Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« A closer look at Coingate | Main | Nice guys »

July 11, 2005

It's Tom Friedman's problem

If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution, opines Tom Friedman.

The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.

For that, Juan Cole smites Friedman righteously Friedman Wrong About Muslims Again And the Amman Statement on Ecumenism.

It's as if Friedman's latest editorial spun out of control in a freak rhetorical accident. In the course of lecturing us about tolerance, he somehow ended up saying that all Muslims are complicit in terrorism.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's Tom Friedman's problem:

» Actually, Muslims HAVE condemned Al-Qaeda from Thousand-faced Moon
Tom Friedman practicing sloppy journalism? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. (Found courtesy of majikthise) [Read More]

» Muslims feel strain of global terrorism's grip on their faith from Mark Sigal's Blog - The Network Garden
This article in today's SF Chronicle is a good compliment to the Thomas Friedman Op-Ed Piece, If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution. Here is an excerpt from the Chronicle article: Muslims across the world are struggling [Read More]



Bless you (and the guys at Crooked Timber) for, as Brad de Long would say, reading Tom "Airmiles" Friedman so that we don't have to.

You think the NYT will ever subject old Airmiles to the sort of pressure and scrutinty that they subjected Krugman to as a result of Friedman being demonstrably wrong? After all, PK was only alleged to be wrong by the Don Luskins of the world, and for that, the NYT appointed an man to jump down his throat.

Alzheimer's or lying which is it Tom? So Tom Friedman really is a fucking idiot, and I haven't just been imagining it all this time? But he's won awards! I haven't won awards.

Unfortunately for us, Tom Friedman is our problem.

"In the course of lecturing us about tolerance, he somehow ended up saying that all Muslims are complicit in terrorism."
And this surprises you? Friedman is an uninformed ass who likes to pontificate on any and all subjects regardless of his complete ignorance of those subjects.
I do appreciate you reading him and providing a precis so I don't have to though. Every time I try to read him I end up wanting to break something, preferably Tom Freidman.

A comment identical the focus pocus was put on a 3QD post linking to this one. The name of the commenter was different.

I guess as this war gets more difficult, the pro-genocide squad comes out.

Glen Reynolds has said that if Iraq turns into Congo, he can live with it. Congo!--nearly 3 million dead in the civil war.

I suspect that we're 4 months away from "after all we've done for you, this is the thanks we get" chorus.

What exactly is focus pocus's point? That extremists say extreme things? That religious fundamentalists lack a liberal perspective. As for all those conflicts 'marked by cruelty, bloodlust, and a fearful loss of life', I suppose that distinguishes them from all those other wars marked by conviviality, group hugs and herbal tea?

"It's as if Friedman's latest editorial spun out of control in a freak rhetorical accident."

I'm fairly sure Friedman has never written an editorial for the NY Times. He's not on the editorial board; he's no more empowered to write an editorial than thee or me.

He has a column; those are as different from editorials as is a book review or a gaming column. Editorials speak officially for the paper; columnists do not, in the slightest.

That's kinda the entire point of the whole "Op-Ed" editorial/opinion column distinction. Which is almost why they refer to "Op" and "Ed" as, like, entirely separate things.

Why the whole world is concentrating on so called terrorist, please try to know what they wanna convey to the world, USA entered into iraq for WMD didnot find it. if you enter into some one's house and you expect them to allow you, because they are not so powerful as USA, they wanna show their anger by this mean.

how about iran or syria entering into USA and killing people like animals with bombs and illtreating victims. why USA not saying a word for north korea when they are making noclear weapons, becasue korea is strong and they dont have oil unlike iraq for.

The comments to this entry are closed.