by Rebecca Bynum (May 2009)
by Raphael Israeli
Published in Hebrew in 2002, English translation, 2008
Having thought about it long and hard I don't understand why you single out Islam as the problem, as opposed to those who believe in Islam in a fundamentalist way.
I know a few Muslims and they don't wish to wipe Israel off the map, nor do they want to subjugate me for being a non-believer. I suspect that this is largely because they aren't really muslims; they identify with being islamic but, much like most modern day christians, are relatively non-religious.
My point is that the problem doesn't seem (to me) to be one of Islam (per se) but, rather, with those who adopt a medievel interpretation of it. The Bible is also a brutal book and, like the Qaran, also contains dualistic ideas of morality and extreme cases of vengeance and barbarism. The difference between christianity and islam in the modern era is largely due to cultural differences which are partly, but not entirely, related to the rigidity of Islam as a belief system.
The questions that should concern us are therefore:
1. What proportion of Muslims in the western world have medievel views of Islam and
2. To what extent can such views be changed by a modern, secular and democratic environment?
The impression I get from your article is that you believe it is impossible to be a muslim (and identify as such) and simultaneously respect and value others different to yourself. I think a sense of proportion is required here; Extreme beliefs in any system produce extreme outcomes and moderate beliefs often produce sensible outcomes. The muslims I know are much like the Christians I know: empty of morally rigid and fundamentalist interpretations. From my observation it is possible to be a mild muslim and respect and value those with different beliefs to you.
As an example of another extremist: My own father was a Marxist and attempted to blow up a train full of civilans in the 1960s under the banner of "the revolution". He viewed the world very much in terms of the "us and them" we commonly assign to Muslims. Marx doesn't preach, "kill the capitalist infidel" and yet, despite this, an extreme Marxist is prepared to kill in order to cleanse the world of the perceived evils of capitalism, fight a just fight in the name of a higher power and, in short, do everything that an islamic fundamentalist would do for many of the same reasons.
In short, my current understanding is that we should not attack Islam as a religion but, rather, make it quite clear to muslims in the western world that there is no place for fundamentalist interpretations of Islam. They must either sign up to the values and ideals of a democratic society or they must leave.
Discussion should not focus on attacking Islam but, rather, on defining what kind of Islam should be tolerated in a moder, democratic and secular society and, more to the point, how we implement and enforce that.
Is there any chance of a rapprochement between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs? Professor Israeli seems to think so if only there is another land for peace deal, in this instance giving land to Jordan in return for Jordan’s acceptance of the Israeli Arab citizens. However, the reality is that it makes no difference if the Israeli Arabs lose their Israel citizenship because they still would want to “destroy the Jewish state.” What difference if your neighbor still wants to murder you and to occupy your house?
The entire situation is depressing. Israel cannot continue to forever fight wars of survival with their neighbors and their neighbors will never stop trying to destroy them. There is no good end.
To my above remarks, I would like to add that Professor Raphael Israeli's point has been well and truly proven, just this morning, by a report in Jerusalem Post online, of the discovery and thwarting of a major jihad plot that had been hatched by a group of Muslim Arabs with Israeli citizenship. One of these was the son of an Arab Muslim citizen of Israel who had even served in the IDF.
I quote certain interesting paragraphs:
"Haruba's alleged involvement in the terror cell [tr: jihad gang - dda] came as a surprise [IT SHOULD NOT - dda] in light of his personal history.
"His father, Yunes Haruba, is an IDF veteran who served in Lebanon, where he was wounded. The father has denied the charges against his son. [Naturally - Muslims whose nearest and dearest have been caught red-handed practising or plotting mayhem against Infidels, always make these denials....and by now we Infidels should take all such denials with a sardonic smile and a heaping tablespoon of salt - dda].
"'We know that bad weeds grow in many good homes.
[But weeds like this proliferate extraordinarily in Muslim homes - dda]
"This is what intelligence is for, to find the *unusual* [my emphasis added - dda] cases," Elgrisi (head of the Amakin Police Central Unit) told the Post. [Unusual - really? - dda].
"It's true that the father served in the IDF, but that did not prevent his son from developing a completely alternative world view and ideology. Radical elements attracted the son toward extremism". [No, I am afraid this is not about 'radical elements'; rather, being a Muslim the boy was always going to be open to the call of Jihad - dda.]
Sounds as though Raphael Israeli has rediscovered what A. Carlebach knew about the Arab Muslims in 1955:
"These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam".
'Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression.
'The danger lies in Islamic psychology which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword.
'The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world,
'the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood,
'from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting,
'and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilised world..
'their reactions - to anything - have nothing to do with good sense. They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat.
'You can talk business with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah...This is what every grain in this country shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them - even the Crusaders - left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the trees have died". END QUOTE
It seems to me we are dealing with human creatures with the bodies and passions of adults, but among whom are a large number with the minds and morals of sociopathic children - the kind of children who torture animals and set fire to things for fun, and who grow up, often, to become serial killers. They have no boundaries, and acknowledge none.
And although - speaking as a parent - I know how much energy it takes to deal with an ordinary child throwing a truly out-of-control tantrum, let alone a truly disturbed or evil child - it seems to me that a suitable translation onto the national and international scale, by non-Muslim authorities, of the course of action which all experienced grandmothers and all truly effective school principals know is necessary, is the only way to deal with Muslim tantrums, not to mention their thieving, lying, cheating, bullying, hitting, spitting, pinching, hair-pulling and other sociopathic playground behaviour.
1. Physical restraint by the application of overwhelming force. 2. Repetition of the word NO, dispassionately and untiringly, to all their selfish, petulant demands. 3. Denial or removal of privileges - 'bed, and no supper'. I.E - all jizya, or 'aid', stops now. 4. Timeout in the corner or in their room. The global equivalent of this would consist in non-Muslim lands such as Israel booting all their hysterial, raging, squawking, whining Muslim squatters back into Dar Al Islam and keeping them bottled up inside it, where they can harm themselves and each other, but not the other children in the playground. 5. A good hard spanking. The international equivalent of this, involves such things as bunker-busters.