Stephen Green, the Vodkapundit, has some thoughts:
We call the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." The Germans, for all their fearsome reputation, haven't thrown a winning war since 1870. It took Italy two wars before it could beat godforsaken Ethiopia. Poland owes its national existence to the kindness of strangers negotiating around a Versailles conference table. The last time the Spanish won a war, they were fighting each other — and so ineptly that the damnable, sad affair was half-fought by foreigners.
But make no mistake: The Europeans are good at killing. Revolutionary France started the first modern revolution in warfare by inventing the mass army of conscription. A Brit, James Puckle, invented the machine gun. Put the two together, and you get the First World War — global war and "total war" being two other European gifts to the world, wrapped into one shiny little conflict.
From tanks to civilian bombing to Hitler's ovens, Europe has given the world more ways to kill more numbers of people than probably any other continent. In fact, Europeans named Lenin and Hitler invented those killing machines we call "totalitarian states."
Not that each and every one of those items is a bad thing. Were it not for the tank, Europe might still be fighting on the Western Front, nearly 91 years after the Great War started. Civilian bombing certainly shortened that war's popular 1939 sequel. Despite some local atrocities, it's hard to argue that European colonialism wasn't more civil for western Africa and the Middle East than the local governments they have in those places today. And how did European nations become global empires? In no small measure because of their talents for killing.
Anyway, that's what popped into my head after reading the most recent post here by Will Collier. After reading an article showing that the Netherlands (former owners of Indonesia, one of the world's largest Muslim nations) could be majority-Islamic fairly shortly, Will said:
What happens 20 or 30 years from now, when demographic trends could well result in "minority-majority" (or even outright majority) status for the Islamic cohort in western Europe? If they're faced with the options of dhimmitude or flight, where will the native Europeans flee to?
Why, here, of course.
What Will left out is the third option. If somewhere down the road the worst should come to worst, Europeans could always stay home and fight. And don't think they couldn't.
Problem is, the fight wouldn't be the pretty kind where you see a few bold arrows drawn on the map, confidently slicing through history and the enemy lines. We're not talking Desert Storm here, which you could draw with five arrows and lasted only 96 hours. We're not even talking about the Liberation of France in 1944, which took slightly more arrows and just six weeks. Oh, no.
We'd be talking about city fighting. But not the kind of city fighting you saw in Saving Private Ryan, where the likeable, well-trained and battle-hardened soldiers could call in an air strike just when all seemed lost. Thanks to modern Europe finally putting "ain't gonna study war no more" into nearly full effect, they hardly have any battle-hardened soldiers. They hardly have any soldiers left at all.
The city fighting we'd see in Europe would look like what we saw in Sarajevo ten years ago. You know, ragtag bands of men with no uniforms, stolen weapons, and a desire to kill anybody who looked Muslim (or on the Muslim side, European). Holland and Denmark would fare worst. They're both tiny, both have very high (and increasing) Muslim populations, and neither country has much of a modern military tradition. In this worst-case scenario, the likelihood of ethnic mob rule ala Bosnia seems high.
Want to take the worst-case a little further? Both countries border Germany, which might feel the very legitimate need to march in to restore Ordnung. I think we all know what usually happens once the Germans start goose-stepping through their smaller neighbors.
No, the result wouldn't be World War III (or V?). But Europe could very well become Bosnia on a continental scale, with all the devastation, mass graves, and ethnic cleansing that implies. You can bet, at best, there would be a whole lot of people put at gunpoint onto refugee boats bound for North Africa and the Levant. Assuming, of course, the Europeans win in such a scenario. If not, the poor refugees would speak languages much like our own, and be bound for our own shores — just like Will suggested.
Me, though, I'd put my money on the Europeans winning a war of mass, mechanized murder.
After all, they invented it.
Posted by: Steve ||
01/19/2005 11:49:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Stephen Green said: Me, though, I'd put my money on the Europeans winning a war of mass, mechanized murder.
After all, they invented it.
...war of mass, mechanized murder??? Sounds like self-defense to me.
#2
One quibble: I thought the American Hiram Maixm invented the machine gun, not this Puckle guy (who?!). As the story goes he was famously advised that, to make a guaranteed fortune, all he needed to do was to create something that would help Europeans kill each other in greater numbers. Duly enough, both sides used Maxims during WWI. Did Puckle invent a precursor? Da Vinci doodled multi-barrelled guns way back...
#4
I wondered about the inventor of the machine gun also.
Looked it up on the web and the following was obtained: The idea of a gun that would keep up a continuous stream of fire attracted inventors early in the development of firearms. In 1718 James Puckle invented what he called his Defence Gun. Placed on a tripod it was a large revolver with a cylinder behind its single barrel. Although the cylinder had to be turned manually it could fire 63 shots in seven minutes.
This would not be a machine gun as one thinks of it. Gatlin may have been the inventor of the machine gun around the time of the civil war.
#7
Sorry - didn't mean to muddle things. Gatling made the first acceptable version of Puckle's idea, but it was not what is considered today as a machine gun.
BD's spot-on. Maxim invented the first true machine gun, was rebuffed in the US, and trotted his invention over to Europe, where there was business as there was some sort of conflict in progress. The Maxim Gun was the first. Green's being a bit obtuse - and lazy - methinks he just googled a bit and slapped the first item that appeared to fit his point into his piece - without really finding out the history of it. Not an egregious error except in the confusion sewn, heh.
#8
This article is scarry enough to have us look at our own immigration policy. The exodus from these Muslim backwaters to the civilized countries will undoubtedly lead to collapses in the democratic fundamentals these countries pride themselves on. Look at demographics the Muslims are breeding and spreading exponentially. We can't allow anymore into Europe and the US. Lord know's we don't know what to do with the ones we've got.
#10
Over time, the US has discovered that there are three distinct generations that follow a wave of immigrants, with two possible outcomes. The two variants are based on whether it is *demanded* of the immigrants that they integrate, or not. The first generation are strangers in a strange land, speaking a strange language and willing to work at low-paying jobs while behaving themselves. The second generation are half in-half out: they are troublesome, forming mafias and gangs, and are neither part of the old world or the new. The third generation is either fully part of the new country, if they have been forced to integrate; or ghetto-ized and stuck in a second-generation pattern if they have not been integrated. Therefore, we can look to Europe to have different outcomes, depending on what policies are *now* in place. The Dutch want to force integration; whereas others are more concerned with encouraging outsiders to "preserve their cultural identity", even if it keeps them segregated and poor. A third, unfortunate pattern is suggested, and that is of "ethnic cleansing", conducted by their hosts. Ironically, it would be the 'liberal' treatment of such immigrants now, that would eventually result in this horror being visited upon them later.
#13
It is entirely possible that the Muslim immigrants will integrate into the society. Anonymoose spells out the different possibilities quite well.
I just returned from Ankara Turkey. What I saw was a modern country that happened to have a majority Muslim population. I saw attractive women dressed to show their curves, plenty of people in bars, women driving and billboards with women's undie ads. The people I spoke to had no interest in living life under Sharia. All said they would fight to preserve their secular state. It was an eye opener for me.
That said, this was Turkey and if the immigrants to Europe are mostly Arabs, then the issue of sharia for them could be quite different.
#14
American Rifleman had an article on the Puckle gun 5-10 years ago. If I remember correctly, it was a big revolver (2-3 inch bore?) that had interchangeable cylinders, so that you could continue firing while assistants reloaded the extra cylinders. The ammo was a type of canister shot, it came in "round shot for use against christians or square shot (cubes) against the Turks."
#15
Sorry - didn't mean to muddle things. Gatling made the first acceptable version of Puckle's idea, but it was not what is considered today as a machine gun. BD's spot-on. Maxim invented the first true machine gun
I was under the impression (with no dates to hand) that Browning inventing the first gas-driven automatic (Gatling being a mechanical multi-barrel repeater) that was referred to as a 'potato-digger' by the troops for the flap on the front of the weapon that would dig a hole in the ground (or body part) that happened to be underneath the barrel when it was fired. This weapon would have been carried into the Spanish-American War and was replaced by the water-cooled .30 for WWI and would have been the precursor to the recoil operated (I just realized that I am not for certain) Ma Deuce (may she live forever).
But it should be fun to watch the fireworks when the Euros finally realize that the Moorish invasions of the past millenia have finally had success and they find themselves in a close in knife-fight to the finish. Get the popcorn. Maybe we could make some cash on sniper-tourism . . . here's 50 rounds and a BMG, make good use of your time in Amsterdam . . .
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
01/19/2005 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Despite some local atrocities, it's hard to argue that European colonialism wasn't more civil for western Africa and the Middle East than the local governments they have in those places today. And how did European nations become global empires? In no small measure because of their talents for killing.
And now the residents of those former colonies are moving back to the old colonial powers. Colonialism in reverse.
Hiram Maxim invented the recoil-operated MG. The first Maxim predated both the "Potato Digger" (designed by John Browning, but which was gas operated) and Browning's later recoil-operated design (the ancestor of Ma Deuce) by several years--other than that, I believe you've got the history pretty right.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/19/2005 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#18
JR, the Maxim gun, which was recoil operated, predates the potato-digger.
The real revolution in European killing power was brought about by Krupp's introduction of the steel breech-loading cannon in the 1860s. Early models were accident-prone but the kinks were worked out at the cost of a few hundred dead gunners and the weapons were decisive in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. This was fortunate for the Prussians and their German allies, because the French had both a superior rifle (the Chassepot vs. the Dreyse "needle-gun") as well as a primitive machine-gun, the Mitralleuse. Like the Gatling gun, the latter was externally-powered and therefore not a true machine-gun. It could be lethal though. Its great weakness was that it was carriage-mounted and deployed in batteries like artillery. German artillerymen were able to spot them at great range and demolish the batteries with their quick-firing Krupp guns.
#19
"The first Maxim predated both the "Potato Digger"
Gee, Mike, great minds think alike and so do we apparently.
As an addendum, the Krupp field-guns of 1870-71 had more in common with present-day artillery than with the bronze smooth-bores that still equipped most armies at the time. The biggest conceptual difference is the early breechloaders' lack of a hydro-pneumatic recoil mechanism, an invention credited to the French a few years later.
#20
I've been reading up on the Franco-Prussian war recently, from William Manchester's The Arms of Krupp and several other sources.
One of the striking things about this period, frankly, is the stupidity and callousness of military tactics at the time. As in the American Civil War a few years earlier, commanders lined their brightly uniformed troops up shoulder to shoulder just as they would have at Waterloo. Manchester describes how the Prussian infantry kept their distance while the Krupp guns massacred the conveniently conspicuous French ranks.
Tactics didn't really catch up to firepower until the final stages of World War I, when the allies introduced tanks and the Germans their innovative storm-trooper tactics (not to be confused with the later Nazi gangs of the same name).
In the meantime, millions were slaughtered by artillery and machine-guns.
#22
The article's dopey. The likely responses to muslim violence and increasing share of the population will be, first, state-driven corporatist-style co-optation attempts, with separate state institutions headed by "well-behaved" muslim leaders (cf Sarkozy's proposals in France). When these fail, you will see a public backlash against immigration and heightened police/judicial powers to detain and deport, which, combined with the demographic catastrophe, would deprive the euro economies of one of the greatest drivers of economic growth, a growing domestic consumer market. France already has accorded such powers to its judges and police; Germany is moving in that direction and Holland and Spain will soon follow.
When the effects of this are felt-- ie when eurozone growth slumps to close to zero, or actually slides into negative territory-- you'll see the third phase: relaxed immgration for educated Chinese and other Asian immigrants. The smartest policy would be to skip phases I and II and bring the Chinese and Indians into Europe now.
#23
I believe that something like this can, and probably will, happen here.
Rank and file lefties are mostly middle class fantasy-ideologues and status-seekers. With the exception of certain committed cadres, this group has have little capacity for sustained violence.
Their allies in the burgeoning Muslim gangs do, however. Keep in mind that average lefty or associated terror-sympathizers do not see the media as being on their side.
They are likely to interpret media soft-peddling (as in the NJ murders) as a sign of weakness in the larger society and a green light for further atrocities.
Beyond that, the middle class radical culture has forged many links and de facto alliances with violent groups. These now include white supremacist groups as well as minority racist elements like the Black Panthers and MECHA. Criminal opportunists, especially the drug culture and its violent gangs, may be expected to join this alliance.
Shielded behind the pop-left's media license, this alliance will grow in power and numbers, and its atrocities will multiply, until the pressure becomes unbearable and the larger society lashes out in an uncontrollable sequence of reprisals.
These days the Middle East is once again the scene of bloodshed. Israeli troops are employing the most ruthless and cruel methods against Palestinians. The Israeli Army is ruthlessly bombing Palestinian settlements, shooting at children and trying to make Palestine uninhabitable.Some Palestinian radicals, on the other hand, are attacking Israeli civilian targets and spreading violence with their terrible suicide attacks aimed at women and children. Our heartfelt wish as Muslims is for the anger and hatred on both sides to die down, for the bloodshed to stop and for peace to come to the Middle East. We oppose both the Israeli killing of the innocent and the bombing of innocent Israelis by some radical Palestinians.
You need to stop wringing your hands and start wringing some necks -- the necks of your Muslim brothers who continue to blow up women and children in pizza parlors. Right now much of the intelligent civilized world understands that you don't really mean it, since you write fine words in English and spit vitriol in Arabic. Start telling your brethen Paleo pals in Arabic that if they don't stop killing innocent Israelis, you're going to kill them. And then kill a few. And then we can judge how serious you are.
In our view, the most important condition for this blind conflict to come to an end and for real peace to be established in the Middle East is for both sides to genuinely and honestly understand and implement their own beliefs. The conflict between Israel and Palestine has taken on the identity of a 'religious war' between Jews and Muslims, whereas in fact there is absolutely no reason for such a war of religion. Both Jews and Muslims believe in God, love and respect the same prophets, and possess the same moral principles. They are not enemies. On the contrary, they are allies in a world in which atheism and hatred of religion are widespread.
But the Jews have to believe in God your way, or you're going to kill them. Or they have to submit to being dhimmis, pay the tax and not object too much when a Muslim commits some atrocity against them. That was the history of Jews for a thousand years in Iraq, Egypt and Syria. So far you're espousing the fine principle of "what's mine is mine, and we'll talk about what's yours." Don't be surprised if the Israelis turn you down.
Based on that fundamental principle, we call on the Israelis (and all Jews):
1) Muslims and Jews believe in one God, the creator of the universe and all living things. We are all God's servants, and to Him we shall return. So why hate each other? The holy books we believe in are different, but we all abide by those books because we believe they are the revelations of God. So why should we fight one another?
Why do Sunnis fight Shi'a? Why do both hate Alawites? Why do Muslims of one sect commit murder against Muslims of another sect? You guys all believe in the same holy book and you can't even get along. When you can figure out why you're fighting each other and then put a stop to it, you'll be close to where Christians are today (Northern Ireland excepted). And then perhaps you can call for a truce with the Jews.
2) Instead of Muslims, would the Israelis rather live among atheists or pagans? The Bible is full of passages describing the terrible cruelties inflicted on the Jews by pagans. The terrible genocide and cruelty inflicted on the Jews by atheists and unbelievers (such as the Nazis, anti-Semitic racists or communist regimes such as Stalin's Russia) are clear for all to see. The atheist forces in question hated the Jews because they believed in God, and that is why they oppressed them. Are not Jews and Muslims on the same side against these atheist, communist or racist forces that hate them both?
The atheists, communists and racist forces are exploding young people in pizza parlors. That's been the province of fine Muslim terrorist groups so far -- Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyr brigades. I could go on. These are the people trying to murder Jews. The Atheist Alliance, so far as I know, hasn't been creeping into kibutzes to murder sleeping Jewish children. You seem like an intelligent soul, Peter, so you tell us -- who should the Jews take a stand against first: a peaceful atheist or a Muslim wearing a bomb belt?
3) Muslims and Jews love and respect the same prophets. The prophets Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses or David are at least as important for Muslims as they are for Jews. The lands where these holy figures lived and served God are at least as holy for Muslims as they are for Jews. So why drown those lands in blood and tears?
Because one side is willing to live in peace, and the other side demands the whole enchilada. It's the Paleos and their brethen Arabs who demand that Palestine stretch from the Jordan to the Med. Look at the average map of the Middle East, rendered by a Muslim cartographer: do you see any space for "Israel"?
4) The fundamental values of Israel are also sacred to us Muslims. The word 'Israel' is the name of the Prophet Jacob, who is praised in the Koran and remembered with great respect by Muslims. The Magen David (Star of David) is the holy symbol of the prophet David for us too. According to the Koran, synagogues are places of worship that Muslims must protect. (Koran, 22:40). So why should members of the two religions not live together in peace?
Instead of trying to convert us on Rantburg, you should fly to Mecca and preach to the crowds on their Haj. There's quite a crowd right now, you might still catch them. Tell them how holy Jacob and David are, and how they should learn to live in peace with the Jews. If you live, let us know how it went.
5) The Torah commands Jews to establish peace and security, not to occupy other lands and spill blood. The people of Israel are described as 'a light unto the nations.' As Rabbi Dovi Weiss has said:
"The Jewish people are commanded by Almighty God to live in peace with all peoples and nations on the face of the globe. Our agenda is simple It is to humbly worship the Creator at all times. As Torah Jews we are called upon to feel and express our sense of compassion when any person or group of human beings suffers."1
And where is the mullah, the iman, the wise, holy Islamic scholar who is preaching similar words to his flock? Every Friday in the mosques in Egypt, in Jordan, in Saudi Arabia, the holy men preach words of hate and destruction to the assembled believers. Show me the Arab equivalent of Dovi Weiss.
If the Israelis continue to treat the Palestinians as they are now, they may be unable to account for that to God. Those Palestinians who kill innocent Israelis, on the other hand, may be unable to account for those murders. Is it not a duty in the eyes of God to put an end to the fighting, which is dragging both sides deeper into satanic violence?
The Israelis have offered peace several times: you might argue about some of the terms, but there they were. Yasser Arafat rejected those terms each time and kick-started the cycle of violence. Explain to us how peaceful Muslims can abide this.
We invite all Jews to consider these facts. God commands us Muslims to invite Jews and Christians to a 'common formula':
Say, "O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." (Koran, 3:64)
This is our call to the Jews, a People of the Book: As people who believe in God and obey His commands, let us come together in the common formula of 'faith.' Let us love God, the Lord and Creator of all of us. Let us abide by His commands. Let us pray to God to lead us further on the path of righteousness. Let us bring love, compassion and peace to each other and the world, not hostility, blood and tears.
Read what you just wrote: you pretty much demand that the Jews become Muslims. That isn't going to happen. When it doesn't, you'll justify the renewed violence. It's in the Quran somewhere, I'm sure you can look it up.
That is where the solution to the Palestinian question and other conflicts in the world lies. Come, let us find a solution together. The deaths and suffering of so many innocent people remind us every day what an urgent task this is.
HOW CAN THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION BE RESOLVED?
Based on the principles of toleration and moderation we have outlined above,it is possible to solve the Palestinian question, which has caused so much bloodshed in the Middle East over the last 50 years. In our view, the establishment of peace depends on these two conditions:
1) Israel must immediately withdraw from all the territories it occupied during the 1967 war including East Jerusalem. The occupation that has existed since must come to an end. That is an obligation under international law, U.N. Security Council resolutions and the concept of justice. All of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip must be recognized as belonging to an independent State of Palestine.
There's no reason for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 line, or to the 1948 line, or to the original UN mandate line of 1947. Your brethen Arabs started four wars and lost all four. When you lose, you don't get to tell everyone how the peace agreement will be shaped. Your first step is to acknowledge that you lost the wars, and try to figure out what the Israelis will let you have.
2) East Jerusalem, which is home to the important temples of all three theistic religions must be administered by the Palestinian administration, yet this city should have an exclusive status. Jerusalem must be made a free city in which members of all three religions can carry out their obligations in peace.
When the Arabs ran Jerusalem Jews were prohibited from visiting their holy sites. Now that the Israelis run Jerusalem, both Jews and Muslims have complete access to their holy sites. If the PA gets control of East Jerusalem again, how long before Jews are banned from the wailing wall? There's a history there that you won't even acknowledge.
When these conditions are brought about, Israelis and Palestinians will have recognized each others' right to exist, shared the Palestinian lands, and resolved the status of Jerusalem, the subject of a great argument, in a manner satisfactory to the members of all three religions.
Our hope is that the constant hostility of the last 50 years or so, the prejudice, killing and slaughter will come to an end, that the innocent Palestinian people can secure a homeland that can provide them with the peace, security and well-being they deserve, and that Israel will abandon its policy of aggression and occupation, that wrongs its own people as well as the Palestinians, thus allowing it to live in peace with its neighbours within its legal pre-1967 borders.
Again, there's nothing especially binding about the 1967 borders. You lost. They won. Figure out what you can negotiate for and be happy with that.
1-"The Torah Demands Justice for the Palestinians" Presented by Rabbi Dovid Weiss of NKIAt Time Square in Manhattan on Friday afternoon, June 1, 2001. http://www.netureikarta.org/speeches.htm
Posted by: Peter ||
01/19/2005 6:25:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suugest the resolution of the Palestinian problem be delayed until Arabs apologize and indemnify the local populations of the following areas:
a) Soudan
b) Kurdistan
c) Mahgreb
d) Iran
e) Afghanistan (sending them Al Quaida)
And when non-Arab Muslims will have indeminified local populations from the following areas:
a) India
b) Armenia
c) Balkans
d) Philippines
e) Thailand
f) Black Africa
the list is incomplete of course. Then and only then will the Palestinians be considered
#2
Peter is such a common Muslim name, to be sure.
But I would challenge Muslim Peter, who posts an article claiming that Muslims revere the Jewish prophets, to give a little history and a few quotes from each of the Jewish prophets he mentioned, citing Old Testament chapter and verse. I also challenge Muslim Peter to explain how the ongoing terrorism propagated and supported by all segments of Palestinian society against the citizens of Israel, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and other, is supported or opposed by the Koran and Hadith, not to mention the fascinating fatwas issuing from across the Ummah.
On the other hand, this post is total crap, completely unsupported by the words and actions of the Palestinians, both lay people and religious leaders. Muslim Peter should read what real Muslims are saying to one another. www.MEMRI.org has translations of articles, television shows, Friday sermons, cartoons, and so forth, into whatever language Muslim Peter reads most comfortably.
How can the Palestinian question be resolved? First by discontinuing all attacks on Israelis. Then by accepting that Israel will not ever disappear as an independent Jewish nation. There will be no Palestinian right of return except to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Israel will never return to the pre-1967 borders. Oh, and Palestinian birthrates have been steadily dropping, so the Israelis will not be crowded off the land by an explosion of Palestinian bodies. Sorry.
#4
They're to strong be exterminated by brute force. Therefore, let us immitate our revered Prophet and offer them peace --- just as he offered peace to the Quaraish.
#5
And just as he offered peace with the last Jews of Medina. Line the men up in a ditch, behead them in front of their women and children, then rape the women and children that same day. Yup the religion of peace of tolerance at work.
Just compare how muslims are treated in Israel with how jews are treaded in any Islamic country.
Islam calls for all the world to submit (or die) to the black rock of Mecca.
2. Ya know, call me pollyanna optimist, but I think there is a seed in this pile of poo that just might flower if planted (i know...gag). Mind you, I didn't realize until the very end that this was written by a rabbi, who sounds like he was on Arafat's payroll no less, but a good idea from an idiot is better than a bad idea from a genius.
here we are, my friends.....drumroll please!
[sound of drumroll]
Are not Jews and Muslims on the same side against these atheist, communist or racist forces that hate them both? Instead of Muslims, would the Israelis rather live among atheists or pagans - On the contrary, they are allies in a world in which atheism and hatred of religion are widespread
You could really get some mileage with this idea. I have come to the conclusion that the flaw with the Muslim religion that keeps it stuck in the 7th Century, is that unlike Christianity, which is based on forgiveness; Islam is based on blame. An entire culture that values words that deflect blame v/s actions that produce results. Kind of like our own LLL.
Which brings me back to my point. Aligning Jews and Muslims (and Christians) to fight the pagans and communists. It's brilliant. Absolutely brilliant and it just might work. oohh..Putin and Hillary Clinton just felt cold chills go down their spines.
And if you don't think that train can't change tracks, think again. Think Bill Clinton and N.O.W. Feminists shucked all they had ever stood for IN A HEARTBEAT when told their new oppressor wasn't MEN...but Republicans. They sucked it up through a straw. My point being, it can be done.
Anyhoo... I'm probably wrong, since the second half of the article then goes on to do the standard Muslim - "if you put your hands up and give me all of your money, then we will be friends".
Trying to "remind" the Jews that they share the same moral values and the same prophets with the muslims is kind of like trying to convince a grown man named Jack that he's really a little girl named Sue. In other words, reality is reality no matter how hard one tries to change it. The similarities between Judaism and islam are superficial ones at best. islam is not related and can't hold a candle to the legacy of Judaism. At best Islam can and has only imitated Judaism where it has suited its cause. It has tried to replace Judaism and failed. It can only follow where Judaism has led. It can only mock Judaism by claiming to supercede it.
There is no common ground between Jews and muslims morally for the whopping difference that Jews are supposed to be moral in all situations no matter how challenging or threatening and muslims only have to be good and moral and tolerant until they are suffuciently threatened and then they can do whatever it takes to win. For instance muslims may lie like dogs to non muslims if that will give islam an advantage. This is but one example.
Then there are the prophets. The muslims freely re-invented the prophets a thousand years after the fact, proclaimed that their new versions were the original versions, put words and concepts into their mouths that parroted whatever mohammed was trying to get away with at the time, and then attached to these islamic automatons the Arabic versions of the names of the Hebrew prophets. The facts are that the original prophets were so far ahead of islam and so deep and high. Any respectful reading of them in the Old Testament as opposed to the selective reading that the muslims give to their writings will reveal that mohammed completely missed vast resevoirs of thought and nuance. In fact, he missed the boat entirely and completely misunderstood both the Hebrew prophets and their roles.
What is more, the Hebrew prophets weren't mere mouthpieces of God, repeating the same message in the same way over and over again like parrots. In each of their writings, their rich individual personalities and literary styles are hard to miss. They are very different from one another. In islam, these real men writing real books become co-opted to endorse mohammed as one of them and they are reduced to lesser versions of him all speaking with the same voice ie mohammeds voice.
BTW, 2B, you are right on about the muslim way of peace. Give us everything we want and give up everything that you want and then we can have peace.
#9
Peggy nails it. 2b, I don't have much hope for this situation. My book says that the Jews and Muslims will continuously be at war with each other. Most Christians believe this goes back to Isaac and Ishmael. Issac being the predecessor of the Jews and Ishmael being the predecessor of the Muslims. They are step brothers (Isaac being born of Abraham and Sarah (his wife) and Ishmael being born of Abraham and Hagar (Sarah's maidservant)). See Genesis 16-17. Specifically note that Genesis 16:12 says that Ishmael "shall be a wild man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his bretheren." Basically, Christians believe that this goes back to the age of time and will continue to be a war until Christ's return.
Posted by: BA ||
01/19/2005 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
1. R. Weinglass is from Neturei Karta, a tiny minority within the Szatmar hasidic sect, itself a tiny minority among Jews. While Judaism certainly does teach compassion and peace, this is NOT incompatible with statehood, and self-defense, unless you are as fatalistic and hostile to human action as the Szatmar Hasidism are. Most Jews have become modern, which means acknowledging that WE are responsible for our own safety, and G-d WANTS us to defend ourselves - persecution of Jews is an evil, NOT a divine punishment.
2. We are commanded to love all our fellow Jews, even when they become atheists. And of course not all atheists are Stalinists - secular Zionists, some atheists, played a vital role in building Israel. Of course we want to share our state with them.
3. Yes, Judaism and Islam have much in common, not just prophets, but approaches to the development of religious law, austere monotheism with hatred of idolatry, etc. Fine. And Israel is QUITE prepared to live in peace with Muslims who live Islam AS a religion of peace. Israel has been at peace with Turkey virtually since Israel was founded. Israel is at peace with Jordan and Egypt. Israel looks forward to peace with more muslim and arab states. However the key impediment now is that many muslims follow not a version of Islam based on peace and compassion, what we have in common, but versions based on hatred. As followed by Al Qaeeda, Hamas, the hardliners in Teheran, etc. The Muslim world must vomit out these elements.
#11
How rich is it for a muslim to presume to lecture and teach a religion that is the elder of islam by more than a thousand years. Thats the spirit in which this article has been written and diseminated. In the muslim scheme of things newer is better and more advanced, the wisdom of the ages is rejected. Its kind of like a grandchild attempting to lecture his grandparent instead of sitting reverantly at their feet to learn from them. No wonder islam has always been so screwed up. How can anyone be right in the head that thinks that their elders don't know what they are talking about? "Here, grandma, let me tell you how your story really is supposed to go. Let me tell you where you went wrong. Let me correct your mistakes." If ever muslims tossed this insane idea out the window, then they would finally be able to see that their pissant religion bears no relation other than superficially, to Christianity and Judaism.
As a Christian, I can attest that Christians haven't always honored our elder in Judaism the way that we should have. But we have never once accused the Jews of altering Scripture. We have never rejected their Scriptures as unreliable. And that has always been our saving grace, balancing and enriching our faith that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah with the wisdom of the ages preserved and tended by the Jews through the centuries before us. We have always been better off at those times when we have drawn closer to Judaism and have been properly respectful of our combined heritage. It makes sense and any other way that rejects the Scripture of the Jews except to find justification for certain beliefs is grossly in error. We Christians have always been able to sit at the feet of the prophets and hear their own words in their own voices. We have always been able to mine their writing for every last drop of goodness and light. There is just no other approach that is more sane than that. There is no other appoach as insane as muslims trying to lecture Jews as if they knew better.
#12
But we have never once accused the Jews of altering Scripture.
Quibble. There are certain key differences between the traditional Hebrew texts of the bible, the Masoretic texts (earliest MSS are from around 900 CE) and the earliest Greek (IE Christian texts) from around 300 CE. Some of these are of theological import (was it a "virgin" who will conceive or an Almah, a young woman?) The differences could result from A. a mistranslation in the Septuagint (A greek translation made by Jews around 150 BCE) B. An alteration in the Jewish tradition C. An alteration in the Christian tradition.
Both religious communities HAVE accused the other of making said alterations.
#13
"Here, grandma, let me tell you how your story really is supposed to go. Let me tell you where you went wrong. Let me correct your mistakes."
You went wrong in rejecting "the lords annointed" for which you were punished by exile, and persecution. The way to correct your mistakes is by accepting the embrace of the church and undergoing baptism. At least SOME christians have held this ideology. Its not in the NT of course, but evolved later.
#14
the evil maidservant...witch. Look at all the trouble she caused.
Intersting posts peggy and BA.
Basically, Christians believe that this goes back to the age of time and will continue to be a war until Christ's return.
"Christians" is pretty broad. If it's written in Revelations, then we might as well throw up our hands. But I kinda suspect it's not that straightforward. So it seem to me, that with modern communications and the internet,we have a historic opportunity to see if we can change some hearts and minds here.
I don't hold out any hope that we can enlighten the Muslims as to the destructive nature of their culture of blame.
But I do see a real opportunity here to shift the devil from the Jews to the "Pagans and communists". You have to remember that outside of Palestine, with it's steaming refuse of rejected flesh - there are billions upon billions of Muslims who are just people like you and me who have been let down by those appointed to teach them how to live a good life. I really don't think they want to be stuck in the 7th century lives of Sharia. Half of them are women - do you really think they alone want to live with fewer rights than my dog?
These people, who have connected with the modern world are the ones who can shape ideas to move the Palestinians forward. You can't reach them by appealing to higher ideals of charity or forgiveness - they were breastfed on the culture of blame. Why not use that blame to your own advantage? I think this idea of shifting the blame against the Jews to the pagans and communists is absolutely brilliant. Why, because it's true. They are more aligned with the Jews and Christians than they are with the communists and pagans. This realization just might be grasped by Muslims who want to respect their religion but who also want to live in the modern world.
While I do acknowledge that it's unlikely we will fix in our lifetime what has been a blood feud forever - but it does not good to point out that the Paleo's are a hopeless lost cause and feeds into the same mindset that keeps them down - blame. What do we have to lose by trying?
But note that these are quibbles. I have freely admitted to Christians not always treating our elders as we should. I am saying that there has been a saving grace in our common Scriptures. Not to over diminish very real and great theological differences between us, quibbling over words when there are vast tracts of theology and thought which we share through the record of Scripture is the overall trend regardless of the spin, if you can call it that, that we each give it. It is a mistake to discount the value of sharing the same materials and regarding the same books as holy and inspired. Those books are our combined heritage and its remarkable that they are shared at all however contentiously that has been at times. There is no other example of that where two religions hold the same Scripture as being authoritative and reliable rather than as in islams case paying lip service to them and using them simply to justify new beliefs. Its a whole different story between Christianity and Judaism no matter how much we might argue and at times dislike each other. We are true siblings in that sense. Each faith is highly individual but each clearly originates from the same parent, the books of the Tankh. The evidence is clear and incontravertible. You can find this common parent in every church and synagouge trusted, honored and esteemed and studied carefully and reverantly.
#16
Why, oh why, when Israel won after the six-day war and the world was stunned, the Arabs defeated and the Israeli's found themselves in control of the West Bank and Gaza, why oh why didn't they (a) shuffle the Arabs off into Jordan and Egypt and build walls to keep them out (b) get the US to support them in the UN. If this was all done on day 7 and 8 the world would have allowed it, even accepted that such a move was needed.
Instead the Israeli's naivly assumed that if they played nice the Arabs would somehow change their mind about genocide and that the Europeans wouldn't turn on them.
#17
once again LH fiddles as Rome burns. I find it interesting LH, that you chose to take issue with piddly Christians v/s Jews issues than you are interested at looking at the real devil - Muslim extremism.
You remind me of this Chinese girl I trained under once. The first thing she did was tell me a story about how one day she was walking down the street and some guys in a car drove by and yelled "chink" at her. Apparently it was a life changing experience for her, causing her to see herself as "chinese" rather than American and to disdain all whites. Never seemed to occur to her that it was just a car full of jerks. I thought it very sad that one experience would cause her to go so much friendship and goodwill in life.
#18
I just looked at the link; this is the second post in two days linking back to Harun Yahya. Yesterday's missive was titled "Islam Is Not the Source of Terrorism, But Its Solution," and was exhaustively fisked by Fred. I checked out Harun Yahya, and it looks kinda like Allenist Scientology, with lots of tapes/books/videos for sale, a site for kids, and a long screed about Why Evolution is Wrong. It seems to be based in Turkey. I am somewhat disinclined to continue hosting and refuting their tripe, but as always, it is Fred's call.
I should have added to my statement that Christians have never accused Jews of altering Scripture to the point that the majority have rejected them wholesale except to pick out verses here and there to justify ourselves as islam has done. I say the majority have not because you are sure to bring up some ancient sect of Christianity that did reject the OT. I speak of general trends, but it seems like you are always reading my posts as if I was talking about absolutes without exceptions as if I were unaware of history.
It is not a neglible point that I am making. It makes for a vast gulf between islam and its elders. Rejecting the Bible as wholly unreliable is an isane approach and islam is poorer and crazier for it. For Christianity and Judaism there is so much hope because we speak theological languages that have a common anscestor. We both can read Isaiah (sp?) for instance and we can agree on what he teaches us even if we can disagree about whether young woman means just a young woman married or unmarried or whether that young womans virginity was a given and therefore the primary meaning. (I am not the best for quoting chapter and verse, so I acknowledge that i could be mis-attributing the verse to Isaiah.)
Whatsmore, we can read Isaiah as his own man though inspired by God. We do not see him as a parrot and hear only those words of his that prove our point. Isaiah is as rich for us as he is for Jews. We do not see him as just talking about Jesus while we ignore what else he has to say particularly what he and the other prophets have to say about God and what he is like and how he relates to mankind. For instance, for the Hebrew prophets God was faithful to his promise, even if Jews were not. For muslims, God is not faithful to his promises and he will break his promises whenever it suits him. This to me is the cheif source of the chasm that separates us from them. Huge books could be written about the implications of this.
BTW, most translations these days of the OT passage you referred to have young woman while the NT quotes these as having "virgin" Virginity ahould have been as aspect of any young Jewish woman, I think. The Christian interpretation emphasizes that.
If you know anything about Hebrew, maybe you can tell me if a young woman "almah" could also be a married woman, or would a different word have been used if she was married. I really would like to know. I am not being sarcastic or anything.
#20
once again LH fiddles as Rome burns. I find it interesting LH, that you chose to take issue with piddly Christians v/s Jews issues than you are interested at looking at the real devil - Muslim extremism
Au contraire. The point is that we have historical issues with Christians, and there has been antisemitism in Christianity, YET we live in peace and brotherhood with Christians (and i do acknowledge the good will of Peggy, and so many others) ERGO we CAN also have good relations with muslims. NOT with the Jihadi-Salafis, but with those muslims who reject that. And, by extension, Christians can ALSO have good relations with muslims.
"rome" is burning, we must unite to put the fire out - all of us, Jews, Christians, atheists, AND those muslims whose lives are threatened by the Jihadis, from Algeria to Baghdad to Karachi.
#21
BTW, most translations these days of the OT passage you referred to have young woman while the NT quotes these as having "virgin" Virginity ahould have been as aspect of any young Jewish woman, I think. The Christian interpretation emphasizes that.
If you know anything about Hebrew, maybe you can tell me if a young woman "almah" could also be a married woman, or would a different word have been used if she was married. I really would like to know. I am not being sarcastic or anything.
IIUC it means a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or not.
And no, I dont know enough of the language to defend that definition. Understanding meaning of biblical Hebrew relies on looking at usages in other biblical passages, which themselves are subject to interpretation. One may rely on post-biblical usage, but one can always argue that the language changed. Unfortunately there are no more than fragmentary non-biblical Hebrew texts of the same age as the bible. There are texts in other Semitic languages, but again, the meaning COULD have been different in Hebrew.
As for virginity being an aspect of any young jewish woman, young jews in those times were quite as human as young people today, and apparently pre-marital sex was not unheard of, though it was frowned upon, but it was hardly the kind of major sin that adultery was. Though its hard to analyze the consequences without the a greater understanding of the society. A woman who had premarital sex was supposed to warrant a lesser gift on marriage from her husband - which is a pretty minor punishment, till you realize that means her violation has to be made public for her to marry, which COULD have been a pretty serious consequence in those days.
Dude, you are really preaching to the choir here. Look around you. Do you think that Americans really have a problem with law abiding muslims? Muslims in America are free to worship and spead their faith. They are free to build mosques as they please subject only to the same zoning restrictions that Christians and Jews are also subject to. They are free to defame other faiths all they want. They may not live in conditions they think are ideal (that is a whole other subject) but by no stretch are they persecuted here to the same degree that other faiths are persecuted in muslim dominated areas or in other areas where muslims are the victims of persecution such as the Balkans. Where were the pogroms to eliminate muslims after 9/11?
Jews and Christians have no problem living with law abiding muslims. The evidence is everywhere. The problem is on the muslim side.
Do you honestly think that we can't discuss very real differences between different faiths without losing it? Do you think that we can't distinguish between a religion that we think is false, even stupid, and its law abiding practioners? I think sometimes you do not give those who oppose islam as a religion enough credit and maturity to acknowledge that distinction and to be aware of our own faults.
I have a feeling that you want to lump all three faiths together because you think that result in peace. But the truth is that there is a very real chasm and until muslims acknowledge that chasm, the moderates you are so fond of will remain paralyzed due to their allegiance to a faulty world view which excludes the wisdom of the ages and thinks that muslims, even moderate ones dont need to learn anything from their elders.
The biggest problem that we have is that muslims are lacking some really important information and ideas that they could learn and use for true peace if they could but humble themselves to see Christianity and Judaism as faiths with their own true voices with much of great value to teach. This is precisely where islam went wrong from the start with mohammed telling the rabbis and the monks that they didn't know what they were talking about instead of learning from them in all humility. It is stunted therefore having only its own versions of events which contradict texts centuries older. If muslims were to learn from the elder faiths then I truly believe that they would become empowered to break with their fanatical brothers in more than just words and a few futile ecumenical conferences or marches here and there. But the first step is to acknowledge that there are big differences which favor the elder faiths and that muslims don't know all about them already and that muslims aren't already the same as the elder faiths etc. The moderates aren't dealing with reality and until they do, there can be no peace for anyone.
#23
Do you honestly think that we can't discuss very real differences between different faiths without losing it? Do you think that we can't distinguish between a religion that we think is false, even stupid, and its law abiding practioners?
From the POV of Judaism both Islam and Christianity are false, period. I dont think Islam is particularly stupid. See what happens is this - if I argue that there are moderate muslims, you reply that we're talking about the religion, not the practitioners. If I argue that Judaism really does have as much in common with Islam as with Christianity, which I think is quite arguable, someone comes along and tells me im fiddling while rome burns, cause of the undeniable fact that there are millions of muslims who want to kill me, while Christians have pretty much all gotten over that sort of thing.
Look, we're either talking about people, or about faiths. If we're talking about people, lets talk about people and stop talking about faiths. If we're talking about faiths as such, lets talk about faiths, and stop denying uncomfortable truths cause theyre politically inconvient.
Look - the phrase "judeo-christian" was invented by 19th century Reform Jews. It was convenient in trying to win a place in Christian dominated society. It also tended to limit Judaism its aspect as "ethical monotheism" which suited Reforms own agenda for Judaism, which involved ditching the Halachic tradition.
In fact anyone who seriously examines historical Judaism, or its modern variants, Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism, can see that it has a LOT in common with many streams of historical Islam -its really hard to make the case that its closer to Christianity than to Islam.
However today, the phrase Judeo-christian is used by Christian fundamentalists, to appear less narrow minded and more pluralist - I can hardly blame them, seeing as how they are often maligned by secularists - they feel like a minorty struggling for legitimacy, much as Reform jews did in the 19th c. But to do so, theyve had to stretch the truth a bit.
Im NOT preaching to anyone, or fiddling for anyone. Im just pointing out a few truths is all.
It gets very complicated when im responding to different people with different agendas, but thats the nature of a board like this, I suppose.
I'll try to make this the last thing I say re your comments.
I know that its off topic, but I have a thought question for you. You don't have to answer.
Which do you think Isaiah was writing about, a young woman who had slept with someone before her marraige and got pregnant? or would he be talking about a young woman in the ideal sense, a virgin. If premarital sex and pregnancy outside of marraige was common if frowned upon, then why would it be remarakable enough to be given as a prophecy? A young woman shall concieve would not be anything worth commenting on it if all it meant was just another out of wedlock pregnacy would it? Nothing miraculous about it. But a young, umarried woman who was a virgin concieving would be something to prophesy about without a doubt. It would be a miracle in keeping with the other miracles attributed to God like the parting of the sea, demonstrating his command over the material universe. You can either see this as a prediction of the birth of Jesus or as a theological statement that says that God can do anything even what we think of as impossible, but given what you have told me, I still don't think the word could mean anything except for a young unmarried virgin for both Jews and Christians. What we do with it after that might then differ but anything else fails to make sense given the context.
#25
hmmm...well...ok....color me surprised. But just one last point, wouldn't it be better for all, if instead of focusing on antisemitimism, you focused on all of the positive between Christians and Jews? Like Peggy has done so well today?
It just seems to me that so much focus by some Jews (certainly not all) is put on remembering every act of anti-semitism while conveniently ignoring acts of kindness and charity that Christians have extended towards Jews. No, I'm not trying to make this a Christian superiority thing - I'm just refering to antisemitism here. Like Indians claiming La Jolla belongs to them or blacks demanding reparations, reliving the sins of past generations just seems so self-destructive and silly.
I noticed after posting above, that that I called my teacher, "chinese". But before her disclaimer, I had viewed her as generically American. The poor girl, after one contact with a group of jerks that would have just as easily yelled, "n***er, jew, fasto or slut, she spent her whole life focused only on slights and innuendo from the cruel, and missing overatures of friendship from the kind.
Go into the Holocaust museum and you will find a whole section blaming the Christians, Martin Luther, the Vatican (ok, justified) as if Hitler's use of relentless use of propaganda, nationalism and the ever present "blame someone else for your misery.. soup d'jour ...jews" - was not to blame. No, instead, the holocaust museum, that protector of the ideal that we should judge on individual merit dedicates a whole section to blaming "Christians" who supposedly were somehow responsible because they set the stage with antisemitism with their residual anger over Jews killing Jesus (never mind it was the Romans).
Which brings this full circle. The problems between Christians and Jews are for the most part as historical as the problems between Catholics and Episcopalians. But Muslims are another story. Introducing concepts of forgiveness and charity to Muslims would take centuries. But we could focus on the similarities of those who believe in God.
It might not work - but it is a valid point and thus it just might work.
So? the prophecy isnt ABOUT the birth itself (from the Jewish POV) its just the background for the person to be born.
And by the way, who was telling me that Christians DONT tell Jews what their religion should be, or what their texts should mean?
How rich is it for a muslim to presume to lecture and teach a religion that is the elder of islam by more than a thousand years. Thats the spirit in which this article has been written and diseminated. In the muslim scheme of things newer is better and more advanced, the wisdom of the ages is rejected. Its kind of like a grandchild attempting to lecture his grandparent instead of sitting reverantly at their feet to learn from them.
Maybe its time to stop lecturing. And yes, taking a Hebrew text, and telling me that the interpretation given it by Christians since Chrisianity began is superior to the interpretations Jews have given it as far back as we know, is just as much lecturing as muslims telling me about the prophets. They tell me my texts are corrupted. You interpret my texts as primarily important as proofs for YOUR central tenets, which MY religion doesnt share. I see little to choose. Except well, that ex-Christians created the enlightenment, while ex-muslims havent. Which is nothing to sneeze at.
#27
2b - I do support friendship and mutual respect between jews and christians. The history of Christianity is pretty fascinating. Theyve left us with everything from cathedrals to Bach concertos, to Rembrandt. Nothing to sneeze at, theology aside. Heck, Id forgive alot just of JS Bach. I also want friendship and understanding between jews and muslims. And no, I dont think it will take centuries.
As for the museum, I dont think theyre blaming todays Christians, but trying to understand the background to antisemitism in Europe. Which is ok, theyre a MUSEUM, its their job to look at history.
reliving the sins of past generations just seems so self-destructive and silly
Every year we retell the story of enslavement and liberation from Egypt. Every year we retell the story of the destruction of the Temple by the babylonians. Memory is an essential part of Judaism, JUST as it is for Christianity.
Few Christians today are antisemites, and Christianity is largely a force for good in the world. Theres no point in forgetting the historical truth of christian-jewish relations however,and you cant build a real relationship on denial. And at a time when some Christians are going on about every muslim sin in the book, it rings pretty hollow.
#29
Do you honestly think that we can't discuss very real differences between different faiths without losing it?
You can if you believe rather than subscribe.
From the POV of Judaism both Islam and Christianity are false, period.
This is the same arrogance and lack of insight that the Muslims display, so yes, perhaps your point is valid.
Look, we're either talking about people, or about faiths. If we're talking about people, lets talk about people and stop talking about faiths. If we're talking about faiths as such, lets talk about faiths, and stop denying uncomfortable truths cause theyre politically inconvient.
Excellent point. I could not agree with you more. You restore my faith in your intelligence.
However today, the phrase Judeo-christian is used by Christian fundamentalists, to appear less narrow minded and more pluralist - I can hardly blame them, seeing as how they are often maligned by secularists - they feel like a minorty struggling for legitimacy, much as Reform jews did in the 19th c. But to do so, theyve had to stretch the truth a bit.
I'm amused that you think I'm so stupid as not to recognize this for the childish slur that it is. Talk about bigoted stereotypes. ....and you have a big nose and are tight with your money, right? I'm surprised you'd stoop to such gutter tactics, but then again maybe not.
In fact anyone who seriously examines historical Judaism, or its modern variants, Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism, can see that it has a LOT in common with many streams of historical Islam -its really hard to make the case that its closer to Christianity than to Islam. Im NOT preaching to anyone, or fiddling for anyone. Im just pointing out a few truths is all.
yeah right ...and you can't see the similarities because you hate Christians like my "chinese" friend hates "americans". Youre deeply personal slights by Christians are far more meaningful to you than the idea that the Muslims want you dead.
My apologies to other Jewish contributors of rantburg, many of whom I greatly respect. My negative comments are limited soley to the bitter and bigoted Liberalhawk, whose palatable hatred of Christians just oozes through the net.
Born in Bethlehem of Judea, Walid's grandfather was the Muslim Mukhtar (chieftain) of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem (The Shepherd's Fields) and a friend of Haj-Ameen Al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and notorious friend of Adolf Hitler.
Walid's great grandfather, Abdullah Ali Awad-Allah, was also a fighter and close associate of both Abdul Qader and Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who led the Palestinians against Israel. Walid lived through and witnessed Israel’s Six Day War while living in Jericho.
As a young man, he became a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and participated in acts of terror and violence against Israel, and was later imprisoned in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem's central prison for incitement and violence against Israel.
After his release, he continued his life of violence and rioting in Bethlehem and the Temple Mount. After entering the U.S, he worked as a counselor for the Arab Student Organization at Loop College in Chicago and continued his anti-Israel activities.
In 1993, Walid studied the Tanach (Jewish Bible) in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam. Six months later, after intense study, Walid realized that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. Convinced he was on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy."
#31
Every year we retell the story of enslavement and liberation from Egypt. Every year we retell the story of the destruction of the Temple by the babylonians. Memory is an essential part of Judaism, JUST as it is for Christianity.
No..that distinctive difference that you talked about is very evident here. We're into forgiveness and moving on. It was fucking thousands of years ago. Go ahead and seethe. It's your loss.
I can see you were offended by my comments but I believe that you misunderstood me.
"You can either see this as a prediction of the birth of Jesus or as a theological statement that says that God can do anything even what we think of as impossible,"
I meant the first half of the statement to mean what Christians believe and the second half of the statement was meant to be a suggestion for the meaning of the text that would be in keeping with Jewish understanding and usage of the sorts of signs that God uses to point to events where He is at work. I was not trying to tell you how to understand it. I was expressing a thought that I had and simply asked you to consider it as a thought an idea, a place where we might have some possibility for agreement.
Christians may own the idea of a virgin birth now and Jews may now wholly reject the very idea of any virgin birth even if it were to point to some event in Jewish history having nothing to do with Jesus at all. But what I was suggesting is that in Isaiah's time it would not have been an un-Jewish thought to speak about a virgin birth as a sign nor would it have an uncommon usage as far as I know ie it would be another way of stating a very properly Jewish theological concept that God is in control of nature and the material world and he can do with it unimaginable, miraculous things. The Scripture could be said to be full of such signs promising that God is in ultimate control of everything.
I am having some trouble understanding where you are coming from though. First you say that the meaning isn't really clear and noone can really say what exactly was meant my the word almah in that context (At least thats how I read what you said) and then you talk like there is no doubt that the word refers to an ordinary birth of a non-virgin out of wedlock, a common event. With all due respect, you really do confuse me.
Nothing that I said to you was intended in any way to convince you that my way of interpreting scripture is the only right way. I was expressing my point of view. I, not you or anyone else, but I can't see how Isaiah could have meant anything but an unmarried virgin whether that means she woould be a sign for Jesus or for something else more in line with Jewish interpretation. I by no means meant to suggest that the only possible interpretation would be for Jews to embrace the virgin birth of Jesus. I personally fail to see why if we agreed on the meaning of the word just for the sake of argument why that would necessarily mean a rejection of centuries of Jewish thought on what the passage means.
I thought we were doing really well but I think you still have a way to go trusting me that I am not trying some tricksy way to convert you or concede that I am right and you as a Jew don't know what you are talking about. I don't doubt that any attempt to convert you would fail but you would be justified in being offended by even an attempt to do so. Just know that I can assure you that is not on my agenda at all. Maybe we will understand one another better that way.
#33
Interesting thread-lots of lengthy comments, though.
Speaking only for myself, the thread reveals one thing to me-that I never want to be a part of any religion that pats itself on the back about having the true God, about being the oldest religion, etc. God and smug don't go together. Ugliness has been done by every people at every time on this earth. Let's focus on the now, because the now we can affect.
These discussions get so hot because we are sometimes so literal about our faiths-often resulting in what surely appear to be incitements and insults. It's no wonder so many wars have been about religion.
In America, we have freedom of religion. Do we really accept each others' beliefs AS LONG AS THOSE BELIEFS DON'T HARM OR HINDER others?
#35
#14: I think this idea of shifting the blame against the Jews to the pagans and communists is absolutely brilliant. Why, because it's true. They are more aligned with the Jews and Christians than they are with the communists and pagans.
I'm still up in arms over wondering about this one. Part of me agrees with you (I think that most Muslims agree closely with Jews and Christians over "moral" issues like homosexuality, abortion, etc. (at least in the Western World), but the portion of Islam that's trying to rule the world in my mind is more of a political faction, more aligned with "communists and pagans" in that their way is the only way). To me, it goes to the issue of fundamentalism...Fundamentalist Jews and Christians are not blowing others up, whereas fundamentalist mooselimbs are (and do so as called by the Koran). While the Jews were called to be violent in our Old Testament, they have since renounced that, and I don't know of any scripture in the New Testament that sanctions violence. However, there are numerous scriptures in the Koran (and the hadith) that call for violence by Muslims...that's the main difference in my mind.
Posted by: BA ||
01/19/2005 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#36
And, I would add, that short term, 2b, maybe it's o.k. to shift the blame to the communists and pagans, but, long term, that's a BAD move in my book. We need to place blame where it belongs...only on themselves. I don't know that I'd wish the radical mooselimbs on ANYONE, and once they conquer the "communists and pagans," where will they turn next? Back toward us.
Posted by: BA ||
01/19/2005 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#37
"I believe my religion is true" is no different than saying "I believe your different religion is false."
A believer in Judaism by necessity believes both Islam and Christianity are false. A Muslim by necessity believes both Christianity and Judaism are false. A Christian by necessity believes both Judaism and Islam are false.
If you don't believe on the falsehood of the other religions, you can't possibly believe on the truth of your own. A person must be a doublethinker to believe that two contradictory religions can both be true.
For a person to think that for someone to say "I believe your religion is false" is bigotry means other faiths offend him just by existing, and thus he reveals his own bigotry.
Islam and Judaism, faith-wise, are far closer to each other than either are to Christianity. In the strict monotheism, in their opposition to idols and icons, in the combination of legalistic tradition with religious teachings in a manner which has never been shared by Christianity.
That's not bigotry either, either against Christianity, Islam or Judaism.
Posted by: Tom ||
01/19/2005 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Nice idea, btw about aligning the theocrats against the "pagans", the "communists", and the "atheists".
Definitely shows why us cheerful agnostics don't trust the Christian theocrats either even when they claim harmlessness. They're willing to kill the non-believers just as happily as they are to kill the theocrats of other religions.
Beware btw, that the alliance doesn't go *against* your interests. The orthodox christian fascists have indeed shown the occasional desire for an alliance with the islamist fascists against the "pagans", "atheists" and *capitalists* of AMERICA.
#40
but the portion of Islam that's trying to rule the world in my mind is more of a political faction, more aligned with "communists and pagans" in that their way is the only way).
my way is the only way.
sometimes I wonder if we aren't all in purgatory, with the purpose of realizing that "my way is the only way" is flat out wrong.
Of course we each believe we are right If we didn't believe that...what else is there..to believe that our beliefs are wrong? um...hello.
As I write this, I've come to the conclusion that what matters is not as much what you believe...truly believe, not subscribe to, but how you deal with what others "believe".
"In fact anyone who seriously examines historical Judaism, or its modern variants, Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism, can see that it has a LOT in common with many streams of historical Islam -its really hard to make the case that its closer to Christianity than to Islam. "
I really don't understand how you could say this. Theologically, islam and Judaism may be similar but that is like saying that because a box and a house are more alike than different because they are both made of wood. Theology is like wood. Its structural. It makes all the difference what you do with it.
The fact is that while Christianity and Judaism differ theologically, we share something more important. We share a heart, our common Scriptures. So while Judaism builds a house with wood and from the point of view of Jews, Christians build with some other material altogether (Of course I think this is entirely arguable) we both build houses in the same spirit.
Spirit seems to me a far greater thing to share than some theological statements. Someone can take the belief that God has no partners and if they believe that that God will break his promise or else fall out of love with his people and choose another then how deep does the similarity go?
Listen to what muslims say about God. Not just the nice stuff that they trot out when the cameras are rolling and the journos scribbling. But all of what they say about Him. What do they say about the Law, man' purpose and relationship to God. What do they say about man's creation and nature? Who do they say that prophets are and what was their message?
In every comparison of the spirit of each religion, there are gaping wide disparities. On the outside they look a lot alike, but everything else is different.
Now ask the same questions of Christians. The answers will be far closer together. In both Judaism and Christianity, man is made in God's image or likeness. In islam, man is just the first of the creatures. He bears no likeness of God at all. Think of the implications of that.
If we are talking spirit and no outward similarities then Christianity is much closer because we hear God's own voice from his own Scriptures. Think what you want about our theology, but at heart we both believe in the same God regarding his nature, purposes and relationship with his creation. Compared to that kinship, muslims worship an alien god he is so far removed from our understanding of reality.
#43
Aris, you have some good points.
A Christian by necessity believes both Judaism and Islam are false. If you don't believe on the falsehood of the other religions, you can't possibly believe on the truth of your own.
i beg to disagree. I'm more interested in mysself than others. If you don't believe in the teachings of Christ - it's not my loss, but yours. If you are a thief/whore/homosexual - it's not for me to judge whether you are right or wrong - it's up to God. I may not agree, but it's not up to me. I can only believe what I believe.
Jesus said, "judge not" and I take that to heart.
I'm happy in my realization that Jesus taught a good way to live life. From my own personal experiences, and not from blind belief, I believe in the beauty of afterlife. It will be beautiful if you are good, and it will be evil if you are evil. Just like your dreams. If you do evil, you dream evil, if you are good, your dreams are good. Those who commit evil live in their own, personally created hell.
I was a once a non-believer and understand how "crazy" I sound and I don't care. If your IQ is over 70, you understand about good and evil. To deny it is to wrap yourself in the lies of our times.
#44
BA.... And, I would add, that short term, 2b, maybe it's o.k. to shift the blame to the communists and pagans, but, long term, that's a BAD move in my book. We need to place blame where it belongs...only on themselves. I don't know that I'd wish the radical mooselimbs on ANYONE, and once they conquer the "communists and pagans," where will they turn next? Back toward us.
you are right, my solution is short term and shallow. So...what do we do? Nothing?
Muslims have created their own hell. As individuals, they are no different from you or I, but if we could find a way to teach them about forgiveness and chairty then....that would be good.
By looking to lies about fighting "someone else" ie: pagans and communists, I have stooped to everything that I am against.
If the solution was easy, it would have been discovered over 2,000 years ago. I don't have it.
#45
Its not about seething, or being anti-Christian -- my husband is one, for goodness sake!, and his wonderful mother showed me what it means to be a born-again Christian, just as I showed her what it means to be Jewish. Its about acknowledging the history that shaped our current reality. Shoot, I remember arguing with a high school classmate that Jews do too love one another just as Christians do -- she had learnt otherwise in Sunday School; the Pope only recently decreed that all Jews throughout the ages can not be held responsible for Christ's crucifixion. It is this kind of mindset that current Christianity has so resolutely and admirably set its face against, but the history is not ancient, and being aware of that is not the same as seething or anti-Christian bigotry.
Peggy, just FYI: Isaiah (yes, you spelled it correctly) is Jewish history. He was speaking to the people of his time, about the events of his time -- the Assyrian conquest of Israel and the Babylonian conquest of Judah. And indeed, the events he prophesied -- the return of the Jews to Israel during the rule of Cyrus of Persia -- fulfilled that. The Christians subsequently interpreted the same verses to apply to Jesus, which the Jews don't see at all. Which is fine, the Old Testament belongs to Christians as well as Jews, but you can't argue details of interpretation when the basis is not agreed upon. I don't wish to argue with anyone about this -- this statement is for information only.
2b ... no, never mind. You are so sensible on other subjects. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
#46
but the portion of Islam that's trying to rule the world in my mind is more of a political faction, more aligned with "communists and pagans" in that their way is the only way). my way is the only way. sometimes I wonder if we aren't all in purgatory, with the purpose of realizing that "my way is the only way" is flat out wrong. Of course we each believe we are right If we didn't believe that...what else is there..to believe that our beliefs are wrong? um...hello. As I write this, I've come to the conclusion that what matters is not as much what you believe...truly believe, not subscribe to, but how you deal with what others "believe".
Strangely, I somewhat agree with Aris' statements in this...and it does give those agnostics (like Aris self-proclaimed he is) more ammo against us "Christian Theocrats." (calling my way the only way). Personally, I would agree with you, 2b, that my way IS the only way...but does that make me a "Christian Theocrat" if i don't try and FORCE my religion upon you (and I mean, true force, not just talking about it with you, like Aris means). Again, that in my mind is the TRUE difference between the Judeo-Christian mindset, and the Muslim one. While Islam and Judaism may be more similar in that they follow strict adherence to religious "rules," Islamic fundamentalists want to FORCE their views on everyone around them and have an extreme ideal of superiority/smugness about them. While I believe my way IS the only way, I won't FORCE it upon anyone and don't go around flaunting it haughtily. I am called to Love my neighbor as myself and to Love the Lord my God above all else. Therefore, there should be no earthly interests in gaining goods/property or converting unbelievers except out of love.
Posted by: BA ||
01/19/2005 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#47
Before anyone jumps on me, I was responding to post #31. By the time I hit submit, the thread had moved on. ;-)
#48
TW: I would think that true Christians would NEVER blame the Jews for the death of Christ, no matter what the Pope "declares," even recently. As a Christian, I believe that mankind, and I especially, is responsible for His death; and on the issue of "semantics," technically, the Romans were responsible for His death. I think this gets to the earlier point of what believers say vs. what the scriptures say. No matter what the Pope says, I know that my sin was the cause of Christ's death and that the Jews/Romans were but part of God's plan for His son, physically/earthly speaking. Christianity has fought its own "civil war" over these issues, and I for one, don't believe that the pope speaks for "Christendom". He is JUST a man, after all. --Like you stated, this is just for informational purposes only...not meant to start an argument. But, that important distinction (what believers say & do vs. what their Holy Book says) brings us full circle to the mooselimbs....they act in ACCORDANCE with their scriptures AND their entire history (not to mention the example of their prophet, big Mo), whereas violence done in the name of Christ is against His words.
Posted by: BA ||
01/19/2005 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#49
While I believe my way IS the only way, I won't FORCE it upon anyone
Which is the "Christian Way" BA. Every single person alive believes that "their way" is "the way". We believe what we believe. It is not possible to do otherwise.
TW...you are like me, living in a family "divided" and yet understanding that we are not divided at all. Most of life transcends the labels of Christians, Jews, Muslim, Republican, Democrat and relies more on the higher ideals of love, family, faith, hope, chairty, and goodness.
BA..TW.. I don't have the answers...but I think we are on track for the right questions.
In the end..it's about the good that we each do, not on how we judge others.
#50
BA, :FORCE my religion upon you... Again, that in my mind is the TRUE difference between the Judeo-Christian mindset, and the Muslim one.
Yes, is not that obvious?
Of course, there have been times when christianity was not that different from muslims in their attempts to force the religion on anyone. The difference is that it was an aberation, rather than what is in muslims' case a sanctioned behavior.
...
Just one small point about idolatry... Islam is not free of it--ponder Ka'aba and its clear function as a idolatrous symbol. Mohammed discarded other idols, but left the only one--Al Illah, the moon god => Allah.
It is interesting that the uber-Salafis consider Mecca (Ka'aba) and mosques as devices of idolatry.
They are factually correct, in this case. However, they elevated the "cheat and lie if it is to your advantage vis-a-vis Islam... and kill the infidels wherever you find them" to the main pillar of their religion. Who's the infidel? Anyone not uber-Salafi.
#51
Here, here, 2b! That's what I LOVE about Rantburg, that at the end of the day, we can "agree to disagree," as long as we realize who our true earthly enemies are and how to deal with them.
Posted by: BA ||
01/19/2005 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#54
BA, like so many Rantburgers you are part of that lovely new approach Christianity is taking, and which I -- and Liberal Hawk, as he stated above but was nonetheless castigated -- fully appreciate. But what you are saying is that during the last 1800 years or so there have been no true Christians. Sobiesky -- the aberration you refer to was the common understanding across Christian sects, and they were fond of quoting Bible verses to support it. But yes, the Muslims are still at the stage where they believe they are called upon by God to convert the whole world to their theology -- by force, preferentially. This does indeed differ from current Christianity and Judaism. And despite the fact that both Jews and Muslims believe that God is indivisible and unitary, unlike the Christians who who believe God is trinary (Father, Son, Spirit), I am happy to live here in our secular, Enlightenment Christendom rather than the Ummah. The Muslims do not hew at all close to the ideals pushed by Muslim Peter.
#55
Well, I would consider the first few centuries of Christianity as TRUE Christians. They were martyred (and, by that, I mean truly martyred, not suicide bombers intent on taking others with them) for their beliefs. Yes, the "Church" took a turn toward what you are saying probably around 300-500 AD, when it mixed with politics (you had selling of "forgiveness" by priests, the setting up of multiple layers of priests/bishops/etc, the forcing of Christianity onto anyone within certain "kingdoms," etc.). That is generally what the Reformation (some 1000 years or so later) faught against and what the Protestants faught against the Catholics for. But to say that I'm saying there were no TRUE Christians the last 1800 years or so is false. What that corruption of faith led to (and the fact that it dominated Christendom) may lead you to believe that there were no true Christians during that time, but I'm sure there were some (assuming you're basing your argument mainly upon Christians blaming the Jews for Christ's death). No argument here, I'm leaving for home from work, so yes, lets go get that nail!
Posted by: BA ||
01/19/2005 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#56
Seems to me we're discussing the "common formula" now.
It's just going to take a couple of scores to see which side reigns supreme.
Posted by: Chinese Unomoger1553 ||
01/19/2005 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#57
yeah...well. I hardley see the approach as "new", I mean...I suppose in the scope of history...2000 years could be considered "new".
But ...hey..whatever. Blame consumes the blamer and forgiveness moves forward.
I choose to forgive and move forward. Best of luck to all.
#58
TW...Its about acknowledging the history that shaped our current reality
I reread my post above and would like to say my comment was inappropriate. I'm not sure what I meant by it, but I suppose it was directed at LH's inability to acknowledge that he is a bigot against Christians. He likes to disguise it through verbage, but it always oozes through.
I also agree with Aris and BA that my desire to redirect the blame of the palestinians is not as cute or clever as it seemed from the backside of a keyboard. I am duly chastised.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
