Comments on: Intifada U.S.A: Who is afraid of the Arabic language? http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/ i am not qualified to say this Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:41:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ahmad http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-2/#comment-8357 ahmad Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:44:26 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-8357 i say make the shirt already i want to wear my pride man....i want people to ask me about it ....a way of da3wa ..............when society, targets a section of society and pressuries them, the elevate to their best- it happened to the black americans and the jamicans and blacks in the uk- what followed is the success and recognition of these minority groups... today its the muslims turn,incompassing all races,it will be powerful,participating in pop hip hop jazz and even regga, when we elevate all those who pursue truth will join hands . allah who akbar i say make the shirt already i want to wear my pride man….i want people to ask me about it ….a way of da3wa …………..when society, targets a section of society and pressuries them, the elevate to their best- it happened to the black americans and the jamicans and blacks in the uk- what followed is the success and recognition of these minority groups… today its the muslims turn,incompassing all races,it will be powerful,participating in pop hip hop jazz and even regga, when we elevate all those who pursue truth will join hands .

allah who akbar

]]> By: froglette http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-2/#comment-1961 froglette Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:18:23 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-1961 I think the swastika metaphor works quite well. The swastika is not a NAZI invention, and the originators of it certainly did not mean it as a symbol of white supremacy, antisemitism, etc. Furthermore, it really didn't stand for that with all the NAZI's either. It was a symbolism for national identity and duty to one's people and the resurection of a nation which had been devastated by the first world war. Nothing wrong with that. There were plenty of people who bore that symbol who did intend it as a threat, enough that wearing what used to be a symbol of peace is automatically interpreted as a sign that the bearer is racist antisemite, and looking for a fight. A nation, a government, a movement changed the meaning of a peaceful symbol. As for the word "intifada", perhaps in Arabic it still has all the meanings you suggest, but intifada isn't only an Arabic word any more. It has joined the English language, and it, as many borrowed words, has a narrower, more specific meaning than it's source. The word "catholic" struggles hard to keep the definition "universal," but it is generally only used that way by people trying to emphasize that the Catholic religion is not universal church of God. The context in which the English speaking world has the most experience with an Arab flavored civil rights struggle dictated the flavor the word has assumed. Perhaps some day the general civil rights meaning of "intifada" will make its way into the English language, but it must happen after public opinion sways in favor of the Arab side of the struggle. It will not preceed it. I think the swastika metaphor works quite well. The swastika is not a NAZI invention, and the originators of it certainly did not mean it as a symbol of white supremacy, antisemitism, etc. Furthermore, it really didn’t stand for that with all the NAZI’s either. It was a symbolism for national identity and duty to one’s people and the resurection of a nation which had been devastated by the first world war. Nothing wrong with that. There were plenty of people who bore that symbol who did intend it as a threat, enough that wearing what used to be a symbol of peace is automatically interpreted as a sign that the bearer is racist antisemite, and looking for a fight. A nation, a government, a movement changed the meaning of a peaceful symbol.

As for the word “intifada”, perhaps in Arabic it still has all the meanings you suggest, but intifada isn’t only an Arabic word any more. It has joined the English language, and it, as many borrowed words, has a narrower, more specific meaning than it’s source. The word “catholic” struggles hard to keep the definition “universal,” but it is generally only used that way by people trying to emphasize that the Catholic religion is not universal church of God. The context in which the English speaking world has the most experience with an Arab flavored civil rights struggle dictated the flavor the word has assumed. Perhaps some day the general civil rights meaning of “intifada” will make its way into the English language, but it must happen after public opinion sways in favor of the Arab side of the struggle. It will not preceed it.

]]> By: yaman http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-2/#comment-1857 yaman Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:39:50 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-1857 The problem with your point is this: let us say that in one society the meaning of intifada is negatively associated with violence. Let us say that in the other, it is associated with ideals of resistance, emancipation, and liberation. It would make sense, then, and is in fact highly incumbent upon anybody who wishes to make a halfway decent analysis of anything, that for the person in the former society to understand the latter society and the concept of intifada in that latter society, he must understand it in the terms by which the latter society understands it. It is not a matter of offense, but a matter of understanding. Your connection to the swastika does not hold. The swastika, to the people who emblazen it, represents white supremancy, anti-Semitism, and a fascistic national identity. It represents exactly the same to people who observe it. That is, there is no discrepancy whatsoever between its "internal" image opposed to its "external" appearance. What is despicable about the swastika is <i>not</i> what it means to us, but rather, precisely what it means to them. When it comes to intifada, there is a huge divergence between the internal image and the external appearance. To reach a solid understanding both of intifada and of the other society, it's necessary to bridge this gap by bringing intifada's external appearance closer to its internal image. People who oppose this movement do so for political reasons, since an external appearance so far removed from its actual internal appearance makes it easier to demonize the other. As for host countries or whatever it is you mean by this, I was unaware that political views were something by which one had to be "courteous" to the "host" country. What if I was born here? The problem with your point is this: let us say that in one society the meaning of intifada is negatively associated with violence. Let us say that in the other, it is associated with ideals of resistance, emancipation, and liberation. It would make sense, then, and is in fact highly incumbent upon anybody who wishes to make a halfway decent analysis of anything, that for the person in the former society to understand the latter society and the concept of intifada in that latter society, he must understand it in the terms by which the latter society understands it. It is not a matter of offense, but a matter of understanding.

Your connection to the swastika does not hold. The swastika, to the people who emblazen it, represents white supremancy, anti-Semitism, and a fascistic national identity. It represents exactly the same to people who observe it. That is, there is no discrepancy whatsoever between its “internal” image opposed to its “external” appearance. What is despicable about the swastika is not what it means to us, but rather, precisely what it means to them.

When it comes to intifada, there is a huge divergence between the internal image and the external appearance. To reach a solid understanding both of intifada and of the other society, it’s necessary to bridge this gap by bringing intifada’s external appearance closer to its internal image. People who oppose this movement do so for political reasons, since an external appearance so far removed from its actual internal appearance makes it easier to demonize the other.

As for host countries or whatever it is you mean by this, I was unaware that political views were something by which one had to be “courteous” to the “host” country. What if I was born here?

]]> By: Sabah http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-2/#comment-1856 Sabah Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:28:35 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-1856 A word/symbol has the meaning that is assigned to it by the general public in a culture. To wear the shirt in an area with a culture that views the word as innocuous is fine. To wear a shirt with a symbol like that in a culture that takes offense is... offensive. The swastika in india is innocuous, in poland it is offensive. The culture of the host country should be respected. Its not a question of legal rights, its a question of courteousness. The question about the shirt doesnt even come down to who terrorized who, what does the word really mean, etc etc... it comes down to what it is perceived to mean. The shirt is disrespectful and further drives hate, "oppression" becomes self-actualizing. A word/symbol has the meaning that is assigned to it by the general public in a culture. To wear the shirt in an area with a culture that views the word as innocuous is fine. To wear a shirt with a symbol like that in a culture that takes offense is… offensive. The swastika in india is innocuous, in poland it is offensive. The culture of the host country should be respected. Its not a question of legal rights, its a question of courteousness. The question about the shirt doesnt even come down to who terrorized who, what does the word really mean, etc etc… it comes down to what it is perceived to mean. The shirt is disrespectful and further drives hate, “oppression” becomes self-actualizing.

]]> By: RandallJones http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-2/#comment-1430 RandallJones Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:52:27 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-1430 Look at this article at the website of the newspaper of the NYC United Federation of Teachers ( http://www.uft.org/news/teacher/around/irish_duo/ ) were it refers to the terrorists of Hagannah as freedom fighters. It says, “He later became a stakeholder for the Hagannah, a defense lawyer for Jewish gun-runners and had his brother, Mayor William O’Dwyer, call off a police detail from the docks so guns could be sent to Israel. … [caption of photo] Manhattan attorney Brian O’Dwyer (left), who told a vignette about his father defending Israeli freedom fighters caught with guns in Manhattan; with Joel Shiller (center), chair of the UFT Jewish Heritage Committee, and Callaghan.” Here is some of what the Hagannah did to the Palestinians http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-05/16/article23.shtml Not only did they terrorize the Palestinians, they also terrorized Jews. There is a book by Naeim Giladi called "Ben Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews." Read about it here http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html Look at this article at the website of the newspaper of the NYC United Federation of Teachers ( http://www.uft.org/news/teacher/around/irish_duo/ )

were it refers to the terrorists of Hagannah as freedom fighters. It says,

“He later became a stakeholder for the Hagannah, a defense lawyer for Jewish gun-runners and had his brother, Mayor William O’Dwyer, call off a police detail from the docks so guns could be sent to Israel.
… [caption of photo] Manhattan attorney Brian O’Dwyer (left), who told a vignette about his father defending Israeli freedom fighters caught with guns in Manhattan; with Joel Shiller (center), chair of the UFT Jewish Heritage Committee, and Callaghan.”

Here is some of what the Hagannah did to the Palestinians

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-05/16/article23.shtml

Not only did they terrorize the Palestinians, they also terrorized Jews. There is a book by Naeim Giladi called “Ben Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews.” Read about it here http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html

]]> By: Dave Lucas' Notes http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-1/#comment-933 Dave Lucas' Notes Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:34:38 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-933 <strong> Around The Blogosphere 15 August 07...</strong> Syrian blogger Yaman asks: Who is afraid of the Arabic language... Around The Blogosphere 15 August 07…

Syrian blogger Yaman asks: Who is afraid of the Arabic language…

]]> By: Infidel http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-1/#comment-923 Infidel Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:39:47 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-923 I tried to comment on this at mideastyouth but Esra'a had thrown me off when I suggested he was rejecting democracy because he wanted Islam to prevail. So many muslims have this dream that I suppose there will be another world war. I tried to comment on this at mideastyouth but Esra’a had thrown me off when I suggested he was rejecting democracy because he wanted Islam to prevail. So many muslims have this dream that I suppose there will be another world war.

]]> By: yaman http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-1/#comment-922 yaman Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:16:59 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-922 who is He? who is He?

]]> By: Infidel http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-1/#comment-921 Infidel Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:14:30 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-921 I was commenting on this and other things on mideastyouth but Esra'a threw me off when I suggested the reason He was rejecting democracy was that he wanted Islam to prevail. I suppose so many muslims dream of this that there will be another world war. I was commenting on this and other things on mideastyouth but Esra’a threw me off when I suggested the reason He was rejecting democracy was that he wanted Islam to prevail. I suppose so many muslims dream of this that there will be another world war.

]]> By: yaman http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/comment/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/comment-page-1/#comment-905 yaman Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:07:50 +0000 http://www.yamansalahi.com/2007/08/12/activism/intifada-usa-who-is-afraid-of-the-arabic-language/#comment-905 Do we support "a series of bombings against Jews on buses and in public places?" No. Issue settled. Do we support “a series of bombings against Jews on buses and in public places?”

No. Issue settled.

]]>