Friday, March 4, 2016

Hidden cam shows Rabbis for Human Rights 'assist in land grabs' - Gil Ronen



by Gil Ronen

Three years of undercover work yielded footage depicting a system for tricking Israel into giving up land to Palestinians.




The latest video released by nationalist NGO Ad Kan features hidden camera footage that outlines a sophisticated method used by what Ad Kan calls "anti-Israeli organizations" for taking over state land. The footage was shot by the group's activists who infiltrated the ultra-leftist groups that operate in Judea and Samaria over a three year period.

The land involved was allocated in the past to some of the Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria for cultivation purposes only. The land does not belong to these Arabs, and reverts to full state ownership if they fail to cultivate the land for several years.

A group called Ta'ayush seeks to transfer these plots to full Arab ownership, according to Ad Kan. Prof. Amiel Vardi, Head of the Classical Studies Department in Hebrew University and one of the heads of Ta'ayush, explained on hidden camera that Ta'ayush's activists find the plots of land and then consult the legal department of Rabbis for Human Rights, which tells them what legal documents they need to obtain in order to claim the land.

Arabs are then solicited to file lawsuits demanding ownership of the land. In one case documented, the Arab insists that he has already sold the land, but Ta'ayush's Ezra Nawi tells him to "forget the word 'sale'… If you sold it, nobody knows."

'Provocations for proof'

If the land can easily be proven to be state land that was never cultivated, the next option for reclaiming it is to say that the reason the Arabs did not cultivate it is that the IDF prevented them from having access to the land.

The video shows that Ta'ayush achieves this by holding provocations on the land. When the IDF moves in to push out the provocateurs, they capture the event on video and use it to "prove" that the IDF prevented access to the land.

Many portions of the video were shown in earlier videos by Ad Kan, but this is the first YouTube version with English subtitles, provided by Arutz Sheva.

In another Ad Kan video, a Ta'ayush activist is seen explaining: "We work very closely in some of the cases here with the legal department of Rabbis for Human Rights… There are several instances in which we work in cooperation… where we are like the field agents for Rabbis [for Human Rights]…"

The activist makes clear that Rabbis for Human Rights enjoy large scale support from US donors who would not support Ta'ayush and therefore must not know that the two groups are connected: "[They have] a huge amount of donors from Jewish congregations in the US," he says. "That's why their connection to us is, like… delicate… So they [Rabbis for Human Rights] know about it, but the donors are not supposed to know about it."

Arutz Sheva readers in the US might therefore be well advised to forward this news report to acquaintances who may be thinking about donating to Rabbis for Human Rights.

'I proudly say that we work with Ta'ayush'

Arik Ascherman of Rabbis for Human Rights commented on a previous Arutz Sheva report about the Ad Kan material by denying that the connection with Ta'ayush is something that his group tries to hide.

"When I raise money in the US I proudly say that we work with Ta'ayush. Those who criticize us for not checking our facts and sources should be asking how nobody checked the statement of one Ta'ayush activist," he wrote.


Gil Ronen

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/208862#.VtiTKuazdds

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

French Diplomacy on 'Palestine' Will Run Aground - Shoshana Bryen



by Shoshana Bryen


France is proposing to lead the Middle East Quartet on a new foray into Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. It's a ready-made disaster.


France is proposing to lead the Middle East Quartet on a new foray into Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy.  This is understandable as a part of French politics.  The Palestinians, however, are setting up to be at least as difficult a client for France as they have ever been for the U.S.

Of the members of the P5+1 negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran last summer, France was least happy with the result and said so publicly. Since President Obama needed all five other nations to sign onto the deal, he bowed to a previously expressed French interest in midwifing a Palestinian state in exchange for French acquiescence on Iran.

Aside from its traditional delusions of influence in the Middle East, France wanted to appease its large, unassimilated, unhappy, and increasingly violent Muslim population, which is predominantly Sunni with no love for Iran – and not much love for the French State.  France is also part of the anti-Sunni ISIS coalition, which angers parts of the French Muslim population as well.  President François Hollande perhaps thought he could buy time or space by inserting himself in the issue of Palestinian statehood – not resolving the problems that bedevil Israelis and Palestinians, but just producing a Palestinian state.

Hollande & Co. will run afoul of two trends: one French, one Palestinian.  First, France's Muslim population, while increasingly anti-Jewish, is not particularly interested in a Palestinian state.  Watching Israel sold down the river by a Western country may have some visceral appeal, but it will not let Hollande off the hook for France's perceived sins against its Muslim population or the Sunni Muslim cause.  Second, France is offering the Palestinian Authority nothing the Palestinians have not previously rejected – and will reject this time as well for the same reasons.

Three firm offers of Palestinian statehood have been tried: the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 that called for "a Palestinian Arab State and a Palestinian Jewish State" (Jews were called Palestinians before the establishment of Israel made them Israelis); the Olmert offer of 2000, made at Camp David with the active assistance and blessing of President Clinton, including 97% of the West Bank, free passage to Gaza (this was before the Hamas-Fatah civil war in 2007), and rights in Jerusalem; and the 2006 Barak offer.  The Arab states rejected the first, Arafat the second, and Abbas the third.

The Palestinians have always had three bottom lines:
  • Establishment of an internationally recognized state without permanent borders.  This leaves open the possibility of future claims against Israeli territory.
  • The right of return by the original 1948-49 refugees and their descendants to places inside the "Green Line" from which they or their ancestors claim to have originated.
  • Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of Palestine.
Simply stating the parameters makes it clear that any true negotiation is unlikely to succeed – not that France was offering one, but the parties always paid lip service to the idea of a negotiated settlement.  The Palestinians have now decided that even that is risky.

Palestinian Authority foreign minister Riyad al-Malki told a press conference in Japan, "We will never go back and sit again in a direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations."  Then, as Palestinians often do, he almost told the truth about why.  He warned that radical forces in the West Bank are growing and threatening "moderate" Palestinian rule.  "If Daesh takes advantage of a lack of brokers ... then of course they might come and try to fill [the vacuum].  This is very dangerous."

Hamas, the main enemy of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, has indeed made inroads in the West Bank, and ISIS-supporters are found there as well.  P.A. corruption and repression have produced a citizenry that is poor, angry, and fearful – fertile ground for radicals.   

And while the P.A. blames Israel, 81 percent of Palestinians in a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research believe that the P.A. is corrupt.  Al Shabaka, which calls itself "The Palestinian Policy Network," noted in a 2015 study, "Palestinians have been increasingly frustrated with corruption in the PA over the last decade, leading to street protests in 2004, and the election of Hamas in 2006. Dealing with corruption effectively would require structural change of the political system, including an effective legislature, an independent judiciary, civil society monitoring, and a reformed international aid system."
The same report notes:
Employment in the PA public sector does not necessarily imply job security: If employees express criticism of PA policies, they are likely to be forced into early retirement, denied salary payments, or arbitrarily removed from their posts. They may also face a series of punitive measures, including denial of promotion or transfer to distant areas.
Just this week, the P.A. set up security checkpoints – you know, like the hated Israeli checkpoints?  But not for security – the P.A. was attempting to prevent Palestinian teachers from demonstrating for payment of their salaries.  The P.A. threatened the bus companies that drove the teachers to Ramallah for the demonstration.  In the past year, the P.A. has arrested more than 50 Palestinians for social media activity.

It is in hopes of channeling public anger that the P.A. provides direct and indirect support to the stabbing campaign against Jews.  But at the same time, the P.A. continues to coordinate with the IDF in the territories so that Israel can continue to arrest Hamas and ISIS operatives – which serves both PA and Israeli interests – as well as arresting Palestinians organizing and supporting terror against Israel.

Palestinians claim that security coordination is forced upon them and would cease if the "occupation" ended.  This is a necessary double game for Abbas.  Palestinian security forces make up 44% of total PA employees and use 30-35% of its total budget (much of which is supplied by the U.S.), but without the support and coordination of the Israel Defense Forces in the territories, Abbas would find it impossible to stay in power. 

His fear isn't that Israel won't give enough at the negotiating table; it is that Israel might concede so much that France might force him into a deal that will remove IDF protection from his corrupt regime.

There is little chance that France could succeed, but enough of one that Abbas won't risk sitting in the room with Israel.


Shoshana Bryen

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/french_diplomacy_on_palestine_will_run_aground.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Congress: Israel-Arab peace deal must include Jewish refugees - David Rosenberg



by David Rosenberg

Bipartisan bill in congress would require resolution for Jewish refugees from Arab countries in any future Arab-Israeli peace deal.




Yemenite Jews flee their homes
Yemenite Jews flee their homes
Kluger Zoltan/Public Domain
 
A bipartisan coalition of 14 congressional lawmakers have cosponsored a bill intended to rectify the losses suffered by Jewish refugees who fled their homes across the Middle East following the establishment of the State of Israel.

According to a statement released on Wednesday by the office of New York Democratic congressman Eliot Engel, the Displaced Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries and Iran Act would require the President “to ensure resolution for Jewish refugees displaced from Arab countries and Iran.”

The President would be required to include provisions for Jewish Middle East refugees in any future Arab-Israeli negotiated settlement.

A joint statement released by the bill’s sponsors recognized the hardships faced by the ancient Jewish communities across the Middle East and North Africa, and the oppression they suffered under local Arab governments.

“The Arab governments subjected hundreds of thousands of Jews to displacement, political marginalization, or property confiscation with no compensation.”

“The Displaced Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries and Iran Act ensures that the interests of all refugees displaced as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict are fairly considered in any final settlement of Arab-Israeli peace.”

Close to one million Jews were forced to leave their homes across the Middle East and North Africa following the establishment of Israel in 1948. More than 600,000 settled in Israel, where they and their descendants now make up a majority of Israel’s Jewish population.

In most cases, Jewish refugees lost their homes and valuables as they were forced out, and have since been largely unable to either receive compensation or reclaim their property.

While Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 have received widespread international recognition, the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries is largely unknown outside of Israel.


David Rosenberg

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/208846#.VthqYeazdds

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Christians Who Demonize Israel - Part III - Denis MacEoin



by Denis MacEoin

Sabeel: An Anti-Semitic Cult within the Church

  • Sabeel's theology distorts the Old Testament by denying Jews any ongoing connection with the land of their origin, and treating them as a people abandoned by God. There is also repeated disparagement of Judaism as "tribal," "primitive," and "exclusionary."
  • Where most modern churches have left the anti-Semitism of the past behind and recognize that the Romans, not the Jews, crucified Jesus, this cult of what has been called "Christian Palestinianism" denies any historical or theological connection between the biblical Israel, the Jewish people, and the State of Israel.
  • Perhaps the gravest error made by Kairos, Sabeel, and other Christian groups who pursue a one-sided campaign is that they take away from the Palestinians any form of agency or self-reliance. If the Israelis are to blame for all that is wrong and the Palestinians are only victims, then Palestinians must be treated as children, without the will and power to act on their own behalf. Or who can act only through violence and hate.
  • Are these campaigns, replete with fraudulent charges, as in the Inquisition, really not about Palestinians at all, but just the latest incarnation of the old racist and religious hatred of Jews, and a clear expression of the "New Anti-Semitism"?
(See also Part I: Christians Who Demonize Israel: Kairos and Christians Who Demonize Israel - Part II)
The Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center is an arguably anti-Semitic and supersessionist organization that has recently been criticized by several Anglican clergy. Sabeel was founded in 1989 by an Anglican priest, Naim Ateek, former Canon of St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem. Still based in Jerusalem, it has eleven chapters in Western countries. In Ateek's theology, Jesus is no longer a Jew living under Roman rule, but "a Palestinian living under an occupation." Ateek has spoken without irony while preaching that
"it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge Golgotha. The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily. Palestine has become the place of the skull."
Here, he is drawing on the familiar canard of Jews as Christ-killers, a trope rejected by most mainstream Christian churches. The concept has, as we know, been the basis for all earlier Christian persecution and murder of Jews.

Sabeel's theology distorts the Old Testament by denying Jews any ongoing connection with the land of their origin, and treating them as a people abandoned by God. There is also repeated disparagement of Judaism as "tribal," "primitive," and "exclusionary." Judaism has also been unjustly described as a "theology of contempt".[1]

Where most modern churches have left the anti-Semitism of the past behind and recognize that the Romans, not the Jews, crucified Jesus, the exponents of this cult of what has been called "Christian Palestinianism" deny any historical or theological connection between the biblical Israel, the Jewish people, and the modern State of Israel. In doing this in a period that has seen a massive upsurge in anti-Semitism throughout Europe, North America, and the Islamic world, Sabeel openly states that history's most persecuted community, the Jews, has no right whatsoever to a land in which it can defend itself from assaults and the current open threat, this time from Iran, of another genocide. Sabeel seems to have turned its back on all the work done by organizations such as the Council of Christians and Jews, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, or the World Congress of Faiths. (For a list of other statements by Ateek, see here.)

Sabeel has been widely criticized by both Christians and Jews. Anglican Friends of Israel has listed several Christian critics. Dexter Van Zile from the United Church of Christ is convinced that Ateek is dangerous:
"He's able to wrap up Palestinian nationalism in the language of Christian Witness and essentially that agenda then gets legitimized by Churches in the U.S., Europe, Canada and Australia. He gives legitimacy to a dishonest historical narrative."
Sister Ruth Laut, a lawyer and Dominican nun, of Churches United for Just Peace in the Middle East and Rev. William Harter of Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Relations and the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, have spoken against the Sabeel's agenda.

Charles McVety, the president of Canada Christian College and an evangelical Christian leader, has said that
"These groups do not speak on behalf of Christians in any way. They are a radical fringe indulging their anti-Semitic, anti-Israel bias under the guise of neutrality."
Nor are these individuals alone. Anglican Friends of Israel reported in 2005:
"Deeply concerned about the programs and message that Sabeel is bringing to North America, a body called The Coalition for Responsible Peace in the Middle East has been formed. It includes the United Church of Christ. The Coalition has stated that "They (Sabeel) undermine hopes for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, for greater understanding about the conflict and for the spread of religious tolerance."
The journalist Jeff Jacoby has stated that "Sabeel and Ateek's denunciations of Israel have included imagery explicitly linking the modern Jewish state to the terrible charge that for centuries fueled so much anti-Jewish hatred and bloodshed," and that "In Ateek's metaphorical telling, in other words, Israel is guilty of trying to murder Jesus as an infant, of killing Jesus on the cross, and of seeking to prevent his resurrection."

Jacoby quotes Adam Gregerman, Assistant Director of the Institute for Jewish-Christian Relations at Saint Joseph's University (a Jesuit institution in Philadelphia). Writing in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies in 2004, Gregerman observed that "liberation theologians" such as Ateek "perpetuate some of the most unsavory and vicious images of the Jews as malevolent, antisocial, hostile to non-Jews. ... As such, liberation theology impedes rather than fosters any serious attempt at understanding or ending the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians."

In the UK, the leading representative of Sabeel is the notorious Rev. Dr. Stephen Sizer, the incumbent of the Anglican parish of Christchurch, Virginia Water, in Surrey. I say "notorious" because of the trouble he has brought on himself within the church. On January 20, 2015, Sizer posted a link on his Facebook page to a lengthy 9/11 conspiracy theory article entitled "9/11 Israel did it." The article included claims which, among others, seek to connect wealthy American Jews to the attacks, through their ownership of buildings, political affiliations or links to Israel. Sizer asked: "Is this anti-Semitic? If so no doubt I'll be asked to remove it. It raises so many questions."

Later, he removed the post, not necessarily because he no longer thought it was true, but because Britain's leading Jewish organization, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, had asked for it to be taken down. In correspondence with Jewish News Online, he asked that evidence be provided to refute the conspiracy theory.

Church of England Rev. Dr. Stephen Sizer meets Nabil Kaouk, a commander of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, in Lebanon. Rev. Sizer is a leading representative of Sabeel in the UK. (Image source: Daily Mail)

On January 29, 2015, the Church of England stated that the comments made by Sizer were unacceptable and that the Diocese of Guildford would launch an investigation. The following day, Sizer issued a statement of apology and announced that the diocese had suspended him from all social media and blogs. The Board of Deputies of British Jews also published a statement condemning Sizer's behavior. On February 9, it emerged that he had been banned from social media by the new Bishop of Guildford, the Rt. Revd. Andrew Watson, for at least six months, for his allegation of Israeli responsibility for the 9/11 atrocities. Sizer has also been banned from commenting on issues relating to the Middle East and will not attend further conferences on this subject. In his letter to the bishop, Sizer accepted that if he were to break the undertaking he has made not to use social media for that period, he would have to resign his ministry.

The Bishop of Manchester, Nigel McCulloch, who chairs the Council of Christians and Jews, has said that
"The content and the delay in removing the link from Mr Sizer's Facebook page was disgraceful and unbecoming for a clergyman of the Church of England to promote. Members of the CCJ have described the website as 'obscenely antisemitic.'"
Simon McIlwaine, known as a man of integrity, is the founder of Anglican Friends of Israel. He has called for Sizer to be defrocked.

We have to ask why, in the light of what we know of Sabeel, Naim Ateek and Stephen Sizer, an Anglican church in Newcastle chose to display and distribute literature from this organization, containing quotations from Ateek. This is not a light matter. It raises profound questions. Perhaps the gravest error made by Kairos, Sabeel, and other Christian groups who pursue a one-sided campaign is that they take away from the Palestinians any form of agency or self-reliance. If the Israelis are to blame for all that is wrong and the Palestinians are only victims, then Palestinians must be treated as children, without the will and power to act on their own behalf. Or who can act only through violence and hate.

This infantilization of a people who have taken thousands of innocent lives, committed grave sins, and openly rejected offers of peace makes them, instead, passive recipients of suffering rather than the actors that, in fact, they are. By disengaging Palestinians from responsibility for their own hatred and actions, anti-Israel churchmen and lay members trap the very people for whom they evince the greatest love inside thoughts and policies, many of them inspired by Islamic teachings, that call for the oppression of Jews and Christians as dhimmi peoples (tolerated, second-class citizens) that render them more powerless. They permit the Palestinians to persist within an atmosphere of hatred, rather than calling them to love. There is no place, in our opinion, for the support of hatred within a Christian church, just as no hatred is ever expressed within a synagogue.

Or, as many people increasingly suspect, are these campaigns, replete with fraudulent charges, as in the Inquisition, really not about Palestinians at all, but just the latest incarnation of the old racist and religious hatred of Jews, and a clear expression of the "New Anti-Semitism"?

In conclusion, let us present the Shalom Declaration, a statement that has been presented to Christians of many denominations and signed by them as a token of their trust of Israel and the Jewish people. It speaks for itself.

The Shalom Declaration:
We deeply appreciate that Israel is the only country in the Middle East which extends freedom of worship to all its citizens and where the Christian community is growing. We grieve and stand with families in Israel and the wider Middle East, who have lost loved ones and with all who are persecuted by the rise of violent extremism and intolerance in the region. We pray that those inciting trouble and disharmony in the Middle East and who threaten the existence of Israel will be thwarted. We further pray that the peacemakers will see their patience and vision rewarded so that Isaiah's prophecy of "swords beaten into pruning forks" and the declaration of Jesus that "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God," will soon become a reality. We draw succour from the vibrancy of the State of Israel, from its democratic political system, its academic and cultural creativity and its remarkable contribution to humanity in terms of science and technology. And we call upon the spiritual leaders and elected representatives of our nation to work tirelessly to combat anti-Semitism and violent extremism across the world and to strengthen understanding and co-operation between the peoples of our nation and of Israel.
We call upon the Anglican Church to consider this report and to examine the Wall Will Fall event and the false claims of Kairos, Sabeel and like organizations in the light of Christ's message of love and forgiveness. It must be the Church's judgement whether there is need for a call to repentance. But if there is no coming alive to the injustice and deceit of Christian anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, then this ungodly bigotry and confusion within the churches will continue to fester.

Appendix

Unfortunately, the structure of the workshops at the "Walls Will Fall" event, held in St Thomas The Martyr Church in Newcastle upon Tyne, meant that one could only attend two out of the four available workshops and not the film.

The first workshop was on "Palestinian-Israeli collaboration," and focused on the Villages Group, an NGO involving some Israelis with rural Palestinians in two villages near Nablus. This project seems in many ways commendable, and I can understand why some Christians support it. But the group's own website and Facebook page are avowedly anti-Israeli, taking on causes for the Palestinian side only. This became clear during the workshop, which condemned Israeli security checkpoints, the Israeli security barrier, and related topics. Although I had not intended to say anything during the day, these accusations grew so vicious that it felt necessary to address some of the points made.

An attempt was made to explain that the "Wall" is only a tiny fraction of the Israeli security barrier, well over 90% of which is a wire fence some 430 miles in length. There is no doubt that the barrier and checkpoints make life difficult for the Palestinians, but in the workshop I pointed out that it was built in response to the huge toll in lives taken by suicide bombers and other terrorists; since its construction many hundreds of lives have been saved, as illustrated in the chart below:


Two other matters seemed relevant. When there were checkpoints during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, most people (including the present writer and his family) were grateful for their presence to prevent terrorist attacks. Then, back in the Middle East, we meet a Gazan woman, Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, who was arrested at a checkpoint on June 20, 2005, while wearing a massive bomb strapped to her thigh. She planned to go as an outpatient to the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheva, Israel, where her life had been saved after she suffered burns in a domestic accident. Her orders, given by Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, were to explode the bomb among the doctors and nurses, killing as many children as possible. At that time, Palestinians trying to smuggle bombs and other weapons through checkpoints were arrested almost every day.

The only response to this information was a statement that "this is all nonsense" or words to that effect. Given the Christian context of the workshop, one could only be at a loss to understand such a very clear indifference to the concept of saving human life. No-one present (in a packed room) voiced any objection to that callous remark.

Literature

There is no space here for a full discussion of the many leaflets, pamphlets and booklets that were made available on the dozen or more bookstalls at the event. With a couple of exceptions (such as information on some girls' schools in the West Bank), none of the material contained even a brief mention of the Jewish, moderate Christian, or Israeli side of events and policies. Much seemed heavily and sometimes viciously expressive of hatred for the State of Israel; placed one hundred percent of the blame for any conflict on Israel or Jewish settlers. Much also discounted, excused, covered up or ignored decades of Arab and Palestinian violence and PLO and Hamas calls for the eradication of Israel because it is a Jewish state and therefore unacceptable in Islamic law. Some of what was there was gross, much of it was subtle. For anyone with a limited knowledge of the history and ideological underpinnings of this dispute, the glosses and mis-statements were persuasive and, unsurprisingly, designed to draw readers into the Palestinian narrative.
Dr. Denis MacEoin has lectured and written about the Middle East since the 1980s.

[1] See Jules Isaac "The Teaching of Contempt: The Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1964.


Denis MacEoin has lectured and written about the Middle East since the 1980s.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7481/sabeel

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Progressive 'Thought-Blockers': Racism - Bruce Thornton



by Bruce Thornton

How the Left amasses and consolidates political power.




Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Rather than being a racial healer, Barack Obama has presided over and at times stoked more racial divisiveness than we have seen in a long while. Just in the last year we’ve had Black Lives Matter marches and verbal assaults of Democratic candidates, the Oscar protests over the absence of nominated black actors, Ivy League university students marching over “microagressions” no one else can see, and the still simmering protests and agitation over police shootings of black men. Driving it all is our duplicitous and malignant national racial discourse.

At the heart of it lies “racism,” a question-begging epithet and verbal aerosol sprayed over issues to avoid honestly confronting them. The idea of racism is peculiarly modern, and like most of progressive ideology it reflects the rise of pseudo-science in the wake of the scientific revolution. As such, racism was a consequence of the massive category error that tries to reduce human beings to mere material phenomena to be classified and understood and shaped with the methods of real science. In “scientific” racism, certain characteristics of physical appearance and behavior were stripped of historical and cultural context, and the “irreducible complexity” defining all humans reduced to this simplified, superficial description. Worse yet from the perspective of the West’s Judeo-Christian and Hellenic heritage, the unique individualism of people, with their God-given natural rights and spiritual freedom, was denied to fellow human beings.

Before modern racism, there were prejudice and bigotry, the leftover tribal instinct to distrust the stranger or those who look and live differently. Humans are naturally clannish and exclusionary, as a visit to any playground or school, or a perusal of multiculturalist dogma and curricula, will reveal. The idea of a universal human nature and the subsequent tolerance for difference was and still is a strange one, a learned behavior that culture has to teach and reinforce.

Of course distaste for the stranger persisted, even among the Greeks who invented this notion of tolerance, but who also dismissed non-Greeks as “barbarians.” But there’s a difference from modern racism still important today. Old racists reduced Africans to their skin color, from which their names for them like “Negro” were derived. For the Greeks, the word “barbarian” reflected language, not a physical attribute: when foreigners spoke it sounded to the Greek ear like “bar-bar.” But anyone can learn a language. Superficial physical characteristics, however, are immutable. More important, how one lived, particularly politically, was more important than how one looked. The self-ruling Greeks who voted and spoke freely in the Assembly looked down on those, like the Persians, who bowed down and kissed the ground before the god-like Great King.

That focus on culture and language distinguishes ancient Greek bigotry from modern racism. It also contributed to the notion that humanity’s defining similarities­­––which included the unchanging destructive passions of human nature–– are more important than physical differences. A remarkable statement from ancient Greece illustrates this revolutionary idea, from an oration by Isocrates in 380 BC. “The name ‘Hellene’ [Greek] suggests no longer a race but an intelligence [mentality, way of thinking] and the title ‘Hellenes’ is applied rather to those who share our culture than to those who share a common blood.” In other words, people aren’t condemned by their natures to be inferior or politically slavish, but have the capacity to learn how to be civilized and live as free men. Just as every human has the capacity to learn any language, every human has the capacity to live by the mores and customs of any culture. The United States is the greatest exemplar of this truth, even after decades of anti-assimilationist ideology and multicultural Balkanization.

This idea of human adaptability is exactly the opposite of the old-school racists, who believed blacks were inherently inferior no matter how much education or civilization they acquired. That’s why the biggest threat to a slave-owning or Jim Crow racist was an educated, intelligent black person who could speak the King’s English. Just like the race-hacks say today, the racist said such a black person was “acting white” or “uppity.”

That’s what “racism” more accurately means––the belief in inherited inferior tendencies or qualities that no education or improvement can mitigate. This racism today is a fringe phenomenon, which is why variations like “institutional racism” or “systemic racism” or racial “microagressions” had to be invented. Any black who lived under the daily humiliation and sporadic vicious violence of the Jim Crow era would have been delighted to be subjected only to the subtle and often imagined slights that sleek Ivy League protestors and affluent professors call “racism.”

That genuine racism, the public assertion of indelible black inferiority, is what the Civil Rights movement battled against in order to return to the idea of Isocrates, echoed in Martin Luther King’s now ignored statement that he dreamed of a day when his children “would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Today, however, the vision of King, consistent with the ideals of the West going back to the Greeks as refined by Christianity, has been discarded. Now skin-color is as much the defining characteristic of blacks as it was under Jim Crow segregation. It reflects as well the Progressive “scientific” racism that evoked Darwin as the justification for their eugenics programs to reduce the numbers of the “unfit.” That so many blacks support Hillary Clinton, who has accepted from Planned Parenthood an award named for the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, is testimony to just how incoherent and historically ignorant is our public discourse on race.

Worse yet, an Orwellian debasement of the word “racism” has changed it to describe not a belief in inherited, immutable intellectual and moral inferiority, but any word or deed or even fact that disturbs the self-selected black “leaders,” activists, race-hustlers, professors, Ivy League college students, entertainers, and athletes, all of whom compensate for their fame, privilege, and wealth by decrying “systematic racism” or “disparate impacts” or some other sophistry. Whether they sincerely believe what they say, or are merely using black misery in blue-state urban hellholes to leverage more institutional power and influence from guilty white liberals, in the end doesn’t matter. The wretched lives of too many black people are improved not one bit by our public racialist melodramas.

And that is the real scandal of movements like “Black Lives Matter” or the temper-tantrums thrown on Ivy League universities or the moral preening at the Oscars. They all have done nothing to improve black people’s lives, and often have abetted the cultural and political forces worsening them by perpetuating what economist Thomas Sowell has called “the toxic message of victimhood . . . spread by liberals.” Consider the record of our first “black” president, Barack Obama. As radio host Larry Elder pointed out during the Black Lives Matter protests,
Meanwhile, the net worth of all non-white families has fallen almost 20 percent since Obama took office. For blacks, it’s even worse. The so-called black/white wealth gap is at a 25-year high––with black income down, homeownership down and equity down. From 2007 to 2010, blacks’ net worth declined 13.5 percent. But over the next three years––from 2010 through 2013––it plummeted another 34 percent. But allow a black kid to be shot by a white cop and CNN covers it like the first moon landing.
Accompanying this economic decline has been the continuing plague of black-on-black murder; the blighting of young black lives forced to live in urban war-zones; the destruction of black potential by dysfunctional schools, destroyed families, a slow-growth economy, and drugs; and the systematic aborting of black lives, large numbers of them by Planned Parenthood, 78% of whose clinics are in minority communities.

But instead of using their wealth and prestige to address these tragedies, most of the well-heeled black elite perpetuate lies like “hands up don’t shoot,” decry “white privilege,” whine about “microagressions” at tony universities, and complain because not enough blacks were nominated for academy awards. People who live lives of material abundance and social capital far beyond the majority of white people who have ever lived, shamefully leverage for their own gain the misery of people they have nothing to do with. And they have hidden this moral idiocy by turning “racism” into another progressive “thought-blocker” that serves only politics.

Like other progressive “thought-blockers,” a spurious “racism” is a way for progressive Democrats to amass and consolidate political power, in this case as a tool for keeping black voters on the party plantation, patrolled by the equivalent of the Fugitive Slave Law that hounds any black person who dares to think for himself and challenge the racialist orthodoxy. The losers are truth, rigorous argument, sound evidence, and most important, the millions of blighted black lives that really don’t matter to the race industry.


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261996/progressive-thought-blockers-racism-bruce-thornton

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Women-Hunt in Germany - Stephen Brown



by Stephen Brown

Muslim migrants openly follow, film and sexually harass teenaged girls in shopping mall.





"If a woman gets raped walking in public alone, then she, herself, is at fault. She is only seducing men by her presence. She should have stayed home like a Muslim woman."
- Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, Professor of Islamic Law, Saudi Arabia.
Many Germans welcomed with open arms the million, mostly male and Muslim, migrants Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel invited into Germany last September. At train stations, they handed out water bottles to the newcomers, while holding signs stating: “Willkommen!” At first, everything was, as the Germans say, “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen” (“peace, joy and happiness”).
But the good feeling these greeters created, especially among themselves, has somewhat dissipated, primarily due to the increasing number of reported sexual assaults by migrants against women and children. The best known incident was the sexual molestation of hundreds of women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve by about 1,000, mostly North African men that included migrants.  
The latest such multicultural enriching incident to create similar outrage occurred last Thursday in Kiel, a northern German city in Schleswig-Holstein, a state bordering Denmark. Three teenage girls, aged 15, 16 and 17, were visiting a central shopping mall, the Sophienhof, in “broad daylight” when two young Afghan asylum seekers, aged 19 and 26, began to follow and film them with their cell phones.    
“Evidently, the criminals then posted these films on their social networks with the result that more and more men came to a restaurant area of the Sophienhof in order to persecute, sneer at them and to frighten them,” reported the newspaper, Die Welt.
Like the women in Cologne and those participating in the anti-Morsi demonstrations on Tahrir Square in Egypt in 2013, the three Kiel teenagers were at first probably unaware they were being hunted, and that a pack of hyenas was slowly surrounding them.
In total, between 20 and 30 men of “migration background,” as German papers described them, were involved. Police report there were no acts of sexual violence, but papers state the teenagers were “very hard pressed.”
But if no sexual molestation did occur, it is probably only because it was in the middle of the day, in the middle of a shopping mall. Outside and at night, this story most likely would have had a much sadder and more tragic outcome. As it was, it was reported the girls received psychological counselling after their ordeal.
The teenagers’ torment finally ended when passersby noticed their plight and notified security, who in turn notified police. Police then took four men, including the two Afghans, into custody, but not without difficulties.
“As a consequence (of their arrest), the suspects fought fiercely, also at the police station,” Die Welt reported. “The talk is of massive insults, threats and bodily injuries. At the suspects’ medical examination, the police doctor was also threatened and insulted.”
However, thanks to Germany’s “cuddly” justice system, as law-and-order Germans derisively call it, all suspects were released by the following day. Police are currently evaluating mall security videos to lay charges.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect surrounding this awful incident is that Germans are so surprised.
But why, one wonders, are they so astonished when such occurrences as this one and the mass sexual assault of women in Cologne have been going on around them for years in Sweden, France and England?
In England, Muslim men associated with the rape of hundreds of girls in Rotherham, were recently given heavy prison sentences. And Muslim rape gangs in Sweden have contributed to giving that country the second highest rape rate per capita in the world. Only one African country, Lesotho, has a higher rate.
The whole world also witnessed this tactic of surrounding women by large numbers of men in order to sexually molest and/or rape them in 2011 on Tahrir Square in Egypt during Arab Spring demonstrations. CBS’s Lara Logan was its most famous victim. Part and parcel of the culture, it even has a name: “taharrush gamea.” So if some Muslim men behave like this in their own countries, why wouldn’t they do so in other countries, especially in ones full of infidel women?
The Cologne police chief called “taharrush gamea,” a completely “new phenomenon,” one never encountered before. Besides terrorizing women, since the Cologne event it is responsible for turning many against Merkel’s migrant policy.
Also unsurprisingly, after the Kiel incident became known in the city, the local newspaper, Kieler Nachrichten, reported more women came forward to state they had had “similar experiences” at the Sophienhof. A police spokesman said this is “quite typical for this kind of crime marked by shame.”
The Nachrichten states, however, that the hunting of girls is “just the tip of the iceberg.”
“Business people in Sophienhof report an increasing number of thefts,” the paper reports. “Again and again customers are bothered.”
A mall worker, who emigrated to Germany “decades ago” from the Arab world, said young migrants are at the mall practically every evening and that he can tell by their accent that “they are almost all Syrians.”
“What they do here is not right,” he complained to the Kieler Nachtrichten. “As soon as they see a young woman wearing a skirt or some way or other open clothing, they believe they have a free pass.”
At a neighbouring department store, the situation is perhaps even worse. A store clerk there states they have been “experiencing difficult situations here since the end of last year.”
“Sometimes, young foreigners jostle old people,” she said. “They bother young women…, grab them, smack their behinds. They have also shouted abuse at people and spit at them. When they appear in a group, they display a disrespectful approach to others.”
Due to their understandable fear, many women in Germany have changed their behaviour since last September. Some do not go out alone, or only in a group with female friends, in the evening any more. The risk of harassment, or worse, by migrant “street terrorists,” as they are called in Holland, is deemed too great.
However, when women disappear more and more from public, this will have the negative effect of gradually giving Germany the appearance of an Islamic society. In some Muslim countries, women can only venture outside properly covered and with a male relative. Which could be Germany’s future, if the current trend is not reversed.
And with women becoming more hesitant to venture evenings from their homes because of fear, more and more German public space, also like in Islamic countries, will be left to men. In this case, Muslim men. All of which represents a further Islamisation of German society and another step downwards toward dhimmitude status.
After the tormenting of the three teenaged girls, a female journalist reported that last summer in Kiel people “smiled mildly” at several young, male migrants who were standing at a tennis court near their refugee hostel, watching the girls training there. This was just something new to them, they thought.
"However, there were larger numbers every day," she related. "They filmed them (the girls) with their cell phones."

After last week’s incident at the Sophienhof, it is doubtful anyone is smiling any more.


Stephen Brown is a contributing editor at Frontpagemag.com. He has a graduate degree in Russian and Eastern European history. Email him at alsolzh@rogers.com.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262017/women-hunt-germany-stephen-brown

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jean-Marie Le Pen's Advisor Elie Hatem: Zionism And Freemasonry Control The Media And Government In France - MEMRI



by MEMRI

In a February 12 Al-Arabiya TV interview, Elie Hatem, political advisor to Jean-Marie Le Pen, said that the movements of Zionism and Freemasonry "control the press and the government in France." "This is a sort of dictatorship," he said.


cjl031614.JPG

Hatem: "We know that Marine Le Pen got closer to some movements that control public opinion in France. She did so in order to whitewash the National Front. These movements include Zionist movements and Freemasonry, which control the press and the government in France. We know that when Jean-Marie Le Pen..."

cjl031615.JPG

Interviewer: "It is up to the French authorities responsible for the media to respond to your claim that Zionism and Freemasonry control the media."

Hatem: "Even some Zionists say this..."

Interviewer: "You have no documentation of this."

Hatem: "This is well known in France. That is why everybody is afraid to talk about this in France. This is a sort of dictatorship."

[...]

"I am a member of the French national movement L'Action Francaise, a royalist movement founded by Charles Maurras. I am against the idea of secularism espoused by Marine Le Pen, as I told her on several occasions. The Freemasons were behind the secularism, and they founded the French republic government on the three principles defended by Freemasonry: liberty, equality, and fraternity."



MEMRI

Source:

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How does the Qur'an view the Jews - Dr. Stephen M. Kirby



by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby

Let's not pretend: The Koran hates Jews and Christians, unless they convert to Islam.


Not long ago, Ms. Rebecca Abrahamson provided a brief report about the Knesset conference titled "Building a Culture of Peace in the Middle East and the Global Arena" (OpEd: Putting UN resolutions to work).  In this report she mentioned a book titled Bigotry, the Dark Danger, by Adnan Oktar, which had been presented at this conference, and which she believed would make a significant contribution to building this “Culture of Peace.”  Abrahamson wrote that this book "goes right to the sources in rebutting those who manipulate the Qur’an and hadith, taking them out of context to malign Jews."

In my last article, titled Fantasy Islam comes to the Knesset, I looked at how Oktar’s book addressed hadiths supposedly fabricated to malign Jews; and we found that his main criterion for determining whether or not a fabrication had occurred flew in the face of commands of Allah in the Koran, of statements by his prophet Mohammad, and of a general consensus among Muslim scholars for over one thousand years.  In this article, I look at how Oktar addressed Koran verses supposedly manipulated to malign Jews. 

As we shall see, there has been manipulation of Koran verses, but it has been done by Oktar.

Koran Verses Praise Jews and Christians?

Throughout his book Adnan Oktar repeatedly pointed out that the Koran praises Jews and Christians (the People of the Book).  On pp. 380-381 Oktar presented Koran verses to support this claim: 2:62; 3:113-115; 3:199; 4:162; 5:69; 7:159; and 28:52-53.  Let’s look at these verses and ask two questions: Do these verses really praise Jews and Christians, and if so, why?

In a previous article I had written about Oktar, I showed that the praise of Jews and Christians in 2:62 and 5:69 pertained only to good deeds done before the advent of Islam, and that after the advent of Islam the Jews and Christians were required to believe in Islam in order to be rewarded.  In that same article I showed that, with regard to 7:159, those “who guide by the truth and act justly in accordance with it” are in fact those Jews who had converted to Islam.  It is interesting to note that in Bigotry, the Dark Danger, Oktar referred to these converts mentioned in 7:159 as “righteous Jews” (p. 353).

In an earlier Arutz Sheva 7 article, I showed that in 3:113 the “community among the People of the Book who are upright” were in fact those Jews and Christians who had converted to Islam.

In his book Oktar listed 3:199 as praising the People of the Book.  Here is that verse:

Among the people of the Book there are some who have faith in God and in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down to them, and who are humble before God. They do not sell God's signs for a paltry price. Such people will have their reward with their Lord. And God is swift at reckoning.

What do our authoritative Koran commentaries (tafsirs) have to say about this verse?  The Tafsir Ibn Kathir explains that this verse is about the Jews and Christians who converted to Islam.[1]  This same explanation is given in the Tafsir Al-Jalalayn[2], Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan[3], and the Tafsir As-Sa’di[4].

Oktar also listed 4:162.  Here is that verse:

But those of them [the Jews] who are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the believers, have faith in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down before you: those who perform their prayers and pay alms, and have faith in God and the Last Day – We will pay such people an immense wage.

But as before, this verse is referring to Jews who converted to Islam.[5]
And here is 28:52-53:

Those We gave the Book before this have faith in it. When it is recited to them they say, “We have faith in it; it is the truth from our Lord. We were already Muslims before it came.”

And once again, this verse refers to Jews and Christians who converted to Islam.[6]

The last of the verses that Oktar mentioned in this group as praising Jews in particular was 5:12:

God made a covenant with the tribe of Israel and We raised up twelve leaders from among them. God said, “I am with you. If you perform your prayers and pay alms, and have faith in My messengers and respect and support them, and make a generous loan to God, I will erase your wrong actions from you and admit you into Gardens with rivers flowing under them. Any of you who are irreligious after that have gone astray from the right way.”

It appears that “God” has “made a covenant with the tribe of Israel” and will forgive them and admit them to Paradise.  But that is only the first part of the story.  The rest of the story is found in 5:13:

So, because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts grow hard.  They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them.  And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them.  But forgive them and overlook (their misdeeds).  Verily, Allah loves Al-Muhsinun (good doers).

The rest of the story is that the tribe of Israel violated their covenant with “God” and tampered with the Torah.  Consequently, “God” cursed them and made their hearts grow hard.  And “God” proclaimed that, except for a few, deceit will always be found with the Jews.  And who are those exceptional few?  They are the Jews who converted to Islam.[7]

On p. 392 Oktar turned to 5:66 as an example of a Koran verse praising the Torah and the Bible:

If only they had implemented the Torah and the Gospel and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have been fed from above their heads and beneath their feet. Among them there is a moderate group but what most of them do is evil.

Our tafsirs confirm that this is a criticism of Jews and Christians for not following the teachings in the Torah and the Bible.  But what were those teachings that they ignored?  Those teachings supposedly foretold the coming of Muhammad and the Koran.  And, according to this verse, had the Jews and Christians followed those teachings, instead of altering their Books, those Christians and Jews would have believed in Muhammad and the Koran, and would have become Muslims.  The fact that they did not become Muslims shows that they did not follow those supposed teachings of the Torah and the Bible.  And the “moderate group” that doesn’t do evil?  They are the Jews and Christians who converted to Islam.[8]

So with these verses we find that the only way for Jews and Christians to earn praise in the Koran was by converting to Islam.

Don’t Take Jews and Christians as Friends

On p. 360 of Bigotry, the Dark Danger Oktar addresses 5:51 of the Koran:

O you who believe!  Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliya' of each other.  And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely, he is one of them.  Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust).

Oktar provides a unique explanation for this verse:

When we look at the original Arabic meaning we can easily see that the references to “friends” in this verse really means “rulers.” What is forbidden for Muslims here is for them to come under the rule and management of Jews and Christians. (Prof. Dr. Bayraktar Bayraklı, Text of the Qur'an)

So according to Oktar, this verse forbids Muslims from coming under the rule and management of Jews and Christians.  But how has this verse been historically understood?

In a section titled The Prohibition of Taking the Jews, Christians and Enemies of Islam as Friends, Ibn Kathir explained this verse by pointing out that,

Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them.  Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this, And if any among you befriends them, then surely he is one of them.[9]

The Tafsir Al-Jalalayn explained that this verse meant Muslims were not to join Jews and Christians "in mutual friendship and love," or "in their unbelief."[10]

The Tafsir as-Sa’di explained this verse:

Allah, while describing to His believing servants the ignorant condition and unethical demeanor of the Jews and the Christians, orders them to not maintain alliance with them.  This is because the Christians and the Jews aid one another and are united in their opposition of others.  You should not make them your allies; rather, they are your enemies and they care not the least concerning your loss; they will leave no stone unturned to misguide you.  Only a person who is like them will make alliance with them.[11]

And here is how the Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan explained 5:51:

The verse forbids Muslims to keep intimate relations with them and take them as protectors and helpers, because they are the enemies of Allah, the Muslims, and Islam.  It should be noted that those who take them as protectors and helpers will be considered among them.[12]

Whether Auliya' means friends, protectors, helpers, or rulers, Muslims are forbidden by Allah to have such relationships with Jews and Christians, because this verse is understood to mean that Allah has declared Jews and Christians to be the enemies of Muslims.

Harbingers of Muslim Relations with the People of the Book

Throughout his book Oktar repeatedly wrote about the peace, respect and love that “true Islam” would bring to relations between Muslims and the People of the Book.  He quoted Koran verses and events from the life of Muhammad that could provide the basis for that relationship.  Let’s look at a few of his examples.


On p. 381 Oktar displayed 5:82-85 of the Koran.  For purposes of this article, we will focus on 5:82.  Here is how Oktar started that verse out:

... You will find the people most affectionate to those who have faith are those who say, “We are Christians.”

But here is how 5:82 really starts out:

Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun, and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: “We are Christians.”

If we are to believe Oktar then, the Koran is respecting and loving Jews by declaring that they are among the worst enemies of the Muslims.

On pp. 386-387 Oktar listed examples of Muhammad’s relations with the People of the Book that should be considered as models for Muslims.  Here are three of them:

One of the wives of our Prophet (pbuh) was Marya bint Sham'ûn (also known as Maryam al Qubtiyyah), a Coptic Christian from Egypt.

But Marya was not even a wife of Muhammad.  She was a Coptic Christian given as a slave to Muhammad.  She bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim, who died as a young child.

Our mother Safiyya bint Huyayy, one of the wives of the Prophet (pbuh), was the daughter of the chief of the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir of Medina, Huyayy ibn Akhtab.

Safiyya was among the captives taken when the Muslims conquered Khaybar in May 628; her father was killed during the battle.  Muhammad bought her from another Muslim warrior for the price of seven slaves.  Muhammad married her after ordering the torture and beheading of her husband, Kinanah b. al-Rabi'.

Oktar wrote that in 630 AD Muhammad “issued the following command to envoys of the King of Himyar.”  Oktar then gave a partial quote from the Sira (The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), written by Ibn Ishaq and edited by Ibn Hisham); this partial quote stated that whoever wanted to remain a Jew or a Christian should not be interfered with.  But Oktar left out some very important sentences that provided the real meaning of Muhammad’s command.  Below is that quote and I have emphasized the portion left out by Oktar:

If a Jew or a Christian becomes a Muslim he is a believer with his rights and obligations.  He who holds fast to his religion, Jew or Christian, is not to be turned from it.  He must pay the poll tax [Jizyah]– for every adult, male or female, free or slave, one full dinar calculated on the valuation of Ma’afir or its equivalent in clothes.  He who pays that to God’s apostle has the guarantee of God and His apostle, and he who withholds it is the enemy of God and His apostle.[13]

Oktar used these three examples, among others, to show how relations should be between Muslims and the People of the Book.  But in these examples we find Christian and Jewish female slaves owned by Muhammad, and Muhammad’s command that Jews and Christians can hold fast to their faith only if they pay the Jizyah; otherwise they become the enemies of Allah and Muhammad.

Conclusion

There are two things in particular we learned in this article: 1) Koran verses that Oktar claimed indicated praise for Jews and Christians in general actually praised only Jews and Christians who had converted to Islam; and 2) Oktar’s examples of ideal relations between Muslims and the People of the Book were examples of Jewish and Christian subservience to Muhammad and to Islam.

On p. 399 Oktar wrote:
…the world can never be without Islam. The peace and love for which the world longs can only come through Islam. We have the Qur'an, the true and immutable Book of Islam for that; the only thing needing to be done is to educate people with the Qur'an.

So we will end by educating people with the Koran.  Here are two verses from Chapter 9 for consideration:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

9:29 is simply a codification of Muhammad’s command to the King of Himyar.

And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah.  That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime.  Allah's curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!            (9:30)
9:30 states that Allah curses Jews and Christians.

The significance of these verses is twofold.  They were among those “revealed” in late 630 AD and early 631 AD, and their message was directed toward all non-Muslims.[14]  Chapter 9 of the Koran was the last chapter to be “revealed” to Muhammad, so the commands found in Chapter 9 were Allah’s final, timeless instructions to Muslims on how to deal with non-Muslims.

The reality is that certain hadiths and Koran verses do malign Jews and Christians, except for when they are being manipulated for presentation at a Knesset conference.

Sources:
[1]              Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), trans. Jalal Abualrub, et al. (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2000), Vol. 2, pp. 357-360. 
[2]              Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, trans. Aisha Bewley (London: Dar Al Taqwa Ltd., 2007), p. 172.
[3]              Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, trans. Mohammad Kamal Myshkat (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2010), Vol. 1, p. 413.
[4]              Tafsir As-Sa’di, trans. S. Abd al-Hamid (Floral Park, New York: Islamic Literary Foundation: 2012), Vol. 1, pp. 320-321.
[5]              Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 3, p. 46; Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, p. 228; Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 1, pp. 551-552; and Tafsir As-Sa’di, Vol. 1, p. 458.
[6]              Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 7, pp. 420-422; Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, p. 841; and Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 4, pp. 205-206.
[7]              Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 3, pp. 126-130; Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, p. 241; Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 1, pp. 580-582; and Tafsir As-Sa’di, Vol. 1, pp. 487-489.
[8]              Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 3, pp. 225-226; Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, p. 260; Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 1, pp. 629-630; and Tafsir As-Sa’di, Vol. 1, p. 521.
[9]              Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 3, p. 204.
[10]            Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, p. 256.
[11]            Tafsir as-Sa’di, Vol. 1, p. 512.
[12]            Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 1, p. 616.
[13]            Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 643.
[14]            The Life of Muhammad, pp. 617-620; Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, pp. 370-376, and 404-410; and Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. and annotated Ismail K. Poonawala (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1990), pp. 77-79.


Dr. Stephen M. Kirby

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18497#.VtiZNuazdds

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.