Turkey heading for religious cyber-censorship

[Mikhayl]

Still peddling the Raddatz fraud uh? That guy's work is so important that he's a total unknown outside of Germany. The only non-German references to this guy on the internets are on white supremacist blogs and racist websites like FrontPageMag and the like who, unsurprisingly, have the same consideration for him as Skybird.

[Skybird]

Counter him in argument instead by attempted character assassination.

BTW, he is so unknown that he is one of the most asked German-tongued contributors and co-editors of the Encyclopedia on Islam in five volumes (the second version published in English and French only) - and undisputed academic standard work. He is also the most asked analysts on the matter in German-languaged Europe. And a political advisor to German parties, mainly the CDU (he himself holds no party membership).

BTW, I once have even read Albert Schweitzer being quoted on a white supremacist website.

Again, counter him in argument instead of character assassination. I hold every bet that he knows his stuff way much better than you and me and we all together. He is certainly against the PC propaganda crowd, but that is not excuse to cheat him. If it is so wrong what he says, it should be easy for you to show him wrong, right?

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

The only non-German references to this guy on the internets are on white supremacist blogs and racist websites

That's a wrong and unfair diffamation that shows more about your self than about anyone else. In fact he is actively contributing to various media outlets, some of which are mass media, and quoted and linked to from other places as well. He is also sometimes on radio, Deutschlandfunik for the most. Over time you could have read him in the FAZ, Die Welt, Der Spiegel, to mention just the most widespread ones.

Prove his references and his information and his arguments wrong - or step aside.

I would be way more willing to believe in what you say if you were finally telling people where you get your info from.

Info comes from many places

If everything Skybird says is made up or untrue then show us the counter evidence!

Where have I said that? I have only said tha Skybird makes things up to fit his arguement , I have not said that everything he says is made up.
If you paid attention you might notice I specicificly ask skybird to back up his claims ...as in those c;aims that are obviously false , the most common of which lately is easily demonstrated by the simple question "what law?".
On no occasion has Skybird attempted to try and justify the falsehoods he has written, instead we get.... i went to muslim countries ....i read books...you are ignorant.

one might agree or disagree with his sources but at least he tells us where it is from

Actually no he doesn't, in the main he sticks to non contentious issues for which you can provide a whole library of sources, but the non contentious issues do not make point.
When he wants to make a point he invariablty heads towards a very small number of sources. The most common of which takes specific points from a very respected, very well established scholar who is reknowned world wide.
Every time that scholars works are used to "prove" a specific bit of scriptue means "A".
Just about every time the scholars work really shows that the scripture cannot possibly mean "A" but it is omitted.
The fact that the "proof" version is so widely accepted and circulated does not give it credibility .
However the fact that the Jewish scholar of Islam rejects the misuse and misrepresentation of his studies and takes legal actions against the crazy racist hate sites that claim to use his work...well that speaks volumes doesn't it.

So schroeder, Skybird does write some good stuff on Islam but really lets himself down badly, I however could be far more critical on many aspects of Islam(after all there are sommany things to get your teeth into).
But. That should be a big ...
But
I would not have to make up ****e to make my point like Skybird does.

If you are in doubt then do a simple search for skybirds "claims", match them to the "claims" on Jihadwatch.
Then take the step to the Jihadwatch scholarly source
Then you can see why that source is really ********d offwith Jihadwatch and its misrepresentation of his studies.

The only non-German references to this guy on the internets are on white supremacist blogs and racist websites

Do not knock Skybirds sources, just errrrrr....comment on the reliabilty and objectivity of his sources

[Mikhayl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

BTW, he is so unknown that he is one of the most asked German-tongued contributors and co-editors of the Encyclopedia on Islam in five volumes (the second version published in English and French only) - and undisputed academic standard work.

Where do you get that information from? The Encyclopedia of Islam is in 14 volumes (12 + indexes), it's the Encyclopedia on the Qur'an that is in 6 volumes (5 + index). I have found two references to Raddatz in one of the 6 volumes, two quotes from a book from 1971, nothing else. And there's no mention of his name on Brill's website
I don't have the Encyclopedia of Islam, but if you do you might want to check for those missing volumes, that thing costs an arm.

[Mikhayl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Do not knock Skybirds sources, just errrrrr....comment on the reliabilty and objectivity of his sources

Yeah, this one really reeks of intellectual dishonnesty and deception. I found the Encyclopedia of Islam on the net, Raddatz is indeed technically a "co-author" of this book as he has a whopping one contribution in one page in one volume out of the 12.
http://www.archive.org/stream/EI2-v1...2-V-9_djvu.txt

He is certainly NOT "co-editor" as Skybird claimed, and funnily enough, FrontPageMag and various blogs use the same deception to make him look like a major contributor (emphasis mine):

Peter Raddatz, a German scholar of Islamic Studies and the co-author of the renowned “Encyclopaedia of Islam.”

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5347

Also notice that in both Encyclopedia, the same book from 1971 is referenced, so even his tiny presence in the Encyclopedia doesn't say anything about the value or lack of of his recent work, which I can't judge directly since I don't speak German.

But given that the man's work is superior to that of Annemarie Schimmel, I have no doubt his books will be translated into several languages very soon. After all, "von Allah zum Terror" has only been published in 2002, it shouldn't take too long now should it?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Where do you get that information from? The Encyclopedia of Islam is in 14 volumes (12 + indexes), it's the Encyclopedia on the Qur'an that is in 6 volumes (5 + index). I have found two references to Raddatz in one of the 6 volumes, two quotes from a book from 1971, nothing else. And there's no mention of his name on Brill's website
I don't have the Encyclopedia of Islam, but if you do you might want to check for those missing volumes, that thing costs an arm.

I had several volumes of the first edition, and yes, these books were old, and precious. I sold them because I have no professional interest in them, and only initially used them, but it is very difficult to make use of them if you are no full time insider of the matter. I had bought one book only, the others were heritage from my grandfather.

Got over 250 bucks per volume.

There is a new second edition released over many years, with many more vo,mues, I am not sure how many. With that I am not familiar. Raddatz has contributed to this new edition, I assume on his fields of special interest.

Indeed he was close student (the "prince") of Annemarie Schimmel, but the two separated over a personal row, when Raddatz and her disagreed on her more compromising attitude on several contradictory aspects that Raddatz was not willing to ignore. Annemarie Schimmel is seen as an authority of modern "Orientalistik" and science on Islam in german language, and europe.

Whether his books will be translated or not I do not know, since his books are not PC and the man raises controversy for attacking popular opinions representing the mainstream attitude of spending tolerance for Islam that in Raddatz's arguments are not deserved and even self-damaging.

There are many English standard works that are not translated into French or German as well, so whether or not something is translated into English is not a decisive criterion. just think of russian and chinese scientists.

Until WWII, the Franco-German tradition on islamic research and what we call "Orientalistik" over here has been a major alternative to the anglosaxon traditon of these research branches that since the has gained academic dominance.

"Von Allah zum Terror" is somewhat the sucessor to "Von Gott zu Allah". The latter is the one that defines the basis of Raddatz' historical references by comparing christian and islamic history and basic thinking of both systems' theology. a superb start for begin with. I would make it a mandatory reading for politicians, priest seminaries and and institutions of public education dealing with the matters of islam and comparing religions. I say again that it is possibly the best introduction you can get in German language. And yes, it is violating the consense of the PC crowd - that'S why it is seen as controversial by some. But all public mainstream discussion of Islam is basing on huge informational deficits and PC slogans, so the controversy cannot surprise at all.

P.S. I had the old edition of the Encyclopedia and alway slived by the impression that it were the complete volumes. It was oublished in the tens of thirties of past century and Raddatz obviously had not contributed to it, but the new one, published since the seventies. I have read several of Raddatz contributions to that, but quoted in secondary sources, not the original that I never owned or leased. So it is possible that I indeed put too much trust into seocndary sources claiming him to be co-editor of the encyclopedia. However, I have read and still own several of Raddatz own books. I never read Raddatz commenting himself on his work for the encyclopedia.

Considering the reputation of that encyclopedia, it is hard to image that they would invite somebody to contribute if he does not know a bit more thna just the special stuff he eites about, or would be seen as a political radicalist bringing the whole encyclopedia into discredit. Hardly just anybody would be invited to add to the ecyclopedia.

so Mikhayl in this regard has caused some just correction in my percpetion. In these specific details I stand corrected.

[Skybird]

And just btw, when you now admit that you are not familiar with Raddatz' work and aguments

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

, which I can't judge directly since I don't speak German.

why did you feel you had to ridicule and diffame him in your earlier postings, although you obviously do not know the object of your condemnation? One can try that with a general trend, a school, a tradition of thinking, but when one is picking individual names of authors from that, one should know what these authors actually are saying, and why, don't you think. and encyclopdeia back and forth, obviously I know Raddatz work a little bit better than you do. Because different to you I have read several of his own books. so if oyu want to discredit Raddatz, counter his arguments. Many try that, btw, and it is claimed they are right, but I cannot see very many succeeding. different to popular accusations, he refers a lot to Isamci nsources themselves, and different to popular criticsm he always refers to the wider context of these sources and the pieces he take from them. that's what makes some appendices i his books really intimidating, but I assume most simply ignore them and then forget that they are there.

See, I admitted my misled information basis on the encyclopedia thing when you raised an argument/information/link that I could not counter. I have no problem to do so when something convinces me or conclusions leave me no other choice than to change my view. Just to set up random claims, even claims that are in violation of things that I am sure to have a better informational background on then the other according to what he reveals about his sources, or claims that just parrot some hear-say and popular slogans - that is a way of doing that does not convince me.

I am no web specialist like Avalon Lady was, she had a link for EVERYTHING, it seems. My background are books, and travel experiences, for the most, and books much more than the internet to which I came relatively late. these two formed the background of my thinking and understanding these matters, and on this basis, and some first hand events in my real life that I repeatedly explained, I argue and "operate".