Has anyone here ever had an intellectual religious debate with a muslim [sic]? None? Neither have I. The intellectual part is impossible. Every man of Islam I personally know (and I know quite a few) is willing and ready to kill if ANYONE tries to throw an insult at Mohammad, and would even make a similar threat to you for bringing it up.

This is a patently false statement. If the only Muslims you know are ones ready to kill you for insulting their prophet, then you must have the Al Qaeda phone book (if there is such a thing). Why don’t you branch out in life a bit & start by reading Tariq Ramadan’s website and then do a Google search for ‘Muslim tolerance’ or some other set of keywords that might open yr eyes to a different Muslim world than the twisted one you’ve been frequenting.

Who did he murder? Does it make no difference to you if someone’s convicted or not?

Irv Rubin was perfectly happy to see the murder of of Arabs & said so many times. I am convinced that he & Earl Krugel were intimately involved in the assassination of Alex Odeh as is the FBI. I don’t know whether they planted the bomb or made the bomb or only initiated the plot & left its execution to others. But either way their figurative footprints are all over the crime. The fact that the government never solved that case leaves me deeply saddened both for Alex’s wonderful family, for Arab Americans, & for those of us Jews who despise the JDL way of homicidal rage against Arabs.

Other JDL leaders who were close to Rubin WERE convicted of murder & imprisoned though they initially, I’m ashamed to say, tried to use Israel as a refuge from U.S. justice. There was an ethos of murder in that organization which was motivated & inspired by Rubin.

In most cases, I’d like to see a person indicted & convicted before I call him a murderer. I relax my standards slightly in Rubin’s case.

I note that Earl Krugel, his co-defendant in their final case together copped a plea for 20 years undoubtedly because he felt the case was airtight & he was liable to go away for longer if he didn’t. I firmly believe that Rubin would’ve been convicted as well. Now, theses charges only involved plotting to assassination Rep. Darrell Issa. But I have no doubt that had he not been caught, Irv & Earl would’ve succeeded.

Btw, it was the ADL who had keys to Odeh’s office not the JDL

I know fr. first hand information fr. a former ADL employee that the ADL engages (or at least engaged when he was employed there) in black bag jobs against groups they deemed as dangerous to Jews. It is entirely possible that the ADL had keys to Alex’s office. But a black bag job is different than murder. The ADL has never been credibly charged with murdering anyone. The same can’t be said for the JDL.

I didn’t call you a “moron” & you don’t have a right to hurl such insults in this blog (read the rule above the comment box). If you want to take a dump somewhere do it at yr own site. Do it again & you’ll be banned here.

What is freaky about anti-blasphemy laws is that one man’s blasphemy is another’s free speech. In a free country, free expression and speech are paramount. Free countries cannot force people of any faith or of no faith at all to conform to the dictates of another religion’s idea of what is blasphemy and what isn’t.

I think yr. point is well taken. I didn’t mean to say that if by some wild improbability Muslims in a western country managed to muster a majority to approve such laws that I would be happy about it. As I wrote, I would fight them like Hell. And I would urge an appeal of the legislation to the Supreme Court where I have confidence it would be repealed for precisely the reasons you provide.

Democracy is a very delicate & shaky structure. That’s why there are checks & balances. Congress can pass just about any law it wishes. But the Court has the final say as to whether these laws pass constitutional muster.

Why are you so freaked out by Muslims using their constitutional rights as citizens to lobby for laws they find important to themselves? To me, this should be an obligation of a good citizen. A citizen who does not advocate for such legislation is doing himself and his fellow citizens a disservice….”

What is freaky about anti-blasphemy laws is that one man’s blasphemy is another’s free speech. In a free country, free expression and speech are paramount. Free countries cannot force people of any faith or of no faith at all to conform to the dictates of another religion’s idea of what is blasphemy and what isn’t. How would you as a Muslim like to live in country where your belief that Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God was punishable as blasphemy? How would you like to have to pay a fine or be jailed or even worse, be executed, because you say to your children that as Muslims you believe thus and thus and it happens to be blasphemy in another’s religion? The shoe doesn’t fit so well on your foot, does it?

Anti-blasphemy laws will come back on you as a blasphemer of someone else’s faith or other faiths will demand laws protecting their religion. Such laws will harm the free practice of your religion only because each faith’s doctrines contradict those of others, as competing faiths invariably do. Appreciate this paradoxes of free societies: free citizens of faith tolerate the so-called blasphemy of others in order to enjoy practicing of their own faith. You won’t find that in any theocracy or secular autocracy.

Who did he murder? Does it make no difference to you if someone’s convicted or not? The accusation is all that counts I guess for a morally confused individual as yourself. And you’re still firing blanks with your silly “quotes”. Of course being on the left means words are the only thing that counts.

“Violence in self-defense is absolutely justifiable.”
Irv Rubin interview, Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1995″

This is supposed to be an indictment of Rubin? You’re completely moronic. Btw, it was the ADL who had keys to Odeh’s office not the JDL. What do you think that was about?

I noticed that you included Irv Rubin in your rant about all those Jewish terrorists. Irv Rubin was never convicted of anything. Ever…But to a self hating, lightweight like you he’s a terrorist. He was murdered. Earl Krugel was murdered in prison 3 years to the day after Rubin’s supposed suicide attempt…

Do you do any independent research before spouting your crap?

I love to see people try to defend scum like Irv Rubin & Earl Krugel as lions of the Jewish people. Notice Jake carefully says Irv was never “convicted” of anything. That’s the equivalent of Nixon’s claim: “I am not a crook.” Just because you’ve never been convicted “ever” doesn’t mean you’re not one of the most homicidal, rage-filled & noxious Jews to have ever walked this earth (though perhaps Kahane gets the nod on this & Rubin is in 2nd place). Do I think that Rubin was a murdering Jewish terrorist? You bet.

And even to grant your lunar fantasy that Rubin was murdered…that doesn’t mean he WASN’T a terrorist. Lots of terrorists are murdered. Look at Zarqawi. My fondest dream would be having Rubin, Krugel & Zarqawi locked in a room in Hell together. None can exit until one of them murders another. And they have to do this, Groundhog Day-like, every day through all eternity.

As for Earl ‘Slime’ Krugel, I’ve written about him here in this blog. After the Alex Odeh assassination, Earl or possibly his brother Barry left a threatening phone message on my work answering machine (the ID on the voice was confirmed by an FBI agent for whom I played it) saying that I’d be the next “dead sand nigger.” I didn’t know at the time that the FBI already suspected the JDL, including Rubin & Krugel of involvement in that horrific crime. By the way, Earl Krugel personally threatened my life–how’s that for doing first hand “independent research?”

Here are some of the delightful things Irv Rubin has done or been accused of doing:

The chairman of the Jewish Defense League and a member were ordered jailed without bail after authorities said they plotted to blow up a Los Angeles-area mosque and the office of an Arab-American congressman.
CBS News

“Violence in self-defense is absolutely justifiable.”
Irv Rubin interview, Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1995

An anonymous caller telephoned the Associated Press in Nicosia, Cyprus and claimed that the JDL in the U.S. was “responsible for the bombing in Limassol [of a PLO sponsored ferry]. Next time we will bomb it-with all the people on it.” When asked about the bombing, Rubin stated, “I wholeheartedly applaud the bombing of the PLO-chartered ferry in Cyprus. It was a sacred, righteous act to defend the state of Israel. I am honored that our group was blamed. I would love to take credit for this action, but the credit belongs to people much more heroic than I and the JDL. ” On a radio program several days before the ship was sunk, Rubin stated that he thought that “someone should sink the boat,” and if people were aboard the ship while it was attacked, he “would not condemn the action.
ADL

When Alex Odeh, the local chairman of the pro-Palestinian American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) was killed by a bomb in his Santa Ana, California office in 1985, chairman Irv Rubin was suspected, and further antagonized his opponents by saying that “Odeh got what he deserved.”
Irv Rubin, Wikipedia

I’m a little boggled that you would doubt that the majority of Muslims would oppose violence against non-Muslims. Anyway, I found this interesting Pew survey of Muslim/non-Muslim attitudes toward ea. other:

- Muslims differ over whether there is a struggle in their country between Islamic fundamentalists and groups wanting to modernize society. But solid majorities of those who perceive such a struggle side with the modernizers.

- Fully 41% of the general public in Spain says most or many Muslims in their country support Islamic extremists. But just 12% of Spain’s Muslims say most or many of the country’s Muslims support extremists like al Qaeda.

There is also a question about support for violence against civilians in defense of Islam. In 8 of 10 countries surveyed a majority say such violence is NEVER justified. In the other two countries the numbers are 43% & 45% who say they NEVER support such violence. The numbers who say they SOMETIMES would support such violence hover around 10-20%. They reach as high as 46% only in Nigeria. There is no finding for the question of whether the respondent support such violence “always.” I assume the reason for this is that almost none of them would answer yes to such a question.

I hope this finding answers yr question satisfactorily.

And btw, I agree with you about the inanity of the response about Muslim contrition & Hiroshima. A very stupid statement. But again, this is one rather stupid Muslim leader. We have lots of intolerant Jewish leaders too. Every time I hear such intolerance fr. the mouth of a Malcom Hoenlein or Alan Dershowitz or Marty Peretz I don’t say: “Gee, all Jews must have the hawkish, intolerant views that this guy espouses.” Just as you have to carefully explore the views of specific individual Jewish leaders to find the most responsible & cogent ones so you should do the same in the Muslim community.

“I’ve written several thousand words in both this post & the comments threads so you’ll have to pardon me if I ask you to point to which specific passage of mine you’re referring to.”

It was here; after Burbos wrote:

“the majority of Christians and Jews, or whatever other religion LOUDLY condemn those actions,” (ie, condemnable actions committed by their respective coreligionists)

Richard responded

“And the majority of Muslims do as well”

That was the exchange I was referring to. Is there evidence to promote such a case?

On a related note

Those with a predisposition contrary to Islam and its followers will likely ignore any and all expressions of condemnation emanating from Islamic groups towards their coreligions involved with terror. In my opinion there have indeed been some strong condemnations from Islamic spokespersons.

However, conversely it often appears as if there’s apologists reflexively and defensively retorting that it’s self-evident that terrorism is condemned (when it may not be so even to the most objective observer) or that condemnations are entirely unreasonable.

One example was on the Ron Reagan Jr show (MSNBC?) an American Islamic leader (unfortunately can’t remember the name) who opined that after America apologizes for Hiroshima then he’ll consider his own version of contributions of contrition.

That’s why I’m on the fence on this issue.

Chag Sameach.

What I dispute is the Islamophobes’ blanket denunciations of Islam & Muslims. They talk as if all Muslims are extremist because it is in the very nature of their religion to be so. Which is utter horsecrap.

Now on one hand, justice and fairness demands that someone making the accusation towards opposite should have substantial proof to make their case.

Personally, I’m on the fence on whether the “majority” of Muslims have taken a stand one way or the other.

But what is your evidence that the “majority” have actually expressed condemnation?