tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post7556247728242397768..comments2024-01-01T23:41:52.452-05:00Comments on Staring at the View: Loonwatch vs. Translating Jihad - Part TwoQuotable Quotes:http://www.blogger.com/profile/10875865758846571469noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-2645296801349582722014-12-13T16:51:10.256-05:002014-12-13T16:51:10.256-05:00Savour the irony: "pour over my blog"
sh...Savour the irony: "pour over my blog"<br />should of course use "pore". It is<br />said that "even Homer nods".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-26269460121801273442011-03-14T17:31:12.421-04:002011-03-14T17:31:12.421-04:00(Anonymous2)
Loonwatch tries to make a big deal o...(Anonymous2)<br /><br />Loonwatch tries to make a big deal out of the fact that Al Mutarjim is a Christian. From this, they try to portray him as a "nut." Now, I'm not religious myself, but it doesn't seem to me that 80 or 85% of the American public are "nuts" simply because they profess Christian beliefs.<br /><br />Anyways, Loonwatch, particularly Dawood and Danios, show astounding hypocrisy in this regard. In one of their fraudulent articles about Translating Jihad, they write [my emphasis]:<br /><br />"In essence then, the fact that Islam does not specify a specific age for marriage is a blessing and part of the leeway given to the people by <b>the Merciful God</b>."<br /><br />Dawood and Danios are not only professing their belief in Allah, but they have clearly gone nuts in trying to spin Islam's <i>lack</i> of a minimum age limit for marriage as a positive thing, "a blessing"! Their minds have, apparently, been warped under the weight of having to defend Islam and never being able to criticize it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-79526385891003409692011-03-02T10:51:23.322-05:002011-03-02T10:51:23.322-05:00--excuse the typo-- Al Mutarjim--excuse the typo-- Al MutarjimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-2980355390760657782011-03-02T10:49:31.106-05:002011-03-02T10:49:31.106-05:00(Anonymous2)
Indeed. I don't know Arabic myse...(Anonymous2)<br /><br />Indeed. I don't know Arabic myself, but a bit of searching "nikah" through Google Books confirmed for me what you just said. I also checked a few dictionary and encyclopedia sources, and they confirm both meanings. <br /> <br />Loonwatch seems to be hoping that readers will simply side with them and accept their translation of nikah, along with their claim that Al Mutarjid was wrong. Many readers at Loonwatch probably don't know Arabic, and thus would have no basis for judging between Loonwatch's translation and Al Mutarjid's--except by doing a bit of checking on their own, as I did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-89883039167956937692011-03-02T06:58:53.794-05:002011-03-02T06:58:53.794-05:00Anonymous2,
One problem is that Arabic words are o...Anonymous2,<br />One problem is that Arabic words are often imprecise and can not be tied down to a single meaning. The 'aqd al-nikah is the marriage contract, leading to the conclusion that nikah means marriage. On the other hand, nikah can be used as the f-word. So when Mutarjim says nikah means sex and Loonwatch says it means marriage, they are both right!Quotable Quotes:https://www.blogger.com/profile/10875865758846571469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-7200495291237155852011-03-01T21:03:32.501-05:002011-03-01T21:03:32.501-05:00(Anonymous2)
QQs,
I think there was some technic...(Anonymous2)<br /><br />QQs,<br /><br />I think there was some technical quirk with Google Blogger...I had the same thing happen on another Blogger site a while back.<br /><br />Anyways, as for Loonwatch, Danios and Dawood, in their attacks against Al Mutarjim, made the deceptive claim that nikah should have been translated as "marriage" and not as "sexual intercourse." Even if the word marriage might have been more appropriate in context, nikah still implies a union intended for sexual intercourse. (This is also implied by verse 65:4, which was cited by the fatwa-writer).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-69388701687848340052011-03-01T20:05:29.433-05:002011-03-01T20:05:29.433-05:00Anonymous2
Thanks for your comment. I never delete...Anonymous2<br />Thanks for your comment. I never delete comments, so don't know why yours disappeared. My conclusion about Loonwatch is that they, as with all Muslims, must defend Muhammad at all cost. No ruse is too deceptive, no trick too dirty, no lie too great, when it comes to defending their Prophet (who is apparently unable to defend himself).Quotable Quotes:https://www.blogger.com/profile/10875865758846571469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-36826983776113600652011-03-01T10:18:41.335-05:002011-03-01T10:18:41.335-05:00(Anonymous2)
p.s., Loonwatch has produced two more...(Anonymous2)<br />p.s., Loonwatch has produced two more articles about this. In one, they claim that Al Mutarjim deliberately mistranslated the word nikah in a fatwa, and that he hid the fatwa writer's true opinion on marriage to prepubescent girls. In the other article, Loonwatch tries to present Al Mutarjim as a nut, and they respond to Staring at the View's defense.<br /><br />I'm not impressed with their attack on Al Mutarjim. They seem to be making much ado about a judgment call in translation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-74374809183743655942011-03-01T04:43:21.915-05:002011-03-01T04:43:21.915-05:00(Anonymous2)
I tried to post here yesterday, and ...(Anonymous2)<br /><br />I tried to post here yesterday, and it appeared my post was published. However, I checked later and it had disappeared.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-80107208835234306992011-02-25T23:43:48.774-05:002011-02-25T23:43:48.774-05:00I've never heard of loonwatch, so went and had...I've never heard of loonwatch, so went and had a look to see what it's about. Rather wish I hadn't. These days it's hard to have an opinion without being accused of being a racist, a nazi, or a (blank)aphobic. It's the verbal equivalent of picking a fight with somebody who turns out to a little tougher or better armed than you supposed, then curling up into a ball and screaming for assistance from well-meaning but uninformed bystanders, appealing to their sense of humanity, taking advantage of their desire to do the right thing and come to the aid of an apparent victim. It's the same defense used by the Palestinians who throw rocks at armed soldiers, get shot, then appeal to human rights groups for sympathy and assistance.<br /><br />Looking through the comments, it's clear that the general readership of loonwatch are not open to civilized, rational discussion. Since they feel they are so victimized in the West, what with the lack of Shariah law and all, perhaps they should consider relocating to a predominantly Muslim country that's a little more hospitable toward their ideology and beliefs. I hear Libya is accepting applicants - Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4385205961037530446.post-21844393367459195722011-02-25T22:53:19.855-05:002011-02-25T22:53:19.855-05:00Two thoughts:
1) Spank!
2) We're not worthy....Two thoughts:<br /><br />1) Spank!<br /><br />2) We're not worthy...Cyril Lucarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09084426632079086253noreply@blogger.com