And among others who funded the Said Chair were several non-Arabs connected to law firms, or to financial services companies, with Arab clients. There is no mystery here.

Posted by: Hugh at March 11, 2005 9:13 AM

Yet two more reasons why I shall never stop posting links critical of the leftist academia:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17335

The Saudi influence on our Colleges:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17329
Excerpt:
It is important to note that the many millions of dollars that the Saudis are spending here to establish Islamic centers to increase their influence are indeed subverting our academic institutions through indoctrination.

Posted by: Gary at March 11, 2005 10:01 AM

Yet two more reasons why I shall never stop posting links critical of the leftist academia:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17335

The Saudi influence on our Colleges:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17329
Excerpt:
It is important to note that the many millions of dollars that the Saudis are spending here to establish Islamic centers to increase their influence are indeed subverting our academic institutions through indoctrination.

Posted by: Gary at March 11, 2005 10:01 AM

You cannot blame the Muslims for learning the lessons of the West. To endow a chair is one of the oldest ways of purchasing respectability for one's own opinions. When I see things like Rupert Murdoch endowing a chair of English and Communications in Oxford (when the ancient university has upwards of a hundred existing chairs unfilled for lack of funds), I feel like vomiting.

Posted by: Paolo at March 11, 2005 10:05 AM

Paolo:

You are right and you are wrong. Far more culpable is the institution of higher learning that allows itself to be compromised, but I'm sure that the donors made it clear what they were prepared to fund and the university was prepared to accept.

By contrast I'm sure the late benefactors of the Krock Foundation (McDonalds Restaurants) would be mortified to know how their largess is being used these days at Notre Dame.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 11, 2005 1:07 PM

At Columbia or any other university, where charges are brought that a particular faculty member, or an entire Department, is given over to something which is a false presentation, the only way for the charge to be properly weighed is for the Administration (President, Deans, Trustees) to study the matter. In the case of charges made about MEALAC -- that go,or should go, far beyond the bullying and intimidation of students -- Bollinger should sit to school, and begin to learn about the theory and practice of Islam. It will take time. It is not easy. But he has to do it, in order to adequeately judge this charge: that at Columbia, one can go through the entire offerings of MEALAC, and still come out with not the slightest real knowledge of either the major tenets of Islam, nor how, over 1350 years, those tenets were put into practice in both JIhad and, after Jihad-conquest, in the treatment of all subjugated non-Muslim peoples.

While most of MESA Nostra consists of apologists for Islam -- and the apologetics can take the form not only of bowdlerized Qur'ans (Sells), or the outright apologetics of Esposito or Carl Ernst, but also the form of simply ignoring the entire question of what is taught in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- there are scholars, particularly of the origins of the Qur'an and early Islam, and of Islamic law -- who represent MESA's only hope. Perhaps for professional reasons they cannot yet speak out with the freedom that they may like; perhaps there are not enough to form a rump group of the disgruntled, who will withdraw from the RashidKhalidi-JoelBeinin-JuanCole MESA just as so many of the best literary critics and scholars set up their own professional assocation where politics would be verboten, fed up with the MLA (and something similar has happened with the American Historical Association).

If someone were to charge that an entire department of Biology was in fact not teaching Biology but Creationism, or if a Department of Astronomy was teaching Astrology, or if a Department of American History was offering only texts by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and perhaps an anthology edited by Ward Churchill, then that charge would be infvestigated, and those making the charge would rely on real study of what modern biolgoy, or astronomy, or American history, consists of.

The same is true in the MEALAC situation. Why is Joseph Schacht, why is Antoine Fattal, why is Bat Ye'or, why is Snouck Hurgronje, why are the anthologies of Ibn Warraq, why is the study of Islam and human rights by Reza Afshari, why are all these books not even mentioned in a single course given by MEALAC? In other words, what is going on is not merely a scandal involving mistreatment of some Jewish or Israeli students, and an impossibly tendentious presentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict (which there is good reason for believing is a classic Jihad, however many Arab Christians have been willingly exploited to disguise the nature of the conflict), but is one that involves Middle Eastern Studies all over the country, and all over the Western world:

Before OPEC money, and a certain alienation from the West felt by many professors who themselves were Muslims, took over, or heavily influenced, the teaching of Islam, one could learn about it. At Columbia there was Schacht, there was Arthur Jeffery, there was Richard Gottheil.

Now there is -- Massad and Khalidi, Saliba whose notion of "Arabic Science" has less to do with history (see his hysterical outburst against Toby Huff for daring to wonder aloud what explained the sudden disappearance of "Islamic science"), e tutti quanti -- a scandalous situation.

Those members of MESA who know perfectly well what is going on should begin to lend their voices to the protest at MEALAC, or communicate privately with Bollinger. He has been lead to believe that this is purely a matter involving Israel. Of course it is not.

Posted by: Hugh at March 11, 2005 1:27 PM

Hugh et al:

Bollinger is very much part of the problem. Dr. Phyllis Chesler recently gave a speech at Columbia/Barnard to 500 people on the Global Jihad, which is posted on FrontPageMag.com and she will shortly be posting on her own site, www.phyllis-chesler.com, speeches and videos from the event, including her own.

Here is the precis from the FrontPageMag.com post:

On March 6, 2005, I delivered this speech at a historic conference that drew more than 500 people to Columbia University. The conference was co-sponsored by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and by The David Project, the group that made the film "Columbia Unbecoming." Hundreds of people had to be turned away. At least twenty newspapers sent reporters. Speakers included Minister Natan Sharansky via satellite from Milan, Martin Kramer via satellite from Washington D.C., Charles Jacobs, the founder of The David Project, and Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America, and many others, including speakers from the Sudan and Mauritania who had been enslaved by ethnic Arab Muslims.

Palestine Solidarity Movement members infiltrated the conference; they heckled, hissed, and cursed me while I spoke. Jews Against the Occupation rallied outside on Broadway. The security was very tight and sobering. Although President Lee Bollinger and Provost Alan Brinkley had been invited, neither came, nor did the faculty of MEALAC. Bollinger not only attended the Memorial for Edward Said, he also spoke at it. Provost Brinkley spoke at a conference together with NYU Professor, Tony Judt, a Jew who has called for a one state solution in the pages of The New York Review of Books and elsewhere.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 11, 2005 4:13 PM

Waterdragon~ She was also given grief by women who think the 'occupation' of 'palestinian' land is worse on women than treatment of women under Sharia law.

Posted by: Gary at March 11, 2005 4:44 PM

waterdragon:

In the UK, universities have been consistently under funded since the 1980s. The cumulative effect of this has been greatest in universities which do not have the name and pull of Oxford or Cambridge. But even in Oxford and Cambridge, the effect of consistent and cumulative under funding has had a disastrous effect. There are also other pressures on these two institutions, such as the government enforcing diversity policies at the expense of merit and of withholding monies if PC diversity driven targets are not met.

All these make universities susceptible to financial allures from such disreputable sources as the Saudis. Difficult all round and no answers readily available.

Posted by: DP111 at March 11, 2005 7:08 PM

Klein was absolutely right to demand Khalidi be thrown out as a lecturer. Doesn't Klein have a right to say who will speak to his employees? The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it doesn't require that another person listen.

Posted by: DavidE at March 11, 2005 11:18 PM

I just went and read some of the postings on the Huff-Saliba debate, and I can say without much fear of contradiction that Saliba appears to have been mostly talking bunk.

Saliba pleads that there is no real ground for a definition of 'modern science' - rejecting in essence the idea that it should it be free from religious interference. To wit, he rejects also the grounds that "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" is not, in fact a hallmark of the beginning of the end of rational inquiry in the islamic world, but - what? Clearly he must, if he considers that the 'old antagonism' between religion (a matter of faith) and science (a matter of reason) is 'culturally absent' in islamic nations, then accept at least that "The Incoherence" was a watermark (a slightly yellowish one, in my view) towards a change to this view that he does not reject - that religion and science are not incompatable. Yet even he admits to a decline - if in the 16th century rather than the 10th. Is the specific year relevant? He might claim to the religious beliefs of various astronomers, but how does this relate to the present? In fact, we might thus still accept the term "modern science" to relate to the present state without needing any additional synthesis from the likes of Saliba. How does endless harping from Saliba about astronomy demonstrate anything but a profoundly myopic focus on a single discipline? Where are the islamic Darwins, Maynard-Smiths, Ernst Mayrs? Where are the real challengers to islamic doctrine regarding the creation of life? This would be a true test of so-called islamic "science" - the ability to pose theory in the format of thought free of external influence - but the best that can be dredged up is a simpleminded test in Saudi Arabia about whether a fly, having landed in someone's meal, ought to be plucked out or crushed in! The same test came to results contradicting Mohammed's advice ("crush it in"), following which the, ahem, 'researchers' contradicted their own findings in a stunning display of independence from theology and agreed that Mohammed had been indeed (and I love this phrase in debate about islam) "proven" correct. One wonders what passes for "proof" in the minds of the faithful. Then again, for Saliba, religion is not "external" to science. One wonders whether he truly understands the idea of independent inquiry, or its value, or how inquiry that is not free of a predetermined point of arrival is anything other than mere hijacking of thought - like a pilot with a gun at his head, he might deviate slightly in his course (but not TOO much, or else) but his final destination is always going to be Cuba. And who doesn't love Cuba! The beach, the sand, the love of an all-powerful being - well mostly love, although that pesky old fellow does reveal to whom he chooses and damns the rest - but forget that, look at the beaches! Allow your mind to fix on the ululating waves until you begin to hypnotically accept the beauty of the final destination of the inquiry. Forget the blazing hot sun in your mental bhurka, the sharks, the scorpions, the intellectual starvation, the men with guns watching you to ensure that you - your mind - doesn't wander off the beach into the lush free rainforest all around, calling you away...how distracting it is! Perhaps it should be burned.

[Again, metaphorical Cuba here. Except for the guns. - Geoff]

The other amusing aspect of what surely must be "islamic science" in the mind of Saliba is that of the "wondrous scientific miracles" (no oxymoron, that) revealed in the Quran, that truly none could have known before they were revealed to Mohammed, proving that the Quran did indeed come from a great and all-knowing being - for who could have EVER known, prior to Mohammed's revelation in the 7th century, that wood burns, or that breasts give milk to feed offspring, or that skin burns if you touch hot irons to it, or indeed, that day follows night. And Allah knows best! if he knows anything.

[Side note: I am not exaggerating in these examples of the, er, 'miraculous' knowledge embedded in the Quran. I am going to use some of this 'miraculous' revelation to light a smoke, and - inshallah! - the paper will burn, and I will get light-headed. And THEN, of course, a tsunami will destroy me for my immorality. Good thing I got most of that done over Christmas! - Geoff]

Perhaps, however, Saliva does have a point after all: maybe we (and Huff) should be referring to rational inquiry as, indeed, "Western science" rather than "modern science", as there is "scientific" investigation occurring in the world today that is not really worthy of the name. Some is indeed occurring in the "ambigious West" as Saliba calls it, but I hazard the guess that the majority is in fact being pursued elsewhere.

[Call that last bit a tautism, and I'll bitch-slap you, I swear to God.]

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at March 12, 2005 12:41 AM

That reminds me of one more thing: what in hell is Salida talking about when he says that "economics and marketing...are lurking behind every scientific development" in Western science?

Not my experience, sorry, Saliva my man. We do it for the knowledge. Perhaps you're thinking of Al-Madina in Saudi Arabia. Ahhh, good old Al-Madina. Brings back memories. "Go, Engraged Jihadis, Go! Rah Rah Rah!"

"Jihadism, semper fi!
Filthy pagans, make them die!
Gooooooo MoHAMmed!"

[much stumbling and crashing into each other as bhurkha-clad cheerleaders trip trying to jump and form human pyramids - and why are the GUY cheerleaders wearing bhurkas too? something not right there]

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at March 12, 2005 12:50 AM

Remember the professor in Canada that said "All Isralis over 18 are valid targets for suicide bombers because of the military system
by the State" ,well after 5 month of waiting for the heat to die down the Police have released a statement that no charges will be laid under the "hate" laws.

Dr.Elmasry is a weasel and he twisted the story
around and blamed the comment as that of Palestinians he's talked to,the Police don't have the guts to press changes and groups like CAIR use PsyOps methods to silence any opposition that exposes Muslims or Islam for what they are.

The host of the show gave him three separate chances to qualify his opinion , a tape of the show was requested by the police after a public complaint by a viewer which is exactly what CAIR encourages Muslims to do for Islamophobic comments.
Ontario's Attorney General ruled it as not meeting the standards for being a crime,but this is the same Attorney General under pressure by CAIR and Dr.Elmasry's CIC to allow Shariah-Law
for female Muslims.
How on Earth can there not be a conflict of interest when the A.G. is ruling on Elsmary's
demand for Shariah-law while facing a "hate" crime change for promoting Jihad from the Quran.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/11/elmasary.html

***************************************************
For a real laugh here's a crock of sh*t from
Elmasry about how good the Coptic Christians have it in Egypt and how the holocaust could never have happenrd in a Muslim Country.

The man needs help and his Jew-Bashing routine is common on TV debate shows.
***************************************************
HERE'S HIS RANT:

DO NOT BLAME MUSLIMS FOR ANTI-SEMITISM
[2/5/2005 12:05:00 PM]
[By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry]

In response to President Bush’s Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of October 16, 2004, the U.S. State Department released its "Report on Global anti-Semitism" early last month.
The report cites Muslims as one of the four main sources for "global anti-Semitism in recent years" and blames western European Muslims -- especially those it calls "disadvantaged and disaffected Muslim youths."
But the report does a gross disservice to the truth,beginning with a prejudicial hate-inciting statement that declares, "This trend appears likely to persist as the number of Muslims in Europe continues to grow, while their level of education and economic prospects remain limited."
As I was growing up in Egypt during the 1950s, we loved to watch a TV comedy called “Hassan, Marcus and Cohen.” Previously, it had played for years in the theatre, delighting audiences with its humorous look at the daily lives of three Egyptian men, a Muslim, a Coptic Christian and a Jew. Their families were all neighbours and the three men were good friends. When they got together, they would usually bitch about their wives, their kids and government policies. We liked the show because it celebrated everyday events with just the right mix of teenage problems, marriages, divorces, births and deaths. I believe that life itself is a comedy and it was reflected brilliantly in the relationships among these Egyptian men and their families.
At that time, Egypt had the largest number of Jews in the Muslim world. Most of our major department stores were owned by Jews, but Egyptians did not discriminate in their shopping habits based on store ownership. Nor did they discriminate in politics, for Jewish politicians became government ministers in Egypt before their counterparts in Western countries. In fact, during the 1930s and 1940s, prominent Egyptian labour and socialist political party leaders were Jewish. And that shouldn't be a surprise. After all, Moses was an Egyptian citizen, born and raised in Egypt, and educated at the best university of the ancient world, the Pharaoh's palace. The Qur’an mentions Moses as a prophet and his story is told there several times.
According to Islamic Law, Egyptian Jews were given autonomy in the administration of their religiously based family and personal laws dealing with marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody, etc. Nothing like this Islamic form of advanced natural justice dealing with family law can be found today, even in liberal western democracies.
In fact Egyptian Jews never supported Zionism as a political ideology. Given their history in Egypt, there was no reason to, none whatsoever.
That's because Egyptians practiced their pluralism on the ground, not as an abstract concept. Some of the oldest Synagogues in the world still stand in Cairo. And the tombs of Jewish mystics (like Abu Hasera) are still protected today by Egyptians and visited by Jews from all over the world, as well as several Muslims and Christian Copts.
Egyptians do not understand how to hate someone based on his or her religion, because they simply never practiced it. If you ask, they explain that it is politics, not religion, that causes conflict. And they are right. If it were not for the creation of Israel, Egypt and the Muslim world would now claim the highest number of Jews outside the U.S. In fact, the Israeli government tried using financial incentives to encourage Egyptian Jews to emigrate. And when this strategy failed, Israel launched a SECRET campaign of violence against Jewish business and blamed Egyptians for it. I know one Egyptian Jew who resisted the pressure to move to Israel. She owns a successful bookstore and print shop in downtown Cairo, not far from the main Cairo Synagogue and is known to the locals as "al set al yahoodia," meaning simply "the Jewish lady." All her employees are Muslim. When I drop into her bookstore during my frequent visits to my birth country, I always ask for a discount like any typical Egyptian. She smiles and says, “But you are a Canadian now, you are not entitled to a discount.” Then she gives me the discount anyway.
However, there has been a trend among Egyptians to use the Arabic word “yahood” i.e. Jews to refer to Israelis. This must change, and it is gradually changing, because Egyptians realize that language is very important. For example, it is also no longer acceptable to say in Arabic “the so-called Holocaust,” as if to imply there is doubt that this mass atrocity actually happened. This is another sign of positive change that shows there is no hatred against Jews in Egypt. I have used Egypt as my example, because it is the Muslim country with the longest history of coexistence with the Jews living inside its borders. But I have also visited Morocco and Turkey, two other Muslim countries with significantly large Jewish populations. And like Egypt, hatred of Jews is simply not part of their culture.
The Holocaust -- whose 60th anniversary once again gave the world pause to consider how humans could do such horrible things to one another -- could NEVER, EVER happen in a Muslim country. Islam and the history of Muslims themselves both support this fact. So please, do not blame Muslims for anti-Semitism.

(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, a professor of computer engineering at the University of Waterloo, is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at

np@canadianislamiccongress.com)

Posted by: ala-sux at March 12, 2005 3:03 AM

Remember the professor in Canada that said "All Isralis over 18 are valid targets for suicide bombers because of the military system
by the State" ,well after 5 month of waiting for the heat to die down the Police have released a statement that no charges will be laid under the "hate" laws.

Dr.Elmasry is a weasel and he twisted the story
around and blamed the comment as that of Palestinians he's talked to,the Police don't have the guts to press changes and groups like CAIR use PsyOps methods to silence any opposition that exposes Muslims or Islam for what they are.

The host of the show gave him three separate chances to qualify his opinion , a tape of the show was requested by the police after a public complaint by a viewer which is exactly what CAIR encourages Muslims to do for Islamophobic comments.
Ontario's Attorney General ruled it as not meeting the standards for being a crime,but this is the same Attorney General under pressure by CAIR and Dr.Elmasry's CIC to allow Shariah-Law
for female Muslims.
How on Earth can there not be a conflict of interest when the A.G. is ruling on Elsmary's
demand for Shariah-law while facing a "hate" crime change for promoting Jihad from the Quran.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/11/elmasary.html

***************************************************
For a real laugh here's a crock of sh*t from
Elmasry about how good the Coptic Christians have it in Egypt and how the holocaust could never have happenrd in a Muslim Country.

The man needs help and his Jew-Bashing routine is common on TV debate shows.
***************************************************
HERE'S HIS RANT:

DO NOT BLAME MUSLIMS FOR ANTI-SEMITISM
[2/5/2005 12:05:00 PM]
[By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry]

In response to President Bush’s Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of October 16, 2004, the U.S. State Department released its "Report on Global anti-Semitism" early last month.
The report cites Muslims as one of the four main sources for "global anti-Semitism in recent years" and blames western European Muslims -- especially those it calls "disadvantaged and disaffected Muslim youths."
But the report does a gross disservice to the truth,beginning with a prejudicial hate-inciting statement that declares, "This trend appears likely to persist as the number of Muslims in Europe continues to grow, while their level of education and economic prospects remain limited."
As I was growing up in Egypt during the 1950s, we loved to watch a TV comedy called “Hassan, Marcus and Cohen.” Previously, it had played for years in the theatre, delighting audiences with its humorous look at the daily lives of three Egyptian men, a Muslim, a Coptic Christian and a Jew. Their families were all neighbours and the three men were good friends. When they got together, they would usually bitch about their wives, their kids and government policies. We liked the show because it celebrated everyday events with just the right mix of teenage problems, marriages, divorces, births and deaths. I believe that life itself is a comedy and it was reflected brilliantly in the relationships among these Egyptian men and their families.
At that time, Egypt had the largest number of Jews in the Muslim world. Most of our major department stores were owned by Jews, but Egyptians did not discriminate in their shopping habits based on store ownership. Nor did they discriminate in politics, for Jewish politicians became government ministers in Egypt before their counterparts in Western countries. In fact, during the 1930s and 1940s, prominent Egyptian labour and socialist political party leaders were Jewish. And that shouldn't be a surprise. After all, Moses was an Egyptian citizen, born and raised in Egypt, and educated at the best university of the ancient world, the Pharaoh's palace. The Qur’an mentions Moses as a prophet and his story is told there several times.
According to Islamic Law, Egyptian Jews were given autonomy in the administration of their religiously based family and personal laws dealing with marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody, etc. Nothing like this Islamic form of advanced natural justice dealing with family law can be found today, even in liberal western democracies.
In fact Egyptian Jews never supported Zionism as a political ideology. Given their history in Egypt, there was no reason to, none whatsoever.
That's because Egyptians practiced their pluralism on the ground, not as an abstract concept. Some of the oldest Synagogues in the world still stand in Cairo. And the tombs of Jewish mystics (like Abu Hasera) are still protected today by Egyptians and visited by Jews from all over the world, as well as several Muslims and Christian Copts.
Egyptians do not understand how to hate someone based on his or her religion, because they simply never practiced it. If you ask, they explain that it is politics, not religion, that causes conflict. And they are right. If it were not for the creation of Israel, Egypt and the Muslim world would now claim the highest number of Jews outside the U.S. In fact, the Israeli government tried using financial incentives to encourage Egyptian Jews to emigrate. And when this strategy failed, Israel launched a SECRET campaign of violence against Jewish business and blamed Egyptians for it. I know one Egyptian Jew who resisted the pressure to move to Israel. She owns a successful bookstore and print shop in downtown Cairo, not far from the main Cairo Synagogue and is known to the locals as "al set al yahoodia," meaning simply "the Jewish lady." All her employees are Muslim. When I drop into her bookstore during my frequent visits to my birth country, I always ask for a discount like any typical Egyptian. She smiles and says, “But you are a Canadian now, you are not entitled to a discount.” Then she gives me the discount anyway.
However, there has been a trend among Egyptians to use the Arabic word “yahood” i.e. Jews to refer to Israelis. This must change, and it is gradually changing, because Egyptians realize that language is very important. For example, it is also no longer acceptable to say in Arabic “the so-called Holocaust,” as if to imply there is doubt that this mass atrocity actually happened. This is another sign of positive change that shows there is no hatred against Jews in Egypt. I have used Egypt as my example, because it is the Muslim country with the longest history of coexistence with the Jews living inside its borders. But I have also visited Morocco and Turkey, two other Muslim countries with significantly large Jewish populations. And like Egypt, hatred of Jews is simply not part of their culture.
The Holocaust -- whose 60th anniversary once again gave the world pause to consider how humans could do such horrible things to one another -- could NEVER, EVER happen in a Muslim country. Islam and the history of Muslims themselves both support this fact. So please, do not blame Muslims for anti-Semitism.

(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, a professor of computer engineering at the University of Waterloo, is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at

np@canadianislamiccongress.com)

Posted by: ala-sux at March 12, 2005 3:03 AM

"...it is also no longer acceptable to say in Arabic “the so-called Holocaust,” as if to imply there is doubt that this mass atrocity actually happened. This is another sign of positive change that shows there is no hatred against Jews in Egypt."

No longer acceptable.

No longer.

So, from his words, it WAS acceptable in other times to say in Arabic "the so-called Holocaust" - to imply that there was doubt that this mass atrocity happened.

But the Holocaust could NEVER, EVER have happened in a muslim country.

Because it is "no longer" acceptable to deny it.

No longer acceptable.

No longer.

Geoff

PS: It's good news that he feels Egyptians never practiced religious hatred; that they "wouldn't know how" to do it. It must greatly comfort all those dead Coptic Christians to know that. I bet they feel comforted. Perhaps their murders, too, will be "no longer" acceptable, some day.

Posted by: Geoff at March 12, 2005 3:15 AM

"...it is also no longer acceptable to say in Arabic “the so-called Holocaust,” as if to imply there is doubt that this mass atrocity actually happened. This is another sign of positive change that shows there is no hatred against Jews in Egypt."

No longer acceptable.

No longer.

So, from his words, it WAS acceptable in other times to say in Arabic "the so-called Holocaust" - to imply that there was doubt that this mass atrocity happened.

But muslims have never hated Jews - it was just never part of their culture - anywhere in the islamic world, so the Holocaust could NEVER, EVER have happened in a muslim country.

Because it is "no longer" acceptable to deny the Holocaust in Egypt.

No longer acceptable.

No longer.

Geoff

PS: It's good news that he feels Egyptians never practiced religious hatred; that they "wouldn't know how" to do it. It must greatly comfort all those dead Coptic Christians to know that. I bet they feel comforted. Perhaps their murders, too, will be "no longer" acceptable, some day.

Posted by: Geoff at March 12, 2005 3:17 AM

Woo hoo! Double post day!

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at March 12, 2005 3:18 AM

Geoff:

The lies, the lies! and the 'misunderstandings' of course....!

If it wasn't all too sad I would yell out "Hilllaaaariousss!!"

'The Holocaust could never ever happen in any Muslim country'- and 'Islam and the history of Muslims themselves support this fact'...

My dictionary spells Muslim facts: 'fuckt(s)':

4 times the Arabs tried to drive Israel into the sea. They failed.
If they suceeded, they wouldn't call it Holocaust, they would find a new word since the holocaust already happened.
Anyway, since they are to dumb to build anything (but rather destroy) it leads me to believe that they would indeed not waste time with building concentrationcamps, gas chambers and furnaces. But I have vague idea of whats in store should they succeed. It's all in the Qu'ran: The Medina Jews had to dig trenches, then they had their heads cut off, the doughters sold into slavery or raped on the spot, and their possessions 'honestly' divided amongst the believers.

This Elmasry is one of the worst slime-balls around. The fact that he comes across as civilized, westernized, charming and scholarly makes him even more dangerous. All too many gullible fools in the West are easily taken in by his Santa Claus appeal, but his message is clear: 'Every Israeli is a target'... keep that in mind!

Posted by: Terminator at March 12, 2005 6:24 PM