Posts
Daniel Pipes Hates America
By Daniel Koffler / May 5, 2008
Debbie Almontaser is a Yemeni-American educator who spent a career trying to build bridges
between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans. With backing from the Gates Foundation and a secular Arab-American community organizing group, she chartered and became founding principal of an Arabic-immersion public school in Brooklyn, the Khalil Gibran International Academy, named for the famous Lebanese Christian poet. That would have been a worthy culmination of her decades of service to her own community and the broader community of New York City, had she not almost immediately become the target of a campaign of defamation that led to her widespread portrayal in the New York media as a closet jihadi, forced her to resign her position at the school, and which hobbled the operations of the KGIA from before its first day of classes.
As is often the case in apparent instances of paranoid popular uprisings against basic liberal freedoms — see the Intoonfada — the none-too-deeply buried truth is that the disgusting libels to which Almontaser has been subjected, and the larger effort to shut down her school, are the product of resentment and outrage fabricated and stoked by cynical elites. In this case, the editorial board of the New York Post, which deliberately warped Almontaser's words in order to slander her as a supporter of the Palestinian intifada, and the soi-disant middle East expert Daniel Pipes, are substantially responsible for wrecking the reputation of an innocent, honest, productive woman, and for harpooning her attempt to offer New York City public school students an education in a language perhaps more important than any other for Americans to learn.
All that Pipes knew about Almontaser last April was that she had said of the September 11 attacks, "I don’t recognize the people who committed the attacks as either Arabs or Muslims. Those people who did it have stolen my identity as an Arab and have stolen my religion" — i.e., that she explicitly repudiated those within her community who support terrorism — and that she had once received an award from CAIR. What else was a propagandist to do but launch an actionably dishonest editorial in the New York Sun, describing KGIA as a "madrassa" in its headline, and featuring a truncation of Almontaser's thoughts about September 11 to just that first sentence about not recognizing the perpetrators as Arabs or Muslims, thereby implying that she is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
But then, Pipes didn't feel he had to know anything at all about Almontaser or KGIA to claim publicly that she is an Islamist and the school would be. Almontaser is an Arab offering to teach Arabic, and that's all he cares about: "In practice…Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage…[L]earning Arabic in of itself promotes an Islamic outlook."
Never mind Pipes' extraordinary racism and xenophobia, loathsome though they are. Never mind that Pipes himself claims to have studied Arabic, and Islamism is one pathology from which he certainly does not suffer. Never mind that Pipes' evidence for the inevitability of education in Arabic being "laden with pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage" consists in one example from America published in Pipes' own preposterous journal, one example from Cairo, and one example from Algeria at the height of Franco-Algerian antipathy.
There is perhaps no cheaper, easier way to foster understanding and cultural exchange between the Arab and Muslim world and the west, bolster American national security, and improve long-term economic prospects all in one fell swoop, than to massively encourage and support American students studying Arabic, Persian, and other western and central Asian languages. Pipes and his lackeys claim to be home-front foot-soldiers in the struggle against Islamo-fascism. What they have accomplished, in the name of pursuing their vendetta against anyone who prays out of the Koran — apart from destroying the reputation of an innocent woman, ruining at least one academic year in the lives of 60 New York City students, stifling academic freedom, and creating huge disincentives to chartering schools that teach important but politically sensitive material — is to make the United States demonstrably less safe and more vulnerable to Islamist (or any other kind of) terrorism. Well done.
POST A COMMENT
If you do a blindfold test, can you hear the difference between Cannonball and Charlie Parker? One should without any problem. And besides, part of Cannonball's genius was his band–a sound that was never heard before or has been heard since. And they've contributed as many 'standards' as Charlie Parker. Notice that I'm not using comparative terms like better or worse. I'm saying distinct. That's the most any jazz musician can strive for, their own distinct voice.
On the contrary, part of what got me into college was recording some Cannonball Adderley charts.
Didn't know you had a masochistic side. You sure you want us over there?
I actually read your other post, clicked on your links, and I'm not in the mood to defend his article–I just don't think it's that strong a case, Pipe's article. Evidently, he churns out lots of content, writes hot and cold, sometimes in a hurry. For instance, I felt confident defending the article I was reading, but if I was reading Ismail's link, I probably wouldn't have tried to defend the writing.
Nevertheless, as with most issues, writers tend to cite each other as sources. Happens all over the political spectrum. That's why I think it's important to cut through, at least try to, cut through all the tangle.
However, I was prepared to take issue with your assessment of Cannonball Adderley, but if you don't hear it, you don't hear it. I can't argue with your DNA.
You do know there's another Daniel Pipes post you can move this to? And probably quite a few more coming — I think I'm going to take advantage of the freedom to call Pipes what he really is that being Jewish affords me.
OK, I'll bite. I found the list on the weblog of one Diane Vera (dvera.wordpress.com), to which I was referred by our friends at Google. She in turn got it from the website of the NY Sun, the odious rag which played a central role in the vicious persecution of the blameless Almontaser, a crime in which you and your fellow racists take unseemly pleasure. Imagine, the ultimate source of my item was a libel sheet I find otherwise worthless. I imagine you must take great glee in this, in much the same way that an ape finds a shiny object captivating. Hard to understand from the upright perspective, but you can't begrudge a simian his amusement.
More interesting than the actual source I consulted, though, is your curious notion that there would be something amiss or ironic about my finding the list at the pit of filth Pipes calls his website. Are you suggesting that if I oppose Pipes' ideology that I must perforce oppose every syllable to be found at his nest? Despite the fact that Pipes has been shown to be a malicious and serial liar, even I give him enough credibility to assume he wouldn't actually invent a list of advisors for the KGIA. But perhaps you're saying that I should be suspicious of this charlatan even when he's reproducing a simple list?
So even if I had found the list chez Pipes, it would mean nothing at all. Even a marginally sentient being will agree that citing a list is different from citing an opinion, reconstruction, analysis or similar production.
By the way, you must do something about that tiny attention span of yours. Didn't we go over the proper spelling of my name a couple of days ago?
Here, I'll give you a refresher-Ismail. No h in there. Now, go and practice. With effort, I know you'll catch on.
Read the title twice, then look in the mirror.
I was just enjoying the irony that you would use go to the website of someone you detest to find the facts to contradict every else on the website. Not beyond your sense of scholarship. So I just asked, and did not get, and still have not gotten, and I suspect will never get–just like every other question I put to you–this thing called an answer.
And every time there is a direct question, you respond by insulting either me or someone else.
The IDF question will come at some other time. The only question is, since you're not going actually have a dialogue here and answer questions, since you're only going to keep tossing out insults and creating confusion for anyone still wasting their time reading our jousting, is why you are even bothering to continue writing in this thread.
I promise you, no one is reading this anymore. It's just you and me. Your opportunities to confuse folks with false facts and twisted logic are gone in this thread. Cori C. probably isn't reading it anymore. It's over. We've bored the folks into going to Little Green Footballs to check on their updates.
We should apologize to Craig, we're wasting his time. I'll start. Sorry Craig, this dialogue has gone on much too long. You, Ish, do the same. End this. Maybe we should promise Ish, you know, carrots and incentives. There will be at least one article this week praising the IDF for doing an almost impossible task of trying to protect both Israelis and the other residents of Israel who want to destroy Israel.
That's like Ish Heaven, weeks and weeks of accusations, insults, and avoidance of facts and refusal to answer questions. You can move the goalposts from the North Pole to the South Pole–remember way back before my hair was this gray I just wondered why the KGIA wasn't a private school? And now look where we are. Me defending a Daniel Pipes piece that you weren't even reading, and me responding to criticisms of Pipes from a piece I didn't even know existed.
And still, my first question remains unanswered. And since we're both too immature to let the other person get the last word–let's do this. Just answer the damn question, where you got the list, one sentence, and I'll let it go at that. No insults, no tricks, just answer the damn question.
You're being an idiot. One provides sources so that his readers may check accuracy for themselves. Here, we both stipulate to the accuracy of the list.
If I refer to the sun rising in the east, shall I provide a source?
Very gentlemanly of you to defend the honor of Cori C. As I recall, she was last heard promising a devastating rebuttal of my assertions as soon as she had the time to put one together. They must be keeping her very busy concocting lies over there at the IOF Propaganda Division since she's not been heard from since (although I do note that she's found the time to switch out her picture from that rather fetching yearbook-looking one to the current version, where she is unaccountably sucking her forefinger. Not a photoeditorial choice I'd make, but then again, what can one say about the judgement of someone who chooses to spend her time whiting the sepulchre of Israeli military behavior?)
No need for a retraction. I read my article accurately. If you just provided a citation when I asked for one we wouldn't have been reading two different articles.
You want to apologize for being so reluctant to answer questions in a straightforward way. In case it slipped your mind, here is the question once more.
So where did you get the list of the board? Did you get it from the very same Pipes you mistrust on everything else? Just provide the source.
Funny, I didn't see a retraction in there.
Knock me over with a feather. I asked you around the fourth post in this overly long thread to give me a citation. But no. Why do that when you can insult me, Cori C, and everyone else to cross your path?
Turns out, genius, we weren't reading the same article.
This is what I was reading:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2007/03/on-new-yorks-khalil-gibran-international.html
Your article is written a month later, and is a summary, possibly too brief of a summary, of the original article that I was reading. So, to get the meaning of the sentences, including the ones that you find offensive, and that I find clumsy, you'd have to read both.
You do recall me asking where you found the list of the school's advisors, right? The list is in the article I was reading.
So here's what we do. We stop writing on this. We're mature enough to dislike each other without finding a topic to express it.
"I grant that we might be looking at different places, but this is the only reference to Coffman I found in the piece. If I'm mistaken, then I'll retract this."
OK, here's the URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4441
Go to the 7th paragraph. You may now retract.
And while you're at it, you may also apologize for your untruth about "a college course on the Middle East that doesn't mention Israel". There is no such course-or at least your pal, the filthy Pipes, didn't allude to one. He was talking about about a book of grammar. Go ahead. Retract. I'll wait.
And you may want to continue cleansing what's left of your soul by having the decency to admit that Almontaser and her students did not wear the notorious tshirts rather than resorting to the weasel construction that you haven't yet found the incriminating photographic evidence. Will you accept as evidence that you-only you, not the malicious Pipes or any of his lieutenants-are the only person who makes this claim?
I won't bother trying to instruct you for the third time in the logical blunders of the Algerian student study which you repeatedly misunderstand and conflate with one or another language instruction study. You're as resistant to learning as a dog is to table manners, and one must bow to reality sooner or later.
But the retractions will do fine for now. You may begin.
Until I went back to Pipes article and read the sentence that preceded what you are citing.
Here's a quote from Pipes that you leave out: "My take on the school: In principle it is a great idea – the United States needs more Arabic-speakers." Like or not, that quote is right there in the beginning of his case–which if you read carefully as opposed to selectively, is simply a hypothesis on what might happen with this school–as his next clause is–In practice, however, Arabic instruction is heavy with Islamist and Arabist overtones and demands.
His first source from the Middle East Quarterly, which you dismiss out of hand, does refer to college courses teaching Arabic, and saying that along with grammar, ideology is also taught. However, the Ohio State book on elememtary grammar (what you called "a first year Arabic textbook") does have a chapter entitled "On the Question of Palestine"–which the author thought to be an important lesson in grammar. Go figure. So, if these sources are to be believed, then it seems odd that in the middle of subjects and verbs and prepositional phrases–it is somehow necessary to bring up Middle Eastern politics.
Your "quotation" of Pipes referring to the Coffman article is also fascinating, in that it is completely inaccurate.
Here's you (I'll copy and paste):
"Also, learning Arabic in and of itself promotes an Islamic outlook, as James Coffman showed
in 1995, looking at evidence from Algeria. Comparing students taught in
French and in Arabic, he found that "Arabized students show decidedly
greater support for the Islamist movement and greater mistrust of the
West."
Here's Pipes (also copy and pasting): And I grant that we might be looking at different places, but this is the only reference to Coffman I found in the piece. If I'm mistaken, then I'll retract this. But, here's Pipes:
For the heavy Islamic freight that Arabic instruction carries, see "Does Learning Arabic Prevent Moral Decay?"
where one learns that some Muslims believe "Knowledge of Arabic can
then help the Western countries recover from the present moral decay."
(This is not as surprising as it sounds, for Muslims commonly assume
that a non-Muslim who learns Arabic is en route to conversion to Islam;
I experienced this many times during my Cairo years.) Evidence from
Algeria also points to the impact of Arabic instruction, as documented
in James Coffman's breakthrough 1995 article "Does the Arabic Language Encourage Radical Islam?" He compared Algerian students taught in French versus those taught in Arabic and found that [big block quote from the Coffman article].
This quotation is much different from what you said was his quotation.
He isn't saying that learning Arabic itself promotes a radical outlook–he is saying that the instructors see the teaching of Arabic as a stepping stone towards conversion. Consequently, more is taught in the classes that simple language. And still, from the rest of the article it is clear that Pipes still treats this as a hypothesis–that is once again confirmed from the history of the Academy. Almontaser aside (and I note that you didn't refer to any of the previous comments who document her history better that I can), the school's community proved this out when a Jewish woman was appointed principal and they protested that the simple fact of her Jewishness was an insult to the school and students and overall community. I define community as those supporting the school.
So, although your sentence was clear enough for me, it's too bad Pipes didn't write it. You did.
Unless you can find another reference to Coffman, it's looking like it's you who is the paranoid, lying wretch, which brings your lying grand total to be $1600.
And isn't it seeming a little silly that you and I have to quote from this article when anyone can just go there and read it, and decide for themselves what it says. But it is odd how you can misquote it so consistently.
First, I must apologize for continuing this when I said I wouldn't. What can I say, I'm weak when it comes to stomaching assaults on reason and justice. So, let me point out just two of your casual and reflexive untruths.
Here's you:
"How can you teach a college course on the Middle East from a book that doesn't mention the name of Israel? "
Here's the sentence from Pipes to which you obviously refer:
"A reader, Alex, writes in a comment on this website that he is using a first-year Arabic textbook by Mahdi Alosh, associate professor of Arabic at The Ohio State University, Ahlan wa Sahlan: Functional Modern Standard Arabic for Beginners (Yale University Press, 2000), and that it mentions Bilad al-Sham repeatedly, but never Israel.]"
Can you apprehend the difference between "a college course on the Middle East" and "a first-year Arabic textbook"? How brazen in their anti-Semitism are these jihadi language instructors! Imagine! Having the effrontery to not mention Israel in a text on Arabic grammar!
Here's you:
"It's interesting that you misinterpret Pipes point, and then draw incorrect conclusions based on your misunderstanding. His point is simple, that the study of Arabic is a good thing, but in practice some very odd things occur that requires closer scrutiny of the manner in which the subject is taught."
Here's Pipes:
"Also, learning Arabic in and of itself promotes an Islamic outlook, as James Coffman showed in 1995, looking at evidence from Algeria. Comparing students taught in French and in Arabic, he found that "Arabized students show decidedly greater support for the Islamist movement and greater mistrust of the West."
Please read carefully. "Learning Arabic in and of itself promotes an Islamic outlook". Clear enough for you? As I reported, Pipes' scumbag move here is to "compare students taught in French and Arabic" without saying that those taught in Arabic were a self-selected bunch of medievalists while the French-taught kids were modernists. It was not the teaching of Arabic that caused their retrograde beliefs-they came to class already disposed to believe silliness. (By the way, they weren't "taught' Arabic in these classes-they were native speakers). So, the study Pipes cites doesn't concern the teaching of Arabic, nor does it demonstrate that the language used in instruction is the significant variable to explain the observed differences in ideology. That is, it has nothing-nothing at all- to do with the question under investigation. Moreover, one hardly needs to do any analysis at all to dismiss the proposition that learning Arabic inclines the learner towards jihad, a notion preposterous on its face. Or perhaps you think that the learning of Hebrew disposes the learner towards accountancy or orthodonture, or, far worse, the demolition of homes atop the heads of infants? I don't, because I'm rational. You? You're a paranoid, lying wretch.
Please note that the insult followed a quite specific (and decisive) demonstration of your errors. This demonstration constitutes what we humans call an "argument"-you know, that thing you claim my comments lack.
Insults aside (by goodness, what's left of your argument if you take these away?), the entire controversy regarding politics and the Arab world is because of Jihad. Haven't you been reading the news the last 10 years? When Pipes refers to politicizing, he's talking Jihad, not the finer points of Sunni/Shia differences regarding the governance of Kuwait.
Again, simply by reading the news one would be aware that the Arab world doesn't like to say the name Israel, and its maps rarely show that it even exists. This is a political statement. How can you teach a college course on the Middle East from a book that doesn't mention the name of Israel? You left that part out, about the college course, conveniently. You tend to ignore facts that don't fit your particular insult at the moment–I guess that would put you yourself in that state of ignorance. Call me surprised you would accuse me of the very thing of which you are guilty.
Pictures exist, but I didn't spend the hours looking for them. Here's a simple fact of school life. Kids sell shirts, kids wear the shirts, and principals usually wear them too, if the school is sponsoring the event. From the press reports, it appears as if the school was sponsoring the sale. The issue of who was wearing what when is completely irrelevant. The school was acting at odds with the surrounding community to put it mildly. That usually causes quite a controversy, and the principal should be aware of this phenomenon–and try to avoid it. Unless, like the unicorn, you can find the job description of some principal anywhere in the US that includes creating controversy with the surrounding community.
Your point about the Algerians is almost silly. Fine, study Medieval subjects in Arabic–but those studying the subject don't have to embrace the paradigm wholeheartedly. It's interesting that you misinterpret Pipes point, and then draw incorrect conclusions based on your misunderstanding. His point is simple, that the study of Arabic is a good thing, but in practice some very odd things occur that requires closer scrutiny of the manner in which the subject is taught. He presents evidence enough for a reasonable hypothesis, and then he tracks the course of this NY school to see if the hypothesis applies.
And it does.
Now we agree, we're done with this topic.
"I'll leave my calling card with your butler, Mr. Ismail."
No need for excessive formality. You can drop the "Mr.". Call me Ismail.
" …a book by Mr. Abed from which Pipes takes an example of the way that teaching Arabic in practice conflates with Jihadist ideology…. "
Pipes himself makes no such claim. He says "politicized", you say "jihadist ideology". Can you understand the difference?
"The text never mentions that State of Israel, but rather uses the Arabic name for many territories united under Arab rule–part of this territory is Israel."
Right, and part is Lebanon, and part is Syria, and part is Jordan, and part is Palestine, none of which get mentioned, either. The term in question, Bilad al-Sham, is roughly equivalent to using the term "The Levant". And why exactly would an Arabic textbook take special note of a primarily Hebrew-speaking country?
"The findings show marked differences between attitudes and beliefs, not just different language skills. You can soft focus and say the difference is between liberal and modern and those not so–but if anyone would go to the site and read Pipe's summary, the words sane and insane would be more accurate as those in the Arabic classes reported instances of seeing the word Allah in the clouds and a belief that Zionist women infected with AIDS had infiltrated the country. Pipes therefore sets out the hypothesis that although it is a good idea to train more Arabic linguists, the practice is not so simple. And that is why he chronicles the events at the school for over a year–to once again see how this good idea works out in practice."
Spectacular ignorance here, Naftali. I'll repeat what I said earlier in words of fewer syllables. Pay attention, now; recall that the article Pipes cites shows a difference along the dimension of reactionary social beliefs and preposterous religious delusion between those Algerian students who take courses in French (typically sciences) and those who elect to take courses given in Arabic (typically religion, ethics et al). The modestly sharp 3rd grader will note that those drawn to scholastic medievalism will be studying in Arabic (that's their only option for these courses) while more modern thinkers will be using French. But Pipes' point demands that it is the study of Arabic itself that inclines the student towards regressed thinking. The study shows no such thing; Pipes puts the cart before the camel. Again, we have no disagreement that fundamentalist Muslims believe odd things; this non-controversial observation has zero bearing on the question at hand, but I know how you quiver with joy whenever you can repeat anything that portrays Muslims as benighted savages.
"Your main point in that the kids and teachers never wore the T-Shirt saying Intifada NYC. Here's a picture of the shirts. Does that mean that if I can't find a picture of the kids and principal wearing the shirts the shirts don't exist, the people in New York never saw the shirts, the community wasn't concerned?"
Not at all. It means that you're either a liar or so blinded by your deranged fantasies that you really don't think it amounts to a hill of favas that your comment was false. By the way, nice sleazeball attempt with that "..I can't find a picture.." business. It's not that you couldn't find one, it's that one doesn't exist, and for the same reason that pictures of unicorns don't exist-they're fictional.
"The fact is that the school did not live up to its charter of being a secular school focusing on the teaching of Arabic. Both religious and political controversies surrounded the school since its inception, some started from the outside, some coming from within."
More grade-z bullshit. None of Almontaser's opponents offered a single scintilla of evidence that a single class or a single teacher uttered a single syllable that contravened the charter under which the school was opened. Everything was innuendo, everything was subjunctive-"might" "could", etc. I know little niceties like accuracy and precision are foreign to you-you don't even see, or at least acknowledge, that your "Almontaser and her students wear intifada tshirts" accusation was a simple falsehood, one which has important ramifications-but many of us prefer the rule of law when it comes to debate.
"The evidence you seek, or demand from lay people like me, actually requires the kind of resources of an agency such as the FBI. You would like someone to produce audiotapes, pictures of the principal wearing an offensive T-Shirts, as if it were so uncommon for school principals from around the country to wear T-Shirts produced by the kids of their own school, and as if the ideas for such shirts came out of a vacuum, or that kids don't wear the shirts that they sell."
More cascades of bullshit. Briefly, no FBI required to offer evidence of serious accusations against a lifelong, much-decorated educator. Just the normal demand-show me. The tshirts were produced by a women's art organization, not Almontaser or her students.
So, the question remains-are you a liar or an incompetent? I can be charitable, I suppose, and offer another alternative-perhaps the paranoid features I detect in your thinking represent more than just a personality style. Perhaps you are in need of a different sort of help than my corrections to your factual and logical howlers can provide.
In any event, I'm done with offering my time to someone unequipped to use it constructively. Maybe some other thread sometime, but you're past saving on this issue.
Re your lawyer's bill gambit: I wouldn't feel right charging you as an attorney (I'd never have you as a client), but more important, the services you're in need of are not legal ones. I could look into finding you a confessor or, failing that, an exorcist. Let me know.
I'll leave my calling card with your butler, Mr. Ismail.
So, I will now click through the sources, as if whether a source is a book or an article in a magazine recounting instances of Arabic language courses gone awry really changes the point that in practice such courses often go off course. So yes, the first source is indeed the Middle East Quarterly, the second source was indeed a book by Mr. Abed from which Pipes takes an example of the way that teaching Arabic in practice conflates with Jihadist ideology. (I did say I was writing from memory, but now I'm not, and now I'll just submit another bill for my work in clearing up your intentional obfuscation). You claim that Pipes isn't specific enough regarding his claim. Fine. Read the book. Do your own summary, and debate it with someone else–perhaps Pipes himself. Write a respectful email saying that he has misinterpreted the book, make your case that the book is benign, and see what happens. He might agree with you, and amend his article. He might respond that you are mistaken and cite several instances which support this position. And by all means start a blog here and publish the exchange.
The third source is another text on Arabic language that is used at Ohio State University. The text never mentions that State of Israel, but rather uses the Arabic name for many territories united under Arab rule–part of this territory is Israel. Pipes fourth source is an article by Mr. Emon in which he argues that learning Arabic is essential to prevent moral decay–a conjoining of Arabic and religious teaching. But my memory isn't as great as I'd like it to be, since there are in fact five sources–an article by Mr. Coffman comparing French taught to Algerians and Arabic taught to Algerian students. The findings show marked differences between attitudes and beliefs, not just different language skills. You can soft focus and say the difference is between liberal and modern and those not so–but if anyone would go to the site and read Pipe's summary, the words sane and insane would be more accurate as those in the Arabic classes reported instances of seeing the word Allah in the clouds and a belief that Zionist women infected with AIDS had infiltrated the country. Pipes therefore sets out the hypothesis that although it is a good idea to train more Arabic linguists, the practice is not so simple. And that is why he chronicles the events at the school for over a year–to once again see how this good idea works out in practice.
Your main point in that the kids and teachers never wore the T-Shirt saying Intifada NYC. Here's a picture of the shirts. Does that mean that if I can't find a picture of the kids and principal wearing the shirts the shirts don't exist, the people in New York never saw the shirts, the community wasn't concerned? And does it mean that the principal didn't try to minimize the significance? Or that the school board wasn't concerned?
Almontaser was fired because of her insensitivity to the role that a school has within its community–which is the most basic awareness that a school principal must have. You can reframe it all day to suit your own mendacious purposes.
The fact is that the school did not live up to its charter of being a secular school focusing on the teaching of Arabic. Both religious and political controversies surrounded the school since its inception, some started from the outside, some coming from within.
I will admit that you have an advantage, in that the political agenda of so many Islamic organizations and mosques is purposely trying to fly under the public radar. And despite this, the radar catches a glimpse here and there. But it's only a glimpse and you can easily claim that conclusions based on such flimsy evidence are irresponsible.
The evidence you seek, or demand from lay people like me, actually requires the kind of resources of an agency such as the FBI. You would like someone to produce audiotapes, pictures of the principal wearing an offensive T-Shirts, as if it were so uncommon for school principals from around the country to wear T-Shirts produced by the kids of their own school, and as if the ideas for such shirts came out of a vacuum, or that kids don't wear the shirts that they sell.
You can be as logical or illogical as will fit your purpose, and some days you are logical, some days you are completely illogical. But there is never a day when you can tell the difference between right and wrong, between protest and murder. In this post you say you were respectful of Lou, but you weren't so respectful of Mr. Weaver. How respectful were you of Cori C.? You ask about the sources of others, criticize, revile their sources, but you never provide sources of your own. And every time you are asked to write honestly you respond with insults.
This activity, me having to read through sources, search for pictures–getting through your dishonest writing, $600.00. The total of your lies is now $900.00. Let's look at this number like weight, the weight of your deception. Because for all of you analysis and logic, you have never told the truth.
.
Naftali-
I sign myself "Ismail". You call me "Ish". Please have the courtesy to use the name I use. If you find it too difficult to surmount your lack of civility, I won't be too surprised and I'll tolerate your rudeness for the sake of dialogue, as one tolerates a bratty child. But do try….
The citation provided by Lou didn't lead to what he claimed it would lead to. I noted this and asked for clarification. He quickly responded with a workable link. My asking didn't seem to bother him a whit. But you heard me "complaining" by simply asking for what Lou implicitly promised. And whether or not I cite has no bearing on Lou's original citation being insufficient and my requesting more info. But you knew that….
You ask where I found the advisory panel list, then tell me you already found it. So your request wasn't serious, unlike mine to Lou, which was prompted by his source being unavailable where he said it would be. The difference between a silly rhetorical ploy and an honest request for info.
You're distressed by the number of clergy on the board, despite the vast preponderance of them being non-Muslim. Why? Churches, mosques and synagogues play an important role in community projects, particularly within the social class represented in Brooklyn public school. This was not a curricular board, after all. So, tell me-why does the presence of community activists who happen to be clergymen bother you so?
Pipes quotes from "four books"? Nope. 1) An article from the highly ideological "Middle East Quarterly" which notes, among other things, the author's pique at a conference (not a class) at Middlebury which included speakers whose views he didn't care for. 2) A language text which includes a chapter on "The Question of Palestine", which Pipes tells us is "highly politicized". When one checks the source he cites, one finds a table of contents which includes chapters on hijab, the Arab press and other cultural matters, including Palestine. The text's author would be remiss in not linguistically preparing the student for such matters in a book stressing "contemporary arabic" and "conversations with native speakers", for whom these topics have more than passing interest. Not a single syllable of his citation provides evidence that these topics are "highly politicized". More fictions from Pipes. 3)This citation has at least a particle of truth, but only a particle. After several pages of urging the teaching of Arabic to facilitate business transactions between the West and the Arab world, the author's closing paragraph does indeed reference moral decay in the US. Pipes' assumption that the author intends mass conversion is unsupported, though. It reads more like the standard religious person's conviction that moral behavior needs to grounded in scripture, an opinion I disavow but don't find particularly alarming. 4) A study of Arabic and non-Arabic speakers in Algeria, which found that those taking classes in the sciences (typically taught in French) were more liberal and modern than those taking classes in religion or ethics (typically taught in Arabic). From this observation, the intellectually hobbled author concludes that the study of Arabic itself leads to regressive political thinking. Can you say "self-selection"? Such stupidity is sadly not uncommon in the Middle East Quarterly (again), whence this "study" slithered into daylight.
Of course, even if all for of Pipes' accusations were accurate, they in no way support his preposterous notion, in general, the teaching of Arabic must be viewed with suspicion.
The kids and principal started wearing "Intifada NYC" t-shirts? Never happened. Not even the foul Pipes makes this claim. You have now positioned yourself as less reliable and truthful than Pipes himself, the former standard of mendacity. Nice.
Almontaser should be fired for explaining the meaning of an Arabic word? Be careful. You are placing yourself in the risible position of accusing an educator of…educating. Keep up like this and you'll be required to wear a big red nose and enormous shoes when you go out in public.
You end with a series of lunatic assertions that your argument does not support. The school was not teaching religion nor "jihadi ideology". Your ridiculous post is riddled with such untruths. The only question a rational person would have is whether you are stupid or duplicitous. Or both.
Well Ish, I noticed once again you are complaining about citations of others while refusing to provide your own. I asked you where you found the list of the advisory council. You didn't. I think it's because you found it where I found it, at DanielPipes.com. It was listed fourth on the google search, and it was by far the most extensive coverage of this school.
The school was promising to teach Arabic language and not be in any way a religious teaching center. What do you notice about the board? Most members are clergy. That's a red flag right there. You should have archaeologists, linguists, climatologists, sociologists–secular folks. But no clergy. Pipes cites his original thoughts (and if you want to sift through the extensive footnotes in his chronicle, then we can do that.) But Pipes original quote has been misquoted, even by Daniel Koffler, who should know better.
Pipes said that an Arabic language school is a good idea in theory, but in practice it frequently becomes a vehicle for Jihadi indoctrination. He then quotes from four books documenting this occurrence. He says that for this reason, the way such schools usually work in practice, the school deserves scrutiny. However, he still treats his opinion as a hypothesis, and keeps updating the goings on at the academy for a year, just to see if in fact the hypothesis bears out.
There were several controversies from the beginning, from publicly formed protests to difficulty within the school organizing and getting started. But the school really hit the news when the kids and principal started wearing a T-Shirt saying 'Intifada New York'. Almontaser's defense is that the word 'intifada' is misunderstood. What a principal of a school should know is that words have a definition and a connotation–and the connotation (because the word has now entered the English lexicon) contains a violent action against civilians. As a result of this cluelessness she was dismissed. The school board replaced her with a Jewish principal, to which the school community protested as a grievous insult to them. This raised more red flags.
I'm writing this from memory, but the chronicles are there for all to see. The bottom line is that the school was teaching religion when it shouldn't have been, it was teaching Jihadi ideology when it shouldn't have been, and it does look like in this instance, once again, the school needed closer scrutiny–as was also determined by the school board. So Pipes hypothesis was correct in this instance.
A similar controversy is now taking place in Minnesota.
http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Kerry_Drew_Disenchanted_Arabs.htm
Sorry, that's "sarmad s (not j) ali" that was unknown to CJR.
Lou-
"Sarsour, a 24-year-old Palestinian-American, sighed …….he was secular in his beliefs. "[sourcehttp://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/election/2004/minority_ali01.asp]
The link above directs one to the homepage of Columbia's journalism school, not to the article in question. Searching at the CJR's site produces no hits for any variation of "sarmad j ali", nor for "Kerry drew disenchanted Arabs in Bay Ridge". The fact that the URL you provide includes the term "studentwork" suggests that the piece did not appear in the CJR at all, but rather in one of the many J-school student publications. Searching through several of these produced only one hit, Mr. Ali's personal reflections on the Iraq war, dated 2007.
Perhaps you can cite your source in a fashion that would permit those interested to read the entire article?
The Islamist Global Agenda:
As I cited various valuable quotes,
which clearly depicted a special and unique feature, which is totally
absent in any other monolithic religions of the world. Unlike any other
world religion-Islam has an ulterior motive in its agenda. Islam
considers it has a sacred and mandatory God given duty to spread
Islamic message (Din-e-Islam) to all the inhabitants of the world.
Their ultimate wishful goal is to convert and bring entire mankind
under the fold of Islam, the only true religion of Allah. To this
end-two main groups are working very hard. These two groups are: (a)
Militant/radical Mullahs, (b) Educated/elite western residing true
believing Muslims (Muslims of the ummatic groups in the west such as:
AMC, CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, NABIC etc). Here we can exclude group-C
Muslims (general God fearing innocent gullible Muslims who constitute
about 70-80% of the total Muslims.
Both the groups (A & B) have one thing common in their minds. That is to convert sufficient peoples to Islam in order to establish Islamic Shar?‘ah (??) – means “path” in Arabic.
It referrs to the body of Islamic Law, which is based upon The Qur’an and the Hadith.
Additionally it is supported by historical rulings, interpretations and precedent.
There is not just one strictly codified uniform set of laws pertaining to Sharia.
There are five different schools of Islamic law, which differ from each other in their rigorousness.
Sunni Muslims follow one of the listed schools Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Shafii while Shia Muslims follow Jaafari school of thoughts.
Sharia controls and orders all areas of life. It is not a moral law for the sensitizing of conscience but is a penal law, requiring the punishment of violators through an instrument of the state. Islam demands a religious state as an executor to enforce the law. From this perspective there is no ‘legal’ difference between killing of a fellow Muslim and not following the five daily prayers prescribed by Sharia apart of course from the severity of the punishment.
‘, CAPTION, ‘Sharia’,BELOW,RIGHT, WIDTH, 300, FGCOLOR, ‘#CCCCCC’, BGCOLOR, ‘#660000′, TEXTCOLOR, ‘#000000′, CAPCOLOR, ‘#FFFFFF’, OFFSETX, 10, OFFSETY, 10);” onmouseout=”return nd();”>
Sharia'h or Huhud Laws (Allah's
laws just like Afghan Taliban state) as the state governing
administration. Here the main difference is-group A (Militant/fanatics)
is engaged in armed struggles (Holy war, Terrorism); and group-B
(mainly western resident) is engaged in secret and peaceful propagation
with sweet talks and peaceful persuasion of the gullible western
peoples by deceitful sermons in the mosques and in various annual and
semi-annual Islamic conferences and meetings (Ummatic conference). Both
have one last thing in mind-to establish Islamic Sharia'h law in the state.
Conclusion:
Our
gullible and wishful Islamists, which we
have plenty all over the world, or any other Islamists who wants to
twist the real practical and historical meaning of Jihad to fool the
modern world, which we have among educated Muslims scattered
everywhere, must consider this. If they want to give a new twisted
meaning – a sober and politically correct one — of the word Jihad,
they had better first change the Qur'an, Hadiths and all those Islamic
history books available in the library throughout the world.
Alternatively, they should dump all the Islamic history literature into
the Daria or sea and re-write a new peaceful Islamic history by
themselves. Sadly, if they do so, then it will be a Reformed Islam,
which Mullahs will now allow to happen any time soon. Therefore, the
Islamic elites, many of who visit NFB (News From Bangladesh) on a
regular basis, will have to swallow their false pride and lick their
wounds too. The proverbial phrase – the dogs will be barking, but the
caravan will pass. Humanity is poised now to get rid of all kinds
belief system that has crippled the humankind and which never allowed
us to rich for a higher plane.
Syed Mirza
Because this site is a perfect example of the Liberal-Left brainwashing that has effectively rendered a whole generation of Americans, naive, clueless and wholly invested in the erroneous proposition that there is no chasm existing between cultures that cannot be solved by earnest 'Dialogue.' Their point of view is trumpeted on a regular basis throughout the media. Specific to Radical islamism, it maintains the likes of Al Qaeda, Hamas, et al, represent a 'tiny' fraction of muslims and have 'hijacked' the religion. Of course, many, many surveys done throughout the muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco show quite the opposite. Muslims overwhelmingly support Al qaeda and any other terror group you can name. Why? Because all of them are the PURE muslims, following the same mandates that Mohammed decreed and which were de facto muslim policy from then onward. But that's a subject requiring more knowledge than jewcy writers possess. In essence these foolish and silly Westerners are the perfect dupes for the deceit and deception which is a feature of muslim public pronouncements throughout the West. This has been thoroughly commented on by many muslims and ex-muslims who have witnessed it from the inside.
The question remains why Jewcy might come to the aid and comfort of such a radical?
Of course, this remains the biggest contrast of all–while the Muslims have reflexive hatred towards Israel and America, so many Jews, in their false universalism, love to support OUR enemies.
The case against this woman has been made thoroughly. Tragically, it is my sense the supporters and the Jews who shill for her know the record know the score and they welcome the damage that will be done if these radicals are empowered further.
Much was the same concerning the case of the Holy Land Foundation. Initially–it was "persecution" of an honest group and individual academics, then Bill O'Reilly brought the principal on TV–then the President (who HAS done a few good things) pulled the plug on the group.
Jewcy's love for Islamic radicals is on the record. The question remains will anyone who loves America or loves the Jewish people support Jewcy?
She promotes an Islamist agenda, operates in an environment populated by radical Muslim organizations and individuals, holds extreme leftist political views and aims to use the KGIA as a tool of indoctrination.
Almontaser has a close working relationship with Linda Sarsour, a radical Islamist activist with a power base in Brooklyn's Bay Ridge district. Sarsour is the director of the Arab American Association of New York, a provider of social services including immigration assistance and legal aid to Arab community. She along with Almontaser are board member of the AAA's Dialogue Project and Sarsour is the Co-Chair of the Dialogue Project's Interfaith Events program.
This relationship poses a serious challenge to those who blindly maintain that KGIA is just another New York City charter school, because Linda Sarsour is tied to the terrorist organization Hamas as well as other radical causes. Deepening the concern, the community from which Sarsour operates shares her views as well as her support for Islamism.
In a 2004 piece by Sarmad S. Ali, "Kerry Drew Disenchanted Arabs in Bay Ridge" published in the Columbia Journalism Review, Linda Sarsour matter-of-factly documents her family's ties to Hamas as depicted in the Arab language terrorist newspaper that she is reading while being interviewed:
"As the presidential election grew near, Linda Sarsour sat in her small office at the Arab-American Association in , Brooklyn, looking at the photos of two thickly bearded young Arabs on the front page of an Arabic-language newspaper.
The paper carried fervent slogans calling on young people to become martyrs in the conflict with Israel.
Sarsour, a 24-year-old Palestinian-American, sighed. One of the men, she said, was a cousin who has been in Israeli jails for 25 years. The other man, she said, was a family friend serving a 99-year prison sentence in Israel. Her brother-in-law, she said, is also serving a 12-year sentence, accused of being an activist in the Hamas, the religious militant group, though, she said, he was secular in his beliefs."[source http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/election/2004/minority_ali01.asp
She continued, as if the deportation proceedings against her Palestinian husband whose brother was a jailed Hamas member had no wider implications.
"Despite those concerns, she said, she was more worried these days about her own future in America, She said she had been questioned by U.S. authorities, and her Palestinian husband, after seven years in America, faced deportation proceedings…"
Brooklyn harbors one of the largest concentrations of Islamic extremists in the United States, having become radicalized, like many other New York Muslim enclaves, over the past few decades.
For example, in a March 5, 2003 piece, NY Times reporter Eric Lichtblau detailed how Sheik Muhammad Ali Hassan al-Mouyad, the imam of Brooklyn's Al Farooq mosque [whose congregation has a large Yemeni presence] had been arrested in Germany for raising $20 million for al-Qaeda.
In 2005 Almontaser co-founded the Yemeni American Association [YAA] and imam Hisham from the Al Farooq mosque presided at the organization's opening. Almontaser's husband, Sa'ad Almontaser, serves as the vice president of the YAA.
In 2006 Shahawar Matin Siraj a Bay Ridge resident, was convicted and sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in a plot to bomb the Herald Square subway station in Manhattan.
The case was largely built on evidence gathered by Arabic speaking informants.
When New York Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly met with local Muslims to hear their "concerns about issues of public safety," as the New York Times reported, "Only after several questions did anyone mention the trial. Debbie Almontaser, a board member of a Muslim women's organization, told Mr. Kelly that she was saddened that the police had resorted to "F.B.I. tactics," and that she thought this was polarizing the Muslim community. Applause swept the room." [source http://www.nytimes.com:80/2006/05/27/nyregion/27muslim.html?ei=5088&en=e1d9ae090b6a75db&ex=1306382400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
As these writers noted in New York Jihad School Principal Almontaser Decried "FBI" Tactics Towards Convicted Terrorist, "Only in Almontaser's insular world, preventing a crime that could have killed hundreds is viewed as "polarizing."
A majority of Bay Ridges' Muslims believe that 9/11 was staged by the U.S. government.
"At the trial of subway bomber Matin Siraj his defense lawyers said their client's belief that 9/11 was staged by the United States was the common view held by the majority of Muslims in . April 2007 Siraj's defense maintained that his views that the United States government was involved in the 9-11 attacks were "community-based notions" held among many muslims."
"In fact, in that entire Muslim community...the thought that the American government was responsible for bringing down the towers on 9-11 was common," said one of Siraj's attorneys, Martin Stolar. [source http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/21/29_21guilty.html
In a disturbing piece ["Zionist Organization Supports Gibran School Principal, ADL Support Could Affect School's Success!"] published in Aramica, an Arab newspaper headquartered in Bay Ridge, publisher Antoine Faisal essentially charges Dhabah Almontaser with collaborating with the "enemy."
"What could she [Almontaser] possibly have done to anger members of her own community? How about betray them by working with a Zionist organization?" [source http://www.viewda.com/webpaper/aramica
That enemy, the "Zionists" here, takes the form of the Jewish organization, the Anti Defamation League which Faisal equates with the Ku Klux Klan.
"Imagine a NYC charter school for African Americans called the Rosa Parks Academy with an emphasis on Back History and culture whose principal was found to have a long standing relationship with the KKK." [source http://www.viewda.com/webpaper/aramica
KGIA backer Linda Sarsour is in full agreement:
"I don't work with the ADL and I don't wish to, I will never do it. They are absolutely the most racist organization in the United States..." [source http://www.viewda.com/webpaper/aramica
The pastor of the Salam Arabic Lutheran Church, Khader N. El-Yateem, a KGIA board member, seems to be indicating the fraudulence of the façade of moderation surrounding the school and the community in general, stating in the piece that for the ADL "to interfere in our business, and the way in which we are trying to conduct business to make us look good in front of the American media..."
Almontaser's only personal involvement with the ADL is that they made the claim in a letter to the New York Sun that she had participated in the groups' workshops featuring an anti-bias program called, "A World of Difference" and is reported to be considering using some of this material in KGIA's curriculum. A pose which appears contrived.
The Aramica article is a testament to the seething anti-Jewish hate that exists within Brooklyn's Muslim community, a feeling that is shared by powerful backers of KGIA. It also alludes to Almontaser's ruthless nature, saying anything to achieve her goals.
"given her [Almontaser's] knowledge of the overwhelming feeling in the Arab American community towards Israel…There are also members of this community who have worked with Almontaser on various projects and have experienced her Machiavellan methods of getting things done…imagine father Al-Yateem's surprise when he found out Almontaser had put in on the KGIA Board of Trustees without consulting him."
A further exploration of Linda Sarsour's connections reveals that she sits on the board of the National Council of Arab Americans which is chaired by [source http://www.arab-american.net/ Elias Rashmawi. Rashmawi, in addition to being a founding member of the NCA, is part of the national steering committee of International ANSWER a Marxist, pro-Hamas/Hezbollah organization responsible for coordinating the majority of street demonstrations against the Iraq war in the United States and Western Europe.
Rashmawi was deported from Israel in 1997, and in America has only sharpened his radical pro-Palestinian activism with outright incitement which has led to violence.
As reported by Front Page magazine:
"Evidence also suggests that through the NCA, Rashamawi is working to radicalize a new generation of Palestinian activists. In a series of inflammatory speeches he gave in May of 2001, Rashamawi incited Palestinian Students in Davis, Calif., to rise up against "Israeli apartheid," and exhorted the University of California at Berkeley to divest millions of dollars in companies that support Israel. The effects of his provocation were immediate and destructive. Within days, Palestinian students stormed a U.C. hall to demand divestment before finally being arrested by police. Shortly thereafter, the director of the campus Hillel, Hillel Damron, received a tip that some Arab students were plotting an attack on the Hillel house.
Sure enough, the next morning the Hillel's roof was in flames--sparked by an Israeli flag that had been set afire. [source, "The "Peace" Movement's Radical Arab-Americans," by Jacob Laksin, http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14844
Aramica's "attack" on Almontaser is suspect; it seems a transparent effort to make Almontaser appear "moderate" at least as compared to other KGIA supporters whose virulent and vocal assault on "Zionism" amounts to nothing more that thinly disguised anti-Jewish bigotry.
Despite this minor and possibly contrived dust-up between the institution's backers, support for KGIA runs deep among Arabs in Brooklyn, and if one is to gauge from the comments that "community leaders" in the Aramica piece made, Muslim extremism and intolerance are thriving, with these leaders demanding that KGIA conform to their world view.
"How is an outside influence [the ADL] going to shape the school, and how will it push it from its stated goals…This school is supposed to represent the interests of the community…We need to support this academy, and we need to make sure we do so in the interest of our community."
What is abundantly clear at this point is that Almontaser, despite her documented Islamist/leftist viewpoint is outflanked in her community by those who for whatever reason feel less compelled to engage in the "Machiavellian" double-speak that she so-often reverts to in public forums where her comments can be recorded.
It should be apparent that a school devoted to Arab culture and including extensive course work in Arabic in Brooklyn will reflect the feelings of the surrounding Muslim community and its prevailing viewpoint. With regard to KGIA, the more that viewpoint comes to light the more troubling this proposition appears to be.
These communities in large part have a barely concealed hostility to their host country, they feel put upon, discriminated against and constantly under unwarranted surveillance. They believe that a conspiracy exists in which the American government is so evil that it would perpetrate 9/11 just to frame Islam and they have contributed millions directly to Osama bin-Laden, through at least one local mosque.
They promote outlandish conspiracy theories in which they are victimized by a foreign policy dominated by Zionists and that these same forces are now insinuating themselves into KGIA's curriculum.
This attitude is seemingly endemic, with even self-identified Arab Christians aligning themselves with the Islamists, proving that Arab cultural norms in large part trump even religious affiliation, rendering farcical the claims by the schools supporters that it cannot be Islamist because it is named after a Lebanese Christian poet.
Giving voice to a community which is seemingly united on these core elements, Brooklyn's Arab leaders seem to be in lock-step, making sure that in operation and despite statements to the contrary by Dept. of Education Chancellor Joel Klein, KGIA will reflect this same degree of bias and religious hatred.
As the radical nature of this community's key players such as Dhabah Almontaser and Linda Sarsour are revealed, it becomes ever more apparent that once established, KGIA will become a madrassah not far removed from those in Pakistan, devoted to an agenda of hate-filled Islamist indoctrination, not education.
The government should not be funding religious schools of any religion, Muslim, Jewish or Christian. The Jewish charter schools in Florida included. However I am a New Yorker and this Khalil Gabril School is in my backyard, so I am most concerned with it.
Your "research" re: the board is completely false. Later, when I have more time, I'll be happy to post specifics.
RE: The IDF, can't wait to respond. Where is that information from, Noam? Norman? Any other re-writers of policy?
Cori C
http://cori-c.blogspot.com
coriac@gmail.com
Ishmail wants to ask, concerning the people associated with the scandalous school evoking a "soft intifada" is the people on the advisory council are "scary." Sure there is plenty to be afraid of.
Just a quick search for Iman Talib Abdul-Rashid–and this is obviously a bad guy and no "moderate"–from his own bio:
Allah is our goal
The Prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah is our leader
The Qu'ran is our constitution
Jihad is our way
And death in the way of Allah is our promised end.
A reality check must be very cognizant of the violent threat posed by Islamic radicals this woman was very obviously fired for justification. Again, they want us to follow Europe down the sewer of radicalism. Daniel Pipes Hates America!!! What a sick joke. These people uniformly hate America as a Judeo-Christian country and pointedly want to change it. It is a clear threat.
I don't know Craig, all we can see is a headshot…
There are a few issues here…first–and one that I think is valid–is the issue of religious (though cultural-religious..but religious nonetheless) schools being funded by the public. I think that objecting to this is certainly reasonable, though as Ismail notes you must be consistent in those objections (the Jewish charter schools that have popped up in Florda recently certainly come to mind…non-religious, yet teaching Hebrew and cultural history). Though correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point with the school was precisely that it wasn't Islamic per se, as much as it was Arabic. Thus it is conceivable that it could teach about all different types Arab religious groups from a cultural perspective. Personally I am a little muddled on this topic as I don't think there is anything wrong with cultural schools anymore than charter schools like Bronx Science and the like. But I do think obviously some oversight is necessary to monitor religious and state separation.
But then there is a seperate issue that seems to be popping up here that is quite troubling; namely the idea that the school deseves to be under a finer microscope precisely because it is Arabic. And this certainly is scurolous and reeks of McCarthy-esque tactics at the least, and offensively racist at the most. The idea that the NY City Public School system–with all its bureaucratic oversight–would unwittingly fund a radical madrassa is alarmist at the least. Our public school system for years have most certainly taught propaganda of any number of ways (anyone read a history text book about Reconstruction as a kid?). The irony that our public school system is being held as the standard against such actions is fairly laughable. Moreso it is this type of baiting that unfortunately marginalizes, angers and isolates those who are working for constructive dialogue.
For what it's worth I'm not wearing a diaper.
“Diaperless infants” isn’t the kindest way to refer to Jewcy, but we are indeed a young company and our operations are not immune to error. We’re currently working with Stephen Schwartz offline (i.e. not in our comments section) to make sure he’s been remitted fairly for his work. And over the past month we’ve been overhauling our invoicing system to make sure writers don’t slip through the cracks.
Where did you find the list of Advisory Council? Because I found a list too. I'm wondering if we found it in the same place. It was part of a very long chronicle of the history of the school, from March 7, 2007 (thereabouts) to last week. Lots of events and quotes and sources. Now the picture makes sense. Took me a long time to read it.
But I'll let Cori work her way through your mine field.
If she can't get through it, then I'll post a comment. I read carefully for 45 minutes. I'll give you the time it took me to find the source as a gift. But you still owe me $300.00. Like I said, lawyers rates. And I didn't even get to the IDF part of your post.
And salaam to you, Cori.
Your claim seems to boil down to this; Almontaser's probably OK, but her "board" is likely to cause mischief, loaded as it is with well-known terror-symps. You know this because of the research you've done.
OK, here's my research.
This is the school's advisory council (not "board", by the way):
1. Rev. Dr. DanielMeeter, Old First Reformed Church
2. Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts,Abyssinian Baptist Church
3. Rev. Dr. Charles H.Straut Jr., The Riverside Church
4. Rev. Khader N.El-Yateem, Salem Arabic Lutheran Church
5. Rabbi Andy Backman,Congregation Beth Elohim
6. Rabbi MelissaWeintraub, Rabbis for Human Rights
7. Rabbi Micah Kelber,The Bay Ridge Jewish Center
8. Lisel Burns, BrooklynSociety for Ethical Culture
9. Imam TalibAbdul-Rashid, Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood, Harlem
10. Imam Shamsi Ali, 96thSt. Mosque, Manhattan
11.Imam Khalid Latif, Chaplain, NYPD
Scary bunch, eh?
The school's main support organization? The Arab American Family Support Center. Note the soothing linguistic notes: "family", "support"-very cagy, these murderous Islamists. And don't be fooled by the fact that the Center's main funders are the US Government, the American Jewish World Service and (shudder!) the Christian Children's Fund. How troubled must your sleep be, holding the fort against such fanatics! Brave Cori!
Funny, your "research" (totally without specifics or citations) and mine (see above) don't appear to agree. What do you make of that?
Glad that you don't defend the scumbag Pipes, but your tiny slap about out-of-context quotes and mischaracterizations seems a little tame. How do you feel about these remarks ?:
"…learning Arabic in [and] of itself promotes an Islamic outlook." (This from an article in the Washington Post).
How about,
""The next step is to get the academy itself canceled", this from the NY Sun. Guess it's not just the"board" or the principal after all.
"Re: the faculty and board, the overwhelming majority are self-proclaimed devout Muslims"
First, if you want to be a shill for an occupying army, you've got to learn to craft your lies with a little more prima facie credibility. As the list above shows, 3 of the 11 "board" members are Muslim (maybe 4, if you count the crypto-Lutheran with the jihadi name). I can't speak for their level of devotion, because I don't know. Of course, you don't, either, do you? Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can tell me where to find the self-proclamations of these devout Muslims.
So, were you mistaken? Or, like Pipes, do you sling fictions at whim, expecting no one to check?
Now, you may be right about the faculty; I couldn't find a thing on them. Perhaps you can direct me to a list of the faculty and their religious affiliations, including degree of devotion. I'll wait. Or, alternatively, you could admit to making stuff up.
Second, and far more important, is the fact that, despite your implications, there is nothing whatsoever gamy about being a "devout Muslim". This comment of yours reveals the bigoted core of your position. We are to suspect, monitor and harrass folks on the basis of their faith.
"…if the fact that I chose to move to Israel and that I work for the spokespersons unit can destroy any remote credibility that I might have had, then certainly you can understand the concern that their religious backgrounds…"
Well, no. I wouldn't dream of questioning your reliability on the basis of your religious background. Unlike you, I adhere strongly to the principles of liberal modernity and refrain from suspecting folks because of which funny hat they wear when they address their imaginary celestial buddy. I suspect your credibility because you've chosen to perfume the infamies of brutes. By the way, here's the policy when a Palestinian child is assassinated, in order:
1. Deny that child was killed.
2. Claim child's death due to bad Arab parenting, i.e., allowing kid to live at home with her family, who callously try to deflect Israeli shell with child.
3. Acknowledge Israeli hand in death, empathize with soldier's tough mission.
4. Investigate soldier. Find him blameless.
There. You may now skip your orientation session.
"When I called the school a "breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism", I didn't mean to imply that they've already "bred" terrorists– should have explained it more fully."
No, you should have refrained from uttering a baseless lie. Using a phrase like "breeding ground for Islamic terrorism" isn't a failure to explain fully-it's deliberate, rabble-rousing demagoguery, straight from Pipes' playbook.
"What I meant was that it was a potential forum for these militant ideologies due to the fact that the courses can't be observed and monitored in the same way that most NYC public schools are (periodically and randomly), and the fact that the board and the faculty doesn't seem to have too many checks and balances."
Gee, things are even worse than you suspect. After all, who will monitor the Arabic classes? Have to be an Arabic speaker, right? Where shall we find a trustworthy one? I know! Perhaps an IDF translator! That's it! Let's get an Israeli in there to monitor them Arabs!
Also, please advise re the regulations you cite. Where did you learn that KGIA would have no oversight? And what is the nearly meaningless "…the board and faculty doesn't seem to have too many checks and balances" supposed to convey? Journalism 101 again; do they have some checks and balances, but not enough to please you? Which do they lack? And does this anarchy "seem'" the case, or do you assert that there are specific and typical rules which don't apply to KGIA.
These questions aren't mere niceties. Without specifics, your main claims are simply unfounded assertions, designed to incite.
Your piece is straight out of the "Protocols of the Elders of the Caliphate". You should be ashamed.
Now go show this to your handlers. They will provide you some help in crafting a response, which will also be false.
Yes, interesting, isn't it?
spokesperson bootcamp– I like it.
Cori C
http://cori-c.blogspot.com
coriac@gmail.com
I think that on the topic of Islam, Stephen Schwartz would be considered a primary source–which is why one should respect him.
Daniel, that's the problem with research, and you know this. It's hard to pick your way through secondary sources, which is what most layfolk see, to get to the primary source.
You use the NY Sun and the NY Times. Still dicey. But at least you now have legitimate questions to ask Mr. Schwartz about sources, methods, etc. And of course, the best way to refute him, if you choose to, is from primary sources.
So, Pipes aside (and Pipes is perfectly capable of defending himself), what is a public school doing with a Board? The most we have for public schools is the PTA. Private schools have boards. Is this normal up there? And what would be the function of this board? Or is 'board' the NY synonym for PTA?
None of these facts are fitting together into a coherent picture.
Cori,
Look at Ismail as spokesperson bootcamp. I'm sure he would be proud to know that he is making the IDF stronger. :-D
I have done research re: the faculty and the board, and I am by no means defending Pipes. I agree that he took quotations out of context and painted a picture that was entirely inaccurate re: Almontaser, whose intentions I believe could be nothing but good.
Re: the faculty and board, the overwhelming majority are self-proclaimed devout Muslims, and if the fact that I chose to move to Israel and that I work for the spokespersons unit can destroy any remote credibility that I might have had, then certainly you can understand the concern that their religious backgrounds (in addition to the funding of various political organizations that the fund– currently compiling a list, as it's all public info) could and will influence the curriculum.
When I called the school a "breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism", I didn't mean to imply that they've already "bred" terrorists– should have explained it more fully. What I meant was that it was a potential forum for these militant ideologies due to the fact that the courses can't be observed and monitored in the same way that most NYC public schools are (periodically and randomly), and the fact that the board and the faculty doesn't seem to have too many checks and balances.
Cori C
http://cori-c.blogspot.com
coriac@gmail.com
I finally looked through Mr. Schwartz's piece. It's not about Debbie Almontaser. It's a fairly tendentious account CAIR's protest of the NYPD making use of Silber and Bhatt's Radicalization in the West, an account that doesn't even attempt to argue that CAIR's complaints are unfounded, but rather takes that as a given and concludes that anyone who disagrees is a radical Islamist. Okay.
On to the matter at hand. The facts about Ms. Almontaser are explored in one paragraph, which includes a reprinting of several discredited charges against her, including that she and her colleagues at KGIA "were accused of trying to establish an 'intifada academy.'" That's an incredible locution; yes, she was so accused after the New York Post deliberately warped her remarks. The people leveling those accusations should be ashamed of themselves, tho' it's probably too much to hope that they're capable of feeling shame. More to the point, this is an illustrative token of Almontaser's ample grounds for numerous libel suits. Pipes' and the Post's original deliberate untruths — untruths to the effect that Almontaser is just about the single most reviled thing anyone can be in America, an Islamist — get reprinted and recirculated without attribution, through passive constructions, thereby (rather self-evidently, I should think) causing profound injury to her reputation and standing in the community.
Anyway, this is Mr. Schwartz's contribution to the case against Almontaser:
Her involvement in CAIR's counter-attack on the NYPD demonstrates
otherwise: her assignment in dealing with NYPD was to organize an
online discussion group for input into the Community Statement.
Right. So she organized a discussion group, and…that's it, give or take some pathological projection. E.g., "Debbie Almontaser appears to be a classic 'stealth Islamist,'" — love the scare quotes by the way — because what about organizing a discussion group doesn't positively scream Islamist! (Or rather, "stealth Islamist"; it's unclear if the term is co-referential with "practicing Muslim," with the epithet substituted for the ordinary term, presumably to wring some fright-value out of its connotations.)
Which leads to this helpful proposal:
Debbie Almontaser should quit her masquerade as a moderate and her
non-Muslim enablers should end their naïve defense of her alleged
mainstream outlook.
Of course, it's just that simple! Having committed the unpardonable crime of organizing a discussion group and being the target of some 18 months of slander and libel, the obligation certainly falls on her shoulders to falsify her own biography to appease her slanderers.
I kinda feel like organizing a discussion group for CAIR myself after all this — anybody got their number?
But see, this is why you can't really use the Weekly Standard as a primary source.
I'm saying present the raw data. I'm suggesting that you go beyond the Sun and the Times and try to get the full quotes, primary sources. And then you have to examine the article by Mr. Schwartz and look at his sources–the key is accuracy. And it is also important to treat Mr. Schwartz' writing very seriously. You'll either be correct or not, but that is a long secondary to being accurate.
Not to mention finding out if Jewcy owes him money and paying him if you indeed owe him. That's important enough to be a commandment–that we just read last week, coincidentally.
Quine, swine, it doesn't apply here.
Libel is defined in law and media operates by law.
Hmm, that first sentence is definitely false and the second true but irrelevant. Whatever it is that makes language work in general makes what Pipes did satisfy the definition — informal, journalistic, legal, whichever way you please — of libel.
Here's the legal definition:
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through
broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in
the community.
Let's review again. Pipes doctored a quotation in order to portray Ms. Almontaser as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and published the doctored quote in a major newspaper (there's your untruthful statement published in writing) which led to her widespread demonization as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and worse, led to her losing her job, and her professional ambitions being destroyed (thus the injury to her reputation and/or standing). See, easy as pie.
Also, I'm not looking to provoke, but I'm also not fond of being the target of hysterical insults, so I'll gently point out that I'm pretty sure you're a post-teenager too (otherwise, logically, you'd be a teenager or pre-teenager, right?) so that doesn't seem to me the most effective term of abuse. And then walk away.
(Naftali, the Pipes doctoring job is quoted in the body of the piece, with links to his NYS column and the recent NYT article to confirm.)
If you want to respond to Mr. Schwartz, you need to provide complete, unedited quotes from all parties involved. And then you are going to have to go the article that Mr. Schwartz linked to, and treat it with seriousness. You've done this before on other topics and in a reply to one of my comments, and I am baffled as to why it isn't your normal fare.
But that is your choice or some kind of editorial policy of which I will never understand. Right now–it's time to really do some writing.
Thanks Stephen Schwartz for speaking on the topic–perhaps Daniel and Jewcy editors will take all of these negative comments to heart regarding smearing good people and exalting supporters of radicalism.
I also refer interested readers on to Yuseff Ibrahim's writing on this subject from last year in which he wrote, "Islam's Trojan Horse" and America fully understands what is happening in Europe and will not happily allow that to evolve in America.
Great comments and facts about the real history of the Middle East. The truth is on our side and we will win.
Quine, swine, it doesn't apply here.
Libel is defined in law and media operates by law, not by the pseudo-philosophical musings of post-teenagers. There are no "reasonably good proxies" or "partial definitions" of libel. This is why you and your bunch should go back to college and stay out of media, and, as far as I am concerned, should never be employed or published in any serious media outlet.
Your confidence is neither pretty nor valuable. JEWCY consists of people who solicit serious work, promise payment, and do not fulfill their promises. Look that up in Quine. Ordinary people consider such behavior fraud, pure and simple.
Stephen Schwartz
Daniel is uncovering the true agenda of the radical Muslims in our midst. Mr. Pipes doing a great service to our country considering the risks and threats he's had endure. He's a brave and courageous man!
Ismail is an Arab terrorist supporter who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass. He's a defacto spokesman for the blod-thristy terrorist group hamass. Ismail is obsessed with the Jews and needs to get a life. Loser doesn't even begin to describe this lunatic.
Hmm, that's pleasant.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I have laid my filthy hands on some Quine, so while I'm aware that true synonymy is rare if it exists at all, I'm also pretty confident that 'actionable dishonesty' is reasonably good proxy, indeed, perhaps almost a partial definition, of 'libel'.
Here's an example of libel. Take a quotation in which someone condemns the perpetrators on the September 11 attacks. Doctor it to make it appear as if she's a 9/11 denialist. Publish the doctored quote in a widely read newspaper in the biggest city in the United States. And on the seventh day, rest.
The Hillary analogy doesn't even hold gasoline. And you should know that. But you're right, perhaps Cori wasn't the expert I thought about the school, which doesn't mean she isn't more expert than I, just means I don't know. That doesn't absolve you of the obligation to address her point by point with some respect.
Although, right now, I've got about two to three windows open following my favorite baseball team even though I haven't lived in that city nearly half of my life. They are still my team, my local team. My heart is right there with them every game.
And don't even begin to criticize my research or I'll give you an hourly rate and start billing you for all the follow-up work I have to do on your posts. And since I love the work so much I'll charge lawyer's rates.
"Why do I assume that Cori knows more about the school? Because…I assume that everyone writing for Jewcy lives in NY. And in NY it's a local story. Is it really a stretch to assume this is a NY publication or weblication?"
Compare to: "Why do I think HRC knows more about gas tax holidays? Well, she lives in the US and it's a local story" and "Why do I think BHO know more about gas tax holidays? Well…", etc., etc.
See the problem?
Plus, Cori's Jewcy bio says that she's recently made aliyah (since you appear fatigued by even the scantiest research, I'll tell you that this means immigration to Israel). Hence, even by your incoherent standard that the opinions of locals must perforce be correct, Cori's not your gal.
You will also learn that she's serving in the IDF Spokesperson Unit. Doing a fine job for them, too, judging from the calumnies and deceptions she's peddling.
Hey, Cori-want specifics? OK, how's this?
"The problem was and remains that the school, like many Islamic organizations that claim to be moderate, is actually a breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism."
Here you make a serious and unequivocal charge. KGIA is actually a breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism (I like the caps on that last word). What possible evidence do you have for this very specific claim? Perhaps you got your hands on the curriculum? No? What, then? Is it just the charge that the board includes folks "well-known" to be affiliated with terrorist groups? Well-known to whom? The odious Pipes, already revealed to be a serial liar?
"How will courses taught in Arabic, many by religious Muslims that are affiliated with extremely horrific political organizations, be monitored? How will we be certain that students are learning about history rather than Global Jihad? The answer is that we WON'T be. "
Tell me, how do you know anything at all about the faculty? You don't, of course. And despite your demurral, your views are profoundly bigoted. You're saying that vetting by the Board of Ed, a long history of interfaith dialogue and cooperation and an explicit, public curriculum are insufficient to warrant the good faith of Almontaser and her board. Just because they are Muslims, they must be monitored and doubted. Quite sickening.
I don't know if you're naive, paranoid or duplicitous, but parroting charges about well-known terrorist links and imminent takeover of a public school in Brooklyn by bombthrowers without feeling the need to provide shred one of evidence must stem from one of these states.
David- No legal brief required. Could it really be news to you that the convention among us humans when we make a serious and non-obvious claim is to make some effort to provide the reason we believe the claim to be so?
Daniel is far more patient than I (why, I don't know-he's gotten positively medieval upon the asses of some whose sins of argumentation were far less mortal); blockheaded, unprincipled attacks that cost innocent people their dreams make me kind of uncharitable.
"I regret to say that Daniel Pipes is not on trial and neither am I."
You and me both.
You can't just take the simplest explanations, can you?
First, my initial comment was a question. Why isn't this a private school? I recall that during this controversy–when it first arose, there was gender separation. But I still asked a question about it–which means…that I didn't recall the answer.
Why do I assume that Cori knows more about the school? Because…I assume that everyone writing for Jewcy lives in NY. And in NY it's a local story. Is it really a stretch to assume this is a NY publication or weblication?
So, again, here is the one and only Ish going for the most convoluted and dare I say, paranoid explanation of my comments, while accusing me of….can you guess? By now everyone can play along.
Hmm.
A: <irony>Arabs are well known to be Untermenschen</irony>
B:
This is a well-founded concern.
Um, I'm hoping that's not what you meant to say.
Daniel writes: regarding the objection to Islamic radicals: pre-emptively to any Arabic-immersion school run by an Arab, because Arabs are well known to be Untermenschen scheming to corrode society from within.
This is a well-founded concern given the stated goals of Islamic radicals. It would be called antisemitism when directed at Jews since Jews have nothing at stake in conversions en masse and readily applaud righteous Jews and Noahides who fulfill their best lives as non-Jews. By contrast, unless we convert, we are infidels and unless we conform to shariah law–we are doomed in the eyes of Islamicists.
This puts quite a burden on Muslims of good will to demonstrate they want to simply be included in the American landscape–and such a stand is readily accepted by tolerant America. Radicals such as the person applauded by Daniel and Ismail want to remake our nation on Islamic terms and such a stand is objectionable.
David, Cori, I will refer you back to Pipes' NYS piece, in which he readily admits to knowing nothing about Almontaser apart from an unequivocally commendable response she gave to September 11, which he doctored to make it appear as if she said the opposite of what she said. Whether his attacks on her character were accidentally accurate or actionable libel (the latter, as it turned out) was immaterial to his sweeping racist condemnation of Arabs. It's not to Almontaser in particular that he objects, but pre-emptively to any Arabic-immersion school run by an Arab, because Arabs are well known to be Untermenschen scheming to corrode society from within.
If you'd like to discuss and challenge specific ideas, I'm game. If you'd prefer to utilize time, which I'd previously defined as precious but you've clearly proven me wrong, to attack me personally and showcase your rather childish methods of dismissing opposing views– cool. Enjoy. You won't trap me here in a thread of little substance.
Cori C
http://cori-c.blogspot.com
coriac@gmail.com
Ismail, you are surely joking and I have noted that this is the style of leftists who offer no good faith in debate.
You want me to post a legal brief –I am not a lawyer and this radical woman has been exposed and is not on trial and many of her exploits have been documented–I will not take the time and trouble to document them to you since you are not moved by established facts. Citations I quote will somehow be questioned and your anger and bias is overwhelming. If she has legal standing in this country, she is free to remain as a citizen–I do not know that particular fact. If not, surely, the State Department has her number and she should be quickly deported.
"Citations" and legal briefs concerning how guilty and how much of a radical she is should not be the question on a civil blog. The question is how can she draw any sympathy and how could the good guy, Daniel Pipes, be smeared by reporting about her firing, radical activities, terror associations and refusal to stand for interviews?
Of course, now you are attempting to smear me as well. Alas, I would like America to survive–this is my crime and I don't like people who have the gall to take taxpayer funds to tear down this nation. Why do you support this radical, Ismail?
The argument put forward by her supporters is that technically she is not a terrorist–the facts demonstrate that she has a whole heck of a lot to be worried about in her activities. Perhaps you might refrain a little from your name-calling and angry insults to post some support for this person. Is the only support angry bashing of people who would prefer that we do not enshrine Islamic terror in our school system?
It seems that if you have a point you might want to defend her in terms of how she has been somehow misunderstood since Daniel did such a poor job of doing it–trying to portray good people as filth only lamely attempts to change the topic. I regret to say that Daniel Pipes is not on trial and neither am I.
"I would refer you to Cori C–who knows more about the school than I do."
What makes you say this? Do you mean that you know lots about the school and Cori knows even more? Or do you mean (and I suspect this alternative is the right one) that you don't know much about it and defer to Cori's expertise?
If the latter, the obvious question arises; if you're not up to speed, with reference to what do you credit Cori's account? How do you know what she knows? Could it be that it's because her subclinical paranoia comports with your own views?
I noted several specific falsehoods of hers in my earlier comment. And you….segregating kids on the basis of sex? Not to my knowledge. But you may find out more about this matter by referring to last week's front page piece in the NYT, which did a decent job recapping the whole sad story. I suspect this article's appearance is why Daniel chose to remark on the saga now.
No conspiracy, naf (though there's your paranoid bent rearing its head again). Just a group of Muslim haters openly trying to legalize their prejudices. If the NYT still has the videos on its website, you really need to get a load of the reptilian Pipes squirming in full duplicitous mode. The NY Post referred to the school, insanely, as a madrassa. Pipes was happy to repeat this often and loudly. When asked if he had evidence that "madrassa" was in any way an accurate depiction, he agreed it wasn't, then mushmouthed some non-apology, acting as though his gleeful, frequent and deliberate repetition of this lie was an oversight. Filthy swine.
But even if I were tossing out conspiracy theories, this would have no bearing on Cori's racism or her even more profound inanity.
David Friedman-
Lay off drinking from the Well of Stupidity. Please provide citation for Almontaser's "support" of jihadwear. Trick request-you can't because it doesn't exist. She was asked about the offending shirts, which were produced by a woman's art collective that shared an office suite with her and to which she didn't belong. Good pedagogue that all agree she is, she took the opportunity to educate her interlocutor about the meanings of the word. Foolish soul, benighted beneath her hijab-she didn't realize that Daniel Pipes has exclusive rights to Arabic semantics.
Technically, she's not a terrorist? This suggests that she is one in some other sense. Please advise which sense this might be, if you can get up from all fours, quit licking your balls and place your paws on the keyboard.
I know, I know. Technically, you're not a mangy, dumb, ill-tempered cur.
Jewcy gets yet another black eye by going after a sterling academic, Daniel Pipes who has made no error in his coverage of the infamous woman and her support for tax-payer funded "Intifada" T- shirts.
The public is assured "SHE IS NOT TECHNICALLY A TERRORIST!!"–as if only those who detonate the bombs are the problem. Technically, she is not a terrorist. Daniel Pipes did not make that accusation and he is so obviously not an enemy of this nation–what kind of chutzpah leads someone to even contemplate such an insult to our intelligence–what kind of depravity?
On another thread, the author throws his poison pen at another person but it is apparent it is only a contortion of his own petty, narrowmindedness:
Isn't there a point at which you pull back, think about what a
laughingstock you've made yourself, and just sort of scurry away? Tho'
I guess a complete suppression of any sense of shame or embarrassment
is a precondition for writing in the manner of Infantile Gassy….
Debbi A was fired for cause and blasting Daniel Pipes for merely referencing the dispute is the kind of prejudice no one deserves–especially a man as distinguished as Daniel Pipes.
Cori, Ismail. Ismail, Cori.
There were two very long, very articulate posts right after mine, about the things we usually fight about–and you are responding to my two questions. I would refer you to Cori C–who knows more about the school than I do.
Why don't you go after Cori or Yashiko? (Now I'll actually read your comment).
First of all, I asked questions, didn't make a statement. But the school sounds as though it should be a private religious school. Arabic could be part of a magnet school specializing in–oh, let's say international studies. If I recall, and you really should respect Cori C, the school was doing things most public schools are not allowed to do, such as segregate kids based on sex.
But yes, I would say that public schools are not for singular cultural studies, that is for private schools.
Schools aren't allowed to teach 'Bible as Literature'–colleges are, private schools are. Of course, I say all of this not living in New York, the rules could be different up there. Looks like we need the bylaws of the public school district to determine this. And if district bylaws were violated and the school should not have been closed according to those bylaws, then a lawsuit should clear this up pretty quickly.
But this is an old story–I mean it took place months ago. Why it's being brought up now, perhaps we should pitch in and get Daniel a watch and calendar. I hear in New York you can get a Rolex for like 10 bucks.
If you could, since you are so well-versed on the the right wing Zionist conspiracy, tell us all how to be more efficient, because I think getting oil down to 20 dollars a barrel would be in our interests and we can't seem to make that happen. Any suggestions?
But once again, you dismiss Cori C for making inane somewhat racist statements, and you are the one throwing out the Zionist conspiracy stuff.
Naftali-
If you mean to say that no public school should offer a particular linguistic/ cultural curriculum, then you'd be right in saying that KGIA should be private. We should then close down the Harvey Milk school (for gay kids), and any number of public schools which offer intensive coursework in Hispanic or Asian language and culture. No one has suggested doing this, at least very forcefully.
Only 25% of the enrolled kids were Arabic and religion was to be taught only to the extent that the religious aspects of a culture are routinely taught in such settings. "The Bible as Literature", that sort of thing. So no, there was no resemblance to a private religious school.
Insisting that all public schools be identical is a coherent point of view, but the fact that it was mobilized in this case by the same bunch of right-wing Zionists who dine well to the degree that they convince Joe Public that every cabbie and felafel-slinger in NYC has friended Osama Bin Laden on his MySpace should make the even minimally aware vertebrate suspicious.
The moronic Cori C provides a useful case in point, but her remarks are so stupefyingly bereft of even the tiniest shred of well-formed argument that they deserve no comment. Hey, Cori….Boo! We're here, we're swarthy, get used to it.
If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history", I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
What was its form of government?
Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
What was the language of the country of Palestine?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation" — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?
The founding principal of this school certainly isn't the problem, and perhaps Pipes chose the wrong "evidence"– such as quotes taken out of context– to create a movement against the establishment of this school– but the fact remains that he is partially correct.
The founder claims that her intention was to create a school of global citizens–
not citizens of one supreme world power, the United States– and to
give students exposure to various aspects of Islamic culture and to
give all students fluency in Arabic that will serve as an educational
asset to them, in addition to making them, as she says, "citizens of
the world."
Sounds good to me, in theory. The problem was and
remains that the school, like many Islamic organizations that claim to
be moderate, is actually a breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism.
Take a close look at her board members– almost 100% religious Muslims
that are affiliated with various political organizations that are well
known for being terror sympathizers and even funders, among other things. Almontaser can have great intentions– and I mostly believe that she does– but one familiar with the education system is well aware that a school's board has potential to hijack the purpose of an institution– especially in this case. The
school's supporters claim that regardless, the school would not preach
Islam or anything political.
That isn't enough for me, and
it's certainly not enough for the self-proclaimed opposition to the
school, composed of thousands and thousands of people. How will courses
taught in Arabic, many by religious Muslims that are affiliated with
extremely horrific political organizations, be monitored? How will we
be certain that students are learning about history rather than Global
Jihad? The answer is that we WON'T be.
The school's supporters
raise the issue of other NYC public schools with a dual language
theme— there are several schools, though this would have been the
first Arabic-language school. Why should KG International School be
treated any differently?
They should be treated differently
because its supporters and its board are linked to dangerous political
organizations and many have publicly made use of Islamic fundamentalist
rhetoric. The entire Western World has an enemy, and we are at war.
That enemy has a few names– some call it Islamic Fundamentalism and
Global Jihad. Some just call it terrorism in general, and some call it
Islam. Whatever you call it, we have to protect our students, our
families, our cities, and our education system. In order to do that, we
need to completely disassociate ourselves from anything that may spread
dangerous, anti-western, pro-Jihad rhetoric in a publicly-funded forum. Yes, freedom of speech is real, but that doesn't mean that we have to create schools to serve as a breeding ground for rhetoric that has led to the deaths of many people in the city in which the school is situated. It's that simple. If
suddenly the French were responsible for a global assault of even HALF
of this intensity, I'd support shutting down French schools supported
by the State, too.
The fact remains, though, that although the
vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists–and many Muslims don't
support terrorism in general– all terrorists (minus a FEW notable
exceptions) are Muslims, and either come from Islamic nations, learn in
Muslim schools, and/or attend a mosque with a militant
philosophy. They don't come from Spanish language schools, Greek
Orthodox Churches, or Canada. It's not racist, it has nothing to do
with hatred of Islam in general, for most– it's a matter of calling it
as we see it, even if we have to be less than PC. All terrorists have
something in common, and we have a right to keep that ideology OUT of
reach in order to protect ourselves by any legal means possible. A private school? Sounds great to me. Once the school, its founder, and its board prove their intentions to be the reality of the school itself, it becomes a great idea that is worthy of public funding.
Cori C
http://cori-c.blogspot.com
coriac@gmail.com
why this wasn't a private school? It sounds like it should be set up as a private religious school. Wasn't this aspect a part of the controversy?
Contrary to what passes for current wisdom, America has an indigenous culture.
This culture is protestant Christian.
The teachings of the Qur'an and the hadith are essentially set in stone and are remorselessly hostile to all non Islamic cultures.
Ms Almontaser is either dangerously disingenuous or breathtakingly stupid.
It is a coin toss which.
To maintain the public peace in America it is advisable that all hostile aliens be gently but firmly sent back to their nations of origin and that all hostile faith systems be prohibited.
fifty years ago America did not have these problems.
seventy years ago Muslims lived in the middle east, mexicans lived in Mexico, Indians lived in India and…………….. well, you get the drift.
Americans have been very patient with their fractious, disloyal, unprofitable and frequently violent hostile alien minorities but one thing should be remembered: When pushed into a corner, nobody does violence better than Americans.
think about it.
I found Pipes' comments about his campaign against Almontaser and peaceful Muslims incredibly troubling. He told the NYT that this battle has "really just begun" and added:
“It is hard to see how violence, how terrorism will lead to the implementation of sharia. It is much easier to see how, working through the
system — the school system, the media, the religious organizations, the
government, businesses and the like — you can promote radical Islam.”
Is he for real? Is every American free to practice their religion, so long as they are not Muslim?
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!