Friday 15 October 2010

Muslim Soup

The present rhetoric against Muslims concerns me on certain levels. Already in Ontario, the concern for Sharia law has been extended, through politically correct extension, to Jewish Law, questioning the functioning of Batei Dinim. Of course, distinctions can be made and, indeed, must be expressed -- but the underlying challenge must be recognized. Many of the issues surrounding the treatment of Muslims can be extended to the treatment of Jews, specifically Orthodox Jews. We must be careful in so many ways.

As an example of this concern, I invite you to read the following by a Muslim.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/husseinrashid/3542/i_ate_a_bowl_of_soup,_and_now_i%E2%80%99m_muslim/

By extension, when I hear Islam being perceived as monolithic, I become concerned about how Judaism is also seen by many in the outside world as monolithic and how I am, incorrectly, coloured by a statement of another Jew who does not share my religious beliefs but is perceived to be by this monolithic perception. At the same time, though, we cannot weaken our efforts to challenge that which needs to be challenged. Recognizing distinctions amongst Muslims cannot lessen our need to defend ourselves against the intrusion of those who have a belief within the spectrum of Islam that is indeed a concern for us.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

2 comments:

Unknown said...

A central principle underlying the actions of Sharia supporters is that Sharia must be imposed on everyone in the world, whether the world can be persuaded to like it or not. Our halacha is not like that; it's for Jews. We ask non-Jews only to abide by the basic Noachide laws.

Jews along with all other non-Muslims have to fear the imposition of Sharia law.

USC said...

While clearly there is a large difference between the Sharia laws and the Noachide laws, the essential point is the same: we believe in a system that, ideally, imposes its beliefs on non-believers.

How can we oppose a Muslim belief in 'laws for non-believers' if we believe in 'laws for non-believers'?