Today's editorial, approving the actions of an association of North American Islamic scholars last week "is welcome clarification in the ongoing battle to fight terrorism."
No... it isn't. It is FAR too little... FAR too late. While what was said by this group SEEMS important, what is MOST important is what they DIDN'T say. And the Times either didn't notice, or didn't care that more was left out then was added in.
I was literally stunned that the Times failed to ask the questions needing to be asked in their editorial of support.
Question Number One: The 9/11 attack took place almost FOUR YEARS AGO. What took you so long?
Question Number Two: You tell us:
"Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram — or forbidden — and those whoSo, in your world, it's just swell that these thugs murder American military members attempting to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq?
commit these barbaric attacks are criminals not 'martyrs.'"
Like Sen. Dick Durbin's non-apology over his typically leftist-scum efforts to equate American soldiers with Nazi's, this "fatwa" amounts to nothing, more or less, then eyewash... a sop to the non-muslim masses who they've detected are getting just the tiniest bit restless as a result of the efforts of those murdering clowns in London.
I'm disappointed in the Time's editorial board... a board, as I've indicated on my blog, that I am far more in agreement with than opposed. Clearly, here, they took this thing at face value and ran with it... when going just a little deeper would have clearly shown it for the sham it is.
Thursday, August 4, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Editorial
Welcome news from Muslims
The fatwa — a formal message — issued by an association of North American Islamic scholars last week is welcome clarification in the ongoing battle to fight terrorism.
Not only does it clearly state Islam denounces the terrorism that killed more than 3,000 people in the 9/11 attacks, but it helps clarify the societal debate for non-Muslims tempted to jump to conclusions. Almost four years after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and a month after the four London bombings that killed dozens, the enemy in the war on terrorism still remains murky. It is too easy to define the enemy by what we know about the culprits: the 9/11 attackers and the London bombers all are Muslim men.
But they are more than that. They are fundamentalist radicals, an aberration, but a formidable one. They do not represent Muslims in general. That has been the consistent message of many American Muslims and Islamic scholars.
More...
5 comments:
Typically, you missed the critical facts of this issue. THE FATWA IS FAKE.
First, it was not issued in Arabic. All real fatwa are.
Second, it did not condemn the acts of any individual or group by name. All real fatwa do.
Third, it was issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, an organization with links to known terrorist groups.
Hence, it's a fake. Nothing more than a public relations ploy.
Typically, YOU missed where I refered to this fatwa as a "sham."
sham (shm)
n.
1. Something false or empty that is purported to be genuine; a spurious imitation.
2. The quality of deceitfulness; empty pretense.
3. One who assumes a false character; an impostor: "He a man! Hell! He was a hollow sham!" Joseph Conrad.
4. A decorative cover made to simulate an article of household linen and used over or in place of it: a pillow sham.
adj.
Not genuine; fake: sham diamonds; sham modesty.
Rod, do you ALWAYS only see what you want to see, facts be damned?
As for the issuance of the fatwa in arabic only as proof of authenticity, would you care to back that up with some source? And would you care to venture a proof that the fatwa in question WASN'T issued in first in arabic and subsiquently translated for publication?
And then, what say you swing on over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa, where they seem to have a somewhat differing view about what a fatwa is and what they are issued for.
Who do I believe.... Rod, who is at least as muslim as he is Cowlitz (Man.... Barnett is ALL of 1/16th Cowlitz by his own admission.... that must have made the life of that multi-millionaire developer a LIVING HELL!) or wikipedia? HHhmmmm.... decisions, decisions.
Your assertion that it is a sham was based on the intent. In that you were and are correct. But you missed the larger issue, which is that in every respect it is false.
Do I always see only what I want to see, facts be damned? Only when it involves ice cream or when I'm in love. Are you still beating your spouse/significant other?
My source that all authentic fatwas are issued in Arabic is Michael Medved, who pointed it out on August 1, 2005. I have no proof that the fatwa wasn't written in Arabic, first, but if so then it was not published. Unpublished is unissued.
What say I swing over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa? I did that last week. I also took a swing over to http://www.fatwa-online.com/ and http://www.isna.net/ and http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/07/the_american_is.html and I encourage you to do the same.
But I find it curious that you bring up my tribal membership in the context of what, to a real conservative like me, is an issue of the illegitimacy of the aforementioned fatwa. You say I'm "at least as muslim as...Cowlitz." As it happens, my American Indian blood quantum is higher than 1/16th. But it seems that, like so many others, you believe that Indian rights should be based on blood quantum. As Indian rights are property rights, and property rights conferred by birth is a matter of inheritance, then by your logic blood quantum should be a determining factor in all inheritance cases.
A case in point: Bill and Melinda Gates have 3 children, last time I checked. Bill's children have a 1/2 "Bill Gates" blood quantum. His grandchildren will have a 1/4 "Bill Gates" blood quantum, his great grandchildren will have a 1/8th "Bill Gates" blood quantum, and his great great grandchildren will have a 1/16th "Bill Gates" blood quantum. At what point will the "Bill Gates" blood quantum drop so low that Bill's progeny will no longer qualify to inherit a part of his vast estate? At what point will his descendants stop being part of the "Bill Gates" family?
It's the same thing.
Personally, I believe that Bill's lineal descendants will be part of his family for as long as they and the rest of the family say so, and that their "Bill Gates" blood quantum is irrelevant. Further, I believe in property rights. I belive in the right to inherit property rights. And although I believe in and will defend your right to oppose property rights, wrong though you are to do so, I know for a fact that I am not Muslim, both Dave and I are Cowlitz, and both those facts are irrelevant to the fact that the fatwa in question was a fake.
Your assertion that it is a sham was based on the intent. In that you were and are correct. But you missed the larger issue, which is that in every respect it is false.
I have yet to see the basis of your assertion. Am I to go along with your position merely because YOU say so? I very clearly asked you:
“As for the issuance of the fatwa in arabic only as proof of authenticity, would you care to back that up with some source? And would you care to venture a proof that the fatwa in question WASN'T issued in first in arabic and subsequently translated for publication?
Even looking below and actually going to the sites you mentioned, I fail to see where the fact that YOU didn’t see this thing in arabic somehow makes it false. On the contrary, at least one of the sites that YOU listed, http://www.isna.net/, CLEARLY indicates exactly the opposite: that in their opinion, the fatwa in question IS genuine. See their web page here, http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=286 along with an isna point of contact.
If they agreed with your perspective… then why didn’t they SAY so? Why are they supporting it?
The ONLY reason its bogus are its contents. You have yet to provide a proof that it was not initially written in arabic (which would meet your “arabic” condition) and then translated into English.
That the fatwa was smoke and mirrors is not disputable. That your basis for that position are “critical facts” and web sites that fail to back that assertion up is the issue.
Do I always see only what I want to see, facts be damned? Only when it involves ice cream or when I'm in love. Are you still beating your spouse/significant other?
Only when she asks for ice cream.
Rod, that question was made relevant based on our past discussions.
Clearly, you have some ideas about certain issues that tend to defy reality. I was just checking to see if anyone was home.
My source that all authentic fatwas are issued in Arabic is Michael Medved, who pointed it out on August 1, 2005. I have no proof that the fatwa wasn't written in Arabic, first, but if so then it was not published. Unpublished is unissued.
How odd it is that Medved’s position seems to be absolutely unverifiable on the net. I spent an hour trying to find anything or anyone that agreed with that position. Sadly, I was unable to substantiate it.
And, frankly, the “because someone said so” defense doesn’t cut it.
The whole point of that thing was to act as a sop to the American people. Issuing it in an essentially non-comprehensible foreign language… the “language of terrorists,” if you will, would not have resulted in the media outcome they desired.
The issue of authenticity is, effectively, a non-issue. Instead, it is the lack of substance… the words with no real meaning or affects that damn this document and those shilling it.
What say I swing over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa?
I did that last week. I also took a swing over to http://www.fatwa-online.com/ and http://www.isna.net/ and http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/07/the_american_is.html and I encourage you to do the same.
I absolutely did that. I was also unable to find anything requiring fatwa’s to be issued in arabic. On the contrary, as stated previously, isna proudly hosts the fatwa, worthless as it is, on their website.
But I find it curious that you bring up my tribal membership in the context of what, to a real conservative like me, is an issue of the illegitimacy of the aforementioned fatwa. You say I'm "at least as muslim as...Cowlitz." As it happens, my American Indian blood quantum is higher than 1/16th. But it seems that, like so many others, you believe that Indian rights should be based on blood quantum. As Indian rights are property rights, and property rights conferred by birth is a matter of inheritance, then by your logic blood quantum should be a determining factor in all inheritance cases.
Let me lay it out for you.
If, for example, you claim to be 1/16th something, as Mr. Barnett claims to be 1/16th Cowlitz (a figure quite in dispute, it would seem) then equally, that would make you 15/16’s something else.
I, for example, have some level… some measure of Native American blood in me. Aleut, I believe.
How much is that percentage in me? Don’t know… and more importantly, don’t care.
David Barnett attempts to act and pawn himself off as if he just left the teepee out on Fourth Plain. The absurdity of anyone identifying themselves as anything when the thing they’re choosing to use is the smallest percentage of their make up for that identification is nonsensical on its face.
When I fill out the interminable race blocks on the myriad forms we’re confronted with on a daily basis, I don’t give a damn that a small part of me is Aleut… and Hispanic… and whatever else may be present.
I am not in the least interested in using my biology as an excuse to become eligible for anything.
My half-Asian son, for example, absolutely refused to use his racial makeup as a reason or crutch to gain entrance to the UW. Not for his admission, his scholarships, his achievement.
Those steeped in their victimhood… those so internally worthless that they think the only way they can get ahead is to destroy the communities and ways of life of others they don’t even know… purely and absolutely because of the accident of their births… those who intend to materially gain from that association at the expense of tens of thousands of others… those who are the ones who feel compelled to assume a role that has NO REAL BEARING ON WHO THEY ARE… merely, only and precisely because there’s a check waiting at the other end of it… those are who I’m referring to.
A case in point: Bill and Melinda Gates have 3 children, last time I checked. Bill's children have a 1/2 "Bill Gates" blood quantum. His grandchildren will have a 1/4 "Bill Gates" blood quantum, his great grandchildren will have a 1/8th "Bill Gates" blood quantum, and his great great grandchildren will have a 1/16th "Bill Gates" blood quantum. At what point will the "Bill Gates" blood quantum drop so low that Bill's progeny will no longer qualify to inherit a part of his vast estate?
At whatever point he decides.
Bill can spread it around… or give it all away. That is HIS choice. And we, the population of Southwest Washington do not have to suffer for it.
There is no law, for example, that requires that his grandchildren get anything. That is his decision, fully under his control.
At what point will his descendants stop being part of the "Bill Gates" family?
That, of course, is two different things entirely. The real question is “At what point will his decedents stop BENEFITING from being part of Bill Gate’s family?”
Does, for example, Prince Phillip realize any benefit from being related to the Czars?
The issue. The only issue… is how much is it worth?
It's the same thing.
as you know by now, beg to differ.
Personally, I believe that Bill's lineal descendants will be part of his family for as long as they and the rest of the family say so, and that their "Bill Gates" blood quantum is irrelevant. Further, I believe in property rights. I belive in the right to inherit property rights. And although I believe in and will defend your right to oppose property rights, wrong though you are to do so, I know for a fact that I am not Muslim, both Dave and I are Cowlitz, and both those facts are irrelevant to the fact that the fatwa in question was a fake.
It also should be irrelevant to your ability to ram a megacasino down our throats when we don’t want it here… but that doesn’t stop you, does it?
Rod previously replied…
Your assertion that it is a sham was based on the intent. In that you were and are correct. But you missed the larger issue, which is that in every respect it is false.
Who... Me? said...
I have yet to see the basis of your assertion.
Rod replies…
That's a lie. You have seen the basis of my assertion, and you even responded to it. (See above and below.)
Who... Me? said...
Am I to go along with your position merely because YOU say so?
Rod replies…
That's a sophomoric ad homonym. In other words, you're trying to be cute. Instead, however, you're being disingenuous. I cited my source, to which you also responded. (See above and below.)
Who... Me? said...
I very clearly asked you:
“As for the issuance of the fatwa in arabic only as proof of authenticity, would you care to back that up with some source? And would you care to venture a proof that the fatwa in question WASN'T issued in first in arabic and subsequently translated for publication?
Even looking below and actually going to the sites you mentioned, I fail to see where the fact that YOU didn’t see this thing in arabic somehow makes it false.
Rod replies…
The fact that I didn't see the fatwa in Arabic is not what makes it false, nor did I say or imply otherwise. I encourage you to stop quibbling. There are many reasons why quibbling is a poor idea, but one you may appreciate is that your quibbling leads you to bark up so many empty trees.
Who... Me? said...
On the contrary, at least one of the sites that YOU listed, http://www.isna.net/, CLEARLY indicates exactly the opposite: that in their opinion, the fatwa in question IS genuine. See their web page here, http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=286 along with an isna point of contact.
Rod replies…
I did list that site, you're right about that; I did not, however, cite it as my source.
Who... Me? said...
If they agreed with your perspective… then why didn’t they SAY so? Why are they supporting it?
Rod replies…
Are you asking me to speculate as to their motives? Perhaps they perceive it as being in their interests to do so.
Who... Me? said...
The ONLY reason its bogus are its contents. You have yet to provide a proof that it was not initially written in arabic (which would meet your “arabic” condition) and then translated into English.
Rod replies…
As I already stipulated that it may, indeed, have been written in Arabic, you're merely being argumentative. Accepting, as I do based on my extremely reliable source, that fatawa which are not issued in Arabic are inauthentic, then the relevant question is, was it issued in Arabic?
Who... Me? said...
That the fatwa was smoke and mirrors is not disputable. That your basis for that position are “critical facts” and web sites that fail to back that assertion up is the issue.
Rod replies…
I cited only one source. My source may be in error (he sometimes is), but that he said it is verifiable, though you failed to verify it.
Rod previously replied…
Do I always see only what I want to see, facts be damned? Only when it involves ice cream or when I'm in love. Are you still beating your spouse/significant other?
Who... Me? said...
Only when she asks for ice cream.
Rod, that question was made relevant based on our past discussions.
Rod replies…
I know that you were attempting to twist this into an opportunity to impugn my character and attack my tribe. Your transition, however, was in the classic "are you still beating your wife" form. I chose to use humor to point this out.
Who... Me? said...
Clearly, you have some ideas about certain issues that tend to defy reality. I was just checking to see if anyone was home.
(Identifying his source) Rod previously replied…
My source that all authentic fatwas are issued in Arabic is Michael Medved, who pointed it out on August 1, 2005. I have no proof that the fatwa wasn't written in Arabic, first, but if so then it was not published. Unpublished is unissued.
Who... Me? said...
How odd it is that Medved’s position seems to be absolutely unverifiable on the net. I spent an hour trying to find anything or anyone that agreed with that position. Sadly, I was unable to substantiate it.
Rod replies…
Your failure to confirm that Michael said so merely means that you failed. If you wish to succeed, follow one of the following sets of instructions:
First set:
Go to Michael's Monthly Premium Membership page at:
http://www.michaelmedved.com/site/product?pid=10020
Subscribe for a mere $4.95
Stream the archived August 1st show.
Second set:
Buy the recording of The Michael Medved Show ~ Monday, August 1, 2005 at:
https://www.treefarmtapes.com/catalog/product.asp?productid=14926
Wait for delivery
Play the tape or CD at home
Third set:
On any Friday, between 2PM and 3PM PDT –which is the "Open Mind Friday" hour, call Michael at: 800-955-1776
Tell Dan you want to challenge or ask Michael about the validity of the assertion that to be authentic a fatwa must be issued in Arabic
Wait
Wait
Wait some more
When you finally get on, don't waste time talking about me but get right to the point.
And when he confirms that this is true, then you can challenge him to prove it.
Who... Me? said...
And, frankly, the “because someone said so” defense doesn’t cut it.
Rod replies…
Argumentum ad verecundiam. An appeal to authority is inappropriate if the person is not qualified to have an opinion on the subject, experts disagree on the issue, or for some reason the "authority" wasn't telling the truth. I believe that Michael is qualified, he was telling the truth, and really the only effective counter would be for you to demonstrate that other experts in the field disagree. And the fact that Islamic sites have self-servingly carried the fake fatwa is not proof of this.
Who... Me? said...
The whole point of that thing was to act as a sop to the American people.
Rod replies…
A point upon which we both can agree.
Post a Comment