Judaism & Islam

reddivil

ugh, they occupied the land then

Zillah

reddivil wrote: »

i think you'll find they were living on that land, not squatting...

any civilized human would find a way to live peacefully with his fellow man..
not break international laws to expel them from there homes, uprooting children and families. implanting Jews in there place... disgust is all the Jews should feel..
and if you don't see that you are truely blind and ignorant

No no but if those 'people' hadn't settled in land that God had promised to the Jews then none of this would be necessary so they basically brought it on themselves.

reddivil

god promised it to the jews...

any chance i could see the paper work?

'people' ? apostrophe's?? what is that saying?

nyarlothothep

reddivil wrote: »

i think you'll find they were living on that land, not squatting...

any civilized human would find a way to live peacefully with his fellow man..
not break international laws to expel them from there homes, uprooting children and families. implanting Jews in there place... disgust is all the Jews should feel..
and if you don't see that you are truely blind and ignorant

Both cultures have histories which they attach to a geographical landmass with further appeal to religious justifications. Which to me makes little sense but then the concept of national identity, with respect to an ideal/myth of the nation state is incoherent and irrelevant to me, but then others choose to invest an aspect of their personality into this, in a possibly similar way with religion so people will think and behave in different ways I guess. That applies to many countries including this one. In this respect I fully support a two state solution, I think this is the fairest way forward. Jewish people have an entitlement to the land but so do Palestinians. And the Canaanites if they were still around.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

If you remove the roots, you've dealt with the tree.

I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. By that logic The Bible could be succesfully critiqued by adressing The Old Testament and completely ignoring the existence of the New Testament, or like saying you succesfully could review the Lord of The Rings by reading The Hobbit.

Doesn't make any sense does it...?

Nodin wrote: »

A massive generalisation about Israeli jews in there - I see your anti-semitism is as close to the surface as ever.

Textbook ad hominen. What's the point?

Speaking of "massive generalisation" lets actually actually look at your claim/slander against me.

A massive generalisation about Israeli jews in therer

So not just a regular generalisation but a "massive" one.

hmmmmm. This is the only claim I made about "Israeli Jews".

Halakha is respected by the majority in Israel

This is a fact, not a "generalisation"and certainly not a "massive" one. I've already posted statistics to that affect which you didn't dispute.

Can't be that so I guess it must be this point...`?

they (Halakha) effect the day-to-day actions of Israeli Jews down to the simplest excercise

Again a fact. Here is an example.

Dressing Oneself Before Washing His Hands in the Morning; Washing One's Hands if One Awakens Before Hasot

Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his work Halichot Olam (vol. 1, p. 32), rules that it is permissible to dress oneself in the morning before he washes his hands. This ruling is in opposition to the view of the Ben Ish Hai (Rabbi Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Toledot (6), that one may not touch his clothing in the morning before he washes his hands. The Ben Ish Hai held that it is improper even to put on socks before washing one's hands in the morning. Hacham Ovadia, however, held that one may be lenient in this regard, though those who make a point of washing their hands before dressing, in accordance with the Ben Ish Hai's position, are deserving of reward. He adds that if one did not go to sleep until after Hasot – midnight as defined by Halacha – then there is even more basis to be lenient, as some authorities maintained that no Tum'a (impurity) descends upon a person's hands in such a case. It must be emphasized, however, that according to the accepted Halacha one must wash his hands with a Beracha upon awakening in the morning even if he went to sleep after Hasot.

If a person plans to remain awake through the night, but sleeps for an hour or two before Hasot, must he wash his hands when he awakens?

The Ben Ish Hai rules that in such a case one must wash his hands with a Beracha. Hacham Ovadia, however, maintains that in this situation one should not recite the Beracha over the hand washing, though those who wish to recite the Beracha in accordance with the view of the Ben Ish Hai may do so. Needless to say, if one went to sleep before Hasot and rises only after Hasot, he must wash his hands with a Beracha according to all views.

Summary: It is permissible to dress oneself before washing his hands in the morning, though it is commendable to be stringent in this regard in situations where one went to sleep before Hasot (midnight as defined by Halacha). One who goes to sleep before Hasot and wakes up before Hasot must wash his hands, but preferably without a Beracha. Nevertheless, those who wish to recite a Beracha in such a case have authorities on whom to rely.
http://www.dailyhalacha.com/Display.asp?PageIndex=19&ClipID=1521

That simple enough for you?

and the last "anti-semitic" point according to you must've have been

to far more reaching points like who is a Jew and the Biblical borders of Israel.

Here is a very recent case of the Chief Rabbi in Israel deciding who is a Jew
http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/RNS-US-rabbis-blast-Israel-over-new-conversion-rules.aspx

Or here is an example of the Biblical borders of Israel (as mentioned) and the reasoning behind it in the link.



http://www.truthofland.co.il/english/abstract.htm

Brown Bomber

Zillah wrote: »

No no but if those 'people' hadn't settled in land that God had promised to the Jews then none of this would be necessary so they basically brought it on themselves.

I know your just ****ing about trying to get a reaction but putting people in scare quotes when you are referring to the Palestinians is really disgusting behaviour - dehumanising a people already forced to live like animals, shameful.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. By that logic The Bible could be succesfully critiqued by adressing The Old Testament and completely ignoring the existence of the New Testament, or like saying you succesfully could review the Lord of The Rings by reading The Hobbit.

Doesn't make any sense does it...?

.........

Ahh yes, the distorted examples beloved of the conspiracy theorist - a peculiar breed who, though diverse, share a common trait in never being able to admit they're wrong.

As was mentioned by somebody in another thread, it seems you want to turn this into an excuse to push your anti-semetic agenda.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I read the first few pages of this thread and was having great craic. Now its getting serious

strobe

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I read the first few pages of this thread and was having great craic. Now its getting serious

I blame the Jews for it.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Ahh yes, the distorted examples beloved of the conspiracy theorist - a peculiar breed who, though diverse, share a common trait in never being able to admit they're wrong.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I've addressed every point you've made and supported my argument with external links. You on the other hand have clung to the misconception that the Torah = holistic Jewish ideology and brought the discussion down to unsubstantiated nasty smears which have progressively gotten more caustic and personal.

Nodin wrote: »

As was mentioned by somebody in another thread, it seems you want to turn this into an excuse to push your anti-semetic agenda.

Seems to you perhaps. I don't know why. I brougt up neither Sam Harris or Judaism in this discussion (other thread). Cognitive dissonance making you strike out?...Projectionism? I don't know but it's tiresome to have the discussion constantly focused on me when I am trying to have an open and honest conversation.

For example, in your post previous post you accused me of being "anti-semitic" and "making massive generalisations against Israeli Jews". I did no such thing. In fact, I even broke down any reference I had made to "Israeli Jews" and supported the points with evidence proving that there was no generalisatons.

AND THEN

You completely ignore this like it never happened and continue resorting to more nonsensical "anti-semitism" claims.

I haven't said anything negative about Judaism or Jews other than to make the point that the perils of Jewish dogmatism and fundamentalism are, have been, and will be just as real as their Islamic counterparts.

You are obviously not aware of the battle raging in Israel at the moment between the secular and the religious Jews. It's funny to hear people here whingeing about The Angelus here when the Rabbis have total control over marriage laws for example in Israel or the fact that (almost) all secular men are conscripted into the IDF but the Haredi are excused so they can study the Talmud and The Torah in the Yeshivas. These Haredi will never, ever have jobs - just study and it is the secular Jews taxes that will finance it. These are real issues of secularism vs religious dogmatism.

The Talmud

Tal·mud (tälˈmo͝od, tălˈməd)
noun
Judaism The collection of ancient Rabbinic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority in Orthodox Judaism.

is part of the core of this dogmatism.

To demonise Islam and not just Islamic fundamentalistm and ignore The Talmud and it's impact on Jewish ideology is obviously being selective. To say that Islamic fundamentalism is emphaticaly more dangerous than Jewish or Christian fundamentalism is also a falsehood IMO. I've already given the Iraqi invasion portrayed as a crusade example. Right-wing Christians are a major threat and here is a single example of Jewish fundamentalism.

Massacre in mosque
In 1994 on Purim, Goldstein stormed a mosque and fired on praying Muslims in the West Bank city's Tomb of the Patriarchs - a shrine sacred to both Muslims and Jews.
Twenty-nine people died in the attack, and the angry crowd lynched Goldstein in retaliation.



Israeli extremists continue to pay homage at his grave in the nearby Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, where a marble plaque reads: "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel."
About 10,000 people had visited the grave since the massacre, Mr Marzel said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/685792.stm

Well that was actually two. The massacre itself and Jewish extremists celebrating the massacre.

And that is exactly the problem I have with Sam Harris. He fuels the hate, paranioa and anti-Islamic sentiment which leads to innocent Muslim people being killed and their violent deaths being celebrated because of their religion.

(Much like an Islamic fundamentalist could demonise the West and create discord, hate and anger)

His anti-Islamic diatribes seems to justify all kinds of foriegn invasions, illegal or not. This is quite dangerous IMO:

Moderate Islam is getting attacked from all angles. The hydra has many heads: grassroots, ignorant and mainly working class - EDL, BNP, Geert Wilder "Eurabia" types, and then you have Jewish supremacists like Dershowitz and Pipes, The Christian right/teaparty in the US, Islamaphobic politicians like Pete King, white nationalists/supremacists and then you have Islamaphobia for and by "intellectuals" with Sam Harris leading the way and then you have organisations that seem to be setup to only demonise Moslems like the Clarion Fund and SITE.

All the above converge more often than not on Islam.
I'll give you an example - David Yerushalmi.

A Jewish, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. David Yerushalmi

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/08/24/david-yerushalmi-devout-jewish-fascist/

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/david-yerushalmi-sharia-ban-tennessee

In the above link he is campaigning against Sharia Law in the US, something that doesn't exist meanwhile there is (little known) Halachic arbirtration courts already in existence
http://www.bethdin.org/services.asp

Like Harris total hypocrisy on Judaism vs Islam.

DazMarz

I'm firmly anti-religious, goes without saying, but I have real problems with a religion or religions that have customs/traditions that involve cutting bits off of baby boys' penises... just my 2c for this thread...

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like Harris total hypocrisy on Judaism vs Islam.

So you admit you only hate Sam Harris because his mother is Jewish.

Well at least you are being honest.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For example, in your post previous post you accused me of being "anti-semitic" and "making massive generalisations against Israeli Jews". I did no such thing. In fact, I even broke down any reference I had made to "Israeli Jews" and supported the points with evidence proving that there was no generalisatons.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Next you'll tell me Jews aren't over represented in porn, human trafficking, MDMA trafficking and organ trafficking.

Your points would be good BB, if your posting history didn't show them to be hypocritical bull****.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Your points would be good BB, if your posting history didn't show them to be hypocritical bull****.

Admittedly I could have structured that sentence better but all of those points are firmly established facts. Do you have some kind of objection to facts?

I assume you are oblivious to the fact that the Russian/Red Mafia consists of largely Ashkenazi Jews amongst it's leadership?

If so, you should get your hands Red Mafia by Jewish investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman.

I assume you do know that it is the East European crime gangs that dominate these activities of the most repulsive of porn - snuff porn, child porn etc, worldwide MDMA distribution. For example:

National Drug Intelligence Center
California Central District Drug Threat Assessment
May 2001

More than 95 percent of the MDMA available in the Los Angeles area is produced in and shipped from European countries, particularly the Netherlands, via air and sea routes. Israeli organized crime syndicates control most of the European market and are the primary source for distribution groups in the United States. They smuggle MDMA tablets via couriers aboard commercial flights, through express mail services, or in airfreight shipments. Rather than being shipped directly from Europe, some MDMA tablets are now sent to the United States via Mexico. Once in Mexico, the tablets are smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border by couriers. Although Israeli groups control most distribution, the Russian Mafia also is involved in the shipment of MDMA into the district.

In the USCS investigation Operation Paris Express, a Los Angeles-based MDMA trafficking organization was dismantled. The alleged leader of the organization was an Israeli émigré who had resided in Southern California since 1985. The organization allegedly smuggled in excess of 9 million MDMA tablets into the United States over a 3-year period. Nearly 650,000 MDMA tablets were seized as a result of the investigation.
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs0/668/odd.htm

Even a former Knesset member was caughting trying to smuggle MDMA from Amsterdam into Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3652475.stm

Perhaps you never read the Wikileaks cable "Israel: A promised land for organised crime?"?

Anyway all this is irrelevant to the topic. Point being facts are facts.

On topic this was in yesterdays Haaretz and is exactly what I was talking about before.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/group-formed-to-battle-jewish-orthodox-invasion-of-secular-neighborhoods-1.357485

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Admittedly I could have structured that sentence better but all of those points are firmly established facts. Do you have some kind of objection to facts?

I assume you are oblivious to the fact that the Russian/Red Mafia consists of largely Ashkenazi Jews amongst it's leadership?

And the Bloods and the Crips consist largely of black guys.
MS13 are mostly Latin.

But to use those examples to show that all black people and latin people are evil is racist.

So do you just have a file of these stories to back up you bigotry or what?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I've (..............)vs Islam.

Anti.Sem.Ite.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I haven't said anything negative about Judaism or Jews .........

*snicker

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And the Bloods and the Crips consist largely of black guys.
MS13 are mostly Latin.

But to use those examples to show that all black people and latin people are evil is racist.

Yeah. Couldn't agree more but I never said anything about anyone being evil. I don't know really know how to define "evil" but I suppose it could be argued that it was implied by associating Jewish folk with what could be reasonably considered "evil" acts that I was thinking that SOME Jewish people are "evil" i.e. the criminals involved in porn and drug/organ/human trafficking. That would be true to an extent but this is the important part - it would be because they are involved horrible crimes for profit not because of their ethnicity or religion.

6/20 English Premier League managers are Scottish. Scotland has it's own domestic league.

FACT: Scottish managers are over-represented in the English Premier League.

Do you find the above offensive? Does it read to you "All Scottish people are evil!"?

Regardless, it is a moot point. You are not able to read my mind. I stated that Jews were over-represented in involvement in certain crimes. A fact. I said nothing about "all" or "evil" or anything else to that effect. So lets move on.

King Mob wrote: »

So do you just have a file of these stories to back up you bigotry or what?

No, just a basic understanding. It's easier to find what your looking for when you know what it is your looking for.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Regardless, it is a moot point. You are not able to read my mind. I stated that Jews were over-represented in involvement in certain crimes. A fact. I said nothing about "all" or "evil" or anything else to that effect. So lets move on.

So why is it important to you that they are Jewish? What was the point you were trying to make there?

If, using your examples I was to put forward theory that Scottish football managers where trying to take over all football, using that fact as evidence, then accusing any Scottish person, or anything to do with Scotland as being implicit in that conspiracy, then that would be offensive and bigoted. Though not on the level as the stuff you're posting.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, just a basic understanding. It's easier to find what your looking for when you know what it is your looking for.

Ah... So just looking for crimes committed by Jewish people

But again, best I can hope here BB is to win an argument with a bigot about whether or not his opinions are bigoted.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Anti.Sem.Ite.



*snicker

Selective secularist selective quotes shocker! :eek:

In full.

I haven't said anything negative about Judaism or Jews other than to make the point that the perils of Jewish dogmatism and fundamentalism are, have been, and will be just as real as their Islamic counterparts.

Nodin

King Mob wrote: »

So why is it important to you that they are Jewish? What was the point you were trying to make there?

If, using your examples I was to put forward theory that Scottish football managers where trying to take over all football, using that fact as evidence, then accusing any Scottish person, or anything to do with Scotland as being implicit in that conspiracy, then that would be offensive and bigoted. Though not on the level as the stuff you're posting.


Ah... So just looking for crimes committed by Jewish people

But again, best I can hope here BB is to win an argument with a bigot about whether or not his opinions are bigoted.

...but it is rather funny to see him deny the blatantly obvious, nevertheless.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah. Couldn't agree more but I never said anything about anyone being evil.

You think Sam Harris was evil because his mother was Jewish. You think he is out to get Muslims because his mother is Jewish.

Are you now denying this?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

You think Sam Harris was evil because his mother was Jewish. You think he is out to get Muslims because his mother is Jewish.

Are you now denying this?

And don't forget that we're all leaving Judaism alone because of our secret Jewish masters.

strobe

King Mob wrote: »

And don't forget that we're all leaving Judaism alone because of our secret Jewish masters.

Dude!! Secret Jewish masters. Shhhhhhh.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So why is it important to you that they are Jewish? What was the point you were trying to make there?

If, using your examples I was to put forward theory that Scottish football managers where trying to take over all football, using that fact as evidence, then accusing any Scottish person, or anything to do with Scotland as being implicit in that conspiracy, then that would be offensive and bigoted. Though not on the level as the stuff you're posting.


Ah... So just looking for crimes committed by Jewish people

But again, best I can hope here BB is to win an argument with a bigot about whether or not his opinions are bigoted.

Look I've just clearly explained this to you. If you don't understand the fault is with you.

You speak of hypocrisy and bigotry well let me ask you this:

Why haven't you responded to the post where it was implied that Palestinians are sub-human?

To get back on topic I reiterate my position -

Muslim fundamentalism = Christian fundamentalism = Jewish fundamentalism

Sam Harris demonises Moslems

“We are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with Islam” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/1/20041201-090801-2582r/

There is apparently no recorded evidence of Sam Harris ever even acknowledging the existence of the Talmud - The Oral Torah which much of Jewish fundamentalism in grounded in.

Selective prosecution is the enforcement or prosecution of criminal laws against a particular class of persons and the simultaneous failure to administer criminal laws against others out-side the targeted class
(...)
A person claiming selective prosecution must show that the prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. To demonstrate a discriminatory effect, a claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different class were not prosecuted.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Selective+prosecution

The above is from US Law but I think it fits with regard Harris' demonisation of Arabs.
similarly situated individuals (Christian/Jewish fundamentalists/terrorists)of a different class were not prosecuted. persecuted. (no critique of The Talmud).

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Look I've just clearly explained this to you. If you don't understand the fault is with you.

You speak of hypocrisy and bigotry well let me ask you this:

Why haven't you responded to the post where it was implied that Palestinians are sub-human?

Because those posters are taking the piss.

And again you talk of "demonising" when you've posted about how Israelis are mind controlled psychopaths.
Again, betrayed by your posting history.

Brown Bomber

Wicknight wrote: »

You think Sam Harris was evil because his mother was Jewish. You think he is out to get Muslims because his mother is Jewish.

Are you now denying this?

Yes. I never said Harris was evil or mentioned his mother. I said something like "Jews are over-represented in militant atheism"......Someone asked "who?"......I named some, with Harris being one of them. Obviously with a global population of 13-14 million people they are clearly over-represented. Another fact.

So when I said: "Jews are over-represented in militant atheism".

You read: "Sam Harris' mother is Jewish. He is out to get Muslims because his mother is Jewish" :pac:

I think there are two possibilities as to why Harris is "out to get Muslims".

1. It adds zeros to his bank balance. Islamaphobia is big business these days.

2. He has an irrational hatred of Islam and Moslems.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Because those posters are taking the piss.

And again you talk of "demonising" when you've posted about how Israelis are mind controlled psychopaths.
Again, betrayed by your posting history.

Mind-reading again eh? So racism is okay if it's a joke with you?

I've never done this before but I'm going to have to put you on ignore for a while. Your getting on my tits to be honest. Your just interested in an argument and I am sick of your lies, ad hom's, misrepresentations and all-round lack of integrity. I tried in the previous post to take the thread back on topic. Peace.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Mind-reading again eh? So racism is okay if it's a joke with you?

I've never done this before but I'm going to have to put you on ignore for a while. Your getting on my tits to be honest. Your just interested in an argument and I am sick of your lies, ad hom's, misrepresentations and all-round lack of integrity. I tried in the previous post to take the thread back on topic. Peace.

Translation: "Lalala I'm not listening."

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. I never said Harris was evil or mentioned his mother. I said something like "Jews are over-represented in militant atheism"......Someone asked "who?"......I named some, with Harris being one of them.

How is Harris a Jew, if not through his mother?

Brown Bomber

Wicknight wrote: »

How is Harris a Jew, if not through his mother?

relevance?

CiaranMT

Brown Bomber wrote: »

relevance?

You mention him as an example of the over-representation of Jews in 'militant atheism' (which in itself is a daft statement).

Brown Bomber

CiaranMT wrote: »

You mention him as an example of the over-representation of Jews in 'militant atheism'

Yes. I know. I was the one who said it. Doesn't explain the relevance of the question.

CiaranMT wrote: »

(which in itself is a daft statement).

Daft? How?

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

relevance?

It is a pretty simple question, isn't it. What part did you not understand?

Brown Bomber

Wicknight wrote: »

It is a pretty simple question, isn't it. What part did you not understand?

Never said I didn't understand I just think it's a stupid question which you already know the answer to.

So can we take it as confirmed that Harris hasn't been critical of The Talmud and is therefore an anti-Islamic, hypocritical, selective secularist?

AhSureTisGrand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Mind-reading again eh? So racism is okay if it's a joke with you?

In short, yes.

Brown Bomber

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

In short, yes.

So do I take it you are a fan of the racist joke? If so, would that be jokes about all races or are you selective?

AhSureTisGrand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So do I take it you are a fan of the racist joke? If so, would that be jokes about all races or are you selective?

All of them, but the blacks are somewhat over-represented in this area. Jewish conspiracy perhaps?

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Never said I didn't understand I just think it's a stupid question which you already know the answer to.

For such a simple question you seem very reluctant to give a straight answer. Can we assume that you think Harris is Jewish, and you subscribe to the stereotypes that your ilk believe go along with that?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So can we take it as confirmed that Harris hasn't been critical of The Talmud and is therefore an anti-Islamic, hypocritical, selective secularist?

Actually Harris is critically of Judaism all the time. For example

Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and as at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion. Jewish settlers, by exercising their "freedom of belief" on contested land, are now one of the principal obstacles to peace in the Middle East."

But that isn't really the point though, is it. The point is why you try and make it out that he is Jewish with the implicate assumption therefore that he won't be critical of Judaism and will be critical of Islam.

Care to explain?

Brown Bomber

Wicknight wrote: »

For such a simple question you seem very reluctant to give a straight answer. Can we assume that you think Harris is Jewish, and you subscribe to the stereotypes that your ilk believe go along with that?

If you need to resort to ad-hominen arguments to try and disguise the fact that you have no argument you'll have to join the end of the que.

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually Harris is critically of Judaism all the time. For example

Actually, your just moving the goalposts. I'm asking for evidence that he has attacked The Talmud in a similar hysterical manner that he has attacked the Hadiths (not that I want him to "attack" any religion). After all a stated aim of Harris is to destroy religion with science, or something to that effect - not destroy some religions with science and leave others alone with science.

Wicknight wrote: »

Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and as at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion. Jewish settlers, by exercising their "freedom of belief" on contested land, are now one of the principal obstacles to peace in the Middle East."

I think it's hilarious that you've posted this quote from Wiki. You are now the third knowledgeable atheist to post this while nothing else has been quoted.

Wicknight wrote: »

But that isn't really the point though, is it. The point is why you try and make it out that he is Jewish with the implicate assumption therefore that he won't be critical of Judaism and will be critical of Islam.

Well no. He is Jewish, ethnically at least. There is no assumptions on my part. Either he attacks religious fundamentalism relative to their (percieved) impact or he takes a bigoted approach, which as it turns out Harris clearly falls into the latter.

There is no assumptions. It is irrelvant here as to his ethnicity. The facts speak for themselves.
.

Zillah

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2. He has an irrational hatred of Islam and Moslems.

Can you give any examples where he has demonstrated this? He is critical of Islam and what is done in its name, but I don't think he's ever expressed anything resembling hate nor has he accused any random innocent Muslims.

Brown Bomber

Zillah wrote: »

Can you give any examples where he has demonstrated this? He is critical of Islam and what is done in its name, but I don't think he's ever expressed anything resembling hate nor has he accused any random innocent Muslims.

Here's the first example i found. Taken from here

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

Zillah

That is all perfectly reasonable and shows concern rather than hatred.

Cavehill Red

This potentially promising thread appears to have degraded into the sort of angels on pinheads nonsense I wouldn't have expected from a free-thinking forum.

So, in the hope of deflating such focus on minutiae, I'm simply going to reiterate what my somewhat blunt pal Daz has to say about Muslims and Jews:

"I've no effing idea what they're fighting about. They're all desert skydaddy-worshipping pork dodgers, after all."

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you need to resort to ad-hominen arguments to try and disguise the fact that you have no argument you'll have to join the end of the que.

My argument is that you are assuming Harris is Jewish because of his mother, and you are assuming he is pro-Judaism and anti-Muslim because of a stereotype you hold about Jews and what you think the should be like.

That seems like a pretty solid argument on my part. Care you counter it with anything?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually, your just moving the goalposts. I'm asking for evidence that he has attacked The Talmud in a similar hysterical manner that he has attacked the Hadiths (not that I want him to "attack" any religion).

So you admit that he is critical of Judaism, but you think he has a soft spot for the Talmud specifically. Right....

How about when he said this to an interviewer's questions

What are some problems with Judaism and Christianity?

There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Bible--books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus. The Qur'an pales in comparison.


The Qur'an pales in comparison. So Harris hate the Qur'an. That would mean he really really hates the Old Testament.

Arrragghh, but that contradicts your stereotype! I don't know which can be right, direct quotes for the man himself or a nonsensical stereotype from you about how he should do because his mum is Jewish

oh it is all so confusing! :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

After all a stated aim of Harris is to destroy religion with science, or something to that effect - not destroy some religions with science and leave others alone with science.

Correct. What is your aim Brown Bomber...?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well no. He is Jewish, ethnically at least. There is no assumptions on my part. Either he attacks religious fundamentalism relative to their (percieved) impact or he takes a bigoted approach, which as it turns out Harris clearly falls into the latter.

There is no assumptions. It is irrelvant here as to his ethnicity. The facts speak for themselves.
.

Yes Bomber, I think they do

Brown Bomber

Zillah wrote: »

That is all perfectly reasonable and shows concern rather than hatred.

Yeah, course it does :rolleyes:.

To be perfectly honest it was you who actually confirmed my suspicion about Harris spreading Islamaphobia and racism. By your own admission you hold him in "high regard" and then you proceed to make a joke (apparently) about Palestinians being sub-human, and not a peep from the rest of your atheist brethren.

Anyway this article makes a nonsense of your "concern" point better than I ever could, Hope you read it.

The other, equally popular and equally absurd, idea is that Muslims do not condemn terrorism. This too makes its way into culture from the right (though judging by comments to my last post, its diffused to some members of the left). Though it is subtler, and argues from insinuation, it is no less pernicious. The implication is that every Muslim in the world who doesn't engage in terrorism is nevertheless a latent supporter, or enabler, of terrorism because he doesn't make loud proclamations against it.
First, there is something dirty with the premise of this idea because it makes terrorism a problem of the entire Muslim collective. Perhaps those individuals who make this argument were in a coma during the 20th century when most of us realized that to treat all the people of any one religion, ideology, or race, as a collective is not only bigoted, but downright dangerous.



Second, heaping an expectation on Muslims - to call out "their" criminals - is absurd when no similar expectation is placed on any other religious, ethnic, or ideological group. Is it appropriate for a white man to tell "the hispanics" to make proclamations against the drug trade? Why should a hispanic who has never even touched drugs speak out against drug lords? His abstention from engaging in the drug trade is condemnation enough. The same goes for Muslims and terrorism. If you want a Muslim to condemn terrorism, realize that he has done so by not engaging in it. Life becomes quite insufferable for Muslims if before speaking about any subject a Muslim is required to first "demonstrate" that he is not "on the side of the enemy."



This has had a huge chilling effect on artistic and intellectual production by Muslim youth. I know because I was silent from 2001 to 2006, saving all my writings on my hard-drive, not caring to share them with society at large.
Third, in our digital age, it is an act of egregious ignorance for a human being to actually verbalize the words: "Do Muslims condemn terror?" Here is a suggestion from a lowly immigrant: try this thing called "googling." Start with using the search terms "Muslims condemn terror." This was the first hit for me, how about you?



Finally, the reality is that condemnations of terrorism have been pouring in for years. The reasons that so many Americans are still ignorant about them are because they have willfully chosen not to pay attention. Having traveled internationally quite a few times since 2001, I can confidently say that our media has one of the lowest IQs about Islam anywhere in the world. It is - and should be - downright shameful that when I speak to British audiences, I am able to have intelligent discussions about complicated points of Islamic history; meanwhile, now six years since 9/11 and in the US I am still clarifying the simple point that Muslims soundly oppose terrorism.



With awareness about Muslims at such a shameful nadir, it should be no surprise that our beloved President was able to convince us that Saddam was behind 9/11 and take us to war against "Islamofascism."
Naturally, media ignorance has diffused to the public. In the US we don't have an idea who the Muslim leaders around the world are, much less how to access their opinion on terror. Bereft of such information we have latched onto a simple slogan fed to us by the far right, namely, why don't we see parades and public demonstrations?



Did we ever stop and think that asking Muslims to get together in a big public setting, unarmed, with women and children in tow, making loud gesticulations against suicide bombers and cold hearted murderers (who in their cowardice are not against cloaking themselves in veils), might be a rather stupid thing to demand? Did Americans forget how empty our streets were after 9/11 or how desolate Bethesda, Maryland, was during the days of DC sniper? Now try living in a society where suicide bombers are in every city and township and regularly attack group events like the Friday congregational prayers. In the US we have not had a suicide bombing since 9/11. Yet in Pakistan, 65 people - Muslims all of them - died in an attack by extremists yesterday. During the week before, there were two other suicide bombings. Is it reasonable to keep demanding that Muslims keep thronging out into the street at the whim of far away American masters?



Then, when despite all these dangers, Muslims do gather to speak out against violence in their countries, it goes ignored by our media.
Instead of taking to the streets, Muslims have relied upon their religious elders to make stark declarations against violence. Part of it has to do with the fact that the peaceful and not-extremist Muslims in the world today value religious authority a lot more than extremists and terrorists who value mob rule and mayhem.



On September 12, 2001, one of the most learned Islamic scholars in the UK said the terrorists are "not Muslim." A month later he called terrorism a "heresy" against Islam in a pre-eminent British paper. A Pakistani Islamic scholar whose followers are active in 81 countries called Bin Laden a "false prophet" and "coward" barely a week after 9/11. Another major Islamic scholar issued a pamphlet (in many languages) attacking the Islamic legal arguments that the terrorists used so that future recruits might not be so easily led astray. One of the eldest traditionalist scholar in Sunni Islam issued a fatwa against the extremist group Al Muhajiroun. Muslims in Spain issued a fatwa against Bin Laden. President Bush was informed enough to bring an American-Muslim Imam to the White House who decried terrorists; yet average liberals who so delight in demeaning Bush probably still don't know that Imam's name. (Since 2001, that Imam has gone further and condemned antisemitism and holocaust denial as well). In 2005 there was a massive consensus reached at the international level that forbade Muslims from engaging in something called takfir - which attacks the jihadist ability to recruit. Muslim scholars have gone so far as to engage in "Koranic duels" with jihadists. Just the other day Bin Laden's former mentor condemned him for his violence. Nevermind the fact that before 9/11 it was a Muslim who warned our State department about monitoring certain mosques, or that it was a Muslim who tipped off the British authorities and helped prevent the 20 airliner hijacking in 2006. In the event someone wants more resources, try this and this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/the-myth-of-muslim-condem_b_67904.html

Brown Bomber

Wicknight wrote: »

My argument is that you are assuming Harris is Jewish because of his mother, and you are assuming he is pro-Judaism and anti-Muslim because of a stereotype you hold about Jews and what you think the should be like.

So your assuming that I am assuming?...Well this is productive. . I am not assuming he is Jewish. He is ethnically Jewish but it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Having said that his political leanings could be a factor but I don't believe so.

Segments of political Zionism are fully behind the spread of Islamaphobia
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/the-connection-between-zionism-and-organized-islamophobia-the-facts/

It was even written about in the (anti-semetic?) Jewish daily Forward just last year.

Some Zionist Groups Stoke Fear Of Islam for Political Profit

Read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:38BVq0SNJjkJ:www.forward.com/articles/131502/+%22Some+Zionist+Groups+Stoke+Fear+Of+Islam+for+Political+Profit%22&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.se#ixzz1L43DBLso

But back to the point. My opinion on his actions are based solely on his actions (or lack of). I've explained this in some detail already.

Wicknight wrote: »

So you admit that he is critical of Judaism, but you think he has a soft spot for the Talmud specifically. Right....

Well it's either a soft spot and he is lying by omission or he doesn't even know it exists because as far as I can tell he is yet to ever mention it. Which do you think it is?

Wicknight wrote: »

How about when he said this to an interviewer's questions

What are some problems with Judaism and Christianity?

There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Bible--books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus. The Qur'an pales in comparison.


The Qur'an pales in comparison. So Harris hate the Qur'an. That would mean he really really hates the Old Testament.

Yes. I am sure he does. When was the last time he referred to it in a interview or otherwise as the Hebrew Bible or The Tanakh?

He was asked a question about Christianity and Islam. He didn't bring Judaism up did he? What was he supposed to say? "No comment"? That was a total of two sentences. Lets take his immediately prior point. What chance he is demonising Islam?

SH:There are so many. Let's take the extreme case, honor killing in the Muslim world. Imagine the psychology of a man who, upon hearing that his daughter was raped, is inspired not to console her, not to seek immediate medical and psychological treatment for her, but to kill her. This is an honor-based, shame-based psychology. You cannot name a Muslim country to my knowledge where it doesn't happen. It even happens in the suburbs of Paris. It falls right out of the theology of Islam.

Let's see if he mentions either The Talmud or the Quran in that interview...hmmm...

Number of times Talmud mentioned: 0

And this in reference to the Quran

But the Qur'an, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. I invite readers of your website who haven't read the Qur'an to simply read the book. Take out a highlighter and highlight those lines that counsel the believer to despise infidels, and you will find a book that is just covered with highlighter.

Wicknight wrote: »

Arrragghh, but that contradicts your stereotype! I don't know which can be right, direct quotes for the man himself or a nonsensical stereotype from you about how he should do because his mum is Jewish

oh it is all so confusing! :rolleyes:

No it's not. You are the only one interested in his ethnicity. I am not. I am interested in what he says/does and the broader impact that has on the world we live in. The only stereotypes involved are the facist ones portrayed by Harris of Muslims as evidenced by the poster here who "jokes" about Muslims being sub-human.



Correct. What is your aim Brown Bomber...? [/QUOTE]

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes Bomber, I think they do

My aim was twofold. 1 - To clarify one way or the other my suspicions of Harris based on what I'd seen of him from people whom I wrongly it seems assumed would have the inside track. 2 - I had rather hoped that atheists who present themselves as champions of reason would rationally be able to critique the work of Harris if presented from a different perspective. Unfortunately all I've seen is cult like fanatacism dedicated to protecting the good name of the high priest at all costs in spite of the evidence.

Undergod

Let's clear up this bull**** about the 'racist joke' once and for all.

Zillah wrote: »

No no but if those 'people' hadn't settled in land that God had promised to the Jews then none of this would be necessary so they basically brought it on themselves.

In no way is Zillah calling Palestinians subhuman. It is clearly a satire of anti-Palestinian views on the topic. The joke isn't "Palestinians are people", it's more "Palestinians aren't seen as people by people who hold certain extremist views".

old_aussie

Nothin' like a woop ass all ah can see is religion is fallah s**t thread

AhSureTisGrand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be perfectly honest it was you who actually confirmed my suspicion about Harris spreading Islamaphobia and racism. By your own admission you hold him in "high regard" and then you proceed to make a joke (apparently) about Palestinians being sub-human, and not a peep from the rest of your atheist brethren.

Some of us have a sense of humour

∴ Sam Harris is an Islamophobic Zionist

Zillah

Technically it was trolling rather than satire. Hell, Brown Bomber even responded on the same page saying that he knew I was just trying to get a reaction.