[Buddha-l] Re: A very brave woman

[Dan Lusthaus]

> Isn't this clip on MEMRI? The MEMRI is reputed to publish  mis-translated
(or
> purposely twisted translations) and feature that  which furthers their
> ideology. I consider it as a propaganda organ, not  that distance from
often
> delusional World News Daily.

This is classic ad hominem -- and uninformed slander to boot. It has long
been known that announcements *in English* out of the Islamic world are
tailored to appeal to the sensibilities of Western audiences, while the
simultaneous announcements made in Arabic (or Persian, etc.) to the home
audiences often employ a different rhetoric with often the opposite
meanings. MEMRI collects the latter and makes them available in English.
Only those unhappy with the public airing of this "dirty laundry" are
critical of this. MEMRI's translations are professional and impeccable. If
anyone can demonstrate otherwise - and not just vaguely accuse -- please do.
Otherwise retract the slander.

The Wikipedia "criticism section " is a joke (and to credit of the
author[s], the criticisms are responded to in the following section). The
Guardian accusing anyone of pro-Israel bias? The Guardian has such a long
history of anti-Israel bias it is the last organ to be hurling such
accusations. And so on for the other so-called criticisms. What they are
saying is that MEMRI doesn't share their biases, and therefore is
illegitimate. Hardly a legitimate criticism.

The clip that Wong provided a link for was originally broadcast on Al
Jazzirah. Your contempt for MEMRI in this instance is a case of attempted
assassination of the the messenger for the message.

As for the speaker's message, if looked at from a Buddhist perspective, the
issue would be to what extent her views are beneficial or pernicious. If
more Muslims thought the way she did, would the world be a better place? Or
are her views pernicious, leading to harm?

One might also ask the same about someone who condemns her views.

Dan Lusthaus