Reading Arab leaders' speeches harms the brain, but I took the risk and read Assad's latest speeches. Surprisingly, he ignores the Mossad because the sole cause of his troubles are ... the
takfiris. The Takfiris ...
started to infiltrate Western societies. So, the Western powers transferred as many terrorists as possible to Syria to turn it into the land of Jihad, hence getting rid of the terrorists and weakening Syria.
It makes sense.
Takfiris were working at the back rows through bombings and mass killing, leaving the armed gangs at the front line, but the unity of the Syrian people and army forced them to move to fighting at the front lines where they led the rudder of a ship of blood, killing and mutilation. Because takfiri thought is alien to our country, they had to import it from abroad, whether through terrorists or thought. Thus, takfiris, terrorists, al-Qaeda members calling themselves Jihadis streamed from everywhere to command the combat operations on the ground.
Who or what are the takfiris? Lets widen our culture: They are Muslims that falsely accuse other Muslims of not being true Muslims. What is the Jewish or the Christian equivalent? I dont know. (Pic. The Takfiri cleric Ashrafi. One of them.)
42 comments:
Marrano.
The Alawites are crypto-Christians that rule Syria, like the Sabbateans crypto-jews that ruled Turkey until AKP.
There's any outside group that was able to infiltrate judaism?
The Sabbateans and the Frankists, for instance, were infiltrators, though from within.
Being non-proselytizing and conducting individual conversions that take years to complete means immunity from foreign infiltrators. The other approach means you're always stuck with St. Maria De Guadalupe, who turns out to be some crazy Aztec snake goddess in disguise or something.
What is the Jewish....equivalent?
Neturei Karta?
K
What Assad probably means is that his regime is being attacked by fanatical Muslim that accuse him of not being Muslim enough, he is Alawite. That in general Al Quaeda people consider only themselves to be true and real Muslims, and all the Western influenced regimes are in fact not Muslims. He sees the rebellion as an intra-Muslim thing. Apparently Muslim terrorism has decreased in the West and in Russia because the extremists have been channelled to fight the Alawi regime. The Western interest is, in this scenario, that the foreign rebels and the Alawis keep busy fighting each other for a long time and weaken each other, just like in the seven year long Iraq vs Iran war.
How about the Karaites, Samaritans or the post-90s Russian "jews" ??
On the contrary. The only people who says that other Jews are not true Jews are the hyper-Orthodox. But in Judaism they have no power to punish the infidels.
Who are these "other Jews", J?
Reform and so.
Since Jewish Takfiris are not in power nor use terrorist methods, I dont see any danger to Reform synagogues or rabbis.
BTW the root of Takfiri is k-f-r that is kaffir, African. Since Arabic and Hebrew are so close, there must a Hebrew equivalent to the word. I'll ask my little daughter, she has the best Hebrew of the family including Army slang.
PS.: Takfiri, in Arabic, means to accuse someone of being an African. It must have some American homologue.
Don't ask her, I'll tell you-the same root exists in Hebrew and forms words such as kofer, kfira, etc, meaning heresy.
Nobody excludes non-observant, Reform or Conservative Jews from being Jewish. However, their non-Jewish wives and children are not Jewish unless they convert properly. There is nothing "hyperorthodox" about this. It's always been an accepted common standard.
What is the Hebrew term for one who falsely accuses a Jew of heresy?
What is the American term for a racist who falsely accuses someone of having African ancestors?
I think Semitic languages are more expressive than English.
The term for such activities is hotzaat shem ra in Hebrew and slander or libel in English.
There must be more succint and specific words that express the concept. At least in Hebrew.
Libel is written, slander is spoken, defamation is the blanket term.
But these are very broad = takfir is specific.
There was never any tradition in America of accusing people of having African blood, since it would presumably be rather obvious if they did. There was an insult for someone who consorted with blacks - he was called a "n*gger lover".
The original meaning of kaffir was disbeliever (one who hides or covers the truth). The Portuguese were the ones who misunderstood and assumed that the word meant "African", since they heard the Muslims referring to the African (animists) this way. So takfirs are accusing their enemies of being heretics, not Africans.
K
Thanks for explaining. Israeli exams use הבנת הנקרא that is reading comprehension as proxy for IQ, and you sure are in the top. Heresy is when one deviates from the dogma, but Africans were not Muslims so they could not be considered heretics but infidels. Since the Islam is theoretically color-blind, I suspect that applying kaffir to Africans is the politically correct term for Muslims. They say heretics but mean Africans. May be.
I'm not an expert, but I think kufr is used to mean both infidel and heretic - there are many different type of kufr - one who rejects from ignorance, from denial, etc. That's why takfirs accuse other Muslim sects of being kufrs.
K
their non-Jewish wives and children are not Jewish unless they convert properly
Reform doesn't consider the children of non-Jewish wives to be non-Jewish unless they are raised in another religion. The Orthodox may not recognize this, but the Reform don't care.
Have you seen the Shas commercial where the blond Russian bride converts right under the chuppah by dialing 1-800-CONVERT? Hilarious.
K
They shouldn't make fun of blond Russian brides. They will improve the Jewish gene pool. For Ashkenaziim to marry Yemenis or Ethiopians degrades it.
Yes, think of all the fine alcoholism and stupidity genes the Russians will bring to the Jewish race!
K
Plotting measured population average IQ on a map, the Russians don't appear stupid. They are certainly no lower (in fact, they are higher) than the Mizrahi groups. Alcoholism is another matter, but there is a cultural component to that. A half-Ashkenazi, half-Russian who grows up in a culture where alcohol is consumed sparingly may not become an alcoholic. He might also inherit the ADH2*2 variant of the alcohol dehydrogenase gene from the Ashkenazi side, in which case he is very unlikely to become an alcoholic.
Reform also doesn't consider shrimp to be treyf, circumcision to be mandatory, or bind itself by any of Judaism's unique restrictions or obligations. In short, it's not Judaism, and is completely irrelevant. They themselves recognize this implicitly, since they accept the validity of Orthodox marriages, conversions, semicha, kashrut, etc., without reciprocity.
What is this "improve"? From what perspective? By what parameters? Presumably, you consider yourself near the pinnacle of "Jewish evolution," whatever that is.
Shas speaks for people who don't want the Jews to be swamped with sham converts, which is understandable. They might go a bit far, but the basic premise is sound.
20-30 years ago when I was connected to a Reform synagogue, the vast majority of members circumcised their babies and bar mitzvahed their adolescents. No, most don't keep kosher. Neither do J (left to his own devices), K or I. The issue of Orthodox validity in theory rarely comes up in practice since it is uncommon for Reform Jews who intend to remain Reform to marry Orthodox Jews. And as I wrote, they don't care what you think of them. You are as irrelevant to them as they are to you.
The reform "bar mitzvah" is a sham, mostly about ostentatious spending.
Reform is a feel-good ideology designed to anesthetize Jews who are slipping down the slope of Western assimilation, whorishness, consumerism and extinction. It's not a workable living blueprint, or an ideology worthy of the name.
Orthodox Judaism is an OCD straitjacket for the individual and a prison for the group. So what that the number of inmates grows.
I don't feel either of these things. Perhaps there is something wrong with me?
Tell me, if a group of Eskimos decide that they are Jews and their religion involves walrus-worship, is it Judaism? Or if a group of Jews decides that their Judaism involves denying the Torah and worshiping a big brass Moloch statue, is it Judaism? If not, why?
Reform Judaism does not involve worship of walruses or statues. The Orthodox, whose religion deviates substantially from Judaism of the Biblical period, should be a little more wary to throw stones than they are.
You didn't answer my questions.
The examples you provided were animism and idolatry. The dispute between Reform and Orthodox is on somewhat more subtle points than that. I don't recognize the right of the Orthodox rabbinate to decide what is Jewish for all of us, but I'm not overly concerned with the issue since I'm not affiliated Reform or even a believer.
I would ask for a full list of the parameters of what makes something Judaism vs. non-Judaism, but as you've pointed out, your opinion is as irrelevant as that of an animist.
So how does it work - is it all or nothing? Either you observe all 613 mitzot (plus however many more they make up on the fly) or you're not a Jew at all?
K
So perhaps it is now clear, K, why I consider Orthodox Judaism a prison. A restrictive code of religious law and too many fanatical "all or nothing" people trying to socially coerce members of the community to ever more insane and restrictive levels of observance certainly seems miserable to me.
Nobody observes all the mitzvot (for one, it's impossible-most apply only when the Temple stands or to a woman, or to a king, or to a slaveowner, or to a farmer in Israel, etc.) And being a Jew does not depend on observance at all.
But if you start denying the mitzvot, or their divine origin, or claim that they've been superceded or abrogated in light of recent developments, then what you're practicing is no longer Judaism. It might be nice, it might be socially acceptable, but it's not Judaism.
I think we've wandered into "no true Scotsman" territory.
And being a Jew does not depend on observance at all.
This is why the Orthodox have chosen to focus their attacks on proof of parentage, conversion, etc. People who are 100% Jewish but non-observant still are forced to prove that they are Jews. The flip side of the German Blood Certificate.
K
Being a Jew does not depend on observance; however, if you as a man choose to neglect the commandment to marry a Jew, your children will not be Jewish. Other Jews are not obliged to accept their Jewishness simply because you wish it were so-they don't meet certain well-known and clear criteria.
Who is being forced to prove that they are Jews?
But some Jews do accept their Jewishness. The Orthodox criteria were established arbitrarily and are now, with the advent of DNA paternity testing, outdated.
Since the Orthodox religious establishment has political power in Israel, non-Orthodox Jews who want to emigrate there are require to prove Jewishness in order to have full participatory rights in Israeli society. To be a non-Jewish citizen in Israel is to be second class.
"Some" Jews doesn't cut it. Otherwise, what prevents a bunch of Reform "rabbis" from declaring all Eskimos Jewish, shrimp kosher, etc.? There has been a universally accepted working standard in place for thousands of years, and nobody has the right to change it. You can ignore it, of course, or pretend to abrogate it, but ultimately the joke will be on you.
Israel is first and foremost a Jewish country, which is pretty lax about letting in non-Jews with close Jewish relatives (with sad results, occasionally.) There is no reason that it is obliged to have non-Jewish citizens, let alone provide them with equal rights.
The rule is of Talmudic origin, and is no older than late antiquity. It is therefore less than two thousand years old. So much for thousands of years.
what prevents a bunch of Reform "rabbis" from declaring all Eskimos Jewish
That's pretty rich considering that the Israeli Sephardi Orthodox rabbinate has come close to doing what you describe when it suits their agenda, for example declaring Falashas to be descendants of the tribe of Dan or accepting the Bnei Menashe.
1. The Talmud began to be compiled (the mishnayot) more than 2000 years ago. Furthermore, it is all a compilation of ongoing conversations and arguments; these had started long before its compilation. If you can find me a source saying that descent was patrilineal after the giving of the Torah, I will be grateful. I know that, for instance, Ezra the Scribe sent away the non-Jewish wives and children of the returnees; why would he have done this if the children had been Jewish?
2. The Bnei Menashe have undergone giur. Ditto, I believe, the Falashas.
3. According to your system of thinking, why wouldn't the Christians' (Messianic Jews, at least) and Muslims' claims that they have the true form of Judaism (its rightful heir) be true? Why wouldn't the "Judaism" of Shabtai Zevi and Frank be legitimate?
Tribal and priestly status were inherited paternally. Jewish population Y chromosome profiles are more Middle Eastern than mtDNA or autosomal DNA profiles. That further supports the idea that it was paternal inheritance that counted for maintaining Jewish identification.
Post a Comment