Open letter to Dr Denis MacEoin


Dear Denis,

First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to read my post and for your comment as well as for summarising your Islamicist and Arabist credentials which, of course, I never challenged or questioned. For the benefit of the readers, I will recopy below your comment to my post :

Gabriele,
Before I bother to read your full comment, let me put you right. If you had actually taken the trouble to read my details on the report, you’d have seen that I have an MA in Persian, Arabic and Islamic Studies from Edinburgh, a PhD in Persian Studies (focussing on Shi’ite Islam) from Cambridge, have written several books and a great many articles on Islamic subjects, contributed to The Encyclopedia of Islam, the Encyclopedia Iranica, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World, and many other reference books. taught Islamic civilization and Arabic-English translation at the University of Fez, taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University, and some Persian at Durham. The fact that I’m also a novelist doesn’t figure in this at all. It’s totally irrelevant, but because you seem determined to attack the messenger instead of the message, you focus on the wrong thing. I’ll read your remarks in more detail later. But I already see denial writ large on what is there. Read the texts, then add to the 100 mosques we visited the estimated 1600 mosques in this country, and you may accept that we have a problem. And that the Muslims we worked with agreed it was a problem for them too.

As you can see, I faithfully reported your expertise in classic Islamic studies in my post. I thought also that it was relevant to highlight that at the present your main interest, as you have mentioned on your own webpage, is not researching and teaching sociological aspects of Islam.

Unfortunately, as by your own admission, before even reading my post, you have presented a defensive position thinking that, in your own words, I would have been ‘determined to attack the messenger instead of the message’. Of course, I am sure that you can notice from my post that I have challenged the very basis of your report, and asked clear questions, which if answered and substantiated will resolve my doubts.

But apparently in your comments there is not even the minimum attempt to refer to my issues with your overall methodology, and with the lack of transparency.

I am sure that you can clarify your methodology, tell us if interviews were conducted, and confirm that the overall research was carried out in an ethical manner. I will be happy to publish your answers to my questions, and if they are satisfactory, to acknowledge that the study was conducted with a substantial professionalism.

Yet I will still think that the report does not show very much in itself. On the one hand, it can be used to claim that mosques host material useful to preach hatred. On the other, it can be used to say that out of 1600 mosques and institutions very few possess radical material. Nothing in your report answers the main questions: how is this literature used?When? For which purposes? And so on.

Being an anthropologist and a social scientist, rather than an Islamicist and Arabist, I am very concerned about the lack of methodology and I have asked you to reply to some questions; the same questions I would have raised were I asked to peer-review your report for an academic journal.

Unfortunately, you did not engage, as everybody can see from your comment, in a useful discussion.Rather, as Narcissus, you fell in love with your Islamicist credentials which never were denied, and you referred to your being a novelist and involved in literature as something that could potentially diminish them; something that only you could have assumed from my post.

I look forward to read a more substantial answer to my legitimate questions.

With regards

Gabriele

About these ads

30 thoughts on “Open letter to Dr Denis MacEoin

  1. Pingback: A week in blogs ‘n’ media « Muslim Recovery

  2. Dear Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA,

    thank you for your kind comment and for letting us know your opinion concerning Dr Denis MacEoin’s work.

    I am not speaking about Dr Denis MacEoin’s credentials in Islamic Studies and various languages. I have reported them in full and clear way referred to his website. I am sure that he can acknowledge it.

    Being an anthropologist, I cannot evaluate his work as an Islamicist, but I am evaluating the fieldwork and methodology for his report. The report is public and available for discussion. Or perhaps, you can let me know for which reasons the report should be beyond criticism.

    I am sorry if this has frustrated you, but I am sure that if, as you say, Dr MacEoin is the world’s leading expert on Islam and Islamic trends, he will be able to reply and clarify his methodology and research to me, a simple anthropologist looking to understand Muslims and their lives.

    I never rejected Dr MacEoin’s report only because was written by Dr MacEoin, but because was unconvincing in one of its main fundamental parts.

    At this stage, I have received comments from Dr MacEoin’s supporters and friends, some general emails (some of which reaching different level of abusiveness), but I have not read one single answer to my questions.

    The mischievous attempts to divert the discussion from my legitimate doubts on the methodology and issues concerning ethical research, towards a futile personal diatribe is pretty useless.

    Everybody can read my post and see my views. If you do not like them, I still have the right to ask those questions. Or should I be silenced?

    Maybe I have an answer to the above last question. I am very surprised to see that my comment on your blog, which also pointed to my post discussing the report, has been carefully removed.

    I find this very shocking and I leave the readers to draw their own conclusions.

    with regards
    Gabriele

  3. Pingback: The Friday Tea Time Blog « Muslim Recovery

  4. What a stupid and unacademic response to Dr. Denis MacEoin, one of the world’s leading experts on Islam and Islamic trends.

    Now that’s quite amusing. Leading “expert” on Islam and Islamic trends … bwahahaha!

  5. I have not received any comment on my blog. If I do receive one, I will check that it is more accurate than your diatribe above. If I find it accurate and not in any way misleading or defamatory I shall consider posting it.

    However, I do not consider that only anthropologists have the right to consider the subject of hate literature. Dr. MacEoin’s findings have now been disseminated worldwide and, luckily, there is nothing you can do about it, despite your ridiculously fancy title.

  6. Dear Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA,

    thank you for taking your time and visit my blog. It is clear, from what you have written above, that you approve censorship. I am very depressed to see that a scholar can decide to censor criticism. I invite the reader to read my two posts and consider in which countries they would have been censored. Thanks god, we are in the UK, and the only place in which my criticism of how the report has been produced and my questions on its methodology can be censured only on your blog.

    I am sorry to notice that you consider a discussion on methodology as something useless.

    I am very happy that Dr MacEoin findings have been disseminated worldwide, and never tried to stop them from being disseminated, since this will increase the scrutiny on his report. I even asked my own students to read the report and linked it to my post. Hence, I have helped its dissemination.
    I found your idea that I would have wanted to stop the report as something very strange, yet it says quite a lot about the political emotions beyond it.

    Dr MacEoin is an accademic, and part of the accademic community and this means that he is ready to have his work commented and scrutinized. Or possibly not?

    If possible, I will consider to invite Dr MacEoin for a public debate. I am sure that he will be so kind to accept.

    I still have not received any answer to my questions and my concerns on ethical research. You consider this requests as ‘misleading or defamatory’.

    I think that people can make their minds reading your comments and my both posts.

    I look forward to receiving the answers to my questions (some of which of course can be easily answered, in any case, through a simple Freedom of Information Act)

    With regards
    Dr Marranci

  7. Dr Marranci, I admire your calm and patient attitude in dealing with some really rather insulting comments.

    As Dr Lancaster comes close to admitting, this so called academic survey was designed specifically to generate a certain kind of media coverage. Now that it has been “disseminated worldwide” by the media, it has done its job.

    My own conclusion is that the authors are not interested in having their work subjected to the sort of scrutiny which ethical researchers would welcome. Quite the opposite, as your experience shows.

    This “academic survey” is all about politics and the shaping of public opinion, not science.

    (By the way, I have a particular interest in politics masquerading as science and also in the ways in which legitimate debate is stifled and/or avoided on the internet. As such, I’m intending to write a post on your experiences. Fell free to email me if you have any thoughts on that (I’d email you but can’t find your email address)).

  8. Pingback: More on the Recent PE Report « Rasheed Gonzales

  9. “It’s totally irrelevant, but because you seem determined to attack the messenger instead of the message, you focus on the wrong thing. I’ll read your remarks in more detail later. But I already see denial writ large on what is there.”

    I find it very very strange that a man who would accuse others of being offensive to him and judging him ‘without reading his credentials’ in their totality should be so JUDGEMENTAL that he has read and judged an entire article, which it would’ve taken him all of 15 mintues to read, without even reading all of it!!!
    Research Methodologies and everything else aside, if this is an example of how he *found* hate material in the literature given out by mosques, it has put me in doubt of the accuracy of his other works. Such an irresponsible attitude…and from a man who is a self-proclaimed ‘scholar’ at that!!

  10. Oh, this is so silly. The report makes it clear that teams of young Mudslims visited the mosques and bought or were given the materials that served as the basis for the study. They obtained receipts everywhere they went. With the help of an advisory committee, I organized the material, identifying offensive passages where they occurred. Some were in English, some were translated from Arabic. The offensive passages are now in the public forum, and the report identifies the places whjere they were found. I don’t doubt this could all be refined, but that wasn’t our purpose. All we did was show that offensive and hate material was available in around a quarter of the premises visited.

    All we have had from the Muslim comunity so far has been excuses, denials, and repudiations, as though this stuff had descended from the stars. No-one has had the guts to say ‘This is dreadful, it represents an extreme form of Islam, we wil do everything in our power to remove it from mainstream institutions’. All Inayat Bunglawala could do was protest that it was all quite legal. That’s not the point. The point is that telling Muslims to hate all non-Muslims, to avoid contact with them as far as possible, tobelieve Jews are the cause of all the world’s degradation, and so on and on — this is deeply offensive to the host society and, quite frankly, to all moderate Muslims. If Bunglawala or yourself had reacted to this extremism and vowed to eradicate it, Muslims wouldf have gone up in the public estimation. As it is, you all seem to think this sort of thing is OK. You bring nothing but shame on yourselves by giving it even tacit approval. The materials are all entirely genuine, they are all available.

    I am not, in spite of Irene Lancaster’s praise, the qworld’s greatest authority on Islam, or anything like it. I wasn’t employed to be. I was someone with the sort of knowledge that enabled me to understand and present the texts. The healthy thing is to forget me and Policy Exchange, and instead look at the texts. Shooting the messenger will get you nowhere.

  11. I don’t doubt this could all be refined, but that wasn’t our purpose.

    You’re right, it wasn’t. I think some of the readers of this blog can safely assume what your purpose was.

    All we have had from the Muslim comunity so far has been excuses, denials, and repudiations, as though this stuff had descended from the stars. No-one has had the guts to say ‘This is dreadful, it represents an extreme form of Islam, we wil do everything in our power to remove it from mainstream institutions’.

    You probably didn’t get the type of reaction you were hoping for due to the fact that you took one or two quotes out of several books presenting them without any sense of context whatsoever trying to portay the books you were taking them from as hate literature, when in reality they weren’t and aren’t.

    … this is deeply offensive to the host society and, quite frankly, to all moderate Muslims.

    Here’s a question: what’s your idea of a “moderate” Muslim? Is it your kumbaya-singing-hippie-type-we-love-the-world-and-everyone-in-it Muslim? Or is it your truly moderate Muslim who tries to the best of his ability to live his life according to the true teachings of Islam (which you’d probably label as a Wahhabi or extremist)?

    The materials are all entirely genuine, they are all available.

    And thank God they are, as people have access to verify these things themselves and see just how big of a sham your whole report really is.

    I am not, in spite of Irene Lancaster’s praise, the qworld’s greatest authority on Islam, or anything like it. I wasn’t employed to be. I was someone with the sort of knowledge that enabled me to understand and present the texts. The healthy thing is to forget me and Policy Exchange, and instead look at the texts. Shooting the messenger will get you nowhere.

    I’m glad you admit that you’re not anything like the greatest authority on Islam. I find it funny, however, that you seem to think your learnings in Shî’ah Islam gives you any type of ability to understand and present the texts in their proper light.

  12. …this is deeply offensive to the host society and, quite frankly, to all moderate Muslims…vowed to eradicate it…wouldf have gone up in the public estimation.

    As Prof Chomsky says,
    just carry out the ‘antisemitism test’ replacing Muslim nouns, and the like, with their Jewish equivalents then see how any text regarding so-called ‘Muslim extremism’ reads.

    It’s like being transported back to inter-war Germany where racism took the place of politics. Such is ‘modern’ Britian where it doesn’t matter who people vote for, they still get the same policies and identikit politicians. There is only one way to go when politics and democracy no longer work and that’s to look for scapegoats, especially amongst the weak who can’t defend themselves properly, or so it seems.

    That’s why cowards like Bush and Blair attacked Iraq, because they knew it was completely powerless and unable to defend itself.

    As you can see from my quotation, the writer sees Scottish/British Muslim folk as parasites, basically, neither commensual nor symbiotic either.

    Hitler and Himmler thought there were ‘moderate’ Jews.

    Tony Blair and George Bush are considered ‘moderate’ – who are guilty of the same crime as Hitler, ‘unprovoked aggression’ against Iraq.

    Depends on what you mean by ‘moderate’ I suppose.

    If it’s hate literature these people are after, why not look for it amongst the daily outpourings of Rupert Murdoch Industries for example – he’s a foreigner and an extremist and a liar who disseminates hate literature, and Scottish/British Muslim folk don’t even need to go into a place of worship, or carry out some pseudo-academic study either, to find it.

    All the best folks!

    ps
    British racist War Criminal New Labour liar paid to spread his extremist poison -
    Blair paid $500,000 for 20-minute talk
    FT
    08 Nov 2007

    pps
    British non-suicide bomber of the near-future -
    A picture to chill your soul
    The Editors
    MediaLens.org
    09 Nov 2007

  13. Pingback: A week in blogs ‘n’ media « Muslim Recovery

  14. Pingback: BBC Newsnight Exposes Policy Exchange Report « Rasheed Gonzales

  15. Pingback: Newsnight versus Policy Exchange « pixelisation

  16. It is very interesting to note how Irene Lancaster
    works in tandem with Denis MacEoin as his second line of defence. On many ocassions, when MacEoin struggles with access or defence Lancaster lends her shoulder for gatecrashing.

    Given below, are some examples of the campaigns these two are passionate about check:

    http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/what-the-guardi.html

    It is not a mere coincidence that the two pour adulation
    on Kuentz, MacEoin calling it as “simply rivetting”

    http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/10/eyewitness-repo.html

    http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/matthias-kuentz.html

    • for some have it may be, for other surely they are not. Depend from the person and movement. Even what you call ‘traditional Moslems’, are different in their ideas and practices. The same applies, of course, to Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Christians, and other movements among the world religions. Generalization often only leads to mistakes.

  17. “”Here’s a question: what’s your idea of a “moderate” Muslim? Is it your kumbaya-singing-hippie-type-we-love-the-world-and-everyone-in-it Muslim? Or is it your truly moderate Muslim who tries to the best of his ability to live his life according to the true teachings of Islam (which you’d probably label as a Wahhabi or extremist)?””

    A moderate Muslim:

    A Muslim who does not strike the women because your book says to him that he can.

    A Muslim who will not murder his brother because this one changed his religion.

    A Muslim who does not send his children to the suicide in name of his religion.

    A Muslim who feels shame for the murders of honor.

  18. Thanks for answering my question, Ramón, but it was directed at Mr. MacEoin.

    Moderation is a point somewhere in between two extremes: the extreme of taking things too far and the extreme of falling short of giving things their proper due.

    A Muslim who does not strike the women because your book says to him that he can.

    A Muslim who beats his women simply because Allah gives men the allowance to do so, without taking into consideration the circumstances and conditions that give this allowance, has gone to the first extreme. This is something blameworthy.

    A Muslim who has hit his wife after exhausting the other legislated means of discipline has not exceeded his limits. He’s done what’s been stipulated and remained well within the limits that God has set for him; researching what’s allowed when it comes to “beating” or “hitting” would be something you may benefit from–seeing what consitutes “beating” and “hitting” and its limits as mentioned in the classical exegeses of the verse that allows it is where I suggest you should start.

    A Muslim who will not murder his brother because this one changed his religion.

    In an Islamic state that implements full Islamic law, the penalty for the crime of apostasy is death; it is a capital punishment to be carried out by the state. Any Muslim who takes it upon himself to carry out this penalty without the consent of the state has also gone to the first extreme; vigilantism is not condoned in Islam, let alone encouraged.

    A Muslim who does not send his children to the suicide in name of his religion.

    Suicide is something that is explicitly forbidden according to sacred texts. Thus, any Muslim who calls others to commit suicide or who commits suicide him/herself, has gone to the first extreme. In the context of war (actual, not ideological), however, a commanding officer may call for his soldiers to carry out “suicide missions” if warranted, i.e., the benefits of doing so exceeds the harms, as explained by some of Islam’s top scholars and religious authorities.

  19. Thanks, Professor Marranci and all for the above. I followed links looking into the subject of Sharia courts and their activities in Britain, and realise that this discussion refers to another report of Dr Denis MacEoin.

    I am trying to be a moderate atheist, and recognise the dangers of prejudice and fear (and our human capacity for this, whatever our upbringing, race or creed). However, I have to say that I am deeply concerned about the dangers that Islam and its spread holds for the world.

    I have always come down on the side of relativism. Let other people live the way they want to live. And that’s all fine if everyone else lets you live as you want to live. The danger of Islam is that it is (according to many presentations of it) intent on converting everyone else (or, as some have it, slaughtering those who won’t convert).

    The traditionally non-Moslem world, particularly Britain and other countries that cherish liberalism and relativism, may be trying to follow its rule of each-to-their-own, while Islam is playing a rather different game: after all, it is the absolute truth, and that truth must be expressed directly in politics and law.

    Thus I find myself more and more drawn to reject my earlier liberal values, even perhaps to reject multiculturalism except under a rigorously defended secular law and democracy.

    I’m pleased Ramon Garcia voiced some of the attributes of moderate views of Islam, with the clear implication that in order to be a safe and moral citizen in the modern world one may have to take a great deal of scripture with a pinch of salt. It is only through learning to do so that Christianity has dragged itself out of the dark.

    Rasheed Gonzales seems to think he is painting a picture of the moderate Moslem as only striking one of his several wives after exhausting all other means of disciplining her, and within the limits set out in a non-negotiable ancient tome. I am horrified by such chauvenism. I wonder what the poor lass did wrong anyway. Was it not coming to service him sexually when bidden? The other great thing besides religious relativism and democracy that the civilized West underwent was a feminist revolution, thank humanism. If that’s a moderate Moslem, I don’t really want to live alongside Moslems at all, thank you very much.

    If all of this has been a bit off-topic, I’m sorry, but these are some of the underlying worries that non-Moslems have about the general immoderateness and violence of Islam. We are not perfect, but our history has taught us the value of moderateness, of letting others have different beliefs and practices as far as possible. We have learned to be accommodating. Islam, in as far as it is a fundamentalism, is not accommodating. That is its whole point, just as it is the whole point of Christian fundamentalism.

    I am coming to believe that the secular world must wake up and stop being so accommodating. Either that, or Moslems are going to have to find vastly more moderate versions of moderateness than the above. Unfortunately, that seems to be impossible. Islam is infallible. It is therefore unstoppable in its march across the face of the planet. It seems the rest of us who believe in fair play are going to have to draw the line in the sand…again.

    And, joe90, you miss the significance of the antisemitism test. The row is about hateful statements in Moslem texts. This is how the appeasement works – we’re too afraid to criticise violent intimations, partly for fear of violence from the purpetrators, and partly because misguided ultra-liberals will tell us we’re being racist. Antisemitism is generally considered a bad thing, because the Jews don’t generally threaten to murder non-Jews for religious merit. Anti-Nazism, on the other hand, isn’t such a serious charge, because the Nazis intended to wipe everyone else off the face of the Earth and we had a couple of world wars to stop them.

  20. Thankyou, all the above talks are useless, they do not address the original-root of the problem. Christians do not address him Yeshua the Rabbi of Nazareth, they insist on the name Saul-Paul, gave him Jesus. This identity theft of a dead young rabbi hammered to the Roman Pagan Cross, and then, they use this Rabbi to kill other Jews, Crusades Inquisition and Holocaust.
    Arabs also distort Hebrew religious stories, lie about Isaak son of Avram, they say it was Ishmael not Isaak. Then Mohammed has a wild dream, flies on a white horse with wings and goes to the Temple mount of the Jews-Solomon, and goes to the seven(Kabbalah 7)levels of heaven where he meets Jewish Prophets, including Abraham and Moses, all written in the Quran. And that is their claim to Jerusalem a wild dream. So if the Christians take down the Rabbi from the cross and give Him back to the people He came from and where He belongs, Yeshua the Rabbi of Nazareth. Islam tell the truth, Mohammed never was ever in Jerusalem, only in a dream like me dreaming of the moon. Take the Mosque from Jerusalem back to Mecca, and give back that which belongs to the Jews, House of David the Temple mount of his Son Solomon. Just Tell the truth and go home, both Islam and The Pope need lessons in truth, go home leave others alone. “What you do to others you do to yourself. After the last 500 years, to leave a small population of people alone seems to be beyond the two religions that came from the Jew. The tree of life survives on the truth. 2 billion Catholics and 1.3 billion Arabs and only 13.3 million Jews, it´s like killing your great grandparents, shame on Humanity for needing an enemy to enhance and expand their own identity; inferiority caused by fear, violence caused by ignorance; millions people dieing over 2000 years of killing jews, enough is enough. Tell the truth and go home. Thankyou Peter Knopfler

  21. @ Peter Knopfler – hi, it’s a while since you wrote your last comment. I scanned it very quickly last time I was here, thought you were just another “religious nut”, and got on with life. I have to say that I’m no religious scholar or (academic) anthropologist, and have to guess between the lines. Please forgive me if I misunderstand anything here, but I want to comment as best I can on these issues.

    It seems you are probably a Jew, or at least are arguing that the Christian and Muslem religions, which are younger and perhaps have their roots in Judeism, are to blame for the troubles between the three Abrahamic religions, the others are based on lies, and each should leave Jerusalem to its rightful inhabitants and owners, Jews.

    To an atheist, the whole thing is ridiculous, I hope you realise. Jews accusing Christians of stealing a Rabbi, and Moslems of mistaking a dream for a real journey – wow, we atheists just boggle and observe the insanity of human beings. The idea that Jerusalem or anywhere else is sacred is meaningless to us, the delusions and lies of one religion as rationally indefensible as any other (well, ok, we can talk about Scientism another time).

    What also seems clear to many of us, regrettable in the extreme, is that the feud between these three religions and several others around the world, and between religions and atheism, is likely to continue while people demand that they have The Absolute Truth while others are liars, cheats and murderers.

    I would be a hypocrite if I suggested that atheism was The Truth, although I must point out that the scientific view of the world is vastly more rationally defensible than any religion, which seems on analysis to be just a bunch of old fairy stories handed down to us from our deeply ignorant forefathers. No insult intended – we evolved from ape-like creatures living in trees; there was bound to be a transition period.

    However, the advantage of the rationalist/atheist position is that it can view an issue like the claims to Jerusalem (or the world) and consider what is fairest, what respects all claims as well as possible without dismissing any, what is best for all humankind, without being blinded by partisan dogma, indefensible claims to infallibility and the like.

    It might offend three different religions to say this, but to me Jerusalem is just a little piece of semi-desert with a sad and bloody history. People fight over it due to their different dreams and illusions, their indoctrination by their deluded fathers and mothers, Rabbis, Imams and Priests. They cannot see the crumbling wall for the myths and hatred they hold for the other, the wall that will return to sand one day, then continue to decay into the emptiness of the cooling universe, to “leave not a rag behind”.

    I agree very much with what you say: “shame on Humanity for needing an enemy to enhance and expand their own identity; inferiority caused by fear, violence caused by ignorance; millions people dieing over 2000 years of killing…”, but you fail to see your own partisan response; “…jews…”. Perhaps there has been more killing of Jews, and perhaps Jews have killed fewer in other religions over the centuries. I imagine that is very much the case.

    I agree also that “enough is enough”, in fact it was all pointless and too much. However, if you as a Jew insist that the others must “tell the truth and go home”, this suffers from two glaring problems: it assumes that there is a single truth (the Jewish one), and continues the unilateral demand for ownership of what is hotly contested by others who also believe their equally distorted (IMO) “truth”. Until everyone raises their consciousness enough to at least appreciate the other’s point of view and respect it, the squabble will continue, and Christians, Jews and Moslems will continue to insult and kill each other.

    I can confidently predict (that’s the remit of science) that enough will almost certainly *not* be enough; we’re nowhere near grown up enough yet.

    Please tell me how you ascertain “the truth”. Is it what is written in your holy book rather than what is written in another’s? Vast swathes of scientific evidence has grown up in the last few hundred years that suggests very strongly that all such holy books are full of utter nonsense. What will you make of scientific truth? Let’s all tell the truth and then none of us will have to “go home”. We’ll realise that “home” is just a name we attach to a particular cave, or forest, or cloud-capped tower, so we can feel safe there and defend it from our enemies.

  22. Thankyou, J. Freestone. “The pocket atheist”, B. Russell.
    Eventually comes to a personal choice, some “some look at life through their own eyes, and believe what they see. Others look more closely, with microscope, and believe what they see.
    Prof. J.B.Peterson, “History is just a madhouse, it turns over all thge stones and it´s careful reading leaves you little That Is Unknown”.
    Atheist, easy way out, short story, johnny come lately in comparision to 8500 years of conscious recording. I can´t do the homework for you, as James Joyce, “History is a nightmare, I have yet to waken from”.
    Here is a clue,most things today are labeled “Opinion”, in the end, “opinion”. Hard facts are swept under, truth hidden and distorted, all in the name, “Who that´s just your opinion”. Beware of small talk. Peter Knopfler

  23. Dr. MacEoin, yor published article in Edingborough U. arguing against students who don’t think on anti-semetism was well read. Have you consider publishing that article in the NY Times &/or Washington Post?

  24. Pingback: The Friday Tea Time Blog | The Tasneem Project

  25. Pingback: The Friday Tea Time Blog | The Tasneem Project Blog

  26. Pingback: On-The-Brink Tank | WP 3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s