Welcome! This briefing will be looking hard at the dark places most mainstream media seem determined to look away from, to better understand our declared enemies on their own terms and without illusions. Our goal is to bring you some of the top jihadi rants, idiotarian seethings, and old-school hatred from around the world, leaving you more informed, more aware, and pretty disgusted every month. This Winds of Change.NET HateWatch briefing is brought to you by Lewy14. (Email me at my handle "hatewatch" here at windsofchange.net). Entil'zha veni!
HIGHLIGHTED TOPICS
- Religious Hate: Exegesis of zoomorphic signs; Saudi TV; Al-Qaradhawi; Imam Yahya Hendi; Why you should be friends with Muslims, plus Jeffrey Goldberg takes us to visit the Israeli settlers.
- Idiotarian Seethings: Lots of denial: the Holocaust, Muslim involvement in Iraqi terror, Palestinian involvement in Israeli bus bombings… lies, all lies…; Al-Qaradhawi’s recent host, London Mayor “Red” Ken Livingston; Sympathy for the Taliban
- Race and Culture: An Israeli in Paris – or not; Criticizing Israel - in a Nazi uniform; Entertaining for hatred in Sudan.
- A Hopeful Note: Moderate Muslims opposing political Islam. Muslims & Christians in Iraq.
- Again with the whole apes and pigs thing: An impressive performance by Jihadwatch director Robert Spencer, who engages with Prof. Khaleel Mohammed and dhimmi studies scholar Bat Ye’or in a Symposium on the Koran and Anti-Semitism. Included is a discussion on the origins of the infamous zoomorphic slurs in the Qur’an. Money quote (Spencer):
The very fact that Dr. Muhammad identifies what he is doing as offering “refutations of traditional approaches” is the only point I am trying to make: that the anti-Semitic approaches I have explained are indeed traditional, and widely held.
Somewhat long, but worth reading the whole thing – a good demonstration of civility tested and (well, mostly) triumphant.
- MEMRI has a good summary of incitement to Jew hatred and America hatred on Saudi Arabian television.
- Ever wondered how suicide bombing can be reconciled with the Islamic prohibition on suicide? Hint: terror is involved. More on Al-Qaradhawi below.
- From LGF, some interesting background on Imam Yahya Hendi, the Georgetown University Muslim chaplain who will gave the closing benediction at the Democratic National Convention. There is a troubling linkage here to a profoundly anti-democratic message:
Whoever calls the people (and/or himself) to the following and obedience of another law other than the shari’a is a disbeliever and a mushrik
OK, to be perfectly fair, it’s only “linkage” - RTFP. But now a question: if a fundamentalist pastor had similar indirect linkage to Christian theocracy and gave the benediction at the RNC, would the Democrats not protest? (And wouldn’t they be right to?)
- Is it just me, or are others out there suffering from jihad fatigue? Joe Katzman kindly sends me this link to an article about Jihad indoctrination in Egypt. Sigh. Yet another pedagogic exegesis of Qur’anic sacralized decapitation. Aimed at teenagers. Yawn. But then this paragraph leaps out and pokes me in the chest:
Let us fight fanatically for our religion; let us love a man-because he is a Moslem; let us honor a man- because he is a Moslem; let us prefer him to anyone else-because he is a Moslem; and never let us make friends with unbelievers, because they have nothing but evil for us.
To be fair the article this quote is culled from is over half a century old, and any number of similar chauvinistic quotes can be drawn from any number of sources. But let’s be clear: the force pushing into the space between us all, pushing us further apart, is not piety, it is bigotry and hatred. If I cannot be the friend of a Muslim, then the terrorists have won.
- But will you be putting your Muslim friends in danger? If your are a Muslim in any way protecting or working for the infidels, then it’s apparently it’s OK to kill you, too. Cutting off your head? Still up for debate.
- Hatewatch been reminded by commenters that there is hatred beyond anti-Semitism, which some feel receive disproportionate coverage. While a fair response is that the Jews receive disproportionate hatred, it is also fair to cast a wider net. Jeffrey Goldberg writes in the New Yorker of his travels among the Israeli settlers
of the West Bank and Gaza. Excerpts do no justice to this long and consistent piece, but these paragraphs deserve highlight:
There remains a moral gulf between the most zealous settlers and the most extreme of the Palestinian Islamists. Small cells of settlers have shown themselves to be capable of committing atrocious acts of violence, but the main institutions of the settlement movement have not endorsed the sort of violence against Arabs that members of many Palestinian factions commit against Jews.
To eschew moral equivalence does not entail forswearing all comparison or criticism, and hatred is not too strong a description for some of the attitudes expressed by the settlers. Difficult but essential reading.Still, there are similarities. Like the theologians of Hamas, the ideologues of the settlement movement have stripped their religion of all love but self-love; they have placed themselves at the center of God’s drama on earth; and they interpret their holy scriptures to prove that their enemies are supernaturally evil and undeserving of even small mercies. And, like Hamas, which would build for the Palestinians a death-obsessed Islamic theocracy, the settlers, if they have their way, would build an apartheid state ruled by councils of revanchist rabbis.
- The Holocaust is a Zionist Lie Aimed at Extorting the West claims a columnist for Egypt's ruling party newspaper. But wait, there’s more…
- The cryptic comments by Saudi Arabia’s Prince Abdullah that “Zionists” were behing the recent terrorism in the Kingdom have been expanded on by Shaykh Ibrahim Mudayris in Gaza: Jews and Americans are behind all chaos in Saudi Arabia.
- Who’s behind the recent wave of attacks against civilians working on reconstructing Iraq? Ask Iran’s supreme leader:
In comments made during a meeting with visiting Singaporean Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok Tong, Khamenei said: “We seriously suspect the agents of the Americans and Israelis in conducting such horrendous terrorist acts and cannot believe the people who kidnap Philippines nationals, for instance, or behead U.S. nationals are Muslims.”
Who is really the audience for this dreck?
- Not to be left out, Arafat claims that Israel blew up it’s own bus in Tel Aviv. Is there a pattern here?
- According to Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi, 'There is No Dialogue between Us and the Jews Except by the Sword and the Rifle'. So much for interfaith dialog. The Jihadwatch post has some excellent links on the topic of Al-Qaradhawi’s recent host, London Mayor “Red” Ken Livingston. Be sure to check out the linked MEMRI post where Iraqi writer Hassan Assad asks, “Will London's Mayor Become a Mufti, or Sheikh Al-Qaradawi Become a Marxist?”. Assad provides more grist for the Islamist / Leftist confluence mill.
- But is Al-Qaradhawi mainstream, or an extremist? From yahoo via LGF:
Qaradawi is revered in much of the Muslim world for his intellectual rigor and ability to adapt the fundamental tenets of Islam to the modern world.
Plus according to the BBC he has “star status” star status. So comforting.
- More terrorist sympathizers hiding in plain sight in Britain:
Professor Ahmad has publicly praised the Taleban regime in Afghanistan. In an article in July 2003 on his party’s website, he wrote: “All of that area which was controlled by the Taleban had become the cradle of justice and peace.”
It had become a cradle of a few others things as well, if I recall.
- Last month, Chirac let it be known that Ariel Sharon was not welcome in France. At the New Republic, Marty Peretz had this response: Mazel Tov! More substantively, he offered the following cogent observation (emphasis mine):
But not before he demonstrated in an off-hand remark that, for him, neither Jews nor Muslims, for that matter, are really genuinely French: "we are witnessing racial events involving our Jewish and Muslim compatriots. ... Sometimes just simple Frenchmen are attacked."
Peretz goes on to make what I read to be a blunt accusation that anti-Semitism drives French foreign policy with regard to Israel: But the real reason that France and some others oppose the [security] fence is that it works. Yet on the other hand, the EU has been working on a UN resolution condemning anti-Semitism, which the Arab countries have recently rejected. According to a source present at the recent UN seminar on anti-Semitism: The Europeans were depressed when they left the meeting. Assuming France was represented among the Europeans reported by the source, wouldn’t this deflect Peretz’s accusation? Hat tip – Rochi Ebner
- When is criticism of Israel really anti-Semitic? Maybe when it’s delivered wearing a Nazi uniform, eh? This guy is supposed to be a comedian. Stop it. You’re killing us.
- And if you’re upset at the way some singers mix entertainment and politics, the people of Darfur have a particular beef with these women, the Hakama.
- Robert Spencer links to a petition opposing political Islam, sponsored by an international coalition of Islamic civil rights groups. He also links to the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, which also opposes political Islam. And Charles Johnson links to a manifesto opposing political Islam, this time from a French Muslim. There are 495 signatures as of this writing. Godspeed.
- Rev. Donald Sensing looks at Iraq, where the recent bombing of 6 Christian churches during worship services appears to have done something the terrorists didn't expect: brought Iraq's Muslims and Christians closer together.
Finally, a brief word on format and content: you may have noticed the move to a more focused, structured format, intended to make it easier for you to find items of interest. As always, suggestions on format and future topics of coverage are welcome.
Taleban had become the cradle of justice and peace.”
***********
I think the problem here is cross cultural translation of words.
Justice, Well "Allah is One, Quran is one, Islam world is one and believers world is one. And world is nothing without trust in Allah."
Since Shar'ai is Allah's will it HAS to be by definition Perfect Justic, there being NO Justice without the Will of Allah?
Next we come to "Peace"
Muslim's divide the world into 2 basic sections
Dar al Islam "The House of Peace" and
Dar al Harb "The House of War"
Islam also means submission.
So what we really have is that part of the world which has "submitted" and that part which has yet to submit and will in the end be brought to submission, by, Guess what? ;-)
Interestingly Arabic has no word or word grouping which can be translated into English as the concept we think of as "compromise" only varying levels of dominance and you guessed it our old friend "submission"
So you can see by their idiomatic concept which have been translated in to English words, when they say the Taliban had the attributes of Justice and Peace they are telling the Truth,
it's simply that the words mean different things to them than they do to us.
Dan: Excellent points. Because arabic is an oral tradition language, context and inflection are both important. is-salaam, isilm mean peace, and islam means submission.
Lewy14: The New Yorker link goes to an article about the Queen Mary II.
Speaking al-Qaradawi, the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain (a coalition of 400 British Muslim groups) has come out in support of him. The Zionist lobby, of course, was held responsible.
When a professor at an Islamic school in the U.K. was revealed as a vice president of the Pakistani Jamaat-e-Islami, the M.C.B. 'deplored' the report in the 'strongest terms'.
Two opportunities to purge the moderate Muslim majority of a few bad apples perverting a peaceful faith, and two opportunities missed. Most telling.
Dan, I agree. The scary thing is not that Professor Ahmed is cynically lying (see, e.g., the denial bullets). The scary thing is that he really believes what he's saying, and has a solid theological basis for doing so.
Jinnderella: context is also important in our language - the word "compromise" which Dan mentions has positive and negative connotations depending on the usage ("The parties reached a compromise" vs. "His integrity has been compromised.").
Colt, thanks, the link is fixed.
more for your hatewatch
http://www.christianzionism.org/PointCounterpoint/disc2_welc.asp
Christians Committed to Biblical Justice
from this Anglican Priest
http://www.sizers.org/
The thoughts on compromise I got from this article
http://www.mideastweb.org/compromise.htm
Viewpoints
October 27 , 2002
Our need for "A Culture of Compromise"
by
Tarek Heggy
A few years ago, I discovered that there is no equivalent in the Arabic language, classical or colloquial, for the English word "compromise", which is most commonly translated into Arabic in the form of two words, literally meaning ‘halfway solution’. I went through all the old and new dictionaries and lexicons I could lay my hands on in a futile search for an Arabic word corresponding to this common English word, which exists, with minor variations in spelling, in all European languages, whether of the Latin, Germanic, Hellenic or Slavic families. The same is true of several other words, such as ‘integrity’, which has come to be widely used in the discourse of Europe and North America in the last few decades and for which no single word exists in the Arabic language. As language is not merely a tool of communication but the depositary of a society’s cultural heritage, reflecting its way of thinking and the spirit in which it deals with things and with others, as well as the cultural trends which have shaped it, I realized that we were here before a phenomenon with cultural (and, consequently, political, economic and social) implications.
*************************************************
The remainder is WELL worth the time spent reading it.
In view of the fact that I was unable to find one Arabic word that corresponds to the English word compromise, I have been forced to do two things in this article that I would have preferred to avoid. One was to write the word compromise in Latin letters throughout the article, the other was to use the common translation of the word, the unwieldy ‘halfway solution’, in the title. But because I am a great believer in compromise, and because I also believe in the popular saying that “who cannot obtain all does not give up all”, I decided to write the article anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabic version of this article was published at Al-Ahram on 29th September, 2002
*************************************************
That is the end of the article.
Read, think, ponder.
For the other side of the Jeffrey Goldberg article, go here. There are several posts, so scroll down.
The link posted immediately above was slightly mangled, the correct link is here.
The posts refer to an op ed in the NYT, not the New Yorker article. The issue I suppose would be Goldberg's journalistic credibility, which is a fair one.
A Google search on Goldberg's New Yorker article delivers a number of critiques.
While I remain convinced that Goldberg has something to bring to the discussion, it would be satisfying if he answered some of the discrepencies raised by the critics. Jeffrey, you need to get a blog...
I've long, as a Jew, found a highly useful test for distinguishing legitimate commentary from hate; I take the noun of the statement in question, switch it to "Jew," or the adjective to "Jewish," and see how I think it stands up.
One can also switch out, say, one religious figure for another who did things, in a different religious tradition, we now would call horrible and despicable. Enjoy the game! "If the bastard wasn't a Jew they would have said so." "I'd just be satisfied with covering those Jews with pork chops and putting them in a pit full of rottweillers."
Feel free to use "Christian, " or "atheist," or "Hindu," or whatever works best for yourself. lewy14, I thank you for your efforts, and very much hope you'll keep a sharp eye out for, as well, anti-Islamic hatred, which is a very great danger and quite prevalent in our time, and that you'll call it wherever you find it. It's a moral test for all of us today to distinguish between Islamic terrorism and Islam, between terrorists and Muslims, just as we largely failed, in 1941-2, in the U.S., to distinguish between those who served the Japanese empire, and our own loyal citizens of Japanese ethnicity.
Gary,
That there exists comments at LGF that many (including myself) find repugnant is acknowledged.
But then to be perfectly fair this is true of many blogs and comment forums, on all sides. It's not a problem of any single "side", it's a human problem.
And so I prefer to consign such repugnant comments on all blogs to a well deserved obscurity.
My recollection is that there have been relatively few remarks by politicians, major media figures, or religious figures in this country which rise to the level of outright hatred towards Muslims. And they all made the news when they happened. (Actually come to think of it I do recall some recent comments by Jackie Mason recently that I found over the top, which I perhaps should have included in this post.) I would give prominent highlight to any such remark and would welcome submissions.
But on the topic of religious bigotry, I'm compelled to offer this observation. It appears to me that some people have no trouble with the idea that an entire religion is problematic, malign, and that the world is better off without it - as long as that religion is, say, Christianity or one of it's confessions. But any such invective aimed at Islam will draw from them accusations of bigotry.
And so the substitution technique which you advise, of one faith for another in a given context, is indeed one I practice myself, in all sorts of circumstances. Once again, such an engine has to be applied evenly.
Thank you for your kudos. I do my best, which is often inadequate, but I figure it's worth the try. Funny you mention it, I'm hoping to write something more on the internment issue, which is once again in the news.
Don't worry, Gary, when Jews fly planes into skyscrapers I'll be hunting them too. Until then, the behavior not being equal, your test returns false.
"Don't worry, Gary, when Jews fly planes into skyscrapers I'll be hunting them too."
Yes, I know.
"And so I prefer to consign such repugnant comments on all blogs to a well deserved obscurity."
This is purely my own opinion, of course -- that should be clear, but I want to make it ultra clear -- my own policy is that I believe blogs are responsible for what they publish. Period. That includes comments. I believe blogs should have prominently posted commenting policy as to what are and are not acceptable comments. I believe that posters should be warned that if they violate the guidelines/rules, their offensive comments will be deleted, and if they continue to offend, they will be banned. I believe blogs need to enforce that policy, and if they do not, they are completely responsible for what is posted on their blog. If enforcing such policies is too much work, they should shut down comments, because they are responsible for what is posted on their blog.
To me, that's a matter of individual responsibility. It's a matter of accepting that responsibility.
I believe that sites that are full of hate for white people, for black people, for red people, for yellow people, for Christians, for Jews, for Moslems, for Hindus, for animists, for atheists, for religious people, for short people, for tall people, for whatever kind of people, are hate sites.
I boycott hate sites, regardless of whatever value might be attached to them. Hey, Krupp built great guns, but I wouldn't have contracted with them in the Forties.
Again, that is purely my own personal policy, and I respect the right of all to have their own policy, of course.
But I do have this question. If we delete three words from your statement, do you still stand by it?
"And so I prefer to consign such repugnant comments to a well deserved obscurity."
If so, why, exactly, are you compiling and posting "Hatewatch"?
If blogs are "obscure," why post to them? If comments are obscure, why make them?
What of "leaving you more informed, more aware, and pretty disgusted every month"?
Are blogs so unimportant that we should not be "more informed" and "more aware" of them?
If so, why are you reading this comment?
"It appears to me that some people have no trouble with the idea that an entire religion is problematic, malign, and that the world is better off without it - as long as that religion is, say, Christianity or one of it's confessions. But any such invective aimed at Islam will draw from them accusations of bigotry."
That could be. If it's a noticable problem, putting forth a bunch of examples should be a piece of cake. Could you give five or six, perhaps, please? If so, thanks.
Gary, you are of course entitled to your own opinion about blogs.
Are blog comments obscure? I think in any objective sense the answer would have to be "yes", relative to the prominence of the people making the statements which form the staple of the Hatewatch posts. I believe I alluded to this in my last comment. And so the three words in my comment which you hypothetically elide I would still maintain to create a crucial and reasonable distinction. If some nonentity delivers a slur against Muslims in a comment on some blog somewhere, frankly it isn't worth my time or yours, in my opinion. If some figure in American social life make such a slur, or some figure prominent in Middle East civil or religious society disparages America or the West, then I think this deserves some highlight - especially if it goes largely unreported otherwise.
And so in short I believe that clarity is not achieved by churning up the mud at the bottom. I could probably assemble a bunch of hacked up baysian spam filters to scrape the comments from a number of hate sites, stream them through a perl script and post this update weekly to a tune of ten thousand words or so. Aside from being an interesting programming project, it would add nothing to the discussion. I believe I've adequately described my editorial heuristics here - what about them is unclear or lacks value?
And why post or comment at all? Frankly we must admit that the audience here limited – huge by the standards of private conversation, small by the standards of “big media”. Now, stand on the stage of an obscure off broadway theatre, in an obscure production, and stage fright will strike all the same. For me the prospect of putting my private thoughts into words, in a public space, encourages clarity of thought and demeanor. It’s worth it for me to connect with people, one at a time if necessary. What is your experience and motivation?
Good reply, lewy14. I have an on the one hand, on the other, response.
It strikes me that if we are "looking hard at the dark places most mainstream media seem determined to look away from," and we, as bloggers want to see blogs achieve large-scale, mainstreamish, success and recognition, that we can't turn a blind eye to hatred in blogs. Better an early start than having to wait until our soles/souls are held to the fire later and inevitably. (And sooner or later we will read mainstream stories about hate in blogs; mark my words; I'd rather we started policing ourselves first.)
On the other hand, your point that blog comments are, at present, obscure compared to large-scale publications is a fair point and well-taken (though it's not fully clear to me that comments at a few of the most-read blogs actually have fewer readers than some obscure Arabic-language publication).
"I could probably assemble a bunch of hacked up baysian spam filters to scrape the comments from a number of hate sites, stream them through a perl script and post this update weekly to a tune of ten thousand words or so."
Ten thousand words would be far too much. But it occurs to me that, in fact, a reasonably (a thousand or two, words, perhaps; perhaps even less, just a naming of blogs with a couple of sample comments each) sized monthly (or so) round-up of the most significant sites spewing hatred in comments -- whatever the form or target of the hatred -- would be a useful way to point a spotlight at these much-read blogs, and perhaps -- just perhaps -- give them a nudge towards being shamed, and cleaning up their act. (And I include, myself, sites that spew political hatred, as well as ethnic hatred.)
Just my thought, of course; I'm not saying you are obliged to add that to your chosen task.
"For me the prospect of putting my private thoughts into words, in a public space, encourages clarity of thought and demeanor. It’s worth it for me to connect with people, one at a time if necessary. What is your experience and motivation?"
I do it purely for the money, and the wild sex it brings me. Also: magic beans.
Gary,
Your suggestion above is interesting, but not the focus of Lewy's feature. It would be a wholly different feature. Nothing is stopping you from doing this yourself, but a list of the absurdities posted at DU, Indymedia, Free Republic, Calpundit, LGF, Atrios (insert any other site here) fails the "big picture test" that has guided both my discussions with Lewy, and the focus of this blog in general. There are larger events afoot in the world than the comments section of blogs.
RE: blogs are responsible, period. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree.
I would suggest, however, that you contemplate walking a mile in Charles' shoes (or Calpundit's, or any other blogger with major traffic and a comments section) before issuing that proclamation.
It's easy to be self-righteous at your (or our) traffic numbers. I've thought about what happens at 15-20k/day, however, and it's a damn sobering thought. I don't have the tools or the time to solve the problem at scale; neither do I wish to deprive our many intelligent commenters of their venue because of a few idiots (who can be taken on directly by other commenters).
So far, I haven't had to choose. But scale us up an order of magnitude, and it's a different situation. Calpundit has essentially given up on his blog, for instance. Do I think less of him because of that? No.
Joe,
You do know that Calpundit is posting at the washingtonmonthly website, don't you?