×
Terrorism in the name of Judaism
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
If you don’t already know him, let me introduce you to former Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel, Mordechai Eliyahu, an 80-year-old man of faith. In May 2007, he wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to give him some religious advice on what to do with the Palestinians. As reported in the Jerusalem Post on May 30, 2007, the retired chief rabbi was furious about the rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and held the whole population in the Strip responsible. "An entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals," he argued.
And from that premise, he reasoned: "there is absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza." This might remind you what Israel actually just did in Gaza in the past three weeks. The Jewish State heavily bombed the most densely populated part of the world, killing at least 600 civilians, including at least 300 children.
The rabbi and the sheik
Yet the chief rabbi’s endorsement of "indiscriminate killing of civilians" reminded me of something else, as well: the "fatwa" of Sheikh Hamed al-Ali, a Kuwaiti based radical cleric, who, similarly, endorsed the killing of innocents. In April 2002, he wrote: "When Muslims are forced to launch an all-out attack on enemies or bomb them from a distance and this may cause the death of women, children and other civilians, it is imperative to ensure that they are not killed intentionally. However, if they are killed during such attacks, killing them does not constitute a sin."
As you can see, the sheikh was sounding even a little less radical than the chief rabbi, because he at least emphasized, "it is imperative to ensure that they are not killed intentionally." (The reason is that Islamic law clearly bans the killing of non-combatants during conflict.) But the sheik was still saying something very close to the chief rabbi: in a conflict, civilians just die, and we don’t have to give a damn about that.
You might wonder who Sheikh Hamed al-Ali exactly is. He is known to be a supporter of the Al Qaeda in Iraq. On Jan. 14, 2007, he published a document titled "The Covenant of the Supreme Council of Jihad Groups," which, according Israeli scholar Reuven Paz, "completes some of the policy guidelines of policy aired by Ayman al-Zawahiri," the architect of al Qaeda.
In other words, Sheikh Hamed al-Ali is what "the international community" would define as an advocate for terrorism.
If that is the case, then shouldn’t we call chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu as an advocate for terrorism, too?
If you are not sure, let me introduce him to you more. In his letter to Olmert, the chief rabbi also explained the magnitude of the death toll that Israel can rightfully inflict on the Palestinians. "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000," he suggested. "And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even 1 million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."
Eliyahu even quoted the Psalms: "I will pursue my enemies and apprehend them and I will not desist until I have eradicated them."
Now, this sounds very al Qaeda-like, too. Suliman Abu Ghaith, a prominent al-Qaeda leader, argued that it would be justifiable for them to counter what he perceived to be America’s attacks on Islamdom by killing 4 million Americans, displacing 8 million of them, and crippling hundreds of thousands more. He just couldn’t quote the Koran, which has orders to fight against the enemies, but doesn’t speak about "eradicating" them.
You can tell me that Israel is only retaliating against the Palestinians’ rockets, so its massacres would not count. Well, the guys on the other side are saying that they are only retaliating against Israel’s occupation -- and America’s support to it. Who cast the first stone is question without any objective answer.
Call to moderate Jews
I am not saying all this in order to justify what Muslim terrorists have been doing. No way. I am rather trying to tell you that we have a problem with Jewish terrorists as well. If terrorism means the killing of civilians for political goals, and if this is carried out by the bombs of not just Hamas but also Israel, then we have terrorism on both sides. That’s why their ideologues, whether they be in a garb of a rabbi or a sheik, sound very similar.
In fact, both Islam and Judaism condemn murder and cherish human life. But the devil is in the details. "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils," said G. K. Chesterton. "They differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." As a Muslim, I don’t find the killing of one single civilian excusable. Moderate Jews should do the same thing and denounce their co-religionists who practice or support the killing of innocents. They just shouldn’t sit and watch those cruel fanatics hijack their religion of peace.
The rabbi and the sheik
Yet the chief rabbi’s endorsement of "indiscriminate killing of civilians" reminded me of something else, as well: the "fatwa" of Sheikh Hamed al-Ali, a Kuwaiti based radical cleric, who, similarly, endorsed the killing of innocents. In April 2002, he wrote: "When Muslims are forced to launch an all-out attack on enemies or bomb them from a distance and this may cause the death of women, children and other civilians, it is imperative to ensure that they are not killed intentionally. However, if they are killed during such attacks, killing them does not constitute a sin."
As you can see, the sheikh was sounding even a little less radical than the chief rabbi, because he at least emphasized, "it is imperative to ensure that they are not killed intentionally." (The reason is that Islamic law clearly bans the killing of non-combatants during conflict.) But the sheik was still saying something very close to the chief rabbi: in a conflict, civilians just die, and we don’t have to give a damn about that.
You might wonder who Sheikh Hamed al-Ali exactly is. He is known to be a supporter of the Al Qaeda in Iraq. On Jan. 14, 2007, he published a document titled "The Covenant of the Supreme Council of Jihad Groups," which, according Israeli scholar Reuven Paz, "completes some of the policy guidelines of policy aired by Ayman al-Zawahiri," the architect of al Qaeda.
In other words, Sheikh Hamed al-Ali is what "the international community" would define as an advocate for terrorism.
If that is the case, then shouldn’t we call chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu as an advocate for terrorism, too?
If you are not sure, let me introduce him to you more. In his letter to Olmert, the chief rabbi also explained the magnitude of the death toll that Israel can rightfully inflict on the Palestinians. "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000," he suggested. "And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even 1 million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."
Eliyahu even quoted the Psalms: "I will pursue my enemies and apprehend them and I will not desist until I have eradicated them."
Now, this sounds very al Qaeda-like, too. Suliman Abu Ghaith, a prominent al-Qaeda leader, argued that it would be justifiable for them to counter what he perceived to be America’s attacks on Islamdom by killing 4 million Americans, displacing 8 million of them, and crippling hundreds of thousands more. He just couldn’t quote the Koran, which has orders to fight against the enemies, but doesn’t speak about "eradicating" them.
You can tell me that Israel is only retaliating against the Palestinians’ rockets, so its massacres would not count. Well, the guys on the other side are saying that they are only retaliating against Israel’s occupation -- and America’s support to it. Who cast the first stone is question without any objective answer.
Call to moderate Jews
I am not saying all this in order to justify what Muslim terrorists have been doing. No way. I am rather trying to tell you that we have a problem with Jewish terrorists as well. If terrorism means the killing of civilians for political goals, and if this is carried out by the bombs of not just Hamas but also Israel, then we have terrorism on both sides. That’s why their ideologues, whether they be in a garb of a rabbi or a sheik, sound very similar.
In fact, both Islam and Judaism condemn murder and cherish human life. But the devil is in the details. "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils," said G. K. Chesterton. "They differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." As a Muslim, I don’t find the killing of one single civilian excusable. Moderate Jews should do the same thing and denounce their co-religionists who practice or support the killing of innocents. They just shouldn’t sit and watch those cruel fanatics hijack their religion of peace.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
