The Forum > Article Comments > Anti-Islam: is history repeating itself? > Comments
Anti-Islam: is history repeating itself? : Comments
By Ali Kazak, published 27/2/2013Some of the causes of anti-Semitism were: a condemnation of the Jewish religion by some; a view that Jewish particularisms were a barrier to assimilation; and that Jews were not capable of integrating into the society in which they lived.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 10:02:49 PM
| |
Wow! So many lucid responses. I don't know that there's any more I can offer, other than a few points that irked me about the author's clumsy attempt at historiography.
Firstly, as has already been pointed out, antisemitism was rife long before the 1880s. I think it was Claudius who declared the expulsion of the Jews (and the Isis-worshipers) from Rome, scapegoating them in a time of civil unrest. If the expulsion was followed through (which it probably wasn't), it was carried out on the grounds of the Jews' foreignness, rather than their religion. They were non-Romans and could be booted out with little fuss. That's also why the Jews tended to live across the Tiber from the city itself. They were foreign. Anti-Jewish tendencies have long been founded on race rather than religion: the 'undesirability' of Jews ('dirty foreigners') coupled with their non-evangelistic tendencies gives the race argument legs. Islam is an evangelising religion and has no racial homogeneity: a comparison of Bosniaks and Pakistanis demonstrates that adequately. Thus the Jews were hated for their detachment, while those who despise Islam often do so because of a belief that Muslims wish to impose their beliefs and values on others. For a small minority, this may be true: http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201302062143-0022530 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096 The other one that surprised me was the assertion that the Crusades were prompted by a zealous hatred of Muslims. On the surface, the argument seems reasonable. However, the Crusades were ostensibly about safeguarding pilgrimages to the Holy Land. They were more likely about seizing a perceived opportunity to plunder at will (to put it briefly). Had Palestine been taken over by Zoroastrians or Buddhists, Christendom would probably have reacted in the same way. Just my two cents' worth. Posted by Otokonoko, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 11:54:48 PM
| |
One thing that the author, Wilders and many posters (on both sides) have in common is their tendency to over-react, exaggerate, generalise and abandon any sense of perspective.
To take an extreme example and make it seem representative of the whole or to argue over the semantics of words like "racism" is unreasonable at best. I'm waiting for somebody to offer up some sort of Final Solution because there are simply no options left that would satisfy everybody. Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 28 February 2013 1:04:08 AM
| |
It is all just a big game to distract us from the real issues of monetary enslavement.
The real intent of bringing multiple cutures to Aust was to keep wages low and divided so the elites could cream it off the top. I see no differnence between extreme elements of Islam,Christianity or those of the Jewish faith. Islam was demonised to justify the theft of Oil and Resources.Obama has swapped his attention to China/Russia,much to the displeasure of Israel,since China/Russia are winning the peace. It is all a big game,Zibigniew Brezezinski "The Grand Chessboard" so a few elites can own and control most of us. Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 28 February 2013 6:27:32 AM
| |
Ali Kazak is speaking from experience - his own people are treated like sub-humans, and so I admire him for speaking against anti-Jewish as well as anti-Muslim hate speech.
Making 'fine points' about whether a group is defined by 'religion' or 'race' is just a distraction from the main dynamic here - pick on a vulnerable group, blame them for 'problems' which have far wider causes, and then seek political power by attacking anyone who defends the victim group. Unfortunately most of the comments are supporting the current fashion - attack Muslims, attack people from the Middle East. In the 1980s it was attack 'Asians'. Democratic people stand up for equality and tolerance, and these were basic issues in World War II. Perhaps some of the commentators who disagree with Ali Kazak claim to be 'patriots'. If so they should ponder which side they would have been on in World War II. Whatever their answer to that question, we should all remember that over 50 million people were killed in World War II, so don't repeat it. Posted by Peter Murphy, Thursday, 28 February 2013 7:53:43 AM
| |
Peter Murphy wrote:
>>Making 'fine points' about whether a group is defined by 'religion' or 'race' is just a distraction from the main dynamic here>> Not it isn't. It's a very important distinction. Islam is a belief system. Are you saying Islam, unlike any other belief system in Australia, should be immune from critique, analysis, satire and scorn? If Islam is granted immunity, what other belief system should enjoy such immunity? How about Catholicism or Zionism or Marxism? How about Scientology? Or how about the ideology of the Liberal party? What are the criteria for granting immunity to a belief system? People are entitled to their beliefs but attacking Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, Zionism and atheism among others is part of the normal discourse in a secular democracy. To talk of Islam-ophobia is as ridiculous as talking about Catholic-ophobia, Judaism-ophobia, Zionism-ophobia and atheism-ophobia. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 28 February 2013 8:31:17 AM
|
http://www.educationnews.org/political/terrorism/104826.html