What is Jihad, Seriously, Again??

"Please point me in the direction of a copy of quran and sharia that you believe is right. And I will see if it differs from those I have allready. No compulsion in religion Holy war is the duty of all moslems."

Someone wrote, the above and wants to know, What is Jihad?

The reply I wrote, follows below. If anyone has a better definition or explanation, please feel free to send me
an email or comment below, thankx. The comments are 'screened', like Muslims at an international airport, before posting, so it may take a while before you see your comment.

Reply:

No, there is no "Holy War". That's a Christian evangelical idea. Their words. Jihad simply means striving in the path of God. If someone builds schools, mosques, roads, wells, that's all charity that earns rewards for the person who donates to such projects. It is the best kind of charity, something that benefits for a long time.There are types of jihad, too. Fighting one's own desires, is also jihad. When many people talk about Islam or jihad, all they talk about is "unjust war". War in Islam is for defense.

The Battle of Badr and Battle of Uhud, the two most remembered battles didn't have many deaths or casualties compared to many other wars. The pagans or the Muslims had to go. God favored the Muslims in the end, and Medina was established as a Muslim capital. It took Muhammad, over twenty years of preaching but most of the Arab pagans converted after that. Mekkah was a bloodless victory, in that everyone surrendered, and only the criminals were not released (there was actually one man who went into the Kaabah to escape and he was killed).

The head leader, Abu Jahal had died, and some of the others had already converted before the Fateh al Mekkah, that day, so the rest of their tribe soon followed, like Khalid Ibn Walid, who later converted, but Abu Sufyan another famous person had converted before that, and his wife was HInd, a woman who had hired an assassin to kill the Prophet's uncle Hamza. Despite this, they converted of their own free will when God willed. And became good Muslims.

Another case in point is the Jews and hypocrites in Medina who sided with them, after declaring their Islam, which people always bring up. Why were Jews killed in Medina or evicted? Because they were traitors. Do you want traitors who attack you to be given a free pass?? Do you only HATE Muslims but LOVE traitors?? No. War is just at certain times. Americans will "never forget" 911 but they forgot Iraq's innocent children very quickly. (SOMETIMES SOME) Americans and (SOMETIMES SOME)Christians are some of the worst hypocrites alive today. Muslims don't say that war isn't justified, but they believe that killing innocents is forbidden.

If some Muslims do that, they are the worst criminals. STOP saying (not you personally) that Muslims never say anything when terrorist attacks occur. We are against terrorism and killing of innocents, but when we say that, who is listening?? Oh. No one.. Obviously you still believe the lies about Islam or you wouldn't be asking about "No compulsion in religion". Don't be lazy and do some of your own reading. One book which is pretty good is "The Sealed Nectar". It won't cost you an arm and a leg. It is a biography of the Prophet Muhammad, and tells a lot about the battles, including Badr and Uhud, and why the Jews (traitors) were killed. It won a prize for the best biography in a contest, and was written by an Indian Muslim scholar and translated into English. There are many hadiths showing how kind and generous the Prophet Muhammad was. His character is pure and good, but non-Muslims want to make his character vile and evil. God forbid we should not defend him.

There is no translation that will do justice to the Quran, not just because it's Arabic, but because translators are human beings, and other languages also aren't as great as the Quranic Arabic. English, especially, is a young language, and you can see how it is being destroyed today. But there are some translations that are better than others. The Yusuf Ali one was edited because it had bigger problems than some others.

The Bible has many verses that must be embarrassing for Christians, some people say the same thing about Hadiths. Well, the hadiths aren't the word of God. (There are Hadiths Qudsi, which are God's words revealed to Muhammad, but not part of the Quran). But the majority of hadiths/sayings or traditions are not God's words, and also they were written and compiled after a long time. So they are more like what the Bible is in terms of how long after the events they were collected into books. The bible is also not God's word, so that explains why there are a lot of wrong things in it. No offence to people who read it to study it and get some good out of it. Cherry picking verses is the past-time of the non-Muslims. They do it with their own book and with the Quran (translation of the meaning of the Quran). But many people still say it is one of the best today (if you get the edited version). Learning Arabic is impossible for most people. But it is different when you know some Arabic and can read the original. That being said, the problem isn't even which translation but that people read with a closed mind, and there's no 'medicine' for that, except to ask God to open your heart and mind. Shariah is Islamic law, there is only one "islamic law". There are colleges that teach Usul Fiqh, jurisprudence. They will teach about the way to understand and apply laws. You know, stuff I haven't studied indepth.

There are many non-Muslims in Muslim majority states and they are not all fighting each other. Muslims work with non-Muslims here. We have a fairly peaceful country. The government is fair, and people are free to live and work. There is also one of the oldest Catholic Churches in the ME in our country (I am a citizen now too, as are many people who got their citizenship in the past couple of decades).

Just like any other person studies law, it is studied in Muslim countries, and also some other countries today. There is ijtihad, which is consensus of opinion, where a question is something the scholars today may not know about, such as things that never happened in the past, or for which there is no ruling. In law this is like looking for precedents, and if there aren't any then you derive an opinion from looking at the whole body of works on that subject and using their brains. Judges can be wrong, also when making judgments, and this is not denied. But Islamic law lays a lot of emphasis on proofs, and circumstantial evidence isn't emphasized. Even if a man is found with a knife in his hand at the scene of a stabbing death, doesn't prove his guilt, for example. There was such a case and the judge makes sure that he gets to the truth, if possible, or else the person can't be convicted of murder. In a very old case which happened, a man was actually found not guilty, because it turned out he confessed because he thought none would believe him anyway if he told the truth. He had come upon a murder scene, grabbed the weapon and then been found by people. Later, a man actually confessed, because he was afraid that he would be responsible for the murder of the victim plus the unjust killing of the person who confessed to the killing. I guess stranger things have happened. There *is* no compulsion in religion, so just go about your life like you always have if you have no interest in learning about Islam. Men are responsible for the expenses even when women work. That doesn't mean women marry men for their money, like many people say. Many non-Muslim women also are converting to Islam here, and also men are converting to Islam. There is no forced conversion. People are free to live and work, and they are free to worship wherever they are able to do that. In Canada, Muslims often pray at work, on their break, and it's not against the law. Why do people think freedom of religion is such a difficult concept??

Good day.

I THINK THIS IS ADDED LATER? :

I live in Bahrain, and it's fine, people have recreation and all the many things that they have back home, even many of the same foods, restaurants and fast food places, they may have a church (it varies in the ME from country to country). Not every Christian denomination has a church obviously. But it isn't the responsibility of a government to give land away for every church that some people want. I think the same goes of the masjids (mosques) in non-Muslim countries.I don't object to laws that are meant to protect people, and countries have a right to make such laws. But there are also laws against wrongful oppression of immigrants, etc. It is not only fair, but required that governments treat all their citizens equally and punish the wrongdoers, but not wrongfully convict innocent people or treat people who are not criminals like criminals. All governments, if they abide by the humanitarian laws, will treat citizens and also immigrants, or visa workers with kindness, justice and secure their peaceful existence and human dignity. Unfortunately,that's not always the case, is it? Islam has human rights, and even animal rights. These are binding in the Islamic texts, and are obvious.

[Jane Dughatir] Thanks for reading! Have a nice day/evening :)

(EDITS are in round brackets: when I probably insulted many ppl already I was informed by a friend about the error/mistake and corrected my wrong sentence. I have already apologized on social media. #clickbait #racism)

Debate Proves Counterproductive to Understanding Islam – Part Two

Forum for Cooperation, or Disunity?

When the Introduction to the audience was made, the MC notes that a French North African community activist said, “We feel we’re trapped in a cellar and need oxygen; you give us this oxygen.” About the appropriateness of a cultural relations organization launching or handling such a project, or I assume, similar activities; I’m not sure what else would have been discussed then, or what the activist was particularly referring to, or even if he was speaking as a Muslim or rather only from a cultural perspective.

But I’m afraid that this debate, which ran for almost an hour (the one clip which I was able to download and watch on my PC), an “Our Shared Europe” program which was taped, later edited for television, we were told, would host some 70,000,000 viewers worldwide when it was aired by BBC World. “We build trust and engagement throughout the world”, he reads off a prepared speech, about the organizers or the British Council. Yes, a prepared speech might claim that the debate would lead to more trust and engagement, but I fail to see how that materializes, when Douglas Murray takes part; especially in this particular “Intelligence ²” debate, he seems to have grown fangs on set.

I believe, the lack of time for a debate, which should reflect the magnitude of the topic, and the goals of “Our Shared Europe” to build trust, should not be left at the mercy of debaters, who may not even share their vision, “to highlight the contribution of Muslims to Europe.”

I hate to think, what would be the result if many more debates happen the way this one did, maybe that much “oxygen” given to this type of event with support, and encouragement from Shared Europe and the British Council, might actually end up “blowing up” like a high school chemistry lab might do without teacher supervision.

To admit a problem is the first step, “the growing cultural relations frictions between Muslims and others”, is mentioned in the introduction. I’m relieved that that at least helped to highlight what many people believe about Muslims in Europe, that there is a “cultural relations problem”, and that it might well be the fault of the host country, and not the fault of Muslims. Because if Our Shared Europe believes that Muslims have made a significant and healthy contribution to Europe, then there is hope that this positive outlook can continue to be the focus as well as “push” for Muslims’ struggles within Europe (as well as other parts of the Globe), if understanding and cooperation continue to be developed and nurtured by both sides. “Muslims are an integral part… now, and of our combined future”.

It is not right, that the debate should have focused on Muslims’ contribution, and that “culture” not religion should be the main focus, yet Islam is being targeted and blamed as the main culprit throughout the debate. One side, the Muslims, must defend their religion, not only their culture, and the other side, seems to oppose, not Muslim culture, but Muslim religion (Islam).



The original Motion is “Is Europe Failing its Muslims? Murray argues, no. Europe is not failing its Muslims. That he sees the real issue as Muslims are failing Europe focuses negative attention on the Muslims, and takes away the negative attention from Europe, where the original question had placed it.

The panel was, on the right, Douglas Murray and Fleming Rose. On the left were Petra Stienen and Tariq Ramadan.

Tariq Ramadan - Professor, Contemporary Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford. President, European Muslim Network.

Stats: Muslims are ‘creating problems’, Muslims are perceived as ‘bad’. 75% of people believe Muslims are having a negative effect on Europe. “Separate controversies around the Muslim presence”, in each part of Europe. He says, “we speak about culture (Europe does) and we Islamize the socio-economic problems.”

Tariq Ramadan is the first to point out that this is not just about “culture” but also about religion. He also tells us how Muslims who are European are not (even today) perceived as Europeans, despite their longstanding European status.

Thereafter, he says, “it is not because they are Muslims but because they face the class discrimination, segregation and wrong social policies”. In other words, because Europeans don’t accept the Muslims’ culture, the growing Muslim presence, and so on, or their status is subjected to a “double standard”, i.e. they are not “really” Europeans, they are not like other Europeans, therefore discrimination is a given or to be expected. He points out that Muslims are trying hard to integrate, and in fact have built their lives around their cultural-religious institutions, etc. so that they might feel and be at home, yet they are made to feel like they don’t belong, by the others; the ‘wider society’ or non-Muslims. Therefore, that is discrimination, due to cultural-religious dislike of Muslims because they have a visibly different culture or religion. This is not only the problem of Muslims, I believe, but of all immigrants, i.e. the Roma people, might be a good example, or of blacks and visible minorities who are not born citizens of Europe. To be short on the subject of media, I will just note that it is prominent in the media, the Muslims “negative impact”, everywhere in the world.

He believes that Muslims are understanding Europe and also understanding their own religion much better than before, therefore, they are not going to be a “problem” for Europe, but hopefully would positively influence the society, through their many positive activities, which he also spoke about. Thus, was Tariq Ramadan’s opening.

Douglas Murray – Director, The Centre for Social Cohesion

First off Douglas Murray asks the audience to acknowledge that the attack on 911 was done by Muslims (which is only a half truth). But certainly we can all acknowledge that Muslims did attack sometimes, in some places, extremists exist, no doubt about it. However, his speech beginning on a very sour note or negative note, because “for any debate to happen” (I wanted understanding, rather than debate, but alas, that isn’t the final outcome) we must grasp this important and relevant point; he says his piece, however there is some booing from the audience. This is strange for me to see, the first time, someone who is the Director for the Center for Social Cohesion throwing a very damning light on Muslims when the venue and the positive start all highlighted the positive emotions in the outset of the debate. But the MC did warn us, in a way. Murray’s centre “tries to promote integration” - which I assumed means promoting cultural (and religious) understanding, as well. His centre also specializes in “radicalization” which perhaps has cemented his own previous negative views on Islam, or his perception of the vast numbers of Muslims as “radicals”. I would have to ask him, to know if that is the case.

Murray then speaks about the “vast migration” in the 21st century, 15-17 million Muslims in Western Europe alone. They have “dealt with” Muslims, he says, much better than “Muslim countries”. He blatantly or very ignorantly lies, when he says that Muslim countries do not permit freedom of religion, anywhere in the world. This is false, and can be proven, by the freedom of worship not only of Muslims, but by the many churches in the Gulf region, Bahrain, in particular, which I know of, and others I believe, and elsewhere I’m aware of Egypt, or Turkey, and other countries. Also, a similar positive situation exists further East in Malaysia, and so on. Even in some African nations, which I’m sure has churches as well as Masjids. “The failures of Muslim societies, the failures of … come here into Britain”; here I’m not sure, does he mean, the few extremists who are failures, or the majority of Muslims? In other words, while Tariq was highlighting the fact of the positive contributions of Muslims in Europe, Mr. Murray was not aware of such, and even at this point, due to the necessity of “following the script” refuses to acknowledge that the majority of Muslims are “trying” to fit in, and trying to be a positive force in the European cultural landscape and that they are to a degree succeeding, however slowly; as Tariq Ramadan mentioned the “silent revolution”. I wonder does, Mr. Murray walk the streets of London, to “get out of the taxi” once in a while, as a French Canadian friend of mine once asked a bus driver in Montreal interested in her hiijab.

Murray on Muslims and Women’s Rights

“Their dislike and distrust of half of the population, women”? This is quite unbearable, almost too much even for me to listen to. It smacks of a completely hopeless case of “racism”, or “Islamophobia” and a “sickness”.

Murray on Islamic Law

And if no other group asks for parallel laws, what of it? There are parallel laws for Muslims in Canada, to some degree, such as the family laws, or allowances for Muslims to bury their dead in their own cemeteries, or women to demand female doctors, and so on. These are rights (similar or the same) that others also have. Because others have gotten these rights before, and now Muslims share similar rights or might demand new ones, means they are the ones who are intolerant? I think there is not enough evidence that if one has Islamic laws, (not the entire Sharia, obviously) but some parallel laws, that such would not harm society in any way. Where is the proof after all, since these other, newer parallel laws don’t in fact exist? The practice of their faith openly; or prayer in schools, for example, is not a right which Muslims only have demanded. (Perhaps some relevant laws were in place before Muslims demanded them?) Nor has there been a very negative impact because of prayer in schools, one might argue the opposite is true; that religious children are better students, or better citizens. (And I don’t claim here to know a lot about Europe and the laws or which laws Muslims are demanding; one man mentioned that gays have less rights as they are being overlooked for their demands, to appease or give religions, not only Muslims, preference; I wish he could have been more specific despite the lack of time, but as I said, debate forums due to their nature don’t allow for really constructive criticism, or enlightenment and understanding.)As a plural society, Europe or Britain should be very careful to “walk the talk”. I don’t understand why such a plural society then refuses to acknowledge grievances of some people, be they Muslims, or other minorities, visible, or not visible minorities? Is it due to the government’s own racist, anti-Islam, or anti-gay views? (Or a specific lobby, which is at fault? The government for the people, as they say, should apply but doesn’t always) Is it the fault of “multiculturalism” which is supposed to integrate people, but in fact is a tool of the government to cause more division in society not less? As Tariq noted, Muslims have been in Europe a long time. Therefore, did Europe or Britain need “multiculturalism” and laws to promote different cultures, etc. or is “multiculturalism” actually driving a wedge in society, between Muslims and others, because more immigrants are allowed into Europe and cannot even find jobs or can’t ‘fit in’; the newer Muslims (immigrants) are used as fuel for the fire, to ignite more hatred against Islam and Muslims, when the Muslims who are born there already have found that integration is possible, but only with understanding; that same understanding is being undermined by the very laws which were made to integrate Muslims. It all seems very strange and perplexing. If we look at immigration now, is it being blocked or not? I think Europe knows that there are enough visible minorities, especially Muslims to do enough ‘damage’ to Europe, in terms of civil strife; that Islam will never be allowed to have a real voice; that ‘multiculturalism’ is a sham; this is the status right now.

Briefly, I’m revising to add this crucial point, in regards to what David Murray said about Muslims rights in Europe; “you have no right in this society not to be offended…” I ask do the Jewish people, also a minority, even if they are a European minority that existed in Europe before the Muslims, also have no right to ask that they not be offended; what does the law say about “Holocaust denial”?? I believe it would be greatly undermining peace if we applied the same hard brush to Jewish sentiments that we (or Europe, or Douglas Murray) want(s) to apply to the Muslims, whether immigrants or Europeans by birth. If a = b, and b = c, then a must also = c. He is of course referring to freedom of speech. All people in Europe, whether Douglas Murray likes them or not, should have equal rights before the law. Maybe he can answer the above question better than I can, as I am not a European and have not given this much thought, previously. But this debate certainly seems to lack crucial honesty.

Islamic laws are based on revelation, but that doesn’t mean that they are not also reasonable. In Islam, incarceration is disliked, whereas capital punishment is preferable, in cases of proven and obvious murder, or rape. In America, capital punishment is also accepted and used in some states as a deterrent. That being said, there are Islamic laws very distasteful to Europe, which would never be accepted by the majority of Europeans, or even by some Muslims in Europe. I don’t think this is a real question of Muslims in Europe today however, or even in the possible future, as Muslims in Europe do want to integrate as Tariq Ramadan showed quite convincingly. If the future of Europe sees a drastic change in the religious affiliations of a vast majority of the people, I can imagine that the situation could be more tolerant of what Muslims believe and prefer, in terms of their own governance and also laws reflecting the population (with more Muslims, comes more political power for Muslims.) as a natural evolution with Islam’s saturation, if ever that occurs to any great extent, say 40 - 50% of the population (We are talking about a very long time). When Murray speaks of Europe, and the “no compromise” he offers Muslims, not immigrants, but the European Muslims who I’m sure already clearly understand their country’s laws (or am I mistaken?) then, one feels Europe must be a very unwelcoming place for most new arrivals, if every European thinks the way he does. Only a masochist, it seems would want to immigrate to Europe from a Muslim country, despite the supposed and many “freedoms” being touted by Europeans in all the media, cultural venues, cultural programs, multicultural activities, International film festivals, debates, etc. I think even tourists would run away from a vacation in Europe if ever they meet a Douglas Murray type in the street.

I would love to meet Petra Stienen in the street, however, after hearing her speech for this debate; I thought she was very well spoken, not at all unfair to anything anyone had said during the debate up to when she took her chair to speak. She spoke to the point.

Cruelty Has Been Universal

Those who believe the Ancient Arabs were barbaric and more or less crueler than others, would have to argue that Genghis Khan, or Hitler was not equally cruel. Maybe that depends on whether or not one prefers their children to be buried alive or burnt to death.

Meaning of Islam

Islam is about saving souls, not taking lives.

Fleming Rose - editor of the Netherlands newspaper that published anti-Muhammad, anti-Muslim cartoons. (Revise)

Fleming Rose, who is rather infamous, if not just famous, gave his afterthoughts about his experience after his newspaper published the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. He speaks about the democracies; the important distinction he wants to express; which supports Murrays arguments is the “freedom to choose”, about which he believes “Muslims are not able to exercise that right” in Europe nor benefit from the rights the Government gives them. His main focus turns to the Islamic Law (which is not practiced in Europe), so I fail to see the reason or mention of this in this particular debate; it is highlighting something which would likely happen not in Europe but in Pakistan, a rather negative view of Islam, again propagated in a debate which is being promoted by groups or entities which claim to want “cooperation and understanding”. Rose, like Murray and many others want to highlight the few cases of extremism. I dare argue there are extremists who hold views which run counter to Islam, are hateful and so on, but they do not pose any more danger than white supremacists in Europe. Therefore, this is a matter for the police and law enforcement; this is not about Islam and a Muslim problem, per se. These types of views, distrust of government, or anger are shared by Europeans, (or Americans, in the case of America), and are not only the views of some new arriving Muslims, or immigrants; i.e. the government lies to the people, the government cannot be trusted, politicians steal the wealth, politicians take bribes. This is also another problem of “perception”. Similarly, one of the panel mentioned that it is not only Muslims who have “homophobic” views, but that this is a problem of the overall society’s dislike or even hate of homosexuals. When it is the personal view of someone, and doesn’t hurt anyone, such as people would be the target of hate crimes, then I think we don’t yet draw a line in the sand, however when the government dictates certain policies, to appease Muslims, or religionists, then it becomes the fault and responsibility of the government - and if problems or hate increase as a result. Always, in a secular society, the government must bear the greatest responsibility for “fairness”, fair treatment, just laws which reflect the nature of secular society, but also democracy. Unfortunately, as Bilal Philips, a Canadian Muslim scholar, points out in his book The Clash of Civilizations: an Islamic Perspective, America (and we can assume others) claim/s to be (a)democracy/ies, but actually, they value secularism much more than democracy. Therefore, we see that two separate agendas (might) exist, one which promotes secularism over democracy, and another which (in the open) promotes democracy or secularism over the rights of minorities, even though these rights have until now been part of the fabric of that society, or the people’s choice. Some day governments may not allow people a choice in their personal beliefs, or open religious practice; they may become more like the Arab governments which tortured Muslims or Christians because of their faith; governments like Mubarak’s or Ghaddafi’s, or Saddam’s, or like Bashar Assad’s government at present, and like Israel behaves in the occupied territories. If the British government today is heedless of (or promoting) anti-gay policies today, tomorrow it will be equally or even more heedless (or in favor) of anti-Muslim or anti-religions policies tomorrow.

Other thoughts:

How often we hear that Muslim women lag behind everywhere in the world; I believe this is hate speech, not based on the reality all over the Muslim world; only in wartime did the Taliban forbid women for example from attending schools; the west fails to admit that there are certain grave conditions in some Muslim-majority countries that prevent their communities, or parents of girls or even boys (as in Palestine, or Lebanon) from permitting their children to attend schools. It is not as they believe, the dictates of Islam, or the dictates of Muslim extremism, but actually necessity, that girls sometimes are not allowed to attend school. This is not only a “Muslim problem” but a problem wherever wars or strife, starvation, or drought, etc occur. Now if some Muslims, through their misinterpretation of Islam do the same thing - is also not the fault of Islam. “Islam has failed the Muslims” is NOT TRUE; “Muslims have failed Islam” IS TRUE.

Another example; the west wants women to drive in Saudi Arabia; who will guarantee that those women who drive will not be attacked when their car breaks down? Who will prevent their accident on the roads, when one of the males of the population (the cause of major accidents, are young men who don’t drive properly, but possess a driving license; they do not follow the traffic rules) causes them to have an accident? Who will prevent their not talking on the phones, which they do a lot, while driving? I believe, as long as the law stands the way it is in Saudi Arabia, many women are prevented from horrendous accidents, crime and dangers which they would rather prefer to not experience than realize too late after the fact, were they permitted to drive. But this is an opinion many women in that country have; it is not necessarily my own opinion. I do know that many drivers with licenses in the GCC are incompetent and dangerous; that includes men and women, males and females. That is enough said, I think on the topic.

Biology vs. Belief:

I wonder if Fleming Rose’s wife is a visible minority. He says during the question period midway, that one cannot change their race, therefore implying that because religion can be changed it is not a fundamental part of a person. To which religion other than Islam, would he prefer Muslims go to? Or does he want all religious people to give up religion? Isn’t that also being hateful? Is it only hateful, therefore illegal, when race is the focus, but not when religions are the focus? Why? It is because, it is much easier for Europeans who are white to argue against racism, because race is much more visible and cannot be changed, whereas when people leave one religion for another they might become more, not less, “invisible”. And as more people convert to Islam, this will prove to change the face of Islam from colored to white people. Europeans are afraid of Islam, and afraid of the changing face of Islam, to white, not dark. (It will actually eliminate racism, if permitted to continue, due to the growing prevalence in Islamic societies of mixed marriages, which go unopposed, since there is no racism in Islam, which exists in some Christian fundamentalist groups.) Also, the statement Fleming Rose makes, suggests that if people could change their race, they probably should. It would be a lot easier if everyone were not so different, after all. Maybe his wife is an immigrant, but not a very distinctly different immigrant; probably she is white European and not a black or darker Indian for example. (Of course, I would have to ask him, or someone who knows his family). I believe he didn’t intentionally mean to sound “racist”, but that was the effect, somehow.