Well, there is no mysterious 786 imprinted on Arabic copies of the Qur’an – at least none on any of my copies. 786 does happen to be the sum of the letters of the Bismallah written before all of the chapters except one. Still, this is merely a coincidence. If you look hard enough and are willing to use any sort of logic to convince yourself of something, then you’ll find it.

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0001/ET25-5336.html

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0002/ET21-5523.html

.

Being Muslim, I am quite aware of the aspects of my religion, including pre-Islamic history in Arabia.

The article you provide the link to is absurd. Arabic is a Semitic language with very little influence from any Indo-European language until modern times. Apart from the factual errors in the article, the linguistic game the author of the article plays is laughable. By simply associating words that sound similar from different languages provides no proof that one pre-existed the other. I have heard Arabs say that Hawaii belongs to them because it sounds like the Arabic for “my wind,” and they further have proof because Honolulu sounds like “here are pearls” in Arabic. Some also believe that Shakespeare was real Shaykh Zubair – an Arab with fantastic English.

The Indians have a remarkable history – stretching back to the beginnings or history itself. There is no need to steal from everyone else.

The example is typical of post-colonized cultures, after being raped by their old masters, that they try to raise themselves above their former occupiers in attempts to regain their former dignity. In this sense the Muslim countries also suffer. The Muslims did more than save Greek science, as Danny suggests. Wikipedia provides a list of Muslims scholars and their contributions. For the rise and fall of civilizations, we can look to Ibn Khaldun – often nowadays called the father of sociology and economics. After their fall, many societies still yearn and demand respect for past glories. In the middle of it we have people like Irshad Manji who simply want to take on all the characteristics of a foreign culture to redefine their own roots in an attempt to acquire respect – quite the opposite of the Vaishnava News article, but still the same disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

AJ,
Is there really any reason for you to carry your snide strawman remarks over to this thread when socialism is not even the topic?

Precisely what countries are you speaking of?

Are they countries in which the working class is the leading class, or are they dictatorships?

That they purport to be socialist is of no importance if we wish to engage in the subject in a substantive manner. You have demonstrated that you react to a word “socialism” with a ready set of ideological platitudes that inhibits discussion. That is not the topic here, so I will leave it at that.

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9906/ET04-4033.html

Ok, this is the actual statement you made above:

“Asbahi was forced to resign only because the same Jewish fundamentalists who are trying to “purify” Palestinian land through kidnapping, torture, starvation, and killing, are trying with equal vigor to “disappear” American Muslims from the American political landscape.

This was followed by YOUR assertion that the Wall Street JOurnal is controlled by the same “Jewish fundamentalists”

It takes some form of extreme self-delusion to make the above statement and turn around and say that I was the one who made “an accusation of a Jewish-controlled this and Jewish-controlled that.” Lets get this straight. You are Person A and I am Person B. Person A (you) made the above statement that “Jewish fundamentalists” were:

A. Behind the ethnic cleansing of Palestine
B. The resignation of Mazen Asbahi
C. The Editorial Board (and apparently) the newsroom of the Wall Street Journal

Person B (me) simply made reference to what you said.

Now Person A (you) adds,

“if only your heightened ’sensitivities’ extended to those actually under attack in this world: the people subjected to Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, cluster bombs, cruise missiles – and, above all, subjected to the attacks of victimizers carried out by those who flash their trump victim card of crying ‘anti-Semitism.’

Hmm, now you have somehow linked me to “Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, cluster bombs, cruise missiles.” Lets see, I don’t agree that Mazen Asbahi was the victim of “Jewish Fundamentalists” so therefore I must be..what…oh yes a “Jewish Fundamentalist” and then somehow connected to all of the above. Am I following?…its hard you know because its all so deranged really.

To sum up. Person A (you) makes a comment that by any common standard is anti-Semitic and when Person B (me) makes note of that, is accused of “flashing a trump card?” Is that about right?

Why don’t we return to my challenge to you which was to produce actual evidence for your arguments? Evidence is what distinguishes the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers from blogs like this. They actually have the old fashioned idea that in a news story, you actually should produce some facts.

If only your heightened ’sensitivities’ extended to those actually under attack in this world: the people subjected to Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, cluster bombs, cruise missiles – and, above all, subjected to the attacks of victimizers carried out by those who flash their trump victim card of crying ‘anti-Semitism.’

As Yitzakh Rabin told an American Jewish gathering, Israel and its allies ought to stop pretending they are victims. Of course, shortly thereafter he was murdered by Jewish fundamentalists.

“Your cluelessness on Israeli politics does you no service. ”

I am afraid that your inability to stay with a subject is the disservice. Did I make a single comment on Israeli politic? Does not the introjection of the subject not further support the idea that the “Jews” are behind Asbahi’s resignation?

“But do you really manage to deceive yourself by ritually chanting “anti-Semitism?” ”

Ritually? Hmmm…first you claim that “Jewish Fundamentalists” control the Wall Street Journal and that the same “Jews” both plot the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the downfall of Mazen Asbahi. Oh! Now I get it, because I don’t endorse your anti-semitic, paranoid worldview, I don’t understand “Israeli politics.” So, what the early Israeli’s did or did not plan to do, a subject under much academic debate, is somehow relevant to the Mazen Asbahi affair? How is that exactly? Oh, I forgot that you have publicly available evidence that the “Jewish Fundamentalists” were behind it all. (oops, I mentioned anti-semitism again).

“one of the WSJ’s newest additions is Bret Stephens, former editor-in-chief of the right-wing Jerusalem Post, ”

Wow! That proves it. One of the WSJ editorial board guys (1 out of what 15 or so) worked for the Jerusalem Post for two years. I see….thats the proof that the Wall Street Journal is controlled by:

“….the same Jewish fundamentalists who are trying to “purify” Palestinian land through kidnapping, torture, starvation, and killing, are trying with equal vigor to “disappear” American Muslims from the American political landscape.

Oops, there I go again ritually chanting anti-Semitism. Charging that “Jewish fundamentalists” control the media and are plotting to “disappear” U.S. Muslims, thats not at all anti-Semitic is it?

“there’s nothing to see here, gentlemen. ”

Lots to see hear actually- somebody parroting the crud peddled by the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide, that “The Jews” control everything and are plotting the downfall of Muslims everywhere.

I will make an agreement with you:

1) Produce a shred of evidence for your original claim that “right-wing bloggers” brought down Mazen Asbai by referring to the original reports and timeline of events rather than second and third hand reports.

2) Produce a shred of evidence that “Jewish fundamentalists” were behind this in some sort of conspiracy to deny U.S. Muslims political participation. Mind you, the fact that Bret Stevens is on the WSJ editorial board is not actually evidence.

If you do that, I will rejoin you and become a convert to your cause. I suspect instead another barrage of irrelevant facts, ad hominen attacks, and further digressions from anything resembling a point. If you can’t do that, do us all a favor and don’t add further to a “blogosphere” that has a reputation for muck.

I cannot be bothered to read to you, like a child being tucked into bed, the entire scholarship on the birth and development of Zionism. If you want to learn something then read Israeli historians whose research is based on declassified archives, like Simha Flapan or Ilan Pappe or Benny Morris’ works. Or maybe these scholars are also part of your imagined anti-Semitic conspiracy?

But do you really manage to deceive yourself by ritually chanting “anti-Semitism?” It’s telling that you employ the same smear tactics you claim were never used against Asbahi – the same smear tactics I referenced in my article that were used against Columbia academics, and American Jews critical of Israel. Wail about “anti-Semitism” when facts are at play to intimidate people. Very telling indeed.

By the way, one of the WSJ’s newest additions is Bret Stephens, former editor-in-chief of the right-wing Jerusalem Post, whose editorial board fulminates for war with Iran. This is also the newspaper that labeled one of the chief architects of the Iraqi disaster, Paul Wolfowitz, ‘Man of the Year.’

Wolfowitz, in turn, was a Pentagon insider who fervently pushed for greater collaboration between Christian fundamentalists, who see Jewish presence in Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy, and his Likud friends in Israel. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/09/ma_109_01.html)

Oh, but there’s nothing to see here, gentlemen. Move along or otherwise you’re an anti-Semite.

“Have you ever read the WSJ and its editorial contents? Their view of Arabs is worse than the Klan’s view of Jews. If you take the word ‘Arab’ or ‘Palestinian’ in any of its editorial columns, and substitute it for ‘Jew’, then you basically have a Klan screed. ”

This only goes to show that you have read neither the publications of the KKK or the Wall Street Journal either. You might want to back up this claim by taking an actually WSJ editorial and do what you suggest, comparing it side by side with a Klan statement about Jews. Lets actually see how they compare.

Gone for good this time (really!)

Hmmm….first you deny the anti-semitism then amplify it further. I think most sane people would be interested to learn that the Wall Street Editorial board is “comprised of Jewish fundamentalists.” I won’t even dignify that comment by taking it up further.

However, I would say that the editorial page can be certainly be considered “conservative” which is hardly a world-shaking revelation but if you knew anything about U.S. newspapers, you would realize that the Editorial page operation is pretty much separate from the news-page and that those reporters are generally quite mixed in their political opinions. In any event, I am not quite sure what this has to do with a genuine news story which was repeated by hundreds of other news outlets evidently unaware as you and your readers are that the whole thing was concocted by “Jewish Fundamentalists” who no doubt exert their evil control over the rest of the news media, not one of which contradicted the story.

“Your further comment that a registration-only unidentified website called “Global Muslim Brotherhood Report” has “no known affiliations” – in light of copycat entities like “Jihadwatch” and its open ties with other rabidly pro-Israeli organs, does not help your credibility.”

I would say instead that YOUR credibility is not enhanced by persistent characterizations of a publication you evidently have never read. Having actually read both, I personally see no connections between the newsletter in question and Jihad Watch (both run by “Jewish Fundamentalists” perhaps?

“It is deliciously ironic that you are falling over yourself to prove Asbahi is a Muslim fundamentalist based on nothing but sources of sources of open Jewish fundamentalism”

Unfortunately, you seem constitutionally incapable of staying with an argument. I have no desire to prove that Asbahi is a “Muslim Fundamentalist” or anything else. Frankly, I could care less what he is or isn’t other than how it pertains to my country. I was interested to learn of his leadership position in these Brotherhood organizations and wish that the subject could have been explored further. Still, its interesting that the words “terrorist ties” have now changed to “Muslim Fundamentalist.”

As far as “sources of open Jewish fundamentalism”…well….sorry to say that you have now descended into the dark regions of anti-Semitism once again being guilty of what you accuse others of doing (racism). I will stay with the WSJ since that is so well known, but I dare say that the idea that the newspaper has some kind of institutional belief in “Israeli expansionism as God’s decree” is, how can I put it, well..whacky to say the least. That does seem to be the message that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood puts out in general (that Jews control the media) so I guess the arguments here are no coincidence.

So, I will sign-off this page giving you, no doubt, your opportunity for the last round of baseless claims, groundless arguments, and yes anti-semitism. If you actually ever choose to have a sane discussion based on the facts of the Asbahi matter, I would be glad to take it up again, but I submit that to most reasonable people can see where you are coming from. I know nothing about you Sir, but I submit you are also doing a great disservice to the U.S. Muslim community by this kind of foul rhetoric.

I would add that my future silence on any further accusations should not be taken for consent but rather for disdain and an unwillingness to waste my time further here.

Have you ever read the WSJ and its editorial contents? Their view of Arabs is worse than the Klan’s view of Jews. If you take the word ‘Arab’ or ‘Palestinian’ in any of its editorial columns, and substitute it for ‘Jew’, then you basically have a Klan screed. Same goes for Jihad Watch or FrontPageMag or other Jewish fundamentalist websites which try to wrap themselves in American patriotism by inciting anti-Muslim hatred.

I’m sorry to say you’ve lost whatever inkling of credibility you may have once imagined yourself to possess, if you do not even know the political orientation of the WSJ editors. Either that or you have never read any scholarship from Israeli universities on Israeli ethnic cleansing and torture, and thus imagine the WSJ’s position to be entirely reasonable.

Your further comment that a registration-only unidentified website called “Global Muslim Brotherhood Report” has “no known affiliations” – in light of copycat entities like “Jihadwatch” and its open ties with other rabidly pro-Israeli organs, does not help your credibility.

It is deliciously ironic that you are falling over yourself to prove Asbahi is a Muslim fundamentalist based on nothing but sources of sources of open Jewish fundamentalism (the belief in Israeli expansionism as God’s decree), and raise hysterics when it is identified as such, even though the WSJ’s position is there for anyone to read.

Oh how predictable– name calling, usually the beginning of the end of serious debate. Also, repeat over and over the accusation “neocon smear campaign” instead of dealing with the evidence presented that it cannot be true…also a predictable but, in the end, tiresome tactic.

“Based on some nebulous registration-only “report” that purports to “monitor” Muslims deemed by the unidentified characters running the “report” be “Muslim Brotherhood” members, we are supposed to believe Asbahi has terrorist links.”

Another good tactic….put words in quotes to make them seem dubious. Don’t actually read the publication in question to find out what was really said and where the words “terrorist links” were never used.

“The only problem is that the only mainstream piece of “evidence” connecting all this is the lengthy Chicago Tribune piece on inner mosque politics”

Not true actually. That was the connection that was focused upon but actually reading the reports would show there were others. As for the Tribune investigation, I guess that is now included in the conspiracy (Jewish fundamentalists at work here as well?)

“So let’s get this straight. A guy, who served for two weeks on a board, that had an imam found not guilty of anything, in a community harassed by FBI agents, who were in turn coordinating with the Israeli government deemed racist by those who know racism best (ANC), has “terrorist links,” because a little-known neocon report says so.”

Yes, lets get it straight actually. As opposed to what you write, a publication with no known political affiliation says that Mazen Asbahi is part of the leadership of five organizations tied to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and presents public documents that anybody can check for themselves to back that up, BUT it would be better to believe people who have never actually read the reports who use the term “terrorist” links when the report in question never once used those terms.

” insert the word “Jew” a few times to invoke the good-old emotional extortion technique of charging your opponent with anti-Semitism.”

Another good tactic….accuse others of what you yourself have done. I quote from your own statement:

“Asbahi was forced to resign only because the same Jewish fundamentalists who are trying to “purify” Palestinian land through kidnapping, torture, starvation, and killing, are trying with equal vigor to “disappear” American Muslims from the American political landscape.

So you charge that Jews, and the same Jews we note, are both ethnically cleansing Palestine and plotting to eliminate all U.S. Muslims from politics. I actually hadn’t seen the evidence you must have that the Wall Street Journal or the internet newsletter in question are actually “Jewish Fundamentalists.” (I suppose there might be “Jews” working there). If you have the evidence that “Jews” or, more properly Jewish Fundamentalists” are behind all this, please submit it or I think we have to conclude that concocting nefarious conspiracies involving “Jews” is strong evidence, or at least consistent, with anti-Semitism.

It makes everything doubly convincing!

Based on some nebulous registration-only “report” that purports to “monitor” Muslims deemed by the unidentified characters running the “report” be “Muslim Brotherhood” members, we are supposed to believe Asbahi has terrorist links.

The only problem is that the only mainstream piece of “evidence” connecting all this is the lengthy Chicago Tribune piece on inner mosque politics. From this piece we learn three things: American government agents harassed the community and dutifully traveled to Israel time and again for their “information” sessions; no one was found guilty of anything whatsoever despite the hate-filled post-Sept.11th atmosphere in which many American Muslims were rounded up and abused; some kind of mob tried to march on the Muslim community.

So let’s get this straight. A guy, who served for two weeks on a board, that had an imam found not guilty of anything, in a community harassed by FBI agents, who were in turn coordinating with the Israeli government deemed racist by those who know racism best (ANC), has “terrorist links,” because a little-known neocon report says so.

Consider me convinced, gentlemen; where can I get a pitchfork?

You are kidding right? You think this is what the article says? If that is what it said, I would never have started this thread but what is actually says, and I quote:

“Like vultures eyeing a wounded gazelle, the usual assortment of right-wing bloggers descended on Asbahi.”

This is what is says and this is what I refuted because, according to the evidence, it was not true which anybody can check as I already suggested.

“Steve, your sources indicate they come from the neo-con right. Why should we believe them? They have proven themselves as liars. Have you got other sources?”

In fact, this argument is NOT about “sources” because my sources were the newsletter in question and the Journal presented the facts which were that Asbahi was part of the leadership of five organizations that are part of or connected to U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations. You may not like it, or think that the people who wrote it are “neo-conservatives (codeword perhaps?), or perhaps wish it were somehow not true. However, unlike the statements here and during the entire issue, not a single shred of evidence was offered that the facts as presented by the newsletter and newspaper were untrue. The people shrieking “smear” have never read the original reports. That much is clear. If those people actually did care about the facts, they would have taken the time to do so because that it was people who care about facts actually do. (as opposed to people who claim they do).

A careful reading of the original reports show that the Wall Street Journal inquired about the connections raised by a newsletter (based on public documents which I read), and which any good journalist would also have asked about based on the importance of the issue. The guy resigned and the Journal then wrote a story about it which, based on actually reading the story, presented nothing more than the facts which once again have never been challenged. I don’t need to present any other sources because I read the original reports, clicked on the public documents which were referenced, and all of them were what they were claimed to be.

“The comments merely point out that most of you don’t care about being any more informed about Islam or Muslims than the media cares to tell you about.”

The debate about Asbahi is nothing to do with “Islam or Muslims” in general all though that is what some are trying to turn it into. The Muslim organizations which claim to represent U.S. Muslims the put out the story that Asbahi was “smeared” and hounded out of his position. Perhaps you would like to check the “background and biases” of those organizations. Yes, there was also some political posturing from the right-side of the blogosphere AFTER the fact as well as from the left who supported the “smear” narrative but the newsletter and Wall Street Journal to not appear to have been part of that debate based again on what they actually wrote as opposed to what critics say they wrote or their alleged motivations.

In the end, this kind of thing actually does a disservice to the U.S. Muslim community by siding with organizations who claim to represent them but who actually have political agendas that originate from outside the U.S. This does not assist in the development of indigenous, truly representative organizations without such agendas. The charge that the “Jews” are behind it all discredits everything that is written here because, unlike speculation abut motivations, that shows clear the mindset of the person who wrote it.

Steve, your sources indicate they come from the neo-con right. Why should we believe them? They have proven themselves as liars. Have you got other sources?

Cg, the Indians contributed a lot, but after looking at your source, Stephen Knapp, merely proves his knowledge of Hinduism and ignorance of Islam.

Overall, the comments merely point out that most of you don’t care about being any more informed about Islam or Muslims than the media cares to tell you about. True, Muslims are at the bottom of the stack in most cases – but it is not a problem of religion but of politics. There are a lot of hard working, inventive, intelligent Muslims living among you in the West – where until recently most anyone was welcomed. They’re living in the West because of the western ideological imported regimes that suppress innovation and development (most of which purport to be “socialist” Sheldon) in their home countries. Add to that the limited development the rest of the world allows Muslim countries to have by limiting trade.

Let me translate that– in other words, I don’t support your sweeping charges, made without a shred of evidence, that the “right-wing blogosphere” conspired with the Wall Street Journal to bring down Mazen Asbahi simply because he was a Muslim. In that sense you are right, I cannot see that because it is demonstrably not true.

“Asbahi was forced to resign only because the same Jewish fundamentalists who are trying to “purify” Palestinian land through kidnapping, torture, starvation, and killing, are trying with equal vigor to “disappear” American Muslims from the American political landscape.”

Ah yes, it finally comes out as always. The Jews are behind it.

“Citing technicalities from such ‘prestigious’ sources as ‘familysecuritymatters’ is not going to wash away this fundamental reality.”

Just shows that you have not read the material in question. The link from Family Security Matters simply pointed to a reprint from the Internet Newsletter in question which contained such “technicalities” as what actually transpired during this affair as opposed to the demonstrably false narrative that was constructed here.

I won’t bother to address or dignify the rest of it. Mazen Asbahi resigned after a major newspaper properly queries him about possible links to the Muslim Brotherhood. The American people have a right to know and be interested in whether or not an adviser (and possible member of a future administration) has ties to an organization deeply inimicable to U.S. interests. I might add that the same story was carried by hundreds of other news organizations which must all be in on the conspiracy I guess.

In the end, what was written here is actually an example of the accusations directed against others- a “smear” based on absolutely no evidence that appears to have been made purely for ideological reasons and carried on what was so derogatorily referred to as the “blathersphere.” It is actually a disservice to the U.S. Muslim community who are not well-served by their well-funded organizations who are actually the players in this game who do not wish to see a mature, completely integrated U.S. Muslim community.

This is a presidential campaign staff which proudly features hawks and centrists responsible for policies that have killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Where is the ‘investigative’ reporting for Obama’s Israeli partisans who cheerlead the slow suffocation of the concentration camp that is the Gaza Strip? Where is the questioning of their associations with a fundamentalist government that holds Jews as superior to Arabs, building exclusive settlements and roads for the former while bulldozing and bombing the latter?

Of course we it is not fashionable to speak of such open support for apartheid, which might remind certain atrophied minds of that quaint saying, “all men are created equal.”

The WSJ, run and owned by pro-Israeli sycophants, spearheaded the hit job, which is laughable in its thin sourcing and insinuations. Meanwhile that organ maintains a most respectful silence about its own undeniable role in cheerleading the disastrous invasion of Iraq and the deliberate attacks on Lebanon’s civilian population. It also maintains close links with its attack dogs in the blathersphere.

Asbahi was forced to resign only because the same Jewish fundamentalists who are trying to “purify” Palestinian land through kidnapping, torture, starvation, and killing, are trying with equal vigor to “disappear” American Muslims from the American political landscape.

Citing technicalities from such ‘prestigious’ sources as ‘familysecuritymatters’ is not going to wash away this fundamental reality.