[sanity assassin]

Is there any truth to this article? The comments after the article are interesting too.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...-1#Post1372836

[lil'babykitten]

This isn't anything new. The monitoring of Middle Eastern studies in universities has been going on for years. The bastard behind this is Daniel Pipes who has said "I worry very much from the Jewish point of view that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews."

The website http://www.campus-watch.org/ was launched back in 2002.

So the bill, if passed by Congress, will extend this to allow federal monitoring.

All this in America, 'the land of the free'.

[vmarks]

Only Pipes isn't a bastard, Pipes is the expert that even his most sworn enemies use as a reliable source - begrudingly.

Pipes is also the fellow who carefully differentiates between radical Islam and Islam. You should be appreciative.

The reason for this bill isn't Pipes. It's Edward Said-the-fraud and his legacy. As your own campus-watch.org site shows: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1076

Schools that recieve Federal funding are subject to Federal oversight. Don't want the oversight? Don't take the money.

And here's an interesting one on the Bill itself, linked to by campus-watch. http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2004_03_02.htm

From that link:

"For starters, Garrett told Dershowitz that the bill would empower government to "monitor international studies activities on American campuses." In fact, the bill would create an advisory board to "study, monitor, apprise and evaluate" the government's own program. Title VI is a taxpayer-funded set of subsidies for fellowships and non-curricular activities like "outreach." Recipients of these grants are legally accountable even now to the government, by mutual contract. Title VI will cost the public treasury half a billion dollars over the next authorization period. "In establishing the board, we are doing no more than exercising our responsibility to ensure that the Federal funds we authorize and appropriate are expended properly." That was Rep. Howard Berman, a liberal California Democrat and UCLA law alumnus, speaking on the House floor the very day Dershowitz appeared on campus."

Emphasis is mine.

So the article in the original post is not accurate. This only refers to Title IV grants. About time the government decides to ensure that they are spent responsibly.

As for the comments on the page linked to in the original post, they were pretty quickly littered with hatred. Bless their hearts, the brains in their heads roll around like a marble on a six lane highway.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Only Pipes isn't a bastard, Pipes is the expert that even his most sworn enemies use as a reliable source - begrudingly.

I am not so sure.

He certainly meets some opposition.

From this site:http://mondediplo.com/2003/07/07bein...e=Daniel+Pipes

Kramer also edits Middle East Quarterly, the house organ of the Middle East Forum, a neo-conservative thinktank directed by Daniel Pipes. Pipes has a long record of attempting to incite Americans against Arabs and Muslims. In 1990 he wrote: "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene . . . All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most"(3).

One recent project of Pipes and his Middle East Forum is Campus-Watch, a website designed to police dissent on university campuses. Campus- Watch’s original statement of purpose, which was subsequently removed from the website due to criticism of its McCarthyite character, was to "monitor and gather information on professors who fan the flames of disinformation, incitement, and ignorance." Campus-Watch alleged that Middle East scholars "seem generally to dislike their own country and think even less of American allies abroad. The reason was that "Middle East studies in the US have become the preserve of Middle Eastern Arabs, who have brought their views with them".

And from this article: http://mondediplo.com/2003/09/01gres...e=Daniel+Pipes

To those who were worried that a military adventure in Iraq would worsen terrorism, Daniel Pipes, a self-styled "specialist in the Muslim soul" and unconditional defender of the policies of Ariel Sharon, replied on 8 April: "The precise opposite is more likely to happen: the war in Iraq will lead to a reduction in terrorism. I expect that Muslim anger will likewise diminish after an allied victory in Iraq. This means a US victory in Iraq will protect more that it harms." Pipes, who is close to the present US administration, had in 1990 publicly expressed fears of a "massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange food and maintaining different standards of hygiene" (2). He had also shown foresight in 1987 when he argued for military support for Saddam Hussein in the war with Iran.

[vmarks]

You'd rather criticize Pipes than address the topic at hand, Congress actually attempting to be responsible with Title IV funding?

Okay, the site you reference is pretty darn good at repeating the claims of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

But it is interesting to note that CAIR has, on at least two occasions, cited Pipes as an authority on Islam and Muslims. Once, in a press release dated 17 March 1998, when it needed an authority to discuss a staff member of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, whom did it turn to? Pipes, citing him by name and quoting him. The second time, when CAIR listed the books it is sending to libraries (at http://www.cair-net.org/libraryproject/materials.asp), whose review in The Wall Street Journal of John L. Esposito's The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? did it quote? Pipes'.

In other words, for all its defamation of Pipes' character and knowledge, CAIR itself acknowledges his expertise.

For further refutation of those Dowd-ified quotes, Pipes responds well for himself: http://www.danielpipes.org/cair.php

Now, back to talking about Title IV funds and why, in the wake of Edward Said, this is even being discussed in Congress, and moreover, why fiscal responsibility could ever possibly be a bad thing.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Only Pipes isn't a bastard, Pipes is the expert that even his most sworn enemies use as a reliable source - begrudingly.

Pipes is also the fellow who carefully differentiates between radical Islam and Islam. You should be appreciative.

Bullsh1t, the man is America's most notorious Arab-Hater and Islamophobe. He continuously fails to make a distinction between radial Islam and Islam. Though you are often guilty of this yourself so I see where you're coming from.

Originally posted by vmarks:
The reason for this bill isn't Pipes. It's Edward Said-the-fraud and his legacy. As your own campus-watch.org site shows: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1076

You're quoting a site which constantly spews mis-quotes and outright lies. These lies have often served to damage the reputations of university proffessors:

DOUGLAS CARD, Oregonian, 11/17/02

Last summer I suffered collateral damage as the protagonists in the Middle East conflict brought the verbal war home to Oregon. In his column in the New York Post, controversial columnist Daniel Pipes listed me as one of
several leftist anti-Semites at U.S. universities whose extremist rhetoric encouraged attacks on Jewish students.

Based on the false claims of a disgruntled student, Pipes charged that I had called Israelis "baby-killers" and "bashed Israelis and Jews at every opportunity" in my University of Oregon sociology class last fall.

This accusation of racism cut to the root of who I am and what I do as a sociologist. It has been one of the most painful experiences of my life. From here to Jerusalem, where it also was published, it libeled my name
and the university's…

I've learned many things from this terrible ordeal. Although I value both freedom of the press and academic freedom, this case is a reminder that these freedoms must be accompanied by the thoughtful exercise of civility
and professional responsibility. Never should we impugn the character of another without first carefully checking the facts.

Once the accusations are out there, they are hard to dispel. In fact, with Pipes' column still on his Web site, I and others he attacked have received hundreds of incredibly vicious spam e-mails in the past few weeks, some of
which were responses to forged messages from my "hijacked" e-mail identification…

We must not allow intimidation to replace thoughtful, open-minded discourse in our communities and on our campuses during this time of ethnic conflicts and increasing nationalism…

The bill is everything to do with Daniel Pipes and his religious hatred. Edward Said was a well respected, brave man who spoke the truth about the real issues. But of course he did not praise Israel's state-sponsored terrorism so again, I see where you're coming from.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see through the lies - endorsed by the Bush administration - Pipes continues to spread. But I knew I could rely on you to spin them.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Bullsh1t, the man is America's most notorious Arab-Hater and Islamophobe. He continuously fails to make a distinction between radial Islam and Islam. Though you are often guilty of this yourself so I see where you're coming from.

Nice, the first personal attack in the thread. I am not an Islamophobe or an Arab hater. But good on you for trying.

When CAIR, the most notorious supporter of radical Islam, cites Pipes as an expert, even when they go out of their way to attack him, it is telling.

Point out that Islam has a history of slavery that continues to this day -- and you're a racist.

Point out that very few Muslims criticize the violent extremists -- and you're somehow ensuring they never will.

Point out that most of the terrorist groups in the world today are Muslim -- and you're accused of saying EVERY Muslim is a terrorist.

Point out that Islam's history of "tolerance" is actually "tolerance" in the sense of "tolerating the existence of", and that the dhimmi were treated as poorly as Reconstruction Era blacks -- and you're "denying a people their history".

But if you said any of that about Christians, you'd be the toast of the town.

I accept that not all practitioners of Islam do those things- only the radical ones. But where do they get it from? Obviously, they believe that it stems from Qu'ran and Hadith.

How do you survive the real stories of real people being viciously slaughtered in huge numbers spanning the globe...for the "crime" of not being Muslim?

You're quoting a site which constantly spews mis-quotes and outright lies. These lies have often served to damage the reputations of university professors:

University Professors who hide behind academic freedom as a means of promoting hatred should reap in reputation what they have sown. Do you disagree?

[b]
The bill is everything to do with Daniel Pipes and his religious hatred. Edward Said was a well respected, brave man who spoke the truth about the real issues. But of course he did not praise Israel's state-sponsored terrorism so again, I see where you're coming from.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see through the lies - endorsed by the Bush administration - Pipes continues to spread. But I knew I could rely on you to spin them.

Said was a fraud and everyone knows it. People who say otherwise have an agenda they are pushing.

Want proof?

http://www.meforum.org/article/191

Said was a liar. He speaks of his house in Jerusalem, but the fact of the matter is, he never lived there. He was born in Jerusalem to a family from Cairo that was on a visit to the city. His memories of his beautiful house in Jerusalem are fictional. There are no records of his ever having attended the St. George's school in the city, where he claims to have been educated. Poor Edward Said was raised in the lap of luxury in Cairo. He attended private English schools, played tennis at an exclusive club off-limits to most Arabs and was sent off to finish his schooling in the United States. No matter how tragic some refugee stories may be, his certainly is not.

He claimed this was foolishness, that his sister was born there. His sister calls Lebanon home, thank you very much.

Edward Said's criticism of Israel was disproportionate and completely out of line. As a respected authority on the Middle East, his colleagues would have expected him to be a model of academic integrity, honesty and objectivity.

That's not what they got.

As someone who often charged the media with unfairly portraying Arabs as violent and hateful, he certainly found himself in a funny position when he was caught on camera hurling rocks at Israeli border guards and personnel from the Lebansese side of the Lebanon-Israel border.

He never denied having taken part in the rock-throwing (though that would probably have been very interesting) but said that it was a "symbolic gesture of happiness." Uh huh. Happiness. Imagine if he had tried to execute his little manifestation of "happiness" in the United States. Hmmm....

In fact, he claimed he didn't know that he had been photographed. BS. The Associated Press said that Prof. Said GAVE them the photo.



Columbia did not censure him, saying that the stone was directed at
no one, no law was broken and his actions were protected by principles of academic freedom. - Again, BS, he threw it at Israeli guards.

Said, once a member of the Palestinian National Council, broke a few years ago with Yasser Arafat because he found him too moderate.

I could easily go on and on. His anti-American sentiment, his thinly-veiled anti-Semitic views, his support of killers. It's all there.

The point is, you can revere a person for what he was, an academic, a visible spokesman for the Palestinian cause and whatnot.

But please, don't pretend he was a "peacemaker".

That, he most certainly was not. He was a political propagandist.



NOW. What problem do you have with the Federal government making sure that the funds that it grants are used appropriately?

Remember, avoiding this audit is very easy: Don't take the funds.

I'm waiting for your answer.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Point out that Islam has a history of slavery that continues to this day -- and you're a racist.

Point out that very few Muslims criticize the violent extremists -- and you're somehow ensuring they never will.

Point out that most of the terrorist groups in the world today are Muslim -- and you're accused of saying EVERY Muslim is a terrorist.

Point out that Islam's history of "tolerance" is actually "tolerance" in the sense of "tolerating the existence of", and that the dhimmi were treated as poorly as Reconstruction Era blacks -- and you're "denying a people their history".

Heh.

Mention 'Jews' or 'Israel' with a negative word in the same sentence -- and you're anti-Semitic.

[itai195]

I'd never support any mandated monitoring of university classes or professors. On the other hand, something should be done about professors who inappropriately bring their political views into the classroom. It's one thing to discuss politics in classes that should have nothing to do with politics, but I've seen and heard of several professors who encourage certain viewpoints and even some who openly discourage participation by students who disagree. The classroom should not be a soapbox for the professor's political views, and it's important to protect it from becoming such.

[vmarks]

The EUMC's draft report on Racism, Xenophobia, and Anti-semitism recognises the link between anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli sentiment.


"...Taken on its own terms this is naturally not to be viewed as anti-Semitic; and yet there are exaggerated formulations which witness a turn from criticism into anti-Semitism, for example when Israel and the Jews are reproached for replicating the most horrific crimes of the National Socialists like the Holocaust. In the form of anti-Semitism it could be said that the tradition of demonising Jews in the past is now being tansferred to the State of Israel. In this way traditional anti-Semitism is translated into a new form, less deprived of legitimacy, whose employment today in Europe could become part of the political mainstream."

[vmarks]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'd never support any mandated monitoring of university classes or professors. On the other hand, something should be done about professors who inappropriately bring their political views into the classroom. It's one thing to discuss politics in classes that should have nothing to do with politics, but I've seen and heard of several professors who encourage certain viewpoints and even some who openly discourage participation by students who disagree. The classroom should not be a soapbox for the professor's political views, and it's important to protect it from being such.

You say "something should be done" -- but what?

This bill only refers to the recipients of Title IV grant money.

This means that those who don't take such money will still be free to soapbox.

[itai195]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You say "something should be done" -- but what?

This bill only refers to the recipients of Title IV grant money.

This means that those who don't take such money will still be free to soapbox.

I don't know, but it should be the responsibility of the faculty at each university to regulate and monitor themselves. I think a lot of them shirk this responsibility and only take action when there is a public outcry.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You'd rather criticize Pipes than address the topic at hand, Congress actually attempting to be responsible with Title IV funding?

Now, back to talking about Title IV funds and why, in the wake of Edward Said, this is even being discussed in Congress, and moreover, why fiscal responsibility could ever possibly be a bad thing.

Well, the part about "Title IV" (it is actually called "Title VI") eluded me completely. I could not have made a connection then. Thanks for the information.

About Pipes, I guess I went along with he idea that Pipes is a "scholar" who is an "expert" and at the source of the bill presented in the article presented in the above link.

I understand from this site http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1581 that he denies pretty much all responsibilities related to that bill, except for a supportive sentence (his words).

On the other hand, he kind of blame Congress for not using a more active measure, which would be, if he had his ways, to defund Middle East studies. That may not be hatred, but that is not going to help the cause of Americans if the funds are totally diverted for Terrorism Studies.

I am not saying these Terrorism Studies would not be useful; actually, I welcome it! But replacing the former with the latter does not look good in a Nation promoting peace justice, etc. I think people deserve to learn from other cultures, including the Middle East (which includes Israel, I believe).

On the other hand, I find difficult to understand is that if Middle East studies are prone to create dangerous ideas in American universities, does that mean the ethical committees in American Universities are failing?

Understandably, money invested by the government should be investigated and, if promoting hatred, has to be redirected for more useful purposes. Yet, in this day and age, I fear this could lead into hatred towards Muslims, which just as unacceptable as hatred for Jews. Especially since they feed one another easily into antagonistic positions that lead nowhere and resove nothing.

About the comments in the website posted at the top, I agree that some are scandalously hateful. Many are anti-semites and I am sorry I saw that.

[sanity assassin]

I'm also against any censuring of Universities. Vmarks - I think the mantle for anti-Semitism can go to the Arabs now, they are being demonised to a far greater degree than Israel, or Jews. That's just my view from what I gather in the press, and world events.

P.. I disagree with you on your analysis of Mr. Said, it's skewed and I guess deliberately mis-represented.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't know, but it should be the responsibility of the faculty at each university to regulate and monitor themselves. I think a lot of them shirk this responsibility and only take action when there is a public outcry.

I agree.

What should be done when the university shirks this responsibility?

What of Hisham Sharabi, a professor of Arab Culture at Georgetown University in Washington DC, who told an audience of students and teachers at Balamand University in Lebanon that Jews and Americans want to control the world?

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0211/02112010DS.asp

The “international Zionist movement” is leading the United States to wage war against the Arab world with the intentions of colonizing the region, according to a professor speaking here during a lecture Tuesday.

Hisham Sharabi ... told an audience of students and faculty at Balamand University, that the region is currently under “a neocolonial attack” but insisted that the Arabs would not be vanquished.

“However, in the long run, neither the Jews nor Americans will be able to subdue us for we are not (Native Americans),” he said, adding that almost 280 million Arabs form a “massive force.” ...

Sharabi accused the Arab world of squandering its money in the past 50 years with no plans for organization or establishing an independent, viable economy.

He said there has been no attempt at building a weapons arsenal or establishing collective relations with the West.

“Only Iraq managed to build an arsenal, but proved to be insane when it directed it against Iran instead of using it to maintain a balance of power.”

“Jews are getting ready to take control of us and the Americans have entered the region to possess the oil resources and redraw the geopolitical map of the Arab world,” he added.

AND

What do you say to this poster, who claims to have been an adjunct professor at Georgetown?

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4775

Unfortunately, the path trod by Sharabi and others is far too well-established to turn around any time soon. In fact, the decline of real intellectual discourse at Georgetown University is further exemplified by ongoing PC dominance in the liberal arts departments, once a real strength of of the place.

As an occasional adjunct faculty at Georgetown during the 1980s and 1990s, I can testify that the impact of Sharabi and the PC crowd is vast. There was nothing like having an Arab student ask in class why a book written by a J E W was assigned and knowing that I could not simply throw the pimply putz out of the class. Moreover, come grade time, there would be the inevitable phone calls at dinnertime demanding (that's right, demanding) a better grade. As soon as they found out I refused to accept status as a dhimmi and was instead a member of the VWWZC, they gave up on the calls.

As for Sharabi, he is an Edward Said wannabe who was highly regarded by stoned radicals in the late 1960s. Maybe his picture in the 2003 yearbook will show him throwing a stone over the border fence from Southern Lebanon.

[itai195]

To tell you the truth vmarks, I'm not sure what to do. I don't think the federal government should have its hands in academic matters, especially at private universities. What other courses of action are there? I don't have any problem with citizens groups that monitor professors, but I think that campus-watch, for example, has to be more careful about what they publish. Like any other media outlet, they have to do research and post credible information.

I'm more concerned with events like this one, where the instructor has obviously crossed the line:

BERKELEY, Calif., — The political tensions in the Middle East have once again roiled the University of California, with the most recent incident focused on a catalog course description.

The listing for the course, "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance," one of the choices for a required course in reading and composition, was pulled for review last week by university officials after protests by civil liberties and pro-Israeli groups. The critics were outraged by the course description's ideological tone and the efforts of the instructor, a Ph.D. candidate who leads a pro-Palestinian group, to dissuade students who did not accept the pro-Palestinian view from enrolling in the course.

"The brutal Israeli military occupation of Palestine, an occupation that has been ongoing since 1948, has systematically displaced, killed, and maimed millions of Palestinian people," the instructor, Snehal Shingavi, wrote. "And yet, from under the brutal weight of the occupation, Palestinians have produced their own culture and poetry of resistance."

The last line of his course description drew the most ire, especially among civil libertarians: "Conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections."

I'm actually amazed that results were achieved and this class description was altered. Generally, radicals in Berkeley like to believe that everyone in the city and university agree with their tripe.

[lil'babykitten]

First he said

Originally posted by vmarks:
I am not an Islamophobe or an Arab hater.

Then he said:

Point out that Islam has a history of slavery that continues to this day -- and you're a racist.

You really are serious? *Islam* has a history of slavery? And then you want to claim you're not Islamophobic? LOL!

Point out that very few Muslims criticize the violent extremists -- and you're somehow ensuring they never will.

What's the motivation behind making such an 'observation'? To imply that Muslims actually condone it most likely.

Point out that most of the terrorist groups in the world today are Muslim -- and you're accused of saying EVERY Muslim is a terrorist.

Well first of all, they're not 'muslim' they are fanatics. In no sense of the word can someone who murders so many innocents call themselves Muslims. And they should not be mistaken as Muslims.

Point out that Islam's history of "tolerance" is actually "tolerance" in the sense of "tolerating the existence of", and that the dhimmi were treated as poorly as Reconstruction Era blacks -- and you're "denying a people their history".

Again you demonstrate your Islamophobia. Islam absolutely tolerates 'the existence of'. To claim otherwise is simply false.

I accept that not all practitioners of Islam do those things- only the radical ones. But where do they get it from? Obviously, they believe that it stems from Qu'ran and Hadith.

They are incorrect. And for you to suggest that perhaps the Qu'ran and Hadith *do* actually condone those things, is again, incorrect.

University Professors who hide behind academic freedom as a means of promoting hatred should reap in reputation what they have sown. Do you disagree?

No.

NOW. What problem do you have with the Federal government making sure that the funds that it grants are used appropriately?

It depends who the people over seeing this 'monitoring' are. Daniel Pipes and his ilk have an agenda. They wish to stifle the alternative argument altogether. Presenting only the arguments that serve to protect 'Americas interests' and depriving students of a balanced presentation of the topic. All Pipe's website does is make false claims followed with mis-quotes about Professors who are in *his view* unacceptable.

What needs to be in place is an effective system within the university implemented and over-seen by it's own people. Not some government funded organisation consisting of people with questionable motives i.e NOT people like the idiot, Daniel Pipes.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

You really are serious? *Islam* has a history of slavery? And then you want to claim you're not Islamophobic? LOL!

So does the Jewish faith. Look back at the scriptures. It carried over into the Christian faith. Both faiths typically don't practice it to this day, but it's well documented. The Vatican still observes the law that you must sell a husband and wife together.

Really all cultures used slaves at one point... and at one point, most were slaves to another group. To what extent, and the circumstances, is a whole other story.

Even in Europe slavery was quite common through history, but done through the class system. At first it was more slavery, then it became more servent like (though due to the circumstances, and inability to free ones self from the debt to the landowner one could easily argue it was still slavery).

So the slavery argument is flat out stupid. Becuase unless you have no blood relation to anyone who inhabited this earth... your related to both a slave, and slave owner.

A slave doesn't have to die from the work to be considered a slave, but anyone working against their will by force is by general definition a slave.

What's the motivation behind making such an 'observation'? To imply that Muslims actually condone it most likely.


Well first of all, they're not 'muslim' they are fanatics. In no sense of the word can someone who murders so many innocents call themselves Muslims. And they should not be mistaken as Muslims.

Good point. It's like any other faith abuser. Look at some of these christian fundimentalists. Hiding out in bushes trying to kill people walking in/out of an abortion clinic. Harassing, abusing... all in the name of god.

Are they walking in the footsteps of Jesus? No, of course not. Jesus didn't preach to cast stones.

Again you demonstrate your Islamophobia. Islam absolutely tolerates 'the existence of'. To claim otherwise is simply false.

What else is new.

They are incorrect. And for you to suggest that perhaps the Qu'ran and Hadith *do* actually condone those things, is again, incorrect.

This has been discussed in excess at this point. Just like the old argument that there is a prophesy about "throwing birds into two large dwellings" or something to that effect, forshaddowing 9/11 as a road to heaven... it's not in there, despite what many say. I've looked myself out of curiosity.

Nor does it preach violence.

All religions share the exact same virtues of peace, love, compasion, and community.

It's the idiots that twist it out of that mold, and into something else... normally in the name of politics, money, or most often both.

Christian, Jews, Muslim, Buddist, etc. none of them have anything to do with hate, or killing, or violence. Their respective scriptures preach the opposite. Yet all three have a sickening history of individuals convincing everyone around them the complete opposite.

What needs to be in place is an effective system within the university implemented and over-seen by it's own people. Not some government funded organisation consisting of people with questionable motives i.e NOT people like the idiot, Daniel Pipes.

This is just another sick issue.

Especially considering the idea of having some monitoring in place to prevent people post 9/11 from claiming that Bin Laden's interpretation of Islam is standard was thrown off the table.

It's called a double standard. And it's part of American culture.

I personally think this whole thing is a perfect example of extremists taking advantage and trying to prove they have more diplomatic weight than other parties. That's what it's really about.


But instead of doing it as "conservative power hungry biggots", they call them selves "US Jewish Groups", to drag an entire religion down with them. No better than terrorists saying their actions are in the name of God.



I hate when people twist religions into their own political garbage. If it's my faith or not, it's sickening. It's crap like this that breeds hatred. If you really feel so strongly about something, do it in *your own name*, not an entire religion of culture.

[Zimphire]

Another vmarks smackdown.

Sometimes I don't know why you guys even try anymore.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
But instead of doing it as "conservative power hungry biggots", they call them selves "US Jewish Groups", to drag an entire religion down with them. No better than terrorists saying their actions are in the name of God.

I hate when people twist religions into their own political garbage. If it's my faith or not, it's sickening. It's crap like this that breeds hatred. If you really feel so strongly about something, do it in *your own name*, not an entire religion of culture.

Woaw!!!

Great post!!!!



It is horrible to think that our humanity leads us to the greatest ideals by trampling the very same ideals.

We are still not out of that jungle...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Another vmarks smackdown.

Sometimes I don't know why you guys even try anymore.

You are clinically insane.

But you knew that.

[lil'babykitten]

Excellent post there macvilliage, thanks for that.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I hate when people twist religions into their own political garbage. If it's my faith or not, it's sickening. It's crap like this that breeds hatred. If you really feel so strongly about something, do it in *your own name*, not an entire religion of culture.

Absolutely. These are all very disturbing developments.

Nevertheless, it makes me happy to see that many people can still see through all the distortions.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
So does the Jewish faith. Look back at the scriptures. It carried over into the Christian faith. Both faiths typically don't practice it to this day, but it's well documented. The Vatican still observes the law that you must sell a husband and wife together.

Really all cultures used slaves at one point... and at one point, most were slaves to another group. To what extent, and the circumstances, is a whole other story.

Even in Europe slavery was quite common through history, but done through the class system. At first it was more slavery, then it became more servent like (though due to the circumstances, and inability to free ones self from the debt to the landowner one could easily argue it was still slavery).

So the slavery argument is flat out stupid. Becuase unless you have no blood relation to anyone who inhabited this earth... your related to both a slave, and slave owner.

A slave doesn't have to die from the work to be considered a slave, but anyone working against their will by force is by general definition a slave.

On this point however, though I cannot speak with as informed a knowledge on Judaism and Christianity as I can on Islam, I don't think slavery was ever something prescribed in the Qur'an or any other holy book. The Qur'an is consistent, equal and balanced on the rights of men and women.

Though culturally, I don't doubt that slavery was somehow intertwined with cultural customs. Perhaps even argued as something the holy book prescribed. But again, like in many other aspects today, it's religious distortion.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
On this point however, though I cannot speak with as informed a knowledge on Judaism and Christianity as I can on Islam, I don't think slavery was ever something prescribed in the Qur'an or any other holy book. The Qur'an is consistent, equal and balanced on the rights of men and women.

Though culturally, I don't doubt that slavery was somehow intertwined with cultural customs. Perhaps even argued as something the holy book prescribed. But again, like in many other aspects today, it's religious distortion.

Slavery did exist in all 3 faiths. There's no question on that.

Islam is technically based in part on Jewish and Christian techings, and in part scriptures. There's clear evidence of it, so there is the president.

I personally haven't read the Qur'an word for word, but do see some on a quick query:
http://quran.al-islam.com/Search/Src...g=1&ID=184

Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them; yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them).

From Here:
http://quran.al-islam.com/Search/Src...=1&ID=2824

those links look like they persist, if not, go to that website and search for "slave", should bring up about 14 hits.


So yes, all faiths have a context to legalize slavery. Practice is another idea. Every faith that comes to mind has pretty much condemned it. But as I said before, there are some in every faith who still practice it. Every so often we see a Christian with 5 wives, and slaves, or a Jew, or a Muslim....

Is it part of the faith? By most religious experts, absolutely not, it's a twisted individual looking to hide behind a faith. No faith actively endorses slavery these days. Though several governments still do (note difference between politics and government).


So the slavery argument is just rediculus. It happens but it's warped individuals these days, and not reflective of the faith as a whole.

As far as historical use of slaves, everyone did it, and everyone was one.

That doesn't justify slavery by any means. It just shows that everyone is a sinner, and everyone is a victim. Were all in the same boat.


Religions don't teach hate... people do. People warp what they see into what they want to see. They convince others to see it, so they can achieve their poltical goals.

This is a historic trend in poor communities. Use religion to convince the poor (who have a strong tendency to be of strong faith), and have them as your "soldiers". You see this in many places, from the Crusades, Middle Ages, even the Roman Empire was in part built upon this theory (it doesn't need to be monotheistic). Convince poor people who are very religous that helping you achive your political goals is a way to satisfy the faith. The poor do it.

When people are poor and/or desperate, they turn to religion. 9/11 showed this in the US. All faiths showed record attendance on the sabath day following 9/11.


So when you take poor populations such as the Palestinians, or Afgans... who know fighting their entire lives. It doesn't take much.

This is the same thing with some of the post holocaust racism you see in perpetrated by Jewish people. It's simple manipulation on individuals who had a rough beginning, and it goes right to their core.


That's the basis of this entire plot. People manipulating others through religion.

That's what this is, that's what most of history is.

[eklipse]

Good article on slavery in Islam here: http://www.submission.org/islam/slavery.html

....

Slavery has been gradually abolished by Islam, it did not come by decree or injunction but rather in the form of total management principles which were applied during the early periods of Islam and still applicable today if necessary.

Slavery has long been practiced before the coming of Islam (Submission). In the pre-Islamic Egyptian, Jewish, Greek and Roman societies , slavery was in full use in different aspects. Aristotle subscribed to the idea that men were born not to be equal as some will become master due to their superior brain power and intellectual capacity while others will become slaves.

The approach taken by Islam (Submission) is full of wisdom and at the same time provides a package of pro-active measures to eliminate this practice. It is a gradual but effective approach which combines several affirmative measures. The main strategy is: To narrow down the sources of slavery with a view to eliminating it all-together; and OPENING a wide avenue for slaves to gain independence.

People became slaves because of criminal actions, unpaid debts, gambling, kidnapping, piracy, irresponsible parents who sold their children into slavery, being descendants of slaves, prisoners of war and voluntary submission to be a slave in order to get out from the miseries of life such as acute poverty. These were effectively reduced by Islam.

The provision of slavery through wars was no longer important after the Islamic civilization redefined the mode of interaction between nations -- from power struggle to peaceful and productive coexistence. Indirectly but effectively Islam has closed this source of slavery.

Islam (Submission) opened all the doors to free the slaves by setting up rules which greatly facilitated the emancipation of slaves:

The initiative of Islam in promoting independence for slaves was carried out in the following ways:

(1) Encouraging the masters and the Muslim societies at large to help in freeing the slaves. The act of freeing the slave is considered a noble one which is highly valued by God. The slaves themselves entered into an agreement with the master to buy their independence by paying certain amounts of money. The society was encouraged to help in providing the freedom money.

(2) Making the act of freeing the slave a part of punishment for any criminal act as well as for non-conformity of the Islamic rituals. There are several verses in the Holy Quran which specifically mentioned the requirement of freeing the slave as a way of meeting the punishment for wrongdoing. See 4:92, 5:89 and 58:3

(3) Using Charity money as a financial source to free the slave.

....

Some people question why God in the Quran did not prohibit slavery and instead commanded and rewarded the freeing of the slaves.

God, The Almighty, knows that slavery is a social disease that will persist as long as humans are present on earth. If the order in the Quran is to prohibit slavery, it would be a noble command but since ONLY the believers in the Quran would be the ones following the Quran, the command would not help slavery outside Islam (Submission.) Every Muslim would then free his slaves and remind the other Muslims not to have slaves any more and their duty stop at that. The command in the Quran to FREE THE SLAVES, does not stop at the Muslims or Islam but extend to all the slaves wherever they are. A muslim (Submitter) would therefore free any slaves he might have had and after that turns to any other slaves in any location and of any religion to free, as commanded by God in the Quran. In other words, the command to free the slaves is far more reaching and far more effective than the mere order to stop having slaves.

[eklipse]

And on "Dhimmis": http://www.islamicparty.com/question/ans46.htm

The term "Dhimmi" (protected person) relates to a classification of citizenship only relevant within a state under Islamic rule. Because the Islamic state is governed by a religious ideology, those not subscribing to this ideology are not called upon to defend it and therefore not required to do military service. However, as they are nonetheless protected by the defences of the Islamic state, they pay the "Jizya" (compensation) as a tax applying specifically to them for that purpose. In turn they are exempt from Muslim-specific taxes like Zakat, which is used to help Muslims in need.

The concept has to do with Islam's understanding and treatment of minorities and particularly the special status of other monotheistic religions, namely Judaism and Christianity. It must first be remembered that some 6 centuries before King John in his Magna Carta reluctantly gave some basic rights to the freemen of England, which is hailed as the first ever constitution, the city state of Madina had a proper constitution which included protection for minorities well beyond those offered by modern democracies today. The misunderstandings arise when one confuses the religion of Islam with the political ideology of Islam.

Traditionally Islam is seen as a religion and a state, and public affairs are not separated from religious convictions. Naturally, as the Qur'an prescribes that there is no compulsion in religion, Islam does not interfere with the private beliefs of any of the citizen of the Islamic state, but it will restrict some of their public practices where they undermine the foundation of the state and its ideology. For example, a Muslim state will not permit the human sacrifice of idolatrous religions even though their adherents may believe them to be right and proper. Islam also forbids the public worship of idols as a degradation of humanity. The "people of the book", however, enjoy a special status in that they may opt to be governed by their own laws in private and family matters and all affairs between themselves. Their places of worship are protected, which includes the safety of their religious symbols, like the cross, even though the idea of Jesus' - peace be upon him - crucifixion is abhorrent to Muslims. Islam concedes that these religions worship the same God, that they have a common origin with Islam, and it leaves it to God to judge their differences.

Far from being an oppressive condition, the status of dhimmi permits Jews and Christians a measure of self-sufficiency and autonomy within the Muslim state, guaranteeing their protection but not requiring them to submit to the ideological and political postulates of Islam. When the second caliph of Islam, Omar, conquered Jerusalem he therefore gave a guarantee to the Christians for the safeguarding of their churches and rituals of worship, and he gave the inhabitants a free choice of accepting citizenship under Islamic rule whilst paying Jizya, or leaving with all their belongings without persecution. Most chose to stay. Not only does this differ from most conquests in history, but the Islamic rule over Jerusalem is also the only time where all three monotheistic faiths coexisted there peacefully. The Christian crusades and the Jewish occupation contrast the Muslim period by their brutality. That the status of Jewish and Christian minorities under Islam is by far preferable to the treatment either of those religions grant the minorities in their own midst is also borne out in Spain which under Muslim rule became known as the "golden period" of the Jews before they and Muslims were subjected to the most severe persecution during the Christian inquisition.

[Ayelbourne]

Not only does this differ from most conquests in history, but the Islamic rule over Jerusalem is also the only time where all three monotheistic faiths coexisted there peacefully.

Hmmm... so it is possible....

That the status of Jewish and Christian minorities under Islam is by far preferable to the treatment either of those religions grant the minorities in their own midst is also borne out in Spain which under Muslim rule became known as the "golden period" of the Jews before they and Muslims were subjected to the most severe persecution during the Christian inquisition.

To be fair, I've always been under the impression that just about everybody was severely persecuted by the Spanish (or second) Inquisition...

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
So does the Jewish faith. Look back at the scriptures. It carried over into the Christian faith. Both faiths typically don't practice it to this day

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
So does the Jewish faith. Look back at the scriptures. It carried over into the Christian faith. Both faiths typically don't practice it to this day, but it's well documented.

It still happens in the Sudan.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/20/sudan.slavery/

Note that it is the Christians in the south enslaved by the Muslims in the north who impose Islamic law upon the country.

Now, Lil'Babykitten dismisses this, saying Radical Muslims can't be called Muslim at all.

What should they be called when they call themselves Muslim, call their law Sha'aria, and draw on the Qu'ran and Hadith in complete context for their 'distortions' ?

Denying that they are Muslim denies that 20-30% of the Muslims in the world of that name. A number that large makes this argument untenable.

At least there are Muslims who acknowledge the problems that you refuse to address by denying that radical Muslims are Muslim.

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montr...A-D00EC24952F6

And how do other Muslims treat this moderate? They denounce him! So I suppose I can understand why you would avoid addressing the struggle for moderation in the Muslim world, lest you risk being denounced.

And what of dhimmi status? eklipse says that it protects non-Muslims. This is a nicety, a dress up, like saying that segregation protected Blacks in the US prior to the civil rights movement. Dhimmi status only protects those of a non-Muslim religion in the sense that it protects them from being put to death. As long as they accept the dhimmi status, as the lowest class in society. Why should we accept the dhimmi ghetto? After all, there are Imams that shout, "today it's the Zionists, tomorrow Christianity!" We need moderate Muslims to join against dhimmi practices, against anti-Semitism, against extremism- not deny that it exists.

For make no mistake: Dhimmi status is not protecting the non-Muslims, it is the act of keeping them down, repressing them to sub-human status.

In the History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk), (The History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al rusul wa’l-muluk), ed. by Ehsan Yar-Shater, vol. 12, transl. and ann. by Yohanan Friedman, State University of New York Press, 1992) in the volume describing the conquest of Iraq by the Arab-Muslim armies, we read the recommendation given by Umar b. al-Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah (636 C.E.). Umar said:
“Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur’an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.”

This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel population must recognize Islamic ownership on their land, submit to Islamic law and accept to pay the poll tax. In return, their fundamental rights to life and security are recognized by a treaty, the dhimma, a treaty of submission, which guarantees their rights. But what little rights they are.

Protection is abolished if they refuse to pay the poll tax, if they blaspheme or if they rebel and ally themselves with the dar al-harb.

The characteristics of dhimmitude are numerous. Only a few will be mentioned here. They concern the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), of church bells, the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues, the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims in regard to taxes, offences and penal law, the refusal of dhimmi testimonies by Muslim courts, the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes, their humiliation and abasement. In practice, dhimmis suffered, at periods, from slavery (devshirme for Christians), abductions, deportations. In some regions the legislation was more severe, like for instance in Morocco, Persia, Yemen or in remote countries. In others, like certain European provinces of the Ottoman Empire, it was attenuated.

These are the classical interpretations of jihad and dhimmitude, as they were written down by Muslim theologians and jurists in the Middle Ages. Today most Muslims probably, do not know them. Yet dhimmitude is one of the reasons why Arab nations continue to resent Israel, whose Jews threw off the dhimmi status.

Dhimmitude was abolished during the 19th and 20th centuries under European pressure or by colonization. However we see now the return of the spirit of jihad, in the wars in Sudan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Algeria, Israel and in global terrorism. Non-Muslim minorities suffer also from grave discriminations in Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and in countries, which apply the shari’a law or whose constitution recognize that the shari’a is the main source of law.

http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/111202/view_bat.cfm -- Bat Yeor is an excellent historian of dhimmitude, having composed three books on the subject. I have quoted her above and inserted comments of my own sparingly.

The only benefit to dhimmi status was institutionalized discrimination, it meant that Jews rarely encountered systematic persecution. In pre-modern times, they lived markedly better under Islam than under Christianity. Some benefit.

Jews, Christians and Muslims only lived peacefully in Jerusalem under Muslim rule because they were sub-human in the eyes of the Muslims, under the dhimmia. In fact, how peaceful, how respectful was it, that the Muslims built shops and shacks and toilets against the Western Wall, the Jews holy site?

But wait! There's a comparative that people like to use to excuse radical Muslims. It goes, "Every religion has extremists and they all use their Books to distort the writings to their liking." - But if this so and they are all doing this to their scriptures, why haven't we seen Jews and Christians doing the same to their bodies? Strapping on suicide belts, flying planes into buildings, sending children to carry bombs across borders, bombing trains?

The fire-and-brimstone passages in the Torah, indeed of the Bible as a whole, centuries ago were turned into allegories or otherwise reinterpreted. In contrast, for many Muslims those of the Qur'an remain literal commands and they act on them daily in places like Algeria, the West Bank, and Kashmir. There are no synagogues and churches where congregants are urged to kill infidels. There are Mosques where this is common practice.

Moderation is the cure, but the disease is large and rather than address it, you deny them as Muslims. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.



And WHY is this even relevent to this thread?

Because there are radicals penetrating the universities, as itai95 and I have pointed out, and they should not benefit from government moneys, collected from citizens.

When the university that takes federal money does not police how the money is used, the government should be able to verify that it is used for the purposes it was granted.

Don't want to be checked up on, don't take the money. How private is a private university that takes public funding? Not as private as it should be to use that name.

Campus-watch is a good thing. Scrutiny is a good thing. If universities that take federal monies can't stand up to scrutiny, there's a large problem.

if you respond to anything in this post, respond to this

Answer: How should professors like Sharabi at Georgetown, and others like him at other universities, be addressed? What is the right answer to this problem where universities fail themselves?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:

Now, Lil'Babykitten dismisses this, saying Radical Muslims can't be called Muslim at all.

What should they be called when they call themselves Muslim, call their law Sha'aria, and draw on the Qu'ran and Hadith in complete context for their 'distortions' ?

Denying that they are Muslim denies that 20-30% of the Muslims in the world of that name. A number that large makes this argument untenable.
[/B]

Under the same terminology, you can say snipers outside abortion clinics are doing Gods work. Jews who attack Germans just becuase they are german.... are justified?

Both of these examples have been endorsed by isolated (IMHO/universally accepted as radical and horrifically twisted) sects of their respected religions and religious leaders.

Look hard enough, you'll find a priest that will be ok with exterminating other races, or a rabbi, etc.

It doesn't make it representitive of the religion. Just like we wouldn't assume Christianity endorses peidophilia because a bishop let some cases of child molestation slip by (they also share the same laws as other christians, based on biblical teachings). Are their acts christian?

How about Rapists, murderer's, and other violent criminals? Can we say it's representitive of the religion, just because some twisted idiot feels he's religious, and commits a crime? I'd think not.

Look at the Elizabeth Smart case... was she abducted by a psychotic evil individual, masking his many psychological issues behind religion... or was his acts religious because he feels his twisted interpretation is religious?

Look at any faith and you find the same thing.

Again, your hatred seems based on religion alone, not the politics that hide behind the facade.


When people twist a religion into their own laws, it's no longer representive of the religion, but of themselves. And that's regardless of the faith in question.

It's imporant for society to rationally separate religion from politics and greed.


Could I go on a homocidal spree with a bible in my hand and convince everyone it's a christian act? Of course not, nobody would accept that. How is this any different?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Under the same terminology, you can say snipers outside abortion clinics are doing Gods work. Jews who attack Germans just becuase they are german.... are justified?

Both of these examples have been endorsed by isolated (IMHO/universally accepted as radical and horrifically twisted) sects of their respected religions and religious leaders.

Look hard enough, you'll find a priest that will be ok with exterminating other races, or a rabbi, etc.

It doesn't make it representitive of the religion. Just like we wouldn't assume Christianity endorses peidophilia because a bishop let some cases of child molestation slip by (they also share the same laws as other christians, based on biblical teachings). Are their acts christian?

How about Rapists, murderer's, and other violent criminals? Can we say it's representitive of the religion, just because some twisted idiot feels he's religious, and commits a crime? I'd think not.

Look at the Elizabeth Smart case... was she abducted by a psychotic evil individual, masking his many psychological issues behind religion... or was his acts religious because he feels his twisted interpretation is religious?

Look at any faith and you find the same thing.

Again, your hatred seems based on religion alone, not the politics that hide behind the facade.


When people twist a religion into their own laws, it's no longer representive of the religion, but of themselves. And that's regardless of the faith in question.

It's imporant for society to rationally separate religion from politics and greed.


Could I go on a homocidal spree with a bible in my hand and convince everyone it's a christian act? Of course not, nobody would accept that. How is this any different?

If you convinced about 1.6 million to go with you on your killing spree, then yes, it would cross over the line from being just you and your twisted mind to being representative.

In all your non-Muslim examples, you had to use the phrase "if you look hard enough, you might find" (or you had to resort to crimes that aren't committed by the perpetrator in the name of religion)-- and that's part of the problem. This isn't something we have to look hard to find.

This is a problem that is spurred on in Mosques in America, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, wherever people are told to become Shahids, wherever people cheer on the deaths of non-Muslims, and wherever moderate Muslims lay silent.

This isn't my hatred. This is my being willing to talk about a problem that borders on becoming representative and the people who should be speaking with me in exposing it to the light of day instead ignoring it and saying I am hateful. I am not. I am calling for moderate Muslims to join me in putting the light of day on people who do that religion a disservice through their hatred, their anti-Semitism, their cheering on of dictators, terrorists, murderers and child abusers.

These people claim to be Muslim. You here say that they are not, that they twist words. Rather than just quote bits and pieces to counter it, rather than saying 'go buy a Qu'ran' (and hope that we get the translation you prefer), organize to counter those who sully the name of your faith. Make it easy for the non-Muslim to see for himself why radical Islam is not your Islam.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by vmarks:
How should professors like Sharabi at Georgetown, and others like him at other universities, be addressed? What is the right answer to this problem where universities fail themselves?

Ehm... Shouldn't the so-called students keep their professors in check, if needed? What about really free universities, self-governed by teachers and students? Shouldn't the relation between those two groups (and the individuals composing them) be a two-way street?

It is rather evident (at least IMHO) that today's universities/colleges - both public and private - are essentially authoritarian institutions, with a quite uneven power balance.

[swrate]

Originally posted by vmarks:

if you respond to anything in this post, respond to this

Answer: How should professors like Sharabi at Georgetown, and others like him at other universities, be addressed? What is the right answer to this problem where universities fail themselves?

Expose it to the Light........are you moderate yourself?
I reply to what I want, you don’t control anyone.

That was fast, I wanted to post a quote from the Wexner report, the whole site is totally transformed since I posted the link a few days ago.. The lines I was looking for disappeared, so, never mind would say Kurt, I will post this instead:

from the link posted on thread about manipulation

10) Of course rhetorical questions work, don't they? Ask a question to which there is only one answer is hard to lose. It is essential that your communication be laced with rhetorical questions, which is how Jews talk anyway.

edited for Vmarks to insert quote ty

:

Itai195 I'd never support any mandated monitoring of university classes or professors. On the other hand, something should be done about professors who inappropriately bring their political views into the classroom. It's one thing to discuss politics in classes that should have nothing to do with politics, but I've seen and heard of several professors who encourage certain viewpoints and even some who openly discourage participation by students who disagree. The classroom should not be a soapbox for the professor's political views, and it's important to protect it from becoming such. .

this reminds me of……………… this place is a soapbox.
I agree. I would address these Professors to a board of educators but only after a mediation is held in their UNI.
:

Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the House, and three by the Secretary of Education — two of whom are required to be from US federal security agencies……………………………..
. They are the above-mentioned Martin Kramer; Stanley Kurtz, a contributor to the anti-Arab National Review Online and a research fellow at the pro-Israel Hoover Institution; and Daniel Pipes, founder of the pro-Israel Middle East Institute and its affiliate, Campus Watch, an organization that keeps tabs on college professors and students who “are or are suspected of being” critics of Israel. .

These members should not be related to associations People falling in extremes should be supervised by an independent group ( mixed religions or no religion) of the educational board.

You, under the Insane denomination of “Moderator”, you, vmarks, are doing the same thing as this Professor, the difference being, you use words instead of stones, and hit the ”other way” around, you are influencing people, i.e. spliff admitted adhering to your ideas after reading your posts, and look at Zimps flag. As I said, I wouldn’t mind if you were had not the moderator word linked to your name.

Flagrant. Is that what you call a balanced approach?

I think you are a radical penetrating apple, that I now realize sponsor the Apple bill, and you asked for watch!

Don't want to be checked up on, don't take the money. How private is a private university that takes public funding? Not as private as it should be to use that name.

So you give the money, you check in other words, and control. ooooooh I see “they” are the ones deciding …… so strange, a friend of mine today working in an international organization was telling me they are Pro-Palestinian, but had their hands tied, being partially funded by Israël, BTW the olive trees they planted have been, like many others pulled down. http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3A...ww.arij.org%2F
Lets see, the money….. what is the average income of a Palestinian? Average income of an Israeli? Style life of a… ? Style life ……………….. Would you don’t you see the difference? Its big enough. Oooooh they are lazy stupid and Muslim. Erect walls, make them dependant, control their lives. Retaliation makes it worse, hide behind your veil and cry, woman, men, children become aggressive and adhere to fundamentalism. THEN, IT’S THE FALL.

HTTP://WWW.PECDAR.ORG/DEFAULT2.ASP?TREE=2500
9. HUMAN LOSSES: Around 1,500 Palestinians fell since the beginning of the Intifada in defense of dignity and liberation. More than 35,000 Palestinians are injured, among whom 20% carry lifetime handicaps. A large number of Palestinians are detained.

:

Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur’an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.”

According to fundamentalism, jihad is an outward call.
According to many interpretations, the call for jihad is an inner call.
Words, swords,
Double blade
Light and lightening, ken, japanese sword, keni to be brave (middle Egyptian)
Paroles, éloquence, le verbe dit tout, alors que fais tu, ordinateur? Leviathans and speech
The “Holy War” exists in most religions, symbolised by the sword, two sided.
I was wrong to mention John, he wrote to lay the sword down, (18:11) whereas Mathew 10:34 said: “Don’t think I came to bring Peace on earth, I came to bring the sword. , “and it goes on, he who loses life for my sake will find it ”. Those words could also be interpreted badly. During the Holy Wars, verses are used as mantras /recitations/psalmodies. Banging/shaking head backwards and forwards is also a habit.

Samurais, Chinese, Sikhs, Lord of the Ringers, crusaders, chivalry ----naming their swords.

You are obsessed with Islam! Why don’t you talk about your religion for a change, instead of all this Islam phobic propaganda!
Don’t you think the fundamentalists using Islam as a pretext is enough??

[swrate]

Originally posted by vmarks:

This isn't my hatred. This is my being willing to talk about a problem that borders on becoming representative and the people who should be speaking with me in exposing it to the light of day instead ignoring it and saying I am hateful. I am not. I am calling for moderate Muslims to join me in putting the light of day on people who do that religion a disservice through their hatred, their anti-Semitism, their cheering on of dictators, terrorists, murderers and child abusers.

Who's hatred is it? what are you sawing?

Many of us experienced despair, when feeling very upset or stressed, or when losing a loved one, and when surrounded by violence and misery. One could easily feel like sacrificing ones life then.
To end the pain.
To make the world different, by, sigh, killing others, without realizing it’s a collective suicide, the drama of the Palestinians.
John 16, after the lines about persecution “They will exclude you from their synagogues, the hour is coming when whoever kills you thinks he is offering service to God” 10:17 again Matthew this time tells us to beware of men who will put us through councils and flog you in their synagogues,
John 16 tells us about submission, the introduction is about persecution, then mention (from Jesus) of a Counsellor to come
Ok, repentance, Quran 9:30
Ezra, Uzair, Jesus, should not be adored, (nor Mohamed)only God, people should spend their silver and gold and later the £££ goes into the taxes to be paid.

The characteristics of dhimmitude are numerous.

Familiar, the Holocaust, ….Palestinia….. all countries were one religious ethnic group intends colonisation, deportation, for its interest. (economical or political)

But wait! There's a comparative that people like to use to excuse radical Muslims. It goes, "Every religion has extremists and they all use their Books to distort the writings to their liking." - But if this so and they are all doing this to their scriptures, why haven't we seen Jews and Christians doing the same to their bodies? .

Vmarks, How do you feel about your body BTW?
What relation do you have to it vmarks?

Christians too commit suicides when the situation is unbearable….
Vmarks,.

I accept that not all practitioners of Islam do those things- only the radical ones. But where do they get it from? Obviously, they believe that it stems from Qu'ran and Hadith.

Where do you get your beliefs from?

………………McCarthyism.
….“This bill is bad both on its merits and because of the way it makes us look,” a senior official with a major Jewish organization, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Forward.
Arab News has learned that the main promoters of this effort to control intellectual debate on the college campuses are all prominent and outspoken supporters of Israel and harsh critics of the Arab and Muslim worlds. They are the above-mentioned Martin Kramer; Stanley Kurtz, a contributor to the anti-Arab National Review Online and a research fellow at the pro-Israel Hoover Institution; and Daniel Pipes, founder of the pro-Israel Middle East Institute and its affiliate, Campus Watch, an organization that keeps tabs on college professors and students who “are or are suspected of being” critics of Israel.
Another group supporting the bill is the US India Political Action Committee, an Indian-American group that has been working closely with the Israeli lobby now that Israel and India are geopoliticaly allied.
Not to be overlooked is that this is an election year, and many Republicans and Democrats in Congress are loath to risk losing Jewish votes.

Ah, so if you criticize Israel’s politics you fired? Why cant Palestinians fire the ones who criticize them? Oh yes, I forgot, they do, ( both ways are wrong imo)
We cannot change what happened.
Children are the seeds of peace, we –adults- should spread harmony and tolerance, not saw violence with extreme ideas, whether left or right.

Mathew 10:24,” “The disciple is not over his teacher nor is the servant above his master”, also imo means, the parent is not above his child. (for Zimp)

Children are the ones who may or may not turn the world into a better place.
End the war

[Logic]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Could I go on a homocidal spree with a bible in my hand and convince everyone it's a christian act? Of course not, nobody would accept that. How is this any different?

It's different because it is obvious that vmarks doesn't like muslims. It's different because he won't listen to anything eklipse and lbk have posted above. It's different because we are talking about muslims, you know the people who are free to stay in Israel and be peaceful, productive citizens, as long as they accept they live in a Jewish state, and wear distinct signs on their helmets when they work in "sensitive" areas.

It's different because ignorance breeds hate.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Logic:
It's different because it is obvious that vmarks doesn't like muslims. It's different because he won't listen to anything eklipse and lbk have posted above. It's different because we are talking about muslims, you know the people who are free to stay in Israel and be peaceful, productive citizens, as long as they accept they live in a Jewish state, and wear distinct signs on their helmets when they work in "sensitive" areas.

It's different because ignorance breeds hate.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
It's different because it is obvious that vmarks doesn't like muslims. It's different because he won't listen to anything eklipse and lbk have posted above. It's different because we are talking about muslims, you know the people who are free to stay in Israel and be peaceful, productive citizens, as long as they accept they live in a Jewish state, and wear distinct signs on their helmets when they work in "sensitive" areas.

It's different because ignorance breeds hate.

I don't think vmarks "doesn't like Muslims".

But I do get the impression that you don't like Jews.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I don't think vmarks "doesn't like Muslims".

But I do get the impression that you don't like Jews.

Yes, I'm an anti-semite.............

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
Yes, I'm an anti-semite.............

Well you aren't a very good one, then.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Ehm... Shouldn't the so-called students keep their professors in check, if needed? What about really free universities, self-governed by teachers and students? Shouldn't the relation between those two groups (and the individuals composing them) be a two-way street?

It is rather evident (at least IMHO) that today's universities/colleges - both public and private - are essentially authoritarian institutions, with a quite uneven power balance.

Universities that do not take public money are not beholden to the public. Universities that public money are absolutely responsible to the public.

Yes, let students work to keep the universities in check, but when universities list in their course catalog that "conservative students should look elsewhere" it's gone beyond what students can do to keep profs in check- because they aren't even welcome in the class.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's easy to teach a class when all of the students agree with you.

But it's not really teaching unless they learn something new.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Well you aren't a very good one, then.

Of course not, I'm a muslim so I will kill anyone who rejects his faith and will want to impose dhimmi status an all of you to be able to discriminate against you, and lastly I will start my own slave-trade company to make some money..............

Oh, and I forgot about the suicide belt. It's up to version 3.1 with coppervalves now.

[Spliffdaddy]

Why does somebody need an exploding belt to kill himself? Is a bullet, knife, or a length of rope too hard to acquire?

I've always wondered about that.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
It's different because it is obvious that vmarks doesn't like muslims. It's different because he won't listen to anything eklipse and lbk have posted above. It's different because we are talking about muslims, you know the people who are free to stay in Israel and be peaceful, productive citizens, as long as they accept they live in a Jewish state, and wear distinct signs on their helmets when they work in "sensitive" areas.

It's different because ignorance breeds hate.

BS. I absolutely read every word eklipse and LBK post. It is you who like to ignore what I write and then claim I either haven't answered you or you put words in my mouth.

And the helmets thing was over before it began and you know it, but hey, anything you can do to distract us from real problems, right?

IF YOU HAD READ MY POST, you would have found that I absolutely want to agree with LBK and eklipse that radical extremists are not a problem, that I want them to help me see where radicals distort Qu'ran and Hadith, and there currently is no site or source (and I've looked) that categorically addresses this problem. This is a Pro-Muslim point of view, and a pro-religious freedom point of view. I am practically begging for help in refuting radicalism, and for my efforts, I get called a radical, a racist, and worse.

IF YOU HAD READ MY POST, you would have found that eklipse and I agreed on much of the history of dhimmi status, but that I hold it in much less high esteem - it is institutionalized discrimination that renders Muslims superior by virtue of being Muslim. This doesn't even have any comparison in Israel, where citizens are taxed equally, Arab Israelis hold more land per capita than Jews do, and everyone Arab and Jew alike have equal rights.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Why does somebody need an exploding belt to kill himself? Is a bullet, knife, or a length of rope too hard to acquire?

I've always wondered about that.

The other ones are too easy. A suicide belt takes some time to learn how to make.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by swrate:
Expose it to the Light........are you moderate yourself?
I reply to what I want, you don’t control anyone.

That was fast, I wanted to post a quote from the Wexner report, the whole site is totally transformed since I posted the link a few days ago.. The lines I was looking for disappeared, so, never mind would say Kurt, I will post this instead:
10) Of course rhetorical questions work, don't they? Ask a question to which there is only one answer is hard to lose. It is essential that your communication be laced with rhetorical questions,

which is how Jews talk anyway.

I cannot believe you just said that.

Do you realize how prejudicial that is? How it is discrimination? Bordering on anti-Semitism? -- That what you are essentially saying is that "all rhetorical questions don't count, all the Jews talk that way" ??

And you dare to label ME extreme?

:
this reminds me of……………… this place is a soapbox.
I agree. I would address these Professors to a board of educators but only after a mediation is held in their UNI.
:
These members should not be related to associations People falling in extremes should be supervised by an independent group ( mixed religions or no religion) of the educational board.

THANK YOU for coming close to answering the question. But what should be done when the UNI fails to hold any mediation, when the UNI is as corrupt as the Professor?

You, under the Insane denomination of “Moderator”, you, vmarks, are doing the same thing as this Professor, the difference being, you use words instead of stones, and hit the ”other way” around, you are influencing people, i.e. spliff admitted adhering to your ideas after reading your posts, and look at Zimps flag. As I said, I wouldn’t mind if you were had not the moderator word linked to your name.

There are a few things you should keep in mind. I am not a Professor in this forum. I am not paid to teach a subject and then insert my own beliefs. Rather, I keep the worst of the personal attacks and redundancies out of topics on iMac and Powerbook machines. And I never have inserted my beliefs in those topics. Professors can certainly espouse their opinions on their own time, and posting in the Pol lounge here is equivalent - when in this forum, I am not a moderator, and am entitled to talk up my position, even defend it against outraegeous assertions like the ones you make.

I cannot help it if others are swayed or not, but I can defend my position which is absolutely a pro-Palestinian and pro-Muslim one - when Palestinians throw off their corrupt Nazi leaders, they will be better for it a million fold. I am asking for help in refuting radicals who call themselves Muslim, and instead you label me a radical. Isn't that illogical.

I think you are a radical penetrating apple, that I now realize sponsor the Apple bill, and you asked for watch!

I have tried, and I cannot understand what you mean here.

I am not at this time an Apple employee. If I were, I would not post at all on any message board with Apple topics.

Do you mean that only those with views agreeing with your own can purchase Apple products?

And what is an Apple bill? Only Congress can introduce bills into law.

you are obsessed with Islam!

No, I wanted answers to quiet fears about radicals, and I wanted words to refute them with categorically. Instead I got denial and accusations of hatred.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
BS. I absolutely read every word eklipse and LBK post. It is you who like to ignore what I write and then claim I either haven't answered you or you put words in my mouth.

And the helmets thing was over before it began and you know it, but hey, anything you can do to distract us from real problems, right?

For you Islam is a problem as you have shown over and over by distracting from the topics that are being discussed.

And if the helmets thing was over before it started how could pics have been distributed with the news, and why did it have to go to court for it to be abandoned.

IF YOU HAD READ MY POST, you would have found that I absolutely want to agree with LBK and eklipse that radical extremists are not a problem, that I want them to help me see where radicals distort Qu'ran and Hadith, and there currently is no site or source (and I've looked) that categorically addresses this problem. This is a Pro-Muslim point of view, and a pro-religious freedom point of view. I am practically begging for help in refuting radicalism, and for my efforts, I get called a radical, a racist, and worse.

You don't want to agree with lbk and eklipse. We have shown you several times where they distort the Quran and the Hatiths but you continue to ignore it and to dig up sites like answering-islam to "prove" you point. You don't have anything even close to a Pro-Muslim point of view. You get called a radical, racist and worse because you are. It's simple as that.

IF YOU HAD READ MY POST, you would have found that eklipse and I agreed on much of the history of dhimmi status, but that I hold it in much less high esteem - it is institutionalized discrimination that renders Muslims superior by virtue of being Muslim. This doesn't even have any comparison in Israel, where citizens are taxed equally, Arab Israelis hold more land per capita than Jews do, and everyone Arab and Jew alike have equal rights.

BS. A jewish state owns the land of 20% of the population that is muslim.

[lil'babykitten]

vmarks, really if you read your prior posts and then your more recent ones, you will see nothing of them that falls in the realm of a balanced assertion of events let alone a pro-muslim opinion.

You have in the last few days made sweeping generalisations about the Palestinian people as well as Islam and what you claim it teaches. Despite being shown otherwise, you continue to portray yourself as knowing better about a religion, of which you are not even a follower!

I've already shown you in my response to your posts where this is so, yet you take no notice regardless of whether you read my posts. Seriously, if it was just me who was protesting then I'd question myself but there are plenty others in here who are unhappy with your statements about Islam. Perhaps I could suggest that you re-think your approach.

I'm well aware of the problem we have with radical Islamists, I am also aware of the aspects of Islam that they have distorted. Your problem is an inability to see the disconnection between the two.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
For you Islam is a problem as you have shown over and over by distracting from the topics that are being discussed.

And if the helmets thing was over before it started how could pics have been distributed with the news, and why did it have to go to court for it to be abandoned.

BS, it was abandoned before it went to court. And besides, even if it had to go to court, it proves that the Israeli system of justice works.

You don't want to agree with lbk and eklipse. We have shown you several times where they distort the Quran and the Hatiths but you continue to ignore it and to dig up sites like answering-islam to "prove" you point. You don't have anything even close to a Pro-Muslim point of view. You get called a radical, racist and worse because you are. It's simple as that.

Why do I bring these things up? Because I want answers to them so I can refute them. That's why I bring them to here where I can trust LBK and eklipse to have the knowledge to refute them accurately. I am not a racist, but it does seem to be the only words that come out of your mouth, after I've shown that I have in fact agreed with eklipse.

BS. A jewish state owns the land of 20% of the population that is muslim.

BS. I'll explain why.
Israeli Arabs do make up 20% of the population and they do own 3% of the land._ So how is this BS? By omission._You leave out a crucial fact: Jews make up 80% of the population of Israel but own only_3.5% of the land!


Consider the figures:


______________ % of Israeli population______ % of land owned in Israel


Arabs__________ 20%____________________________ 3%


Jews____________ 80%___________________________ 3.5%


Do you see? Jews and Arabs own about the same amount of land even though there are 4 times as many Jews as Arabs. Or to put it differently, Israeli Arabs own more than twice as much land as you would expect based on their percentage of the population._ This is the opposite of what you meant. "Twenty percent own only 3%" argument. Indeed, if we were to follow this logic it would be the Israeli Jews, not Arabs, who suffer 'Apartheid'.

Or did you mean that ALL of the land belongs to the 20% of the population that is Muslim? That ignores the Jews that have lived there for the past 1500+ years and the ones that sought refuge from Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan fleeing oppression, and were absorbed.

You know that 93.5% of land in Israel is state-owned or state-controlled. Only 6.5% is available for private purchase. Of that, a disproportionately high share is held by Arabs._ The other 93.5% cannot be sold, it can only be leased to the general public,_whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Perhaps I could suggest that you re-think your approach.

Thank you for the gentle suggestion.

I'm well aware of the problem we have with radical Islamists, I am also aware of the aspects of Islam that they have distorted. Your problem is an inability to see the disconnection between the two.

Help me see the disconnection. I want to have the disconnects documented, laid out for all to see, so that we don't need to repeat these arguments, so that the rest of us who don't have your expertise can just refer to and see the distortions. Though I am loathe to refer to it because I know it offends you, what if we had an answering-radical-islam site that refuted all the distortions? Is this a good thing, or does it just add 'noise' to the problem?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Israeli Arabs do make up 20% of the population and they do own 3% of the land._ So how is this BS? By omission._You leave out a crucial fact: Jews make up 80% of the population of Israel but own only_3.5% of the land!

I don't think it's that simple. If I recall correctly, Arabs may hold a larger percentage of the land but Jews hold better quality land - i.e better suited for farming and other uses.

Israel is only about 17% arable land so there is a difference between owning plots of fertile soil and owning lifeless, barren, dust fields.