Anne Lieberman has a different take on Keith Ellison’s use of the koran than the media folks do:
While supposed “reporters” would leave us to our own devices, no doubt to assume that Jefferson was so prescient that he envisioned political correctness hundreds of years beforehand, there are those of us who seek a bigger (and more accurate) picture.
Read the post, and you’ll discover that Thomas Jefferson was reading the koran to discover the motivation behind the Barbary pirates, who were Muslims. Funny how that was never taught to me in high school.
I’m still making up my mind about the whole Ellison swearing in thing.
If you think that’s bad, Robert Byrd was sworn in on Jefferson’s copy of Mein Kampf.
Comment by Laurence Simon — 01/05/2007 @ 8:24 pm
OT: Just added you to the blogroll at Photon Courier.
Comment by david foster — 01/05/2007 @ 9:07 pm
Jefferson was not reading the Quran to confront the Barbary Pirates. He bought it in 1865 during his legal studies at William & Mary. The Barbary pirates incidents happened much later than that.
Comment by Shahed — 01/05/2007 @ 9:37 pm
Lair, I thought it was Jefferson’s copy of the Protocols!
Comment by Robert — 01/05/2007 @ 9:47 pm
Not to rain on anybody’s snark parade, but I can’t honestly believe that you would have a problem here, Meryl. What exactly do you expect a practicing Muslim to use to swear an Oath? He’s using the book that makes the Oath the most meaningful to him. This is a no-brainer. Unless you think that there’s no legitimate version of acceptable Islam out there anywhere, that is.
He’s been duly elected, and he is swearing to uphold the Constitution here, which seems to me to be more important than which book he uses to do it.
Comment by Larry — 01/05/2007 @ 11:47 pm
Shahed is right. Jefferson read the Koran before he had to deal with the Barbary Pirates. He bought his copy as a law student, long before he was in public life. He had a lifelong interest in studying the laws of different nations and cultures. It was not a matter of being “prescient” in anticipating so called political correctness, it was that he was a brilliant and sophisticated man who had a curiosity about the way all the world worked. That’s why he studied other languages, the laws of nations, as well as the food and wine of other countries.
Comment by Anonymous — 01/06/2007 @ 7:25 am
You have an interesting Website, Shahed.
It is Islamic, (seems to be) moderate, coherent and (unfortunately) rare.
I just bookmarked it and I hope it doesn’t fail in changing my view of Islam for the better.
No - not to the point of conversion, Shahed, as I am a staunch Christian, but as one who always hopes that there could be lasting peace with Islam and the rest of the world.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/06/2007 @ 8:14 am
In three differnet places, the Koran refers to Jews as decendents of monkeys and pigs. Using the Koran in swearing in ceremonies sanctifies this racism.
Comment by Lorenzo — 01/06/2007 @ 8:58 am
Of course, as Lorenzo pointed out, there are alot of things that moderate Islam will need to address to us before I (and others, I suppose) will accept this more moderate stance and sleep peacefully once again.
And when explaining: No Taqiyya, please.
(Note: Wikipedia has a very PC version of it if you want to know)
Comment by cond0010 — 01/06/2007 @ 10:10 am
cond0010, you are a moron, Shaheds site is alt.muslim - it is essentially the news group for the entire religion. That makes its “moderate and coherent” message “rare?”
As an outsider to all 3 of your “big” religions, I think you all consistantly have your moments of glory and way too many of shame, both Christians, Muslims and Jews seem to be really good at passing false judgement on each other without any self-reflection on their own misdeeds, but lately Christians have really been stepping up in the hysterical finger-pointing department.
Lorenzo - stop whining, as if all the other religions didn’t have things equally as disgusting.
As for the owner of this blog do you have any interest in addressing what Shahed said?
Larry, your point was spot on.
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/06/2007 @ 10:38 am
Larry Says:
His swearing in using the Qur’an gives him the strategy of Taqiya to promote Islam; tell any lies needed to the infidel.
If he swears on the book providing the basis for Sharia then you, infidel, cannot believe anything he tells you and you certainly cannot take it for granted that he will bear the Constitution in mind when deciding your fate.
Comment by Cynic — 01/06/2007 @ 10:38 am
Owner, please retract the part where I call condo a moron - it was rude and detracts from the point
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/06/2007 @ 10:40 am
Actually, I’ll let it stand, because the above apology is the only thing that stopped me from deleting the comment.
Personal attacks are not welcome here.
Comment by Meryl Yourish — 01/06/2007 @ 10:59 am
I don’t see any problem with using Koran to swear in. It’s the person and how they interpret it that matters.
I will note one thing, I’m pretty sure the fact that he put his left hand on the Koran, notice the picture, is pretty bad in Islam. Google “Islam, people of the left hand” (How wretched the people of the left hand!). I’m not an expert on Islam nor do I pretend to be one, and maybe it’s just an Arab thing and not a Muslim thing, but I’m pretty sure that using your left hand in many things is bad.
That makes it sort of funny to me. I’m surprised that the only comment on this was at LGF.
Comment by Veeshir — 01/06/2007 @ 11:20 am
Since it wasn’t a “real” Koran anyway (a translation of “the Koran” is not considered “the Koran”), it probably doesn’t matter which hand he used. ;-)
Comment by LynnB — 01/06/2007 @ 11:43 am
“cond0010, you are a (*snip*), Shaheds site is alt.muslim - it is essentially the news group for the entire religion. That makes its “moderate and coherent” message “rare?””
Gee, Zoroastrian, can’t you read my post and get the full meaning? My first sentence was:
“You have an interesting Website, Shahed.”
Now, between the lines that means that I clicked on his name, visited, and read some of the things on the first page.
Did I give it my full blessing? Lets look:
“I just bookmarked it and I hope it doesn’t fail in changing my view of Islam for the better.”
Please note the use of the word ‘hope’. It means that my positive view is still under speculation.
So from the judgement that you said of me, i think you were a leeeetle premature.
Oh look you just made another judgement:
“both Christians, Muslims and Jews seem to be really good at passing false judgement ”
The defense rests.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/06/2007 @ 11:49 am
Besides, Zoroastrian, do click on his name.
alt.muslim does appear, at first glance, to be one of moderation.
Do try to keep an open mind about Muslims too.
As a Christian and one who well read in the various things that people do in the name of Islam, I have become more and more hostile to the Muslim religion.
To have something disprove that, I find it a breath of fresh air and am always seeking ways to get rid of hateful thoughts - as a Christian, of course.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/06/2007 @ 11:56 am
I live in Minneapolis Minnesota in the congressional district that voted in Ellison. My previous long term congressman Martin Sabo did NOT endorse Ellison, unfortunately, this is a very blue district and by winning the primary [by roughly 40%, the rest of the votes were split among multiple other candidates] Ellison was an automatic winner of this seat.
Even the local left wing Jewish press endorsed him over the weak Jewish Republican candidate Alan Fine.
We are all waiting for his first embarrassing comments to be made, then watch for the fall out. Fortunately, he will be up for reelection in two years.
Comment by Herschel — 01/06/2007 @ 12:06 pm
Shahed is correct that TJ purchased his Koran while in law school, and long before he encountered the Barbary Pirates. But the more salient ironies that Anne and others have pointed out re: Ellison choosing this particular volume include: 1) that Jefferson did, in fact, see the subsequent aggressions of the Barbary Pirates as specifically inspired and commanded by the Koran (as confirmed by the Tripolitan ambassador and other sources) and 2) that Jefferson’s particular translation of the Koran was made in an attempt to discredit Islam (as clearly spelled out in its preface) and 3) as I mentioned above, that for a true believer, a translation of the Koran is not really The Koran, and has no religious significance.
Larry, of course the Congressman is entitled to swear on (or, more accurately, hold during his swearing in) whatever book he chooses. But his choice makes a statement and commentary on the implications of that statement is certainly appropriate under the circumstances.
Comment by LynnB — 01/06/2007 @ 12:21 pm
Condo you seem to miss my point, I am not critizing your support of Shahed’s site - my criticism is of your viewpoint that moderation and coherency are rare on Muslim sites. You act like alt.muslim is Shahed’s small personal blog when really it is the central newsgroup of the Muslim community, a site with numerous contributor and thousands of readers and probably more representational of the majority Muslim viewpoint than any other site on the internet.
Furthermore, if anyone is guilty of lack of moderation and coherency I would look first to rabidly prejudicial sites like LGF and JihadWatch - if you can find a legitimate Muslim site that is so preoocupied with the negative behavior of Christians, as they are with Muslims I would love to see it- I have not found one, so if you know of one, please let me know.
I am glad that you are trying to find ways to dispell your negative thoughts, though in all honesty I seriously doubt the legitimacy of your claim. Instead I think you were looking more for a token Muslim to hold up as “good” as a barometer to casting the vast majority as “bad” (something you claim yourself).
In any case, I fail to see how this Ellison thing is even an issue - frankly someone who has a problem with him swearing on his own holy text has no faith in their own. Ellison has shown far more class and civility than any of his critics, who have shown themelves to be morally, intellectually and spiritually weak.
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/06/2007 @ 12:23 pm
I live just down the road from you, Herschel, and I felt it was a big mistake also.
Ellison is a convert through the Nation of Islam which is headed by Louis Farrakhan. No need to explain that name.
It stikes me as them trying to say “See? We voted a Muslim in. Aren’t we swell?”. If they look into his history a little more they may have thought twice.
Ah well… Minnesota did vote in the first professional Wrestler as governor, didn’t we?
Comment by cond0010 — 01/06/2007 @ 12:24 pm
Actually I think he was voted in more on his DFL/Paul Wellstone ethics. He has received the support of Jewish and Homosexual groups, not becuase of his religion, but because he has taken principled stands in their support. He has exhibited immense class in the face of open hostility from people not suitable to fold his laundry and never once said a hostile word about the people that seek to make him into a second class citizen and a pariah.
Herschel, please hold your breath waiting for him to embarass himself. With “people” like Virgil Goode around to embarass himself and this nation, Mr. Ellison has nothing to fear. Of course, unlike Mr. Goode, Mr. Ellison is not a coward.
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/06/2007 @ 12:33 pm
“my criticism is of your viewpoint that moderation and coherency are rare on Muslim sites. ”
I see. Well, I never have been to that website. I’m look into it, and if I find it is the usual frosting on the shit, I’ll let you know.
Being that I am on a kinder and gentler kick at the moment, why don’t you meet me halfway and read some of this:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
or this
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
or this
http://www.islamundressed.com/
or this
http://www.answering-islam.org/
or this
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
and look!… its is not Jihd Watch or LGF.
Oh… and here is a favorite of mine:
http://www.memri.org/
It takes Muslim websites and translates ‘em to English. You know - the stuff that Muslims really talk about the infidel behind our backs.
Okay… Lets skim a couple Muslim papaers, shall we?
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/826/re101.htm
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/826/re11.htm
http://www.elkhabar.com/FrEn/lire.php?ida=55714&idc=52
etc…
Websites?
You know… after flitting through all these websites, I realize that you are right. There are many Muslim Websites in ENGLISH that do appear moderate.
I guess you are right: It is Taqqiya in action.
Thanks for reminding me so I don’t have to waste my time again sifting through the BS.
You see, it isn’t hard to find how crappy the Muslims treat everybody.
Now if the Moderate Muslims would only step forth and say what a rotten thing it is to cut off the head of the infidel instead of burning cars and rioting over a bunch of cartoons, then I may start thinking more positively again.
So tell me, do you got websites of all the atrocities that us Christians have done in the last… oh… 30 years?
Can you give the the actual deaths by them too?
Comment by cond0010 — 01/06/2007 @ 1:28 pm
“Instead I think you were looking more for a token Muslim to hold up as “good” as a barometer to casting the vast majority as “bad” (something you claim yourself).”
Token Muslim? Hey, I’m a sucker for hope - all it takes is for some ‘moderates’ to start coming forward and putting a stop to this nonsense.
But where are they, Zoroastrian?
Show me. I want thousnds of Muslims protesting against their ‘radical’ Muslim brothers.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/06/2007 @ 1:32 pm
Zoroastrian –
“rabidly prejudicial sites like LGF and JihadWatch” ???
You can’t be serious, unless you’re talking about a select group of fringe commenters and, well, what popular blog doesn’t have those? Charles, Robert and Hugh are about as far from “rabidly prejudiced” as you can get. But they do expose truths that perhaps you find uncomfortable. Provide some evidence to refute their well researched and documented claims. Until then, the unsubstantiated name-calling is just petty.
Comment by LynnB — 01/06/2007 @ 1:34 pm
“Actually I think he was voted in more on his DFL/Paul Wellstone ethics. ”
So they would rather vote in a Louis Farrakhan Muslim who _says_ Paul Wellstone Platitudes over a Moderate Republican.
It shows how deep blue that part of the city is.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/06/2007 @ 1:41 pm
I’m in agreement with #5 Larry. What Rep Ellison did or did not place under his left/right hand to swear/affirm in his private “swearing in” ceremony should not be an issue. [Or, for that matter, that the Library of Congress checks out rare books for the use of officials for these ceremonies.]
As a Virginia resident, I’m a bit embarrased that it’s a Virginian Congressman who’s been the poster boy for ranting about it. I’d be equally upset with him if he was complaining what book, say, Jewish Representatives were (or were not) using for their ceremonies. I don’t recall ANY news coverage that any of several Jewish Congressmen or Senators have used this or that Tanakh for their ceremonies. (Using a Torah scroll would be (a) unwiedly and (b) an improper use of a Torah.) Or which book Rohmney used when he became Governor of Massachusetts.
I’ll also note that at the Presidential level, office holders are asked if they wish to swear or affirm; the latter is for people who have a personal objection to swaering an oath (generally on religous grounds). I would not be surprised if Representatives have the same opportunity.
I’ll be a lot more interested to see if Rep. Ellison becomes the Muslim Congressman who happens to be from the Minnesota 5th District, or the Congressman from the Minnesota 5th who happens to be Muslim.
Comment by post-batmitzvah_dad — 01/06/2007 @ 2:01 pm
Zoroastrian:
One more comment like those and you are banned.
Way to give us happy fluffy feelings, though. You’re totally helping your cause here.
Not.
Comment by Meryl Yourish — 01/06/2007 @ 4:00 pm
I wonder if, since he is a Black Muslim the left hand has more of the meaning within secular American culture rather than actual Islam. I also wonder if the translation is regarded as “sacred” by the Faraklan Clan.
Comment by Sabba Hillel — 01/06/2007 @ 9:12 pm
I’m glad to see some agreeing with me and a vigorous discussion in the comments. I’m saddened to see a pretty substantial line of thinking that basically is calling all Muslims liars by definition. I don’t think that’s a particularly useful way of thinking.
I’m not sticking my head in the sand ignoring that there are those who want to impose Sharia on the entire world, and I certainly am aware that the Nation of Islam isn’t an organization I’ll be allying myself with anytime soon. But it is absolutely ridiculous to assume he intends to bring down American civilization, or that his use of the Koran is confirmation of this fact.
Also, this Taqqiya thing sounds a lot like libels I’ve read about people misinterpreting Kol Nidre in times past. And I don’t like that one bit. If you think that makes me naiive, so be it. I think there are plenty of ways to assess someone’s character without defining it by their religion.
Comment by Larry — 01/07/2007 @ 2:57 am
“Also, this Taqqiya thing sounds a lot like libels I’ve read about people misinterpreting Kol Nidre in times past. ”
Fair enough, Larry. Its always good to keep an open mind, isn’t it? :)
…and thank you for the polite disagreement.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/07/2007 @ 3:32 am
I think Anne Lieberman is making some pretty broad assumptions. My first thought was not, “Ooooh, Thomas Jefferson was ‘politically correct’ by the lights of 2007″, but it was “Oh, of course, if any of the Founders had a Koran lying around the library it was gonna be Jefferson.”
I also wondered about the in-translation issue, but I am assuming that for Ellison, the intersection between U.S. history and Islam was just too heady to pass up. Sure would have been for me. Can you imagine? “Sure, I COULD swear in on Thomas Jefferson’s Koran, but I’d rather have my own copy that was printed in 1990 because it’s in Arabic.” No way.
Comment by Balabusta in Bluejeans — 01/07/2007 @ 4:45 am
B in B -
Let me take a wild guess: you’re not a practicing Muslim? Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. If not, perhaps your personal sense of historical significance isn’t relevant to the issue. Let me put it this way (bad analogy but the closest I can come): would a Christian be likely to use a Bible published by Satanists at a swearing-in ceremony, no matter how auspicious its provenance?
Comment by LynnB — 01/07/2007 @ 1:13 pm
The problem is that people make a libel out of a truth by applying it to a situation in which it is a lie. One needs to see where the stereotype came from to begin with.
Just because The Protocol’s was a forgery does not mean that other books that show a group intends to take over the world like the Koran and the 20th century screed whose name would cause me to fall afoul of Godwin’s Law are also forgeries.
Comment by Sabba Hillel — 01/07/2007 @ 3:04 pm
In Jewish law, a Torah scroll written by certain groups is to be burnt even if it is completely accurate and correct in all its details. The Muslims tend to be stricter than us in these matters.
Comment by Sabba Hillel — 01/07/2007 @ 3:07 pm
Lynne, I am not a Muslim of any kind, (what gave me away?) you are correct–and I would say that you are probably right, except that Ellison DID swear in on Jefferson’s Koran, so I may not be that far off. ;) Far off from Ellison, anyway, I’m sure many Muslims would have felt differently.
Comment by Balabusta in Bluejeans — 01/07/2007 @ 8:33 pm
Sabba Hillel, you’re argument amounts to, “But it’s true, unlike the other one.” I’m in no position to evaluate whether that’s right (though I’m pretty skeptical given that those who push this idea don’t have a whole lot of direct interaction with Muslims themselves) I’m also very, very uncomfortable with saying a particular religious group is untrustworthy as a fundamental consequence of their reliogious practice.
Also, I’m not sure the criticism here is in any way coherent. First, Ellison is bringing down civilization by using a Koran instead of the New Testament. Also, the Koran he was using isn’t a real Koran, so he didn’t swear at all (I assume that’s the implicit argument). And in any case the Koran provides him with a virtual “crossed my fingers” excuse, if he did really swear. On the Koran he didn’t use, because Jefferson’s Koran isn’t a real Koran.
Comment by Larry — 01/08/2007 @ 1:16 am
Meryl, sorry, but if calling public people like Virgil Goode morally, intellectually and spiritually weak is enough to get me banned then feel free to ban me - I don’t need to spend time somewhere that is that fretful of critical opinion. Also, I don’t have a cause here, I’m just tired of people hyperventilating and over-reacting to the most harmless and ridiculous events - it’s getting a little ridiculous.
Condo, the sites you listed were what I stated as the problems in the first place. I asked you for Muslim equivalents, i.e. a Muslim site which spent all its time looking for the misdeeds of Christians or Jews. But when you went looking for them you found a bunch of moderate sites, which proves my original point that those sites (and hence those viewpoints are not as rare as you think they are). Of course instead of accepting that fact, you try to use some arcane theory to argue why Muslims aren’t acting like barbarious hordes.
LynnB, if a blog consisted of nothing but the bad misdeeds of Jews, would that not be anti-semitic? Of course it would and you would rightly repulsed. Believe me, I’m well aware that Muslims are capable, and do, horrible things on a regular basis, and I have no doubt that the items those people post are true. But to take a single religion, desperately try to link every crime by a Muslim to their religion, link any act of terrorism to Muslims before it can be determined (then ignore it if it wasn’t a Muslim) is one thing, if it was only that I would probably say it was borderline. But they also speak sarcastically, dismiss or ignore any claims Muslims make about moderation and that is prejudicial at best. I know you can’t see it, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is. BTW, since you implied it and seem to concerned with it, I am not a Muslim, which I hope you could have figured out by my nickname. I don’t have any feelings towards the “big 3″ religions other than I wish they would all stop acting like A-holes.
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/08/2007 @ 9:51 am
Zoroastrian, I don’t give a shit about what you think. But you will be polite to my regulars, or you will be gone.
I notice you didn’t respond to the part of my comment that referenced a regular commenter here. But you managed to be polite in responding to Lynn and Condo. That is what I expect of my commenters.
Comment by Meryl Yourish — 01/08/2007 @ 10:52 am
Points that are being missed:
1) The legal swearing in ceremony for Senators and Representatives uses NO Bibles, Korans, or copies of Action Comics #1—it is a private ceremony putting a hand in the air. All swearing-in-with-books are photo ops: no more, no less
2) John Marshall had a swearing in using a law book; several Jewish legislators have used Tanakhs; and there is neither tradition nor legal requirement to use a Christian Bible
3) Virgil Goode’s letter [which I read to my congregation substituting Jew for Muslim and Torah for Koran] jumped directly from a Koran being used for swearing-in to a call for immigration limits to keep Middle-Easterners out of this country before we’re overrun…ignoring the fact that Ellison’s family has been here since the 1700’s…
4) The Constitution specifically forbids any religious test for office, which to me seems to mean that you can’t require someone to use a Christian Bible as a requirement for being elected.
5) No matter what you may think about the virtues or faults of Mr. Ellison, Mr. Goode scares me as a Jew and as the parent of Chinese children; his letter was blatantly bigoted and is not made any better by the fact that we may or may not like Muslims…
Comment by The Doctor — 01/08/2007 @ 11:48 am
“Condo, the sites you listed were what I stated as the problems in the first place.”
Ah… no. You said LGF and Jihad Watch. You are moving the goal posts. Thats is very irritating.
“I asked you for Muslim equivalents, i.e. a Muslim site which spent all its time looking for the misdeeds of Christians or Jews. ”
Because the misdeeds of Christians and Jews pale in signifcance to what is happening with the Muslims. Check out those websites I put in my comments.
“But when you went looking for them you found a bunch of moderate sites, which proves my original point that those sites (and hence those viewpoints are not as rare as you think they are).”
No. They appeared Moderate and would require sifting. Meryl Yourish’s website sifts _many_ articles that are seemingly ‘moderate’ but when you go and pick out the various choice words, you find actual and extreme bias.
I went to various ENGLISH speaking Muslim websites and saw just that, but considering the fact that it will require alot of effort on my part (and you’ve done almost ‘nada’ in response to any of my queries) to show the bias through various choice words, I instead told you that I remember doing this before (which I had a momentary lapse at the beginning of the post) and you helped me remeber that therby not doing it again. You show me Christian and Jews ‘atrocities’ that are unfabricated and undistorted. You show me ‘Moderate Muslims’ protesting in the streets (by the thousands) against their Muslim brothers. You show me the bias that are in the Websites that I posted.
After you do a little work, I will then ‘Meryl Yourish’ a few of those ‘Moderate’ Muslim websites starting with CAIR.
http://www.cair-net.org/
“Of course instead of accepting that fact, you try to use some arcane theory to argue why Muslims aren’t acting like barbarious hordes. ”
Arcane? Nice word choice. Taqqiya is not arcane and it is used in the radical Muslim agenda to futher their ‘proselytization’ of the world.
“I don’t have any feelings towards the “big 3″ religions other than I wish they would all stop acting like A-holes. ”
You continued coupling of the Muslim Misdeeds with the Christian and Jewish ‘Misdeeds’ is completely inaccurate. Its like saying because both a Lion and a Kitty can kill and since they are of the cat family, we should be equally careful of both. Its a matter of degree, Zoroastrian. The crimes of the (Radical) Muslims far outweigh any other religion at this time. Pleas keep up with current events.
You come here with you accusations and wrongs that Christians and Jews do and you don’t give any facts. No websites, no data, nothing but judgements.
I have give you websites where they have data on Muslim atricities. You have still given me judgements and no facts.
I am tired of dancing to your tune.
Before I respond to anything else You MUST do these things for me:
1. Show me a group of ‘Moderate’ Muslims protesting (any time anywhere) Muslim atrocities. The number of them must be in the thousands.
2. Give me the number of deaths caused by radical Christian and Jewish Groups in the last 30 years. Site your sources.
3. Give me 3 opinions (just 3!) of ‘Moderate’ Muslims that are negative towards the crimes either in Darfur, Thailand, Indonesia, Bali Bombing, London Bus Bombing, or the Spain Train Bombing.
You didn’t do it the last time I asked. I am now asking again.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 2:25 am
” But you will be polite to my regulars, or you will be gone.”
Thank you, (((Meryl))).
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 2:31 am
“Ah… no. You said LGF and Jihad Watch. You are moving the goal posts. Thats is very irritating.”
What is irritating is your inability to comprehend the original request - which was NOT to show me more sites like LGF and JihadWatch, but to show me Muslim equivalents (of which none of your additional sites are). Please note that I never denied the existence of such sites, I just asked if you knew of any.
“Because the misdeeds of Christians and Jews pale in signifcance to what is happening with the Muslims. Check out those websites I put in my comments.”
Of course they do - when you read sites like the ones you listed which are devoted entirely to the F’ed up things Muslims do - that was the whole point of my original post.
“No. They appeared Moderate and would require sifting. Meryl Yourish’s website sifts _many_ articles that are seemingly ‘moderate’ but when you go and pick out the various choice words, you find actual and extreme bias.”
Right, I’m sure there is, unlike LGF and JihadWatch which are completely unbiased (that was sarcasm if you couldn’t tell). I’m sure the Muslim sites are biased, but that’s not what is in question - are they moderate in their bias? That means do they approach an issue like Israel/Palestine calling for more suicide bombings or more talk?
But of course, even if they do call for more talk, you and yours will just call it Taqqiya and dismiss it so really why are we even having a discussion on moderate Islam? According to you it doesn’t exist.
“The crimes of the (Radical) Muslims far outweigh any other religion at this time. Pleas keep up with current events.”
This is questionable, many westerners consider the Iraq War a crime, which makes fundamentalist George Bush as much of a mass murderer as Bin Laden. You will disagree, and I understand why so please save me any reactionary hyperbole - I know that my thinking is not conventional, but it is not unsubstatiated, nor unsupported (in the west) either. In any case, plenty of blood has been spilled by all those religions, to think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand, which, sadly, is typical of most religious people.
“I have give you websites where they have data on Muslim atricities. You have still given me judgements and no facts.”
Funny, again this is the whole point of my post - that I know of no Muslim website dedicated to showing how horrible Christian and Jews are (though I’m sure they exist).
You’re tired of dancing to my tune? Your dancing alright, but not to anything I’m playing - you’re doing your own bit, which is fine.
In answer to your questions:
question 1.
Calling the al Qaeda in Iraq leader a “lowlife,” Jordanians on Thursday flooded the nation’s capital in bitter protest http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/jordan.blasts/
Eyewitnesses told IPS that as the number of marcher increased because of many people joining, slogans also changed, to become political, with people chanting “death to Khameneh’i” and “down with Islamic Republic”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926730/posts
Iranian students have staged a rare demonstration against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, setting off firecrackers and burning pictures of him as he delivered a speech at Tehran university, reports said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/11/iran.students/index.html
Question 2: in the current Iraq war alone between 50-60 K dead. You can go from there. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Your question is ridiculous because we’ll never agree on how the death count should be attributed. When Israel drops cluster bombs in a residential area and kills Lebanese children, it’s considered self-defense. In many cases, though not all, I disagree.
Question 3:
There are 3 condemnations of the London attacks here:
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/reflections/ref_20050712.shtml
Following deadly bombings in Britain and other nations, American Muslim scholars issued an edict Thursday condemning religious extremism and calling terrorists “criminals, not `martyrs.’”
the U.S. scholars said in a Washington news conference that their prohibition applied to attacks on civilians everywhere. Their fatwa states that Muslims are obligated to help law enforcement authorities “protect the lives of all civilians.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8636700/
here’s more:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article924678.ece
I’m bored now - good luck condo.
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/10/2007 @ 1:13 pm
Condo, if my post is too long or too confusing, just go here:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/10/2007 @ 1:15 pm
Really, just go here anyway-
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/10/2007 @ 1:19 pm
question 1.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/jordan.blasts/
“Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!” hundreds of protesters shouted, ..”
Only Hundreds? Where’s the thousands? Plus it is for their own kin. Where’s the protests against the atricites in general - especially towards the infidel?
“http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926730/posts”
“Thousands of Iranian Students Protest The Mullaharcy… many wounded.”
They want regime change in Iran. But again: Where’s the protests against the atricites in general - especially towards the infidel?
Its funny how you don’t hear about wounded protestors in the West when these people protest in a Western Country.
“http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/11/iran.students/index.html”
“Iranian students have staged a rare demonstration against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, setting off firecrackers and burning pictures of him as he delivered a speech at Tehran university, reports said. ”
Note the word ‘rare demonstration’ Zoroastrian. Sounds like an exception to the rule. Again its a protest against a regime and not about atrocities in general.
Summary:
You were able to have thousands of protestors flooding the streets, but they were for a _regime change_ within a Muslim country about Muslim issues. They were not protesting the atrocities world wide nor were they protesting the deaths of infidels. They were fighting for their freedom. Please note that many prtoesters were wounded in that enlightened Islamic Country…
Also, Moderate Muslim protesters were presented where they were protesting violent Jihad in general, but they were only in the _hundreds_ AND the article stated that Non - Muslms were also welcome in the protest so we really don’t know how many were true ‘moderate’ Muslims. Infact, there may have only been a handfull as far as we know…
Question 1 was only partially answered - and answered poorly.
Question 2.
“http://www.iraqbodycount.org/”
“Your question is ridiculous because we’ll never agree on how the death count should be attributed.”
Doesn’t count.
The United States of America is NOT a Christian Nation. Muslims are not oppressed or persecuted in this nation (unlike the Islamic Dictatorships with Sharia law in various countries) it is a Secular Nation. I want figures from Jewish & Christian Militias, Jewish & Christian Theocracies and Jewish & Christian Organizations.
Summary: Question 2 has been answered completely wrong. Try again.
Question 3.
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/reflections/ref_20050712.shtml
“American Muslim scholars issued an edict Thursday condemning religious extremism and calling terrorists “criminals, not `martyrs.’”
Summary. Yup. you got some Mulsim scholars to say in English that the London Bombings were Bad.
You still need to answer Questions 1 and 2 before I even bother continuing a debate with you.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 3:42 pm
“Condo, if my post is too long or too confusing, just go here:”
The implication here is that I am, how do you say it? Someone “who have (has)shown themelves to be morally, intellectually and spiritually weak.”
“Really, just go here anyway- http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php”
Dude, I have gone to all your links. have you even gone to mine. have you even tried to refuted the thousand upon thousand of deaths from Muslim aggression? No…
“Condo, if my post is too long or too confusing, just go here:”
“Really, just go here anyway- ”
Also, I am getting sick of your condescension. You don’t know me and you don’t have any idea about my background and yet you continually write with veiled ridicule.
“I’m bored now - good luck condo. ”
Then go away. Your views are flawed and out of touch with reality. If you think that Islam is peaceful and ‘moderate’, then live in one of their countries under sharia law.
If us Christians and Jews are no better than they are, then the transition should be easy, shouldn’t it, Zoroastrian?
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 3:55 pm
“Really, just go here anyway-
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php ”
Yea… this is all about 9-11 and how scared shitless that the Muslims were right after that when they thought thet the US was going to go and kick their collective asses.
You hear them protest about Guantanamo or some poorly drawn cartoons of the ‘Prophet’ or what the Pope said quoting a long dead Byzantine Emperor…
Lets here them protest about all these…
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
where are your Mulsim websites protesting these, Zoroastrian?
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 4:04 pm
First of all condo, there is no debate here. You have swerved waaaay off of the original topic and frankly I’m kicking myself for even indulging your childish questions. No offense, but really, questions like those are irrelevant to the fact that you claim to be a peacemaker while believing the entire Muslim world is out to get you. There is more than enough blood on Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim hands that nobody gets a pass. If you can find a single murder committed by a Zoroastrian in the last century I will be happy to add myself to the list of the guilty, but until then, there isn’t much difference between you all when it comes to body counts.
Let me make one thing clear - the Muslims who riot over cartoons are mostly the same ones who would support terrorism. These people are barbaric idiots, but they are not representative of the wider Muslim community from what I have seen, read and experienced from my own travel. Muslims on the whole, like most people, don’t riot over things. However if you bothered to read the articles I posted you would have noticed that Iranians held a candle light vigil on 9-11 and that several of the protests were actually about world wide terrorism, yes, even directed towards the west.
Second, when you say “Dude, I have gone to all your links. have you even gone to mine. have you even tried to refuted the thousand upon thousand of deaths from Muslim aggression? No…”
This makes no sense since I am the one that brought up sites like those in the first place, but more importantly, never once did I ever dispute that Muslims are responsible for death, hatred and destruction throughout the world. The only thing I did question was your stance that moderation in the Muslim world, and on Muslim websites is rare.
Now if you want to perform some of your “analyses” on moderate Muslim websites looking for bias, please be my guest, but as I said previously, bias and moderation are NOT the same things. For example, I would hope that Meryl would accept the fact that her blog is biased towards Jewish issues, not because she is Jewish, but because it is clear she is writing from a Jewish perspective. I doubt she would deny that. By the same token, you can expect many Muslim blogs or websites to be biased towards a Muslim perspective - so what? That doesn’t make them radical and as you have seen for yourself, there are many moderate websites. Completely contrary to your original assesment that moderate Muslim sites are rare, I think you have found out for yourself that it is the exact opposite. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you fall back on this Taqiyya nonsense. Essentially you need to admit you don’t believe there can be moderate Muslims so people can discount you as a source of peace and reconciliation - that is all I’m asking.
As for sharia, please stop making wild accusations. I never said Christian and Jewish lifestyles were the same as Sharia law, But from a Zoroastrian perspective, your views on homosexuality and your non-acceptance of other religions is pretty barbarous. And yes, I am being judgmental of your judgementalism.
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/10/2007 @ 5:11 pm
“First of all condo, there is no debate here. ”
Huh? I thought that is what we were doing…
“You have swerved waaaay off of the original topic and frankly I’m kicking myself for even indulging your childish questions. ”
Way wrong. I’ve been playing defense almost the entire time. Those 3 questions (which you still haven’t completed) was my attempt to have you answer a question for once instead of dealing with all your judgemants about me.
“even indulging your childish questions.”
Fuck you, pal. Who are you to call me childish you Son of a Bitch. You can take your bullshit and shove it completely up your Holier-than-thou-Ass.
“There is more than enough blood on Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim hands that nobody gets a pass.”
Oh, so lets all bow our heads in shame to Zoroastrian.
” If you can find a single murder committed by a Zoroastrian in the last century I will be happy to add myself to the list of the guilty, but until then, there isn’t much difference between you all when it comes to body counts.”
I knew this was coming. The Holier than thou cult of Zoroastrianism. Well, guess what, you just lost MY interst in your fucked-up Religion. I guess Pride isn’t considered a sin in Zoroastrianism you arrogant Son of a Bitch.
And probably the reason why they haven’t done anything wrong is because they don’t have the western press documenting every crime. Or maybe because they are so oppressed and persecuted in their home country the the Dhimmitude they are under won’t even allow the to blink without gettng their head chopped off.
… and by the way, I knew a family that emigrated from Iran. Infact we hosted their son at my house back in 1982. The kinds of stuff they told us would make you think twice about those Theocrats who are in power right now.
“Let me make one thing clear - the Muslims who riot over cartoons are mostly the same ones who would support terrorism. ”
Duh.
“These people are barbaric idiots, but they are not representative of the wider Muslim community from what I have seen, read and experienced from my own travel.
Bullshit. Site your sources. I have sited mine.
” Muslims on the whole, like most people, don’t riot over things. ”
But they do stage protests. I asked for protests. you have given me … crap.
” However if you bothered to read the articles I posted you would have noticed that Iranians held a candle light vigil on 9-11 and that several of the protests were actually about world wide terrorism, yes, even directed towards the west.”
That was all 9-11 stuff, … dude. Got anything more recent where they aren’t as terrified we’re gonna kick their asses?
“The only thing I did question was your stance that moderation in the Muslim world, and on Muslim websites is rare.”
And I say alot of it is Taqqiya Bullshit. If these so called moderate Muslims don’t start waking up and taking to the streets like … Americans during the Vietnam war, well, guess what… External Jihad may go bye bye and they will truly be forced to become a ‘religion of peace’ - with the PC police listening in to every hate filled sermon in their fucking mosques.
“Now if you want to perform some of your “analyses” on moderate Muslim websites looking for bias, please be my guest, but as I said previously, bias and moderation are NOT the same things.”
You haven’t asnwered 2 out of 3 of my questions… until then, i am not wasting my time.
“That doesn’t make them radical and as you have seen for yourself, there are many moderate websites.”
Look what happened to Lebanon when there reached a critical density of Muslims in their country in the 70’s, Zoroastrian? … and look what happens to your ‘people’ in Iran with a majority Muslim population…
“Completely contrary to your original assesment that moderate Muslim sites are rare, I think you have found out for yourself that it is the exact opposite. ”
Prove it. Where are the moderate Muslim Protestors? Where are they? Where are their fiery speeches? Not the quiet effeminate protestation of some obscure academic. This is a free country! Why are they not shouting from the roof tops like in the 60’s?
” Instead of admitting you were wrong, you fall back on this Taqiyya nonsense.”
Taqqiya is real, Zoroastrian. Meryl is constantly proving that on her website (where their proxies in the press do it). I believe it is inherent in their entire culture. Why don’t you ask some of your brothers being persecuted in Iran?
“As for sharia, please stop making wild accusations.”
Wild? I’ve sighted my sources. Stop all this holier than thou false judgements.
“But from a Zoroastrian perspective, your views on homosexuality “.
Whoa.. where did that come from? I think this is you swerving waaaay off the original discussion - which you have accused me of…
“And yes, I am being judgmental of your judgementalism. ”
Back at ‘cha buddy. If you are a representative of Zoroastrianism, I am unimpressed.
Dude… you are a fool.
I am about to evoke Godwins Law:
There were many ‘Moderate’ Germans and Scandanavians who promoted the Nazis prior to World War II. they spoke in mild tones but queitly they approved.
Eventually… those peoples chose which side they were one. So far, the ‘Moderate’ Muslims have not done that. This is what the Political Right is constantly talking about when they say just what I say: Where are the massive protests.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 6:02 pm
Sorry about the flames, Meryl. I was hoping that Mr. Z would be empathic to the fact that I was losing patience with his snark when I mentioned it in earlier posts and I guess I crossed the threshold in this last one.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 6:13 pm
Wow, really showing your true colors.
Again, about your 3 questions - they are irrelevant to the fact that Muslim websites and most Muslim people are moderate. You may want them to be marching in the streets Vietnam style, but just because they don’t act exactly the way you want them to doesn’t mean they’re violent or terrorist sympathizers. Trust me, I wish some people in W. Va. didn’t call me a fag or a K_ k _ (Jewish deragatory) every time I went there, but they do. That doesn’t mean they’re going to lynch me.
You keep narrowing the goal posts. I’m sorry but your questions are stock bs questions everyones heard and answered a hundred times.
Any how, as I’ve said, and linked to, I have no love for the mullahs in Iran, and neither do most of their own people (see that was sort of my point with the links and all). You should understand that what happened to my people in Iran happened in the 8th century so as much as I would like to hold a grudge, it’s a little too late and considering most of the people in Iran are very little like their medievil predecesors I try to make a distinction. Things are rough for the Zoroastrians under the Mullahs but nobody has been killed for practicing their religion, they just have BS taxes and stuff. However, again - that is not really a reflection on Islam or the people of Iran, it’s a reflection on their asshole leaders.
The largest Zoroastrian community in a Muslim country is in Pakistan, and those people live well, almost embarrasingly well compared to the majority of the Muslims, so I hate to tell you that I don’t have a link, but I’ve been there and seen it with my own eyes - we practice our religion right out in the open - nobody has ever bothered our community there - not once.
In any case, sorry to sound so self-righteous about the kiling and murder, but it is the truth that we have truthfully have seperated ourselves from the violence that plagues other religions that do seek to convert as many as possible - inclusing your own. If anything we probably feel closest to Jews in that we prefer to practice our culture and beliefs in peace and have never sought out converts. That is not someting tht can be said of Christianity or Islam.
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/10/2007 @ 7:28 pm
Sorry, I posted before I was finished - I wanted to say that I think your religion does a LOT of really good things, infinitely more good in this world than bad. But sometimes assholes do horrible things in the name of their religion. I haven’t seen Pat Robertson or any other Christian leaders condemning abortion clinic bombers, so until I see that I don’t think it’s fair of you to point your finger at moderate Islamic websites and claim they’re being sneaky.
Comment by Zoroastrian — 01/10/2007 @ 7:34 pm
“Wow, really showing your true colors.”
Yea. I sure am. I also was not aware how pure you Zoroastrianists are. By you admitting they are better than the ‘big 3′, I finally have confirmation. Thank you so much.
“Again, about your 3 questions - they are irrelevant to the fact that Muslim websites and most Muslim people are moderate. ”
Wrong. Websites are words. Protests are action. A moderate is that way in both word and action. If they say moderate things, it should be backedup by moderate actions: like protesting the “radical” actions.
Words can also be twisted. I sadi that t first glance those sites _appeared_ moderate. I guess you don’t understand what I meant I should never have said the word moderate or Muslim in the same sentence because then you say ‘Ha! see! I was right.
…and your the one calling me a moron?
“Trust me, I wish some people in W. Va. didn’t call me a fag”
I wasn’t aware that you were Homosexual, Zoroastrian.
“You keep narrowing the goal posts. ”
No, I posts keep getting moved and wider. This started with you calling me a moron which was both judgemental and inappropriate.
“I’m sorry but your questions are stock bs questions everyones heard and answered a hundred times.”
I can do the same thing Z: No yours are.
“Things are rough for the Zoroastrians under the Mullahs but nobody has been killed for practicing their religion, they just have BS taxes and stuff.”
Bullshit. Their is a guy with a print shop just down the street from me who fled the persecution of Iran. He was of the Bahai faith. There were many deaths.
My info comes from people who were actually persecuted: not from any of your bullshit libby sources.
“In any case, sorry to sound so self-righteous about the kiling and murder, but it is the truth that we have truthfully have seperated ourselves from the violence that plagues other religions that do seek to convert as many as possible - inclusing your own. ”
Then keep an open mind about the main line faiths of Christianity and Judaism. Both are Life - affirming Religions even tough they do not have control of some fringe maniacs. But that is with all people and religions, Z: there will always be a few nuts out there. When you say your Religion is stainless, my instincts say that is wrong.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 7:52 pm
“I wanted to say that I think your religion does a LOT of really good things, infinitely more good in this world than bad. ”
This is the best turn of the converwsation that has happened between us yet, Z.
Thank you for saying that.
” I haven’t seen Pat Robertson or any other Christian leaders condemning abortion clinic bombers, so until I see that I don’t think it’s fair of you to point your finger at moderate Islamic websites and claim they’re being sneaky. ”
There are radicals and actions of Christians that I do not approve of and wish they would get off my side.
OTOH, they were not part of this discussion.
Here is the key to changing my mind, Z:
If the Moderate Muslims worldwide started staging _massive_ protests against their ‘Radical’ Muslim Brothers and their terroristic External Jihad to convert the world to Islam by the Sword, you would see me _starting_ to change my mind about them and their Allah.
Until then, they are no better that the German and Scandinavian racists who were quietly smug in their superiority. Who in their very quiet and ‘moderate’ lives promoted the nazi agenda by their silence.
Comment by cond0010 — 01/10/2007 @ 8:01 pm
And we’re done here. Closing comments.
Don’t try to continue this in another thread.
Comment by Meryl Yourish — 01/10/2007 @ 8:25 pm