韩家亮文集

关于郭罗基、胡平、周舵、六四几篇

韩家亮 — Wed, 26 Jun 2024 01:54:28 +0000

这篇主要是几篇CND文章的笔记[1-5]。中文索引和查找麻烦，而且远不及英文Google方便准确。记在一个地方便于以后查找。

[1,2] 纪念六四。两篇都是很不错的文章。实录，清楚，详细。但是大陆人把六四看得太高。世界历史上大屠杀多了去了。譬如伊拉克的萨达姆，叙利亚的阿萨德，一战末期土耳其种族灭绝的大屠杀等等。只是从中国历史看（特别是近代历史—即清末开始），六四是一个比较大的军队屠杀人民的事件。但这也是主要因为以前的政府不是共产党。各国建立的共产党政权基本上都是极端反动的政权。至于六四导致东欧民主革命，有些影响但不是关键性的原因。东欧本来已经有相当基础（这话讲来长了），而且东欧的共党政权基本上都是苏联强加的。

怎样看待六四？清末的中国政治民主落后西方至少2500年，法治至少落后西方3000年。只靠一次群众运动就可以成为自由民主制度？实际上这几乎完全不可能。

要懂得为什么六四不可能导致中国实现民主，无论学生如何，中共各派斗争内幕如何，都完全没有可能。所以争论学生的责任，开明派的责任，哪位领导策略错误，哪支军队做什么等等，基本上都没有多大意义，因为结果总是中共镇压。为什么我这样预言？先要真正认识中共政府的本质。现在引用很好的课本其中一段[6]：

A band of heavily armed thugs could take over a territory and establish by force procedures for exploiting its inhabitants. … Since it is easy to make ethical claims without doing anything to substantiate them if you are powerful enough, it is unlikely that my thugs would not engage in the process of rationalizing their oppression. So, it may well be difficult to identify the genuine article. Such hypocrisy, however, is, …, the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Also, words have consequences: some people may believe them and start acting as though they were true.

这本课本是我在这方面看到最好的。虽然作者在引论里说是给没有学过专业的学生学习的。但实际上要求不低。无论如何，这段并不是太难看懂。这段以前，此书讨论的是自由民主社会（这本书绝大部分都是限于讨论自由民主社会的）。这段说的是其它社会制度与自由民主制完全不一样。其它社会实际上都是伪善的，是靠武力或高压维持政权的。最后一句话：words have consequences: some people may believe them and start acting as though they were true. 中共的法治，民主，开明，为人民服务，等等都是骗人的。本质上你们都是臣民。86年的学潮，中共的强硬派和开明派的看法不同。等到闹大了，1989年。开明派想籍此夺权，强硬派说以前太软弱。既然学生的口号是言论自由，新闻自由。那不是要共党的命根？所以。。。。強硬派说，早就应该镇压了。。。。。。

胡平：点评戴晴《邓小平在1989》 10-1-2024

注释：

（1）程翔：我为“六四”及支联会作见证 [评]

（2）【纪念六四】周舵：1989年四-五月那些事

（3）胡平：“当代孔子”批判古代孔子的一出闹剧

（4）郭罗基：我的学生李讷 [评]； Re: 郭罗基：我的学生李讷

（5）Re: 凯迪：民调：如果穿越回1989年，你会参加学运吗？

(6) John Charvet, Liberalism: The Basics, Routledge, 2018 p.110.

哈马斯的意识形态

韩家亮 — Tue, 28 May 2024 02:00:01 +0000

我们中间许多人知道宾拉丁的盖达和伊斯兰国（ISIS）是恐怖组织，但过去不太了解哈马斯。10月7日哈马斯对以色列发动恐怖袭击以后，哈马斯才受到媒体和大众的重视。有不少人仍然怀疑哈马斯是否真是恐怖组织。一个原因是哈马斯的10月7日暴行极为残忍，这种图像不便在新闻里播放，许多人没有看到。一个原因是西方媒介长期左倾，有些报道同时批两方面，以显示公正。像这次国际刑事法院（ICC）竟然并列起诉哈马斯的头头和以色列的总理和国防部长！其荒谬难以想象。一方面是恐怖组织犯下极为残暴的恐怖袭击罪行，另一方面是民主国家的领袖进行自卫战争。哈马斯的残暴现在已经有多方证实。简明的有BBC一则报道[1]。许多记者官员等也考察过现场。原来Facebook的高管 Sheryl Sandberg 自费拍了一部纪录片 Screams Before Silence Film[2]。显然哈马斯比盖达更残暴，至少与伊斯兰国同样残暴。

如 [3] 所说，要鉴别恐怖组织，需要搞清楚它的意识形态。那哈马斯的意识形态从哪里来的呢？澳洲大报The Australian 有一篇评论明确清楚[4], 主要内容简介如下。哈马斯的意识形态是伊斯兰主义与纳粹思想的结合。上一世纪三十和四十年代耶路撒冷的最高宗教首领（Grand Mufti）同时是阿拉伯巴勒斯坦的国家主义运动领袖 Amin al-Husseini 与纳粹势力结合。al-Husseini 曾经与希特勒以及其他纳粹官员会谈并建立党卫军的穆斯林支队。在一个德国宣传影片里，希特勒宣称“在犹太家园的斗争”是“对犹太人的斗争”的一部分。当德军打到中东时，阿拉伯世界解放的时刻将要来到。al-Husseini 的责任是秘密准备阿拉伯行动接应。

二战结束后，al-Husseini 逃避了以战犯罪名被起诉。但是埃及把他当英雄欢迎。穆斯林兄弟会的创建人Hasan al-Banna写道：”德国和希特勒不在了，但Amin Al-Husseini 会继续这斗争。” 哈马斯是穆斯林兄弟会巴勒斯坦的分支。今天的哈马斯武装是纳粹同伙Al-Husseini 的意识形态后代。哈马斯有一点与其它恐怖组织不同，哈马斯会搞宣传。许多人和国家被哈马斯的宣传迷惑。

参考文献:

[1] Israel Gaza: Hamas raped and mutilated women ...

[2] Sheryl Sandberg: Screams Before Silence Film

[3] 鉴别伊斯兰恐怖组织和个人？ https://hxwk.ciaos.org/han-jialiang.hxwk.org/?p=2484

[4] Silence over Hamas hate shames our politicians CLAIRE LEHMANN AU 10-13, 2023 p11

….. The ideology of Hamas – the terrorist organisation that carried out the attacks on October 7 – fuses Islamism with Nazism ……. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement, Amin al-Husseini, joined forces with the Nazis. …. Al-Husseini met with Adolf Hitler and other Nazi officials, and helped establish a Muslim wing of the Schutzstaffel (SS). In a German propaganda newsreel shared by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, you can watch Hitler declare the “struggle against a Jewish homeland in Palestine” was part of the “struggle against the Jews”. And that when the German army had extended all the way to the Middle East, Germany would issue “an assurance to the Arab world that the hour of liberation was at hand”. It would then be al-Husseini’s “responsibility to unleash the Arab action that he has secretly prepared”.

After the war, al-Husseini escaped prosecution for war crimes, but he was welcomed into Eqypt as a hero. “Germany and Hitler are gone, but Amin Al-Husseini will continue the struggle,” wrote the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna.

Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Today’s Hamas militants are the ideological descendants of al-Husseini, the Nazi collaborator who plotted with Hitler to eradicate the Jews. …

[5] Arab Muslim Speaks About Her Life in Israel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_MfnpuafBg (11-2023)

[6] All Jewish History in Under 18 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW1wseGyR1Q (2020)

[7] Origins of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Part I: to 1949

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poopqMOd5o&a... (11-20-2023)

[8] Gaza in Jewish History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPMk5hOpyxs (10-2023)

鉴别伊斯兰恐怖组织和个人？

韩家亮 — Sat, 25 May 2024 03:07:19 +0000

全世界穆斯林人数众多，派别也很多，而恐怖组织和个人（现在还）是极少数。鉴别恐怖组织和个人具有很大的理论和实践意义。但这类鉴别很难很难。只有对伊斯兰教有比较深入的了解，才可能分辨伊斯兰恐怖主义和思想。即使对于专业人士来说，这类工作仍然很难。例如不久前英国澳洲各发生一起穆斯林发动的恐怖袭击。两个罪犯在各自警方已经有记录。其中一个已经从消除极端主义学习班(deradicalization)毕业。但两案袭击前都没有预兆。这篇短文当然不可能解释清楚这样的难题。这里我只是从神学、哲学和历史的角度给个概要，同时给出参考资料。有愿望深入了解的，需要继续下大功夫。开始讨论以前我先提一下本文最后结论。对于ISIS，哈马斯，盖达这类恐怖组织，必须及早打击。如果等到恐怖组织势力壮大再采取行动，难度和代价会增高很多。

多数华人没有宗教信仰，可能会以为犹太教、基督教、伊斯兰教类似。可能这样想：这三门宗教都属于一神教，且书中的历史人物不少相同（有时只是人名翻译不同）。（一篇一大陆教授的讲话[参考[1]]就有这样的例子。）其实这三门宗教关键原则很大不同。以前提到的中东历史泰斗 Bernard Lewis 就很清楚这点 [2,3]。这里仅举他的书中一个例子。他指出英文的教堂（church，这个词中文倒是比英文清楚：教堂，教会是不一样的词）在伊斯兰教里没有对应的词。你对穆斯林讲政教分离，他完全不懂你讲的是什么。霍梅尼曾说，伊斯兰教就是政治，否则伊斯兰教就是nothing（否则那就什么都不是了）。 Lewis还提到许多其它词汇在各宗教里大不相同。要真正了解这些宗教，必须从各门宗教的圣书开始。我曾经写过一篇短文介绍圣经和可兰经[4]。在外人看，可兰经与圣经都是信徒奉为从上帝（神）来的经书，没有什么大不同。从某种角度看，这似乎有道理。但其实圣经与可兰经大不一样。它们的不同在什么地方呢？关键之一在于圣经自洽，即不矛盾。如果宇宙间只有一位真神，而圣经各书是从独一神来的，那全部圣经（一共六十六本）必然自洽。证明自洽需要很多很多知识，首先需要学习几千年来解经的主要方法。然后需要有深厚的神学，历史，哲学等等学科的知识。这里不是证明圣经自洽，只是指出圣经_可能_自洽。基督教的圣经包括犹太教的旧约和基督教独有的新约。如果按照时间顺序排列，犹太教的旧约圣经，基督教的新约圣经不冲突，有自洽的可能。犹太教与基督教的关键分歧是犹太教不承认新约圣经和耶稣这人是旧约中已经多次预言过的基督。基督教的圣经自洽当然涉及许多神学和圣经的知识，但从时间顺序和逻辑上看完全可能。举个例子，约翰福音开始第一章前三节。1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 这里我用英文，因为英文里单数、复数和时态清楚。这里的Word 同时指耶稣基督也是指整本圣经。注意Word是单数。隐含的意思：圣经是一，即自洽。（基督教的中心教义, 三位一体, 也与此吻合。）

从表面看，可兰经与圣经一样都被信徒认为是从神来。伊斯兰教的普遍讲法是旧约圣经和新约圣经都是从真神来，但犹太人和基督徒犯了sin（罪。严格地说，sin与罪不同，不过这里略去不谈详细），使得这些经书不准确了。所以神另外给穆罕穆德一本可兰经。穆罕穆德是神的最后也是最大的先知。现在考虑可兰经的真实性，即是否与圣经一样，也是受神的启示来的。因为可兰经比圣经晚，它是从真神来的只有两种可能。一，它能够与圣经和谐一致。从时间看这有可能，因为可兰经比旧约圣经和新约圣经晚得多，至少六百年。有相当一批伊斯兰学者想证明圣经预言可兰经和穆罕穆德，但极少有人接受这类解释，因为存在许多矛盾。二，它自成一个系统。但这也不成立因为它引用了许多圣经人物，包括亚伯拉罕，以实玛利，摩西，耶稣等等。这两项综合，明显可兰经无法自洽。这结论很重要。

可兰经和伊斯兰教说犹太人和基督徒是‘书之民’，就是说圣经限定犹太人和基督徒。非常笼统地看这话有道理。其实也可以说穆斯林是‘书之民’。穆斯林的‘书’指的是可兰经。可兰经在穆斯林心目中已经拜为圣。在一些严厉实行伊斯兰法律的国家不敬可兰经会被判死刑。但是既然可兰经不自洽，那穆斯林世界怎样行事呢？如果只通过可兰经来认识穆斯林世界，会有许多无法理解的方面。要认识穆斯林世界，推荐一部很好的书, Malise Ruthven, “Islam in the world”[5]。Bernard Lewis的两本通俗读物是从比较穆斯林世界与西方世界出发。而 Malise Ruthven 的书是从穆斯林世界的诞生和发展的角度出发。这本书比较容易读，也容易找到有用的材料。现在引用这本书（Chapter 4 Law and disorder pp.122-173）其中一段: The divisions of Islam, in contrast to those of Christianity, have their origins in politics rather than dogma. ……. Having a religious ideology built on the social foundations of tribalism, the Muslims expressed their aspirations first in the terms of group loyalty, and only afterwards in terms of the doctrinal and theological accretions surrounding these loyalties. 就是说穆斯林世界与基督教世界在教派区别划分上完全不同。基督教教派争执的起因多数来自教义或者圣经的解释。而穆斯林的教派争执是部落，是人事。例如最大的两个穆斯林派别逊尼派和什叶派的分歧主要是谁有资格成为卡里法，即全世界穆斯林的首领。穆斯林的教义和神学是在教派确定以后才形成的。这符合Bernard Lewis的叙述。外人看基督教先考虑教派和教义，而外人看伊斯兰教教派，要先看起源和历史。

几乎所有文明都有伦理道德[6]。许多文明的伦理是从经书上来的，如犹太教，基督教，伊斯兰教。即使战争，也不能乱杀无辜。中国的伦理很大程度上来自儒教。中国过去的社会法规，道德，习俗都是这样来的（包括发展延伸）。这方面中国相对比较松弛。例如中国过去战乱时有不守规则的情况。这包括中共东北解放战争时用的战术。中共现在也有些军官鼓吹超限战等。

[2,3]讲到中东的穆斯林世界受到西方文明的冲击，各种思潮流行。[3] 可以帮助了解伊斯兰恐怖主义的大致产生发展过程。穆斯林有些学者和领袖提出圣战（即敌对方不是穆斯林）时可以不受原来伊斯兰战争伦理的束缚。一个例子是Lewis 特别提到的自杀恐怖袭击[3] 。以前伊斯兰学者普遍认为穆斯林不能搞自杀袭击。但有些激进伊斯兰学者认为自杀袭击不仅可以采用，而且这样的人属于烈士，优先进天堂。前面提到伊斯兰有众多流派，对可兰经的解释又没有自洽的限制，恐怖主义各派，包括伊斯兰“超限战“，就是在这样的环境下产生发展。

后来我读了Nabeel Qureshi 的几本很不错的书[7,8]。Qureshi出生在一个原籍巴基斯坦的穆斯林家庭。他家属于穆斯林的一个小支派，即不是逊尼派或什叶派。维基上说这个支派在巴基斯坦受歧视迫害。他家早已移民到英国。他在英国长大，后来随家庭移民到美国。从他的书我得知伊斯兰世界实际上有三个时期（他没有明确这样讲，是我对他的书事件的总结）。第一时期相当残忍。穆罕穆德最早靠买路钱过活。第二时期穆斯林世界开始建立一些战争规则。我们知道的许多规则，包括比较文明的战争规则，是后来建立的。第三时期是在西方文明冲击后。有些穆斯林认为是过去伊斯兰教的传统流失造成伊斯兰世界衰落。有一些穆斯林转向恐怖主义。

现在回到本文开始时的结论：”对于ISIS，哈马斯，盖达这类恐怖组织，必须及早打击。如果等到恐怖组织势力壮大再采取行动，难度和代价会增高很多。” 犹太教和基督教都有一些无法更改的基本教义限制暴力，而伊斯兰教没有这样的教义。因为缺乏这样的限制，恐怖主义思潮可能蔓延和发展。伊斯兰恐怖主义流派萌芽时比较容易控制。如果等到恐怖主义组织壮大后，它们在穆斯林世界会有吸引力，控制的难度和代价会高很多。

参考文献：

[1] 中东问题与三大一神教初步 https://hxwk.ciaos.org/han-jialiang.hxwk.org/?p=2445

[2] Bernard Lewis, “What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East,” Harper Perennial, 2003.

[3] Bernard Lewis, “The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror,” Modern Library, 2003.

[4] 韩家亮：圣经和可兰经入门 https://ciaos.org/modules/wfsection/article.p...

[5] Malise Ruthven, “Islam in the world,” Oxford University, 3 edition, 2006.

[6] 韩家亮：伊斯兰恐怖主义的起源 https://hxwk.ciaos.org/han-jialiang.hxwk.org/?p=2481

[7] Nabeel Qureshi, “Seeking Allah, finding Jesus, a devout Muslim encounters Christianity.” Zondervan, Expanded ed. 2016.

[8] Nabeel Qureshi, “Answering Jihad : a better way forward.” Zondervan, 2016.

伊斯兰恐怖主义的起源

韩家亮 — Wed, 22 May 2024 05:03:51 +0000

要懂得伊斯兰恐怖主义，必须学习一些伊斯兰历史。对于华人来说，中东历史很不容易了解。中东历史本身就十分复杂，加上华人对其它文明的了解常常仅仅知道皮毛或限于某个方面，极少有大陆人真正懂得中东历史。例如一大陆著名教授的一篇被追捧的讲话，开头一段就有许多严重错误[1]。限于时间我没有可能在这里讲解中东历史，那至少需要几本书（或者说几门课）。这里我只给个轮廓和经典参考书。这篇的目的是为后面的结论作准备。

要初步了解伊斯兰恐怖主义的由来，你应该认真读 Bernard Lewis 的两本书[2,3]。Bernard Lewis 是中东历史泰斗。911后我为了懂得伊斯兰恐怖主义读了十几本相关书上百篇评论，直到读了他的这两本书，才开始了解伊斯兰教，相关历史和为什么近一百年来会产生伊斯兰恐怖主义。有人可能会说，那你告诉我这两本书的要点。如果我这样做，就保证你永远不可能真正懂得伊斯兰教和伊斯兰恐怖主义。我发现大陆人几乎不可能懂得社科，哲学和宗教。主要原因在于中国大陆被马克思主义限制产生的世界观注定是井底之蛙的视界。大陆人只有自己认真读，同时一点一点地开阔视界，才可能逐步了解世界。（我其实多年前已经介绍其中一本书[4,5], 可以供参考。建议你读完以后再参考我的读书笔记，或许可以有些更深刻的见解。）

伊斯兰恐怖主义的诞生主要是对西方文明的冲击的反冲。西方文明兴起后对世界各文明，包括中国，都有巨大冲击。西方文明对伊斯兰文明的冲击最大。穆斯林国家过去一直认为伊斯兰文明是世界最高文明。穆斯林世界从诞生以来一直用武力向外扩张征服，从本来沙漠之地的沙特，扩张到许多国家，包括埃及，利比亚，伊拉克，现在的巴勒斯坦，叙利亚，东罗马帝国（包括康士坦丁堡）等等。西方的强大使得穆斯林世界极难接受。原来信奉阿拉已经证明正确，为什么会让落后的基督教国家称霸？你应该自己读Bernard Lewis 的两本书。注意读他的书需要认真仔细。例如穆斯林的分类有许多种，每种都有它的意思，而 Islam Fundamentalist 错误（misnomer）。

几乎所有文明都有伦理道德（ethics, moral）。有些伦理道德是从经书上来的，如犹太教，基督教，伊斯兰教，例如打仗不伤害平民，开战要符合程序等。大家应该比较熟悉从基督教来的伦理道德，这是因为西方文明对现代世界的影响。中国的伦理很大程度上来自儒教。无论社会法规，道德，习俗都是从这些来。即使战争，也不能乱杀无辜。这方面中国比较松弛。例如中国过去战乱时有不守规则的。这包括中共东北解放战争时用的战术。中共现在也有些军官鼓吹超限战等。恐怖主义则置通常接受的伦理道德不顾，进行暴力或恐怖活动。

参考文献：

[1] 中东问题与三大一神教初步 https://hxwk.ciaos.org/han-jialiang.hxwk.org/?p=2445

[2] Bernard Lewis, “What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East,” Harper Perennial, 2003.

[3] Bernard Lewis, “The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror,” Modern Library, 2003.

[4] 韩家亮：错在哪？（上） https://ciaos.org/modules/wfsection/article.p...

[5] 韩家亮：错在哪？（下） https://ciaos.org/modules/wfsection/article.p...

[6] Malise Ruthven, “Islam in the world,” Oxford University, 3 edition, 2006.

[7] Robert Spencer, “Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest-Growing Faith”, Encounter Books, 2003

[8] Nabeel Qureshi, “Seeking Allah, finding Jesus, a devout Muslim encounters Christianity.” Zondervan, Expanded ed. 2016.

[9] Nabeel Qureshi, “Answering Jihad : a better way forward.” Zondervan, 2016.

[10] Bernard Lewis, “Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East,” Oxford University Press, 2010.

法治的起源和发展与中国

韩家亮 — Tue, 14 May 2024 00:43:56 +0000

我已经写过许多关于法治的文章（见文后所列）。本来我希望通过简介法治的起源和三千多年的法治发展历史来促使大陆人考虑中国在法治上面临的问题。但是多年来发现几乎没有多大作用，大多数大陆人对法治还是一无所知。大陆人中间有一个大问题：用传统中国的世界观看政治和法治。这样常常把一些表面上类似法治的现象误认为法治的某种体现。中国几千年来从来没有过法治，连法制都没有。这篇短文从俯瞰，解释和历史的角度考虑法治，并且比较中国的世界观。我没有用这篇取代我以前写的一系列法治文章的想法，只是想换一个角度挑明大陆人理解法治的阻碍。如果可以看懂这篇，应该重读以前的文章和引用的文献，逐步真正理解法治。

我先按照历史发展顺序列出大陆人对法治可能遇到的理解障碍。先列出五个方面，然后逐项解释。首先，统治(ruling，governing）是一个极难极难的课题。其次，统治的方式可以分为两大类：人治，法治。这两种都极不容易设计好和真正实现。第三，人治行不通。第四，到底什么是真正的法治。第五，西方的法治怎样来的。

第一，统治(ruling，governing）的问题极难，是政治学和哲学的第一大难题。如果从圣经看，可能与圣经创世纪有关。圣经创世纪第一章说神按照神的形象造人。这马上有两个问题。1）既然有神的形象，那么人统治人就是一个大难题。2）人的差别与平等。人有差别是不争的事实。但从这些差别可以推定一个人或一批人应该统治其他人吗？这些问题是旷古以来的极大难题。（马克思主义极端反动的一个原因就是推崇无产阶级专政。无论认为无产阶级应该统治还是专政是统治的方式都反动。）

第二，统治方式可以分为两大类：人治，法治。华人都知道现代中国以前的主导宗教/意识形态是儒教。儒教的核心是人不平等，有一个等级结构，从最高到最低都有绝对权力。所谓君君臣臣父父子子。法治则完全不同。法治的法来自两个途径：自然法，从神来的超越法。

第三，人治行不通。这点现在大多数人都认同[1,2]。从圣经看，这属于当然。神给摩西十诫，要以色列遵守律法。

第四，法治的意思从英文很容易看出 Rule of Law，即法来统治，而不是人来统治。法高于人包括统治者，国王，皇帝等。

第五，现代国家大多数都自称要实行法治（极少数国家仍然实行世袭王朝）。但只有少数国家真正实行了法治。这些国家主要是西方国家，或者从西方的法治学习和演化来的（例如韩国，台湾，日本等）。因此，了解西方法治的起源和发展历史很有必要。下面逐步展开西方法治的起源和发展史。

世界最早的法制大约3800年前由美索不达米亚的汉谟拉比（Hammurabi, 1810 – 1750 BC）推行。那时只是法制而不是法治。即依法治理，而不是法来限制统治者。古罗马古希腊已经有法治。没有法治就没有雅典的民主和古罗马的共和。这些法治的详情这里略去（一些参考文献见[3-6]）。只是提及古罗马的法律体系已经相当完善，有全面的法典，并且有专业律师。后来教皇改革时罗马法典是建立现代法治的三个基础之一。

罗马帝国衰亡以后，法治已经不存在，但仍然有一些残存。十一世纪末期教皇为了使教会独立于世俗统治，推行教皇改革。欧洲第一批大学就是这样建立的[7]。当时欧洲法治的建立有三个基础：罗马法典，圣经，希腊哲学（主要是亚里斯多德哲学，特别是逻辑学部分）[8]。有几点需要解释一下。首先，第一批大学的入学要求学生已经有本科知识。本科的学习当时来自贵族家庭，修道院等。稍后法国巴黎大学首创本科学习。其次，逻辑学当时具有重要地位。这应该不难理解。法学就是要建立一个庞大的哲学和逻辑体系。那时哲学和逻辑学学术的贡献主要体现在经院哲学（Scholasticism）。据哲学史专家讲，经院哲学的逻辑学的高峰直到二十世纪中期才超过[9]。

现在，逻辑学是几门学科的基础：哲学，计算机理论，离散数学。另外应该提及，现在逻辑学的数学表达形式是最近一百多年才引进的。这方面作出贡献的有Gottlob Frege, 罗素等。还应该提及大陆的检验真理标准的讨论[10]。以逻辑学角度看，这是一个极简单的逻辑问题，而且国内的看法从逻辑学和哲学上看完全错误。

(文章后面附上福山对中国法治的评论，和我的中文译文。严格地说，这段评论只是一个对中国古代法治的观察。它的要点是如果中国有法治，必然像其它文明一样有相当的建制(institutions)。而中国古代完全没有。)

参考资料：

韩家亮：浅谈现代法治的起源 https://hx.ciaos.org/?p=176151
Brian Z. Tamanaha, “On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory,” Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Greg Woolf ed. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Roman World, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
John L. Brooke, Julia C. Strauss, Greg Anderson, ed. (eds.) State Formations: Global Histories and Cultures of Statehood, (Cambridge University Press, 2018)
Simon Swain, Mark Edwards editors, Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire, Oxford University, 2004.

Tony Honore, Roman Law AD 200-400: From Cosmopolis to Rechtstaat? pp.109-132.

Peter Garnsey, Roman Citizenship and Roman Law in the Late Empire, pp.133-155.

Robin Osborne (Editor), “Classical Greece: 500-323 BC,” Oxford University, 2000.
韩家亮：欧洲大学创建与法学起源 https://hx.ciaos.org/?p=175797
Harold J. Berman, “Law and Revolution, The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition,” Harvard University Press, 1983.
Bryan Magee, “The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy,” Oxford Paperbacks; 2nd edition, 2001.
韩家亮：真理、真理的检验与数理逻辑的关系 https://ciaos.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=37884

Francis Fukuyama, “Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy,” Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014. p.357

China represents the one world civilization that never developed a true rule of law. In ancient Israel, the Christian West, the Muslim world, and India, law originated in a transcendental religion and was interpreted and implemented by a hierarchy of religious scholars and jurists. The keepers of the law in each case were a social group separate from the political authorities — Jewish judges, Hindu Brahmins, Catholic priests and bishops, the Muslim ulama. The degree to which the law limited the arbitrary power of rulers depended on the institutional separation of legal-religious hierarchy from the political one, as well as the degree to which one or the other group was united or divided. This separation ……

In China, by contrast, there was never a transcendental religion, and there was never a pretense that law had a divine origin. Law was seen as a rational human instrument by which the state exercised its authority and maintained public order. This meant that, as in Japan, China had rule by law rather rule of law. …… Rights were rather the gift of a benevolent ruler. ….

中国代表世界上一种从没有发展真正法治的文明。古以色列，基督教的西方，穆斯林世界，和印度，法产生于一种超越的宗教并且存在有组织的宗教学者和法学家解释和贯彻它。每种情况下一批与政治权势分开的社会群体专门负责法：犹太法官，印度波罗门族，天主教神父和主教，穆斯林欧莱玛((Ulama) 。法在多大程度上限制统治者的权力取决于宗教和政治在机制上分开还是结合的程度。这个分别在西欧最突出，十一世纪后期的 investiture conflict 使教廷能够任命自己的教职人员。欧洲在国家建立以前已经先有了法治，这与中国成鲜明对照，中国在国家建立以前没有法不存在法治。

(Pp.357-8) 与欧洲相比，中国从来不存在超越的宗教，所以中国的法从来没有神圣来源。法被看作国家行使权力和维持公共秩序的工具。这意味着类似于日本，中国过去只有法制没有法治，法的最终来自统治者。虽然法律可能不存偏见的实现，但这与公民是否有自有权利无关。权利来自统治者的赏赐。公平是为了公共秩序的考虑。这是为什么古中国一般只考虑个人与政府的法律，而很少考虑其它法律，例如人与人之间的法例如合同法，侵权等。

什么是国家？

韩家亮 — Wed, 10 Apr 2024 01:00:16 +0000

什么是国家？或者说国家是什么？许多华人都搞错。大陆人常常错的更离谱。大概主要原因有两方面。一是中英文（或者说中文西文）的差别。中文的国家对应两个英文词：nation, nation-state。另外一个原因是中共常常有意混淆词汇的意义。在< 林培瑞：中共的“问题辞令”>一文讲到中共用词的特殊性【1】。

另一方面即使英文社科文献常常也不是很清楚。我第一次注意到这个问题是学习意识形态学的国家主义(nationalism)时。这门课通常属于本科大二程度。一本通用课本是【2】但其中国家主义讲得不太清楚。后来，福山的两本政治秩序课本【3,4】对我有不少帮助。福山这两部书俯瞰了世界各主要文明的政体起源和发展历史。一个缺陷是福山的哲学思想受黑格尔很大影响。作为教材他尽量使课本易懂。所以他的两部书的主线是政体的演化。虽然这些演化可能不同，但他认为最终都会发展成自由民主制（即他的历史终结论）。我以前认同福山的看法，所以没有深入考虑他的表达。他虽然区分nation和nation－state，但并没有严格定义和比较。

后来我曾经想整理一下国家的准确定义。那时我已经清楚nation － state 与nation的区别。世界早就存在nation。旧约圣经就已经有 nation，就是说 nation 至少有3000年的历史。但nation－state 是法国大革命和美国独立时期才产生。我那时找来一些文献学习。例如我曾经翻过Ernest Gellner 的两本书【5,6】。结果发现许多地方表达的不清楚，或者有缺陷。后来这事就搁置下来。

再后来一位网友推荐一本书【7】，据说有相当影响。读后觉得是不错，很有价值。这本书俯瞰许多后起国家从nation或是其它政体发展到nation－states的经历。如书的题目所示，它们的过程和结果有很多偶然性和随意性。现在世界上的许多纷争甚至战争，其起因许多与nation－states的发展有关。这实际上就更需要了解国家（nation－state，nationalism）的严格定义和演进。

对这些我已经有些idea。本来准备以后有时间做些研究。现在看到John Charvet, Liberalism 【8】。我发现这本书非常好（excellent），强力推荐。

再加相关一点。早先我认为黑格尔哲学已经为学术界广为接受。其实远没有这么简单，还有许多争议。后来我逐步明白，这是哲学的普遍现象。部分原因这是哲学的本质所决定。要认真学习黑格尔哲学大陆学人基本上没有可能，也没有必要。对于绝大多数人（无论大陆人还是西方人）来说，只要真正懂得史密斯的《政治哲学》就可以了，但需要真正懂得。当然对黑格尔哲学有个粗略的了解也有用处。有一本很好的俯瞰黑格尔哲学的小书【9】。我曾写过一篇介绍这本书及其与中国政体的联系【10】。

References:

[1] 林培瑞：中共的“问题辞令”

[2] Andrew Heywood, “Political Ideologies,” 4th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

[3] Francis Fukuyama, “The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution,”Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

[4] Francis Fukuyama, “Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy,” Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014.

[5] Ernest Gellner, “Culture, Identity, and Politics,” 1987.

[6] Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, 1983.

[7] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised ed, Verso; 2006.

[8] John Charvet, Liberalism: The Basics, Routledge, 2018, pp.109-116.

[9]Peter Singer, “Hegel: A Very Short Introduction,” Oxford University Press; Revised ed., 2001.

[10] 韩家亮：黑格尔《历史的哲学》与中国 https://hxwk.ciaos.org/han-jialiang.hxwk.org/?p=1635

Political Left or Right?

韩家亮 — Sun, 24 Dec 2023 05:33:24 +0000

Niall Ferguson’s recent (Dec. 11) essay should be taken seriously [1] ([2] is related). He warns that current American universities are following the steps of the 1920-30s German universities. At the time, German universities were the envy of the world. Then ideology and politicization began to dominate German academia. It did not take long for Germany to lose its academic leadership. Niall Ferguson is a world-renowned scholar. I do not always agree with his viewpoints. However, they should be taken seriously. He was the only well-known figure who predicted Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in early Jan., 2022. I was dubious when I read his commentary (thought only a 20% chance of Putin’s invasion). Shortly after, Putin began the war.

This write-up is about the meanings of political left/right. Political left and right first appeared during the French Revolution. It was based on the seating of the French Parliament, which in turn was based on social class at the time in France. Political left or right was associated with social classes and their political leaning, respectively. (Philosopher Roger Scruton gives a clear explanation in [3].) This has a few implications. First, political left-right is only a crude, two-value label; politics is way too complicated to fit into two values. The French Revolution was the start of mass political participation. The left-right label is helpful to explain and motivate the masses and facilitate political debates. Later its usage spread to other nations when mass political participation became common. Second, because each nation has its own politics (for example different social classes and fabric, different cultural heritages, different ideologies), the meanings of political left or right are often different from the original. Even in the same nation, the meanings of left and right may change in time.

Another important term is conservatism. Conservatism is an important ideology. When I studied a political ideology textbook [4], I was taken back by Edmund Burke, who was a British parliamentarian, statesman, and philosopher. When Burke served in the British parliament, both France and America underwent revolution. Burke supported American Independence while strongly criticizing the French Revolution. Later development proved that Burke was correct. There is much to learn about conservatism [4]. Only two things I wish to mention here. First, Mainland Chinese are familiar with Mao’s maxim (不破不立), which is the opposite of conservatism, which states that unless you destroy old institutions, you cannot establish new institutions. Most often conservatism is correct. Second, opposite to conservatism is radicalism, progressivism. It is more complicated to analyze and compare them with conservatism. Third, conservatism is often associated with political-right while progressivism is associated with political-left. However, one cannot say that right is always correct and left is always wrong. I also encourage you to view a video by Os Guinness [5]. In a very broad view, he is correct. In other words, much current trouble in the West is caused by the left, Marxism and the French Revolution. Although has viewpoint has values, it is oversimplified.

Political science is in fact quite complex and difficult. Consider one recent commentary that criticizes a former AU primer minister Paul Keating (BTW, Keat was a labor (left) prime minister who had done many good things). “Every genocide in the 20th century had Western intellectuals willing to downplay it. Heidegger rallied in defence of Nazism and minimised the Holocaust. Jean-Paul Sartre dismissed reports of gulags when they emerged from Stalinist Russia. Michel Foucault was a committed Maoist and, when refugees described cities being emptied in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Noam Chomsky cautioned Westerners against listening.”[6] Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Noam Chomsky are very famous. However, they were wrong. Indeed, many left ideas are wrong. However, some ideas of the political right are also wrong. Thus, the correct way to understand current news, analysis, and commentaries, is to begin with a good background knowledge (bachelor level or above in politics, economy, international relations, etc.) and get information from reasonably good sources. Good American weekly programs include Journal Editorial Report (right), CNN GPS (left): i.e. from both sides. Then do objective analysis yourself.

References:

Niall Ferguson The Treason of the Intellectuals | RealClearP..., Dec.11, 2023.
Ivy-League Anti-Semitism with Bari Weiss, Regarding Henry, and Santa Hats | GoodFellows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAZw_Elft_Y (12-13-2023)
Roger Scruton, Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left, Bloomsbury Continuum, New ed. 2019.
Andrew Heywood, “Political Ideologies,” 4th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Freedom, Faith & Forgiveness | Os Guinness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trmcvsIK_MI (12-23-2022)

Keating ignores genocide to defend his ‘China fantasy’ CLAIRE LEHMANN 3-17, 2023 Au, p15 (Chinese trans.【译丛】基廷无视中共的种族灭绝行径，为他的”中国幻觉“辩护 https://yibaochina.com/?p=249853)

Freedom of Speech and Universities

韩家亮 — Tue, 19 Dec 2023 05:24:04 +0000

Dec. 19, 2013

By now you must have heard that presidents of elite American universities testified in front of Congress and they flunked. Many Americans were shocked. Many Chinese were confused, what was the fuss? This incident should be analyzed from two perspectives: legality (freedom of speech) and morality. I hope the below might be helpful.

First, what does free speech mean? Freedom of speech is very important. The US Constitution’s First Amendment protects citizens’ or groups’ right to speak. It is not limited to speaking, but also publishing, broadcasting, newspapers, etc. Since freedom of speech is so common in the West, many take it for granted and do not appreciate its importance. They regard freedom of speech as a right: anyone can speak about anything and anywhere. That is not true. Consider two examples from an excellent textbook [1]. Socrates, a great philosopher of all time, was condemned to death because he did not have the protection of freedom of speech (It was more complicated but that is beyond this short write-up). For political stability, a great British philosopher Thomas Hobbes advocated complete control of speech, publications, and universities by the crown (government). Without freedom of speech, the US would not be the nation it is now.

One WSJ commentator (see videos below) clarified an important point, that Freedom of Speech applies to the US Government only. Since these elite universities (Harvard, MIT, UPenn) are private, at least nominally, Freedom of Speech does not apply to them. Legally speaking, yes. But morally speaking, no. Legally, public universities (in the US most are state-funded) must obey State and Federal laws. Private Universities, on the other hand, have their codes of conduct. Pay attention to the details of the hearing, you might see the differences. If the US government cannot dictate private universities on issues of free speech then what was the purpose of the hearing? These universities failed to protect their Jewish students (anti-semitism rampant). Some asked (videos below) if Nazis demonstrate on campus, what would they do? Hamas is as bad as Nazis if not worse [2]. Watch the videos to get your conclusion.

What is shocking to many Americans is the morality of these elite universities. Elite universities are supposed to lead by example and to have high morality. Participating in pro-Palestine demonstrations, even supporting Hamas in slogans but not violence, is legal (under the US Constitution) but immoral. However, harassing or intimidating Jewish students is prohibited under the codes of conduct of these universities. (I suspect that these would be in focus if the presidents would pass the initial stage of questioning.) Although many young Americans show sympathy for Palestine people (this is immoral see my previous write-up), most older Americans are not fooled by pro-Palestine propaganda (more on this in a future write-up). You do not need to go to college to know that any organization (such as Hamas) preaching genocide (whether Jews or any other ethnic group) is abhorrent. How is possible that these academics do not have basic values?

Surprisingly, many in the West support Hamas even though Hamas is a terrorist organization. According to the comments, there are several factors. First, many have no idea that Hamas is evil. Just imagine supporting Al-Qaeda after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Second, many have no idea what Islamist ideology is. For example, some advocates of LGBTQ joined pro-Palestine demonstrations. Homosexuals are illegal in many Muslim countries and according to the Quran, they should face certain death. If you want to die, you can find an easy way rather than being pushed from a high rise. Third, many buy into Hamas and Muslims’ propaganda that Jews were oppressors or aggressors and Palestine belongs to Muslims. This is based on a fake history.

Now go back to the hearing. I think that the three presidents are different. If reports of Harvard President Claudine Gay’s plagiarism are accurate, then she is not qualified. Niall Ferguson and Alan Dershowitz think that DEI (Diversity, Equality, Inclusion) made her president. For all I know, both Niall Ferguson and Alan Dershowitz are prominent intellectuals with good characters who speak the truth. Perhaps Gay does not know what morality is because it was not on her agenda. Incidentally, Alan Dershowitz praised Larry Summers for being the best Harvard President and thought that Summers was unfairly forced to resign because some in Harvard pushed a political correctness agenda. It seems to me that Dershowitz is right on both accounts.

The other two presidents perhaps are good academics, just not suitable to be president. Besides being respected for their academic achievement, a president also should have political skills, good character, and morality. They might be also partially the product of DEI. How can the two flunk the hearing? From what I heard, their universities hired prestige PR and Law firms and spent one week preparing for the hearing. The preparation was probably more on legality rather than morality. They did not expect Congress would ask some simple morality questions. (I suspect that they would face trickier questions later. If you have seen such hearings before, you would know. The word grill is used for a reason.) It turned out that all three failed questions for high school students. They have only narrow knowledge and overcoaching made them unprepared for simple morality questions. What is interesting is that Gay made an apology the next day. She also made a photo show in front of a Jewish synagogue later. This strengthens my belief that she is not qualified and probably never thought these questions herself. She might be the front face of DEI, being black and female. Some others plan the show behind the scenes.

References:

Steven B. Smith, “Political Philosophy,” Yale University Press, 2012.
Israel Gaza: Hamas raped and mutilated women ...
Niall Ferguson 12-11 The Treason of the Intellectuals | RealClearP...
BREAKING: Alan Dershowitz Assails Claudine Ga... (12-13)
Why is “From the River to the Sea, Pale...(12-11)
University Presidents Flunk Out | Wonder Land... (12-14)
Time to Cancel Campus Extremism | Free Expres... (12-14)
Journal Editorial Report, 12-17-2023
Corporate Media Covers for Harvard President ... (12-15)

A Very Short History of Israel-Hamas Conflicts

韩家亮 — Sat, 16 Dec 2023 01:33:14 +0000

You probably have heard that recently presidents of three elite American universities (Harvard, UPenn, MIT) were asked to testify in front of Congress. They were criticized for their universities’ failure to tackle anti-semitism. This issue is quite complex and should be analyzed from several angles. In this write-up, I clarify the Israel-Hamas conflicts, which provides the background for further discussion. As in my previous write-ups, my writing is terse. Refer to the references if you have questions.

In a way, the Israel-Arab (not just Hamas) conflicts were prophesied in the Bible (in the Book of Genesis). The relevant event occurred in Genesis 16 about 3800 years ago. You probably have heard that Abraham was the father of three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Strictly speaking, such a claim is wrong, very wrong. If there is only one God, why would He start three religions? He would start only one religion, not three. He did start with only one person named Abraham. Abraham used to live in the city of Harran (in today’s southern Iraq) around 3700-3900 years ago. In Genesis 12 at the age of 75 Abraham was called by God to leave Harran. Genesis 15 was crucial. In it, God promised Abraham that He would bless Abraham and his descendants. 15:6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. This verse is very famous. Martin Luther started the Reformation based on this verse, or more directly Romans 4:3 which quoted it.

Genesis 16 is directly related to Islam. Abraham was already very old but had no descendants. His wife suggested that he take her slave girl Hagar. He did. Hagar gave him a son named Ishmael. There was a prophecy concerning Ismael.

16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;

his hand will be against everyone

and everyone’s hand against him,

and he will live in hostility

toward all his brothers.”

Later God visited Abraham again. God told him that His promise was for his son Isaac through Sarah, his wife (Genesis Chapters 17,21). The Quran, the Islam Holy book, claims that Muhammad’s lineage is through Abraham and Ismael. The genealogy of the Bible is from Abraham and Isaac (one may refer to Matthew 1 and Luke 3 for the details). So Muslims follow an ‘alternative history.’

Genesis 16:12 prophesied conflicts or hostility. The difficulties were caused by Abraham’s sin (sin means separation from God not necessarily crime). The sin was twofold. In creation, God’s original intention of marriage was one man and one woman (Matthew 19:1-12, Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:22-33). Therefore, it was a sin for Abraham to take a concubine. Abraham’s other sin was to take things into his own hands. God made a promise to Abraham. Abraham did not trust God enough but tried through his way to obtain heirs. (There are numerous passages in the Bible teaching a believer should follow God but not go before Him.)

Most regard Judaism began around 1400 BC. That was when Moses gave the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament). Torah has many detailed laws, rituals, etc. The Bible consists of the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). Both Judaism and Christianity agree that the OT was from God. Christianity started as a branch of Judaism. The relationship between Judaism and Christianity is complicated. One may consult Romans 9-11 for some ideas.

The (political) history of the Middle East is long and complicated. I found Dr. Henry Abramson’s videos [1-3] very good: concise, short, objective, and largely accurate (especially for the length). He has a Ph.D. in history supervised under a noted Jewish professor, thus should be reliable. I will not repeat the details, only point out that they largely agree with the Bible and my previous knowledge. One thing that I wish to call your attention to is the name Palestine. Palestine was the land of ancient Israel under another name (this point was vague to me earlier). God gave ancient Israel the land of Judea (in the Old Testament). However, Israelis sinned against God. So as a punishment, God let Israelis enslaved in Babylon. Later after being released from captivity, some Israelis tried several times to reestablish an independent nation. There were several uprisings between 68 AD and 138 AD. At that time, Judea was one province of the Roman Empire. Romans were quite tolerant of provinces within its empire but heavy-handed against rebellions. Any rebellion against Rome would be ruthlessly suppressed. Jews’ uprisings were crushed. These were noted events in Roman history. Interested readers may consult [4-6]. What is relevant to us is that after that the Romans changed the name of the land to Palestine so that the original name Judea may be forgotten. So Jews were natives of Palestine. One of the videos explains this well. Dr. Abramson uses a good allegory for Arabs’ and Jews’ competing claims for this land. (Israelis took the land from prior residents as recorded in the Bible, but that is another story).

Now fast forward to the end of the Ottoman Empire. Modern conflicts in the ME produced the current geopolitics. (The present time is the era of nation-states, which started with American Independence and the French Revolution, i.e. the late eighteenth century.) The Ottoman Empire lasted about 500 years until the end of WWI. At that time, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and many other places were part of Otteman. Thus, people often moved around. There was no such notion of which area belonged to which ethnicity. In other words, it was legal to move around within the Empire. Trouble began when the Ottoman was defeated at the end of WWI. Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, etc. were managed by England and France, the victors of WWI. The videos gave a good description of these and later development. The most serious challenge was that Muslims there wanted to get rid of all Jews in Palestine.

There was another important line of development, Islamists. The root of Islamism and Islamic terrorists is beyond this write-up because they are very complicated (if you want to learn, I can recommend 20+ good books). What is relevant here is that they most originated in Egypt and among them, the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest and most influential one. Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. A famous figure of the Muslim Brotherhood was Ayman al-Zawahiri. Ayman al-Zawahiri was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. After suffering torture in Egypt, he was released from prison. Later he fled to Bin Laden. At the time Bin Laden’s major enemies were Saudi rulers. al-Zawahiri persuaded Bin Laden to change his top enemy to the US. (This involved some theological arguments.) Bin Laden agreed. This eventually led to the 911 terror attack.

One Muslim Brotherhood’s goal had been to eradicate Jews (killing or driving them out) from Palestine and the ME. (below some are quoted from a commentary [7]) In the 1930s and 1940s, the Grand Mufti (the most senior Islamic religious leader) of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement, Amin al-Husseini, joined forces with the Nazis.

The Charter of Hamas is to kill or drive out all Jews in Palestine. From reports of the Oct.7 terrorist attack, Hamas is as evil as ISIS [8]. Furthermore, Gaza under Hamas teaches kindergarteners to kill Jews. Schools train school children how to attack Israel. Because Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, which hates present Arab governments. In their view, these rulers compromise Islamic principles. They create trouble wherever they stay. That is why Arab nations in the region do not welcome Gaza Palestine refugees. They are afraid that some might be loyal to Hamas.

Now a word to everyone. One should weigh carefully before taking a stand on this issue. It was prophesied in the Bible (both in the OT and in the NT) that God will revive Israel, although it is unclear how and when. The Israel-Arab conflicts are indeed very complex. If you do not understand or are unsure, just be quiet. Do not side with Hamas. Most Mainland Chinese know nothing of political science, International Relations, or the Bible, yet want to offer solutions to the Israel-Arab conflicts. If you get it wrong, you might become a road-kill of God’s work. Do you think that you are smarter or know better than God?

References:

(1) All Jewish History in Under 18 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW1wseGyR1Q (2020)

(2) Origins of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Part I: to 1949

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poopqMOd5o&a... (11-20-2023)

(3) Gaza in Jewish History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPMk5hOpyxs (10-2023)

(4) Simon Baker, “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire,” BBC Digital, 2010

(5) Greg Woolf, Rome: An Empire’s Story, Oxford Univ, 2012.

(6) Greg Woolf ed. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Roman World, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

(7) Silence over Hamas hate shames our politicians CLAIRE LEHMANN AU 10-13, 2023 p11

(8) Israel Gaza: Hamas raped and mutilated women on 7 October, BBC hears

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67...

(9) Arab Muslim Speaks About Her Life in Israel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_MfnpuafBg (11-2023)

关于以色列哈马斯战争

韩家亮 — Sat, 02 Dec 2023 05:07:02 +0000

1) 评丁毅 | 巴勒斯坦问题必读之书《敌人与邻居》介绍与简评. https://yibaochina.com/?p=251840

原著有不少错误，书评也有严重错误。书评结论之二的错误最严重:

二，…. 不可否认，巴勒斯坦人（尤其是难民）的权利遭到了以色列的侵犯，但是以色列的“原罪”主要是作为霸凌者而不是杀戮者（纵有一些杀戮，冤冤相报亦非解决问题的办法），当代的巴勒斯坦人寻求正义之时，亦当承认以色列存在的权利。….

这客观上是给哈马斯恐怖组织的存在和行动辩护（就是说似乎有些道理）。西方媒体的评论有时也有类似错误。为了解释清楚，需要从开始讲起。（下面仍然简略，历史太复杂）

首先，巴勒斯坦地名是罗马帝国改动的。本来旧约圣经（大约公元前1200 年）巴勒斯坦就曾属于以色列。为什么地名现在为巴勒斯坦？因为古以色列人反抗罗马帝国（公元68－132），被残酷镇压[1-3]。平息以后罗马帝国因为不想让犹太人再想复国，把这个地区的地名改为巴勒斯坦。所以至少3000年前犹太人就在巴勒斯坦定居。阿拉伯人比犹太人晚许多世纪才移居巴勒斯坦。的确后来许多犹太人又移居其它地区。但这不能改变这个地区原来是犹太人的古国。（我前面附的视频[4-6]不错，准确、客观又简明）。

原书给人的印象是犹太人侵占巴勒斯坦人家园。这不符合历史事实。中东划分成为现代国家（包括埃及，约旦，叙利亚，伊拉克，巴勒斯坦等）以前属奥斯曼帝国。奥斯曼帝国有五百多年的历史。既然都在一个帝国内，不同民族因为各种原因迁移是常事。一战后，奥斯曼帝国战败，英法托管。巴勒斯坦地区属英国管。划分成为国家以前，犹太人阿拉伯人都居住在巴勒斯坦地区。说犹太人霸凌，侵犯不符合历史事实。

原书关于巴勒斯坦，犹太人，阿拉伯人的叙述基本上是按照阿拉伯人一方的观点。这还不说，1947年开始讨论巴勒斯坦的地位时阿拉伯一方坚决不让以色列有任何生存的余地（视频里有）。联合国几次分治草案都被否决。这才有以色列先建立国家。阿拉伯众国家仍然坚持不承认以色列有生存的权力，与以色列打了几次仗，几次都是突然袭击。阿拉伯国家联盟的口号是把以色列赶下海去，即要赶净杀绝犹太人。结果几次阿拉伯人都吃了败仗。以色列国土越来越大。在西方国家的调停下，埃及约旦同意承认以色列国家，与以色列签订和约。

巴勒斯坦1948年以来曾有各种武装组织，以法塔赫为最大。现在的巴勒斯坦解放组织是以法塔赫为核心。法塔赫也曾有恐怖活动。在美国和一些中东国家调停下，同意放弃恐怖活动承认以色列的存在。

哈马斯不仅是恐怖组织，而且比巴勒斯坦解放组织还要极端，包括暗杀法塔赫在加沙的领袖。需要了解哈马斯意识形态的根源。我是读 Judith Miller, “God Has Ninety-Nine Names”, Simon & Schuster, 1997. 开始了解穆斯林极端组织的。几个重要的穆斯林极端组织都起源于埃及。哈马斯是穆斯林兄弟会在加沙的分支。穆斯林兄弟会起源于埃及。穆斯林兄弟会以慈善活动等取得不少民众的支持。它的主要观点是阿拉伯政府都堕落了，背叛了伊斯兰教，成为帝国主义的代理人。盖达的 Ayman al-Zawahiri 就曾是穆斯林兄弟会的领袖。他被埃及官方抓捕后，曾受酷刑。他出狱后投奔宾拉登，成为宾拉登的副手。宾拉登改变战略目标，911袭击美国就是Ayman al-Zawahiri 极力促成的。宾拉登死后， Ayman al-Zawahiri 曾是盖达的头头。穆斯林兄弟会因为其宗旨反政府（包括伊斯兰政府），所以它不受大多数阿拉伯政府的欢迎。它也是埃及政府的头号敌人。这是为什么埃及政府不仅不接受哈马斯，连加沙难民都不让入境。

最近10月7日大屠杀以后的一篇评论[7]指出哈马斯（穆斯林兄弟会）与纳粹在二战时紧密合作，建立灭绝犹太人的共识。耶路撒冷穆斯林领袖 Amin Al-Husseini 曾到德国帮助在中东建立党卫军穆斯林的支部。二战后穆斯林兄弟会的创建人之一Hasan al-Banna 邀请 Amin Al-Husseini 到埃及说，虽然希特勒不在了，Amin Al-Husseini 会继续（消灭犹太人）。

如世界著名学者 Niall Ferguson 所说 [9]每一个有基本人性的人都应该强烈谴责哈马斯灭绝人性杀害平民的暴行。哈马斯灭绝人性的暴行没有任何基础。

参考资料：

1) Simon Baker, “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire,” BBC Digital, 2010

2) Greg Woolf, Rome: An Empire’s Story, Oxford Univ, 2012.

3) Greg Woolf ed. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Roman World, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

4) All Jewish History in Under 18 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW1wseGyR1Q (2020)

5) Origins of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Part I: to 1949

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poopqMOd5o&a... (11-20-2023)

6) Gaza in Jewish History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPMk5hOpyxs (10-2023)

7) Silence over Hamas hate shames our politicians CLAIRE LEHMANN AU 10-13, 2023 p11

….. The ideology of Hamas – the terrorist organisation that carried out the attacks on October 7 – fuses Islamism with Nazism, explains Herf. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement, Amin al-Husseini, joined forces with the Nazis. …. Al-Husseini met with Adolf Hitler and other Nazi officials, and helped establish a Muslim wing of the Schutzstaffel (SS). In a German propaganda newsreel shared by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, you can watch Hitler declare the “struggle against a Jewish homeland in Palestine” was part of the “struggle against the Jews”.

And that when the German army had extended all the way to the Middle East, Germany would issue “an assurance to the Arab world that the hour of liberation was at hand”. It would then be al-Husseini’s “responsibility to unleash the Arab action that he has secretly prepared”.

After the war, al-Husseini escaped prosecution for war crimes, but he was welcomed into Eqypt as a hero.“Germany and Hitler are gone, but Amin Al-Husseini will continue the struggle,” wrote the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna.

8) Hamas terror embodies a century of Jew hatred – HENRY ERGAS | 11-13, 2023 p13

9) “Islam is Both a Religion and a Political Philosophy” | Niall Ferguson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuebQucqK6g (11-23-2023)

=====

Are journalists seekers of truth, or warriors for a cause?

December 2, 2023 | Australian, The/Weekend Australian, Michael Gawenda | Page: 23 | Section: Inquire

– it goes back to 2021 when journalists signed a group letter demanding that journalists be allowed to be activists for Palestinians against their Israeli oppressors – but it has flowered since the October 7 massacre by Hamas terrorists.

The terrorists kidnapped 240 people, some dragged out of their homes, old women and children and babies, and carted off to Gaza. Others were young people captured at a dance party for peace in the desert not far from Gaza where 360 of their fellow ravers were massacred by the terrorists in unimaginably horrific ways.

Within days, even hours, there were petitions circulating and group letters, signed by journalists, that branded Israel a colonialist apartheid state and excused the October 7 horrors by providing “context” or simply ignored them. All subsequent petitions, group letters and statements from every conceivable and inconceivable group, such as Queers for Palestine, have followed the formula of these initial letters and petitions.

The latest one, signed by 300 journalists and approved by the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, the journalists union, is in many ways just a rehash of all the letters and petitions that preceded it. It is confirmation of the fact the contagion is real: a significant number of journalists see themselves as warriors for a cause, the cause of the oppressed Palestinian people, occupied for 75 years by a racist white supremacist state that is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza.

…..

The letter lists four talking points, the historical context journalists must use when talking about what happened on October 7. In some ways these are predictable. The first one states the October 7 massacre has to be seen in the context of “the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their native lands in 1948 to make way for the state of Israel”. The rest are more or less along the same lines, a couple of sentences for each talking point to illustrate Israeli and Jewish wrongdoing and oppression that started with the first big wrongdoing in 1948: the establishment of the state of Israel on the land of expelled indigenous Palestinians.

…….