMUD: JUDAISM'S HOLIEST BOOK DOCUMENTED AND EXPOSED"
(In two parts.)'
then scroll down to each relevant claim for refutations.
-There are no bad consequences to killing non-Jews claim 25
-If a non-Jew hits a Jew, the non-Jew must be killed claim 20
-Jews should steal from non-Jews. Claim 23
-Jews have superior legal status to non-Jews claim 22
-Jews may lie to non-Jews claim 21, claim 27
-Non-Jewish children are animals claim 28
Sadriel, it is you who are either ignorant or willfully deceptive. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which. Go have a browse of the site that I linked to: http://www.come-and-hear.com/
Do realize that until last night I had never chosen to investigate the Talmud, despite personal and family experience of being conned by Jews. (Not that there aren't Christian con artists, there are, which was partly why I chose not to investigate.) I figured that if I was going to do an analysis of Islam as a fundamentalist would, I ought to do the same for both Judaism and Christianity.
Note the similarities between the way a Jew defends his religion to the way a Muslim defends his. Denial, obfuscation, deception, claimed slander, offensive. Sounds just like CAIR, doesn't it? What would you expect from a book (Talmud and Koran) that the followers attempt to keep locked up and in the native tongue at all costs and advocates deception? Whereas by contrast you find a Gideon's bible in virtually every hotel and which has been translated into god knows how many languages?
To defend my arguments point by point,
-There are no bad consequences to killing non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
-If a non-Jew hits a Jew, the non-Jew must be killed
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
-Jews should steal from non-Jews.
Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
-Jews have superior legal status to non-Jews
Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
-Jews may lie to non-Jews
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
-Non-Jewish children are animals
Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
p.s. Also please note that I don't advocate pogroms or anything similar to what I believe atm is the correct response to Muslims. (For the already expressed reasons). I just think that it's helpful to be aware of the Jewish and Islamic religion for what their holy books advocate. In the spirit of jihadwatch.
Also as to Jewish IQ and eugenic birth practices:
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm
Instructive Tu-Quoque above, with quotes from such timeless classics -- no doubt even now beng memorized in a synagogue near you -- as "Baba Kamma," the sister of Baba Gannoush and granddaughter of Baba Yaga, not to mention her fast-living Parisian cousin Baba Au Rhum.
And I like that business about Jews not allowing their sacred texts to be translated -- just like Muslims with the Qur'an. Well, that should come as news to all those assorted translators into English of the Babylonian and, I presume, other versions of the Talmud.
The usual drooling neo-Nazi, or a Muslim impersonator? Hard to tell. Take your pick.
Hugh, I apologize if I have my facts wrong. I do seek truth and I apologize if I jump to incorrect conclusions.
But as to availability of the Talmud, it's not exactly like a Gideon's bible - in every hotel bedside table in a language that people can understand, is it? That alone causes me to wonder if there might be a sinister reason for that.
BTW I am most definitely not a neo-nazi or conventional nazi for that matter. I am also decidedly not Muslim either. I am mostly capitalist person who enjoys the typical areligious Western lifestyle and wants the freedom to do that in the future. (But by my own logic, not that you should necessarily believe any of what I write!)
As the focus of jihadwatch is to elucidate the motives of Islam and how acts of terror do in fact stem from their holy book, I will leave the topic of Judaism alone from now on. Please do note that I've only really thought to have a look at the Koran in the last few months and the Talmud as of last night. (Although I have to wonder if there's smoke...)
Also, please tell me to leave if you think that whatever I write (re Islam, not Judaism) is contrary to the aims of your site, that's fine by me. By all means I realize that what I have written (re Islam) can be construed as hate speach, incitement, whatever. I notice that all jihadwatch does is inform, but not really propose any solutions. Thereby I have taken it upon myself to look for theoretical solutions to the problem.
Part of the way the blogosphere functions is as a marketplace of ideas. Perhaps one idea is not fully fleshed out but gives rise to someone else's good idea.
As your site itself says:
"Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts."
So, since my focus is on solutions (personally I can't stand it when people bring up problems they don't have a solution for and won't even attempt to have a guess at), it's quite possible my comments are inherently off topic.
Very cordially,
Yes, I read about the al-Banna family, too. They're aptly named: bananas.
Hugh and 2468: The Jews do not forbid the translation of their religious literature. The Soncino and Steinsaltz [English] translations of the Talmud are excellent source materials for those who don't know Hebrew and Aramaic. There are probably others.
I, for one, think it's a pity that the Jews don't recognize M'shiach. Also, I'm not about to go over to the heirs of the Pharisees, who gave M'shiach so much trouble. But I'll note as well:
The Talmud is a voluminous corpus of writing, and contains a numer of different attitudes towards Gentiles ranging from the poisonous to the respectful. It's as bulky and internally contradictory as the record of American court decisions dating between 1800 and 2000; and is of a similar nature.
Also, there are tractates in it entitled Baba Bathra and Baba Kamma (no Baba Yaga or Ali Baba, though).
As for Cutheans, they're Samaritans, 2468, and are so identifies in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach--not to be confused with Ecclesiastes). The Samaritans, of whom around 1,000 still remain, claim to be heirs of northern Israel who remained in the land after the Assyrian deportations; the Jews traditionally called them descendants of non-Jewish peoples planted in the land by the Assyrians.
It is also a favorite pasttime of anti-Semites to go through all the least attractive statements of the Talmud and present them as "proof" positive that the JOOOOZ are out to get the rest of us.
Further, much of the secularization of Euro-American Jewry that took place since the 18th century represents a reaction of the rigors and difficulties of Talmudic education.
Um, Kepha... ...I think Hugh was trying to be funny (baba ganoush is roasted, mashed-up eggplant, a dish much beloved in the middle east), but thanks for casting a light over the issue of Talmud and the dubiousness of what is being presented by anti-Semites who are, perhaps, a little more subtle than the producers of the Protocols, but every bit as malevolent.
Yes, I recognize that Hugh was trying to make a funny.
"But as to availability of the Talmud, it's not exactly like a Gideon's bible - in every hotel bedside table in a language that people can understand, is it? That alone causes me to wonder if there might be a sinister reason for that"--from a posting above.
One would have to have quite a conspiratorial frame of mind to believe that the non-appearance of Talmuds next to what is called the "Gideon Bibles" (i.e., those Bibles offered by the Gideon Society for free distribution in hotels and motels and elsewhere wherever they are welcomed) has "a sinister reason for that." Anyone who thinks in that way makes me want to rephrase things as follows --
And here is my reworking:
Anyone who suggests, or even appears to believe, that the non-appearance of the Talmud, -- unlike the Gideon's Bible -- "in every hotel beside table in a language that people can understand" must "have a sinister reason for that" is himself rendered suspect of incipient antisemtism (a pathological disease the signs of which must be treated early) by voicing that absurd suspicion.
Why isn't there a Douai Bible in every motel and hotel room? Where is that copy of the Upanishads? Given that so many motels in the United States are run by Hindus, this makes me extremely suspicious. What are those Hindus trying to hide? Why, I even asked one at the desk the other day if he by any chance had a copy of the Rig Vedas that I could read instead of watching someting about Debbie doing something to Dallas, and he looked at me strangely. Wonder what he was trying to hide.
Where are those motel copies of The Analects of Confucius? The Prayer of St. Efrem? What about those missing texts of Theravada Buddhism, which I was appalled to discover, upon further research, have not all been translated, as yet, by the Pali Text Society. What are they trying to hide?
Perhaps one should point out that the Gideon Society is well-endowed, and venerable, and was set up for the precise purpose of spreading the Christian Gospel by paying for, and distributing, Bibles. That strikes me now, as it once might not have with the same force, as a Good Thing. I like to read the King James version of the Bible; I think it does a lot of good in motel and hotel rooms, for all sorts of people. And certainly it beats the dreck on television, and one soon tires of re-reading the list of Local Restaurants, the Nearest Fire Exit Sign, the loose-leaf notebook of Guest Services (where available). It is more interesting than flipping through the White Pages to see how many locals bear the name Shakespeare, or Pushkin, or Kenelm Digby, or Lighthorse Harry Lee.
The Gideon Bible, thank god, is far better than any of those, and even more delightful to read than the promised delights of Breakfast (Room Service or in the Breakfast Room, overlooking the pool or parking, with a hint of green and blue sky beyond), and even, dare one say it, with that list of Breakfasts, each so very special and wonderful in its own market-niche way: that Down-Home Breakfast with the Eggs and Grits and Hush-Puppies! and its bacon "cooked to perfection"; that Jogger's Special with the yogurt and granola and "fresh-squeezed" orange juice" and of course the bottomless cup of coffee. And the free newspaper, either at your door, or if you get down in time to grab one before they've all been taken.
No, there is no conspiracy -- as you seem to think, or allow yourself to think -- and it is the allowing yourself to think in such a way that means you must make efforts to stamp out, in yourself, whatever it is that prompts you to that kind of thinking and that kind of suspicion -- that explains the absence of a translated Talmud along with the Gideon's Bible.
In fact, one suspects that with your frame of mind, what would truly horrify you, and truly lead you to believe in something Deeply Suspicious Going On, is precisely the opposite: if a copy of the Talmud were to be found in every motel and hotel room.
Then, I'm sure, you would really be up in arms. You can't allow yourself to go down that road. Many people have -- for example, in Germany, 1933-1945. Buy "Europe and the Jews" by Malcolm Hay, the Roman Catholic Scot who wrote better on the subject than anyone else. Read it. It will set you right.
I'm not quite ready to completely discredit 2468. He makes some interesting observations, in that the texts for the worlds three major religions all contain statements that can be easily used to justify violence or other malevolent behavior.
That being said, religions need to be analyzed and judged according to their cultures and traditions, more so than their texts which are ancient and open to interpretation. Islam has a very active culture of violence that is currently not present in Judaism and Christianity. Analyzing obscure texts, which are no longer practiced by Jews or Christians simply because they seem to parallel Muslim texts is not productive, and seems to be a common technique used by Muslim apologists to deflect criticism.
On the other hand, when Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fitzgerald analysis of violent Muslim texts are quite valid because they are the same texts which jihadist authorities openly reference in their fatwas to their obedient followers for open season on all infidels. What makes their analysis even more important is the fact that many of us in the west are often inclined to fall into the trap of apologists and ignore the underlying message of these fatwas and dismiss the imams as cultists and misinterpreters of the Koran.
My only beef with this site is that it seems to be quite skeptical of reform in Islam. My contention is that reform is utterly necessary, because with a constituency of 1.2 billion, I don't think this religion is just going to disappear in a couple of generations. Although it may be a less than perfect comparison, Christianity and Judaism have both suffered the stains of a violent past, but both seem to have been able to moderate and grow more peaceful and tolerant. I also understand the need to be able to distinguish between sincere reform and deception, and although attempts to moderate Islam have had limited success, I see no reason to stop trying.
"My only beef with this site is that it seems to be quite skeptical of reform in Islam.... although attempts to moderate Islam have had limited success, I see no reason to stop trying."--from a posting above
If the "reformers" never quite tell us how they intend to "reform" Islam -- that is, what they intend to do about, inter alia:
1) passages in the Qur'an, of which more than a hundred at the very least might be termed the "Jihad" verses, and including Sura 9, the last Sura.
2) hundreds of stories deemed by the most esteemed muhaddithin (Buhkari and Muslim) to belong to the highest of the four categories -- i.e., "authentic" Hadith.
3) dozens of incidents in the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, Model for All Time, that would have to be jettisoned entirely -- then we have a right to be skeptical.
There is no reason not to try to do something, but you cannot simply babble on about "reform" without telling us a single detail about what that "reform" will entail. That just won't do.
And one has a perfect right to be skeptical as well when so many of the Muslims involved have given every sign of having absurdly high opinions of themselves, from the megalomaniacal Khaled Abou El Fadl (see www.scholarofthehouse.org), or Stephen Schwartz, standing at the head of his half-dozen troops and issuing that Portentous Announcement "the Battle for Islam is Joined."
If one detects obvious careerism, an eye on the main chance, a wangling for consultinig contracts from the poor, misugided American government, or mad money from the Saudis eager to buy off some "reform" group (good god, they were willing to toss money the New Republic's way for some sort of published "discussion" or "dialogue"), an eagerness to address churches and synagogues as a "Good Muslim" who is interestested in reform -- well yes, one has a perfect right to be skeptical.
And to worry that all this talk, at a time when many Infidels are all too ready to grasp at straws, so as to avoid either studying Islam, or drawing certain unpleasant conclusions from such study, is a snare and a diversion, and not a sport or a pastime, is entirely justified.
Folks,
I repeat what I wrote before, and now this goes for quite a few of you: you don't know anything about the Talmud and you don't understand its analysis or even how it is being analyzed right now by religious Jews. I am a beginning student so I certainly do not hold myself as an authority. This is why I have referred anyone who is interested in genuine education to see refutations by people who have studied. However, I have studied other material in depth professionally and know that one cannot do a really useful analysis except by reading the material in the original, and if possible, reading commentary by those very well-versed in the material. For religious material that means those who are scholars who are part of that particular religious denomination. Reading third-hand one is always looking through the lens of two or three interpreters; it's not optimal.
So, Hugh, I wouldn't recommend to 2468 that s/he read something about Jews by a Catholic, I suggest to 2468 that s/he go to the site I mentioned and take a look at it. That is, read the material written by Jews who have studied. Jews value the truth. Cheating and stealing from anybody, and of course murder, plus kidnapping, adultery, perjury and a host of other bad behaviors are explicitly forbidden in the Ten Commandments, part of the Torat Moshe (the original Five Books--the first five books of the Tanach, or "Old Testatment"), of which the Talmud is a set of derived and interpreted laws, rulings, and other commentary by rabbis and scholars.
2468: Actually, Jews don't hide a lot of religious knowledge but historically have only intermittently prosletyzed. We are a very communicative people and there are hundreds if not thousands of Jewish educational websites.
Kepha: "much of the secularization of Euro-American Jewry that took place since the 18th century represents a reaction of the rigors and difficulties of Talmudic education."
Not strictly true. The secularization was spurred by many things. If one were to boil these down to one issue, it would probably be under the heading: desire for, coinciding with opportunity for less separation from other groups. Judaism (in orthodox practice)is however a religion that requires a fair amount of separation in various aspects.
Kuffir:
"Analyzing obscure texts, which are no longer practiced by Jews or Christians simply because they seem to parallel Muslim texts is not productive"
Sorry, not accurate. The Talmud is currently used by thousands to millions of Jews (there are approximately 13 million Jews worldwide). Also, regarding violence, the Jewish religion puts a very high value on human life and the instances where death or killing are allowed are very clearly specified and limited.
So what's the difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Are they really so similar? I don't think so. And I certainly suggest that those of you unfamiliar with one, two or all three of them do not draw superficial parallels based on faulty logic. And certainly don't choose information sources such as websites based on such logic.
Lol, the Talmud can be pretty bad. It takes some pretty nifty CAIRism to deny that. But it's not really a problem for us because, seriously, who in their right mind could possibly claim Jews are even remotely as big a threat as Islam.
2-4-69, what the hell are you on about?
Sadriel, thanks for the links. I'd never sufficiently looked at the Torah per se; read the OT and assumed that gave me a "pass." Sorry.
I never knew there were only 13 million Jews worldwide, either. Look at it this way: y'all shooore is powerful! Apparently, you guys run the US (ah, heck...let's just say the whole West), world trade, al-Jazeera AND you lot can cause earthquakes and all. (Although I hear some imams think naked evil Christians carousing around Christmas also cause tsunamis; or was it smoking? Darn, where's a link when you need one?)
I will never, ever, ever understand anti-Semitism. I can't imagine anything that makes less sense, and I'm ashamed it ever went on in this civilization.
Shalom, Sadriel et al.
Geoff
spect8or:
"Lol, the Talmud can be pretty bad."
I don't know what you're lolling about, but you will have to be more explicit to get any kind of response.
"who in their right mind could possibly claim Jews are even remotely as big a threat as Islam"
To start with, every major news source which has done articles on the recent intifada in Israel. This includes AP, Reuters, CNN, BBC, NY Times, Washington Post, NPR etc etc etc. Then of course we have the Islamic leaders themselves, quoted extensively. This is followed by the US State Department, various American political leaders, European political leaders, left-leaning academics, malcontent expatriates from Islamic countries who have settled in Europe, the "man on the street" in various Islamic countries, clueless people of every stripe who only know what they read in major news sources or on TV, badly educated college students looking to save the "oppressed third world"...the list goes on.
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. None of these people are in their right minds when it comes to Jews, who have been isolated as scapegoats for other peoples' problems for at least 2000 years and actually several hundred before that. Isn't it amazing that such a small and numerically insignificant people can be viewed as such a problem?
So, while 2468's views in particular have fragile logical underpinnings, I take them seriously because lack of logic or fact has not stopped large numbers of people from repeating lies nor in fact from acting on belief in lies.
Further, I saw another posting on another topic where someone used the logic that a particular source could be seen as more reliable because there were no websites refuting it. I find thhis questionable thinking. Simply because there are complaints does not mean that there actually is the problem complained about. That is a basic tenet of Western law, handed down from the Jews, in fact. The Talmud is more like a legal manual for a specialized audience than it is like a book which can be read and understood prima facie by anyone.
I don't know if I'd say I were so much amazed by the scapegoating of your people as being absolutely horrified by it. The personal frustration level definitely reads above critical for me. To reiterate: I don't understand it; it makes no sense. It never, ever did.
On the theological issue, I tend to agree there are a number of differences between Judaism and the other two 'Abrahamic' religions. I'd say the cores are relatively similar; one God, reverence of early Jewish patriarchs (which, to inform some people, were not muslims, just as they were not Christians...sigh...historical appropriation), all that jazz. But the cores of practice are fundamentally different at the same time in how this God (or G-d if you prefer) is seen. That's as it should be. No one should be looking, in my opinion, to 'bring the faiths together' by trying to essentially nullify such differences through logical misplay or appeals to commonality. They are different because they are - and because they ought to be.
Vive les differences.
Geoff