Trending Topics:

Donald Trump has one proposal to unite a fractured Republican party — Islamophobia

on 54 Comments

Making matzoh surrounded by Jewish school children in Brooklyn will be one of the few happy memories Texas Sen. Ted Cruz will have from his humiliating defeat to Donald Trump in the Empire State.

That day, no one was screaming “Fuck you, Cruz!” as had happened elsewhere. No, these were innocent, children making unleavened bread, and these cherubs weren’t going to yell obscenities at him. Of course, they might do so in some of Cruz’s nightmares, and with all their epithets in perfect Castilian Spanish. We can’t know for sure. While the content of Cruz’s nightmares remains unconfirmed, I bet they are the absolute weirdest.

The New York Times has an extraordinarily detailed account of his trip to Brooklyn. It’s the kind of extraordinary detail one finds only in stories where nothing actually happened.

“Definitely good for the Jews!” one man gathered at the matzoh shop called out, the Times reports. Well, apparently not for the Republican party.

Some Jews in New York City and throughout the United States really thought Cruz was their savior from Donald Trump, who had had the audacity to suggest he’d be a neutral arbiter for Israel. And even though he lost the state bigly, as Trump might say, he won over parts of Brooklyn — Borough Park and South Williamsburg — and trounced Trump, taking 100 percent of the vote. Of course, only 3 people voted in that particularly slice of Borough Park. But he brought home 60 and 80 percent of the vote in districts with larger turnout (we’re talking 30 or 40 people, here). He did well among the Lubavitchers in Crown Heights, too. In the rest of Brooklyn, Trump won the day among Republicans.

But now, in the wake of Cruz’s quitting and Trump’s win in Indiana, Jewish Republicans are having a reckoning, and their hatred of stuff is what’s keeping them sticking by Grand Old Party, even if they have to share a convention in Cleveland with actual living, breathing voting racist skinheads and Trump’s loyal biker gangs doing the security.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, a pro-Israel etc. conservative lobbying group, is putting its shoulder behind Trump. Their statement Thursday underscores how deeply these Republicans despise Hillary Clinton, even if it means they have to rub elbows with people hiding swastikas under their business suits. After congratulating Trump, the RJC hailed the “unity in the belief that Hillary Clinton is the worst possible choice for a commander in chief….we must remember our core principles: peace through strength, unwavering support for Israel, and robust American leadership at home and abroad.”

Ariel Kohane, 45, was wearing a Cruz kippa when I first met him at a Bernie Sanders rally in Long Island City, Queens, and he has never held back about his love for Cruz. A born and raised New Yorker, Kohane member of the state’s Republican party and Beitar Jerusalem fan, really wanted Cruz to be president. Kohane is a nice guy, and he just had an awful Tuesday. When Cruz dropped out I texted him for his feelings.

“It sucks,” Kohane, 45, texted me as he was in a car on his way to Philadelphia to go to a special Yom Ha-Shoah edition of World Changing Wednesdays, a self-help seminar run by the Hollywood Rabbi R. Benzion Klatzko.

“What are you going to do now?” I asked.

“Support Trump,” he said through text. I called him.

The driver of the car was another Republican New Yorker friend, Chris B., 29, an unemployed air conditioning repairman from Queens. Chris was a big Trump fan. They met at a Cruz rally.

“I’m Trump all the way,” Chris said, after Kohane put him on speaker phone.

Ariel said he was disappointed, but that Cruz was still a young man and still had a long political career ahead of him.

“He’s so young. He has the world at his feet,” Kohane said. “He’s a senator, and he’s a leader of the conservative movement — “

Then Melinda Crump, another New York City Republican from the Upper West Side, called Kohane about something or other. She was once for Jeb, but then Trump won over Crump, a born-again Christian from North Carolina living in Manhattan.

I had the pleasure of speaking to a trio of Republicans one doesn’t meet that often, at least not in the same place.  A conservative Jewish guy, a blue collar Trump supporter from Queens, and a Southern lady who gushed about the “Trump train.”

“I know that if you look at some of Donald Trump’s speeches he wants to honor our relationship with Israel. And he was appalled when Obama was appearing to be rude to Netanyahu.”

I asked if she was Jewish. “No, I’m a gentile. I’m a Christian. We’re in solidarity with Jewish people.” As for Trump, he is “bringing courage to rebuild our conservative values again. And he’s winning. He’s actually doing it, you know?

Kohane added that “I’ve said from day one that Trump was the second best candidate. I’ve always loved Trump. I was never part of #NeverTrump. They are very similar, Trump and Cruz. I was concerned when Trump in one of the previous debates said that he would be neutral on Israel when Cruz has always been pro-Israel.”

But Kohane got over that. Lots of Jewish Republican Cruz supporters are trying to make the same call today. I’d bet some might be taking a second look to see how Clinton stands on Israel/Palestine, compared to Trump. I would, if I were in their shoes. They’ll make their decisions over the next five months.

“He [Cruz] basically said that if you don’t support Israel, you don’t support America,” Kohane added.

I asked Melinda, on the other line, what she thought of this. If someone doesn’t support Israel, do they not support America. Her answer was revealing.

“There’s some truth to that. We need to have their back. And I believe that I’m coming from a Christian perspective. In the Bible, it says bless those who bless you. I think we need to take that seriously. If you look back, our nation was founded on Christian principles. George Washington made a covenant with God, and God said he would bless this nation, as long as we kept our covenant,” she explained.

“What’s our covenant?” I inquired.

“To bless Israel,” she replied.

Since AIPAC in March, I have noticed a consistent pattern of self-delusion about Trump and his relationship to far right racists. Like many other Trump supporters, AIPAC attendees felt that Trump can’t help who likes him. But on Cinco De Mayo, KKK bigwig David Duke again congratulated Trump for his win and had some choice words about Jews that should really freak you out. Duke was talking about Jewish opposition to Trump.

“I think these Jewish extremists have made a terribly crazy miscalculation, because all they’re going to be doing by doing a Never Trump movement is exposing their alien, their anti-American, anti-American majority position,” Duke said Thursday, according to Newsweek.

“They’re going to push people more into an awareness that the neo-cons are the problem, that these Jewish supremacists who control our country are the real problem, and the reason why America is not great.”

“Jewish chutzpah knows no bounds,” Duke added, according to the Forward, which noted the RJC endorsement as evidence contradicting Duke.

American Jews reacted to Trump’s plan to ban Muslims and surveil their neighborhood (more than the government already does) with a mixture of horror and, for the most conservative, a genuine openness and curiosity about what he’d do for Israel.  Polling data for a group of Americans that includes Cruz-booster Ariel Kohane, a Bernie Sanders supporter and Clinton-fan Lena Dunham is hard to come by, and there’s no data (if you can find it, please put it in the comments below) that breaks down how many support Trump’s Muslim ban.

But some definitely don’t let it stop them from cheering for Trump. The evidence for this support is anecdotal (i.e. things multiple Jews have told me in exclusive interviews), but also on video:  Trump received multiple standing ovations at this year’s AIPAC conference show how some politically active American Jews are willing to overlook the mogul’s exclusionary policies against other American minorities — as long as he’ll support Israel.

But what seems to unite all Trump supporters, terrifyingly enough, is their shared fear of Muslim infiltration into American life. Trump has proposed measures that include the tracking and surveillance of American Muslims, with all sorts of “systems.” Unlike some other things, like throwing shade at the Pope or telling people at his rallies to beat the crap out of each other, Trump has never backed down from this position or softened his message. There’s a reason he hasn’t. Inciting fear of Muslims is extremely useful to his campaign.

Trump has sutured together his party with Islamophobia. That’s pretty straightforward. What I also know is that a woman shouting support for Trump was responsible for a grotesque attack on a woman in a hijab at a Starbucks just a ten minute walk from where I grew up. It’s a Starbucks where a friend of mine from high school worked for years. It’s a Starbucks behind which I smoked back in the Bush years, on sweltering summer evenings. It’s a place where I have positive memories of growing up. But now it’s a place where someone has, caught on closed-circuit camera, verbally abused and harassed a Muslim woman by pouring an unspecified liquid on her.

According to DCist, the victim said the attacker, a short, blond woman, yelled at her:  “‘Fucking Muslim. Trash, worthless piece of Muslim trash. You all need to go back to where you came from.’ She says if Donald Trump wins the nomination ‘I’m going to vote for him so he can send all of you all back to where you came from.’”

Well, here we are. Trump is the Republican nominee. The attacker, who reportedly plans to vote for him, remains at large. A system of government drafted to reduce religious conflict is crumbling under the force of $2 billion dollars in free advertising the cable news industry has lavished on Trump, even when what he says hypnotizes people into cruel, indefensible acts of hatred.

But the ratings were irresistible, as CBS CEO Les Moonves said in February, well after Trump had exposed his most bizarre and racist policies: “I’ve never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

The victim told WJLA had a different reaction: “I’m more nervous than ever and I’ve lived over here for six years,”

We can expect Trump to push anti-Muslim rhetoric very hard in coming weeks, knowing that it is central to uniting disparate communities in his campaign, which happens to include right wing racists with prison white power tattoos and politically conservative American Jews. A lot of all of these people, Jews and Gentiles, can get pretty frightened by the threat of Sharia law creeping into their communities. Of course, this isn’t actually happening, but since when did a threat being real matter to a species that evolved as prey for giant cats for millions of years?

The fear-fueled Christian/Jewish alliance this year is kind of a twisted version of the Evangelical alliance with Zionists in the early and mid-2000s. The Evangelical side was just so darn certain these were the end times, that they wanted to make sure they were on the right side of Israel. AIPAC, seeing an opportunity, put money into gentile candidates of this persuasion.

Since Obama has been in office, this relationship hasn’t had an executive to come to bat for it. Supporting Israel has taken on a much more technocratic, less Pentacostal vibe. With a Republican victory in November, Evangelicals and Zionists could have a man in the White House extremely eager to listen to their concerns. The relationship has always been based on not really believing what the other side says.

But back to Melinda, Ariel, Chris and myself, I asked them what they would say to a Muslim mother who has had to tell her son Trump won’t deport his father, who was born in Syria. I spoke to this woman for a piece I worked on earlier this year.

“I am scared because Trump is winning all these states,” the ten-year-old said, he had been paying more attention to the news than usual, his mother, Nazek Habtfha, recalled. A Syrian American born in New Jersey, whose son was born in Ohio, her husband, a physician, was born in Syria.

“If Trump wins the election, then he is going to kick people out of the country. Mom, you and I were born here. But dad wasn’t,” Habatfha, recalled in March. “Ask any mother if they think any politician has the right to make their ten-year-old son go to sleep afraid at night he’s going to lose his father. They don’t. It is unfair, outrageous and unAmerican,” the woman, a Sanders supporter, told me.

So I asked Melinda what she would say to this Muslim mother.

“Well I think that some of the ways that people are processing this have been blown out of proportion, because in the beginning all Trump said was that we need to secure the border until this issue passes. There’s a lot of common sense in that because if we would have had one incident in the United States the borders would’ve been shut immediately. He doesn’t hate Muslims,” she said.

But what would she say to the mother. That was the question. I asked again. I described their background.

“I know that you don’t want to make this kid afraid. I know that’s not you. You’re a nice person. But that’s what this kid understands and so what would you as a Trump supporter, and as a person of good will and as a Christian tell them?”

She replied: “‘Don’t worry, the authorities are not against you. You’re welcome. They don’t want some of your bad counterparts. But you’re not that. So you don’t have anything to worry about. You’re not going to be treated unjustly. Trump is not for just exporting people for no reason.

“Okay,” I said.

“And even Dr. Ben Carson made a good point if you look at his Twitter account he said as long as you want to come here and abide by our laws then that’s fine but don’t come here and decide that you don’t want to abide by our law that you want to abide by Sharia law,” she said.

But what about rabbinical courts in New York City. Crump replied that that kind of law was confined to the Jewish community. Sharia courts would mean everybody is subject to the long scimitar of the law

“[Jewish law] doesn’t say anything about beheading,” she said.

Here is a reference to Talmudic scholarship on when to behead people.

“It’s not about honor killings,” she said. Here is a sympathetic Talmudic take on honor killings emphasizing the seriousness of infidelity. The law actually says that the whole community should stone the offending woman to death at the front door of her family’s house, to shame that family for failing to teach their daughter to not commit infidelity.

Moreover, this contradicts the Bible itself, as I understand it. Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman. She may have committed adultery. . Some other Judeans were about to stone her to death because of that. Then Jesus was all like “Naw, I don’t think so.” And the rest is history.

To Crump, however, Jewish law is about “Judeo-Christian values, not violence.”

Anyway, I asked why New York could be home to so many faiths and so rarely have religious violence. Is it part of the “Christian nature of New York City’s laws? Or what is it? How does the Christian foundation of American make it so Muslims and Jews and Christians can all get along.”

Chris B. said: “Honeslty I don’t think it has anything to do with the laws or anything like that. If you come over here with the respect and respect us, otherwise they’re not respected. If they cannot give respect, they can’t get respect. If they can’t even respect us in our country, then they’re not going to be respected hard.”

“But for the most part, how aren’t Muslims respecting our country?”

“It has more so to do with respect? If you respect each other on the street nobody gets into a fight.”

“Those were the values Ted Cruz was shitting on in New York!” Chris laughed. “I believe that it comes down to that,” Chris added.

Kohane was embarrassed at his candidate getting ribbed. “That’s not exactly what he meant…”

So that’s the word. Respect. Respect is law. Respect is the law of prison. Reality is a prison. This planet is a prison. We can’t leave, and we’re stuck answering to whoever could kill us and get away with it. Respect might be the law of the land for the next eight — or who knows? — years. But disrespect in prison, even accusations of it, means death, sometimes. For Republicans, however, Trump is Duke of New York, he’s A Number 1.

Wilson Dizard

Wilson Dizard is a freelance reporter and photojournalist covering politics, civil rights, drug policy and everything else. He lives in Brooklyn with his bicycle, camera and drum set.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

54 Responses

  1. hoya saxa on May 6, 2016, 11:29 am

    Im glad you can point out talmudic portions that support beheadings and honour killings. Might have to remind me of the last instance of anyone following the talmudic teachings in the world. If sharia does call for beating your wife or stoning for adultery I know I can find sharia regimes that do that today. They still execute people for witchcraft in some islamic countries. But sure, try to equate jews and the talmud with muslims and sharia law and pretend it means the same thing. Sure.

    • wondering jew on May 6, 2016, 4:28 pm

      Have to echo the point. Is the attack on the Talmud really necessary here? Isn’t it besides the point. If Sharia law is no threat, and nothing indicates that it is a threat here in America, why bring up the Talmud, except as gratuitous political incorrectness.

      • Mooser on May 6, 2016, 4:43 pm

        “why bring up the Talmud”

        Why bring it up? So that people will understand us better!
        “Yonah” you wouldn’t want people to have an incorrect understanding (like, “[Jewish law] doesn’t say anything about beheading,” she said., and etc.) of the Talmud, would you?

        Why, is there something in there you think people shouldn’t see or be aware of?

      • wondering jew on May 6, 2016, 7:56 pm

        Mooser- a direct heir of johannes pfeffercorn?

      • Mooser on May 7, 2016, 6:23 pm

        “Mooser- a direct heir of johannes pfeffercorn?”

        Why are you going into a snit, Yonah”?
        Is there something in there (Talmud) you are ashamed of, or think people shouldn’t see or be aware of?”

        If you think the Talmud should be kept private among Jews, simply say so, and why. Mormons have secret writings, too, it’s not that unusual.

      • annie on May 8, 2016, 1:40 pm

        If Sharia law is no threat, and nothing indicates that it is a threat here in America, why bring up the Talmud, except as gratuitous political incorrectness.

        it came up organically in the conversation — it is not whataboutery nor was it the author (in the conversation he was relating) who brought up beheadings.

        “And even Dr. Ben Carson made a good point if you look at his Twitter account he said as long as you want to come here and abide by our laws then that’s fine but don’t come here and decide that you don’t want to abide by our law that you want to abide by Sharia law,” she said.

        But what about rabbinical courts in New York City. Crump replied that that kind of law was confined to the Jewish community. Sharia courts would mean everybody is subject to the long scimitar of the law

        “[Jewish law] doesn’t say anything about beheading,” she said.

        Here is a reference to Talmudic scholarship on when to behead people.

        is this what you mean by “an attack on the talmud”? why not ask ‘If Sharia law is no threat, and nothing indicates that it is a threat here in America, why bring up the Quran’?

        we’re talking about crazy people here, the crazy people trump is whipping up into a fury of crazy racist thought. so there’s nothing ‘gratuitously political incorrectness’ about juxtaposing or contrasting crumps logic by asking about rabbinical courts in ny, as the author does. and then it was crump who brings up beheadings! — as if any american iman has ever even suggested bringing beheadings to the US justice system! and then crump made the allegation there was nothing related to this beheading stuff in jewish law —

        so if you’re going to be lecturing anyone about “gratuitous political incorrectness” the person to go after is the trump supporter. the whole point (of the author) is reflecting the kind nutjobs we’re dealing with here, and i think the conversation demonstrates that quite well.

        the same arguments that are made routinely in our current political discourse against sharia law (which have absurdly made their way into certain state’s legislation) could be made about both judaism and christianity.

        i recall when bush cronies started packing the justice department w/graduates of liberty university (wacko christian fundamentalists) which made a number of us quite nervous frankly. these people have agenda written all over them

        many of these people actively believe in stoning gays and punishing adulterers w/death. there’s never been a threat comparable from the muslim community like the invasion of christian fundamentalists embedded into our justice system during the bush years. nothing remotely like that — and they actively believe in no separation of church and state.

        anyway, conversations juxtaposing religious fundamentalists should be fair game in a political climate that is demonizing people w/threats of death and expulsion. look at some of the toxic discourse in these tweets (scroll)

      • YoniFalic on May 8, 2016, 3:48 pm

        In general Islamic regimes have left non-Muslims to set up their own courts independent of the Sharia courts.

        As the Ottoman Empire modernized and transformed subjects into citizens, there was a drive to create a uniform social-political-legal system. The sharia courts developed into a modern court system, which scholars like Hebrew University Professor Haim Gerber have compared favorably in terms of fairness and uniformity with the contemporary legal systems of the UK, France, and Germany.

        The non-Muslim courts were relegated to personnel status issues while the Empire opened practically all governmental offices to (male) non-Muslims, ended slavery, eliminated the jizya, implemented uniform conscription, and created a voting system with a representative parliament (chamber of deputies).

        The Ottoman Empire had no laws against homosexuality and treated prostitution as a business that required regulation. Current approaches to homosexuality and prostitution in Islamic countries may have been imported from Western mostly Christian countries.

        As I understand Sharia courts in the West, religious Muslims like religious Jews wish to act in accord with religious law. I consider such desire to be silly, but in either case a structure for determining judgment of religious law is needed. Neither religious Jews nor religious Muslims seem to demand supplanting the civil legal system although in matters of divorce religious Rabbinic Jews seem willing to break to civil law to force a recalcitrant husband to grant a religious divorce.

    • Mooser on May 6, 2016, 5:06 pm

      “Might have to remind me of the last instance of anyone following the talmudic teachings in the world.”

      Netanyahu: Basis for Israeli Law Should be Talmud

      legal system based on Talmud

      • annie on May 7, 2016, 12:23 pm

        the talmud has separate Noahide Laws for non jews.

      • wondering jew on May 7, 2016, 2:24 pm

        Humans, usually the elite, whose ancestors murdered competitors, and thus landed on the top of the heap, should gather in pursuit of a just law and order and establish the law of the land. I recoil at the thought of talmudic law being imposed as the law of the land. BTW the equivalent of sharia is not talmud, but halacha, which literally means the way. Talmud like the written text of the five books of moses, is a far from perfect model for how to build a better more just society. But those who have never opened one of those jumbo tomes, sound ignorant and bigoted in using a word that has no real world representation in their mind.
        The reality is that too many Talmud proponents see it as a preferable set of laws and would like to see its imposition. Altho, I have no numbers, I suspect the passivity gist of the talmud would find the knowledgeable rabbis opposed to any process of unnatural coercion. (Natural coercion, as in those who are born into a closed society, is a different story.) Those like me, who appreciate the talmud without endorsing it represent a point of view that dissolves into nothing over time, although cultural ebb and flow can produce useful nonmainstream thoughts and images.

      • Mooser on May 7, 2016, 6:47 pm

        “the talmud has separate Noahide Laws for non jews.”

        That’s too bad. I’ve always been opposed to sumptuary laws.

      • gamal on May 8, 2016, 7:16 am

        “I’ve always been opposed to”

        there are Naughahyde laws? In Islam its all real leather.

      • Mooser on May 8, 2016, 1:11 pm

        ” In Islam its all real leather.”

        There were many anti-leather Jews in Spain at that time, most of whom lived in Cordura. The Rabbis in the Polish city of Kievlar claimed the cloth produced in that city could deflect knives better than thick leather.

    • zaid on May 6, 2016, 10:54 pm

      Stop whining like a child.

      If you want to discuss and accuse Islam and point out Quranic verses about women or violence, you must address the parts in the bible/talmud that contains the same things ( actually more), and having a specific teaching practiced or not is irrelevant in the discussion about the religious text itself.

      Furthermore, stoning is not practiced nor is honor killing legalized in any Muslim country anyway.

      • wondering jew on May 6, 2016, 11:17 pm

        I get it zaid. It’s whataboutery but it’s your whataboutery.

      • wondering jew on May 6, 2016, 11:26 pm

        So honor killings is a problem that demagogues attack under the topic of sharia and this is unfair, so to delve into the talmud is a type of quid pro quo, as in unfairness in exchange for unfairness.

      • gamal on May 7, 2016, 7:24 am

        Zina is mentioned 5 or 6 times in the Quran, there is no death sentence, nothing like deut: 22:21-24, so some reactionary Alim historically referred to this, we Muslims steal scriptures its sad but true.

        It was treated in exactly the same manner that Rabbi’s surrounded the harsher aspects of Halakic penalties with so may conditions that they were impossible to impose, in Islam all the hudud are limited by exacting (impossible) evidentiary requirements.

        “Honour Culture” is diametrically opposed to Islamic norms.

        so determined were the Ulema to avoid convictions of Zina that they developed the charming but ludicrous notion of the “sleeping foetus” or the “public bath defense” in the case of unmarried mothers, one Cadi in the Gulf cried in exasperation recently “What would we have done with the Virgin Mary ?” in the hope of dispensing with whole mess.

        as the below will make clear the forged ahadith that deal with this all have to have the accused spontaneously confessing because Zina is effectively impossible to prove, and no less fun for that.

        “”With regard to witnesses to zina, they should be four people whose testimony is acceptable, and they should state that they have seen the zina in clear terms, i.e., they should have seen the man’s penis in the woman’s vagina. If some of them only testify that they saw them naked, or they describe certain positions or movements, that is not sufficient to proof that zina took place.

        Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Sharh al-Mumti’ (6/157):

        They should describe zina in clear terms, such as saying: “I saw his penis in her vagina”. There is no alternative to that. If they say: “We saw him on top of her and they were naked”, that is not acceptable. Even if they say “We saw him doing with her what a man does with his wife,” that is not sufficient as testimony. They must say “We bear witness that his penis was in her vagina.” And this is very difficult, as the man said who was testified against at the time of ‘Umar: “If you were among the (four) thighs you would never be able to give this testimony.” Hence Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah mentioned that at his time no case of zina was proven by means of testimony from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the time of Ibn Taymiyah. If no case was proven from that time until the other, then we do not know of any case that was proven by testimony up till our own times, because it is very difficult.”

      • zaid on May 7, 2016, 10:11 am

        it is not whataboutry because I condemn stoning and honor killing .

        It is hypocrisy from your ilk to be obsessed with Islam and a non existing issue like stoning which is not practiced even by the most fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.

        And Honor killing is not Islamic and it is so rare to constitute an issue.

        Let me piss you even more:

        “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” Lev 21-9

        If you have Islamic texts linking women virginity with honor please provide me with it.

      • silamcuz on May 7, 2016, 11:38 am

        So Gamal, would I be correct to assume that the early Muslim lawmakers sought to basically draw a legal system that actively rejected all the social norms of the society at large at that time, by introducing such a convoluted systems of trial and punishment?

        As if they knew things like sex outside marriage and drinking etc were all perfectly natural human acts not worthy of any undue attention, let alone punishment by the state. Yet they were wise enough to understand the dynamics of the society they lived in; ruthless, rigid and laborious. Instead of forcing liberal ideas on a hardened, conservative society, they created the sharia which recognizes local customs and beliefs but at the same time, sought to eliminate the ill-effects of such beliefs on individuals victimized by the social norms.

      • hoya saxa on May 7, 2016, 11:39 am

        zaid, lets see if we can play this game one more time. ISrael doesnt have the death penalty and is based on jewish law.

        Islamic regimes DO have the death penalty and is based on sharia law. People ARE being sentenced to death and going to jail for apostasy and being gay. People are losing limbs for theft. Women are being beaten and clerics and imams are teaching how to do it so it doesnt show. Honour killings are ignored in islamic regimes because its a normal way of life. Im sorry you feel islamic regimes are being picked on but maybe they should grow up, not make it illegal to build churches and not have the death penatly for someone’s belief in god. Just an idea.

      • annie on May 7, 2016, 12:38 pm

        ISrael doesnt have the death penalty and is based on jewish law.

        they routinely and swiftly slaughter palestinians, some (many) might construe that as a death penalty. the same action or “penalty” doesn’t apply to a jewish person.

        People ARE being sentenced to death and going to jail

        all the time in israel/palestine under the zionist regime, if you’re of the wrong ethnicity.

        People are losing limbs for theft. Women are being beaten [killed]

        all the time in israel/palestine under the zionist regime, if you’re of the wrong ethnicity.

        killings are ignored in islamic regimes because its a normal way of life.

        sounds very familiar wrt the zionist regime, if you’re of the wrong ethnicity.

        maybe they should grow up, not make it illegal to build churches and not have the death penatly for someone’s belief in god. Just an idea.

        maybe you should grow up and check out that mote in your eye.

      • MHughes976 on May 7, 2016, 12:50 pm

        I don’t think that Mr. Dizard is simply a Whataboutist, in that he makes the point that we easily ignore or overlook or interpret with undue kindness what is Ours and magnify into horrendous forms what is Theirs. We sometimes practice a rather wilful ignorance. On the other hand, I think he is a bit too kind to my lot, the Christians, in that he lays great emphasis on the Woman Taken in Adultery (a passage from maybe the third edition of John’s Gospel; she is clearly unknown to Jesus and cannot be his friend Mary M) and overlooks the fact that the problematic ‘Old Testament’ passages, which in a way underlie the problematic Talmud passages) are sacred to us too. We will say that in authentic Christianity these passages are somehow not what they seem. But the authenticity claims are easy to make and hard to substantiate. ‘Proof-texting’ is a very suspect procedure.

      • zaid on May 7, 2016, 4:44 pm

        ” ISrael doesnt have the death penalty and is based on jewish law.”

        Jewish law calls for the death penalty for dozens of crimes including apostasy, adultery and not observing the Sabbath .

        And Israel dont enforce the death penalty, because that would require a trial and a big mess, they just executes Palestinians extrajudiciary.

        “Islamic regimes DO have the death penalty”

        So do Japan and the US.

        ” and is based on sharia law”

        Sharia law is enforced only in few Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, the remaining Muslim countries are secular including Palestine, Jordan,ALgeria,morocco,Tunisia, Malasia Turkey…etc

        And in Sharia, the death penalty is controversial except in murder( unless the family of the murdered waves it).

        “People ARE being sentenced to death and going to jail for apostasy and being gay.”

        Apostasy killings are rare cases (anecdotes) and often extrajudicial by mobs in isolated villages.

        And gay killing doesnot exist at all.

        Also , Kindly provide a statistic fro your claim to see if it is a real issue.

        “People are losing limbs for theft.”

        Saudi Arabia, Iran and maybe Sudan the remaining 54 Muslim countries dont.

        ” Women are being beaten and clerics and imams are teaching how to do it so it doesnt show.”

        I never claimed that Islamic countries are oasis of freedom or women rights, i just dont like exaggeration and double standards.

        “Honor killings are ignored in islamic regimes because its a normal way of life”

        Kindly Provide a statistics to see if it is really a normal way of life or Zip it.

        “Im sorry you feel islamic regimes are being picked on”

        I dont care about Islamic countries or any other country in the world for that matter, if Muslim countries do bad, i speak up, but dont Blulshit us with Fox news propaganda.

        “but maybe they should grow up, not make it illegal to build churches”

        The Muslim world is a museum of churches ,synagogues and Hindu temples that has been there for hundreds and thousands of years unharmed.

        “and not have the death penatly for someone’s belief in god”

        No such thing exist.

      • Mooser on May 7, 2016, 6:31 pm

        I must save this page as a reference for future comments.
        I won’t let anybody say anything worse about Jews than we say about anybody else! And I think we might have (except for what we say about each other) hit a new standard here.
        Just about ready for matzoh recipes by now.

      • gamal on May 7, 2016, 6:48 pm

        “but maybe they should grow up, not make it illegal to build churches”

        are all hasbarists locked in the same dark room

        “The Muslim world is a museum of churches”

        and some new ones

      • gamal on May 7, 2016, 8:54 pm


        no, a million times no, it is a discursive tradition with no central legal text or overarching purpose,

        look all this rattling on about Halaka and Sharia ignores the real fear and loathing this evokes in me, do you have any idea what this material is like here is a simple uni intro

        here is some more sophomoric stuff, there is much harder stuff but if you want to talk “Sharia” this the awful reality. I am not talking Sharia anymore till you have read tabari, shafi’i, jafar etc this will get you started. i am not joking, please lets not talk law, i know nothing you even less.

      • silamcuz on May 8, 2016, 12:48 am

        Gamal, are you saying you are against Sharia, after explaining how it was designed to prevent unlawful punishments to those unfortunate enough to have sex outside marriage?

        My understanding of the sharia is it was the legal system of historical progressives in Arabia, as opposed to the harsh traditional law of the conservative Arab society where stoning and decapitations were the norm.

      • Mooser on May 8, 2016, 12:13 pm

        “Gamal” please don’t waste any emotion on “silmacuz”. He is a veritable maelstrom of ignorance.

    • YoniFalic on May 7, 2016, 12:46 pm

      People are not seeing the forest for the trees. Nowadays “Jews” are murdering lots of non-Jews.

      Under orders during Operation Cast Lead I murdered unarmed Palestinian men, women, and children, who were trying to flee a battle zone and waving white flags. For this reason I am ex Jew/Israeli and wish I had never been born.

  2. silamcuz on May 6, 2016, 11:44 am

    I have a hard time trying to see the author’s point here. Trump is running on a white supremacist angle which naturally would entail stoking all sort of anti-non white sentiments, including Islamophobia. However, how could one disregard the genocidal vitriol he spewed towards the Latinos and Hispanics early on his campaign, which strongly enabled him to rise as a contender in the first place? Or his insistence that America during which a racial hierarchy were strictly enforced, where the top spot were reserved for whites while blacks were forced to stay at the bottom, is qualitatively greater than the current America?

  3. YoniFalic on May 6, 2016, 12:27 pm

    Islamophobia is the Zionism of fools.

  4. MHughes976 on May 6, 2016, 1:20 pm

    Islamophobia has just received a setback, in that London is, on current projections, about to elect a Muslim, Sadiq Khan, as Mayor, despite a distinctly Islamophobic campaign by his Conservative opponents. Many good people in the UK will be pleased by this result.

    • John O on May 6, 2016, 1:26 pm

      Yes indeed. The Conservative campaign was beautifully described by someone on Twitter by someone as “dog-whistle politics in a city without dogs.”

      • Stogumber on May 8, 2016, 9:45 am

        This description is correct, but it simply means that there are not enough Native English left in London to have an influence on the electoral result. Those who could afford it, have already gone off. And their dogs with them.
        It’s the simplest solution, of course. The more Muslims you have, the less islamophobia.

      • annie on May 8, 2016, 12:23 pm

        not enough Native English left in London to have an influence on the electoral result.

        really? that’s not reflected in the demographics of greater london.

      • gamal on May 8, 2016, 1:18 pm

        “but it simply means that there are not enough Native English left in London to have an influence on the electoral result.”

        yes we have lost London, Birminghams already gone, you need Punjabi to get by in Manchester,

        “The more Muslims you have, the less islamophobia”

        you are implying Muslims have not mastered self-hatred? you could be right but Stewart has been doing outreach

      • MHughes976 on May 8, 2016, 1:36 pm

        I think you’re wrong, Stogumber, even apart from the points made by Annie. You say ‘more Muslims, less Islamophobia’ but both an Islamophobe and anti-White person would claim the opposite. An Iphobe would say ‘More Muslims, more justified Iphobia, as their faults become blatant’, an anti-White would say ‘More Muslims, more Iphobia as White prejuduce rears its head’. The fact that an Iphobic campaign has been crushed in a landslide vote shows that both these phobic ideas are, sometimes at least, seriously mistaken.
        I am a bit less thrilled by Mayor Khan’s jumping on what is in effect the pro-Israel bandwagon.

      • gamal on May 8, 2016, 2:46 pm

        .” An Iphobe would say ‘More Muslims, more justified Iphobia, as their faults become blatant’, an anti-White would say ‘More Muslims, more Iphobia as White prejuduce rears its head’.”

        hughes do you live in Toy Town? an anti-white person? Iphobia?

        who are the Anti-Whites in London?

        as you look so shall you see is a warning about stultifying framing and ‘forcing data’, what measurable effects does anti-whiteness exhibit?

        where in the UK are you afraid of going due to the anti-white sentiments of the locals?

      • Mooser on May 8, 2016, 3:35 pm

        “an anti-white person”

        Maybe “silamcuz” is making “MHughes976” nervous?

        I don’t think he needs to worry.

      • MHughes976 on May 9, 2016, 5:27 am

        My nerves weren’t rattling, Mooser – why on earth should you think so? I was celebrating the good sense (rather than the prejudice ascribed to them by some) of white, no less than other, Londoners. I’d rather hope you’d share my disagreement with Stogumber whose emphasis is not on the good sense of the ‘Native English’ but on decline of their relative numbers.
        It’s true that an anti-White persona has been invented recently to disrupt Momdoweiss. The reaction to that should not be to curl up into a fearful ball but to. note any true thing that is said but to observe our rules about racism and personal attacks.

    • silamcuz on May 6, 2016, 2:34 pm

      Exactly, and the funny thing is that his dirty attacks on Khan only served to hurt his campaign, unmasking his bigotry and racism towards Muslims.

      What I found rather disturbing though is him being able to engage in such nasty attacks on a person character in public without any real repercussions. To associate someone, anyone with terrorist links is one of the more grave accusations one can make, and that was pretty much the core strategy of the Tory candidate. He should’ve been disqualified from holding any public office, face the prospect of jail time in addition to publicly apologizing to Khan for his criminal slanders.

  5. Mooser on May 6, 2016, 5:16 pm

    Ah, I see Trump also has some great economic ideas. Like giving US bondholders a “haircut”. Full faith and credit, you’re fired!

    • eljay on May 6, 2016, 9:47 pm

      || Mooser: Ah, I see Trump also has some great economic ideas. Like giving US bondholders a “haircut”. … ll

      Politicians like to appear to be in touch with the “average Joe / Jane”: Israel “mows the lawn”, Trump will do “haircuts”.

      I’m afraid to find out who will “do the ironing”, “wash the car” and “take out the trash”…or what those chores will actually entail.

  6. a blah chick on May 7, 2016, 5:07 pm

    Israel has Sharia courts. Interestingly that fact never seems to get mentioned.

    • Castellio on May 7, 2016, 8:56 pm

      What are you referring to exactly?

      • Mooser on May 8, 2016, 12:50 pm

        “What are you referring to exactly?”

        “Israel has Sharia courts”

        I just Googled the sentence, and it seems to be entirely accurate, at least according to the GOI.

        The Sharia Courts have existed since the time of the Ottoman Empire when they … ​The State of Israel recognized the Sharia Courts, their powers and rulings in…” Israeli Ministry of Justice

    • gamal on May 8, 2016, 2:28 pm

      I ran a Sharia council, this one, despite his demeanour Maulana Shahid Raza is one of the gentlest beings in existence, we never beheaded anyone, mainly divorce cases, it was hard rather wearing work, we started in 1987 in close contact with UK authorities to try to stamp out the corner fatwa shop phenomenon, it was modeled on the religious Jewish tribunals who gave us advice, he got an OBE, I got away.

  7. Stogumber on May 8, 2016, 9:36 am

    Back to the question: “What is the Muslim woman to say to its child, w.r.t. the father’s future?”

    Now that obviously depends on if the father is a terrorist (or has terrorist ambitions) – or not.
    If the father has indeed terrorist ambitions the mother ought to make clear to the child, just in time, that Father may some day get lost (either by a suicidal attack or by imprisonment or by deportation).

    On the other hand, if Father has no terrorist ambitions, Mother ought to tell the child that Father has nothing to fear, except if tensions go to extremes. If tensions go to extremes, Americans are quite willing to deport foreign-born people. (Dizard seems never to have heard about the many German Americans who were deported to Germany after the end of WWII.) There’s nothing un-American about it.

  8. Stogumber on May 8, 2016, 10:06 am

    As for the sharia problem, it’s stupid not to take this legal problem serious. The Salon article quoted above tells us that “of course” the Constitution is the law of the land and sharia has to be regarded as foreign law in the same sense like all foreign laws.

    But there’s nothing “of course” in that.

    The Salon itself refers to a case where the trial judge used sharia as an excuse from otherwise forbidden behaviour, but “of course” this was abolished by the appellation court. I repeat that there’s nothing “of course” in that. In fact, the appellation court could well have erred on the side of the trial judge. That depends mostly on the person of the judge. You can’t expect (you can’t even wish) that demographical changes don’t lead to legal changes.

    So there is indeed reason to be concerned. I don’t pretend that anti-sharia laws are the best solution.

  9. W.Jones on May 8, 2016, 10:01 pm

    I came across this JTA video of Trump with reporters where he talks about his positions on the IP Conflict. He has an attorney answer some questions for him like whether we should say Occupied Territories.

    • ritzl on May 9, 2016, 2:05 pm

      Thanks W.Jones. Very bizarre, or scary, or normal, or something.

      • W.Jones on May 9, 2016, 5:23 pm

        He ends it by saying that he doesn’t know why pro-Israelis vote for the Clintons so strongly, but then concludes that after November, some people in this room will know why.

        He seems to be saying that there are some unspoken connections that aren’t publicly known with Clinton’s campaign.

        What do you think he means by that?

      • ritzl on May 10, 2016, 8:54 am

        The audio was pretty bad so I didn’t get the full effect. I’ll listen to it again. The parts I did get were pretty rambling in a slobberingly pandering sort of way, so it’s hard for me to tell what’s “meaningful” or not in anything Trump says.

      • ritzl on May 10, 2016, 10:48 am

        W.Jones, re: the “the occupied territories” question in that vid.

        That was strangely out of left field-ish. Other than my rants here on MW, I haven’t really seen that brought up in the pro-Palestinian blogosphere. I’m not really exhaustively informed, so that’s not to say it hasn’t been duscussed elsewhere. But something made it enough of an niggle that it morphed into a total-subscription/true-believer gaging question posed to a US presidential candidate.

        If it hasn’t been discussed much other than here it means those pro-Israel questioner types read Mondoweiss in depth – and take it seriously. That’s kinda cool.


Leave a Reply