Sunday, September 09, 2012

The H-Files

Over at the 1389 Counterjihad blog, I've begun a series -- which I call "From the Hesperado Files" -- where I'll be publishing various files I've collected over the years on Islam.  

Just today, I published my first one there, an old essay I'd been saving detailing the actual inscriptions that are carved into the walls of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, a mosque second to the mosque in Medina in "holiness" and therefore Islamically fanatical importance and significance. 

For at least the past ten years, I've been collecting files of information on Islam -- I must have a few hundred by now, reflecting a bewildering array and variety of subtopics.  About 300 of them are in the form of World files, and about another 300 are in various folders among my Firefox Bookmarks.

I'll be trying to publish at least one per week -- with the kind indulgence of the 1389 Counterjihad blog owners.  I do intend on publishing every last one, no matter how slight -- or how voluminous -- it may happen to be.  And since the project would be gargantuan, the only way I can do this is by refraining from my usual somewhat OCD impulse to make sure every i is dotted and t crossed.  I.e., many of these will likely look a little green around the gills.  

But what the hey.  These files have just been gathering dust stuck in their dark folders, so why not bring them out to the light and share them?  Someone somewhere may well find them useful; and if even just one of them along the way nudges a person to wake up to the problem of Islam, it will have been worth it.


Anonymous said...

This is archimedes responding here, as there seems to be some technical problem on the 1389 blog. In response to your comment there in which you indicate no concern for proper quotation, attribution, etc., here is my comment:

Distinguishing between one speaker/author and another by using quotation marks, as I did, in my original comment, is not a minor detail. You actually removed quotation marks from the original. You still have not corrected it in your presentation to distinguish my words from the words I quoted from the Answering-Islam article.

The difference between a quote and a reference is not a minor detail. PRCS wasn't quoted. He was referenced and acknowledged.

The difference between (1) a quote and (2) a modified quote with paraphrasing is not a minor detail. In a proper article, you'd make distinctions between the source's words and your modifications, omissions, and additions. I suppose you could say that you are providing a modified, edited quote; but it was misleading for you to simply call it a quote.

BTW, the link to the quoted Answering-Islam article no longer works, which is not surprising given that the link was posted in 2005. Here is the updated link to the Answering-Islam article in question:

Also, properly and correctly referencing sources is not a minor detail. It's not only important to do this in articles published on the internet--even if the articles are informal--but it is also important to keep track of such important distinctions in ones own unpublished files, notes, etc., for truth and accuracy, as well as to help avoid unintentionally plagiarizing your sources.

Anyways, you call your approach "ruthless." To me it seems reckless, lacking a regard for basic distinctions, proper attribution and referencing, etc. If this is going to be your approach, I'd appreciate it if you did not present any more of my writings, comments, files, notes, etc., whether these involve my published or unpublished material. You don't have my permission to do so. Minor quotes of material I've already published on the internet are another matter; you don't need my permission, as long as they are properly quoted and attributed. But ethically you need permission from the author and/or publisher for extensive quotes, especially when the quote is the main feature of your article, as it is in this case. I personally don't like to see my work mangled in this manner and then presented framed as "Hesperado's Files." I suggest that you show much more care in presenting other people's work which you've "collected."

Hesperado said...

"In a proper article..."

It's not a proper article. I'm just unloading my files.

"I suppose you could say that you are providing a modified, edited quote; but it was misleading for you to simply call it a quote."

It was -- but I have since amended that by adding a sentence saying I modified a little.

"Anyways, you call your approach "ruthless."..."

No; I say I *will* be more ruthless. If you think this is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

On one level -- the PRCS part doesn't matter who's saying what -- all that matters is the claim made that the Mishnah passage contains that verse which remarkably resembles, almost exactly, the Koran verse. On one level, it doesn't matter who is calling attention to the Mishnah similarity; all that matters is the Mishnah similarity. That's the determination I made. Your locution at that point didn't make clear who was being quoted, and as I already said, rather than have to spend time cleaning up and clarifying what you failed to clarify, I left out the quotes which would have distracted the reader from the main point -- the Mishnah similarity.

Now stop being such a prissy obsessive.

Anonymous said...

This is archimedes responding here. Obviously you don't care about proper quotation and attribution, etc. I have therefore told you, and have informed your admins at the 1389 blog, that you don't have permission to quote my work. Again, I am telling you not to publish any more of my work. If you do so, it is against my wishes, and I will take whatever reasonable and appropriate actions within the bounds of the law to deter you from continuing with your misrepresentation and unauthorized use of my work.

Anonymous said...

archimedes responding here...

You wrote:
"Your locution at that point didn't make clear who was being quoted, and as I already said, rather than have to spend time cleaning up and clarifying what you failed to clarify, I left out the quotes which would have distracted the reader from the main point -- the Mishnah similarity."

Not true. You are apparently making that claim based on your altered version, not on the original quote as it appears in my Jihadwatch comment. In my original comment, I didn't quote "PRCS". I quoted Answering-Islam, and the Answering-Islam quote itself contained a quote. Although my comment was rough and did not use indentation, I indicated the outer quotes and the inner quotes. I also provided the link to the Answering-Islam article where readers could read the quote there.

You then removed the quotations marks at the end (inner and outer) at least, and provided a dead link. The "failure" here is yours, probably because you modified the quotes, lost track of the original, and then assumed the error was mine.

You have now spent far more time arguing with me than would have been spent simply either restoring the quotation marks as I had them or producing clearer versions to your liking.

Here are the relevant links:

My original JW comment:

Updated link to the Answering-Islam article quoted:

Anyways, you have made it clear that you aren't going to bother with proper quotation and attribution etc., so, judging by your words and attitude and conduct, I don't want you attempting to quote or represent my work.

Hesperado said...

Get the fuck out of my house, you freak.

Anonymous said...

archimedes here,

You wrote: "Get the fuck out of my house, you freak."

That's funny. You've been asked to leave the Jihadwatch house many times over the years, and indeed you've been banned many times, but you keep coming back there.

Anyways, unlike you, I will gladly leave your house, as long as you don't use my work in the construction of, and the promotion of, your house. (And again, I wouldn't have had a problem if you hadn't significantly altered the quote, and hadn't refused to make some important corrections to your errors). I'm responding here because at the 1389 blog there is either a technical problem or someone with moderating powers there (you?) isn't allowing me to respond to your comment there.

You claimed that you merely made "tweaks" to my rough comment. You called them "...tweaks that in fact arguably improved on the original wording, though left the substance untouched...".

"[I}n fact arguably"? Never mind; I'm not even going to address that.

Here is what I posted on 1389, but which didn't get through:

I'd like to address Hesperado's erroneous claim, rather than let is stand uncorrected.

Hesperado writes: "I tweaked it in minor ways"

When you tweak a quote, you are supposed to indicate in the quote where you are doing so. For example, brackets for insertions and ellipses can be used.

But as I indicated above and on your blog, I wasn't concerned about minor tweaking. You altered it in some major ways, and messed some things up. For one example, you made an erroneous claim, and inserted it and presented it as my words. Here it is:

"Fitna (which is equivalent to “corruption in the earth” – in Arabic, Fasad)..."

That's your statement, not mine, but you inserted it in your quote of me, thus making it appear as though I'd said it. It's also a false claim. The words fitna and fasad are related and similar in some respects but they are not equivalent. Fitna means trial, testing, temptation, persecution, etc. And fasad in 5:32 means corruption/mischief; "corruption in the earth" is fasadin fi al-ard.

Now, if you think fitna and fasad are equivalent, you say it. But don't make it appear as though I said it.

So by adding the false claim you made it look like I made the false claim. Gee, thanks.

You also quoted me as writing the following: "Killing is only a crime (i.e., murder) when one a Muslim is the victim (4:93)."
What I actually wrote was this: "Killing is only a crime (i.e., murder) when one of Muslim mankind is the victim (4:93)."
You cut out the word mankind, which I had used in line with and in reference to the wording of Pickthall's translation of 5:32, in order to make a direct contrast. As you can see, in your attempt to "fix" the sentence to your liking, you mangled it.

Next example. You presented the following as my words:
"The Koran verse echoes the Genesis story of Cain and Abel. And when we turn to a certain Jewish commentary on Genesis -- the Mishnah Sanhedrin -- we find the link between the Cain and Abel story and what follows:"

The problem is that those aren't my words, nor are they based on my words at all. Those are your words, apparently based in part on the words of the Answering-Islam author. You went in and changed the wording of the Answering-Islam quote, then made it look like I said it by removing the starting quotation marks.

I see no need to continue with more examples. Your response to my initial comment and follow up comments indicated to me that you were not interested or concerned about presenting my work accurately.