Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military

[sirs]

No, all I'm able to do is demonstrate how it's not the religion at issue, but the radicals within that mutate their religion.  If your wish is to continue to validate what was supposed to be an unsubstantiated commentary Miss Henny posted about how many Muslims fear a 21st century Crusades, led by Bush and conservatives, then by all means, continue.  I'll need to take further commentaries by yourself with a hefty grain of salt

[Henny]

I take it you've heard of Taqiyya and Kitman?

I have heard of it in both the form of Islamic study... and through anti-Islamic rhetoric and the like, in the United States.

You have only heard of it through anti-Islamic rhetoric.

So here's what the translation of those words REALLY mean, from a person who is totally fluent in Arabic (that's me).

Taqiyya literally means that a person can hide his or her religious beliefs in the face of persecution. Thinking back to the age of Islam, it meant that if you are being persecuted by a non-Muslim who might kill you for your beliefs, you can deny those beliefs to save your life and God won't punish you for it.

Kitman literally means "not revealing." It is used with taqiyya in the same context.

Rich, I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden and other extremists haven't twisted this doctrine to mean something else. But whatever meaning an extremist uses for the phrase shouldn't be automatically applied to all Muslims.

[Henny]

>>She's right, Rich<<

Okay. Show me.

You've been shown.

[Mr_Perceptive]

I take it you've heard of Taqiyya and Kitman?

I have heard of it in both the form of Islamic study... and through anti-Islamic rhetoric and the like, in the United States.

You have only heard of it through anti-Islamic rhetoric.

So here's what the translation of those words REALLY mean, from a person who is totally fluent in Arabic (that's me).

Taqiyya literally means that a person can hide his or her religious beliefs in the face of persecution. Thinking back to the age of Islam, it meant that if you are being persecuted by a non-Muslim who might kill you for your beliefs, you can deny those beliefs to save your life and God won't punish you for it.

Kitman literally means "not revealing." It is used with taqiyya in the same context.

Rich, I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden and other extremists haven't twisted this doctrine to mean something else. But whatever meaning an extremist uses for the phrase shouldn't be automatically applied to all Muslims.

Christianity is the reverse. Matthew 10:33, I believe: "But whoever denies me before people, I will deny him also before my Father in heaven."

[_JS]

Christianity is the reverse. Matthew 10:33, I believe: "But whoever denies me before people, I will deny him also before my Father in heaven."

Yet, Peter denied Christ three times. Christianity is not a comparable religion to Islam or Judaism because it is not a religion of law, no matter how much some (and I'm not accusing you here) try to make it so.

There are, of course, very important tenets of Christianity and beliefs, but for people who require a religion for day-to-day living, I tend to think they'll be sorely disappointed.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Hmmm, good points, but I DO find Christianity an excellent theology for day to day living.

And, as you note, GRACE is an integral part of the theology.

[Richpo64]

>>Rich, I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden and other extremists haven't twisted this doctrine to mean something else. But whatever meaning an extremist uses for the phrase shouldn't be automatically applied to all Muslims.<<

Henny, did I say it applys to ALL Muslims?

We're talking about a specific person in this thread, not ALL Muslims. Am I wrong to claim that these doctrines are used as I claimed by the Muslims we are discussing?

[Henny]

>>Rich, I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden and other extremists haven't twisted this doctrine to mean something else. But whatever meaning an extremist uses for the phrase shouldn't be automatically applied to all Muslims.<<

Henny, did I say it applys to ALL Muslims?

We're talking about a specific person in this thread, not ALL Muslims. Am I wrong to claim that these doctrines are used as I claimed by the Muslims we are discussing?

I think you said something along the lines that "they all do it," but perhaps I read that wrong assuming you meant all Muslims instead of all extremists.

OK - back to the point - I am unsure that Ahmadinejad (or however you spell his name) is using Taqiyya and Kitman in the way you described; ass though he is, he isn't on the extremist level of Al-Qaeda.

[Michael Tee]

Here was the quote from the transcript:

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.

So here are two questions that popped into my head - -
1.  Did he say, we don't have homosexuals but you do?  Or did he say, we don't have homosexuals the way you do in your country?  (i.e., that in the U.S. the homosexuals are open, flaming, in your face, etc.?)

2.  What was the exact Farsi word that Ahmadinejad used that the translator translated into English as "homosexuals?"  And what are its connotations?

Because it's starting to dawn on me, the guy might not be dumb enough to deny the existence of homosexuals entirely, but the translator might not have been good enough to distinguish between various shades of meanings for various Farsi words used to describe male homosexuals.  What if Ahmadinejad was denying the existence of real in-your-face flamers and used a word for them that was mistranslated as, simply, "homosexuals?"  That would certainly add some sense to the final phrase, "like in your country," which otherwise it's hard to see the necessity of.

[Henny]

Here was the quote from the transcript:

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.

So here are two questions that popped into my head - -
1.  Did he say, we don't have homosexuals but you do?  Or did he say, we don't have homosexuals the way you do in your country?  (i.e., that in the U.S. the homosexuals are open, flaming, in your face, etc.?)

2.  What was the exact Farsi word that Ahmadinejad used that the translator translated into English as "homosexuals?"  And what are its connotations?

Because it's starting to dawn on me, the guy might not be dumb enough to deny the existence of homosexuals entirely, but the translator might not have been good enough to distinguish between various shades of meanings for various Farsi words used to describe male homosexuals.  What if Ahmadinejad was denying the existence of real in-your-face flamers and used a word for them that was mistranslated as, simply, "homosexuals?"  That would certainly add some sense to the final phrase, "like in your country," which otherwise it's hard to see the necessity of.

MT, that's an excellent point. I've seen a lot of problems in Farsi translations before, and they're forever adjusting them to get the correct meanings across. He might have meant that homosexuals don't have the freedoms to live as they wish, etc. The fact that their laws acknowledge homosexuality - albeit as a form of mental illness - would make your interpretation of this even more likely.

[yellow_crane]

The mainstreammedia jumped on this 'homosexual' issue with energy simply because they were al ready pumped to demonize--it really was all they had left.  They would have had a lot of things to jump on, but for the Columbia's president belly-flopping.  After this ridiculous episode, Ahmadinejad was given free reign to control the dialogue, which he took advantage of.  He was made a victim too fast, too glibly--all he had to do was then respond by pointing out that fact and then standing up to them, which he did with class and aplomb. The whole world, minus propagandized America, will not hold him to account. 

What also becomes clear is that Israel, despite its imperial calibre bragging, screwed up by pressuring Columbia so intently--it led to a harmful (for them) and unexpected plus for Iran.  "Check out the big brain on Brad!"

For all the questions left unanswered, I am perplexed at the spin both by the media and in here;  everybody had the questions, where were they?  Where was the meaningful journalistic follow-through?  Was Ahmadinejad supposed to first ask and then answer, in order to present himself the clown America had already been mind-renditioned to think he was?

They are all going to fold and refold and refold the carton in order to keep intact that Ahmadinejab is a dicator, a maniac, a fool, etc. 

It is episodes like this that make me realize just how tightly held by the balls American intellectual thought has become.   

[_JS]

For all the questions left unanswered, I am perplexed at the spin both by the media and in here;  everybody had the questions, where were they?  Where was the meaningful journalistic follow-through?  Was Ahmadinejad supposed to first ask and then answer, in order to present himself the clown America had already been mind-renditioned to think he was?

Crane makes an excellent point.

Columbia's President invites a foreign leader to his campus, then insults him right from the start. The media (MSM, liberal biased, blah, blah) had headlines already run about how "evil had landed." The guy was painted as a nutjob, ready to go off the deep end with the slightest provocation (obviously what the Columbia President intended).

It never happened. Say what you will about him, but he's not an idiot. Actually, I think he's rather clever and by making that speech and his subsequent UN speech, he's made that rather clear. He's also taken full advantage of President Bush's and Prime Minister Olmert's amazing ability to turn the United States and Israel into two of the most loathed nations in the entire world.

[Michael Tee]

<<The mainstreammedia jumped on this 'homosexual' issue with energy simply because they were al ready pumped to demonize--it really was all they had left. >>

It's pathetic, but it could have been due to the format.  The guy is naturally evasive, and it's absurd to think that one question alone could ever have pinned him down on anything he didn't wish to answer honestly.  If the questions about treatment of homosexuals - - to take only the most obvious example - - were followed up with facts, names and dates, as was entirely possible, he'd have to account for why two adolescent boys were executed,  hung from a crane for loving each other.  He could have been pinned down similarly on the torture/murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi in Ervin Prison.  Same with the Ba'hai women. 

I was kind of disappointed in the quality of the questioning.  Coulda done a much better job myself.  Columbia looked bad in every way - - a bunch of inhospitable, boorish, blowhards, unprepared and/or simply ignorant.  Bad day for the Ivy League.

[Richpo64]

>>OK - back to the point - I am unsure that Ahmadinejad (or however you spell his name) is using Taqiyya and Kitman in the way you described; ass though he is, he isn't on the extremist level of Al-Qaeda.<<

He's not?

What's the difference?

[_JS]

>>OK - back to the point - I am unsure that Ahmadinejad (or however you spell his name) is using Taqiyya and Kitman in the way you described; ass though he is, he isn't on the extremist level of Al-Qaeda.<<

He's not?

What's the difference?

For one thing, he is Shi'a and al-Qaeda are Sunni.