Talk Islam is back! The site has been dormant for several months, and I have no idea if anyone is still reading, but the site remains open and anyone who has posting privileges is welcome to use this platform as you see fit to promote your own projects and posts. So, stay tuned 
Recent Updates RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Admin
-
aziz
In response to the story that the NYPD screened “The Third Jihad” to over a thousand police offers, @ICNA is calling for the resignation of the police commissioner.
-
aziz
Muqtedar Khan talks about Islamophobia and US Presidential elections:
-
aziz
Call for papers: “South Asia by the Bay” conference at Stanford, May 9-12 2012. See http://southasia.stanford.edu/ for more information!
-
aziz
@altmuslim has joined @patheos, with Dilshad Ali as Editor in Chief! great news: http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2012/01/altmuslim-joins-patheos.html
-
shams
euwwwwwww.
alliance with the Proselytizers.
are they all maftoons like you aziz? -
Aziz
Yes. In fact you are the only Real MuslimTM, shams.
-
Aziz
For the benefit of anyone wondering what “maftoon” is all about, here’s the classic discussion here at TI a while back. The granada Blog is currently as defunct and barren as their ideas.
-
Arwi
The link does not work.
-
aziz
yes, it was removed by Beliefnet.
-
-
aziz
Liam Neeson isn’t a cryptomuslim – but Jack Sparrow, on the other hand…
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2012/01/liam-neeson-is-not-converting-to-islam.html
-
aziz
#Tahrir Square on #Jan25 – just a few of the amazing photos:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2012/01/tahrir-square-on-jan25two-in-pictures.html
-
aziz
France has banned a domestic “Islamist” group. There is no such thing as true free speech outside the United States.
-
razib, murtad fitri
this seems close to right
i was my intuition too…spent 15 minutes trying to disprove it, and couldn’t. though even in the USA there are issues with obscenity and the law against threatening to kill the president.-
aziz
its been a thesis of mine for a long time, actually. I am certain I’ve expounded in more detail on this at CoB but they broke all my tags when they oved from MT to WP so I can’t find stuff as easily anymore
actually i may have linked it from here – i need to go through http://talkislam.info/tag/free-speech/ and see…
-
aziz
ah, we had a good debate about it earlier – just filter everything by “Corned Beef N’ Cabbage” out:
http://talkislam.info/2011/05/22/actually-heres-an-example-of-draw-muhammad-day/#comment-43113
-
shams
there is no unfettered free speech in the USA either.
there is hate crime legislation and “hate speech”.
you and razib are so full of it your eyeballs are floating. -
shams
chu kno, my habbibi?
razib, murtaad fitri is just an assclown. i saw that years ago when the Divine Beloved lifted the scales of my hero worship of him from my eyes.
he is an organic conservative. he has insufficient grey matter in the ACC for empathy.
-
-
-
shams
what is an “islamist”, Aziz?
definition? -
shams
“There is no such thing as true free speech outside the United States.”
wallah … there is certainly no free speech in countries with shariah law as the rule of law.
As long as defense-against-proselytization is in mutawatir the Generous Quran outlaws free speech.
Did you know the constitution of KSA IS the Noble Quran?
Are we gunna try Regime Change there? -
shams
do you think we could just go back, my habbibi?
back to when you were improving my polishing the mirror epiphany with your zen?i guess that isnt possible.
time travel to the past is impossible because of closed form timecurves.
ibn arabi and dr. carroll agree. -
Matt
Hate speech terrorizes people and keeps them quiet. So there is no free speech if there is hate speech. Rather, you can balance interests. Of course, interests in the US and France are different. That whole Vichy thing, you know.
-
-
aziz
Zeba Iqbal (@zeba369) on the BBC talking about why it is harder for muslim women to find husbands after they are 30 – http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/newshour/newshour_20120122-1250a.mp3
-
shams
its harder for ALL women to find husbands after they are thirty.
-
aziz
here’s a related article at the Guardian – it’s not the same dynamic as applied to non-muslim women, there are some unique aspects here. Read the essay, listen to the podcast
-
Arwi
I think it’s the same dynamic, actually — men will marry down or out so they have a larger pool, while women try to marry within and up so their pool is constricted. See for comparison: African-American women in the US.
Though Muslim women face particularly heavy social/religious pressure to be married. Perhaps the custom of marrying the Quran will spread…
-
aziz
What is the custom of marrying the Qur’an? I haven’t heard of that before…
-
Arwi
Haq Bakshish is a SIndhi pratice of marrying women to Qurans.
I was joking but I can imagine some Muslim feminist making something serious out of it.
-
-
-
-
-
aziz
A microflap at University London College about once again – a Mohammed Cartoon (and a Jesus cartoon)
interestingly, it’s the Ahmadiya student association and not the muslim student association making a big deal out of it. As Razib points out it’s a little surprising given how Ahmadiyas are persecuted in muslim countries, t my experience is that the western ahmadiyas tend to be more orthodox in some ways.
Also, I’m offended by Razib’s post because he has absolutely no talent at drawing.
-
shams
im offended by razibs post because he is a JAFI.
Here he is pissing all over the Muslim Brotherhood.
-
-
aziz
THIS is why there’s ZERO chance of the US becoming Jesusland: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/22/religious-right-leaders-say-santorum-but-voters-flock-to-gingrich.html
-
shams
The US is ALREADY Distributed Jesusland™
that is what the 2010 elections were about.
Didnt you read my post?-
aziz
i read your post, but reading is not the same as “uncritical acceptance of your frame and theorizing”
you’re long on the theoretical and short on the empirical.
-
shams
orly?
did you read Manzi’s Paradox of Libertarianism that inspired my invention of Distributed Jesusland?
Heres your empirical data. Distributed Jesusland is the 2008 Jesusland map minus the majority minority cities.Razib chose the wrong side when he chose Diana Moon over me as a front pager and GNXP (Godless and the Derb) pimped Sarah Palin…
Like Nate Silver says, demographics is destiny.-
aziz
the data is sound. Your inference from teh data is where i take issue
-
shams
Proof of my hypothesis.
The Revenge of Distributed Jesusland™
-
-
-
-
-
VisionPresident
Religiously and politically, I re-discovered what America is supposed to be. It is a country founded by universalists, Masons, who believed in a Creator but also understood that their specific routes to discover the Creator are never to be imposed on others. Our founders recognized that our Creator has reserved the right to call each of us differently, so they guaranteed a freedom of religion in our constitution. In this way, each person can discover their own route to God, Allah, Yahweh, the Great Spirit, the Great I am, Our Father – whatever name you wish to call your Creator.
“Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor – over each other.” – Thomas Jefferson
America’s founders realized that a man should never to attempt to push a religious ideology on another man. Instead, religions should be encouraged to co-exist in peace so that the best of all the religions can be displayed. This religious enlightenment led to my political enlightenment, for this same philosophy can be applied to foreign policy. No country should attempt to push their ideology on another country. Instead, the nations should be encouraged to co-exist in peace so that the best of all the governments can be displayed. “Difference of opinion is advantageous in world politics. The several nations perform the office of a Censor – over each other.”
“I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind.” – Thomas Jefferson
This was America’s course at the onset and is still its proper course today. We are meant to live in peace, to live in tolerance, to live in love, and to care for each other. We are not to judge, nor are we meant to create a Government that tells people how they need to worship. We must leave that to our Creator. And war, violence, death… they are not a part of our Creator’s vision for us. We are meant to be free and peaceful, and the term “religious war” makes no sense.
“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” – Thomas Jefferson
I believe that, politically, America must dramatically downsize its military and bring its forces back within its borders. This is what America will look like in a peaceful world. America must become completely energy self-sufficient. America must empower the United Nations and rely on the various countries to maintain the peace. America must once again become that peaceful, tolerant, free, and loving country we were meant to be, we were created to be, and let the world function in peace. The question for our day is… will the world be peaceful? Or is this naive?
“An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.” – Thomas Jefferson
Historically, outside forces prevented America from living in peace. Great powers attempted to rule us, invaded us, and World Wars were thrust upon us – not the other way around. I know America has been involved in more than its fair share of wars, but to be fair, England invaded us, Pirates attacked us, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Hitler brought ethnic cleansing and the invasion of Europe and Russia. Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran and his people, and then invaded a peaceful Kuwait to loot their treasury. Al-Qaeda attacked us and the Taliban supported them. To call America a war-monger is not historically accurate, as America has always just wanted peace. If a peaceful and tolerant world is achievable, America will gladly draw down to realize it.
“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.” – Thomas Jefferson
The question I’m left with for my brothers in our day, for all of mankind, is this: If America’s military was to leave every foreign country, if its military budget was to shrink to only that required to defend itself from invasion, if it resigned itself to simply being a vote in the UN, if it accepted the correct political action – would the world accept the correct religious action? Would the world accept peace and religious tolerance?
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.” – Thomas Jefferson
Or would it use the military draw down to once again set out to impose its religious views, to destroy itself in war and violence in the name of God, Christ, Yahweh, or Allah? After America’s military retreat, will it still be termed the great Satan, the great Unbeliever, the Infidel that needed to be destroyed? Would Israel and the Jews still be considered by some as a race and religion that needed to be wiped off the face of the earth? Would America’s drawdown usher in peace or war? For there will never be peace without tolerance.
“Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.” – Thomas Jefferson
You see, I’ve discovered that religion and politics are tied hand in hand. And peace will be impossible until we, as a world, see this truth. The right answer in Faith is to discover and follow your Lord, but the right answer in Government is to reject a King’s rule – for man is not God and should never Lord over us. These two right answers are difficult to embrace together. Consider that the one who attempted to overthrow his “King” in Heaven is termed Satan and called evil. Many religious leaders today use this same logic. They label themselves as “Supreme,” “Prophet,” “Mujahidin,” and consider any dissent as sacrilegious and punishable. They use violence to enforce their vision of God, and this is not God’s vision. Many still view man-made Theocracies and government-imposed religion as the right answer.
“I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.” – Thomas Jefferson
So how can we rectify this? Can the world embrace peace, democracy, freedom, and universal religious tolerance at the same time? If so, America should withdraw and draw down immediately. But if not, if the various faiths will use our retreat as a sign to impose their Caliphate and Sharia Law, to cleanse the world of the “unbelievers” as they see it, to eliminate communities who do not share their beliefs, then what is a free people to do? Thoughts?
-
shams
if you are a universalist and a Jeffersonian as you say, then do you think that proselytizing is immoral?
-
shams
“But if not, if the various faiths will use our retreat as a sign to impose their Caliphate and Sharia Law”
shariah law is the rule of law in islamic nations.
it is the consent of the governed, or classical hellenic democracy.
You are no universalist.
Faker. -
shams
“To call America a war-monger is not historically accurate, as America has always just wanted peace. If a peaceful and tolerant world is achievable, America will gladly draw down to realize it.”
this is an incredibly naive and unsophisticated view of American FP. Viet Nam, anyone?
plz. America’s foreign policy has been Regime Change. In MENA, either 50 years of “Searching for Ataturk” or the incredibly illformed Bush Doctrine and COIN, or Operation Ajax and the Mossadegh coup.
The only reason reigime change worked in Japan and Germany is the US invader/occupiers outlawed emperor worship and naziism.
Since it was impossible to outlaw Islam in MENA, all America’s attempts at regime change have been epic fails. -
shams
They label themselves as “Supreme,” “Prophet,” “Mujahidin,” and consider any dissent as sacrilegious and punishable. They use violence to enforce their vision of God, and this is not God’s vision. Many still view man-made Theocracies and government-imposed religion as the right answer.
i find your ignorance of al-Islam incredibly offensive.
Great front pager choice my habbibi.
I’d rather have Bush-fellating Dean Esmay back. -
shams
“would the world accept the correct religious action? Would the world accept peace and religious tolerance?”
LOL! the “correct religious action”?
so much bulshytt, so little time.
lol @ your xian version of “religious tolerance.”
GTFO out of the regime change business, Amerikkka.
Vision, i think you need to read this.
then praps we can talk.
-
-
visionpresident
My friend, I in no way meant to offend you. I am happy to read your views, hear your thoughts, and listen to your ideas. I came to this website for that purpose actually. I thought to start the conversation, the constructive dialogue, with my current belief structure. In fact, after I approached the site, I was asked to share. So I provided my thoughts on what I believe our Democracy was, is, and should be, and why I believe We, as a world, are struggling to find peace. Religious intolerance. I am no expert in Sharia Law – I don’t claim to be. I have no experience in it, I don’t claim it is an evil or good, and I admit I am ignorant to your views and faith. Is Islam tolerant of other faiths or not? Please, you tell me.
I thought “Talk Islam” might be a way to enlighten myself. From your posts, it appears you got very defensive and angry. Although I don’t understand why ignorance offends you – it should spur you to enlighten. Your site now seems to be a meeting place for like minded people to spout intolerance of te ignorant, more of the same. I was hoping for something different, something constructive. I will read the link provided, thank you for that. Perhaps it will change my vision, good things do. And I will read the Quran, I hope that will enlighten as well. Thank you for your time and may Allah bless your days.
-
shams
“Is Islam tolerant of other faiths or not? Please, you tell me.”
al-Islam is tolerant of other faiths but intolerant of proselytization.
the 1990 CDHRI (Cairo declaration of Islamic Human Rights).Article 10 of the Declaration states: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.”
but true Islam is universalist i think.
“And for every nation is a messenger. So when their Messenger comes, it will be judged between them in justice, and they will not be wronged.” [Quran 10:47] And: “And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying]: ‘Worship Allaah and avoid Taaghoot [i.e., false deities]‘. And among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed [i.e., travel] through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.”Nearly a thousand years after Bayazid, the poet and saint Mazhar Jan-i-Janan of Delhi (1699-1781), who was responsible for all the sufi orders—Naqshbandi, Qadiri and Chishti—in India, wrote in a letter to disciple: “You should know that the Merciful Being, in the beginning of creation, sent a book named Ved; this is apparent from the ancient scripture of the Indians. This book is in four parts [Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda] [and is] meant to regulate the duties of the people in this world and the next through the instrumentality of the divine Brahma, who is omnipotent. Now it must be borne in mind that the Koran states: ‘And there is not a people to whom a warner has not been sent’ [35:24]; and further, ‘To every land we have sent a warner’ [25:51] Hence there were prophets in India as in other countries and their accounts are to be found in their books. How could God, the Beneficent, the Merciful, have left out of his grace such an extensive portion of the globe?”
muslims do not believe in original sin. instead we believe mankind is forgetful. we believe all children are born innocent, pre-”saved”. That is why we say all children are born muslim.
My First Shayyk, Muhyyidin (scholar of scholars) Abu Abdullah Muhammed ibn Ali ibn Muhammed ibn Arabi:
“Beware of confining yourself to a particular belief and denying all else, for much good would elude you—indeed, the knowledge of reality would elude you. Be in yourself a matter for all forms of belief, for God is too vast and tremendous to be restricted to one belief rather than another.”
i am a mevlevi sufi, i follow Rumi because ibn Arabi founded no school.
there are many schools that would disagree with parts of my analysis.
and i am neither a mufasir nor a trained islamic jurist, so i must rely on the teachings of the Saints and the scholarship of the Wali (friends of god) and the Companions.also i follow Bayazid.
The Persian sufi Abu Yazid (also rendered Bayazid) Bistani (804-874), grandson of a Zoroastrian, traveled from Delhi to Damascus, conversing with scholars of many traditions. The Indian scholar RM Zaehneer has linked Bayazid’s concepts of whadat al-wujud (unity of being) and wahdat al-shuhud (unity of consciousness) with the Vedanta tradition of the Hindu sage Sankara. Bayazid’s concept of fana (“annihilation”—of the ego, in modern terms) has parallels in the Hindu moksha or samadhi, and the Buddhist nirvana.
-
shams
you may be able to redeem your initial comments with me at least with Jeffersonian scholarship.
He is also one of my shayyks. -
shams
“It is a country founded by universalists, Masons, who believed in a Creator but also understood that their specific routes to discover the Creator are never to be imposed on others”
yet, proselytizing, ie spreading the “good word”, is viewed as an imposition by muslims everywhere.
Do you see the flaw in your thought? -
shams
dont feel special.
All ignorance offends me.
-
-
visionpresident
My friend, my ignorance over Islam should not offend you.
“Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.” – Thomas Jefferson
I realize I am ignorant about Islam, that’s why I came here. I don’t know what a “xian version of religious tolerance is,” perhaps you can tell me. I could do without the expletives though…
“When angry count to ten before you speak. If very angry, count to one hundred.” – Thomas Jefferson
You mention proselytizing – I never heard the term until now. Although I don’t see why it is a “flaw in my thought,” as I had no such thought, I will agree whole-heartedly that my mission is never to “show you why my path to God is right.” For indeed, as a universalist, I don’t believe that mine is necessarily right for others, much less would I ever deem to enforce such a notion. This is God’s business, not mine. If you have found our Creator, than I am happy for you my brother. I have discovered Him as well, but I also realize I have yet many more things to learn.
“I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way.” – Thomas Jefferson
I feel like my Creator is speaking to me, and he is telling me to continue my journey. I am not claiming this as truth, nor am I asking you to believe it. But because I believe it, I would like to see what some other roads have to say – that is all. Rest assured, I am not here to proselytize you. In fact, I’m very skeptical of anyone who claims to know God and then proceeds to tell me the “right” answers. I would much prefer to seek out information, compare various thoughts, ponder and pray on them, and then determine my own opinion.
“Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” – Thomas Jefferson
I don’t know what you would expect me to “redeem” in my initial comments, so I won’t try. Nor do I intend to debate you on whether or not America is peaceful at heart. I believe we are, but you are free to believe otherwise. Some say we shouldn’t have supported the rebels in Libya, some say we were right to. Perhaps we should have let Saddam remain in Kuwait after his invasion, I don’t know. Maybe we should not have supported the Afghan rebels against the Soviets, or the Vietnamese or South Koreans for that matter. Trying to ensure food aid gets to Somalia, preventing ethnic cleansing in Serbia – heck, maybe we should have let Hitler own Europe. Maybe Al-Qaeda and the Taliban could have been handled better – I have my opinions but in the end, I don’t know. I didn’t come here to debate you on these issues, and you are welcome to your own opinions. These are difficult questions – war is always difficult. War is a terrible thing, hopefully we can agree on that.
“I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another.” – Thomas Jefferson
I came here solely to determine if Islam will help me to better know my Creator and, if so, inquire as to where I should begin to learn about it. I am open to all ideas, I am afraid of none. I don’t think any man or any religion has God all figured out, and I thought “Talk Islam” might be a good place to learn about your religion and your views on Allah.
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” – Thomas Jefferson
I opened with some of my political leanings because I was asked to. I am now hoping to try a different tack if that’s ok with you. I don’t mean to offend you so I’ll keep my personal thoughts to myself unless and until you ask for them again. I did read the article “America’s god is dying” that you directed me to. I didn’t think America had subscribed to a particular belief on God… perhaps that is his point.
“He who knows best knows how little he knows.” – Thomas Jefferson
In any case, here are my questions for you, feel free to take them wherever you deem they should be taken:
1) Does Islam preach that it is the only religion that has correctly figured out who and what Allah is? If so, is it fair to say that in your opinion the only ones who “really” know our Creator are Muslims?
2) Do you believe that you will be with the Creator one day? If so, do you believe that the only other people who will be with Him are Muslims?
3) Do you believe that there are certain men in political leadership positions here on earth that speak directly for Allah? Meaning, like the Pope of the Catholic church, do you believe that men speak things that are unquestionable by other men?
4) What constitues an “infidel” in you view? And, do you believe infidels should be punished or destroyed?
5) Do you believe that it is the role of government police forces to not only provide security, but to enforce religious adherence and tradition?
6) Do you believe that America is the Great Satan, the Great Unbeliever, the Infidel that needs to be destroyed? And if so, would you still believe this even if America were to completely withdraw all military forces from the world to within its borders?
7) Do you believe the Jews in Israel constitute a religion and a nation that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth?
Do you believe that all “true” Muslims believe the same things, or is it tolerated for different people to believe different things within the faith?Your honest answers to these questions will help me in my studies.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson
And whatever your answers, please know in advance that I thank you for taking the time to answer them.
“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” – Thomas Jefferson
Yours in Faith for a better America and a better World.
-
visionpresident
Lastly, and probably most importantly, what would you recommend I do next if I wanted to continue my search to discover our Creator?
I am considering looking into the Gnostic Bible and writings – thoughts from Islam about that? Thanks for your insight.
-
shams
i would say read the Noble Quran(i prefer Muhammed Asad’s translation), read the great islamic scholars like Ghazali and Ibn Arabi. Read the Vedas, read the gnostic bible.
Read the sapentia poetica of the Sufi Saints.
You have a cartoonish version of al-Islam in your head, like most westerners.
i was raised orthodox catholic, became an atheist in high school, and reverted to Islam while studying arabic.there are others here that are well qualified to correct your ignorance…..if they will.
-
-
visionpresident
Many thanks my friend, I will follow your lead. I especially like what your teacher once shared with you:
“Beware of confining yourself to a particular belief and denying all else, for much good would elude you—indeed, the knowledge of reality would elude you. Be in yourself a matter for all forms of belief, for God is too vast and tremendous to be restricted to one belief rather than another.”
I’m disappointed that such Truth eluded me for so long, but I’m joyful today that the journey continues. I’m thankful that my version of al-Islam is cartoonish – this is re-assuring to me. Not surprisingly, the uneducated and ignorant version of the Truth is not true at all. I look forward to replacing the western cartoon with educated knowledge, and have cut and pasted your post of suggested readings for future reference – I will read the works you mention.
I was raised catholic, became a wandering Protestant, then claimed myself a non-denominational Christian. Now I’ve reverted to my “Seek and ye shall find” religion and it will be my religion until the day I pass from this world.
Perhaps my journey will cause me to one day call myself a Muslim, I don’t know. Or maybe I’ll go back full circle to the beginning and realize I’m Jewish – I have yet to delve much into their belief structure either. For now though, I just call myself a God-lover, a fellow mankind lover, and a seeker…. and I like my “religion.” I’ll seek it all out, and let the Holy Spirit separate the wheat from the chaff.
You have given me readings to continue my journey, thank you my friend. This is what I needed. Thanks again for your direction and for your patience with my ignorance. If there are others there well qualified to correct my ignorance but unwilling to do so, then I do not seek their wisdom. “Knock, and the door will be opened to you.” Either they do not have the knowledge I seek, or I do not yet have the ability to comprehend their wisdom. Either way, if the door doesn’t open when I knock upon it, I should leave.
But I knocked here at “Talk Islam,” and I thank you for opening your door.
May Allah’s light be upon you and bless you in your days.
Yours in Faith.
-
shams
your questions reek of islamophobia. they are rude and offensive.
many here are far better qualified to answer your questions than i.
it is curious indeed that they do not.it is admirable that you wish to become a wali, a friend of god. but you are going about it the wrong way.
some sapentia poetica from TS.You say I am repeating
Something I have said before. I shall say it again.
Shall I say it again? In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstacy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not. -
shams
and this…from the Muhyyidin.
O Marvel! a garden amidst the flames.
My heart has become capable of every form:
it is a pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christian monks,
and a temple for idols and the pilgrim’s Ka’bah,
and the tables of the Torah and the book of the Qur’an.
I follow the Caravan of Love: whatever way Love’s camels take,
that is my religion and my faith.
-
-
visionpresident
Thank you again for your comments and direction – the Lord reveals their truth to me. I am thankful that my questions were offensive to you, it demonstrates I’ve found the right place. And I apologize for my offense – I will no longer ask these questions, I assure you. I know why the others there will not answer them. Proverbs 26:4
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest though also be like unto him.”
But you have done better. You embodied Proverbs 26:5, and answered the fool enough to reveal his foolishness. And not just to the enlightened around you, for they already are aware and to do this helps no one, but you strove to reveal the foolishness to the fool himself. I salute your wisdom, I applaud your answers, and I thank you for your guidance.
I may be an ignorant fool, but I know that – and I no longer wish to remain so. I am not searching for a religion, for I have found mine. I am searching only for our God of love, and He is inside of me. He always has been. Like a sculpturer, I must remove myself from Him so that He can be revealed. He is with me as I write this, He writes this very word. I must sacrifice my worldly self and embrace my heavenly one.
So now, to the task at hand. I will read the writings you provided and many others from those who have been able to accomplish this before me. I have so much to discover, so much to do. They are our guides in this world and a fool is wise to follow them. I love your quotes, thank you. I am so looking forward to reading the enlightened and to bettering myself by removing me from it. Perhaps one day I too, as you have done, can help to enlighten others.
“I follow the Caravan of Love: whatever way Love’s camels take, that is my religion and my faith.”
Amen.
-
visionpresident
But my friend, as I work on improving me, as a man, I discover that our duty is to improve us, as a Body. Allah and I will continue to work on me. My question is about us:
Would us, as a Body, be better off if the United States was more or less involved militarily in the world? What US military posture and strategy do you believe is right for our present day?
-
visionpresident
I ask not because I believe I have the answer, but because I seek it.
-
visionpresident
Or would I be wiser not to be concerned about such things?
-
-
-
Mc Kiernan
Defense against prosletyzation:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2012/01/christian-persecution-top-50-countries.html
-
shams
While the oppressive, atheist-communist regime of North Korea is (again) the worst persecutor of Christians in the world, it must be observed that the rest of the Top 10 are Islamic. In fact, 38 of worst 50 countries persecuting Christians are predominantly Muslim.
i’ll answer His Grace. The Miraculous Quran forbids proselytization of the poor and ignorant. Christianity exploits proselytization of the poor and ignorant.
The Noble Quran mandates a proportionate response to the Proselytizers, and invasion and occupation, or regime change via coups and propping tyrants in a doomed search for another Ataturk gets a a pretty radical proportionate response. -
VisionPresident
So is “invasion and occupation, regime change via coups, propping tyrants” something that the poor and ignorant feel Christians are doing – justifying a radical proportionate response against all Christians? Or do they believe it to be a US phenomena? A Western phenomena? And most importantly, what needs to happen to get it all to stop?
What needs to take place so that the poor and ignorant do not feel exploited by Christian proselytizers? Or by the US, or the West, or whomever they feel is exploiting them?
If US troops occupied no other country but the US, stopped giving any money or aid to any foreign governments, and relegated itself to whatever the UN decided as far as world political affairs, would that help or hurt religious persecution numbers? Would that help to bring about religious tolerance and peace in the world?
-
-
aziz
via @lizardoid, the dangerously unpredictable foreign policy of Newt Gingrich:
-
shams
Gringrichs superpac fundage is coming from a rabid Israel-firster.
-
-
aziz
Editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times newspaper: Netanyahu should perform some extrajudicial killing on American soil. Guess who he has in mind?
(already apologized, but the Secret Service will investigate. Rightly so.)
-
aziz
the ADL has condemned the column:
-
-
aziz
A smear campaign is being launched against Professor Khaled Abou el-Fadl at UCLA by the Islamophobia industry:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/islamism_at_ucla_law_school.html
-
aziz
short film on Egyptian social fallout:
-
shams
71% of the parliament seats are now held by either the Muslim Brotherhood or Noor.
spit in one hand, and wish in the other Aziz.-
shams
does this mean that the American 50 year strategy of “Searching for Ataturk” is now as failed as COIN?
because, like, there was only one Ataturk.
-
shams
and Mubarak wasnt him.
i predict Imran Khan as the next PM of Pakistan in 2013.
what do you think Aziz?
-
-
THE
I have long considered Spengler (David P Goldman) to be a top financial analyst. Even if you don’t agree with his politics.
-
aziz
i dont see a problem there. The MB is much more governance minded than Islamists would be. the political process forces ideologies to come to the table.
-
shams
WTF are “Islamists”?
-
shams
and you are totes clueless if you think Imran Khan isnt gunna be BEEG PROBLEM for the USA in Pak.
He led the Arab Spring style sit-in that shut down the NATO supply routes last spring.
-
-
-
-
aziz
Zaid Jilai has been thrown under the bus by the Center for American Progress.
-
aziz
Philip Weiss has a detailed post defending the term “Israel First” as a legitimate criticism, and invokes historical examples of it’s usage by pro-Israel patriots and founding fathers (and mothers) of modern Zionism.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/israel-firster-gets-at-an-inconvenient-truth.html
-
aziz
I think that Jilani’s ouster has opened the floodgates to serious pushback.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/an-anti-semitic-washington-think-tank/251704/
-
Matthew
Glenn Greenwald, Philip Weiss… You’re like the guy who only knows about Islamophobia from Walid Shoebat.
-
shams
lol.
Aziz is a maftoon. He is “charmed” by western culture.-
Matthew
Well, that’s a non sequitor.
-
aziz
No. I *am* Western, if we go by your concept of it. If you wantto draw such a hypocritical line between yourself and the West, then I gladly place myself on the other side from you relative to it.
My view however is that there is no West and there is no Ummah. So y that token I see myself as an heir to several traditions, but one civilization. Your mileage clearly varies.
It’s lazy on your part to trot out the maftoon nonsense though. When are you applying for your immigration visa to Pakistan btw?
-
shams
“When are you applying for your immigration visa to Pakistan btw?”
so beneath you, my habbibi.
-
aziz
calling me maftoon = lowers debate
-
shams
hunnie….its what you ARE.
it informs this whole blog.Tyrell: She’s beginning to suspect, I think.
Deckard: Suspect? How can it not know what it is?how can you not see the beauty
….of the uncreated revealed Quran, outside time and space?
i dont get you. -
aziz
I’m flabbergasted. You clearly don’t “get me” if you think I’m somehow a stranger to the Qur’an.
I think I need another week off from you.
-
shams
banning? go for it.
bi lal kayfah
-
-
-
aziz
you’re really gonna HATE my essay in the upcoming book…
http://www.amazon.com/Speak-Myself-American-Being-Muslim/dp/1935952595/talkislam-20
(hey! I am on the cover!)
-
shams
i will totes buy your book my habbibi.
but that doesnt change my position on the Quantum Quran and Evolutionary Theory of Games. -
aziz
I’m not big on metaphysics either
-
shams
that is okfine.
what you are “big on” is apparently western culture chauvinism.
Did you read the Seeing Further Chapter on computational metaphysics?
-
-
-
-
Arwi
Glenn Greenwald and Philip Weiss are certainly not above criticism, but they are above comparison to fraudulent huckster like Walid Shoebat.
-
-
-
aziz
What did MLK actually accomplish? He “ended the terror“.
-
aziz
quite an affecting and important read. Teaser:
This was just one of many humiliating practices we were taught to prevent white people from going berserk.
-
shams
kinda Obama’s Israeli policy today.
Don’t do it BibiThis was just one of many humiliations Obama was forced to accept to prevent the Israelinazis from going berserk.
-
aziz
no, actually nothing like that at all.
-
shams
orly?
Are you saying WWIII isnt the hostage the Israelinazis are taunting Obama and Panetta with?
-
-
-
-
-
aziz
Caner K. Dagli, who is being stalked by Robert Spencer, has an invaluable guide to the use of equivocation by the Islamophobia industry and Spencer, Geller, et al.
-
shams
for auld times sake…..Roobart and meh.
-
Arwi
-
-
aziz
In “Art and the Arab Spring”, Daanish Faruqi argues that art deserves a prominent position in revolutionary politics, but as “signposts, not as overt political manifestos.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/20121612493122450.html
-
shams
i’d rather talk about this, but it is probably not covalent with your peacemaker agenda, Aziz.
US Marines urinate on muslim corpses. -
shams
bad juju.
The Afghan Taliban Thursday denounced the video as “barbaric.”
“This is a barbaric act. Over the past 10 years there have been hundreds of similar cases that were not revealed,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahed told AFP.
If authenticated, the images — which conjure up previous abuses committed by US troops during the decade-long war — could spark deep anger and resentment in Afghanistan and the wider Muslim world.
A military official who asked not to be named said the helmet and weapon carried by one of the men seems to indicate the four could be members of an elite sniper team.-
aziz
not that bad. The Taliban say it won’t affect the peace talks. Now that’s quite significant if you think about it.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-marines-probe-video-men-urinating-taliban-corpses-002421198.html
-
shams
and you believe that western media spin.
it has ALREADY AFFECTED THE TALKS.
Karzai has postponed them.look Aziz. this is what sleeper and i are talking about. how do you read open source to see what is actually happening?
For months Panetta and the western media spun Iraq as wanting to amend the SOFA. that was a lie.
Muqtada made amending the SOFA into political death poison for Iraqi politicians.
it was NEVAH gunna happen.
i read the dinar traders to see what was really happening.-
aziz
I’m thoroughly lost. Sadr and SOFA are Iraq issues, they have nothing to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban. Maybe it’s because I just cleared the driveway of snow and I haven’t had any coffee yet but your analogy just flew over my overeducated head.
what and who are the dinar traders??
-
shams
im talking about media spin. picking that one line from the Taliban’s statement for a headline is media spin.
OF COURSE the marines urinating on muslim corpses is gunna have a HUGE effect. It already affected the negotiations. Karzai shut them down.
The Iraqi dinar traders are the people who are making a living from currents and eddies in Iraqi politics. They are accurate– they have to be.What sleeper and i are talking about is how to see past the media gatekeepers that are selling narratives to the truth of the Open Source intel.
-
shams
“they have nothing to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban.”
Oh yes they DO. Both Iraq and A-stan were COIN operations. Both were always doomed to fail.
Because when muslims are democratically empowered to vote, they vote for islamic democracy. They never vote for missionary democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.that is the beauty of democracy.
-
shams
here, my habbibi. i will give you a chance here.
Marines identified.
who is guilty? Petraeus, Bush, Obama, the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon?
America required those boys to kill “insurgents” to “defend” us.
Do we really get to complain about them urinating on corpses?
It WAS a war between Islam and America.
We lost.
Can we go home NAOW?
-
-
shams
the whole Bush “Freedom Agenda” was doomed to fail. Peaceful Democracy theory is crap. COIN is crap. The Bush Doctrine is crap.
Because it cant be done.
-
-
shams
“its not that bad”
riiiight.Jan Mohammad Khan, a Taliban fighter in eastern Afghanistan, says the video affected him more than all the carnage that he’s seen in his 10 years in the jihad. “I have never hurt so much as I did when I saw this video,” he says. “These Americans have crossed the borders of civilization and humanity by disrespecting the dead.”
Perhaps the full repercussions of the video have yet to be felt. “These four guys really poked a stick into a hornets’ nest,” says an Afghan who worked as a translator for the U.S. forces in Helmand province for several years and doesn’t want to be identified. “This will stir up both fighters and most Afghans to hate Americans in Afghanistan more.” But he says he was not surprised when he saw the video online. He remembers seeing U.S. soldiers urinating on a village path while Afghan women were passing by, returning home carrying water containers on their heads. “I told them they shouldn’t do these things that make the people angry,” he recalls. “But they laughed and didn’t seem to care.” During his time with the U.S. military he says he saw many U.S. troops openly violating Afghan customs and sensitivities.
The former translator who lives in Kabul with his family says the video has outraged even his normally calm and moderate father. “This morning my father was so angry that he ordered me to burn any money I may still have from the Americans as it was a sin to keep it,” he says. “If this action has so angered my father, it will certainly anger other common Afghans.” If so, the already difficult fledgling peace process has just become even more complicated.
-
aziz
well, if you lost Jan Mohammed Khan, a *Taliban fighter*, then surely you’ve lost the common Afghan /eyeroll
-
shams
AMG do you not understand social media at all?
The world has changed.
srsly.
already the Taliban have besieged the American Embassy with TWO fighters.
already the Taliban have assassinated Karzai’s brother in his own office.
when the US GTFOs A-stan the Taliban are gunna roll into Kabul and dip Karzais head in tar (Game of Thrones reference) and put it on a pike on top of the American embassy.
Imran Khan is gunna be the next PM of Pakistan.
And he doan liek us.
Game ovah man, game ovah. -
shams
wallah…everthing i link is subject to censorship?
fine.
-
-
-
-
-
-
aziz
Being a Muslim and being a feminist are not mutually exclusive! by Fatemeh Fakhraie
-
Arwi
-
-
aziz
Islamic Art Call for artists in the Bay Area from the Marin Community Foundation:
MCF’s next art exhibit will focus on traditional and contemporary art that represents the social, political, and/or religious themes associated with Islam. Attached is a call for artists. Please pass this call along to artists that might be interested in having work considered for this show.
Contact Shirin A. Vakharia at svakharia@marincf.org if interested
-
aziz
Superb profile of John Mearsheimer in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/8839/?single_page=true
goes into depth about his theories of “offshore balancing” and “passing the buck” in realist foreign policy, touches on the Israeli Lobby controversy, and goes into much needed detail about his seminal work, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
-
Matthew
And an important rejoinder on “Lame ‘Atlantic’ Apologies for Mearsheimer.” Especially after his endorsement of Gilad Atzmon’s book, Mearsheimer’s work related to Israel or Jews just cannot be taken as anything but bigotry, however good his work on other subjects.
-
Arwi
I clicked your link. I am not familiar with this site, but I clicked one of the internal links to another posting criticizing Mearsheimer, in which there is this line — “and as for Righteous Jew Norman Finkelstein (!!), he is also David Duke’s favorite Jew.”
At that point, I closed the tab.
-
-
Matthew
Arwi, for you to find that, you must have read over quite a bit. Either you were only reading for a reason to dismiss something you disagree with, or you must have something more pertinent to say.
And I’d suggest the reason you’re not familiar with the site is because you are disengaged from Jewish communities, which puts you in a rather poor position to suggest anything about whether someone like Finkelstein is antisemitic.
Unlike most antisemites, Atzmon explicitly denies that his problem is only with Zionists. He is very clear that his problem is with Jews. In fact, he particularly goes after secular, Jewish anti-Zionists who continue to call themselves Jews. He offers a traditionally antisemitic approach of decrying the “rootless cosmopolitan” (Stalin’s term) or “wandering Jew.” In fact, the book, in which Atzmon suggested that Hitler would eventually be proven right, was called “The Wandering Who?” in reference to the classic slur. This is what Mearsheimer endorsed.
As Tracy points out, this is what Kaplan, in his not so superb profile, fails to adequately deal with.
And, Aziz, While Mearsheimer does have important things to say about other topics, as a realist, he’s coming from the same perspective as someone like Henry Kissinger. Far too many of his supporters don’t agree with him on anything except Israel.
-
aziz
I’m not sure how the Atlantic piece qualifies as an “Apology” for Mearsheimer, since it quite explicitly was critical of him in that regard.
It’s rather ironic you dismiss the body of Mearsheimer’s work – most of which is not related to Israel – on the basis of one decision, and yet are lamasting Arwi downthread for dismissing some much less important author at a frankly minor media outlet (however important it might be to the “Jewish American world”) on the basis of one rather understandable assessment.
As far as I’m concerned, the piece isn’t worth reading, because the title reveals itself to be part of the kneejerk scalper crowd rather than interested in a dispassionate analysis. Quelle surprise, it finds that Mearsheimer is anti-semitic by association! Hey, Mear. endorsed a book by a guy who is an anti-Semite so Q.E.D.
Guilt by association is possibly the weakest argument you can make against someone, and reveals more about teh weakness of your own argument rather than theirs. I don’t play that game and I think Arwi is justified to dismiss Tracy (whoever that is) on that basis.
-
aziz
ok, I just read every link you sent out Matthew. To be honest the Atzmon thing never really hit my radar before, but I found Mears’ explanation compelling:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/25/mearsheimer_responds_to_goldbergs_latest_smear
Since you’re the one insisting (as does Tracy) that the Atlantic is somehow trying to “apologize” for the Atzmon endorsement, I think that the link to Mears’ actual defense is necessary in this thread for documentation purposes.
Since neither you nor Tracy are interested in the actual subject of the Atlantic article, namely, realism in foreign policy and offshore balancing, I will comply with the threadjack.
Having not read Atzmon’s book, and being rather reluctant to let you define Atzmon for me, I was glad to see Mears explicitly addressed the question of whether Atzmon is a holocaust denier. He clearly isn’t, as a quote from Atzmon’s book proves (hit the link I provided).
So the issue is, is Atzmon an anti-semite? You argue yes because of some other stuff he wrote. That stuff however was not endorsed by Mears. So is anyone blurbing a book obligated to have read every book and essay ever written by the author prior to blurbing? Does blurbing functionally equate to full and complete endorsement of every idea in the book itself?
Lets see your position on those questions before we continue further.
-
Matthew
Aziz, there’s just so much inaccurate here.
First off, you suggest that maybe Atzmon isn’t an antisemite. It’s actually really offensive that I have to jump through so many hoops to get someone to admit that it might be so. Atzmon: “It is very tragic to say, but I can see it. And the only thing that can save the Jews from themselves is if we, the goyim, let’s say — Yes — if the goyim, the gentiles, basically — find within ourselves the powers to contain this sinister ideological collective.” Note in the very quite you implore me to read (though I do fear it’s out of context), Atzmon describes himself — and this very much is in the book Mearsheimer endorsed — as “a strong opponent of .. Jewish-ness.” I do take offense that you are willing to let Mearsheimer “define Atzmon” for you, but you’re incredibly skeptical of anything I say. Or, I suppose, anyone you disagree with.
“As far as I’m concerned, the piece isn’t worth reading, because the title reveals itself to be part of the kneejerk scalper crowd.” Irony much?
And that skepticism is part of the problem with the piece on Mearsheimer. When it comes to antisemitism, everything is tempered and moderated. The idea that anything is antisemitic is treated with a level of skepticism way out of line with anything else. The basic facts become merely “suggested by some,” as if they are really in dispute. It’s as if, short of a genocide for proof (and, of course, some people will deny that), everything is always just circumstantial evidence. Seriously, what standard of proof would actually qualify?
Basically, as far as a lot of people are concerned, there is no such thing as antisemitism until the genocide starts. And to be so blatantly dismissed by people who simply refuse to see antisemitism is really offensive.Now, as several people pointed out, Mearsheimer wasn’t being truthful when he said those things weren’t in the book. The passages cited in the criticism are in fact in the book. (Click through, and you can read Atzmon saying of the Holocaust, “In my formative years, I blindly accepted everything they told me about our ‘collective’ Jewish past: The Kingdom of David, Masada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade, the death march, and the six million.” It goes on to ask, “Why were the Jews hated?” with the intention of showing that Jews deserved to be hated.) In fact, the very title of the book was intentionally rhymed with an antisemitic motif! “The Wandering Who?” And while the excerpts are taken for their explicitness, the underlying thesis is that same classic antisemitism motif of the wandering Jew. This is Atzmon’s raison d’etre: The Jewish ethnicity must cease to be, because it is “inauthentic” and therefore dangerous. It’s one thing for Mearsheimer to say that his blurb shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of every little thing in the book, but it’s another to claim that his endorsement had nothing whatsoever to do with the book.
And, btw, contrary to your claim, criticizing someone for an endorsement is not “guilt by association,” as if they were merely cordial neighbors. The endorsement of a book is an endorsement of ideas, and when those ideas are ugly, it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to criticize the endorsement for promoting those ideas.
But, of course, this is a pattern of Mearsheimer writing something, getting criticized for it, and you disregarding the criticism. Each time with a skepticism that surely must be getting harder and harder to maintain. At what point does it become possible to even consider that when Mearsheimer wrote, “a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress” (in the very first Lobby paper) this was actually the antisemitic charge that Jews are too powerful and manipulate governments for their own ends? At what point is it possible to entertain such a straightforward proposition?
-
aziz
I do take offense that you are willing to let Mearsheimer “define Atzmon” for you, but you’re incredibly skeptical of anything I say. Or, I suppose, anyone you disagree with.
Look, I haven’t let Mears “define” Atsmon either – i dont care about Atzmon.
But neither do I think that the statement abolut containing an ideological collective was necessarily aimed at all Jews as a group. It seems from the limited context you are providing that he is talking about the identity-partisans. But I could be wrong. I certainly can see that theres room for debate here and thats why again Mears’ blurbing doesnt seem like an open endorsement of anti-semitism here.
Youre blaming Mears ecause of Atzmon. Thats just wrong. He just blurbed a book, he explicitly said he doesnt agree with everything in it, so even if Atz thinks ALL jews are part of a sinisster collective, well does that follow that Mears thinks so?
-
Matthew
I certainly can see that theres room for debate here
No. No, there isn’t room for debate. Did you even think about what you said? (And, if you note, the context *I provided*, a source for your skepticism, was the quote you urged me to read.) Identity partisans? So people for whom being Jewish is important? Keep in mind, Atzmon particularly targets Jewish anti-Zionists. (It would be no better if he targeted Zionists, but I think it’s more obvious.) What’s wrong with that, exactly? Why shouldn’t Jewish people be Jewish?
And at what point does a book become so awful that endorsing it actually is a bad thing in your view? Does every individual sentence have to be overwhelmingly and explicitly racist? The very core of that book is racist, and there’s no way to endorse it without endorsing racism.
Your willful and absurd skepticism (though you gladly take Mearsheimer’s word that Atzmon is not a Holocaust denier, although Atzmon is) is frightening and obnoxious.
-
Matthew
But neither do I think that the statement abolut containing an ideological collective was necessarily aimed at all Jews as a group.
Btw, it’s really obnoxious to refer to Jews as an “ideological collective.” And it’s absurd to think that it has to refer to all Jews to be racist. I can guarantee you wouldn’t make the same exceptions for Islamophobia.
-
aziz
thanks for linking the Ibish argument downthread – that’s much more rigorous an analysis and I am satisfied that Atzmon is a self-hating jew by any reasonable definition.
To answer your question of what would be “enough” – no, not every line needs to be dripping with antisemitism, but not having read Atzmon’s book I can’t comment as to whether that was the “core” of his argument. So, I don’t really know.
And this is the core of why I discount your analysis – you refuse to permit any debate and insist that I accept your perspective on what constitutes valid critique and what doesn’t. You insist Atzmon is an anti-semite – fine, I think I agree, based on Ibish’s more reasoned analysis. You insist he is a Holocaust denier, but thats cleary untrue, based on what Atzmon himself has written (and which Mears quotes in his defense). Its the classic kitchen sink strategy – trow everyting at someone and see what sticks. I am immediately suspicious of anyone who uses this strategy.
The debate (yes, there is one, and its valid) over the idea of “Israel Firsters” is a great example. But that deserves a separate post.
-
Matthew
http://volokh.com/2012/01/13/israel-firster/
Apparently, there’s room for debate on neo-Nazi memes now!
The term “Israel Firster” is very much meant to suggest that Jews are disloyal to the countries in which they live. That is a standard trope of antisemitism. Now, which of those statements do you disagree with? Or do you think it’s acceptable to recite standard tropes of antisemitism? You keep insisting there’s room for debate, but you never deal with the central arguments. You demand there’s room for debate without providing any argument! All you do is dismiss those who have a definition of antisemitism that (while being better motivated by a more knowledge of the history of Jews) doesn’t jibe with yours.
And this is the core of why I discount your analysis – you refuse to permit any debate and insist that I accept your perspective on what constitutes valid critique and what doesn’t.
But no, it’s you and Mearsheimer who refuse to permit debate.
http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2008/06/the-end-of-anti-semitism-and-other-tales/
You refuse to accept the most obvious as “evidence.” You claim Ibish is more rigorous, but I think the problem is you’re too quick to dismiss Jews as “kneejerk,” as if we haven’t thought about things. How much more rigorous can it get than quoting Atzmon describe himself as a strong opponent of Jewishness?
You insist he is a Holocaust denier, but thats cleary untrue, based on what Atzmon himself has written (and which Mears quotes in his defense).
By that standard, there are no Holocaust deniers. Apparently, you know nothing of the tropes of antisemitism or Holocaust denial. Jeffrey Goldberg described Atzmon as a “Holocaust revisionist,” but even that spurred criticism by those who argue that there is no such thing as that even.
-
aziz
well, the term “anti-semitism” itself was coined by a Nazi too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr
My problem isn’t with Israel, it’s with people who wrap themselves in Israel’s flag, the same exact problem I have with people who wrap themselves in pages of the Qur’an or the Constitution for that matter. They do more harm than good. And yes I’d lump Tracy into that category, though I think Goldberg is just shy of it. I don’t have any opinion on where you stand, because theonly data I have is this thread, where you seem to have got a maor snit going on and are saying things you;ll likely regret later (the reference to me and Shoebat being just one, but I don’t fault you for it)
Once self-styled defenders of Israel get over their righteous pedantic crusade about language, we can start having a rational discussion. In the meantime, scalp hunting and declaring minor things like blurbing a book as “beyond the pale” don’t help. Some of us are actually serious about trying to reform and combat the negative sentiment and rampant anti-semitism in the muslim world, and I get enough shit for being a crypto Zionist that I just don’t have patience for silly nonsense anymore.
As far as I am concerned, the controversy over Mears is as respectable as the cartoon stupidstorm over Mohammed cartoons. In other words, not at all.
And you may have last word on the matter, and my offer for frontpaging still stands.
-
Matthew
but not having read Atzmon’s book I can’t comment
Seems so.. scholarly. Except,
As far as I’m concerned, the piece isn’t worth reading, because the title reveals itself to be part of the kneejerk scalper crowd rather than interested in a dispassionate analysis.
You have a completely different standard here.
-
aziz
did you miss the comment afterwards where i said, fine, I read Tracy’s piece anyway? You’re in such a rush to condemn you arent reading carefully enough
-
aziz
not really. I’ve zero interest in reading Atzmon’s book, too. Of course, I can’t comment on what I haven’t read. The title of the essay presumably has some relevance to the subject matter, so I actually know more about that essay than I do about Atzmon or his subject.
-
Matthew
You have no interest in reading anything that would make it harder for you to ignore the criticisms of Mearsheimer. But, while you’re gladly ignorant of what’s actually being debated, you’ll simply accuse others of being kneejerk scalpers whenever they challenge you.
By the way, equating Tracy and Atzmon — shockingly offensive. You’re going from bad to worse here.
-
aziz
actually I’ve read every critique of Mears and Atzmon you’ve provided, and I even endorsed the ibish post. i’ve agreed with you on Atz once you gave me some actual argument rather than assertions.
the only thing I refuse to do is castigate mears as a crypto anti semite and dismiss his body of work outright (most of which is unrelated to anything israel or whatever)
this makes me the functional equivalent of walid shoebat in your eyes? I’ll accept that. i’m not going to chase your approval. What you want is for me to condemn Mears and I just dont have any reason or evidence to do that. Even ibish din’t go that far, why arent you hounding him about it?
-
Matthew
He’s not a crypto antisemite. The Israel Lobby is blatantly antisemitic. But you refuse to engage with that argument, castigating anyone who holds it as a “kneejerk scalper.” As for evidence, you ignore it then accuse me of not providing any.
(Walid Shoebat? You’re not reading. You get your information on antisemitism from marginal Jewish figures, as some people get their info in Islamophobia solely from marginal Muslim figures.)
-
-
aziz
I said it was obvious Atzmon isnt a olocaust denier. I am not disputing that he may be an anti-semite, I just said, I don’t know, I havent read anything of his. And I think your assumption that Mears endorses everything Atzmon ever wrote just because he blurbed that particular book is classic guilt y association.
I havent read your whole comment but will do so later and reply in more detail.
-
shams
WTF is an “anti-semite”?
surely both you and Matthew are aware the Arabs and genetic jews are BOTH racial semites. -
Matthew
shams, that’s just a useless side issue. In fact, Semitic is a linguistic category, not a racial category. But the term antisemite has always referred to a prejudice against Jews. Sometimes, it refers to a specific sort of prejudice that was named around 1890, with the primary feature of accusing Jews of having too much power. Sometimes it refers to any prejudice against Jews.
Or do you prefer that October be the eighth month, september the seventh, that we park on parkways and drive on driveways?
-
shams
nah. i just prefer that Words Have Meaning.
i think anti-semite is a riddickulous term.
why not just say anti-jew if that is what you mean?
Scientifically, Arabs are also semites.
Do you deny that? -
Matthew
Some people do say “anti-Jewish,” but it’s a meaningless distraction. (On the other hand, I don’t capitalize or hyphenate, which is the preferred spelling among most who study antisemitism.) You can read “anti-Jewish” if you like, but words acquire meaning through usage. If you insist otherwise, you can go talk to yourself.
And, as I already said, “Semitic” is a language group, not a racial group. No person is a Semite.
-
Arwi
The term “Israel Firster” is very much meant to suggest that Jews are disloyal to the countries in which they live.
It is meant to describe specific Jews whose public statements and actions demonstrate their prioritization of Israel over the US.
When, for example, Eric Alterman himself says that he would prioritize Israel, how is it anti-Semetic to call him an “Israel-Firster”?
-
Matthew
Yes, and the term “terrorist sympathizer” is used to describe specific Muslims whose…
Have you put much thought into how stereotypes work? Do you really want to say it’s about “specific Jews” and then suggest that it’s everyone to the right of Eric Alterman? Because that doesn’t sound like “specific Jews.” That sounds a lot more like, “most.” And that’s exactly how stereotypes tend to work, with a little slippage about who exactly is being described. It’s like people who say, “I don’t hate Blacks, I just hate n****rs.”
-
-
-
-
-
Arwi
And I’d suggest the reason you’re not familiar with the site is because you are disengaged from Jewish communities, which puts you in a rather poor position to suggest anything about whether someone like Finkelstein is antisemitic.
You really think that the right way to discuss whether Finkelstein’s positions count as anti-Semetism is to call him “David Duke’s favorite Jew”? Really? I don’t have any engagement with Jewish communities, I clicked over just to see what the discussion was about, but when I come across such rhetorical errors, I conclude that a source is not reliable and I close tab.
-
Matthew
As far as I’m concerned, this is really, really tangential, and I’m getting pretty frustrated that you want to focus on this instead of Mearsheimer. Attack the messenger! For a single line in a different article! Tablet Magazine happens to be one of the most important media outlets in the Jewish American world right now, and dismissing Tracy, one of the editors, you might as well dismiss American Jewry!
But, Tracy did actually link to David Duke offering high praise for Finkelstein. The reason he offers that praise is because Duke recognizes in Finkelstein’s work exactly what Duke likes to say about Jews. “He has also been one of the most ardent Jewish critics of Israel… as well as Israel’s blatant manipulation of the American governmental and media establishment” (emphasis mine). Now, do you want to deny that Duke said that, that it’s a fair way to characterize Finkelstein’s claims, or that “blatant manipulation of the American government and media establishment” is antisemitic? Because, given those things, I don’t see any reason to fault Tracy for anything more than slight exaggeration. As I said, Atzmon, not Finkelstein, is surely Duke’s favorite Jew! But that’s quite a bit worse for Mearsheimer.
-
aziz
what is really tangential is a debate over Mears blurbing a book by Atzmon in a thread devoted to a profile of Mears’ seminal work on foreign policy realism.
Though I think that the whole Atzmon thing read like a smear attempt on Mears to tar him with the overused antisemite brush by any means necessary, since his critics were unable to make a substantive critique of his book on the Israel Lobby. In fact the attacks on Mears over Atzmon arguably are evidence of the central argument in Lobby itself.
-
aziz
my mistake – now we are debating Duke’s opnion of Finkelstein in a debate about Tracy who thinks the Atlantic is apologizing for Mears about Atzmon. whew!
tangential, indeed. But thats what threads do, so I dont mind the jack of the jack of the threadjack at all.
-
-
-
-
Arwi
dismissing Tracy, one of the editors, you might as well dismiss American Jewry!
“………….”
Anyway, yes, my comment was tangential to Mearsheimer, but it was relevant to the orientation and reliabilty of Tablet Magazine. While several responses to your own rhetoric leap to my mind, they would be even more tangential to the original topic, and are perhaps best expressed by closing tab again.
-
Matthew
“Yet again, Prof. Mearsheimer gets a well-deserved F. With this latest blunder, he has finally and permanently flunked out of the respectable conversation about the Middle East and anything related to it.”
-Hussein Ibish on Mearsheimer
http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2011/10/01/gilad_atzmon_and_john_mearsheimer_self_criticism_self_hate_and_hate-
aziz
great link.
BTW, I do value your perspective. To prove it, I’d like to offer you frontpage privileges. Email me apoonawa dash blog atyahoo
-
shams
wallah….OF COURSE you should front page Matthew.
He OFFENDS me, Aziz.
Actually….. there are loose women everywhere in the world.-
Matthew
If by loose women, one means there are women with healthy sexual appetites, then, yes, there are loose women everywhere. If one means women who’s position in a patriarchal society is predicated on being sexually desirable, who then pretend to have a stronger or less specific desire for sex than is actually so, then I’m afraid it’s probably also true that there are loose women everywhere.
If one means to imply that all people named Matthew are the same, then I’m afraid that’s not the case. I’ve worked for two companies with 15,000 people, and found that not only has each had people with my first name, but each has had people who shared my first, last, and middle names. I’d figure the internet has at least 15,000 people.
-
aziz
I think there’s at least 20,000 people on here. Or maybe there’s actually 15,000 uniques and 5,000 pseudonyms of shams’ ?
-
shams
that isnt your comment?
mybad.
i was talking about how there is no prostitute class in islamic cultures.
i thot you replied to my no-more-madama-butterflies meme with a comment on loose women in every culture.
-
-
-
shams
if you make Matthew a frontpager and do not restore my FP privs, i shall declare a kanly on him.
Actually….. there are loose women everywhere in the world.
-
shams
give him a sideblog where he can expound on his theory of Loose Women.
-
-
-
Arwi
Yes, and the term “terrorist sympathizer” is used to describe specific Muslims whose…Have you put much thought into how stereotypes work? Do you really want to say it’s about “specific Jews” and then suggest that it’s everyone to the right of Eric Alterman?
-
Arwi
Yes, and the term “terrorist sympathizer” is used to describe specific Muslims whose…Have you put much thought into how stereotypes work? Do you really want to say it’s about “specific Jews” and then suggest that it’s everyone to the right of Eric Alterman?
I did not say anything about anyone to the right of Eric Alterman, I asked you how it is anti-Semetic to describe Eric Alterman himself as an Israel Firster when he himself says he is.
I don’t think “terrorist sympathizer” is anti-Muslim when it is applied to specific Muslims who are in fact sympathetic to terrorists. They do exist, just as Israel First Jews exist.
-
Matt
But surely you know the term is (at best) widely misused.
As for Alterman, I won’t speak for him, but surely if you think it’s appropriate to call him such, then anyone to his right, who would voice more strident support for Israel or would argue more vociferously against antisemitism, would be as well, no?
And if not, if it really is the rare bird, then what’s the political use of the phrase, anyway?
Btw, psychologists have studied whether identification with a homeland among immigrants is correlated with disidentification with the new country. It’s not. It’s no different for Jews.
-
shams
but Matt….all american conservos are quasi-Jews.
Nobel prize winner Johan Galtung says that American exceptionalism is just re-imaged Chosen People doctrine.-
Matt
shams, that’s really a lot of disturbing packed into a few short words.
Let me start by pointing out how absurdly wrong it is: Jews are, on the whole quite liberal. Whether it’s presidential elections, abortion politics, civil rights, whatever. In particular, the vast majority of American Jews were opposed to the war in Iraq. So if American conservatives were quasi-Jews, they wouldn’t be conservatives. It’s a really flawed syllogism to say that some Jews are conservatives, so all conservatives are (sort of) Jews.
Also, I think you misunderstand – or Galtung misunderstands – what chosenness means. Often ideas from the Jewish Bible are re-interpreted in Christianity or Islam. It’s not unusual for Christians and Muslims (I’m not sure quite how often for Muslims) to think they know a lot about some bit of Judaism when they couldn’t be more wrong. This is how a lot of antisemitism is justified. I suppose one could read American exceptionalism as informed by a misguided understanding of what chosenness is, but it’s certainly very different. Let me tell you one story of how Jews were “chosen.” In this story, G-d went to 12 different tribes who all turned him down. Finally, he came to the Jews and held a mountain over their heads when he offered them the chance to be his chosen. Being chosen is about taking on additional burdens to serve as an example for others. Isn’t that what Muslims do as well?
Further, let me suggest you do some research into the ways that Britain was described as allied with Jews in the early part of the 20th century. Some Jews were British or promoted “Manchester Capitalism” (which is now known as laissez faire or free market capitalism) because the guild systems and such were unkind to minorities, so it was taken that Britain (and “Manchester Capitalism,” in particular) was somehow Jewish. It didn’t work out so well.
That, by the way, is why a lot of conspiracy theories still floating around out there describe the Queen of England as a major drug runner. But you also see it in places like Lindbergh’s speech when he came out as a supporter of the “America First Committee,” right-wing isolationists who pretty much supported Hitler. (Hey — that’s an interesting phrasing, isn’t it, using “First” like that?). According to Lindbergh, “The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war [entering WWII] are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.” Yet, in each of these, he implied a unified, Jewish configuration.
-
shams
so what matt? american exceptionalism is just repackeged chosen people bulshytt.
the idea that americans get to tell the rest of the world how to live.
becuz we are special. -
Matt
So what? Look, criticize the US all you want, but leave Jews out of that.
It’s not because the US is too Jewish, not because there are too many many Jews in the US, not because of any Jewish ideas. That way lies the worst sort of antisemitism. If you need me to elaborate, just reread my last comment, because I thought I was pretty clear.
-
shams
leave the jews out of it? i just want to leave Israelis out of it.
The creation of Israel was unjust. the continued American support of Israel with force of arms and bullying is unjust.Cut Israel loose.
Does that make me an anti-semite? -
shams
and Matt…..its gunna happen anyways.
American blacks and browns and american youth dont give a shit about Israel.
Only the greys care. When the demographic timer goes off, my generation is gunna kick Bibi and AIPAC to the kerb. -
Matt
“The creation of Israel was unjust.”
I disagree. And if you can’t understand why Jews care, then that is a problem.
-
Aziz
I disagree also. I think that teh creation of Israel was valid, though Israel’s founding was not as free of injustice in the execution as its hagiographers would have you believe. In that respect, Israel is thoroughly typical of most nations.
I believe teh founding of america was just as well, despite the absolute truth of the injustice against the native americans. Thats a intellectual dissonance that isn’t easily resolved, unless you accept that human history operates this way repeatedly.
No group or nation or people is free of blood on their hands. Not even aboriginals or natives. Certainly Jews and Americans alike have their own sordid baggage that should (but doesn’t) restrain their/our self-promotion.
-
-
-
-
-
Arwi
As for Alterman, I won’t speak for him
I did not ask you to speak “for” him. I asked you, given that he himself has described himself as prioritizing Israel’s needs over the US if they conflict, how is it anti-Semetic to call him an Israel Firster?
Is it anti-Semetic to call Eric Alterman — not nameless groups of strident or vociferous people but this one specific individual — an Israel Firster? If yes, how?
-
Matt
Didn’t mean to sidestep your question. Yes, it is racist to invoke stereotypes, even when they seem to fit. There are about a billion reasons for that, so let me give you just one: what if it’s true of everyone in society, but only criticized in members of a specific minority group?
More than that, though, Alterman doesn’t say he’s an “Israel-firster” in the quote. He says that sometimes he thinks the US can take a hit that Israel can’t. If there were actually something bad happening to the US, perhaps his answer would be different. But “Israel-firster,” among other things, suggests that someone is a traitor and should be dismissed from reasonable discourse. (And, no, you cannot say “I don’t care how it’s otherwise used, this is what I mean.” Words and phrases have meaning by consensus.) Is that how you feel about Alterman? And what about every Jew to his right?
Now, it’s not at all surprising when stereotypes are internalized by members of minority groups. And it isn’t surprising, either, when members of minortity groups espouse stereotypes because it helps them to seem “reasonable” and worthy of engaging in debate. It happens all the time with all sorts of groups. Sometimes we call it colonialism. So I don’t think your question is even reasonable, but there you have it. No.
-
Arwi
Yes, it is racist to invoke stereotypes, even when they seem to fit.
Legally speaking, you cannot claim defamation if something is true. Yes, Israel First can be used to dismiss people unfairly, so can “marginal” or “___’s favorite”. The fairness or unfairness is in the context of the application and not in the words themselves.
Personally speaking, I think what makes someone worth reasonable debate is their way of argumentation.. Eric Alterman saying he is willing to see the US “take a hit” for the benefit of another country is of course defining himself as a traitor but that doesn’t make him beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. On the contrary, I would say his honesty makes him more worth engaging than someone who is being disingenuous.
You apparently consider me an anti-Semite, yet are willing to discuss with me. Similarly, I don’t have any prima facie issue with discussing with Israel Firster, even Jonathan Pollard or Richard Perle.
-
-
Matt
And here, naturally, as this is the way these things always work, you have Spencer Ackerman being attacked for opposing the term “Israel Firster.” For some people, it’s apparently not possible that a Jew can have a position against antisemitism without there being an alternative motive.
-
shams
why not jus’ say Zionist?
-
Matt
Are they the same to you?
-
shams
yes.
let me repeat. American blacks, browns and youth dont give a sh*t about israel. the holocaust guilt card has expired with us. Palestine and Gaza are more relevant to us than the six days war.
when the demographic timer goes off the GOP will become a rump party forevah, and my generation will kick Bibi and AIPAC to the kerb.
My advice is cut Israel loose naow and let her adapt or go extinct. -
Matt
If you think “Zionist” and “Israel Firster” are the same, then that’s a problem. And it’s a good reason why nobody should use the term Israel Firster.
-
Aziz
zionists are good. Firsters aren’t. Firsters are a subset of zionists. Zionists I understand and can engage with and agree with. Firsters, I cant and wont.
-
shams
oh, firsters are a SUBSET…….big whup…..i simply dont care enough to differentiate. and i highly doubt anyone in my demographic does either.
toutes les chat sont gris dans la nuit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
aziz
Kuwait will end the “kafeel” system which institutionalized modern-day slavery. Dubai next?
-
aziz
Another domestic terror plot foiled. It’s likely that the informers who tipped off the FBI were fellow muslims from his mosque, as usual.
-
aziz
yup, confirmed – the muslim community played an integral role in foiling the plot.
-
-
aziz
Israel faces a serious existential threat – from Jewish fundamentalism:
-
Matthew
Is any other nation said to face an “existential” threat from fundamentalists?
-
aziz
yes, i think teh US faces the same threat. Note that in this context,m existential threat refers to the character and founding principles of the nation, not its physical existence.
Certainly Afghanistan and Iran faced teh same threat and were, in fact, destroyed by fundamentalism. Both had realtively liberal societies prior to the rise of fundamentalism and those were literally ended by the rise of the fundies to power.
I would also argue that somalia has also been destroyed y this as well. there the destruction was as much literal as it is metaphorical.
-
shams
well, at least A-stan and Iran dont have factory farms, bankstahs and college mortgages.
if Amerikkka is fundamentalist, its in its adherence to the fantasy of the free market. -
Arwi
Pakistan and India as well.
-
aziz
India? I don’t see it – it’s got problems but hashardly been completely overrun by fundies in government.
Pakistan is a better case, but nominally civilian rule doeskeep returning, and the state is the same one that was founded (ie no “new” republic was declared, like France).
-
shams
my habbibi…..the “freed” market is an ecophagy that will eat the world like grey goo.
unless we get off planet or use behavioral economics, evolutionary economics, and complexity economics to reign it in. -
shams
-
aziz
um. I see the term economics with several buzzwords prepended to it, but my comprehension is not increased by this wordplay.
-
shams
evolutionary economics
behavioral economics
complexity economics.try to keep up, man.
-
shams
alas moderation.
-
Arwi
Your goalposts seem to be moving. The US is not completely overrun by fundies in govt either, no new republic has been declared. If you see the nature of the US as threatened by its fundamentalists, it is surprising to me that you do not see the same in India and Pakistan.
-
shams
Arwi, a fundamentalist take over in the US cannot happen, because the rule of law is secular.
Certainly it could happen in islamic states where the rule of law is shariah law. Not in India, i think.
-
-
-
-
-
shams
Aziz the comment with the links to complexity economics, behavioral economics and evolutionary economics is in moderation. if you want to know the meanings.
-
aziz
I have one PhD too many already!
-
shams
the comment is still moderated.
-
shams
still moderated. is there some reason you want to suppress information about emergent schools of economic theory?
-
aziz
um, yes. its a conspiracy. I am but the vanguard.
(wtf?)
-
shams
my comment is still moderated.
-
aziz
i’m not approving your “nah liek us” comment – i dont want to confuse Akismet. can you write your comments in non-spamese format?
-
shams
wallah…..it was just a link to a dubstep youtube.
using musik and culture to underline my point.
-
-
-
-
-
-
aziz
While it may be tempting for some to promote Ron Paul as a proxy for highlighting their dissatisfactions with the current administration, those who do must understand that in the longer term, they are promoting an underlying ideology that seeks to destroy everything they actually represent. Those who are looking for opportunities to push mainstream Democrats should look elsewhere. This one’s not worth it.
The folly of Progressives for Paul, http://dailykos.com/story/2012/01/08/1052502/-The-folly-of-progressives-for-Paul?detail=hide&via=blog_1-
aziz
also, Ron Paul in a nutshell:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left
-
-
aziz
Big Bin – the royal clock tower of Mecca – is nearing completion.
Not on Twitter yet, unlike @Big_Ben_Clock
-
aziz
Why the world needs religious studies, via @Rdispatches – http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/4636/why_the_world_needs_r
-
aziz
Fact is, there has never been a “two-war doctrine” capability by the US armed forces since World War II (and arguably not even then).
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2012/01/when-are-two-wars-not-two-wars.html
President Obama will announce today that this supposed doctrine will be formally ended, which is fitting since it never really existed in the first place.
-
shams
there didnt need to be a “doctrine”. it was reality. it was EMPIRICAL DATA.
the US fought 2 wars for 10 years.
Michael Hastings.
-
-
aziz
Great review of the new memoir, “American Dervish” by Ayad Akhtar, in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/books/american-dervish-by-ayad-akhtar-review.html?_r=2
-
aziz
looks like I’ll be getting a review copy of my own.
-
shams
Have you read Ali’s book? the real book, not the Children placeholder.
-
Muse
What did others think of Akhtar’s book? I found it disappointing for its lack of nuance regarding practicing Muslim men. The only male characters with a modicum of sense were atheists or Jewish. Btw, I wouldn’t characterize it as a memoir but more as a novel.
-
aziz
I just got my review copy today – I’ll dive in and let you know
-
Arwi
The varied portrayal of religious men is something I quite liked about the last book of Persepolis.
I read the first two books ten years ago and then never bothered to read the final two because I didn’t think they would be as interesting. And they aren’t, but they are much more nuanced and affecting than I expected.
-
-
-
aziz
The Trustworthiness of Beards:
http://www.geekologie.com/image.php?path=/2010/04/22/beards-full.jpg
I am pleased to sport the Full Philosopher look, though I do keep it tied up
-
aziz
oh and Thabet linked this years ago along the same topic: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/the-trustworthiness-of-beards/22581
-
Arwi, and 
shams are discussing. 
Mc Kiernan and one other person are discussing. 
THE are discussing. 
Muse and one other person are discussing. 
aziz 10:10 am on January 27, 2012 Permalink |
editorial in the @nytimes takes the proper, hard line:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/opinion/hateful-film.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss