Taheri-ng It Up AGAIN!
Amir Taheri “clarifies” his column of Friday:
As far as my article is concerned I stand by it.
The law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of guardians. A committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of implementation. Many ideas are being discussed with regard to implementation, including special markers, known as zonnars, for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the only faiths other than Islam that are recognized as such. The zonnar was in use throughout the Muslim world until the early 20th century and marked out the dhimmis, or protected religious minorities. ( In Iran it was formally abolished in 1908).
Canada’s National Post on Friday reported the draft bill approved last week would force Jews, Christians and other religious minorities such as Zoroastrians to wear colour-coded clothes to distinguish them from Muslims.
A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references. Reuters correspondents who followed the dress code session in parliament as it was broadcast on state radio heard no discussion of proscriptions for religious minorities.
Notice that nowhere in any of Taheri’s articles, the National Post column, the New York Post version or the Benador Associates “clarification,” does Taheri avow that he has obtained a copy of the bill. Taheri writes that
I do not know which of these ideas or any will be eventually adopted.
which, I think, is both true and hard to square with his confident statement in Friday’s articles that
Religious minorities would have their own colour schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the colour red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the colour of their zonnar. It is not clear what will happen to followers of other religions, including Hindus, Bahais and Buddhists, not to mention plain agnostics and atheists, whose very existence is denied by the Islamic Republic.
There are a lot of “wills” in there, and elsewhere in the article. Taheri’s original article allowed that the final shape of the law was unknown, but it presented the “dhimmitude” badges as settled fact. In the quoted paragraph, the subjunctive “colour schemes” refer to clothing itself, as the context makes clear. (The previous two paragraphs deal with what colors of clothing will be permitted to Muslim men and women. The zonnar provision is presented as a certainty. (”They will . . . have to wear special insignia . . . “)
Finally, Taheri tries the old “Look! A bear!” dodge:
Interestingly, the Islamic Republic authorities refuse to issue an official statement categorically rejecting the concept of dhimmitude and the need for marking out religious minorities.
Interestingly, the question was not whether “Islamic Republic authorities” are willing to jump when outsiders say jump. Interestingly, all I know about categorical dhimmitudinal rejection demands is what Amir Taheri tells me in his “clarification,” and his track record ain’t lookin’ so good right now.
But equally interestingly, this is how propaganda works, or one of the ways. Put out a scare story; as it crumbles, shift your ground! Yammer about the Islamic Middle Ages. Darkly hint that the “real” story is that we were willing to believe it. Worry that your opponent has categorically refused – meaning, perhaps, not bothered – to disavow some very general version of the specific sin you ascribed to them. There is one more trick, but it’s worth a separate item.
Comment by RossK —
May 23, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
So, who, indeed, jumped the gun.
Was it Taheri himself?
Was it someone at Benador?
One thing is clear. Someone sent Taheri’s artical to the Weisenthal Center on Thursday, the day before the the things ran in the National Post.
So far Post Editor-In-Chief is ducking.
Me, I would like to know when my (ie. Canada’s) Prime Minister was ’informed’ of the story – before or after publication, as his comments on Friday certainly helped to give birth to this News Zombie
Trackback by Pajamas Media —
May 23, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
Yellow Stars: a Scare Story?
Unqualified Offerings takes aim at Amir Taheri’s defense of his story that Iran was planning to force Jews to wear yellow cloth stars. “This is how propaganda works, or one of the ways. Put out a scare story; as it…
Comment by Bill Baar —
May 23, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
I still wouldn’t want to be a Jew living in Iran.
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 23, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
Me neither, Bill. But that’s neither here nor there.
Comment by Pastor Maker —
May 24, 2006 @ 4:19 am
Well, I wouldn’t want to be a Palestinian living in Israel or the Occupied Territories. Did you know that under Israeli law an Israeli arab (Palestinians who weren’t driven out by Jewish ethnic cleansing in the 1940’s) who marries an non- Israeli Palestinian can’t live with them in Israel? And any children they have will be stripped of residency rights at the age of 12 and forced out of the country.
Sounds pretty bigoted to me. Looks awfully like apartheid.
Comment by Pere Ubu —
May 24, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
I’ve done a couple posts on my blog in the last couple days about this story – what’s interesting is on the staff of Benador is also one ”Arnaud De Borchgrave”, who seems to be the one who not only manuafactured the false story of Iraqi ”people shredders” back in 2003 but also evidently tried to float a variation on the ”Muslims requiring badges on religious minorities” story back in 2001!
Guilt by association and all that, I know, but it just seems all a LITTLE too convenient.
Comment by Sellam Ismail —
May 24, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
For that matter, I’d rather be a Jew living in Iran than an Arab living in Israel.
At this point it’s not too terribly rhetorical to claim that as an Arab living in the United States in 2006 I am only slightly more protected than Jews in Iran. I could just as easily be labeled a ”terrorist” by the US government and have to sit in jail while a kangaroo court eventually acquits me after several years of being drained financially and spiritually.
Comment by Jeff Dickey —
May 25, 2006 @ 5:59 am
Following up to brother Sellam’s comment-
I don’t doubt that an Arab in America is at best ”slightly more protected than Jews in Iran”; I would submit that non-Arab Muslims, particularly reverts, can have an even harder time. I lost my job twice because I was Muslim and one of the corporate powers-that-be found out about it (one was a Jew and one a Pentecostal, for the record). I’ve been harassed by cops for wearing a skullcap on Friday. I’ve been detained at airport checkpoints after a Qur’an was discovered in my carry-on luggage. (The last year that I was in the US, I carried an electronic copy n my PalmPilot; I didn’t want to risk more trouble than I absolutely had to.) My faith, combined with my politics (I’m ex-Navy and take the oath to ”preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic” seriously – which renders me implacably opposed to the junta running 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue these days) combined to the point where a) it was impossible for me to get and keep a job (in IT) and b) I had what I considered then and now to be real, credible threats of violence against my person and my life.
I hope I can return home one day, but for now I’m scratching along in Asia; I’ve lived in Vietnam and Malaysia, and will probably move this summer to either China or Russia – anyplace where I can feel reasonably safe, have a decent chance of supporting myself if I follow the rules and keep my head down – I just wish that those two statements still described what once was the greatest country in human history.