Gilad Atzmon posted the first image on his Facebook page. I responded with the second because of the similarity. A conversation ensued as AE wrote:

Asides from the impossibility of stripping people of their identities. It really disappoints me to see the abuse of diversity blind us from seeing the beauty of the deferences. I don’t want to travel to another country to find the same tradition, the same food, the same clothes, the same language, the same culture.

We are created (if you believe in creation)in deferent tribes and nations just like varieties of colours, fruits vegetables, animals, every one add and enhance part or body, our soles, our understanding of life.

Making the differences into a negative thing is the problem of those who are deprived from having the right lens on their eyes.

There is a verse in the Quran I loved so much and I’m not trying to preach religion it says “ People, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know one another. The noblest of you before Allah is the most righteous of you. Allah is the Knower, the Aware.”

I replied:

What strips people of their unique identities is the reduction of their human richness into a particular and dominating identification – some particular ethnicity, tradition, clothing, language or cultural way of being. If we are going to relate to each other as human beings we must understand each other beyond the symbols or markers of tick-boxes that we use to denote who we are. Of course you are Muslim, Hindu, Socialist or whatever .. you are also short or fat thin or tall, you play cricket or chess and so on. Why should I care about your religion or ethnicity more than I care about any other aspect of your appearance or behaviour?

Those who make the differences into a negative thing are the racists who divide humanity into classes and categories according to those categories.

The Prophet said “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action..”

There are many that use differences to posit superiority. That’s simply a fact and their attachment to ethnicity is a form of idolatory. As a Muslim you should understand this.

The Prophet continued, “..Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly.”

But following from the first part it should be clear that the better interpretation of Muslim is one who is pious and does good. And the ‘one brotherhood’ is the brotherhood of those who are pious and do good.

IB wrote:

The meaning of chosen is wrong. In Judaism, to be chosen means to be expected to live by a higher standard of religious morality. Here, Gilad seems to be pointing to chosen as a superior being.

In my own opinion, Israel is not the Jewish state or even a Jewish state. It’s policies and practices regarding non-jews have nothing to do with the morality of Judaism.

Furthermore, zionists have at times acted in the worst possible interest of Jews who are not zionists for the purpose of expanding the settler Colonial project. For example see the Zionist Transfer Agreement with the Nazi regime in the early 30s or the false flag attacks conducted by the Israelis after the state’s formation, such as the Lavon affair.

I replied:

The concept of a ‘chosen people’ is intrinsically immoral and self-serving whether conceived of as a particular privilege or a particular responsibility. The fundamental premise of mortality is that of the intrinsic and equal worth and dignity of all human beings. I don’t know when or how the notion of choseness became attached to the Jewish people, perhaps it is a function of an ethnicity being so closely associated with a faith but it becomes a mythologising and deification of ethnicity. To associate one’s ethics with one’s ethnicity violates the principle of the universal applicability of moral law whether one is the most cruel or compassionate of people.

IB asked:

to expect a more moral life is immoral?

I responded:

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘expect a more moral life’ but I will read it as ‘intend or commit to a more moral life’. There is nothing wrong with this if the individual is intending a more moral life as an individual choice .. If I commit to serving the interests of humanity because I see that is the right thing to do then I have made a moral choice but if I commit to serving the interests of humanity because I am a Jew or Muslim or Christian then my commitment is not first and foremost a moral choice, it is a choice to follow the teachings of my religion and a follower is not a free moral agent.

The Abrahamic religions laud Abraham for his choice to follow Yahwe’s command to sacrifice his son and the thinking of people committed to the teaching of any religious, ethnic or political tribe is similar to Abraham’s commitment to Yahwe, the right thing for them is what is commanded, if they are commanded to kill they will kill, if they are commanded to be discriminatory they will be discriminatory. Their service to humanity is not an unconditional commitment to universal law but is conditional on their membership of their tribe and whatever beliefs their tribe holds.

Some suggest that I shouldn’t comment on other people’s religious beliefs. Maybe they’re right and maybe it will cause trouble for me. But conversation is my religion, I think it can save us, and I’m an evangelist for it even if it means being a martyr for it.