#fundamentalist islamists

[eaglesnick]

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”  Seneca the Younger

Nigel Farage is jetting off to the USA for a second time in a month. Pocketing  £12,000 for a speech at the “Keep Arizona Free Summit". it appears he is more interested in increasing his own personal wealth than serving the people of Clacton who elected him as their MP.

The “Keep Arizona Free” flier has this billing:

“Featuring Keynote Speaker Nigel Farage. Also known as “Mr Brexit", is a British politician, broadcaster and political analyst” (Keep Arizona Free Summit 2024)

Other speakers include the crusading Christian Brandon Tatum, a man who converted to Christianity in 2008 and now says he is working for the “Great Commission”. This means Tate is an evangelical Christian.

Unfortunately, Tate goes beyond simply preaching the word of God. Much like political Islam and Islamic extremists, Tate combines his faith with politics. He describes the Democratic Party in America as “the enemy".

“You cannot say that you are a Christian and you believe in Christian values and you turn around and vote for a party that believes in mutilating kids and gay marriage and all this other stuff,”  (Tate: 30/11/23)

I’m not sure how much child mutilation and “other stuff” happened under democrats Obama and Joe Biden but mixing politics and religion is a recipe for intolerance and dictatorship: just look to Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Yemen where Islamic theocratic governments rule with an iron fist. But don’t think a Christian theocratic dictatorship could not happen in the West.

“Jesus is their saviour, Trump is their candidate” was a recent headline in an apnews.com article.  And reiterating the hatred of liberal politicians, espoused by Nigel Farage’s fellow speaker Brandon Tate, Time Magazine said this:

“Trump has white evangelicals in his pocket. Whatever cognitive dissonance some devout Christians may feel for supporting a twice-impeached serial philandering liar who tried to stage a coup and threatens violence against political opponents is easily dismissed with the conviction that no Republican nominee, no matter how problematic, could be worse than losing to a Democrat.”

Another speaker sharing the Keep Arizona Free Summit platform with Nigel Farage is James T. Harris, another deeply religious man on the right of US politics, a man “committed to faith".

Farage will be in the company of like-minded people. Speaking of Britain, Farage said:

"We are a Christian country with a Christian constitution and a Christian monarch…I absolutely believe in Christian values that have made this country great." (Daily Mirror: 19/12/2015)

According to Evangelical Focus, only 6% of the UK population are practicing Christians, while 42% are non-practicing Christians. This presents Farage with a problem. Declaring his Christian believes will not bring him many votes, unlike in the USA where political evangelicalism thrives. But don’t believe for one minute right wing Christians don’t look to Farage as a UK saviour in the same way fundamentalist Christians in America look toward Trump.

This was a headline during the recent UK election campaigne:

“Reform UK: The Best Option for British Christians”. (Crisis Magazine: 01/07/24)

Fundamentalist Christians, like fundamentalist Islamist, are totally intolerant of people with values and believes that do not match their particulate brand of religious zealotry. 

Railing against the concept of social justice, Crisis said that Christians in the western world (do they mean white Christians?) were:

“..ignoring the voting recommendations of bishops wedded to a “social justice” ideology largely developed by the very same prelates, priests, thinkers, and activists who variously tolerate, implicitly accept, or actively favor sexual immorality, female ordination, liturgical abuses and numerous other evils—turning instead to such parties as the Brothers of Italy, Poland’s Law and Justice Party, and France’s National Rally.”

There you have it. GOOD Christians vote for the far-right. BAD Christians vote for liberal democracy, which brings us back to the “Keep Arizona Free Summit" and its guest speakers.

All three are regarded as “good Christians” hence their invitation to speak.

I am sure the people of Clacton, where over half of those over 16 are “economically inactive” will be cheering their support as Farage pockets his £12,000  fee as a “good Christian”. Maybe, he will ask his fellow speakers to pray for the one-in-three children in Clacton who are living in poverty? Maybe Farage, the highest paid MP in Parliament, will take heed of what Jesus said about riches.

 “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Matthew 19:12)

Maybe, but I sincerely doubt it.

[wolf-skins]

also bold take apparently but i think it's western chauvinism to pick apart the ideals of resistance groups in the Palestinian/ME area and filter them through the Woke when there's a genocide going on.

[yuri-alexseygaybitch]

Btw if you don't like how most anti-colonial resistance movements in SW Asia and North Africa are Islamist now maybe the US and co. shouldn't have worked so hard to destroy every trace of Arab communism by propping up Salafist and other fundamentalist anti-communist regimes and political parties during the first Cold War lol

[ned8-back-again]

People on this site will say shit like "we have to rescue Afghan women from the taliban" I guarantee the moment you pull an Afghan Muslim from Afghanistan and put her in a western nation, she'll immediately look for the most fundamentalist islamist group and help organize suicide bombings.

[nietp]

Thinking about how the past year of intense sionist discourse has profoundly transformed/revealed the political landscape in France to the point where it is clearly one of the causes of the rise of the far right and fascistic party and one of the reasons we might have a fascistic gouvernement in only a couple of weeks.

Thanks to right-wing+liberal+centrist+centre left parties spending months attacking the pro-palestine leftist party, calling them terrorists, islamist fundamentalists, and antisemites, while congratulating+patting on the back the fascistic far right party funded by former Nazis for going to a pro-Israel march "against antisemitism", and presenting them as the reasonable option against the pro-palestine left, we are now looking at the possibility of said far right party winning the next election, having a majority of seats in the national assembly when they used to have literally ZERO seats only 2 years ago. Obviously sionism is not the only reason but it polarised the political space in a matter of days. Because islamophobia is so prevalent in this country and sionism propaganda is doing its job so very well, we're literally looking at Holocaust survivors asking people to vote for the far-right party. I know extremely sionist Jewish french people who are about to vote far right because they're convinced that if the pro-palestine left wins in 2 weeks, they will get bombed in their Parisian apartments on election night for being Jewish. Meanwhile the far right party has already announced it wants to ban kosher meat and wearing kippas in public spaces. Meanwhile Palestinians are actually getting massacred and bombed as we speak. This is all so insane. This year has taught this country more than ever before that sionism is an excellent introduction to fascism.

[pargolettasworld]

As always, it's hard to find just a bit of pull quote when it's Dara Horn -- go read the whole thing! But here's a teaser anyway:

"I’ve been thinking a lot over the past year about a story I published in these pages in the spring of 2023 on Holocaust education in America. I’d noticed how Holocaust education, initially promoted in the United States by Jewish survivors hoping to inoculate the American public against anti-Semitism, had long since been recast to portray the murder of 6 million Jews as a universal story. The Holocaust is taught to American students as a case study in morality; well-meaning educators frequently compare it to the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the treatment of Black Americans and Native Americans, and other acts of persecution and intolerance. This approach has undeniable resonance and value.

"But few of these educators think to connect the Holocaust to other assaults against and persecutions of Jews: for example, the Russian Civil War massacres in Ukraine in 1918–21, during which more than 100,000 Jews were murdered. Or the massacres, property seizures, and ethnic cleansing that drove nearly 1 million Jews from almost the entire Arab world in the mid-20th century. Or the ongoing genocidal rhetoric and periodic butchery of Jewish civilians undertaken by a slew of Islamist fundamentalist groups in the past 40 years. No—the Holocaust is mainly of interest when it’s extracted from Jewish history, used to teach a lesson about the humanity we all share. Instead of teaching students to understand anti-Semitism as a specific pattern in society, or to understand who Jews are, these curricula suggest that what happened to Europe’s Jews—who were just like everyone else—actually happened to all of us."

[jewelleria]

stop infantilizing palestinians.

it’s just fucking racist. it contributes to the (false) idea that palestine were so oppressed by their evil colonizers that they had “no choice” but to act like barbarians. it promotes the belief that senseless violence is the only way palestinians, a supposedly primitive and backwards people according to the uneducated westerners that defend them, know how to resist—and therefore excuses terrorism against jews in the name of “freedom fighting.” it paints jews as evil oppressors when in fact they are the oppressed, it shifts the focus away from hamas, the real oppressors of palestinians, and it places the blame entirely on israel.

you know what that is? it’s racist, it’s antisemitic, and it’s absolute bullshit.

hamas is not a group of unorganized and primitive barbarians who “just don't know any better,” or who were “forced” into making the genocidal choices that they did. they are adults who have the autonomy, free will, and political power to make their own choices. they have the power to end this conflict, and they choose instead to perpetuate it.

hamas been the governing and influential power in the gaza strip for almost twenty years. they are a sunni-islamist, fundamentalist, and genocidal terrorist organization hell-bent on burning israel to the ground and bringing the rest of the world's jews with it—and they know exactly what they are doing.

[girlactionfigure]

the As a Jews of the IRI

NOVEMBER 25, 2024

WHAT IS AN "AS A JEW"?

“As a Jew” is a tongue-in-cheek term Jews use to describe fellow Jews who weaponize their Jewish identities to excuse, minimize, justify, or deny antisemitism.

As in, “As a Jew, this is not antisemitic because so and so…”

WHAT IS THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC?

The Islamic Republic is the fundamentalist Islamist, ultra-conservative, warmongering regime that has been ruling Iran -- and oppressing its population -- with an iron fist since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Many Iranians call the Islamic Regime an “occupying force” because it is culturally foreign to Iran.

According to Iranian-American policy analyst Karim Sadjapour, the three ideological pillars of the Iranian regime are “compulsory hijab, death to America, and death to Israel.”

After the Islamic Republic came into power, over 80% of Iran’s ancient Jewish population fled the country. Today, the 8,500 Jews still living in Iran are subject to second-class citizenship and are constantly under the suspicion of the regime, for which they must tread carefully, never openly criticizing the regime’s implementation of Sharia Law.

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IS A GENOCIDAL THREAT TO JEWS

Given the Islamic Republic’s commitment to the “destruction of Israel” -- where around half of the world’s Jews live -- it has spent decades establishing proxy terrorist militias around the Jewish state. Among the Islamic Republic’s proxies are Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ansar Allah, and its most important proxy, Hezbollah.

But the Islamic Republic’s targeting of Jews extends far, far beyond the Jewish state. In other words, no, the Islamic Republic isn’t merely “anti-Zionist.”

The Islamic Republic has planned and carried out terrorist attacks and massacres of Jews everywhere from Thailand to Kenya.

The Islamic Republic’s deadliest attack on Jews in the Diaspora was the 1994 bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA), a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which took 85 innocent lives. Before the October 7 Hamas massacre, which killed 1,200 Israelis, predominantly civilians -- another attack that was planned and funded by the Islamic Republic -- the AMIA bombing was the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly dabbled with Holocaust denial. The Islamic Republic’s leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has consistently talked about the Holocaust’s “exaggerated numbers.” Most infamously, in 2006, the Islamic Republic hosted an international Holocaust denial conference in Tehran.

THE TRIED AND TRUE PROPAGANDA PLAYBOOK

Though the Islamic Republic government is deeply conservative, it started exploiting the well-intentioned progressive types to accomplish its nefarious goals before it even came into power.

The rule of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, was characterized by the most horrific human rights violations. He was no liberal and no progressive. He was not anti-imperialist either, hoping to establish an empire of his own. In fact, he believed that “establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong(s) to the great goals of the revolution.” He spoke of conquering the whole world under the banner of Islam: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

In 1964, the then Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, exiled Khomeini and banned his books. As such, the vast majority of the Iranian population was unfamiliar with his more extremist beliefs. While in exile in France, Khomeini downplayed his fundamentalism, presenting himself to the west merely as a fierce opponent of American neo-imperialism and influence in Iran. It was in this manner, for example, that he was able to manipulate Iranian leftists to join him under his banner. In reality, Khomeini despised leftism, and soon after he came to power, many left-wing organizations had to flee Iran. Others were executed.

Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the saga of the mandatory hijab. During the Iranian Revolution, many Iranian women wore the hijab as a symbol of opposition to the Shah’s policies of westernization. Soon after Khomeini came to power, the hijab was made mandatory. Shocked, liberal and leftist women took to the streets; they had not expected the hijab to become mandatory. In response, Khomeini quickly began suppressing and eliminating all leftist and liberal political groups, figures, and parties, and to this day, hijab remains mandatory in Iran, and women who refuse to wear it face arrest, torture, and even death.

WHAT IS NIAC?

The National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, is the de-facto lobby of the Islamic Republic in the United States. In other words, they lobby on behalf of the Islamic Republic, its policies, and its interests.  

Just as Ruhollah Khomeini did in days past, NIAC has spent years latching onto “progressive” Jewish groups to pursue their nefarious interests...and shield the Islamic Republic from accusations of antisemitism.

Of course the Islamic Republic wants to disarm Israel...because their open goal is to destroy the Jewish state. They couldn’t care less about the suffering of anyone in Gaza.

To the left is Rabbi Abby Chava Stein, who is a member of the “Jewish” Voice for “Peace” rabbinical council. Here she is meeting with the current president of the Islamic Republic.

Press TV is a propaganda arm of the Islamic Republic.

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC AND THE NETUREI KARTA

You probably recognize these guys, present at pretty much every pro-Palestine protest in New York City. They are the Neturei Karta. The Neturei Karta is a Hasidic Jewish sect with about 1,000-5,000 members. They are religious anti-Zionists, rejecting political Zionism on the religious basis that they believe no Jewish state should be founded prior to the arrival of the Messiah. While some other Jewish branches, such as the Satmar, hold this position, only the Neturei Karta have gone so far as to establish close relationships with those who wish Israeli Jews dead...particularly with the Islamic Republic.

In 2005, after then-Islamic Republic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews to Germany or Austria, the Neturei Karta issued a statement defending Ahmadinejad.  

In 2006, the Neturei Karta attended a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. For this, the Satmar, who are also religious anti-Zionists, condemned the Neturei Karta, calling on Jews worldwide to “to keep away from [the Neturei Karta] and condemn their actions.” The Satmar (along with Chabad, who are not anti-Zionist) also issued a cherem (i.e. censure; almost like the Jewish version of excommunication) against the Neturei Karta.

THE OLDEST TRICK IN THE BOOK

How do you deflect legitimate accusations of genocidal antisemitism? You “befriend” Jews, of course. As in: “how could I be antisemitic?! Look at all these Jews who support me!” Three historical examples:

(1) Leading up to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, the United States Olympic Committee was under tremendous pressure to boycott the Games, given Nazi Germany’s horrific treatment of Jews. The head of the US Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage, was a Nazi sympathizer, who convinced Germany to allow one German Jewish athlete to compete to give the impression that Jews in Germany were being treated fairly. In other words, the Nazis needed a token Jew. They proceeded to select a Jewish fencer, Helene Mayer, to the German Olympic team. Mayer placed second and gave the Nazi salute on the podium.

(2) In the 1920s, the Soviet Union shut down virtually all Jewish cultural, social, and religious institutions using a Jewish group, the Yevsektsiya, as a cover. According to historian of Soviet history Richard Pipes, “In time, every Jewish cultural and social organization came under assault.” The fact that the Yevsektsiya was “Jewish” was central to its purpose. After all, the Soviet regime couldn’t be accused of antisemitism when those shutting down all Jewish cultural and spiritual life were Jews themselves.

(3) Likewise, in the early 1950s, notorious Soviet dictator Josef Stalin conceived a plan for the mass deportation of Soviet Jewry to prison camps, all under the guise of “anti-Zionism.” Though the plan never ultimately came to pass, given Stalin’s sudden death, Stalin had made preparations to publish a letter to be signed by Soviet Jews “denouncing” Zionism and Zionist Jews. In the letter, Stalin’s “anti-Zionist Jews” would then urge the Soviet state to “take action” against the traitorous Zionist Jews. Jews would be deported en masse to the Ural Mountains, where MGB would instigate discord between Jewish leaders. Later, they would kill the “elites” in the camps, and maybe even follow with the rest of the Jewish population.

For a full bibliography of my sources, please head over to my Instagram and  Patreon. 

rootsmetals

I’ve had my differences with J Street over the years but seeing them shill for the Islamic Republic was disappointing tbh…I expect nothing less of JVP and IfNotNow, but I (stupidly?) thought J Street was better than that 🤷🏻‍♀️

[ayoungchristian]

How to be a good ally for Jews as a Christian.

I need to preface this that I’m writing this as a non-denominational Christian, and I’m not a church pastor or a scholar in Christian and Judaism theology. This essay is compiled from a variety of sources, including through discussions with Jewish friends and mutuals on Tumblr, and is written towards Christians as a whole, regardless of sect.

I have to thank @jewishlivesmatter for inspiring me to write this, and @cree-n-jewish-thoughts and @chicocabs for looking through this piece.

It's a fact that a majority of Christians support Israel. Especially the American Evangelicals and self-proclaimed "Christian Zionists". It's likely that you, like me, have been raised to support Israel as an integral part of the Christian faith. Your church would have at some point claimed that Christians have a deep "spiritual and cultural" connection to the Holy Land, and hence we have a moral obligation to support Israel. But, unfortunately, being a supporter for Israel doesn't necessarily mean being an ally for the Jews.

Why do you support Israel?

First, question yourselves: why do you support Israel? Is it because:

"you want the Jews to all be in their ancestral homeland to facilitate the final holy war where they die in the rapture" or

"Jews deserve to be able to live safely in their ancestral homeland and the sole Jewish state"?

If your reason is the latter, then congrats! But it's only the first step to being an ally.

The former reasoning is particularly very concerning and likely drummed into you during your Christian upbringing. You probably heard of “a holy war to end all wars”, and only the Jews and others who accept Jesus as their savior will survive. In fact, it's likely you heard of these from the teachings of Revelation and the end of days.

That is actually core to the ideology of "Christian Zionism", which, by the way, is very different from "Zionism". Despite what others are now saying about Zionism, Zionism is a movement by the Jews to establish and support a homeland (Israel) in historical Judea, or today's Palestinian region. On the other hand, Christian Zionism is basically a duty to support the State of Israel because of its supposed role in the end times – Jesus’ return to Earth, a bloody final battle at the end of days, and Jesus ruling the world from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. And all of that would come at the expense of many Jews (and Muslims) in that “holy war”. In this scenario, war is not something to be avoided, but something inevitable, desired by God, and celebratory. In return, those who support Israel would be blessed by God.

Doesn't that sound very familiar? It's very much like how some Islamist “Jihadists”, like Hamas, Taliban and Al-Qaeda, would call for a "global holy war" against "infidels". But this time, it's on the opposite end of this "holy war", as the Republican Party of America and their evangelical supporters rally to support Israel out of mere political and religious duty. Given the way how many right-wing evangelists acted and justified their actions "in the name of God", it's no wonder you might have heard criticisms of how they're no different from the terrorists the US fights against.

I'm not saying you are a right-wing Christian fundamentalist like the evangelicals. But you need to look into yourself and question why you support Israel. So, if you support Israel because it would facilitate a holy war and the return of Christ, then you aren't a Jewish ally. You only see the Jews (and Muslims) as pawns and sacrificial lambs.

Antisemitism in Christianity

You would be surprised, but yes, antisemitism exists in Christianity. The next step to being an ally for the Jews is recognising the antisemitism that remains inherent in the teachings of Christianity. No, I'm not saying you should renounce the Christian faith to be an ally. Being a Christian doesn’t make you inherently antisemitic. But it's important to discuss and acknowledge the antisemitism exist in Christianity, and what to do about it. So, let me discuss the two common antisemitic tropes in Christianity: Jewish deicide and Christian supersessionism.

Jewish deicide

Jewish deicide is the theological position that the Jews are collectively responsible for the killing of Jesus (i.e. "the Jews are Christ killers!"). Thankfully, this is no longer in the doctrine of many mainstream sects I know. However, I need to address the root of it, how it came about, and how Christians used it to justify massacring Jews throughout history.

You probably have read the Gospel of Matthew, which, while serving as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments by tying references to many Jewish traditions, was very critical of the Pharisees and often highlighted the conflict between the Jewish community and Jesus and the Apostles. At the end, we know Jesus was betrayed by Judas (one of his disciples), hauled to the religious courts and condemned to death for blasphemy.

From Matthew 27:24–25, the Roman governor Pilate, when he gave the approval for Jesus' cruxification (given according to the gospels, the religious leaders could not execute Jesus without the Romans' approval), he washed "washed his hands in front of the crowd" and claim Jesus' death was the responsibility of the Jewish mob. This then became the foundation of the "Jewish deicide".

There is an entire debate among historians whether or not the Jews even had any involvement with Jesus’ death, particularly because Jesus was cruificed, which was exclusively a political punishment by the Romans ruling over Judea at the time. Even if the Jews were marginally involved with Jesus’ death, he would have just been stoned based on religious charges alone. In fact, the Pharisees and the religious leaders were shown bringing to Jesus an adulteress and asked Him whether to stone her in John 8:1–11 (where Jesus proclaimed: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”). If they didn’t have political power to execute people for religious crimes, why would they still bring her to Jesus and challenge Him about it? But it’s not my place to further debate, and I shall link Rootsmetals’ blog essay on her perspective: https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/no-the-jews-did-not-kill-jesus

Of course, you might say, we aren't now blaming Jews as a whole for killing Jesus! It doesn’t matter who killed Jesus! It's part of God's plan for Jesus to die! Still, claiming or emphasising that the Jews had any degree of responsibility for Jesus’ death was the excuse used by various church denominations and communities to seek revenge against Jews as a whole. And that began a long history of Christianity antisemitism, from the crusades to the spread of blood libel against Judaism, and it was only very recently when many churches reformed their attitudes towards Jews. Heck, it was only in the 1960s when the Catholic Church rescinded the teaching of Jewish deicide.

We need to realize the depth or history of the deicide libel and the impact inflicted upon Jewish life and history. In honesty, it wasn't any better to even pin any blame on the selected few Jewish religious leaders at the time. It's still an element of Jewish deicide that the Jewish leaders forced Pilate and the Romans to have Jesus crucified, painting another antisemitic narrative of Jews being corrupt, "hypocritical" and "stiff-necked" religious leaders. This wasn't unique to just the Gospel of Matthew, by the way, but generally how the Jewish religious leaders were described at the time in the New Testament, which shaped our negative perceptions towards Jews and Judaism as a whole.

Christian supersessionism

This brings me to the topic of Christian supersessionism. To begin with, I suppose you all heard of the Prince of Egypt, right? Of the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt. Now, many people would say the movie is based on a Christian story. Unfortunately, if you think that, you are wrong. It's still first and foremost still a Jewish story. In fact, to the Jews, the exodus took place thousands of years before Jesus was even a thought. Yes, yes, we know the Old Testament is part of the Bible and hence they are also an essential part of our narrative.

But hold your horses and take a moment to understand the Jewish perspective of Christianity. To them, we misappropriated and rewrote their texts (the Tanakh, or what we call the Old Testament) to line up with our unauthorized sequel (the New Testament) and universalised bits of Judaism to preach our religion to everyone else. We all love to pat ourselves on the back, to think we are enlightened and earned our way to Salvation through Christ, while the Jews remain in their "backward Kosher ways" because they didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

In fact, as a whole, Christianity is supersessionism. We claim ourselves to have superseded the Jewish people and assumed their role as "God's covenanted people". That we, Christians, are now people of God and replaced the Jews as their chosen people. This, by the way, has been used to try convert Jews by force en masse to Christianity, especially what the Catholic Church did to Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. We have seen such sidelining of Jews even in literature, like Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, when Shylock the Jewish banker was eventually forced to convert. And there are also a great deal of theological jokes which are inherently antisemitic.

This is despite the fact that even Jesus claimed he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it. In fact, Jesus as a Jew continues to commend those who teach the Law accurately and hold it in reverence: “Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). We Christians consider that Jesus came to embody the Word and to fully accomplish all that was written. Through his fulfiment of the Word, Jesus obtained our eternal salvation. That doesn’t necessarily render Judaism and the Old Testament as no longer valid.

It still remains a debate in Christian theological circles whether the Mosaic Laws still apply to us, which parts of it, and so on. Paul’s letters have not been very helpful as he doubled down on Christian supersessionism, saying that a believer in Christ is no longer under the Law. It has also been argued that if the Law is still binding on us today, then it has not yet accomplished its purpose – it has not yet been fulfilled.

But in the end, as far as the Jews were concerned, the Tanakh was written as a historical record of their people, and was never intended to be used outside of its intended cultural and tribal context. On the other hand, we had rewritten and misappropriated their texts and practices for our own purposes (as you can also read from the Gospel of Matthew). The Jews did not consider Jesus as the Messiah for a variety of reasons, and to them, as Christ has not come, the Law has not been fulfilled and is still in effect. To us, we might not consider the Law as applicable to us under the new convenant by Jesus.

I suppose, however, we put the theological debate to a stop here, and recognise we have differing perspectives on whether Christ has come. We still need to recognise the idea that Judaism has had its entire belief system misappropriated by us, and then Jews have been punished over and over for daring to adher to Judaism and claim their history as their own, and we treat them as fools for refusing to submit to our religion.

So, what can we do?

If you managed to reach to this part, then I say you have made another step to learn about the inherent antisemitic biasedness in Christianity. Again, however, this essay is not for you to disavow Christianity and that we should all convert to Judaism to be an ally, but to recognise and reconcile with the fact that not only have Christianity long been (mis)used to harm Jews, but that antisemitism exists in Christian religious texts.

(And yes, I know you would be tempted to say: but Islam does it too! But it would be the case of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’. Every movement has its inherent antisemitism, and Christianity is no exception. This essay is more about how Christians can be genuine allies for the Jews.)

We need to recognise that we Christians are privileged. In fact, we are the largest religious group in the world (including Catholics and so on) at about 2.4 billion, which is about 30% of the world population. On the other hand, the Jews are a very tiny friction. Ever since our mass conversion attempts, pogroms and the Holocaust, they only stand about 15 million people, half of whom are in Israel. We also don’t speak for the Jews, nor should we speak over their concerns.

Nevertheless, even with numbers, we need to stop thinking of Christianity as the superior religion over Judaism, that we must convert all the Jews into Christianity so that ‘they would be saved’ like us. In fact, it would be greatly offensive, since it had been source of intergenerational pain and grievances among Jews towards Christianity as a whole. To proslethyise to the Jews is basically eroding their identity, like how we have done by taking their culture and practices for our own ends.

We also need to assume good faith when they express curiosity of the Christian faith and want to know more, but bear in mind the previous paragraph: the point is not to convince but for them to understand. Never come down their throats about how Judaism is "outdated" or debate about the Law or the Tanakh. In fact, this generally applies when talking with non-Christians about our faith. We should keep an open-mind and welcome questions about our theology. Even if we don't have all the answers (like the Trinity and the Holy Spirit), it’s fine to say we don't know.

Most importantly of all: Treat the Jews as fellow people worthy of respect. We shouldn’t be using Jews as vehicles and tokens for our own ends – that would be exploitative and dehumanizing. At the end of the day, if we believe their God to be our God, that means they are still God's chosen people and they must be respected. We shouldn't dismiss them and their religion which we claim to supersede.

I also recommend, if you have the time, to research further on Jewish culture, history and traditions. I suppose some of us would have acquired some basic knowledge because of the Passover and so on, but we also need to acknowledge and understand what we had taken from the Jews, and what those practices really mean to them.

Ultimately the main points are: acknowledge the inherent antisemitism within Christianity and treat the Jews as people to be respected, not as pawns of a holy war.

Sources:

https://antisemitism.adl.org/deicide/

More resources:

[tamamita]

What's the difference between a Shia & Sunni? And why do they hate each others? (I'm an atheist so I don't know shit about religions)

Keep in mind that this is no way trying to shame or denounce my Sunni siblings, but I do believe it's important to highlight a historical fact and how it's detrimental to the current geopolitical situation, since we're embittered by historical events, while at the face of imperalism and colonialism.

Shi'as are a political group of people who iunitially held that Ali (a), the cousin of Muhammed (pbuh&hf) was the successor of the Prophet. This is evident in numerous hadiths, such as Hadith Ghadeer Khumm, the Hadith of Mubahila and the Hadith at Thaqalayn. Nevertheless, the issue steems from the incident at Saqifa, which was a council met by some companions by the Prophet, who held an abrupt meeting, discussing who'd lead the Muslim nation following the Prophet's death. The meeting was held without consulting Ali (a) and they chose Abu Bakr to become the caliph. As a result, Ali (a) did nor approve of the selection and did not pledge his allegience to Abu Bakr. the incident at Saqifa serves as a catalyst to the incidents that would befall the Muslim community, such as Fatimah's (a) miscarriage and the subsequent wars against Ali (a) by some of the Prophet's companions, Ali (a) and his sons Hassan (a) and Hussain's (a) martyrdom.

This caused the rift in the nascent Islamic community, the Shi'as were any Muslim who held that Ali (a) was the successor by divine right, and swore their allegience to Ali (a), while the rest of the Muslims were nonpartisans. Sunni Islam is the standardization of Islamic scholastic and jurisdictional opinions which were formed in the Abbasid caliph. So it's errounous to assume that there was a split between Sunnis and Shi'as, when Sunni Islam was formed a few centuries later.

The reason for the hate is because of fundamentalist attitudes toward Shi'as. Some Sunnis and Salafis believe that Shi'a Muslims are heretics, because of their veneration of saints and the importance of Shrine visitations, the other reason is because Shi'a Muslims practice the doctrine of dissociation, which is the belief that any of the enemies of the Prophet's household should be cursed, thus some of the personalites of the Sunnis are cursed by Shi'as. Ancient scholars, suchs as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim placed some fatwas declaring Shi'a Muslims to be heretics. These scholars' opinions are still popular today and used as pretext for prejudice against Shi'as.

In a geopolitical context, Iran is often considered to be rivaling power to Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism, and have often threatened the Saudi hegemony. Because of the Axis of resistance and their growing influence in the SWANA region, the Gulf States have attempted at all cost to undermine the growing sympathy for Shi'as. Bahrain is upholding an apartheid against it's Shi'i majority, The Saudi refuses to ackowledge the Shi'i Houthis in Yemen, but supported the Hadi government, thus imposing a devastating blockade. The Iraqi war saw the Shi'as gain power, while the Sunnis were often a disenfranchised group following the Blackwater massacre, which contributed the rise of various militias and terrorist groups, such as ISIS. While in the Syrian Civil War, Shi'as mostly made up the bulk of resistance fighters that sided with Assad against the Free Syrian army and Salafi Islamist groups, such as, Tahrir al-Sham, Jaysh al-Sunnah, Islamic front, Ahrar al-Sham and etc. These have contributed to the increase of tension between Sunnis and Shi'as. However, the fight against Israel have united Muslims, but the biggest obstacle the Muslim community must get through are the Salafist and Wahhabi clerics, espousing tayyafiyah (sectarianism)

[catarinastone]

So pride in my city ended up being in july (this past weekend) and there were a few interesting moments.

The first was when I was on the train next to two girls who also looked like they were going to pride. One of them had a "free palestine" sign.

Then a woman, probably in her fifties, with her hair covered (it was not a hijab, it was more like a cap) asked to see the sign. She then let them know that she was palestinian and talked a bit about whats been going on there. And then asked if there was going to be a protest.

The girls responded that they were going to pride and the woman bemoanes that she couldn't go because she had to work.

They then went on talking and I also heard that apparently one of the girls was studying at the same uni as the woman's son.

Anyways, not two days after that, on this hellsite, I came across this gem:

So obviously not someone to have an honest conversation with, but just for those people who think islam is an especially bad religion:

not every muslim is a fundamentalist. Even in places where fundamentalism has taken root, it's usually been the consequence of violent western interference. Not every majority muslim country is an islamist state, there are plenty of secular muslim majority countries. And finally, in case you haven't been paying attention to whats been happening in the US in particular, CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE NOT BETTER

[sethshead]

Another disconcerting element of “Queers for Palestine” is that it popped up in prominent left-wing anti-Israel/pro-Palestine rallies in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s terrorist attacks, before Israel had the chance to respond. As such, there is no way to interpret this slogan and the surrounding leftist fervor except as a signal of support not merely for Palestine, but specifically for Hamas, the jihadist movement with the explicit aim of eradicating the state of Israel. It's imperative to understand that Hamas, as detailed in its 1988 Covenant, is propelled by a fundamentalist Islamist ideology with the goal not only of eliminating all Jews but also conquering the world — just like ISIS. Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar was recorded saying, “The entire planet will be under our law, there will be no more Jews or Christian traitors.” Western support for Hamas, under the guise of Palestinian liberation, overlooks the deep-seated radical Islamist ethos driving the organization, which, if unbridled, would jeopardize the very freedoms cherished by LGBT people across the developed world. Anyone who doubts this should try being gay, bi, or trans in most of the Middle East and North Africa’s (MENA) Muslim-majority countries. Virtually all of these nations have laws that criminalize homosexuality and being trans, some of which carry the death penalty​​. Human Rights Watch’s "Everyone Wants Me Dead" report succinctly encapsulates in its title alone the perilous environment faced by LGBT individuals in these regions​. [...] The aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran is a harrowing tale of leftists being tortured and executed en masse by the very Islamic regime they supported for the sake of their anti-imperialist goals. Many Iranians who aligned with leftist organizations supported the revolution only to find themselves persecuted by Islamists they helped put in power. Immediately following the revolution, the new regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini began systematically oppressing LGBT people and publicly executing them by the thousands. These atrocities were justified as a means to "eliminate corruption" and prevent the "contamination" of society. Between 4,000 to 6,000 gay, lesbian, and bi people have been executed since the 1979 Islamic Revolution​​. Iran’s legal system, rooted in Islamic law, criminalizes consensual sexual relations between same-sex individuals, with penalties ranging from lashes to death. Iranian law does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual same-sex intercourse, allowing authorities to prosecute both perpetrators and victims of sexual assault​.

But I've been told by queer activists that criminalized, illicit sex is hot, and that gay men in the Muslim world therefore have the best and most sex of anywhere. Given that frequent, anonymous, and risky sex is to those activists the high point of LGBTQ liberation, gay men in Gaza and Iran are thus freer than they are in the US. It is truly Michel Foucault's world, and we are all just living in it.

Back in reality, however, Navabi places his finger on a core part of the "Queers for Hamas" problem: the flattening of all conflicts into a single perceived intersectional struggle between power and the lack thereof. Motives, histories, local considerations, ideological incompatibility - all of these can be replaced by the imposition of provincial Western issues on very different peoples, ideas, needs, and lives. None of the individual conflicts and movements embraced by intersectionality discourse are allowed to breathe on their own, to have their own particulars respected. Instead it all becomes one vast, undifferentiated, vague liberation kitsch using the same prefabricated slogans and jargon. "How is that not its own form of small-minded, white-man's-burden, Western colonialism", you may ask. And you would be right.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Armin Navabi

To be sure, the Palestinian people have suffered more than their fair share, and it’s easy to see how the Palestinian resistance narrative can carry the allure of righteous rebellion, especially for factions of the hard left who have their own aspirations of a large-scale dismantling of our liberal society. The vicarious thrill of romanticized revolution that leads some to go far beyond simply advocating for the Palestinian people and expressing solidarity with Hamas, ignores the jihadist ideologies at the core of such organizations. These ideologies are oppressing LGBT Palestinians at this very moment, and given half a chance, they would oppress the very leftists now voicing support for the Palestinian cause. And, indeed, this has happened before.

The aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran is a harrowing tale of leftists being tortured and executed en masse by the very Islamic regime they supported for the sake of their anti-imperialist goals. Many Iranians who aligned with leftist organizations supported the revolution only to find themselves persecuted by Islamists they helped put in power.

Immediately following the revolution, the new regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini began systematically oppressing LGBT people and publicly executing them by the thousands. These atrocities were justified as a means to "eliminate corruption" and prevent the "contamination" of society. Between 4,000 to 6,000 gay, lesbian, and bi people have been executed since the 1979 Islamic Revolution​​. Iran’s legal system, rooted in Islamic law, criminalizes consensual sexual relations between same-sex individuals, with penalties ranging from lashes to death. Iranian law does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual same-sex intercourse, allowing authorities to prosecute both perpetrators and victims of sexual assault​.

Source: The Algemeiner

Images of gay and bi men hanged from cranes so that they may slowly suffocate to death serve as grim reminders for anyone interested in human rights: align with Islamic fundamentalists at your peril.

"Queers for Palestine", and the nuanced realities it glosses over, underscores the need for a more informed and discerning discourse — a discourse that transcends catchy slogans and moral binaries and delves into the complex, often discordant ideologies at play in the Israel-Palestine conflict. That way, we can advocate for a better future without bolstering forces antithetical to liberal values, and without betraying LGBT people by undermining their very rights and freedoms. We can’t do that while overwriting the complicated dynamics of a 75-year foreign conflict with our own provincial identity politics.

[mariacallous]

In the context of a turbulent and unsatisfying three years in office, the incredibly awful September in progress might rank as the three-party German government’s grimmest month yet. After elections in the east that issued record results for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party—another vote, in Brandenburg, looms on Sept. 22—the government is also reeling from the fallout of two Islamist terrorist attacks that left three dead and eight wounded. One of those attacks involved a Syrian asylum-seeker whose petition for protection in Germany had been denied; he had links to the fundamentalist Islamic State, which claimed responsibility for the attack.

Now the government has announced its response: starting on Sept. 16, Germany will unilaterally impose border closures, for six months, on all nine of its borders with other European countries. Incoming foreign nationals will be screened according to arbitrary criteria, and rejected applicants will be forced onto Germany’s next-door neighbors.

Although some details remain unclear, Germany’s plan amounts to an unprecedented step. Eight of the neighboring countries are EU members, and all of them are part of the Schengen regime that guarantees freedom of movement across borders within the bloc and recognizes the right to political asylum. Meanwhile, Germany’s mainstream opposition party is demanding an even more severe policy—one that would essentially prevent the country from accepting any new asylum applicants onto its territory at all.

“Until we achieve strong protection of the EU’s external borders with the new common European asylum system, we must strengthen controls at our national borders,” said Germany’s interior minister, Nancy Faeser. Her proposal involves expedited procedures at the German frontiers to determine whether each person who arrives may enter and apply for political asylum.

According to Faeser, the planned border screenings will limit illegal migration and “protect against the acute dangers posed by Islamist terrorism and serious crime.” There will be more deportations during this period, she said, but they will conform to EU law. But some experts disagree. European law expert Alberto Alemanno, a professor of European law at HEC Paris, told the Guardian that the German controls “represent a manifestly disproportionate breach of the principle of free movement within the Schengen area.”

And Sergio Carrera, a research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), a Brussels-based think tank, told Foreign Policy that the border closures will most probably have a knock-on effect across the continent: “There’s the risk of these measures triggering a race to the bottom. Where’s the end point? We’re talking about rights that go to the very heart of what the EU is all about.”

The new measures at the German borders ratchet up pressure on European Union norms that are already strained. According to EU law, free movement within the bloc is guaranteed within the Schengen area, which encompasses most EU member countries (except Cyprus and Ireland) as well as Switzerland and Norway. Foreign nationals claiming political persecution have the right to apply for political protection in the country through which they enter the EU. But the bloc’s member countries may suspend Schengen’s guarantees in the case of “internal security concerns” as long as those concerns are proportional and legitimate and the suspensions temporary. Brussels must be briefed in advance.

Germany has had periodic border checks in place along the Austrian border since 2015—a response to the refugee crisis of 2015-16. Last year, in response to heightened migration flows, Germany established checks on its borders shared with Poland, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland. In fact, across the European Union, member states have temporarily restricted internal border crossings 404 times since 2015, according to German daily Die Tageszeitung.

Germany’s move would take another step toward turning the exception policy of internal EU border checks into the rule, argued Christian Jacob of Die Tageszeitung. A European Parliament study issued last year claimed that this was already happening and that a “systematic lack of compliance with EU law” could undermine rule of law guarantees.

One result would almost certainly be a chain reaction across the bloc. Walter Turnowsky, a migration expert at Denmark’s Der Nordschleswiger, a German-language newspaper, fears exactly this. “Officially, the announced German border controls are also temporary, but ultimately the announcement means the end of free travel across the EU,” he said. “From now on, governments will claim: ‘Well, Germany controls its borders too,’” so they will do the same.

The new German measures aim to stop non-EU citizens who have already applied for asylum elsewhere in the bloc from entering Germany by bus, train, or car from Schengen zone neighbors. (Currently, only third-country nationals who have invalid papers or don’t intend to file for political asylum are refused entry.) Under the new measures, the migrants would be returned to the country where they entered the Schengen area and originally applied for asylum, which are usually one of the EU’s southern external border countries, such as Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, or Spain.

German border guards would detain the foreign nationals at the border—perhaps even in a kind of jail, apparently for no longer than five weeks—until their status can be verified. Foreign nationals who had not previously applied for asylum but who claim political persecution could then enter Germany and apply for protection, which German courts would rule on at a later date.

One of the looming questions is what criteria German police would invoke to screen those parties interested in entering the country. Since not every person traveling into Germany can be stopped, “it will be people who look different, regardless of citizenship,” said Carrera, of CEPS. “A certain racial appearance will make some people suspect. This is racial profiling, and it is illegal.”

Against the background of its fierce battle in eastern Germany with the AfD, Germany’s conservative opposition, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has opted to steal the other party’s thunder by endorsing measures very much like those of the far right—and until recently entirely taboo. Claiming that the government’s measures do not go nearly far enough, the CDU argues that no people—none at all—should be permitted to enter Germany in the absence of a visa or European passport.

This would de facto end the country’s commitment to offering asylum. In order to make this flagrant violation of international law at least appear to conform to EU regulations, under the CDU plan, Germany would declare a state of emergency as a result of internal security threats. This, the CDU believes, would legalize the across-the-board rejection of unwanted third-country nationals.

The proposal also goes a gigantic step beyond the limitation of movement in the EU, effectively eviscerating the right to political asylum.

“This kind of measure, and those the government are taking, will be investigated and could come before the EU court of justice,” Carrera said. “The EU will determine whether the security concerns really justify such a breach of EU law.” Other experts have said that Germany will not be able to prove that the recent attacks or the numbers of asylum-seekers—which have fallen this year—actually threaten the state’s internal security and thus justify (or indeed, are really aided by) these measures.

One of the many problems with the new German modus operandi: Neighboring states will have to accept people refused by Germany back onto their territory—and Austria, for one, which has general elections on Sept. 29 (and where polls indicate the situation for migrants is getting even worse, with a very strong showing of the far-right Freedom Party likely) said forget it, it won’t take them.

Poland is also up arms at the prospect of traffic jams at the borders that would obstruct commercial and private transportation. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the German move a “de facto suspension of the Schengen Agreement on a large scale.”

The Belgian daily Le Soir seems to hit the nail on the head: “With governments like this, there’s no need for the far right to be in power. The pressure of elections and the fear of extremes are causing those in power to run around like headless chickens, with migrants as the only means for decompression.”

EU expert Thu Nguyen, the deputy director of the Berlin-based Jacques Delors Centre, told Foreign Policy that unilateral decisions taken by Germany—the EU’s most populous state—are entirely unproductive. She noted that the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum, a set of new rules passed this year for managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at a bloc-wide level, addresses some of the concerns about immigration raised by Germany and other EU states, including by facilitating faster procedures for asylum applicants at the continent’s external borders.

After all, Germany—including the CDU’s parliamentary group in the EU, the European People’s Party (EPP)—was essential in drafting the pact, together with the 25 other EU member states. When the pact came in front of the European Parliament earlier this year, EPP parliamentarian Tomas Tobé said that “the absolute best way to help support a European migration policy is to be loyal to the whole migration pact.”

[beardedmrbean]

The most prominent Islamic scholar in Gaza has issued a rare, powerful fatwa condemning Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, which triggered the devastating war in the Palestinian territory.

Professor Dr Salman al-Dayah, a former dean of the Faculty of Sharia and Law at the Hamas-affiliated Islamic University of Gaza, is one of the region’s most respected religious authorities, so his legal opinion carries significant weight among Gaza’s two million population, which is predominantly Sunni Muslim.

A fatwa is a non-binding Islamic legal ruling from a respected religious scholar usually based on the Quran or the Sunnah - the sayings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad.

Dr Dayah’s fatwa, which was published in a detailed six-page document, criticises Hamas for what he calls “violating Islamic principles governing jihad”.

Jihad means “struggle” in Arabic and in Islam it can be a personal struggle for spiritual improvement or a military struggle against unbelievers.

Dr Dayah adds: “If the pillars, causes, or conditions of jihad are not met, it must be avoided in order to avoid destroying people’s lives. This is something that is easy to guess for our country’s politicians, so the attack must have been avoided.”

For Hamas, the fatwa represents an embarrassing and potentially damaging critique, particularly as the group often justifies its attacks on Israel through religious arguments to garner support from Arab and Muslim communities.

The 7 October attack saw hundreds of Hamas gunmen from Gaza invade southern Israel. About 1,200 people were killed and 251 others taken hostage.

Israel responded by launching a military campaign to destroy Hamas, during which more than 43,400 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Dr Dayah argues that the significant civilian casualties in Gaza, together with the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and humanitarian disaster that have followed the 7 October attack, means that it was in direct contradiction to the teachings of Islam.

Hamas, he says, has failed in its obligations of “keeping fighters away from the homes of defenceless [Palestinian] civilians and their shelters, and providing security and safety as much as possible in the various aspects of life... security, economic, health, and education, and saving enough supplies for them.”

Dr Dayah points to Quranic verses and the Sunnah that set strict conditions for the conduct of jihad, including the necessity of avoiding actions that provoke an excessive and disproportionate response by an opponent.

His fatwa highlights that, according to Islamic law, a military raid should not trigger a response that exceeds the intended benefits of the action. He also stresses that Muslim leaders are obligated to ensure the safety and well-being of non-combatants, including by providing food, medicine, and refuge to those not involved in the fighting. “Human life is more precious to God than Mecca,” Dr Dayah states.

His opposition to the 7 October attack is especially significant given his deep influence in Gaza, where he is seen as a key religious figure and a vocal critic of Islamist movements, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

His moderate Salafist beliefs place him in direct opposition to Hamas’s approach to armed resistance and its ties to Shia-ruled Iran.

Salafists are fundamentalists who seek to adhere the example of the Prophet Muhammad and the first generations who followed him.

Dr Dayah has consistently argued for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate that adheres strictly to Islamic law, rather than the political party-based systems that Hamas and other groups advocate.

“Our role model is the Prophet Muhammad, who founded a nation and did not establish political parties that divide the nation. Therefore, parties in Islam are forbidden,” he said in a sermon he gave at a mosque several years ago.

He has also condemned extremism, opposing jihadist groups like Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and has used all of his platforms to issue fatwas on various social and political issues, ranging from commercial transactions, social disputes over marriage and divorce, to the conduct of political violence.

The fatwa adds to the growing internal debate within Gaza and the broader Arab world over the moral and legal implications of Hamas’s actions, and it is likely to fuel further divisions within Palestinian society regarding the use of armed resistance in the ongoing conflict with Israel.

Sheikh Ashraf Ahmed, one of Dr Dayah’s students who was forced to leave his house in Gaza City last year and flee to the south of Gaza with his wife and nine children, told the BBC: “Our scholar [Dr Dayah] refused to leave his home in northern Gaza despite the fears of Israeli air strikes. He chose to fulfil his religious duty by issuing his legal opinion on the attack”.

Ahmed described the fatwa as the most powerful legal judgment of a historical moment. “It’s a deeply well researched document, reflecting Dayah’s commitment to Islamic jurisprudence,” he said.

[argyrocratie]

(...)

"What is the Houthi movement?

The Houthi insurgency is a Zaydi Shiite Islamist political movement established in 1992 to challenge Yemen’s longtime, and increasingly corrupt, leader Ali Abdullah Saleh. Following massive street protests, Saleh resigned his post in 2011. After the resignation, a national unity dialogue was held in Yemen’s capital Sana’a to try to resolve a host of Yemeni political conflicts. However, those talks eventually broke down, prompting the Houthis to advance on Sana’a with the goal of taking power. This sparked Saudi Arabia’s deadly US-backed air, ground, and naval invasion of Yemen, which lasted for seven years and killed an estimated 9,000 civilians, as well as significant numbers of Houthi forces, in repeated airstrikes. Despite the overwhelming force used by Saudi Arabia, however, the Houthis gained control over roughly a third of Yemen’s land—and two-thirds of its population—over the course of the war.

In April 2022, Saudi Arabia and the Houthis negotiated a truce that has nearly eliminated the fighting in Yemen. The truce halted offensive military operations, allowed fuel ships to enter Yemeni ports, and restarted commercial flights from Sana’a airport. However, it did not offer a comprehensive political settlement, leaving open the threat of renewed hostilities.

How have the Houthis become involved in the war?

After Israel began bombing Gaza on October 7th, the Houthi movement—which has long held what Yemen expert Helen Lackner called a “fundamentalist foreign policy position against the US and Israel”—announced that it was ready to intervene in solidarity with Palestinians. “There are red lines in the situation related to Gaza, and we are coordinating with our brothers in the jihad axis and are ready to intervene with all we can,” the Houthis’ leader said. As part of this effort, the movement has carried out 27 attacks in the Red Sea between November 19th and January 11th, most of them on commercial ships linked to Israel (although some of the attacks have targeted ships without a clear connection to Israel). The movement has also tried to fire on American warships and on Israel itself.

In the attacks on commercial ships, the Houthis have mostly fired missiles at them, though on November 20th, the group’s fighters seized a cargo ship and detained the crew members onboard. These attacks have discouraged shipping companies from traversing the Red Sea, the fastest route from Asia to Europe; many are instead sailing around the Horn of Africa, which adds $1 million to the typical cost of a roundtrip. On January 11th, the White House cited this trade disruption as a key motivating factor for the US’s bombings in Yemen, noting that “more than 2,000 ships have been forced to divert thousands of miles to avoid the Red Sea—which can cause weeks of delays in product shipping times.”

The Houthi movement’s attacks in the Red Sea, as well as the retaliation the attacks have generated, have revitalized the group’s power within Yemen. Prior to October 7th, the Houthis were facing discontent due to their authoritarian rule, their failure to pay salaries, and their control of aid in the face of spiraling poverty. Their confrontation with Israel, however, has seen “their popularity suddenly skyrocket, including in areas in Yemen where they don’t rule and in stark contrast to other Arab [states] who are at best being silent, or at worse, helping the enemy,” Yemen expert Helen Lackner told Jewish Currents. After incurring significant losses in their conflict with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the Houthis’ firm opposition to Israel has also helped them to recruit more young men to their military who believe they will have the opportunity to fight in Palestine, according to Lackner.

In this context, experts say it is unlikely the spate of Western bombings will end the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea—and such attacks could even contribute to the group’s bolstered popularity. “They’re willing to live with some level of retaliation because they can then position themselves as having been targeted by this Western alliance that is serving the interests of Israel,” said Mohamad Bazzi, director of New York University’s Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies. Other experts have also warned that the US strikes risk provoking further escalations: For instance, the Houthis could decide to attack Saudi Arabia in a bid to up the pressure on American allies.

(...)

What is Iran’s role in the regional escalation?

While the groups responding to Israel’s bombing of Gaza—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Iraqi and Syrian paramilitaries—are spread out across the region, they are all supported by Iran, which has armed and financed them as part of an overall strategy to contest US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. This Iran-supported network is often called the “axis of resistance,” and the alliance’s close collaboration reflects an approach developed by Qassem Soleimani, who was a key Iranian military leader until he was assassinated by the US in January 2020. “A big part of his strategy in the region was for the groups to get to know each other, and to share training and expertise—and that continued after the assassination in Baghdad,” said Bazzi.

Experts emphasize that Iran does not have full control over the groups it funds and arms, which often pursue their own agendas. For example, the relationship between the Houthis and Iran, according to Lackner, “is a bit like Netanyahu’s relationship to Biden. If they agree, and they want to do the same thing, then they do it. But they are not afraid to diverge either,” said Lackner. For instance, the Houthis ignored Iran’s orders to halt their advance on Sana’a in 2014, which sparked the years-long civil war and the conflict with Saudi Arabia. In the current conflagration, Bazzi said, Iran is unlikely to be directing the various forces to pursue “specific attacks,” but Iranian military leadership is “probably involved in larger-scale conversations about the division of responsibilities of different parts of the axis of resistance.”

According to Bazzi, at this moment Iran is carefully calculating how to maintain regional credibility by showing support for Hamas, while not going far enough to provoke a war with powerful foes like the US and Israel. “The primary Iranian calculation is about regime survival, and they don’t want to do anything that seriously jeopardizes their survival,” said Bazzi. Parsi said that so far, Iran has benefited from avoiding risky moves—in contrast to Israel, which has diminished its own “global standing” with its operations in Gaza. “Israel’s pariah status globally—at least outside of the West—is something that the Iranians are drawing benefits from. But that only works to the point that this doesn’t escalate into a larger conflict,” he said.

How is the US responding to the regional conflict?

Since October 7th, the US has repeatedly said that it wants to prevent more fighting in the region. Early on, the US dispatched warships and fighter jets to the Mediterranean to deter Hezbollah from entering the fray. Biden administration officials have also ramped up diplomatic efforts to halt a regional conflagration: The president sent envoy Amos Hochstein to Lebanon to try to negotiate a solution to the fighting around the blue line, and reportedly warned Israel against escalation with Hezbollah in private conversations. In October, when Israel had made plans to pre-emptively strike Lebanon, President Biden called Netanyahu to tell him to “stand down” on the attack plans, and ultimately, Israel did not launch a wide scale attack, according to a December Wall Street Journal report. “The priority for the Biden administration is to limit or prevent the broadening of the conflict,” said Schenker.

At the same time, the US has carried out repeated bombings in Iraq, Syria, and now Yemen, even as officials continue to talk about de-escalation. “We’re not looking for conflict with Iran. We’re not looking to escalate and there’s no reason for it to escalate beyond what happened over the last few days,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said last Friday, after the first US bombings of Yemen. But yesterday, the US military again bombed Houthi targets for the third time in a week, and then designated the Houthis as a terror organization, blocking the group’s access to the global financial system. By targeting Yemen, experts say the US is significantly expanding the regional war—“escalating regional tensions and adding fuel to a conflict,” as Bazzi wrote in a recent column published in The Guardian. “The conflagration could spiral out of control, perhaps more by accident than design,” he noted.

Many Middle East analysts say the Biden administration’s attempt to avert regional war is failing for one main reason: its refusal to couple a plea for de-escalation with advocacy for a ceasefire in Gaza. “Seeing the wider regional conflict as something that can be managed separately from Gaza is the source of the dissonance [in the administration’s strategy],” Bazzi told Jewish Currents. “You can’t prevent the wider regional war effectively without addressing the core immediate issue, which is the Israeli assault on Gaza. It’s just wishful thinking in the Biden administration that somehow it can separate the two.”