The Harvard Crimson: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy
darwinnia
· 8 months ago
A chaplain says it's wise to preach the killing of infidels:
(1) Who hired him, and based on what qualifications that made him appear suitable as a chaplain at a high-quality and pluralistic university? Can't HU do better than that, both in hiring and in admissions to its graduate programs?
(2) Anyhow, why would a 21st Century university aid and abet ignorance and crazy superstitions by granting degrees in Santa Claus Studies, er, Religion?
(2) Why are Muslim students living in fear of disclosing that they disagree with this imam's insane hate speech? This is a free society.
(3) Pointing out that there exist others on the planet, who do bad things, is making the above imam look less bad, how??? Next time someone drives drunk, or robs a bank, or bullies a classmate, we are supposed to condone it, because there exist others who do that too??? No.
One would hope that if any chaplain or even any student, of any religion, were to claim that it is WISE TO KILL APOSTATES TO [THEIR ONE TRUE FAVORITE RELIGION], this would occasion very serious University-wide reflection as to the reasons why the "modern human rights discourse" indeed does deserve "hegemony." Thanks to the "hegemony" of democracy and the separation of church and state, all people, including women and minorities, can live as free equals under the law.
Sadia
· 8 months ago
I know Taha Abdul-Basser to be an incredible person. I actually know that he does not hold the position attributed to him in this article, and that he did not and does not condone anyone's killing. I think the larger context for this discussion needs to be taken into account. It is unfortunate that the Crimson failed to address that.
American
· 8 months ago
GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY THEN.!!! YOU DONT BELONG HERE.!!!
libertasdon
· 8 months ago
Yeah, but I would love to know more about that wisdom thing.
Tolerant
· 8 months ago
Interesting how this author's source for the email content are the very blogs that “misinterpreted, misconstrued, and posted” these comments in the first place, which are rather Islamophobic blogs in the first place. I think it’s ridiculous there’s an article on this in the first place. It was a private email between a chaplain and a student, he didn’t support killing anyone, and the history and various perspectives he mentioned were no different than what wikipedia says.
Roger Greenbaum
· 8 months ago
No one denies that Taha Abdul-Basser actually said these sentences, not even himself. It remains unclear what is supposedly misconstrued or misinterpreted. The message posted on numerous blogs is exactly the same message posted on the MIT list. While some things he says in the original message are opinions of others, the sentence quoted in the article is his own.
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
I don't see how the 'private' nature of these comments make them any less open to scrutiny or discussion. A chaplain is supposed to have private counseling sessions with students. And if he thinks that there's "great wisdom" in killing apostates, and that's the message he gives to the students in private, then he's certainly not fit for keeping his position as the Chaplain.
Calling his comments "misinterpreted" and "misconstrued" is a genuinely bad attempt at covering up, besides being an insult to the intelligence of a reader. His "immeasurable contributions" are irrelevant here - good deeds don't earn you a ticket for a misdeed.
More importantly though, I am inclined to wonder why the students were curious about killing apostates in the first place. Does one really need an advice or counseling session about the ways to deal with apostates!? And all they have to seek advice from is someone who calls "debating about religious matter" as "impermissible, in general"!?
elijahjt
· 8 months ago
"More importantly though, I am inclined to wonder why the students were curious about killing apostates in the first place."
There was a discussion about human rights in Islam (in the context of a recent decision by the UN Human Rights Council) and specifically the treatment of apostates from Islam. No one was "curious about killing apostates" -- please don't be ridiculous -- people were curious about what Islam said about apostasy. Such curiosity is not an automatic approval of what Islam (or even just the chaplain) says about the matter or a desire to implement it.
libertasdon
· 8 months ago
"Calling his comments "misinterpreted" and "misconstrued" is a genuinely bad attempt at covering up, besides being an insult to the intelligence of a reader."
Unfortumately this is truly irrational thinking, so peculiar to the western mind. Only a Muslim can understand the true meaning of the chaplain's words. Hopefully the Harvard dons know their place and will bring in an excellent mediator such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations to educate the ignorant.
libertasdon
· 8 months ago
You know, Oaftab, I like your style. You wouldn't happen to be an ex-Jesuit with red hair, would you? On reflection, though, I hesitate to think so linear(ly) as you about this situation. If you look further down this happy string of old fashioned free inquiry, you will get an inkling of where that leads. You see, Concerned wants to sack the chaplain. Once the dons start gearing up for that, you should expect to see the Muslim Brotherhood sommon their local rep from CAIR to come by and straighten us all out. They may have a point. What is freedom of religion if you cannot appreciate the wisdom of killing apostates?
Clap Hammer
· 8 months ago
Interesting why so many of the various critics of this Islamic Chaplin are so careful to maintain anonymity.
Dunque
· 8 months ago
That seems prudent in my opinion.
Theo Van Gogh
· 8 months ago
Frightening that we must do that on this topic, isn't it?
anon
· 8 months ago
interesting that so many critics of radical islam get murdered.
Joseph M. Vottis
· 8 months ago
Maybe they want anonymity (which you do as well, apparently) because they don't want to critisize a guy that is talking about a death sentence for apostates. Mabye the good chaplain feels that way about those that disagree with him as well. Remember "The Satanic Verses?" Salmon Rushdie is still under a death sentence thanks to Islam. I don't think Mr. Rushdie would recommend that critics of Islam use their real names.
Dan
· 8 months ago
Perhaps they are fearful of possible reactions by members of the Islamic community. Tolerance and understanding needs to come from both sides in any debate. The Chaplain should publically explain his views on the right of religious freedom for everyone- even wayward Muslims.
Chris
· 8 months ago
The chaplain wouldn't be staying true to Islamic teachings if he didn't support the execution of Muslims of leave Islam. This is what Muhammad ordered, as recorded in the Hadith:
The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.” Al-Bukhary (number 6922)
So I don't think it's fair to blame him for correctly interpreting the commands of his religion. Instead, we ought to ask whether we ought to allow such a religion to have any legality in a democratic and human right-respecting society like ours.
fauzia
· 8 months ago
I think the fact that it was a private email with a student he is very familiar with makes all the difference. Chaplain Taha knew that this student wouldn't mistake his words for supporting the killing of apostates and knew where the student was coming from. What he was addressing in that email was the general sense of skepticism that most Muslims get when addressing the controversial topic of apostasy, and therefore the wisdom, or hikmah is in reference to the fact that at one point in Islamic history it made sense, though it is no longer a dominant interpretation of how to deal with apostates, and it should not be an issue of concern for American Muslims today. When you ask a scholar a legal and historical question, the response is not supposed to be sugar coated and PC, especially when the context is that of a private email with a familiar person.
Rashid Khan
· 8 months ago
When Taha's message was forwarded some two weeks ago to the MIT MSA list, no one expressed any doubt that Taha said and meant what he appeared to have said and meant. It was even discussed whether it is possible to be Muslim and not believe in capital punishment for apostates (thanks to the MIT Muslim Chaplain for clarifying that it is possible).
Two weeks have passed, and Taha has never clarified his remarks. What is his opinion now? Is it, after all, not the "established and preserved" opinion? Is there no "wisdom" in it? Is it possible to feel "uncomfortable" for reasons other than the "hegemonic human rights discourse"? And what if tomorrow the US had an Islamic government, would it be advisable to execute apostates or not?
Joshua
· 8 months ago
There's another issue with what he said that isn't getting sufficient attention: He has described basic concerns for humans being allowed to do what they want when it doesn't harm others as "hegemonic modern human rights discourse." This is someone who sees the most basic aspects of modern civilization as "hegemonic." Even if he hadn't been trying to defend killing apostates his remark would still be unreasonable. As it is, this is clearly beyond anything that's acceptable. The full letter doesn't add any magical context that makes the statement any less appalling. Basser's entire attitude reeks of the worst forms of anti-intellectualism. He needs to go.
sandpeoplesuck
· 8 months ago
Who would have thought that a believer in violent bronze age myths would express violent bronze age opinions. Mohammedans you are a blight on the world and your reckoning is coming.
libertasdon
· 8 months ago
I think you got your metals wrong. Definitely iron age, at the beginning.
David
· 8 months ago
Celebrate Diversity. All cultures are equal.
Repeat 100 times. Then report to re-education center.
Dan
· 8 months ago
Clap Hammer, why should it be so surprising that the critics of the Islamic chaplain (who happen to be Muslim, according to the article) maintain anomymity? After all, the chaplain is asserting that Islamic law demands the death penalty for apostates. You don't think maybe they legitimate concerns for their well-being if they're interpreted as opposing Islamic law?
Concerned
· 8 months ago
No defense can be presented for such despicable views. As a member of the Harvard community, I demand that strict action be taken by the University administration against this bigoted and hateful person. If this Chaplain believes in Shariah law, he should be sent off to Afghanistan immediately instead of letting him promote medieval legal codes in this free country. He is not only damaging Harvard's spirit of liberalism and free thought, but his views amount to incitement of violence and murder, which appropriate groups may even wish to take up legally.
wombat
· 8 months ago
Concerned--crucial logic fail. In order to support liberalism and free thought, you wish the campus to take action against the free thought of someone you disagree with? Um....unfortunately, part of free thought is the freedom of other people to express views that you think suck. That said, I agree with whoever said that they weren't on board with whoever claimed the freedom to kill them, and I firmly disagree with the death penalty being the response to apostasy from any faith. I think, though, that Islamic discourse itself, as several impressively well-researched people have pointed out, is a lot less monolitic and more diverse than it is often presented to be.
Emiliano
· 7 months ago
wombat: "In order to support liberalism and free thought, you wish the campus to take action against the free thought of someone you disagree with?" If that someone wants to kill me for being an apostate: yes!!! the campus must take action. Free thought can only survive as long as the different individuals involved don´t want to kill the other because of their difference. Otherwise free thought become suicidal.
mamabear
· 8 months ago
Why send the evil mullah to Afghanistan??? That country has endured enough pain and sorrow at the hands of religious nutcases.
Instead, I'd worry about why Muslim students who disagree with that bag'o'nuts are feeling afraid to speak their minds. Whom are they afraid of, and why??? This is the real problem: sane and sensible Muslims afraid to confront evil.
libertasdon
· 8 months ago
Concerned,
As one who once purchased a magazine (high-toned, no pictures) with the name, Harvard, on the cover, I fancy myself a member of the Harvard community, too, like from the suburbs. But I am with you. I think we should turn the chaplain over to the Dean of Thought. I forget her name, but President Summers will know.
Peterk
· 8 months ago
"could bring him into serious conflict with Muslim religious authorities. "
what did the individual mean by "serious conflict" come to bodily harm or what? and here I thought it was the Religion of Peace.
as others have noted the members of ROP have requested anonymity, but if you read an article complaining about the Catholic church dissenters can't wait to get their names in print
Wonder when CAIR will jump to claim that Harvard somehow violated the civil and religious rights of the imam/chaplain
libertasdon
· 8 months ago
I am so glad someone finally brought CAIR into the discussion. Perhaps none here realize, but all have it wrong about the chaplain. I myself am not sure, but as a Christian, ipso facto, what would I know anyway. Please terminate this string until CAIR can give us the truth from on high.
Michael
· 8 months ago
Bukhari collection of hadiths, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him"
It is amazing and even scary that a lot of the Muslims who criticized the Chaplin chose to remain anonymous because they wanted to maintain their relationships with the Muslim community. So, criticizing someone who thinks killing apostates is acceptable is not okay with the Muslim community? And they wonder why everyone is suspicious of them? As the person ahead of me asked, why was the student worrying about whether or not killing apostates is acceptable anyway?
Oliver Ruebenacker
· 8 months ago
Muslim Traditionism (which emphasises in "transmitting the sacred knowledge" of medieval scholarship) will collapse and be replaced by Muslim Rationalism (which believes in God's word and human rights).
Nola
· 8 months ago
If people who call themselves "Muslims" reject the teaching the chaplain enunciated, they should consider leaving the pseudo-religion of Islam, which is really a demonic political philosophy and not a religion at all.
SFareed
· 8 months ago
This entire situation is absurd and those interviewed in this article come across as fools (which is probably why most chose to remain anonymous). The chaplain was simply pointing out that an individual should not be quick to dismiss a particular religious practice (however much he may disagree with it) solely because it feels wrong or clashes against another set of ideals that he may have without first becoming properly informed about the reasoning behind the current ruling.
tiredofmo
· 8 months ago
Then he should have said so instead of saying that there was wisdom iin killing people who leave islam. When you need 30 words to explain what 5 words "really" meant, as you and others here have done in trying to excuse this grotesque statement and belief, then it is clear you are trying to hide the truth.
Sara
· 8 months ago
Harvard has progressed to become a diversity of global trash.
pinnie
· 8 months ago
i will agree. im confused and disheartened at what comes out of this institution. its becoming an insane asylum for the left and interlopers.
m
· 8 months ago
"i will agree. im confused and disheartened at what comes out of this institution. its becoming an insane asylum for the left and interlopers."
The Imam's comments seemed pretty right-wing militant Islam to me....
Craig
· 8 months ago
How can his comments be "misconstrued" or "misinterpreted?" He plainly stated he believed that there is a valid intellectual argument within Islamic jurispudence supporting capital punishment for apostates. As SFareed points out, we cannot dismiss his comments because they conflict with modern mores. We need to ask ourselves if we are going to abandon the principals of personal religious liberty in order to allow religious groups to violently enforce the loyalties of their adherents.
Greta
· 8 months ago
I have to say that I agree in principle with those who think it's sad that something like killing apostates actually has to be debated in any modern religion. But then I also have to wonder how much the criticism of Islam these days is in fact politically motivated. There are many comments in this thread that border on bigotry, for example. And if this incident can serve to expand a debate on human rights then let us not fail to point out that in Israel's recent offensive against Gaza military rabbis were distributing religious material warning soldiers against showing mercy to their enemies.
Or to remind those who may have forgotten of U.S. Army General William Boykin who likened the war on terror to a holy war against idolaters (muslims).
Those of us who would like to see all religions become more tolerant of others cannot single out the ones that we don't like for criticism.
Ali A. Rizvi
· 8 months ago
I'm sorry, but this man was asked a question and he responded. As he said, he doesn't hold the position personally, but was explaining Islam's position.
Many "hadith" advocate capital punishment for apostates, and Quranic verses such as Chapter 8 Verse 12 commands beheading for apostates.
He was asked a question about Islam, he answered a question about Islam. He wasn't asked his opinion.
Steve
· 8 months ago
I know someone who is an "apostate." He converted from Islam to Episcopalian (and also changed his name). He knows that if he ever went back to his birth country, he would be killed. Things are not easy for him here, but I am struck by his resiliency in making a life for himself in this country. So I can associate this issue with a human face.
I am opposed to censoring or getting rid of the chaplain. He is a useful teaching object, and the debate that he is engendering about his views and his religion is a good thing.
tomanderson
· 8 months ago
It is true that the Hadith literature and most if not all classical Islamic texts prescribe the death penalty for apostasy. One should, however, understand the context in which all of this judicial reasoning was developed. In pre-modern times, apostacy was much more akin to treason against a nation-state, which interestingly enough is punishable by the death penalty in the United States. In my opinion, the same Islamic texts also have clear statements supporting religious freedom, for example:
QURAN 2.256: Let there be no compulsion in religion.
QURAN 10.99: If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!
Of course, the recorded position is distasteful to our modern sensibilities and incompatible with universal human rights. But so are much of other pre-modern legal codes, one example being orthodox Jewish law.
roxn
· 8 months ago
A large portion of American Muslims are converts - to Islam - from Christianity.
I think it is true that these Western Muslims try to create what they think Islam aught to be -
If you say to them - apostates are killed in Islam - they would give you an emotional heart wrenching No! - That's not the 'true' Islam.
The shock of what Islam is and how it is practised in the Islamic world - would disappoint - most Western converts - who essentially create an Islamic construct - like a virtu-real Islam to suit their Western needs and to justify or give reason to others for their joining.
First cousin marriages within Islam - is a shock.
The total marginalization of women - except with special permission - are women allowed - limited chaperoned freedom - is shocking -
Especially when you are a western woman travelling alone - through an Islamic country (or two) - it really hits home - the reality of women in the Islamic world - and this is further enforced by how you - are treated - as a woman out of the traditional fixed role -
After seeing the Islamic world - politically correct - in the West - is hard to swallow.
The reason Westerners believe the politically correct - because it is more comfortable to believe than the reality streaming in to us everyday of treatment of religious minorities, women and even apostates from Islam - in the Islamic world.
We are creating our own fantasy of the reality of Islam - when the truth is most in the Islamic world - are not even aware of how Westerners view their treatment of women, minorities and so on - most are not aware that we are upset - by these things.
Like someone told me - in a 'moderate' Muslim country - when a man divorces his wife - he can kick her on to the street - in the middle of the night - with her children. This is the norm - so much so the person thought it was funny - and that it showed men were powerful.
We are dreaming in the West - with our rights and freedoms !!
Quebecian
· 8 months ago
As for the argument that this e-mail has been taken "out of context" or "misinterpreted," this is the same snippet available on many other websites, so if the author/chaplain really wants to place it "in context" to correct some claimed misunderstanding, he should release the rest of the conversation.
As for one commenter's asking why critics of the guy remain anonymous, it is most likely because of the understandable fear of violent retaliation against critics of Islam or Islamic preachers AND the desire to avoid the wrath of those who think any criticism of Islam is off-limits in terms of what is politically correct.
Finally, it cannot be altogether surprising that some Muslims would have this view, given that some Hadith sanction it AND in addition 1,000+ yrs of Islamic practice have shown it to be widespread. For Current examples, see, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran.
Anny Nomonus
· 8 months ago
Just ask the Chaplain: "Do you want Sharia Law in America?"
If yes, he should be fired. (Of course he wants sharia law)
Paul
· 8 months ago
Anyway, it appears that the issue of "apostasy" from Islam has immediately contemporaneous salience in one more "moderate" part of the Islamic world: http://www.macaudailytimesnews.com/index.php?op...
The Sanity Inspector
· 8 months ago
Say hello to the camel's nose under the tent. Maybe in some dark future we'll have American newlyweds executed by American mullahs, for eloping without permission. But be a good multi-cultist and keep insisting that all cultures are the same, except for headgear and cuisine.
Jon Brooks
· 8 months ago
So are we to be led to believe that since obama converted to Christianity of his own free will later in his life that he is an apostate that the good Dr. would advocate killing? Inquiring minds want to know.
Samir
· 8 months ago
We give up the basic civilized and peaceful foundations of our free society by pretending to respect any ideology that even needs to debate killing someone because they have their own opinions about their beliefs. We have become cowards to PC, Diani Eck, feel good pluralism. What we must protect is the right to be offended, to have your beliefs challenged in an open way, and without the threat of physical or psychic torture, injury or execution. Hello everyone this is year 2009, not 609.
Margarita
· 8 months ago
i was sad to see how many people state here that he was cleared, or misunderstood, or it was a private email. who cares!!!!!!!!!! cleared of what??????????? not murdered anyone?????? he still thinks that he is right and it's about time we face it - no matter where they are - on a street, in their homes or in Havard - those hardliners have to be confronted and there is no excuse for that kind of behaviour!!!!!
melk
· 8 months ago
Greta, congratulations. I was wondering who would be the first to invoke Israel. Any real or imagined violations of human rights by the IDF in Gaza are freely debated both in Israel and in the Jewish community in general. No anonymity is requested or required and apostates or the equivalents do not have anything to fear. Now what exactly was your point?
Paul521
· 8 months ago
Apostasy from Islam
08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
08.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
08.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).
08.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def. 08.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).
Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, 595-96.
For those attempting to mitigate the Islamic penalty for apostasy, while also attempting to make Islam sound more serene and civil than it really is, Islam's own official statements on the subject clearly paint a different picture.
tomanderson
· 8 months ago
It is true that the Hadith literature and most if not all classical Islamic texts prescribe the death penalty for apostasy. One should, however, understand the context in which all of this judicial reasoning was developed. In pre-modern times, apostacy was much more akin to treason against a nation-state, which interestingly enough is punishable by the death penalty in the United States. In my opinion, the same Islamic texts also have clear statements supporting religious freedom, for example:
QURAN 2.256: Let there be no compulsion in religion.
QURAN 10.99: If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!
Of course, the recorded position is distasteful to our modern sensibilities and universal human rights. But so are much of other pre-modern legal codes. One example is orthodox Jewish law.
Joshua
· 8 months ago
Tomanderson, The Orthodox Jews who believe that aren't generally advocating that anyone be actually executed and won't be even trying until a messianic era. That's in contrast to the fact that we have Muslims killing apostates now. In any event, if an Orthodox rabbi at the Harvard Hillel made a comment like this in an email we should condemn them also. That's not the situation we are discussing.
tomanderson
· 8 months ago
A clarification to my earlier comment. Upon further research, it appears that even in classical Islamic law, the penalty for apostasy was not "agreed upon." Some examples of classical scholars who disagreed with punishment for apostates were Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah.
In contemporary times, a considerable number of Muslim scholars and Muslim organizations have stated that they do not agree with the classical majority position and hold that it is contrary to both the Quran and recorded Prophetic practice.
Jack
· 8 months ago
Regarding Islam as an ethical system and within the context of a student wondering about the killing of apostates:
If you have to wonder about it, you are probably doing it wrong.
American
· 8 months ago
I have a zero tolerance policy against anyone who wants to KILL me.
Harold
· 8 months ago
I agree with Greta (above) that we cannot single out only those we don't like for criticism, and therefore we should not single out Islam. It's also for that very reason that Israel should not singled out for condemnation either, right, Greta?
ThorsProvoni
· 8 months ago
The Sharia law of apostacy usually becomes a discussion topic whenever Zionists or Jewish racists decide to make an effort to incite Islamophobia.
I addressed this issue previously in the context of Luttwak's ridiculous NY Times Obama-apostacy op-ed in
In general, Jewish Law (Halakhah) differs little from Islamic Law (Sharia) on the subject of apostacy with the qualification that I know of no question among Jewish legal authorities that Jewish apostates are liable to death.
In addition we should all remember that Roman Catholics have executed numerous apostates and heretics since the Roman Empire became Christian. The Roman Catholic church exterminated the Cathars.
It is also probably worthwhile to mention
1. that Orthodox Judaism treats sexual intercourse between Jews and non-Jews as a bestiality and
2. that the Tanya asserts that that non-Jews lack fully human souls.
The Tanya is practically a sacred text for Lubovitchers, who have an official organization on Harvard campus.
ThorsProvoni (who evidently feels a great deal of paranoiac dislike for Jews and Zionists) makes a good point, though not, perhaps, in the way he or she intends. Focusing on the unseemliness of this or that line in a sacred text or legal code is a useless distraction, for there are many things that seem bizarre or objectionable about the theoretical underpinnings of any religion, and Judaism is no exception to this. Even more than what it says in a text, though, what matters is how people relate to that text. We can theorize all we want about what Jewish law says about apostasy, but for some reason it's really hard to find an apostate from Judaism running for his life from his former coreligionists. Those who denounce the Jews for their Law never actually know anything about it. In contrast, it's relatively straightforward to engage in a legal-theory-free critique of Islam's de facto policy on apostasy: all you have to do is look at the body count.
ThorsProvoni
· 8 months ago
The equivalent of Jewish apostacy executions and honor killings are probably a lot more common than generally believed.
Yet I will grant that the Jewish community is no longer united by at least lip service to a religious legal system but form more of a global network of trust based on a commitment to Zionist ethnic monism or at least ethnic fundamentalism.
The 80% support among American Jews and 96% support among Israeli Jews for the IDF rampage in Gaza in which something like 1300 people were snuffed out is far more disturbing to me than Taha Abdul-Basser's discussion of the execution of apostates in Islam.
Abdul-Basser is an honest man willing to grapple with a difficult issue honestly.
There are a few Jews like Dana Goldstein ( http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/04/dana-goldstei... ) of Phil Weiss '77 ( http://www.philipweiss.org ) willing to open up a discussion of Jewish finance aggressiveness, extremism, racism, violence, murderousness, and genocidalism, but far too many try to distract the public from serious questions about Jewish behavior by inciting Islamophobia.
Finn
· 8 months ago
LOL! I knew that you Cowards, Slaves-to-Barbaric Islam, wouldn't print my comment! You're so predictable - and you think you're so smart! Hilarious - you people are so dumb concerning Barbaric Islam it's incredible. Poor Harvard - filled with arrogant and pompous PC idiots! The irony is just outstanding. Why don't you "Infidels" go and live in an Islamic country - and see how you're treated by those who worship "allah?" American hypocrites. Shame on Harvard.
"Oh - I see - comments here at Harvard require "approval" by a Moderator - a PC Moderator most probably, which means my comment will not be printed. But, I'm glad to see such enlightened comments above as "Harvard has progressed to become a diversity of global trash" --Sara. Exactly, Sara. Trash. 7th century AD Islamic Barbarian Trash and their Trash Political Mass-Murder Ideology called "Islam." A "blight on the world," as a Commenter above put it. Stop mass-murdering people, you 7th century AD Barbarians.
Why are you people tolerating an Islamic Barbarian? Have you gone nuts?
Islam is nothing but 7th century AD Fascism/Nazism. It's a mass-murder ideology - haven't you read the "Mein Qurampf?"
Idiotic political correctness is destroying Harvard. Newsflash: It's Mohammedans who are the bigots and racists - READ THE BIGOTED/RACIST Koran. Islam hates Jews and Christians - "Infidels" - and everyone else on the planet that's not a Moslem. Just how uninformed about Islam are you people???
Remember the Islamic Jihad of September 11, 2001, and all of the other thousands of Islamic mass-murdering Jihads since. Islam is Hate-Of-All-Others - don't you know that's the core tenet of Islam - Hate? don't you know that? Good God - get smart and informed, Harvard PC MoonBats.
The Islamic Barbarian subject of this article worships a non-existent Arabian pagan moon deity that commands the mass-murder of all "Infidels" in the Koran, courtesy fraud "prophet" Mo. How smart is that - NOT. He's a brainwashed zombie. STOP TOLERATING THE INTOLERANT, HARVARD. OH, AND BRAVO FREEDOM OF SPEECH - AMERICAN FREEDOM OF SPEECH. There is no free speech in Islam - don't you know that??? Hello - any neurons firing at Harvard regarding Islam?"
Finn
· 8 months ago
Qur'an 2:256 - "Let there be no compulsion in religion" --posted above
Hey tomanderson - don't you know that's an ABROGATED MECCAN VERSE?
Don't you know about the "Doctrine of Abrogation" in Islam? That means that the above peaceful Meccan verse is SUPERSEDED by the later Medinan "Verses of the Sword." Hello - don't you know that? No, because you're completely ignorant about Islam, just like all of the Crimson "Moderators."
The above quoted verse MEANS NOTHING - as it was replaced by the "Kill the Infidels" Medinan verses. Man, you are dumb. Or, rather, ignorant - a PC Moonbat with his head in the sand about Barbaric Mass-Murdering Islam.
Finn
· 8 months ago
QURAN 2.256: Let there be no compulsion in religion.
An Abrogated early Meccan verse SUPERSEDED by the later Medinan "Verses of the Sword," i.e. "Kill the Infidels and Unbelievers."
So, tomanderson - THAT VERSE DOESN'T COUNT ANYMORE - IT'S ABROGATED. Look up the "Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation." Learn something about Islam, why don't you?
There are no Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists mass-murdering people in the 21st century. Only Muslims. Only Muslims. Only Muslims.
Capische? Haven't you noticed? That's because they follow a mass-murder ideology that hasn't evolved since the 7th century AD. HELLO? HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED???
Theophilous
· 8 months ago
There are three great religions, Jewish, Christian and Islam, which claim derivation from a common heritage. That being the worship of the God of Abraham. Islam, like Christianity holds the Jews to be "people of the book". Islam believes that both Jews and Christians have left the true path and gone astray in their interpretation of the revealed. Though Jews reject the claim of Jesus of Nazareth as the messiah, Islam rejects that he was crucified at all.
One thing that all should agree to is the understanding that the Ten Commandments as received by Moses constitute one of the founding documents of all three faiths. I therefore refer you to Exodus 20:13, which states, Thou Shalt Not Kill. Although a more proper translation of this from the original Hebrew could be, thou shall not murder. While some may wonder at the difference between the two phrases the difference is a subtle one. Killing is an all encompassing word indicating the taking of life under all circumstances. Murder on the other hand specifies a particular act of unlawful killing with the circumstances of premeditation or callous indifference.
Although I know of no circumstance in which Jesus commands or even advocates the killing of anyone, it is not to be denied that the Catholic church has authorized, advocated and offered thanks for the killing of other Christians. The killing of the Wallisians and the Cathars come to mind. However such killings, by the modern Roman Catholic church are condemned. At this point in time no Christian denomination that I am aware of, other than some of the fundamentalist sects of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, advocate the killing of apostates. In fact, if one were to look at what the founder of the religion, Christ himself, taught, the worst punishment is (Mark 6:11) “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
So for apostasy in Christianity the punishment is a light dusting in this life to be followed by punishment in the next.
I am also unaware of any punishment currently advocated by followers of Judaism for those that choose to leave their religion.
The same cannot be said for Islam and shraria law. The unlawful killing of apostates, adulterers, and under the Taliban alcoholics, homosexuals, musicians and kite flyers, is encouraged. The actions of the followers of Islam in the Maalot massacre should be condemned, but are instead applauded and held up as an example. For those of you that don’t remember this is where the followers of Mohammed killed 22 Israeli high school students, aged between 14 and 16, after killing two Arab women, a Jewish man, his pregnant wife and their 4 year old son.
Since then tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, have been murdered in the name of Islam. To my memory no Jew has murdered another Jew with the blessing of his rabbi in the 20th or 21st century. To my knowledge, in the past 120 years or so, no catholic priest has authorized the murder of a lapsed catholic. I am unaware of a Christian minister, who follows the true faith as expressed in the bible, of condoning, let alone ordering, the killing of another Christian in this or the previous century. However, the instances of “honor killings”, killings of apostates, killing of Christians and Jews just because of their religion, are too numerous to count.
That a member of the Harvard community would in any way find it a “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.”, is an abomination. The condoning of killing another person for his or her religious beliefs is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. Mr. Abdul-Basser is expressing a belief that should be as acceptable to Harvard as having an on staff Nazi to advise the racist faction of the community.
His continued affiliation with Harvard is a disgrace. The fact that there are those in the Islamic community that would threaten physical harm to those who disagree with their fascistic beliefs is further proof, should any be needed, that the time has come for this to end.
Elimination is as necessary to the health of the body as assimilation. It is far beyond the time to take this cancerous, hateful belief system and remove it from civil society. You may hold whatever beliefs you want sir, but you cannot do so without consequences when you attempt to impose them on those who choose not to follow you. And when you advocate or defend the killing of those who disagree with your religion, then you go too far. You become a fascist, and have no place here.
ThorsProvoni
· 8 months ago
In re: Maalot
Theophilous exculpates Jews simply because nowadays they tend to be ethnic fundamentalist (like German Nazis) or ethnic monist (worse than German Nazis) and not religious and because at the beginning of the 20th century they tended to be Bolshevik and not religious.
Qualitatively and quantitatively it would be hard to identify a more murderous population that modern Jewry.
In any case, people, who live in a stolen country, almost invariably on stolen property and often in stolen homes have no right to expect peace and security.
Nuremberg Law, which is part of international law, is quite clear that Palestinians have the right to attack Zionists anywhere.
Jews, who do not want to be hated, must categorically oppose Zionism, demand the abolition of the Zionist state, and forcefully advocate the arrest of Zionists for crimes against humanity.
Practically all Jews expect non-Jews to show acknowledgment, to take responsibility, and to express remorse for anti-Jewish crimes that have arisen from non-Jewish politics. Yet far too many Jews hypocritically refuse acknowledgment, responsibility, and remorse for worse crimes that have grown out of Jewish politics.
It is time for an honest discussion of the 80% of American Jews that supported the IDF rampage in Gaza, and this attack on Taha Abdul-Basser is a typical David Project Israel advocacy distraction tactic.
There are some sick bigots among the Harvard faculty and staff, but they certainly do not include Taha Abdul-Basser, and the most extreme are Jewish. See Wisse Kokht Kugl mit Khazershmaltz! -- http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/03/wisse-kokht-k... .
Martin
· 8 months ago
Just curious, ThorsProvoni, are you describing the US here?
"...people, who live in a stolen country, almost invariably on stolen property..."
anonymous
· 8 months ago
The fact that all who criticize Taha Abdul-Basser have to do so anonymously says all there needs to be said about Islam today. Shame on the Muslim American community for NOT demanding the dismissal of Taha Abdul-Basser, and for silencing those within its community who want a 21st century, not a 9th century champlain. No amount of screeching "islamophobia" will negate the fact that fear and loathing of Islam is created by Muslims preaching and practicing violence and intimdation.
tomanderson
· 8 months ago
My point in mentioning Jewish law was not to shift the discussion but rather to point out that legal codes developed in pre-modern times include many things that are very objectionable to modern values. In fact, I am often surprised when researching a disagreeable ruling in Sharia law to find that Jewish law has a similar (in some cases exact same) ruling.
It is true that Muslims generally take religious law more seriously than other faiths with legal traditions. We also by and large have not come to terms with modernity and the fact that the social context in which much of Islamic law was developed simply does not exist any more. Even then, most issues are not agreed upon and one can easily find a wealth of evidence and legal opinions that hold contrary positions.
Unfortunately, I do think that "Islamic" Law in the Muslim world today has become a somewhat mobbish affair devoid of even a semblance of scholarship, due process, and justice. It has been largely reduced, especially in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, to a war on women and the trivial joys of life. Most of the time, it doesn't even have a basis in any form of Islam (the recent murders of an Afghani couple hoping to get married comes to mind).
And God knows best.
tomanderson
· 8 months ago
My point in mentioning Jewish law was not to shift the discussion but rather to point out that legal codes developed in pre-modern times include many things that are very objectionable to modern values. In fact, I am often surprised when researching a disagreeable ruling in Sharia law to find that Jewish law has a similar (in some cases exact same) ruling.
It is true that Muslims generally take religious law more seriously than other faiths with legal traditions. We also by and large have not come to terms with modernity and the fact that the social context in which much of Islamic law was developed simply does not exist any more. Even then, most issues are not agreed upon and one can easily find a wealth of evidence and legal opinions that hold contrary positions.
Unfortunately, I do think that "Islamic" Law in the Muslim world today has become a somewhat mobbish affair devoid of even a semblance of scholarship, due process, and justice. It has been largely reduced, especially in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, to a war on women and the trivial joys of life. Most of the time, it doesn't even have a basis in any form of Islam (the recent murders of an Afghani couple hoping to get married comes to mind).
And God knows best.
Larry "O"
· 8 months ago
There doesn't seem to be any confusion to me in what this Muzzy means. I'm sure he must have been tap dancing with joy as he composed his email to the student. Our downfall is that we try to treat all cultures as being equal, but Islam is not equal its Dark Ages thinking at its best, or worst. Born out of rivers of blood and it has never stopped in its bloody goal to put down every religion until Islam alone is left standing. Yep....bring in Islamic Law and we will all be rounded up and slaughtered like sheep. Europe is all but finished, America will soon be alone. Conquer by the sword thats their way. There has to be something wrong with a culture that hasn't been able to build a prosperous society in 1400 years. The only prosperity Islamic nation have is the oil money we send them, its kind of like funding our own funerals wouldn't you say?
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
Finn,
CHILL OUT! Your hatred of PC-ness doesn't justify a distortion of facts. Nothing in fact does.
"There are no Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists mass-murdering people in the 21st century. Only Muslims. Only Muslims. Only Muslims."
What world are you living in!? How could you be so utterly ignorant and make these bold claims with so much confidence!?
WTF is happening in Palestine!? 1300 civilians killed in a week! Isn't that mass murder!? Try reading up on the Gujarat riots (2001) in India. 5000 Muslims killed by Hindus! WTF would you call that!? Who are responsible for the genocide in Sudan? Muslims!? (hint: the answer is negative)
And from the point of view of Muslims, the hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 340 in drone attacks in Pakistan, were all killed by Christians. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq!? Because he was a bigot Christian dumbfuck. And if you actually bought his WMD argument, you are the single biggest idiot on Earth.
So it's not Islam that's at fault. People would use any f-ing excuse to kill people. From non-existent Gods, to non-existent WMDs.
You must also realize that Islamic extremists, in particular the Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, were all created by the CIA to fight off the Soviets. ISLAMIC EXTREMISM WAS NON-EXISTENT IN THE 20TH CENTURY BEFORE THE 1980s. Now it's a loose dog gone wild and biting back.
I thoroughly condemn the comments of the Islamic Chaplain. And would request the Islamic community to call for his removal.
But his remarks certainly do not call for such an angry rant. Especially one that lacks breadth of vision, and has the potential to offend countless people at Harvard. Not all Muslims follow Islam to the core. Not all Muslims interpret the Quran in the same way. That's why there is this discourse.
You've called the PC ppl cowards. Well, why don't you grow some balls and use your real name?
Pat Condel for president
· 8 months ago
Typical, but the muslims did start it. And try to get your numbers right.
I do not hate muslams, I just despise their belief system.
Hindus dead:254
muslam dead: 790
You seem to have a lot of anger built up, a sucide vest would really let you release that pent up venum you are so full of.
Note that unlike Breuer, who fully accepts the corpus of halakhic capital punishments and slavery, Abdul-Basser states "there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment)" but does not say "I agree with the great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment)."
In any case, the similarity in reasoning of Breuer and of modern Islamic scholars like Tariq Ramadan opens the question of the excessive scrutiny of Islam when
1. so many Jews are engaged in mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in the ME while
3. Russian Bolshevik Ashkenazim played the major role in the overthrow of the Czarist Empire and then took the leading role in Soviet mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Obviously Jewish Zionists are trying to scare-monger a false consensus against Islam in order to manipulate the US into serving Zionist interests and in order to distract from massive Jewish Zionist crimes against humanity.
This sort of Jewish Zionist behavior has no real connection to the heritage of Orthodox Judaism, which plays absolutely no role in the religious life the vast majority of Harvard Jews for whom Jewish religion has no connection to God but instead consists of a combination of:
1. ethnic narcissism, 2. Holocaust obsession, and 3. worship of the State of Israel.
A major component of Jewish pseudoreligion is contempt for non-Jews.
Whenever one of these silly Islamophobic controversies is stoked by Jewish Zionists and their non-Jewish panderers, who include far too many Muslims, we have to keep in mind the long history of Jewish mendacity and religious bigotry.
Funny how freeing 30 million people (Afghanistan and Iraq) from Islamo-facism is a cause only "dumb F****, believe in. And funny how the Iraqis are now worried about us leaving, not staying. The Taliban in Afghanistan were brutal rulers, and Saddam's regime was a threat to all civlized countries. You are the one ignoring facts, since your "religion," is to hate George Bush. I don't see you condeming Obama for sending more combat troops to Afghanistan (it's called a "surge," son, something he learned from George Bush). We did not fight Nazis because we were anti-german. Isreal is fighting Hamas, which denies Israel has a right to even EXIST. You are the anti-semitic biggot here.
Joe
· 8 months ago
The Harvard Islamic Society spokesperson praises Abdul-Basser for "promoting diversity". The students who were disturbed by the contents of the e-mail feel the need to remain anonymous. One of the truly disturbing issues here is the pretence (i.e. hypocrisy) that seeing some sort of "wisdom" in murder is a form of promotion of diversity. Obviously "diversity* hasn't evolved to the point at which those who express views can do so openly and freely. In Harvard, of all places.
Gary McGath
· 8 months ago
If Abdul-Basser said, even in a private message, that there is "great wisdom" in the death penalty for apostasy and that it should not be dismissed out of hand, then that is a matter Harvard officials should be looking into closely. If he took that position, even privately, he does not belong here.
At the same time, the matter should not be resolved by a witch hunt, but by an examination of his statements in context. Even a qualified endorsement of death for heretics is outside the bounds of the kind of person who should hold a chaplaincy at Harvard; but I would want to see the full message to see if, for example, he was expressing someone else's views rather than his own.
H. Augustin
· 8 months ago
Some people say we need to understand the context. What a pile of crap! He should have outright condemned the practice of killing apostates (go iconoclasts!) instead of trying to see "wisdom" in this anti-humane practice and doctrine. This jerk should be kicked out of Harvard if proven that he indeed uttered these idiotic words.
Marc Hesse
· 8 months ago
What shocks me here is not what the chaiplain has said, religious leaders talk a lot of nonsense when the day is long (i.e. the Pope!).
What is truely shocking however, is that none of the students quoted in the article feel comfortable to be named, because they FEAR reprisals from the muslim community. What does that tell us about the value that this community has for freedom of expression, critical thinking, and yes human life itself!
Imagine, an article criticizing the the POPE for his genocidally stupid remarks on condom use in Africa. But all the catholic students quoted in the article want to remain anonymous, out of fear! This would be unacceptable, and this is also unacceptable from the islamic community.
If the islamic community is so intollerant in one of the most secular and liberal places in the US, what are their views in other places!
Merle
· 8 months ago
There is only one word to describe this cleric's words (and the idea of the death penalty for apostasy as a whole), and that word is "monstrous".
Sarah
· 8 months ago
Islam, in theory, is a single system of beliefs, but in today's practice, it is not. The injunction to kill apostates is only found in the Hadith, but not in the Quran, which tells believers to leave apostates alone. See Al Quran, Chapter 4 (surah Nisaa) verse 137 4:137
Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth153 - God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way. (4:138) Announce thou to such hypocrites that grievous suffering awaits them.
The Sharia Law of the Ahlus Sunnah has codified the Hudood Offences which includes the offence of apostasy or irtidaa which according to them is punishable by death. Under the Hudood Punishments of the Shariah Laws an apostate or murtad must be killed.
There is no punishment for apostasy in the Quran. According to GOD and the Prophet in the Quran a person can jump into and out of belief. Here is the verse from the Quran that proves it :
Surah 4:137 ‘Surely those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, GOD will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path’.
If we believe in GOD we are guided. If we do not believe in GOD, GOD will deal with us in the Hereafter. This is what the Prophet has taught us. In the Quran there is no prescribed temporal punishment for the apostate, other than his fate rests with GOD.
Anyway this is NOT the teaching of Islam, GOD or the Prophet. GOD never revealed anything like this to the Prophet. Instead GOD and the Prophet are very clear about what to do with those who switch from belief to unbelief then back to belief and then to unbelief again.
[Surah 4.137] Surely those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, GOD will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.
One needs to be constantly alive to jump in and out of belief like this. The Quran allows this freedom of belief and disbelief but such a person who persists in disbelief will of course never be forgiven by GOD. There is no temporal punishment prescribed anywhere in the Quran for rejecting belief.
I hope you find this interesting.
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
Dear ThorsProvoni,
Why are you dragging Jews into this? Just because some Jews have committed misdeeds, does not mean Taha Abdul-Basser should be forgiven, simply because others are worse or similar.
He wasn't answering a question objectively. He was endorsing it and praising it. He could have simply said Islam wants apostates killed. Adding that there's "great wisdom" behind this injunction was uncalled for.
I would request the readers the keep the debate focused solely on Mr Taha's comments. Please do not make this a forum for Jew-bashing. It genuinely gets boring after a while, and doesn't really fit here. Maybe when some Jewish chaplain at Harvard endorses the killing of apostates, then we could argue all this. But at the moment, bringing Jews in is unnecessary.
Could you also elaborate exactly where my understanding of Arab Jihadism is mistaken? Thanks!
ThorsProvoni
· 8 months ago
Dear Oaftab,
It is a form of discrimination to police only the religious thinking of Muslims.
When Jews (see http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/03/harvard-jews-... ) are doing a lot if not most of the Islamophobic incitement, pointing out the similarities of contemporary and traditional Islamic and Jewish thought is a reasonable technique to identify the vacuousness of the attack on Taha Abdul-Basser and to highlight Jewish Zionist racism and hypocrisy at Harvard.
This controversy over Sharia penalties for apostacy looks like yet another Jewish Zionist effort to marginalize Muslims as incapable of taking part in civilized discourse and to demonize Islam as fundamentally different from Judeo-Christianity and intrinsically incompatible with American values even though Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as Abrahamic religions simply are not very different once we remove the Jewish Zionist Islamophobic propaganda from the discussion.
The Harvard Community has to take a long hard look at Jewish racist faculty,staff, and directors of Harvard University.
Alan Dershowitz, Ruth Wisse and many others long ago crossed the boundaries of moral turpitude, scholarly incompetence, or scholarly malfeasance that should have lead to dismissal despite tenure.
In any case, there is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of religious freedom at Harvard university. Religious leaders do not have to meet progressive Western liberal standards in order to act as chaplains or to take part in official Harvard Student organizations.
Many Christian clergy preach that anyone not believing in Christ will go to Hell. It is a rather offensive idea to non-Christians.
Rabbi Zarchi of the Chabad House could explain to you that the mere glance of a non-Jew can render certain types of wine ritually unclean.
He could probably also explain that Lubovitchers believe that non-Jews do not have fully human souls.
Several on campus religious groups have all sorts of racist ideas in their theology, but Harvard does not police creeds.
On the other hand Birthright Israel, which is a concrete expression of the racist Zionist belief that Jews have the right to plunder and murder non-Jews with impunity and which is sponsored by Hillel, is more than sufficient grounds to strip Hillel of any Harvard affiliation because it is form of open discrimination that potentially jeopardizes the status of Harvard University as an organization that can receive tax deductible contributions under IRS 501(c)(3) regulations.
Yet to tell the truth the Islamophobic incitement and other offensive Harvard Jewish behavior look like a red herring to distract from serious financial malfeasance.
The Harvard community has to take a long hard look at the negative role that Jews at Harvard are playing at the University because of Jewish support for Zionist genocidalism, Jewish extremist racism, and Jewish conspiracy that is harming the university financially and academically.
BTW, it is probably worthwhile to investigate why El-Erian resigned the Harvard Management Corporation. Did he begin to suspect he was being set up as the fall guy?
"Because Arab Jihadis had no interest in overthrowing 'Muslim' governments and because there was considerable overlap of their program with that of the US government and even of the Neocons, they worked in an essentially frictionless environment of International Islamic Organizations mostly headquartered In Hijaz while they traveled effortlessly throughout the world from Peshawar to Hijaz, and thence to the USA (especially Boston). While the US and Saudi governments mostly ignored them, the Afghan Mujahidin were at best uninterested in Arab jihadi help and generally considered Azzam's group to be more trouble than it was worth." ---------------------------------- The US and the Saudis supported the Mujahidin and were barely aware of the Arab jihadis until Jihadi organizations began to turn their attention to the USA.
The Pakistani Taliban is a recent development while the Afghanistani Taliban was supported by the Pakistani government and not by the USA or Saudi Arabia.
scared with good cause
· 8 months ago
Muslims scare me. They seem to want to present a friendly, rational image, but we always hear news of horrific things done in the name of Islam in predominantly Muslim countries. Honor killings, girls shot for attending school, the religious police in Saudi Arabia beating old women.
I think that in the parts of the world which are stuck in this kind of barbarism, Islam is largely to blame. It impedes social progress because of its unyielding authoritarian nature.
I think we in the West are in for a long period of increasing conflict with Islamic anachronisms.
Greta
· 8 months ago
"We can theorize all we want about what Jewish law says about apostasy, but for some reason it's really hard to find an apostate from Judaism running for his life from his former coreligionists. "
Yigal Amir's thousands of sons By Haaretz Editorial
It is no coincidence that the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies stands deserted, while on the soccer fields, the murderer is cheered and the victim is booed.
The real Rabin legacy should be sought on the soccer fields, in the classrooms, the outposts, the yeshivas, among the secular, the religious and the traditional; in fact, everywhere in the country where - according to surveys - 38 percent of the religious public view Yigal Amir as a hero.
Agreed that Rabin, considered an Apostate for daring to give up parts of the occupied territories, is not to be found running for his life anywhere. I'm sure that anyone here would be willing to walk around a west bank settlement wearing an "I ♥ Rabin" T-Shirt, because of their confidence in the tolerance that would be shown to them by the religious settlers there. Yep.
Greta
· 8 months ago
Those who genuinely worry about Sharia Law in America should tell us all what they think of this:
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--H.J.Res.104--
H.J.Res.104
One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one
Joint Resolution
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;
Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;
Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;
Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;
Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;
Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;
Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;
Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and
Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
But just like in Islam you have different interpretations of this kind of thing, so is it in Judaism. I wonder how someone like Yigal Amir would have interpreted them?
Finn
· 8 months ago
You Crimson people are such cowards it's incredible. Too submissive to the 7th century AD ideology of Islam to print my replies to various posts above. You are nothing but slaves, Crimson Mods. Esp. considering the post above which criticizes Jews and Judaism - that's fine, A-OK, but God forbid we should criticize Muslims and Islam! Unbelievable that the above poster characterizes "modern Jewry" as being the most "murderous population!" You've got to be kidding! Oh, no, that award goes to Muslims, hands down! Yet, you'll print the above against Jews, but you won't print mine because it's against Mohammedans and Islam? Crimson - you have no integrity. And you have no respect for the First Amendment.
LOL, "oaftab" - you're such an idiot I won't address your various idiocies above save one: The Israelis were defending themselves against the Gazan Terrorists (there is no "Palestine") whose Constitution, created by the Islamic Terrorist group, Hamas, has as it 's primary tenet "Destroy Israel." So, you defend the Barbarians whose first goal is to "Destroy Israel," and who have been lobbing their pitiful missiles and rockets into Israel for years. What an oaf. Israel - Keep defending yourself against the Islamic Barbarians that surround you on all sides, civilized and cultured Israel! Brava!
Theophilous - Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with the two Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Christianity. Mohamed their Warlord false "prophet" - who never prophesied anything - invented Islam about 620 AD. There were no Muslims prior to that date, which is why they are never mentioned in the Bible, though thousands of other groups of people at that time are. Mohamed plagiarized from the Bible in order to give legitimacy to Islam, which he invented for personal power and material gain. Islam is a hoax. Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham, and neither does Islam have the Ten Commandments. Sorry, you're not an Abrahamic faith without the Ten Commandments. But, that aside, the stuff and nonsense that is Islam believes that everyone was once Muslim! LOL! Don't you know that Jesus and Moses and Jacob and Abraham etc were once all Muslims! LOL! That right there is above all the most ridiculous belief of this ridiculous "faith" and indicates immediately the lies they have to swallow by their Jim Jones fraud prophet in order to follow their belief system. Yes, Muslims must drink the green kool-aid of Mo! Which they do, in copious amounts, such as the absurd belief above. No, Mohammedans, Jesus was NOT once a Muslim! LOL! (Really, that belief is deserving of LOL's into Infinitude).
And, as far as "allah" goes, read the teachings of Jesus and then read the teachings of "allah." They are diametrically opposed. There are no similarities whatsoever. NO, "allah" of the Mein Qurampf is NOT the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. NOT in any way shape or form. That is a total lie, among all of the egregious lies of Mohamet.
Larry O - that was a great comment. Obviously you're savvy about Islam and haven't imbibed their green kool-aid like the PC MoonBats here.
"The fact that all who criticize Taha Abdul-Basser have to do so anonymously says all there needs to be said about Islam today. Shame on the Muslim American community for NOT demanding the dismissal of Taha Abdul-Basser, and for silencing those within its community who want a 21st century, not a 9th century champlain. No amount of screeching "islamophobia" will negate the fact that fear and loathing of Islam is created by Muslims preaching and practicing violence and intimdation." --anonymous, posted above
That's an A+ comment. Except that it's a 7th century chaplain -not as advanced as the 9th century - as Islam was invented by false prophet Mo about 620 AD. A static, un-evolved, political ideology which contains the core tenet of "Jihad" or Islamic Holy War against the "Infidel." Which is all of us, folks, including the "oaf" above. Islam doesn't give a hang about you, oaf, as you are nothing but an "Infidel" deserving of either subjugation or slaying. As "allah" commands in the Q to "slay and be slain" in my name (you know - "allah akbar") will be granted immediate "martyrdom" and the 72 virgin paradise! LOL! C'mon people - yeah, right! That's Mo the Con Man Warlord talking - there is no "allah," a pagan moon idol (sandstone, with a crescent moon carved on it's chest) from pre-Islamic times. Don't you know that the greatest honor a Muslim can achieve for him/herself is to kill themselves and others ("Infidels") in the name of Allah? Yeah, that sounds like Jesus, doesn't it? Stop drinking the green kool-aid of Islam, people. Aren't you smarter that that? I mean, this is Harvard! Get smart! When you defend Islam you are defending a mass-murder ideology like Fascism and Nazism. Do you know how stupid that makes you look?
Oh, by the way, oaf, I couldn't care less who I "offend!" Oh, the poor sensitive Mohammedans - always "offended" - oh, boo-hoo! "Whaaa! You offended me!" Well, guess what? Islam offends me every day, Mo their false prophet who says to kill me and all others non-Mohammedan like me, offends me every day. "allah" their mass-murdering commanding moon deity offends me every day. Uh Huh - "Kill the Infidels" - yeah, that offends me. The Hate/Mass-Murder Book called the Qur'an offends me every day. As Larry O said above:
"Our downfall is that we try to treat all cultures as being equal, but Islam is not equal its Dark Ages thinking at its best, or worst. Born out of rivers of blood and it has never stopped in its bloody goal to put down every religion until Islam alone is left standing. Yep....bring in Islamic Law and we will all be rounded up and slaughtered like sheep. Europe is all but finished, America will soon be alone. Conquer by the sword that's their way."
Our First Amendment, which no other country in the world possesses, DEFENDS offending, it defends mockery, it defends ridicule, it defends denigration, repudiation, and condemnation. Thank God! In totalitarian Islamic countries run by totalitarian Islam, anyone who dares to speak out against the Party Line of Orwellian Islam gets prison or death. You like that, oaf? You think that's a good system? "Defaming" Islam or Mo or the Q in Islamic countries is a death penalty crime. Incredible, isn't it? But, that's the oppressive belief system of Islam - "Believe, or else!" Uh, I don't think either Judaism or Christianity kills people who leave those faiths - in fact, no. But, Mo proclaimed 1350 years ago "If a man leave his Islamic faith, kill him." And since Islam is 100% static and un-evolved since the 7th century, Mo's proclamation still holds today! Pitiful, isn't it? No, Islam is NOT an Abrahamic faith. It's a Warlord Con Man's invention for personal power and material gain - can't you people see that? hello - any firing neurons at Harvard? I must again inquire.
Islam DESERVES to be hated. As Fascism and Nazism DESERVE to be hated. Bravo American Freedom of Speech - stop being muzzled and silenced about Islam due to political correctness and the fear of being called a "racist." Islam is not a race - it's a BELIEF SYSTEM, and as such can be examined, scrutinized, mocked, ridiculed, defamed, repudiated and condemned. So, engage in the West's tradition of Critical Inquiry, Harvard, and stop being held hostage to a Barbaric belief system. Stop being scared rabbits! Stop being PC sheep! Grow a backbone, get some cojones!
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it doesn't exist." -- Sir Salman Rushdie
Emily
· 8 months ago
It is so sad that members of a religion would feel so worried about speaking freely, worrying that their opinions would offend authorities or leaders of their religion and cause conflict.
"..would bring him into serious conflict with Muslim religious authorities" Why be part of a religion like that?!?!
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
Darwinnia,
You are awesome. Hats off!
ThorsProvoni,
Please read Darwinnia's 3rd point.
Greta
· 8 months ago
To oaftab, Darwinnia, and all others who have responded to ThorsProvoni and others raising the issue of a double standard. Here are some comments in this thread that you have said nothing about--your indignation would be more credible if you had first spoken out against the racism and hatred expressed here:
"If people who call themselves "Muslims" reject the teaching the chaplain enunciated, they should consider leaving the pseudo-religion of Islam, which is really a demonic political philosophy and not a religion at all."
"So, criticizing someone who thinks killing apostates is acceptable is not okay with the Muslim community? And they wonder why everyone is suspicious of them? "
"If this Chaplain believes in Shariah law, he should be sent off to Afghanistan immediately instead of letting him promote medieval legal codes in this free country. "
"sandpeoplesuck said Who would have thought that a believer in violent bronze age myths would express violent bronze age opinions. Mohammedans you are a blight on the world and your reckoning is coming."
"So I don't think it's fair to blame him for correctly interpreting the commands of his religion. Instead, we ought to ask whether we ought to allow such a religion to have any legality in a democratic and human right-respecting society like ours."
And you wonder why some of us question the motives of those trying to make a mountain out of this molehill?
Greta
· 8 months ago
oaftab 3 days ago Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq!? Because he was a bigot Christian dumbfuck.
oaftab 1 day ago Why are you dragging Jews into this? Just because some Jews have committed misdeeds, does not mean Taha Abdul-Basser should be forgiven, simply because others are worse or similar.
Can we either drop the posturing OR the hypocrisy? The illegal invasion of Iraq was neith masterminded nor single-handedly decided by "bigot Christian dumbfuck" George Bush. In fact:
The purpose of the unnamed intelligence unit, often described as a Pentagon "cell," was to scour reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies to find nuggets of information linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, and the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In a controversial press briefing in October 2002, a year after Wurmser's unit was established, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that a primary purpose of the unit was to cull factoids, which were then used to disparage, undermine, and contradict the CIA's reporting, which was far more cautious and nuanced than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith wanted.
Only one person in the paragraph above calls himself a "Christian".
As far as I can see, the slurs being used in this thread like "sand people", "Muzzy", and "bigot Christian dumbfuck" are not matched by any such slurs against members of the other Abrahamic faith. What does that suggest to you?
gary
· 8 months ago
"Many Christian clergy preach that anyone not believing in Christ will go to Hell. It is a rather offensive idea to non-Christians.
Rabbi Zarchi of the Chabad House could explain to you that the mere glance of a non-Jew can render certain types of wine ritually unclean."
Wow.. apparently being offended is now equal to or worse than being killed!
Christian's may believe that those who reject Christ will go to hell, but unlike Muslims, they won't believe they have a personal right to send you there!
Besides the only reason anyone would get offended about hell is if they believed there was some truth to it (which I suspect that most secretly do).
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
Greta,
If you only cared to read the opening sentence of my paragraph, "And from the point of view of Muslims,"...I was giving the argument of the Muslims. That's not MY point of view. I was saying, that according to the Muslims, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had religious motives - so in their point of view - it's the Christians who are mass murderers (and therefore calling Muslims as sole mass murderers on Earth is wrong - and I had cited cases of Jews, Hindus and Christians carrying out mass murders as examples).
You unfortunately have a tendency to pick sentences only selectively. I am neither posturing, nor am I a hypocrite.
I strongly believe that Taha should be asked to resign. I also believe that Islam should not be tarnished because of Taha's statements (my reply to Finn). I also think that Jews should not be dragged into this, because they have nothing to do with it. We could talk about them, if a Jewish chaplain AT HARVARD, had endorsed the killing of apostates. But that has not happened. For all the controversial comments that some Jewish professors at Harvard have made, NONE has found "great wisdom" in killing apostates. And even if they had, why should that acquit Mr. Taha?
Lastly, if you can't attack the ARGUMENT, don't try to attack the ARGUER - unless it exposes some flaw in the ARGUMENT. It doesn't advance your case, if you had any, in any way. Quite frankly, I don't see how your Jew bashing has even remotely contributed positively to the discussion here, which I believe, is about the ways the community at HARVARD should deal with controversial statements of a Harvard Islamic Chaplain. There's absolutely no point in referring to cases of Jewish apostates being killed in Israel. Please try to understand the SCOPE of this discussion.
Frankly, I don't want to continue this discussion further. It has gone way off track - to shameless mudslinging.
Regarding your question: "As far as I can see, the slurs being used in this thread like "sand people", "Muzzy", and "bigot Christian dumbfuck" are not matched by any such slurs against members of the other Abrahamic faith. What does that suggest to you?"
I don't think a handful of slurs outweighs the pages of attacks on Jews. You and ThorsProvoni did quite a well job at balancing our slurs. But maybe you overdid it.
Greta
· 8 months ago
Here is your paragraph, oaftab, I'll let people decide whether you were speaking "from the point of view of muslims" after the first sentence. And I find it incredible (really) that you think the use of slurs by so many commenters here is no problem.
oaftab said: "And from the point of view of Muslims, the hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 340 in drone attacks in Pakistan, were all killed by Christians. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq!? Because he was a bigot Christian dumbfuck. And if you actually bought his WMD argument, you are the single biggest idiot on Earth.
So it's not Islam that's at fault. People would use any f-ing excuse to kill people. From non-existent Gods, to non-existent WMDs. "
Besides, where do you get off putting the words "bigot Christian dumbfuck" in the mouths of muslims? Do you actually believe this is what muslims think? I think most muslims know a whole lot better than that what the war against them is about.
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
Greta,
Well. OK. Some Muslims believe that the War against Iraq was religiously motivated. How does that sound now?
But a question (divided into parts) to you: How do the al-Qaeda, Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban recruit soldiers? What message do the the militants leave whenever they behead someone? Aren't they Muslims? Don't they think the West is at war against Islam? And don't they think the Christians and Jews have united in war against them!?
There's a reason why Obama has had to publicly say that USA is not in a war against Islam. And the reason is this very common public perception in Muslim countries.
Now I do not know the Arabic equivalent of "bigot Christian dumbfuck", but I am pretty darn sure someone in al-Qaeda must have said that! I agree I can't back this up, but if I find some video with subtitles, I'll let you know.
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
For some reason this page has expired, but the headline should be enough:
"oaftab: For some reason this page has expired, but the headline should be enough" Poll: Muslims think U.S. wants to weaken Islam Few believe war on terrorism is intended to protect the U.S.
What part of this says "bigot Christian dumbfuck"? Besides, my original point was that YOU were calling Bush a BCD, then tried to cover by saying you were speaking from the point of view of muslims...
To save your time:- "Interestingly, among the overwhelming majority of Muslims, their views were driven less by a hatred of the West than a perception that the West hates them. Only 17 per cent said the West "respects" Islam. "
Greta
· 8 months ago
oaftab says: To save your time:- "Interestingly, among the overwhelming majority of Muslims, their views were driven less by a hatred of the West than a perception that the West hates them. Only 17 per cent said the West "respects" Islam. "
What part of THAT says "bigot Christian dumbfuck"? Just admit it oaftab--YOU were calling Bush a "bigot Christian dumbfuck." I certainly can't blame muslims for thinking "the west hates them", but that doesn't mean "the west hates them." "The west" is being lied to about them for which reason the people of the west appear to hate them. But in reality it's one huge global misunderstanding.
West: Oh wait, so you're NOT conspiring to destroy us? Islam: NO! Who the hell told you that? West: Well, uh... Islam: So you thought we were conspiring to destroy you? No wonder you hate us! West: I feel like such a fool--I'm so sorry!! I'll stop the bombing right away! Islam: I bet that will make it much easier for us to marginalize the extremists in our midst, thanks! West: That would be lovely, thanks. You know, maybe those "9/11 truthers" WEREN'T all America-hating moonbats after all... [soul searching ensues]
Bishop Jackson
· 8 months ago
For a so called "peaceful religion", I hear a great deal of fear from the Muslims who are willing to comment on the Chaplain's email. I am sure that the very "tolerant' Harvard community will find a way to justify and accept the remarks. Its much more convenient to attack Christians because we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Muslims seem to have another way of dealing with their enemies. Hope the love affair with radical Islamic thinking all works out. Bishop Jackson
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
For Greta only:
Here's the al-Qaeda video with English subtitles that I promised:
OOoo, nothing like Rick Astley in the morning! Thanks oaftab. BTW, let's pretend you actually HAD posted a link to an al Qaeda video--do you think maybe--just maybe--those videos might be produced by... someone ... precisely to build up the *myth* of "al Qaeda"?
Greta
· 8 months ago
For oaftab:
The problem with regarding all these "al Qaeda" videos as legitimate and constituting what amount to "confessions" of guilt is that there is no way to verify whether they are genuine. Imagine if people said "of course there's a global Jewish conspiracy--they confessed to it all in the Protocols!" Would we take that seriously? A forgery! we would say. And yet when people point out some video of "jihadis" training on monkey bars as proof of the existence and nature of "al Qaeda", the burden of proof never seems to fall on them to show that these aren't just propaganda designed to villify arabs and muslims. So in that spirit... enjoy this confession of the genuine nature of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! No need to investigate, they've confessed!! :)
Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the al-Qaeda isn't a myth. If Osama bin Laden did not exist, or was not anti-USA, Pakistan would have been the first country to point that out, since Pakistan had maintained contacts with OBL until at least 1993, and after the Sept 11 attacks, a Pakistani journalist even met him. Why would it have been in Pakistan's interest to point that out? Because Pakistan doesn't like the idea of US Army on it's borders - with the potential of intelligence gathering by USA of its nuclear sites and projects - which is not something Pakistan would want.
ThorsProvoni
· 8 months ago
Dear Oaftab,
If the thinking of one religious group at Harvard is to be policed, they all must be.
I have attended talks at Harvard Hillel where Jewish racists like Yossi Klein Halevy, David Makovsky, and Rabbi Forman of Rabbis for Human Rights all implicitly or explicitly justified ethnic cleansing and mass killing. Rabbi Forman was in fact the most explicit and the most disturbing.
I am sure that an interrogation of Rabbi Zarchi of the Chabad House would be most enlightening.
In any case, I have reread Taha Abdul Basser's comment. He simply was not endorsing the killing of apostates. He said there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.”
It is the same position of orthodox Judaism with regard to the killing of apostates from Judaism with the qualification that there is more uniformity among Jewish sages than among their Muslims counterparts.
Taha's skepticism about Human Rights discourse is completely justified, for the Gay International (what has been called Umgeschlechtungsbewegung in German) is a tool for demonizing Arab and Islamic culture for not practicing homoeroticism exactly as Western Gay activists think it should be practiced while SaveDarfur is simply a vehicle for genocidal Jewish Zionists to distract from Zionist crimes.
Columbia Professor Mahmoud Mamdani argues persuasively in Saviors and Survivors that R2P "is a right to punish but without being held accountable--a clarion call for the recolonization of 'failed' states in Africa. In its present form, the call for justice is really a slogan that masks a big power agenda to recolonize Africa."
I attended a talk by Muslim Apostate Nonie Darwish at BC. It was sponsored by the Center for Christian Jewish Learning, and Rabbi Ruth Langer appears to have issued the invitation to Darwish..
It was from beginning to end a rant that Israel and the USA should kill more Muslims as in fact both countries did do thanks to manipulations of Jewish Zionist Neocons acting as a Jewish special interest (see Heilbrunn's They Knew They Were Right).
Under Nuremberg Law, a lot of Neocons and their panderers should be arrested, charged, tried and executed for the massive slaughter created by the Bush administration.
While the Muslim apostate Emily Ruete (Princess Salme, 1844-1924) was welcomed with affection when she returned to Zanzibar, Nonie Darwish fits the profile of someone who probably deserves to be executed either under Islamic law or Western Nuremberg Law, which would almost certainly have executed Goebbels. (Otto Dietrich was sentenced to seven years imprisonment).
Anyway here is Ruete's description of the greeting she received.
When I arrived at Zanzibar I was doubtful of the reception I should meet with there, but confident, too, that my brother would not delay in carrying out the expressed wishes of Germany, and I was not mistaken. He would, at all events, out of respect for Germany, tolerate me. But the bad treatment that my other brothers and sisters had experienced at his hands could hardly lead me to expect any friendly advances on his part; and, as for the rest of the inhabitants, it gives me the greatest pleasure to state that they gave me tokens of their kindly feelings only. Arabs, Hindoos, Banyans, and natives repeatedly entreated me to remain in Zanzibar for good, which could only strengthen my belief that there was no religious aversion felt to me. One day I met two Arabs, with whom I entered into conversation. Hearing from a third person that they were relations of mine -- I had not recognized them -- I told them afterwards. I should not have addressed them had I been aware of this, as I knew my relations were not all inclined to be friends with me. But they both replied at once that, whatever happened, they could never forget that I was the daughter of my father. And when I touched upon the religious question, one of them said "this fate had been destined to me from the beginning of the world." "The God who has served you and us from our home is the same God whom all men adore and revere. His mighty will has brought you back to us, and we all rejoice at it. And now you and your children will stay with us henceforth, will you not?"
Proofs of affection and love like these, and the deep and indescribable joy of beholding my native land once more, will always associate that voyage with some of the sweetest hours of my life.
But an hour for parting came at last and found me oh! so loath to say a long farewell once more to the few but very dear friends I had still. They fully shared my grief, and perhaps I could convey its expression best to my readers, and thereby put a fitting close to my book, by giving the English rendering of a letter that they jointly sent to me after I had reached Germany again. But its sweet tenderness and originality I cannot reproduce: --
You went from us without a word at parting; This has torn my heart, and filled my soul with sorrow. O! that I had clung to your neck when you departed hence, You might have sat on my head, and walked on my eyes!
You live in my heart, and when you went You poured grief into my soul such as I ne'er felt before; My body is wasted, and my tears fall fast One after one down my cheek like the waves of the sea.
O Lord of the universe, let us meet again ere we die! Be it only one single day before death. If we live, we meet again; When we are dead, the Immortal One remains!
O! that I were a bird to soar to thee on wings of love; But how can the bird soar whose wings are clipped?
Finn
· 8 months ago
"I strongly believe that Taha should be asked to resign. I also believe that Islam should not be tarnished because of Taha's statements (my reply to Finn)." -- oaftab
Islam tarnishes itself, in case you haven't noticed. Remember 9/11? How about Mumbai? In addition, all of the many 21st century Jihads in-between, in which tens of thousands of innocent non-Moslems have been murdered and mass-murdered in the name of "allah," their pre-Islamic pagan moon god that doesn't exist.
However, aside from tarnishing itself, Islam SHOULD be condemned by others because it's core tenet is Jihad - Subjugate or kill everyone not Islamic. Oh yeah - that rotten evil belief SHOULD be tarnished and condemned. Hitler and Mohamet have the same birthday - April 20. No coincidence there. They are one and the same.
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
Greta,
HAHA HA! Nice! Thanks for sharing this! Best thing for the morning! (morning here)
ThorsProvoni,
I absolutely agree with with you. If a representative of any religious organization at Harvard finds 'great wisdom', or by use of any other words endorses killing of people (frankly, I don't see how finding 'great wisdom' is not an endorsement - I am not saying he 'advocates' killing, but 'endorses' it), then he/she should be asked to resign. I am glad you have cited examples of representatives of religions at Harvard (at Hillel, though I am still not sure whether they were guest lecturers or actual appointees), rather than elsewhere. Certainly very worrying! Thanks for sharing this piece of information!
ThorsProvoni
· 8 months ago
Since Oaftab clearly does not understand the meanings of basic English, it is probably pointless to discuss the subject in detail with him, but it should be possible to clarify this particular issue.
One can certainly believe that there is great wisdom in the Bible without endorsing it.
After all the Bible contains lots of horrendous stuff:
genocide at the command of God,
God slaughters children,
killing for desecration of the Sabbath,
etc.
Of course Christian and Jewish believers do endorse the Bible while Muslims will typically claim to revere or to venerate it without giving it the full status of a revelation equal to the Quran.
Overall Christians, Jews, and Muslim have developed hermeneutic systems that go beyond plain meaning so that believers find wisdom in the text, but only a specific set of received interpretations are endorsed.
Thus overinterpretating the following statement from Taha is simply inappropriate.
"I would finally note that there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand."
Taha did not say:
"I would finally note that there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, I FULLY ENDORSE THAT POSITION."
After all right from the start he said:
"While I understand that will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.
"Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."
In the case of debates about religious legal systems of religions that have revealed sacred law, demanding that believers reject the religious law or the authorities that codified the religious legal system is tantamout to demanding renunciation of the religion, and the believers simply will not be browbeaten into accepting an intellectual position perceived as conflicting with their faith.
I took my first courses in Jewish studies 40 years ago, and I can safely assert that if you state to any Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi that there is great wisdom in the legal codes of Moses Maimonides, Joseph Caro or Moses Isserless, he will agree, and if you state to the same Rabbi that there is great wisdom in the established and preserved position of capital punishment for apostates as detailed in those law codes, he will either agree or refuse to comment on the ground that you are trying to incite anti-Semitism just as I argue that this thread of discussion contains much material that is an incitement to Islamophobia or to demonization of Muslims.
Modern authorities in Islam and even more so in Orthodox Judaism do not challenge the established ancient authorities. The last Jewish modern authority willing to challenge the inherited corpus of Jewish law was the Vilna Gaon, who did not go further than asserting that there was no genuine obligation for men to wear a headcovering during prayer.
Isaac Breuer, who is a more modern authority, stood in more or less the same relationship to German Orthodoxy as Franz Rosenzweig or Martin Buber played for non-Orthodox German Jews. Within the German Jewish context at the beginning of the twentieth century, Breuer plays a role rather similar to that of Tariq Ramadan among European Muslims. Here is the full passage from Mittleman that I referenced earlier. [I read the full text while I was a student at Harvard, but I do not have my own copy to quote.]
[Die Rechtsphilosophischen Grundlagen des Jüdischen und des Modernen Rechts (The Legal-Philosophical Fundamentals of Jewish and Modern Law, 1910) by Isaac Breuer] begins with a commentary on a sensational incident in the contemporary press. A German judge in a ruling concerning the divorce of two Jews who were Russian nationals determined that Jewish law was inadmissible in a German court because it ran counter to “good morals.” While the German civil code provided for a mutual right of divorce, Jewish law provides only for the husband’s right to divorce his wife. The German judge, in the case brought before him by the Jewish wife (who sought the divorce), ruled that the husband could not appeal to the principles of Jewish law to frustrate her because Jewish law entails unequal treatment of the sexes. This ruling, although later rescinded by the judge, touched off a wave of uneasiness in the Jewish community. An official declaration to the effect that Jewish law ran counter to good German morals sent tremors through both liberal and Orthodox Jewry.
Breuer found an opening in this sensation for a systematic study of the differences between Jewish and modern German law. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was not daunted by the possibility that Jewish and modern law may very well embody disjunctive moralities. Breuer is at his most characteristic in this essay. He eschews any facile, apologetic harmonization between them. In exploring this discrepancy, Breuer begins to apply some general legal-philosophical concepts to an analysis of Torah.
Breuer points out that there are indeed areas in which Jewish law diverges very considerably from modern law. Modern law is grounded in the proposition that all persons are, respecting their legal status, equal. Although positive law falls short of this norm, equality before the law is nonetheless a key normative principle, an ideal of modern law. Jewish law, on the other hand, enshrines certain fundamental inequalities. In addition to the relevant disabilities for women, the slave and the Gentile are not equal to Jewish males under Jewish law. Brueuer categorically rejects an historicist explanation for these inequalities. He affirms, on the contrary, that the whole Torah is contemporary, valid law. Torah is not a museum piece invalidated in some way by history. The legal matter of the Torah is timeless or, at least not time-bound. The assertion leads Breuer to make the bold claim that although the practice of slavery has vanished from the world, the principle of slavery must still be valid! Any jurisprudential analysis of the underlying principles of Jewish law can do no less than treat the law under the assumption of atemporal validity. Appeal to historical influences is reductionistic and methodologically intolerable.
=========================
In addition to slavery Breuer argues the timelessness of execution for apostasy and of all sorts of discrimination against women.
Breuer is for all intents and purposes the gold standard for Modern German Orthodoxy, which morphed into Modern American Orthodoxy.
Nowadays not only are Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodoxy Jewish scholars much less likely to think seriously about the philosophical issues that Breuer addressed, but they even tend to consider addressing these issues to be wrong.
Yet the Muslim and Jewish position on apostasy really is not so different from that of the US government.
Ezra Pound was indicted for treason in 1943 because he criticized Roosevelt and American war policy. One could view his crime as apostasy from Americanism to support of Italian fascism.
Today an American Jewish Zionist is at least as much a traitor as Ezra Pound. In fact because Zionism is ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism while Pound was only an apologist for Italian fascism, Jewish Zionist Americans are in many regards far more despicable than Pound, but in terms of actual actions, the average Jewish American Zionist or Ezra Pound is probably far closer to Emily Ruete (Princess Salme of Zanzibar) than to Nonie Darwish, and we Americans should be far more harsh on those Jewish American Zionists that are poisoning the American political process and ruining the American economy than on those that are reflexively supporting the State of Israel despite the fundamental incompatibility of Zionist and American ideals.
Omer Aftab
· 8 months ago
ThorsProvoni,
To be very honest I don't have the attention span to read such long comments. Good arguments don't need to be so long. In any case, if you haven't noticed, I was trying to wrap the argument up by thanking you for sharing the information. I still thank you for taking the time out to write such long comments - truly appreciate your desire to enlighten me.
Finding wisdom in a book such as the bible is different from finding wisdom in one particular injunction. Because the book may indeed have stories of wisdom, albeit a few.
Taha says, that he finds great wisdom in the established position. Which means: He thinks, it is WISE to kill apostates (though he didn't say it explicitly - but please don't insult a person's intelligence by arguing that statement 1 does NOT lead to statement 2).
Simply put, if you find great wisdom in something, you imply that it is wise to do it. Which means, he believes that the benefits of killing apostates outweighs the costs.
Now what's an endorsement? I endorse Barack Obama for Presidency. Which means that I feel, that the benefits of having Obama as the President would be greater than its costs. I don't have to campaign for him, or tell others to vote for him, but I endorse him.
So, while Taha did not ADVOCATE the killing of apostates, he certainly endorsed it.
Genuinely not looking forward to irrelevant stories and poetry.
Greta
· 8 months ago
In the spirit of wrapping things up, let me offer this short summation of my personal reflections on this issue and the comments here:
1) The issue of whether Taha's views (or University-sanctioned position) are appropriate is one that can be debated openly and people of good will can disagree--if this incident serves to spur constructive debate about the modern practice of ancient faiths that is a good thing.
2) In pursuing these questions, we must be aware of the geo-political context--one in which the demonizing of Islam as part of specific political agendas is not properly understood by the public, and used to justify atrocities against Muslims.
3) A double standard exists that seems to make it acceptable to speak of arabs and Muslims in terms that we would not find acceptable if applied to ther groups.
4) A double standard exists that singles out Islam among the three Abrahamic faiths for special scrutiny, however appropriate that scrutiny may be in terms of our modern "hegemonic human rights discourse" for all three faiths and their canons.
5) The process of pointing out these double standards especially through examples, especially from Judaism, invites accusations of bigotry against those pointing them out, despite the fact that current geo-political reality (vis a vis the role played by Zionism in the middle east) is a context outside of which current discussions (esp. critiques) of Islam are not fully understandable.
darwinnia
· 8 months ago
Invectives against Muslims and against Jews are ubiquitous on the web, e.g., see above.
But they come from trolls, not from Harvard chaplains. Or so one hopes. One can't be too sure any more, given a recent find:
1200 year-old living fossil found in Harvard Yard! He says he's a chaplain. And he says (I am not making this up), that it is wise to advocate the killing of infidels -- although he adds that here, since we're under the oppression of a democratic regime, alas we don't get to implement sharia (e.g., we don't get to chop off the left foot and right hand of suspected thieves).
These ideas are wrong and repulsive, especially since:
(a) This is not A.D. 800. E.g., over the past several centuries we have come to realize that women and men have the same rights, not more, not less.
(b) HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Muslims, our fellow women and men human beings, are held hostage to sharia laws, against their own choice, in many areas of the world.
And as we speak, Taliban forces have advanced to within 60 miles of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, a country with a 160 million pop. (and with known history of PROLIFERATING nuclear arms to other authoritarian and unstable regimes - but I digress).
I have Pakistani Muslim friends of the family, living in the Multan area. I know about the intimidations they have been enduring. They don't want this, but they are powerless against the local sharia thugs and bullies.
It is absurd to pretend that forced marriages, the stoning to death of eloping couples, etc., should be an acceptable vision of JUSTICE AND GOOD WILL ON EARTH. This is a repulsive vision from a 3-DIGIT year. Sharia killngs are NOT "wise."
m
· 8 months ago
I disagree entirely on #4. What do you think would happen if a Christian Div School professor said that the stoning of adultresses was not to be dismissed outright?
Greta
· 8 months ago
"I disagree entirely on #4. What do you think would happen if a Christian Div School professor said that the stoning of adultresses was not to be dismissed outright?"
Well, I for one would point out to said professor that Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which was among the teachings that made the "New Testament" new.
m
· 8 months ago
Scarier than his comments on the death penalty is his stated opposition to debating religious issues. From his email:
"While I understand that [sic] will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.
Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."
"While I understand that [sic] will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.
Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."
The Ottoman State, in which Sharia jurisprudence was most highly evolved, did not stone adulterers, and claims that modern Sharia courts stone adulterers never prove to be true.
Haim Gerber of Hebrew University has argued that the Ottoman legal system by the late 19th century was comparable to those of Germany or of the UK in providing the basis for a Rechtstaat.
The sort of claims that Darwinnia and M make would be comparable to a belief that Jewish courts deal with accused adulteresses by giving them bitter waters (apparently some form of poison).
In order to demonize or to marginalize Arabs and Muslims, racist Zionists have spread a tremendous amount of Islamophobic disinformatsia that has poisoned the discussion about Islamic law.
Gregory DiBella
· 7 months ago
The Salient's perspective on the issue:
(In the interests of full disclosure, I am the author of the article linked below.)
So, does this surprise anyone? All religion condones killing those outside the tribe. The Bible sanctions such kililng for Jews and Christians, which is why they have done so for 3000 and 2000 years, respectively.
The only reason that such killing has been reduced is because Christianity has been successfully de-clawed by the progress of secularism. Where no such secularism exists - like in most Muslim communities and countries - religion is free to inflict pain and suffering on people. This happens every day, every hour, and every minute in Muslim communities.
Faith is the abdication of reason, and is a powerful tool which despots, princes, priests, and charlatans will continue to wield for as long as people are ignorant and weak enough to think that it is a virtue.
darwinnia
· 7 months ago
To equate Islam with sharia is an error.
Many Muslims reject sharia, which is a post-Koranic, post-Mohammed, loose agglomerate of folk beliefs/practices.
Muslims are the V-I-C-T-I-M-S of sharia laws--Muslim women in particular, but men too.
We should pretend, out of politeness, that adultresses and gays and rape victims are never really stoned to death under sharia? This would not serve victims.
Why do Christians and Jews and many Muslims no longer kill infidels, adulterers, gays, and disobedient children, even though a deep pile of holy books told them to? Because societies have the capability to learn and evolve into something better. Forget "impermissibility of arguing" with freakazoid emperors wearing imaginary garb.
Again, to people on both sides of this issue: it is a fallacy to equate sharia with Muslims, and to equate rejection of sharia folk practices with islamophobia. Muslims have contributed plenty to civilization, but sharia isn't one of those things at this time.
Sharia laws came from old men who did the best they could and were wise for their times.........1200 years ago!!! Back then, there didn't even exist the concept of a democratic, gender-equal, diverse society.
Today there are over half a billion Muslims who do NOT want sharia and who either have succeeded in getting rid of it or are trying to.
Turkey's President Ataturk completely outlawed sharia, almost a century ago. Most Iranians don't want to be ruled by mullahs. Right now Pakistan is struggling for its life as a viable democracy.
Every society has something to teach other societies, and something to learn from others. We need to put humility and openness to new learning ahead of the need to be always right. And if we outlaw disagreement, we suppress self-improvement.
David I Lieberman
· 7 months ago
Yesterday, the BBC ran a radio story about a Hebrew-speaking Catholic church. In Israel. In Jerusalem. The church caters to the needs of Jewish converts to Catholicism. In Israel. In Jerusalem. The priest, himself a convert, regularly attends synagogue services as well. And, yes, the synagogue members know who he is. In Israel. In Jerusalem. No reports of retributive murders or corrective amputations. Just people worshipping as they see fit. In Israel. In Jerusalem.
Now, imagine an analogous church, serving the needs of Muslim converts to Catholicism in, say, Mecca. Or Tehran. Heck, imagine the *same* church, ministering to Jewish converts to Catholicism in Mecca. Or Tehran. Now ask yourself whether all the bile spewed in these comments by ThorsProvoloni amounts to anything more than an extended exercise in bigoted nonsense fueled by a spectacularly rich concoction of ignorance and contempt.
Actually, what Thors has accomplished here is to demonstrate why Jewish survival is likely to depend on the continued existence of an armed state dedicated to that end. Indeed, the intensity of his(?) modern spin on classic antisemitism is so over the top that I'm tempted to wonder if he might not be a secret Zionist agent-provocateur, flushing fellow travelers (I'm looking at you, Greta) out into the open. In any event, whether his(?) Judaeophobia is authenticated or simulated, I salute him(?) for his(?) substantive contribution to the Zionist cause.
ThorsProvoni
· 7 months ago
In his comment ( http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=5276... ) Lieberman does not refer to people, who count as converts under Jewish, but rather people, who count as tinokim shenishbaim (captured infants). In Islamic Law the similar category of people is treated practically the same as in Jewish Law, and in a Muslim environment they would probably receive sympathy and pity.
Lieberman is engaging in very typical racist Jewish Zionist distortion, hasbarah, and incitement against Muslims and Islam.
Genuine Jewish converts to Christianity are not welcome in Israel as the case of Brother Daniel demonstrates.
Far too many Israeli Jews have extremely hateful attitudes toward Christians, and it is not uncommon to see a Jew spitting on a Christian cleric in Jerusalem.
I have no doubt that genuine Jewish converts to Christianity in Israel would be treated as traitors and subjected to violence if they formed their own community and reached out to support fellow Palestinian Christians in the quest for justice in the Holy Land.
As for Jewish survival, as a greater fraction of the world population comes to understand the threat that Zionism represents to Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Americans, Gentiles and the whole world, the only hope for Jews lies in categorical denunciation of Zionism, Zionists, and the Zionist state along with renunciation of those behaviors that have made ethnic Ashkenazim a threat to non-Jews since the 1850s.
As far as I am concerned turnabout is fair play, and far too many Jews are scare-mongering paranoid delusions of the Islamic threat.
In my case I am a Harvard and Yale trained expert in Jewish studies and economics. I deal in facts and not fantasies. I provide a summary of my analysis of history and of ongoing trends in "Jewish Peril: 1933 versus 2009" ( http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/05/jewish-peril-... ).
Zionism is the greatest world historical threat ever faced by the human race.
David I Lieberman
· 7 months ago
To ThorsProvoni: I appreciate your pointing me to your blog. I see there that you seem to believe that what Kevin MacDonald has been publishing about Jews is actually science. (http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman....) That tells me about as much as I need to know about you -- particularly with respect to your claim that "I deal in facts not fantasies."
David I Lieberman
· 7 months ago
ThorsProvoni: "In his comment ( http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=5276... ) Lieberman does not refer to people, who count as converts under Jewish, but rather people, who count as tinokim shenishbaim (captured infants)."
Wrong. These are adult Jewish converts to Catholicism. That's why the services are in Hebrew. Get your facts straight.
ThorsProvoni: "I have no doubt that genuine Jewish converts to Christianity in Israel would be treated as traitors and subjected to violence if they formed their own community and reached out to support fellow Palestinian Christians in the quest for justice in the Holy Land."
A long sequence of events in this passage, a hypothetical path from conversion by choice to political activism which you treat as though it were a logical necessity. There are genuine Jewish converts to Christianity. That they can and do choose to retain a sense of Jewish identity even as they practice their chosen faith simply doesn't compute with you, does it?
Again -- thanks for the (apparently unintended) confirmation that the compelling need for a Jewish state continues unabated.
All Comments
(1) Who hired him, and based on what qualifications that made him appear suitable as a chaplain at a high-quality and pluralistic university? Can't HU do better than that, both in hiring and in admissions to its graduate programs?
(2) Anyhow, why would a 21st Century university aid and abet ignorance and crazy superstitions by granting degrees in Santa Claus Studies, er, Religion?
(2) Why are Muslim students living in fear of disclosing that they disagree with this imam's insane hate speech? This is a free society.
(3) Pointing out that there exist others on the planet, who do bad things, is making the above imam look less bad, how???
Next time someone drives drunk, or robs a bank, or bullies a classmate, we are supposed to condone it, because there exist others who do that too???
No.
One would hope that if any chaplain or even any student, of any religion, were to claim that it is WISE TO KILL APOSTATES TO [THEIR ONE TRUE FAVORITE RELIGION], this would occasion very serious University-wide reflection as to the reasons why the "modern human rights discourse" indeed does deserve "hegemony." Thanks to the "hegemony" of democracy and the separation of church and state, all people, including women and minorities, can live as free equals under the law.
Calling his comments "misinterpreted" and "misconstrued" is a genuinely bad attempt at covering up, besides being an insult to the intelligence of a reader. His "immeasurable contributions" are irrelevant here - good deeds don't earn you a ticket for a misdeed.
More importantly though, I am inclined to wonder why the students were curious about killing apostates in the first place. Does one really need an advice or counseling session about the ways to deal with apostates!? And all they have to seek advice from is someone who calls "debating about religious matter" as "impermissible, in general"!?
There was a discussion about human rights in Islam (in the context of a recent decision by the UN Human Rights Council) and specifically the treatment of apostates from Islam. No one was "curious about killing apostates" -- please don't be ridiculous -- people were curious about what Islam said about apostasy. Such curiosity is not an automatic approval of what Islam (or even just the chaplain) says about the matter or a desire to implement it.
Unfortumately this is truly irrational thinking, so peculiar to the western mind. Only a Muslim can understand the true meaning of the chaplain's words. Hopefully the Harvard dons know their place and will bring in an excellent mediator such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations to educate the ignorant.
The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.” Al-Bukhary (number 6922)
So I don't think it's fair to blame him for correctly interpreting the commands of his religion. Instead, we ought to ask whether we ought to allow such a religion to have any legality in a democratic and human right-respecting society like ours.
Two weeks have passed, and Taha has never clarified his remarks. What is his opinion now? Is it, after all, not the "established and preserved" opinion? Is there no "wisdom" in it? Is it possible to feel "uncomfortable" for reasons other than the "hegemonic human rights discourse"? And what if tomorrow the US had an Islamic government, would it be advisable to execute apostates or not?
Repeat 100 times. Then report to re-education center.
Instead, I'd worry about why Muslim students who disagree with that bag'o'nuts are feeling afraid to speak their minds. Whom are they afraid of, and why??? This is the real problem: sane and sensible Muslims afraid to confront evil.
As one who once purchased a magazine (high-toned, no pictures) with the name, Harvard, on the cover, I fancy myself a member of the Harvard community, too, like from the suburbs. But I am with you. I think we should turn the chaplain over to the Dean of Thought. I forget her name, but President Summers will know.
what did the individual mean by "serious conflict" come to bodily harm or what? and here I thought it was the Religion of Peace.
as others have noted the members of ROP have requested anonymity, but if you read an article complaining about the Catholic church dissenters can't wait to get their names in print
Wonder when CAIR will jump to claim that Harvard somehow violated the civil and religious rights of the imam/chaplain
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him"
Read for yourself at http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagem...
The Imam's comments seemed pretty right-wing militant Islam to me....
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058758.html
Or to remind those who may have forgotten of U.S. Army General William Boykin who likened the war on terror to a holy war against idolaters (muslims).
Those of us who would like to see all religions become more tolerant of others cannot single out the ones that we don't like for criticism.
Many "hadith" advocate capital punishment for apostates, and Quranic verses such as Chapter 8 Verse 12 commands beheading for apostates.
He was asked a question about Islam, he answered a question about Islam. He wasn't asked his opinion.
I am opposed to censoring or getting rid of the chaplain. He is a useful teaching object, and the debate that he is engendering about his views and his religion is a good thing.
QURAN 2.256: Let there be no compulsion in religion.
QURAN 10.99: If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!
Of course, the recorded position is distasteful to our modern sensibilities and incompatible with universal human rights. But so are much of other pre-modern legal codes, one example being orthodox Jewish law.
I think it is true that these Western Muslims try to create what they think Islam aught to be -
If you say to them - apostates are killed in Islam - they would give you an emotional heart wrenching No! - That's not the 'true' Islam.
The shock of what Islam is and how it is practised in the Islamic world - would disappoint - most Western converts - who essentially create an Islamic construct - like a virtu-real Islam to suit their Western needs and to justify or give reason to others for their joining.
First cousin marriages within Islam - is a shock.
The total marginalization of women - except with special permission - are women allowed - limited chaperoned freedom - is shocking -
Especially when you are a western woman travelling alone - through an Islamic country (or two) - it really hits home - the reality of women in the Islamic world - and this is further enforced by how you - are treated - as a woman out of the traditional fixed role -
After seeing the Islamic world - politically correct - in the West - is hard to swallow.
The reason Westerners believe the politically correct - because it is more comfortable to believe than the reality streaming in to us everyday of treatment of religious minorities, women and even apostates from Islam - in the Islamic world.
We are creating our own fantasy of the reality of Islam - when the truth is most in the Islamic world - are not even aware of how Westerners view their treatment of women, minorities and so on - most are not aware that we are upset - by these things.
Like someone told me - in a 'moderate' Muslim country - when a man divorces his wife - he can kick her on to the street - in the middle of the night - with her children. This is the norm - so much so the person thought it was funny - and that it showed men were powerful.
We are dreaming in the West - with our rights and freedoms !!
As for one commenter's asking why critics of the guy remain anonymous, it is most likely because of the understandable fear of violent retaliation against critics of Islam or Islamic preachers AND the desire to avoid the wrath of those who think any criticism of Islam is off-limits in terms of what is politically correct.
Finally, it cannot be altogether surprising that some Muslims would have this view, given that some Hadith sanction it AND in addition 1,000+ yrs of Islamic practice have shown it to be widespread. For Current examples, see, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran.
If yes, he should be fired.
(Of course he wants sharia law)
http://www.macaudailytimesnews.com/index.php?op...
who cares!!!!!!!!!! cleared of what??????????? not murdered anyone?????? he still thinks that he is right and it's about time we face it - no matter where they are - on a street, in their homes or in Havard - those hardliners have to be confronted and there is no excuse for that kind of behaviour!!!!!
08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
08.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
08.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).
08.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def. 08.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).
Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, 595-96.
For those attempting to mitigate the Islamic penalty for apostasy, while also attempting to make Islam sound more serene and civil than it really is, Islam's own official statements on the subject clearly paint a different picture.
QURAN 2.256: Let there be no compulsion in religion.
QURAN 10.99: If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!
Of course, the recorded position is distasteful to our modern sensibilities and universal human rights. But so are much of other pre-modern legal codes. One example is orthodox Jewish law.
In contemporary times, a considerable number of Muslim scholars and Muslim organizations have stated that they do not agree with the classical majority position and hold that it is contrary to both the Quran and recorded Prophetic practice.
If you have to wonder about it, you are probably doing it wrong.
I addressed this issue previously in the context of Luttwak's ridiculous NY Times Obama-apostacy op-ed in
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/06/executing-apo...
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/06/followup-exec...
In general, Jewish Law (Halakhah) differs little from Islamic Law (Sharia) on the subject of apostacy with the qualification that I know of no question among Jewish legal authorities that Jewish apostates are liable to death.
In addition we should all remember that Roman Catholics have executed numerous apostates and heretics since the Roman Empire became Christian. The Roman Catholic church exterminated the Cathars.
It is also probably worthwhile to mention
1. that Orthodox Judaism treats sexual intercourse between Jews and non-Jews as a bestiality and
2. that the Tanya asserts that that non-Jews lack fully human souls.
The Tanya is practically a sacred text for Lubovitchers, who have an official organization on Harvard campus.
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/12/gentiles-less...
Take a look at http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/05/honor-killing... , and note the length of time period over which the NY Times suppressed the religious details.
Yet I will grant that the Jewish community is no longer united by at least lip service to a religious legal system but form more of a global network of trust based on a commitment to Zionist ethnic monism or at least ethnic fundamentalism.
The 80% support among American Jews and 96% support among Israeli Jews for the IDF rampage in Gaza in which something like 1300 people were snuffed out is far more disturbing to me than Taha Abdul-Basser's discussion of the execution of apostates in Islam.
Abdul-Basser is an honest man willing to grapple with a difficult issue honestly.
He should be contrasted with Rabbi Sanford Seltzer of the ICPL: http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/03/long-version-... .
There are a few Jews like Dana Goldstein ( http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/04/dana-goldstei... ) of Phil Weiss '77 ( http://www.philipweiss.org ) willing to open up a discussion of Jewish finance aggressiveness, extremism, racism, violence, murderousness, and genocidalism, but far too many try to distract the public from serious questions about Jewish behavior by inciting Islamophobia.
"Oh - I see - comments here at Harvard require "approval" by a Moderator - a PC Moderator most probably, which means my comment will not be printed. But, I'm glad to see such enlightened comments above as "Harvard has progressed to become a diversity of global trash" --Sara. Exactly, Sara. Trash. 7th century AD Islamic Barbarian Trash and their Trash Political Mass-Murder Ideology called "Islam." A "blight on the world," as a Commenter above put it. Stop mass-murdering people, you 7th century AD Barbarians.
Why are you people tolerating an Islamic Barbarian? Have you gone nuts?
Islam is nothing but 7th century AD Fascism/Nazism. It's a mass-murder ideology - haven't you read the "Mein Qurampf?"
Idiotic political correctness is destroying Harvard. Newsflash: It's Mohammedans who are the bigots and racists - READ THE BIGOTED/RACIST Koran. Islam hates Jews and Christians - "Infidels" - and everyone else on the planet that's not a Moslem. Just how uninformed about Islam are you people???
Remember the Islamic Jihad of September 11, 2001, and all of the other thousands of Islamic mass-murdering Jihads since. Islam is Hate-Of-All-Others - don't you know that's the core tenet of Islam - Hate? don't you know that? Good God - get smart and informed, Harvard PC MoonBats.
The Islamic Barbarian subject of this article worships a non-existent Arabian pagan moon deity that commands the mass-murder of all "Infidels" in the Koran, courtesy fraud "prophet" Mo. How smart is that - NOT. He's a brainwashed zombie. STOP TOLERATING THE INTOLERANT, HARVARD. OH, AND BRAVO FREEDOM OF SPEECH - AMERICAN FREEDOM OF SPEECH. There is no free speech in Islam - don't you know that??? Hello - any neurons firing at Harvard regarding Islam?"
Hey tomanderson - don't you know that's an ABROGATED MECCAN VERSE?
Don't you know about the "Doctrine of Abrogation" in Islam? That means that the above peaceful Meccan verse is SUPERSEDED by the later Medinan "Verses of the Sword." Hello - don't you know that? No, because you're completely ignorant about Islam, just like all of the Crimson "Moderators."
The above quoted verse MEANS NOTHING - as it was replaced by the "Kill the Infidels" Medinan verses. Man, you are dumb. Or, rather, ignorant - a PC Moonbat with his head in the sand about Barbaric Mass-Murdering Islam.
An Abrogated early Meccan verse SUPERSEDED by the later Medinan "Verses of the Sword," i.e. "Kill the Infidels and Unbelievers."
So, tomanderson - THAT VERSE DOESN'T COUNT ANYMORE - IT'S ABROGATED. Look up the "Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation." Learn something about Islam, why don't you?
There are no Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists mass-murdering people in the 21st century. Only Muslims. Only Muslims. Only Muslims.
Capische? Haven't you noticed? That's because they follow a mass-murder ideology that hasn't evolved since the 7th century AD. HELLO? HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED???
One thing that all should agree to is the understanding that the Ten Commandments as received by Moses constitute one of the founding documents of all three faiths. I therefore refer you to Exodus 20:13, which states, Thou Shalt Not Kill. Although a more proper translation of this from the original Hebrew could be, thou shall not murder. While some may wonder at the difference between the two phrases the difference is a subtle one. Killing is an all encompassing word indicating the taking of life under all circumstances. Murder on the other hand specifies a particular act of unlawful killing with the circumstances of premeditation or callous indifference.
Although I know of no circumstance in which Jesus commands or even advocates the killing of anyone, it is not to be denied that the Catholic church has authorized, advocated and offered thanks for the killing of other Christians. The killing of the Wallisians and the Cathars come to mind. However such killings, by the modern Roman Catholic church are condemned. At this point in time no Christian denomination that I am aware of, other than some of the fundamentalist sects of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, advocate the killing of apostates. In fact, if one were to look at what the founder of the religion, Christ himself, taught, the worst punishment is (Mark 6:11) “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
So for apostasy in Christianity the punishment is a light dusting in this life to be followed by punishment in the next.
I am also unaware of any punishment currently advocated by followers of Judaism for those that choose to leave their religion.
The same cannot be said for Islam and shraria law. The unlawful killing of apostates, adulterers, and under the Taliban alcoholics, homosexuals, musicians and kite flyers, is encouraged. The actions of the followers of Islam in the Maalot massacre should be condemned, but are instead applauded and held up as an example. For those of you that don’t remember this is where the followers of Mohammed killed 22 Israeli high school students, aged between 14 and 16, after killing two Arab women, a Jewish man, his pregnant wife and their 4 year old son.
Since then tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, have been murdered in the name of Islam. To my memory no Jew has murdered another Jew with the blessing of his rabbi in the 20th or 21st century. To my knowledge, in the past 120 years or so, no catholic priest has authorized the murder of a lapsed catholic. I am unaware of a Christian minister, who follows the true faith as expressed in the bible, of condoning, let alone ordering, the killing of another Christian in this or the previous century. However, the instances of “honor killings”, killings of apostates, killing of Christians and Jews just because of their religion, are too numerous to count.
That a member of the Harvard community would in any way find it a “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.”, is an abomination. The condoning of killing another person for his or her religious beliefs is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. Mr. Abdul-Basser is expressing a belief that should be as acceptable to Harvard as having an on staff Nazi to advise the racist faction of the community.
His continued affiliation with Harvard is a disgrace. The fact that there are those in the Islamic community that would threaten physical harm to those who disagree with their fascistic beliefs is further proof, should any be needed, that the time has come for this to end.
Elimination is as necessary to the health of the body as assimilation. It is far beyond the time to take this cancerous, hateful belief system and remove it from civil society. You may hold whatever beliefs you want sir, but you cannot do so without consequences when you attempt to impose them on those who choose not to follow you. And when you advocate or defend the killing of those who disagree with your religion, then you go too far. You become a fascist, and have no place here.
Theophilous exculpates Jews simply because nowadays they tend to be ethnic fundamentalist (like German Nazis) or ethnic monist (worse than German Nazis) and not religious and because at the beginning of the 20th century they tended to be Bolshevik and not religious.
Please take a look at The Pattern of Ethnic Ashkenazi Genocidalism -- http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/02/pattern-of-et... .
Qualitatively and quantitatively it would be hard to identify a more murderous population that modern Jewry.
In any case, people, who live in a stolen country, almost invariably on stolen property and often in stolen homes have no right to expect peace and security.
Nuremberg Law, which is part of international law, is quite clear that Palestinians have the right to attack Zionists anywhere.
Jews, who do not want to be hated, must categorically oppose Zionism, demand the abolition of the Zionist state, and forcefully advocate the arrest of Zionists for crimes against humanity.
Practically all Jews expect non-Jews to show acknowledgment, to take responsibility, and to express remorse for anti-Jewish crimes that have arisen from non-Jewish politics. Yet far too many Jews hypocritically refuse acknowledgment, responsibility, and remorse for worse crimes that have grown out of Jewish politics.
It is time for an honest discussion of the 80% of American Jews that supported the IDF rampage in Gaza, and this attack on Taha Abdul-Basser is a typical David Project Israel advocacy distraction tactic.
There are some sick bigots among the Harvard faculty and staff, but they certainly do not include Taha Abdul-Basser, and the most extreme are Jewish. See Wisse Kokht Kugl mit Khazershmaltz! -- http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/03/wisse-kokht-k... .
"...people, who live in a stolen country, almost invariably on stolen property..."
It is true that Muslims generally take religious law more seriously than other faiths with legal traditions. We also by and large have not come to terms with modernity and the fact that the social context in which much of Islamic law was developed simply does not exist any more. Even then, most issues are not agreed upon and one can easily find a wealth of evidence and legal opinions that hold contrary positions.
Unfortunately, I do think that "Islamic" Law in the Muslim world today has become a somewhat mobbish affair devoid of even a semblance of scholarship, due process, and justice. It has been largely reduced, especially in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, to a war on women and the trivial joys of life. Most of the time, it doesn't even have a basis in any form of Islam (the recent murders of an Afghani couple hoping to get married comes to mind).
And God knows best.
It is true that Muslims generally take religious law more seriously than other faiths with legal traditions. We also by and large have not come to terms with modernity and the fact that the social context in which much of Islamic law was developed simply does not exist any more. Even then, most issues are not agreed upon and one can easily find a wealth of evidence and legal opinions that hold contrary positions.
Unfortunately, I do think that "Islamic" Law in the Muslim world today has become a somewhat mobbish affair devoid of even a semblance of scholarship, due process, and justice. It has been largely reduced, especially in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, to a war on women and the trivial joys of life. Most of the time, it doesn't even have a basis in any form of Islam (the recent murders of an Afghani couple hoping to get married comes to mind).
And God knows best.
CHILL OUT! Your hatred of PC-ness doesn't justify a distortion of facts. Nothing in fact does.
"There are no Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists mass-murdering people in the 21st century. Only Muslims. Only Muslims. Only Muslims."
What world are you living in!? How could you be so utterly ignorant and make these bold claims with so much confidence!?
WTF is happening in Palestine!? 1300 civilians killed in a week! Isn't that mass murder!? Try reading up on the Gujarat riots (2001) in India. 5000 Muslims killed by Hindus! WTF would you call that!? Who are responsible for the genocide in Sudan? Muslims!? (hint: the answer is negative)
And from the point of view of Muslims, the hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 340 in drone attacks in Pakistan, were all killed by Christians. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq!? Because he was a bigot Christian dumbfuck. And if you actually bought his WMD argument, you are the single biggest idiot on Earth.
So it's not Islam that's at fault. People would use any f-ing excuse to kill people. From non-existent Gods, to non-existent WMDs.
You must also realize that Islamic extremists, in particular the Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, were all created by the CIA to fight off the Soviets. ISLAMIC EXTREMISM WAS NON-EXISTENT IN THE 20TH CENTURY BEFORE THE 1980s. Now it's a loose dog gone wild and biting back.
I thoroughly condemn the comments of the Islamic Chaplain. And would request the Islamic community to call for his removal.
But his remarks certainly do not call for such an angry rant. Especially one that lacks breadth of vision, and has the potential to offend countless people at Harvard. Not all Muslims follow Islam to the core. Not all Muslims interpret the Quran in the same way. That's why there is this discourse.
You've called the PC ppl cowards. Well, why don't you grow some balls and use your real name?
I do not hate muslams, I just despise their belief system.
Hindus dead:254
muslam dead: 790
You seem to have a lot of anger built up, a sucide vest would really let you release that pent up venum you are so full of.
You have a mistaken understanding of the origins of Arab Jihadism especially its al-Qaeda incarnation -- see http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/03/long-version-... .
As for removing Taha Abdul-Basser, the essense of being religions in Abrahamic sense requires:
1. one considers the most important relationship in one's life to be that between oneself and God and
2. one accept one's own religious tradition.
Taha Abdul-Basser's position differs in no meaningful way from that of Isaac Breuer, who is the gold standard for modern Jewish Orthodoxy.
See http://www.eaazi.org/ThorsProvoni/JudoniaComple... .
Note that unlike Breuer, who fully accepts the corpus of halakhic capital punishments and slavery, Abdul-Basser states "there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment)" but does not say "I agree with the great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment)."
In any case, the similarity in reasoning of Breuer and of modern Islamic scholars like Tariq Ramadan opens the question of the excessive scrutiny of Islam when
1. so many Jews are engaged in mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in the ME while
2. far too many Jews are involved in destroying the US economic and financial system (see http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/04/chop-shop-eco... ) rather in the same way that
3. Russian Bolshevik Ashkenazim played the major role in the overthrow of the Czarist Empire and then took the leading role in Soviet mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Obviously Jewish Zionists are trying to scare-monger a false consensus against Islam in order to manipulate the US into serving Zionist interests and in order to distract from massive Jewish Zionist crimes against humanity.
This sort of Jewish Zionist behavior has no real connection to the heritage of Orthodox Judaism, which plays absolutely no role in the religious life the vast majority of Harvard Jews for whom Jewish religion has no connection to God but instead consists of a combination of:
1. ethnic narcissism,
2. Holocaust obsession, and
3. worship of the State of Israel.
A major component of Jewish pseudoreligion is contempt for non-Jews.
See http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/03/inner-screech... .
Whenever one of these silly Islamophobic controversies is stoked by Jewish Zionists and their non-Jewish panderers, who include far too many Muslims, we have to keep in mind the long history of Jewish mendacity and religious bigotry.
See
1. http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/03/long-version-... (especially when Jewish Zionists start babbling about taqiya) and
2. http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/02/jewish-zionis... .
At the same time, the matter should not be resolved by a witch hunt, but by an examination of his statements in context. Even a qualified endorsement of death for heretics is outside the bounds of the kind of person who should hold a chaplaincy at Harvard; but I would want to see the full message to see if, for example, he was expressing someone else's views rather than his own.
What is truely shocking however, is that none of the students quoted in the article feel comfortable to be named, because they FEAR reprisals from the muslim community. What does that tell us about the value that this community has for freedom of expression, critical thinking, and yes human life itself!
Imagine, an article criticizing the the POPE for his genocidally stupid remarks on condom use in Africa. But all the catholic students quoted in the article want to remain anonymous, out of fear! This would be unacceptable, and this is also unacceptable from the islamic community.
If the islamic community is so intollerant in one of the most secular and liberal places in the US, what are their views in other places!
The injunction to kill apostates is only found in the Hadith, but not in the Quran, which tells believers to leave apostates alone.
See Al Quran, Chapter 4 (surah Nisaa) verse 137
4:137
Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth153 - God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way. (4:138) Announce thou to such hypocrites that grievous suffering awaits them.
See http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/koran/k...
The next part is a condensed version of another article on this issue.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=959...
The Sharia Law of the Ahlus Sunnah has codified the Hudood Offences which includes the offence of apostasy or irtidaa which according to them is punishable by death. Under the Hudood Punishments of the Shariah Laws an apostate or murtad must be killed.
There is no punishment for apostasy in the Quran. According to GOD and the Prophet in the Quran a person can jump into and out of belief. Here is the verse from the Quran that proves it :
Surah 4:137 ‘Surely those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, GOD will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path’.
If we believe in GOD we are guided. If we do not believe in GOD, GOD will deal with us in the Hereafter. This is what the Prophet has taught us. In the Quran there is no prescribed temporal punishment for the apostate, other than his fate rests with GOD.
Anyway this is NOT the teaching of Islam, GOD or the Prophet. GOD never revealed anything like this to the Prophet. Instead GOD and the Prophet are very clear about what to do with those who switch from belief to unbelief then back to belief and then to unbelief again.
[Surah 4.137] Surely those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, GOD will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.
One needs to be constantly alive to jump in and out of belief like this. The Quran allows this freedom of belief and disbelief but such a person who persists in disbelief will of course never be forgiven by GOD. There is no temporal punishment prescribed anywhere in the Quran for rejecting belief.
I hope you find this interesting.
Why are you dragging Jews into this? Just because some Jews have committed misdeeds, does not mean Taha Abdul-Basser should be forgiven, simply because others are worse or similar.
He wasn't answering a question objectively. He was endorsing it and praising it. He could have simply said Islam wants apostates killed. Adding that there's "great wisdom" behind this injunction was uncalled for.
I would request the readers the keep the debate focused solely on Mr Taha's comments. Please do not make this a forum for Jew-bashing. It genuinely gets boring after a while, and doesn't really fit here. Maybe when some Jewish chaplain at Harvard endorses the killing of apostates, then we could argue all this. But at the moment, bringing Jews in is unnecessary.
Could you also elaborate exactly where my understanding of Arab Jihadism is mistaken? Thanks!
It is a form of discrimination to police only the religious thinking of Muslims.
When Jews (see http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/03/harvard-jews-... ) are doing a lot if not most of the Islamophobic incitement, pointing out the similarities of contemporary and traditional Islamic and Jewish thought is a reasonable technique to identify the vacuousness of the attack on Taha Abdul-Basser and to highlight Jewish Zionist racism and hypocrisy at Harvard.
This controversy over Sharia penalties for apostacy looks like yet another Jewish Zionist effort to marginalize Muslims as incapable of taking part in civilized discourse and to demonize Islam as fundamentally different from Judeo-Christianity and intrinsically incompatible with American values even though Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as Abrahamic religions simply are not very different once we remove the Jewish Zionist Islamophobic propaganda from the discussion.
The Harvard Community has to take a long hard look at Jewish racist faculty,staff, and directors of Harvard University.
Alan Dershowitz, Ruth Wisse and many others long ago crossed the boundaries of moral turpitude, scholarly incompetence, or scholarly malfeasance that should have lead to dismissal despite tenure.
In any case, there is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of religious freedom at Harvard university. Religious leaders do not have to meet progressive Western liberal standards in order to act as chaplains or to take part in official Harvard Student organizations.
Many Christian clergy preach that anyone not believing in Christ will go to Hell. It is a rather offensive idea to non-Christians.
Rabbi Zarchi of the Chabad House could explain to you that the mere glance of a non-Jew can render certain types of wine ritually unclean.
He could probably also explain that Lubovitchers believe that non-Jews do not have fully human souls.
Several on campus religious groups have all sorts of racist ideas in their theology, but Harvard does not police creeds.
On the other hand Birthright Israel, which is a concrete expression of the racist Zionist belief that Jews have the right to plunder and murder non-Jews with impunity and which is sponsored by Hillel, is more than sufficient grounds to strip Hillel of any Harvard affiliation because it is form of open discrimination that potentially jeopardizes the status of Harvard University as an organization that can receive tax deductible contributions under IRS 501(c)(3) regulations.
Yet to tell the truth the Islamophobic incitement and other offensive Harvard Jewish behavior look like a red herring to distract from serious financial malfeasance.
As I point out in http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/04/chop-shop-eco... , corrupt Jewish social networking is pervasive in the finance industry, and this sort of corruption has thanks to Larry Summers and Bob Rubin done immense harm to Harvard. See http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/04... .
The Harvard community has to take a long hard look at the negative role that Jews at Harvard are playing at the University because of Jewish support for Zionist genocidalism, Jewish extremist racism, and Jewish conspiracy that is harming the university financially and academically.
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/12/gladwell-supp...
BTW, it is probably worthwhile to investigate why El-Erian resigned the Harvard Management Corporation. Did he begin to suspect he was being set up as the fall guy?
As for the origins of Arab Jihadism, here is the critical paragraph from http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/03/long-version-....
"Because Arab Jihadis had no interest in overthrowing 'Muslim' governments and because there was considerable overlap of their program with that of the US government and even of the Neocons, they worked in an essentially frictionless environment of International Islamic Organizations mostly headquartered In Hijaz while they traveled effortlessly throughout the world from Peshawar to Hijaz, and thence to the USA (especially Boston). While the US and Saudi governments mostly ignored them, the Afghan Mujahidin were at best uninterested in Arab jihadi help and generally considered Azzam's group to be more trouble than it was worth."
----------------------------------
The US and the Saudis supported the Mujahidin and were barely aware of the Arab jihadis until Jihadi organizations began to turn their attention to the USA.
The Pakistani Taliban is a recent development while the Afghanistani Taliban was supported by the Pakistani government and not by the USA or Saudi Arabia.
I think that in the parts of the world which are stuck in this kind of barbarism, Islam is largely to blame. It impedes social progress because of its unyielding authoritarian nature.
I think we in the West are in for a long period of increasing conflict with Islamic anachronisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Y...
Yigal Amir's thousands of sons
By Haaretz Editorial
It is no coincidence that the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies stands deserted, while on the soccer fields, the murderer is cheered and the victim is booed.
The real Rabin legacy should be sought on the soccer fields, in the classrooms, the outposts, the yeshivas, among the secular, the religious and the traditional; in fact, everywhere in the country where - according to surveys - 38 percent of the religious public view Yigal Amir as a hero.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/920701.html
Agreed that Rabin, considered an Apostate for daring to give up parts of the occupied territories, is not to be found running for his life anywhere. I'm sure that anyone here would be willing to walk around a west bank settlement wearing an "I ♥ Rabin" T-Shirt, because of their confidence in the tolerance that would be shown to them by the religious settlers there. Yep.
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--H.J.Res.104--
H.J.Res.104
One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one
Joint Resolution
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;
Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;
Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;
Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;
Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;
Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;
Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;
Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and
Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J....
What are the Noahide Laws? Here is one source:
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/...
But just like in Islam you have different interpretations of this kind of thing, so is it in Judaism. I wonder how someone like Yigal Amir would have interpreted them?
LOL, "oaftab" - you're such an idiot I won't address your various idiocies above save one: The Israelis were defending themselves against the Gazan Terrorists (there is no "Palestine") whose Constitution, created by the Islamic Terrorist group, Hamas, has as it 's primary tenet "Destroy Israel." So, you defend the Barbarians whose first goal is to "Destroy Israel," and who have been lobbing their pitiful missiles and rockets into Israel for years. What an oaf. Israel - Keep defending yourself against the Islamic Barbarians that surround you on all sides, civilized and cultured Israel! Brava!
Theophilous - Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with the two Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Christianity. Mohamed their Warlord false "prophet" - who never prophesied anything - invented Islam about 620 AD. There were no Muslims prior to that date, which is why they are never mentioned in the Bible, though thousands of other groups of people at that time are. Mohamed plagiarized from the Bible in order to give legitimacy to Islam, which he invented for personal power and material gain. Islam is a hoax. Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham, and neither does Islam have the Ten Commandments. Sorry, you're not an Abrahamic faith without the Ten Commandments. But, that aside, the stuff and nonsense that is Islam believes that everyone was once Muslim! LOL! Don't you know that Jesus and Moses and Jacob and Abraham etc were once all Muslims! LOL! That right there is above all the most ridiculous belief of this ridiculous "faith" and indicates immediately the lies they have to swallow by their Jim Jones fraud prophet in order to follow their belief system. Yes, Muslims must drink the green kool-aid of Mo! Which they do, in copious amounts, such as the absurd belief above. No, Mohammedans, Jesus was NOT once a Muslim! LOL! (Really, that belief is deserving of LOL's into Infinitude).
And, as far as "allah" goes, read the teachings of Jesus and then read the teachings of "allah." They are diametrically opposed. There are no similarities whatsoever. NO, "allah" of the Mein Qurampf is NOT the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. NOT in any way shape or form. That is a total lie, among all of the egregious lies of Mohamet.
Larry O - that was a great comment. Obviously you're savvy about Islam and haven't imbibed their green kool-aid like the PC MoonBats here.
"The fact that all who criticize Taha Abdul-Basser have to do so anonymously says all there needs to be said about Islam today. Shame on the Muslim American community for NOT demanding the dismissal of Taha Abdul-Basser, and for silencing those within its community who want a 21st century, not a 9th century champlain. No amount of screeching "islamophobia" will negate the fact that fear and loathing of Islam is created by Muslims preaching and practicing violence and intimdation." --anonymous, posted above
That's an A+ comment. Except that it's a 7th century chaplain -not as advanced as the 9th century - as Islam was invented by false prophet Mo about 620 AD. A static, un-evolved, political ideology which contains the core tenet of "Jihad" or Islamic Holy War against the "Infidel." Which is all of us, folks, including the "oaf" above. Islam doesn't give a hang about you, oaf, as you are nothing but an "Infidel" deserving of either subjugation or slaying. As "allah" commands in the Q to "slay and be slain" in my name (you know - "allah akbar") will be granted immediate "martyrdom" and the 72 virgin paradise! LOL! C'mon people - yeah, right! That's Mo the Con Man Warlord talking - there is no "allah," a pagan moon idol (sandstone, with a crescent moon carved on it's chest) from pre-Islamic times. Don't you know that the greatest honor a Muslim can achieve for him/herself is to kill themselves and others ("Infidels") in the name of Allah? Yeah, that sounds like Jesus, doesn't it? Stop drinking the green kool-aid of Islam, people. Aren't you smarter that that? I mean, this is Harvard! Get smart! When you defend Islam you are defending a mass-murder ideology like Fascism and Nazism. Do you know how stupid that makes you look?
Oh, by the way, oaf, I couldn't care less who I "offend!" Oh, the poor sensitive Mohammedans - always "offended" - oh, boo-hoo! "Whaaa! You offended me!" Well, guess what? Islam offends me every day, Mo their false prophet who says to kill me and all others non-Mohammedan like me, offends me every day. "allah" their mass-murdering commanding moon deity offends me every day. Uh Huh - "Kill the Infidels" - yeah, that offends me. The Hate/Mass-Murder Book called the Qur'an offends me every day. As Larry O said above:
"Our downfall is that we try to treat all cultures as being equal, but Islam is not equal its Dark Ages thinking at its best, or worst. Born out of rivers of blood and it has never stopped in its bloody goal to put down every religion until Islam alone is left standing. Yep....bring in Islamic Law and we will all be rounded up and slaughtered like sheep. Europe is all but finished, America will soon be alone. Conquer by the sword that's their way."
Our First Amendment, which no other country in the world possesses, DEFENDS offending, it defends mockery, it defends ridicule, it defends denigration, repudiation, and condemnation. Thank God! In totalitarian Islamic countries run by totalitarian Islam, anyone who dares to speak out against the Party Line of Orwellian Islam gets prison or death. You like that, oaf? You think that's a good system? "Defaming" Islam or Mo or the Q in Islamic countries is a death penalty crime. Incredible, isn't it? But, that's the oppressive belief system of Islam - "Believe, or else!" Uh, I don't think either Judaism or Christianity kills people who leave those faiths - in fact, no. But, Mo proclaimed 1350 years ago "If a man leave his Islamic faith, kill him." And since Islam is 100% static and un-evolved since the 7th century, Mo's proclamation still holds today! Pitiful, isn't it? No, Islam is NOT an Abrahamic faith. It's a Warlord Con Man's invention for personal power and material gain - can't you people see that? hello - any firing neurons at Harvard? I must again inquire.
Islam DESERVES to be hated. As Fascism and Nazism DESERVE to be hated. Bravo American Freedom of Speech - stop being muzzled and silenced about Islam due to political correctness and the fear of being called a "racist." Islam is not a race - it's a BELIEF SYSTEM, and as such can be examined, scrutinized, mocked, ridiculed, defamed, repudiated and condemned. So, engage in the West's tradition of Critical Inquiry, Harvard, and stop being held hostage to a Barbaric belief system. Stop being scared rabbits! Stop being PC sheep! Grow a backbone, get some cojones!
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it doesn't exist." -- Sir Salman Rushdie
"..would bring him into serious conflict with Muslim religious authorities" Why be part of a religion like that?!?!
You are awesome. Hats off!
ThorsProvoni,
Please read Darwinnia's 3rd point.
"If people who call themselves "Muslims" reject the teaching the chaplain enunciated, they should consider leaving the pseudo-religion of Islam, which is really a demonic political philosophy and not a religion at all."
"So, criticizing someone who thinks killing apostates is acceptable is not okay with the Muslim community? And they wonder why everyone is suspicious of them? "
"If this Chaplain believes in Shariah law, he should be sent off to Afghanistan immediately instead of letting him promote medieval legal codes in this free country. "
"sandpeoplesuck said
Who would have thought that a believer in violent bronze age myths would express violent bronze age opinions. Mohammedans you are a blight on the world and your reckoning is coming."
"So I don't think it's fair to blame him for correctly interpreting the commands of his religion. Instead, we ought to ask whether we ought to allow such a religion to have any legality in a democratic and human right-respecting society like ours."
And you wonder why some of us question the motives of those trying to make a mountain out of this molehill?
Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq!? Because he was a bigot Christian dumbfuck.
oaftab 1 day ago
Why are you dragging Jews into this? Just because some Jews have committed misdeeds, does not mean Taha Abdul-Basser should be forgiven, simply because others are worse or similar.
Can we either drop the posturing OR the hypocrisy? The illegal invasion of Iraq was neith masterminded nor single-handedly decided by "bigot Christian dumbfuck" George Bush. In fact:
The purpose of the unnamed intelligence unit, often described as a Pentagon "cell," was to scour reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies to find nuggets of information linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, and the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In a controversial press briefing in October 2002, a year after Wurmser's unit was established, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that a primary purpose of the unit was to cull factoids, which were then used to disparage, undermine, and contradict the CIA's reporting, which was far more cautious and nuanced than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith wanted.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie...
Only one person in the paragraph above calls himself a "Christian".
As far as I can see, the slurs being used in this thread like "sand people", "Muzzy", and "bigot Christian dumbfuck" are not matched by any such slurs against members of the other Abrahamic faith. What does that suggest to you?
Rabbi Zarchi of the Chabad House could explain to you that the mere glance of a non-Jew can render certain types of wine ritually unclean."
Wow.. apparently being offended is now equal to or worse than being killed!
Christian's may believe that those who reject Christ will go to hell, but unlike Muslims, they won't believe they have a personal right to send you there!
Besides the only reason anyone would get offended about hell is if they believed there was some truth to it (which I suspect that most secretly do).
If you only cared to read the opening sentence of my paragraph, "And from the point of view of Muslims,"...I was giving the argument of the Muslims. That's not MY point of view. I was saying, that according to the Muslims, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had religious motives - so in their point of view - it's the Christians who are mass murderers (and therefore calling Muslims as sole mass murderers on Earth is wrong - and I had cited cases of Jews, Hindus and Christians carrying out mass murders as examples).
You unfortunately have a tendency to pick sentences only selectively. I am neither posturing, nor am I a hypocrite.
I strongly believe that Taha should be asked to resign. I also believe that Islam should not be tarnished because of Taha's statements (my reply to Finn). I also think that Jews should not be dragged into this, because they have nothing to do with it. We could talk about them, if a Jewish chaplain AT HARVARD, had endorsed the killing of apostates. But that has not happened. For all the controversial comments that some Jewish professors at Harvard have made, NONE has found "great wisdom" in killing apostates. And even if they had, why should that acquit Mr. Taha?
Lastly, if you can't attack the ARGUMENT, don't try to attack the ARGUER - unless it exposes some flaw in the ARGUMENT. It doesn't advance your case, if you had any, in any way. Quite frankly, I don't see how your Jew bashing has even remotely contributed positively to the discussion here, which I believe, is about the ways the community at HARVARD should deal with controversial statements of a Harvard Islamic Chaplain. There's absolutely no point in referring to cases of Jewish apostates being killed in Israel. Please try to understand the SCOPE of this discussion.
Frankly, I don't want to continue this discussion further. It has gone way off track - to shameless mudslinging.
Regarding your question:
"As far as I can see, the slurs being used in this thread like "sand people", "Muzzy", and "bigot Christian dumbfuck" are not matched by any such slurs against members of the other Abrahamic faith. What does that suggest to you?"
I don't think a handful of slurs outweighs the pages of attacks on Jews. You and ThorsProvoni did quite a well job at balancing our slurs. But maybe you overdid it.
oaftab said:
"And from the point of view of Muslims, the hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 340 in drone attacks in Pakistan, were all killed by Christians. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq!? Because he was a bigot Christian dumbfuck. And if you actually bought his WMD argument, you are the single biggest idiot on Earth.
So it's not Islam that's at fault. People would use any f-ing excuse to kill people. From non-existent Gods, to non-existent WMDs. "
Besides, where do you get off putting the words "bigot Christian dumbfuck" in the mouths of muslims? Do you actually believe this is what muslims think? I think most muslims know a whole lot better than that what the war against them is about.
Well. OK. Some Muslims believe that the War against Iraq was religiously motivated. How does that sound now?
But a question (divided into parts) to you: How do the al-Qaeda, Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban recruit soldiers? What message do the the militants leave whenever they behead someone? Aren't they Muslims? Don't they think the West is at war against Islam? And don't they think the Christians and Jews have united in war against them!?
There's a reason why Obama has had to publicly say that USA is not in a war against Islam. And the reason is this very common public perception in Muslim countries.
Now I do not know the Arabic equivalent of "bigot Christian dumbfuck", but I am pretty darn sure someone in al-Qaeda must have said that! I agree I can't back this up, but if I find some video with subtitles, I'll let you know.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18290306/from/RS.4/
So. ON YOUR FACE GRETA!
Poll: Muslims think U.S. wants to weaken Islam
Few believe war on terrorism is intended to protect the U.S.
What part of this says "bigot Christian dumbfuck"? Besides, my original point was that YOU were calling Bush a BCD, then tried to cover by saying you were speaking from the point of view of muslims...
http://2012.tribe.net/thread/a25a453a-b19a-4af7...
(book review of "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think"
http://www.gallup.com/press/104209/Who-Speaks-I... )
To save your time:-
"Interestingly, among the overwhelming majority of Muslims, their views were driven less by a hatred of the West than a perception that the West hates them. Only 17 per cent said the West "respects" Islam. "
"Interestingly, among the overwhelming majority of Muslims, their views were driven less by a hatred of the West than a perception that the West hates them. Only 17 per cent said the West "respects" Islam. "
What part of THAT says "bigot Christian dumbfuck"? Just admit it oaftab--YOU were calling Bush a "bigot Christian dumbfuck." I certainly can't blame muslims for thinking "the west hates them", but that doesn't mean "the west hates them." "The west" is being lied to about them for which reason the people of the west appear to hate them. But in reality it's one huge global misunderstanding.
West: Oh wait, so you're NOT conspiring to destroy us?
Islam: NO! Who the hell told you that?
West: Well, uh...
Islam: So you thought we were conspiring to destroy you? No wonder you hate us!
West: I feel like such a fool--I'm so sorry!! I'll stop the bombing right away!
Islam: I bet that will make it much easier for us to marginalize the extremists in our midst, thanks!
West: That would be lovely, thanks. You know, maybe those "9/11 truthers" WEREN'T all America-hating moonbats after all...
[soul searching ensues]
Here's the al-Qaeda video with English subtitles that I promised:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
The problem with regarding all these "al Qaeda" videos as legitimate and constituting what amount to "confessions" of guilt is that there is no way to verify whether they are genuine. Imagine if people said "of course there's a global Jewish conspiracy--they confessed to it all in the Protocols!" Would we take that seriously? A forgery! we would say. And yet when people point out some video of "jihadis" training on monkey bars as proof of the existence and nature of "al Qaeda", the burden of proof never seems to fall on them to show that these aren't just propaganda designed to villify arabs and muslims. So in that spirit... enjoy this confession of the genuine nature of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! No need to investigate, they've confessed!! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XrRyqses5U
Why would it have been in Pakistan's interest to point that out? Because Pakistan doesn't like the idea of US Army on it's borders - with the potential of intelligence gathering by USA of its nuclear sites and projects - which is not something Pakistan would want.
If the thinking of one religious group at Harvard is to be policed, they all must be.
I have attended talks at Harvard Hillel where Jewish racists like Yossi Klein Halevy, David Makovsky, and Rabbi Forman of Rabbis for Human Rights all implicitly or explicitly justified ethnic cleansing and mass killing. Rabbi Forman was in fact the most explicit and the most disturbing.
I am sure that an interrogation of Rabbi Zarchi of the Chabad House would be most enlightening.
In any case, I have reread Taha Abdul Basser's comment. He simply was not endorsing the killing of apostates. He said there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.”
It is the same position of orthodox Judaism with regard to the killing of apostates from Judaism with the qualification that there is more uniformity among Jewish sages than among their Muslims counterparts.
Taha's skepticism about Human Rights discourse is completely justified, for the Gay International (what has been called Umgeschlechtungsbewegung in German) is a tool for demonizing Arab and Islamic culture for not practicing homoeroticism exactly as Western Gay activists think it should be practiced while SaveDarfur is simply a vehicle for genocidal Jewish Zionists to distract from Zionist crimes.
Columbia Professor Mahmoud Mamdani argues persuasively in Saviors and Survivors that R2P "is a right to punish but without being held accountable--a clarion call for the recolonization of 'failed' states in Africa. In its present form, the call for justice is really a slogan that masks a big power agenda to recolonize Africa."
I attended a talk by Muslim Apostate Nonie Darwish at BC. It was sponsored by the Center for Christian Jewish Learning, and Rabbi Ruth Langer appears to have issued the invitation to Darwish..
It was from beginning to end a rant that Israel and the USA should kill more Muslims as in fact both countries did do thanks to manipulations of Jewish Zionist Neocons acting as a Jewish special interest (see Heilbrunn's They Knew They Were Right).
Under Nuremberg Law, a lot of Neocons and their panderers should be arrested, charged, tried and executed for the massive slaughter created by the Bush administration.
While the Muslim apostate Emily Ruete (Princess Salme, 1844-1924) was welcomed with affection when she returned to Zanzibar, Nonie Darwish fits the profile of someone who probably deserves to be executed either under Islamic law or Western Nuremberg Law, which would almost certainly have executed Goebbels. (Otto Dietrich was sentenced to seven years imprisonment).
Anyway here is Ruete's description of the greeting she received.
When I arrived at Zanzibar I was doubtful of the reception I should meet with there, but confident, too, that my brother would not delay in carrying out the expressed wishes of Germany, and I was not mistaken. He would, at all events, out of respect for Germany, tolerate me. But the bad treatment that my other brothers and sisters had experienced at his hands could hardly lead me to expect any friendly advances on his part; and, as for the rest of the inhabitants, it gives me the greatest pleasure to state that they gave me tokens of their kindly feelings only. Arabs, Hindoos, Banyans, and natives repeatedly entreated me to remain in Zanzibar for good, which could only strengthen my belief that there was no religious aversion felt to me. One day I met two Arabs, with whom I entered into conversation. Hearing from a third person that they were relations of mine -- I had not recognized them -- I told them afterwards. I should not have addressed them had I been aware of this, as I knew my relations were not all inclined to be friends with me. But they both replied at once that, whatever happened, they could never forget that I was the daughter of my father. And when I touched upon the religious question, one of them said "this fate had been destined to me from the beginning of the world." "The God who has served you and us from our home is the same God whom all men adore and revere. His mighty will has brought you back to us, and we all rejoice at it. And now you and your children will stay with us henceforth, will you not?"
Proofs of affection and love like these, and the deep and indescribable joy of beholding my native land once more, will always associate that voyage with some of the sweetest hours of my life.
But an hour for parting came at last and found me oh! so loath to say a long farewell once more to the few but very dear friends I had still. They fully shared my grief, and perhaps I could convey its expression best to my readers, and thereby put a fitting close to my book, by giving the English rendering of a letter that they jointly sent to me after I had reached Germany again. But its sweet tenderness and originality I cannot reproduce: --
You went from us without a word at parting;
This has torn my heart, and filled my soul with sorrow.
O! that I had clung to your neck when you departed hence,
You might have sat on my head, and walked on my eyes!
You live in my heart, and when you went
You poured grief into my soul such as I ne'er felt before;
My body is wasted, and my tears fall fast
One after one down my cheek like the waves of the sea.
O Lord of the universe, let us meet again ere we die!
Be it only one single day before death.
If we live, we meet again;
When we are dead, the Immortal One remains!
O! that I were a bird to soar to thee on wings of love;
But how can the bird soar whose wings are clipped?
Islam tarnishes itself, in case you haven't noticed. Remember 9/11? How about Mumbai? In addition, all of the many 21st century Jihads in-between, in which tens of thousands of innocent non-Moslems have been murdered and mass-murdered in the name of "allah," their pre-Islamic pagan moon god that doesn't exist.
However, aside from tarnishing itself, Islam SHOULD be condemned by others because it's core tenet is Jihad - Subjugate or kill everyone not Islamic. Oh yeah - that rotten evil belief SHOULD be tarnished and condemned. Hitler and Mohamet have the same birthday - April 20. No coincidence there. They are one and the same.
HAHA HA! Nice! Thanks for sharing this! Best thing for the morning! (morning here)
ThorsProvoni,
I absolutely agree with with you. If a representative of any religious organization at Harvard finds 'great wisdom', or by use of any other words endorses killing of people (frankly, I don't see how finding 'great wisdom' is not an endorsement - I am not saying he 'advocates' killing, but 'endorses' it), then he/she should be asked to resign. I am glad you have cited examples of representatives of religions at Harvard (at Hillel, though I am still not sure whether they were guest lecturers or actual appointees), rather than elsewhere. Certainly very worrying! Thanks for sharing this piece of information!
One can certainly believe that there is great wisdom in the Bible without endorsing it.
After all the Bible contains lots of horrendous stuff:
genocide at the command of God,
God slaughters children,
killing for desecration of the Sabbath,
etc.
Of course Christian and Jewish believers do endorse the Bible while Muslims will typically claim to revere or to venerate it without giving it the full status of a revelation equal to the Quran.
Overall Christians, Jews, and Muslim have developed hermeneutic systems that go beyond plain meaning so that believers find wisdom in the text, but only a specific set of received interpretations are endorsed.
Thus overinterpretating the following statement from Taha is simply inappropriate.
"I would finally note that there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand."
Taha did not say:
"I would finally note that there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, I FULLY ENDORSE THAT POSITION."
After all right from the start he said:
"While I understand that will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.
"Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."
In the case of debates about religious legal systems of religions that have revealed sacred law, demanding that believers reject the religious law or the authorities that codified the religious legal system is tantamout to demanding renunciation of the religion, and the believers simply will not be browbeaten into accepting an intellectual position perceived as conflicting with their faith.
I took my first courses in Jewish studies 40 years ago, and I can safely assert that if you state to any Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi that there is great wisdom in the legal codes of Moses Maimonides, Joseph Caro or Moses Isserless, he will agree, and if you state to the same Rabbi that there is great wisdom in the established and preserved position of capital punishment for apostates as detailed in those law codes, he will either agree or refuse to comment on the ground that you are trying to incite anti-Semitism just as I argue that this thread of discussion contains much material that is an incitement to Islamophobia or to demonization of Muslims.
Modern authorities in Islam and even more so in Orthodox Judaism do not challenge the established ancient authorities. The last Jewish modern authority willing to challenge the inherited corpus of Jewish law was the Vilna Gaon, who did not go further than asserting that there was no genuine obligation for men to wear a headcovering during prayer.
Isaac Breuer, who is a more modern authority, stood in more or less the same relationship to German Orthodoxy as Franz Rosenzweig or Martin Buber played for non-Orthodox German Jews. Within the German Jewish context at the beginning of the twentieth century, Breuer plays a role rather similar to that of Tariq Ramadan among European Muslims. Here is the full passage from Mittleman that I referenced earlier. [I read the full text while I was a student at Harvard, but I do not have my own copy to quote.]
[Die Rechtsphilosophischen Grundlagen des Jüdischen und des Modernen Rechts (The Legal-Philosophical Fundamentals of Jewish and Modern Law, 1910) by Isaac Breuer] begins with a commentary on a sensational incident in the contemporary press. A German judge in a ruling concerning the divorce of two Jews who were Russian nationals determined that Jewish law was inadmissible in a German court because it ran counter to “good morals.” While the German civil code provided for a mutual right of divorce, Jewish law provides only for the husband’s right to divorce his wife. The German judge, in the case brought before him by the Jewish wife (who sought the divorce), ruled that the husband could not appeal to the principles of Jewish law to frustrate her because Jewish law entails unequal treatment of the sexes. This ruling, although later rescinded by the judge, touched off a wave of uneasiness in the Jewish community. An official declaration to the effect that Jewish law ran counter to good German morals sent tremors through both liberal and Orthodox Jewry.
Breuer found an opening in this sensation for a systematic study of the differences between Jewish and modern German law. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was not daunted by the possibility that Jewish and modern law may very well embody disjunctive moralities. Breuer is at his most characteristic in this essay. He eschews any facile, apologetic harmonization between them. In exploring this discrepancy, Breuer begins to apply some general legal-philosophical concepts to an analysis of Torah.
Breuer points out that there are indeed areas in which Jewish law diverges very considerably from modern law. Modern law is grounded in the proposition that all persons are, respecting their legal status, equal. Although positive law falls short of this norm, equality before the law is nonetheless a key normative principle, an ideal of modern law. Jewish law, on the other hand, enshrines certain fundamental inequalities. In addition to the relevant disabilities for women, the slave and the Gentile are not equal to Jewish males under Jewish law. Brueuer categorically rejects an historicist explanation for these inequalities. He affirms, on the contrary, that the whole Torah is contemporary, valid law. Torah is not a museum piece invalidated in some way by history. The legal matter of the Torah is timeless or, at least not time-bound. The assertion leads Breuer to make the bold claim that although the practice of slavery has vanished from the world, the principle of slavery must still be valid! Any jurisprudential analysis of the underlying principles of Jewish law can do no less than treat the law under the assumption of atemporal validity. Appeal to historical influences is reductionistic and methodologically intolerable.
=========================
In addition to slavery Breuer argues the timelessness of execution for apostasy and of all sorts of discrimination against women.
Breuer is for all intents and purposes the gold standard for Modern German Orthodoxy, which morphed into Modern American Orthodoxy.
Nowadays not only are Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodoxy Jewish scholars much less likely to think seriously about the philosophical issues that Breuer addressed, but they even tend to consider addressing these issues to be wrong.
Yet the Muslim and Jewish position on apostasy really is not so different from that of the US government.
Ezra Pound was indicted for treason in 1943 because he criticized Roosevelt and American war policy. One could view his crime as apostasy from Americanism to support of Italian fascism.
Today an American Jewish Zionist is at least as much a traitor as Ezra Pound. In fact because Zionism is ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism while Pound was only an apologist for Italian fascism, Jewish Zionist Americans are in many regards far more despicable than Pound, but in terms of actual actions, the average Jewish American Zionist or Ezra Pound is probably far closer to Emily Ruete (Princess Salme of Zanzibar) than to Nonie Darwish, and we Americans should be far more harsh on those Jewish American Zionists that are poisoning the American political process and ruining the American economy than on those that are reflexively supporting the State of Israel despite the fundamental incompatibility of Zionist and American ideals.
To be very honest I don't have the attention span to read such long comments. Good arguments don't need to be so long. In any case, if you haven't noticed, I was trying to wrap the argument up by thanking you for sharing the information. I still thank you for taking the time out to write such long comments - truly appreciate your desire to enlighten me.
Finding wisdom in a book such as the bible is different from finding wisdom in one particular injunction. Because the book may indeed have stories of wisdom, albeit a few.
Taha says, that he finds great wisdom in the established position. Which means: He thinks, it is WISE to kill apostates (though he didn't say it explicitly - but please don't insult a person's intelligence by arguing that statement 1 does NOT lead to statement 2).
Simply put, if you find great wisdom in something, you imply that it is wise to do it. Which means, he believes that the benefits of killing apostates outweighs the costs.
Now what's an endorsement? I endorse Barack Obama for Presidency. Which means that I feel, that the benefits of having Obama as the President would be greater than its costs. I don't have to campaign for him, or tell others to vote for him, but I endorse him.
So, while Taha did not ADVOCATE the killing of apostates, he certainly endorsed it.
Genuinely not looking forward to irrelevant stories and poetry.
1) The issue of whether Taha's views (or University-sanctioned position) are appropriate is one that can be debated openly and people of good will can disagree--if this incident serves to spur constructive debate about the modern practice of ancient faiths that is a good thing.
2) In pursuing these questions, we must be aware of the geo-political context--one in which the demonizing of Islam as part of specific political agendas is not properly understood by the public, and used to justify atrocities against Muslims.
3) A double standard exists that seems to make it acceptable to speak of arabs and Muslims in terms that we would not find acceptable if applied to ther groups.
4) A double standard exists that singles out Islam among the three Abrahamic faiths for special scrutiny, however appropriate that scrutiny may be in terms of our modern "hegemonic human rights discourse" for all three faiths and their canons.
5) The process of pointing out these double standards especially through examples, especially from Judaism, invites accusations of bigotry against those pointing them out, despite the fact that current geo-political reality (vis a vis the role played by Zionism in the middle east) is a context outside of which current discussions (esp. critiques) of Islam are not fully understandable.
But they come from trolls, not from Harvard chaplains.
Or so one hopes. One can't be too sure any more, given a recent find:
1200 year-old living fossil found in Harvard Yard!
He says he's a chaplain. And he says (I am not making this up), that it is wise to advocate the killing of infidels -- although he adds that here, since we're under the oppression of a democratic regime, alas we don't get to implement sharia (e.g., we don't get to chop off the left foot and right hand of suspected thieves).
These ideas are wrong and repulsive, especially since:
(a) This is not A.D. 800. E.g., over the past several centuries we have come to realize that women and men have the same rights, not more, not less.
(b) HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Muslims, our fellow women and men human beings, are held hostage to sharia laws, against their own choice, in many areas of the world.
And as we speak, Taliban forces have advanced to within 60 miles of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, a country with a 160 million pop. (and with known history of PROLIFERATING nuclear arms to other authoritarian and unstable regimes - but I digress).
I have Pakistani Muslim friends of the family, living in the Multan area. I know about the
intimidations they have been enduring. They don't want this, but they are powerless against the local sharia thugs and bullies.
It is absurd to pretend that forced marriages, the stoning to death of eloping couples, etc., should be an acceptable vision of JUSTICE AND GOOD WILL ON EARTH. This is a repulsive vision from a 3-DIGIT year. Sharia killngs are NOT "wise."
Well, I for one would point out to said professor that Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which was among the teachings that made the "New Testament" new.
"While I understand that [sic] will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.
Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=5276... and
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=5276...
why Taha Abdul-Basser was correct to state:
"While I understand that [sic] will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.
Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."
The Ottoman State, in which Sharia jurisprudence was most highly evolved, did not stone adulterers, and claims that modern Sharia courts stone adulterers never prove to be true.
Haim Gerber of Hebrew University has argued that the Ottoman legal system by the late 19th century was comparable to those of Germany or of the UK in providing the basis for a Rechtstaat.
The sort of claims that Darwinnia and M make would be comparable to a belief that Jewish courts deal with accused adulteresses by giving them bitter waters (apparently some form of poison).
In order to demonize or to marginalize Arabs and Muslims, racist Zionists have spread a tremendous amount of Islamophobic disinformatsia that has poisoned the discussion about Islamic law.
(In the interests of full disclosure, I am the author of the article linked below.)
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~salient/site/2009/0...
The only reason that such killing has been reduced is because Christianity has been successfully de-clawed by the progress of secularism. Where no such secularism exists - like in most Muslim communities and countries - religion is free to inflict pain and suffering on people. This happens every day, every hour, and every minute in Muslim communities.
Faith is the abdication of reason, and is a powerful tool which despots, princes, priests, and charlatans will continue to wield for as long as people are ignorant and weak enough to think that it is a virtue.
Many Muslims reject sharia, which is a post-Koranic, post-Mohammed, loose agglomerate of folk beliefs/practices.
Muslims are the V-I-C-T-I-M-S of sharia laws--Muslim women in particular, but men too.
We should pretend, out of politeness, that adultresses and gays and rape victims are never really stoned to death under sharia? This would not serve victims.
Why do Christians and Jews and many Muslims no longer kill infidels, adulterers, gays, and disobedient children, even though a deep pile of holy books told them to?
Because societies have the capability to learn and evolve into something better. Forget "impermissibility of arguing" with freakazoid emperors wearing imaginary garb.
Again, to people on both sides of this issue: it is a fallacy to equate sharia with Muslims, and to equate rejection of sharia folk practices with islamophobia. Muslims have contributed plenty to civilization, but sharia isn't one of those things at this time.
Sharia laws came from old men who did the best they could and were wise for their times.........1200 years ago!!! Back then, there didn't even exist the concept of a democratic, gender-equal, diverse society.
Today there are over half a billion Muslims who do NOT want sharia and who either have succeeded in getting rid of it or are trying to.
Turkey's President Ataturk completely outlawed sharia, almost a century ago. Most Iranians don't want to be ruled by mullahs. Right now Pakistan is struggling for its life as
a viable democracy.
Every society has something to teach other societies, and something to learn from others. We need to put humility and openness to new learning ahead of the need to be
always right. And if we outlaw disagreement, we suppress self-improvement.
Now, imagine an analogous church, serving the needs of Muslim converts to Catholicism in, say, Mecca. Or Tehran. Heck, imagine the *same* church, ministering to Jewish converts to Catholicism in Mecca. Or Tehran. Now ask yourself whether all the bile spewed in these comments by ThorsProvoloni amounts to anything more than an extended exercise in bigoted nonsense fueled by a spectacularly rich concoction of ignorance and contempt.
Actually, what Thors has accomplished here is to demonstrate why Jewish survival is likely to depend on the continued existence of an armed state dedicated to that end. Indeed, the intensity of his(?) modern spin on classic antisemitism is so over the top that I'm tempted to wonder if he might not be a secret Zionist agent-provocateur, flushing fellow travelers (I'm looking at you, Greta) out into the open. In any event, whether his(?) Judaeophobia is authenticated or simulated, I salute him(?) for his(?) substantive contribution to the Zionist cause.
Lieberman is engaging in very typical racist Jewish Zionist distortion, hasbarah, and incitement against Muslims and Islam.
Genuine Jewish converts to Christianity are not welcome in Israel as the case of Brother Daniel demonstrates.
Far too many Israeli Jews have extremely hateful attitudes toward Christians, and it is not uncommon to see a Jew spitting on a Christian cleric in Jerusalem.
I have no doubt that genuine Jewish converts to Christianity in Israel would be treated as traitors and subjected to violence if they formed their own community and reached out to support fellow Palestinian Christians in the quest for justice in the Holy Land.
As for Jewish survival, as a greater fraction of the world population comes to understand the threat that Zionism represents to Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Americans, Gentiles and the whole world, the only hope for Jews lies in categorical denunciation of Zionism, Zionists, and the Zionist state along with renunciation of those behaviors that have made ethnic Ashkenazim a threat to non-Jews since the 1850s.
As far as I am concerned turnabout is fair play, and far too many Jews are scare-mongering paranoid delusions of the Islamic threat.
In my case I am a Harvard and Yale trained expert in Jewish studies and economics. I deal in facts and not fantasies. I provide a summary of my analysis of history and of ongoing trends in "Jewish Peril: 1933 versus 2009" ( http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/05/jewish-peril-... ).
Zionism is the greatest world historical threat ever faced by the human race.
Wrong. These are adult Jewish converts to Catholicism. That's why the services are in Hebrew. Get your facts straight.
ThorsProvoni: "I have no doubt that genuine Jewish converts to Christianity in Israel would be treated as traitors and subjected to violence if they formed their own community and reached out to support fellow Palestinian Christians in the quest for justice in the Holy Land."
A long sequence of events in this passage, a hypothetical path from conversion by choice to political activism which you treat as though it were a logical necessity. There are genuine Jewish converts to Christianity. That they can and do choose to retain a sense of Jewish identity even as they practice their chosen faith simply doesn't compute with you, does it?
Again -- thanks for the (apparently unintended) confirmation that the compelling need for a Jewish state continues unabated.