This is a picture of Moshe Holtzberg. He is two years old. If anyone from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) happens to be reading this post, I would like you to study this picture carefully. The same request goes out to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and all Muslim Student Association (MSA)chapters on our university campuses around the nation.
Do you know who this little boy is? Maybe you don't know. Maybe you don't care. After all, it is clear from his name that he is a Jew. Perhaps, you have been taught that he is no better than an ape or a pig. However, you all need to know something about this child. He is the son of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg.
Do you know those names? Maybe not. They are two of the Jewish victims who were murdered by Islamic terrorists last week in Mumbai. Not just murdered, mind you. The Jewish victims were taken hostage at the Chabad House, bound, and tortured. Then as Indian commandos stormed in, they were murdered in cold blood. Little Moshe only escaped the same fate because a nanny managed to carry him to safety.
What kind of people tie up innocent victims, torture them and kill them in cold blood? Can any of you at CAIR explain why this happened? How about the ISNA or any of our myriad MSAs? Maybe you can explain to me why a Jewish center was chosen by Islamic terrorists in India.
Why? That is what millions of people around the world are asking in the wake of this barbarity. I am asking you. I know that ISNA and CAIR have put out generic statements condemning Mumbai-without mentioning anything about Islamic perpetrators or Jewish victims, by the way. If any MSA has put out a statement, I am not aware. At the University of California at Irvine, where I teach, the local MSU (which is a radical group)insists that they are not anti-Jewish-just anti-Zionist. Yet, this same organization invites speakers to campus like Imam Mohammed al-Asi, who has stated at UCI that, "Jews are low-life ghetto-dwellers" and "You can take a Jew out to the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew." My question to them is why Jews were singled out for murder in Mumbai. What in God's name did that have to do with fighting Zionism? Don't you ever imagine for a minute that the words of Imam al-Asi contribute to the mind-set that commits such horror?
While you are reading this, take another look at Moshe. Do you really believe that he is just a pig or an ape? Had he not been whisked to safety during the attack, would those Islamic terrorists have tortured and murdered him also? You bet they would have.
I would like to ask my Muslim readers if they were really taught that Jews (and Christians) were nothing more than pigs or apes. It is clear that many, if not most Muslims believe this or some shade thereof. Isn't this what young schoolchildren are taught in the madrassahs of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and who knows where else in the Muslim world? Isn't that also in the Qu'ran? Is it any surprise that when children are taught to hate in this manner, that they grow up to be barbaric killers of Jews? Isn't it really true that the whole dispute over Israel is not about land, rather about religion?
I know that you people at CAIR are very sensitive to the issue of Islamophobia-sensitive to the point of filing lawsuits whenever a Muslim is discriminated against or Islam is "disrespected" even while your co-religionists living in Europe threaten native people who "disrespect" Islam with death by beheading-in their own countries. But do you really wonder why so many people have become "Islamophobic", as you call it? Americans and Europeans were not brought up to fear or hate Muslims. Our school books didn't teach us that Muslims were this or that. No, Islamophobia has been created by your religious brethren who have carried out atrocity after atrocity after atrocity in the name of a God who is supposed to be the same God that I and Jews also worship.
Finally, I ask you to take one last look at Moshe. I hope you never forget his face. Think what he experienced last week in Mumbai. Think what he witnessed happening to his parents. How do you think this horrific experience will affect him as he grows up and goes through life? Maybe you don't care. Maybe you will consider him just another "Islamophobe".
26 comments:
I guess you're going to milk this event for all of the anti-Islamic sentiment you can get out of it.
Is what happened terrible? Yes. Do the actions of this tiny group of extremist represent the vast majority of Muslims or true Islam? No.
Let's get some perspective here. There are an estimated 1 to 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. These attacks were carried out by 10 to 25 people (there are still conflicting reports). We'll use the estimates that favor your side more, for arguments sake, so 1 billion muslims and 25 attackers. That's 0.0000025% of all Muslims. That's less than one one-hundredth of one percent. Keep in mind that most terrorist actions are carried out by very small groups of people like this. The numbers simply don't add up. The vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims do not participate in such things. But, as usual, you're painting with a broad, broad brush.
It quite simply could be that those groups do not consider the attackers to be true Muslims. I don't speak for those groups though.
Indian Islamic groups have refused to bury the bodies of the attackers, their stated reason being that their actions are completely incompatible with Islam and they were therefore not Muslims.
The leaders of Syria and Iran (including President Ahmadinejad) have condemned the attacks and called them despicable terrorist acts (and they actually used the word terrorist). I dunno what other countries have said, but that's what I read about them and I thought it bore mentioning.
Bryan,
If there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world who DON'T condone this kind of action, then we should hear their outraged voices from our open windows, the cries of the Muslim mothers who weep for this child.....yet the silence is deafening....
Do you have kids? If you do, your remarks are incomprehensible. I'm betting you don't, as your comments show a breed of self-absorption that comes with the youth of today.
Your expression "to milk this event for sentiment" is vile. A 2-year old child is without his mother is in incomprehensible pain, yet you see it as a way to "milk" sentiment. Revolting. May no one in your family, in your life, in your path, ever know such pain and sorrow. And if they do, please don't try to "milk" it for sympathy. Just get over it.
Sorry for this post, Gary, but as a humane HUMANE human, how could one not ache for this child, and simply see this child as a publicity event. I will save my other comments. You don't have to post this if you think that it is too harsh.
Linnea
I am an apostate of Islam. I grew up in a very traditional Pakistani family. Was there anti-semitic notions in my community? Yeah, there were. Plenty. Many of the people I knew growing up were nice people but the fact remains that we grew up learning that Jews controlled wealth and are responsible for many problems in the world. Our ideas about Jews were almost natural. The level of anti-semitism varies among people I know. Some are reluctant to condone violence. Others excuse it. It's a mixed bag.
Bryan, more than 25 Muslims are radical in the world. Estimates suggest that as much as 25% of Muslims may be radical. Even if it is 10% this is a significant issue of our time. We need to deal with this rather than sit around and claim that most are peaceful. Yes, most are peaceful and this is true. It's important to remember that most Germans were also peaceful people. Most Chinese were also peaceful people. That did not put an end to genocide or horrible bloodshed.
I am young and only left Islam four years go. It pains me to admit that my family want nothing to do with me.
Anonymous,
Thank you for your comment. I have to say that it is people like you that I truly admire.
Just trying to point out that there are prominent Muslims who condemned the attacks. And if we want to stick to the facts, it is sounding like Pakistan might be the ones who bankrolled this attack. The Pakistan that is our ally. Uh-oh, whoops!
Yes I heard at least some of those speakers on occasion. To call them rabid anti-semites is a bit of a stretch, though. I would save that distinction for people who openly and publicly state their disdain for Jews as a whole. The speakers you mentioned are usually very careful to point out that they are simply anti-zionist, not anti-semitic. Have some of them said things at times that border on anti-semitic? I think so. Could at least some of them harbor private anti-semitic beliefs and attitudes? Probably. But I'm not sure what the point is. The speakers that the UCI MSU brings to campus are hardly representative of mainstream Islam as a whole.
Here's something I came across.
Gary, I won't dignify Findalis' post with a direct response, because she is obviously batshit insane (pardon my language), But I wouldn't have thought you would allow such a vicious personal attack on me to remain posted.
Bryan,
I am pretty liberal in posting comments whether I agree or not. I would certainly defend you that you are not anti-Jewish. I think however that you mistake our outrage at events like Mumbai and other incidents of anti-Semitism being expressed by certain Muslims as being an attack on all Muslims.
The problem is that you cannot make a moral equivalency between anti-Semitic speech/acts committed by Muslims with the reaction and criticism from folks like me as simply being "Islamophobic", if that is the right word. That is the tactic of the MSU, CAIR and even the administration at UCI.
I was meaning to weigh in on this, but now that there are all the comments, I have even more to say.
I wrote some time ago in my own blog that I believe that true Islam is not compatible with a free society. However, neither is true Christianity nor probably any other "true" form of pretty much any religion. (And yes, I realize that "true" is subjective. I guess what I mean is a literal interpretation of any religion is incompatible with a free society.)
Thankfully, most people (including Muslims) are too decent to follow such literal interpretations of their religions.
But for me, when I see the picture of the crying child, I can't help thinking of a paraphrase of John Lennon - "Imagine no religion." The thing is, I know enough history to know that there are plenty of crying children whose parents were taken in the name of Christianity, Shinto, Hinduism, etc. Sure, the extremist Muslims represent the greater threat nowadays, but what's to stop that tide from turning around again in the future? I realize that some folks look at it as "Islam is the root of this" but I look at it as "Faith is the root of all this." The bottom line is that if nobody believed that they were doing the will of some mysterious higher power, none of this stuff, nor any other atrocities done in the name of religion would have ever happened. (And please, don't give me that hogwash about Stalin, (or Pol Pot, etc. etc.) - he didn't do what he did in the name of atheism - he did it in the name of communism, even though it was really Stalinism and attaining more power for himself - something that has nothing to do with atheism. He also had a mustache - does that lead to genocide?)
Personally, I hope that it's my belief that most people are decent and will eventually reject these sorts of extremist views.
Basically, I agree with Gary, although I wouldn't always choose the same words. There's a serious problem going on within the Muslim community, and it's up to them to stamp it out. The anti-Semitism is totally over-the-top, and there needs to be a greater outcry against that sort of a thing.
However, Bryan rightly points out that sometimes the decent Muslims ARE expressing condemnation, but it doesn't get the attention that it deserves. (I am ashamed to admit that I didn't know about the huge demonstration in Iran after 9/11 until Bryan pointed it out on one of Gary's earlier posts.)
Regarding Finalis though - whoo boy. Statements like, "He is heading for a rude awakening when he is forced to convert to Islam at the point of a gun or face 2nd class citizenship." are just plain stupid. Sure, I could give a more reasoned, nuanced dissection of just what's wrong with that, but anybody who engages in that kind of rhetoric doesn't have enough critical thinking skills to grasp what I'm saying in the first place. I'll stick with Bryan's assessment of Findalis.
I will try to address Lance, Bryan and Findalis ot once.
Lance raises some valid points. No religion-no hate-no violence. (well, don't forget the street gangs). To Lance, it is all about faith-and you can point to historical facts that Christianity was involved in the Crusades and the Inquisition-all true.
Yet, it has been hundreds of years since Christians had their dark chapters. The Reformation was an important turning point. Today, Christians may offend some with controversial statements a la Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, but to be honest, Christianity has been pretty peaceful for centuries. So has Judaism. Over the past couple of thousand years, they have been victims of hate. Buddhism? Pretty quiet.
But in today's world, it is Islam that is on the march. And it isn't pretty, is it?
Now I would like to say something in defense of Findalis in her on-going exchange with Bryan.
While I defend Bryan against any charges of being anti-Jewish, I would point out to Lance that the Qur'an is full of references to non-Muslims being faced with three choices:
1 Convert to Islam
2 Accept a status of Dhimmitude where non-Muslims live under protection of Muslims but have to pay taxes and accept other restrictions.
3 War (death)
Don't take my word for it-read the Quran.
Continuation of previous response (Forgive me- I accidently punched the wrong key and posted the message before I was finished (too much wine for dinner tonight).
We are all agreed that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who have no desire to fight wars, decry terrorism and only want to live normal lives and get along with their neighbors.
The problem is that the words and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed and the words of the Quran dictate something else. So the decent, peaceful Muslims basically have to ignore some of the tenets contained in their religion. (Take what they want and leave the rest.) Maybe you could call them nominal Muslims.
The problem I see is that if the decent Muslims stand up and eradicate the militants, they are contradicting the basis of Islam.
What a dilemma.
Gary,
I acknowledged that the Christian world has moved away from the violence of its past. But why is that? It's because it's moved away from a strict, literal interpretation. That's the problem with Islam today - it's having a hard time doing the same thing. My concern (not a great one, but it bears some thought) is what is to stop Christianity from reverting back to its former self? If it ever does, then it won't be pretty.
I know that Christians like to point out all the touchy-feely stuff that Jesus said (while ignoring his "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." comment and how he wears a blood-soaked robe in the Book of Revelation) but the problem is that the Jesus stuff makes up only a small part of The Bible. If you read the whole thing, you'll find rationales for slavery, genocide and all sorts of things that would get you arrested in the civilized world.
Does the Koran have some pretty messed up passages in it? Heck yes. But Christians shouldn't play that game though, lest their holy book falls under the same scrutiny.
The thing is, both books contain bits of wisdom that are relevant to today's values. And they both contain things that are straight-up primitive and unacceptable. I can say the same thing for The Odyssey though, but at least nobody's holding that up as divine truth (anymore). And that's a much more thrilling read, if you ask me.
Oh, and didn't The Japanese twist Buddhism around (along with Shinto) during WWII? I know that it's been used as a way to keep people oppressed. Still, it's not as bad as it doesn't necessarily require its followers to accept things on faith, as it's more of a guide for living a happy life.
Lance,
I think a couple of differences are that Christianity went through a Reformation and also adjusted duting the Age of Enlightenment. Islam did not. I think you also have to examine the differences between the two Prophets.
No question the Inquisition, the Crusades (and I don't know who was more guilty in that) and the corruption that brought in Luther are not proud chapters.
I would repeat what I said to Lance. I think to try and gain an insight into Islam, we all need to read the Koran and the life of Mohammed. Let's don't take the word of others. Let's look at their own words. Then we can decide. We and our children are going to dealing with this for a long time. We'd better understand it and see through the propaganda.
Plus Lance Christianity is able to change, to evolve, to grow. Islam by its very nature is unable to ever change. It is fixed in stone, by Muhammad. Thus it is stagnant and unbending to a modern world.
Plus Lance Christianity is able to change, to evolve, to grow. Islam by its very nature is unable to ever change. It is fixed in stone, by Muhammad. Thus it is stagnant and unbending to a modern world.
How can you say that? Have you ever heard of Sufism? Shoot, you should read the book No God but God by Reza Aslan. It goes into the history of Islam and shows that it has changed and evolved - unfortunately, it seems to be devolving lately in some parts of the world. Aslan identifies himself as a Muslim, but he doesn't look at the Koran literally. I'm pretty sure that he's not the only one, and there are certainly a lot of "evolved" Muslims out there.
I don't mean this in a rude, insulting sort of a way, but for you to say that Islam can't evolve is simply ignorant. It's like saying that Christianity can't evolve just because there are some Christians who don't accept evolution and believe that the world is only about 6,000 years old. (And let's not forget the ones who still believe that the Earth is flat and the universe is geocentric - they are out there!) Shoot, do either of you believe that women should keep quiet in the church? That's what the Bible says - and there's nothing in the Bible that says you can change the rules. Jesus himself even says that nothing can be changed, "..till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
And Gary, like I said before, you can't deny that there is some messed up stuff in The Bible. Personally, I think that the only ones who can play the "look how scary this holy book" game are the nonbelievers out there.
I think that as a nonbeliever, I'm able to see a bigger picture here. I agree that Christianity has evolved, and I think that The Reformation was the beginning of that. However, I don't see Christianity as being unique in this sense. The only way that I could would involve me unlearning a lot of what I know about the history of Islam.
Oh, and regarding the Crusades, the Christians invaded the Muslim lands - kinda hard to question who was in the wrong on that one.
But just imagine...if there was no religion in the first place...we'd have to think of brand new reasons to hate each other.
Lance,
First of all, pls check out my latest post and listen to rabbi Marvin Hier's statement on Mumbai.
As to Sufim, I don't know much about it, but I have heard it is a moderate form of Islam.
The problem is that the most extreme form of Islam-Wahhabism, is what is being preached-funded by the Saudi Govt, even in the US mosques are preaching Wahhabism.
Perhaps the problem is that many Muslims are trying to go back to the early days of Islam and Mohammed. Are they not the ones we call fundamentalists? ( or we used to anyway).
I will be the first to admit that there are a lot of things in the Old Testament that I have a hard time accepting. I am much more comfortable with the New testament. (I am not an expert on the Bible, so let's don't start arguing verse.)
As for the Crusades, wasn't it about Christians trying to recapture lands that had been taken by Muslims? I don't really know.
No religion-brand new ways to hate each other? Sounds like John Lennon. Ever heard about race or nationality?
Or favorite soccer teams?
I'll check it out. Honestly, I don't think you and I really disagree all that much on this issue.
Perhaps we can agree that Islam can and definitely should evolve. If Christians can get past some of the difficult parts of The Bible then I'm sure that Muslims can get past some of the difficult parts of the Koran. After all, there's plenty of good stuff about giving to the poor and whatnot (and I agree that the New Testament is better - but it definitely has its share of problems too).
I really recommend Aslan's book. It's been a while since I read it, but one of his major points is that Islam is going through a Reformation of its own right now, and the rise of the radical, fundamentalist forms like Wahhabism is a reaction against modernity and the evolving attitudes of a lot of Muslims. Let's hope that the evolved ones become the winners.
Oh, and regarding capturing lands that had been captured, you gotta realize that those lands had been captured by so many different peoples over the last few thousand years. It had been in Muslim hands for a long time, and a lot of innocent men, women and children were killed by people who used the cross as their symbol.
Lance,
As to the Crusades, I have a hard time getting excited about it. Yet, it is still considered important by the Muslims. Certainly, it is troublesome that
popes would send armies out to fight.
As for Islam evolving, that is a difficult proposition when your Prophet was a warrior, and the Quran lays out the basic tenets of Islam as Jihad. Non-Muslims are to be given 3 choicesl conversion, dhimmitude or death. The quran is also pretty explicit about Jews and Christians.
Tonight, I read an intersting letter from an Iranian apostate. He says either Islam will crumble from within if the broader Muslim world can be informed about living in peace and having a better life-in that case, more apostates will follow-or the western world will be forced into a apocalyptic nuclear war in which the Islamic people and millions of Westeners will de killed.
Scary, but I can't dismiss the possibility.
The quran is also pretty explicit about Jews and Christians.
From what I understand, there are some contradictory passages regarding that. There's definitely the stuff you mentioned, but then there's stuff that encourages tolerance.
Wow...a holy book with contradictions. Go figure that one.
You don't know me Bryan, but know this: I condemn acts of terror regardless of who does them.
And I do condemn the codes in my religion that are arcane and obsolete. In a modern world, there is no need for them.
And yes the Old Testament is filled with violence. But the book is a history of a people, and every people have a violent history.
Fundamentalism takes many forms in many faiths, Bryan. In Judaism it is an extreme form of worship. In Christianity it has lead to violence (Oklahoma City, Abortion Clinics, Atlanta Park Bombing), in Islam it is terrorism on a global scale.
The difference is that Judaism and Christianity both condemn violent acts done supposedly done in their name. Islam doesn't. Instead they will blame everyone but themselves for the acts.
Islam may evolve, but not in the near future (next 100 years). By the very nature of the religion, by the way it is being used by so-called clerics and by the hatred that is taught in it, any evolution is going to come about slowly. It took Christianity 1000 years to change. It may take the same for Islam to do the same. So how many more Moshe Holtzbergs have to suffer before it finally does?
Lance,
Here is the thing about the contradictions. Mohammed wrote the Quran over years. The problem is that the first parts (more moderate) were written while he was preaching in Mecca. After he was driven to Medina, he became a warrior and wrote the more violent and hateful parts.
Under the rule of abrogation, those parts that contradict are resolved by follwing the later parts. They abrogate earlier passages.
That is my understanding. If anyone out there who has studied Islam more extensively-or a Muslim wants to correct me, I am open.
Bryan,
1 Whatever is in the Old Testiment, Jews are not practicing killing (ie stoning). Throughout history and more recent history, they have been victims-not perpetrators of hate.
2 Fundamentalism: Define the word, and you see the problem. It is the terrorists and their hateful Imams-who teach them to hate-who are following the funadamentals of the Quran and the teachings of Mohammed. "Moderate" Muslims are those who ignore the calls to violence that are taught in the Quran.
3 Growing pains in Islam? C'mon, Bryan. It is what-1500 years old now?
Well let's see, when Christianity was about 1500 years old, the church was carrying out the inquisitions (torture and forced conversion of Jews) and also the genocide of the native peoples of the Americas. That's just off the top of my head.
As for Findalis' remarks about Islam not condemning violent acts committed in its name: did she not see the links I posted? Non-fundamentalist Muslims are regularly condemning these atrocities. Oh and I must have missed her condemnation of this or this.
I'll try and write more later, but I just want to respond to a few quick things:
1. Findalis, your perspective is a lot more nuanced than I was previously allowed to believe based on some of your earlier posts. I'll get more specific later, but I don't think that we disagree as much on this issue as I previously thought.
2. Gary, regarding contradictions and whatnot, I suppose I might be willing to give it to you that the Koran is probably worse than The Bible. That doesn't make The Bible a useful tool for morality nowadays though. Lesser of two evils and all that. (And I'm actually aware of what you wrote about regarding the revisions.)
As for not being willing to give Islam enough time to reform, as it's been 1500+ years - isn't that pretty much the same amount of time that it took Christianity? The Reformation started in the 1500s and lasted into the 1600s (if Wikipedia is to be believed on this one - no time to check another source.)
To Bryan and Lance,
As to your contradictions on the 1500 years to reform point, I'm sure you think you nailed me with a Perry mason moment.
Yet, it is a good point. It is inexcusable that the Vatican was doing what it did, and Martin Luther came along in the 1500s.
Yet, I would still point out that the Church in those days was hardly following the teachings of Jesus Christ (Inquisition, Crusades, etc.)
In contrast, can we say that the Islamo-terrorists are not following the teachings of Mohammed? It seems to me they are.
Yet, I would still point out that the Church in those days was hardly following the teachings of Jesus Christ (Inquisition, Crusades, etc.)
In contrast, can we say that the Islamo-terrorists are not following the teachings of Mohammed? It seems to me they are.
Gary, you act as though the teachings of Jesus are all that's in the Bible. If you cut out all of the bits with his actual words, then you've got a small novella. The Christians from back then were certainly acting in accordance with the sorts of commands that their God made in the OT - what with ordering the Jews to kill every living thing when they took over the Promised Land (except for the young virgins to keep for themselves).
I'd like Christianity a lot more if it began and ended with Jesus.
The thing about Islam though, traditionally it's been more like Judaism than Christianity in the sense that it's not so much about literally believing in the Holy Book but practicing the rituals that the religion requires (five daily prayers, giving alms, fasting at Ramadan, etc.) Lately though, there has been a turn toward the more strict, fundamentalist viewpoint. I mean, keep in mind that relatively speaking, Wahhabism isn't that old.
One of the mistakes that people make when looking at other religions is that they try and see it within the same framework as their own religion, and that doesn't really work out too well.
Post a Comment