Recently I spoke in Calgary, Alberta, and was denounced before I had said a word by, among others, hard-Left Rabbi Shaul Osadchey. Rabbi Osadchey recently wrote a lengthy explanation of why he did this, in response to a letter he received from Brian Sander, one of his congregants. The Rabbi’s explanation was passed on to me with the request that I answer it.
Brian Sander’s letter to Rabbi Osadchey:
Dear Rabbi,
I wanted to wait until the dust settled somewhat with all of the controversy surrounding the JDL sponsored Robert Spencer presentation.
With all due respect, you certainly have the right to express your opinion on any matter in any forum, however I take exception when you profess to speak on my behalf. You do so when you imply your opinions reflect the community at large. It is misleading to convey that impression. I am not aware of any polling or communication with the Jewish Community that you have undertaken to validate your authority to speak on their behalf.
Furthermore, I am confused by your righteous indignation in expressing your opinion about Robert Spencer. You went to great lengths to smear this event prior to the event even taking place, not to mention you were not in attendance to validate your preconceived concerns. I ask where was your voice when Abu Ghosh spread his lies regarding JNF, his message of misinformation towards Israel and its institutions several weeks prior to this event?
To suggest that this presentation represents the forces of intolerance, racism and Islamophobia is fear mongering by you. Not to acknowledge the threat radical Muslims, such as ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Taliban pose to the world will assure our destruction as well as our way of life.
Mr. Spencer’s message was to sound the alarm that we need to educate ourselves about radical Muslims in order to defeat them. We need to educate ourselves, in order to destroy the movement, not ignore what is happening day in and day out. The death and destruction communicated to us on a daily basis is so commonplace it is reported in the same context as the weather forecast. Fifty, eighty, thirty civilians killed today in car bombings usually upon innocent civilians, followed with, “and the weather today will be partly cloudy, with a high of 15 degrees”. Stay tuned for the next suicide bombing likely within 24 hours!
Funny thing is, if you remove the consistent Islamic terrorist events out of the news, there would be few to no deaths of innocent civilians anywhere, except in Israel of course, where it seems beyond criticism by those party to your announcements smearing the JDL and the Robert Spencer presentation.
I agree when you say we must build bridges with moderate, rational and peace loving people, however Islamic terrorists do not fall into that category.
To have an open discussion focusing on the issue of Islamic terrorism is not racist and certainly doesn’t equate to inciting violence or burning bridges with groups there can never be any bridges to build.
Personally, I found Mr. Spencer’s presentation informative, without inciting bigotry or intolerance as you were so wrongly quick to accuse.
As a Jew, we live in one of the two greatest countries in the world (the other being Israel), free and democratic societies where we enjoy freedom of speech, protest and peaceful assembly.
As the Rabbi of my synagogue I expect you would respect these values to all, including Robert Spencer!
Regards,
Brian Sander
Here is Rabbi Osadchey’s response to Mr. Sander, with my responses interspersed:
Even though the dust has not settled, I was still awaiting an email from you and am pleased that you did not disappoint me! You raise a number of points which I would like to address in a sincere tone of respect for you and your position. First of all, I did not speak on behalf of anyone but myself with regard to Mr. Spencer and the JDL. Beth Tzedec’s name was only used by the media for purposes of identification and not as an indication that the synagogue endorsed my position. I did mention that “I believe” that the majority of the Jewish community does not subscribe to Mr. Spencer’s Islamophobic views.
The Rabbi’s use of the word “Islamophobic” is problematic at the outset. In George Orwell’s nightmare of the future, 1984, a secret police monitors citizens for “thought crimes” against the totalitarian state. A thought crime is an idea or attitude the totalitarian rulers deem to be politically incorrect.
“Islamophobia” – which is generally understood to be an irrational and pathological hatred of religious ideas and political practices associated with Islam — is the name that has been given to a modern day thought crime, and a global movement is promoting its incorporation into law today. In the term, “Islamophobia,” the purpose of the suffix is to suggest that any fear associated with Islam – for example of the calls of its prophet or its current day imams to kill infidels or the attacks of 9/11 which implemented those – is simply irrational. And worse: Islamophobia is a response to those attacks that reflects a bigotry that itself should be feared.
Islam is different from Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and most other faiths in that it is a political religion. Muslims recognize no separation between religion and state, and in its canonical texts and preachings, Islam regards all other religions (and non-religions) as “infidel” creeds. Moreover, Islam aspires to establish a global Islamic state or “caliphate” that would impose Islamic law on individuals everywhere, and criminalize heretical thoughts.
Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood organization. He was present when the word “Islamophobia” was chosen as a term to be used to demonize and marginalize foes of jihad terror, but now characterizes the Islamophobia this way: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to stigmatize and silencing critics.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 56 Muslim governments and the Palestinian Authority, began a campaign against “Islamophobia” in 2008. The OIC declared its intention to craft a “legal instrument” to fight against the threat to Islam “from political cartoonists and bigots.” The reference was to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in 2005, touching off international protests by Muslims worldwide, which included riots, the burning of embassies, and even murders of non-Muslims, including a Catholic nun. “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” fumed Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC.
“Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement,” declared Ihsanoglu. That engagement would be directed toward restricting the freedom of speech. Abdoulaye Wade, president of Senegal and OIC chairman, explained: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.” In a July 2008 briefing on Capitol Hill, Pakistani Embassy representative Asma Fatima defended the Muslim outrages as necessary and called for restrictions on speech that insulted Islam: “The ideal of freedom of speech is precious to you, but it’s not value-neutral. You don’t have to hurt people’s sentiments and bring them to the point where they have to react in strange ways.”
That is the ultimate goal of charges of “Islamophobia”: to stigmatize, demonize, marginalize and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam, such that jihad terror activities can continue unimpeded and unopposed. The charge of “Islamophobia” is a valuable tool the allies and supporters of jihad terrorists have, to silence the foes of that terror.
I did not say that “I know” this to be fact or that my opinion is based upon any poll but rather offered my conjecture which I still believe is true even if only anecdotal.
My opinion about Mr. Spencer is based upon a long record of his comments that have characterized the religion of Islam, unfairly and inaccurately, as violent and intolerant.
Here he provides no examples, and so I cannot address any specifics in his argument. However, the idea that I “have characterized the religion of Islam, unfairly and inaccurately, as violent and intolerant.” I did not originate this idea; in fact, numerous Muslims readily tell us that Islam is violent and intolerant. Nor are these all simply modern-day “extremists” ignorant of the true teachings of their faith. The most authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib), all teach that Islam is violent. These sources are neither of recent vintage nor “extremist”; this is the classical teaching of Islam from its principal authoritative sources:
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State (ISIS), and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent. It would be illuminating if Rabbi Osadchey produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent.
He uses quotations from the Quran in much the same way as do radical Islamists but only with the opposite intention.
I suspect that Rabbi Osadchey has not actually read any of my books or other writings. If he had, he would know that I don’t present any interpretation of the Qur’an of my own. One chief intention of my book on the Qur’an was to illuminate the way the people he calls “radical Islamists” see the world, so it’s only natural that there would be a congruence. But if he were to read it, he would see that I also present other interpretations from a variety of Muslim perspectives.
They are out of context with other mitigating quotes from the Quran and do not account for the historical context in which they were written and which are no longer valid.
This makes it absolutely clear that Rabbi Osadchey has never actually read any of my work, yet criticizes it nonetheless. Even a cursory glance at my online series Blogging the Qur’an would show that I discuss the verses precisely in their historical context, explain how mainstream Muslim historical and modern scholars interpret them, and since I go through the entire Qur’an in that series, I cannot justly be accused of ignoring “mitigating quotes.” See, for example, my two-part discussion (here and here) of Qur’an 9:29: I begin by (quoting a venerable Islamic authority) explaining the historical context of the verse, and then set out how Muslim commentaries on the Qur’an have understood it, noting disagreements. I do not believe anyone can read my writings on the Qur’an and justly come to the conclusion that Rabbi Osadchey sets out above.
Islamic extremists use the Quran to justify terror against the West and people such as Mr. Spencer use the Quran to justify hatred and discrimination against Muslims.
I request that Rabbi Osadchey produce a single quote of mine in which I justify hatred or discrimination against Muslims or anyone. All my work is in defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. This claim is false and libelous.
It would be as if we took verses from the Torah about God commanding us to commit genocide against certain ancient tribes to assert that it remains valid to this day to engage in mass murder. Such use of sacred scripture- whether it be from the Torah, New Testament, or Quran- is a distortion of the text and does not reflect the current mainstream of either Jewish, Christian, or Islamic teachings.
Unfortunately, Muslims who believe that the Qur’an’s violent verses are valid today are all too numerous. They make recruits among peaceful Muslims by appealing to the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example. The “mainstream” that Rabbi Osadchey invokes has not been able to prevent this jihadi recruitment, and tellingly, it doesn’t even try: although jihadism is a global movement, there is no program in any mosque in the West or anywhere else that teaches young Muslims why they should reject the jihadist understanding of Islam on Qur’anic grounds. Why is this the case?
Here is a sampling of comments about Mr. Spencer from several venerated human and civil rights organizations:
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Spencer and Geller American anti-Muslim writers because their writings “promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam. This belief system parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.” He continued, “we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs.”[26][27]
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchman? Why is Foxman assumed to be a neutral and disinterested observer who can pronounce an objective judgment on my work? The ADL in fact traffics in reckless defamation. They have libeled the preeminent lawyer and orthodox Jew David Yerushalmi as an “extremist,” an “anti-Muslim bigot” and a “white supremacist.” The ADL has even condemned Israel for fighting anti-Semitism. According to Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance: “The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – biggest Jewish ‘defense’ organization — admits in private that the biggest danger to Jews since WWII comes from Muslim Jew-hatred, but because it fears offending its liberal donors and being charged with ‘Islamophobia,’ the organization remains essentially silent on the issue. In a study of ADL press releases from 1995 to 2011– a good if not perfect indicator of ADL priorities – we found that only 3 percent of ADL’s press releases focus on Islamic extremism and Arab anti-Semitism.” (For the full study, see www.charlesjacobs.org.)
The Institute on Religion and Democracy said about him: “Spencer’s comprehensive understanding of his Christian faith and Islam along with lucidly insightful writing give the lie to his international notoriety as a bigoted ‘Islamophobe.’”[28]
As that one praises me, I expect that Rabbi Osadchey included it inadvertently.
Dinesh D’Souza, of the Hoover Institution, wrote that Spencer downplays the passages of the Quran that urge peace and goodwill to reach one-sided opinions. He contends that Spencer applies a moral standard to Muslim empires that could not have been met by any European empire.[29]
Dinesh and I were debating, and he said these things in the course of the debate. Of course in such a context he criticized my work, as I criticized his. Here again, he is not a neutral observer, and demonstrated in our debates a very slight and patchy knowledge of the Qur’an and Islamic doctrine – see this, in which another debater caught him out as being ignorant of basic facts about the Qur’an.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) listed Spencer as a “Smearcaster” in an article in 2008, stating that “by selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries, Spencer concludes that Islam is innately extremist and violent”.[30]
I’ve written a commentary (here) on every chapter of the Qur’an – actually a summary of mainstream Muslim commentaries. The charge that I ignore peaceful passages of the Qur’an is demonstrably false.
From the Southern Poverty Law Center: “As the director of the Jihad Watch blog and co-founder of Stop Islamization of America, Robert Spencer is one of America’s most prolific and vociferous anti-Muslim propagandists. He insists, despite his lack of academic training in Islam, that the religion is inherently violent and that radical jihadists who commit acts of terror are simply following its dictates. His writing was cited dozens of times in a manifesto written by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom as an extremist in July 2013.”
I am no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were “anti-German.” It has become common, because of the efforts of Islamic supremacist and Leftist groups, to equate resistance to jihad terror with “hate,” but there is no substance to this. In reality, the charge itself is a tactic employed in order to stifle honest counter-terror analysis and action.
The SPLC keeps tabs on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. And that is good. But the implication of their hate group label is that the group that Spencer and Geller founded, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is another one of those, which is false. While the SPLC may have done good work in the 1960s against white racists, in recent years it has become a mere propaganda organ for the Left, tarring any group that dissents from its extreme political agenda as a “hate group.” Significantly, although it lists hundreds of groups as “hate groups,” it includes not a single Islamic jihad group on this list. And its “hate group” designation against the Family Research Council led one of its followers to storm the FRC offices with a gun, determined to murder the chief of the FRC. This shows that these kinds of charges shouldn’t be thrown around frivolously, as tools to demonize and marginalize those whose politics the SPLC dislikes. But that is exactly what they do. Its hard-Left leanings are well known and well documented. This Weekly Standard article sums up much of what is wrong with the SPLC.
This Breivik charge is meant to imply that I call for violence and that Breivik heeded my call. This is absolutely false. In all his quotations of me, Breivik never quotes me calling for or justifying violence – because I never do. In fact, Breivik even criticized me for not doing so, saying of me, historian Bat Ye’or and other critics of jihad terror: “If these authors are to [sic] scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.” (Breivik, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, p. 743) Breivik explains in his manifesto that he was “radicalized” by his experiences with Muslim immigrants in the early 1990s, before I had published anything about Islam (See Breivik, p. 1348).
Breivik also hesitantly but unmistakably recommended making common cause with jihadists, which neither Inor any other opponent of jihad would ever do: “An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties but will simply be too dangerous (and might prove to be ideologically counter-productive). We both share one common goal.” (Breivik, p. 948). He even called for making common cause with Hamas in plotting jihad terror: “Approach a representative from a Jihadi Salafi group. Get in contact with a Jihadi strawman. Present your terms and have him forward them to his superiors….Present your offer. They are asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass ‘screenings’ in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc.” (Breivik, p. 949)
There is a mountain of similar material available if this does not suffice to make the point. So, even if Mr. Spencer had spoken on April 28th (a Jewish holiday by the way!)
Is this supposed to be an implication that I am anti-Semitic? I was invited to speak on April 28 in Calgary by a Jewish group.
about motherhood and apple pie, his presence alone was provocative and inflammatory.
If that is true, it is true because groups that are allies of and dupes of global jihad groups have engaged for years in relentless defamation of anyone who explores the ideological roots of jihad terror, such that they are charged with being “hateful” solely for noting how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism.
I would not condone or give the appearance of support to such an individual by my presence.
In addition, I went to great lengths to make it clear to the media and anyone who asked me that I did not attempt to censor Mr. Spencer, prevent his lecture from occurring, or discourage people from attending it. Rather, the signatory organizations to the statement sought to express their right to free speech by disavowing his comments.
Which comments? The statement condemning me didn’t quote a single “hateful” statement that I have made. Why not? Because I haven’t ever made one. I again challenge Rabbi Osadchey to produce a single hateful statement from me.
As to where I was when Abu Ghosh spread lies about JNF, I must admit that I was not aware of such an incident. But, perhaps you should ask where was JNF in informing people about it since, if I had no knowledge of it, then I presume many others did not as well. However, the overall point of speaking out against ISIS and the other Islamic terrorists is one that I do take seriously and have acted upon through public statements and through appearances at several anti-terrorist rallies here in Calgary.
For me the real issue is not sounding the alarm about Islamic terrorism. Only cave dwellers are unaware of the horrific terrorist events that have unfolded over the past decade. This is not new and we don’t need Mr. Spencer to inform us of it as if we are stupid, uniformed, people who live in Shangri-La. We are most aware of the danger of these murderous groups. The real issue is how we respond to such world events.
…Even if I were to accept Mr. Spencer’s words as educational and informative, I still do not know what he wishes us to do that is positive and constructive. Are we to disengage from all contact with the Muslim community because some believe, incorrectly, that the Quran permits them to deceive us?
I’ve never called for this.
Should we try to enact legislation that restricts Muslims from entering Canada (ala Trump in the US)
There are obvious problems with this, but given the fact that jihadis have vowed to exploit the refugee crisis to enter Europe and North America, and that two of the Paris jihadis were recently-arrived refugees, and that San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik had passed five separate background checks from five separate US government agencies, can the Rabbi propose an alternative plan to protect Canadians and Americans from jihad terror attacks?
Ahmad al-Mohammed and one other of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees.
In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all.
So why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe, and now the U.S. as well? An Islamic State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September 2015, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained their purpose: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.” These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate: “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.”
or bar them from practicing Islam?
I’ve never advocated that, either. I’ve made specific recommendations. Here are some:
- Tell the truth about Islamic jihad and supremacism. It is now customary in American schools to hear about Muslims who have been oppressed because of 9/11, and how it is so important for non-Muslims to be accommodating and welcoming of them. That’s all very well, but it should also be taught, and incorporated in public school curricula, that some Muslims are waging an ongoing Islamic jihad against the United States.
- Enforce existing laws. Section 2385 of the federal criminal code states that “whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.” It may be that the proviso in this statute that the overthrow of the government must be planned as taking place by “force and violence” prevents this law from being applied against Muslim Brotherhood groups intent on subverting America from within. Legal minds should study that issue. But surely—somehow—working toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” as the Muslim Brotherhood has stated its own strategic goal for America, ought to be a prosecutable offense.
- Reclassify Muslim organizations. The U.S. government should call upon Islamic advocacy groups in this country to renounce any intention now or in the future to replace the Constitution of the United States with Islamic Sharia. This renunciation should be backed up with transparent actions in mosques and Islamic schools, which should teach against this intention, and against the elements of Sharia that contradict American freedoms. Those that are found to be teaching sedition should be immediately closed and prosecuted where warranted.
- Reconfigure our international alliances so that no state that oppresses women or non-Muslims in accord with Sharia provisions gets a penny of American aid, or is considered a U.S. ally.
Is all this hateful? How? Where?

Marty says
As someone who is Jewish, no leftist rabbi could ever speak for me. But Mr. Spencer does do in a scholarly and factual manner. The Koran probably contains more hatred of Jews than mein ksmpf. Those who genuinely believe that Islam is inherently peaceful are simply and pathetically delusional.
TH says
Bill Warner has counted the amount of Jew hatred in the Koran and in Mein Kam Kampf and yes, it contains more Jew hatred than HItler’s book.
Babs says
He does not speak for me either nor for the majority of British Jews I know, who consider his kind a liability. It almost beggars belief that a Jew, a member of a faith which is systematically persecuted by islam, should be so wilfully blind to the dangers they represent to him, however dhimmified he may be, and, worse, that he should behave in a way which encourages them.
Does he suffer from Stockholm Syndrome?
Or identification with the aggressor?
Or is he hoping, (to paraphrase Churchill’s definition of an appeaser), that his having fed his Jewish friends to the islamic crocodile, s Jewish friends, it will eat him last?
Polk1970 says
Mein Kampf= My Struggle,aka,,My JIHAD
cs says
Did not read it all, but I will. I agree on you, because I have I follow JW and you always win your debater, you have a very clear thought and expose your ideas clearly, and a lot of what you have said came to realize, and as I understand the logic of Islam, the use of demographics, and how it is enacted in reality it is all too predictable what will happen.
Thanks a lot for your work.
The jewish position now is very difficult, diaspora Jews have been sandwiched among the Ultra right, most of the left and mostly by Islam. WTF. LOL. It is difficult to be a Jew.
Polk1970 says
There is no reason for LOL
THIS is a world threatening situation,and Free Peoples are being STRAIGHT JACKETED by the DAMNED LEFT
Polk1970 says
and,Historically unsurprising,THE JEWS/ISRAEL are #1 on their HATE LISTS
Victor Redlick says
How in the hell do these insidious perpetrators receive ordination? And which distinguished yeshiva has the dishonor of denying he was one of theirs? The cabal of leftist rabbis is a disgrace many fed up Jews are no longer willing to sweep under the cultural carpet for fear of insulting an entire religion. Sadly, there is no end to this disgusting catastrophe, as exemplified, day in and day out, from quisling, hypocritical Obama prayer breakfasts to hundreds of missing link clergy who pathetically endorsed his unscrupulous Iran plan. When choosing a synagogue to attend, choose very carefully; so as not to fall into an an ideological morass you’ll eventually drown in.
Polk1970 says
Through the REFORMED Seminaries
mike ryan says
Saul Osadchey is just another ideologically deluded leftist of Jewish origin who enables the hand that would strangle him if given a chance.
Moe says
PS Rabbi O has gotten more rabid over time. It is very disconcerting and If I was not the board of directors associated with him, I would be concerned for my own character.
Champ says
I did mention that “I believe” that the majority of the Jewish community does not subscribe to Mr. Spencer’s Islamophobic views.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Islamophobic views”? Rabbi Osadchey has really defined himself with that inane label! Talk about a conversation-ender.
Huck Folder says
Champ:
And just WHAT is the foundation
of that inane ‘belief’?
Wishful thinking?
How many of HIS congregation
(echo chamber?) would be willing
to challenge his stated views?
cs says
Very unlikely anyone would challenge it in the open. Perhaps in a private conversation is possible.
Carolyne says
No matter how our present day political correctness mandate tries to define “Islamophobia,” it actually means “Fear of Islam.” not “Hatred of Islam.” I do not fear Islam as much as I hate Islam. Perhaps a new word, i.e. “Islamophobiaphilia” would suffice. Courage, friends. We shall win.
Polk1970 says
Most Reformed Rabbis’ congregations pretty much agree with the Left-Wing Rabbis they employ.
It’s WHAT they WANT to hear.
IT reinforces their already well developed COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
this IS WHAT J-Street is about.
One can be sure this “rabbi”Propagandist is in Canada’s J-Street or its equivalant
Linde Barrera says
After speaking with a number of individuals who are either agnostic, atheist or “Christian in name only” I am absolutely convinced that many people do not understand the difference between making a decision based on DOCTRINAL VERSE and making a decision based on PERSONAL CHOICE. Example: In the New Testament, St Paul writes: “The church is the Body of Christ.” This is a doctrinal statement. If a person says: “I believe in Jesus and I pray to Him, but I do not go to church” that is not a decision based on doctrine. Seems like many, many people base their decisions about Islam and the Quran on personal choices. These many, many people do not know or care to know about the doctrines of the Quran. This is not only sad, but irresponsible and pathetically apathetic. Sounds like Rabbi Osadchey fits into this category.
Voytek Gagalka says
“…can the Rabbi propose an alternative plan to protect Canadians and Americans from jihad terror attacks?”
Rabbi’s only solution: hide his head in the sand, an ostrich method, and pretend that the problem will disappear on its own, somehow.
Polk1970 says
The mentality of the Ghetto Jew and the German Jews – Post WW I
And when the Nazis were on the streets marching while they sang the “Horst Wessel Lied” , THE ,anthem of Nazism, including the SS,, of the “Jewish Blood spurting from their knives”
no different than today’s,or anytime since the 7th Century,Islamic Jihadis
And up until their liveswere systematically DESTROYED,one HORROR after another,all the way to being REMOVED by FORCE from their homes,families,and then from the ranks of the living ,THESE REFORMED German Jews, pulled the drapes closed,played music to drown out the calling for THEIR Jewish Blood to spurt from these Nazi’s knives,and DELUDED themselves all the way to the cattle-cars and Auschwitz,Treblinka,Maidanek,Dachau,Bergen-Belsen,Buchenwald,Nordhausen/Dora,and all the other Nazi-Created Hell’s-on-Earth
Polk1970 says
Most with a detour to the Warsaw Ghetto,etc.
Michael Copeland says
Memo to the rabbi:
“Violence is the heart of Islam” – Ayatollay Yazdi.
JawsV says
It’s really sad seeing a Jew, a Rabbi no less, support the rabid Jew-hatred ideology of Islam.
Carolyne says
Why do we see some humans acting as if they were lemmings, throwing themselves off the cliff which is Islam?
Polk1970 says
Nauseating
Wonder if transcripts of his propaaganda / sermons are online?
Polk1970 says
Alinsky Tactics can also be used against the Left
This rabbi is a wonderful opportunity to use theirb Alyskite tactics ,ON THEM!
IF those sermons are there,he can be ‘Alinskyized”
Stan Dobson says
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/1034889826656278/
Link to George Galloway – british traitor.
Angemon says
Rabbi Osadchey should brush up on his Maimonides:
Steve Klein says
Leading rabbis: Shoot terrorists on sight
Noted rabbis hold emergency conference on Arab terror, demand government reject 2-state solution and stop making ‘stupid’ statements.
By Hezki Baruch
First Publish: 5/15/2016, 8:56 PM
“Every Arab terrorist who goes out from his home with an intention to harm Jews loses the right to exist, and they should be shot without any superfluous considerations,” declared the rabbis.
Condemning the generals and politicians (and rabbis — SK), they quoted Deuteronomy 20:8, saying, “those who don’t want to act in this way should not take on a role of responsibility for the security of Israel – ‘the man that is fearful and faint-hearted let him go and return unto his house….'”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/212292#.VzjS8pErKUk
Let Rabbi Shaul Osadchey go and return to his house according to the commandment.
mortimer says
I see where you’re coming from, Steve, but isn’t that vigilantism? Judaism doesn’t accept vigilantism, does it? Nor does the state of Israel.
Leave it to the professional law enforcers. Proportional self-defense is still legitimate. Vigilantism is not.
Islam allows vigilantism. We can’t do what they do and still have the moral high ground.
Steve Klein says
Mortimer, often we read of a knifing or some other atrocity in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Hebron. Because so many Israelis carry arms (thankfully) often the terrorist is dispatched by an armed civilian rather than the military or police when they are not at hand. There is a Rabbinic saying. These rabbis quoted it: “When someone comes to kill you kill him first.”
My broader point however, Rabbi Shaul Osadchey by condemning Mr. Spencer (who is a supporter and a friend of Israel’s) brings shame upon all Jews.
We call this “Chillul haShem.” Rabbi Shaul Osadchey reflects badly upon Jews, Torah and God. This is a terrible sin in Judaism.
RonaldB says
Israel has horrific gun-control laws for those not specifically licensed to carry guns. The security services and the active military get to carry guns, but the average civilian, even with years of military service, cannot.
Also, oddly enough, an Israeli is allowed to buy only 50 bullets in his lifetime to take home, although he may buy unlimited numbers of bullets if he buys it at a gun range and shoots them on the spot. But, only 50, in a lifetime, to use in self-defense.
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-eases-gun-laws-in-bid-to-cope-with-Palestinian-lone-wolf-attacks-423925
Polk1970 says
SELF-DEFENSE is Hebrew/Jewish
To paraphrase from the Bible,the Old Testament,to “kill an enemy before he can KILL you”
mike ryan says
That is actually in the Talmud, but based on sound biblical precedent.
mortimer says
It is very sad that people like Rabbi Osadchey have not done the requisite reading of source texts but pass themselves off as experts on Islam. They have further not read Robert Spencer’s books, but decide they can use ad hominem arguments from second- or even third-hand comments about him and his writings.
This is not only unscholarly, but unfair. Fairness is the hallmark of Judaism.
In fairness, Rabbi Osadchey, shouldn’t you read even ONE book of Robert Spencer before you criticize his thought and badmouth him as a human?
Steve Klein says
Conservative author,columnist, radio talk show host Dennis Prager, argues that for many American Jews contemporary liberalism is our religion rather than Judaism; sadly.
Polk1970 says
He likely thinks that his “Doctor of Divinity” from a Left-Wing Reformed Seminary makes him an “expert” on all religions.
It only makes him a BRAINWASHED Lefty and Propagandist disguised as a Rabbi
jewdog says
Thanks, Rabbi, for standing up for our enemies and condemning our friends. You are a true schmuck.
Mark Swan says
I Like that Word…it seems to say it all
Steve Klein says
The rabbi wrote: “So, even if Mr. Spencer had spoken on April 28th (a Jewish holiday by the way!)”
I believe the rabbi is mistaken. I had to go back and visit my calendar. Here in the West, Apr 23-24, 2016 was the beginning of the passover, technically Sabbath days for Orthodox Jews. Apr 29-30, 2016 was the end of the Passover, technically Sabbath days for observant (Orthodox Jews). So “even if Mr. Spencer had spoken” to an Orthodox Jewish audience on April 28th, I do not believe it would have been a violation of the commandment were Mr. Spencer Jewish, which he is not. Perhaps the rabbi thinks Spencer is a fellow Jew.
Pong says
It seems that Robert’s modesty didn’t allow him to address one of the points, brought up by “the rabbi”. As times before him, he sneaks in Robert’s lack of formal education in islamic studies, ignoring that even some of the islamic scholars, being in opposition to Robert, had to recognize his profound knowledge of islam. There are few people, whose knowledge of islam could be considered to be at the same level.
If not for his work over the years, bringing understanding of islam to general public, we would have lost much of our knowledge about islam. History will judge all of us, worthy of judgment, and Robert will be judged with gratitude from all of us and many more, who will read his books and articles.
“Jews are generally clever people. As a group, probably, the cleverest of any ethnic groups, but if a jew is stupid, you wouldn’t be able to find such profound stupidity among any other group of people and a village idiot compared to him would look like a scientific genius”. E.Sevela.
Steve Klein says
I agree, formal education or an advanced degree is not necessarily indicative of knowledge or sagacity. There are plenty of apologists for Islam out there with advanced degrees.
Efraim Sevela’s Jews as “clever” seems to be a ‘backhanded’ compliment. Had Sevela said Jews are generally wise or intelligent, that would be another matter.
Wellington says
Robert Spencer in this article utterly destroys Rabbi Osadchey’s arguments, if indeed they can be called arguments at all. Rather, they are excuses masquerading as arguments and excuses that are dangerously and unforgivably irresponsible. Profound shame on this rabbi. He is an enabler of a totalitarian ideology that passes itself off as a religion and which is an inveterate enemy of liberty.
My God, the evidence is all over the place that Islam is a highly intolerant and extraordinarily violence-prone faith It is also as anti-Semitic as Nazism and herein arguably lies the greatest wrong of all by Rabbi Osadchey. What a fool.
Mark Swan says
It hurts the brain, to try and figure Him out doesn’t it.
OP says
Mr. Spencer, I am Jewish and you speak for me. And thank you for doing so.
Jaem says
This Rabbi needs to get educated on Islam, and Robert Spencer has nothing but facts to offer him. All of God’s most loved were hated by the world so Robert being persecuted by so many politicians is no surprise to me. I only hope one day I and many others can stand up and be as truthful and righteous as he is!
Duncan Thorburn says
You and Bill Warner are seeing correctly, how Islam qualifies as a religion, I will never understand. How a Founder that was a Mass Murderer, a Paedophile, and a Sex Slaver, is beyond understanding.
How anyone can believe on all this hate in a religion, is correct, means brain washing techniques are used.
I think Judaism suffers from blinkers, their religion is so consuming, they cannot think clearly about another Monotheistic belief system. If they did, they would be shocked. While Muslims were killing Muslims, we took no notice. But now their attention is directed towards the West, we have to educate ourselves, as to their evil agenda.
Wellington says
Islam, Duncan, qualifies as a religion because it has such things as a deity, a so-called prophet, schools of theology, a religious work, i.e., the Koran, etc. I suspect that you assume that for something to be a religion it must be good and wise. NO SUCH GIVEN..
Doubt me? Well then, look at Satanism which is also a religion. Look at Scientology, another complete crock of shit but a religion nonetheless. After all, where is it written that a religion must be good? At the very least, here in America, Islam is absolutely a religion for First Amendment purposes———as are Satanism and Scientology. I trust you get my overall point and that pursuing the “Islam is not really a religion” is a route to legal Nowheresville. Rather, accept that it is a religion and proceed from there by detailing why it is a profoundly malevolent religion. Give it a shot.
Judi says
Being Jewish myself (and a Zionist), I am greatly embarrassed by the nonesens he is spouting. Unfortunately, there are many of his ilk who have the same beliefs.
elizabeth says
Memo to Rabbi Osadchey:
Let the West beware of Islamic Law, Islamic infidelophobia, & creeping censorship!
In 1903, Turkey trashed Armenian free speech – 12 years before the genocide:
All of the forbidden words below were judged as “Anti-Islamic,” extremely hateful, hurtful and offensive to the feelings of Muslims. Speaking or writing any of them was equal to mockery of Islam, incitement, subversion, a violent attack on the sensitivities of Muslims, a very serious infringement indeed, as punishable as crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or drawing a cartoon of Mohamed.
Notice how so many of the forbidden (non-Koranic) words below are related to human rights, recalling King George III of Britain, to whom the Declaration of Independence was insidious hate speech, hellishly disrespectful of the King’s supremacy.
[http://sentinel.christianscience.com/issues/1903/2/5-25/items-of-interest:]
Finding it inconvenient, in the face of the sentiment of Christian Powers, to destroy the national spirit of the Armenians by force, the Turkish government undertakes to coerce it by putting Armenian school textbooks and press under strict censorship. Such words as the following have been interdicted: “Star”, because its Turkish translation means Yeldiz, which is the name of the Sultan’s palace; “astronomy”, because of its relation to the word “star”; the chemical symbol of water, “H2O”, because this might be construed into H (Hamid), 2 (second), and O (cipher),—that is, Hamid Second is nothing [incredibly, the chemical symbol for water is a taunting, appallingly disrespectful insult to the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire, Hamid the Second]; the word “Armenia”, so that the American missionaries who had founded a college in Armenia by the name of “Armenian College” were obliged to change its name into “Euphrates College;” and the words “liberty”, “freedom”, “home”, “nation”, “sacrifice”, “thistle”, “obstacle”, “stumbling”, “hope”, “faith”, “emancipation”, “Lincoln”, “struggle”, “right”, “tyranny”. No verses are to be published in the daily papers [Mohammed despised poets who exposed him]; the Boers are not to be sympathized with; Americans never praised; Germany never criticized, and Russia never mentioned.
marc says
nicely done, i can see you put a lot of effort into a well deserved pulling apart of rabb osadchey.
a rabbi, if he really is one, should have the ability to put together a better argument than this, so either he’s well aware that he is slandering you with lies, or he really was not trained as a rabbi.
Jay Boo says
Maybe Rabbi Shaul Osadchey would feel more comfortable with a fellow Canadian.
Dr. Bilal Philips
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/muslim-hate-preacher-who-advocates-death-for-homosexuals-to-speak-in-Calgary
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/philippines-deports-jihad-hate-preacher-back-to-canada
michael says
Excellent article we can only hope and pray that the learned Rabbi realises the error of his thought before it becomes too late to stop aggressive Islam destroying the world order.
Daho says
Mr. Robert Spencer. Your action is courageous, true and respectul of all. Telling the truth is not a crime and the Jews have an old expreience of demonization and propaganda full of lies. The problem is that the western politicians and their medias have submitted to Islam, and like Rabbi call racist or islamophobic anyone who makes any statement on Islam which is considered, according to their political position. The UNO and its various agencies are also submitted to the moslem world, and the last absurd intervention is Unesco’s resolutions concerning the Jewish patriachs tombs, the western wall and the Temple Mount which belong to the moslems!!!! Therefore, ignore false and isulting accusations of racism and islamophobia and continue your good work. We need a quick awakening of the responsible governments to face the realities and its dangers.
duh_swami says
When you throw up (vomit) the insult of ‘Islanophobe…you’re done…get out6…
Demsci says
What a superb clear rebuttal of a political correct rabbi.
On the internet there is now coined the name of “Islamophiles” for Political correct people, as opposed to “Islamophobes”. It is a broad term, it may also be understood as Muslimophile”. And this Rabbi seems to be one of them.
To be sure, it’s as well that this rabbi explains and engages at least a bit in debate, because most of the time it is the “Islamophiles” who shut down or opt out of discussions about Islam or Islam and Democracy, before so-called “Islamophobes” do, in my experience.
For me, invoking Positive Psychology, it is vital for us democratic citizens, not only to know what we are against, but even more importantly what we are precisely and in essence, FOR. And in short, that is the full democratic system,
and if we try to be timebound, for the rest of the 21st century, alive and kicking in the majority of countries (but not necessarily in all) in which live by far the majority of humans.
And Islamophiles in my vision fail to support such a positive goal, because they are so ignorant about the differences or contradictions between Islam and Democracy,
and thus are so almost criminally careless about protecting the full Democratic system and it’s 5 pillars;
true freedom of speech, autonomy of the individual, constitutional state, fair elections, separation of State and church. Added to that are various other values, tenets, laws.
In this democratic context Islam is in many parts and in it’s essence, either clearly ANTI-DEMOCRATIC OR NOT CLEAR (and massively misunderstood).
A truly Islam-informed person can in no way uphold that Islam is both CLEAR AND neutral or beneficial to the full democratic system. And that is what Robert Spencer always so eloquently and clearly describes.
And true democratic loyalists can hold Muslims accountable for their choice of religion and of the kind of society they reallu prefer and yes, discriminate people based on that choice.
And Islamophiles can’t have it both; either they defend the full Democratic system or Islam and Muslims, but they cannot do it both at the same time, it seems to me.
RonaldB says
“To be sure, it’s as well that this rabbi explains and engages at least a bit in debate, because most of the time it is the “Islamophiles” who shut down or opt out of discussions about Islam or Islam and Democracy…”
Demsci,
I kind of agree with you and kind of disagree with you.
It’s true that Rabbi Shaul Osadchey actually engages in a debate of sorts with his critic. Many leftists simply ignore a contrary point of view, which is why one sometimes feels alone in the ether when engaging leftist arguments in a debate. Leftists mainly do not engage in debate. They’re true believers, and no debate is necessary or desirable.
Having said that, let me point out that Rabbi Osadchey doesn’t engage in a debate about the substantive points of Islam that Robert Spencer makes. Rabbi Osadchey simply repeats charges against Spencer personally. So, I would say that, being generous, he is semi-engaged in a debate.
Carolyne says
Mr. Spencer, I am not Jewish and you speak for me.
It is my feeling that those who attend “Islamic Studies” classes are in fact indoctrinated in a false Islam, not the bloody and thieving Islam practices as commanded by Mohammed in the latter chapters of his so called “Holy book.” When one knows only one side, one is a half-wit, unworthy of serious consideration.
Jack Gabriel says
Robert,
You need not waste your time to reply and or apologize to this idiot Shaul Osadchey and his clueless defensive points. I am a Christian catholic born, raised in Baghdad Iraq then left in the early seventies at the behest of my father’s advice when he said that unfortunately my mother country was not a place to live freely and practice your faith as an equal citizen with full rights under a constitution (albeit temporary) that is founded on Islamic law which is inherently biased and discriminatory against Non-muslims. His words were prophetic. I have lived among muslims in my youth days and no matter what the blindly ignorant western and US sympathizers of the “peaceful” religion may say, the facts are completely the opposite of what their mental froth spews out. Islam is a supremacist religion at the core and from there all of its other vices and its pent for Hegemony emanate. I have lived that fact, not you Mr. Rabbi and your coterie of false preachers of false pacifism including our president Barak Hussein for fear of insulting the INSULTERS. Islam will only stand on the strength of propagating its 1400+ years falsehoods by force of arms (JIHAD) and not REASON or it shall fall under the massive weight of its own lies and deceptions.
Keep up your intelligent and informative knowledge CRUSADE my brother……….
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
I say the name of Rabbi Meier Kahane here. He dared to resist Islam aggression, and was murdered for it. Back at the time Kahane was presented in the media as a hate mongering radical with violent intentions. All he wanted to do was defend his people, a simple and good thought. R.I.P. Meier Kahane.
By comparison, Rabbi Osadchey is a dangerous person who will sell short term comfort for long term disaster. Does he turn off the TV when a report comes on from the latest Jihad murder of a Jew in Israel. Rabbi Osadchey doesn’t deserve the title rabbi, most do not. Rabbi Osadchey is a self-serving pussy.
Moe says
Rabbi O has gotten more rabid over time. If I were on the board of directors of the synagog, I would be concerned for perception of my own character.
Rebbetzin says
Moe – The board is in his back pocket. I would pay good money to find out what dirt this so-called spiritual leader has on people to keep them on his side, because this is not the first time that he has gotten away with this crap. If you make inquiries, you’ll find out that he left his former congregation in Texas in disgrace. I have no idea how he even got a reference from them in order to be hired at BtZ. He must be very good at blackmail. Lord knows he has a PhD in bullshit.
RonaldB says
I’d like to make a few comments on Judaism, and how Rabbi Osadchey is a perfectly representative spokesman for his particular milieu.
First, in disclosure, I have a background in Reform Judaism but as an atheist, I no longer consider myself a Jew. I have every wish for Jewish success, but the Jewish identity is centered on god. As a non-believer in God, my beliefs are not compatible with Jewish identification or practice.
Having said that, I have to point out there are different branches of Judaism. Reform Judaism is probably the largest US branch of Judaism, and the most liberal. In fact, Reform Judaism is very much a left-wing, social justice philosophy. I cite references to the Union for Reform Judaism, and it’s political arm, the Religious Action Center. Note the topics listed in the reference, which are all social policy rather than the individual relationship to god.
https://www.urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/resolutions-search?sortby=newest
http://www.rac.org/
The Union for Refom Judaism advocates engagement with Islamists and Islamic organizations, under the guise of “tolerance”. The following statement is active on the Union for Reform Judaism website. Most Jihad Watch readers are aware of the fact that the Islamic Society of North America is an organization started by the Muslim Brotherhood, and which advocates for the eventual implementation of sharia law in the US (and everywhere else).
***************************************************************************************************
”
Therefore, the Union for Reform Judaism resolves to:
Work with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and other appropriate partners to promote a new program of Muslim-Jewish dialogue – Children of Abraham: Muslims and Jews in Conversation – based on building relationships through mutual understanding and shared experiences between congregations, and including a structured dialogue guide for use in such conversations.
Urge every Reform congregation to:
Offer a course on Islam, utilizing the Union’s new curriculum, as part of its adult education program.
Engage their local Muslim community in dialogue using Children of Abraham: Muslims and Jews in Conversation
Commend Rabbi Eric Yoffie for his historic address to the 2007 Convention of the Islamic Society of North America, and welcome ISNA President Dr. Ingrid Mattson to our 2007 General Assembly.
”
**************************************************************************
https://www.urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/jewish-muslim-dialogue
Having said this, it is important to maintain the distinction between liberal Judaism, as typified by the Union for Reform Judaism, and traditional Judaism, as typified by many branches of Judaism, including Hasidism and others.
I should also point out that Reform Judaism, whatever else its faults, maintains firm support the the existence of the state of Israel.
The philosophical positions get a bit murky, but generally, Orthodox Jews are more realistic and pragmatic in their view of Jewish self-defense and what is good for Judaism, vis-a-vis Islam. Orthodox Jews also tend to not like Reform Judaism very much, considering it to be outside actual Judaism because of the Reform de-emphasis on Jewish tradition. An example of this is the Trefa Banquet of 1883, where shrimp, clams, and oysters were served, all against Jewish dietary laws.
http://americanjewisharchives.org/publications/journal/PDF/2005_57_01_02_sussman.pdf
I don’t mean to get involved in questions of theology and behavior, except to point out that Reform Judaism has a huge emphasis on social gospel and “tolerance”, and that Rabbi Osadchey is thoroughly within the viewpoint of mainstream Reform Judaism, although the official spokesmen are a bit more indirect than he is, usually.
Also, when you speak of a “Jewish” viewpoint or position, it is necessary to refer to a particular group or branch of Judaism. Many, many Jews are completely opposed not only to the practices of Reform Judaism, but to the emphasis on “interfaith”.
Polk1970 says
THIS moronic “rabbi” doesn’t GET IT!
He-s a Jew.
That’s ALL thy NEED to HATE him and every other Jew,Living or Dead.
Alain B says
This “rabbit” must be a reform Jew, which is another way way of saying non-Jew.
underbed cat says
After Hitler and Hussani…I would think any Rabbi who heard about the sura’s that call for the slaying of infidels and Jews would recognize a danger…..or at least peek inside the Koran,( to confirm his statement)…so this only shows how successful the doctrine was to implement misdirection, suppress questioning and redefine words such as peace. Peace is only achieved after the conversion of the targeted conquest and it never lasts.
healer says
Rabbi Yoffe past president of Union for Reform Judaism…..a friend of the Jews ?”?
“The reason for Jewish terror is Torah. It is not territories and occupation that are to blame, although they are part of the picture. It is not racism or hatred of Arabs that are at fault, although they play a role. The heart of the problem is Torah, the sacred teachings of Judaism.”.com
http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/daniel-greenfield
RonaldB says
The link you gave is to Greenfield’s page, and in no way does it show the scurrilous quote you gave.
The quote you gave is so uncharacteristic and so unlikely, that unless you can give a real reference for it, it should be assumed to be false and libelous.
healer says
Final comment on Yoffe…
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261283/leftist-rabbi-eric-yoffie-supports-torture-jews
RonaldB says
This is an invalid link.
You’ll have to do better than that.
healer says
More on Yoffe….
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100583 Yoffe’s attack on Orthodoxy and the Chief Rabbinate
RonaldB says
This is simply the chief orthodox Rabbi in Israel saying he doesn’t like what Yoffe said about orthodox rabbis. It contains no information whatsoever on what Yoffe actually said.
The funny thing is, you can make a legitimate case against Yoffe and the Union for Reform Judaism, but you have to put a little work into it, and not use unsupported and improbable assertions.
Silvia says
Robert, please accept an apology from a Jew for these idiotic, blind Jews like this Rabbi. Unfortunately’ he’s not alone.
The world will only understand when things are really bad.
Babs says
Silvia, why are you apologising as a Jew for this aberrant Jew’s stupidity? With all due respect your apology is meaningless and, since you don’t hold such views, it’s almost irrelevant because you are guilty of nothing, Such apologies as yours serve to lump all Jews together in the eyes and minds of bigots.
By all means denounce him, as do I, but don’t for G-d’s sake apologise for him. He acts alone and not on behalf of all Jews.
Silvia says
It drives me crazy to see and hear these idiot Jews that are willingly BLIND!
PC is ruining civilization.
Babs says
Oh I absolutely agree with you. Jews in the UK, where I live, are plagued by similar misguided nincompoops who presume to speak for all of us.
We have a representative body – unelected – the Board of Deputies, which, in my opinion, is about as much use to us as a chocolate teapot. The late Abba Eban named them “The Order of Trembling Israelites” – a much more fitting descriptor.
R says
“This is not new and we don’t need Mr. Spencer to inform us of it as if we are stupid, uniformed, people who live in Shangri-La.”
The lack of self-awareness here is enough to leave one speechless.
Dennis says
As a Jew, I wondered how so many brothers seemed to go obediently into the Nazi gas chambers. Now I see how many Jewish leaders like Rabbi O prepare us for the new Jewish genocide. Go obediently into the hands of the Muslims. Let them destroy our people and Israel! Rabbi O. You and other Jewish leaders will be remembered for your cooperation with the Muslims. Unfortunately you won’t be around because you will also be eliminated!
Dacritic says
It is my humble opinion that Christian apologists study the work of Rob Skiba and Gary Stearman if they debate with Muslims on violence in the Bible. Skiba does not particularly go into Islam but Stearman does, though not to the extent of Robert and maybe other apologists like David Wood. If we can understand Genesis like how Skiba and Stearman do (which I believe is how we should all understand it), then we will see the so-called genocide in the OT is not an issue.
My two cents.