Don't know for sure. That's why I'm asking. The liberal Arabs that wrote the piece that someone else provided are concerned about it... "he should be arrested".. while the liberal BBS posse seems more concerned about John Hagee. Who to believe? The other thing I should point out is that sometimes the fringe encroaches toward the middle. Isn't that why some want to shut Hagee up? Does this al-Nafisi guy really have an active agenda to go around the Arab world making speeches such as the one I posted? Again, those here say no while others closer to the action would say yes. Who to believe?
You cloak your belief in exasperating, "I don't know what to believe." Your posts almost always point obliquely to the conclusion that Islam is evil and must be stopped while defending and implicitly agreeing with the Christian Jihadists advocating holy war. Yet you continue to opine, who to believe. **** man, you've made up your mind. Just say it. Quit being coy. You just seem perplexed that more of us don't agree with your perspective.
Hagee should be arrested too. Nafisi DOES have an agenda to make these speeches, but who the hell will believe him. You seem scared, perhaps because you don't trust that a Muslim can distinguish him as an idiot? In any case. This is way overblown. This guy is a product of western media nad proof of that is how almost non-existant media coverage of this guy is anwhere else. Do a quick search of his name. Enjoy.
Well, you couldn't be more wrong about my take on Islam, but it is pretty sensational to just freely opine about what other people believe like that, isn't it? You, sir, are a Keyboard Warrior! I do admit to being coy about the "who to believe" stuff in my most recent posts because it just strikes me funny that people half way round the world from events and not of that culture or that news cycle seem to think they know with a great degree of certainty what the truth is about something going on in the Arab world. They want to dissuade me when they themselves have no basis for really knowing what they have asserted... it would just seem to be what they believe. A couple of the critics here who seem to have grounding in Islam want to minimize al-Nasif's importance but offer no evidence to show lowly status while people of that culture are writing articles for publication about his more-than-lowly status. Who to believe?
its basic human nature.. Al-nafisi's view is fringe unless you believe majority of Muslims/Islam are vile/evil..
... but until it happened, 9/11 seemed beyond the pale. Human nature has its depths and all it takes is motivation to go there. That's where the fundamental distinction between Muslims and Christians is important. Christian soldiers may be willing to die for their country out of a sense of duty but they don't waste their life in that pursuit. These Muslim terrorists embrace their death; how big is that army? When a Muslim turns suicide bomber is that the nadir or the zenith of their human character?
