Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5950)

Bloggingheads 09-08-2010 09:53 AM

What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 

BornAgainDemocrat 09-08-2010 11:43 AM

Religious intolerance
 
I was glad to see Rauf say, "There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths."

If he had done that several weeks ago it could have saved a lot of grief. And if the media would play up this part of his statement, well, that would help too.

Ocean 09-08-2010 12:01 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
These two have fun together, don't they?

dieter 09-08-2010 01:00 PM

Bush's master plan
 
Wouldn't the UN have been aware that the fake UN plane which was to be shot down wasn't one of their own?

Graybeard 09-08-2010 01:05 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 178194)
If he had done that several weeks ago it could have saved a lot of grief.

I find it very hard to believe more than a small fraction of the project's opponents would have been appeased.

Graybeard 09-08-2010 01:19 PM

Re: Bush's master plan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 178199)
Wouldn't the UN have been aware that the fake UN plane which was to be shot down wasn't one of their own?

I thought of that too. The plan doesn't make sense without more fleshing out.

Maybe they would have given the UN a phony story about a plane gone off course. Maybe they only intended for the deception to hold up until it no longer mattered.

It does make me wonder if the story is a fabrication or distortion.

otto 09-08-2010 01:24 PM

It just goes to show...
 
... that two people who decide to enjoy talking to each other make for a much better diavlog, and it doesn't get in the way of their making their disagreements clear.

Ocean 09-08-2010 01:40 PM

Re: Bush's master plan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 178199)
Wouldn't the UN have been aware that the fake UN plane which was to be shot down wasn't one of their own?

I think that David meant that Bush came up with this plan on the spur of the moment, without thinking it through. The plan had most likely many flaws and wasn't feasible. The point was that Bush would come up with such trickery to start a war. And that the whole episode has been downplayed or hidden from the public.

TwinSwords 09-08-2010 02:05 PM

Who’s Afraid of Shariah?
 
http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/...li-300x246.jpg

Who’s Afraid of Shariah?

Quote:

Hasn’t the whole notion of shariah in America gotten a bit out of control? No, it hasn’t — it’s gotten hugely, obscenely, ignorantly out of control. How many of those anti-Islam protesters holding “NO SHARIA LAW” signs (as if anyone were advocating shariah law in the U.S.) actually know what the word means? I’d say, oh, none. Roughly.
Since Sharia has become one of the leading preoccupations of conservatives, it might be helpful to actually know something about it.

For example, a point that has been discussed a great deal of late:

Quote:

Assuming all Muslims follow medieval Islamic rules today is like assuming that all Catholics follow 9th century canon law. Islam, like Christianity, has changed many times over the centuries, and it continues to change. Focusing only on the nutcases who advocate a return to medieval times is ignoring the vast majority of modern Muslims.

For example, stoning for adultery is a punishment that appears in fiqh, as well as early Judaic law. But it does not appear in the Qur’an. In Islam, therefore, stoning was a result of cultural norms imposed on the religious texts. Moreover, in the fiqh, though the punishment for adultery was stoning, adultery was made such a fantastically difficult crime to prove that the punishment was impossible to apply. Historically, stoning was very rarely implemented in the Islamic world, which is ironic, since today the Saudi and Iranian governments apply it as though they’d never heard of the strict Islamic constraints on it.

The vast majority of Muslims today do not believe in stoning people for adultery, and many are working hard to eradicate it. Stoning is horrific and has no place in our world. The miniscule percentage of Muslims who advocate it are imposing the medieval penalty while ignoring all the myriad limitations meant to make it inapplicable.

As for other scary stories attributed to shari’a, like honor killings, veiling of women, and female genital cutting, these are cultural practices and not Islamic. They are practiced by non-Muslims of certain cultures as well as Muslims.

Shari’a is a set of religious principles and is not the law of the land anywhere in the world. The 50-some Muslim-majority countries are all constitutional states and nearly all of them have civil codes (many of these based on the French system). Being Muslim does not require a governmental imposition of something called “shari’a law,” any more than being a Christian requires the implementation of “Biblical law” (though there are, of course, a tiny minority of both Christians and Muslims who do advocate such things, including Sarah Palin).

The whole thing...

stephanie 09-08-2010 02:12 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Graybeard (Post 178200)
I find it very hard to believe more than a small fraction of the project's opponents would have been appeased.

Me too.

harkin 09-08-2010 02:59 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
"One can only conclude that Imam Rauf's selective citation of Koran 36: 58, without the requisite context of the accompanying verse 36:59, is a deliberate act of "taqiyya" -- sanctioned lying to infidels."

"Now keep yourselves apart, you sinners, upon this day!"

Further context: Koranic Verse 3:28

"If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them ... [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers-except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion."

BornAgainDemocrat 09-08-2010 03:04 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Graybeard (Post 178200)
I find it very hard to believe more than a small fraction of the project's opponents would have been appeased.

Americans are a feel good people. If they see this as an interfaith center, especially if the financing is interfaith, they will be all for it. Would you like to bet?

jacks_mind 09-08-2010 03:32 PM

So did the stimulus work or not
 
I can't believe the question of what most economists' think is actually up for debate. I really wish the press would get off their collective asses and call some people on this. Here's a list:

http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html

now call them!

A decent number of economists supported it, and I've seen people say that it worked. I would like to see some links to the contrary (I'm sure they exist), but I am astounded that we don't have anyone finding this information out.

jm

Graybeard 09-08-2010 03:40 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 178216)
Americans are a feel good people.

Americans are mean SOBs when we cop an attitude about religion.

kezboard 09-08-2010 03:47 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't taqiyya more about being able to practice Islam in secret if you'd be persecuted for doing it in the open? And isn't it more of a Shiite thing anyway?

AemJeff 09-08-2010 03:55 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 178216)
Americans are a feel good people. If they see this as an interfaith center, especially if the financing is interfaith, they will be all for it. Would you like to bet?

I'll take that bet. All you have to do read read a post by harkin to see what you're up against.

AemJeff 09-08-2010 03:56 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kezboard (Post 178221)
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't taqiyya more about being able to practice Islam in secret if you'd be persecuted for doing it in the open? And isn't it more of a Shiite thing anyway?

Quit confusing the issue with facts, kez. I think you're violating his rights.

It's not just a Shia thing, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya...f_the_Practice
Quote:


Origin of the Practice


The practice of concealing one’s faith in dangerous circumstances originates in the Qur’an itself, which deems blameless those who disguise their beliefs in such cases [3]. The practice of taqiyya in difficult circumstances is considered legitimate by Muslims of various persuasions. Sunni and Shi’i commentators alike observe that Q 16:106 in particular refers to the case of ‘Ammar b. Yasir, who was forced to renounce his beliefs under physical duress and torture.[4]

Similarly, Q 3:28 enjoins believers not to take the company of doubters unless as a means of safeguarding themselves. “Let not the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers – since he who does this cuts himself off from God in everything – unless it be to protect yourself against them in this way…”[5] Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companion, al-Hassan, who said, “taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”


[4] # ^ Virani, Shafique. The Ismailis in the Middle Ages: A History of Survival, A Search for Salvation (New York: Oxford University Press), 2007, p.48.
[5] # ^ Asad, Muhammad. http://www.islamicity.com/quransearch/


opposable_crumbs 09-08-2010 04:15 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 178216)
Americans are a feel good people. If they see this as an interfaith center, especially if the financing is interfaith, they will be all for it. Would you like to bet?

And people call Iman Rauf niave.

opposable_crumbs 09-08-2010 04:24 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quoting one passage of a holy book, but not another is not Taqiyya. Secondly, you have not quoted a translation on the Qu'ran, but a commentary on it. Maybe you should be the one who we view with suspicion?

kezboard 09-08-2010 04:57 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
I believe it's more prominent among Shia though -- I guess because they've had more occasion to use it. I remember reading something about how haters of the Sunni persuasion often use Shia practice of taqiyya to the same effect as Harkin is trying to here.

stephanie 09-08-2010 05:06 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 178231)
Quoting one passage of a holy book, but not another is not Taqiyya. Secondly, you have not quoted a translation on the Qu'ran, but a commentary on it. Maybe you should be the one who we view with suspicion?

That is the question. It's such a transparently bad argument that it's hard to believe that the people who mine the Qu'ran for the "real intentions" of Muslims really and truly believe what they are saying. It's hard to believe that such people have ever read the Bible, also.

opposable_crumbs 09-08-2010 05:32 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 178240)
That is the question. It's such a transparently bad argument that it's hard to believe that the people who mine the Qu'ran for the "real intentions" of Muslims really and truly believe what they are saying. It's hard to believe that such people have ever read the Bible, also.

I view it as the Godwin of Islamophobes - if a muslim says something bad they are being honest, if a muslim says something good then they are being deceptive.

BornAgainDemocrat 09-08-2010 05:39 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 178223)
I'll take that bet. All you have to do read read a post by harkin to see what you're up against.

Harkin has but one vote. To make my point clear, I am predicting that a comfortable majority of Americans would favor a truly interfaith center near Ground Zero where Jews, Muslims, and Christians can all worship, if it included a memorial to 9/11 and were financed by all three faiths in roughly equal degree. But first they would have to understand that this would be the case, which won't be easy in view of the publicity so far. Rauf, the mainstream media, and the pundits have their work cut out for them if they're serious about encouraging interfaith tolerance.

bkjazfan 09-08-2010 06:35 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178195)
These two have fun together, don't they?

Yes, they do and I have fun watching them. They never fail to get a few chuckles out of me.

John

Whatfur 09-08-2010 06:38 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 178241)
I view it as the Godwin of Islamophobes - if a muslim says something bad they are being honest, if a muslim says something good then they are being deceptive.

Something like how I view BHtv commenter followers of the flying spagetti monster-if a Christian says something good it is stupid bullshit based a false belief, if a muslim says something good well it must be good.

Graybeard 09-08-2010 07:24 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Here's a post by an economist who is skeptical of fiscal stimulus, citing the late Milton Friedman in support. The Friedman/Heller debate he mentions has been published as a (very short) book, Monetary vs Fiscal Policy, which I think is a valuable resource for anyone interested in this issue.

Further discussion here.

AemJeff 09-08-2010 09:30 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 178242)
Harkin has but one vote. To make my point clear, I am predicting that a comfortable majority of Americans would favor a truly interfaith center near Ground Zero where Jews, Muslims, and Christians can all worship, if it included a memorial to 9/11 and were financed by all three faiths in roughly equal degree. But first they would have to understand that this would be the case, which won't be easy in view of the publicity so far. Rauf, the mainstream media, and the pundits have their work cut out for them if they're serious about encouraging interfaith tolerance.

That proposal seems almost perfectly orthogonal to what's actually being talked about. Why do you think it deserves to be considered instead?

harkin 09-08-2010 09:31 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 178240)
That is the question. It's such a transparently bad argument that it's hard to believe that the people who mine the Qu'ran for the "real intentions" of Muslims really and truly believe what they are saying. It's hard to believe that such people have ever read the Bible, also.


I just will never understand I guess that the New York beheading, the stonings in Iran, the Texas honor killing of children, the australian muslim cleric's call for the beheading of Geert Wilders is all just made up and never happened. Or maybe it was just that they acted beyond their 'real intentions'.

I still remember how in the 80s when muslim populations started to be significant in Europe, the apologists said that Sharia law would never be accepted or practiced by europeans and that Islamic tradition would not trump law.

well

well

well


Not sure how many of those described above 'read the bible'. Since you imply that I could use a good dose of scripture I'm sure you'd agree these people need it even moreso.

AemJeff 09-08-2010 09:34 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 178256)
I just will never understand I guess that the New York beheading, the stonings in Iran, the Texas honor killing of children, the australian muslim cleric's call for the beheading of Geert Wilders is all just made up and never happened. Or maybe it was just that they acted beyond their 'real intentions'.

I still remember how in the 80s when muslim populations started to be significant in Europe, the apologists said that Sharia law would never be accepted or practiced by europeans and that Islamic tradition would not trump law.

well

well

well


Not sure how many of those described above 'read the bible'. Since you imply that I could use a good dose of scripture I'm sure you'd agree these people need it even moreso.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." Words to live by.

And to be sure calling yourself a "Sharia court" and judging civil matters "in parallel with British law" is not establishing Sharia law in Great Britain. And the narrator is reading false assertions about what constitutes Sharia, e.g. the cutting off of hands.

The most serious issue raised here is the question of whether there have been women coerced into submitting to such judgments.

I'm very skeptical about Sharia, and any other set of religiously based laws - except to the extent that it's a voluntary system - which it certainly is (with the above caveat) in Britain and other Western nations. Hysteria and lies are not the way to convince fair minded people and are only going to polarize this further. I wonder whether harkin and others pushing this meme so vehemently are more interested in heat than light.

BornAgainDemocrat 09-08-2010 10:46 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 178224)
Quit confusing the issue with facts, kez. I think you're violating his rights.

It's not just a Shia thing, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya...f_the_Practice

Beware Wikipedia on controversial subjects.

BornAgainDemocrat 09-08-2010 10:52 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 178255)
That proposal seems almost perfectly orthogonal to what's actually being talked about. Why do you think it deserves to be considered instead?

Because not only did Rauf say, "There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths." He also said, "The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks."

This is news, though you wouldn't know it from reading the headlines.

opposable_crumbs 09-08-2010 10:56 PM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 178266)
This is news, though you wouldn't know it from reading the headlines.

It's old news. This was all mentioned ages ago, though hardly hi-lighted.

BornAgainDemocrat 09-08-2010 10:57 PM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 178258)
"The plural of anecdote is not data."

Actually, the plural of anecdote is data. :)

AemJeff 09-09-2010 12:08 AM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 178265)
Beware Wikipedia on controversial subjects.

Always read the footnoted cites, if you can find them. And I have high confidence in what I quoted - far more so than harkin ought to have invested in his cites.

AemJeff 09-09-2010 12:09 AM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 178266)
Because not only did Rauf say, "There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths." He also said, "The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks."

This is news, though you wouldn't know it from reading the headlines.

That's not what you've proposed.

Lyle 09-09-2010 12:49 AM

Let the Koran Burn
 
I'm totally with Mother Jones' David Corn and Fox's dangerously evil Glenn Beck on the Florida pastor's "Burn the Koran" on 9/11 day. Not cool and anathema to e pluribus unum, but like the neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois to spite the local Jewry... we gots to get out the way and let the holy books burn.

Silly Pakistani Ambassador calls on Beck to denounce the holy book burning... after Beck already denounced it. Haha.

Ken Davis 09-09-2010 12:57 AM

Re: Religious Intolerance
 
Richard Thompson on Islam. Just for fun.

The fact that you’re a Muslim interests people. Years ago you entered Islam, as many young Westerners do, through Sufism. Yet I’ve heard you’re no longer a Sufi?

I suppose I’m not. You could call me a ‘lapsed Sufi.’ But I still embrace the Sufic interpretation of Islam.

Among music fans, you’re probably the best-known Western Muslim around besides Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam. Do you feel that gives you a certain responsibility?

I hate to be a spokesman for anything as broad as Islam. You can easily get yourself misinterpreted.

Yet, looking at you or your sometime bassist Danny Thompson (no relation), you don’t look like what many Westerners picture as Muslims. You look like guys you might have a beer with at the pub. Do you still describe yourself as a ‘liberal Muslim’?

Sure. A lot of what is seen as Islam in the West comes from the loudest shouting voices, the neo-Islamic fundamentalists. The willingness to fight, that violent side, is a misinterpretation and a misapplication of the teachings of the Prophet. It ignores the heart of Islam: peace, generosity, compassion. Islam is about winning hearts and minds.

There is no compulsion in Islam at all. That’s a fact.

Lyle 09-09-2010 01:08 AM

Gays
 
Gays are afraid of Sharia. See here.

There is no choice! :)

Whatfur 09-09-2010 01:29 AM

Re: Religious intolerance
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 178273)
That's not what you've proposed.

And what did he propose? You and your arrogant little interjections.

Whatfur 09-09-2010 01:33 AM

Re: What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 178272)
Always read the footnoted cites, if you can find them. And I have high confidence in what I quoted - far more so than harkin ought to have invested in his cites.

Your quoted entity holds the same water as harkins. Just another interpretation and Wiki to boot. Who would have thought someone who has obviously authored their own encyclopedias would resort to Wiki.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.