Why Does Anti-Semitism Exist?

[quote]Dweezil wrote:
The Hadith is considered a secondary source to the Qur’an, this I recognize. But just because it violates your common sense, because you don’t like it or think it’s accurate, doesn’t mean it isn’t written. There is nothing in the Qur’an that would overrule what the Hadith says with regards to stoning, there’s really no mention of it at all.

If your criteria for considering whether something is valid is if you like it or not, then it’s pretty shitty criteria. There is nothing in the Qur’an that would contradict what the Hadith says on this subject. Therefore, it’s a supplement to the Qur’an, just like most other things in the Hadith, which validates it.[/quote]

I beg to differ. Islam encourages debating ssues that go against common-sense. That is, unless you subscribe to an extremistic school of thought like Wahabism. The quran is the ultimate source in case of litigation. The fact that most people nowadays lack the linguistic skills to do bring to the table their own interpretations is what’s causing a “theological elite” to do the thinking for the sheepish masses. I have extensively studied the life of Mohammed and drew the conclusion that his teachings were against such institutions that are reminescent of the Christian church.

It is also worth noting that the Hadith should only be applied if one is certain of the validity of the said text. You have to understand that Hadiths were deliberately changed or even made up on the spot after the death of the prophet to serve political agendas. This caused a lot of clashes in the Islamic community. At least one century and a half after the death of Mohammed, the Hadith collections (as we know them) started coming out. Forgive me if I’m skeptical of a hadith that promotes stoning to death when the Quran has such verses.

Quran 24:3 “Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty or an Unbeliever nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.”

This settles it for me. But, of course, you’re entitled to your opinion as long as you’re aware of the context of each verse. Proficiency in Arabic is also a must in my opinion as you’d be missing out on all the idioms and delightful (actually divine would be more appropriate here) poetry.

The Arab nations all being dictatorships, no wonder they don’t encourage self-study as it clearly helps in endoctrination.
One of the most overlooked Hadiths in my opinion is: ?One learned man is harder on the devil than a thousand worshippers.?

But then again, the “stoning” debate is as old as Islam itself. Suffice it to say that, among the couple of thousands of Muslims I know, an overwhelming majority is opposed to the “stoning” story. The conservatives can’t hide their ambivalence when it comes to the subject.

There’s absolutely no ambiguity surrounding that verse. It is referring to the after life in that no other religion will be accepted by God.

Again, that all depends on interpretation. One that is familiar with the mercy of the prophet Mohammed towards the “people of the book” and takes the message as a whole, not focusing on the dark spots, would never go for your interpretation.

I think (as every other Muslim) that both Testaments were modified. However, not in their integrality. Granted, I should have refrained from quoting it.

Assuming Iran is trying to acquire nukes, who’s fault is it that Iran is feeling threatened? The Israeli bomb? The 2003 gratuitous invasion of Irak?
Either way, as long as the nuclear powers don’t dismantle their arsenals, other countries will naturally seek to get nukes. Look at the charade that is the UN and you’ll understand what I mean.

[quote]
I don’t think Israel is inherently well-intentioned. I think that America has a large amount of control of Israel, while may conspiracy theorists seem to think that it’s the other way around. Israel knows not to use the bomb unless it’s an incredibly bad situation, because the international fallout for them would be absolutely horrendous. It’s clearly a last resort measure.[/quote]

Actually, it seems to me that it’s rather Israel that control the US. Why else would you spend so much money on arming it, veto anything remotely criticizing its actions at the risk of losing credibility and become hated by the majority of the world?

Hah! Everything you said applies to the US as well. With the exception that the US actually did destroy numerous countries. You also funded more terrorists than Iran could dream of. I see you’re asking the wrong question.
Here’s a better one: Why did Bush refuse to negociate in 2003?

[quote]I don’t think Islam has an inherent hatred of the Jews. I think many Muslims do, and most Arab countries do, as a result of a tremendous amount of history. Believing otherwise is almost comically naive.
[…]
Yes, Jews are not Israelis, Israel does not represent the Jews. My mother maybe 30 years ago had dinner with someone pretty high up in what was then basically the PLO. In Africa. He didn’t know she was a Jew until part way through, and he told her that he didn’t have a problem with her, just the Israelis.[/quote]

There’s a huge contradition in your statement.

I don’t have the time nor the energy to convince you that the early clashes between Muslims and Jews were not because of an inherent hatred, but rather because of Jewish horrendous actions. All I can say is that I have many Jewish friends scattered across the Arab world. I also have Israeli friends that are actively against Zionism.

Sorry about that. My uncle is married to a Lebanese lady, so I feel very strongly about the subject.

What can I say? Do your homework more thouroughly. I heard it first hand from a Lebanese and it was reported by UN agents. Yet, the mainstream failed to mention it

It’s not kidnapping, it’s capture. They were in uniform. What went under your radar, was that a Palestinian doctor and his brother were kidnapped the day before Gilad was captured. Also. incursions were common place prior to the conflict on both sides. There also plenty of evidence that Israel was plannig an attack on Lebanon as early as March. Try to look it up.

Some background on myself. I’m 27, native Arabic speaker, spent 25 years in Morocco, travelled around most Arab countries and oppose all kind of authority besides that of God. Maybe that helps put my posts in perspective.
It seems appropriate to quote Goethe here: “None are more hopelessly enslaved that those who falsely believe they’re free”.

[quote]orion wrote:

Which is of course bullshit because fascism started as an Italian left wing worker movement and only became open to the middle class later.

[/quote]

Hey, take it up with Oxford University Press. I didn’t write the goddamned thing.

Seriously, though, the distinction between “left wing” and “right wing” sort of falls apart when speaking about totalitarian regimes. Hitler’s brand of fascism was, after all, national socialism.

Was his regime left wing or right wing? How about Stalin’s? I’d say that about the only difference between these two gents was that Stalin was taller, had a bigger mustache, and killed far more people with his purges and forced famines than Hitler did with his Final Solution.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Some background on myself. I’m 27, native Arabic speaker, spent 25 years in Morocco, travelled around most Arab countries and oppose all kind of authority besides that of God. Maybe that helps put my posts in perspective.
…[/quote]

It sure does.

Which god has ulimate authority? God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Allah? Yahweh? Odin? Zeus?

I say let god have his authority in his kingdom and let man have authority on Earth.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

Are you playing dumb, or can you truly not see how arming and conscripting teenagers would precisely fit the (limited) terms of that definition?

quote]

In which case, the American government has fit the definition for being a facist government at certain points in time.

Anti-Semitism is just a specific form of racism.

Most people tend to be uncomfortable when they meet people that are obviously different than themselves. This is not racism, but that’s how it starts.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Anti-Semitism is just a specific form of racism.
[/quote]

Jews are not a race. They are a people united by a religious philosophy.

This simple fact, by the way, was the main argument put forth by Zionists to invalidate UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 which equated Zionism and racism.

Hitler didn’t care for this nuance though and considered the Jews as an inferior race, with the horrendous consequences we all know.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Jews, being way above average in intellect, should be MORE in favor of very limited government. The experiences of the 20th century at minimum should cause that to happen. Yet, we see Jews vote overwhelming for Democrats, the party of tax-and-spend, run from your enemies, and ‘Let’s start a new program!!’

Sorry. But I really have to ask- Is it ok now to assume that their are differences in intellegence, and other traits based on different ethniticity and race? Just curious, see as how you said that jews are way above average in intellegence.

Ashkenazi Jews, the ones Hitler hated the most, tend to have an IQ about one standard deviation above the norm. They’re a tiny percent of the world’s population and win proportionally more Nobel Prizes than any other group. I think I posted this stuff earlier in the thread.

[/quote]

Do you spose that they could institute some affirmitave action to help stupid white-boys (like myself), get into more selective colleges, since other individuals are obviously smarter, which makes it unfair to me? (this is a joke, please take it that way)

[quote]lixy wrote:

I don’t have the time nor the energy to convince you that the early clashes between Muslims and Jews were not because of an inherent hatred, but rather because of Jewish horrendous actions. All I can say is that I have many Jewish friends scattered across the Arab world. I also have Israeli friends that are actively against Zionism.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting the reason there is anti semitism is because of jewish atrocities? what date do you claim the jewish/muslim struggle originates from-1948? Before 1948?

Either way, jew blaming is a cover for the real inequities of the arab world. The middle east is hoisted up by oil and oil money. Still, people are underfed, poorly educated and too busy killing each other to realize the jew is not the problem.

Are you claiming the original problem was caused by jews? and if so, why has the struggle continued to this day? who is to blame, jews or muslims for the problems in the middle east?

[quote]Hawkson101 wrote:

Are you claiming the original problem was caused by jews? and if so, why has the struggle continued to this day? who is to blame, jews or muslims for the problems in the middle east?[/quote]

The British.

Blame T.E. Lawrence for promising to deliver a sizable chunk of the Osmani khalifate to the Hashemite bedouins in exchange for their guerrilla war against the Turks. Blame Lowell Thomas for sensationalizing the character of Lawrence in the popular press, creating public sympathy for “Lawrence of Arabia” and forcing the British government to make good its promise.

Blame the post World War II interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, which promised to establish a Jewish homeland in the former Osmani region of Palestine. Written by the British Prime Minister Lord Balfour to the Zionist Federation (via Baron Rothschild, of all people), it contained this key phrase: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Thirty years and six million corpses later, the Zionists…and the rest of the world…conveniently forgot about that little proviso.

Finally, (just to shift a bit of blame from the British), blame the United Nations in 1947 for not securing a homeland for the millions of displaced Palestinian peasants as the UNSCOP was carving up a piece of Palestine for the Jews.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Which god has ulimate authority? God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Allah? Yahweh? Odin? Zeus?[/quote]

Funny thing about the name of God. In Arabic, the word for “god” is ilah. “Allah” is simply a contraction of Al-ilah (“The God”). The Hebrew equivalent is El-eloah, which interestingly enough is usually pluralized in the Old Testament (elohim, “the gods”, which seems strange for a monotheistic religion like Judaism, but supposedly it makes sense to the Jews). The name Zeus is supposedly derived from a Sanskrit word for thunder, but is synonymous (and probably eponymous) with the Greek word theos, meaning (wait for it…) “God”.

In other words, it’s all the same guy. Or as the Arabs would say, laa ilaha illa Allah (“there’s no god but God”).

I think that’s the one Lixy is referring to.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

Which is of course bullshit because fascism started as an Italian left wing worker movement and only became open to the middle class later.

Hey, take it up with Oxford University Press. I didn’t write the goddamned thing.

Seriously, though, the distinction between “left wing” and “right wing” sort of falls apart when speaking about totalitarian regimes. Hitler’s brand of fascism was, after all, national socialism.

Was his regime left wing or right wing? How about Stalin’s? I’d say that about the only difference between these two gents was that Stalin was taller, had a bigger mustache, and killed far more people with his purges and forced famines than Hitler did with his Final Solution.[/quote]

I still think that in the end it makes a difference wheater you encounter a right wing or left wing totalitarian regime, because the right wing regimes are really never that totalitarian.

Of course they will kill you if you dissent in public, but otherwise you will be left alone.

Socialists however had their moment of gnosis, they finally know and understand what went wrong all of mankinds history, they seriously BELIEVE…

If you happen to be on the wrong side of of their crusade, infidel, you perish.

And sometimes you die because they test theories that amount to building an economic perpetuum mobile.

I really think that right wing, “fascists” dictators are the better choice if you can choose, because in the end they only put a gun to your head to make you shut up, not to change every aspect of your life.

Hitler had it all though, to combine welfare with nationalism, what an obvious brilliant choice…

[quote]orion wrote:
I still think that in the end it makes a difference wheater you encounter a right wing or left wing totalitarian regime, because the right wing regimes are really never that totalitarian.

Of course they will kill you if you dissent in public, but otherwise you will be left alone.

Socialists however had their moment of gnosis, they finally know and understand what went wrong all of mankinds history, they seriously BELIEVE…

If you happen to be on the wrong side of of their crusade, infidel, you perish.

And sometimes you die because they test theories that amount to building an economic perpetuum mobile.

I really think that right wing, “fascists” dictators are the better choice if you can choose, because in the end they only put a gun to your head to make you shut up, not to change every aspect of your life.
[/quote]

No argument there. And once again, C.S. Lewis says it best:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive… those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Do you spose that they could institute some affirmitave action to help stupid white-boys (like myself), get into more selective colleges, since other individuals are obviously smarter, which makes it unfair to me? (this is a joke, please take it that way)[/quote]

That’s exactly what Ivy-League schools did in 1920’s when proportion of Jews rose “too high”. Soviet Union had similar policies, implemented differently.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In other words, it’s all the same guy. Or as the Arabs would say, laa ilaha illa Allah (“there’s no god but God”).

I think that’s the one Lixy is referring to.[/quote]

Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks.

Cpt. Branagan seem to focus on tidbits. I gave the whole “no authority besides God” to hint to my political orientations. I would have put it in the same words if I was atheistic/agnostic.

[quote]skor wrote:
JTF,

The author of the book you quoted is not even a historian - Israel Shahak is professor of chemistry. The whole part about killing a Gentile not being a sin directly contradicts Torah’s commandments for Jews and even laws for Gentiles.[/quote]

So he’s a smart guy and can translate Hebrew – certainly capable of critical examination of Talmudic Judaism.

Of course Shahak was not the first or the last person to critique or reveal details from the Talmud – Thomas Jefferson for one.

One of the best critiques, ie: translations was published in 1892, a copy of which resides in the Library of Congress today. This translation deals strictly with the sections of the Talmud as it relates to Christians. Luckily the entire book can be read online…

The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians
By Rev. I. B. Pranaitis - Roman Catholic Priest; Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church in Old St. Petersburg.

"I have undertaken to show what the Talmud really teaches about Christians, and thus satisfy the wishes of those who desire to find out about this doctrine from genuine original sources.

To this end I have translated the best known Talmudic books which refer to the Christians, and have arranged these sources in such order as to bring out clearly the picture of a Christian as represented to the Jews by the Talmud.

Lest I be accused of using a corrupted text of the Talmud or of not having interpreted it correctly, as is generally the case with those who have attempted to disclose secret Jewish teachings, I have placed the Hebrew text opposite the Latin.

I have divided the whole into two sections, the first of which treats of the teachings of the Talmud about Christians, and the other, the rules which Jews are obliged to follow when living among the Christians…"

Which, after reading, it becomes clear what Henry Ford meant when he said, “Jewish Talmudism owes its existence today to the indifference with which it is regarded.”

I seriously doubt if ANYONE that isn’t Jewish has EVER heard of a serious, open discussion about the teachings of the Talmud. The Christian Bible and Qur’an can, and are, discussed ad nauseum.

So why is this so important to a non-Jew, one might ask?

Jewish Law Comes to D.C.
The Jewish Week
12/06/2002
What does the Talmud have to say about legal and moral controversies in modern America?

Plenty, according to the creators of the new Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law, which opened with a lavish Supreme Court dinner last month…

“It will be an eye opener for judges, scholars and law students,” he told The Jewish Week. “Before you know where you’re going, you have to know where you came from. And Jewish law is the basis of our legal system in America…”
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/jlsa/jewish_law_dc.htm

[quote]lixy wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
In other words, it’s all the same guy. Or as the Arabs would say, laa ilaha illa Allah (“there’s no god but God”).

I think that’s the one Lixy is referring to.

Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks.

Cpt. Branagan seem to focus on tidbits. I gave the whole “no authority besides God” to hint to my political orientations. I would have put it in the same words if I was atheistic/agnostic.

[/quote]

As an atheist/agnostic i get uncomfortable when people start talking about god as a supreme authority. It can mean Sharia (or other theological) law or it can mean anarchy both of which I am against.

It really does not allow for much in between.

I prefer a system of law set up by men with checks and balances myself.

A law set by men can always change and thus the ruler of morality is always changing, and this can be on an individual level. Imagine how hard it would be to measure a mile if everyone’s inch or foot was a different length, scary huh?

[quote]blck3jack wrote:
A law set by men can always change and thus the ruler of morality is always changing, and this can be on an individual level. Imagine how hard it would be to measure a mile if everyone’s inch or foot was a different length, scary huh?[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say with the mile measurement thing. It is going to stay what it is.

As for morality, it is subjective and evolving it always will be as is religious interpretation.

Social values and laws change as a culture/people/nation/group/world changes. It is as it should be.

Remember we used to burn people for being witches and women who died in child birth were buried outside the church because they were considered unclean. Those were considered to be the laws of God. Thank goodness things changed.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I agree that the economic structure of Israel is highly socialist (and even communist, if we’re talking about kibbutzim). Politically, Israelis can be extremely nationalistic, and certainly authoritarian (read “intolerant and oppressive”) toward ethnic and religious minorities. You add this all up and call it “fascism”. That’s fine.[/quote]

Of course I do, because that’s precisely what fascism consists of. It’s not some vague political epithet, but a specific term to describe a particular system of economics.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I was merely poking fun at the fact that your definition of fascism apparently includes a bundle of extraneous fasciae that have nothing to do with the actual economics and politics of this system. [/quote]

The facts I pointed out aren’t extraneous to the allegation of fascism. While not necessarily constituting prima facie evidence, they are highly indicative of a fascist system of government in it’s advanced stages.

Is Switzerland fascist? At least partly so, yes. There are many degrees of fascism. Just about every country in the world, except, perhaps, for N. Korea, has a mixed economy which incorporates private property with publicly-owned assets in several key sectors. That is the fundamental structure of a fascist system of government.

Fascism goes by many names. Social-democracy is probably the most common. The welfare state is another.

Economics forms the basis of social and political structures. That’s why this area is examined first in any discussion of the political system of a particular nation. Once a fascist economy has been established in a country, it is only a matter of time before the ideological trademarks of fascism begin to manifest themselves in the cultural and political atmosphere of that nation.

The cultures of militarism and nationalism, among other things, are symptoms of fascism in it’s latter stages. America & Britain have each traveled far down this road since the foundations for the Welfare/Warfare state were laid in the early part of the 20th century.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Good question, NP! Let’s keep it going. [/quote]

Based on my own observations, I’ve come to the conclusion that the left is largely made up of individuals who have never experienced much hardship in life, nor ever acquired any real appreciation for the fruits of hard labour.

They have no understanding of universal truths which have been known to men for ages; hence, they form absurd opinions on nearly all issues.

Liberalism is rooted in weakness, hypocrisy, and prevarication. I see it as a fundamentally immature and feminine philosophy.

However, I no longer spend much time thinking about or debating with liberals, because I have come to view them as a joke. As I’ve stated elsewhere on this forum, they have no power outside of academics. Every “establishment”, from the royal courts of Europe to the current Protestant establishment in America, has been conservative. This will never change. Conservatism is the ideology of those who have something to protect, or something to lose, at any rate. It is, in other words, the ideology of those in power. And as a student and observer of power, that’s all I concern myself with.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

…Or do you take issue with the fact that the M16-toting person you saw in Israel was not merely an 18-year-old, but an 18-year-old woman?

Based on the tone of his posts about women I would venture you hit the nail on the head.[/quote]

There is more than one nail; it’s a multi-faceted issue, as I described in my last post.

Certainly, I am of the opinion that militarism is inherently masculine and therefore antithetical to females and femininity. I would question the mental judgement of anyone who thinks otherwise.

It is a tendency of fascist cultures to suppress feminity, as a by-product of their suppression of human sexuality in general. The female gender is inherently sexual, as women serve no biological role other than procreation. One of the ways in which feminity is repressed is through the encouragement of female participation in athletic endeavors (socialist and nationalist countries simply love their coed athletics programs). This has a trickle-down effect on other cultural norms, such as dress codes for each gender.

Clothing lines tend to become more masculine as a result of these influences. Hence, I have signalled out the popularity of Under Armour and other athletic clothing lines in the US as indicative of this country’s continued slide into the throes of fascism.