SubscribeAdvertise here: Contact FM.
This Archive comprises a collection of texts which I have found useful to my study of Jews and Judaism. They were selected for their often surprising contrast in perspective compared to mainstream news and historical sources.This is anti-semitism. No bones about it.
All of these texts have been verified against hardcopy originals and most were first prepared for the web by this editor, including The Zionist Plan for the Middle East and the less commonly known translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Jewish Peril.
No claims are made regarding the factual nature of these documents, merely that what was printed on paper is accurately reproduced in these editions.
Copyright has been granted by permission for some texts, a couple of publications have been discontinued, a few works were not published with copyright reserved, and the remainder are published here for the purposes of non-profit scholarly review and critical community education pursuant to the "fair use" clause in American copyright law.
This archive is always growing—typically one or more papers per week—and its goal is to present a serious full-text research resource of scholarly materials devoted to Jewish and Israeli religion, history, extremism, fundamentalism, and global socio-political power.
Best wishes and good reading,
Alabaster
motty, there is evidence. Spin it as you wish.
posted by Brian B. at 4:14 PM on May 13 [+] [!]
in case it's not immediately transparent, brian b.'s link above in support of his earlier skeetchy statement is to the protocols of the elders of zion. holy creepy shit.)
It's a link to Israel Shahak's book, actually.
posted by Brian B. at 4:44 PM on May 13 [+] [!]
How embarassing for me. It's several links above the ones to the "protocols".
Embarrassing for you indeed. It's a comparative archive on Jews and Judaism with mostly Jewish authors. Please don't hurt them or destroy their books.
posted by Brian B. at 5:26 PM on May 13 [+] [!]
mediareport, they don't reference it as factual, see the disclaimer on the main page. I can't tell if you are lying or just misinformed.
posted by Brian B. at 6:53 PM on May 13 [+] [!]
An extension of this myth, which Shahak embraces, is that Shabbat may only be violated to save a Jewish life. Again, this is a perversion of true Jewish law. Shahak's story about the orthodox Jew who left a non-Jew to die on Shabbat rather than call an ambulance -- in line with the Chief Rabbinate's ruling -- is problematic for two reasons.(*) Luke Ford's own story is probably colorful enough for an FPP.
1. The chief rabbinate of Israel has ruled very explicitly that Shabbat must be violated for the purpose of saving any human life, be it Jewish or not. They phrased this ruling very carefully, because there is a belief among the more ignorant in the orthodox community that this is not the case.
2. The Summer 1966 edition of the magazine Tradition recounts an interview with Mr. Shahak who, when asked to identify the mysterious orthodox Jew who would have let that man die, acknowledges that the Jew of whom he spoke did not exist.
I've located the article in Tradition. Volume 8, Number 2, pp. 58-65. Shahak's admission that he lied about the Jew who would not save the Gentile is documented therein, as is his lie concerning the Chief Rabbinate's ruling. (pg. 59) Additionally, the responsum on saving lives on Shabbat is summarized with appropriate quotations and citations of Torah, Talmud and various post-Talmudic authorities.
...one of the tenets of Scientology that's revealed late in the process is that non-Scientologists are not human, and not entitled to the moral protections that humans get. It is perfectly ok to lie to, cheat, steal from, or even kill a non-Scientologist.Here, Brian B. clearly draws a parallel between an alleged tenet of Scientology and the teachings of Maimonides.
I had no idea that Hubbard was familiar with Maimonides.
[quoting Malor] ...one of the tenets of Scientology that's revealed late in the process is that non-Scientologists are not human, and not entitled to the moral protections that humans get. It is perfectly ok to lie to, cheat, steal from, or even kill a non-Scientologist.
I had no idea that Hubbard was familiar with Maimonides.
...'Thou shalt not kill' was never intended to mean what we now think it means. It meant, very specifically, thou shalt not kill Jews.... Moses Maimonides, the highly respected twelfth-century rabbi and physician, expounds the full meaning of 'Thou shalt not kill' as follows: 'If one slays a single Israelite, he transgresses a negative commandment, for Scripture says, Thou shalt not murder. If one murders willfully in the presence of witnesses, he is put to death by the sword. Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen'Dawkins goes on to quote Maimonides on Joshua's sack of Jericho and the genocide of the seven non-Jewish tribes extant in the land promised to the Jews by their God. Dawkins:
Once again the sage Maimonides, often cited for his scholarly wisdom, is in no doubt where he stands on this issue: 'It is the positive commandment to destroy the seven nations, as it is said Thou shalt utterly destroy them. If one doe snot put to death any of them that falls into one's power, one transgresses a negative commandment, as it is said: Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth..motty's original complaint to start this whole Metatalk thread was "So MeFi user Brian B. has chosen [...] to spread a bit of good old-fashioned antisemitism, selective quotes from the Talmud styley, explaining why, apparently, Jews believe is it ok to murder non-Jews, something my own rabbi omitted to mention at any point...."
Professor Shahak's concluding words about the special kind of moral courage required to confront the failings of "one's own group" are eloquent and well-taken. As an Englishman, I may find it more difficult to condemn the bombing of Dresden than to condemn Auschwitz. Perhaps to do so is also morally more important. But if my sense of national moral responsibility were to lead me to assert that there is no difference between Dresden and Auschwitz, then I would be doing no one any service. On the contrary, I would be attacking (albeit vainly) the basic principles of historical explanation and moral judgment, not to mention common sense. This is perhaps a danger which Professor Shahak does not entirely avoid.
In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.Another child:
Joshua did good necause the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.Of the 26 percent of the kids who disapproved of what Joshua did, one explained:
I think it is bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.Another kid disapproved, not the killing of the people but the waste of livestock:
I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.
"If quoting Maimonides gets one banned, then maimonides is essentially banned."
(Reads thread.)
*breaks down, reads thread*
BEST THREAD EVER.
thread:
Hate on Jews? I'm sorry, Brian. Read motty's quote.
If quoting Maimonides gets one banned, then Maimonides is essentially banned.
If quoting Maimonides gets one banned, then Maimonides is essentially banned.
Jews + OmieWise
Jews!
Jews? Jews? Oh Brian. Jews.
Especially if you're a Maimonides scholar?
Sorry, Brian. (Maimonides).
Especially if you're a Maimonides scholar?
posted by Eideteker at 3:32 PM on May 13, 2007