Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia

Posted March 8th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

This past weekend, I spoke to a Hadassah meeting – the Women’s Zionist Organization of America.  The subject, of my choosing, was “What’s a ‘nice Jewish girl’ doing writing so much about Islam?”

The easy answer to the question I’d self-imposed was “Why not?”  A perfectly reasonable answer, perhaps, but not with bigots like Peter King about to begin his witch hunt this week in the form of congressional hearings on the alleged “radicalization” of American Muslims.

The real answer is that it’s precisely because I’m Jewish that I find myself writing so much about Islam these days.  Because as a Jew, I know the dangers of prejudice.  And I can smell it a mile off.  When I hear someone talk about “the Jewish mentality,” I know I’m listening to an anti-Semite.  How else stereotype millions of people that way?   Just as when I read someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking about “the Muslim mentality,” I know — no matter how pretty she is, how soft-spoken, and how compelling her life story – that I am listening to an Islamophobe.

And I recognize that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are two sides of the exact same coin:  the stereotyping of millions of people by the actions of a few.  That is, prejudice.

So it’s particularly painful, let alone absurd and self-defeating and dumb, to see that some Islamophobes are Jewish.  And equally painful – and absurd and self-defeating and dumb – to see that some Muslims are anti-Semitic.

I have no statistics to say what proportion of Jews are Islamophobic or what proportion of Muslims are anti-Semitic (though I could doubtless make some up and throw them out there with such an air of authority that they’d be repeated ad infinitum until they achieve the status of “fact”).   But the Muslim Brotherhood, for all the changes it has undergone, still distributes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  And while anti-Zionism does not necessarily mean anti-Semitism, there is a clear overlap, with a venemous hatred finding its outlet in what is now the more acceptable form of anti-Zionism.

So we need to be clear.  We badly need it.

“Islam” did not attack the US on 9/11;  eighteen people with a particularly twisted and distorted idea of Islam did.  “The Jews” do not shoot Palestinian farmers in the West Bank;   Bible-spouting settlers with a particularly twisted and distorted idea of Judaism do.

The Quran is no more violent or misogynistic than the Bible.  In fact it’s less so.  If you insist, as Islamophobes do, on highlighting certain phrases, then you should turn around and do the same with the Bible, which you will find ten times worse, with repeated calls for the destruction of whole peoples. Only the dumbest, most literal, hate-filled fundamentalist, Jewish or Muslim, takes the rules of ancient warfare as a guide to 21st-century life.

We have to stop this stereotyping.  Now.  All of us.

We have to recognize prejudice not only in others, but in ourselves, Jewish or Muslim.

We have to be able to see that the anti-Semitic trope of “the Jews” trying to take over the world is exactly the same as the Islamophobic one of “the Muslims” trying to take over the world.

We have to acknowledge that an Islamophobic Jew is thinking exactly like an anti-Semite.  And that an anti-Semitic Muslim is thinking exactly like an Islamophobe.

We have to realize that American Jews need to stand up with Muslims against Islamophobia just as American Muslims need to stand up with Jews against anti-Semitism.

Because Islamophobia is, in essence, another form of anti-Semitism, and vice versa.  And it’s in the direct interest of both Jews and Muslims — of all of us — to stand up and confront both forms of prejudice.

In the famous words of an anti-Nazi Protestant pastor during World War II:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: 9/11, American Jews, American Muslims, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bible, bigotry, Hadassah, Islamophobia, Martin Niemoller, Peter King, prejudice, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Quran, radicalization, stereotypes, West Bank | 33 Comments
  1. Mykolas Kimtys says:
    March 8, 2011 at 9:40 am

    You go girl!

    • Maisha says:
      March 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm

      I agree with much of what was said in this post and have no problem with a Jew telling others what they know about Islam. That is, when the information is correct and for the most part, Leslie is correct.. But I think that her knowledge may be confinded to Quran, with out much knowledge of Haditn. And it is kind of hard to separate one from the other because Hadith gives a better understanding of Quran. According to Hadith, the “ancient warfare guide” for Muslims is: no killing of women, old people, non combatant men, and children,no killing of priest, nuns, monks etc., no destruction of holy places such as churches, synagogues,no destruction of crop and livestock.
      Considering that war is horror. Since it appears that war is here to stay. Some of that horror of war could be cut if armies and etc. followed this “ancient warfare guide”

  2. Herman says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:23 am

    What you are stating makes sense theoretically,

    but practically I have seen very, very few people

    ready to stand up with the Jews when anti-semitism

    appears. Almost no Muslims.

    • JJ says:
      March 14, 2011 at 8:16 pm

      BS

      http://www.thestreetspirit.org/Feb2005/mosque.htm

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/4/854131/-Film-on-Arab-Schindlers-who-saved-Jews-in-WWII-premieres-at-MOTLA

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmEw5M-xK64

    • JustBob says:
      March 15, 2011 at 6:51 am

      Agreed Herman. We should hope more people, especially the Left, speak out against Holocaust denialism that has gone so far where nation states actually sponsor conferences on whether the Holocaust actually happened or not.

      To this day, I have yet read one single person condemn the anti-Semitic beliefs in many parts of the world who believe New York Jews were in on 9/11 and did not show up to work that day.

      Most would rather ignore Antisemitism. This type of selective silence proves some are only interested in pushing their agenda rather than combating all forms of hatred and paranoia.

  3. Tea-mahm says:
    March 8, 2011 at 11:04 am

    This is great. Wish you could have this conversation on CNN. Tm

  4. Adila says:
    March 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Lesley, I like you. You have sight.

    🙂

    Herman, I’d like to think I’d stand.

  5. sa says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    Islam is the only faith tradition that declares “There is no Compulsion in Religion”. Its founder, Prophet Mohammed, created the Charter of Medina which protected the rights of both Muslims and non Muslims alike living in Medina. The 47 clause document contains all the characteristics of the preamble to the US constitution. Similarly, the charter of privileges gave protection and rights to the St Catherine’s Monastary in Alexandria, Egypt. This was all necessary because Islam was founded in an unjust and hostile environment and giving protections and creating protectorates was necessary. Today these cultural dynamics are still at play as are geo political issues and other complexities around the world.

  6. Lynn Rosen says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    You nailed it. You simply nailed it.

  7. Meezan says:
    March 9, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Hear hear.

  8. Yazid Erman says:
    March 9, 2011 at 2:16 am

    I totally agree with you Lazely, and i am a very strict Muslim! 😉

  9. Kamil says:
    March 9, 2011 at 3:13 am

    I’m a Muslim who currently live in London. I studied Jewish Philosophy and the holocaust for A-Levels when I grew up in Hong Kong. I absolutely agree with everything you wrote in this blogpost. I am shocked by the level of anti semitism I find in the communities today and I guess you will find the same vice-versa.

    Thank you for blogging this and hopefully we can all wake up and understand each other’s struggles in so many decades (and centuries). I think what the Muslims are going through today in the western world (at least here in Britain) has a lot of parallel with the Jewish emancipation in the 1800s and we have a lot to learn from each other.

    May Allah swt bless you for your work.

  10. Aijaz says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:27 am

    I don’t know how much anti semitism is anti Israeli and anti Jewish…Islamophob is anti Islam, not anti Muslims or anti extremism.
    Whoever had invented anti semitic had cleverly covered all the zionist and Israeli crimes under one flag of anti semitic and then made it a Taboo.
    A stand up comedian in Chritian majority USA can easily make Jesus the butt of his joke but before making anti semitic remarks he will think twice.

    IMO theres no equivalence between anti semite and Islamophob.

    I have no idea Iran is making nuclear bomb or not but if they were making bomb then its the result of propaganda under Islamophob.
    After 1979 revolution Iran ban on all nuclear activities but then they were forced into 10 years war with western supported Sadam.
    War mongers in arms industry are loaded with money so same fear was used but as shiaphob.

    In this video a Muslm is protecting a Jewish couple from Christian mob…Had he known their ID would he still protect them….answer is simple…..YES.

    No Christian, no Muslim, no Jew is devoid of human feelings….all are made with same heart with bloody flesh which pump harder when witness human misery.
    The only difference is greed for power and money…that desire of few benficiaries is trying hard to keep hostage the human feelings and to supress extra pumping of human heart…

    The key is fear and promotion of fear through propaganda.
    The war mongers in the name of religion are used as a tool…the beneficiaries are power brokers and Arms industry and Arms traders and media. I am afraid all three primary beneficiaries are zionist based, the secondary beneficiaries are Arab Tyrants, Kings and Dictators.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrjMl3ISkTE&feature=related

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 9, 2011 at 7:38 am

      Alas, you demonstrate my point. Anti-Semitism is a Zionist ‘invention’? You might want to read some history.

      Meanwhile, this from Jean-Paul Sartre, as relevant I think for Muslims as for Jews: “If Jews did not exist, anti-Semites would have had to invent them.”

      • Aijaz says:
        March 9, 2011 at 8:29 am

        I think I am getting closer
        Perhaps anti semitism is just like Taliban and Al Qaida, as no one literally knows who they are and what they are but everyonee knows why they are.

  11. Aijaz says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:41 am

    Drawing U.S. Crowds With Anti-Islam Message
    By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
    Published: March 7, 2011

    FORT WORTH — Brigitte Gabriel bounced to the stage at a Tea Party convention last fall. She greeted the crowd with a loud Texas “Yee-HAW,” then launched into the same gripping personal story she has told in hundreds of churches, synagogues and conference rooms across the United States:

    As a child growing up a Maronite Christian in war-torn southern Lebanon in the 1970s, Ms. Gabriel said, she had been left lying injured in rubble after Muslims mercilessly bombed her village. She found refuge in Israel and then moved to the United States, only to find that the Islamic radicals who had terrorized her in Lebanon, she said, were now bent on taking over America.

    “America has been infiltrated on all levels by radicals who wish to harm America,” she said. “They have infiltrated us at the C.I.A., at the F.B.I., at the Pentagon, at the State Department. They are being radicalized in radical mosques in our cities and communities within the United States.”

    Through her books, media appearances and speeches, and her organization, ACT! for America, Ms. Gabriel has become one of the most visible personalities on a circuit of self-appointed terrorism detectors who warn that Muslims pose an enormous danger within United States borders.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08gabriel.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1299610962-NGSvRzNNaIjSLZ0vYlUW9Q

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 9, 2011 at 7:43 am

      This article is linked to in the original post. Always a good idea to read before commenting.

      • Aijaz says:
        March 9, 2011 at 8:24 am

        forgive me for I am as clumsy as I could be.

        I try hard again to find the link about this NYT article or anything about Brigitte Gabriel in original post but miserably failed.

  12. Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia | :: MUSLIM DIALOGUE :: says:
    March 9, 2011 at 8:20 am

    […] http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/03/08/anti-semitism-islamophobia/ March 9th, 2011 | Category: MUSLIM DIALOGUE, […]

  13. Lavrans says:
    March 9, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    It’s funny as I was just having this very argument with a friend who happens to be… a vegetarian.

    No, it’s not a joke. He was talking about how meat is bad, and brought up a video that made some valid points (animals raised on mega-ranches take lots of land and more resources than the average vegetable), and a lot of points that are subjective and meant to tug at a person’s visceral response (animals are tortured and killed just for human pleasure). My argument that the argument was self-righteous was taken as an indictment of vegetarians as a whole.

    The politics of religion is the same action. That video that was posted isn’t the view of all vegetarians, and while most vegetarians would laugh at it and agree with some of the points, not all are vegetarians for the same reason and not all subscribe to the same beliefs; not all will find the entire argument True. Groups always carry with them a certain amount of prejudice against other groups, the question is really to what degree and whether it’s a prejudice that diminishes their ability to empathize with that other group.

    What we have, in my opinion, is too many people who just can’t get past the concept that any large group carries many opinions. What one person or one part of that group says isn’t necessarily a Truth for the entire group, and very likely to be seen by some as ridiculous.

    I maintain that the most dangerous food out there is processed food. Factory food. Food that is barely recognizable in any part as what it came from. The soda that’s really a corn and oil distillation. The steak that’s softened by force feeding an animal that is kept alive only by the use of large amounts of antibiotics.

    I can’t help but see that as so true of the politics of religion. What’s dangerous isn’t the raw belief; the stories and tales that seeded the tree that has grown up and spread across the world; no, what’s dangerous is what’s been done when a branch is taken from the tree, chopped and processed into a new thing that is barely (if at all) related to what it was distilled from.

    That danger is to the tree itself, in that it adds something that may be a poison. That danger is to the tree in how it is seen by the person on the outside; if they don’t know what’s been done to make that processed, transformed thing, then they may ascribe all the dangers as inherent within the tree itself (rather than the processing).

    And that is the danger to those outside that tree’s canopy; ignorance and doubt are easy forms of belief that are hard to eliminate. If you’ve been taught that the tree is poisonous, it may take a stronger act than most could muster to risk grabbing a piece of fruit from the tree and eating it. Even when done, it will still take a long time to overcome that prejudice. See how many people still think that tomatoes are poisonous.

  14. Aijaz says:
    March 11, 2011 at 5:32 am

    Things could be more complex than complicated as presented by Lavran.
    Simplicity is the beauty of arguments and this simplicity adopted by all religions because religion is for masses not specifically for bunch of intellectuals.

    Theres nothing beyond scope of right and wrong…a complex or complicated aspect of right does no make it wrong.
    All the animals slaughtered for food are fast multiple and has short life span…when reaching a natural death their disposal may cause a serious problem and environmental mayhem.
    Torturous slaughter is valid argument by a vegetarian….every living thing has to endure the pain of death one day…people should be careful to cause minimum pain when slaughtering as much as they can learn scientifically….unfortunately none knows the pain of death and pain of slaughter.

    Disintegration of bones and losening of muscles with diminish senses as growing age, I believe is a mercy on mankind thats about time when natural death is happened.
    So in my guess natural death for all living things should be less painful than slaughtered.

    All of these are God sanctioned slaughters so argument can not be restricted to science only besides science can not prove for sure the amount of pain caused in both kind of deaths.
    A vegetarian can not love the rats and roaches damaging his clean home and furniture.
    Probably he will show mercy on a pop up snake in his household to capture and hand it over to wildlife…but roaches and rats he is forced to kill with poisonous torture.

    A very valid example of Tree and its branches was given…..A branch when seperated does not seek its ID but try to make its own ID…An ID which has no roots is the root cause of all problems.

    Religiously if we take Tree as one God and branches as group of people and leaves as people then it will be easy to understand the concept of Unity of God.
    The one leaf or branch which detach itself from Tree is living a life of its own not a borrowed life.
    This owned life knows its origin from father’s seed to mother’s womb then in being and vanished in darkness…this being which probably achieved status of self during the course of life but after death it becomes a number which was added once but now reduced.
    A self which is not more than a number is not different from an ant which was crushed to death among its flock and this is the result of a branch which try to make its own ID after seperated from Tree.

    Let me present an example to emphasize the simplicity of religion through simplicity of its personalities.

    One day an old woman, who had for many years heard of the greatness and magnificence of the Prophet, came before him. She stood tongue tied in awe of his presence. The Prophet, softly, kindly and simply took her by the shoulder and said, “Why are you afraid? I am the son of that Quraish woman who milked sheep. Who are you afraid of?”

    Though I am thankful to Lavran for generating such a beautiful idea of Tree and its branch to help me elaborate my views

    • Lavrans says:
      March 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm

      True- things are always more complex. The main point to the vegetarian is that it isn’t any more unnatural for people to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore.

      Complexity comes in with the addition of civilization (that is, living in cities). Then you have many food pressures- we know of no groups that were voluntarily vegetarian until after the introduction of cities and religion- and all of the reasons for a vegetarian diet are religious.

      With wealth comes the ability and freedom to choose whether you’re a vegetarian or not, and with that also comes other reasons for being a vegetarian- and yet, almost all of them still center on man as apart from and different from nature.

      That’s also a commonality of the monotheistic religions (well, most modern religions; at some point religions move from man being a special animal, but still an animal, to being something other than an animal); man as apart from nature.

      Thus, one’s food becomes a choice. This is part of the “processing” I mention. That thought is as much a process as removing the fat from milk or monofarming corn. The thought process is no more “natural” than a million acres of corn, or the idea that man is not just another animal.

      Continue the processing of thought and action and you can come to the point where raising an animal with the intent to eat it becomes morally suspect and the vegetarian starts thinking that the raising and killing is a callous act done in order to sate a taste for killing. When it’s really not that different from raising carrots with the intent to eat them; the main difference is that we see the animal as closer to us and, therefore, closer to god.

      Why is it not possible for the carrot to have a soul? If it does, is it morally problematic to eat the carrot? Or would that God have designed the various animals and plants to do and eat what they do?

      Again- it’s not the act, but the process by which one gets to that act. Very much like in religions, where all of the religions have the same basic rules and tenets, yet the process used to interpret them gives rise to all these opposing sects that become willing to denigrate or do violence to any “other”.

      That, to me, is the genesis and life blood of prejudice. Ignorance fueled by a processed idea that labels itself a morality while demanding an action in violation and opposition to that morality.

      • Aijaz says:
        March 12, 2011 at 1:28 am

        All things are true in their essence perhaps you mean Truth about certain things is complex.

        Truth of the matter is we don’t know how many things are living things of the total things known to us.
        Anything which breath has a life and subject to feel the pain.
        All the plants,vegetables,fruits,grass etc are living thing…sign of their life is they breath they get their naurishments and they grow….if not eaten mercilessly by a vegetarian in their lifetime they also die as they rots and thats their natural life span.
        A vegetarian, if he must eat apple then he has to wait until its rotten or in other words completely dead to cause no pain to partially alive apple.

        I see no difference between growing apples for the purpose to eat when they are ripe and still fresh and breathing AND breeding animals for the purpose to slaughter and to eat.

        Grass is alive as long as its green and it subject to feel pain also….a proud vegetarian feel no remorse to tread torturously on a lviing thing.

        All this fuss to complicate the simplicity of life into unnecessary complexity is the result of not having real issues faced by humanity and they are in abundance.

        Some says stones also breath but this much I know from Quran that everything living or dead to our knowledge praise God but we know not.

        I have no knowledge how other things are alive other than Human Being…are they ensoul or not…perhaps Lavran has more knowledge, he may enlighten.

        Soul in Quran is described as Amre Rab “Decree of God”.
        Amazingly in whole Quran nowhere plural is used for soul….so this is singular act of Al-Mighty to enliven a thing.
        Self(Nafs) has plural in Quran which is exclusively for mankind not other living things.

        So we are composed of three things…Body,soul and self.
        When soul leave the body we are dead and we are left with body and self…in few hundred years body also disnitegrate..the only thing left is self which is resurrected on judgment day and according to Islamic faith body testify against the self which it used to carry.
        The reality of mankind is SELF which is accountable not the body and soul.

  15. Muslim says:
    March 19, 2011 at 7:37 am

    Why do people claim anti-semitic as only referring to jews..
    semitic is relating to people who are of the groups that speak of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician.

    so american english speaking jews are NOT semitic
    but on the flip side.. christian and muslim arabs alike in the middle east are ALL semitic.. so if you discrimate against a middle eastern muslim, you are being anti-semitic

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 19, 2011 at 8:50 am

      Strictly speaking, of course, you’re quite right, but such a definition then excludes the 80% of Muslims who are not semitic. You also ignore the fact that, though many centuries removed, Ashkenazi American Jews are semitic in origin, while Sephardi Jews are semitic in culture too.

      I can see the ironic appeal of saying “Hey, we’re all semites,” but A. it’s not so, and B. challenging prejudice on the basis of strict definitions really evades the problem, and could even deepen it by leading to the weirdly racist game of trying to figure out what percentage of blood origin — a quarter? an eighth? a sixteenth? — makes someone black or Jewish or Arab.

    • hossam says:
      March 20, 2011 at 1:40 am

      Why do we have to discuss what semitic means instead of discussing the actual issue, you are right in saying that semic peoples are not only jews, but to answer your question, the term anti-semitism has been coined and generally accepted to mean prejudice towards jewish people. Would it make a difference if it was called anti-judaism or anti-jew or jewophobia instead?

      we can also spend time criticizing the term islamophobia rather discuss the actual issue

  16. Maisha Liwaru says:
    March 20, 2011 at 8:59 am

    As an African American Muslim, I say we can spend our time comparing and licking our wounds and arguing over semantics or we can come together for human rights. Rather than anti Semitic, Islamaphobia, racism etc. why not use the words humane and inhumane.

  17. Rachel Thomas says:
    March 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    This is a really good article, and as a Jew I also see Islamophobia as the flip side of anti-Semitism. I shudder when I see members of my government targeting “the Muslim community” as a whole.

    I do want to make one suggestion/correction to your article. You seem to imply in paragraph 6 that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is about anti-Zionism. However, it also speaks directly about Jews without connection to the modern movement of Zionism. I think the word “Zion” in the title refers not to that modern movement but to the biblical term for Jerusalem. It’s important that people should know that The Protocols is primarily anti-Judaism, not anti-Zionism.

  18. Mazhar says:
    March 30, 2011 at 12:49 am

    I am extremely grateful for the way you have presented this issue. And I am touched by your ability to speak out with the analogy of Anti-Semitism.

    I have read Quran for more than 25 years. Yes it speaks about how jews interacted
    during the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), but it also speaks about polytheism,
    about christians and about muslims who accepted islam but in their heart planned against the Prophet , and they are the worst [….] If you truly understand Quran, ALLAH’s displeasure is on any one who violates his instructions and that of his Prophet…may that be a muslim even. So I agree with you that to take as all Jews are worst is actually UN-ISLAMIC.

    In fact one of the wives of Prophet Muhammad was a Jew who accepted Islam….and sometime people would say that to her (that you were Jew) and Prophet (PBUH) would show great displeasure on such people. And one of the great companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was Abdullah-Bin-Salam (blessing of Allah be upon him), who was a jew who accepted islam. And once a funeral of Jew (who had not accepted islam) was passing by and Prophet (PBUH) stood up in respect…and some people differed and the Prophet (PBUH) said his account was with Allah and as a fellow human being he demonstrated respect on his passing away.

    I am sorry the comment became lengthy…But I really wanted to appreciate your
    approach and share mine. We need more like you on both sides to put and end
    to this cycle of hatred, blame and violence.

  19. Anand Rishi says:
    April 15, 2011 at 3:14 am

    Well, any hate campaign against any community is deplorable. Those at its receiving end must fight this menace unitedly.

    Sorry for delayed comment. I am a new comer to this very sensible blog.

  20. Rabeeh Zakaria says:
    May 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    As a non-radical muslim, I salute you .. We need such a balanced look

    Thank you

  21. Zack says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:49 am

    To the author of this article.

    Great article. I have posted it everywhere.

    Keep up the good work.

    God bless your kind soul

  22. Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia - Page 11 - Political Wrinkles says:
    January 28, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    […] Posted by Coyote Source: Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia The Accidental Theologist She makes good points No kidding. Some of us know this. And nice people like you come along […]

Delicious Ignorance

Posted September 28th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Okay, so it’s hard not to crow in ironic delight about this one:  turns out atheists and agnostics score higher than religious Americans on a test of religious knowledge.  Howzat for un-believable!

A new survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that one of the most deeply religious countries in the world — the US — is abysmally ignorant when it comes to the most basic facts of religious belief and observance (though I suspect that the survey could have been about anything — geography, history, politics — and the results would have been equally abysmal).

Before you start in with the crowing, however, consider this:   Even atheists and agnostics averaged only 67% correct answers.  Yup — a basic test of 32 pretty basic multiple-choice questions, and they got only two thirds of them right.

How basic?  Well,  is Ramadan part of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?   Or does the Jewish sabbath begin on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?  Or what are the names of the four Gospels?

You can take an abbreviated fifteen-question quiz here (it’s slow, as though it assumes you need time to say a quick prayer before selecting an answer) and  read the summary of the Pew report here.  But to get the full impact of the depth of ignorance, if you can stand it, scroll though Appendix B (a pdf file whose link is at the end of the next-to-last paragraph here).   Make a quick stop at question 34b — have human beings existed in their present form since the beginning of time, or have they evolved over time? — and note that 40% chose “present form since the beginning of time.”

As Percy Bysshe Shelley put it, “Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.”

Of course the survey was skewed by the choice of possibilities in the answers.  The question “Where was Jesus born?” gave only four options:   Bethelehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Jericho (yes, all four got votes) — a limited range of options displaying a distinct lack of imagination.

Imagine if the Pew researchers had given a few other possible answers to where Jesus was born:   Rome, Eden, Damascus, or Constantinople,  for instance (oh hell, let’s add in Heaven for good measure).  Or if they’d gone political and asked for a choice between Israel, Palestine, Iraq, and Iran.  I’m willing to bet that every one of those options would have received plenty of votes too.

You have to kind of admire Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, for keeping his crowing volume in check.  Asked for a response to the survey, he replied succintly:   “Atheism is an effect of knowledge, not a lack of knowledge.  I gave a Bible to my daughter.  That’s how you make atheists.”

That’s quite a brilliant concept:  reading the Bible as an atheist conversion tool.   What if all those people so piously quoting phrases and snippets from holy books actually sat down to read them in their entirety?  You think the Quran advocates violence, for instance?   Read Deuteronomy,  and the Quran morphs into a pussycat by comparison.

Books are dangerous things, as fundamentalists recognize.  And none more dangerous than holy books.  Who knows what’d happen if people were to start reading them instead of misquoting them?  Maybe we should start burning Bibles too.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, atheism, Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: Bible, Pew Forum, quiz, Quran, religious ignorance, religious knowledge | 1 Comment
  1. Phil says:
    December 28, 2010 at 8:59 am

    We’re so religious because we’re so ignorant. Widespread faith can never be based in principle.

Quran Quotes for Bigots – I

Posted August 13th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Tea Partyers are playing rope-a-quote with the Quran .  Not that they’ve read it;  they’ve just picked out ‘the good bits.’  So in honor of Ramadan, here’s the first in a series on what the Quran really says.  Try this for a start:

When God delivers the city into your hands, you shall smite every male with the edge of your sword… You shall save alive nothing that breathes, but shall utterly destroy them all.”

Oops, sorry, wrong book.  That’s Deuteronomy 20, from the peace-loving passage in verses 12 through 18.   Here’s the right one:

Slay the unbelievers wherever you come upon them.

Ah, that’s more like it:  Quran 2, part of verse 187.  Phew.  They really do want to kill us.

Or do they?  Here’s the quote in context:

Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not:  God loves not the aggressors.  And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you;  persecution is more grievous than slaying.  But fight them not by the Holy House unless they should fight you there;  then, if they fight you, slay them.

It helps to know that these verses are very specific:  they refer to the conquest of Mecca, from which Muhammad and his supporters had been expelled eight years earlier.   And they are bound about with conditions:  only if the unbelievers persist in aggression, for example, and only after a truce time expires, and only if they break pre-existing agreements.  Which might be why only eight people were killed.

Meanwhile, over in Deuteronomy 20, it continues this way:

Of the cities of these people which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them.  Namely, the Hittities and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.

That’s a lot of people.  And this is far from the only kill-em-all order in the bible.  There’s plenty more in Judges and Samuel, just for starters.   Look up the word “destroy” in a biblical concordance, and you’ll find one of the longest lists it offers.   The entry for peace is barely a quarter as long.

In short, there’s nothing on warfare in the Quran that hasn’t been said at far greater length, far more times, in far more detail and far worse terms, in the Holy Bible that the Tea Partyers hold so dear.

So one more Quranic quote (9:7) seems apt:

So long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them.

Let’s try that: going straight with each other.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism, war | Tagged: Tags: Bible, opposition to mosques, peace, Quran, Ramadan, Tea Party | 8 Comments
  1. Tamam Kahn says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Thank you for this, Lesley.
    As usual you have poured the ambrosia of wholesome clarity over poisonous muddled thought. I prefer that to the nasty tea being served at the party. Warmly, T’m

  2. Nancy McClelland says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:37 am

    What a simple and effective way to put this petty “my religion is better than yours” behind us — simple mathematics. The way I see it, the trash talk in the Bible and the trash talk in the Quran cancel each other out. Maybe that’s what they mean by going straight with each other? Start fresh.

  3. Pietra says:
    August 17, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Lesley, your work is immensely appreciated; please give us more. I’ve tried and tried to read the Bible but it’s dangerously heavy when it falls on my face after my eyes drop shut. Sadly, though, the people who should be reading your message will refuse to — they do not want to be confused with facts.

  4. Geo8440 says:
    September 22, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Love how you so skillfully simplify the commonality of religions. Taking out context, much of what appears in these books can be truly scary. I see it in my Holy book, the Koran when believers take certain ‘ayat’, verses, to justify killing non believers. I am equally distressed when I see how non-Muslims use the same verses to condemn Islam. While the message of Islam is for all the ages, it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in pieces and as events unfolded. Muhammad’s most vehement enemies were his own Arab tribe. I try to live my life guided by Islam’s mandate: Kill an innocent person and God shall punish you as if you have killed all of humanity. Save a life and your reward as that who has saved all of humanity. For me Islam is the best there is to be a good citizen and a servant of God. I serve others, I do not lie, I do not kill, I take care of my parents, my family and my neighbors and I pay my taxes. A good Muslim is a great citizen.

  5. velvetinabat says:
    June 19, 2013 at 9:02 am

    Lesley, your writing is one of the most important resources I use in my job as a teacher (history, RE & citizenship) in Bradford, England. It has helped me enormously, and I hope, by extension, my pupils. Thank you so much.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 23, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      My privilege, V. Thanks for thanking me! — Lesley

  6. Jonathan says:
    May 11, 2015 at 7:03 am

    Not to knit-pick , but even using your own quotes, a very glaring difference in the quotes are obvious. In the bible quote you provide, the limits and context is very specific against whom to fight: Hittities, Amorites, the Canaanites ,Perizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
    Historical tribes which no longer exist and not relevant in today’s world, so one could say the verses are no longer applicable , certainly not to christians who have not gone fighting these tribes for a good few centuries now. Nor used these verses to visit terror and destruction on people for a good few thousand years now.

    Like the bible for christians,where the new testament replaces the old testament with Jesus ‘s coming and all. So to does the quran abrogate earlier verses with later verse. Like Mohammed said, when two verses contradict each to her, the latter is to be followed. (The latter being when islam is dominant as opposed to the earlier, when it was not).
    But the point is, the Al Baqra verse you quote (it is actually verse 190, the jihad verse) is later abrogated with chapter (9) sūrat l-tawbah (The Repentance) which states the following:

    “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

    Do you see the difference between the verses?
    The bible places a limitation and context in the war against a people. Meaning it is valid for a specific time,place and people(Hittities, Amorites, the Canaanites ,Perizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites).

    The koran on the other hand, makes it a universal command. Not limited to a time, place or time. But to fight ANYONE who does not believe in Allah perpetually.

    I find it quite revealing that you pinpoint to the tea partiers as being so and so with their bible and beliefs and not reading the quran..( it hints to your bigotry in itself, does it not?). When it is so easy to pick apart your accusation that the bible is so much worse than the quran , and you yourself either ignorantly or willfully deceives with the quran.

    This is like the verse we are ad nauseam fed from the koran:
    “…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” – The holy quran (Chapter Five, Verse 32).
    This is so fluffy and good is it not? Surely a religion of peace.

    However the full verse reads as follows:
    “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

    and verse 33:
    “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

    Some points about this:
    the fluffy verse explicitly states that this was a commandment to the Children of Israel, i.e. the Jews! This is not a commandment to all people, and it certainly should not be misused as if this is Allah’s command to Muhammad’s people

    And verse 33 is referring to the Muslims, not the Jews anymore, as we can tell in the shift from past tense to present tense. And here, the punishment for mischief is clearly prescribed: execution, crucifixion, mutilation, or at the least, exile. This is the command given to the Muslims. Quite clearly, it does not teach what the Muslims proclaim it teaches; in fact, it teaches almost the exact opposite.

    in conclusion. the bible has some horrible things in it, sure. But they are limited in context as I explained above. The bible had been reformed with the new testament and christianity had been reformed and apologised for its treatment to jews etc.

    the quran has no limitation or context for its horrible commands against all non-muslims. Islam has not reformed and has never apologized for its treatment of non-muslims or its specific jew hatred.

    A final word on your last quote from the quran:
    “So long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them.”

    The full verse is as follows:
    “How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.”

    In simple terms: Don’t make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.

    The entire chapter 9 (Repentance) is filled with how to treat non-muslims. Chilling stuff…

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 11, 2015 at 11:55 am

      Cherry-pick away. What strikes me is how very similar the quotes you chose are to statements made re the Palestinians by Israel’s new justice minister, Ayelet Shaked. Who I believe claims to be Jewish…

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Buddhism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback