You’ve gotta hand it to David Yerushalmi. Until now, I can’t recall a Jew who’s ever been called a white supremacist before (actually now that I think of it, I called him a Jewish white supremacist way back in 2007). Thanks to him, we now can. They said that one of the virtues of Zionism was that now Israel could have Jewish criminals. I guess the same holds true for Jewish racists. Thanks to Dovid Yerushalmi Jews are really breaking new ground.
I’m referring to an eye-opening expose in Mother Jones about the inspiration the Jewish extremist is offering for the anti-Muslim legal initiatives that are sweeping the south after the victory of one such campaign in Oklahoma a few months ago. Now Tennessee stands ready to draw the line at Muslim infidels thrusting their scimitars into the private parts of Christian maidens. The legislature there is considering a bill which would ban the use of foreign legal systems like Sharia in the adjudication of any legal matters within the state. So far, I haven’t seen any Tennesseans clamoring to apply Sharia to the laws governing horse-racing at Churchill Downs. But that doesn’t deter Yerushalmi, who has projects like this cooking in several other southern Tea Party strongholds.
One of the most delicious phrases used to describe the Jewish anti-jihadi is “white supremacist,” to which I say: if the shoe fits…I’ve also called him a Jewish fascist. But white supremacist will do just as well.
As Murphy notes, this is a guy who endorses the principle that “Caucasians” are superior to blacks and that Jewish liberals are a cancer in the U.S. body politic. The nearest Jewish “intellectual” antecedent I can determine would be Meir Kahane. But Yerushalmi’s views are far more radical than Kahane’s. The only difference is that Kahane embraced violence as a tool in his campaign against Arabs and anti-Semites. The latter-day Jewish Islamophobe, an attorney, is far too slick for that. He merely suggests that all non-citizen Muslims in the country be deported and many of the rest thrown in concentration camps. In Yerushalmi-world, any Muslim who espoused Sharia would earn him or herself a 20 year stay in the federal pen. Why would you need violence when you can throw the entire weight of the federal government into criminalizing merely being a Muslim?
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Yerushalmi, a fedora-totin’, tzitis-wearing ultra-Orthodox Jew, was an avid supporter of the settler movement, the Israeli equivalent of the Tea Party with Uzis.
David Yerushalmi is the nasty, sleazy side of the more refined Muslim-bashing proposed by Rep. Peter King, who plans on quizzing Muslim-Americans about their nasty un-American habits in Congressional hearings soon. The former is Roy Cohn, to King’s Joe McCarthy. Can you imagine white Christian Congress members summoning American Jews to defend their Americanism in public hearings? It’s preposterous, nauseating.
And just think, if Mike Huckabee gets the Republican nomination, we’ll have a settler-loving presidential candidate espousing such a foul, racist agenda.
RE: As Murphy notes, this is a guy who endorses the principle that “Caucasians” are superior to blacks… – R.S.
SPOKEN WITH AN ACCENT AKIN TO HALEY BARBOUR’S: Well if it weren’t for his “ferin” soundin’ last name, I reckon this David fella might be jus’ the kinda good ol’ boy we need up yonder in the White House!
FROM BRUCE WILSON, Talk to Action, 12/28/07:
SOURCE (see comments) – http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/27/20819/823
Mother Jones has a brief bit about this latter-day KKKer at http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/david-yerushalmi-sharia-ban-tennessee. I gather from MJ’s short piece that he’s based in Arizona. Figures.
I know nothing on David Yerushalmi
but i think the issue is not his views, the issue is weather or not you are willing to allow sharia or any other non American governing way of life to become the law of the land.
Not the issue at all. Sharia isn’t the law of the land nor is will it ever be. The issue is whether Sharia, like halacha can be used in discreet situations like family law (divorce, etc.) to inform civil law. For Orthodox Jews, they may use halacha as a means to adjudicate such disputes & resolve them & civil law recognizes the agreements made. Sharia should be no diff. Those are the ONLY instances in which Sharia would be used. Don’t make a mtn. out of a molehill.
Richard, Islam and Judaism though similar have few fundamental differences one of them has to do with the Status of the Wife.
INTRODUCTION: THE STATUS OF THE WIFE IN ISLAM
One of the more controversial issues in Islam is the Quran’s authorization for husbands to beat disobedient wives. This is found in chapter 4, verse 34. Additional references on wife beating are found in Muhammad’s traditions (hadith), and biographical material (sira). Many people have criticized Islam because of this harsh sanction and many Muslims have written articles seeking to mollify or defend it.
In review of the actual teachings of the Quran, hadith, and sira, Islam is rightly criticized. This command is not only a harsh way to treat one’s wife, it portrays the degraded position of married women in Islam. It will be shown from the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and other Islamic writings that this “Islamic” wife beating is physical and painful.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm#_Toc160373812
I can go on and on and quote Muslim Scholars position on wife beating but that is not the point, the point is that parts of Sharia conflicts with the law of the land, and if permitted will create a real problem. How do you deal with a situation at which a husband beats his wife? How do you deal with a situation in which a man marries a minor? How do you deal with bigamy?
Those things needs to be answered and if you read the article you linked to, it is exactly what the article says: “Matheny, the House speaker pro tempore, said he is concerned that aspects of Sharia law might conflict with the U.S. Constitution, but he does not intend to criminalize practices such as the preparations for prayer or dietary rules.”
You don’t know the half about similar rules in Judaism. In fact, you should read the post I wrote about child abuse in which I quote a verse fr. Proverbs which encourages a father to beat a child lest he sin. There were also rabbis who said that wife beating was permissible. You’ve somehow overlooked this. I wonder why?
Get this through your head & listen carefully. I won’t repeat it again. This blog & comment threads WILL NOT be a forum for comparative religion discourses which list the alleged deficiencies or backwardness of Islam. This is the last time I’ll say this: you will stop this nonsense now. If not, you won’t remain. And I’ll do that in a heartbeat.
Thank you Mr Silverstein!
“You somehow overlooked this. I wonder why ?”
Only Islam-Bashing and Arabophobia is printed in the “Daily Propaganda News”.
I’m still amazed how someone as IlanP – claiming he has a Master degree – stick to ‘wikipedia’ and now this ‘answering Islam”-site. I took a look, nice people, Evangelical Christian !! Aren’t they anti-semitic in the end ?? Seems that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to some people.
1. I am sorry you are taking my things out of context, i was simply asking a question, which you never answered.
2. I read your child abuse and i am sorry you had to go through that. the relevant quote was “Do not withhold discipline from a child” and i assume you quoted one of the famous quotes from Proverbs חוסך שיבטו שונא בנו ואוהבו שיחרו מוסר
you think that’s encourage a father to beat his son ? you are wrong. this is no encouragement to beat anyone this phrase speaks of the levels of teaching a father is obligated to teach his son and the word שבט actually refers to שבט לשונו the wrath of his tongue. and yes in special circumstances your are permitted to give your son a פליק/פלאסק as a way to distinguish between right and wrong not as a punishment.
3. and yes i don’t know You don’t know the half about similar rules in Judaism, but i am here to learn as it states in Psalms מכל מלמדי השכלתי, so please instead of providing such an empty answer please elaborate on that a bit.
I don’t think you read my post because this is the title of it: “IF YOU BEAT HIM HE WILL NOT DIE.” A quotation from Proverbs. Did you miss that in the Good Book? And similarly if you’d really read my post you would’ve read the rabbinic source which approve of a husband beating a wife.
You might want to revisit Leviticus and Deuteronomy sometimes. Aren’t you and Matheny concerned that parts of these books conflict with the Constitution, especially when followers of the Bible so vastly outnumber Muslims in the US?
The solution is what it has always been wrt application of foreign law: when a provision does not clash with the Constitution, it will be considered, otherwise not. It’s absurd to think you’ll have to allow either all foreign law or none of it.
There are enough allowances for wife beating in both Christianity and Judaism (Bible and Torah) that your point becomes moot when you add in Islam. They are all branches of the same tree and you can’t cut off one without damaging the others. Make no mistake polygamy is an issue with all 3 just like domestic abuse.
I agree, but I wonder about your remark on polygamy. I have been thinking about versions of Christianity that allow it, but could not think of one. Unless perhaps you count in the Mormons?
That includes Christian and Jewish law you know. That means 10 commandments are out the door. Both are middle eastern based religious law. Are you willing to go there?
FROM CHARLES JOHNSON, Little Green Footballs, 08/10/10:
SOURCE – http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36930_The_Leaders_of_the_Anti-Mosque_Movement
IINM, the Oklahoma bill is suspended, pending a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.
Don’t US courts consider foreign religious law (Sharia, Halacha, Canon law) all the time in matters pertaining to marriage, custody, inheritance and so on between US and foreign citizens? Incorporating such laws into domestic US law (thus eliminating their “foreignness”) would almost certainly clash with the First Amendment, I think. Then there’s the little matter of the Supremacy Clause, ranking “foreign” (to a State) federal law above any State Constitution and establishing US treaties as the law of the land.
Obviously the US Constitution is the red line for any such consideration of religious law. Adulterers are not lashed (as demanded by Sharia) any more than they are stoned to death (as demanded by the Bible).
Dear Richard,
I appreciate your sincere fairness and impartiality.
Ahmed