The Harvard Crimson - Latest Comments in The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

David I Lieberman — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:58:57 -0000

To ThorsProvoni: I appreciate your pointing me to your blog. I see there that you seem to believe that what Kevin MacDonald has been publishing about Jews is actually science. (http://www.people.hbs.edu/d... That tells me about as much as I need to know about you -- particularly with respect to your claim that "I deal in facts not fantasies."

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

David I Lieberman — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:31:51 -0000

ThorsProvoni: "In his comment ( http://www.thecrimson.com/a...... ) Lieberman does not refer to people, who count as converts under Jewish, but rather people, who count as tinokim shenishbaim (captured infants)."

Wrong. These are adult Jewish converts to Catholicism. That's why the services are in Hebrew. Get your facts straight.

ThorsProvoni: "I have no doubt that genuine Jewish converts to Christianity in Israel would be treated as traitors and subjected to violence if they formed their own community and reached out to support fellow Palestinian Christians in the quest for justice in the Holy Land."

A long sequence of events in this passage, a hypothetical path from conversion by choice to political activism which you treat as though it were a logical necessity. There are genuine Jewish converts to Christianity. That they can and do choose to retain a sense of Jewish identity even as they practice their chosen faith simply doesn't compute with you, does it?

Again -- thanks for the (apparently unintended) confirmation that the compelling need for a Jewish state continues unabated.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

ThorsProvoni — Tue, 12 May 2009 08:01:47 -0000

In his comment ( http://www.thecrimson.com/a... ) Lieberman does not refer to people, who count as converts under Jewish, but rather people, who count as tinokim shenishbaim (captured infants). In Islamic Law the similar category of people is treated practically the same as in Jewish Law, and in a Muslim environment they would probably receive sympathy and pity.

Lieberman is engaging in very typical racist Jewish Zionist distortion, hasbarah, and incitement against Muslims and Islam.

Genuine Jewish converts to Christianity are not welcome in Israel as the case of Brother Daniel demonstrates.

Far too many Israeli Jews have extremely hateful attitudes toward Christians, and it is not uncommon to see a Jew spitting on a Christian cleric in Jerusalem.

I have no doubt that genuine Jewish converts to Christianity in Israel would be treated as traitors and subjected to violence if they formed their own community and reached out to support fellow Palestinian Christians in the quest for justice in the Holy Land.

As for Jewish survival, as a greater fraction of the world population comes to understand the threat that Zionism represents to Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Americans, Gentiles and the whole world, the only hope for Jews lies in categorical denunciation of Zionism, Zionists, and the Zionist state along with renunciation of those behaviors that have made ethnic Ashkenazim a threat to non-Jews since the 1850s.

As far as I am concerned turnabout is fair play, and far too many Jews are scare-mongering paranoid delusions of the Islamic threat.

In my case I am a Harvard and Yale trained expert in Jewish studies and economics. I deal in facts and not fantasies. I provide a summary of my analysis of history and of ongoing trends in "Jewish Peril: 1933 versus 2009" ( http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2... ).

Zionism is the greatest world historical threat ever faced by the human race.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Emiliano — Fri, 08 May 2009 08:52:34 -0000

wombat: "In order to support liberalism and free thought, you wish the campus to take action against the free thought of someone you disagree with?" If that someone wants to kill me for being an apostate: yes!!! the campus must take action. Free thought can only survive as long as the different individuals involved don´t want to kill the other because of their difference. Otherwise free thought become suicidal.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

David I Lieberman — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:05:27 -0000

Yesterday, the BBC ran a radio story about a Hebrew-speaking Catholic church. In Israel. In Jerusalem. The church caters to the needs of Jewish converts to Catholicism. In Israel. In Jerusalem. The priest, himself a convert, regularly attends synagogue services as well. And, yes, the synagogue members know who he is. In Israel. In Jerusalem. No reports of retributive murders or corrective amputations. Just people worshipping as they see fit. In Israel. In Jerusalem.

Now, imagine an analogous church, serving the needs of Muslim converts to Catholicism in, say, Mecca. Or Tehran. Heck, imagine the *same* church, ministering to Jewish converts to Catholicism in Mecca. Or Tehran. Now ask yourself whether all the bile spewed in these comments by ThorsProvoloni amounts to anything more than an extended exercise in bigoted nonsense fueled by a spectacularly rich concoction of ignorance and contempt.

Actually, what Thors has accomplished here is to demonstrate why Jewish survival is likely to depend on the continued existence of an armed state dedicated to that end. Indeed, the intensity of his(?) modern spin on classic antisemitism is so over the top that I'm tempted to wonder if he might not be a secret Zionist agent-provocateur, flushing fellow travelers (I'm looking at you, Greta) out into the open. In any event, whether his(?) Judaeophobia is authenticated or simulated, I salute him(?) for his(?) substantive contribution to the Zionist cause.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

darwinnia — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:51:36 -0000

To equate Islam with sharia is an error.

Many Muslims reject sharia, which is a post-Koranic, post-Mohammed, loose agglomerate of folk beliefs/practices.

Muslims are the V-I-C-T-I-M-S of sharia laws--Muslim women in particular, but men too.

We should pretend, out of politeness, that adultresses and gays and rape victims are never really stoned to death under sharia? This would not serve victims.

Why do Christians and Jews and many Muslims no longer kill infidels, adulterers, gays, and disobedient children, even though a deep pile of holy books told them to?
Because societies have the capability to learn and evolve into something better. Forget "impermissibility of arguing" with freakazoid emperors wearing imaginary garb.

Again, to people on both sides of this issue: it is a fallacy to equate sharia with Muslims, and to equate rejection of sharia folk practices with islamophobia. Muslims have contributed plenty to civilization, but sharia isn't one of those things at this time.

Sharia laws came from old men who did the best they could and were wise for their times.........1200 years ago!!! Back then, there didn't even exist the concept of a democratic, gender-equal, diverse society.

Today there are over half a billion Muslims who do NOT want sharia and who either have succeeded in getting rid of it or are trying to.

Turkey's President Ataturk completely outlawed sharia, almost a century ago. Most Iranians don't want to be ruled by mullahs. Right now Pakistan is struggling for its life as
a viable democracy.

Every society has something to teach other societies, and something to learn from others. We need to put humility and openness to new learning ahead of the need to be
always right. And if we outlaw disagreement, we suppress self-improvement.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

seathanaich — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:51:16 -0000

So, does this surprise anyone? All religion condones killing those outside the tribe. The Bible sanctions such kililng for Jews and Christians, which is why they have done so for 3000 and 2000 years, respectively.

The only reason that such killing has been reduced is because Christianity has been successfully de-clawed by the progress of secularism. Where no such secularism exists - like in most Muslim communities and countries - religion is free to inflict pain and suffering on people. This happens every day, every hour, and every minute in Muslim communities.

Faith is the abdication of reason, and is a powerful tool which despots, princes, priests, and charlatans will continue to wield for as long as people are ignorant and weak enough to think that it is a virtue.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Gregory DiBella — Fri, 01 May 2009 10:35:01 -0000

The Salient's perspective on the issue:

(In the interests of full disclosure, I am the author of the article linked below.)

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/...

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

ThorsProvoni — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:00:09 -0000

Darwinnia and M demonstrate precisely in

http://www.thecrimson.com/a... and

http://www.thecrimson.com/a...

why Taha Abdul-Basser was correct to state:

"While I understand that [sic] will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.

Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."

The Ottoman State, in which Sharia jurisprudence was most highly evolved, did not stone adulterers, and claims that modern Sharia courts stone adulterers never prove to be true.

Haim Gerber of Hebrew University has argued that the Ottoman legal system by the late 19th century was comparable to those of Germany or of the UK in providing the basis for a Rechtstaat.

The sort of claims that Darwinnia and M make would be comparable to a belief that Jewish courts deal with accused adulteresses by giving them bitter waters (apparently some form of poison).

In order to demonize or to marginalize Arabs and Muslims, racist Zionists have spread a tremendous amount of Islamophobic disinformatsia that has poisoned the discussion about Islamic law.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Greta — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:55:31 -0000

"I disagree entirely on #4. What do you think would happen if a Christian Div School professor said that the stoning of adultresses was not to be dismissed outright?"

Well, I for one would point out to said professor that Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which was among the teachings that made the "New Testament" new.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:32:03 -0000

I disagree entirely on #4. What do you think would happen if a Christian Div School professor said that the stoning of adultresses was not to be dismissed outright?

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:29:00 -0000

Scarier than his comments on the death penalty is his stated opposition to debating religious issues. From his email:

Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:25:19 -0000

"i will agree. im confused and disheartened at what comes out of this institution. its becoming an insane asylum for the left and interlopers."

The Imam's comments seemed pretty right-wing militant Islam to me....

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

darwinnia — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:41:15 -0000

Invectives against Muslims and against Jews are ubiquitous on the web, e.g., see above.

But they come from trolls, not from Harvard chaplains.
Or so one hopes. One can't be too sure any more, given a recent find:

1200 year-old living fossil found in Harvard Yard!
He says he's a chaplain. And he says (I am not making this up), that it is wise to advocate the killing of infidels -- although he adds that here, since we're under the oppression of a democratic regime, alas we don't get to implement sharia (e.g., we don't get to chop off the left foot and right hand of suspected thieves).

These ideas are wrong and repulsive, especially since:

(a) This is not A.D. 800. E.g., over the past several centuries we have come to realize that women and men have the same rights, not more, not less.

(b) HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Muslims, our fellow women and men human beings, are held hostage to sharia laws, against their own choice, in many areas of the world.

And as we speak, Taliban forces have advanced to within 60 miles of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, a country with a 160 million pop. (and with known history of PROLIFERATING nuclear arms to other authoritarian and unstable regimes - but I digress).

I have Pakistani Muslim friends of the family, living in the Multan area. I know about the
intimidations they have been enduring. They don't want this, but they are powerless against the local sharia thugs and bullies.

It is absurd to pretend that forced marriages, the stoning to death of eloping couples, etc., should be an acceptable vision of JUSTICE AND GOOD WILL ON EARTH. This is a repulsive vision from a 3-DIGIT year. Sharia killngs are NOT "wise."

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Greta — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:30:13 -0000

In the spirit of wrapping things up, let me offer this short summation of my personal reflections on this issue and the comments here:

1) The issue of whether Taha's views (or University-sanctioned position) are appropriate is one that can be debated openly and people of good will can disagree--if this incident serves to spur constructive debate about the modern practice of ancient faiths that is a good thing.

2) In pursuing these questions, we must be aware of the geo-political context--one in which the demonizing of Islam as part of specific political agendas is not properly understood by the public, and used to justify atrocities against Muslims.

3) A double standard exists that seems to make it acceptable to speak of arabs and Muslims in terms that we would not find acceptable if applied to ther groups.

4) A double standard exists that singles out Islam among the three Abrahamic faiths for special scrutiny, however appropriate that scrutiny may be in terms of our modern "hegemonic human rights discourse" for all three faiths and their canons.

5) The process of pointing out these double standards especially through examples, especially from Judaism, invites accusations of bigotry against those pointing them out, despite the fact that current geo-political reality (vis a vis the role played by Zionism in the middle east) is a context outside of which current discussions (esp. critiques) of Islam are not fully understandable.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Omer Aftab — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:33:04 -0000

ThorsProvoni,

To be very honest I don't have the attention span to read such long comments. Good arguments don't need to be so long. In any case, if you haven't noticed, I was trying to wrap the argument up by thanking you for sharing the information. I still thank you for taking the time out to write such long comments - truly appreciate your desire to enlighten me.

Finding wisdom in a book such as the bible is different from finding wisdom in one particular injunction. Because the book may indeed have stories of wisdom, albeit a few.

Taha says, that he finds great wisdom in the established position. Which means: He thinks, it is WISE to kill apostates (though he didn't say it explicitly - but please don't insult a person's intelligence by arguing that statement 1 does NOT lead to statement 2).

Simply put, if you find great wisdom in something, you imply that it is wise to do it. Which means, he believes that the benefits of killing apostates outweighs the costs.

Now what's an endorsement? I endorse Barack Obama for Presidency. Which means that I feel, that the benefits of having Obama as the President would be greater than its costs. I don't have to campaign for him, or tell others to vote for him, but I endorse him.

So, while Taha did not ADVOCATE the killing of apostates, he certainly endorsed it.

Genuinely not looking forward to irrelevant stories and poetry.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

ThorsProvoni — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:18:29 -0000

Since Oaftab clearly does not understand the meanings of basic English, it is probably pointless to discuss the subject in detail with him, but it should be possible to clarify this particular issue.

One can certainly believe that there is great wisdom in the Bible without endorsing it.

After all the Bible contains lots of horrendous stuff:

genocide at the command of God,

God slaughters children,

killing for desecration of the Sabbath,

etc.

Of course Christian and Jewish believers do endorse the Bible while Muslims will typically claim to revere or to venerate it without giving it the full status of a revelation equal to the Quran.

Overall Christians, Jews, and Muslim have developed hermeneutic systems that go beyond plain meaning so that believers find wisdom in the text, but only a specific set of received interpretations are endorsed.

Thus overinterpretating the following statement from Taha is simply inappropriate.

"I would finally note that there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand."

Taha did not say:

After all right from the start he said:

"While I understand that will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.

"Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."

In the case of debates about religious legal systems of religions that have revealed sacred law, demanding that believers reject the religious law or the authorities that codified the religious legal system is tantamout to demanding renunciation of the religion, and the believers simply will not be browbeaten into accepting an intellectual position perceived as conflicting with their faith.

I took my first courses in Jewish studies 40 years ago, and I can safely assert that if you state to any Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi that there is great wisdom in the legal codes of Moses Maimonides, Joseph Caro or Moses Isserless, he will agree, and if you state to the same Rabbi that there is great wisdom in the established and preserved position of capital punishment for apostates as detailed in those law codes, he will either agree or refuse to comment on the ground that you are trying to incite anti-Semitism just as I argue that this thread of discussion contains much material that is an incitement to Islamophobia or to demonization of Muslims.

Modern authorities in Islam and even more so in Orthodox Judaism do not challenge the established ancient authorities. The last Jewish modern authority willing to challenge the inherited corpus of Jewish law was the Vilna Gaon, who did not go further than asserting that there was no genuine obligation for men to wear a headcovering during prayer.

Isaac Breuer, who is a more modern authority, stood in more or less the same relationship to German Orthodoxy as Franz Rosenzweig or Martin Buber played for non-Orthodox German Jews. Within the German Jewish context at the beginning of the twentieth century, Breuer plays a role rather similar to that of Tariq Ramadan among European Muslims. Here is the full passage from Mittleman that I referenced earlier. [I read the full text while I was a student at Harvard, but I do not have my own copy to quote.]

[Die Rechtsphilosophischen Grundlagen des Jüdischen und des Modernen Rechts (The Legal-Philosophical Fundamentals of Jewish and Modern Law, 1910) by Isaac Breuer] begins with a commentary on a sensational incident in the contemporary press. A German judge in a ruling concerning the divorce of two Jews who were Russian nationals determined that Jewish law was inadmissible in a German court because it ran counter to “good morals.” While the German civil code provided for a mutual right of divorce, Jewish law provides only for the husband’s right to divorce his wife. The German judge, in the case brought before him by the Jewish wife (who sought the divorce), ruled that the husband could not appeal to the principles of Jewish law to frustrate her because Jewish law entails unequal treatment of the sexes. This ruling, although later rescinded by the judge, touched off a wave of uneasiness in the Jewish community. An official declaration to the effect that Jewish law ran counter to good German morals sent tremors through both liberal and Orthodox Jewry.

Breuer found an opening in this sensation for a systematic study of the differences between Jewish and modern German law. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was not daunted by the possibility that Jewish and modern law may very well embody disjunctive moralities. Breuer is at his most characteristic in this essay. He eschews any facile, apologetic harmonization between them. In exploring this discrepancy, Breuer begins to apply some general legal-philosophical concepts to an analysis of Torah.

Breuer points out that there are indeed areas in which Jewish law diverges very considerably from modern law. Modern law is grounded in the proposition that all persons are, respecting their legal status, equal. Although positive law falls short of this norm, equality before the law is nonetheless a key normative principle, an ideal of modern law. Jewish law, on the other hand, enshrines certain fundamental inequalities. In addition to the relevant disabilities for women, the slave and the Gentile are not equal to Jewish males under Jewish law. Brueuer categorically rejects an historicist explanation for these inequalities. He affirms, on the contrary, that the whole Torah is contemporary, valid law. Torah is not a museum piece invalidated in some way by history. The legal matter of the Torah is timeless or, at least not time-bound. The assertion leads Breuer to make the bold claim that although the practice of slavery has vanished from the world, the principle of slavery must still be valid! Any jurisprudential analysis of the underlying principles of Jewish law can do no less than treat the law under the assumption of atemporal validity. Appeal to historical influences is reductionistic and methodologically intolerable.

=========================

In addition to slavery Breuer argues the timelessness of execution for apostasy and of all sorts of discrimination against women.

Breuer is for all intents and purposes the gold standard for Modern German Orthodoxy, which morphed into Modern American Orthodoxy.

Nowadays not only are Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodoxy Jewish scholars much less likely to think seriously about the philosophical issues that Breuer addressed, but they even tend to consider addressing these issues to be wrong.

Yet the Muslim and Jewish position on apostasy really is not so different from that of the US government.

Ezra Pound was indicted for treason in 1943 because he criticized Roosevelt and American war policy. One could view his crime as apostasy from Americanism to support of Italian fascism.

Today an American Jewish Zionist is at least as much a traitor as Ezra Pound. In fact because Zionism is ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism while Pound was only an apologist for Italian fascism, Jewish Zionist Americans are in many regards far more despicable than Pound, but in terms of actual actions, the average Jewish American Zionist or Ezra Pound is probably far closer to Emily Ruete (Princess Salme of Zanzibar) than to Nonie Darwish, and we Americans should be far more harsh on those Jewish American Zionists that are poisoning the American political process and ruining the American economy than on those that are reflexively supporting the State of Israel despite the fundamental incompatibility of Zionist and American ideals.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Omer Aftab — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:48:18 -0000

Greta,

HAHA HA! Nice! Thanks for sharing this! Best thing for the morning! (morning here)

ThorsProvoni,

I absolutely agree with with you. If a representative of any religious organization at Harvard finds 'great wisdom', or by use of any other words endorses killing of people (frankly, I don't see how finding 'great wisdom' is not an endorsement - I am not saying he 'advocates' killing, but 'endorses' it), then he/she should be asked to resign. I am glad you have cited examples of representatives of religions at Harvard (at Hillel, though I am still not sure whether they were guest lecturers or actual appointees), rather than elsewhere. Certainly very worrying! Thanks for sharing this piece of information!

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Finn — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:56:56 -0000

"I strongly believe that Taha should be asked to resign. I also believe that Islam should not be tarnished because of Taha's statements (my reply to Finn)." -- oaftab

Islam tarnishes itself, in case you haven't noticed. Remember 9/11? How about Mumbai? In addition, all of the many 21st century Jihads in-between, in which tens of thousands of innocent non-Moslems have been murdered and mass-murdered in the name of "allah," their pre-Islamic pagan moon god that doesn't exist.

However, aside from tarnishing itself, Islam SHOULD be condemned by others because it's core tenet is Jihad - Subjugate or kill everyone not Islamic. Oh yeah - that rotten evil belief SHOULD be tarnished and condemned. Hitler and Mohamet have the same birthday - April 20. No coincidence there. They are one and the same.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Greta — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:08:06 -0000

For oaftab:

The problem with regarding all these "al Qaeda" videos as legitimate and constituting what amount to "confessions" of guilt is that there is no way to verify whether they are genuine. Imagine if people said "of course there's a global Jewish conspiracy--they confessed to it all in the Protocols!" Would we take that seriously? A forgery! we would say. And yet when people point out some video of "jihadis" training on monkey bars as proof of the existence and nature of "al Qaeda", the burden of proof never seems to fall on them to show that these aren't just propaganda designed to villify arabs and muslims. So in that spirit... enjoy this confession of the genuine nature of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! No need to investigate, they've confessed!! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

ThorsProvoni — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:22:31 -0000

Dear Oaftab,

If the thinking of one religious group at Harvard is to be policed, they all must be.

I have attended talks at Harvard Hillel where Jewish racists like Yossi Klein Halevy, David Makovsky, and Rabbi Forman of Rabbis for Human Rights all implicitly or explicitly justified ethnic cleansing and mass killing. Rabbi Forman was in fact the most explicit and the most disturbing.

I am sure that an interrogation of Rabbi Zarchi of the Chabad House would be most enlightening.

In any case, I have reread Taha Abdul Basser's comment. He simply was not endorsing the killing of apostates. He said there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.”

It is the same position of orthodox Judaism with regard to the killing of apostates from Judaism with the qualification that there is more uniformity among Jewish sages than among their Muslims counterparts.

Taha's skepticism about Human Rights discourse is completely justified, for the Gay International (what has been called Umgeschlechtungsbewegung in German) is a tool for demonizing Arab and Islamic culture for not practicing homoeroticism exactly as Western Gay activists think it should be practiced while SaveDarfur is simply a vehicle for genocidal Jewish Zionists to distract from Zionist crimes.

Columbia Professor Mahmoud Mamdani argues persuasively in Saviors and Survivors that R2P "is a right to punish but without being held accountable--a clarion call for the recolonization of 'failed' states in Africa. In its present form, the call for justice is really a slogan that masks a big power agenda to recolonize Africa."

I attended a talk by Muslim Apostate Nonie Darwish at BC. It was sponsored by the Center for Christian Jewish Learning, and Rabbi Ruth Langer appears to have issued the invitation to Darwish..

It was from beginning to end a rant that Israel and the USA should kill more Muslims as in fact both countries did do thanks to manipulations of Jewish Zionist Neocons acting as a Jewish special interest (see Heilbrunn's They Knew They Were Right).

Under Nuremberg Law, a lot of Neocons and their panderers should be arrested, charged, tried and executed for the massive slaughter created by the Bush administration.

While the Muslim apostate Emily Ruete (Princess Salme, 1844-1924) was welcomed with affection when she returned to Zanzibar, Nonie Darwish fits the profile of someone who probably deserves to be executed either under Islamic law or Western Nuremberg Law, which would almost certainly have executed Goebbels. (Otto Dietrich was sentenced to seven years imprisonment).

Anyway here is Ruete's description of the greeting she received.

When I arrived at Zanzibar I was doubtful of the reception I should meet with there, but confident, too, that my brother would not delay in carrying out the expressed wishes of Germany, and I was not mistaken. He would, at all events, out of respect for Germany, tolerate me. But the bad treatment that my other brothers and sisters had experienced at his hands could hardly lead me to expect any friendly advances on his part; and, as for the rest of the inhabitants, it gives me the greatest pleasure to state that they gave me tokens of their kindly feelings only. Arabs, Hindoos, Banyans, and natives repeatedly entreated me to remain in Zanzibar for good, which could only strengthen my belief that there was no religious aversion felt to me. One day I met two Arabs, with whom I entered into conversation. Hearing from a third person that they were relations of mine -- I had not recognized them -- I told them afterwards. I should not have addressed them had I been aware of this, as I knew my relations were not all inclined to be friends with me. But they both replied at once that, whatever happened, they could never forget that I was the daughter of my father. And when I touched upon the religious question, one of them said "this fate had been destined to me from the beginning of the world." "The God who has served you and us from our home is the same God whom all men adore and revere. His mighty will has brought you back to us, and we all rejoice at it. And now you and your children will stay with us henceforth, will you not?"

Proofs of affection and love like these, and the deep and indescribable joy of beholding my native land once more, will always associate that voyage with some of the sweetest hours of my life.

But an hour for parting came at last and found me oh! so loath to say a long farewell once more to the few but very dear friends I had still. They fully shared my grief, and perhaps I could convey its expression best to my readers, and thereby put a fitting close to my book, by giving the English rendering of a letter that they jointly sent to me after I had reached Germany again. But its sweet tenderness and originality I cannot reproduce: --

You went from us without a word at parting;
This has torn my heart, and filled my soul with sorrow.
O! that I had clung to your neck when you departed hence,
You might have sat on my head, and walked on my eyes!

You live in my heart, and when you went
You poured grief into my soul such as I ne'er felt before;
My body is wasted, and my tears fall fast
One after one down my cheek like the waves of the sea.

O Lord of the universe, let us meet again ere we die!
Be it only one single day before death.
If we live, we meet again;
When we are dead, the Immortal One remains!

O! that I were a bird to soar to thee on wings of love;
But how can the bird soar whose wings are clipped?

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Omer Aftab — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:49:43 -0000

Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the al-Qaeda isn't a myth. If Osama bin Laden did not exist, or was not anti-USA, Pakistan would have been the first country to point that out, since Pakistan had maintained contacts with OBL until at least 1993, and after the Sept 11 attacks, a Pakistani journalist even met him.
Why would it have been in Pakistan's interest to point that out? Because Pakistan doesn't like the idea of US Army on it's borders - with the potential of intelligence gathering by USA of its nuclear sites and projects - which is not something Pakistan would want.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Greta — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:04:13 -0000

OOoo, nothing like Rick Astley in the morning! Thanks oaftab. BTW, let's pretend you actually HAD posted a link to an al Qaeda video--do you think maybe--just maybe--those videos might be produced by... someone ... precisely to build up the *myth* of "al Qaeda"?

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Omer Aftab — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:18:03 -0000

For Greta only:

Here's the al-Qaeda video with English subtitles that I promised:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Chaplain’s E-mail Sparks Controversy

Bishop Jackson — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:48:24 -0000

For a so called "peaceful religion", I hear a great deal of fear from the Muslims who are willing to comment on the Chaplain's email. I am sure that the very "tolerant' Harvard community will find a way to justify and accept the remarks. Its much more convenient to attack Christians because we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Muslims seem to have another way of dealing with their enemies. Hope the love affair with radical Islamic thinking all works out. Bishop Jackson