Does such a thing even exist?
Centuries ago, and relative to the mores of that time, Islam under the Caliphate could be described as “tolerant”. If those exact conditions existed today, no one would use that term to describe Islam.
If you look at earlier exchanges with the OP, he has framed this discussion very narrowly as being about whether there is an explicit call for genocide in the Hamas charter.
Once the debate is framed in those terms, considerations such as these are excluded. (Shodan captured this very nicely in his first post here, which you disliked for some reason.)
If members of other religions accept their subservient status, then they’re allowed to live. Whether that’s tolerant is relative. (I assume that’s what John Mace is saying as well.)
Thing is, if you read the Hamas Charter as a whole, this doesn’t appear to be true.
Members of other religions “of the book” who accept the authority of Islam are allowed to live - assuming they haven’t borne arms against Islam, and are not guilty of driving Mulims off their lands.
Jews are, according to the Charter, guilty of both, and have a long-term plan for doing more of the same in the future (as demonstrated by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, among other things). Thus, they are ineligible for the indulgence of being allowed to live under Islamic authority.
The question wasn’t whether Hamas is tolerant Islam. It was whether tolerant Islam exists.
My bad. You are right, and I misread it.
Certainly, tolerant Islam exists. First, even in its medieval state, there were Islamic sects and regimes that were tolerant for the time (at least for “people of the book”); and secondly, there are plenty of tolerant Islamic sects that exist right now, even by Western liberal standards.
To be clear, that’s not my framing. It is the framing of the people who use this debating point. They say that the Hamas Charter explicitly calls for genocide as a way of defending Israeli policy. I think it is useful to know that this is false, even if the reality is that the Charter contains somewhat conflicting positions and so partisans on each side will infer the best or worst intentions as fits their narratives.
To my mind, it is the other way around - if Israeli partisans are claiming Hamas intends genocide and this charge is largely true based on stuff existing outside the Charter (no matter what the Charter has to say), it strikes me as pedantic to say the least to insist that the Charter itself does not explicity state “thou shalt commit genocide” as if that was a telling counter-argument.
In any event, as explained above, the better reading of the Charter based on plain language is that it does call for genocide.
Whether this justifies “Israeli partisanship” is another story. But facts are facts, even if they are inconveniet for one’s “narrative”; and the fact is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Charter calls for genocide against Jews.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
They say that the Hamas Charter explicitly calls for genocide as a way of defending Israeli policy.
[/QUOTE]
Which policy? The one where Israel retaliates for Hamas firing yet another round of unguided rockets at Israel to provoke a response? Certainly a better defense of that is just pointing out the obvious and no needing to point out how the Hamas Charter strongly indicates but doesn’t specify genocide. After all, it’s Hamas day to day actions that defends Israeli policy, not the Charter itself, which merely adds frosting to the overall cake.
Even assuming for a moment that it IS false, how is this useful?
It isn’t pedantic in the context of these debates. The people who think Israel is acting disproportionately and failing in pushing hard enough for peace often reject the claim that Hamas has proven that it wants to murder every Israeli Jew. This Charter argument is supposed to add something to that, as a kind of proof of Hamas’s intent. So in that context it is entirely circular to rely on the very issue disputed to show that the Charter issue is pedantic.
Obviously I disagree that your arguments are persuasive. Among their weak points is extreme weight put on your interpretation of the passage quoted in Article 31: “Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your houses, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loves the just dealers.” You read that to entirely negate the preceding paragraph. I think that reading is strained. Indeed, I think that passage is generally read to have the opposite meaning from the one you assign to it.
Is it not important that one of the more frequently used talking points about the conflict is false?
Everyone seems to be trying to connect this OP to some larger agenda regarding the conflict. I’m not. I’m just trying to find out the truth about this small issue.
It’s not circular to take a holistic view of Hamas’ words and actions in interpreting both the Charter itself and Hamas’ intentions, as opposed to narrowly focusing on whether something is “explicit” in the Charter.
But beyond that, in my first post to this thread I observed that whatever ambiguity there (admittedly) is about this is irrelevant for purposes of practical action. Your response was that (beyond disagreeing with that) you didn’t want to discuss that aspect but just wanted to discuss the explicit words of the Charter. It’s apparent from your words quoted here that in reality your intention is to make a point about Israel’s actions, in “acting disproportionately and failing in pushing hard enough for peace”, which contradicts what you said above.
More persuasively, such partisans might point to the fact that Hamas expressly does not believe in making any sort of peace. See article 13:
After all, Hamas isn’t in a postion to inflict genocide on Jews - the point is surely pure theorizing. However, Hamas is in a position to deny any permanent peace deal, only insisting on temporary “truces”.
I read it as a - very natural - desire on the part of Hamas to claim it is benign and humane. It would have peace with the “people of the book” on the well-known terms suitable to religious Islam from medieval times (that is, as long as the “people of the Book” accept the primacy of Islamic rule, etc.). Only, those pesky Jews make such accompdation impossible, because of their iniquities. It is their fault.
This, it strikes me, is the natural reading, certainly if one reads the Charter as a whole and does not cherry-pick bits out of it.
This has the semantic equivalent of “nuh-uh.” It doesn’t respond to my actual argument for why it is circular.
That’s true. Since there is near-consensus on the interpretation question, I’ve moved on to why I was interested in the question.
No. I’m characterizing the people against whom this argument is deployed as a way of explaining why the truth value is relevant to the conversation.
Sure. And it can be equally pointed out that Likud similarly rejects any Palestinian state or significant presence west of the Jordan river. So what?
But it doesn’t say that. We’re left to infer (or not) that this passage is disingenuous because of the general anti-Semitism of the document as a whole. Since the quoted passage in that Article is generally understood to mean that you can be kind even to people who have been unjust to you, your point is even harder to establish.
Again, I think the Mein Kampf analogy is perfectly apt. If you regard that book as a call for genocide, then I agree you’re applying the same standard to the Hamas Charter.
In my opinion, genocide is really a moot point. I don’t think either side is looking at a goal of exterminating every person in the other side. But I don’t think that the level of threat has to rise to the level of genocide in order to be a justification for war.
A country can justifiably go to war for a reason less than genocide. Hamas feels that Israel is occupying land that should belong to Palestinians. Israel feels that Hamas is not willing to make peace and will continue to attack Israel. Those are the reasons the two sides are fighting. Proving or disproving a threat of genocide won’t change those reasons or stop the fighting.
Of course not. If people think that’s what I’m implying, I’m not.
But let me tell you, I read a lot of these debates, and it is very common to assert that Hamas is intent on genocide as proven by their express call for it in their Charter. Why are all these people making this point if it is so trivial?
Not so, I did address it, in referring to “a holistic view”, meaing that there’s other evidence. You yourself seemed to acknowledge this earlier in referring to “the claim that Hamas has proven that it wants to murder every Israeli Jew. This Charter argument is supposed to add something to that” (emphasis added), which implies that there are other reasons to think Hamas wants to kill every Jew. The notion that even in the face of some amount of textual ambiguity the Charter is best interpreted in light of other evidence is not circular.
Right. But since it’s relevant in that particular context, the truth value needs to be viewed in that context. My initial point was that as a practical matter - and for purposes of the very things that you think the issue is relevant to - the Hamas declaration needs to taken at face value as a practical matter.
ISTM you’re trying to play both sides here.
Uh … I’m not taking up the argument, just pointing out the obvious. In a debate about Israel “… failing in pushing hard enough for peace …” (your quote), surely it is relevant that the other side rejects the very notion of peace?
Denying that sounds like a denial of reality.
Though in fact, Likud no longer rejects the notion of a Palestinian state: the leader of Likud now accepts such a state, as long as it is not militarized, and has since at least 2009. Your information is out of date.
Uh, yes it does, and expressly.
No, it is a matter of cumulative effect: the express wording of that particular passage states that those who have made war on Islam or dispossessed Muslims are not eligible, and the document as a whole makes it very clear that Jews are the enemy and are to be killed.
Only carefully cherry-picking part of that article, and ignoring the context, results in the strained reading you wish to give it.
That’s not my argument, though. This Charter argument is supposed to be something like “Even if you disagree that Hamas has shown it’s genocidal intent through it’s conduct, the Charter should be enough.” In that context, it is circular to say that the other conduct shows how the Charter should be interpreted.
I don’t follow you, and I don’t know what it would mean “to play both sides here.”