"(the end of Muhammad's life, by tradition)" is precisely the problem. Because of how the Qur'an is organized, it is not actually possible to tell if it was near the end of his life... they were organized by length, rather than chronology, which means that any given part could be of almost any age, unless it clearly refers to something said earlier... and, even then, there is the problem that all holy books have: they were written by humans, after the fact, who likely have some holes in their knowledge.

Frankly, I don't know the Qur'an well enough to argue with you on 5:82. I can tell you that this is the verse repeatedly referenced to me when I was with the mullahs in Iran, and also some professors referenced it. I had specifically asked why the aversion to Jews (not mentioning Israel).

I will be the first to admit that sura 5 is biased against the Jews.

But 5:64 is a long verse. It's only the first half of the verse which is anti-Jewish (cursing the Jews), and that is only insofar as Jews say that "God's hands are bound". I take that to mean the rabbis were asserting that there can be no new Prophets added to the canon. A Jew who accepts Muhammad's (and Jesus's) prophethood would still be acceptable.

But of course by sura 5's time (the end of Muhammad's life, by tradition) all the Jews likely to follow Muhammad had already done so.

It is the end of 5:64 that says that God does not love the mufsideen. In between, 5:64 had predicted enmity "between them". Internal enmity of the Jews? No. 5:64 is part of 5:57-66. The enmity is between all the sects of Jews and Christians. So a mufasad can be either Jew or Christian.

A Jew or Christian can also be "moderate" (5:66), i.e. willing to pay jizya and shut up, in which case he would no longer be a mufasad and God might still love him.

There are examples of anti-Judaism in the Qur'an; but the latter portion of 5:64 is, in its full context, not one of them.

Mahathir is at it again:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031021/wl_nm/apec_mahathir_dc_9

He doesn't want any apologist speaking for him. He meant exactly what he said. He condemns Jews for their power in the world.

This condemnation is implicit. Mahathir's ambition is perhaps explicit. He wants Muslims to rule the world, not Jews. It is a simple concept.

His remarks are unforgivable, dangerous, and to boot, he's not repentant. He meant what he said.

If a troll posts... hack 'em... freedom of speech is a social issue not a blog issue. I haven't had to delete any posts but I have IP banned one poster for drive-by ad hominem attacks that just became tedious.

Blogs are a courtesy extended.

That being said... anybody see Dubya pulled Mahathir aside for a little face-to-face ass-chewing?

So loving that!

And most welcom, fascinating guests at that! I have a most sincere appreciation for every one.

It is quite true, I have my like and dislikes, and I was "spoiled" by FrontPageMagazine. With the help of Richard Poe (see, www.richardpoe.com), who was the managing editor when I began column writing, I was a hit for nearly a year. I would get hundreds of responses per article. Very, very few challengers.

Things changed. Richard resigned, opened his own website, and I was finding out I had ideas that were not exactly in harmony with FrontPageMagazine. So, BadEagle.com was created by our generous webmaster Ken, totally voluntarily (at the cost of who knows how much time, money, and effort), and I was on my own.

BadEagle isn't exactly a news site, but, with all the different forums, people are allowed to start all kinds of topics and post articles of their choice. So, there is a great deal of freedom.

However, there is a theme, which most people respect: American patriotism. Love of country.
Love of specific values. This is what has held things together.

I am most grateful for each contributor, and, to be honest, I am exceedingly proud of it all. There have been some truly magnificent posts!

Having moderated a few lists and swum among online sharks for some years now, the most constructive discussions are always approached as if they were happening in the host's home. For that reason, should the host not wish certain sensibilities stepped upon -- and anti-semitism, as any anti-personal 'ism, is one which stomps about in big, bloody boots -- we are wise to respect the host's wishes.

Freedom of speech is one thing. Recasting the conversation, moderating tone, might serve better for someone wishing to get a message out, however objectionable it might be to some. Freedom of speech is NOT, however, an excuse for bad manners.

We are guests here.

-- B

Nora, I just meant "gently disagree" on whether Dr. Y. should have deleted the post. I knew we were on the same wavelength. I just know where these guys end up taking forum boards.

Alligator, of course one can see it like you and I *totally* agree with you on the "free speech" thing, at least I guess that's what the first amendment is about. A webhost has the "domestic authority" to decide whom he likes or doesn't like in his virtual home as well as in his real home.

Dr. Y, I will gently disagree with Nora. I read the post before it was deleted. I am afraid the whole thread would have gone downhill from there, and there would not even be a "we agree to disagree" resolution. I moderated a WW II history forum once and anti-semites and neo-nazis would post this kind of stuff then spin the whole discussion board out of control.

Everything centered around this great "Jewish conspiracy" that has existed since time immemorial. If you disagreed with these folks or demonstrated the fallacy of their reasoning, then you were attacked as being part of the conspiracy or a lackey of the Jewish cabal.

We finally just started deleting them as they posted because they dominated and skewed every discussion. You couldn't discuss battle tactics or the leaders of the war without one of these clowns trying to plug in his racial theories into the discussion. They are obsessed - the analogy of evangelism is well put. Of course, we were then denying them their "first amendment rights!" We were "afraid" of the truth!

However, there are no first amendment rights on an internet forum. The web master owns the forum, and the people who post are invited guests. If the guest gets rude or steps out of lines with the parameters set by the webmaster --bye bye. They have a first amendment right to go set up their own forum if that's what they want to talk about.

Oh, don't get me wrong, David. I am intolerant, mean and authoritarian. And I know that anti-Semitism is not an OPINION, but a BRAIN DISEASE.

But it's everyday reality and sometimes it's good to sharpen one's claws on it.

I have been called every name in the book as the monitor of the forum of a Jewish journalist's website, including his myrmidon, his schiksah, his slut and worse. Maybe my threshold for the inacceptable has been lowered too far down in the process.

Or maybe I was just in the mood for a good brawl! :-)

What a gentle rebuke. Thank you, Nora.
In the past, I have had a couple of very heavy scholars in anti-Jewish research. They posted incessantly, and posted long, dreary articles and opinions. They would not listen, reason, or exchange, and my readers will testify, I TRIED. I bore long with them. It just got too out of hand. Perhaps it left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak. If you go back far enough into the arthives of the blogs, you can still see much of this.

There's a difference between discussing something, and evangelically advocating something. "Open forum" generally means the Left takes over. It happens again and again.

Anyway, your thoughts on this are most appreciated, and I will try to reconsider such a post in the future. I have overt communists writing to me now. There are professional attackers out there, hired to create havoc. Were you aware of this? My ownly option is to delete. They don't come to discuss, but to discount. It quickly gets counter-productive.

I, personally, think it should have been left and discussed.

But maybe that is because I am a habituée of message boards where much worse things are posted every minute, my own included.

BadEagle is such a haven of good will and decency, I think its community would have coped.

Unfortunately, I just had to delete a lengthy post by Son of Aryas, an anti-Jewish person. I have been approve new members at a significant rate, lately, and there may be many such persons who have found their way to BadEagle.com

I can only say, beware. This site is clearly defined, and, although we often have disagreements and healthy discussion, we do not promote aversion to Jews or to the Bible, or to the God described in the Bible. This site will never be used for those purposes.

Such posts will be removed.

Having said that, we are always opened to education and enlightenment. The post I removed was well-written, non-vulgar, and otherwise quite worthy. Unfortunately, it merely was using BadEagle.com to advertising opposing views, with obviously peremptory assertion over and against the tenor of my blog, and with presumption that it was to be regarded as harmonious.

Nasty trick. Bye-bye.