October 24, 2010 | 4:02 pm

Muslim sect sees persecuted brethren in ancient Christians

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

Interesting story from The New York Times about a small Muslim sect in Saudi Arabia that sees persecuted brethren in 6th century Christians massacred in what is now Najran, Saudia Arabi. The Ismailis are treated as heretics by Sunni Muslims, and they have been persecuted by the government.

What makes this story particularly fascinating is that the tale was, until this past week, largely unknown to outsiders. What makes it a bit predictable is that the villain behind al ukhdood was a Jewish tyrant.

Among the ruins on the edge of this ancient oasis city are deep trenches littered with bones. That, local people say, is all that remains of one of the great atrocities of antiquity, when thousands of Christians were herded into pits here and burned to death by a Jewish tyrant after they refused to renounce their faith.

The massacre, which took place in about A.D. 523, is partly shadowed by myth and largely unknown to the outside world. But it has become central to the identity of the people now living here, who mostly belong to the minority Ismaili sect of Islam….

Part of the massacre’s significance comes from a passage in the Koran that is said to refer to it: “Slain were the men of the pit, the fire fed with fuel, when they were seated by it, and were witnesses of what they did with the believers! They took revenge on them because they believed in God the almighty.”

Historians offer a somewhat different account of what happened here, though the facts remain sketchy. A Jewish king named Dhu Nuwas did kill a large number of Christians in Najran in 523, a century before the birth of Islam. But the notion that they died because they refused to renounce Christianity appears to be mythical, said Christian Robin, a French archaeologist. And the claim that they were burned to death en masse—with its eerie Holocaust overtones—also appears to be untrue, Mr. Robin added; most were killed by sword. Nor is it clear that the Koranic passage refers to what happened here.

Read the rest here.

October 22, 2010 | 12:17 am

Bible.com investor sues over unrealized profits

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

James Solakian, who in 2001 acquired 28 percent of the shares in Bible.com, Inc., has sued the company’s directors for failing to maximize profits. This according to Reuters:

The lawsuit cites a valuation done by a potential purchaser that estimated bible.com could be worth more than dictionary.com, which recently sold for more than $100 million.

The domain name was registered by Roy Spencer “Bud” Miller, an Arizona minister who secured it in 1996 for $50. Soon after, he was offered $100,000 for the location, according to court documents.

Miller refused, stating he was entrusted to run the site for a sacred purpose, according to court documents.

Miller, along with his wife Betty, brought in a marketing firm to help them develop the site. They raised money by forming Bible.com Inc and issuing stock.

The company’s business plan stated “it is the goal of the board of directors of Bible.com to become very, very profitable,” according to court documents. The business was also to be governed in accordance with Christian business principles.

Not that there is anything unChristian about turning a few loafs of bread into enough to feed a few thousand.

Thanks for the link, Dennis.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

October 21, 2010 | 12:22 am

‘Hi Anita, it’s me, Ginni’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I read a story yesterday that I didn’t really know what to do with. It was the first version of the Ginni Thomas story, and it was courtesy of The New York Times. (I spent the last hour looking for a cheesy media nickname for the “scandal”—you know, something like Apologygate or Mountains OuttAnitaHills.) For those who have missed the newest media darling, here’s a quick recap:

Little less than two weeks ago, almost exactly 19 years to the day after Anita Hill came forward during Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court confirmation hearings with allegations of sexual harassment, Thomas’ wife, Virginia, called Hill’s office at Brandeis University and left a message asking her to apologize. Ginni Thomas later told the NYT that the early morning call was “an olive branch,” but it wasn’t. And, regardless, what I wanted to talk about was exactly what Thomas’ message said.

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.

“So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

Pray about this ...Consider me a bit hypersensitive to guilt—it’s the Catholic and Jewish roots—but that’s laying it on a bit thick, don’t you think? It’s also an odd statement between two women whom, I presume, haven’t talked in two decades.

Calling someone to prayer is something that requires a relationship, especially when the call is sparked by a perceived wrongful act. (Shall we call it a sin?) So even if Ginni Thomas’ bizarre call to Hill was motivated by a sense that she was her sister’s keeper—and that’s a massive “if”—she really wasn’t in a place to do so.

4 Comments — Leave your comment

October 20, 2010 | 11:34 pm

Goldberg: ‘Williams fired by NPR for no particular reason’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

A friend and I were talking about the Juan Williams firing, and the general sense was that while it may not be kosher to say it, a lot of Americans probably feel the same nervousness that Williams said he feels when he sees people in “Muslim garb” on his plane.

Jeffrey Goldberg agrees. And in strong fashion, he fired up a blog post titled “Juan Williams Fired by NPR for No Particular Reason.” Here’s the nugget:

The first quotation reflects the views, I’m guessing, of the vast majority of people who fly in this country (and in Europe and Asia and other parts of the world, as well). With some regularity, Muslim men associated with radical Islamist organizations have been trying to kill American civilians, here and abroad. A group of 19 Muslim men succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in their mission nine years ago. The majority of Muslims abhor terrorism, and Muslims are the disproportionate victims of Muslim terror, but the essential truth remains that most of the world’s spectacular terrorism today—thwarted and achieved—is committed by Muslims. Juan Williams misunderstands one crucial fact: Muslim terrorists who are attempting to commit acts of terror seldom if ever dress in “Muslim garb”; they dress, for obvious tactical reasons, in a manner meant to help them blend in with surroundings. So Williams is wrong, I think, to be particularly suspicious of traditionally-dressed Muslims. But is he wrong to worry about Islamist terrorism? Of course not.

Of course what Williams said is not politically correct, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And just because you’re paranoid, don’t mean they’re not after you.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

October 20, 2010 | 9:22 pm

NPR fires Juan Williams for Muslim remarks

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Looks like I will no longer get to enjoy Juan Williams’ political analysis on NPR. He just got canned for telling Bill O’Reilly in the above video that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims on his plane:

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

David Folkenflik, coincidentally NPR’s media critic, is all over this on Twitter.

Thoughts?

What I am waiting to see is if all those folks who rushed to Helen Thomas’ defense are the first to through stones at Williams.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

October 19, 2010 | 4:11 pm

Fashionably fabulous hijabs

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

What do I know about fashionable Muslim headscarves for women? Not as much as Los Angeles Times reporter Raja Abdulrahim. He wrote in a recent Column One:

On one of the holiest nights of Ramadan, Marwa Atik chose a crowded Southern California mosque to debut her latest creation.

It was just after midnight when the 20-year-old walked into the Islamic Center of Irvine, dressed in a long, flowing burgundy robe, her head wrapped in a charcoal-colored chiffon hijab, trimmed with decorative gold zippers.

After the group prayers, sermon and Koran recitation, a woman approached Atik, gesturing at the scarf. “OK, I want one,” she said excitedly. “How can I get it?”

Atik has taken the Muslim head scarf, often known as hijab, and turned it into a canvas for her fashion sensibilities, with ideas inspired by designs from Forever 21 and H&M as well as haute couture runways and the pages of Vogue and Elle. Showing her latest design at a mosque was her way of gauging sentiment on scarves that go beyond the limited fashion realm they have thus far inhabited, such as floral and geometric prints or lace and beaded embellishments.

This has, not surprisingly, caused a stir among more traditional American Muslims, and re-invigorated an old debate about what modesty entails. I wrote more about that part of this story at GetReligion.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

October 19, 2010 | 11:51 am

Christine O’Donnell’s myth of separation of church and state

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell is getting flak for a comment she made last night. During a debate, seen in the accompanying video, O’Donnell questioned whether the Constitution calls for separation of church and state. Here’s the story from USA Today:

O’Donnell, a conservative who is running for the Delaware Senate seat formerly held by Vice President Joe Biden, made the comments during a debate hosted by WDEL-AM at Widener University Law School.

“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” an incredulous O’Donnell asks her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. The audience is heard laughing in the background. “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responds.

“That’s in the First Amendment,” O’Donnell says.

Yikes. I know O’Donnell doesn’t keep up with the happenings of the Supreme Court, but there have been a few holdings on this matter.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

October 18, 2010 | 12:58 pm

Tribune’s bankrupt culture to blame for lost religion reporting?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The story is a few weeks old now, but it’s still worth reading David Carr massive investigation into the bankrupt culture at Tribune headquarters. It adds a ton to the Sam Zell mythology—mainly breaking it down and making the once-perceived white knight on a motorcycle out to be an angry little man full of hubris. Much of the article focuses on Zell’s pick for Tribune CEO, Randy Michaels.

Here’s a snippet from Carr:

Mr. Michaels, who was initially in charge of Tribune’s broadcasting and interactive businesses as well as six newspapers, was a former shock jock who made a name for himself — and a lot of money for Mr. Zell — by scooping up radio stations while at the Zell-controlled Jacor Communications. Jacor was later sold to Clear Channel Communications for $4.4 billion.

In turn, Mr. Michaels remade Tribune’s management, installing in major positions more than 20 former associates from the radio business — people he knew from his time running Jacor and Clear Channel — a practice that came to be known as “friends and family” at the company.

One of their first priorities was rewriting the employee handbook.

“Working at Tribune means accepting that you might hear a word that you, personally, might not use,” the new handbook warned. “You might experience an attitude you don’t share. You might hear a joke that you don’t consider funny. That is because a loose, fun, nonlinear atmosphere is important to the creative process.” It then added, “This should be understood, should not be a surprise and not considered harassment.”

The new permissive ethos was quickly on display. When Kim Johnson, who had worked with Mr. Michaels as an executive at Clear Channel, was hired as senior vice president of local sales on June 16, 2008, the news release said she was “a former waitress at Knockers — the Place for Hot Racks and Cold Brews,” a jocular reference to a fictitious restaurant chain.

There was a lot, lot more in Carr’s article. And as if to hammer home the accuracy of Carr’s reporting, Lee Abrams, who was Tribune’s chief innovation officer and rambler in chief, followed up last week with a crude email to Tribune employers. This resulted in his resignation Friday.

Could the cultural bankruptcy explain why religion coverage has gotten the shaft in the Tribune family of newspapers, particularly at the Los Angeles Times and Orlando Sentinel? Probably not. But that explanation would make me feel more comfortable than the reality that papers just don’t find religion reporting as important in the world of smaller staffs.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

October 18, 2010 | 12:05 pm

Is Pat Robertson Yale Law’s greatest disgrace?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

From time to time, I have fun with the crazy things Pat Robertson says. The once massively influential evangelical leader has lost his cultural relevancy, but that doesn’t stop him from blame Haiti’s tragic earthquake on the nation’s “pact with the devil.”

Anyway, last week Robertson, who has an LLB from Yale Law School, made Above the Law’s top-seven list of Yale Law’s “Most Disgraceful Graduate.”

The reasoning:

The case for disgrace: Pat Robertson is a loon who over the years has said some ridiculously stupid things (even for a Yale Law graduate). Here are two examples:

  * Robertson claimed that Haiti suffered its catastrophic earthquake because Haitians once “swore a pact to the devil.”
  * Robertson warned that a “Gay Days” event at Disney World could bring about “earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.”

For more such nonsense, check out this list of the ten stupidest things Pat Robertson has ever said.

Robertson has also been financially linked to such brutal dictators as Charles Taylor of Liberia and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire. Noscitur a sociis?

Others to make the list of ignominy were: former President Bill Clinton, hopeful Sen. Joe Miller, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writer Elizabeth Wurtzel, torture-memo author John Yoo and Above the Law founder David Lat.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

October 17, 2010 | 6:18 pm

Kosher cuisine with an ethnic twist

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Frank Bruni had a long story in the New York Times Magazine last week about a unique kosher restaurant in Brooklyn. The manager of Basil Pizza & Wine Bar is Roman Catholic; the clientele is largely, though far from solely, and that is where a bit of tension arises, Hasidic.

Here’s a snippet:

It’s also a cross-cultural experiment, trying to promote better integration of, and communication between, groups in Crown Heights that haven’t always mingled much or seen eye to eye. Although its food and wine are strictly kosher, Basil isn’t located on what is known as the Jewish side of Eastern Parkway, the neighborhood’s main thoroughfare and dividing line. It’s on the West Indian side and, with its deliberately diverse staff, courts the black residents there. The trendy menu of individual-size pizzas, raw-fish compositions and pasta dishes is also meant to appeal to them — and to the young, liberal-minded professionals who, in slowly growing numbers, are choosing Crown Heights as a cheaper alternative to the Williamsburg or Prospect Heights sections of Brooklyn. Basil wants everyone under one roof.

And since its opening in March, it has stirred strong feelings, illustrating how restaurants can wind up being so much bigger than themselves. Many of them mirror — and a few even mold — the communities around them. When Odeon opened in TriBeCa in 1980, for example, it signaled and spurred the flowering of an untended, overlooked neighborhood. The closing in 2008 of the restaurant Florent, the darling of so many outrageous outsiders, provided as tidy and compelling a signal as any that Manhattan’s meatpacking district had lost its edge and joined the mainstream.

What might Basil mean? Perez, who was hired in part to symbolize this kosher restaurant’s openness to people of all faiths and stripes, would like it to stand as a testament to the possibility of interfaith and interracial communion. “We’re breaking big barriers here,” she told me during one of our many conversations, “and I didn’t think it could happen.”

Read the rest of “Keeping it Kosher” here.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

October 17, 2010 | 3:17 pm

German Chancellor tells immigrants to assimmilate or get out

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I know the collision of old traditions and immigrant communities has been difficult for many parts of Europe. But I still find what German Chancellor Angela Merkel had to say today to be beyond shocking. Via The Sun:

She said: “This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other, has utterly failed.

“We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don’t accept them don’t have a place here.”

Her outspoken comments come amid a Europe-wide debate about immigration - and fears that failure to integrate Muslims was fuelling terrorism.

True, but Germany doesn’t have the best record when it comes to zealously opposing those who don’t share its “Christian values.”

5 Comments — Leave your comment

October 15, 2010 | 11:55 am

Bob Knight: God doesn’t care about baseball

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

MLB playoffs resume tonight, and you might care or you might not. But you know who doesn’t? God.

That’s Bob Knight’s opinion, shared without invitation at the SMU Athletic Forum this week:

Knight jumped in before his speech officially started - heck, before lunch was even served - after the Rangers’ series win over Tampa Bay was mentioned in the invocation.

“I think Cliff Lee had a hell of a lot more to do with it than the Almighty,” Knight said, after grabbing the microphone at the podium unexpectedly. “If in fact the Almighty was involved in the game, what he ended up doing was screwing the other team. And I don’t think he works that way.

“You’ve got to get up there and throw the ball over the plate and swing at good pitches. You know, He doesn’t give a damn about that. Let him help the Republicans.”

Though my in-laws are both IU grads and Bob Knight can always be counted on for a comical blow-up, I’m not too found of the guy. He has been a total homer as an ESPN “analyst,” and I really despise the lack of credit he gives UCLA basketball.

But I couldn’t agree with this statement, via the Dallas Morning News’ sports blog, more. Unless, of course, the Dodgers were still in the race for the pennant.

0 Comments — Leave your comment