Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog - By Planck's Constant

By Bernie on 26 Oct 2010

Source:  Planck's Constant

romancing the goats
Photo Credit: The Rogue Jew

ask my kind reader to google "The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog" and notice that except for my website the top results are all Muslim, Neo-Nazi, and other antisemitic sites. This is what they all quote: "Ereget Raschi Erod, 22 30: "The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture says to honor the dog more than the non-Jew."
All these sites insist that the Talmud describes gentiles or non-Jews as non-human animals. All the sites have exactly the same copy-and-paste listing of a few dozen so-called references to the Talmud as proof of their assertion.
Not one of the dozens of quotes are actually from the Talmud and those few that are genuine sources in Jewish writings, do not say what is alleged, and in many case are complete fabrications where the cited source does not even exist. My article from yesterday, A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal, discusses a quote that does not appear anywhere in the cited text.
The Muslim, Jew-hating, Neo-Nazi sites headline their proofs with titles such as "The Talmud Exposed," "Non-Jews as seen in the Jewish Talmud," and "Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud."
On some forums Akum appears to mean "Negro" as in "The Akum (Negro) is like a dog. ..." I guess one of the Neo-Nazis wanted Blacks to hate Jews because of this quote. What an idiot, most Blacks already hate Jews [see my article Blacks are more Racist than Whites], they don't need any encouragement.
For the non-Jewish scholars among my readers Akum refers to idolators, specifically those who do not follow the Noahide Laws, and does not mean non-Jews in general. But so what? In English we have a word for idolators and who is being demeaned other than idolators? Even if the quote refers to a small subset of non-Jews, it doesn't matter because Ereget Raschi Erod is not part of the Talmud or Torah or of anything at all. The reference cited does not exist, and so the "quote" is a complete fabrication.
But how can this happen, how does such a lie begin life? Actually it is quite easy. I ask a few of my readers who have blogs to simply quote the following on their blog as if it were true:
This is Mohammed's opinion of love: "By the Prophets and all that is holy, there is nothing more pleasing to Allah than to see a Muslim lying in blissful embrace with a goat. Not just any goat, but one smelling of myrrh and dainty orchids. Such a coupling is of the greatest of all rewards, surpassing all other joys." Abu Planck Hadiths 24:7
The first ten bloggers to do this will show up on the first results page of a google search for "Mohammed's opinion of love." Although a dozen bloggers repeating this doesn't make it true, it's probably true anyway.

Which reminds me of an old Arab joke: two herdsmen were having an argument about whether camels or goats were the more affectionate. Finally after many hours, one of them said, "Ahmed, go ask the Prophet Mohammed, ṣall Allahu ʿalayhi wa sallam, surely he knows the answer."
And so Ahmed went to Medina and found Mohammed sitting at court. The herdsman approached and asked, "Oh, great one, I ask for the answer to this question: which animal is the more affectionate, a camel or a goat?"
Mohammed rose from his seat with a start. "Who told you about my goat?"