I have been receiving emails from a hostile and deeply prejudiced questioner and, fool that I am, answering them (at least up to now). He calls himself a "true academic" and an "intellectual," although from his many misspellings and grammatical stumbles I rather doubt it. Anyway, in his latest salvo was this:
I see recently that you refer to the Iranian president as 'Thug-In-Chief', which is very objective by the way mar [sic] Spencer, and talk about his disgraceful comment concerning Sharon. However you do not mention that similar vile comments were made by the devote [sic] Christian Pat Robertson who called Mr. Sharon's illness revenge from god [sic]. Do you see the problem here Mr. Spencer?
I like that "mar Spencer." In Syriac "Mar" is an honorific title for bishops and holy men. I am neither, but I appreciate the thought.
In any case, the point here is moral equivalency. It is evidently wrong for me to mention Ahmadinejad's thuggishness without also bringing up Pat Robertson. There are many things wrong with this, and these errors are so commonly made, that I thought I would discuss them in a post.
This is not "Vile Comments Made By Whomever Watch." It is Jihad Watch. Ahmadinejad explicitly invokes jihad theology and ideology, and makes his threats and disgusting remarks in that context. Pat Robertson does not. To insist that I can't mention one without mentioning the other is to insist that I change the topic and focus of this site, which is, of course, precisely the point. We are supposed to believe that Ahmadinejad and Robertson are basically two sides of the same coin, and it is unfair for me to discuss one but not the other.
However, one of these men is a head of state. The other isn't. One has declared repeatedly his desire that a sovereign nation disappear from the planet. The other hasn't. One has aggressively pursued nuclear material. The other hasn't. One reflects a murderous ideology held by untold millions all over the world. The other doesn't reflect a murderous ideology held by anyone.
Objectively, is Ahmadinejad a thug? Of course. Do Pat Robertson's remarks somehow make Ahmadinejad not a thug and a menace to the world? They do not. Nor are they remotely equivalent.
Perfect place for this article, then:
The West and the ‘Hoax’ocaust:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010506C
And I quite agree with Mar Spencer: Robertson is an Idiot in my book (he speaks without putting it in context, and then has to correct things time and again), but he is no head of state and nowhere near as influential (re: the bogus 'reconstructionist' conspiracy).
Safe Weekend to all!
Since the reader would like to make comparisons, please refer to the following column, which posted on Dhimmi Watch 1-1-06. Perhaps this will shed some light on how the leaders in Muslim land behave in public.
However, in order to see the light, one must first be willing to open their eyes.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009630.php
I'm a jew and don't agree with every utterance of Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan or Abraham Foxman for that matter. The issue here is simple. Some find Robertson's comments offensive and some find the thug in chief's comments to be offensive. It's a free country(at least here it is). Turn off the boob tube, shut the newspaper closed, or buy a new one. It's your choice. Nobody is going to hang you for having a different religion or sexuality. Nobody is going to stone you to death for offending the religious right(or the secular left). No matter what your persuasions are, you'll eat, drink and be merry(or not)in the greatest country in the world. Here we can believe whatever we want . . . which in a peculiar way also causes atomization and sometimes alienation . . . but whats the alteranative . . . a theocracy where we all march lockstep to the thug and chief. That jerk is ruining his country. Take a look at their standard of living since 1979. It ain't a pretty site. I'm so sick of flawed moral equivilency arguemtns. Let's see . . . the Israelis act like the Nazis(and, of course, Abu Graib shows we do too), the Iranians are jerks and haters--but look what some religious yahoo says in our country(yes a religious yahoo and the thug in chief of Iran are the same in terms of power)why not compare him like this . . . we have our thug in chief, but you evil americans have Lee Harvey Oswald, so we're the same, how bout the cycles of violence in the middle east or my favorite of the libs . . . Yes, it's true that Stalin murdered millions, but we're the same . . . look at the McCarthy arguement. Such people who make such arguements need some brain recharging.
Vile Comments Made By Whomever Watch
"Whomever"? Don't like that.
Another word for this kind of lazy moral equivalence is "whataboutery". Ah, but what about the Spanish Inquisition? What about Vietnam? etc.
(I'm sure it's "equivalence" not "equivalency", but maybe that's an American thang.)
Apparently Pat Robertson gets more international air time than President Bush does in some areas. We had that occurance earlier last year with Pat Robertson suggesting the assassination of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. I wonder how many others are given to think that Pat Robertson represents American policy in the United States?
I guess the ultimate argument against the usual moral equivalence between Muslim and Christian fundamentalists is that given the choice I prefer the ones who drop food on starving populations to the ones who crash airplanes into buildings and I think we all can identify which respective fundamentalists I'm referring to.
Related... ...Al Reuters, I believe it was, in reporting on Sharon's condition yesterday in the context of Ahmadnijad's comments was to repeat the allegations about Sharon's complicity in the Christian Phallangist massacre of 1,000 residents of the Sabrah and Shatillah Palestinian refugee camps. Anyone recall Al Reuters raising the late Syrian leader's massacre of 20,000 Muslims at Hammah as he lay dying?
Strange how in the struggle to provide "balanced" reportage, we end up with such a skewed picture of the world.
What Pat robertson said is technically biblically correct...
If anyone or nation forces israel to give up Gods Land they will reap what they sow..
Now i am not sure but there was a comparision report done after katrina hit us and it was an amazing piece of statistical work..
So i can understand why he said it...
And i partially agree with him...
However,
Pat robertson isnt lying to the world about nukes.
Pat robertson isnt calling for All Islamo faschists to begin the genocide of the jews.
Pat robertson isnt calling for the DEATHS of Millions of Americans to please the FALSE so called god of islam...
Pat robertson isnt be-heading people
Pat robertson hasnt kidnapped americans and held them for 444 days like the Iranian Thug In Chief.
So far All Par robertson has done is quoted a biblical principal...
What has Iranians thug in chief TERRORIST Done...
Just about started another war....
Ain't seen no acts or threats of mass murder from Pat Roberson's camp, have you?
Oh, that's right. Two or three abortion clinic workers have been murdered over the past twenty years. Well then, that's equivalent to what the Moslems have done.
ALWAYS ANGRY ALWAYS HATE ALWAYS AGGRIEVED ALWAYS BITTER ALWAYS
Ain't seen no direct commands from Yaweh to convert, murder, or subjugate all non-JudeoChristians, have you?
Whoops. Forgot that Yahweh's correct name is Allah. Mohammed --- between hot sex sessions with his toddler girlfriend --- revealed that to us.
Another major difference is the fact that the stupid things that Pat Robertson says
are met with a din of derision and disapproval here in the west, while the "Thug in Chief"
has his comments accompanied with stony silence throughout the Islamic world.
Isn't it funny how these folks use such obviously fraudulent descriptions of themselves like "true academic?"
I get these clowns commenting at Mike's America from time to time claiming to be A. veterans B. Former Republicans and Conservatives or C. God.
Why not NAPOLEON? These other claims they make are just as laughable.
The whole moral equivalence garbage is just another of the silly shopworn shibboleths that socialists and like-minded useful idiots have attempted to use to confuse issues for years.
But sowing confusion where clarity is most needed does no service to mankind.
There are things that can be said to be wrong, just as there are things that are black and white. The moral equivalence crowd suffers the intellectual defect of being so blind to contrast that they see only shades of gray.
As for the remainder of what your resident loon has to say: It's hardly worth even considering. The viewpoint of these fringe folks are becoming so increasingly marginalized. By all means let them speak and don't hesitate to respond. But other than the evident sadness of their own emotional/intellectual condition, they are little threat to the truth.
Speaking of "true academics" and "intellectuals," here is a page from one Dr. Alan Godlas with quotes from Bernard Lewis and lots of links on "Jihad and Violence in Islam" that "refute" "the contention that Islam is a religion of violence."
http://www.uga.edu/islam/jihad.html
Am curious if Robert or Hugh know of these articles/arguments/authors...
I clicked on the link. Pure, unadulterated crap.
As a guide to Islam, it could have come from the offices of CAIR. Why is this being allowed at the University of Georgia? Is there no one in the History Department, no one in the office of the President, no one among the trustees, who will examine this nonsense being passed off on unwary students, and make a fuss -- the kind of fuss that will get results?
Anyone from Georgia come to this website? Anyone with friends at the University of Georgia?
Take a look at this course syllabus -- topics and "authorities" including Khaled Abou el Fadl (do click on his name and on "Scholar of the HOuse") and the discredited Esposito, the receiver of Arab money, Lebanese and Saudi.
An incredible find -- an incredible course.
Deserves special attention. What's the name? Alan Godlas? Okay.
"Am curious if Robert or Hugh know of these articles/arguments/authors..."
--- from a posting above
Google "Khaled Abou el Fadl" and "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh." Or --"Daniel Pipes." Do the same for "Esposito." Google "Bernard Lewis and "Hugh Fitzgerald"; google the rest of those so carefully, so craftily, so meretriciously, arranged -- for his innocent unwary students -- by one Alan Goodlas.
Just wanted to note that "mar" is the term used for "Mr." in Israel. "Adone" is the Hebrew word, but "mar" is also used. So, we might assume that the writer speaks Hebrew. Sometimes age accounts for such lapses.
I once did some contracting work for a very successful young American high-tech entrepenuer. The guy was intelligent in the extreme but had completely missed the boat in terms of sociological analysis and prioritizing threats to personal freedom.
His fear and loathing for the American religious Right was so pronounced that, though he had no sympathy for Islam (or any other religion), he couldn't grasp the qualitative difference in the nature of the respective threats.
I tried to point out that legal restrictions on abortion for example were a far cry from stoning adulteresses to death. His retort was that the former is a very real possibility in contemporary America; the prospect for the latter is only in the dim future.
There is a certain logic to this line of thinking. But it is unquestionably short-sighted.
Martin Luther King once wrote that "a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice eveywhere." Our establishment took this to heart in its opposition to Aparthied in South Africa.
Where is such global thinking as the world grapples with its unacknowledged 'Islam problem.'
Mar Robert;
The person who emailed you missed a very important distinction. "Thug" Ahmadinejad is the head of a government with an army, missiles and bombs. "Tasteless commentor" Pat Robertson is a TV personality. Which one can be a real threat.
Robertson, who thinks he can read the mind of God and say these completely un-Christian things, speaks only for his self and some of his followers, is unable to hurt anything more than feelings. Ahmadinejad, speaks for a country.
I think the best comparison would be between Pat Robertson and the thousands of Saudi-funded Imams and Iran-funded Mullahs and see their preachers rate on the hate scale.
From that Alan Glodlas link, immediately below the reference to a Prof. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Butty, whose name, for some reason, caught my eye, there is quite an instructive passage:
My bold type, but the difference between these two paragraphs cannot be emphasised enough.
Interested: LOL
For others the University Council of UGA (U. of GA at Athens, Georgia) is:
University Council Executive Committee Agenda Items Deadline
02/09/2006 03:30 PM 01/26/2006 03:30 PM 01/16/2006 12:00 PM
03/23/2006 03:30 PM 03/09/2006 03:30 PM 02/27/2006 12:00 PM
04/27/2006 03:30 PM 04/13/2006 03:30 PM 04/03/2006 12:00 PM
I suggest that in/out state alums and parents request a topic hearing on the embedded terrorist (Dr. Alan Godlas) and his polution plans for the students.
Sorry for the line wrap-around... ;-)
er, pollution plans, yeah I am from GA!
Prof. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Butty, whose name, for some reason, caught my eye.
Ramadan al-butty.
Jihad Smaili
It's like those daft pick your pirate name ( http://www.fidius.org/quiz/pirate/ ) type things one gets sent in quiet lulls at work. I think I came out as Iron Mary Cash.
Pick your Islamic name - Sword-of-the-Prophet Infidel Slayer. Bibi Bomb-vest bint Shortass.
Sorry, it's been a long day.
But you are right about the two paragraphs. Cf
"I tell you this, anything you did for one of these,no matter how humble,you did for me" Matthew 25:40
It's straight from "Carry on up the Khyber", isn't it? Remember Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond and the scheming Khasi of Kalabar?
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.
Dear Interested,
I think his name is more often spelled in English "Al-Buti."
Sheikh Muhammad Said Ramadan Al-Buti.
There is a song from the 1970s that tends to run through my mind when I think of him......his name rather lends itself to...well, never mind.
In any case, he is the author of a fascinating little book called "Jihad: How To Understand and Practice It," which I discuss at some length in my own book "Islam Unveiled."
Cordially
Robert Spencer
It's like those daft pick your pirate name ( http://www.fidius.org/quiz/pirate/ ) type things one gets sent in quiet lulls at work.
I always liked the "pick your porn name" one: it's the name of your first pet, plus the street you grew up on.
Anyway, the above names just go to show the truth is stranger than fiction. In case you missed Robert DeNiro on SNL as a Homeland Security spokesman, announcing the names of "wanted terrorists":
http://www.funrestarea.com/pages/snl_robert_deniro.shtml
There is a song from the 1970s that tends to run through my mind when I think of him......his name rather lends itself to...well, never mind.
"Butty" is English English for "sandwich", which I thought was rather amusing as part of his name is Ramadan, and he shouldn't be eating one. That's all. Some people, honestly.
I have heard of Saturday Night Live but that is the first time I have seen any clip. Thanks.
Butty is northern English for sandwich, particularly my husbands favourite, which I cannot eat :-( the chip butty.
Take it with a pinch of salt.
Ahmadinejad is too much of a low life to be compared w/ other heads of state, including dhimmis like Bush & Blair. Comparing him w/ a moron like Pat Robertson is far more appropriate.
On Robertson's inane remarks themselves - apart from being in the same league as his remarks on Katrina and 9/11, it totally ignores the many positive contributions of Sharon since the 1970's, and judges the latter solely on the Gaza withdrawal. I wonder whether in the 700 Club, he has it that one sin is enough to dispatch one to hell? After all, Sharon's military brilliance rescued Israel in 1971, and his military leadership was doing fine in Lebanon in 1982, until he got done in by Gemayel's assassination, which was essentially the turning point in that war.
Where I do agree w/ the Israeli settlers in Gaza is that having done so much to create these settlements, it was ethically wrong to treat these settlers as pawns and force them out. It would have been one thing if the settlers had simply settled their of their own accord, and that all the Israeli government did was withdraw them. But having planted them there, forcing them to withdraw, whether a good move politically or militarily, was ethically a bad move.
Now, one may have different opinions on whether this was a smart move or not, but the jury is still out (this weeks insane events in Gaza seem to vindicate Sharon, as the anarchy that the Palestinians are indulging in the absense of any Israelis is there for the world to see). But to describe this as God's way of punishing him is crass, since it completely ignores his other contributions to the Israeli cause.
While I believe that Netanyahu is the closest Israel has to a statesman who comes close to recognizing the Israeli threat, Sharon deserves to be remembered in history as one of the great warriors who intentionally or unintentionally defeated a major Jihad on several occasions. The label of Dhimmi, which sometimes tends to be handed out like birdseed, does not befit him.
typo, damn!
While I believe that Netanyahu is the closest Israel has to a statesman who comes close to recognizing the Islamic threat
My ultimate encounter with "dimwitted moral equivalence" was an exchange I had around 2 years ago at 'secularislam' with a Left-wing, dhimmified Hindu by the name of Avajit Roy.
He was rationalizing Palestinian suicide-bombings, so I began referring to him as "Avajit Roy, proponent of terrorism." He took great offense at this and to justify his position he produced a hard-line, anti-Arab speech delivered in the 1950s by none other than Ariel Sharon.
I couldn't believe my eyes. In this man's warped universe, a political speech given 50 years ago justified the willful murder of women and children today.
I just sent a message to President Michael Adams and the Alumni Association, of which I am a member. This course in Islamic apologia is an outrage.
The South remains the last bastion of political incorrectness and traditional values EXCEPT the major universities, which are teeming with the ubiquitious left-wing, radical hippies of yesteryear who dominate the faculties. They are now fat, tenured, and more repugnant than ever. From what I hear, GA Tech is worse than UGA.
Hugh, PLEASE address this matter. You speak their language and a few words from you will have far more impact than a dozen letters from outraged alumni. I know you are overworked, underpaid, and the demands on your time are taxing, but the eminent scholars at UGA would not likely ignore you.
Is there no one in the History Department, no one in the office of the President, no one among the trustees, who will examine this nonsense being passed off on unwary students, and make a fuss -- the kind of fuss that will get results?
-- posted by Hugh
To say the very least, academe has plummeted from the golden light of the brilliant, courageous, and ethical down down down into the greasy hands of the craven, cowardly, and fantastic.
DISLOYAL HARVARD DISLOYAL GEORGTOWN DISLOYAL USC DISLOYAL COLUMBIA
As my personal guru Eric Cartman observed several years ago, it all started with those goddam hippies. I HATE HIPPIES.
If the University of Georgia is like other universities, only money talks. Only the trustees, or if it is public, only the legislature, looking into this course, will have an effect. If one were to dream up a propaganda course for Islam, it would come out looking exactly like this one by Alan Godlas. Exactly. This should be used for a made-for-television movie. Enemy Within, that sort of thing.
I will, in the near future, provide a little analalyis of the reading list and syllabus for this Guide to Nothing and Nowhere, so carefully and sinisterly crafted (why perhaps Godlas took his cue from the helpful list of Books Not to Read that Khaled Abou el Fadl offers at his self-glorifying website -- in which he attempts to make sure that students never ever find out the truth about Islam, but stick with the apologists).
I've never seen anything like it. A carefully worked-out, systematic attempt, nothing innocent about it, to prevent this man's students from finding out anything real, anything of value, about what Jihad means -- what it means in the Qur'an, in the Hadith, in the Sira, what it meant to the major figures in the history of Islam, including Al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Taymiyya and all other Qur'anic commentators, and rulers, and jurisconsults, and what every single major Western figure in the history of the study of Islam, until the last few decades when it became impossible to tell the truth, and hirelings of the Muslims ruled the roost, and Muslims themselves came to dominate the academic departments and MESA Nostra.
I hope some students see this. And I hope that they start taking careful notes on how this man conducts this course, and whether they even learn of the existence of such books as "The Dhimmi" and "Islam and Dhimmitude" and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," or whether they learn of the work of Antoine Fattal, or find out about the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, or discover what is in the Dictionary of Islam, or the Encyclopedia of Islam (first and second editions), or read Majid Khadduri on the Law of War and Peace in Islam, or read Robert Spencer's "Onward Muslim Soldiers" and "THe Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades" or read "The Legacy of Jihad" -- read thoroughly, read slowly, read with comprehension.
And then read the daily newspapers. And look at MEMRI on-line. And look at the websites of the truth-tellers, the defectors from Islam. Go, students in Georgia, who may already have been ensnared in this sinister course, to www.faithfreedom.org and read what ex-Muslims write. And buy "Leaving Islam" edited by Ibn Warraq, a collection of testimonies of ex-Mulsims. Or read "Why I Am Not a Muslim" by the same Ibn Warraq.
Do your own homework, with the texts that you want to consult. And if Godlass gives you trouble, you give him trouble -- and if he gives you a bad grade, you take your paper or exam, and raise holy hell, because you will undoubtedly have written the truth, and he will undoubtedly have punished you for it.
Is Educational Malpractice yet reason for a lawsuit? It should be.
Try it out, students in this course. Go ahead. Be the first. Many will support you, in many different ways. Be brave.
"You speak their language.."
No I don't. I don't speak, and I don't write, except for the purposes of parody, the Self-Congratulatory Nonsense of the Development Office, Providing News to Alumni of All the Great Things That Are Happening. I don't engage in Commencement-Speech Polonius Patter. I don't speak or write,except to mock, MESA Nostran, or any of its variants in the other relevant departments of History, of Literature, and all the new invented fields that merely reflect the latest fashion and the most recent dispaly of power on campus.
I speak English. I write English.
Please. What have I done to deserve that?
"I will, in the near future, provide a little analalyis of the reading list and syllabus for this Guide to Nothing and Nowhere..."
Looking forward to it, Hugh.
Here's a description of "extensive and glaring intellectual flaws" in Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not A Muslim"...
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/warraq.htm
... written by another "PhD"
I found this nugget on the U of Georgia's Godlas course syllabus that Kamala posted.
http://www.colorado.edu/ReligiousStudies/TheStrip/features/truelies/title.htm
For starters, it quotes former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu as "Benzion Netanyahu." How's that for scholastic integrity.
The gist of the piece is that America invented the Islamic terrorist threat out of fealty to our Israeli-Jewish masters and that the threat then became a self-fulfilled prophecy...so naturally, we're to blame. "True-Lies." Talk about circular logic.
This is what they're teaching our kids in college?
Kamala,
The author of the Warraq critique, Jeremiaha McAullife, is an American convert to Islam that I had a fascinating, extended email dialogue with about 6 years ago.
He is an amiable fellow though quite eccentric, a psychologist who counsels Muslims and non-Muslims about spousal abuse, a man isolated within his own community because of his progressivism, who is also a songwriter with a fictional band ('Dr Jihad and his Intellectual Muslim Guerillas').
Most important of all, while being highly critical of the behavior of Muslims, he is an apologist extraordinaire for Islam.
He once wrote to me that "Islam is the best religion with the worst practitioners"....and later, more succinctly that "most Muslims suck." He once tried to get a recycling program going at his local mosque, but his fellow-faithful were uninterested. He is distraught over the Muslim propensity for terrorism, but has grounded his psyche so thoroughly in his faith that he cannot break away.
I confronted him about what for me is the most important facet of Islamic intolerance, which is the apostasy law (change it and Islam collapses like a house of cards). His response was that 'Ridda' is only applicable in times of war. I didn't have the knowledge then to retort that since Islam is in a state of perpetual war against Darul Harb, the killing of apostates is permanently sanctioned.
In my mind, Jeremiaha is a tragic figure; an ethical man trapped in an unethical belief system. But make no mistake, he is the enemy. He's not a passive practitioner of his faith, but an able and vociferous defender of it.
The one thing I'll give him is that he diverts considerable amounts of time and energy remonstrating against intolerant interpretations of Islam and taking his fellow Muslims to task for their violence. If only CAIR had similar ethics.
Cornelius,
Fascinating stuff about Jeremiaha.
Ironic that he counsels Muslims about spousal abuse, since he himself sounds like the battered wife of Islam--the wife who can't bring herself to leave the bum who punches her because "she loves him" or because "she can't get by without him."
I had seen the "Dr. Jihad" linksfrom his article and immediately thought "Huh?!?" but the link didn't work so I couldn't know it's for a "band."
'Dr Jihad and his Intellectual Muslim Guerillas'? !
I think I'll stick with Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters thank you.
I speak English. I write English.
Please. What have I done to deserve that?
Posted by: Hugh at January 7, 2006 01:02 AM
Well, I guess you were born brilliant and you honed your intellect to a fine point, particularly in the realm of inditement. You speak the language of academe without the pomposity of a pedant.
My statement was not meant as an insult. Surely you know that you "speak English" and "write English" in a much more eloquent and impressive manner than most of us. You possess a unique combination of intellect, self-confidence, knowledge, and authority, a daunting and enviable medley. Any scholar or professor would recognize you as a peer, whereas I would be dismissed as an ignorant, hysterical "Islamophobe."
But I gave it my best shot because I had to. It is very depressing to know this propaganda fest is happening at my alma mater and of course, it's not the only one.
Interested:
Webster's lists equivalency as equivalent to equivalence.
Hugh,
Jeremiaha McAullife reminds me of those rare true believers in Communism or Nazism who still led decent lives.
Men like John Rabe, the dedicated National Socialist who nevertheless saved thousands of Chinese civilians during the rape of Nanking. This kind of person does good things in spite of what he believes, NOT because of it.
Cornelius,
Benzion Netanyahu is Bibi's father and is a noted historian of the Inquisition in Spain and related subjects. The link you offered also has a bibliog sublink which Benjamin Netanyahu's book on terrorism in the list of books. I'm sure the quote came from Bibi, as you say. The writer of that site is a jackass, but in this case, the mistake was probably an accident.
Thanks Eliyahu.