Hatred of Jews is poisoning Islam

[Smart_Guy]

I don't hate Jews

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The OP speaks of hatred. The response to which I replied makes the statement that Muslims "just correct the wrong concepts of the so called Judaism."

If you don't see that that statement is the essence of a hateful approach to people, feeling the need to correct the religion because it is based on "wrong concepts" and referring to the entire religion as "so called Judaism" then I can't help you.

Would it be more obvious if I told you that I feel it is my job to correct all the wrong concepts of the so called Islaam? That whatever you think or have learned about your religion is rife with error and it takes an outsider to tell you what your religion really says and is? How offensive is that? That I don't know my own religion and a Muslim has to correct me and my "so called Judaism"?

You don't see that as the essence of condescension and the seed of the problem?

Thank you for the explanation, which is all I was asking for really (QED doesn't really do enough to say where you are coming from).

I see nothing wrong in criticising what I believe to be wrong about some people’s versions of Judaism (I don't agree with paarsurrey's characterisation ‘so-called Judaism’, which I agree can be particularly offensive coming from someone who is not a Jew, although it is conceivable that paarsurrey is a Jew ethnically and/or may once have been a Jew in religious terms). As I see nothing wrong in criticising what I believe to be wrong about other Muslims’ versions of Islaam. And I accept that that might offend some Jews or Muslims (and that people may in turn offend me). But that is in the nature of this debate.

But we should be careful to separate criticism of someone’s (religious) beliefs or views from criticism of them as people and feelings of hatred towards them (or all who claim to follow a particular religion). I appreciate that this can be difficult, in part because our beliefs and views are so closely bound up with our sense of who we are, and in part because of the sometimes very close relationship between beliefs and actions. The key here is to resist the temptation to hate all people just because they are Jews, or Muslims, or Christians, or Hindus, or atheists, or Americans, or whatever. I certainly don't hate Jews (because they are Jews). It's conceivable that I might hate a Jew or even more than one Jew, because of their actions or behaviour towards me or those who matter to me. But then the same holds true of other Muslims and those of any other faith or none.

 

[rosends]

Thank you for the explanation, which is all I was asking for really (QED doesn't really do enough to say where you are coming from).

I see nothing wrong in criticising what I believe to be wrong about some people’s versions of Judaism (I don't agree with paarsurrey's characterisation ‘so-called Judaism’, which I agree can be particularly offensive coming from someone who is not a Jew, although it is conceivable that paarsurrey is a Jew ethnically and/or may once have been a Jew in religious terms). As I see nothing wrong in criticising what I believe to be wrong about other Muslims’ versions of Islaam. And I accept that that might offend some Jews or Muslims (and that people may in turn offend me). But that is in the nature of this debate.

But we should be careful to separate criticism of someone’s (religious) beliefs or views from criticism of them as people and feelings of hatred towards them (or all who claim to follow a particular religion). I appreciate that this can be difficult, in part because our beliefs and views are so closely bound up with our sense of who we are, and in part because of the sometimes very close relationship between beliefs and actions. The key here is to resist the temptation to hate all people just because they are Jews, or Muslims, or Christians, or Hindus, or atheists, or Americans, or whatever. I certainly don't hate Jews (because they are Jews). It's conceivable that I might hate a Jew or even more than one Jew, because of their actions or behaviour towards me or those who matter to me. But then the same holds true of other Muslims and those of any other faith or none.

I accept what you are saying but I still take issue when someone from the outside claims that my very essence is in error and that the entire construct which defines my existence, my traditions and my heritage is invalid. He is not saying he wants to clarify, or even present an explanation for a particular tradition which he has studied, but "correct wrong concepts." This is a dismissal of the entirety of Judaism. The poster who wrote it is not Jewish and yet he places himself over me as an authority on Judaism and an authority who can say that the foundational bases are "wrong." This attitude is what justifies all sorts of evil. This is worse than a missionary sweeping in to teach me his religion because he claims mine is wrong. Here he is claiming that what there is, is not even what it is supposed to be because he knows better and I am, by my very nature, wrong.

This demands some very deep hatred to be defensible. Someone would have to have a strong antipathy not towards a person, or even a line of thought, but to an entire institution and system to make such a statement.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I accept what you are saying but I still take issue when someone from the outside claims that my very essence is in error and that the entire construct which defines my existence, my traditions and my heritage is invalid. He is not saying he wants to clarify, or even present an explanation for a particular tradition which he has studied, but "correct wrong concepts." This is a dismissal of the entirety of Judaism. The poster who wrote it is not Jewish and yet he places himself over me as an authority on Judaism and an authority who can say that the foundational bases are "wrong." This attitude is what justifies all sorts of evil. This is worse than a missionary sweeping in to teach me his religion because he claims mine is wrong. Here he is claiming that what there is, is not even what it is supposed to be because he knows better and I am, by my very nature, wrong.

This demands some very deep hatred to be defensible. Someone would have to have a strong antipathy not towards a person, or even a line of thought, but to an entire institution and system to make such a statement.

I suspect s/he felt they were acting in a 'missionary' capacity and used an unfortunate choice of words. But I will leave the poster of these words to clarify where they are coming from and their intention.

I do hear you. People attack the entire construct of my existence all the time, and I agree that it is sometimes very difficult, but I rarely think that they hate me when they do so (though some clearly do). Moreover, I do still hold that I can have a strong antipathy towards an entire institution and system (as I do towards most institutions and systems) but still not (necessarily) hate all those who follow the ways of that institution and system. So I do have a strong antipathy towards certain versions of Judaism, and indeed an equally strong antipathy towards certain versions of Islaam, and secularism. But I still don't hate (all) Jews or Muslims or secularists.

And whilst I agree that there is something of a problem with hatred towards Jews in many Muslim communities (not just Arab ones, but the world over), a fire whose flames are fanned by certain scholars, there are also many of us (not just liberals or progressives, but also conservatives and traditionalists) who do not hate Jews. It is a question of a (very) dangerous misinterpretation of the Qur'aan and the example of Muhammad (s), who also did not hate Jews (though he at times had to fight against them).

 

[JoStories]

I tell them that good deeds are not the only thing that gets you to heaven.

If you do not believe in afterlife, then what is the point of you doing good deeds?

Because its the right thing to do? Because humankind could learn from being kind to one another and doing good deeds simply because it is the right thing to do. For example, helping an elderly neighbor. Or reading them their religious text, whatever that might be, because they are blind, which I can relate to extremely well. My father was a lifelong atheist and he was one of the most philanthropic people I have known.

 

[Jabar]

Because its the right thing to do? Because humankind could learn from being kind to one another and doing good deeds simply because it is the right thing to do. For example, helping an elderly neighbor. Or reading them their religious text, whatever that might be, because they are blind, which I can relate to extremely well. My father was a lifelong atheist and he was one of the most philanthropic people I have known.

But still the good deeds lead to afterlife.

 

[JoStories]

I don't hate Jews

Me either Smart Guy and I have never understood this conflict over such a small piece of land. there are the sacred temples/mosques, etc, of three different faiths in that one small area. Does it really have to belong to any one group? Why not let all peoples share them in the interest of peace? Is this not what each God of each religion tells its followers to do? To bring peace and to love one another in the name of that God?

 

[JoStories]

I accept what you are saying but I still take issue when someone from the outside claims that my very essence is in error and that the entire construct which defines my existence, my traditions and my heritage is invalid. He is not saying he wants to clarify, or even present an explanation for a particular tradition which he has studied, but "correct wrong concepts." This is a dismissal of the entirety of Judaism. The poster who wrote it is not Jewish and yet he places himself over me as an authority on Judaism and an authority who can say that the foundational bases are "wrong." This attitude is what justifies all sorts of evil. This is worse than a missionary sweeping in to teach me his religion because he claims mine is wrong. Here he is claiming that what there is, is not even what it is supposed to be because he knows better and I am, by my very nature, wrong.

This demands some very deep hatred to be defensible. Someone would have to have a strong antipathy not towards a person, or even a line of thought, but to an entire institution and system to make such a statement.

I am curious about what I emphasized Rosends. Why evil? Why can it simply not be misunderstandings and differing views on what is written? Now, I grant you that stating he knows more than you do about Judaism is an affront to you but is it not possible to try to find some common ground such that a tentative peace can be reached? When people use such provocative words as evil and the like, does this not instigate more hard feelings and people become less and less inclined to try to talk to each other civilly and in a manner to find that common ground.

 

[JoStories]

But still the good deeds lead to afterlife.

I understand that that is what you believe and I would not say you are wrong. I would say that what you believe is simply that, belief, and cannot be proven in any scientific method we currently have. In Buddhism, we try to be kind and do what you call good deeds to learn and to achieve enlightenment, so that after many lifetimes, as many as we each personally need, we are one with the Godhead. But the doing of good deeds does not have to have an agenda. It can be done simply because it is the right thing to do.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Me either Smart Guy and I have never understood this conflict over such a small piece of land. there are the sacred temples/mosques, etc, of three different faiths in that one small area. Does it really have to belong to any one group? Why not let all peoples share them in the interest of peace? Is this not what each God of each religion tells its followers to do? To bring peace and to love one another in the name of that God?

Same thoughts here.

Hey, you're on a roll today, JS. Nice to see you back in actions. God bless

 

[rosends]

I am curious about what I emphasized Rosends. Why evil? Why can it simply not be misunderstandings and differing views on what is written? Now, I grant you that stating he knows more than you do about Judaism is an affront to you but is it not possible to try to find some common ground such that a tentative peace can be reached? When people use such provocative words as evil and the like, does this not instigate more hard feelings and people become less and less inclined to try to talk to each other civilly and in a manner to find that common ground.

The belief that an entire current theological system is improper justifies the need to remove people, or deny the validity of their existence. This then rationalizes violence. I see that as evil. If someone believes that the concepts which define me are wrong and sees it as incumbent to "correct" me, what happens when I resist being corrected? The other person, convinced of his own rectitude escalates his attempts. That turns into evil as it creates an air of superiority which justifies more and more extreme means to "fix" the other. Christian missionaries committed acts of evil when they imposed their will upon those whom they say as wrong in their beliefs.

 

[Lyndon]

There's obviously evil people on both sides of the Palestinian conflict.

 

[JoStories]

The belief that an entire current theological system is improper justifies the need to remove people, or deny the validity of their existence. This then rationalizes violence. I see that as evil. If someone believes that the concepts which define me are wrong and sees it as incumbent to "correct" me, what happens when I resist being corrected? The other person, convinced of his own rectitude escalates his attempts. That turns into evil as it creates an air of superiority which justifies more and more extreme means to "fix" the other. Christian missionaries committed acts of evil when they imposed their will upon those whom they say as wrong in their beliefs.

I agree that in the past groups, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, have tried to enforce their beliefs on others. I know this first hand from being NA and listening to my grandmother talk about the alleged well meaning Christians who would come and brow beat her and her family as being 'wrong' and 'headed to hell'. I have seen this first hand in the museums in Honolulu where I listened to the Hawaiian people tell of how they, too, were forced to abandon their dance, their gods and so on, by alleged well meaning Christians. And again, in Zimbabwe. So I understand Rosends. But I would ask this. Where does this stop? Do you (general you) continue to carry a chip on your shoulder for all time because of this? (no offense with that statement). If no one ever gives an inch, where does that leave us? Can we not grow beyond this and try, for once and all, to find peace?

 

[JoStories]

Same thoughts here.

Hey, you're on a roll today, JS. Nice to see you back in actions. God bless

Been right here all along darling. Just in different threads I think. And back atcha Smart Guy. I have truly missed you. Kiss kiss darling.

 

[rosends]

I agree that in the past groups, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, have tried to enforce their beliefs on others. I know this first hand from being NA and listening to my grandmother talk about the alleged well meaning Christians who would come and brow beat her and her family as being 'wrong' and 'headed to hell'. I have seen this first hand in the museums in Honolulu where I listened to the Hawaiian people tell of how they, too, were forced to abandon their dance, their gods and so on, by alleged well meaning Christians. And again, in Zimbabwe. So I understand Rosends. But I would ask this. Where does this stop? Do you (general you) continue to carry a chip on your shoulder for all time because of this? (no offense with that statement). If no one ever gives an inch, where does that leave us? Can we not grow beyond this and try, for once and all, to find peace?

I carry no chip until someone delegitimizes me. What inch should I give? Should I accept when someone ho doesn't know me and hasn't studied my traditions, culture and religion as much as I have, a priori, tells me I'm wrong? Why is there an expectation that I should accept, on any level, an outsider's claim that I don't exist?

Maybe that other person could ask a question. Maybe he could make a claim and support it with facts and open a dialogue. But he starts with a foregone conclusion. I will not accept that.

Clinging to the right to live in the face of existential threat isn't a chip.

 

[Akivah]

No i never said that.

People will always hate each other no matter what race.

It is just how society is.

Until Judgement Day it will not be stopped completely.

And again, since you said that people will always hate each other no matter what race, then the muslim hatred of Jews has nothing to do with land, occupation, or rights. It is just two different races.

 

[Akivah]

There's obviously evil people on both sides of the Palestinian conflict.

Please stay on topic. The OP has nothing to do with palestinians or Israel.

 

[Jabar]

And again, since you said that people will always hate each other no matter what race, then the muslim hatred of Jews has nothing to do with land, occupation, or rights. It is just two different races.

No, that is still a big reason.

 

[Lyndon]

Please stay on topic. The OP has nothing to do with palestinians or Israel.

Actually, IMHO, you're dead wrong, Muslim hatred of Jews tends to have everything to do with the Palestinian conflict, without it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[JoStories]

I carry no chip until someone delegitimizes me. What inch should I give? Should I accept when someone ho doesn't know me and hasn't studied my traditions, culture and religion as much as I have, a priori, tells me I'm wrong? Why is there an expectation that I should accept, on any level, an outsider's claim that I don't exist?

Maybe that other person could ask a question. Maybe he could make a claim and support it with facts and open a dialogue. But he starts with a foregone conclusion. I will not accept that.

Clinging to the right to live in the face of existential threat isn't a chip.

I don't think anyone is trying to reduce any of your legitimate concerns regarding your faith, our culture, etc. At the least, I sure is not me Rosends. As I said, I am aware that many do do this. Its unfair and you have every right to stand firm against it. Who is stating that you don't exist? Again, certainly not me. I am not sure who this person is that you are referring to Rosends. I was trying to say that my wish is that each side could come to the table without these foregone conclusions that you mention. Who is to say that any one religion is more real or better than another? If, btw, I offended you with the remark about a chip on the shoulder, I apologize. Perhaps I am being naïve. Wishing for a world without the need for each faith trying to stand atop a mountain shouting at each other how they are better and their mountain is higher, etc. A world where all religious sites could be equally shared by all without one side or the other needing to say that this land or that place belongs only to them. If God set all these places down as places where God's voice can be more easily heard or for each faith feels more in connection to God, why can they not be shared equally? Ah well, I dream of this world but know that it will never come to fruition. I shall bow out now.