Salman Rushdie on Cat Stevens’ Rally Appearance: What Was Jon Stewart Thinking?
by John Nolte—–
Maybe a better name for Jon Stewart’s rally would’ve been “Multicultural-Sensitivity Suicide Rally.” Or maybe Colbert wasn’t kidding about keeping the fear alive. According to Nick Cohen at Standpoint, Salman Rushdie, the author forced into hiding for years because of the Cat Stevens (Yusaf Islam) approved fatwa on his head, is just as confused as everyone else:
“I’ve always liked Stewart and Colbert but what on earth was Cat Yusuf Stevens Islam doing on that stage? If he’s a “good Muslim” like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar then I’m the Great Pumpkin. Happy Halloween.”
Stevens-Islam has been trying to backtrack from his comments for some time now, claiming they were some kind of joke. Does he look like he’s putting everyone on in that video? Rushdie isn’t buying the joke excuse either:
However much Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam may wish to rewrite his past, he was neither misunderstood nor misquoted over his views on the Khomeini fatwa against The Satanic Verses (Seven, April 29). In an article in The New York Times on May 22, 1989, Craig R Whitney reported Stevens/Islam saying on a British television programme “that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ‘I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing’.”
He added that “if Mr Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ‘I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is’.”
In a subsequent interview with The New York Times, Mr Whitney added, Stevens/Islam, who had seen a preview of the programme, said that he “stood by his comments”.
Let’s have no more rubbish about how “green” and innocent this man was.
Had Stevens/Islam apologized and renounced his despicable call for Rushdie’s execution, that might be different. Instead, he’s quite obviously lying about making what would be a sick and dangerous joke anyway, and the only person on the planet who appears to believe him is Jon Stewart.
Where is the “sanity” and “moderation” in allowing such a man to perform at your predominantly white political event?
Who will Stewart and Colbert invite to their 2012 rally? Mimes who approve of shooting abortion doctors? Interpretative dance as performed by The Timothy McVeigh Had a Point League?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
126 Comments
Perhaps he was thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
The problem is – you're all thinking that any thought was put into it at all. The realization that anyone would remember Cat Stevens' death threat never occured to Stewart and company at all. The only thing that hit their brains was — Ooh, "Peace Train", "Crazy Train", "Love Train" — wow, what a setup for a cheap laugh. I'm only surprised Colbert didn't warble some off key "This Train is Bound for Glory".
But I guess nothing from that rally was bound for glory…
Maybe there's a reason why Cat Stevens was on a Terror Watch List.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133095,00.htm...
Official: Cat Stevens Has Possible Terror Ties
Maybe someone who knows more about this can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't music prohibited by the Koran? I remember seeing a "Behind the Music" on Cat/Yusuf a few years ago, and it said that after he converted he stopped performing because it was forbidden.
They are scoffers.
Revisionist histroy is the hallmark of the left…
One remembers Michelle Obama saying, during the campaign, that 'we will RE-WRITE the history books'. Hmmm-
why would anyone say such a thing? Simple. They do not like the truth when it runs counter to The Narrative.
And, now, radical Islam has narrowed to Taliban/Al Qaeda hiding in caves in Northern Pakistan. The Cordoba Initiative? Forget the reference to the last Great Caliphate of Iberia. No, or the fact that part of a 757 hit the building- metaphorically the 'Sword of Allah' has struck the infidels.
THAT's why they want to build the mosque. Sounds radical enought to us. Steven Georgiu ('Cat' Stevens, Yusef Islam, etc, etc) is a True Believer- and Salmon Rushdie is a apostate. and needs to die.
Sounds pretty radical to us. It should to Jon Stewart as well…
That assumes he "thinks."
So far there isn't a lot of evidence to support that.
I remember one time seeing an interview with him on 60 Minutes years and years ago when I used to think it was unbiased.
He'd said he'd found away around the ban by recording himself doing reciting Islamic prayers with a slight melody in his voice.
But it certainly looks like he's playing a guitar in some of the pictures I saw from the rally. I find it hard to believe he was singing about how great Allah is to the crowd.
Yusef Cat Islam Crap was his second choice. Charlie Manson was unavailable.
Oh Crap. Rushdie just got himself a fresh fatwa…from the American Left.
I would expect nothing less from a veritable paragon of virtue like Stewart and Colbert.
Cat Stevens basically went into a wormhole of the collective liberal mind sometime around 1974-75, when they were basking in the glow of removing Nixon from office and winning huge congressional majorities, and emerged in their minds today as a wonderful example of that "non-extremist Muslim" that the left thinks moderates can relate to due to his past hits.
If he did anything in-between, like call for the death of Salman Rushdie, it's no big deal because it didn't affect them. But his music did in their formative years, so it's basically a get-out-of-your-call-for-fatwah-free card for Yosef. And of course, anyone who brings it up is as big a hater as Juan Williams.
The Rally to rRestore Spliffage was a perfect place for Cat Stevens!
Were there any Christians on the stage?
perhaps his residuals are running out, and he wanted to remind people to start buying his records again, so he can live his life out, trashing the rest of us. once he pulled that salmon rushdie crap, i threw out all of my cat steevens music, and have not listened to any of it again. he was one of the first people on my list. my list contains people who i will not support no matter what, and it grows daily. they want to ttrash either me or my country, they do not deserve any money from me. do not call him by his made up name, he is the scumbag known as cat steevens. although there was that funny joke about people changing thier names, did you hear buckwheat converted to islam, he changed his name to kareem o wheat.
Music which glorifies Allah is not fobidden in Islam;what Stevens/Islam does is devotional music. He's considered "good PR" for Islam too I guess, since he converted to the religion.
That Cat Stevens bit would have been really funny if Ozzie had bit his head off.
It was meant to be, like, ironic, man! It's the religion of peace which totally equates to sanity. Geeeez!
/
"Peace Train" my a**!
I believe Colbert is Catholic, though he avoids it on stage. One time during an interview segment Dr. Bret Ehrman started in on the Gospels, and man that got Colbert up on his haunches. Colbert destroyed him in that interview.
My problem with Colbert is he refuses to do that more often, choosing instead to mostly give the left a pass.
Talk about killing the Golden Goose. No doubt 60 Minutes would be a powerhouse today had they chosen to 'fly straight.'
My guess is that Stewart didn't have a chance to care about Stevens because of CAIR. CAIR found the only person in the world who could get on that stage. And it backfired wildly.
The CAIR-minded folk have been served notice.
CAIR got Juan Williams fired. CAIR got Cat Stevens on stage. CAIR is on a crusade.
Eyes open yet America?
Drop The Gauntlet on Sharia Law now. Secure our borders. Purge the sleepers cells.
I grew up with Cat – we had all his albums in our home. I still listen to his music now and again. But I'm not deluded as to what he's become – I just miss what he once was. Cat isn't at all like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Muhammad Ali [Ali's daughter is a boxer, not wrapped in a burkah]. Jabbar and Ali converted to an American Black Liberation version of Islam because of Malcolm X, and are considered apostates by dudes like Cat. When Cat first converted he really converted – as if he'd never been an Englishman of Greek/Swedish heritage or a Folk Rock Star. He spent his final tour apprehensive and a bit angry, walking off stage periodically. When the show ended, he said on stage – 'That's it, it's over.' He repudiated his entire history because music is strictly regulated and sometimes forbidden in Islam; to this day when he sings for money for Muslim charities, he only sings a few select songs from his large body of work. Jabbar and Ali are wholly American men, they should not be lumped in with zealots.
Decrying extremism and then putting Cat Stevens onstage is hilarious. Much funnier than the few minutes of the rally I've caught on video.
“Multicultural-Sensitivity Suicide Rally.”
Glenn Beck already did that.
This is actually in line with Stewart's beliefs. I heard he has also hired Roman Polanski to babysit his young daughter.
Colbert actually belongs to an RC church 15-20 minutes from my house in NJ. Some of my friends who live in that area and go to the church say they've seen him at Sunday Mass regularly and he teaches Sunday School too.
Ozzy Osbourne is Anglican, I heard.
Oh, here's the Colbert/Bart Ehrman interview: http://mattrundio.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/ehrman...
OOOOOOOO, baby, baby…it's a wild world.
You can sing the Koran. It's a big deal in the Middle East where they record albums of the Koran being recited in its original Arabic and play it like we play pop music. Other forms of music and dance are not technically allowed by my understanding.
As to Stevens singing with a guitar, remember, in Islam most things can be foregiven if they are done to advance Allah's religion. So, perhaps Stevens felt he was advancing the cause of Islam and jihad by singing American pop-style music to a crowd of gullible folks willing to believe that Islam is mostly misunderstood.
Thanks for the link! You can see when Colbert's reaching the point that he's not going take it anymore. I think that's one of the best interviews I've ever seen him give. I want to see him do this kind of thing more often, not less.
It's not surprising he's Catholic. After the AARP, the American Catholic Church is the largest organization in America. They also run the largest private school system in the world, and I believe it runs the largest private medical system in the world.
Because he knows it wouldn't be 'rape-rape'
If you ask me Islam is mostly misunderstood. The problem as I see it is the people that seem to misunderstand it the most are the radical fundamental Islamic jihadists.
See, when I read Deuteronomy in the Old Testament, and it tells me who much I'm allowed to sell my daughter into slavery for, I understand it was written thousands of years ago and has no baring on modern society.
That's the problem with these jihadists. They don't. They can't get it through their heads this is the year 2010, not 647.
Interesting info! Thanks to both of you.
Not sure about Kid Rock, I assume he at least professes to be Christian. Ozzy is – at least as much as the "Prince of F***ing Darkness" can be. Also, several of The Roots/John Legend songs had deeply religious tones.(By "tones" I mean lyrics and meaning, not the actual musical note "tones" haha)
Morning has broken.
The problem with that interpretation is that it leaves so many targets open that really shouldn't be open. Like so:
See, when I read from the Old Testament, and it tells me that I shall not lie with another man as I would with a woman, I understand it was written thousands of years ago and has no bearing on modern society.
See, when I read from the Old Testament, and it tells me that I shall not covet anything that is my neighbor's, I understand it was written thousands of years ago and has no bearing on modern society.
See, when I read from the Old Testament, and it tells me that I shall not commit murder, I understand it was written thousands of years ago and has no bearing on modern society.
The problem with Islamic fundamentalists is exactly the same — they're fundamentalists. Absolutely nothing that they're doing contradicts anything in the Koran; in fact, it's even MORE vital that they not contradict the Koran, since it's more than the "inspired" Word of God — they believe that it was directly DICTATED by the angels to Mohammed.
All their more controversial activities — their bloodthirsty contempt for Jews, atheists, blasphemers, infidels and non-fundamentalist Muslims (Jack Muslims?) — come DIRECTLY out of that poisonous book. They're not misunderstanding a God damn thing; their holy book tells them to hate and to kill, and they've received that message loud and clear.
It reminds of Christine Amanpour's "discussion about Islam" a few weeks ago. She had both Muslims and Islamic sympathizers in one corner and some Islamic detractors in the other. She also had a Imam from London. The detractors suggested that Islam is a threat to the free world and everyone "pooh-poohed" their comments and said basically that they were mistaken.
Christine asked the esteemed Imam in London via satellite his thoughts and he said that he would not rest until the Muslim flag flew over the White House. He was in complete agreement with his detractors concerning the threat of Islamic fanaticism.
Needless to say, he was not seen again on the show. Fox News and others should embrace these Imams, including the one from Yemen, and have them on their shows to debate. Imagine having an Islamic extremist on Hannity's Great American Panel so US citizens can be reminded how evil, delusional, hateful, etc. they actually are.
And the problem with Islamic fundamentalists is exactly that — they're fundamentalists. Absolutely nothing that they're doing contradicts anything in the Koran; in fact, it's even MORE vital that they not contradict the Koran, since it's more than the "inspired" Word of God — they believe that it was directly DICTATED by the angels to Mohammed.
All their more controversial activities — their bloodthirsty contempt for Jews, atheists, blasphemers, infidels and non-fundamentalist Muslims (Jack Muslims?) — come DIRECTLY out of the Koran. They're not misunderstanding a God damn thing; their holy book tells them to hate and to kill, and they've received that message loud and clear. The reformist Muslims are clearly the more admirable, but they have one hell of an uphill fight against the Received Word.
When Catholics started immigrating en masse in the last half of the 1800's and the first half of the 1900's, we weren't exactly welcomed with open arms.
That's actually when the removing God from the public square began. Protestants had no problem with protestants leading prayers in school, but they had a huge problem with Catholics doing that with their protestant children.
So instead, Catholics simply built their own institutions. If they didn't want us to participate in their society, fine, we just created our own.
You should see the records the Church has kept. If you're a Catholic, parish records are a great place to start on genealogy. I've found records on my ancestors going back to the 1890's. Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Marriage (and divorce), and death. The older ones are usually in Latin, but its close enough to English I can usually figure it out.
I would have attended even this rally to see that!
To be more exact, Catholic charities — taken collectively — constitute the largest private medical enterprise in the world.
See, now you're just being silly.
You equate fidelity to your spouse as the same as slavery?
If you want to debate, at least try and be somewhat serious please. I already have my hands full with the sub-par trolls on these sites.
I've seen my grandmother's birth certificate, written in both Czech and English, with the name of her parents' parish across the top.
"what on earth was Cat Yusuf Stevens Islam doing on that stage?"
He's kidding, right? Stewart and Yusaf Islam together speaks truth about what Stewart values about what Stewart, Islam, and Colbert believe. There is no contradiction, no surprise: it is bare unvarnished truth. Stewart, Colbert, Islam, the man and the "religion" (really a cult like scientology), hate America, hate Jews, hate Christians, hate freedom, hate Rushdie. It's Rushdie who was the deluded fool in this drama, finally discovering himself to be just another tool used by Islam to further its ends.
The major schools of religious thought in Islam long ago decided that Islam was settled. Mohammad is considered to be the perfect example of how a man should live his life which is why there are still child marriages in Islam. Mohammad married a 9-year-old which was far from unheard of in his time period but is considered pedophilia in our time. But, since Mohammad did it, it is considered OK by many religious scholars in Islam even today.
Until muslim religious scholars decide that it's OK to reinterpret their holy texts to fit the times the same way most other religions have, Islam will remain backward and dangerous to the world because its strict interpretations are antithetical both to much of modern society and to the other major religions of the world.
A lot of that has to do with the manifestation of God in their opinion. A manifestation is when a religion believes God has made God's presence on earth undeniable.
For the ancient Hebrews it was the existence of the Temple. For Christians its the Resurrection of Jesus. For Muslims its the existence of the Koran. Just the fact the book exists is proof God exists in Islam.
That means they view the Koran quite differently than Christians view the Bible. To us it's a book, to Muslims its God.
My own opinion, that's one of the things driving this wing nut jihadists. That's changing and they don't like it one damn bit. But its going to happen anyway. In the late 1940's original copies of the gnostic gospels were found in a cage in Egypt. Since then there has been a ton of research on the earliest versions of the Bible, where they came from, how they were translated, who made changes and why.
The same thing is eventually happen to the Koran. Actually, its already started. Humans are just to curious by nature to not do it.
I have to tell you, some early findings are not looking good for fundamentalists. It appears the earliest known copies were in Syria and written in Syrian, not Arabic. And that contradicts the fundamentalists view point that Mohammad had written them in Arabia.
It's funny that people are shocked when a Muslim acts like a Muslim.
I love the elephant metaphor he makes in the interview, by the way.
There is an organization called Catholic Charities, it operates as the more secular wing of the Church's charities. It's how the Church gets around discrimination laws.
If the Church outright ran the charities, they'd be forced to hire regardless of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and a whole host of other laws. In order to prevent those laws from affecting individual parishes, they spun off the charity wing to Catholic Charities, who do abide by those laws.
And yes, Catholic Charities is huge. Among other things they do is Catholic Relief Services which moves into disaster areas to provide food, medicine and shelter. They were on the ground in Haiti day one, since they already had a large presence there. They've pumped tens of millions of dollars into relief down there. Another one is Food For The Poor which has been both emergency as well as long term sustainable economic planning through out Latin America for decades.
I've got a digital copy of my step great grandmother's Slovak passport on her trip to America.
The area I live in was pretty much built by immigrants, mostly from eastern Europe, Italy, Germany and Ireland.
So there's a Slovak parish (2 actually) a Polish parish, a Russian parish, Ukrainian, and so on and so forth.
This Islam Cat is such a liar anyway. A year or two ago I was reading on the internet an interview of him in which he waxed eloquent about his altruistic reasons for writing "Peace Train." Someone had helpfully added a link to an early 70s interview of him by Rolling Stone. In that one he stated that the song was really about all the girls he'd had as he toured around the UK. (Apparently he'd really meant "Piece" Train.) I wasn't yet savvy enough to know how to save the article and its link.
Walker_Lewis has a great idea. You can bet that the left would use it as an excuse to try to shut down FOX, though.
As I understand it, that's one of the biggest issues facing Islam. Since technically every person is their own Imam, there is no hierarchical structure to make those types of decisions.
When the clergy in Latin America started introducing and embracing liberation theology, Pope John Paul II made a trip down there. They were expecting a standard Papal trip. Instead he b*tched them out and said if they didn't knock it off, he was going to excommunicate them. A few of them refused, so he tossed them out.
That doesn't exist in Islam. There is no head figure to definitively rule that some one is out of line. Don't like what one Imam is preaching? Find another who's telling you what you want to hear.
I won't argue Islam has more than its fair share of nuts. But I have to believe if all 1.2 billion Musilms believed the same way the nuts do, we have a world war on hands that would make WWII look like Grenada. Remember, the jihadists are killing for more fellow Muslims than they are westerners.
This is a civil war inside Islam that is spilling over into our society, thanks to globalization, relatively cheap travel, and tons of Saudi oil money.
The main question is "What was Jon Stewert thinking"? If he wanted to bring on a Muslim who is not radical, who americans should not be concerned about, who would ease americans opinions about Islam, Cat Stevens is not the man. There are some Muslims who have denounced Islamic Terrorism, who oppose the Mosque at ground zero, and know that islam is under the thumb of opressive idealogs. Admittidly these people are not favorites of the main stream media like the ground zero imam, cair and the new black panthers are. So the American Public remains unaware of them, But Jon Stewert could have done some research.
Sorry for the spelling I typed this quick.
It seems to me that Christians, by comparison, are not only willing but eager to find out where and how their holy books were written. Fundamentalist Muslims are terrified of that, because if any of their assumptions about the Koran are wrong, the central pillar of their beliefs is knocked out. Not so with the Bible, in regard to which many Christians accept both divine inspiration and the possibility of human error as factors.
Agreed. That was the final nail.
I read his book on textual criticism "Misquoting Jesus: Who Change the Bible and Why."
Where as his journey to learn the history of the Bible seems to turned him into a cynical, self-superior atheist, my same journey actually strengthened my faith. The exact opposite of how it affected him.
I think its because I am Catholic, where he was a Protestant. I've been taught from the beginning that at least as far back as the Reformation (probably a lot longer) that it's not enough to have the Word (the Bible), you need to be taught what the Word means, and that was their selling point.
Ehram went looking for the absoulte printed word of God, the very first Gospels, only to learn they don't exist. I know the Catholic Church routinely updates translations to be what they consider a more accurate translation for modern society. They're currently in the process of rolling out new translations and processes for Mass. And I can tell you, what they want to change is not going to go over well.
In every Mass a common term is when the priest says "May the Lord be with you." And for as long as I can remember the response has always been "And also with you." And they want to change that to something like "And the the Lord be with us all."
Catholics don't appreciate change.
Yep. That's pretty much the way I see it too. I started learning everything I could about Islam on 9/12/2001.
What's also different about Islam is that while it is a religion, its also a huge culture force in Islamic cultures. It's part religion, its part social structure, its part government. It permeates their culture, pretty much every aspect of it.
So where as I can tell a joke about a Rabbi and Priest going into a bar and for the most part Jews and Christians are offended. But if you add an Imam to that joke, you're now insulting their entire culture.
I heard his books have a very Bill Maher-like tone to them. It's 'If I differ with you and I think your ideas are irrational, I'm taking a hatchet to your building."
He really nit picks with regard to the gospels, though, and Colbert nailed him on that. It would be like 4 people who witnessed a crime and agree on the general descrption but couldn't agree what size hat the offender was wearing, and now their words are worthless.
In the words of the scholar St. Augustine: "Augustine describes 7 levels of Biblical exegesis, the last being almost unattainable, and self-critically remarks that even in a life of study he has barely reached the 5th. To Augustine, literalism was the 1st level of exegesis – shallow and unsearching."
People of Ehrman and Richard Dawkins' ilk are so eager to bash people who have a literalist approach, yet they take the very literalist interpretation of the Bible to criticize all believers without leaving any space for allegorical thinking.
If Rushdie were a Progressive he would understand how a semi coherent Muslim thug helps to restore sanity
See, John Stewart was making the statement that he is sane and that the Muslims do not genuinely want to kill us…(and if they do it is because we are awful people)
John Stewart thinks Muslims are oppressed and that they are poor people who could never hurt us. He probably also thinks that only 12 Muslim guys from 9/11 are our enemies–and that it is now over.
That is John Stewart's "sanity"
I started learning everything I could about Islam on 9/12/2001.
You too, huh.
I own a copy of the Koran translated into English. Most of my marginal annotations are something to the effect of "Holy crap, this book talks more about Hell and damnation than all the TV preachers I've ever heard put together." The book is an interesting inversion of the Bible, insofar as it holds the threat of perdition over the reader's head far moreso than it does the promise of paradise.
And you're right about it permeating their entire culture. Saying that America is a Christian nation and saying that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation are two entirely different things.
Hi there……how are those zombie movies comin' along?
Ya know, this Cat Stevens bit was the last thing I watched……..it was so lame……all I kept thinkin' about is how funny it COULD have been. So, I decided to do something way more entertaining………turning a compost pile!
I read an earlier comment that stated that there are "muslims" who denounce terrorism—-Hang on Im counting! seven-eight-nine—Whew ! that was close I almost ran out of fingers.
I found the book very fascinating and for the most part non-political. He saves his opinions for the forward and afterward, in between mostly academic.
I've read a few exerts of Augustine's writing. And what you wrote makes more sense than most of what I've read by and about him. The Catholic Church still pushes that train of thought today. The concept of God is so great and so large, its beyond the mortal mind to fully comprehend. Humans have know way of completely understanding God, the best we have are the lessons from the Bible, as well as the tangible good that we produce while helping our fellow humans.
His writings on the Holy Trinity are still taught during the Mass of the feast of the Holy Trinity. Personally I can't figure out why he found it impossible to comprehend. If I already accept and powerful God that created heaven and earth, why is it such a stretch that God can manifest in any form God chooses?
Dawkins and his ilk can kiss my royal Polish butt for all their condescending attitude about religion. If they don't like it fine, but stay out of my face with their bull. I believe in God because I freely choose to.
Was it Thomas Aquinas or Augustine who came up the concept of free will? Been a while since I've dug into theology that deeply. I had to take a break. I was freaking my daughter out by constantly reading it. She thought I was turning into a religious nut. Actually I was studying the historical and archeology of the Bible. That's how I came across Ehrman.
Yes, I am an immense champion of free speech and agree that Cat Stevens has the right to say whatever he wants, but to present him as an exemplar of reason and sanity is high lunacy.
This man openly endorsed the death of an author who published a book which attacked his Islamic faith and as result caused Salman Rushdie to stay hidden and fear for his own life for years. Cat could have denounced the death threats while still disagreeing with Mr. Rushdie, but he did no such thing acquiescing to the fatwa issued by that detestable leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Everyone has the right to criticize and be criticized, but no one deserves to die for writing a critical novel. There have been plenty of books that mock my faith, but I'd never be so arrogant and flagrantly unhinged as to call for someone's death publicly.
Nah, individual muslims are mostly fine, particularly the ones you tend to find here and those in Indonesia or the Sufis. That's been changing in recent decades. The Saudis have been exporting Wahhabist Islam at a frightening rate and more and more of our muslims (and the Indonesian ones) are becoming radicalized.
Petro-dollars are a big problem and that's why I really long for that next big breakthrough in energy technology so that we can tell the Middle Eastern Arabs to shove their oil where the sun don't shine.
And as to the civil war in Islam … well, it's being won slowly but surely by the radicals and the relative ignorance in which the largest masses of average muslims live makes it that much easier for them to be radicalized. I hope that the final culture war that's brewing between Western society and Islam sparks before too many of the average muslims are won to the cause of jihad.
Yep. Sun Tze – know your enemy.
I haven't read the Koran myself, I'm still working on the Old Testament. Half way through 1 Kings. But I have done the entire New testament.
My main sources where these: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/0... and http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judais....
I must admit I really did enjoy reading book of Revelations. I'm also into mythology and the Babylonian mythology finger prints are all over it.
Thanks, everybody, for an interesting discussion. That's why I like this site. Most of the commenters are well informed and, except for the occasional troll, very respectful of others.
Aquinas was the free will, I believe.
I love his writings. How may scholars today publish seemingly antithetical contradictory aspects of their subjects and then answer them each while fully conceding it is their view alone? Summa Theologica is a wonderful read.
That being said, I love works of all stripes. I actually enjoy most of Christopher Hitchens' writings, along with Voltaire and Penn Jillette (3 people with whom I differ drastically on religion).
Black muslims murdered 7 friends of Kareem Abdul Jabbar in 1973. The religion of ''peace''. Liedbowitz allows the stealth jihadist Cat Stevens to promote Islam to the masses. Liebowitz is a traitor to his people. He blasphemes the Holy Spirit and GOD. LIEBOWITZ will burn in HELL, prepared for the Devil and his angels.
If you ask me the culture war has been going on for decades. That's another reason the fundamentalists are so mad.
They're losing it big time and they know it.
The book is "Revelation", not "Revelations"
I've read through the Bible about 6 times now, and can't recall any verse that talks about selling one's daughter into slavery. Can you cite that for me?
Agreed, my learning, doesn't usually matter what it is, as long as I'm learning something new.
Pope John Paul II wrote some major works while in office. But his work is pretty deep so it usually takes the USCCB a few years to work through it and put it out. Even then, it's still pretty complicated. They came up with entire workshops to teach Theology of the Body. They're just gearing up now in my Diocese.
And Bishop Carl Ratzenberger (Now Pope Benedict) wrote an absolutely stunning piece on why the separation of church and state is so important. I only a 6 or 7 page exert and that took me a few hours to get through and digest. He's brilliant.
Agreed, my learning, doesn't usually matter what it is, as long as I'm learning something new.
Pope John Paul II wrote some major works while in office. But his work is pretty deep so it usually takes the USCCB a few years to work through it and put it out. Even then, it's still pretty complicated. They came up with entire workshops to teach Theology of the Body. They're just gearing up now in my Diocese.
And Bishop Carl Ratzenberger (Now Pope Benedict) wrote an absolutely stunning piece on why the separation of church and state is so important. I only a 6 or 7 page exert and that took me a few hours to get through and digest. He's brilliant.
First, it is Exodus, not Deuteronomy.
Second, let us look at what it actually says: http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=disp...
The Hebrew Maidservant
21:7 If a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not be freed as male servants are released.
21:8 Her master should provisionally designate her as his bride, and if she is not pleasing to him, he must let her be redeemed. He is considered to have broken faith with her, and he therefore does not have the right to sell her to anyone else.
21:9 If [the master] designates her as a bride for his son, she must be treated exactly the same as any other girl.
21:10 [Similarly], if [the master] marries another wife, he may not diminish [this one's] allowance, clothing or conjugal rights.
21:11 If none of the above three are done [to the girl], then she shall be released without liability or payment.
maidservant
This can only be done with a minor girl (Mekhilta; Rashi). It was permitted for a man to sell his minor daughter only when he was absolutely destitute with no possible means of support (Kiddushin 20a; Yad, Avadim 4:2).
should
(Kiddushin 19a). The master does this by declaring, 'you are my designated bride' (Yad, Avadim 4:7).
He
The master. Also, her father may not sell her again (Hirsch; Torah Temimah). See note, this verse, 'anyone else.'
anyone else
(Rashi; Yad, Avadim 4:10). Literally, 'to a foreign nation' (Mekhilta; Ramban). It can also denote, 'to someone unsuitable for marriage' (Hirsch). It would then be a general commandment that the father is not permitted to sell his daughter to a gentile or to anyone else who could not possibly marry her.
the master
Or, 'the son.'
another wife
Polygamy was permitted by Torah Law. It was only forbidden later by a ban pronounced by all European rabbis under the leadership of Rabbenu Gershom (circa 965-1028).
above three
Redemption, marriage, or marriage to a son (Rashi). The girl then must be released automatically when she reaches puberty.
So:
1. You can only do this with a minor daughter.
2. You must be utterly destitute.
3. Male slaves are automatically released after 6 years of service.
4. The person you sell her to has to marry her.
5. He can, as an option, have her marry his son.
6. If he does not marry her, or have his son marry her, he must allow one of her relatives to purchase her freedom.
7. If no relative purchases her freedom, he cannot sell her to someone who cannot marry her.
8. If he doesn't marry her, have his son marry her, or let her family redeem her, he must let her go when she reaches puberty.
9. If polygamy was still legal, he could never reduce anything he had previously given her.
Now "technically" this could be phrased as a form of slavery.
Functionally it is contracting a marriage for your pre-teen daughter, with the requirements that she always have superior status to any other wife (when legal), be supported by her future husband or father-in-law until of age, be able to be cancelled unilaterally by any close male relative of your family, be transferrable only to a short term indenture by the buyer, and be done only when you are on the verge of starvation from poverty.
WHAT KIND OF UNSPEAKABLE 'SUPREME BEING' COULD POSSIBLY COMMAND SOMETHING SO HIDEOUS?!?!?!?!?!?!
The next thing you know he will order you to give those slaves that you must free after 6 years gives or something. http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=disp...
Don't Cats eat swine? I know of at least one that acts like swine. I take that back. I don't want to insult pigs. They're highly intelligent animals.
I'm a terrible speller, if spell doesn't catch it, out the door it goes.
And sorry, no, not off the top of my head, I can't give you a chapter and verse.
Found this using google.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Can always count on you to come through for me! Thanks for the clarification.
My over all point is there are plenty of things in the Bible that no modern Christian would ever consider doing today.
See my posts below, it is Exodus 21:7-11.
Other laws on slaves are at Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15.
Yes, the laws are different regarding Jewish slaves and non-Jewish slaves.
Since of course these are laws for Jews, the daughter of a Jew is going to be a Jew, and is thus subject to significantly different rules than those non-Jewish slaves.
Jesus brought a NEW Testament. Get with the program…
So his new law is summed up -"Thou shalt love the lord they God with all they heart, mind soul and strength, and thy neighbor as thy self…"
And then Mohammad tries to say that everything that comes through Mohammad trumps all. And if he said something nastier later in his life – then it trumps the nicer things he said earlier. It's called abrogation…
It gets very nasty, btw.
"By their fruits ye shall know them…'
We had a wrap party for Zombie Apocalypse: Redemption Saturday night and they premiered the extended trailer for it (currently only a minor teaser mad before production commenced is available online). They are shooting for a February 2011 release. I will post links as they become available. I can say, production value wise, that we are very next-level ahead of the original. If it wasn't for all the cursing/swearing (and I'm one of the characters that produces alot of that *lol*) I'd say perhaps even good enough for SyFy saturday night.
Indeed, Stevens would make great compost.
Did see it, and thanks for clarifying. I know my way around the Bible well enough to make my family and friends think I should be in seminary.
But up against people who really know it, I'm not even a very good amateur.
Western society has evolved to the point we find slavery abhorrent, regardless of what the Bible says on it.
When it comes to Islam that is happening too, but in Europe, Asia, the Middle and Far east, that's taking far too long to work it's way out of their culture. Literal reading of their holy book. It's happening, but I doubt it will finish in our life time.
"What was Jon Stewert thinking"
You assume that he thinks.
I'm with the program. Jesus brought the New Testament, but that doesn't mean we forgot the old One.
We read from it every Sunday in Mass, except of one or two Holy Feast days.
BREAKING NEWS: Salman Rushdie Turns Into A Pumpkin!
Ah, Sixty Minutes. It was always biased. I recall attending a medical conference years before the Internet or Talk Radio and a physician spoke briefly to us about how he was bushwacked by Sixty Minutes and how they'd twisted the story to give it their spin. (He didn't say "liberal" but I suspect that's what they did).
The only people who had access to this knowledge were physicians and wives attending the talk, "Sixty Minutes" of course had the airwaves. Today such a lie would go out on the Internet, people could check and see which of the two were telling the truth (kinda like the letter Dan Rather used to try to destroy Bush before the 2004 election which blew up in his face).
We're still in an uphill battle with all the left wing broadcasters and print media spitting out DNC propaganda, however, with the web and sites like this, the truth does find it's way to those of us who no longer serve as "Useful Idiots".
Stewbert were only thinking about getting out the lefty message — nothing else. Cat Stevens likewise saw an opportunity to take a whack at non Leftists. To impart "thought" to a knee jerk liberal is like imparting reason to a great white shark swimming in a pod of seals.
And Cat Stevens makes him into a delicious pumpkin pie.
Maybe it would sound radical to Stewart if he wasn't quaking in his boots for fear some Christian will pray at him.
It may be an up hill battle, but I sense the ground is getting less steep every day.
The left has grown fat, dumb and lazy hiding behind their MSM firewall. They can't handle the exposure on the internet and it shows.
I for one, love it.
Well, I'm not a Christian, or anything even vaguely resembling an observant Jew for that matter, but I seem to recall that Jesus fellow saying something about the Law (of Moses) permitting people to divorce because of the hard hearts of the people, but that the intent from Genesis was otherwise. Likewise he said that the law was not to be done away with.
So what lesson could we perceive from this?
That a semi-nomadic people, who could face reverses so severe that it might lead to selling their children into slavery, could possibly find use in some laws regarding the practice that just might force it to be nothing more than an absurdly early arranged marriage, that requires special privileges for the child so contracted?
Hmmm . . .
Now, bearing in mind that none of us (I hope) consider mere puberty an acceptable age limit for marriage, is it possible that we might however consider the following, whether we be Christian or Jewish, as "reasonable":
Having become so destitute that your family is starving, you arrange for the fostering of your children. The foster family will permit a close member of your family to adopt the child on demand. If it happens, the foster family will support the marriage of your child to one of their natural children. If not, the foster family will support your child as one of their own, including providing for them as they leave the home when of age.
Again, I'm no Christian, and far from qualified to speak as a religious Jew, and indeed I'm egregiously biased on the particular subject, so I'll leave it to others to declare on just how appropriate or inappropriate the SPIRIT of that particular law remains today for Christians and Jews.
(Side Note: Adoption was outlawed for Muslims so Mohammad could marry his adopted son's wife.)
And Charles Manson to carve his Thanksgiving turkey?
he seems a fair enough chap in real life- but ultimately he, too is clueless…
David Gergen spoke at a dinner I attended Friday night and one of his statements captured perfectly the American mentality. He said (paraphrased) we're pretty good when the wolf is at the door, not so good with the termites in the basement.
That is EXACTLY what's going on with our response to Islam. Unfortunately Islam understands it, too, and the radicals are counting on us ignoring the termites in the basement until the house falls down. Then it won't matter that the wolf is at the door.
Maybe friends of Salman Rushdie should let it be known that whatever happens to him also happens to Cat Stevens. That's the way Michael Corleone would have handled it.
I'm not an observant Jew, nor do I play one on TV. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Jesus did say what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Which is we Catholics are so strict on divorce.
At some times he appears to be breaking Moses' Law, at other times, he preaches to follow them.
One of the most famous readings in the New Testament is Jesus with the adulteress when he says let he who is without sin cast the first stone, where as I understand it, stoning was the law for adultery. He stopped the Jews from adhering to it. (Side note: that story is not in the oldest known copies of John's Gospel. It was added later.)
Another time, I don't remember what he was doing, but he referred back to 2 Samuel (I think, I admit, I'm not that good at this) where David breaks the Sabbath to feed his men while they were on the run from Saul, as justification for him breaking some law.
I guess the way I see it, part of his message was that some laws were important and must be followed, while others were so obscure that following them actually meant defying God. The example with David again. Samuel has anointed David king of Israel on orders from God. He's on the run, low on supplies, his men are starving, would God rather they simply keep walking till they pass out from hunger, get caught by Saul and get killed?
And as far as I'm concerned you are one of the experts on Jewish religion around here. Please keep it up, I enjoy the education. I look forward to them!
The new law?
Deuteronomy
Sh'ma: The Creed
6:4 Listen, Israel, G– is our Lord, G– is One.
6:5 Love G– your Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.
Leviticus
19:18 Do not take revenge nor bear a grudge against the children of your people.
You must love your neighbor as [you love] yourself. I am G–.
That's the old law.
Always has been, always will be.
Supersessionism is also abrogation.
I guess the way I see it, part of his message was that some laws were important and must be followed, while others were so obscure that following them actually meant defying God. The example with David again. Samuel has anointed David king of Israel on orders from God. He's on the run, low on supplies, his men are starving, would God rather they simply keep walking till they pass out from hunger, get caught by Saul and get killed?
The point is that sometimes you have to choose between following the law exactly and doing a necessary thing. From some of the things Jesus said to the Jewish bigwigs of his time, I conclude that God is not likely to approve of slavish, mindless adherence to the letter of the Law.
Probably not a good thing to say to a bunch of suicidal losers who get off on the idea of martyrdom.
Yeah, I'm always doing Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer to my friends when they ask why I don't have a cell phone.
I look at it the same way Nietzsche did, with an extremely literal intrepretation.
Jesus said stop relying on the letter of the law, and various quirks of intrepretation, and look at the spirit of the law.
Are you ALLOWED to get divorced? Yes.
SHOULD you get divorced? No.
Are you ALLOWED to contract your pre-teen daughter's marriage when she will starve to death because you cannot support her? Yes.
SHOULD the community allow you to be on the verge of starvation so you have to? No.
Will you become ritually unclean if you touch a corpse? Yes.
SHOULD you walk past an injured man because he might die while you are tending him? No.
As for throwing the first stone, Orson Scott Card (a *GASP* Mormon) has something on that in Speaker for the Dead. If I can I'll dig it out and post it. I found it enlightening.
You must be logged in to post a comment.