Friday, January 02, 2009

Contra "Muhammad Rafeeq": Are Chabad Lubavitch Impostor Jews? Jews Consider Goyim to be Beasts Outside of the Law of Moses

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

"Muhammad Rafeeq" would have us believe that the Chabad Lubavitch are not religious Jews, but instead merely clothe themselves as if rabbis to deceive us so that they can get away with their crimes. "Muhammad's" claims are preposterous on their face.

It is far easier and much more profitable for Jewish criminals to wear Goyish garb and blend in undetected in general society, than to wear morbid clown suits and foxhide which tags them as Jews, as wall street Jews, media Jews, and Jewish politicians have proven. In addition, who would it be that these passionately religious Jews would be trying to fool by studying the Talmud day and night and making asses of themselves wearing costumes that were once intended to shame them in Europe; and to what advantage would it be to pretend to actually believe the Talmud and Cabalah to which they devote their lives?

Though "Muhammad" would evidently have us believe that there is some contradiction between the criminal behavior of some of Chabad Lubavitch and Judiasm, the opposite is true. Judaism not only condones the criminal behavior of some of the Lubavitch, it encourages it! The criminal behavior of some of the Lubavitch is evidence that they are strict practitioners of Judaism.

"Muhammad" would have us believe that the Jews hold that the Mosaic ten commandments apply to the Goyim and to the treatment the Jews must accord the Goyim, but such is not the case. This is one of the reasons why it is important to disprove "Muhammad's" false assertions that the Old Testament Torah has far greater authority than does Talmud Torah. The passages in the Talmud which permit and encourage the Jews to steal from and murder non-Jews are well known and supercede anything written in the Old Testament Torah, which also encourages the Jews to steal the property of the Goyim, to practice usury against the Goyim, to genocide the Goyim and to destroy the religions and nations of the Goyim, as I have already repeatedly shown.

Beyond all of this, Talmud Torah makes it crystal clear that the Jews do not apply Mosaic Law to Gentiles, that the Jews believe that the Gentiles refused to accept Mosaic Law and even the Law of Noah, and that Jews are not to apply Mosaic Law (ten commandments included) to the Goyim. This is very well known, and for "Muhammad" to pretend otherwise is simply absurd, given that this man has claimed to know the Cabalistic ritual needed to place the soul of Shabbatai Zevi into a Rothschild.

The Talmud is very clear that the Mosaic Law does not apply Gentiles, see for example:

Sanhedrin 59a:

"R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; it is our inheritance, not theirs."

Baba Kamma 113a-b

"'Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. [***] His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother's: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen."

Baba Mezia 108b

"[A] heathen is certainly not subject to [the exhortation], 'And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord.'"

Baba Mezia 114b

"The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; only ye are designated 'men'."

Sanhedrin 57a:

"Has it not been taught: 'With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed or [seized] a beautiful woman, or [committed] similar offences, if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained'? [***] But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: 'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'? [***] It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage. One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted."

Baba Kamma 38a

"WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE THERE IS NO LIABILITY etc. But I might here assert that you are on the horns of a dilemma. If the implication of 'his neighbour' has to be insisted upon, then in the case of an ox of a Canaanite goring an ox of an Israelite, should there also not be exemption? If [on the other hand] the implication of 'his neighbour' has not to be insisted upon, why then even in the case of an ox of an Israelite goring an ox of a Canaanite, should there not be liability? — R Abbahu thereupon said: The Writ says, He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and drove asunder the nations, [which may be taken to imply that] God beheld the seven commandments which were accepted by all the descendants of Noah, but since they did not observe them, He rose up and declared them to be outside the protection of the civil law of Israel [with reference to damage done to cattle by cattle]. R. Johanan even said that the same could be inferred from this [verse], He shined forth from Mount Paran, [implying that] from Paran He exposed their money to Israel. The same has been taught as follows: If the ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability, but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite whether the ox [that did the damage] was Tam or whether it had already been Mu 'ad, the payment is to be in full, as it is said: He stood and measured the earth, he beheld and drove asunder the nations, and again, He shined forth from Mount Paran."

In its article "Gentile", under the subheading "Rabbinical Modification of Laws", The Jewish Encyclopedia states (note that "B. M." signifies the tractate "Baba Mezia" in the Talmud and "B. K." is tractate "Baba Kamma" of the Talmud:

"With regard to the text 'This is the law when a man dieth in a tent' (Num. xix. 14), they held that only Israelites are men, quoting the prophet, 'Ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men' (Ezek. xxxiv. 31); Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians (B. M. 108b). [***] The barbarian Gentiles who could not be prevailed upon to observe law and order were not to be benefited by the Jewish civil laws, framed to regulate a stable and orderly society, and based on reciprocity. The passage in Moses' farewell address: 'The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran' (Deut. xxxiii. 2), indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it, He withdrew His 'shining' legal protection from them, and transferred their property rights to Israel, who observed His Law. A passage of Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: 'God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. . . . He stood, and measured the earth; he beheld, and drove asunder [{Hebrew deleted} = 'let loose,' 'outlawed'] the nations' (Hab. iii. 3-6); the Talmud adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly refused to obey the seven moral Nachian precepts, and hence had decided to outlaw them (B. K. 38a)."--"Gentile", The Jewish Encyclopedia, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York, (1903), pp. 615-626, at 619-620.