Religion, politics, “God’s judgment”

Some great good sense and interesting analysis today from Gershon Baskin, the Israeli co-director of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information.
Writing in the Palestinian newspaper Jerusalem Times— unfortunately subscription only– Baskin says this about the synagogues that remain in the Gaza settlements:

    Two of the 26 synagogues in Gaza have been transferred to Israel proper. The remaining 24 synagogues are supposed to be demolished by the Israeli army according to the decision of the Israeli government. But this week the settlers petitioned the High Court to request that the Government be ordered not to destroy them. The settlers

15 thoughts on “Religion, politics, “God’s judgment””

  1. All it would take would for Pat Robertson or a confrer to tell us that the hurricane is God’s “judgment” on the on gays and liberals and pro-choice people in this country and we’d have a perfect trifecta of mean-spirited bloviators claiming to speak in the names of all three of the Abrahamic religions.
    Alas … the following c/p’d from Salon.com ‘War Room’ posts from 8/30,8/31 and sometime in the last couple days …

  3. Jonathan Edelstein, writing in a comment here recently, said that Yosef really doesn’t have much of a following in Israel these days. (I was a little surprised, because back in the early 1990s he certainly seemed to have a large following. He was also tentively pro-peace back in those days… But I bowed to Jonathan’s judgment.)
    The Shas Party has a following, due more to Mizrahi ethnic politics and economic populism than to religion. Rabbi Yosef’s personal following is much smaller, especially since he’s become increasingly nuts over the past few years. He still has effective control of the Shas Knesset delegation (although that doesn’t provide much influence these days given that Shas has been out of government for three years), but I wouldn’t say that he’s a very respected figure outside his immediate circle. Certainly, the entire Israeli political spectrum and media reacted to his Katrina statement with condemnation and ridicule.
    Needless to say, I join in that condemnation.

  5. Bundling Bin Laden and Yusuf Qardhaoui in the same group is really unfair and unbecomming of a preofessor like your self. Yusuf Qardhaoui is more main stream in the muslim world even though not all his opinions are beyond reproach. I really like JWN, but statements like this alianates a large majority of muslims. I think the differentiation of should be made. I never heard of Yusuf making stupid statements such as specific natural calamities being a punishment from God.
    Also please point out which points you do not like aobut Dr. Yusuf?
    thanks.

  6. On Tuesday, Israel’s Supreme Court stepped into the emotional conflict over whether the Gaza synagogues should be torn down, ordering the government to check into whether the Palestinian Authority, the United States or the United Nations would be willing to preserve the buildings. Rabbis say Jewish law bans destruction of synagogues.
    http://www.freep.com/news/nw/mid7e_20050907.htm

  7. Ahmed, I don’t think Helena was criticizing Qaradhawi himself; rather criticizing those who insist that Muslims must stand up and criticize anyone (Qaradhawi included, but not necessarily in the same vein as Bin Ladin) who makes radical conservative statements they don’t want to be associated with. Putting them together here only means that those critics calling for such condemnations have done it to both men, not that they are in any way aligned or the same(correct me if I am wrong, Helena).
    The point could be reinforced (and I think you would agree) by pointing out that such critics sometimes get it completely wrong, as in last year’s mangling of Qaradhawi’s comments in al Watan by Kuwaiti journalist Fahmi Huwaiydi. Huwaiydi was, I think, responding to that same movement supported by those critics that Helena was denouncing as ‘hate filled’. The problem is with those who insist Muslims should repudiate such sayings, not with the men who say them.
    Shaykh Qaradhawi, and others, should be allowed to say what they believe; anyone should be allowed to disagree, and substantiate their disagreement, without having to denounce them or calling for them to be silenced. If there is a peaceful way to resolve such matters that has not been spoken of by the learned men, then others too should have the right to speak up and they, I believe, will be heard. Is this not the best way?

  8. Sorry, it’s 5.21am here and I made a big mistake – Huwaiydi was the one who corrected the errors in attribution to Shaykh Qaradhawi’s comments, not the one who made them. And of course, Huwaiydi is Egyptian and writes for Elaph.
    al Watan said: “the Shaykh called it an obligation to kill Western civilians in Iraq.”
    Huwaiydi said: “”I therefore obtained a recording of the comments of the Shaykh at the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate. And I found that this was his response to the question: “The Americans who came to Iraq as invaders, and brought with them war, killing them is necessary.. but the beheadings can not be supported by the ethics of Islam.. the constitution of war in Islam is a constitution of ethics, and by those rules we must not kill except those who kill us, and therefore all of those who do not carry weapons it is not upon us to kill.”
    This was ignored in the rush to condemn the Shaykh and insist that others repudiate his comments.
    I obviously had some kind of mental breakdown there. Sorry for posting without adult supervision. I knew better.
    (Thanks to Abu Aardvark for instant translation and refresher on the issue)

  9. Ahmed– Wind got it quite right when he said:
    Ahmed, I don’t think Helena was criticizing Qaradhawi himself; rather criticizing those who insist that Muslims must stand up and criticize anyone (Qaradhawi included, but not necessarily in the same vein as Bin Ladin) who makes radical conservative statements they don’t want to be associated with. Putting them together here only means that those critics calling for such condemnations have done it to both men, not that they are in any way aligned or the same(correct me if I am wrong, Helena).
    Sorry for any misunderstanding (also, mis-spelling.)

  11. I am VERY VERY SORRY if my language was harsh.
    I now understand the point clearly.
    I think people like Qardhaoui or Tarik Ramadhan should be allowed to express their views directly to the western -especially American- public.
    Instead we have middle-eastern or terrorism experts speaking on behalf of muslims and islam. This makes it easy to to keep islam and muslims as a fuzzy entity with no form or face except that of Bin-Laden like figures which makes it easy to demonize. Until there is direct open communication with world-recognized independant muslim figures (not goverment figures), there is very little hope for the masses on boh sides to understand one another.

  12. It’s not religion itself. It’s the use of religion for political purposes. Christianity and Islam seem particularly ripe for radical political interpretations of their religious teachings, and with destructive consequences since validation comes in the form of a supernatural afterlife that can be pictured however one likes.
    Pat Robertson types who apparently have direct lines of communication with “God’s will” (to hate gays and so on) are the public face for Limbaugh-like noise-politics. The more dangerous, in my view, are those like our president who don’t have other critical intellectual resources on which to draw in times of crisis or even stable times. And then followers, similarly, follow what is more a politico-religious cult than a set of arguments for a better society. See my post at Phronesisaical on the “Cult of W” (http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2005/08/cult-of-w.html), also picked up at the Daou Report on Salon. See also a lovely post at Narcosphere linked here: http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2005/09/breaking-katrina-not-act-of-god.html.

  13. Hi Pietr:
    This is another case of mis-quotation. Please include all the details. This is specifically for case of Israel. His view is that most Israelis are part of military apparatus. One might disagree with that, but it is the palestenians who are living under inhumane occupation and are at the last line of defense. He believes along with other palestenians that their sever status allows for such extreme measures. It is easy to disagree with this view, but I would suggest you losse your (I suppose) American passport and take your family to live with the palestenians and become one of them.
    After -not thirty years- 2 years comeback and tell us how you think you will defend your family against an occupation which steels your land, destroys your crops, shoots your kids dead.
    I think of Palestenians were able to defend themselves with US provided arms, they would prefer not to put their lives in certain geopardy.
    It is the opressive measures with overwhelming force for extended periods of time, with international complicity that produces these desparate acts.

  14. Bundling in Osama bin Laden in with the clergy is a mistake. Calls on Islamic leaders to renounce bin Laden’s policies of violence are more universal and potentially more useful. On the other hand, only God knows if the preachers are correct about the judgement issue.

Comments are closed.