A major re-think

[msmcghee]

http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/columnists/jacobs/?content_id=4916

By Charles Jacobs - Saturday May 10 2008

Merely listening to Hamas should be enough to convince anyone that the Jewish state is seen by major segments of the Muslim world as a theological affront to Islam.

But the myth that the conflict is secular and solely related to real estate is deeply held. That’s understandable: Who wants to think that the Jews survived Christian theological hatred in Europe to find themselves at the center of a murderous Islamic hate-storm? A “border war with locals” feels so much better. It’s a palliative, a soporific.

There is a sign, however, that Israelis are beginning to re-think this matter. The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a research unit unofficially associated with the Israeli intelligence services, recently released an important report entitled ‘Contemporary Arab-Muslim anti-Semitism, its Significance and Implications.’

The report rehearses well-known religious sources of Islamic Jew-hatred, and documents the vast extent of active anti-Semitism throughout the Arab/Islamic world. It concludes that Muslim anti-Semitism is a strategic threat to Israel and the Jewish people globally.

<snip>

[notfullofit]

1. A 'border' war

is acceptable to the west, a Holy war is not.

[oberliner]

2. Is this the same Charles Jacobs who founded the American Anti-Slavery Group?

Here is the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Jacobs_%28political_activist%29

Same person?

[azurnoir]

3. Thanks for link

Yes he is the same guy.

I had no idea that CAMERA, Campus Watch, and the David Project were so concerned about slaves in the Muslim world.

[Lithos]

4. I find the focus incorrect

The language and tone implies not only is there almost a conspiracy by Arabs and Muslims against Jews, but that the hatred is such that being Arab or Muslim is almost synonymous with anti-Semitism. And as such I find this extremely incorrect.

The referenced report itself categorizes the rise of anti-Semitism in the Middle East not so much as a religious or cultural phenomenon, but as part of political propaganda efforts by various governments (Iran, Syria, etc.) and political movements (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) who utilize anti-Western, anti-Israeli commentary and anti-Semitism as a way to focus the population away from real issues.

In a historical sense, what is happening today in the Middle East is almost identical to the political and economic use of anti-Semitism in Europe from the Middle Ages through to the modern age where it was Christian theology which was driving anti-Semitism, but rather the political machinations which (mis)used Christian theology to justify it's own political ambitions.

However, the tone of this, Bostom's book, this is trying to make this the fault of Islam and does so by highlighting the works of extremists and not those who represent the mainstream thought. By this type of logic, I could use the words of the extremist Rabbi Yousef Falay, who belongs to one of the settler movements, who found in his religion the justification for the extermination of all Palestinian males over the age of 13 as a claim that Judaism is hateful. Obviously by cherry picking examples you can find whatever hate you wish to find. And in so doing such methodology is not helpful and only continues the spiraling cycle of hatred which only benefits those politically enabled few.

The hate in the Middle East happens on ALL sides, is politically driven, and will NOT be solved until real political solutions are implemented which deny power to those who wish to utilize such hatred for their own ambitions.

L-

[msmcghee]

5. Yours is the type of response I was hoping for . .

. . as this is a confusing issue for me.

For example, you say, "However, the tone of this, Bostom's book, this is trying to make this the fault of Islam and does so by highlighting the works of extremists and not those who represent the mainstream thought."

Aside from whose fault this is, which could also be an interesting question - I keep seeing and hearing those who are characterized as speaking for mainstream Islam say and do things that seem clearly anti-semitic to me. Could you provide a couple of examples of what you consider to be the real voices of mainstream Islam in the ME today showing more enlightened attitudes toward Jews - assuming that's what you mean by "mainstream thought"?

If I sound skeptical, I am, but I'm open to being educated.

Added to clarify: It seems that a quick trip to MEMRI or PMW reveals dozens, if not hundreds of the recorded statements of various Imams and Hamas leaders decrying the very existence of Israel and making the most outrageously hateful exterminationist statements about Israel and the Jews.

I have yet to see any prominent Arab leader say something along the lines of - "You know, Jews are people just like us, and they deserve to live in peace unless they attack us. It's time we started forging the bonds of peace and cooperation and putting that hateful past - for which both sides bear sufficient blame - behind us, and look to a more prosperous future."

I just never see anything like that - much less enough of it to constitute a mainstream view. It may be that I am blinded because of my "anti-Arab bias" that I am so often accused of here. I offer anyone here the opportunity to point out the "real Arab mainstream voices" on this, that I may have been missing.

[Sezu]

6. And since the focus of the argument IS in the M.E.

The examples need to be from that area to be relevant. I myself have never seen any that fit that bill.

[Lithos]

7. Your methodology is not correct

It is a good example of the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

What you are proposing is a condemnation of a whole group based on the actions of a few without knowledge of what the majority are doing and the reliance on media/knowledge which are anything but perfect. Your choice of Memri/PMW is about as logical as using EI or the ISM's own website as proof that the IDF is not a bunch of thugs. These groups (Memri/PMW/EI/ISM) have agendas where it is not in their best interests on reporting anything contrary to the political line.

You seek moderate voices who support reasonable expression in the Middle East? Then I would suggest you start here:

http://www.onemillionvoices.org/partners/partners.html and note the number of groups with strong Arab presence.

As for Arab leaders, King Abdullah II of Jordan has stated pretty much exactly what you summarized:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/09/22/jordans_king_extends_hand_to_jews/

And while not Arab, former Iranian President Khatamei was also known for his humane and moderate stances. His ouster as President was one of the results of the swaggering sabre-rattling of George Bush which caused a nationalist reaction which brought in Ahmadinejad who played to the fears of the Iranians.

[msmcghee]

8. I can understand why you might say . .

. . that I am making an argument from ignorance. That's what I said myself in my post - that I was "ignorant" of "mainstream Islam's" efforts at halting or reducing the anti-semitism that seems to permeate current Arab/Muslim views of Jews and Israel. I asked you to provide some examples of that.

You did give me two examples but I'm still having trouble seeing how those examples support your assertion. The first was "onemillionvoices.org" that describes itself as a "grassroots", non-partisan effort at reconciliation of the conflict through negotiations toward a two-state solution. I applaud this organization's efforts and mission. Almost every member of this forum supports the two-state solution including me. However, a self-described grassroots effort of anonymous people and corporate members who sign up on the internet to endorse a two-state solution can hardly be described as the voice of "mainstream Islam", much less the voice of "mainstream Islam" regarding antisemitism, which was your assertion and topic under discussion. I could find no mention of antisemitism on their website.

Similarly, the words of King Abdullah II of Jordan from a moderate Islamic conference he sponsored in 2005, seems hardly reflective of mainstream Islam then or today. I notice though that at least in the article you linked, while he did call for an end to fatwas and he denounced "extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam", he didn't say anything about antisemitism - which is what we are discussing.

You made a specific claim - that Bostom's assertion that mainstream Islam is a major source of antisemitism was "extremely incorrect". There's no need to argue about Bostom's history of Islamic antisemitism. I can provide dozens of links to videos of mainstream imams of important mosques in the largest Arab capitals as well as videos of Hamas spokesmen calling Jews the sons of pigs and apes and Palestinian kid's shows teaching hatred of Jews as an essential part of being a good Muslim - all within the last few weeks. I'll do that if you doubt me but you know those videos are there.

Can you provide anything comparable - any current (like in the last few weeks) evidence of truly mainstream Muslim / Arab leaders - like a state leader who has not signed a peace treaty with Israel - or Palestinian TV offering messages that oppose and renounce those frequent antisemitic messages?

I am not making any argument from ignorance or otherwise - as much as I am questioning your view as you stated it. I am not trying to convince you that I am right. I am questioning your view because I don't see what you see. I am asking for evidence that you are right so I can understand why you could possibly believe that mainstream Islam in the Arab ME is not virulently antisemitic.

[Lithos]

11. First, your argument is over the place

It is not only based on trying to prove from the ignorant fallacy, it is pretty close to another logical fallacy, namely the complex fallacy whose best known example is "when did you stop beating your wife".

I will ask you now, what is your real point you are trying to make. Is it, Bostom's "Islam itself is anti-Semitic"? Or the different "Is there a problem in the increased use of politically-based anti-Semitism"? The former is where you seem to be heading.

First, Is a definite lack of scale. You offer to give dozens of links. Given that the number of adherents of Islam in the Middle East is VERY large and that the number of sermons, discussions delivered each week probably number in the hundreds of thousands, there is a definite lack of coverage or completeness of what is actually being stated theologically. I too can offer dozens of links of anti-Semitic comments delivered from Christian pulpits or from those making religious statements here in the US. I also can offer links of anti-Arab/anti-Islam comments from various Rabbi's in the Is that sufficient to claim that Christianity is anti-Semitic or that Judaism is bigoted? The Protocols are fully published and distributed on more ostensibly "Christian" websites than Arabic. By your logic it seems to be.

Second, Groups such as Hamas, while claiming to be religious groups are actually extremely poorly based in theology. The main basis of their works come from Sayyid Qutb who is the primary founder of the "Muslim Brotherhood" from which Hamas and Al Qaeda are descended. Sayyid Qutb has been sharply criticized theologically as being incomplete and his works lacking on a hermaneutical basis. Sayyid Qutb has even been labeled a deviant by at least one mainstream group of ulema because of how different his ideas are from mainstream thought.

The oft reported anti-Semitic comments issued forth by Farfur, Kuku and Fufu are not based in Islam, but rather like most extreme-nationalist RW propaganda, is wrapped in religion. Ahmadinjad's hateful comments are really based in nationalism and not religion. I would suggest that most anti-Semitism and bigotry in the ME is top down from the politicians and is non-religious in basis. Nasser, a major anti-Islamist, was one of those who first heavily used anti-Semitism as a tool to help his propaganda efforts.

This use of religion as a tool of hate is true of the comments of groups of people like David Duke, CODOH, and the KKK. It is true of extreme RW groups in Israel such as the JDL and various settler blocs. It is even true in other countries such as India where extreme RW nationalist groups use religion to attack Christians and Muslims. None of it has a basis in the underlying theology.

If you want to argue that the ME is becoming more RW and nationalistic, then that would be an interesting point of debate. However, Islam, like any other religion, fundamentally is a set of ideals by which people live. In many ways, it is identical to Christianity and Judaism in how it provides guidance for day-to-day living. They molds and adapts itself both culturally and personally. You could possibly argue that at their core they are fundamentally the same set of memes with only a handful of historical differences.

So, I argue that Bostom's comments are not only incorrect and non-helpful, but also are part of the problem. He claims a tool is the problem when in fact the real problem lies in people, not religion, more particular how RW nationalist groups use misappropriate religion to fuel hate for their own political and selfish purposes. This is the problem with Israel and the settler bloc, this is the problem with Hamas. At a different level, it is a problem here in the US.

L-

[msmcghee]

13. Discussions with you can be very frustrating . .

. . because they never seem to stay with a single question or point of discussion. Let's try to get this back into that zone.

The report said that antisemitism is and always has been an integral component of Islam and provided documentation for that assertion.

You said that was "extremely incorrect" and said that the Islamic antisemitism we see does not represent mainstream Islam. I am not making a point or arguing a point of view of my own. I am questioning that point that you made - I am asking you for supporting evidence.

If "mainstream Islam" is not antisemitic but these extremest offshoots are spreading false antisemitic Islamic doctrine - one would expect that some "mainstream Islamist" teachers and imams would mention that as being a problem that is smearing Islam - especially since the volume seems to be so high. Also, that they would make greater efforts to assert their peaceful Judeophilic philosophy into the mainstream discussion. I therefore asked for examples of current Islamist leaders renouncing any of the voluminous antisemitic statements and rhetoric that seems to permeate Arab / ME religious and political life.

You accused me of making some kind of "argument from ignorance" and then offered two examples that had nothing to do with antisemitism. A bit bewildered, I asked again,

"Can you provide anything comparable - any current (like in the last few weeks) evidence of truly mainstream Muslim / Arab leaders - like a state leader who has not signed a peace treaty with Israel - or Palestinian TV offering messages that oppose and renounce those frequent antisemitic messages?"

In your reply you offered no examples but accused me of getting close to the "have you stopped beating your wife" argument. I will interpret that to mean that you could find no examples.

I will not suggest that that proves that your thesis is wrong. It could be that all the mainstream "peace and love with the Jews" Islamists just don't push that message in ways the we in the West can see it. It could also be that MEMRI and PMW see these peaceful messages all the time but hide them from us so we will only see the "antisemitic Islam". However, that seems pretty unlikely to me. I think that any such examples would be eagerly touted by Haaretz and other journals and peace groups on the left that tend to blame Israel and attempt to indemnify Israel's Islamist enemies whenever possible. I will therefore suggest that without a decent sampling of examples along those lines - that the report documenting . . well-known religious sources of Islamic Jew-hatred, and that documents the vast extent of active antisemitism throughout the Arab/Islamic world and that "concludes that Muslim anti-Semitism is a strategic threat to Israel and the Jewish people globally."

. . is at least a reasonable view worth considering, a view that awaits an effective rebuttal. Thank you.

[msmcghee]

26. About cultural intolerance.

I'd like to focus on this statement you made since it seems to be a recurring theme in your comments in this thread. It's honest debate to try to focus on your opponents most essential points.

Lithos: "I would suggest that most anti-Semitism and bigotry in the ME is top down from the politicians and is non-religious in basis."

In that same spirit of honest debate, I see two problems with this view. The most obvious problem is that whether Arab / Muslim antisemitism and bigotry comes from the top or from their essential culture or from some other source - it is there and it generally exists in the minds of the people. Such beliefs do not generally disappear when the cultural leaders change the tune - even if "changing the tune" could be a realistic possibility in the Arab ME. It usually takes several generations of constant effort by a society fully committed to rid itself of such ideas. Even then they can only reduce it to a level where it is not a dominant cultural meme. Here we are, 60 years after the Civil Rights Movement, still seeing and hearing anti-AA racism freely expressed in our nation. (Visit GD-P for a refresher.)

Second, Arab culture and Islam are almost synonymous. Even most secular Arabs share many of the cultural beliefs that are expressed in Islam - just as people in all cultures tend to share the fundamental (emotional) beliefs of that culture. That's what "culture" means. Islam divides the world into two peoples. Those who accept Allah as the one true God - and those who don't. Those who don't are seen as a lesser form of life - the infidel. The doctrine of a culturally dominant religion both imposes itself upon and evolves to embody and express the most basic beliefs within a culture. IMO it would be unlikely that a child growing up exclusively in any Arab ME culture would not believe at a very basic (emotional) level that there are people who are good (our people) and that their are people who are bad (not our people) and that the culturally approved response is to treat them differently (to discriminate) - no matter if that belief is institutionalized through that child's acceptance of Islam. (Of course, I'm talking trends here and don't mean to imply that this would include all Arabs or all Arab children.)

This is not so unusual. It has been and still is almost an instinctive emotional belief in the great majority of human cultures. Cultures that try to pass beyond this "us/them" intolerance do so only with the greatest difficulty and effort over generations. I can't think of any significant human culture that has reached the place where such beliefs just don't exist. The reason is that throughout the history of our species - those humans who had the genes that produced a comfortable place for such emotional "us/them" intolerance in their minds were likely to live longer and produce more offspring. Those are the genes that we (all of humanity) now carry in some proportion.

To summarize, it makes little difference where the intolerance comes from. It is there on both sides. IMO the intolerance on the Jewish side is mostly the response to attempts by Arabs to destroy Jews and the Jewish state going back many years. My sense is that it would mostly disappear pretty quickly if those attempts actually ended and were no longer called for by Arab leaders. It is not fully endemic in the Jewish culture which has a 2000 year history of successfully assimilating into various societies throughout the civilized world. It is opposed in Jewish culture generally by an egalitarian bent fostered by the embrace of enlightenment values by most Jews, historically and currently. While it is amplified constantly for political reasons as you suggest, the intolerance on the Arab side is deeply cultural in origin going back to the founding of Islam and even to the desert tribes that preceded Islam. There is little appreciation for enlightenment values in Arab culture to oppose it. Arab cultural intolerance is the basic cause of the conflict. It is unrealistic to believe that it will not have a profound effect on the prospects for peace in the region. It must be recognized and fully accounted for in any peace plans proposed.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. Here's a pretty clear statement of belief, printed in the Guardian

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bassem_naeem/2008/05/hamas_condemns_the_holocaust.html

[notfullofit]

18. Some of

those comments make your hair stand on end.

[Shaktimaan]

22. Holy ....

Wow, those are some statements, alright.

The Jews are for us the people of a sacred book who suffered persecution in European lands. Whenever they sought refuge, Muslim and Arab lands provided them with safe havens. It was in our midst that they enjoyed peace and prosperity; many of them held leading positions in Muslim countries.

So, what do you suppose happened to all those Jews who held (notice the past tense used there) leading positions in Muslim countries? Any particular reason they aren't holding any current leading positions? Anyone?

So, do you think this article is merely a typical example of propaganda or are we witnessing a public break from reality? An outbreak of mass delusion among Palestine's extremist leadership?

[notfullofit]

23. Consider the source. nt

[Vegasaurus]

25. The latter nt

[Vegasaurus]

27. I have to comment again on this, because it is almost hysterical

The idea of anyone believing that Jews held leading positions in Muslim countries.

They were persecuted, treated as dhimmi, and eventually expelled, by the hundreds of thousands.

There are practically no Jews left in any Muslim countries.

They have all been killed or chased out.

This is propaganda at its finest!

[Vegasaurus]

9. When Israelis are murdered

there is dancing in the street and candies handed out.

You do not see public condemnation of this by ANY Arab leader.

There is never any public condemnation for the rampant and virulent anti-semitism that is endemic to Arab society.

If one of them speaks up for two minutes, they are drowned out by 1000 hours of hate-filled propaganda.

There are very few moderate voices in the Arab press, or political/religious leadership,

[Sezu]

10. Lots of times it's far worse than simply being

drowned out.

[Lithos]

12. Facts

Please show me where someone who spoke up was shouted down.

On a different note, show me where Olmert or any other politician condemned A. Lieberman? Or the Settlers who continue to celebrate the death of Rabin, even ten years after the fact?

What about McCain and Hagee?

The problem is endemic. The problem is the emotions which are in play which prevent people from doing what is right. These emotions are what are being manipulated.

L-

[Vegasaurus]

14. I never said that anyone who spoke up was shouted down

I said they never (or rarely) even speak up.

I once challenged another poster here to find me a virulently anti-Arab or anti-Muslim cartoon, published in an Israeli paper.

There are anti-semitic cartoons in the Arab press (and multiple papers) every day.

Oh, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a big best seller there.

No one in the Arab world condemns this blatant anti-semitism.

I find comparing this to Olmert and Lieberman disingenuous at best,

I will wait for comparable anti-Arab or Anti-muslim propaganda coming from mainstream Israeli media, politicians or religious leaders.

[Lithos]

15. The number of editorial cartoons is a poor measure of intolerance

A few:

- A. Lieberman who runs the largest of the Russian block parties has openly called Arab MK's a "fifth column", openly hoping Arab MK's "would be executed", and of course is on record as advocating population transfer.

- Rehavam Zeevi, the Minister of Tourism assassinated by the PFLP called Palestinians "lice" and a "cancer" and called for their forced transfer.

- Zvi Bar'el - a columnist for Haaretz advocated that Palestinians should be "changed or eliminated" if one wants quiet.

- Sergei Podrazhansky - Editor for a large Russian Daily in Israel has stated "In all of our documents it says we are a Jewish democratic state, but no one knows what to do with the Arabs. I know that even the most left-wing person in Israel wants to wake up and not see any Arabs here. That is a dream"

Specifically, A. Lieberman's policies and bigotry seem to be gaining acceptance as evidenced by the gain in seats by his party. Most of this support seems to come from Settler groups and the large block of new Russian immigrants. Given that Mr. Podrazhansky has stated that these groups would tolerate increased security (ie, expulsion) at the expense of Democracy, then this attitude does not bode well for the future of Israeli Democracy should they continue to gain acceptance.

However, before this turns into a tit-for-tat type of exercise, my comment is NOT one of making this a partisan affair, but to point out that Israel is not without faults of a similar nature to that found in Gaza where ultra-nationalists are escalating tensions through the use bigotry and hate. Websites which favor the policies of Mr. Lieberman also seem to carry racist stereotypes of Islam and Palestinians which feature hatred which rivals that found in the Protocols. I also think that all of this political use of hatred in Gaza and Iran is being used to fuel hatred in Israel which in turn will fuel more hatred and so on in an feedback loop. Hatred begats hatred.

Regarding the Protocols, my point which I have been trying to make above is that the rise in anti-Semitism is a top-down, politically motivated effort and not part and parcel with Islam itself. This is a distinction which I think must be understood as I believe it is essential in any conflict resolution.

I also think the distribution/selling of the Protocols bears out that point rather well. For instance, the protocols are distributed by the Syrian Ministry of Information. It is a governmental group which distributes it in Iran. As I recall it is also a quasi-governmental group which distributes it in Saudi Arabia. It was Nasser in his attempts to spread Pan-Arabic Nationalism started distributing works based on the Protocols.

As for a glimpse of fresh air, please note:

http://www.riifs.org/index_misc/lessening.pdf

[msmcghee]

20. One of your statements jumped out here.

"Websites which favor the policies of Mr. Lieberman also seem to carry racist stereotypes of Islam and Palestinians which feature hatred which rivals that found in the Protocols."

This seems like stretch. Recently I heard that D. Duke provided a link to R. Silverstein's blog and offered some words of praise for some opinions being expressed there. I doubt you would use that to suggest that R. Silverstein and D. Duke share the same basic ideology.

You also said, "Regarding the Protocols, my point which I have been trying to make above is that the rise in anti-Semitism is a top-down, politically motivated effort and not part and parcel with Islam itself. This is a distinction which I think must be understood as I believe it is essential in any conflict resolution."

It seems to me you have revealed in this statement a possible motivation other than seeking the truth for the beliefs that you wish to see prevail on this matter. No matter why you would like others to see the world in a particular way - to share your views - real conflict resolution can only occur when the objective truth is acknowledged by all sides. Otherwise you get an imaginary resolution based on falsehoods that will eventually reveal themselves and could possibly result in an even worse renewed conflict.

My goal in these comments is not to impose any particular version of reality. It is simply to serve my belief that the essential truth of the matter must be accounted for in any real conflict resolution. Either mainstream Islam is or is not a significant source of antisemitism and a strategic threat to Israel. IMO the preponderance of available evidence says that it is. So far, the arguments against it are peripheral and off the mark. Sometimes the truth hurts.

[Lithos]

29. Let me see if I heard you right

You believe that Islam as a religion is fundamentally and violently anti-Semitic and that as such it is fundamentally a strategic threat to Israel. This is not a case of people, groups, organizations or states wrapping themselves in the robes of religion for political or national gain. Your statement directly suggests as much and I would like you to clarify your position.

[msmcghee]

31. Why would you put words in my mouth?

Let me be as clear as I can.

I personally don't believe any religion is "fundamentally" anything. Like most religions whose writings were created by many different people over several centuries the "fundamental" beliefs of the religion can be interpreted in many ways from benign and pacifist to extremely violent and whole passages, books and chapters can be ignored or get eliminated - just like Christianity. I'd say the only truly fundamental belief of Islam is that Allah is the one true God and that Muhammad was his prophet. The rest is up for grabs and interpretations will change both with time and in response to political pressure - just like Christianity.

Note that I accept the proposition that political pressure can cause a religion to be interpreted and delivered to its followers in different ways. Look at the changes in Evangelical Christianity in this country over the last three decades. But, the question was whether or not Islam is currently a source of antisemitism sufficient for planners to account for it in a strategic sense - the question was not about the cause of any antisemitism coming from Islam.

My actual words were, "Either mainstream Islam is or is not a significant source of antisemitism and a strategic threat to Israel. IMO the preponderance of available evidence says that it is."

It would have been clearer if I had said, "Either mainstream Islam, as currently being interpreted by Israel's Islamist enemies, is a significant source of antisemitism and a strategic threat to Israel or it is not."

However, I thought it was clear that I was referring to Islam as practiced by Israel's enemies - not worldwide Islam. I support moderate Muslims - those who interpret Islam in non-violent, non-antisemitic and peaceful ways. I don't see them as enemies of - or posing any strategic threat to Israel.

In summary, I believe that, mainstream Islam, as currently being interpreted by Israel's Islamist enemies, is a significant source of antisemitism and a strategic threat to Israel. I do not believe there is anything fundamental to Islam that accounts for that. IMO it is the result of how Islam is currently being interpreted by those enemies of Israel.

[Dick Dastardly]

32. Here is something by Irshad Manji and a Pew survey

The Trouble with Islam Today is... Muslims.

This book is an open letter from me, a Muslim voice of change, to concerned citizens worldwide -- Muslim and not. It's about why my faith community needs to come to terms with the diversity of ideas, beliefs and people in our universe, and why non-Muslims have a pivotal role in helping us get there.

The themes I'm exploring with the utmost honesty include:

the inferior treatment of women by Muslims;
the Jew-bashing in which so many Muslims persistently engage; and
the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamist regimes.
I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their fundamentalists. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have absolutists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam today is literalism mainstream. Which means that when abuse happens under the banner of Islam, most Muslims have no clue how to dissent, debate, or reform ourselves.

http://www.irshadmanji.com/the-book



From Pew Global

Views of Religious Groups

Majorities in Great Britain, France, Canada, the U.S. and Russia, as well as pluralities in Spain and Poland, say they have a somewhat or very favorable view of Muslims. In the West, only among the Dutch and Germans does a majority or plurality hold unfavorable views of Muslims (51% and 47%, respectively).

For their part, people in predominantly Muslim countries have mixed views of Christians and strongly negative views of Jews. In Lebanon, which has a large Christian minority, 91% of the public thinks favorably of Christians. Smaller majorities in Jordan and Indonesia also have positive views of Christians. However, in Turkey (63%), Morocco (61%) and Pakistan (58%), solid majorities express negative opinions of Christians.

Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world. In Lebanon, all Muslims and 99% of Christians say they have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Similarly, 99% of Jordanians have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Large majorities of Moroccans, Indonesians, Pakistanis and six-in-ten Turks also view Jews unfavorably



In the Asian countries surveyed, views of religious groups are generally more moderate. India, with its substantial Muslim minority, is closely divided with respect to views about Muslims; 46% hold a favorable view while 43% view them unfavorably. Opinions of Christians are considerably higher: 61% favorable compared with 19% unfavorable. Most Indians (56%) offer no opinion on Jews; those that do split 28% favorable to 17% unfavorable.

In China, half view Muslims unfavorably while only 20% hold a favorable opinion. Views about Christians are scarcely better: 47% unfavorable compared with 26% favorable. Chinese views of Jews are essentially the same as their attitudes toward Christians: 49% negative vs. 28% positive.

In most of Europe as well as North America, majorities or pluralities judge some religions as more prone to violence than others, and those that do mostly have Islam in mind. Similarly, in India, among the 39% who see some religions as more violent than others, nearly three-in-four (73%) point to Islam, while 17% designate Hinduism. In predominantly Muslim countries, many agree that some religions are more prone to violence than others, but those who think this mostly have Judaism in mind. In Turkey, a plurality sees Christianity as the most violent.




There is some interesting info here
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

[msmcghee]

35. Thanks. I saw that same Pew poll when I was composing my comment above.

I decided my post was getting too long and losing clarity so I didn't include it. I'm glad you did.

[Dick Dastardly]

38. Your welcome. Here is another Pew survey

Opinions of Jews

Approval ratings for Jews remain strongly positive throughout the West, with the exception of Spain, where the favorability number has dropped to 45% from 58% a year ago. In the Muslim world, attitudes toward Jews remain starkly negative, including virtually unanimous unfavorable ratings of 98% in Jordan and 97% in Egypt.

Muslims living in Western countries have a more moderate view of Jews - still more negative than positive, but not nearly by the lopsided margins that prevail in Muslim countries. The Muslims in France are a special case: 71% have a positive view of Jews. This is the only Muslim population or sub-population surveyed whose opinion of Jews is more favorable than not.




http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=831

[LeftishBrit]

40. I know this is hijacking the thread a bit...

but this, combined with the BBC poll I quoted last week, is evidence for what I have argued to you in several other threads: when British right-wingers express hostility to immigrants, this is *not* primarily due to suspicion of Islam.

In this poll, only 14% of Brits express unfavourable views of Muslims. In fact, overall we appear to be one of the least *religiously* bigoted countries, perhaps because we're also one of the least religious countries (Northern Ireland is the exception on both counts).

However, the BBC poll indicated that 60% of Brits think there are too many immigrants, and 50% of Brits would go so far as to support the encouragment of 'voluntary' repatriation.

So the endemic anti-immigrant bigotry in the UK is *not* primarily due to any real or imagined actions by Muslims.

[msmcghee]

37. Wow. And thanks for the great link to the Irshad Manji blog.

Here's a Muslim woman saying that Islam can be interpreted in a far more benevolent and peaceful way. I applaud her.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

41. Irshad Manji, the neocon darling.

[oberliner]

43. Isn't she a left-wing lesbian feminist?

[Ken Burch]

17. You're assuming that MEMRI can be trusted.

As the group is run by former Israeli intelligence officers who have a clear agenda of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state and of demonizing virtually all Arabs and Muslims as haters of Jews, there is good reason to be skeptical, to say the least, of anything MEMRI presents as "statements" by any Palestinian, Arab, or Islamic person or organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute

(note particularly the section where MEMRI's critics are quoted)

[msmcghee]

19. I'm not sure whether your argument is grasping at straws . .

. . or trying to make men of them.

My comment regarding MEMRI was:

"It seems that a quick trip to MEMRI or PMW reveals dozens, if not hundreds of the recorded statements of various Imams and Hamas leaders decrying the very existence of Israel and making the most outrageously hateful exterminationist statements about Israel and the Jews."

I then contrasted that with the absence of any significant statements by "mainstream Islam" refuting them and offered Lithos the opportunity to provide some examples. Those examples have not been produced. Actually, I'd be surprised if over the last century some ME imams have not said some tolerant words at times toward Judaism and Jews. But it is that scarcity and difficulty of finding them - contrasted with the voluminous and constant barrage of exterminationist comments that supports the case made in the report that is the subject of this OP. It is that vast difference that is significant in determining if "mainstream Islam" is or is not a significant source of antisemitism.

I didn't use MEMRI to "prove" anything. I used MEMRI as an example of the kind of sources that illustrate this antisemitic trend. They are certainly not the only source. I have watched interviews of ME Imams on PBS that said the same things and I've read their words from a variety of sources other than MEMRI.

Certainly, you are not going to propose that because a few of MEMRI's thousands of translations are disputed academically - that the thousands of viciously antisemitic statements made regularly and over decades by Muslim / Arab religious and political leaders, available from a wide variety of sources, are all made-up lies. The report only summarized the data and stated the obvious conclusion that most people in the world already know.

(This is really bizarre - to watch intelligent people try to make the case that mainstream Islam is not a significant source of antisemitism in ME Arab culture.)

[Shaktimaan]

21. I'm pretty sure MEMRI can be trusted to a very high degree.

You seem to think that MEMRI's statements are likely to be false or purposefully mistranslated, but your link seems to imply the exact opposite. Your assertion that MEMRI has a clear agenda "of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state and of demonizing virtually all Arabs and Muslims as haters of Jews" is totally unfounded, you provide no evidence of this "clear agenda." In fact, your link states that there are Muslims on MEMRI's current staff.

As far as MEMRI's credibility goes, Thomas Friedman not only uses them but has openly praised their reporting. And Steven Erlanger wrote, "Along with Mr. Marcus’s group, the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, also monitors the Arabic media. But no one disputes their translations, and there are numerous Palestinians in Gaza — in the hothouse atmosphere of an overcrowded, isolated territory..." So that's two very well respected NY Times journalists who specialize in the Mid East and trust MEMRI. Friedman has won three Pulitzers for his Mid East reporting and he's hardly anti-Arab or pro-Occupation. Surely his opinion must carry some weight with you on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=world

[azurnoir]

28. MEMRI has been disputed

Here are 2 sources

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker

[Dick Dastardly]

30. These articles do not dispute MEMRI's accuracy

On this link it says

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker

"Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output."

So it doesnt claim the translations are inaccurate

This is the standard article that is used to try to dispute MEMRI but it does nothing of the sort and says it is accurate. It is all baseless spin. It also had to print a correction at the end of the article for a false claim it made.



This article only says there is a dispute about one of the translations

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200010

[azurnoir]

33. I can only assume

much as I hate to, that you have never had experience working with translators, translations between any any 2 languages can be spun to a degree but especially ones were there are few common reference points one can easily change the means of words or make choices in the wording so as to change the meaning, the charges that MEMRI does this are not just baseless spin, but it also should be kept in mind that if one knows anything about the organization it self and its founders it should not be unexpected either, and kept in mind when reading MEMRI's work. If there are other translations available they should also be read, though neither should taken as the final word.

[Dick Dastardly]

36. Your one article says its accurate

and the other is just a dispute of one translation not all of MEMRI

[azurnoir]

39. One of my articles says that it biased to the point

of creating inaccuracy, the other does point out an inaccuracy, as you yourself pointed out.

[Shaktimaan]

42. regarding MEMRI, I do think it is biased.

In the sense that they almost exclusively print translations of material that is hateful to Israel and demonstrates examples of anti-semitism or extreme anti-zionism. I don't think that there's any doubt that they aren't trying to bring a balanced view of Arab society to the table, but rather, to further their cause. And while I'll be the first to admit that when any organization places a cause over journalistic ethics their reporting becomes circumspect, that doesn't mean that MEMRI's translations can be universally discounted.

There is a difference between biased reporting and inaccurate reporting.

MEMRI's bias is in what they choose to report; the reporting (translations) itself has been widely confirmed, even by MEMRI's critics, to be high quality and accurate to any reasonable expectation. Again, Tom Friedman uses them and has complimented them in his Op Ed page, and I absolutely trust him and his writing in this regard.

Just being who they are and doing what they do means that there's no shortage of groups out there that would love to discredit MEMRI. The fact that there is such scant evidence against their translations speaks volumes as to their credibility. The negative articles you linked to read more like endorsements than refutations in that way.

[azurnoir]

34. dupe delete n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. MEMRI is not regarded as an unbiased source at all. nt