Jews, Muslims on same side

Remove all ads!

DELAWARE VOICE
Jews, Muslims on same side of several battles

By HOWARD BERLIN
03/08/2004

It's hard to believe that despite the current divide between many of the world's Jews and Muslims, there are several issues that now bring the two religions together as strange bedfellows to protest the banning of religious practices they have in common.

The issue to make the most news lately is French President Jacques Chirac's desire to ban all conspicuous displays of one's religious affiliation in his country.s public schools. Despite world-wide protest by governments and religious groups, the French have stood their ground.

The National Assembly has already passed the legislation and the Senate is also expected to approve it with little opposition. When the law goes into effect this September, "conspicuous" displays of religious affiliation can be interpreted broadly to include clothing and jewelry. That is in public schools, Muslim boys cannot wear the kufi (crocheted skullcap) or the galabiyaa and girls cannot wear either the hijab (head scarf), or the all-covering abayya like the Iranian chador.

By the same token, Sikhs cannot wear turbans, Catholics cannot wear large crucifixes, and Jews cannot wear talismans such as a mezuzah or Star of David around the neck. Assuming that if observant Jewish boys were to attend French public schools, which is highly unlikely, they would be prohibited from wearing yarmulkes, from having their tzitzits (fringed tassels from a religious undergarment) showing, and would be banned from having payes--sidelocks of hair either curled or worn back behind the ears under the new law. For observant Jewish and Muslim females, their clothing is in keeping with well-established religious principles of modesty. For observant males, the head is covered not only during prayer, but at all times, both as a gesture of respect to God and as a further reminder that God is everywhere.

In this country we preach the need for religious tolerance, but the French want to ban it. France's Muslim population with its high birth rate is currently at five million and is the largest in Western Europe. The government's ban will undoubtedly force France's Muslim community to react strongly, and perhaps violently. Islamic governments trading with France will undoubtedly use their leverage to change the law. France's Jewish community has also protested the overt religious discrimination but because of the increase in anti-Semitism in France and much of Europe, is taking a low profile in hoping that Chirac's government will eventually cave in and rescind the law. France is not the only country to consider such a ban on Islamic head scarves. Last year several German states were strongly considering passing similar laws banning the head scarf in public schools.

If it had passed, one must then consider the slippery slope argument--if religious headwear is banned, why not also ban religious clothing and jewelry? Like the French, Germans are a paranoid lot and view the head scarf as some kind of threat to what they refer to as "Western secularism." A second issue that bonds Jews and Muslims together is that of male circumcision--a religious practice almost as old as recorded history that represents the quintessential male rite of passage--the brit milah (covenant of circumcision) for Jews and the fitrah (instinct) for Muslims.

Circumcision has its origin when the biblical patriarch Abraham was stopped from killing his son, Isaac or Ishmael--depending on whether one follows the Torah or the Qur'an--as a sacrifice demanded by God as a test of his obedience. Abraham was then commanded to circumcise his son as a sign of a covenant between all future generations and God. In recent years there is been a strong worldwide campaign by groups pressuring surgeons and pediatricians to end performing elective circumcisions, regarded as a rather commonplace medical procedure on recently-born infants. These pressure groups claim that it is painful to the infant and cite potential problems with its safety and the future health and loss of sexual pleasure of the individual.

If medically performed circumcisions were outlawed, what then about ritual circumcision for Jews and Muslims which often are not done by doctors, but by trained clerics? You can claim that it is absurd for any government to interfere in one's religious practice, but Sweden, a country that helped Jews during World War II, has already tried unsuccessfully several times to ban ritual circumcision.

The final issue affecting both Jews and Muslims is the prohibition of the ritual slaughtering of animals in several European countries. Ritual slaughter is necessary for the production of meat that will be considered as kosher under Jewish dietary law or halal under Islamic law. Prohibition of ritual slaughtering of animals by Jews for food was an early phase of Hitler's Third Reich, and today some fear the action is part of a growing assault on Jewish life linked to the spread of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe. The same could also be now said for Muslims. Since the 1930s, the production of kosher meat has been banned in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Back then, the Muslim population was virtually non-existent in these Scandinavian countries, but now the ban applies to both kosher and halal meat. In Switzerland, ritual slaughter has been prohibited since 1902. Swiss Jews two years ago attempted to overturn the century-old ban, which coincided with Holocaust restitution efforts from Swiss banks. This resulted in an anti-Semitic backlash. If the ban against ritual slaughter of animals was not enough, the Swiss government was also considering a resolution that would have also banned importation of kosher and halal meat.

As Semitic cousins, Jews and Muslims are now being treated the same.a sort of equal opportunity policy of religious discrimination. The Dutch also had a similar ban, but following a compromise between the government and the Jewish community, now ban ritual slaughter only of older, heavier bulls.not cows or other animals. Even Britain last year debated the possibility of prohibiting ritual slaughtering of animals.

European Union animal welfare regulations now prohibit the method used by Jews and Muslims which does not allow the stunning of the animal before it is actually killed. Observant Jews and Muslims of these enlightened European countries are forced to import certified meat from neighboring countries such as France and Germany, which substantially raises the cost to these consumers.

There is a common thread that seems to run through all these issues. When the justifications are examined along with the rise of anti-Semitic acts, one has to conclude that they simply don't want Jews or the new influx of foreigners, many of whom are Muslims. Often the blunt view is, "If they don't like it, then they can go somewhere else."

Does this sound familiar? What happens when the shoe is on the other foot and the majority becomes the minority? Be warned that in some European countries, there are bans on some of the basic canons of mainstream religions because of xenophobic views. For many of those enlightened Americans who feel that they are drawn towards many views of the European Union, such as those on health care and capital punishment, I say, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it and then some.

Howard Berlin of Wilmington, is the author of 30 books and follows contemporary issues of the major religions.

 

Isn't this a case of the kettle calling the pot black?

 

By the way: what about having the Decalogue tables depiction removed from the court in a city of which the name I don't remember, but which surely is in the US?

 

There were 13 paragraphs. 1 briefly mentioned the US. It's the only one anybody has commented on - mainly in a "oh yeah, well the US is worse" sort of way. I'm not really surprised.

Personally, I agree that the banning of religious symbols is discriminatory. I've yet to see a head scarf attack anyone. Unless hats by whatever name have become predatory then I think there is a substantial lack of justification for this type of legislation.

 

@chev

You are right. That location would be Montgomery, Alabama.

More on that story here.

 

What bugs me the most is this so called new wave of European anti-semitism. This is perpetrated almost exclusively by arab and muslim groups and is not nearly as prominent as some groups is trying to make it. I find it repulsive and reprehensible that Israel accuses anyone who doesnt agree wholeheartedly with their politics for being anti-semitic or even outright nazis. It dilutes the concepts so that one day the real anti-semites and nazis wont be reacted against.

Freedom of religion is one thing but I think that many western European countries have finally relased themselves from the yoke of christianity and have no interest of seeing new generations of fanatics grow up, no matter their religion.

As for the butchering and the mutilation of small babies (funny how no one defends female circumsision) that is up to each legislative body to decide, I think it is more than allright to ban it. There are many religious rules and laws in the world, should each country accept all (like whipping punishments, cutting of limbs or even cannibalism) just because people with a certain faith has moved elsewhere?

 

The issue to make the most news lately is French President Jacques Chirac's desire to ban all conspicuous displays of one's religious affiliation in his country.s public schools. Despite world-wide protest by governments and religious groups, the French have stood their ground.

Well, that's been discussed already. As it is known, I am all for it. I think the wording is interesting. Implying the concept is new at all and new to France. IT IS NOT. France is a laicist country since 1905. It's just a renewal of law of 1905 and the discussion about making the wording more clear and more strict is a decade old in France. I've seen the debate really getting into first gear dated to an incident in 1989. Similarly, some Swiss cantons are laiciste too. And god dam, I think it's a good idea.

Strawman. Now my own. Religious tolerance is achieved by reveiling the plain truth, no religion is better then any other and no one has special privileges because of their religions.

Further, the article is impyling, that there is a strong muslim and jewish opposition. That's not completly true, there is also a strong catholic opposition. At least, they have Woytila on their side. So there's a bond between Muslims-Catholics-Jews. And actually, I think that the French Jews/Muslims/Catholics are pro the new law in the majority. Without majority support in all three relgions, with voting rights, they'd be having a hard time to push it through the parliament that easy, wouldn't they ?

The problem here is, animal-protectors. I don't know the proper wording in English right now, but I think ejsmith would call them "tree-huggers". The laws concerning animals and the way they die when they are manufactered where made stricter. Indeed, there is even an attempt to make animals (or at least pets) to a special category in civil law. That is no longer treat them, as traditionally, as "things", like cars, benches and wood pieces, but making them to a specific law-group, giving them rights. On a related note, they're having a discusson even about having an obituary notice for your dead cat or dog, instead of having them only for humans. Be that as it may, the point here is that the animal-protectors will not tolerate indecent treatment of animals, because of whatever religion or tradition. And the possibility to import meat that way prepared from other countries is seen as good enough oppurtinity to adhere to one's religious believes so that it's not an infringment of religous freedom.

Besides, that' not such a big issue here, I only know about those things because I'm a freak. Further they also omitted another group next to muslims and jews which are against this animal-protection-laws, farmers. They want to earn their living with animals, don't want to play nannies for them. They are the people actually the most opposed, it's their livelyhood at stake.

I'd say that xenophobia is one big issue framing European politics. But it's the asylum seeker which get the biggest fire and the Yugoslavians where I live. Yugoslavians are usually neither Jew or Muslim, well, Muslim some.

In general, that article connects topics in a questionable way and is actually cashing in on not knowing too much about far away countries. You could say that our picture of Australia (All former criminals, am I right ?) or the USA may be in some parts lacking too an be filled by some hearsay. That's the way it goes, I guess.

[ March 09, 2004, 16:29: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

The term you're looking for is "animal rights activists". The term "tree-huuger" is used more for people who are extremely environmentally conscious. You could be both of course - they certainly aren't mutually exclusive terms, but they aren't mutually inclusive either.

The thing I was most surprised by is the article suggests that most males in European countries aren't circumcized unless they are Jews or Muslims. I find this very surprising as it is almost the exact opposite in the U.S. Practically all males here are, and the practice has been in effect for at least 50 years...

 

Hmmm.

I thought that the article was fairly simple. Jews and Muslims have some things in common, despite first appearances. If you have taken anything more from that, then oh well...

For me as an Australian, it is interesting since Australia doesn't have the kinds of restrictions as have been described in the article.

One of my sociologist professors (originally from the US) explained that Australia really tries to be tolerant and multi-cultural (I'm not blowing a trumpet) and so I found the article sort of interesting in a contrasting way.

Iago. I guess you were tongue in cheek about all Australians being former criminals. It's just that Cathy Freeman might find that laughable as an indigenous Australian...

 

The United States and Australia have an advantage on this issue. Both the 50 states and Australia are nations of immigrants and our cultures reflect a convergence of the different traditions and ideals from around the globe.

In particular, the United States and Australia (please correct me if I am wrong), do not define themselves on their culture.

States like France, Germany, etc... define themselves, in part, on their culture and any feeling that this aspect is being lost causes friction.

The whole headscarf issue seems rather petty and primitive to us, but for people in France, this is a major issue.

 

What exactly _are_ the reasons for banning religious dress in public schools?

On a side note, how the heck do they know cicumcision leads to decreased sexual pleasure? Have tests been done? Did one man have intercourse, report his findings, be curcumcised and try again once the pain eased off? Bloody hell scientists will study 'anything' these days...

 

Well, if you have to guess, then I obviously have failed to get my point across. Your article was spiked with assertions of the same kind. As I said, the farther away, the more unfitting the stereotype gets. Relating things without real connection and put a stereotype in to make the loose ends meet. That Jews and Muslims have a lot in common is obvious and clear to everyone, I guess, so why bother putting some European countries in that picture ?

Well, he propably also told you, that the west is divided into two major blocks, the Anglo-Saxons and the Continentals. That are two completly different cultures and the way they deal with things and see things will always be very different. Comparative law is one of the most difficult disciplines, I have been told.

I always think that one of the most peculiar features of American culture is, pretending to have no culture. Must be some ritualized thing. They do not define themseles as "American" ? They do not divide their sub-cultures in South, West-Coast, East-Coast and Midwest ? They see no difference between them, Canadians or Mexicans or French ? Ah, they are "cultureless". If that's the hip thing. Gosh, it's so good to know that the "American way of life" is only a rumour made up by the Brasilians.

But then again, I just might be a victim of my own the farther a way, the wronger the picture theory.

Well, "primitive". Better a primitive laicist then living under the thumb of the church in god's own country.

 

I apologise if this thread has offended anyone.

Iago.

Sorry. It wasn't my article, I didn't write it. I did put it up on the forums because I found it interesting that things like "ritual slaughter" are banned in some countries. I am not saying it's right or wrong, and that isn't up to me anyway. I did say that it was intersting in how different it is from Australia.

Because that is how they are being treated in Europe (because there are millions of Jews and Muslims living there as citizens), whereas they are not being treated like that in the US or Australia. It's an observation. Nothing else.

The Lady Professor didn't say such a thing, and since Europe is so far away....

According to her there would be separate and various cultures even within each nation in Europe, so I don't think I understand the "dichotomy" of Continentals and Anglo-Saxon. Besides, many UK citizens who come to Australia are amazed at how dissimilar the UK and Australian cultures are.

This is also for Blackhawk.

Australian and American cultures are substantially different. There will be some things in common, but then there will be some things in common with even Switzerland's culture. After all it is roughly European. But that is another issue.

If we understand culture to mean the norms and values that a group of people have, then yes Americans have a culture (as if it wasn't plainly obvious) and as noted before Australian culture is simply different.

Australia has an actively promoted policy of multi-culturalism. Since one quarter of Ausrtralia's people are not Anglo-Saxon decent, it means that other cultures are being tolerated more. Things like ritual slaughter, clothing, festivals etc, are not banned but are actually encouraged. The major difference is that you can still be part of the Australian nation and have a separate ethnicity. This is what doesn't seem to be the case in Europe, or even the US.

The definition of what it is to be a European or an American is much finer than in Australia. Again I am not saying it is wrong or right, I am making an observation.

In the end, I meant no offence to anyone by the post, and what I have found amazingly shocking is the way that some have had their feathers ruffled by the thread.

When Ragusa has posted articles about the US there is a response from American posters that is bagged by European as being almost hysterical, and now that I have posted an observation about some laws in various European nations, (that they have every right to make!) then people are getting angry....

I never intended a flame war or international loathing. I apologise if that has happened, but I only made an observation.

 

@ Khazraj

Exactly. The United States and Australlia do not define themselves on a single or particular culture.

Neither of our civilizations define ourselves on race or tradition. In the United States we define ourselves on accomplishments and on freedom. Australia is probably the same.

We both practice multi-culturalism.

 

Blackhawk.

I think that perhaps you misunderstood. Australians of all ethnic backgrounds tend to have a lot of common cultural values such as "a fair go" and the anti "tall poppy syndrome".

Don't get me wrong, but no, Australians don't define themselves according to accomplishments and freedom, at least not as these words are used in the US.

Mateship, co-operation, larikinism (good humour at oneself and friends) perhaps, but not freedom. Actually most Australians find the word "freedom" has no meaning as used by Americans.

The tall poppy syndrome means that over accomplishment is not praised.

Egalitarianism is also quite forefront. We have no "classes" as in other countries and status is mocked along with pretty much everything else. I'd say that many Australians are slack bludgers actually.

I'd say that the US is multi-ethnic, but not multi-cultural. According to American ex-pats living here, the US is a very racist place.

I can't see how the US and Australian cultures are that similar, despite many common points.

It is this that makes the article stand out for me.

 

I think once more it shows, communicating over the internet is a very complicated thing, as face to face communication offers so much more channels to minimize misunderstandings and get points across as intended. Yes, I meant that tongue in cheek and I was surprised that it wasn't clear which then propably was a product of my communication failure.

To the article, I wasn't offended, yet it wasn't the first article which I saw from an anglo-saxon source (<- he, he, he), having some assertions, ironically on that point, that continentals always will be different from anglo saxons and accordingly handle a lot of things different.

Treatment of everyone is different. The intersting point is, is the treatment of the particular groups, i.e. jews and muslims, much more different or even worse then the treatment of their peers living in the same country ? Or put differenty, do I want that my country would copy Australian law and treat me exactly like Australia treats its citizens ? The answer is no, not because Australia is "bad" but different, it's just not according to my point of view and my sense of right and wrong. This leads to the point, do continental European muslims and jews feel treated worse then their peers ? I think majority doesn't. Indeed, a lot of muslims I know are quite happy with the way things are. On the other hand, there are some that don't. That's the way it goes.

It hasn't to do anything with "ethnicity" or "ancestry". And I think that terminology isn't to common in English, which then begs the question, what terminology do English-speaker use ?

Well, the UK belongs to the Anglo-Saxons, as Australia does. It's a broad group, it doesn't mean that there are no cultural differences between Canadians and Austrialans or the English. The US-Americans are usally referred to as Anglo-Americans, while Latin-America has a clear continental stamp. The same for continental Europeans, Portugal and Sweden aren't the same, but share some similarities. The school system for example, most continental Europeans share the same school system with public, mandatory primary schools and Lycaeums. And the law-system is distinctivley continental or Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-American). Or this continental obsession with proportional representation. And your more likely to see breasts on TV without an upheaval. And there is actually the point, it's about schools and it's about law. Two points where Anglo-Saxons and Continentals are very different indeed, continental European law and Anglo-Saxon laws are completly different, and things like freedom of speech, trusts or separation from church and state are seen completly different. Fundamental perception diffirences. And I always wonder, that I see so many anglo-saxon sources fail to note that this is something inside a civil law, not common law tradition.

By the way, I think Canada is the only country in the world which actually combines continental and Anglo-Saxon law and I've read that it therefore was looked at closely by East-Asian countries, pondering if they should go the Canadian way.

Well, acutally, there are astonishing similarities between the US and Switzerland...... thieves.

[ March 13, 2004, 23:58: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

That's unfortunate. The opposite is true. Here's some text I typed in the Is it possible to fight the US? thread (please forgive the paste):

There is a small town north of Sacramento called Yuba City. A large number of Sikhs started moving there some time ago and were embraced by the people. Nowadays, they have a large community and promote yearly festivals and parades which people from Northern California can go to and have fun.

When I was a kid, my two best friends were from Thailand and Iran. They went to my school in a very, very causcasian part of Sacramento. They were never bothered and I was never given a bad word about "hanging out" with them.

We both agree what Australlia and the United States are different in tradition. However, both of our "cultures" are a melding of different beliefs and practices from around the globe. We might not be the same, but our histories are kindred.

When another group joins the United States, they bring along their beliefs, traditions, art, etc.... It then enters the "melting pot" of America. If a tradition or belief is superior in one way or another, it will flourish and grow. If not, it disappears.

 

Well, Blackhawk, Californians may very well be tolerant, and do have the reputation of being far more so than the rest of the country, but the same is NOT true of the whole country.