Israel - A State Of Mind

[drdon326]

I am convinced that the only way to save the Muslims from being permanently consigned to the dustbin of history is to destroy the basis of anti-Semitism from the Muslim traditions and liturgy. And this can only be done by exposing the Islamist agenda. Muslims have to be informed of the real reasons of anti-Semitism by creating an alternative source of information and education from within the Muslim community. Only a Muslim challenge to the dark ideology of Islamism can undo the damage done to the Muslim mind.

Since only Jews represent over five thousand years of human pursuit of knowledge, struggle to prevail over bigotry and absolutism, and perseverance against a perpetual desire on the part of evil forces to destroy them, their history—if presented in an honest fashion to the Muslims—can go a long way in destroying anti-Semitism. Therefore it is vital that Israel is supported, defended and protected by all those who want the Muslims to progress as civilized people.

I consider the rebirth of the Jewish State to be a blessing for the Muslims. Israel has provided the opportunity to show the world the results of the Jewish state of mind in action...a mind that yearns to be free, and a mind that longs to see that all humanity enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If the American civic faith has given the world a hope to be able to live with dignity, self respect and honor in peace, the Jewish traditions and culture of pluralism, debate, acceptance of dissension and difference of opinion have manifested themselves in the shape of the state of Israel to present the oppressed Muslim world with a paradigm to emulate. And if we want this world to be free of any kind of terror, we will have to defend this state of mind, whether it is seen in the shape of Israel or in the form of the United States of America.

http://www.paktoday.com/tashbih.htm
................................................................

[Gimel]

1. Excellent article

Thanks for posting. What the author states so clearly and with feeling is the hope for a better, more tolerant world.

[physioex]

2. Unfortunately this is but an opinion of a man...

The average muslim on the streets of Pakistan loathes his government because he feels opressed. And dislikes the foregin policies of America towards Israel....When the rubber meets the pavement, this is nothing more than an exercise in academics...

[bemildred]

3. A strange mixture of insight and rubbish.

One example:

Since only Jews represent over five thousand years of human
pursuit of knowledge, struggle to prevail over bigotry and
absolutism ...

This is rubbish.

OTOH, there is nothing to take exception to in the first seven
paragraphs or so, although it is somewhat narcissistic to assume
that these comments apply only to Islam.

[el_gato]

4. Sounds awfully similar to Hitler's case for exterminating Jews

"damaged minds" gimme a fucking break

[bemildred]

5. You have just validated Godwin's First Law, Sir.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Nevertheless the half-educated cultural jingoism in this
piece is palpable. One wonders what this fellow gets paid
for writing this sort of thing?

[The Magistrate]

6. And Damned Quickly Too, My Friend

As in most such instances, the reference is wholly misguided, and achieves no more than communication of the utter's ignorance concerning the Nazi phenomenon, and and makes clear that the utter intends to propagandize, and not to discuss. This article, put most broadly, posits a great distinction between good Muslims and bad Muslims, and hopes for rescue of the former from the latter. That is an element wholly absent from the Nazi outlook, which viewed all Jews as base and tainted by the fact of their being Jews; the crime being in the blood, as opposed to in any deed done by an individual. It was in fact a common complaint of Nazi ideologues that "every German has his 'good Jew'", who he does not wish to see punished with the rest.

As you said above, the article is an odd mixture of sense and barnyard litter. Its author might do well to turn the same critical eye in two directions: the current "Crusade" to spread "Freedom" by the profoundly fundamentalist regime currently lording it over the United States, and towards a closer examination of Jewish history, particularly in the Temple period.

[bemildred]

7. No to quibble Sir, with a post I generally agree with,

but I think it is too little emphasized that "good" and "bad"
are states of doing, not states of being. Evil lives in us
all, and is not an attribute of one's ethnicity or genetics. That
seems to me to be the fundamental flaw in this fellows ruminations,
he thinks about good and evil as though they are properties of
cultures, and seems to subscribe the utopian fallacy that if we
could just stomp out or convert enough of those other fellows,
then everything would be fine ...

[The Magistrate]

8. Quite True, My Friend

It is the refusal or inability of persons who conceive themselves as "good" to recognize the potential for evil contained within them, as their part of the common human heritage, that accounts for much of the most damnable behavior our species has ever displayed. Even the Nazis conceived themselves to be doing good, and by their own lights were doing good, not evil: that few agree with them does not alter the power of their own self-perception, and its influence on their acts and views.

It does seem to me, though, that systems of ideas are susceptible to a charge that they are more evil than otherwise in their inevitable effects of the actions of those who subscribe to them. This view, of course, cannot really be communicated successfully to those who hew to those systems of belief, and consider them to be good and true. That unfortunate fact is a standing incitement to the more physical forms of arguement, and this is another feature of the human dilemna that seems ultimately inescapable to me....

[bemildred]

9. "By their acts shall you know them", or something like that I think it is.

WRT systems of ideas, that is correct as far as it goes, but
one may dispute whether a system of ideas is the cause or the
effect, and in most cases it turns out that systems of ideas
are drawn into service for political ends, rather than vice-versa.

The Nazis and their Judeophobia are a fine example of that; it
was a pre-existing tool ready to hand when they needed it, and
it served it's originators elsewhere in time and space similarly
as a political distraction and motivator.

I tend to think that virulent fundamentalist Islamic systems of
thought will subside when the political and economic forces behind
it are dealt with, and not otherwise. Certainly killing will never
fix it.

To clarify, I think that in the cultural context, militant Islam and
Judeophobia are "tools ready to hand" for those of a nationalist or
anti-imperialist bent in the Middle East, and that is why we are
seeing the waxing of their influence now.

To quote Mr. Kant:

"From the crooked timber of humanity, nothing entirely straight
was ever made."

[The Magistrate]

24. Again, Sir, Excellent Points

Ideas, like "world historical figures," tend to rise both to and from the occassion. Your point about the utility of Anti-Semitism to Hitler is a good one, worth a little amplification. Setting the man's personal views aside, there is no question that he learned the utility of those beliefs as a mass political tool while a tramp in Vienna. It would be a bold fellow who would maintain bigotry against Jews was more deeply rooted in Austria-Hungary then Germany at that time, but in Austria-Hungary, with its many jostling nationalities and sense of decline, there was great political utility to something all could unite against in detestation and blame, while in the Prussian empire of Germans, an assemblage of close cousins with a sense of rising power and prosperity pervading public life, the thing was a political nullity, however widespread dislike of Jews among the populace. Hammerblows of defeat and economic calamity were required to open the field for it, and even then, a decades' tireless agitation was needed before the poison took firm hold.

In regards to the Moslem regions today, it does seem to me that too much stress is placed on reaction against colonialism in explaining the strength of fundamentalist ideology, for to my view, the difficulty runs much deeper, and colonialism itself is but a symptom of a more profound disorder. This the great disparity between a certain element of the Islamic faith, as popularly perceived by many of its adherents, and the actual situation of the Moslem countries in the world today, and for several centuries previous. Whatever its past glories may be, it is beyond cavail that the Moslem world has come to lag far behind the West in power and wealth: colonialism itself would have been impossible had this not come to be the case.

It is a real element of Islamic belief that a community which surrenders to the will of the diety and does what is permitted and shuns what is not will be favored above communities which do otherwise. All faiths of the Abrahamic tradition have this belief in some form, of course, but Islam is most deeply afflicted with it. The old prophets and priests of Judaism learned long ago to rationalize disaster as a proof equal to prosperity of both the power and special attention to the people of the diety, and literally millenia of powerless persecution have taken a toll as well. Chistianity, which began as a prediction of the imminent end of earthly power, still retains as its predominate theology that the greatest proof of the diety's favor toward believers will be shown in the next life, not in this one, and that it is precisely those who suffer most in this world that will be most exalted in the next: Calvinism and televangists' prosperity preaching have not yet wholly displaced this root belief. Islam, however, began in temporal glory during the life of its founder; for its first centuries went from triumph to triumph in a breath-taking expansion of power and wealth; and remained for many centuries further clearly superior to any close neighbor. Thus, this element of belief took an exceptionally deep root. That it has become impossible for some time to believe it still, without resort to a considerable degree of delusion, has inflicted a profound spiritual crisis on many adherents of Islam, deeper even than the wounds geology and paleontology and astronomy have struck to some adherents of Christianity.

[bemildred]

25. Well said Sir.

It is surprising how often, as with the Nazis, it occurs that a tool
taken up for political reasons assumes a life of it's own. In the
case of Hitler and his minions, this went to the point that needed
military resources were diverted into the fatuous and horrific
"final solution", thus acceleration the Nazis' own demise. One can
point to many other cases where a similar development is arguable,
and wallowing in fundamentalism, xenophobia, and jingoism always
seems to have it's price, witness the decline of the USA today.

In the case of the Islamic nations, I think you are arguing that a
sort of Islamic Renaissance and/or Reformation - perhaps not the
precise idea there - are needed, and that the lack of it contributed
to their failures to resist colonization and exploitation, to compete
successfully with the West. A reasonable point, I do not dispute that
it is not so, but I would suggest that the situation is not that
simple. I offer three arguments:

1.) Quite a number of other peoples of diverse historical record
were likewise colonized by the West, virtually the entire World.
China for example. This suggests that it was not some particular
failure of Islamic culture that was at work.

2.) Such empire building is not a particular accomplishment of the
post-Renaissance European powers, they were just unusually successful
at it.

Combining arguments one and two, I tend to favor the explanations
given by Mr. Diamond for European success, rather than some notion
of cultural superiority as such, and I think that argument applies
to Islam in the same way as to other cultures invaded and colonized
by the Europeans with varying degrees of success.

3.) It has been the policy of colonizers in all places and times to
vitiate the political and cultural development of the colonized. The
reasons for this are patent. To blame the colonized for their
resulting vitiated political and cultural development seems to me
to be perverse. If they had been allowed to develop without
interference for some period, a century or two say, and in that
situation remained stagnated, then one could draw a conclusion.
Absent that, one can only say that they have been colonized and
suffered accordingly.

---

Of course, the extent and vigor with which Western meddling was
pursued tends to directly relate to the presence of exploitable
natural resources, and it does not seem to me one can adequately
discuss the history of SW Asia and the Middle East without considering
the effect of all that oil.

It is probably worth mentioning as well, that as Mr. abd el Krim
pointed out to the Spanish in Morocco, the success of the West in
confronting more "primitive" cultures has been spotty in places.

My regards to you.

[The Magistrate]

26. You Are Right, My Friend, That It Is A Complex Matter

My most basic point in this question is not simply that an "Islamic Rennaisance or Reformation" would have been immensely helpful to that culture, but that there are some inherent elements of that cultural complex, and its history, that have rendered such a thing particularly difficult for it, and seem to be hampering it even today, in its response to the challenge of Western power. This does not seem to me a question of blame: if one were to observe that rats had driven mice off the bounty of a new-sown field, owing to their superior capabilities for agression stemming from their greater size, it would be perverse to charge the observer with blaming mice for their lesser bulk.

The late Prof. Gould's likening of competion between human cultures to a Lamarkian system of evolution, with descent of acquired traits, and an element of self-direction in their acquisition, has always struck me as a wise and useful one, for this seem to be both the field and style in which competion between human groups occurs: other living things have their beings shaped to particular requirements in particular environments; humans shape their cultural arrangements and techniques to particular environments. To some degree, of course, humans alter the environments that surround them by doing so, both by direct manipulation of their surroundings, and by doing things differently than other humans who may come to be a part of their surroundings. Any alteration of the surrounding environment is always both a threat and opportunity to any existing form of life, because its adaptions and behaviors may suit the new conditions more or less well, and there will be consequences that follow from this. The capability to adapt in new circumstances is of great potential value, therefore. Wherever there is a degree of self selection in what adaptations are or are not made, there must always arise the possibilty that judgement will be exercised well or poorly, whether it is exercised collectively or by a single mind, but this can be examined without the lense of blame or credit, it seems to me, and it seems difficult to examine human behaviors without doing so to some degree.

The overwhelming majority of human cultures that have ever existed have been based on the premise that the ancestors got it right, and have therefore devoted the greater portion of their energies to preserving the ways of the ancestors. This has not prevented the development and spread of such novelties as herding and farming and metal tools and an increasing complexity of social arrangements, but with each such great inovation, the original pattern has tended to reassert itself, and the culture that incorporated such developments has come to view them as something the ancestors got right, that must be preserved accordingly. The radical difference of the modern West is that it is a cultural complex that depends on novelty, that discards not just the ways of the ancestors, but even of the grandparents and parents who still are breathing. It creates the novelties that it needs to thrive, and imposes them willy-nilly, by the power it has thus acquired, on all others, because it alters the conditions in which all others exist, whether they, or it, wish this particularly or not.

Even where the ancestors are deified to some degree, as has been the most common human cultural practice, they retain a basically human character. There is a great difference between what has been ordained by a recognizably human agency, however hoary and awe-inspiring, and what is ordained by a transcendant, universal, omnipotent diety. Clearly, a culture rooted in the former will prove much more susceptible to alteration, whether in crisis or simply for possibilty of great gain. A culture based on the latter will provide far more potent tools to prevent alteration of its ways, providing belief in the postulated diety remains dominant. It seems obvious to me one of these patterns will be better able to adjust to changed circumtances, particularly where that change consists in being placed at a relative disadvantage to another human group in the ability to exercise power.

An examination of the impacts of Western imperialism on China and on the Islamic heartland would seem to bear this out. Serious modern Western depredation on both began about the same time, the early portion of the nineteenth century; both operated at a serious technical deficeit relative to the West; and the rapacious intent of the West towards both was interchangeable in degree. Yet it is clear that China was more difficult for the West to penetrate, and threw off the degree of control the West was able to exert more quickly and completely. China today could hardly be considered to be subject to neo-colonial control, and is indeed emerging as a serious competitor to the Western powers in many respects, in ways only a dreamer could imagine the Islamic heartland actually doing in any forseeable near term future.

Not all of the reasons for this, of course, are directly rooted in a contrast between Islam and the Imperial Confucianism of Ch'ing China. The centralized political organization of Imperial China was a great factor. Western ambitions had to recognize the possibility that the whole human mass of China might be mobilized by an efficient bureaucracy, while in the Islamic heartland, though the population in toto might be similarly daunting, this was not a serious risk. That polity was far too fractionated into ethnic, tribal, clan, and sectarian motley, and the Great Turk's ability to direct it, whether as Sultan or Caliph, was a pale reflection of the Son of Heaven's institutional capabilities. Yet structural characteristics of Islam did make some important contributions to this debility. Islam is an acephalous religion, which tends to militate against any other form of centralization in a culture it dominates. By viewing the original community of believers under Mohammed as the perfect model of Islam, it lent a sacred aura to the political forms of tribe and clan, which militated further against political centralization.

China in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries made a far better job of modernizing itself than did the Islamic heartland. The debate was not whether to adopt the mechanical innovations of the West, but whether to use them to strengthen the Confucian pattern, or to alter this as well. Even the most conservative of the literatii supported the "Self-Strengthening" movement in the military sphere in the latter days of the Imperium. By the late nineteenth century the idea that redoubling energies towards the ways of the past utopia as a means of dealing with present difficulties was dwindling politically. Both the Nationalists and the Communists emerged with radical prescriptions of modernization in all spheres, and gained in turn predominant support from the country. Their success was greatly aided by there being a cultural impress of central rule, that once gained could sway the allegiance of the great majority to the new course of the new ruler.

The predominant response in the Islamic heartland, in the same period, remained that of redoubled effort to recreate the past utopia of the ideal community of original believers. Ataturk's modernization extended no further than the Turkish heartland; everywhere else modernization occured in any degree, whether intellectually or otherwise, it did so only under the aegis of Western Imperialism itself, where traditional structures were set at naught by the foreign invader. As control by the West has grown less direct, at least over-all, the result seems to have been only increased perseverance in the same failed course. It will suffice no better now, it seems to me, than it has managed to do already.

[bemildred]

27. It seems we see the same things and draw different conclusions.

I used "blame" in the sense of assigning responsibility or causation,
not with any moral intent, but it seems a bad choice now. The pursuit
of rhetorical effect leads me astray sometimes.

To state that the islamic "cultural complex" is "hampered" requires that
one have some idea of what duration "timely" change should occur in. The
Arab Middle East is only a hundred years or so from the Ottoman empire,
and change is occurring now, as I will discuss later. That does not seem
unreasonable to me.

Islamic culture looks to me much like any other culture. Why should I assume it
is different in such a way as to explain it's "hampered" development when
I have perfectly adequate explanations for the course of events without it?
I alluded to some of these ideas in post #25.

Are we to assume that the native cultures of the Americas were hampered by
cultural deficiencies or by technical backwardness, disease, and a lower
level of cultural aggression? Their cultures were as well adapted to their
environment as any. The West developed certain advantages first and exploited
them for it's own benefit. The fact is that there is every reason to expect
that the current ascendency of Western culture will be temporary too.
There are grave concerns about the future of technical civilization. We
could all be paying exorbitant consulting fees to hunter-gatherer tribes
one of these days.

Middle Eastern cultures may be assumed to have been adapted to the
economic and geographic situation they developed in, as with any other
culture, and are now in a generational process of rapid change.

I will say that, where what we call culture is concerned, I think that
propagation or even infection is a better model that evolution. This is
a thorny issue, but my objection hinges on the lack of an accurate replication
mechanism, and hence any "thing" that "evolves" other than the situation as
a whole. To be sure there are societies that persist over time, and may be
taken as better or worse "adapted" to the "environment" they exist in, but
they can be wildly different from generation to generation, with both useful
and catastrophic results. Hence, the notion that societies are in some sense
"individuals" that can be subjected to "selection" seems suspect to me.
Each new generation keeps what it needs and discards the rest, and
as you point out, the rate "cross-breeding" is accelerating.

This ties in with a general annoyance I have with the tendency to reify
collections of people. One can talk of the collection of "Palestinians"
or "The Palestinian People", but it is not a thing, it is a collection, and
by talking of them as an "it" one dismisses the true nature of what one
is discussing. One hears on one hand that there is not and never has been a
"Palestinian people", and on the other hand that the Palestinians are a
"beaten people", or could be. Well, which is it? It is used or denied for
rhetorical effect.

I submit that what is really there when you say "Palestinians" is a collection
of diverse persons grouped together for administrative convenience, and the
label tells you nothing about any member of the group except that the government
chose for reasons of its own to put him in that group. It seems to me
that most common labels for human groups have the same nature, they are
conveniences that tell you almost nothing about anyone.

I don't find the idea that human societies can self-direct, in the manner that
an individual might, convincing. Even in individuals this capability is weak.

Nevertheless, I would agree that all cultures are based on the idea that
"the ancestors got it right", including our own. It is true that rapid
change is occurring and that is causing profound social disruptions, but it is
also still true that almost everything we know is handed down, even in the West.
Without a certain measure of continuity things stop working.

M. Emmanual Todd, in his book "After the Empire" (English trans.) suggests
that fundamentalisms and political violence commonly accompany rapid or
radical cultural change, and he suggests that current manifestations of that
tendency in the Middle East result from transformations in the literacy rates
in the various countries, and consequent changes in birth rates, and other
cultural markers like cousin marriage. He points out that in countries like
Iran, where the birth rate is already well under 3 per fertile woman, one
has already perforce a large population of men who have abandoned the need for
a male heir to inherit. He also points out that the western nations have,
many of them, undergone similar violent transitions in moving from agrarian
societies to literate industrial ones.

This idea that fundamentalisms and reactionary politics arise in periods
of rapid change fits in rather well with the other idea that societies are
inherently and necessarily conservative about change. It seems quite natural
that when change is rapid or forced, there are political and social reactions
to it. Older generations often are not happy about all the "new ideas" and don't
like the idea of all they know becoming obsolete.

One of the things I have been stuck on for some time now it the question as
to what sort of rapid changes in the United States are driving the rise
of fundamentalism here? Evangelical religion is a post-Civil war phenomena
in the US, from after 1880 if I remember what I have read correctly, and
has grown a good deal in recent decades. What is driving that reaction?

I don't find your argument from rigidity of the religion convincing. There
are and were plenty of muslims eager to explore and learn Western ideas, and
that trend will only increase. Muslim culture is not some monolithic entity
controlled by OBL and his like, and the Caliphate is long dead. Iran, if left
to it's own devices, will be a secular democracy within a generation. Turkey
is there or nearly there.

But I tire. My regards, Sir. I hope you find this stimulating as I do.

[bemildred]

29. M. Grousset, in "Empire of the Steppes" says:

"Lastly, the Mongols were accustomed to ridding themselves
of defeated foes in the steppe by massacres or wholesale deportations,
or by collective enrollment under the White Banner. In sedentary
countries, however, and especially among the swarming people of
China, massacres made little impression - there were always more
inhabitants to take the place of those slain."

This is a matter that Orwell raised in one of his essays as well,
and that get too little thought in discussions about war and ethnic
conflicts. When the numbers involved on either side become large,
it becomes infeasible to eliminate ones enemies permanently, and it
requires planning, endurance, and determination to even take a
serious shot at it.

"There is no quick, easy way out. We're going to have to live
through our whole lives win, lose, or draw" -- Walt Kelley

[number6]

10. Muslim bash anyone...?

"I am convinced that the only way to save the Muslims from being permanently consigned to the dustbin of history is to destroy the basis of anti-Semitism from the Muslim traditions and liturgy."

Muslim bash-a-palooza ....

[Gimel]

18. Perhaps it is too ambitious

to destroy the "basis of anti-Semitism from Muslim traditions and liturgy".

Everyone knows it exists, but only the Muslims themselves can change it. That's where this writer has a edge.

Israelis are always examining their own attitudes, why not Muslims examine their's occasionally?

I find it refreshing from the usual anti-Israel bashing that we get from Al Jazeera and other Islamic sites.

[drdon326]

19. Gimel....

be happy the author wasnt called an "uncle tom".

[Forkboy]

20. no one ever uses terms like "uncle tom"

or "uncle Jake" around here.

[Forkboy]

11. More filth

ho hum

[drdon326]

12. Perhaps you want to know who wrote this "filth"

Tashbih Sayyed is editor-in-chief of Muslim World Today and Pakistan Today, California-based weekly newspapers, president of Council for Democracy and Tolerance.

nice bashing.

[Forkboy]

13. I saw that

So?

Interestingly you ignore the exchange between bemildred and The Magistrate to bash my bashing. :freak:

[drdon326]

15. Quite frankly....

I am a little sad you find it necessary to bash peacful
muslims who dont align themselves with terrorism.

You can take cheap shots at muslims and I cant stop you
but I dont think that should be allowed.

[Forkboy]

16. Quite frankly

I'm not impressed by your faux outrage with me :shrug:

"cheap shots at muslims"?

I'll leave that to the articles you post daily.

[Djinn]

23. bingo

can't wait for more detailing Jewish people and their 5000 year history of tolerance blah blah blah. Yep all Jews = good (even mega tolerant ones like Baruch Goldstein the Kahane mob and Sharon) and all Muslims unless they see the light and admit Israel is a shinning example of tolerance and democracy are inherently anti-semitic.

If those are the choices available I guess I'm going to get stuck with self hating - sigh

[newyorican]

14. I knew this guys name was familiar...

he is the wacko that refered to CAIR as a 5th column...

He's a fave over in freeperville and LGF...

An interesting and revealing interview with said wacko:

VAL ZAVALA>> TONIGHT ON LIFE AND TIMES --

JESS MARLOW>> A PAKISTANI JOURNALIST WHO SPEAKS HIS MIND, BUT IS HE PAYING THE PRICE FOR CRITICIZING FELLOW MUSLIMS?

VAL>> HE’S A PAKISTANI JOURNALIST WHO ONCE RAN A THRIVING NEWSPAPER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

<advertising snip>

JESS>> THEN, IN THE WAKE OF 9/11, HE STARTED RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS FELLOW MUSLIM-AMERICANS. NOW HIS BUSINESS HAS ALL BUT DRIED UP AND THE JOURNALIST SAYS IT'S BECAUSE HE SPOKE OUT. BUT AS GAY YEE REPORTS, IT’S UNCLEAR WHETHER THE MAN IS A VICTIM OR JUST UNLUCKY.

(or stupidly getting caught selling out...)

GAY YEE>> TASHBIH SAYYED AND HIS WIFE, FATIMA, WORK DAY AND NIGHT OUT OF THEIR RENTED FONTANA HOME PUBLISHING A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER CALLED PAKISTAN TODAY. SAYYED IS A VETERAN JOURNALIST AND SERVED AS A NEWS PRODUCER FOR PAKISTAN TELEVISION BEFORE IMMIGRATING TO AMERICA IN 1981.

TASHBIH SAYYED>> I WAS THE FIRST HEAD OF CURRENT AFFAIRS ON PAKISTAN TELEVISION. WHY DID I HAVE TO LEAVE SUCH A SUCCESSFUL LIFE? BECAUSE OF ISLAMISTS WHEN THEY TOOK OVER PAKISTAN.

GAY YEE>> HE IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS A DEVOUT MUSLIM, BUT SAYYED SAYS HE COULD NOT LIVE AMONG THE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS WHO WERE SOWING SEEDS OF TERRORISM IN HIS NATIVE LAND.

TASHBIH SAYYED>> PAKISTAN CALLS ITSELF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN. IF THAT IS ISLAMIC, I WOULD RATHER BE NO ISLAMIC.

GAY YEE>> AFTER ARRIVING IN CALIFORNIA, SAYYED STARTED PAKISTAN TODAY. IT WAS A DECADE AGO AND, FOR A WHILE, HE AND HIS FAMILY WERE LIVING THE AMERICAN DREAM IN LAGUNA HILLS.

TASHBIH SAYYED>> MY CIRCULATION HAD BEEN VERY HIGH IN TERMS OF ETHNIC NEWSPAPERS, BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS VERY LOW. CERTAINLY THAT’S WHY I AM TRYING TO FIND SUPPORT OUTSIDE THE ISLAMISTS GROUPS.

GAY YEE>> HIS CIRCULATION IS LOW AND HIS BUSINESS IS FALTERING, HE SAYS, BECAUSE HE DARED TO SPEAK OUT. THAT’S WHAT HE RECENTLY TOLD THE JEWISH JOURNAL WHEN THEY PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE ABOUT SAYYED’S STRUGGLE TO KEEP HIS PAPER AFLOAT. HE CLAIMS HE’S PAYING THE PRICE FOR BEING AN OUTSPOKEN CRITIC OF AMERICAN-MUSLIMS’ LEADERSHIP. ON MANY OCCASIONS, SAYYED REGULARLY QUESTIONED THEIR MOTIVES AND EVEN THEIR LOYALTY TO AMERICA.

TASHBIH SAYYED>> IT REALLY BECAME IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO LIVE WITH THE HYPOCRISY, THE BIGOTRY, THAT IS REPRESENTED BY ISLAMIST LEADERSHIP IN THIS COUNTRY.

GAY YEE>> SUDDENLY, SAYYED’S ONCE SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS WAS IN TROUBLE. HIS REVENUE FELL AND HE HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SELLING A HOUSE HE LOVED AND HIS NEWSPAPER.

TASHBIH SAYYED>> WHAT IS ONE HOUSE? I AM READY TO LOSE MY LIFE, BUT I’M NOT READY TO LOSE ONE TOOL THAT I HAVE IN MY HANDS TO CHALLENGE THE TERRORIST MIGHT.

GAY YEE>> SAYYED IS A TRUE BELIEVER THAT EVEN MODERATE MUSLIM ORGANIZATIONS IN AMERICA OFTEN ARE NOT WHAT THEY SEEM.

TASHBIH SAYYED>> WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS, THEY’RE DOING ONE THING IN THE PUBLIC JUST FOR THE SAKE OF KEEPING SOME KIND OF A CIVILIZED FACE, BUT BEHIND DOORS, THEY ARE CONTINUING CONVINCING MUSLIMS THAT AMERICA IS NOT A FRIEND OF ISLAM OR MUSLIMS.

GAY YEE>> THEIR GOAL, HE ARGUES, IS TO TURN MUSLIMS HERE AGAINST AMERICA AND TO PERSUADE THEM THAT THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS ACTUALLY A WAR AGAINST ISLAM. BUT TALK TO THE PEOPLE SAYYED HAS CAST DOUBTS UPON AND YOU HEAR CLAIMS THAT HE’S A LOOSE CANNON. SALAM AL-MARAYATI IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL.

SALAM AL-MARAYATI>> HE’S RELATIVELY UNKNOWN IN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY AND I’M SURPRISED, ALSO, FOR SOMEBODY WHO CALLS HIMSELF A JOURNALIST TO MAKE SUCH ACCUSATIONS WITHOUT EVER INTERVIEWING ANYBODY FROM THIS ORGANIZATION.

GAY YEE>> ASLAM ABDULLAH, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF A MONTHLY AMERICAN-MUSLIM MAGAZINE, THE MINARET, SAYS SAYYED IS TRYING TO BLAME HIS BUSINESS PROBLEMS ON SOME GRAND CONSPIRACY THAT DOESN’T EXIST.

ASLAM ABDULLAH>> NEWSPAPERS COME AND GO, DEPENDING ON THEIR POPULARITY, SO I HAVE NOT FOUND THE GENTLEMAN TALKING TO ME OR TALKING TO ANYONE ABOUT THOSE THINGS AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SUBSTANTIAL PIECE OF JOURNALISM IN HIS PAPER ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT HE IS PLACING AGAINST MUSLIMS.

GAY YEE>> AND SAYYED’S ANSWER?

TASHBIH SAYYED>> WHY WOULD I CALL THEM AND FIND OUT. I HAVE MY JUDGMENT ABOUT THEM.

GAY YEE>> AL-MARAYATI SAYS THE MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL HAS BEEN CLEAR IN ITS STAND AGAINST TERRORISM.

SALAM AL-MARAYATI>> I THINK THAT OUR MESSAGE REALLY IS BALANCED. I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT SOME PEOPLE DON’T AGREE WITH OUR POLITICS AND THE POINT IS THERE SHOULD NOT BE A POLITICAL LITMUS TEST ON DETERMINING WHO’S MODERATE OR WHO’S NOT.

GAY YEE>> MEANWHILE, ABDULLAH QUESTIONS THE MOTIVES OF THE JEWISH JOURNAL FOR PUBLISHING SAYYED’S STORY.

ASLAM ABDULLAH>> I THINK THAT PROBABLY THE JEWISH JOURNAL HAS CERTAIN ULTERIOR MOTIVES BY PROMOTING THIS KIND OF THING AND PROBABLY THEY WANTED TO USE THAT INDIVIDUAL OR THAT PERSON TO PROMOTE THEIR OWN HATRED AGAINST ISLAM AND MUSLIMS.

GAY YEE>> SAYYED SAYS, FOR HIM, THE ISSUE IS AMERICA AND HE FEARS THE MUSLIM LEADERSHIP ACTUALLY WANTS TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY BY SPREADING DISCONTENT WITHIN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY.

TASHBIH SAYYED>> TO ME, IN AMERICA, EVERYONE WHO LOVES AMERICA IS AN AMERICAN AND ANYONE WHO DOESN’T LIKE AMERICAN VALUES IS AN ENEMY OF AMERICA. IN MY VIEW, THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GRAYS. THERE ARE ONLY BLACKS AND WHITES.

JESS>> AS YOU HEARD, THE JEWISH JOURNAL WAS ROUNDLY CRITICIZED FOR BREAKING THIS STORY, BUT THE JOURNAL INSISTS IT HAD NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE AND WAS SIMPLY REPORTING THE NEWS. THE PAPER SAYS THE STORY WAS FAIR AND BALANCED AND WAS NOT AN EFFORT TO PANDER TO JEWISH READERS, AS SOME MUSLIM CRITICS HAVE CLAIMED.

source

Yep, easy to see why he's your hero...

[Forkboy]

17. I dont think he has to worry about staying afloat

it seems some will lap it up excitedly.

[Gimel]

21. This "interview"

The format of this "interview" bothers me. It contains comments about Tshbiah Sayyed, and then comments by him. somewhere in the middle is:

ASLAM ABDULLAH>> I THINK THAT PROBABLY THE JEWISH JOURNAL HAS CERTAIN ULTERIOR MOTIVES BY PROMOTING THIS KIND OF THING AND PROBABLY THEY WANTED TO USE THAT INDIVIDUAL OR THAT PERSON TO PROMOTE THEIR OWN HATRED AGAINST ISLAM AND MUSLIMS.


I noticed that the L. K. Whittier Foundation sponsored this interview program, and that they are associated with Howard Hughes Medical Institute. "Sounds real liberal" <choke, choke>

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

28. This nonsense is not even recent

I suspect that if Tashbih was this loopy last June, he must be even more interesting now. Post more, could use the laugh..