Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Boston Mosque Attack Deflated

Expand Messages
  • World View
    In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. From: Yousefmba@yahoo.com Assalam Alaikum (Peace be upon you): On behalf of the Islamic
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 4, 2005
      In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.

      From: Yousefmba@...

      Assalam Alaikum (Peace be upon you):

      On behalf of the Islamic Society of Boston, I write this in response
      to the flurry of emails posted regarding the discussion tonight
      about the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. Temple Emanuel
      Israel in Newton is sponsoring an event tonight Thursday 2/3/2005 at
      8 PM called '"Does Tolderance and Diversity Go Both Ways?" Robert
      Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch will discuss the Boston Mosque
      controversy and why it should be a matter of concern for every
      defender of Israel and believer in universal human rights. The event
      is sponsored by the Temple Emanuel Israel Action Forum.'

      It is our humble opinion that many people are overreacting to the
      situation. Despite the rumors of a coordinated effort to undermine
      the project, it is not appropriate for Muslims to become angry or
      hostile. Spreading hatred towards Jews or anyone else is grossly
      outside the teachings of Islam and totally counter-productive to our
      message of peace. We must remember that the Prophet (pbuh) always
      attempted to diffuse tensions between people rather than excite them.

      The Muslim community in Boston has developed a certain degree of
      infrastructure and has established very positive relationships with
      many Jewish and Christian leaders. Since we are not alone in our
      stand against bigotry and intolerance, it is in our best interest-
      and the interest of the community at large- to work through these
      channels with patience and dignity. This is, again, the model of the
      Prophet (pbuh), who always sought to conduct his affairs by
      consultation with others.

      Therefore, the Islamic Society of Boston encourages people to attend
      the discussion for the sake of outreach and knowledge. Many in the
      audience may not personally know any Muslims, and this is an
      opportunity to show our neighbors the mercy and compassion of Islam
      and Muslims. However, if any Muslim is to attend the meeting, thta
      person should observe the highest level of discipline and respect
      for others. We are commanded in the Holy Qur'an to deal with people
      with the best of manners and the best of words. Attendees are
      advised to remember Allah's Words and His Prophet's example.

      The tone and views of an email circulated during the last few days
      under heading "Help Defend Roxbury Mosque" does not represent the
      Islamic Society of Boston and we have never been consulted in any
      manner regarding that email. We fully disagree with its content. We
      do not believe that disrupting public gatherings is a way for
      Muslims to make their point, nor do we believe that such language
      conforms to our values of humanitarian service, religious tolerance
      and public outreach. The Society practices and promotes a
      comprehensive, balanced view of Islam thta embodies the "middle
      path" to which our scriptures call us - a path of moderation,
      compassion, and healthy community.

      Youself Abou-Allaban, MD, MBA
      Islamic Society of Boston
      Chairman, Board of Director

      From: thorsprovoni@...

      I attended the Robert Spencer's talk at Temple Emanuel in Newton.

      He spoke a little about the Roxbury Mosque and tried to identify as
      jihadists some people, who in the past had some association with the
      Islamic Society of Boston, but most of the talk was a sort of
      rambling attack on Islam that cherry-picked verses from the Qur'an,
      commentaries, ahadith, historical incidents, cultural practices,
      Islamic legal theory, fatawa of various degrees of importance, and
      various historical, philosophical and political works by Muslim
      intellectuals over the last millennium. If you want to get an idea
      of the nature of the talk, you could peruse Islam Unveiled:
      Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith at the
      library. Please do not buy it. Or if you do so, get it second-hand
      so that he gets no royalty.

      Spencer's approach was similar to the anti-Jewish polemic that was
      common in Germany and Eastern Europe in the late 19th century and
      early 20th century. (To be honest, I consider Rohling's Der
      Talmudjude to have been a good deal more coherent albeit equally
      wrong and malicious.) Spencer made a big deal about taqiyah even
      though Maimonides gives in the Misheh Torah exactly the same sort of
      permission to dissemble in the same way under exactly the same
      circumstances. Spencer more or less duplicated the anti-Semitic
      calumny that Jews give themselves permission to lie every year
      during the kol nidrei prayer at Yom Kippur.

      Spencer does not like the Quranic verse that assigns authority to
      men over women even though Abraham Geiger correctly pointed out over
      100 years ago that the verse is practically identical to traditional
      Jewish interpretations of the punishment of Eve in Genesis. Spencer
      also made a big deal that the Quran characterizes Sabbath-breakers
      as apes and pigs and that this language creeps into anti-Israel and
      Zionist polemic. Perhaps, American Jews are sensitive about the
      issue because 90% of them are Sabbath breakers, but the Hebrew Bible
      records in Numbers that Moses ordered the summary execution of a
      Sabbath breaker. Name calling is mild by comparison. I do agree
      that the terminology is probably inappropriate when attacking Israel
      and Zionism. Identifying Zionist colonizers as murderous genocidal
      racist thieves and interlopers corresponds much more closely to my
      observations of Zionist behavior in Stolen Palestine (pre-1967
      Israel) and Occupied Palestines (the lands conquered in 1967).

      Spencer ranted for a while about dhimma even though this area of
      Islamic jurisprudence is quite similar to the canon law and halakhic
      rules about non-believers under Christian or Jewish authority. In
      any case, the rules for dealing with non-believers in all three
      religions have historically been mostly theoretical because Jews
      have only rarely been in a situation where they held sovereignty
      over non-Jews in recent times, and the major Christian and Islamic
      political entities over the last 500 years have usually used ad hoc
      systems in place of the specific ordinances of religious law.

      He cited out of context a lot of verses that discussed struggle with
      idolaters or unbelievers and tried to argue that Islam was
      incompatible with the idea of universal human rights (as if Zionism
      is). He also cited Kabbani and another Sheikh in a sort of ipse
      dixit argument.

      Later during questioning he tried to demonize as uniquely evil the
      desire of ibn Khaldun for the expansion of Sharia throughout the
      world as if ideas like manifest destiny, mission civilatrice and the
      white man's burden did not express a similar mentality in the most
      positive interpretation and a very racist mentality in a more
      realistic interpretation.

      Over all, Spencer seems to have intended to use the talk to rally
      the troops against the Mosque and Islam or Muslims in general. Many
      of the Jewish attendees were quite offended by the thrust and the
      content. Several questioned Spencer's competence in interpreting
      the texts and asked why he cited questionable Orientalist literature
      instead of asking Muslim scholars. Two compared Spencer's talk with
      traditional anti-Jewish polemics. The reaction was to some degree
      correlated with age. The older people seemed somewhat more anti-
      Muslim, but on the whole amount of criticism from the audience
      suggested that anti-Mosque activity is probably on the decline.

      There was a suggestion that there should be an open debate or
      discussion between Spencer and a Muslim scholar. The proposal is
      questionable. Spencer can pack an amazing number of lies and
      misrepresentations into 10 seconds, and the answer to each point
      would probably require several minutes.

      The idea that Muslims must somehow prove themselves worthy to Jews
      is simply offensive, and part of the required proof seems to include
      an affirmation of the legitimacy of Israel even though I can cite
      hundreds of prominent Rabbinical and Karaite scholars and eminent
      Jewish intellectuals of various ethnicities, who will state
      unequivocally that Zionism is a vile idea that is either racist or
      runs counter to the last 1000 years of Rabbinic and Karaite Jewish

      If this idea of an open discussion goes forward, the format should
      provide equality. If Spencer is going to interrogate a Muslim
      scholar about various religious, cultural, communal, historical,
      social and political aspects of Islam or about the behavior of
      Muslims from various ethnic groups or states, the Muslim scholar
      should be able to pose similar queries to Spencer about various
      aspects of Judaica.

      Spencer seems to fixate on certain aspects of the Quranic text, a
      few specific commentaries, a very narrow portion of Islamic law,
      certain cultural practices, and the opinions of representatives of
      political or fundamentalist Islam. Identifying exactly comparable
      areas in which to question Spencer would be tricky.

      Modern Rabbinic Judaism is historically more the religion of the
      Talmud than the religion of the Hebrew Bible, but today for most
      American Jews Jewish religion seems primarily a combination of
      Holocaust fixation, worship of the State of Israel and ethnic

      While ethnic Muslim identity exists in Eastern Europe among Polish-
      Lithuaian Tatar Muslims and among Bosnians, Muslims constitute much
      more a community of faith than do American Jews or Zionist
      colonizers. When Muslims use the term Jew, they mean a community
      that follows the tawrat musa. Before Zionism became the dominant
      ideology among ethnic Ashkenazim, Ashkenazim typically used Jew (Yid
      in Yiddish) to mean a member of the Ashkenazi ethnic group, which
      represents something like 98% of American Jews. In order to
      legitimize the theft of Palestine from the native population
      Zionists reinterpreted the Ashkenazi ethnic group as the pan-Judaic
      national group of anyone whose ancestors practiced some form of
      Judaic religion. As a consequence political Islamism is probably
      much more comparable to Zionism, which Nordau, one of the founding
      Zionist leaders, called Muskeljudentum (Muscle Judaism).

      If Spencer wants to question the role that Saudis play in spreading
      specifically Saudi forms of Islam, his Muslim counterpart might want
      to discuss the role that Jewish Hollywood executives play in
      spreading ideas about male-female relations that seem to have
      developed in the specifically Eastern European Ashkenazi social
      context (including the Frankist Jewish heresy that encouraged
      adultery and promiscuity).

      To be frank, Spencer really did not seem to have much in the way of
      qualifications to write or to discuss Islam, and I do not know of
      any Muslim scholar that would have sufficient command of Judaica to
      provide a reasonable counterpoint. A discussion or debate between
      Spencer and a Muslim scholar would probably generate more heat than
      light and might even give extra life to the anti-Mosque campaign,
      which seems to be dying.

      Joachim Martillo

      Note: The Anti-Islam hate speech was given at a very posh and
      grandiose synagogue. Charlie Jacobs, the mastermind and coordinator
      of Jewish "target and destroy" missions around the US was there.
      There is a possibility that the Jews who undermined the speaker
      could have been acting not out of genuine concern for human values
      but in order to throw the Muslims off their trail. It is always
      important for one group of Zionists to play "good guy" while the
      other group plays "bad guy."

      It's a technique they use to try to confuse their opposition. The
      test to sniff them out is this:

      As long as anyone supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish
      State, they are racists according to American terminology and should
      be afforded the same respect as a pro-slavery white southerner.

      Likewise, it is very important for American supporters of Islam and
      Palestine be on the front lines to bring to focus who our enemy is
      and track his movements and deprive them of the benefit of the
      doubt. For example, it is the duty of all Americans, especially
      white Americans, to demand that all Zionists over the age of 14 be
      put in Guantanamo and tortured until they give up allegiance to
      Israel. That way, the Muslims can then step in and be the moderates,
      saying, "We just want peace." The Zionist aggressors will never
      consent to peace without some counter-intimidation. Another example,
      all Americans should demand that the US military nuke Tel Aviv. Then
      the Palestinians can step in and say, "No, don't nuke them. We just
      want equal rights." If you beg for equal rights without a threat to
      back you up, the Jews just laugh at you and spit on your child's
      grave. Let's learn from Zionist tactics because we have a duty to
      all humanity to win this war of ideas.




      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.