The Whole Al Jazeera & Wafa Sultan Controversy

In Culture Arabia, Opinion on March 9, 2008 at 9:56 am

Last Tuesday, Al Jazeera’s The Opposite Direction with Faisal Al Qasem hosted Wafa Sultan and an Islamic cleric to discuss the reprinting of offensive cartoons of the prophet Mohammad. Sultan is pretty well-known for her strong anti-Islam opinions, which obviously made her an ideal participant in the fight club called The Opposite Direction, especially since she was up against an Islamic cleric.

Sultan expressed herself her usual way, and many Muslims watching the show were infuriated by her lack of diplomacy and insulting Islam and its figures. Then people demanded an apology of the station, Al Jazeera, because they accused the station of supporting anti-Islamism. Al Jazeera apologized, and the right wing everywhere rejoiced because it found another reason to diss Muslims and Arabs.

My opinion is as follows:

Al Jazeera had it coming. It really, really had it coming. A show like The Opposite Direction in particular should have been stopped a long time ago. It does not encourage dialogue but cockfighting. Al Qasem sits extreme opposites on one table and fuels their disputes. He ignites them if they calm, and he encourages screaming and name-calling under the guise of conversation. This show has always been on my hate list, and now I hate it more.

Since The Opposite Direction has FINALLY crossed some public red line, the show is now under scrutiny. The ‘normal’ people who used to watch it and cheer Al Qasem on are now rebuking him and saying the show is really no good. Unfortunately, they are not doing that for the right reasons (show achieves nothing but grow resentment, stupid fighting, etc.) but they are doing it anyway. They are also projecting what one show did (which they loved in the past, remember) on an entire station that they statistically still very much love.

Saying that Al Jazeera supports anti-Islamism is an old-new conspiracy theory which until now stood ungrounded. The Opposite Direction episode with Sultan gave reason for more people to believe it. Their logic is skewed, but so was their taste in the first place to admire a show like that.

Sultan is not a very diplomatic speaker when asked about Islam. I personally do not like her way of handling issues, and I think she does have certain biases and is not entirely fair. On the other hand, Al Qasem already knew this about her as he had hosted her previously and her videos are all over the internet. I am glad that finally Al Qasem received a wake-up call, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

What makes me sad is not what Sultan said, or what Al Qasem did, or anything related to Al Jazeera. What makes me sad is how some Arab people easily distort facts and call others ‘anti-Islam’ as simple as that. What’s Al Jazeera to do if it was hosting a debate about the prophet cartoons? Host two Islamic clerics and that’s it? It’s a ‘debate’ so it should have two or more different opinions! Why is the station itself being called anti-Islam? Must it always conform to one boring line of reporting taking the side of the majority?

I think part of the reason why some people easily accuse others when they are not 100% pleased with their ideas lies in our education and in the pressures that Arabs live under these days. Our education, for the most part, does not offer the ‘counter argument’ and if it does, it purposefully marginalizes it in favor of the more popular. The pressures on Arabs and Muslims in this day and age make them hypersensitive to anything foreign, as is to be expected, much like what happened in the United Stated after 9/11.

I find it fascinating how in this part of the world, people can still unite (almost) for a cause and can protest and make demands. It is more fascinating to me how they project their current internal problems on external threats, which may or may not be relevant. The uproars caused by the prophet cartoons and now Wafa Sultan have far outreached those caused, if any, by governmental corruption, high prices, bad planning, gender inequality, and any other day-to-day obstacle to progress in Jordan and the region. It makes me wonder about our real priorities because the heights these actions and reactions have reached are truly ridiculous.

Meh. The world is such a disappointing place with plenty of grey. What a sad, sad place to be.

▶ View 99 Comments

Ok, my opinion is as follows:

 
<ol style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Al jazeera was wrong by hosting that Wafa Sultan, because she never argues to solve a problem or reach a truth, she just curse on Arabs and Muslims and desecrate on God and the prophet.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Actually I never liked the show at all, it’s all about fighting as you said.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Generalizing the ‘anti-Islam’ claim on the whole channel was also wrong.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">It’s normal, logical, desired and supposed to have a big fuss about any attempt to any insult of the prophet or Islam, it’s not a sort of freedom of speech by no means to curse prophets and religions, and it is a red line no one should exceed.</li></ol>
(Insulting is not freedom of speech, you can’t call someone’s righteous mother a bitch for example)!
<ol style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type="1" start="5">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">“…have far outreached those caused, if any, by governmental corruption…” well to me that is not fascinating at all, people are not that united nor forward when it comes to political or economical issues, the right thing is to be so not to neglect religious issue for political or economical ones.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">“What makes me sad is not what Sultan said” that was sad for me, I believe what Sultan said should in the first manner do make every Muslim sad.
</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">“It makes me wonder about our real priorities because the heights these actions and reactions have reached are truly ridiculous” that was truly disappointing, here you again, insult and scorn people’s feelings and acts for a particular issue in the name of freedom of speech!
</li></ol>

Abdullah 9 March 2008 at 11am
I was just waiting for this post. Yep, Arabs definitely need to reorganize their priorities, we have far more important issues to deal with, ones that affect us directly. But no, we just boycott danish products and stop there.

Farah 9 March 2008 at 7pm
<ol type="1" style="margin-top: 0in;">
<li style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal">It’s
normal, logical, desired and supposed to have a big fuss about any
attempt to any insult of the prophet or Islam, it’s not a sort of
freedom of speech by no means to curse prophets and religions, and it
is a red line no one should exceed.</li></ol>
(Insulting is not freedom of speech, you can’t call someone’s righteous mother a bitch for example)! I think this is where the fundamental disagreement over the Mohammad Cartoons really begins. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., insults may not be counted as "freedom of speech." I honestly don’t know the letter of the law, however, so I can’t say for certainty. In most Western countries, however, insults — and even insults about things as important to some people as religion — are in fact free speech. I can say whatever I want about Jesus, and I can say whatever I please about Mohammad, and if you don’t like it, tough shit. It doesn’t give anyone the right to riot in the streets, burn things, and plot to kill people who draw cartoons. That said, this Wafa Sultan person sounds like she’s a pretty useless person in the style of the TV talking heads we have over here in the States. They just shout and yell and try to create controversy without adding a thing of substance to the actual debate. There’s a legitimate debate to be had over the Mohammad Cartoons and the Muslim victim complex. Going on TV and just abusing Islam, however, doesn’t really accomplish anything. On the other hand, screaming about a TV channel being "anti-Islam" and demanding the program be taken off the air doesn’t really accomplish much either, now does it? 

Vincent 9 March 2008 at 9pm
<ol type="1" style="margin-top: 0in;">
<li style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal">It’s
normal, logical, desired and supposed to have a big fuss about any
attempt to any insult of the prophet or Islam, it’s not a sort of
freedom of speech by no means to curse prophets and religions, and it
is a red line no one should exceed.</li></ol>
(Insulting is not freedom of speech, you can’t call someone’s righteous mother a bitch for example)! 
 
 

Actually insulting people is "free speech" up to the point of violating their civil rights. If it becomes harassment or "hate speech" it is then illegal. Provocative speech (like insults), though legal, can be seen as justification for violence though - you can be considered to have started a physical altercation even if you didn’t throw the first blow. It is for this reason that insulting people face to frace is extremely rare. At least in the US. I haven’t been insulted in person in over 20 years, for example. But I get insulted on teh internet every single day :O  

Craig 9 March 2008 at 10pm
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Al Jazeera had it coming. It really, really had it coming. A show like
The Opposite Direction in particular should have been stopped a long
time ago. It does not encourage dialogue but cockfighting. </div> A little bit of cockfighting in public discourse can be a good thing.  The fact that such arguments, with both sides of an issue being given their chance to speak, require apologies and possible cancellations of shows isn’t a positive sign for freedom of speech in the Arab world.  The United States has had tons of these shows (Firing Line, Crossfire, etc.) and, while not always intellectually productive, they do allow some controversial voices to be heard that would otherwise be ignored.  Sometimes that’s enough. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">I think part of the reason why some people easily accuse others when
they are not 100% pleased with their ideas lies in our education and in
the pressures that Arabs live under these days. Our education, for the
most part, does not offer the ‘counter argument’ and if it does, it
purposefully marginalizes it in favor of the more popular. </div> I’d say it lies in your tribalism and your accompanying honor-shame culture.  Insults to people’s honor are taken as a free pass to retaliate in any fashion, no matter how extreme. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(Insulting is not freedom of speech, you can’t call someone’s righteous mother a bitch for example)! </div> In the United States you sure can and I don’t think Wafa Sultan called anyone’s mother a bitch.  If I called your mother a bitch in the United States you would be free to respond in kind.  You wouldn’t be free to attack me or riot or burn down embassies or take hostages. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">it’s not a sort of freedom of speech by no means to curse prophets and religions, and it is a red line no one should exceed. </div> It absolutely is and you cannot claim to have free speech in a society that enforces laws against blasphemy or, for that matter, laws against Holocaust denial, racist speech, sexist speech, controversial political or religious opinions, and so forth.  All social and political thought must be free to express itself. The U.S. has the strongest tradition of free speech in the world today and a long history of rivalries between different Christian denominations.  These disputes have been relatively non-violent but not always civil in tone.  But our philosophy has always been to fight words with words.  The tendency of most of the rest of world seems to be to enforce multiculturalism and religious pluralism through political oppression and violence. 

tommy 9 March 2008 at 11pm
Actually insulting people is "free speech" up to the point of violating their civil rights. If it becomes harassment or "hate speech" it is then illegal
You should know about hate Arab basher. Owning up to yr mistakes is the first step to rehabilitation. There is still hope to save yr soul albeit very slim one.

A.Rehman 10 March 2008 at 5am
Faisal Al Qasim opposite direction remonds me of Jerry Springer show although the later is mostly about relationships and jilted lovers and extremely vulgar as well as trivial, but bringing one with an axe to grind with muslims and already sopnsored by anti-muslim camps who does not flinch at hurting the feelings of billions with crude language and remarks and rhetoric that appeals to muslim and arab haters is bad taste.Bitting her against loud monochrome is equally bad taste  since what you got is a shouting match fomenting hate and misunderstanding rather than presenting reasonable arguments to clear mis-conceptions. Having said that I fail to understand the venom Wafa spews and why insult a whole devine religion and people and their prophet when even in these times there are still taboos against insulting say the Queen of England no matter what.My suggestion is to ignore her and not to help her make more money by giving her undue importance and speaking assignements.

A.Rehman 10 March 2008 at 6am
@tommy, craig & vincent The U.S. has the strongest tradition of free speech in the world today sheesh are you for real ! which parallel universe do u guys live in ? oh sorry i must have sniffed that frowzy american orientalism by now… Hey we aren’t saying that we are all that, but please don’t try to push your selves above us since whats happening in your backyard is far worse but you obviously are a bit too panic ridden to even notice. here i’ll help, check out this bill hun … <a href=http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic/tvq/video.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-03-05-0011.html>YES CLICK HERE</a> So careful when stepping on toes, for there might be someone holding your balls too … and your crappy ass political correctness doesn’t even cut it to be freedom on speech… tell that to Imus & rush 



bambam 10 March 2008 at 11am
Bambam, you need to learn more about how the US government actually works before you start commenting about how bad things are in the US, man. Any legislator can introduce anything they want, and request that it get voted on. Unless it actually DOES get voted on, and DOES pass, and DOES get signed into law, it means nothing. And even if it does become law, it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide whether controversial laws are actually constitutional or not. Your "example" amounts to a whole lot of nothing. As far as Imus (don’t know what you are referring to with Rush Limbaugh) he got fired for making racisst remarks on his radio program. Nobody accused him of doing anything illegal, as far as I know. He got fired for beinga  bigot. An open display of bigotry will get you fired from any private sector job in America. If an employer tolerated a bigot, they would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit for civil rights violations. 

Craig 10 March 2008 at 12pm
eh ? patriot act anyone ? DMCA ? phone companies illegal wiretapping operation that was upheld by the congress ? suspencion of haebus corpus and the apprehension of college professors without due process (al-arian). should i go on or does everything fly over ur head and you just live in the greatest country that ever will be in the world in terms of freedom of speech ? oh … i suggest you go read up on Noam chomsky to see what he has to say of the country ranked 48th in terms of freedom of expression … point shoot …. kabooom 

bambam 10 March 2008 at 1pm
Al Arian is a terrorist, not a "Professor", bambam. And Noam Chomsky is the very last person most Americans give a damn about. He caters more to the whole anti-American crowd, in case you didn’t notice. should i go on or
does everything fly over ur head and you just live in the greatest
country that ever will be in the world in terms of freedom of speech ? I don’t care if you go on or not. Your distaste for the US is self-evident. You don’t really expect Americans to agree with you on that, do you? :P Tell me, though, do these corrections of your mis-statement of fact go right over YOUR head? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian Like the fgact Al Arian is not just a suspected terrorist, but a CONVICTED terrorist? 

Craig 10 March 2008 at 2pm
<h2>Sentencing</h2>
U.S. District Judge James Moody sentenced al-Arian to the maximum 57
months in prison and gave him credit for time served. He will serve the
balance of 19 months and then be deported, prosecutors said. In his
ruling, Moody harshly criticized al-Arian for doing nothing to stop
bombings perpetrated by Islamic Jihad. "You lifted not one finger. To
the contrary, you laughed when you heard of the bombings," he said.
"You are a master manipulator. The evidence is clear in this case. You
were a leader of the PIJ."<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-3">[11]</a>
<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-3"></a>
<a id="Grand_jury_subpoena_and_hunger_strike" name="Grand_jury_subpoena_and_hunger_strike" />
<h2>[<a title="Edit section: Grand jury subpoena and hunger strike" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sami_Al-Arian&action=edit&section=8">edit</a>] Grand jury subpoena and hunger strike</h2>
Al-Arian has recently refused to testify to a federal <a title="Grand jury" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury">grand jury</a> in <a title="Alexandria, Virginia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria%2C_Virginia">Alexandria, Virginia</a>, in an investigation of the <a title="International Institute of Islamic Thought" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_of_Islamic_Thought">International Institute of Islamic Thought</a>’s alleged financing of terror because he believes, "his life would be in danger if he testified."<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Markon">[12]</a>
Further, Al-Arian claims he has no information that could further the
investigation and his attorneys argued that the grand jury <a title="Subpoena" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena">subpoena</a> violates Al-Arian’s plea agreement with U.S. prosecutors.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Markon">[12]</a>
In a verbal agreement that appears in court transcripts, federal
prosecutors agreed that Al-Arian would not have to testify in Virginia.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Laughlin2">[13]</a> These arguments were rejected by a federal judge in Florida and Al-Arian (who is diabetic) began a 60-day <a title="Hunger strike" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_strike">hunger strike</a> on January 22, 2007, to "protest continued government harassment."<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Markon">[12]</a><a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-4">[14]</a> As of March 20, 2007, Al-Arian, who is 6-feet tall, had lost 53 of the 202 pounds he weighed when he started his hunger strike.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Laughlin2">[13]</a>

Craig 10 March 2008 at 2pm
Actually insulting people is "free speech" up to the point of violating their civil rights.

Maybe so in the US and Denmark but not in Jordan and any other Arab country. Insulting religions or Profits is against the law and this applies to Christianity and Judism as well. You may not like it or agree with it but thats the law. I live in the US and I appreciate many of the freedoms is awards its citizen but calling the president names like "chimp" or idiot among others is disrespectful not only to the person but the the office he represents. This maybe part of the American culture but it is not part of ours.

Imad 10 March 2008 at 3pm
so I guess you prefer to listen to daniel pipes then ? by your own selective quoting and ignoring the rest of what i said it seems that its the first time you ever heard of the guy. Oh the irony that you call ur self a libertarian! look craig, this part is just for your selective reading: The six-month trial featured more than 80 witnesses and 400 transcripts of intercepted phone conversations and faxes.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Laughlin">[7]</a> At the end of the prosecution’s case, Al-Arian’s attorneys rested without offering a defense.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Laughlin">[7]</a> On <a title="December 6" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_6" style="font-weight: bold;">December 6</a>, <a title="2005" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005" style="font-weight: bold;">2005</a>,
after 13 days of deliberations, the jury acquitted him on eight of 17
counts, while remaining deadlocked 10-2 in favor of acquittal on the
other nine.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Laughlin">[7]</a>
Of fifty-one charges against the four men, not one resulted in a
conviction; Ballut and Hammoudeh were acquitted on all charges.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian#_note-Laughlin">[7]</a> i’ll repeat that … "not one resulted in a conviction" within the trial, yet he remained detained and settled for the plea agreement,  either way we are not discussing that. we are discussing the claim that the US is the pinnacle of freedom and freedom of speech like you three claim. so far all i got is empty rhetoric ? do you need a debate for dummies manual ? i’ll send you one, on me this time. oh and i just noticed … "it is for this reason
that insulting people face to frace is extremely rare. At least in the
US. I haven’t been insulted in person in over 20 years, for example" are you sure ? is it because of that ? or maybe cause you are a white, white collar, suburbanite where you live in your own synthetic bubble that you haven’t been offended in person … i wonder . I
don’t care if you go on or not. Your distaste for the US is
self-evident. You don’t really expect Americans to agree with you on
that, do you? :P 
hmm the sane ones do …and don’t worry and equally oppurtunity offender so don’t think for a second that i single out the US. 
<div dir="ltr" id="result_box">Cuidar mi amigo</div> 

bambam 10 March 2008 at 3pm
Imad ? eh … its a different country, and a different set of rules. unless your vying for the universal return of the caliphate please drop "don’t disrespect us and our culture when your culture allows it. because we are arab muslims" rhetoric. it doesn’t hold ground. 

bambam 10 March 2008 at 4pm
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Actually insulting
people is "free speech" up to the point of violating their civil
rights. If it becomes harassment or "hate speech" it is then illegal </div> Hate speech is not criminal in the United States.  It is in some European countries just like Holocaust denial.  Both are serious violations of free speech, in my opinion.   Jordan is not a country that practices free speech and neither is Germany. Printing derisive cartoons of a living person in a newspaper would not be considered harassment under any circumstance in the United States.  The best you might be able to do is sue for libel in civil court and even that is an uphill battle.  Initiating a lawsuit over cartoons mocking a dead person or a well-known public figure, live or dead, would get you laughed out of court. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"> sheesh
are you for real ! which parallel universe do u guys live in ? oh sorry
i must have sniffed that frowzy american orientalism by now… </div> American Orientalism?  What does Orientalism have to do with anything I said?  Edward Said’s silly and wrong-headed anti-Orientalism is apparently the "one size fits all" rebuttal to every objection westerners might hold about your culture.  Said’s disingenuousness can be seen in the fact that he spent an inordinate amount of time telling us how wrong the Orientalists were about Arabs and no time providing an alternative image of Arabs to take the place of the Orientalists’.  So busy did he attack the Orientalists that he showed not the slightest interest in undertaking any significant analysis of his own about Arabs. And, in the process of criticizing the Orientalists, he failed to distinguish serious academic opinion of Arabs from Hollywood projections, as if Hollywood’s take on Arabs (or anything else) was as likely to reflect scholarly opinion as a book by Bernard Lewis.  Here is some American Orientalism for you: while the West has innumerable critics of our own culture and history, both on the political left and right, religious or secular, there is an amazing lack of intellectual introspection among Arabs about themselves. Tololy’s explanation that education is to blame is fashionable but wrong.   (If Said’s drivel is the universal rebuttal to critics of the Arabs then improved education seems to be the universal antidote to the problems of the Arabs.) Americans were a very uneducated people on the world scene for most of their history.  They still have a long tradition of regarding free speech as a value worth defending in and of itself.   Better educated nations have shown far less tolerance. Culture is the problem. 

tommy 10 March 2008 at 7pm
A lot has been said on this space, and I don’t know if what I will say will fuel the discussion more or not. BUT, I will share what I think anyway: 1- Education & culture as a basis for potential hypersensitivity in the Arab world: Education IS an integral part of culture, and a way to modify it. While Arab culture customarily holds honor and shame as important concepts, it also holds hospitality, generosity, and communal cooperation, among other things, equally important. Saying that Arab culture is entirely negative is absurd, likewise, saying that education is NOT a major part of any culture is absurd. 2- Americans as having free speech in their cultural genes: Simply not true. Americans have developed their own sense of free speech over time, and they were not born with it. Think of the Puritans and their censorship, think of the situation of slaves and African-Americans and the hardships they went through to voice their opinions and acquire their civil rights, etc. 3- The American legislative process: While it’s true what Craig said about the seeming ‘ease’ with which a bill gets introduced, and the theoretical processes that it follows to become a law, the fact remains that this is highly theoretical as least in its idealistic nature. Craig forgot to mention that for a bill to turn into a law not only does it need to be approved by BOTH houses of the Congress (including the many lobbies and committees that can and do technically kill a bill in its infancy if they don’t like it), it also gets modified, debated, examined, and THEN it goes to the President who may or may not approve of it. So between all that, one wonders where the free speech that Craig thinks he is proving, stands. If a bill is not in the favor of a major lobby or committee, it does not even get introduced because the legislator would not want to waste time on it. 4- I question anyone’s ulterior motives when they contrast America and the Arab world as two complete opposites, with America being good and the Arabs being bad. You can’t be biased like that and expect to get away with it, not even if you use big words. 5- American Orientalism: Edward Said stepped on many toes convinced of Western superiority, so it’s understandable that he would have plenty of critics especially among those who speak in a holier-than-thou manner. Bernard Lewis, on the other hand, is a questionable ‘academic’ with a history of Orientalist activity in its ugliest forms. Said founded postcolonialism, but as to be expected, did not have enough time on his hands to write about every aspect of every tiny detail of it. Thinkers who were influenced by his philosophy continued his job. Lewis, on the other hand, had it easy. This was a man who worked primarily in the 20th century on a concrete, well established heritage of Orientalism almost five centuries old. He mainly repeated what Orientalists before him had imagined to be academic studies of Arabia. Remember also that he was consulted by the Bush administration about its ‘war on terrorism’ — that alone should reveal much about his credibility and biases. The innoy is, he argued against Said’s maintaining that Orientalism is the academic residue of colonialism in the Arab world, by citing Orientalist evidence of the 16th and 17th centuries. He completely forgot that the Bible, the staple of Western thinking up until the Enlightenment, had related amazing images of hostile, sensual, and lowly Arabs. Some academic! 6- Not everyone who notes a negativity about America is automatically anti-American, and not everyone who notes a negativity about the Arab world is anti-Arab. Consrtuctive criticism is good, rejecting it and being stubborn about one’s own cultural supremacy is idiotic. Thanks for reading this far, and thanks for the engaging discussions you started. Now you can continue discussing things and I won’t intervene. 

Tololy 10 March 2008 at 8pm
Imad: "Insulting religions or Profits is against the law and this applies to Christianity and Judism as well." Are you saying that when Jordanian Catholic and Orthodox Christians called Protestants "illegitimate" (there is no greater insult to somebody’s religious beliefs, is there?) that they were breaking Jordanian law? If so, then why weren’t tehy arrested and charged with a crime? Bambam: so I guess you
prefer to listen to daniel pipes then ? by your own selective quoting
and ignoring the rest of what i said it seems that its the first time
you ever heard of the guy. Where is that coming from? Daniel Pipes is nothing to me, and I don’t understand why you would claim he is. Oh the irony that you call ur self a
libertarian! And a Christian. As I recall, you don’t believe I have any right to call myself that, either. You seem to think you have the right to define the paramaters of my existence for me :O Skipping all you said about Al Arian. I guess you don’t understand what the word "conviction" means. The man pled guilty to providing material support to a terrorist group. That’s a criminal conviction, right there. He may be charged with additional crimes in the state of Florida, which has chosen to investigate him independently of the state of Virginia. 

Craig 11 March 2008 at 12am
Hate speech is not criminal in the United States. Hate speech is illegal in some states, Tommy. It’s true that theer are no formal "Hate Speech" laws at the federal level. But some kinds of speech are considered civil rights violations, and can be prosecuted under civil rights legislation. Tololy, thanks for sharing your views. I agree with some of what you wrote, and disagree with some of it. I won’t reply to all your points, but this one I would like to answer: 4- I question
anyone’s ulterior motives when they contrast America and the Arab world
as two complete opposites, with America being good and the Arabs being
bad. You can’t be biased like that and expect to get away with it, not
even if you use big words. Is the opposite true as well? Because in my opinion it’s very rare to encounter an Arab on a blog who feels anything but contempt for Americans. I personally have gotten tired of trying to discuss things objectively with people who are cultural and/or religious bigots. So, I don’t. You can’t have a "debate" when your opponent does nothing but mud-slinging. At least, I’m not aware of any way to do that. And whenever I have tried to engage somebody who is open minded enough to discuss an issue on the merits (like you) - invariable some Arab bigot shows up and starts pissing all over me. And nobody (Arab) ever bothers to correct their abusive behavior. It gets old. Fast. 

Craig 11 March 2008 at 12am
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Thanks for reading
this far, and thanks for the engaging discussions you started. Now you
can continue discussing things and I won’t intervene. </div>Why not join in? ;-) 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"> While Arab culture
customarily holds honor and shame as important concepts, it also holds
hospitality, generosity, and communal cooperation, among other things,
equally important. </div> Sure, tribal societies that aren’t entirely xenophobic and reclusive (like certain Andaman Islanders) tend to be at least superficially courteous and hospitable to outsiders and usually place great emphasis on loyalty and honor among tribesmen.  They also tend to have a low tolerance for anything regarded as a breech of expected conduct and, thus, freedom of speech is not highly valued. Winston Churchill on possibly the most Arab non-Arabs, the Pashtuns: Campaigning on the Indian frontier is an experience by itself.
Neither the landscape nor the people find their counterparts in any
other portion of the globe. Valley walls rise steeply five or six
thousand feet on every side. The columns crawl through a maze of giant
corridors down which fierce snow-fed torrents foam under skies of
brass. Amid these scenes of savage brilliancy there dwells a race whose
qualities seem to harmonise with their environment. Except at
harvest-time, when self-preservation enjoins a temporary truce, the
Pathan tribes are always engaged in private or public war. Every man is
a warrior, a politician and a theologian. Every large house is a real
feudal fortress made, it is true, only of sunbaked clay, but with
battlements, turrets, loopholes, flanking towers, drawbridges, etc.,
complete. Every village has its defence. Every family cultivates its
vendetta; every clan, its feud. The numerous tribes and combinations of
tribes all have their accounts to settle with one another. Nothing is
ever forgotten, and very few debts are left unpaid. For the purposes of
social life, in addition to the convention about harvest-time, a most
elaborate code of honour has been established and is on the whole
faithfully observed. A man who knew it and observed it faultlessly
might pass unarmed from one end of the frontier to another. The
slightest technical slip would, however, be fatal. The life of the
Pathan is thus full of interest; and his valleys, nourished alike by
endless sunshine and abundant water, are fertile enough to yield with
little labour the modest material requirements of a sparse population.
Into this happy world the nineteenth century brought two new facts: the
breech-loading rifle and the British Government.
 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Saying that Arab
culture is entirely negative is absurd, likewise, saying that education
is NOT a major part of any culture is absurd. </div> No one, to my knowledge, has denied that.  However, the idea that education is going to fix what are fundamentally greater problems of family formation and tribalism seems doubtful. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Americans as having
free speech in their cultural genes: Simply not true. Americans have
developed their own sense of free speech over time, and they were not
born with it. Think of the Puritans and their censorship, think of the
situation of slaves and African-Americans and the hardships they went
through to voice their opinions and acquire their civil rights, etc. </div> The multireligious state of the colonies, with its Puritans, Catholics, Quakers, Anabaptists and others who often carried on bitter rivalries was part of the reason why any cohesive nation had to develop a civil life where religion was a mostly personal matter and where ideological disputes were mediated through non-coercive means (i.e. non-violent, but not always nice, verbal and literary disputes).  Much of the rest of the world, especially the Muslim world, has settled on a path that is more akin to a hypothetical group of pre-revolutionary Catholics in Maryland demanding stern laws prohibiting Puritans further north from mocking their saints under the auspices of maintaining social order and respecting one another.  America might not have become democratic had that been allowed. America had an advantage over the Arabs in at least one significant respect: family structure; we’ve never had tribalism, endogamy has been rare, and even the extended family has been relatively weak from the beginning.   That makes nation-building a lot easier since people can give their loyalty to the state and not divide loyalties between state and tribe.  It also results in a cleaner civil society because tribalism and endogamy encourage corruption and a culture of "connections." As for blacks, it sadly took a long time for America to regard them as citizens.  However, the right of free speech on religious and political matters for those who were full-fledged citizens in the U.S. have, with few and very limited exceptions, not been in question for a long time. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Remember also that
he was consulted by the Bush administration about its ‘war on
terrorism’ — that alone should reveal much about his credibility and
biases. </div> I would partially agree.  I find Said’s largely ad hominem abuse of Lewis to be about as substanceless as anything Said ever penned, but it’s true that Lewis was an optimist about the possibilities of a democratic Iraq.  Robert Spencer, who opposed the war and whose opinion of Islam is far less forgiving than that of Lewis, turned out to be more realistic. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">The innoy is, he
argued against Said’s maintaining that Orientalism is the academic
residue of colonialism in the Arab world, by citing Orientalist
evidence of the 16th and 17th centuries. He completely forgot that the
Bible, the staple of Western thinking up until the Enlightenment, had
related amazing images of hostile, sensual, and lowly Arabs. </div> The Bible says nothing directly of Arabs and those chapters that discribe  Mideastern life were written mostly by the Hebrews- - Mideasterners detailing their own tribal way of life!  Bernard Lewis’ was right: 16th and 17th century observations of the Arab world could hardly be the product of a then nonexistent colonialism and were rather an outgrowth of Renaissance interest in the world at large, including a world that had once existed in places like ancient Egypt and Babylonia.  If Said hadn’t wasted so much time dubbing his opponents "ignorant" or accusing them of "demogogy," he might have had time to offer up a competing vision of the Arab world.  I suspect the reason he did not was because any such theory could be subjected to the very scrutiny Said liked to pour upon others (even if Said himself was a sloppy scrutinizer). Being a cultural relativist of the worst kind, Said’s stock response to those who said anything he didn’t like was to claim they failed to recognize "diversity" or "pluralism" or "complexities" in the Arab world.  But, of course, all understanding of our world is based upon finding patterns.  Said’s response to patterns Orientalists observed was about as unsatisfying and unproductive as a physicist who explains the workings of the physical world by saying, "It’s all very complex, you see!"  It may indeed be complex, more than you realize at first, but as any scientist knows, you have to start somewhere.  You find patterns, work out fundamental laws and relationships, replace flawed theories with better ones, and flesh out the details as you go.  The objections of postcolonialists might be more welcome if they weren’t all so vague and unverifiable, but postcolonialists have generally continued to in Said’s tradition: tell us how wrong the West is in its judgments, how awful the West has been, and provide no hypothesis whatsoever about the culture in question. Said’s slothful scholarship fits a culture that is intellectually lazy, historically non-introspective, unscientific, and lagging technologically.  No wonder he’s so popular among modern Muslims.  It’s a symptom of the decline of the West — along with moral relativism, postmodernism, multiculturalism, modern leftism, contemporary Continental philosophy, and the wackiest flavors of feminism and ethnic activism — that the man has gained any traction here. 

tommy 11 March 2008 at 6am
Tommy, I don’t think you are being fair in your judgements. It seems to me that you are arguing to prove that Arab culture is entirely negative, that Arabs are innately hostile and lowly, and like I mentioned in my previous comment, saying that Arab culture is entirely negative is absurd. I will give you evidence of your bias from your opinions: 1- "Tribal
societies that aren’t entirely xenophobic and reclusive[...]tend to be at least superficially courteous and
hospitable to outsiders." I especially like the use of ‘at least’ and ’superficially.’ 2- You quote Churchill, which is to be expected in a debate about the views of other societies from a supremacist point of view. It is very fitting and very amusing to see how you chose Churchill, the great warrior-politician and colonizer, to give you a pseudo-scientific account of life in a non-Western society. Doesn’t that tell you something? 3- It is true that America and the Arab world have different histories, but I understand you were implicitly attributing the different history of the Arab world to some sort of dysfunstion, and not merely to chronology and environment. That is a form of racism. You seem to trivialize the journey of America towards its version of free speech, as if it came easy, which it didn’t. Like America developed its version of free speech and its version of democracy, the Arab world is starting to go through similar situations that will set it on that path. If you grudge it this right which you had, then that is the reason why Americans think they will democratize the Arab world by applying their own versions of the concept. And see the mess they created when they did that! It’s truly Orientalism at work. 4- Lewis you say was optimistic about ‘democratizing’ Iraq. Take a look at Iraq now, and take a look at the records of torture and violations of human rights that take place there by American soldiers, and then give credit to the man for his erroneous ‘Orientalist’ knowledge which guided America to this bog, if you can. Do not forget, too, that America supported and still supports tyrannical regimes in the world where its interests are best met. So don’t look down at the Arab world as an inferior place, when your supposedly civilized country openly tolerates and funds the very opposites of democracy. 5- The Bible: The Old Testament was largely a history of ancient Jews, and the Arabs were their enemies. Here are some examples of the portrayal of Arabs: The Arabs as being God’s agents of retribution (when the Hebrews entered Canaan there remained Arabs there to be ‘ a thorn in your sides, and their gods will be a snare unto you.’), Arabs as being means of temptation (Jezebel, Delilah, Bath-sheba the Hittite, Potiphar’s wife), Arabs as resembling animals (hairiness in Esau’s case, Zeeb the warrior who faced Gideon - Zeeb meaning wolf ). All of these images were later employed to justify the Biblical carnage that Jews were to carry out against the Arabs. As Joshua went through Canaanite cities like God’s own wrath leaving nothing alive, Jezebel was crushed and left for the dogs, David the great Arab-killer was sent to raise a dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins but came back with two hundred. Remember, the colonies in the New World were for the most part religious, and religion played a significant role in America’s development. The very idea that the Puritans wanted to establish a city upon a hill and entered into a covenant with God, much like the one between him and Israel, meant that they analyzed and understood the aforementioned imagery of the Arabs in the Bible. Moreover, even if you trivialize the role of the Bible as a major source for Western images about the Arabs, remember that the Crusades took place long before the 16th and 17th centuries. Can Lewis honestly dismiss the Crusades and all the propaganda that accompanied them as not parallel to, even synonymous with, colonialist ambition? Are they not, complete with travel literature, the very birthplace of Orientalism? 

Tololy 11 March 2008 at 10am
And
a Christian. As I recall, you don’t believe I have any right to call
myself that, either. You seem to think you have the right to define the
paramaters of my existence for me :O not really but you can’t blame me if i find irony in an ex-marine calling himself a libertarian. you have the right the hold whatever labels you like, and i have the right to think of them in whichever manner i find fit.  I guess you don’t understand what the word "conviction"
means. oh well i just happen to be more interested in what the jury decided rather than a man who has been held for 4 years by then and just wanted things to end… eitherway, i don’t have to ascribe by the american definition of a conviction which means that if you were ever charged and admitted guilt that is a conviction even if it was overturned, vacated, or a nolle prosequi was issued . and thats as much as am willing to digress, not interested in pointing out the flaws in the american legal system, or confusing you with legal term i just ask that you extend me the curtousy of not presuming things about my knowledge without due evidence. 
I personally have gotten tired of trying to discuss things objectively
with people who are cultural and/or religious bigots. So, I don’t. You
can’t have a "debate" when your opponent does nothing but mud-slinging. well thank god for short, every altrication that i had with you has been nothing but a hollier than thou mentality which can hardly be called open minded. 

bambam 11 March 2008 at 11am
@ tommy Said’s
slothful scholarship fits a culture that is intellectually lazy,
historically non-introspective, unscientific, and lagging
technologically.  No wonder he’s so popular among modern Muslims Thats a loaded statement son! a load full of preconceptions and blanket statements that i feel that are directed at me… too bad i don’t fit any of those even to the slightest degree. The Bible says nothing directly of Arabs and those chapters that discribe  Mideastern life were written mostly by the Hebrews The whole bible was written in hebrew, its a language … so mostly just shows a slight lack of knowledge in historical theology. And it does talk about them (after all they are the people of the bible whether you like it or not). and you exhibited enough supremicist attitude with your statements that warrants the orientalist label. what am reading here does sound like a incoherent daniel pipes and lewis commenting thats why it drew the reference… either way scholarship with out first hand experience is like talking about science without experiments while not entirely flawed it just doesn’t hold the same credibility and thats the main difference between said and lewis. The imperialist view of europe in the middle east are historic, unless you are as selective in what you reference as lewis or pipes are. So i won’t digress further, both you and craig claim that the US is the pinnacle of democracy and free speech in the world. and till now all i have seen is either supermicist blabber that significance,  or  nitpicking examples as false while ignoring the other glaring ones. Hell America criminilized the anti war movement, so much for free speech. it has a two party democracy which is not much of a democracy due to the road blocks set in front of a third part or Independants, it is the most religious christian country in the western world behind the vatican and a lot of legislations reflect that. plus that legislation explenation missed out on a lot of things but the most important is that the president of the USA is allowed to issue executive orders that don’t abide by any oversight. so i would like to hear some backing of why the USA is the pinnacle of freedom and democracy before you make any such claims, and again watch out for preconceptions about where i stand about things. We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don’t it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions. 
Jessamyn West 

bambam 11 March 2008 at 12pm
[...] Up the street from our office is the Arab Broadcasting Service, which hosts Al-Jazeera’s Office in Jordan. About half an hour ago, a colleague called me out to see this protest by fifty people or so. Signs and banners were saying that Al-Jazeera should apologize for having insulted the Prophet during Faisal al Qassem’s notorious talk show “The Opposite Direction”, where he hosted Wafa Sultan and an Islamic Cleric to discuss the reprinting of The Cartoons in Denmark. Another sign read “In what concerns our Prophet, there is only one direction, no opposite direction!”Al Jazeera had already apologized, but I guess people wanted to protest anyway. I have to get back to work, but you can read more about the controversy on Tololy’s blog. [...]

Into the Wind: A Protest in front of Al-Jazeera's Offices 11 March 2008 at 12pm
The land of Palestine during the time of Joshua. The twelve tribes are listed separately. Joshua proved to be an excellent general by his victory over the Amalekites (Exod 17:9, 13). After Moses’ death, according to the Book of Joshua, Joshua led the Israelites in their conquest of the highlands of central Palestine and during the distribution of the land among the twelve tribes, from the crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3) and the fall of Jericho (Josh 6) to the renewal of the covenant at Shechem (Josh 24). </td></tr></tbody></table>It may be noted that the victorious Jews killed every man, woman and child, killed all animals and destroyed everything and were barred from benifiting from anything that belonged to the conqured according to them by divine decree.Compare that to Islam which spread through trade, acceptance and gave the conquered the choice of either embracing Islam or paying a levy if they wish to hold into their faith and thus be protected and continue to practice their faith freely. It was clearly a benign and civilized attitude at a time when it was the accepted practice that conquerers have the rights to decimate the conquerees and enslave them and destroy their heritage, Islam barred the faithful from killing civilians, people in  their churches and temples and women and children and were also barred from killing animals and cutting trees.

A.Rehman 11 March 2008 at 4pm
Forgot the link
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua</a>

A.Rehman 11 March 2008 at 4pm
first of all am sorry i don’t have the time to read all the comments, i don’t know if some one talk about what am going to talk about, the thing that makes me so nerves from these programs in addtion to some points mentioned in the post, that they didn’t invite who are truly can talk strongly about the opinion especially about islam issues, they are inviting people that only have degrees even all of us know that they are not able to denfend the opinion of many persons, thats the same thing happened with wafa sultan, i think if she met some one able to stop her, she will not be in that aggresive way and she will take her self away from all of that.

bahloul 11 March 2008 at 5pm
I don’t feel vindicated but rather sorry that so many who preached and took the moral high ground where finally caught doing the same thing they were prosecuting others for doing. Spitzer, NY Attorney General for 9 years and Governor for a year went afer prostitution rings while using their services whole the time probably using our tax money. I have no problem with him using these services but do have problem ,big one, with his hypocrisy.This is following many high profile politicians and religous leaders fall from grace.
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story%3Fid%3D4424943%26page%3D1&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=2&usg=AFQjCNFDGWQIpRLsMCYZt6gewyZcXiLGmg">http://www.google.com/url?q=http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story%3Fid%3D4424943%26page%3D1&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=2&usg=AFQjCNFDGWQIpRLsMCYZt6gewyZcXiLGmg</a>
<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2YxNjZhZTIwOGMyMGUxNDJlYmUwM2FmOTczYTIxMzk">http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2YxNjZhZTIwOGMyMGUxNDJlYmUwM2FmOTczYTIxMzk</a>=
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvseu7uDYI9vGyMHJCo51IdS-4twD8VB7N800&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNERoBuVr3TWrdEtXxXNgxeQJS2pLQ">http://www.google.com/url?q=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvseu7uDYI9vGyMHJCo51IdS-4twD8VB7N800&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNERoBuVr3TWrdEtXxXNgxeQJS2pLQ</a>

A.Rehman 11 March 2008 at 6pm
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Tommy, I don’t think
you are being fair in your judgements. It seems to me that you are
arguing to prove that Arab culture is entirely negative, that Arabs are
innately hostile and lowly, and like I mentioned in my previous
comment, saying that Arab culture is entirely negative is absurd. I will give you evidence of your bias from your opinions: </div> I don’t blame Arabs for the circumstances of history, but I do blame history for the circumstances of Arabs.  I think Arabs, far from being entirely negative, are a very sensitive and sentimental people.  I think when issues of politics and religion are put aside, most Arabs are probably very nice people.  I’ve never been to the Mideast, but one of my friends was the daughter of a contractor in Saudi Arabia.  Her descriptions of Saudis in daily life, in spite of all the political and social oppression in the country, convince me most Arabs are just trying to get by as best they can in the world — just like the rest of us. I believe the Arab world has experienced the pangs of modernization too quickly for its own good and that the culture hasn’t had nearly enough time to adapt to a world where change is being driven by the West (and, more recently, a semi-westernized Far East).  I also think many Arabs hold some resentment toward the West over the fact that they aren’t a pre-eminent power in the modern world as they once were.  I get the feeling that a fair amount of extremism among Muslims is motivated by nostalgia for previous times when Muslim power was at its peak. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">The
Arabs as being God’s agents of retribution (when the Hebrews entered
Canaan there remained Arabs there to be ‘ a thorn in your sides, and
their gods will be a snare unto you.’), Arabs as being means of
temptation (Jezebel, Delilah, Bath-sheba the Hittite, Potiphar’s wife),
Arabs as resembling animals (hairiness in Esau’s case, Zeeb the warrior
who faced Gideon - Zeeb meaning wolf ). </div> The interpretation of Canaanites (or the Ammonites or Amalekites or any other ancient Biblical group) as Arabs is highly suspect.  Even by biblical description, the Canaanites were descendants of Ham (and would have presumably spoke a Hamitic tongue rather than Semitic Arabic).  According to the ancient Greeks and modern scholars, the Canaanites were actually the a branch of the Semitic Phoenicians, not Arabs.  The traditional account of their near extermination at the hands of the Hebrews would seem to rule them out as antecdents to the Arabs.  The Hittites were most definitely not Arabs (they spoke an Indo-European language distantly related to Greek and Sanskrit).   Ancient Jews identified Esau with the Romans.  With Arabs being centered in the remote interior of Arabia in ancient times, they were essentially non-entities in Jewish and classical thought.  Aramaic, not Arabic, was the prevalent Semitic language in the Mideast prior to Muslim expansion.  Negative opinion of non-Jewish Mideasterners by European Christians doesn’t seem to predate Muslim conquests of Christendom in the Near East and North Africa. I suspect it might have been Muhammad himself who chose to identify Arabs with the Biblical character of Ishmael.  If so, this was a conscious decision on the part of Muslims to graft themselves into existing monotheistic tradition. Of course, Muslims will argue differently.  
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">You
quote Churchill, which is to be expected in a debate about the views of
other societies from a supremacist point of view. It is very fitting
and very amusing to see how you chose Churchill, the great
warrior-politician and colonizer, to give you a pseudo-scientific
account of life in a non-Western society. Doesn’t that tell you
something? </div> Do you have any factual dispute with Churchill’s observations or are you going to just play the ad hominem game?  I found Churchill’s description to be straightforward and in keeping with what others have said about the Pashtuns. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
It is true that America and the Arab world have different histories,
but I understand you were implicitly attributing the different history
of the Arab world to some sort of dysfunstion, and not merely to
chronology and environment. That is a form of racism. You seem to
trivialize the journey of America towards its version of free speech,
as if it came easy, which it didn’t. </div> Tribalism has its advantages which is why it exists in the first place, but it isn’t conducive toward maintaining a modern nation-state.  Free speech, while not come upon easily, was less strenuous for Europeans than it would have been for Arabs. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Lewis
you say was optimistic about ‘democratizing’ Iraq. Take a look at Iraq
now, and take a look at the records of torture and violations of human
rights that take place there by American soldiers, and then give credit
to the man for his erroneous ‘Orientalist’ knowledge which guided
America to this bog, if you can. </div> There has been little torture by American troops and the abuses at Abu Ghraib were met with prison sentences for those involved.  By contrast, there has been a great deal of torture and mayhem committed by local Arab insurgents mostly against Arab civilians.  It wasn’t Lewis’ "erroneous ‘Orientalist’ knowledge" that led him to support the war, but his erroneous belief that somehow the Arabs were just like the Germans or the Japanese and could be brought into the fold of the West just like these nations were in the wake of World War II.  It was Lewis’ mistaken belief in the sameness of Muslims that led him to support the war.  It was Robert Spencer’s (and paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan’s) belief in the differences of Arabs and Muslims that led him (and them) to oppose it. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Do
not forget, too, that America supported and still supports tyrannical
regimes in the world where its interests are best met. So don’t look
down at the Arab world as an inferior place, when your supposedly
civilized country openly tolerates and funds the very opposites of
democracy. </div> America has made mistakes and selfish decisions.  However, its foreign policy is frequently guided by the principle of supporting what it sees, rightly or wrongly, as the lesser of two evils.  America cannot handpick politicians and it’s wise to acknowledge that not all nations are equally capable of democracy.  America supports Mubarak because it believes the alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood, not democracy for Egyptians.  America supports the Saudi royals because the alternative looks less like freedom than an even more severe theocratic regime.  In the 80s, America supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, because Iran looked like the more dangerous of the two countries (and that judgment has turned out to be correct).  And more perceptive Americans knew it wasn’t wise to overthrow the tyrant Saddam Hussein because the alternative might be chaos.  Of course, the Muslim world would still be demonizing America if we hadn’t overthrown Saddam Hussein.  They would say, as many critics of American foreign policy said after the first Gulf War, that this was more proof we just didn’t care about the oppression Arabs lived under.  They would have demonized us for lifting sanctions against Iraq and letting the oil flow freely (as France and others wanted).  You see, America inevitably takes the blame for the fact that democracy just isn’t very popular among people in many parts of the world. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">The whole bible was written in hebrew, its a language … so mostly just shows a slight lack of knowledge in historical theology. </div> Not true.  Much of the New Testament was apparently written in Koine Greek.  Also, Aramaic rather than Hebrew was the common language of Jews in the time of Jesus. 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">So
i won’t digress further, both you and craig claim that the US is the
pinnacle of democracy and free speech in the world. and till now all i
have seen is either supermicist blabber that significance,  or 
nitpicking examples as false while ignoring the other glaring ones. </div> What does my "blabber" have to do with a lack of free speech or democracy? 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Hell America criminilized the anti war movement, so much for free speech. </div> America has not criminalized the anti-war movement.  They’re as busy as ever in places like San Francisco.  I think you’ve been watching too much Arab television. ;-) 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">It was clearly
a benign and civilized attitude at a time when it was the accepted
practice that conquerers have the rights to decimate the conquerees and
enslave them and destroy their heritage, Islam barred the faithful from
killing civilians, people in  their churches and temples and women and
children and were also barred from killing animals and cutting trees. </div> Even when these practices have been followed, it has been provided they conquered subsist as dhimmis. 

tommy 11 March 2008 at 6pm
Even when these practices have been followed, it has been provided they conquered subsist as dhimmis.

One must look at these events within the context of the times and the practice prevailling at the time. At the time 1700 yrs and before , killing and savagery and enslaving was the norm not the exception. That Islam gave a better choice ,even if we frown upon it now, is better than putting them to the sword. You will know that more than 600 yrs after that the Christians in Spain( Andalusia) did not give that choice to the Muslims. The choice was between death and conversion. The survival of the Jews and Christians in the Arab world at the zenieth of the Islamic empire is a testament that Islam tolerates and accepts other divine religions much better than say Judiasm and Christianity.Calling them Ahl el-simmah or taking a levy noywithstanding, within the time frame of human 
developement and civility

A.Rehman 11 March 2008 at 8pm
I forgot to mention that the details about the portrayal of Arabs in the Old Testament were derived from a 1978 PhD dissertation written by a Terry B. Hammons at the University of Oklahoma, and titled "A Wild Ass of a Man": American Images of Arabs to 1948. My information, therefore, is documented. Where is the documentation for yours? My comment on Churchill was well placed because you had denied any relation between the speaker and the possibility of biased information in an Orientalist sense. Were we discussing the Pashtuns? I think not, yet you chose to quote Churchill on them since in your opinion they are the ‘most Arab non-Arabs’ — whatever that means. Oh, and what’s with the attitude in "
Said’s slothful scholarship fits a culture that is intellectually lazy,
historically non-introspective, unscientific, and lagging
technologically." ?? You seriously call Arab culture all THAT and expect not to be seen as completely biased? Have you not read anything about the history of Arabs? I will rejoin this discussion when I have the time. But I invite you to email me if you like, and I sincerely hope you would reconsider your choice of words as well as your attitudes towards Arabs. The little sympathy speech you gave at the start of your comment was overwhelmingly flooded by anti-Arab remarks both here and in your previous comments. 

Tololy 11 March 2008 at 9pm
I suspect it might have been Muhammad himself who chose to identify Arabs with the Biblical character of Ishmael. Personal opinion just like my personal opinion that the council of nicea was the congregation of glutonous power hungry men who wanted to craft a religion that doesn\’t conflict with whats currently available and hence crafted christianity in the shape it is today. that altered the original message, and even the core contents. that aside its an irrelevant opinion again. Doyou have any factual dispute with Churchill’s observations or are yougoing to just play the ad hominem game?  I found Churchill’sdescription to be straightforward and in keeping with what others havesaid about the Pashtuns. again irrelevant drivel, unless you concise and explain how you find them similar since your first hand knowledge of arabs and the pushtans (i assume) is non existant. as an arab and fairly familiar with the pushtans i don\’t see any semblance hence the argument can easily be brushed aside, and its always nice to ad hominem an irrelevant argument. Tribalismhas its advantages which is why it exists in the first place, but itisn’t conducive toward maintaining a modern nation-state. hmm there is where it fails, your argument. the muslim or arab world is not entirely a tribalistic system, and while tribalism is existant in some parts it is non existant in many others, and historically speaking the centers of development across the history of the region have been the ones lacking tribalism. so while its a contributing factor its not a major one in a lot of the most important areas. examples and i\’ll try to stretch it across history here; andalucia, jerusalem, beirut, and you can go on … 
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"> </div>Therehas been little torture by American troops and the abuses at Abu Ghraibwere met with prison sentences for those involved. Little is misleading, is that a comparitive word to the rest of the world ? history in general? so little torture is fine ? am sure they would have just shoved it under the rug if it was "little", but oh, they tried extraordinary rendition to resolve that but alas along the way they had to throw the habeas corpus  and redifine torture ( some are ok you know!) and legalize it because they were found out. someone who thinks "little" torture is ok should re-examin his moral code! read up and stop watching hannity please… But his erroneous belief that somehow the Arabs were just like theGermans or the Japanese and could be brought into the fold of the Westjust like these nations were in the wake of World War II. eh … so it\’s the iraqis fault that they don\’t prescribe to the american version of democracy, am sure its just that ! not that the president and whole cabinet didn\’t even know that there were sunni\’s and shia there "i thought they were muslims ? " remember that ? However, its foreign policyis frequently guided by the principle of supporting what it sees,rightly or wrongly, as the lesser of two evils.  America cannothandpick politicians and it’s wise to acknowledge that not all nationsare equally capable of democracy.  suharto, pinoche, saddam, franco, hitler (the irony that it was a bush back then too ), cordova, Sani Abacha, Ngo Dihn Diem, nuriega, pol pot, idi amin, batista, marcos, should i go on ? but thats just a simple mistake you know, the lesser of two evils ! ! ! well no ! one string that attaches the reason of the support is that they were the option that would have made more money. yes, yes only the american bipartisna democratic system works, not! Nottrue.  Much of the New Testament was apparently written in KoineGreek.  Also, Aramaic rather than Hebrew was the common language ofJews in the time of Jesus. twisting your own word, i was referring to the old testament (for the record you used the bible, which is based on the tanakha which is written in hebrew….hence my statement) . while that is true of the new testament, although not entirely clear of contention. What does my "blabber" have to do with a lack of free speech or democracy? oh and i was hopping for a constructive argument to point out how the US is at the pinnacle of free speech and democracy, alas am not even disappointed. but its ur freedom to blabber and my freedom to listen eh ? Americahas not criminalized the anti-war movement.  They’re as busy as ever inplaces like San Francisco.  I think you’

Grow Up Tag Free

Tololy’s Box

The Whole Al Jazeera & Wafa Sultan Controversy