Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: General
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Description: General Discussion
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14678
Printed Date: 02 January 2025 at 7:33am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Subject: Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
Date Posted: 10 May 2009 at 6:49pm
The End of Free Speech?Criminalizing Criticism of IsraelBy PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby�s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide. To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews. Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn�t been mopping floors at the White House. It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament�s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus. It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity. It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust. It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy. In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned. Given the hubris of the US government, which leads Washington to apply US law to every country and organization, what will happen to the International Red Cross, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the various human rights organizations that have demanded investigations of Israel�s military assault on Gaza�s civilian population? Will they all be arrested for the hate crime of �excessive� criticism of Israel? This is a serious question. A recent UN report, which is yet to be released in its entirety, blames Israel for the deaths and injuries that occurred within the United Nations premises in Gaza. The Israeli government has responded by charging that the UN report is �tendentious, patently biased,� which puts the UN report into the State Department�s category of excessive criticism and strong anti-Israel sentiment. Israel is getting away with its blatant use of the American government to silence its critics despite the fact that the Israeli press and Israeli soldiers have exposed the Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the premeditated murder of women and children urged upon the Israeli invaders by rabbis. These acts are clearly war crimes. It was the Israeli press that published the pictures of the Israeli soldiers� T-shirts that indicate that the willful murder of women and children is now the culture of the Israeli army. The T-shirts are horrific expressions of barbarity. For example, one shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach and the slogan, �One shot, two kills.� These T-shirts are an indication that Israel�s policy toward the Palestinians is one of extermination. It has been true for years that the most potent criticism of Israel�s mistreatment of the Palestinians comes from the Israeli press and Israeli peace groups. For example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Jeff Halper of ICAHD have shown a moral conscience that apparently does not exist in the Western democracies where Israel�s crimes are covered up and even praised. Will the American hate crime bill be applied to Haaretz and Jeff Halper? Will American commentators who say nothing themselves but simply report what Haaretz and Halper have said be arrested for �spreading hatred of Israel, an anti-semitic act�? Many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda that Palestinians are terrorists who threaten innocent Israel. These Americans will see the censorship as merely part of the necessary war on terror. They will accept the demonization of fellow citizens who report unpalatable facts about Israel and agree that such people should be punished for aiding and abetting terrorists. A massive push is underway to criminalize criticism of Israel. American university professors have fallen victim to the well organized attempt to eliminate all criticism of Israel. Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at a Catholic university because of the power of the Israel Lobby. Now the Israel Lobby is after University of California (at Santa Barbara,) professor Wiliam Robinson. http://counterpunch.org/henwood04292009.html - Robinson�s crime : his course on global affairs included some reading assignments critical of Israel�s invasion of Gaza. The Israel Lobby apparently succeeded in convincing the Obama Justice (sic) Department that it is anti-semitic to accuse two Jewish AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, of spying. The Israel Lobby succeeded in getting their trial delayed for four years, and now Attorney General Eric Holder has dropped charges. Yet, Larry Franklin, the DOD official accused of giving secret material to Rosen and Weissman, is serving 12 years and 7 months in prison. The absurdity is extraordinary. The two Israeli agents are not guilty of receiving secrets, but the American official is guilty of giving secrets to them! If there is no spy in the story, how was Franklin convicted of giving secrets to a spy? Criminalizing criticism of Israel destroys any hope of America having an independent foreign policy in the Middle East that serves American rather than Israeli interests. It eliminates any prospect of Americans escaping from their enculturation with Israeli propaganda. To keep American minds captive, the Lobby is working to ban as anti-semitic any truth or disagreeable fact that pertains to Israel. It is permissible to criticize every other country in the world, but it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and anti-semitism will soon be a universal hate-crime in the Western world. Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust. It is a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less than 6 million Jews were murdered. Why is the Holocaust a subject that is off limits to examination? How could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by kooks and anti-semitics? Surely the case doesn�t need to be protected by thought control. Imprisoning people for doubts is the antithesis of modernity. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Replies:
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 1:16pm
|
Another one ..................... The Jewish owned LA Times is priming the public opinion in the same vein..... BACKGROUNDER What is anti-Semitism?A UCSB professor's controversial e-mail underscores the need to define a sensitive subject.
By Nicholas Goldberg
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oew-goldberg12-2009may12-gb,0,5882307.graffitiboard -
William I. Robinson, a professor of sociology at UC Santa Barbara,
probably shouldn't have been surprised when he found himself in the
news earlier this month. He had, after all, forwarded an e-mail to his
students that juxtaposed images of Palestinians caught up in Israel's
recent Gaza Strip offensive with Jewish victims of the Nazis. The
e-mail included graphic photographs of dead Jewish children from the
1940s alongside similar photos from Gaza. In a cover note, Robinson
called the images "parallel" and compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto.May 12, 2009 The outcry built slowly. First, a few students complained; then, organized groups became involved. Two national Jewish leaders accused Robinson (who is himself Jewish) of anti-Semitism, and the university's Academic Senate opened an investigation and is considering disciplinary proceedings. Articles about the controversy have been published all over the world and have given rise to fundamental questions:
Is it ever acceptable to compare Israelis to Nazis? When does criticism
of Israel become anti-Semitism? And who should make these calls? Below,
The Times asks and answers a few questions to help frame the debate. Let's start with an easy question. What is anti-Semitism? Actually, that's not easy at all; scholars, philosophers and policymakers have debated the question since the 19th century. The U.S. State Department has defined the term simply but vaguely: "Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews." So how do we recognize it? That was easier in the bad old days. Who could mistake the violent attacks on Jews across Europe during the First Crusade in 1096? Or the expulsion of Jews from England in 1290 and from Spain in 1492? Demonization of Jews, forced conversions, ghettoization, pogroms and the Holocaust -- all were manifestations of classic European anti-Semitism. So were Shakespeare's Shylock and Dickens' Fagin (described as "shriveled" and "repulsive," and referred to simply as "the Jew" more than 200 times in "Oliver Twist"). But today, determining what is or is not anti-Semitism is generally a more nuanced business, at least in the West. Is it anti-Semitic or merely factual to say that Hollywood is controlled largely by Jews? (Remember: Most of the big studio chiefs are Jewish.) Or to note (as some critics of the Iraq war did) that many of the neoconservatives who helped devise the war's intellectual rationale were Jewish -- and possibly harbored a dual loyalty to Israel? Or to point to the existence of a powerful "Israel lobby" that wields substantial influence on Capitol Hill? So it's a minefield, right? In 2004, the European Union Monitoring Centre Centre on Racism and Xenophobia tried to bring some rationality to the debate by drawing up a "working definition" of anti-Semitism. Here are some of the examples of anti-Semitic behavior it singled out: Calling for the killing or harming of Jews in the name of an extremist ideology; making dehumanizing or demonizing stereotypical allegations about Jews; accusing the Jews as a people of being responsible for wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group; trafficking in Jewish conspiracy theories; denying the Holocaust; and accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to their own nations. The organization also noted that anti-Semitism "could also target the state of Israel." Does that mean it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel? To criticize Israeli policies? Of course not. Even Abraham Foxman, the outspoken national director of the Anti-Defamation League, acknowledges that there's nothing wrong with criticizing, say, Israel's recent offensive in Gaza. Alan Dershowitz, the vehemently pro-Israel Harvard Law School professor, agrees that it would be "absurd" to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. So if it's OK to criticize Israel's policies, what's the big deal? Professor Robinson objected to the Gaza offensive, and he made that clear. Yes, he made it clear, but it's how he did so that got him in trouble, according to his critics. There are acceptable ways to criticize Israel, while others cross the line into anti-Semitism, says Daniel Goldhagen, author of "Hitler's Willing Executioners." For instance, if a person repeatedly singles out Israel for attack without subjecting other countries to similar scrutiny, that's questionable, Goldhagen says. Or if he opposes Zionism -- and therefore, Israel's right to exist as an explicitly Jewish state -- altogether. Another way to cross the line, according to the EUMC, Foxman, Dershowitz, the State Department and others, is to compare Israelis to Nazis. "Any comparison between Israeli efforts to defend its citizens from terrorism on the one hand, and the Nazi Holocaust on the other hand, is obscene and ignorant," Dershowitz wrote in December. The Anti-Defamation League's website notes that comparing the victims of Nazi crimes to those who carried them out "serves to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust" and is "an act of blatant hostility toward Jews and Jewish history." As Foxman puts it: "The moment you compare the Jews to those who consciously and systematically determined to wipe them off the face of the Earth -- that's anti-Semitism." Is that a reasonable line to draw? Robinson certainly doesn't think so. He says that the charge of anti-Semitism is a smoke screen designed to intimidate Israel's critics. "Israel and its supporters intentionally use it to quash debate about the country's policies," he says. "It's a political ploy." How does Robinson defend forwarding the offending e-mail? He doesn't think it needs defending. He says he's teaching a controversial, provocative subject, and that it's his job to challenge students to examine their assumptions as he puts contemporary events into historical context. And does he meet the Goldhagen test? Does he criticize other nations for their transgressions? He says he tells his students that there can be no double standard when it comes to human rights, and that the targeting of one Iranian or Palestinian or Jew or Rwandan is equally condemnable. "But at the same time," he adds, "it's unreasonable to suggest that each time I critique one state for a human rights violation that I must also, in the name of balance, run off a litany of all the other human rights violations in the world." Where does Robinson draw the line between what's acceptable and what's not? It's fine, he says, to criticize Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe for driving his country to the brink of collapse, but it would be unacceptable to say that he has done so because he is a biologically inferior black African. Similarly, it is acceptable to argue that Israel's offensive in Gaza was wrong -- but it would be anti-Semitic to criticize Israel on the grounds that Jews are dirty, greedy or sinister. What does Robinson say to the idea that comparing Israelis to Nazis is simply out of bounds? First, he defends the comparison of Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto. He says that, like the ghetto, Gaza is sealed off. As in the ghetto, the delivery of food and medical supplies is controlled by the hostile power outside, so that poverty and malnutrition are building. As in the ghetto, he says, rebellions are put down with disproportionate force. According to Robinson, it may not be an exact comparison, but it's hardly ridiculous. Moreover, Robinson insists that such analogies are essential to understanding history. Would it be wrong, he asked, to compare the apartheid regime in South Africa to the Jim Crow laws in the American South, even if the situations were not identical? As for whether it's OK to compare contemporary figures to the Nazis, he notes that President George H.W. Bush once likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has compared Iran to Nazi Germany. But those are not cases where victims are compared to their persecutors. Robinson says that comparing victims to their persecutors shouldn't be off-limits. In fact, that's the very irony that makes the analogy so important. "I'm saying that the people who suffered the most nightmarish crime of the 20th century are now using tactics and practices that are eerily similar to what was done to them," he says. But he acknowledges that the analogy has its limits: "Extermination," he says. "Obviously that's the key difference." So what's the bottom line? The Foxmans and Dershowitzes say that comparing Israelis to Nazis is, in the final analysis, anti-Semitic because it is so demonstrably untrue and so patently disingenuous. Even Israel's fiercest critics, they argue, ought to concede that the country's actions have been taken in its own defense -- even if one believes that defense was misguided or disproportionately violent or even criminal. Further, they say that the number of Palestinian deaths during the 60-year conflict can't begin to compare to the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust. To suggest a moral equivalency is anti-Semitic because it's so absurd. Robinson's bottom line is this: Whether you accept the analogy or find it "absurd," the real principle at stake is that of open debate and academic freedom. A professor engaging in a controversial conversation with his students may not be shut down by the defenders of a particular ideology. Deeply held beliefs are there to be challenged; that's how critical thinking is developed. You be the judge. Nicholas Goldberg is deputy editor of The Times' editorial pages. ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 7:07am
|
Will we ever be able to figure out, what is free speech and what is hate speech? What do you think is hate speech/free speech?
So are Muslims generally for or against free speech?
Is free speech calling someone kaffir, infidel? How about the verse about the apes, would that have to be deleted from the Quran? ------------- John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 7:34am
|
Do you think that the Gospels detailing the hypocrisy of the Jews and their part in killing Jesus will have to be deleted from the Bible? What about Judas? A Jew selling out God for 20 pieces of silver? That has to be gotten rid of, don't you think? ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 12:41pm
Who is this we? Do you have comprehension issues? ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
believer wrote:Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 4:11pm
|
We = humans.
Do you think that the Gospels detailing the hypocrisy of the Jews and their part in killing Jesus will have to be deleted from the Bible?
A Jew selling out God for 20 pieces of silver?
No, The Bible does not tell us to go out and kill Jews- or any people today. The majority of Christians do not use this information to be hateful to Jews. Our ministers do not preach to kill Jews. We do not go around calling them killers. Which by the way is prejudice to label a whole group of people in a certain way which the Quran is doing and allowing muslims to do.
What about Judas? Not sure what you mean here. ------------- John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 6:59pm
|
'Left Behind' Video Game Promotes Intolerance of Jews and Non-Christian Faiths New York, NY, December 20, 2006 � The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed concern about "the built-in message of religious intolerance" found within a video game released in time for the Christmas holiday season and based on the best-selling "Left Behind" series of books.
The video game, "Left Behind � Eternal Forces" promotes an exclusionary Christian theology that believes Jews and others must convert or be killed at the End of Days, according to an analysis of the game by ADL experts in interfaith affairs and PC gaming, who reviewed a copy of the CD-ROM released by Left Behind Games Inc., part of the multimillion empire of pastor Tim LaHaye, co-author of the "Left Behind" book series. The League has published an http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/leftbehind.asp - analysis of the game . "The game and the belief system behind it are dangerous, because they teach that Judaism and other non-Christian faiths are not valid," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians are seen as incomplete unless they convert, a concept that is contrary to the American ideal of respect for all religions "Coinciding with the release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" today, a Denver church unveiled a message on its marquee that reinforces some Jewish groups' worst fears about the controversial film.
"Jews Killed The Lord Jesus" � "I Thess. 2:14, 15" � "Settled!" says the sign in front of Lovingway United Pentecostal Church, reports Denver's ABC television http://www.wnd.com/#">affiliate  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqtmwvuyq8A - Jews killed Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqtmwvuyq8A
"The uniqueness of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that no other people in the world have ever been charged simultaneously with alienation from society and with cosmopolitanism, with being capitalistic exploiters and also revolutionary communist advocators. The Jews were accused of having an imperious mentality, at the same time they're a people of the book. They're accused of being militant aggressors, at the same time as being cowardly pacifists. With being a Chosen people, and also having an inferior human nature. With both arrogance and timidity. With both extreme individualism and community adherence. With being guilty of the crucifixion of Jesus and at the same time held to account for the invention of christianity."
- A speech about the irrationality of anti-Semitism Matthew 26:3Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas;
4and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him. Matthew 27: 20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21"Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. 22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. 23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. 24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" 25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
�JEWS KILLED JESUS! Yes, the Jews killed the Lord Jesus�Now they're carrying water for the fags; that's what they do best: sin in God's face every day, with unprecedented and disproportionate amounts of sodomy, fornication, adultery, abortion and idolatry! God hates these dark-hearted rebellious disobedient Jews.�
Fred Phelps-- WBC news release, April 23, 2009
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 7:19pm
|
Of course, in 1963 the Pope and the Second vatican Council decided that not all Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus...
"As noted twenty years later by Gerhart Riegner, Co-Chairman of the Governing Board of the World Jewish Congress, �the Declaration establishes eight major principles which define the Church�s attitude to the Jewish people.
2. It acknowledges that it received the �Old Testament through the people with whom God concluded the Ancient Covenant�. 3. It acknowledges the Judaic roots of Christianity, starting with the Jewish origin of Jesus himself, of the Virgin Mary and of all the Apostles. 4. It declares that God does not repent of the gifts he makes and the calls he issues and Jews remain �most dear to God�. 5. It states that what happened in the passion of Christ cannot be charged against all Jews without distinction then living, nor against the Jews of today. 6. It declares that the Jews are not rejected or accursed by God. 7. It proclaims the Church�s repudiation of hatred, persecution, displays of antisemitism at any time and by anyone. 8. It fosters and recommends mutual understanding and respect through biblical and theological studies and fraternal dialogues.� http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/11John.htm#_edn7 - - - That is a significant accomplishment for a document trying to reverse two thousand years of Christian hostility to Jews and Judaism." http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/11John.htm - http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/11John.htm
but, 2 years later it was business as usual:
1963 � June: Natalia Ginzburg, Italian playwright and novelist, writes, "Family Sayings," a novel based on recollections of her youth, including bourgeois assimilated Italian Jewish life in Turin. She wins Italy�s most prestigious literary prize.
November: John F. Kennedy is assassinated. The Second Vatican Council submits a draft of "Attitude of Catholics toward Non-Christians, Particularly toward the Jews." 1964 � The Third Vatican Council repudiates the notion of the Jewish people as �rejected, cursed or guilty of deicide," and admonished Catholics not to "teach anything that could give rise to hatred or contempt of Jews in the hearts of Christians."
1965 � In an apparent retreat from the declaration of the Third Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI, in his Passion Sunday Sermon, says the day�s lesson was a "grave and sad page narrating the clash between Jesus and the Jews�the people predestined to await the Messiah who . . .did not recognize him, fought him, and slandered him, and finally killed him."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/italytime.html - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/italytime.html
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 7:24pm
|
"What about Judas? Not sure what you mean here."
Really, you have never heard the slander that all Jews are "money hungry"? Even Shakespeare made poor Shylock "the Jew" money-hungry and cruel, the "very devil incarnate".
So Biblically Judas the Jew turns God over for crucifixion for 20 pieces of silver. Anti-Semetism at it's worst I think that would have to definitely be deleted from the Good Book... ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 14 May 2009 at 6:50am
|
Ok got you- Christians are not commanded to go out and call Jews money grubbers or Judas.
Does the Quran say anywhere do not call non-muslims names, be kind/ love your enemy?
One of the commandments is to not bear false witness- calling all Jews money grubbers would be bearing false witness. ------------- John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 14 May 2009 at 7:36am
Actually The Quran tells us to be kind to everyone.
Does the Bible tell you not to call non-Christians names, because if it does then all that calling of hypocrits, fools, etc... would be just wrong. Who was calling the Jewish scribes and Pharisees these horrible names?
Calling all Jews money grubbers would be bearing false witness, but calling some Jews money grubbers would be o.k.? ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 14 May 2009 at 6:12pm
Can you show us a verse from Qur'an where in we are asked to call non-muslims names {in your lang} ---- ?
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 15 May 2009 at 5:29am
|
seekhadith I find it interesting you do not know this verse:
But really I have heard muslims say that this verse refers to muslims only. Basically you can do what you want to non-believers, because they are second class citizens. ------------- John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. |
Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 15 May 2009 at 5:34am
Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 15 May 2009 at 5:35am
|
When does free speech become hate speech? ------------- John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 15 May 2009 at 6:40am
|
Believer, since you yourself actually found a verse in The Quran that tells Muslims not to call people names, perhaps you should go back to worrying about those of your religion who do so. ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 15 May 2009 at 6:54pm
|
The first ayah you quoted : " O you who believe! Let not a group scoff at another group, it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor let (some) women scoff at other women, it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor defame yourselves, nor insult one another by nicknames. Evil is the name of wickedness after faith. And whosoever does not repent, then such are indeed wrongdoers"
Now show me, from this simple verse wherein muslims are told to laugh at others, as you interpreted ? ? ?
Infact believers in Islam are taught etiquettes that they shud n't laugh / scoff at other.
Don't go for wrong interpretations.
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 15 May 2009 at 9:28pm
|
This verse explains that when jews transgressed the limits they were turned into Monkeys. It is also said that these turned monkeys, persihed without off-springs.
None of the muslims today call any jew "Monkey". We had two-three members at IC who were Jews. Were they called so ? Such thoughts are the products of satanic minds.
I had never seen any Imams preach such. If at all { you shall find none, as these thoughts are yours }, if at all you find any muslims addressing such, you can tell them that Islam does n't preach so. I hope you shall not raise this issue again at boards.
We are going off-topic, if you still wish to continue, start up a new thread.
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 6:32am
|
Anti semitism exists nowadays as before but this time its the Arabs and the followers of whats regarded as the Arab religion, that're majorly at the recieving end.
Some of the fiercest critics of Israeli policies are the anti zionist Jews. Well, they cant be anti semites......perhaps just self-hating Jews. ------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |