Uncle Jimbo says his search for 'moderate Muslims' is over.
Uncle Jimbo says his search for 'moderate Muslims' is over.
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
there are a lot of moderate muslims.
but they don't get any press, particularily here.
because everyone on the rightside blogverse would rather listen to MEMRI's false and exclusionary translations that validate their belief systems.
i thought this was the fact checking blogverse.
my bad.
Maybe you should do some of your own fact-checking because this statement is demonstrably wrong:
This post (for one) is a good example of the kind of insights longtime readers expect at Winds.
PD, i meant, in the rightside blogverse.
"the kind of insights longtime readers expect at Winds."
that is exactly why i thought Winds might be interested in the fact that MEMRI posted a false and heavily editted translation of the Sultan/Al-Khouly debate.
how is this any different from the TANG memos?
Charles booted up MS word and posted a pantagraphic proof that memos were false.
I'm posting an accurate arabic translation on many blogs.
but no one really cares about MEMRI shaping information and propagandizing, because what they say validates your beliefs about eeeevul Islam.
muslims think we're hypocrites.
part of the translation that MEMRI that omitted dealt with the western concept of free speech--why is holocaust denial punishable with 3 years of prison while blasphememy (the cartoons) is not?
you may say those are not the same, but aren't they both free speech?
How can we make any progress with bridging the chasm if all we are shown is monologues?
MEMRI scours the earth looking for moderate and dissident Muslim voices; see The MEMRI Reform Project. for a start. Regardless of what you think of their efforts, or how effective those efforts are, they show much more interest in the subject than people who think they can help the Muslim world by mumbling about "Islamophobia".
If you have any evidence whatsoever that they deliberately publish "false" translations, please share it with us.
MEMRI shines a light on the Middle East media, and also makes known dissident voices that would never be heard otherwise. If you have a problem with that, I wonder what kind of belief system you're trying to validate. Since you complain about the "rightside blogverse", I can almost guess. The leftside ought to be interested too (and many people over there actually are).
By "exclusionary", I take it that you follow the views of P'rfesser Juan Cole of the Alleged University of Michigan, who claims that all the good stuff is being left out. As I've said before, if Cole and others think that's true, then let them start their own media project to translate and publish anything they feel has been unfairly excluded.
Write a goddamn grant proposal, already, and put the taxpayer's money where your big mouths are.
Then we can hear all about the Muslim publications (which are aimed at Muslim audiences, not at the liberal West) that condemn racism and anti-semitism in the Muslim world. That speak out for the rights of Christians and Jews. That protest the treatment of women and the endless degradation of human beings in general. That condemn Islamicist imperialism. And so on.
As I said, some of those voices really do exist, and they wouldn't be heard at all if not for MEMRI. Juan Cole sure as hell doesn't care. He doesn't want to hear about Arabs who advocate peace with Israel.
Matoko #3 wrote:
Matoko and I had a discussion on this point last week in the comments (er, off-topic at the time, my bad...).
Readers can check comments #41 to #47 here. Bottom line:
In the debate with Wafa Sultan, al-Khouly played fast and loose with the facts. Dr. al-Khouli may be a respected scholar at one of the world's oldest universities. He does not share the view that freedom of religion is a two-way street. Among other things.
At this point, your charge that MEMRI's translation was false lacks substance.
Uh huh. MEMRI's translations are indeed edited, since it is not possible to disgorge the entire contents of al-Jazeera & company on their site. If they did, people like you would accuse them of violating copyrights. So the translations are edited; you might have noticed the ellipses.
As for false, you're repeating someone else's characterization. I applaud the people who put up the full transcript, and who explained their word-quibbles with MEMRI's translation. I can't read Arabic to see for myself, but I'm familiar with the very arbitrary process of translation and and disagreements over which nouns to use don't mean the other guy is lying.
Finally, I ask how how many people would care about this disagreement if it weren't for the fact that WAFA SULTAN IS A WOMAN. Her appearance on al-Jazeera was noticed worldwide, which was not MEMRI's doing.
It never ceases to amaze me how understanding the "progressive community" is towards Islamist testosterone fits.
For those who missed it, the alternative translation is here. It seems to revolve mainly around MEMRI's use of the word "heretic" as opposed to "atheist." And MEMRI's failure to transcribe the entire event.
I own three English interpretations of the Koran and have read commentary on the pros and cons of different word choices. The fact that there is a debate on the proper Arabic to English translation is not surprising or alarming to me. Arabic is not even consistent in time and in place. The fact that this debate is not making a larger ripple in the blogosphere is probably due to a lack of Arabic speakers that could weigh in on one side or the other and the fact that translation disputes are quite boring to most people.
I sped read and appreciated the link btw.
In a previous translation dispute involving MEMRI, Juan Cole complained that MEMRI had used a literal, standard usage, translation of the word "wilayah" (as in state), which did not make sense, so it should have used either an archaic definition (as in government) or a regional (Pakistani) variant (as in country). Cole's alternatives also seemed awkward to my ears, but IMHO made little substantive difference.
Of course, Cole lost a lot of credibility with me for converting a minor translation dispute into an opportunity to accuse MEMRI of being essentially an Israeli front operation.
obviously, we don't know why the people @ m.e.m.r.i. chose to translate the term mulhidah (the term ibrahim al-khouly used to ask wafa sultan if she is one) as "heretic" and not "atheist".
the term for "apostate" (the punishment for which could be death) is murtadd/murtaddah. and it is highly unlikely that ibrahim al-khouly, being a professor @ al-azhar, mistakenly used the word mulhidah when ACTUALLY he wanted to say murtaddah.
[editors note, and to have used it incorrectly THREE times?]
as for al-khouly's answer - the m.e.m.r.i translation was almost right with the phrase "there is no point in rebuking you", but the term 'atb means "rebuke" in the sense of "censure, blame, reproof, reprimand" and here it is clear that his argument is: if you're an atheist, then i cannot say anything if you curse islam, the prophet, the qur'an. he implies that atheists are outside islam and islam has no say over them. it'd be different if wafa sultan had self-identified as a believing muslim - in that case, insulting the religion, the prophet, the qur'an would be a different matter and he (ibrahim al-khouly) would have the right to censure/reprimand/rebuke her.
in short, his answer is almost the EXACT OPPOSITE of a "death fatwa".
--raf*
Al-Khouly says mulhidah three times. he never says murtaddah. look them up.
meph's translation from Aqoul
WS: ....I am a secular human being and i do not believe in the supernatural.
IK: An aetheist? [note, he says, mulhidah(aetheist), not murtadd(heretic, apostate)]
WS: But I respect the right of others to believe.
IK: You mean an aetheist?
WS: You can say what you wish.
IK: I am asking you.
WS: I am a secular individual and i do not believe in the supernatural.
IK: I am asking you in order to deal with you using your own system of logic, if you are an aetheist there is no censuring you if you curse Islam's prophet and Islam's Qu'ran.
from page eight of the translation of whole debate.
Al-Kouly uses the word aetheist three times. His school of sharia says that aetheists are outside Islam and cannot be punished for their ignorance.
MEMRI's translation:
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...
these translations of the exchange are not eviqalent, and the two tranlsations mean exactly the opposite thing.
the exchange was supposed to be a debate. Sultan turned it into a diatribe against Islam, and MEMRI only presented her side.
there are two sides in a debate.
i am sick of monologues.
Matoko -- no one denies that "moderate Muslims" exist. Merely that they exert ANY significant influence in Muslim societies.
For better or worse Jihadis ARE the mainstream of Muslim society. Anyone examining events in Muslim lands or Islamic communities in the West can see this.
Muslims around the world demanded punishment for the Mohammed Cartoons and blasphemy laws "protecting" Islam. Yet do not denounce the horrible things printed and broadcast in Muslim lands. Anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, along the lines of Protocols of Elders of Zion. That most "moderate" Muslim state Malaysia would not permit Schindler's List to be broadcast or shown because it was "too sympathetic to Jews." When three teenage Catholic schoolgirls were beheaded by Muslim jihadis in Indonesia, the Muslim reaction in Indonesia and world-wide was ... nothing.
Meanwhile 40% of British Muslims want Sharia Law. Mosque after Mosque in the West as well as Muslim countries are the centers of terrorist plots against the Kaffir. Muslims who are native born feel no allegiance to Western states and plot terror against the hated infidel (as in the 7/7 bombers). So much for the "Moderate Muslim" in the West.
I see no evidence whatsoever that Moderate Muslims exert any political or social influence in their societies. Instead every Islamic country and community slides deeper into rejection of the Western rational secular humanist model for various versions of Sharia and the Caliphate. When Muslims in the UK and the US hold up signs saying "Islam will Dominate," "Europe your 9/11 is coming," "Get Ready for the REAL Holocaust," "Freedom go to hell," "Behead those who Insult Islam," and "God Bless Hitler" (this last in Pakistan) ... I find it laughable to maintain that Moderate Muslims have any influence whatsoever. Or that Islam and those who follow it are not fundamentally opposed to the very basis of Western society.
and, big angry dog, i am a registered republican AND a pythagorean.
didn't you read my nic?
I loathe democrats--they massacred my tribe.
why is anyone that disagrees with you a leftist?
why is anyone that honestly seeks an understanding of of Islam and MENA branded a multiculturalist?
look up mulhideen and murtadd/murtaddah.
they're in my arabic dictionary.
sorry, mulhideen is plural.
look up mulhidah.
what rockford said is exactly what i mean.
he has all the answers already.
why bother with dialogue?
And AMac, i am not asking you to agree with Al-Khouly, just with his right to have his views presented in a debate.
if you read the comments on the 'Aqoul thread, we all think his conspiracy theories are whack.
one more thing.
you all sound like rather and mapes to me.
because it's MEMRI.
do you know what i am hearing?
those translations are false but accurate.
what rockford said is exactly what i mean
Matoko - do you believe that "moderate Muslims" have no significant influence in Muslim societies?
matoko, I don't know what you've been reading, but the MEMRI site doesn't label the exchange as a "death fatwa" or anything of the sort. If you bother going to the site itself, you'll see it provides the translation without any commentary. The translation of that specific exchange with al-Khouli is very similar to aqoul's translation, same context and connotation; al-Khoulis's comments aren't made out to look particularly threatening either. What exactly is the complaint?
Granted, Wafah Sultan can't be called a "moderate Muslim" since she is, by her own admission, not a Muslim. But her exposure to the blogosphere via MEMRI's translation provides a window into a moderate Arabic bloc that should be kept in mind while we debate policies in the Middle East.
Now as to whether the set of "moderate Muslims" is a majority or a minority within Islam is a topic for much debate...
Unbeliever, Wafa claimed the death fatwa.
I accuse MEMRI of false translation.
mulhidah does not mean heretic/apostate.
gee, mary how would i know?
i consider Al-Khouly a moderate sharia jurist in that he believes aetheists are outside of Islam and not punishable by Islam.
I don't see any moderate positions being translated.
But Al-Jazeerha is going to be broadcast in English translation. Betcha we still just see cherry-picking that supports your pre-fabricated positions, though.
You all get your opinions on Islam from Pipes and Lewis and Sunnis like Zeyad.
You all get your opinions on Islam from Pipes and Lewis and Sunnis like Zeyad
I get my opinions from myself, a concept a genuine "pythagorean" would immediately grasp.
I would also assume that a pythagorean would have a harder time understanding the concept of a "moderate sharia jurist" and the casual use of the term "unbeliever".
Of the people listed above, I have read Bernard Lewis and Zeyad. Do you have a problem with "Sunnis like Zeyad"?
Matoko, thanks for raising these questions and for linking to Meph's translation. I wish I could feel more optimistic about what it says and means.
Sultan was raised Muslim, and now calls herself a secularist. al-Khoury may view her as beyond Islam's correction, sanction, or punishment. Or not.
Their exchange transpired transpired prior to the Abdul Rahman case gaining prominence. Rahman was raised Muslim, and now calls himself Christian.
Did al-Khoury or any of his faculty peers declare, in Arabic, that applying compulsion to Rahman--ie killing him--would be un-Islamic? Counter to Sharia? As the bearers of a renowned tradition in Islamic jurisprudence, surely they are entitled to express their opinions.
I'll be disappointed but not surprised if al-Khoury has been silent on the matter. And if the faculty's silence is taken as tacit approval by many within the Ummah.
lol, pretty disengenuous, mare.
we had a big fight about that at dean's, have you forgotten?
i objected to Zeyad neglecting to mention that the homosexual-death fatwa was three years old and someone had obviously combed Sistani's archives for inflammatory material to feed to the american press.
AMac, i haven't read any translation of jurisprudent opinion on Rahman, but i would expect since he claims belief now in a christian god and was previously a muslim, he would actually be murtadd, a heretic/apostate, and such could be punished under sharia law.
shari'a law is always decided on a case basis, and the charges were dismissed as i understand it.
his wife brought the charge in a custody dispute.
i imagine there are plenty of christians living under the radar, but his case got elevated much in the same way wives in this country might charge molestation to get custody leverage.
because it got elevated into the public perview, it became a cause celebre for the rightside blogverse, just another occasion to bloviate pompously about eeevul Islam.
btw, isn't it great that you can a divorce in Afghanistan now and actully have custody battles?
Since Daniel Pipes' name was mentioned in the conversation, here's his timely article Identifying Moderate Muslims. Ad hominems aside, I don't know any reason to doubt the veracity of what Pipes says in it.
> just another occasion to bloviate pompously about eeevul Islam.
I am insufficiently multiculti to see the humor, much less the wisdom, in your remark. It's tragic that a significant plurality of Muslims are untroubled by these sorts of Medieval, barbaric customs. While so many of its leaders maintain a prudent silence.
It's fortunate that--per Pipes and the linked article in the main post--some Muslims are struggling to reconcile their faith with Enlightenment values.
For most groups, the impulse to circle the wagons is a strong one. Even when it means attempting a defense of the indefensible.
Hmm. "Combing archives" sounds to me like research.
Determining any modern public figure's actual intent from published utterances is always difficult for me.
Is there a time limit on the applicability of fatwas? I thought a legal judgment was a legal judgment. Did the fatwa on homosexuals include a statement that it would expire at some time?
I'm ignorant, please enlighten me.
Yes. Many American men are threatened with death during the course of divorce actions.
I'm not sure why we're not supposed to look at the darker aspects of Islam and how they might foreshadow our shared future in an age of globalization. Why do you keep suggesting that this debate be shut down?
Yes, I know the whole "darker" adjective has an implied value judgement, and no, I'm not sorry.
Isn't ironic, that matoko_aukousmatikoi recoils from the implied charge of being a Democratic, yet seems oblivious to the fact that Wafa's status as an athiest/heretic was being used to discredit her arguments?
And matoko, how am I supposed to believe one translation is right and the other is wrong, versus my belief that they might both be within the range of acceptable interpretation. And how does that square with the criticism from Cole that MEMRI has used standard Arabic translations when archaic or regional interpretations might give better results?
i objected to Zeyad neglecting to mention that the homosexual-death fatwa was three years old and someone had obviously combed Sistani's archives for inflammatory material to feed to the american press.
Zeyad certainly wasn't the only person who was writing about the issue. He was one of many.
Besides, you specified "Sunnis like Zeyad". I don't know as much about Islamist/tribal conflicts as you seem to. What problem do you have with Sunnis like Zeyad?
Let me see, the US must have a mental sickness, it has imported, for re-colonization of US, 10,000 victorious Somalis Muslims who love to Hate for Allah, unknown thousands of Iranians a gift from Jimmy Carter and Iraqis with civil war and Shiite flagellation on the mind or back for fun.
I believe 18,000 displaced Muslims, from Russian with love, are to be parked in Ohio along with the friendly food for Somalis.
The Muslims-Arabs-Islam et al believing in their idol Mohammed is tattooed on brain and backside from birth,( and He did and they do, love to hate, rage and rape). Muslims can not have an allegiance to US et al, they are at war with us. It is in an Islam War for Victory Road Map called the Quran, by demographics and Islam is winning. The US & EU and Israelis are still looking for the enemy sleeping in our very houses!
There is something other than an illusion of moderate Muslims that can and do swear only one allegiance to an entity, other than Islam?? We are at war looking for an enemy, and Victory with a Road Map. We are sick and our philosophy needs a reality tune-up.
Yeah, that's my second favorite thing about the new Afghanistan. Most favorite is the fact that they don't shoot school teachers through the head so much.
The Muslims shrieking their heads off about the Sultan "scandal" don't read MEMRI and couldn't give a damn about the translation of one word. They are outraged because a woman (who was not wearing a veil, BTW) talked back to a man on television, and they are doubly outraged because some of us think it's funny. Nyaah, nyaah, nyaah.
Yes, the ability of a woman to divorce a man who beats her half to death is a great insult to Muslim manhood. So is every woman who walks down the street in a knee-length skirt. So are our giant phallic skyscrapers, which are so much bigger than anything they have. So is the fact that female soldiers set foot in sacred Saudi Arabia. So is the fact that they haven't been able to eradicate Israel after 60 years of terrorism and war.
Someday, maybe we'll reconstruct the entire universe so that it no longer threatens the fragile testicular architecture of Muslim male sexuality, but until then I'll guess they'll just have to suck it up.
mare, you said Zeyad's translation was the only trustworthy one.
he just left out the date. over two hundred comments on that thread at Healing Iraq, bashing Islam and Sistani, and no mention of the date.
"Wafa's status as an athiest/heretic was being used to discredit her arguments?"
PD, you didn'tread the translation. Al-Khouly said he couldn't censure her. it was supposed to be a debate about Huntington's clash of civilizations is true of islam and the west. Wafa flung off course and turned her part into a rant about Islam.
she discreditted herself.
the words mean different things.
look them up. mulhidah. murtaddah.
i know nothing about Cole, so don't try to tar me with that brush.
lurker,
"I'm not sure why we're not supposed to look at the darker aspects of Islam"
You're kidding, right? that is friggin' ALL we do.
i'm just trying for a little balance.
like MEMRI translating the other half of the debate.
and making an unbiased presentation.
and translating accurately.....
ok, completely unrealistic of me.
now, its time for the Dark Kingdom on Sci-fi.
ha ha, prolly a metaphor for Islam.
oh, big angry dog, you don't scare me.
how long have women been able to vote and own property in this country?
women in this country are beaten and raped and shot inspite of our laws.
no muslims that i know are yelling about the translation....only me.
i guess they know better than to waste their time.
They say we are hypocrites, and perhaps they are right.
I know you, angry dog that growls and bites, wish to force women to bear unwanted children.
No woman can be equal to a man without reproductive freedom.
ta for now.
Let's see. Here's an Islamic site that says mulhidah means blasphemer.
In any event, I'm not sure there is that much difference in Islamic law between heretic, atheist and blasphemer:
Bat Ye’or, Islam and Dhimmitude
And if you think the fact that women can vote and own property is an insignificant gain, you must be a paleoconservative Republican from the early Cretaceous Period. William McKinley wouldn't have given you a civil service job.
Finally, I have no wish to see women bear unwanted children. I only want the matter out of the Supreme Court, after which it can be decided in any non-violent fashion people wish, and women can bear as many or as few unwanted children as they want to. But I am very unlikely to get my wish, which has nothing-plus-dick to do with the subject under discussion, anyway.
PD, those people are wahabbists at that site! not Al-Khouly's sort at all.
IK: First of all Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic model that should be followed in its orientations and general practices. It is the first country that I condemn by Islamic standards.--pg 10
later in the debate he says Saud's practice of Islam is a perversion.
ummm...isn't that what we always gripe about? that no one stands up to the wahabbists? here's a dude doing it and MEMRI chops his lines and Wafa screams eeeek! death-fatwa!!!! to the Times.
and Bat Ye'or? pulleeeeez. you might like what she says but to moderate muslims she's just another apostate with chip on her shoulder.
Angry Dog, i read you. you are pleased that SD bans abortion and rules that doctors caught performing one get five years in prison.
i don't think roe v wade is constitutional myself, btw. but the truth is women will never be equal to men without reproductive freedom.
so, what muslims say is, how dare you criticise us, when you fight about women's rights all the time? how dare you criticise our treatment of homosexuals when you persecute and kill homosexuals?
they still see it as hypocrisy.
btw, you guys might be interested in this
andd you too, mare.
;)
In arabic, the word "mulÈid" is given to mean "deviator, apostate, heretic, atheist." (Encyclopedia of Islam)
Did al-Khoury or any of his faculty peers declare, in Arabic, that applying compulsion to Rahman--ie killing him--would be un-Islamic? Counter to Sharia?
Yes, he did. In the complete English transcript, Al-Kouly says,
There is no compulsion in religion, whoever wishes to believe may do so, and who wishes to apostasize may do so. That is the position of Islam.
He also makes it clear the he did not support the protests over the Danish cartoons.
Those you are speaking about do not have the correct grasp of Islam. When a non-Muslim insults Islam and Islam's prophet, this doesn't disturb a hair on our heads. We excuse him if he is ignorant and we accept the situation if he is a resentful extremist because he is not to be judged by our standards or our criteria.
Reading the entire transcript is quite illuminating. There are many, many different strains of opinion in Islam. An Indonesian housewife is not a Saudi religious policeman. Certain strains of Islam are, indeed, antithetical to modern Western thought, but many are not. You must know your enemy in order to defeat him.
So, this is what passes for a discusssion. Well, tedious.
MEMRI I might add hardly "scours" the earth for Arabic reform commentary etc., although they do seem to provide a nice bit of spin for the phobics to lap up. Charming if unsurprising there are those who don't recognise the MEMRI shop as a public diplo op & spin op, but I suppose no surprises there either, one does need input for confirmation bias.
Ah well, neither here nor there. It would seem, however, the key point that our translation underlines with respect to the MEMRI agitprop was the clear selective spin. Some people like selective spin of course, isn't that what feeds the various slavering Right and Left Bolshy blogospheres in the US of A?
From the comments at the 'Aquol website:
if you open a dictionary, you're likely to see heretic as a possible translation of mulhid. It's the context that makes this meaning completely implausible here. Cite
So Lord Lounsbury, is it true that "heretic" is an accepted translation, but the translator at 'Aquol felt that a different word was more appropriate in the context? 'Cause around here the issue is being presented as a deliberate falsehood (#1, #3, #15, #18) A forgery.
And the assertion that MEMRI is "a public diplo op & spin op" belies your assertion of being above spin and partisanship.
Sorry for the misspelling of 'Aqoul.
PD Shaw, be honest.
MEMRI cut almost all of Al-Khouly's lines, and interpreted the translation as the exact opposite of what i think it means.
Did you read the whole transcript?
Al-Khouly says the wahabbists are wrong, that there is no compulsion in Islam. why would he then say Wafa the aetheist is under a death-fatwa?
accept that MEMRI presented an incomplete and faulty translation to push their own bias.
and....reguarding L. ......you guyz can't even deal with the jinnum--no way should you be trifling with afriits.
;-)
Well, PD Shaw:
So Lord Lounsbury,
No need for Lord, although the alliteration is amusing.
is it true that "heretic" is an accepted translation, but the translator at 'Aquol felt that a different word was more appropriate in the context? 'Cause around here the issue is being presented as a deliberate falsehood (#1, #3, #15, #18) A forgery.
Regarding the issue being presented 'around here' - well I am neither responsible nor particularly interested in the varagaries of this discussion, above as none of it seems to involve my colleagues at 'Aqoul per se although perhaps I missed it in the rather pooly laid out text. I should say, however, that what I glean from above, the phrasing should be "deliberate distortion" - your loose use of English be moderately distortive
On the translation and usage issues I direct you to the horses mouth, and in particular my colleagues who worked on the translation. I did not, being busy at the time and now. My second hand comments are of far less value than their direct ones.
Arabic being what it is, of course, one has to have a lively sense of usage to know what senses are dead poet's usages, and what are actual usages in the context of the writing of the Jurist and the like.
And the assertion that MEMRI is "a public diplo op & spin op" belies your assertion of being above spin and partisanship.
Does it?
Because you believe otherwise?
Well, in any case, my considered opinion that MEMRI is rather obviously an Israeli spin op - based on the rather obvious signs over the years really - has bloody nothing at all to do with partisanship (it escaping me what I am a partisan of, except perhaps even-handedness and accuracy, but they are such quaint standards in the rabid irrationality of the blogosphere) or spin.
I certainly do not have a high opinion of their tub-thumping, but they serve the purpose which they were established for and I can hardly blame them for it.
By the way, in the interest of future accuracy in the use of language, I would note that in my brief comment I made no "assertion" whatsoever with respect to myself (or 'Aqoul). You might perhaps consult the dicco, suggest, imply are good words.
Else, again, pity this is what passes for discussion on the subject, but then it is the blogsphere.
Word.
;)
Accidentally perhaps, issues keep getting mixed together.
1. Does MEMRI offer full and complete transcripts?
--They don't; MEMRI offers excerpts. Agreed all around.
2. Are MEMRI transcripts false? Are they faulty? Is it agitprop?
--So far, no credible evidence to show that to be the case. Matoko, Anon #37, & Lounsbury: repeated unsupported assertions don't make convincing arguments. E.g. a link to MEMRI claiming an al-Khoury fatwa, please. If the point is that MEMRI often serves Israeli interests: duh. Truthful renditions of others' statements could well serve party X's interests, whoever X may be. Rather than more whingeing, demonstrate that MEMRI's translations are untrustworthy. The worse they are, the easier the task should be.
3. What sort of scholar is Ibrahim al-Khoury?
--An unbalanced one, judging from Meph's transcript. His historical whitewashes:
And al-Khoury's lesson on tolerance:
When "MEMRI cut almost all of al-Khoury's lines," they were doing him a favor. At least by my standards.
As to the charge that I'm "cherry picking:" if that complaint must be repeated, please show how al-Khoury's words mean something other than what they seem to.
Here's another example of, I would assume, a native-Arab speaker who also interpreted the word as blasphemy:
"The other guest on the Al Jazeera program, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because "she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, and the Koran." Wafa Sultan: A Lost Opportunity
#42:
Oh Lounsbury, thank you for dropping your kind words in this humble abode. Thank you!
Lounsbury: repeated unsupported assertions don't make convincing arguments.
Perhaps not, but I am not particularly interested in wasting my late evening with a long and tedious effort to illustrate MEMRI's characteristic spin etc. here. It lacks both amusement value and any real return. I merely dropped a line to comment on the low quality of commentary. An observation.
However, a few points.
What sort of scholar is Ibrahim al-Khoury?
He's a theologian. An Al Azhar theologian. Comes with its strengths, weaknesses and plain old idiocies.
--An unbalanced one, judging from Meph's transcript. His historical whitewashes:
Well, one does not find Vatican theologians generally speaking to the bloody expulsion and forced conversion of Jews from Iberia either. Insofar as he's a theologian and not a historian, I would expect the theologian's view, not the historian's
Calling him "unbalanced" is just... well stupidly irrelevant.
Nevertheless regarding this:
* "There is no compulsion in religion" [as a tenet of Islamic thought cf. whatever al-Khouly may believe] (p. 4)
That is a Quranic tenent. Stating it as a fact is, well, factual.
* "The West and Bush are now using the War on Terror as a cover; it is a war on Islam and he himself has said so clearly...behind all of this stands extremist Western Zionist Christianity..." (p. 7)
A statement of opinion with respect to the US and its FP. Not really here or there with respect to the man as a "scholar" of his subject matter.
Indeed, not really here nor there with respect to the subject at hand, except perhaps as an illustration of the success the US President has had in causing support for the country to plunge globally.
* Who has been behind the war in southern Sudan for more than twenty years? The World Council of Churches, it is financing Garang [the late SPLA leader John Garang]..." (p. 9)
Again, doesn't say anything about the man as a theologian. Tedious little conspiracy - but fairly irrelevant to the subject.
And al-Khoury's lesson on tolerance:
* "What civilized man [allows] homosexuality, homosexual marriage, loss of bloodline? Most of those who rule the West are bastards and illegitimate children..." (p. 11)
Well, what can we say? Check out what the Nigerian Episcopalians have said on the same subject matters.
The world is not warm and fuzzy.
When "MEMRI cut almost all of al-Khoury's lines," they were doing him a favor. At least by my standards.
Whether they were doing him a favour, the selective cutting with a view to creating - well, a highly creative end result as compared to the straight out transcript - is illustrative of what might charitably be characterised as a "spin factory" approach to editorial practice. Creation of an image rather than fidelity to the underlying materials.
Of course, you have focused on some of our old dino of a tedious theologian's worst lines, no surprise there. I suppose it's a natural reaction to the deflating of the original mythology of the MEMRI tape to something more pedestrian.
mary, for pete's sake, at least read the thread before you jump in, you idiot. your quote is MEMRI's translation which we are disputing both in context and content.
AMac, uhhh....free speech anyone? that was a debate, right? I don't agree with all of what either of them said--the point of a debate is to present two sides.
you have to admit MEMRI did not do that.
did anyone even look at my link on apostasy and moderate Islam ?
i thought Mutawakkil's book, Islam and International Human Rights Declarations, looks awesome. You should check it out.
Now that is the sort of translation MEMRI should address, if the angry dog is right about their charter.
By the way, in rereading this, it strikes me a clarification is needed:
2. Are MEMRI transcripts false? Are they faulty? Is it agitprop?
--So far, no credible evidence to show that to be the case.
Well 'credible evidence' strikes me as an 'eye of the beholder' sort of issue in this context, although the strung together claims supra mix rather different observations.
I, of course, was not "presenting" anything at all, but making a passing observation, unlike Matsuwhatever who was actually arguing with you, no doubt out of boredom.
Personally only in the last item, re agitprop, would I make a claim in the aggregate.
Matoko, Anon #37, & Lounsbury: repeated unsupported assertions don't make convincing arguments.
See again above, I'd appreciate you not confusing mere passing observation on my part with actual argumentation (although perhaps considering standards of intellect this must be forgiven in many instances).
If the point is that MEMRI often serves Israeli interests: duh. Truthful renditions of others' statements could well serve party X's interests, whoever X may be.
Now here, simply so that the readers understand what the actual observation is (rather than the straw man or other hand waving distortions of an observation or argument), the near-standard observation among neutral (by which I mean those not particularly for or against Israel) observers who are fluent in Arabic is that MEMRI translations suffer the following characteristics:
(i) A focus on certain negative topics and subject matter - with a tendency to go fishing among obscure marginal publications to find the material;
(ii) Consistent slant in the translation towards the "worst possible reading." Arabic is of course a hard language to translate, any one translation is hardly proof.
(iii) Selective presentation of materials (as in the rather chopped up Sultan tape).
In the collective, it is hard for the Arabic speaker not to notice an ongoing agenda with respect to presenting a consistently negative image of discourse in Arabic media (those exceptions being in presenting 'confirmatory' fringe 'reformists' like Sultan).
Truthful renditions?
Eh. I find MEMRI's practice fall well short of truthful. Not quite lying either, and in general a good job for its intended objectives.
Now my dear interlocutor will ask me to prove this. I would merely observe the 'proving' what I just observed is my opinion (and shared by many not particularly biased individuals, see Abu Aardvark, etc.) really requires extensive effort. A book really.
Rather like the US Bolshy Right's claims of Liberal [i.e. Left] bias in the American Media.
To be frank, unprovable without a book - a mere blog post is not going to be convincing. (Well, not to anyone who doesn't already on a tear against Israel and looking for Evil Zionists).
Now, given I am a busy professional, and frankly far too lazy to try to convince a bunch of online whankers who strike me as afraid-of-Muslims-going-boo-in-the-dark (but I might be wrong, which is okay, I put little effort into acquiring the impression), as a not very self-amusing losing proposition to begin with.
Overall, then, my observation re MEMRI is just that, an informed observation. I am sure the axe-grinders and ideologues will dismiss out of hand, which is fine. Otherwise, I merely observe that the image MEMRI would give me of the Arab media is so far off of what I get as an Arabic speaker working in region (normally) that it's almost cartoonish. Rather like an Arab service that only translated Ann Coulter types. True? Yes. Balanced view? Kha.
But you'll believe what you want regardless, so merely for the record.
Ciao.
I've not seen the disinterested yet distainful cynic pose pulled off with such aplomb. Bravo.
Ciao.
Oh, also for the record....
Many of us here would be interested in continued updates of how MEMRI is not presenting a complete picture. Bring us the links, please. Multiple points of view are always welcome.
Lame, holier-than-thou, "I know more than you", but "I'm too busy to demonstrate", and "You've already made up your mind anyway" commenters? Not so much.
Al-Khouly DID NOT put a "fatwa" on Wafa Sultan nor did he even condemn her.
Let's get that straight -- that's the main thing the complete transcript unequivocally demonstrates.
Al-Khouly has a lot of, ahh, interesting ideas but his views on apostasy, atheists and insulting Islam is A-OK.
My Dear Lurker:
Yes, having professional obligations (bloody tedious quarterly reporting and that stupid SOX idiocy) that get in the way of satisfying online demands is terribly lame and even depressing, but what can I say, I lack the time to devote to monitoring MEMRI, undertaking counter-translations for your vetting, and similar rather work-like engagements. Of course if you wish to finance the same, I'm sure myself and my colleagues would be quite cost-effective.
However, if you wish to track MEMRI or desire commentary, bringing such to the attention of Aqoul and Abu Aardvark seems reasonable. We did, after all, spend the time on this transcript when it appeared to be particularly, well, egregious.
More generally, of course places like Abu Aardvark and our own 'Aqoul talk about the normal world of Arab media.
I can understand, I may add, the frustration with Juan Cole - his rather tedious politics and boringly typical US Left Academic posturing irritates me as well, along with his utter economic illiteracy. That being said, his commentary specficially on the Arab world is decent enough and quite good on Shiite things. Some of the comments supra were really tritely overdone.
The Lounsbury
#49 etc.
Amusing, but also toxic to serious discourse. Too bad, as beneath the loutish facade there are points worth discussing. But, as one b.p. to another, 'nuff said.
Arrividerci.
The fact that al-Khoury referenced the compulsion verse is mitigated by the fact that in the immediately preceding sentences he referenced and justified the sword verse (the unbelievers should have been killed and peace should not have been made with the polytheist)
What some of us are hoping for from moderates is for the tension between tolerance and vioence to be resolved. I don't believe al-Khoury did that.
The fact that al-Khoury referenced the compulsion verse is mitigated by the fact that in the immediately preceding sentences he referenced and justified the sword verse (the unbelievers should have been killed and peace should not have been made with the polytheist)
PD, come on now, read the whole transcript. It only takes a few minutes and context is everything.
Al-Khouly only "referenced" the sword verse because Wafa Sultan had just thrown it in his face and demanded that he justify it. Al-Khouly actually makes a commendable effort to explain why one of the more distressing passages in the Quran should not have any application in the modern world. You can fault Al-Khouly's grasp of history here, but on this issue, there is no denying his heart is in the right place.
Anon, I will go back and read it tommorow. My browser isn't opening the transcript right now. My recollection though is that the tension between the sword and tolerance remained unresolved. I understand that by placing the sword in an historic context, tolerance is elevated, but my recollection was that this point was too subtle and ambiguous and certainly no help to the Abdul Rahmans of the world for the foreseeable future.
grrr.
all i ever hear is how moderate muslims won't stand up.
one stands up and condemns saud and the wahabbists, and says compulsion is wrong, and that is not enough.
it will never be enough, will it?
none of you can credibly argue that MEMRI's presentation was unbiased-- THEY ONLY PRESENTED ONE SIDE.
excerpts my ass.
bring more evidence of MEMRI's duplicity.
feh.
wtf does that have to do with any other translation they've done?
THIS ONE IS BIASED.
The link in comment #48 on "Apostasy and moderate Islam" was indeed very interesting. It's the subject of a new post.
Thanks, Matoko!
Frustrated matoko_aukousmatikoi? How about repeatedly asking for some objective proof that the MEMRI translation is false and being told to look it up. And when I look it up, I'm either ignored when I point out that heratic and atheist have synonymous meanings in Arabic, or I'm told that my authority is a disgruntled apostate when I point out Islamic legal authority that finds atheism to be a heracy. So I waste my time and all we get here is lip from you that its obvious that MEMRI is wrong because MEMRI is biased and how do we know MEMRI is biased? Because MEMRI is wrong.
And how many times do I have to go back to the MEMRI site to confirm that they never mentioned "apostasy" or "fatwa"?
But in any event, I agree with AMac, I appreciated the link in 48, which I thought was much more clear and bold about retiring the sword in favor of tolerance.
Well, that's a rather dishonest (or stupid) rendition, Shaw. Actually our Matso... was arguing the bias in MEMRI, per Matso..., was evident and proven from the selective editing of the interview to profoundly change the impression of how the interaction actually went and introduce (leaving aside some terminology quibbles) the impression that the fine Azhar Dr said things he did not.
Certainly I would be, how shall I say, astounded, that if an organisation of unpleasing ideological character to this Blog's authors and readres played such an interesting game that the response would be quite so sanguine. But hypocrisy is such a fine human trait.
(On the other hand the apostasy and fatwa issue seems to be extraneous to MEMRI per se, and arising in secondary "commentary" in the blogosphere.)
Now, of course, I can understand the frustration on Matso... as your own rendition of observations made is somewhat lacking in either honesty or clarity (which of course renders the question willful misreading or stupdity more interesting).
But simply for your edification re Bat Ye'or, the author is not an apostate, nor even a Muslim (or an Islamic legal authority). She is something of an axe grinder re Islam, but that would seem very much up the alley of much commentary here (given citations to that ever so enlightening LGF).
In any case, as noted supra, should you want commentary on the usages in the 'Aqoul translation, please do ask the translators directly. Our colleague and main translator spent much effort on fairness all around - unlike MEMRI to be sure.
Not enough time to discuss translation issues, but enough time for long, pompous namecalling comments?
If you have the time, why don't you look up the meaning of the word "false," as in an accusation of "false translation."
And I took Matso at his word that Bat Ye'or was an apostate. Won't happen again.
matoko -
You don't leave an email address, so I'll write what I would have emailed here.
I'm happy to have you here, and enjoy the debate - but "...at least read the thread before you jump in, you idiot." isn't the kind of debate I think you want to enagge in or the kind that we want to host.
You seem plenty well-informed enough to make your points without kindergarten namecalling.
A.L.
Well, translation issues are best addressed by the actual translators. Since it is trivially easy for you to pose the questions to the same chez Aqoul, as I did not wokr on the translation, and it doesn't entertain me to be your mailing agent.....
However, moderate corrective replies with some little pokes at your clumsy characterisations are fine distractions from my first quarter reporting work, and take little effort at all. They also amuse me.
Clear enough or should I bluntly say you are being a lazy whinging git?
As to the false translation issue, not sure what you're refering to - but if it is something Matso said, well, there seem to be English language issues there so it would be a bit unfair and tedious to pick on that, no? Although I confess confusion on language usage when discussing a contested translation or more is a bit frustrating and annoying.
Re the Bat Yeor thing, I believe you misunderstood Matso's admittedly somewhat tangled English. I believe the point was citing a non-Muslim widely regarded in informed circles as an axe grinding crank (not merely hostile, a crank) as your authority is not likely to prove particularly convincing on the issue. As if.... you see? That's how I read it, if I recall (being far too lazy to scroll up).
That being said, I don't have a particular point of view on the exact question, other than Bat Yeor is in fact in areas where I do have an opinion, a crank.
armed, sorry, but mary and i have history.
i apolo for loosing my temper, but i am rather tired of having to argue the same points both here and at dean's.
i think it is dishonest of her to have an argument rebutted there and then trot it over here for a different (hopefully more sympathetic) audience.
PD, i am arguing from content and context on the translation. MY Iraqi/english dictionary defines mulhidah as aetheist, and the context of Al-Khoury's statement makes it clear what he meant.
I never said MEMRI claimed a fatwa, Sultan did to the
Times. I told you Al-Khoury was from a different school of sharia jurisprudence and you offer me wahabbist doctrine and bat-yeor to contradict my analysis.
Just one question-- Is it accurate for MEMRI to present ONLY ONE SIDE OF A DEBATE and one iffy, out of context translation?
matoko - I read the translation you posted, and have a suggestion. Why don't you put something together that highlights the differences in meaning and explains why you feel that the conclusion a reader (watcher) would draw is substantially different interpretation.
If it's an interesting argument (and I don;t mean one I agree with, but one that presents interesting facts or arguments) I'll post it as a guest post.
I'm sure there will be an interesting discussion afterward...
A.L.
I'm happy to have you here, and enjoy the debate - but "...at least read the thread before you jump in, you idiot." isn't the kind of debate I think you want to enagge in or the kind that we want to host.
You seem plenty well-informed enough to make your points without kindergarten namecalling.
Thanks, A.L. - the funny thing is, the kindergarten namecalling was misdirected. matoko has a habit of calling me nasty names, but the 'Mary' in comment #45 was not me.
I don't know who she was, but she deserves an apology, matoko.
[maryatexitzero]
ok.
I'm sorry.
>:-(
my bad.
mebbe winds should unique-ify names to avoid this confusion.
sure sounded the same to me. ;)
If I can be so bold as to raise another point, that I for one feel that Israel and Jews in general are so much the target of hate-propaganda by the official media organs of many if not most Arab countries, that even if MEMRI were using some counter-propaganda and deliberate disinformation warfare, that this would be entirely justifiable and acceptible to me.
Certainly the argument about a one word "mistranslation" by one translator in one translation at MEMRI proves absolutely nothing. So maybe the translator had a bad day. I am somewhat bilingual, though not in Arabic, and I find that movie subtitles are a wonder to behold how frequently translations differ from my understanding of the original.
If Matoko and 'Aquol are trying to prove a general case of deliberate mistranslation by MEMRI they are going to have to find a great deal more evidence than this one word error. And even then I would argue that Israel is justified in counterattacking with disinformation of her own, by the sheer volume of hate-propaganda that is directed at her from the other side.
By the way Matoko, did you try emailing MEMRI to see if they had any comment about their so-called error before you launched on your anti-MEMRI jihad? Maybe they would have printed a correction if someone had pointed out a genuine mistake?
I would suggest that if WoC is going to give space to Matoko to attack MEMRI, then fairness would require that MEMRI be informed and given a right to reply.
And even then I would argue that Israel is justified in counterattacking with disinformation of her own, by the sheer volume of hate-propaganda that is directed at her from the other side.
This is really silly. I don't see what "justification" has to do with it. Assuming, for the purposes of argument, that you're correct about the "sheer volume of hate-propaganda that is directed at her from the other side," how much of this propaganda are you subjected to in the West? The U.S. media is not noticeably overrun with anti-Israel jihadi agitprop.
MEMRI directs its offerings at a Western audience. If MEMRI is, in fact, "lying," it is lying to YOU. How can you possible be OK with that?
Well, blessed are the ideological excuse makers, for their labour is never done.
But I am being unkind, in fact Darling's comment interests me.
If I can be so bold as to raise another point, that I for one feel that Israel and Jews in general are so much the target of hate-propaganda by the official media organs of many if not most Arab countries, that even if MEMRI were using some counter-propaganda and deliberate disinformation warfare, that this would be entirely justifiable and acceptible to me.
In short, as a partisan, you like your Agitprop and support it.
That's a fair, sensible statement, and I certainly understand it. Indeed, I applaud the honesty, rather more refreshing than the mealy mouthed excuse making I saw earlrier, and incoherent hand waving.
Now, I added emphasis to two points in the text that, well, irritated me.
Mr Darling "knows" the evils of the Arab Media via the very same source that I have characterised as primarily concerned with focusing on the same.
He characterises Israel as being the target of hate propaganda and the like in "many, if not most" Arab countries.
Here I have a bit of a problem.
I've seen the Arab media evolve over the years.
From the really quite sporting 1970-1980s when the absolute worst stereotypes about Arab discourse on the Jews and Israel were without question true throughout the region (with some exceptions, e.g. the Maghrebines never tended to go in for bashing their own Jews, unlike the Easterners, and e.g. in Morocco the Jewish elite remain close and influential to the Royal government).
Through the 1990s and to the present where I frankly feel Darling's characterisation (although this is what MEMRI pimps) is off-base.
Of course, I am a mere business professional, not a media critic with all the time in the world (or a Gov sponsored op) to read a million and one papers, etc.
My issue then is double:
(i) The pretension among, I shall call them the American Hyper Zionists(*), that the Arab world remains mired in 70s style ranting,
(ii) The image that MEMRI sells that aims to confirm the same.
(*: Being of the more Zionist than thou, than good old Josho from TA, e.g.)
That is not to say there is not a lot of ugly discourse out there (nor that the Arab Sats don't descend into West Bank All the Time TV), however the image Darling I think has in his head strikes me as plain out wrong.
The issue, however, is how would one go about proving that (i.e. that Darling has an image of Arab discourse in gross that is exagerated and more negative than warrented). I would suggest Abu Aardvark (to pimp a blog and fellow I like) who has a fair-minded book out is a helpful antidote to the MEMRI view.
Now that being said, I want to underline that MEMRI does highlight real discourse and isn't always distortive (or not always grossly so). Rather, one simply has to understand MEMRI is not an unbiased slice of the average Arab media consumption.
I would opine it gives you a good slice of what the active Israel hater can seek out and consume.
Now, moving on to Darling's far less enlightening, and rather tedious "arguing":
Certainly the argument about a one word "mistranslation" by one translator in one translation at MEMRI proves absolutely nothing. So maybe the translator had a bad day.
Or maybe you're engaging in a pitiful and rather tedious search for anything and everything to remove the sensation of cognitive dissonance from your brain.
On the overall translation, I defer to my colleague and friends at Aqoul who worked diligently, and I would say fairly, in translating the al Jazeera transcript. We were motivated, all, by the rather exreme hatchet job MEMRI did on the original tape.
More than "one word" - the MEMRI work was as a I said, a hatchet job that took an interesting broadcast and tore it up into something rather one-sided and of passing resemblance to the original.
I should note given the extensive slicing and dicing but of a full tape, the "Int. Prop" excuse trotted out earlier is absurd and even grotesque in its self deception. However, if you wish to grotesquely self-deceive yourself to keep that warm fuzzy feeling, feel free.
At best, the distortion brought by the heavy editing and slanted translation - rather egregious in its overall effect - suggest an organisation that either has highly slanted editorial standards, or a rather egregious failure in editorial standards. Not a translator having a bad day (unless somehow the same was responsible for editorial polishing, the cuts, etc. etc. Rather a lot of work, actually).
Now, I repeat, were Darling or others on this blog to find the same behaviour on the part of an organisation on the other side of their ideological preferences, this sort of slicing and dicing would be waved as a bloody flag of bias.
However, Bolshy tendancies being what they are, ideology rather puts a different light on it....
That being said, I myself was a bit startled at the MEMRI product. I normally expect (not that I pay immense attention to MEMRI overall, hardly need to) something rather more subtle from them, the skewed but not wrong translation, etc. Agitprop, yes, but at least quality. This particular example (Sultan) is really beneath them . One should not, in this instance, in my personal opinion (my colleagues at Aqoul may differ) exclude a failure of their editorial process.
I am somewhat bilingual, though not in Arabic, and I find that movie subtitles are a wonder to behold how frequently translations differ from my understanding of the original.
Well, I am somewhat quatrilingual and find this particular sally sad.
But, yes, you're right, translation is an art and with a language like Arabic, one has a sea of meanings (an actual expression in Arabic, about Arabic: "it is the sea.").
Thus, again, normally I would not accuse MEMRI of mistranslating, but rather having a sustained penchant for choosing the worst possible meaning from a range of meanings. Wrong? Not necessarily, although the sustained penchant rather strongly underlines the kind of bias.
A hanging offence?
Not necessarily. Again, much of the time MEMRI is covering a certain kind of discourse that does in fact exist. It may not be typical, but it exists.
If Matoko and 'Aquol are trying to prove a general case of deliberate mistranslation by MEMRI they are going to have to find a great deal more evidence than this one word error.
Well, speaking for 'Aqoul - Matoko is merely someone who liked our transcript - we don't have to do a great deal more of anything at all, thank you very much. It would be, to be brutally frank, a waste of our time. You're a vrai croyant who likes the warm fuzzies that MEMRI gives you, and will generate whatever irrational excuses that are necessary for the same.
As it stands at present, I, as 'Aqoul's co-founder feel we did quite enough work (for free mind you), and that the differences between the full Jazeerah tape and the MEMRI hack job speak bountifully to a rather biased edit - translation of the same. One that gives a substantially different impression than the original.
Since Mr Darling is a okay with such, and finds it merely a bad day's work by the translator (and tape editors, and overall editor), well, that's fine by us.
As to why we wouldn't be bothered with 'further proofs,' - well this speaks eloquently:
And even then I would argue that Israel is justified in counterattacking with disinformation of her own, by the sheer volume of hate-propaganda that is directed at her from the other side.
In short, Agitprop is justified.
Again, as I noted supra, I understand and respect the position (while questioning the reality underpinning Darling's impression, which while not necessarily clear to me, rather strikes me as one vastly overdone).
I don't have even the slightest shred of respect for the absurd excuse making, but hardly something to be worried about I am sure.
By the way Matoko, did you try emailing MEMRI to see if they had any comment about their so-called error before you launched on your anti-MEMRI jihad? Maybe they would have printed a correction if someone had pointed out a genuine mistake?
Why should he?
He's commenting on blogs.
Really rather overdone I should think.
I would suggest that if WoC is going to give space to Matoko to attack MEMRI, then fairness would require that MEMRI be informed and given a right to reply.
I would suggest that you've a bizarre and deluded sense of importance as to blog comments threads. But what the heck, if Winds of Change takes its comments threads that seriously, why not?
Yours truly,
Collier Lounsbury
Er, I am not sure why I obtained the delusion that I was responding to a "Dan Darling" rather than "Dan Dare" - but my apologies on that inadvertant and boring error.
The Lounsbury,
I agree with almost everything you said about me.
Thank you for the compliments.
especially this bit:
"In short, as a partisan, you like your Agitprop and support it."
Amen
All sides in wars use information as a weapon. We do it. Israel does it. The Arabs do it. The Russians do it. The Chinese do it.
Yes undoubtedly some of Israel's propaganda is directed at us. As ours is directed at them and the Arabs.
That's why they say truth is the first casualty in war.
I think WoC is fair-minded enough to insist that MEMRI be at least offered a right of reply, whether they choose to take it up is up to them.
Dare:
Well, I think it more than slightly delusional to think of comments threads in a blog as something generating a right to reply (MEMRI can slide on by and comment, I am sure). A full out post really would generate a 'right' by Matso or myself to reply.
All rather overdone. It is, afterall, a blog.
Dan Dare #69:
(1) Does MEMRI practice disinformation to further Israeli goals?
(2) If they do, is it okay?
------
(1) Selective presentations: obviously, yes. Distortions of the speakers' meanings? For all the electronic ink spilled on this point, I still haven't seen the evidence of same presented. "That's because you looove Isreal" is a featherweight argument.
(2) Disinformation OK? Not to me. (I see in a just-submitted comment that it's alright by you. Well, then.)
------
MEMRI and for that matter other translations, e.g. Meph's, help address two issues. One is the natural tendency of people to trim their sails of their rhetoric to the audience at hand. For example, if you want to learn nothing about the KSA's policies, read the lavish inserts that they pay The New Republic to publish.
The related issue is the concern about dissimulation/taqiyya and related doctrines, in both Shi'a and Sunni traditions.
What Arabic-speakers say in Arabic to Arab audiences is often more interesting and more informative than what they say to Western audiences in English.
Dear All Who Did Not Address Their Comments To Aqoul,
Much as I appreciate this lively commentary, I cannot help but be disappointed at the reluctance of people to bring grievances to Aqoul and Meph in person. Whether this is laziness or pure lack of confidence in abilities to tackle arguments from the horse's mouth I am not sure. As I am not going to make a concerted effort to produce a translation and then scour the net looking for people's queries and doubts I extend Lounsbury's invitation yet again.
If the commenters won't go to the mountain, then bring the mountain to the commenters.
(1) Does MEMRI practice disinformation to further Israeli goals?
I've no idea, because I don't speak Arabic.
(2) If they do, is it okay?
Yes it's fine with me. Propaganda is a long-established principal in war used by all sides in all wars I've ever heard of. To my knowledge it has not been banned by any of the Geneva Conventions.
I really feel that the only people who can properly reply to 'Aquol's complaints against MEMRI are MEMRI themselves. That's one of the reasons I hope WoC brings the matter to their attention. I would really like to hear MEMRI's side of it.
This is why I suggested Matoko should have emailed MEMRI with the criticisms before launching her campaign on all the blogs that she listed on her blog. Who can better deal with the criticism than MEMRI themselves?
Collier 'The' Lounsbury -
I've come over to read your translation (and bookmarked your site). I made an offer upthread to matoko to do a piece highlighting the substantial differences in meaning between your translation and MEMRI's, whereupon we'd post it (or link it if you wanted to do it on your site).
From my lunchtime scan, there was certainly a lot of texture trimmed from the MEMRI piece, but I didn't see smoking guns that dramatically changed the meaning of the excerpts they posted.
I may well be wrong (a first! - kidding...) and would seriously love to see something that laid the problem out in an accessible enough way that our readers could be faced with it and have to respond.
Offer's open.
A.L.
lol, i have complied with armed's request.
i can't link the cross-post here because it is blogspot.
amazingly, dr.rusty shackelford of the Jawa Report mailed me to say "keen insight", and give me interesting ideas that will be featured in my post.
AMac, over to you.
;)
armed, you didn't get my email?
also, armed, i am not an author at 'Aqoul.
i am merely a transient jinnilyyah there.
;)
oh, yes, like Charles emailed Rather questioning the TANG memos?
If you put something in the public domain, you better be able to answer for it's veracity.
There are two issues here. One is accurate translation, one is accurate coverage.
MEMRI selectively editted the transcript. They left out one entire side of a debate.
Much as I appreciate this lively commentary, I cannot help but be disappointed at the reluctance of people to bring grievances to Aqoul and Meph in person. Whether this is laziness or pure lack of confidence in abilities to tackle arguments from the horse's mouth I am not sure.
Sadly, it's obvious from many of the comments here that some posters were simply too lazy to read through it. It's shame, really, Meph. You've made a huge contribution on an extremely important topic. I think it would be much more useful to discuss what Al-Khouly had to say. He is, after all, a respected cleric and Islamic opinion maker. Wafa Sultan, as entertaining as she is, is little more than a gadfly in the Islamic world. As much as it strokes our egos, what she has to say is neither influential nor representative of opinion in the Islamic world.
A few items:
First, Meph, the main person behind the effort knows about this because I alerted my colleagues. Else, the, well, intriguing lack of interest in actually going to the translator would have remained on its own.
Second, re "Armed Liberal"
I've come over to read your translation (and bookmarked your site).
Well, to be clear, it is neither my translation nor my site. I am a kind of co-founder, but the main work on this was with the folks id'ed in the proper post. I would not like to claim any responsibility for their hard work.
I made an offer upthread to matoko to do a piece highlighting the substantial differences in meaning between your translation and MEMRI's, whereupon we'd post it (or link it if you wanted to do it on your site).
Matok whateverhisname is isn't part of 'Aqoul or associated with us, etc.
I didn't notice it myself.
As to the extra work, well, depends on my colleagues free time. I would suggest, however, that were Aqoul to look at this, it would be in the total context, and not mere 'death by cuts' word quibbles.
Again, however, my co-authors just spent some time on generating the original, I can't speak to their free time for follow on. I do expect we'd like to return to it, ideally.
From my lunchtime scan, there was certainly a lot of texture trimmed from the MEMRI piece, but I didn't see smoking guns that dramatically changed the meaning of the excerpts they posted.
Well, again, total video against a video that crafted an entirely different encounter. Comparing merely excerpt to text strikes me as rather impoverished.
But I do note 'Aqoul made no claims of "smoking guns" to my knowledge (of course I have been busy, so perhaps we have).
So, in summary, with respect to questions as to the actual translation and language choices, you know where to find the authors.
As to further work, perhaps, as time permits and my co authors motivations. Myself, I have Quarterly Reporting that makes the next few weeks a bit tight.
At the very least, you have the philosophy behind the document.
Matoko's post is "Meme Wars Update."
Because his web-log is on Blo*spot, the link will require a cut-and-paste operation. Copy the line into the Address bar of your browser, then delete the space between "blog" and "spot" before hitting "Return."
http://quantumghosts.blog spot.com/2006/03/meme-war-update.html
Teaser: interesting links to posts by Dean Esmay and Demosophist.
A.L., over to you.
matoako -
Sorry, I brilliantly left a machine on at home that's downloading all my emails while I'm at work - preventing me from seeing them on this machine.
D'ooh.
A.L.
matoko, "MEMRI selectively editted the transcript. They left out one entire side of a debate."
I would suggest that if they concentrated on one side it was because hers was the point of view they found so fascinating. The reaction of the right blogosphere would suggest that they weren't the only ones. It was awesome to see an Arab woman stand up for herself publicly in this way. This is not something we see every day.
If MEMRI did some selective editing to improve the focus of the report, I am not sure that this is anything different than what goes on all the time even in Western news media. It is common to edit dialogues where one side is much more newsworthy to your audience than the other. Why would a Western non-muslim care about what the old man had to say - other than establishing that he was some kind of establishment type - she was the interesting one.
Dan Dare:
For the record:
Highlighting passages that MEMRI thinks are interesting/important: fine.
Selective editing to improve the focus of the report: verboten. MEMRI calls their work product a transcript, not an opinion piece. That demands their best good-faith effort at translation and, well, transcription.
This is either an irrelevancy, or at the heart of the matter. At the moment, I don't know which.
AMac
The MEMRI document linked at Matoko's website says:
Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006
(My emphasis)
It does not claim to be a complete transcript.
But it was NOT an interview.
It was a debate.
That is a lie or a misrepresentqation right there.
#90 and #91 are both irrelevant to the matter at hand.
FWIW I've now done a first pass at a head-to-head comparison between the two purported transcripts, one complete and one a collection of excerpts. They broadly match. Matoko has already contested some of MEMRI's word choices; I'm not talking about that level of detail.
I've done my bit to carry this thread astray again (sorry, again). I'll get back to my offline life until A.L. posts.
Matoko,
But it was NOT an interview. It was a debate. That is a lie or a misrepresentqation right there.
FWIW Adobe's search function can't find either word in the complete 'Aquol translation.
The nearest I've found is on page 1 where the host says:
"We begin the discussion after the break".
So it wasn't an interview or a debate.
It was a discussion.
I trust that hair is now adequately split?
gak!
read the translation. this a regular al jazheera show, with a moderator asking questions of two guests. sounds like debate format to me.
and still, it was NOT an interview.
Matoko.
OK you're right.
It was more of a debate than an interview.
BTW I took the Ghost in the Shell 2 Innocence test last night.
I'm thinking of changing my blogname to Batou.
Kind of appropriate don't you think?
IF I may
The reaction of the right blogosphere would suggest that they weren't the only ones. It was awesome to see an Arab woman stand up for herself publicly in this way. This is not something we see every day.
So, there is a market among poorly travelled Islamophobic American commentators for Arab dominatrixes.
Interesting, perhaps a market I should work on serving.
Of course, Arab women standing up for themselves, well.....hardly that novel.
But who am I to deflate the masturbatory fantasies of the Tighty Wighty Righty?
I would add the following shows such a dangerously impoverished understanding of the editorial process that I am actually astonished. Although, on the other hand, one has to suspect it really is merely the over-active grinding of the partisan mind attempting to avoid cognitive dissonance:
If MEMRI did some selective editing to improve the focus of the report, I am not sure that this is anything different than what goes on all the time even in Western news media. It is common to edit dialogues where one side is much more newsworthy to your audience than the other. Why would a Western non-muslim care about what the old man had to say - other than establishing that he was some kind of establishment type - she was the interesting one.
A thing of beauty, that last particularly illogical twisting of any kind of standard other than the party line.
Well, the Bolshy mind can be astounding.
Le Lounsbury -
You were doing so well...and then "...who am I to deflate the masturbatory fantasies of the Tighty Wighty Righty?"
There are a couple of interesting discussions to have about both the specific dialog under discussion - and the various views of it - and about the broader issue of the state of Arab thought today.
Do you really think that's going to make them happen?
A.L.
TL, I would recommend sticking to the ol' day job. Afraid you just don't have what it takes in the dominatrix department.
Afraid you just don't have what it takes in the dominatrix department.
but, joe, i do!
i got 96% evil.
try it, you'll like it.
evil test
via razib
I only scored about 68% evil but there were a number of questions I was not prepared to answer online. You never know who is watching.
The Lounsbury
You know I really don't know why you see cognitive dissonance. And what is so illogical?
I am not a muslim, why is the old man of any interest to me? I am not such a busybody as to want to "reform" MENA. That is their problem.
But the right of women from a notoriously patriarchal culture, (or so it has been represented to us, perhaps unjustly, I cannot say) to reject superstition in America and the West (including Israel) and follow rational self-determined lives if they wish. Now that is very exciting to me.
I don't know how many people have bothered to scroll this far down in the discussion, but might I point out that dear Matoko-chan is a female-type person?
And one who likes anime! Glavin!
Oh yeah, and I'm entirely on her side. As someone who's been 100% committed to the GWOT, including the important battlefield in that larger struggle which is Iraq, I have long maintained that Islamophobia IS real and IS an evil, and that whatever their value in some departments we have to be careful with groups like MEMRI because they DO present a slant and "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" isn't their central goal. Advocacy is. Which is fine, advocacy is what they're all about.
But even advocacy goes too far at times. "Fake but accurate" is not a defense for Dan Rather, and it's not for others.
One of the biggest truth-casualties here, by the way, is the notion that there was anything startling, amazing, or original about Sultan's angry anti-Muslim screed on Al-Jazeera. Or that it's unusual to see an outspoken angry woman be critical of men on Al-Jazeera. Or that condemnation of the Saudi version of Sharia is unusual on Al-Jazeera. If you "haven't seen anything like it before," that should cause you to pause and reflect and wonder: people who actually watch Arab television on a regular basis found it about as unremarkable as your average segment on Bill O'Reilly's show. Hello? Hello? Anyone listening?
Read Abu Aardvark's blog. You'll find it right here. I suggest reading it regularly, because it's a blog, not a single book that's going to answer all your questions instantly.
But I'll go further:
I suggest that Joe Katzman, Armed Liberal, and the rest of the WOC crew offer Abu Aardvark a post as co-blogger on Winds of Change.
In fact, I dare you.
My view is that Islamic radicalism can never be defeated if we do not have muslims on our side. And we aren't going to get muslims on our side by consistently distorting them and their worldview, are we?
This isn't like the war against Tojo's Japan. But even in that war, we needed friends in that part of the world.
I do understand and respect where you are coming from Dean. Personally I simply think we have no time or need to 'defeat' Islamic radicalism. Keep it out of America, and the West. Move as fast as possible to eliminate oil dependence so that we can move to a post-fossil-fuel age.
We need this and the Earth needs this.
I want a crash program to build nuclear, wind and solar, plug-in lithium-ion hybrid cars with ultralight carbon fibre bodies for people and electric rail for freight. We can be 100% post-oil by 2020. Intercontinental planes and shipping can burn modified biofuels. Domestic airlines can be replaced by 200kph high-speed electric trains and 400kph maglev. The Arabs must decide their own future in a world that will no longer need or permit the burning of what remains of fossil fuels. The time has come to move on from Iraq and Afghanistan. We must disengage from the Middle East within the next 5 years, because an even bigger challenge is fast arriving from the Far East.
And Matoko my advice to you (not that you will take my advice, but anyway): Give up Arabic and learn Mandarin. Much better you be prepared for next decade's challenges rather than last decade's. Islam is passing away like all superstitions. China will be a problem for the West in general and America in particular for the next 100 years. This is my best judgement and prediction.
America can only be beaten by a nation that is even more excellent at science than you. Such a nation is hatching now on the far side of the Pacific basin. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Let the Chinese deal with radical Islam if they have the stomach for it.
I've no doubt that economies will go up and down in the short term. But does anyone doubt that China is the real challenge to America in the 21st century? Islam is just a huge distraction that floated in on peak oil.
More discussion on Wafa Sultan and Ibrahim al-Khouly at this entry.
TL, I would recommend sticking to the ol' day job. Afraid you just don't have what it takes in the dominatrix department.
Well, that is besides the point old man, Dare has brilliantly pointed out that the Bolshy American Right wants Porn. No accurate videos or a real sense of the MENA region. (Although the delusional commentary on Iraq I suppose long ago pointed that out) They want Porn. Arab women dominatrix fantasies, etc.
Certainly a sort of G rated porn, but nevertheless fantasy delivery.
It's actually brilliant as an insight, and I thank Dare for leading me to it.
Question is, does the Bolshy American Right (who for pure alliterative purposes I refered to as Tighty Wighty Righty) represent a large enough market with the disposable income to make Arab Dominatrix Productions viable?
As for AL to me:
Le Lounsbury -
You were doing so well...and then "...who am I to deflate the masturbatory fantasies of the Tighty Wighty Righty?"
Oh come now, Tighty Wighty Righty has fine comedic value in its juvenile alliteration. I can see that certain posters (e.g. those calling for 'equal time' in a bloody comments thread) take themselves a wee bit too seriously, but really.
There are a couple of interesting discussions to have about both the specific dialog under discussion - and the various views of it - and about the broader issue of the state of Arab thought today.
Do you really think that's going to make them happen?
No, but they're not likely to happen regardless. And anyone offended by silly alliterations like that needs to have a humour transplant right away, regardless. Far worse is calling your colleagues Bolshy thinkers.
Finally, Dare:
You know I really don't know why you see cognitive dissonance.
Of course you don't, that's what makes your posts so delightful in their unconscious, all-too real Bolshiness.
And what is so illogical?
Oh the tensions between criticisms of the Arab media and the endorsement of an essentially ideologically driven Bolshy type approach to media content.
Although, on another level, in the context of not giving a damn about the others, it makes sense.
I am not a muslim, why is the old man of any interest to me? I am not such a busybody as to want to "reform" MENA. That is their problem.
Well, the discussion was ostensibly about
reform in the Middle East, etc. Presenting the video as such would require that.
Now, your approach to the video of mere entertainment, and its Arab Dominatrix Porn value is, well, different - insightfull actually - and obviously doesn't need that aspect. It does me you arguing for the veracity of the same all the more entertaning.
But the right of women from a notoriously patriarchal culture, (or so it has been represented to us, perhaps unjustly, I cannot say) to reject superstition in America and the West (including Israel) and follow rational self-determined lives if they wish. Now that is very exciting to me.
Yes, I am sure it is.
Dominatrix porn.
The fantasy of the "looks just like us" Middle East.
Of course in reality one can't form an even vaguely accurate opinion of the exchange from the MEMRI original, although it does make good whanking material.
I suspect, however, the videos of the mohajibat giving fire and brimstone sermons to uni students and the like would prove less marketable. Maybe if one mistranslated.... After all it is about the pornography of confirming desires.
Lounsbury #105:
Your post is interesting, but not really answerable without battling, or signing on to play Gracie Allen to your George Burns. As I alluded to earlier, neither option wholly entrances me. Perhaps D.D. or A.L. will accept your Dare.
To reiterate tiresomely from comment #89, most of us expect good-faith efforts and accuracy in transcripts and translations. Whatever their sources.
The Lounsbury,
If you spent as much time on your quarterlies as you apparently do looking down your nose, perhaps they'd already be filed.
BTW, there is a difference between alliteration and rhyming. Check it out.
Quite true, alliteration and poor rhyming are not the same. I blame it on my narcotics.
Amac, very good, then one should admit that MEMRI displayed something less than good editorial standards. Why your comrades might even admit that had some ordinary American media made similar "editorial" selections, that a little
Jihad against the evils of the "leftist media" would have ensued. The hypocritical indiference irritates me
Lounsbury #103,
Be irritated no more. Recall that there's an entire post up on the subject.
Most of the issues have been given a hearing. As one who doesn't speak Arabic, I am quite sensibly unwilling to jump one way or another on the fine point of translation that centers on the relative merits of the English nouns "heretic" and "atheist." I think that will become clearer over time.
My dear Amac
I profess my irritation with only certain of your colleagues and certain commentators with a faux open mind. Above when I know certain of the same bang on and on about "MSM" and its perceived evils in similar areas.
I would, of course, not expect anyone to change their mind over one slight difference in interpretation - at least in most circumstances.
Regardless, the concept of understanding the MEMRI edit as Arabiyah Dominatrix Video was delicious and merited whatever delays in my Quarterly reporting occured.