‘Fitna’: Dutch for ‘Garbage’

Geert WildersGeert Wilders of Fitna fame: picture of smug self-promoter

Yes, I know Geert Wilders’ anti-Muslim diatribe, Fitna, has been watched by 400 zillion YouTube viewers. That must make it right, right? Wrong. I watched the first minute or so at the behest of a very nice fellow who’s been helping me upgrade my Wordpress installation. As soon as the first panel from the Koran was displayed on screen quoting a verse that threatens death to all and sundry and was followed by the 9/11 plane flying into the World Trade Center, I knew what I was in for. That was enough for me. Do I hear Islamophobia, anyone?

For those of you who have friends, relatives, co-workers, ex-lovers, exogamists, enemies, bores or boors urging you to watch this piece of dreck, read Ali Eteraz’s clever evisceration, Fitna Farce.

And by the way, if anyone thinks you couldn’t make the same film about Judaism or virtually any world religion, they’re sorely mistaken. Do you know how many acts of war, murder, fratricide, genocide and terror there are in the Bible? Many. So many they make my skin crawl. Do you know how many villainous acts Jews commit in the Bible? Many. Does this mean that Judaism is evil? Of course not. Does is justify the hatred of anti-Semites? Of course not.

Does any of what I’m saying justify any of the heinous acts or images seen in Wilders’ film? Of course not. Islamist extremism is no more justified than Jewish extremism.

Every religion contains messages of hate, intolerance and violence. Every religion contains message of love, hope and grace. If we condemn Islam and say it is all bad then let’s condemn every religion and say they’re all bad every one of them. I don’t believe this proposition. I make it just for the sake of argument.

Islam, like all religions, is a reflection of human nature. It seeks perfect faith but is full of imperfections. Aren’t we all?

tags , , , ,

Comments (22) Print Post Print Post

Rabbi Yoffie Denounces Jewish Anti-Muslim Extremism

It’s about time. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, leader of the Union of Reform Judaism, America’s most populous Jewish denomination delivered a ringing affirmation of solidarity with this nation’s Muslim community at this week’s Islamic Society of North America conference. Not only did he endorse common bonds that tie Jews and Muslim like the fight against discrimination and our quest for spirituality in a secular world; he also directly attacked Jewish extremism that singles out Islam as a global threat. Frankly, I would’ve preferred that he come out swinging and named a few more names. It’s high time we take it to them. As it is, he only mentioned Dennis Prager by name. He left out the groups I’ve been battling here over the past few months like Campus Watch, Frontpagemagazine and the David Project.

I found it instructive in his speech where he discusses a mutual propensity to violence among extremists in both religions. Here is the ‘money quote’ in which he denounced the Jewish rabble-rousers among us:

The overwhelming majority of Jews reject violence by interpreting these texts in a constructive way, but a tiny, extremist [Jewish] minority chooses destructive interpretations instead, finding in the sacred words a vengeful, hateful God. Especially disturbing is the fact that the moderate majority, at least some of the time, decides to cower in the face of the fanatic minority — perhaps because they seem more authentic, or appear to have greater faith and greater commitment. When this happens, my task as a rabbi is to rally that reasonable, often-silent majority and encourage them to assert the moderate principles that define their beliefs and Judaism’s highest ideals. My Christian and Muslim friends tell me that precisely the same dynamic operates in their traditions, and from what I can see, that is manifestly so. Surely, as we know from the headlines, you have what I know must be for you as well as for us an alarming number of extremists of your own — those who kill in the name of God and hijack Islam in the process. It is therefore our collective task to strengthen and inspire one another as we fight the fanatics and work to promote the values of justice and love that are common to both our faiths.

This is a theme that I return to again and again here when pro-Israel nationalists attempt to paint Muslims as bloodthirsty fanatics and paint Israelis as reasonable people who merely want peace. Yoffie is precisely right in declaring that we each have violent elements within our respective traditions. Making peace means not only coming to terms with our enemy, it means overcoming the hatred within our own ranks as well.

Here again Yoffie tells his Muslim audience that Israel is a bedrock principle of American Jews in precisely the same way that Palestine is one for them:

American Jews have a deep, profound, and unshakable commitment to the State of Israel. We see assuring the security of Israel as one of our community’s most important accomplishments, and we see maintaining her security as one of our most important priorities. At the same time, we understand the ties of Muslim Americans and Arab Americans to the Palestinian people. The challenge that we face is this: Will we, Jews and Muslims, import the conflicts of the Middle East into America, or will we join together and send a message of peace to that troubled land? Let us choose peace. Let us work toward the day when a democratic Palestinian state lives side by side, in peace and security, with the democratic State of Israel.

Here I would’ve preferred more specificity from the Reform leader about what precisely American Jews must come to accept in order to fully recognize Palestinian rights. You’ll note there is no mention of a state, the issue of return or Jerusalem–all of which must be part of the solution for both sides:

The basic outline of such a peace has been clear for a long time. For peace to be achieved, territorial compromise will be required of Israel. Unconditional acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state will be required of the Palestinians. Jews will need to accept the reality of Palestinian suffering, and understand that without dignity for the Palestinians, there can be no dignity for Israel.

Here Yoffie again makes a significant point about maintaining the conflict as a political, rather than religious one. But again he only notes the danger of Arab anti-Israelism but not the equal danger of Jewish Islamophobia which is no less potent an enemy of peace:

Second, if the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is seen in religious rather than political terms, resolving it becomes impossible. If Israel is portrayed as “a dagger pushed into the heart of Islam,” rather than a nation-state disputing matters of land and water with the Palestinians, we are lost. As religious Jews and religious Muslims, let us do everything in our power to prevent a political battle from being transformed into a holy war.

As he concludes, Yoffie saves his most important admonition for last, telling us that in each of our traditions we must renounce holy war and terror as a means to protect religion or advance our interests:

And finally, to all those who desecrate God’s name by using religion to justify killing and terror, let us say together: enough. No cause in the world, and surely no religious cause, can ever justify murdering the innocent or targeting the uninvolved. You cannot honor a religion of peace through violence; you cannot honor God if you do not honor the image of God in every human being; and you cannot get to heaven by creating hell on earth. If we can agree on nothing else, let us agree on this, and let us remain united on this point, come what may.

My only criticism is Yoffie’s lack of specificity. He holds back from denouncing sufficiently strongly those in our community who preach hatred and violence. Why shouldn’t it be time to name the Daniel Pipes, David Horowitzes and Mort Kleins of the world as the obstacles to peace that they are?

For that reason, I’m glad to read that Jewish Week, in an article which otherwise stokes the fires of mistrust, did provoke a more particular debate between Yoffie and Pipes. Here Pipes does his usual ranting about Muslim hatred of Jews. You’ll note that Stewart Ain gives Pipes the dubious distinction of being a “counter-terrorism expert” when the only thing he is “expert” in is fomenting mistrust of Muslims and Jews insufficiently supportive of Israel:

Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum and a counter-terrorism expert, called Rabbi Yoffie’s outreach to ISNA “well-intentioned but very misguided.”

“There needs to be an acknowledgment that ISNA is an Islamic organization, Wahhabi in outlook, which is deeply problematic,” he said.

Wahhabi Islam is said to be the primary religious movement behind extremist Islam.

“Beyond ISNA’s own character is the question of Jewish-Muslim relations and whether this can be fixed through ‘Kumbaya’-like sessions such as Rabbi Yoffie’s,” Pipes said, “or whether there needs to be a frank acknowledgment that there is a deep current of anti-Semitism among Muslims in the United States that needs to be addressed.

“It is not a mutual situation,” he continued. “You don’t see mosques and Muslim schools being surrounded by security as you do synagogues and Jewish schools. There is no parallel. And what Rabbi Yoffie did was to build his base on a parallel — saying that there are problematic texts in the Jewish Old Testament as there are in the Koran, and saying that each side has its extremists. I think that is a flawed analysis and one that will have mischievous consequences if it is widely accepted.”

Yoffie, for his part, finally engages Pipes and refutes his partisan animus against Islam:

“The perspective that [Pipes] represents begins from the premise that the Muslim-American community is a dangerous community filled with anti-Semites,” the rabbi said. “There is a big difference between saying there are elements of anti-Semitism in a community that is basically moderate and well educated and middle class, and suggesting that the entire community is somehow dangerous. If you see the community in that sense, it does not make sense to engage in dialogue.”

Rabbi Yoffie insisted that the Muslim community is “conceivably the best educated minority in America” and that there “are significant elements of that community who are untouched by extremism and who are anxious to cooperate with us and with others.”

He said that at the ISNA convention he heard ISNA’s American vice president, Ingrid Mattson, speak three times and she repeatedly called for Israeli-Palestinian peace and to “stop the tie between Muslims and extremism.”

“She gave a speech Jewish leaders would give,” Rabbi Yoffie insisted.

I’m afraid that Yoffie will have to do much more to combat the hatred promoted by the Pipes’ of our community. We cannot assume that peace will just happen between Israel and the Arabs, nor that Jews and Muslims will somehow learn to get along. Besides reaching out to the other side, we must set our own house in order as well. The Plauts, Neuwirths, Pipes, Kleins and even Hoenleins and Foxmans of our community must be firmly rebutted in order for tolerance to grow.

I take strong exception to this passage from Ain’s article in which he attempts to question Yoffie’s tolerance project by noting INSA’s involvement in the Holy Land Foundation federal case:

what makes the effort problematic is that the Muslim group Rabbi Yoffie has chosen to dialogue with is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Dallas trial now taking place against the Holy Land Foundation. The foundation is accused of raising funds for Hamas, the terrorist organization that has vowed to destroy Israel.

What especially distresses me is that the Jewish press seems to accept lock, stock and barrel that the Holy Land Foundation is a supporter of terror and that the unindicted co-conspirators have somehow done something illegal in abetting the Foundation’s terror agenda. First, the government has by no means proven its case. In fact, many legal observers feel it has an especially weak one. Second, the categorization of INSA as “unindicted co-conspirator” has no substantive meaning in terms of associating the group with any tangible nefarious activity. And if it has, let Pipes and his crew tell us what INSA has actually done that is against the law or even remotely tainted. He can’t because they haven’t. It’s as simple as that.

tags , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (24) Print Post Print Post

Blair’s New War Against the Niqab

Tony Blair’s war in Iraq is failing miserably. Even his own military chief has rightfully called it a losing proposition. That’s why Tony’s been looking for another war to fight–any war.

The one he’s apparently chosen is a war against Muslim women. Not all Muslim women, mind you. Just the ones that don’t cotton on to our western ways and insist on wearing traditional garb that is offensive to westerners. Or western men to be specific since the two most prominent politicians to have come out against the niqab are Blair and Jack Straw, the proverbial white Christian males.

I should make clear that I don’t much care for the niqab. I find it oppressive and can’t imagine a woman wouldn’t also find it so. I may even have some similar feelings toward it as Blair and Straw. From Aqoul I understand that the niqab is not a traditional form of dress with a long history, but rather a recent and somewhat oppressive custom imported from Wahabist Muslim countries. Nevertheless, who am I to tell a Muslim woman to take off her niqab? If I were Muslim, I would feel much more emboldened to criticize this custom as Aqoul has done. But I’m not.

I don’t much like it when non-Jews (usually evangelicals or right-wing Catholics) try to tell me in the comments section here I’m not a good Jew because I actually believe Israelis and Palestinians can live together peacefully (not right now, but some day). What right do they have to tell me anything about my own religion? I could run rings round their knowledge of Judaism. Whatever happened to showing a little humility in the face of the Other?

The difference between Blair and Straw, and me is that I realize that I’m not a Muslim and that I have no right to tell a Muslim how he or she should dress. As long as they don’t endanger themselves or others in what they do, why should I care whether they wear a niqab or a George Clinton ‘fro? It seems to me the height of western, Christian superciliousness to decide for Muslims what they should or shouldn’t wear in public settings. Just because Muslims have decided to live among us does that give us the right to tell them they must dress more like us for us to be willing to communicate with them?

Here are some of Blair’s more insipid comments on the controversy:

“It is a mark of separation, and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable,” Mr. Blair said at a regular news conference, echoing some of Mr. Straw’s sentiments…

“No one wants to say that people don’t have the right to do it,” Mr. Blair said. “That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society.”

Oh heavens no, we wouldn’t want to say those Paki gals don’t have the right to their enslavement. We’ll just refuse to meet with such a one (as Straw has done) till she gets “religion” so to speak and “integrates properly into our society.” Have you ever heard of such nonsense coming from a politician who I thought, at one time, had some smarts. I tell you the man’s got to be desperate to feel he needs to score points against Muslim women in the culture wars. Do you think maybe this will become Tony’s personal jihad? We all should have some overarching principle informing our moral universe. For Tony, I guess it gonna be that wretched mask those ladies wear.

And Blair has the unmitigated gall to say he understands why a Muslim woman would be disciplined for putting on her niqab in the presence of men at the school where she worked?

The debate about its use…has crystallized around Aishah Azmi, a teaching assistant suspended by a local council for refusing to remove her full-face veil during class in the presence of male teachers.

Mr. Blair said he could “see the reason” for Mrs. Azmi to be suspended from her job at a Church of England school in Dewsbury, Yorkshire, where there is a substantial Muslim minority…

“We have to deal with the debate,” Mr. Blair said. “People want to know that the Muslim community in particular, but actually all minority communities, have got the balance right between integration and multi-culturalism.”

Natter on Tony all you want. But you can’t pull the wool over my eyes. I know an ignorant bigot trying to pass for an enlightened liberal when I see one. Whatever happened to tolerance? Whatever happened to live and let live? Whatever happened to treating people fairly in the job market? Tell me what is the difference between wearing a niqab and a yarmulke? And just what precisely is so absolutely essential about being able to see a woman’s face when you speak with her?

The Tories, not to be outdone in the Department of Bigotry and Ignorance released this statement quoted in the NY Times:

David Davis, the Conservative opposition spokesman on home affairs, said last weekend that British Muslims risked “voluntary apartheid” by displays of separateness like the full veil.

Give me a f(&*)n’ break. Voluntary apartheid? You dare use that pejorative term in this context? If Muslim women really wanted to be separate they wouldn’t work at all. They’d stay at home tending their families and never set foot among heathens like Blair, Straw and Davis. In fact, considering their boorishness it’s a wonder that any Muslim woman, whether wearing a niqab or not, would be willing to be seen with any of them.

And not to be outdone, Romano Prodi, another pol I thought had some smarts, has hauled his lame lard-ass up on the anti-jihadi bandwagon:

“You can’t cover your face; you must be seen,” Mr. Prodi told Reuters. “This is common sense, I think. It is important for our society.”

Why yes, it’s common sense to those of us white Catholic males who run the show here. So what if it’s not common sense to the A-rabs. They want to live here–they better shape up or ship out. We’re not running a Muslim caliphate here. We’re running a country. A nice, white Roman Catholic country.

tags , , , , , ,

Comments (17) Print Post Print Post

Muhammed Cartoons and Their Sanctimonious Defenders

The anti-Muslim blog world (Little Green Footballs is but one example) is up in arms regarding the response to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in the Arab world. They’re shocked, I say shocked at the level of violence and vehemence aimed at those in the west who published the cartoons and who continue to defend them. According to them, it shows the backwardness of Islam. It shows that the religion and its adherents are not yet capable of living in the enlightened modern world represented by the west.

One of the major arguments these people advance is that Muslims do not understand sacred western values like free speech and freedom of the press. Robert Wright, writing in today’s NY Times (TimesSelect sub required) savages this argument. He notes that western media self-censor all the time in deciding what to say and what to leave out about sensitive stories involving religion, race and many other matters. And he claims that such censorship is not at all a bad thing. In fact, in most instances it is a good thing because it shows a level of civility that is necessary in a multi-ethnic society. It is only when we cease honoring this unwritten pact, when we unbutton our lip and let fly with our baser instincts that we get into trouble.

Caryn Sachs, a commenter on one of my Muhammed posts, took special offense at the Belgian Muslim newspaper which published a cartoon of Adolf Hitler in bed (after having sex with Anne Frank) saying: “Put that in your diary, Anne.” She contended that such cartoons are far more offensive because they seek to demean and debase the Holocaust. In my reply, I agreed with her that such Holocaust cartoons are deeply offensive and a highly insulting response to the anti-Muslim cartoons. However, I argued that each side in this debate was losing track of the feelings of the other. I see no reason Muslims shouldn’t be just as offended by the Muhammed cartoons as Jews would be over the Hitler cartoon.

Wright comments on these general themes here:

…Why not take the model that has worked in America and apply it globally? Namely: Yes, you are legally free to publish just about anything, but if you publish things that gratuitously offend ethnic or religious groups, you will earn the scorn of enlightened people everywhere. With freedom comes responsibility.

Of course, it’s a two-way street. As Westerners try to attune themselves to the sensitivities of Muslims, Muslims need to respect the sensitivities of, for example, Jews. But it’s going to be hard for Westerners to sell Muslims on this symmetrical principle while flagrantly violating it themselves. That Danish newspaper editor, along with his American defenders, is complicating the fight against anti-Semitism.

Some Westerners say there’s no symmetry here — that cartoons about the Holocaust are more offensive than cartoons about Muhammad. And, indeed, to us secularists it may seem clear that joking about the murder of millions of people is worse than mocking a God whose existence is disputed.

BUT one key to the American formula for peaceful coexistence is to avoid such arguments — to let each group decide what it finds most offensive, so long as the implied taboo isn’t too onerous. We ask only that the offended group in turn respect the verdicts of other groups about what they find most offensive. Obviously, anti-Semitic and other hateful cartoons won’t be eliminated overnight. (In the age of the Internet, no form of hate speech will be eliminated, period; the argument is about what appears in mainstream outlets that are granted legitimacy by nations and peoples.)

Say Amen somebody.

tags , , , , , ,

Comments (4) Print Post Print Post

Muslim Hate Alive and Well on Los Angeles Radio

Lest anyone think that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten has the market cornered on tasteless anti-Muslim provocation, we have to look no farther than Clear Channel Media’s right-wing Los Angeles talk radio station KFI, whose host, Bill Handel, mocked the Muslims killed in a Mecca stampede during Hajj this year:

Bill Handel kfi hostHandel the hater

At least 363 pilgrims were killed and hundreds injured in a stampede Jan. 12 in Mecca, where thousands of people were rushing to carry out a symbolic ritual of stoning the devil.

According to the civil liberties group [CAIR], Handel imitated the people screaming and then joked that the Muslims at the pilgrimage should use a helicopter to monitor pilgrimage traffic, as is done in Los Angeles with the freeways.

The group quoted Handel as saying: “This is Mahmoud Nolan. Hajj in the Sky. There is an accident. … Ali lost his sandal on the on-ramp to the Martin Luther King Jr. freeway.”
(KABC-TV)

After the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights group demanded an apology from Handel and KFI, our right-wing friends at Little Green Footballs were up in arms. They urged both to stand fast against the “radical Islamic front group” (whose leader, Ibrahim Hooper, meets with George Bush and is consulted by the White House on matter related to the U.S. Muslim community).

I guess LGF doesn’t carry enough juice though because Clear Channel and Handel “caved to CAIR” as Charles Johnson’s headline whined. Clear Channel took a look at those burning Danish diplomatic buildings in Lebanon and Syria and decided that discretion was the better part of valor. Not to mention, they might’ve been afraid of an FCC license challenge by CAIR when KFI’s license came up for renewal.

If anyone cares to hear a juvenile right-wing bigot eat crow on air, you may listen to Handel’s apology. KFI’s right-wing corporate parent also tasted of the bird:

Clear Channel Communications Regional Vice President Greg Ashlock wrote in part: (Clear Channel is KFI’s parent company.)

“We would like to offer a sincere apology to members of the Muslim Community for recent comments airing on our station related to the unfortunate deaths for those taking part in the Hajj. KFI AM 640 does not condone making light of the deaths of people engaged in religious observances…

“On this particular program, we crossed the line in reporting the Hajj incident in an insensitive manner. We have discussed the content and timing of this ‘bit’ extensively with Mr. Bill Handel and his crew and are confident that everyone now understands the gravity of the situation. Mr. Handel expresses his sincere apology for the insensitive remarks.”

Does anyone want to argue that mimicking the screams of dying Muslims on air exemplifies one of those sacred rights of freedom of speech that our country was founded to uphold?

LGF also denigrates CAIR as a “fringe Islamic group.” One has to wonder whether Johnson has any idea of American-Muslim groups and whether there are any he would find mainstream or acceptable to his way of thinking? And if CAIR is a fringe radical front group does that make the Anti-Defamation League (a comparable American-Jewish group) the same within the Jewish world? You can see by the analogy that LGF’s overheated phrasemongering doesn’t even have a semblance of rhetorical reality.

Hat tip to LGF Watch, those intrepid monitors of Johnson hate.

tags , , , , ,

Comments (7) Print Post Print Post

ACLU Sues on Behalf of Ramadan to Strike Down Patriot Act Statute

A Muslim who Homeland Security says is "mad, bad, and dangerous to know." (photo: Graham Morrison) Noted European Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan, has been persona non grata in this country since 2004, when the Department of Homeland Security cancelled a visa it had issued allowing him to teach at Notre Dame. DHS never gave any specific reason for the cancellation other than this vague explanation reported by the NY Times: Speaking to reporters in August 2004, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, Russ Knocke, cited the Patriot Act clause as the reason that Mr. Ramadan's visa was canceled. The clause, adopted when the act was passed ...

Comments Print Post Print Post