Sign of the Times Middle East Style

[caroljane]

"His entire enculturation after the age of eight..."

Adam,

You can't really believe this foolishness, surely?

You've been eight years old. You had a sense of identity and identification with a family, a father or father figure, a world around you. That had been forming sense birth.

The Jesuits knew a thing or two about "enculturation", and I don't recall them saying, "Give me a boy after he is eight, and I will mould you a man."

Obama has repeatedly said that the strongest influence on him was his mother, but I suppose he was just lying, as most of us do when we say that, but his purpose of course was more sinister.

You have enough legitimate arguments in your arsenal. This tripe just makes you look like a Birther, or worse.

[Selene]

This is Al Jazeera"s live feed...

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/2007829161423657345.html

[Mike Renzulli]

This is all well and good but doesn't tell the whole story. I also apologize if I am coming into this thread blind but hope to raise some points that may not have been taken into account.

The main beneficiary of the revolutions (so-called) going on in the middle east is going to be Iran via their ally The Muslim Brotherhood. For example, in Egypt The MB is well known for operating charities and other services via zakat (i.e. tithing) that it provides to Egyptians. In exchange for this the MB is able to branch out and spread its fundamentalist form of Islam.

The Brotherhood is very well financed and organized and would be in a prime position to attain power if Mubarak's government collapses as well as play a very large roll in the formation of new regimes coming up in middle eastern countries experiencing unrest.

The Brotherhood is not exactly Wahabbi in it's orientation but it shares many similarities with the Saudi-backed sect. Despite many of Muslim Brotherhood consider themselves Sunnis yet a few Muslim Brotherhood scholars were able to inflience the theology and ideas of the infamous Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Khomeni.

It's because of the above fact that is why Iran has supported the revolts in Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt since the Muslim Brotherhood is obviously playing a role in each of these uprisings.

None the less, it is not a good thing for freedom in the middle east since the main beneficiary will be jihadist Islamism down the line. Once new leaders take power look for the implementation of Sharia Law and a growing trend to embrace societies that mirror Iran.

Sign of the Times Middle East Style

How's this for a sign?

It's only graffiti, but talk about the writing on the wall!

I got it from Drudge today (Jan. 23, 2011).

Here's a cropped screenshot.

I saw this in the morning.

What a great way to start the day.

Michael

Edited January 29, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[BaalChatzaf]

None the less, it is not a good thing for freedom in the middle east since the main beneficiary will be jihadist Islamism down the line. Once new leaders take power look for the implementation of Sharia Law and a growing trend to embrace societies that mirror Iran.

Correct. The Wahabites and the Brotherhood will co-opt this revolution just as the Terror and Napoleon's tyranny overtook the French Revolution.

Islamic nations are unable to implement rights as we, in the West, understand them. Their minds are captured by 1500 year old memes.

Westerner's barely comprehend what rights and freedom are. Muslims will never get it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on, Bob.

Not not one person I know of is 1500 years old.

It doesn't matter how old a meme is. A newborn has to learn it with the same process he/she uses for modern memes.

I submit the Jewish memes as example. Not all Jews assimilate them and many are far, far older than 1500 years.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Correct. The Wahabites and the Brotherhood will co-opt this revolution just as the Terror and Napoleon's tyranny overtook the French Revolution.

Islamic nations are unable to implement rights as we, in the West, understand them. Their minds are captured by 1500 year old memes.

Westerner's barely comprehend what rights and freedom are. Muslims will never get it.

The West isn't setting any good example--an example from which they might learn.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I agree it doesn't tell the whole story. But it is good to see this kind of stuff cropping up.

The Freedom graffiti is a sign of penetration, not assimilated intellectual change.

It's the sign of a start, not a finish line.

It's a mistake to think a culture can be changed like an on-off button. But it's equally a mistake to think a culture cannot be changed by intellectual efforts.

Almost all actions that impact others start as an idea in the head of the actor. If you change the ideas, you change the actions.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Come on, Bob.

Not not one person I know of is 1500 years old.

It doesn't matter how old a meme is. A newborn has to learn it with the same process he/she uses for modern memes.

I submit the Jewish memes as example. Not all Jews assimilate them and many are far, far older than 1500 years.

Michael

But Islamic memes are worse and Jews had the good fortune of getting the shit kicked out of them around 2500 years ago and many times since.. Being battered by foreign armies and being forced to live in dispersion is a character building exercise which Muslim nations have yet to undergo. Jews learned to be humble, if not lovable and learned to cope in adversity. This is something the Islamic nations have yet to learn.

Jews have learned to adapt to and put up with various peoples in the world. It is only since the Enlightenment that Jews have thrived as free folk is some places in the world, in the West. Judaism has been detoxified by circumstance. Islam is yet to undergo detoxification. That is one reason why ultra-religious Jews do not hijack commercial flights and crash them into tall buildings filled with unarmed people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Come on, Bob.

Not not one person I know of is 1500 years old.

It doesn't matter how old a meme is. A newborn has to learn it with the same process he/she uses for modern memes.

I submit the Jewish memes as example. Not all Jews assimilate them and many are far, far older than 1500 years.

Michael

But Islamic memes are worse and Jews had the good fortune of getting the shit kicked out of them around 2500 years ago and many times since.. Being battered by foreign armies and being forced to live in dispersion is a character building exercise which Muslim nations have yet to undergo. Jews learned to be humble, if not lovable and learned to cope in adversity. This is something the Islamic nations have yet to learn.

Jews have learned to adapt to and put up with various peoples in the world. It is only since the Enlightenment that Jews have thrived as free folk in some places in the world, in the West. Judaism has been detoxified by circumstance. Islam is yet to undergo detoxification. That is one reason why ultra-religious Jews do not hijack commercial flights and crash them into tall buildings filled with unarmed people.

Now I ask you this: Who would you rather see in possession of a nuclear weapon; a Jew or a Muslim?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I basically agree when it comes to the bullying part of ideology.

The only way to effectively treat a bully when he bullies is hit him hard right back. Sometimes turning the other cheek works to shame him, but not always.

I don't consider all Muslims bullies--not even the vast majority of them.

My role in the stuff is intellectual and the non-bullying Muslims are the people I seek to reach. I'll let their bullies deal with the military, which is far more competent than I am at deploying deadly force.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob.

If the choice were a sane Muslim against an insane Jew, I would vastly prefer the sane Muslim to have a nuke.

See how stupid an oversimplification is?

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Bob.

If the choice were a sane Muslim against an insane Jew, I would vastly prefer the sane Muslim to have a nuke.

See how stupid an oversimplification is?

Michael

Put it this way, then. Islam or Christianity?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I prefer a sane person to an insane person.

And I prefer a reasonable person to a bigot.

I trust a sane reasonable Muslim (and Christian).

I do not trust an insane bigoted Christian (or Muslim).

That goes for Objectivists and libertarians, too. In fact, it extends to all of humanity.

You find both sane/insane and reasonable/bigoted people in all cultures.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Yes but interpretations of the Bible and the Quran are 2 different things. A Jew or Christian and reinterpret the Bible. A Muslim does not have that kind of flexibility in terms of the Quran.

Like most undeveloped regions of the world religion is a central part of most everyone's life. In the middle east the religion is the largest following is Islam. What makes Islam unique is the specific commands placed upon Muslims by the Quran, Sunnah and Sharia on how to act among themselves and toward non-Muslims.

In Islam one debate or clash if you will is how much modernity should Muslims embrace before it conflicts with their religion. If a country becomes too westernized or embraces things that conflict with Islam then, by and large, many Muslims will object.

According to Bernard Lewis, to this day Muslims have blamed their problems on Europeans or Jews and thus fed their sense of victimhood which results in their rejection of modernity. Hence the reason why the middle east and many Muslim-dominant countries reject U.S./western ideas and values such as capitalism and individual rights.

Come on, Bob.

Not not one person I know of is 1500 years old.

It doesn't matter how old a meme is. A newborn has to learn it with the same process he/she uses for modern memes.

I submit the Jewish memes as example. Not all Jews assimilate them and many are far, far older than 1500 years.

Michael

Edited January 29, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes but interpretations of the Bible and the Quran are 2 different things. A Jew or Christian and reinterpret the Bible. A Muslim does not have that kind of flexibility in terms of the Quran.

Mike,

Are you kidding me?

Ever heard of Sufi?

That's the most blatant example.

But even without that example, your statement implies that moral life in Syria is identical to moral life in Malaysia or Indonesia. That the interpretation of the Qur'an in Saudi Arabia is is identical to that in Iran. That the Taliban's understanding is identical to that in United Arab Emirates.

Need I go on?

I agree that the attitude toward modernity is a thorny problem in the Muslim world, but it is not as homogeneous as you make it sound. There are a lot of conflicting views.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Of course I know of the Sufis but that's not an indication that they are any different (doctrinally speaking) than the Sunnis or Shi'ites. For example, the Ground Zero Imam Faisal Rauf (who refuses to condemn Hamas) has been identified as a Sufi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/opinion/17dalrymple.html

Robert Spencer's analysis of Sufis is:

The Sufi order offers a mystical perspective on Islam. There are Sufis found all over the Islamic world. The widespread assumption that Sufis are peaceful and eschew jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, however, is false. Sufis from al-Ghazali to the present day have taught the necessity of jihad warfare, and have participated in that warfare -- notably in Chechnya since the 18th century. Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas and Al-Qaeda, was strongly influenced by Sufism and prescribed Sufi spiritual exercises for the Brotherhood members. In January 2009, Iraqi representatives of the Naqshabandi Sufi order met with Khaled Mashaal of Hamas, praised his jihad, donated jewelry to him, and boasted of their own jihad attacks against Americans in Iraq.

In terms of your disagreement I understand where you are coming from and I am sure you are correct in that regard. I am speaking in a general (not specific) sense while pointing out pointing out what Robert Spencer said about the conflict in Islam between modernity and the role of the religion in the lives of Muslims in the middle east.

Yes but interpretations of the Bible and the Quran are 2 different things. A Jew or Christian and reinterpret the Bible. A Muslim does not have that kind of flexibility in terms of the Quran.

Mike,

Are you kidding me?

Ever heard of Sufi?

That's the most blatant example.

But even without that example, your statement implies that moral life in Syria is identical to moral life in Malaysia or Indonesia. That the interpretation of the Qur'an in Saudi Arabia is is identical to that in Iran. That the Taliban's understanding is identical to that of United Arab Emirates.

Need I go on?

I agree that the attitude toward modernity is a thorny problem in the Muslim world, but it is not as homogeneous as you make it sound. There are a lot of conflicting views.

Michael

Edited January 29, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

Be careful with agenda-driven people like Robert Spencer. I don't think it would be a good idea to go to, say, one of Ahmadinejad's advisers for information on the Jewish faith or the history of Israel. So why go to an Islam hater for information on Islam? Spencer is a walking-talking agenda seeking corroboration and proudly so, not a person seeking "let the facts fall where they may" kind of understanding.

The few examples you cited are typical of his reasoning. Anyone can take some exceptions and present them as some kind of proof, but to use exceptions to claim that the majority is the way the exceptions are is misleading. Is this on purpose? I don't know. I do know that this is a primary fallacy of identification.

(Spencer's al-Banna "influenced by" Sufism was a cute touch, too. Hitler was also "influenced by" the Catholic Church. Does that make him a representative example of Catholicism?)

Here's a good parallel. I doubt anyone would claim that Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a representative of what people generally mean when they think "Protestant Christian," yet he claims he is a Protestant. He even runs a church called Trinity United Church of Christ. Does that mean all Protestants preach "God damn America!" and black liberation theology?

You just did that with Sufis and Imam Rauf. That guy's about as Sufi in the general sense as Reverend Wright is Protestant in the Presbyterian or Methodist sense (or even the standard United Church of Christ sense).

You will find far more targeted ideas and people for improving the world if you let go of this kind of attempt to prove that all Muslims are the same. The step from there to "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim," is but a hop, jump and a skip. It's like sitting on a keg of gunpowder and smoking a cigar.

There are some serious things that need attention and they can be changed. Some real nasty problems with the Islamic culture, too. But they are specific. Not "one size fits all." I believe in your sincerity in wanting to help change them. But you won't change anything with oversimplification.

Does Robert Spencer change the world, or does he just sing fear and hatred to a fearful choir?

I'm not totally against people like him because once is a blue moon he will uncover a fact that needs uncovering and has gone unnoticed. This is one of the beauties of free speech. But that dude is not a good source of understanding.

Oversimplification is a distraction and, more often than not, it just gets in the way of productive efforts.

Michael

[Selene]

Mike:

Since you did come into this thread recently, I posted this link #106 in this thread http://www.ikhwanweb.com/

It is the English version of the Muslim Brotherhood's website. Might as well go to the horses mouth.

Additionally, right now, the spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood is speaking live http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/2007829161423657345.html on what should be practically done now in Egypt. This is the Al-Hazeera English Live Stream.

His recommendations:

transition government headed by the Chief Judge of the Egyptian Supreme Court;

new parliamentary elections be held;

release of Muslim Brotherhood and other political detainees;

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> My concern in the three (3) countries that you both mention, is that al-Qa'ida, or the Iranians, will be the ones that are behind these uprisings. [Adam ]

> Maybe so but why would the graffiti say Freedom? [Pippi]

Revolutions tend to go through several phases over time while those who emerge struggle for power and influence. Ultimately it is neither who is behind them nor what they are saying nor what they think they are fighting for but the ideological and philosophical and cultural underpinnings of the society that emerge triumphant:

A look at history shows that when a hated regime is overthrown (the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Iranian Revolution), what follow it may either be much better...or much worse.

It depends on how much of a culture of respect for rights, of freedom, of individualism existed. The colonial Americans largely had that -- France, Russia, and the Middle East largely did not or do not.

Freer societies don't spring up when there is no cultural understanding or background of freedom. It's like building a skyscraper. First you need the aspiration. Then you need a strong foundation, good structural engineering (a fair constitutional system, courts, lack of corruption). And so on.

Absent a good degree of that, the structure will not hold.

Or will not even be attempted in the first place.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

"His entire enculturation after the age of eight..."

Adam,

You can't really believe this foolishness, surely?

You've been eight years old. You had a sense of identity and identification with a family, a father or father figure, a world around you. That had been forming sense birth.

The Jesuits knew a thing or two about "enculturation", and I don't recall them saying, "Give me a boy after he is eight, and I will mould you a man."

Obama has repeatedly said that the strongest influence on him was his mother, but I suppose he was just lying, as most of us do when we say that, but his purpose of course was more sinister.

You have enough legitimate arguments in your arsenal. This tripe just makes you look like a Birther, or worse.

Carol:

Have you read his books, or, what his mother believed about him, or what key mentors influenced him, by his own statements and/or by non-agenda driven observers?

Adam

[Mike Renzulli]

I realize Robert Spencer comes across as anti-Muslim and agenda-driven but after reading his writings and understanding his outlook on Islam it's hard not to disagree with his point of view.

Also, please keep in mind and let me stress I am talking in a general sense and am not wanting to paint all Muslims (in this case Sufis) with a broad brush. Instead my intent is to do it by being critical of Muslims (Sunni, Shi'ite and Sufi) who subscribe to the ethic of violent jihad.

From an academic, evidence-based perspective, his knowledge of Islam and the factions/sects of the religion are nothing short of astounding if not outright fascinating. As near as I can tell Spencer's knowledge of Islamic theology and Islamic sects compliments Bernard Lewis's knowledge of Islam and Islamic/middle eastern culture.

I also think it was Lewis himself who said that he and Spencer rarely disagree with each other. This being said and the prominence Lewis has in the academic world and my holding him in very high esteem leads me to conclude that Spencer has no reason to lie or twist the truth when it comes to his knowledge about Islam.

I am not saying he doesn't but when you understand the contect or cruxt of his argument as well as his background and knowledge I better understand why people can construe Spencer to having ulterior motives.

Mike,

Be careful with agenda-driven people like Robert Spencer. I don't think it would be a good idea to go to, say, one of Ahmadinejad's advisers for information on the Jewish faith or the history of Israel. So why go to an Islam hater for information on Islam? Spencer is a walking-talking agenda seeking corroboration and proudly so, not a person seeking "let the facts fall where they may" kind of understanding.

The few examples you cited are typical of his reasoning. Anyone can take some exceptions and present them as some kind of proof, but to use exceptions to claim that the majority is the way the exceptions are is misleading. Is this on purpose? I don't know. I do know that this is a primary fallacy of identification.

(Spencer's al-Banna "influenced by" Sufism was a cute touch, too. Hitler was also "influenced by" the Catholic Church. Does that make him a representative example of Catholicism?)

Here's a good parallel. I doubt anyone would claim that Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a representative of what people generally mean when they think "Protestant Christian," yet he claims he is a Protestant. He even runs a church called Trinity United Church of Christ. Does that mean all Protestants preach "God damn America!" and black liberation theology?

You just did that with Sufis and Imam Rauf. That guy's about as Sufi in the general sense as Reverend Wright is Protestant in the Presbyterian or Methodist sense (or even the standard United Church of Christ sense).

You will find far more targeted ideas and people for improving the world if you let go of this kind of attempt to prove that all Muslims are the same. The step from there to "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim," is but a hop, jump and a skip. It's like sitting on a keg of gunpowder and smoking a cigar.

There are some serious things that need attention and they can be changed. Some real nasty problems with the Islamic culture, too. But they are specific. Not "one size fits all." I believe in your sincerity in wanting to help change them. But you won't change anything with oversimplification.

Does Robert Spencer change the world, or does he just sing fear and hatred to a fearful choir?

I'm not totally against people like him because once is a blue moon he will uncover a fact that needs uncovering and has gone unnoticed. This is one of the beauties of free speech. But that dude is not a good source of understanding.

Oversimplification is a distraction and, more often than not, it just gets in the way of productive efforts.

Michael

Edited January 29, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Thanks Adam I will give them a look. In terms of the MB's recommendations are I must admit a certain amount of (for lack of a better term) skepticism on my part since the group not only has the vocal support of Iran but has funded military-oriented jihadist groups (such as Hamas) and the Islamic ethic of taqiyya.

The Muslim Brotherhood may put on a moderate presentation but once in power will do all they can to seize it and make Egypt into a theocratic dictatorship like Iran.

Mike:

Since you did come into this thread recently, I posted this link #106 in this thread http://www.ikhwanweb.com/

It is the English version of the Muslim Brotherhood's website. Might as well go to the horses mouth.

Additionally, right now, the spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood is speaking live http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/2007829161423657345.html on what should be practically done now in Egypt. This is the Al-Hazeera English Live Stream.

His recommendations:

transition government headed by the Chief Judge of the Egyptian Supreme Court;

new parliamentary elections be held;

release of Muslim Brotherhood and other political detainees;

Adam

Edited January 29, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Selene]

Thanks Adam I will give them a look. In terms of the MB's recommendations are I must admit a certain amount of (for lack of a better term) skepticism on my part since the group not only has the vocal support of Iran but has funded military-oriented jihadist groups (such as Hamas) and the Islamic ethic of taqiyya.

The Muslim Brotherhood may put on a moderate presentation but once in power will do all they can to seize it and make Egypt into a theocratic dictatorship like Iran.

Mike:

Since you did come into this thread recently, I posted this link #106 in this thread http://www.ikhwanweb.com/

It is the English version of the Muslim Brotherhood's website. Might as well go to the horses mouth.

Additionally, right now, the spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood is speaking live http://english.aljaz...1423657345.html on what should be practically done now in Egypt. This is the Al-Hazeera English Live Stream.

His recommendations:

transition government headed by the Chief Judge of the Egyptian Supreme Court;

new parliamentary elections be held;

release of Muslim Brotherhood and other political detainees;

Adam

Mike:

I am completely cynical about the Muslim Brotherhood and Elbaredi who made a statement today that he desires nothing for himself.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the shadow government of Egypt. They, via the tithing, have a complete infrastructure in place. Mubarak has repeatedly made the claim that the choice for Egyptians is the Islamicists or his regime.

The Brotherhood is playing this perfectly. Staying in the background and knowing that they will exert, probably on an equal basis with the Army, the key roles in forming the government when Mubarak resigns or is executed.

I wonder how well the Brotherhood has infiltrated the Army.

Bottom line is that the US administration is clueless, and, has, once again, been caught by surprise.

One of the stories that is undiscussed by any of the media that I have seen, or heard, is that the precipitating factor that caused the Tunisia, Yemen and Egyptian explosions right at this point in history is the economics of bread.

Thanks to the stupidity of Ethanol subsidies which have driven the price of wheat and corn through the global economic pricing roof to the tune of a 17 to 37% higher price, this was the straw that broke the camel's back in the middle east.

Ah, you just gotta love a metaphor when it fits so well.

Adam

Edited January 29, 2011 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not saying he doesn't but when you understand the contect or cruxt of his argument as well as his background and knowledge I better understand why people can construe Spencer to having ulterior motives.

Mike,

I ain't buying it.

I just gave you a pristine example of Spencer's poor reasoning as presented by you. (Holding up exceptions as if they were the norm.)

I don't need to look any further to find his real meaning, etc., etc., etc., unless you have something objective to look at. I won't place him in the same category with David Duke, but I will put him close. David Duke knows some scholarly things, too, but I won't be wasting my time reading them. Just like I don't intend to waste my time with Spencer.

Bernard Lewis is a far better source. Hell, even Daniel Pipes. I really like Alan Dershowitz.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Okay if you prefer not to believe it that's fine by me. I can't tell you what to believe or not. What I can do is point you in the direction of what Spencer has actually said. Like me he is not anti-Muslim, he is anti-jihadist:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html

Q: Do you hate Muslims?

Robert Spencer: Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources quoted, not from me. Cries of "hatred" and "bigotry" are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat. But there is no substance to them.

It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. Those who make the charge use it as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.

Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary.

P.S. I like Daniel Pipes but have not seen anything by Alan Dershowitz. If you have any links to articles or know of any titles of books by Dershowitz I would be interested in reading them.

I am not saying he doesn't but when you understand the contect or cruxt of his argument as well as his background and knowledge I better understand why people can construe Spencer to having ulterior motives.

Mike,

I ain't buying it.

I just gave you a pristine example of Spencer's poor reasoning as presented by you. (Holding up exceptions as if they were the norm.)

I don't need to look any further to find his real meaning, etc., etc., etc., unless you have something objective to look at. I won't place him in the same category with David Duke, but I will put him close. David Duke knows some scholarly things, too, but I won't be wasting my time reading them. Just like I don't intend to waste my time with Spencer.

Bernard Lewis is a far better source. Hell, even Daniel Pipes. I really like Alan Dershowitz.

Michael

Edited January 30, 2011 by Mike Renzulli