More Intellectual Junk from the NY Times: Author Knows Zero About Sharia Except That It Is No Problem
Jerry [Seinfeld]: “I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism just for the jokes.”
Priest: “And this offends you as a Jewish person.”
Jerry: “No, it offends me as a comedian.”
–Seinfeld, “The Dentist” episode
The New York Times has run (still another) article about how Sharia law coming to America is nothing to fear. Question: Will the New York Times ever run an op-ed opposing Sharia law in the United States? Twenty years ago I would have said: Of course, any responsible newspaper publishes one piece on each side of an issue. Today, of course, we know there is no chance of balance.
Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, seems to be an expert on Jewish history. In fact, Stern is so ignorant of the topic on Islam that he states most Muslims in America “don’t even come from the Middle East (the majority have roots in Southeast Asia).” Really? That’s a geographical term usually applied to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Perhaps he meant Pakistan, a well-known locale of moderate Islam? If anyone on the other side said something so obviously ridiculous they would never be taken seriously.
And the fact that the Times editors left in such a glaring factual error shows professional inadequacy and ignorance. But then this is the newspaper that let Tariq Ramadan claim that the Muslim Brotherhood (then headed by his grandfather) was an anti-fascist organization when every serious historian knows that it collaborated with the Nazis in preparing to turn over Egypt to Hitler and massacre the Jews there. (The documentary proof of this is in my book –written with Wolfgang Schwanitz – Nazis, Radical Arabs, and the Making of the Modern Middle East to be published by Yale University Press in 2012.)
Why then is Stern writing that there’s no need to fear Sharia law in America? Well, he apparently has just one argument: once people warned about Jewish law being dangerous, that was wrong, and we all know where that ended up. This is not exactly a brilliant argument for many reasons. The proportion of Jews was far lower than Muslim populations in the West are quickly becoming; Jews do not expect anyone else to observe their law or change behavior; there was never any question of compulsion within the community. Most Jews were not so religious and did not view themselves governed by Jewish law, except perhaps in the matter of very narrow issues regarding marriage and divorce that had no effect on the wider society.
To cite one famous incident that sort of reveals the difference, the baseball player Hank Greenberg became an American Jewish hero for refusing to play in the World Series on Yom Kippur. No Jew would have thought of demanding the World Series be changed to another day. Or, to give another example, Jews would never think of demanding that public facilities install special equipment or rooms for their needs at taxpayer expense, nor insist that work places shut down to permit them to pray, nor that kosher food had to be provided or else, nor that publications better censor themselves or they would face legal action and perhaps violent retribution. If passengers in taxi cabs were regularly bringing pigs into the vehicles–the equivalent of Muslim cabdrivers with guide dogs and even alcohol in some cases–Jewish cabdrivers wouldn’t have refused them service — they would have found another line of employment.
And then there are those little details like Jews not periodically kidnapping and murdering women for their social behavior or coreligionists who wanted to convert to other religions. Jews didn’t demand time off in the work day to pray and sue if it weren’t granted to them. They “knew their place” instead of demanding that others yield to them. Well, over 2000 years of being a dominated people had taught them to keep a low profile and avoid trouble. In contrast, Islam really does have the sense of being a ruling religion before which others must make concessions.
Such points do not reveal some irrational fear or hatred of Islam but are merely well-known facts. I often reflect that the phrase “Politically Correct” should be contrasted to the usual democratic, Enlightenment and Western norm of being Factually Correct. Political Correctness–as opposed to just plain politeness–is an approach that advocates telling lies because that’s really “better” for us all. But that’s not true, even for Muslims themselves who are the most frequent victims of Islamic practices being imposed on them or dominated by intolerant radicals.
It’s like the extensive arguments about why “Islamophobia” exists that never mention anything about terrorist attacks. You know, sort of like the upcoming official commemorations of the tenth anniversary of September 11 that will be careful not to say anything about who did it and why. Would Stern write or the New York Times publish an article about how mosques are the institution most likely to spread antisemitism today, or the prevalent hatred of Jews that comes from even the most sophisticated circles in the Muslim-majority world? Of course not.
The simple truth is that Stern has no valid or serious argument to make on this Sharia issue. He simply felt like writing an op-ed and the Times published it because it said the “right” thing. The Times has no professionally journalistic reason to run this op-ed except that it takes the only side the newspaper deems worthy of airing and may be seen as shoring up its Jewish readership and taking advantage of any repugnance to the Holocaust and antisemitism to sell the issue stance the newspaper wants.
Eliyahu Stern is an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale. He most likely represents the consensus opinion of Ivy League professors. Universities like Yale and Harvard are vastly overrated. We should take for granted that anyone teaching at these institutions in the softer disciplines is an intellectual mediocrity until proven otherwise. Grade inflation and political correctness are the norm. We should literally hold it against somebody if they graduated from Yale. It usually represents a lack of integrity and second rate scholarship. These are individuals who almost always place their wet finger into the air to see which way the winds of the zeitgeist are blowing.
The reference to a “get” is very interesting. In New York legislation was passed that requires a Jewish husband to give his wife a “get” if there has been a civil divorce. Hence making the laws of the United States preeminent over Jewish law and the decisions of a Jewish Court of Law. To cite the fact that we allow Jewish religious law in religious communities ignores the fact that US law is still the controlling factor in people’s lives in this country no matter their religious affiliation.
In Islam, the *man* simply has to say “Divorced, Divorced, Divorced” and the woman is kicked off. Sometimes they “Takaltik be thalata” (devorced by three) for short.
The woman has no say in that matter, of course.
I’d like to see a US court what would rule that the US law is preeminent to Sharia.
That would be interesting.
Good piece. Keep up the good work! As you said, if you don’t do it, who will? There are not enough writers out there countering this kind of nonsense, and it is a tiring and never-ending job.
I remember reading a “rebuttal” of a Jonah Goldberg piece in which he accurately pointed out that there is no such thing as “islamophobia” whose author blasted all criticism of islam she could think of… And yet, she didn’t write one single word about the targets of that criticism, such as islam’s misogyny, supremacism; opposition to skeptical thinking, scientific inquiry, the outlawing of slavery, freedom of speech and religious freedom; and, worst of all, despite her being black, no word on islam’s racism against blacks. Eliyahu Stern is another such ignorant fool choosing to go down this path.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/06iht-edcohen06.html
Would it be journalism for the NYT to supply appropriate context via Cohen? Would it just be “speculation” to suggest that by rejecting the UN, Turkey challenges the framework of NATO and even the EU understanding of “freedom to navigate”, let alone “self-defense”? What strategic implication is there regarding Erdogan’s behavior these past years? Turks don’t seem inclined to prevent the slaughter in Syria and are not likely to keep order in Iraq. It appears Turkey wants more influence and respect but seems to think it must seek the approval of Arab streets rather than Turkey’s alliance partners.
It is astounding the degree the IDS narrative by the NYT is missing its clothes, er, context.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4118699,00.html
Careful! Soon you will be accused of being an anti-Times-ite. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that..)
Geography certainly seems to remain a mystery to many Americans.
“Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos” used to be referred to as French Indochina. South East Asia includes those three countries as well as Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and the Philippines – all of whom are members of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) and may be one-day joined by Timor Leste and Papua New Guinea.
More to the point, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei are Muslim-majority countries with a combined Muslim population of about 210 million.
I think Mr. Rubin says that Pakistan was not in SE-A because the author of the piece in question intentionally did not mention South Asia (i.e. pakistan, india) as the background of many of America’s muslims. I don’t have the figures, but wouldn’t be surprised if there were more south asians than south-east asians in the USA. By neglecting to mention South Asia, the author was obfuscating the truth; many muslims do come from radicalized society, even if not from the middle east.
The Seinfeld episode in question is “The Yada Yada”. Please, Barry, if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, no more Seinfeld reference errors.
Re #2
The NY law requiring a get in a civil divorce is not only problematic from a constitutional standpoint, but runs afoul of Jewish law! We require a get to be given willingly to be valid. The ex-husband has to want to give it, not be required by secular law to give it.
So the NY get law accomplishes exactly nothing from a religious perspective. Well, worse than nothing, it calls into question the validity of any get that was given in response to pressure from civil authorities.
Apparently the law was written by “well meaning” politicians who know there is a problem when a man won’t give his ex-wife a get, but don’t understand the mechanics of the process and didn’t think to ask a competent rabbi.
I bet if the “well meaning” politicians were going to interpret Islamic law and enforce it with civil law they would have been much more circumspect.
I bet if the “well meaning” politicians were going to interpret Islamic law and enforce it with civil law they would have been much more circumspect.
If they’re going to be sufficiently circumspect they won’t be able to apply civil law. What they will have will be a conflict of civil law with the actions of males complying with Sharia with regard to the female of the species.
The TV owner slaughtering his wife being a case in point.
Hank Greenberg sat out a game in a tight pennant race; it was Sandy Koufax who did not pitch Game One of the 1965 World Series.
I wonder if Mr. Stern’s female relatives agree with him. Sadly, they probably do.
You’re my go-to guy on all things Israel/ME/Islam. Thanks.
Maybe Mr Stern who seems to have no problem with Sharia applies it to his female relatives, so they won’t be permitted an opinion.
There are those who claim we should not be concerned about Sharia courts if they “only apply to domestic matters.” The devout Muslim who spoke to a study group I attended started by placing his hand on his copy of the Koran and declaring: “everything you need to know about your life, public or private, is in this book.” He went on to explain that Islam is based on obedience: the child obeys the mother, the mother obeys the husband, the husband obeys the Imam, the Imam obeys the Ayatollah. The husband has the right to beat his wife, but he doesn’t usually do it. He simply taps her on the hand with a stirring stick and she takes the hint. Mr. Stern believes that a court based on this level of female and child rights is acceptable in this country?
The pig is a filthy creature, not fit to eat. In England they have tried to prohibit piggy banks as offensive to their beliefs. The dog is a filthy animal so there are no pet dogs( the idea of being licked by a dog is utterly repellent); So there is no such thing as animal rights. There are laws for every aspect of sexual activity, right down to intercourse with sheep.
Where is the line drawn on “only domestic matters”? We need to have some reports here on how the infidels of Yorkshire are faring with their Sharia courts. The greatest thing to fear is not Jihad, but the strategy of the Ayatollas: the thin edge of the wedge in weak, tolerant, morally-equivalent cltres. The MSM is complicit.
The Left thinks they’ve got a group who can provide leverage and muscle for their agenda. They are convinced that the simple portrayal of either muslims and/or sharia law as a victim to the intolerant/oppressive politically incorrect villain will help further their agenda. Thanks NYT, for that juicy propaganda. A double edged lie, but fits the Alinsky model. Islam/Sharia Law will quite happily accept these offerings from the Bloombergs, the NYT’s, and the Grover Norquists of the american political scene. So far they’e gained a lot, as mentioned above, without much more than intimidation and/or the threat of another 9-ll done the line. Their using our system against us, via the Alinsky model, with its impossible distortions of the reasonable into the monster we see today, with us as the despised doormat for its new home.
to:
Dear Dr. Stern…
As a fellow Berserkeley Ph. D., it’s quite an embarrassment to see you posing as some kind of expert in the status of Islam in America while so baldly mis-stating that the origins of most Muslims in our country are from “Southeast Asia”.
OK, maybe not the worst mistake, but jeeesh, you’re a junior prof at Yale! Boola boola.
And it hardly speaks well either for the fabled “multiple levels of fact checkers” at the NY Times.
Barry Rubin certainly cleaned your clock (and that of the Times too) today over at Pajamas media:
Maybe, if you’re as smart as you think you are, you should start seriously re-assessing your whole multi-cultural “asaJew” shtick???
To be fair, most of American law and jurisprudence is based on the Jewish Torah.
Of course it is not usually a direct reference and is almost always diluted with the Christian Bible tenets, but Judeo Christian law is the foundation of Western jurisprudence.
Sharia law is almost the antithesis of justice in general, it’s methods of determining truth misogynist or just unfair, and it’s allocation of punishment barbaric.
But again to be fair, Sharia and the Koran are both largely based on the Jewish Torah, twisted and exaggerated to be sure, but even you Dr. Rubin know for a historical fact that Mohammed formulated the Koran using Jewish Law in order to attract the Jews of that period to his new religion. Unfortunately Mohammed took the most savage and unreasoning basics of the Torah, particularly those dealing conquering and destroying those recalcitrant non Jews in Canaan, and made up the basis for Islam with them.
But just because the Koran and Sharia share some common basis with the Torah is hardly any reason to use this set of superstitions and savagery as even an adjunct to American or Western jurisprudence.
The issue with Sharia in the USA is not fear, but contempt. Why would Americans allow contamination of their legal system, evolved from the most unlighted legal traditions in the world, with any traces of a medieval, theocratic, misogynistic legal system the results of which are evident in the most politically dysfunctional areas of the world today? No dice! Any decent American should be striving to ERADICATE Sharia from any place in the world where it operates, and conclusively not help its spread.
Oops, I meant to write “enlightened”. Sorry about the “unlighted.”
I meant to write “enlightened.” I don’t know why I wound up with “unlighted.”
Great article overall, but the Hank Greenberg analogy was brilliant.
I would say that Greenberg’s refusal to play ball on Yom Kippur, in addition to making him an “American Jewish hero”, tremendously increased the respect of Americans for Jews, as evidenced by the 1934 poem by Edgar Guest lauding Greenberg in the Detroit News (one should also note Greenberg’s voluntary military service in WWII: http://www.baseballinwartime.com/player_biographies/greenberg_hank.htm).
Speaking of Greenberg
by Edgar A. Guest, 1934
The Irish didn’t like it when they heard of Greenberg’s fame
For they thought a good first baseman should possess an Irish name;
And the Murphy’s and Mulrooney’s said they never dreamed they’d see
A Jewish boy from Bronxville out where Casey used to be.
In the early days of April not a Dugan tipped his hat
Or prayed to see a “double” when Hank Greenberg came to bat.
In July the Irish wondered where he’d ever learned to play.
“He makes me think of Casey!” Old Man Murphy Dared to say;
And with fifty-seven doubles and a score of homers made
The respect they had for Greenberg was being openlly displayed.
But on the Jewish New Year when Hank Greenberg came to bat
And made two home runs off pitcher Rhodes-they cheered lime mad for that.
Came Yom Kippur-holy fast day world wide over to the Jew-
And Hank Greenberg to his teaching and the old tradition true
Spent the day among his people and he didn’t come to play.
Said Murphy to Mulrooney, “We shall lose the game today!”
We shall miss him on the infield and shall miss him at the bat,
But he’s true to his religion-and I honor him for that!”
Great article overall, but the Hank Greenberg analogy was brilliant.
I would say that Greenberg’s refusal to play ball on Yom Kippur, in addition to making him an “American Jewish hero”, tremendously increased the respect of Americans for Jews, as evidenced by the 1934 poem by Edgar Guest lauding Greenberg in the Detroit News (one should also note Greenberg’s voluntary military service in WWII: http://www.baseballinwartime.com/player_biographies/greenberg_hank.htm).
Speaking of Greenberg
by Edgar A. Guest, 1934
The Irish didn’t like it when they heard of Greenberg’s fame
For they thought a good first baseman should possess an Irish name;
And the Murphy’s and Mulrooney’s said they never dreamed they’d see
A Jewish boy from Bronxville out where Casey used to be.
In the early days of April not a Dugan tipped his hat
Or prayed to see a “double” when Hank Greenberg came to bat.
In July the Irish wondered where he’d ever learned to play.
“He makes me think of Casey!” Old Man Murphy Dared to say;
And with fifty-seven doubles and a score of homers made
The respect they had for Greenberg was being openlly displayed.
But on the Jewish New Year when Hank Greenberg came to bat
And made two home runs off pitcher Rhodes-they cheered lime mad for that.
Came Yom Kippur-holy fast day world wide over to the Jew-
And Hank Greenberg to his teaching and the old tradition true
Spent the day among his people and he didn’t come to play.
Said Murphy to Mulrooney, “We shall lose the game today!”
We shall miss him on the infield and shall miss him at the bat,
But he’s true to his religion-and I honor him for that!”
:O
I hardly comment, but i did some searching and wound up here 301 Moved Permanently. And I actually do have a couple of questions for you if you tend not to mind. Could it be just me or does it look like a few of these comments appear as if they are left by brain dead folks?
And, if you are posting on other online sites, I would like to follow everything fresh you have to post. Could you make a list of the complete urls of your community sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
I LOVED their performance! They looked like they were having FUN! I love that. Some artists are bleh performers. They are NOT one of them!! Amazing. Through and through.When they come to my side of town you can bet I will be first in line! Exciting to see true artists/performers who don’t need all the flashy non sense. Just great music & true emotion.