Date: Mon 11 Nov 2002 - 00:43:41 GMT
> Joe: You meant "Is ANTI-Zionism antisemitic?" I'm sure.
> Lawry: Yes, thanks for the correction.
> Joe: Yes, one can be critical of one without being critical of the
> other, but most who try end up crossing the line by quantums. Lawry:
> And even by BIG amounts, too <smile>. Joe: And I am quite familiar
> myself with Daniel Pipes' writings, as well as the scurrilous attacks
> leveled against him by CAIR; Pipes' targets of criticism, militant
> radical Muslims, wish to portray him as being against not only them,
> but against all Muslims, but it simply isn't true. Lawry: We'll have
> to disagree on this Joe. Pipes writings and interviews are available
> for anyone to see, and they can draw their own conclusions about
> whether Pipes is rabid anti-Muslim and pro-Zionist, pro-Israel or not.
> > I don't know if you are aware that Ibn Warraq is an alias. Do you
> > know who the author really is? I would like to know, before blindly
> > accepting the credentials with which he has clothed himself. Would
> > it not be prudent to know, before taking his arguments on faith?
> Joe: Of course it is an alias (the name is one that belonged to a
> historical Muslim freethinker); if he put out his actual name and
> address, he'd be fatwa'ed and murdered as fast as jihadists could
> manage it. He rejected his faith; that is an Islamic capital offense.
> Lawry: You buy the assertion that he is indeed, a Muslim, or
> ex-Muslim. But how do you know who he is, really? Isn't it at all
> also conceivable to you that the writer is an imposter, seeking
> specifically to discredit Islam, for reasons unrelated to
> secularization? _I_ don't know who the writer is, and so I speculate
> here. But are you not speculating, as well? I agree that one has to
> judge the arguments that an author makes on their merits, but both the
> authors you base your opinions on, Pipes and "Ibn Warraq" make a slew
> of assertions that are not factually backed up, and controverted by
> the mainstream of experts on the area. So it DOES become relevant who
> they are, and what their agendas might be. I do not consider this an
> ad hominem attack: it is simply a prudent effort to not be gulled by
> two who strive mightily, IMO, to do so. I say this not so much because
> I disagree with much of what they assert, but because it simply does
> not jibe with the multitude of other sources I have become acquainted
> with, or my own personal and research experiences where they overlap.
> I must add that there are many analysts with whom I disagree but whom
> I respect for their integrity and diligence. Your Pipes and "Ibn
> Warraq" are simply not among them. All of this is relevant to how we
> know what we know, and to the operations of memes. How can one avoid
> being gulled? By looking at different and contrary sources. By
> actually talking with primary sources. By being alert to the signs of
> deception, or simple active omission. By paying attention to who is
> dedicated to learning first, and 'being right' second. Especially in
> the field of politics, this is not easy. What facts there are are
> often subject to counter-example. And those facts that remain standing
> after scrutiny are often subject to interpretation, and it is in the
> interpretation that meaning is found. There was a time when I focused
> on the physical sciences, seeking a field within which mental
> certainty could be found. But I found instead that science did not
> tackle the problems with which I was concerned. These lay in the
> fields of human behavior, cognition and motivation. The 'facts' here,
> are a lot more slippery, but, to me, the issues are far more
> fascinating and important. So I pay attention not just to the 'what'
> of the world around us, but to 'how' we come to perceive and
> understand it, and the 'why' of our communications and our hopes. I do
> not expect to open your mind up, Joe. But I do hope that you consult
> some of the sources I have cited, in the same way that some of us have
> looked at some of the sources you have been kind enough to post in the
> last couple of days. And then, once you have done so, perhaps we can
> resume this with some greater degree of understanding.
You might consult the universally acknowledged doyen of Middle East studies, Bernard Lewis; perhaps he can pry your mind open to a more enlightened understanding. I can post url's to some of his essays, if you wish.
> Best regards,
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 11 Nov 2002 - 00:47:09 GMT