Book Review of Linda Sarsour's "We Are Not Here to Be Bystanders: A Memoir of Love and Resistance"

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.
Post Reply
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Book Review of Linda Sarsour's "We Are Not Here to Be Bystanders: A Memoir of Love and Resistance"

Post by JoeWallack » Thu May 21, 2020 8:07 am

JW:
Book Review of Linda Sarsour's We Are Not Here to Be Bystanders: A Memoir of Love and Resistance

Foreward by Harry Belafonte:

"I have often said to Linda that she embodies the principle and purpose of another great Muslim leader, brother Malcolm X,"

Malcolm X
From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he broke with it in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings. These included beliefs:

that black people are the original people of the world[94]
that white people are "devils"[95]
that blacks are superior to whites, and
that the demise of the white race is imminent.[96]
[understatement]So he was a racist.[/understatement]

To his credit though he was not as big of an antisemite as he was a racist:

George Lincoln Rockwell
Rockwell got along well with many leaders of the Black nationalism movement such as Elijah Muhammad (Nation of Islam, N.O.I leader) and Malcolm X (who later changed views and opposed N.O.I's race-separatism), since they shared the goal of racial segregation.[32] In January 1962, Rockwell wrote to his followers that Elijah Muhammad "has gathered millions of the dirty, immoral, drunken, filthy-mouthed, lazy and repulsive people sneeringly called 'niggers' and inspired them to the point where they are clean, sober, honest, hard working, dignified, dedicated and admirable human beings in spite of their color ... Muhammad knows that mixing is a Jewish fraud and leads only to aggravation of the problems that it is supposed to solve ... I have talked to the Muslim leaders and am certain that a workable plan for separation of the races could be effected to the satisfaction of all concerned—except the communist-Jew agitators."[2] He also said of Elijah Muhammad "I am fully in concert with their program, and I have the highest respect for Elijah Muhammad." He referred to Elijah Muhammad as "The Black People's Hitler" and donated $20 to the Nation of Islam at their "Freedom Rally" event on 25 June 1961 at Uline Arena in Washington where he and 10-20 of his "stormtroopers" attended a speech by Malcolm X.[33] Rockwell was a guest speaker at a Black Muslim event in the International Amphitheater in Chicago, with Elijah Mohammed and Malcolm X, on February 25, 1962.[1][34]
This person then is who Belafonte compares Sarsour to. Heil Oooh. Heil Oooh. Presumably, because Belafonte saw X as a Black advocate, it didn't matter to Belafonte what X's faults were.

This is the Foreward Sarsour chose for her book. I see it as an implication that she is Linda Sarsour and approves of this message. Maybe Ken sees it differently.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Mean/Main/Mine Meaning of "Jihad". Eaning Meaning Mining Mo's.

Post by JoeWallack » Sat May 23, 2020 8:23 am

JW:
Book Review of Linda Sarsour's We Are Not Here to Be Bystanders: A Memoir of Love and Resistance

Introduction What Is Your Jihad?:
I shared this story when I gave a keynote address at the Islamic Society of North America’s fifty-fourth annual convention in Chicago in July 2017. After recounting for the audience the words of our beloved Prophet (may peace be upon him), I went on to observe that in standing against oppression in our communities, “we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”
You have to look at the video to see exactly what she said [starts at 8:45]:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ive-wrath/

In her book she gives a fair description of what she said:
In one of my favorite stories from the Hadith, a man asks the beloved Prophet Muhammad: “What is the best form of jihad?” I have always loved the Prophet’s answer: “A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad. I shared this story when I gave a keynote address at the Islamic Society of North America’s fifty-fourth annual convention in Chicago in July 2017. After recounting for the audience the words of our beloved Prophet (may peace be upon him), I went on to observe that in standing against oppression in our communities, “we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”
Comically, she chokes on the word "truth" (Stephen Colbert, look out!).The only misleading part of her book here is that she leaves out a following relevant context of saying that she hopes Allah accepts this form of Jihad.

Then, to apparently no one's surprise except hers, she is greeted the next day by a variety of right-wing criticism ranging from simply saying she called for Jihad against Trump to saying she called for "Jihad" against Trump. She then thinks about whether she should go on the defensive, apologize for the reaction she created, implying that she deserved some blame, or go on the offensive, totally blame the reaction for unfairly/dishonestly interpreting/editing/changing what she said.

She decides to go on the offensive:
  • 1) She qualified her use of "Jihad" by introducing it with a non-violent usage.

    2) She claims that "jihad" has a primary non-violent meaning in Arabic and in her Muslim audience.
She is correct about 1). Right wing media that either explicitly or implicitly claimed she called for violence against Trump was either dishonest or Fake News.

She is wrong about 2). Jihad
Jihad (English: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ jihād [dʒɪˈhaːd]) is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah,[1][2][5] though it is most frequently associated with war.[6] In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3] while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.[7][8] In Sufi and pious circles, spiritual and moral jihad has been traditionally emphasized under the name of greater jihad.[9][3] The term has gained additional attention in recent decades through its use by terrorist groups.
It's arguable what the primary meaning is. For non-Muslims in the US it has a primarily violent meaning. And here we see one way in which Sarsour is a hypocrite. In defending Muslims and other minorities she is very concerned about how these (her selected allied minorities) see/understand what others say about them. Not just what others say they meant. Dogma whistles. On the other hand, if she claims that others misunderstand her, then that is their problem and they are solely to blame. The summary of what she said is a Jihad against the White House. That sounds like what violent users of Jihad would say. Personally, I think Trump should have been removed from office a long time ago. But I wouldn't demonize him and say he is worse. just as bad or comparable to Muslim leaders of violent Jihad.

Sarsour claims her participation in The Women's March gives her credibility. But it's just the opposite. She was exorcised from it because she supported antisemitic statements. Not to mention the comical position of a supporter of traditional Muslim values being a supporter of Women's rights. The above shows an inability to compromise/negotiate and she wears it like a supposed badge of resistance honor. As it relates to her Palestinianisness, it's the same thing with them, an inability to compromise/negotiate worn like a supposed badge of resistance honor.

Shortly before her "jihad" moment she praises Malcom X as a model so the Foreword was no coincidence. Malcom X was primarily a speaker but he accepted all forms of resistance including violent. Is this Sarsour's position? We shall see.

Interestingly, the "crowd" for Sarsour's speech was small and unenthusiastic reminding one of what John Mulaney said about himself while hosting SNL, "I'm like Louis Farrakhan, I mean a lot to a small group of people".


Joseph


The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Truth to Fatah in Mouth

Post by JoeWallack » Sun May 24, 2020 1:49 pm

JW:
Book Review of Linda Sarsour's We Are Not Here to Be Bystanders: A Memoir of Love and Resistance

Chapter 1 The Choice I Made
When I told the kids at my public school that my family was from Palestine, the response was always the same. “Palestine? Where’s that?” they’d ask, brows wrinkling. “It’s all the way on the other side of the world, in a place called the Middle East,” I would explain in a patient and reasonable voice, though inside I was churning with frustration and just wanted to disappear. “It’s right near Syria and Jordan.” I would continue, “It’s the Holy Land, where Jesus was born.” I was always trying to add more explanations, always trying to prove my national and cultural origins.
One of the many things Sarsour is resistant to is saying "Israel". It's like Fonz trying to say he was "wrong". I picture her version of the game "charades", "Chai-raids", where Palestinians try to get you to say "Palestine" by using Israeli descriptions.
your people’s land was stolen in a war in 1948
Before the war started the United Nations had decided to divide what they called Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State. Jews inside and outside of Palestine accepted the United Nations proposal. The problem for the Arabs inside Palestine is that they were dominated by the surrounding Arab countries. All of these countries not only rejected the United Nations partition but stated as a matter of policy that they would not only refuse to accept any Jewish State but would violently prevent it. The day after the Israeli declaration of Statehood all surrounding Arab countries, allied with the Arabs inside, entered Palestine with the intent of taking control of all of it.

Not well known is that it is unclear what Arabs inside Palestine would have decided by themselves. The two leading Arab tribes at the time, were the al-Husseinis and the Nashashibi. The Nashashibi favored the United Nations partition. The Husseinis were led by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who allied with Hitler during WWII. I'll let you guess what he was in favor of.

Regarding Israel "stealing" Arab land during The War of Independence, as mentioned Israel had already accepted the Partition Plan and was forced to defend its allocated territory against invading countries that planned to take all of it. During the course of the War Israel ended up with significantly more land than what was allocated to it. Some of it was taken for militarily strategic reasons, to provide buffers for expected future wars, and some was taken just to get more land (especially the Negev). If the Arabs would have offered to recognize the Partition Plan in exchange for the return of land allocated to Arabs, Israel might have agreed. It's unknown since the Arabs vowed to try again.

Land in Palestine, very similar to what the Palestinians currently call occupied land, was conquered in the war by Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza strip). Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt took control of Gaza. Neither allowed or had any intent of forming a related Palestinian country. Note that the Arab position before the War was the right of self-determination. Claimants to the same land had the right not to have their claims dictated to them by non-claimants. Claimants had the right to determine all by themselves through any means including war. Any outside help to Israel was "colonialism" but any outside help to Palestinians was not (for no apparent reason).

Interestingly, Abbas, the long time leader of The Palestinian Authority, now confesses in addition to his confessions that he was a Soviet Stooge and Holocaust denier, that the Palestinians should have accepted the United Nations partition.
Israel declared independence and expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homes, barring them from returning?
You can read a lot of related details on Wikipedia. During the war Israel did target some Palestinian/Mixed villages located in strategic border areas for expulsion and sometimes worse/much worse (massacres - see how easy that is Linda?). The majority of Palestinians though who left were not expelled. They were just afraid of being treated like they had treated the Jews. The ethnic cleansing was on the other side. All Jews in the areas conquered by the Arabs were expelled or worse. In addition almost all Jews in the surrounding Arab countries were expelled and worse/much worse.

750,000 would have been about the entire Jewish population at the time so it wouldn't really have made sense for Israel to allow an equal number of hostiles/potential hostiles back in.

The inability to negotiate/compromise. Speaking Truth to mouth is not easy Linda. I suggest you go see a Jewish Endodontist for an Erev Canal.



Joseph


The New Porphyry

Post Reply