Muslim-Jewish Solidarity During the Holy Days

Point-by-point, Ramy: Once again, try to understand the concept of separating the message from the messenger. Jesus, insofar as I am familiar with his life and message, and insofar as what we know about him is accurate, said little that I could object to, aside from claims that he was the Christ or a prophet. Most of the things that separated normative Judaism from Christianity came later and from other people. But none of that makes me hate Jesus. Now, those in the church who may have encouraged the harm of Jews or the denial of their rights based on their rejection of Jesus’ messianic status is another story. When the talk goes from theological debate to denying the rights (even the right to life) of the unbelievers, that’s where my love for my fellowman ends, and my hatred for the enemy begins. In other words, I am not obligated to tolerate the intolerant. This applies equally to all belief systems and all of mankind. I can love Jesus of Nazareth the Jew, even if I reject his message and the message others have ascribed to him. But the line that is crossed when the beliefs are used to justify physical harm and/or the denial of basic human rights to outsiders is a solid, thin line. There is no grey area. You go from being my fellowman to being my mortal enemy. Historical figures, like Jesus, who did not act to harm or deny the rights of non-believers (with the possible exception of some of the traders in the Temple compound), cannot be regarded as a historical enemy, and therefore can be “loved” insofar as it is possible to love someone you have never met and whose message does not resonate with you.

“Phobia” is defined as an irrational, excessive, and persistent fear of some particular thing or situation. While my fears may be persistent, they are hardly irrational or excessive. Would you have said the same about the 2000 Christians just slaughtered by Boko Haram? Were they “Islamophobic”, irrationally fearing Muslims until one of them plunged a knife into their chests? My fears are based on my own knowledge of Islam, acquired by reading a great deal on the topic, and observing the actions, both violent and non-violent, of those who claim to act in accordance with Islam. Not to fear people who have sworn to either kill you or remove your liberties, whether by force or deception, wheterh suddenly or gradually, is true foolishness, foolishness of the Liberal sort.

As for you and M4L, as I have said before, if you are genuine in your beliefs and mission, it would be admirable. What I have not seen, however, is a firm rejection on M4L of all Muslims who interpret Islam and its holy writ differently. When I ask you to reject the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, you reply that you do not “speak for” them. I never accused of you of speaking for them. I don’t speak for J Street, but I am happy to reject and denounce J Street on the basis of their publicized positions. Why wouldn’t you do the same for Muslim groups that endorse Jihad, like the Ikhwan? Saying that is not your purpose at M4L is just more diversion. You don’t exist to argue with people like me, either, but you do it anyway.

Now, if you are indeed working to de-politicize Islam, that is also admirable. However, given the many Muslim leaders who speak in vague doublespeak about peace, tolerance and coexistence to Western audiences, while speaking of Jihad against the kufars to Muslim audiences, I remain suspicious. I am sorry if you feel my suspicions are groundless, but I have not seen from M4L the kind of push for reformation I hear from al-Sisi or Zuhdi Jasser. When I hear Muslims speaking in platitudes, but reluctant to denounce Muslims and Muslim groups who call for Jihad (in all or any of its forms), my antenna go up. When I have some more free time, I will try to point out the posts on M4L that I find cause for concern. And if M4L is supporting a sort of soft Jihad, accomplished via demographics, taqqiya, legal challenges, and the placement of covert or overt operatives within the governments of Western democracies, you are indeed working towards steeling my lunch money (jizya). Using the freedoms of the West to bring down its house, to paraphrase the Muslim Brotherhood, is probably the most dangerous and potentially successful form of Jihad there is. And I am not convinced that this form of Jihad is not the form M4L prefers. Perhaps it is the Jihad of Dawa, whereby you grow Islam organically, so that the U.S. becomes an Islamic republic in a peaceful, democratic way. The end result is the same, though; the rise to hegemony of Islamic law. Can you honestly tell me that this outcome would not be a happy one for you? After all, don’t you want the prophet’s message to be supreme, even if you reject violence as a means to make it so?

As for the “western imperialism” charge, I refer back again to history. You cannot ignore the Islamic challenges to the West when decrying the Western push-back. Will you deny that from Mohammed’s life onward that the reality of Islam has been one of conquest, colonization, taxation and subjugation? Please, show me something in the Koran or Hadith, that has not been abrogated by later entries, that calls on Muslims to accept hegemony only in some portion of the world, and that there is no goal of Islamic hegemony over the entire earth. In that context, I don’t have any issues with Western actions in the uma that serve to keep the fight “over there”. I agree that, at least in the last 30 years, most of the U.S.’s efforts in the Middle East have been disasters. But they were disasters not because of the “insult” to the Muslims that they presented, but because they were done more to win friends than to neutralize enemies and establish effective deterrence. “Fools” like myself? Trust me, the aftermath of 9-11 under President Phil would have been vastly different than either Bush or Obama. Why? Because I understand Muslims better than most Americans, and I don’t project my Judeo-Christian mindset onto Muslims. I know that the Muslim mother shouting for joy over the martyrdom of her son does not want what most American mothers want. I am not interested in making the Uma into a beacon of freedom and democracy, Ramy. I am interested in making sure that the Uma does not threaten our allies anywhere in the world. I am not interested in getting anyone to love us, but rather to fear us, and thusly safeguard Americans and American interests at home and abroad.

I am as “vile as al Qaeda and ISIS”? Really? Well, I am glad to hear you refer to al Qaeda and ISIS as vile. But you are telling me I am as bad as people who crucify children, rape little girls and behead anyone, even other Muslims, because they disagree with one version of Islam. It’s the old moral equivalence argument, and it is now, as always, a complete and total failure. Evil is evil, good is good, and Islam defines these differently than the Judeo-Christian world does. I will repeat: What can I possibly say on an al Qaeda web site or ISIS web site that would cause readers to alter their reactions to what they read on those sites? Anything I could say would be obvious, just as what those web sites probably say are just as obvious. They don’t hide their beliefs or speak in platitudes in order to lull infidels into accepting their arguments. Who is the real coward, Ramy? Who is afraid to denounce CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood? Who is afraid to say that Islam, not “radical” or “extremist” Islam, calls for the uncompromising conquest of the entire world, by any means practical, and the imposition of Islamic legal and social systems on all people, Muslim and infidel? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I think it is cowardly to resort to name-calling and trying to send away people who post comments that ruffle your feathers rather than addressing the substance of those comments without ad-hominem attacks.