If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The issue of anonymous bloggers and credibility was always a problem, specially when a blogger is critical on issues that touches public opinion and controversial matters by nature.
Yesterday, Jihad Al Khazen (he has a blog also) wrote an article at Dar Al Hayat (Arabic), were he actually presented his personal opinion in how Arab blogging sphere is challenging the traditional media stream and presenting a new critical and challenging channel for practicing citizen 'freedom of speech'. However, he also gave example of a dangerous type of bloggers; "anonymous bloggers."
Here is some excerpts from what he wrote followed by my opinion in Anonymous blogger/commenter.
Jihad writes:
Following translation by the brilliant Farah:
"Perhaps the case of the Religious Policeman, who claims is a Saudi, is a good example of the misuse of blogging. He claims to be a Saudi of Riyadhi origins and who's studied in the U.S and Britain, and thus writes in English. However, those skeptical [of his identity] have pointed out that the language he uses is rather advanced, [to the extent that] it is as though it were his mother tongue. They have also noticed that he not only criticizes Saudi government and society, but never shows a hint of sympathy toward the country from which he claims to originate. He abruptly disappeared in August of 2004, only to be welcomed a year later by blogs run by extreme American rightists and neo-cons. And finally, the site " Little Green Foot balls" (a rightist blog, in favor of Israel) has reported that this Religious Policeman, who claims to go by the name Al-Hamedi Al-Anezi, has published comments in the site under the name of "Saul Rosenbloom" which is clearly a Jewish name."
Jihad then writes:
????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? «??? ????» ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???????.
My humble translation:
Abu Sinan, who's an American married to a Saudi lady, expressed through his blog post date 5/11/2005 that the called "Policeman" does not present constructive opinions that helps Saudi reforms, instead he attacks the Saudi society and Islam, and is supported by venomous group who hate Islam and Muslims.
Personally I second what Abu Sinan says about this phoney man, which can't be Saudi citizen.
After reading all this, I had one of those "aha" moments.
How do I know to trust this or that anonymous blogger/commenter?
Here is the problem:
Imagine that elections arrived to your town, and an anon people were allowed to cast their vote. They claim that they are from your party, your country, maybe your religion and neighborhood. Would you accept their vote? I guess not. So why do we accept an anonymous commenter or blogger words and give them credibility?
Bloggers and commenter are like these voters. They cast their vote by publishing and sharing their opinions.
When a blogger writes, to whom are the posts directed? When reader's comment, to whom are the comments directed? This is where the problem starts. In general, though, anonymous blogs are a lot like character blogs. In fact, a blog like this could actually be a character blog. And this is where the issue rise.
An anonymous blogger might tell you he can't blog because his employer might not like it, or his country might not like it - so just trust him that he is who he says he is. He just wants the freedom to behave the way he likes. Might be behaving good, fair, objective and spread constructive opinions. Might be badly, slander with impunity, and spread lies.
So, how can an anonymous blog be a credible source of information?
The answer to this truly has multiple layers. It is of course the reader who makes a determination about credibility, and that's true whether the blog is anonymous or not. But still, am I going to trust the content of the blog?
I personally make this determination based in part on "how right" the blogger I am reading has been in the past. I also factor in the nature of the information — how critical is it that his information be 100 percent correct. Finally, I look for endorsements — other bloggers we know and trust, trusting this blogger. These things all factor into my trust equation whether the blog writer is identified or not.
But is there a difference with anonymous blogs? I think the answer is a resounding YES! If a blog is anonymous, we need additional validation that it is okay to trust this blog. The more critical the issue, the more validation we need. In fact, for some really high stakes issues like our politics, religion, social issues, etc.. there may never be enough validation to trust an anonymous blog. When someone is giving you a political, religious, social, etc advice, you need some solid indices that it is okay to trust them.
Therefore, the nature of the content really dictates whether you will trust an anonymous blogger. If the issue is fairly trivial, like what coffee should I buy, the fact that the coffee Blogger is both anonymous and a character doesn't matter. I just like that drinking this coffee or that will not kill me.
If the issue at hand is critical, and you are looking for validation, assistance, data to inform your decision, I truly do not believe an anonymous blog can generate adequate trust. You need to know WHO, and I'm not sure if even the sponsorship of a valued, trusted organization is enough to extend that trust to an anonymous blogger for a high stakes decision.
By all means, blog anonymously if you want to share your life and experiences. There are many valid and important reasons why people might want to blog anonymously.
But, if you want your opinion to really matter — if you believe that your opinion on an issue might make a difference, you really need to step up to the plate and stand for your opinion.
People will want to know who you are only when you are telling them what they should/should not be. Again, I want to stress the fact that I believe in, that trust and credibility are determined by the readers, not by objective.
A reader can choose to trust an anonymous blog, and most certainly can be entertained by one. However, I think readers are more likely to trust "credited" blogs when it comes to important decisions.
What coffee to buy? Not so critical. Questions of politics, religion, social, safety and so on. I think the readers want to know who you are.
General conclusion: Anonymous bloggers are perceived as pesky bloggers (anon life and experiences bloggers not included. They stand on different layer). Why?
Because bloggers that have enough fortitude to put it out there, knowing that their identity is on the line have far more credibility than those that want to remain anonymous. When reader look at a blogger/commenter of a person who is afraid and refuses to reveal who they are, most of the reader will wonder, if these anonymous bloggers/commenter are going to spend their time to affect public opinion and public policy then why not be man/woman enough to identify themselves?
Look at it. Someone anonymous leading by example, his believers and supports will follow and be anonymous, then all what they are advocating will look like as one of the underground project. How constructive is that? And where will it ever get? I guess no where but waste of time online, and will never make it to life. So, why bother?
[Hat tip of Farah and Abu Sinan for the inspiration of this post]
Interesting further reading:
{ 8 } Comments
On a side note we have an anonymous blog in Kuwait Anonymous.Kuwaitblogs.com.
Mahmood is right, the IDEA is the main thing. Lets take a look at that then. "The Religious Policeman" claims his idea is about Saudi reform, and reform within Islam. Fine and lofty goals, I agree with them myself.
But someone's stated goals are not always what their real goals are. You cannot be a mind reader, so it is important to look at the case and see what they are actually doing TOWARDS their stated goals.
"The Religious Policeman" has stated his goals are reform in Saudi and Islam. What has he done to further these stated goals and are his methods bound to work in favour of these stated goals?
As Farah, the well known female reformist blogger has stated, his blog seems to seek only to insult Saudis and Islam. If reform in Islam and Saudi were your goals, would doing things that you know are going to turn off even many of the most moderate Muslims and Saudis going to help you get to your goal? How does telling someone to "stick The Qur'an up their backside" help you get moderate Muslims on your side to help promote moderation in Islam?
How does a continual attack on all aspects of culture in Saudi Arabia help you to bring about your stated goal of reform in Saudi Arabia? I contend that it should NOT be about personalities, and I dont see how it is here when we dont even know who the personality behind "The Religious Policeman" is?
I think when you look at the goal of this blog and then compare it with the methodology the owner uses to try and further these goals you'll find that they do not match. "The Religious Policeman" engages in tactics that are rather much more like American neo-conservatives than those likely to affect any change in Saudi Arabia, not to mention the wider Muslim community. The fact that he was caught red handed impersonating a Jewish man on a well known neo-conservative blog is an issue that his supporters never seem to mention nor can find an excuse for.
I would like any of his supporters to explain to me how imitating a Jewish poster on a neo-conservative blog furthers his stated goals? He has admitted this very fact on the site in question, so it is fact, but he certainly used a very lame excuse.
I have had issues with Mahmood from Mahmood's Den before. During my short time in the blogging world, as a blogger, I have come to regret my interactions with him. Even though we have grave differences of opinion, I respect him. Why? Because even when he rails against the Islamist brainfarts and the like, he still has the ability to deal with the issue in a proper manner. "The Religious Policeman" does not.
Getting back to stated goals, what, exactly, does "The Religious Policeman" do to help others further his goals. Certainly, as a blogger with goals, he would provide his readers with the tools to effect some change towards his stated goals right? But in his case it is a resounding NO! He has not provided any resources which might help concerned readers make a difference. He has not provided positive feedback on issues within the Saudi society or within Islam. His comments always seem directed at insulting and making fun of people.
Again, back to goals. If his goals are truly reform in Saudi and Islam, why doesnt his blog target Saudis and Muslims? Dont you think you need to target Saudis and Muslims in order to reform Saudi Arabia and Islam? His site is geared towards those Western readers, particularly Americans, who have a deep seated hatred of Arabs and Islam. To even the Arabs and Muslims who support him you must concede this fact. His posters are a collection of anti-Arab bigots and Islamophobes.
Readers of Arab based blogs must admit that it is completely odd to see a political Arab blog, even one nominally in English, that NEVER uses Arabic sources for information of their own. Isnt that odd? Again, take Mahmood's Den, for instance. His blog is almost entirely in English, yet from time to time Mahmood finds some great nuggets in his reading of Arabic printed material or things from Arabic TV. He posts them, usually if not with a direct translation, with at least an understanding of the article, and the discussiom begins, again mostly in English. This is the way it works on English based Arab blogs. Why does this not exist on "The Religious Policeman"? Why not ONE post from a source that "he" read in the Arabic media? Why hasnt he made even one post in Arabic? Why has he refused to even engage in conversation in Arabic?
I have asked him myself to post in Arabic or to engage me in Arabic conversation. Now I am not an native Arabic speaker for sure, but I can get by. Why does a person who claims to have been born and raised in Saudi Arabia refuse to use his own language for ANYTHING? Why is he completely unable to come up with his own Arabic news sources. He realies almost entirely on MEMRI. Now whatever your feelings about MEMRI, a group run by a former Israel intelligence officer, isnt it odd that he is unable to come up with his own Arabic sources? He claims to live in London and I know a fact having lived there myself that he has access to every daily and weekly Arabic paper there is, not to mentional ALL of the televised Arabic media. With all of these resources, should he, as a self pro-claimed Arab, be able to provide at least a small portion of his own Arabic language material to draw from an not draw completely from a source that he KNOWS will put him at odds with even many of the most moderate Arabs and Muslims?
To further the above point, he seems to have gone past just using MEMRI translations of Arabic for his stories, he has gone to taking Arabic translations done by the respected Saudi blogger Farah. She has asked him to refrain from doing this as he has a habit of twisting the translations and his commentary into a way to make fun of Saudis or Muslims. She has worked pretty hard on her blog to try and set a forum for talk about reform in Saudi and Islam in a rational and respectful way. She hasnt always gotten good comments and actions from Saudis and Muslims, but her way has gained her a large following within the Saudi/Arab and Muslim blogging world. Her reasons for not wanting "The Religious Policeman" to use her material is straight and honest, and she has told him this on his site. She finds his methods to be counter-productive and likely to have a chlling effect on the majority of Arabs/Saudis or Muslims that read his blog.
I have rattled on here, suffice to say that if judged by their stated goals and what they are doing for gain these goals, along with what it seems they have accomplished, "The Religious Policeman" is a failure. His tactics will do NOTHING to further his stated goals, nor has he provided his readership with the tools to help further these goals.
I agree, leave personality aside, but in doing so one will come to the same conclusions as before if you judge this site based on content and stated goals.
What about fake identities? how can we tell if Ahmad or Mona are really Ahmad and Mona not Dick and Jane :p
What does identify us? is it the name? names are not enough. One can not be 100% sure of who he/she is dealing with unless after meeting that person and getting to know him/her on a personal level, which is quite difficult in case of the geographically scattered bloggers. So be it a nickname or a real name, that is not the real problem.
I think we should first emphsize on the opinions and thoughts of the blogger, then see who from the credible bloggers we know and what reliable sources we have consider that blogger to be credible with authentic points of view.
Mahmood, over at Mahmood's Den has made a spirited defense of the person or people who are responsible for "The Religious Policeman". I wanted to take a look at a few of his comments and see if they hold up.
Mahmood says "I wonder if Mr. Jihad Al-Khazen, former editor of Al-Hayat newspaper has been paid to character assassinate The Religious Policeman (Arabic) specifically, and every dissenting voice who chooses the safety of anonymity to discuss and propagate ideas."
It is interesting, that Mahmood, usually who usually stands against the tendency of Middle Easterners to turn everything into a conspiracy, is now resorting to this tactic himself.
He then goes onto to say "Mr. Al-Khazen himself has had as he attests his article in Al-Hayat of the 5th of January 2006, basing his supporting arguments on a disgruntled university student and a zealot who recently converted to Islam as de-facto credible sources to reach his conclusions."
But wait, didn't he just blast Mr. al-Khazen from Al-Hayat for character assassination, yet he resorts to character assassination in his attempt to defend "The Religious Policeman"? Is character assassination right or is it wrong Mahmood? You cannot blast someone else for doing a deed that you yourself commit a few sentences later.
Mahmood writes "And pray how do they reach the conclusion that the Religious Policeman is not authentic?"
Based on numerous issues, and it is not the disgruntled university students and us zealous converts that think so, but even well respected moderates, people like Haitham. What form of character assassination will you have for Haitham? He certainly is not disgruntled nor is he zealous.
Mahmood continues "His use of the name "Farah" as a gentleman's name, and the way that coffee is pronounced in various countries in the Arab world!….Did you not hear of Mohammed Farah Aidid or the poet George Farah and I am sure that given the time, I would find many more references for men whose name is Farah. "
You make my point for me Mahmood, thanks. Unless you were unaware of this fact, Mohammed Farah Aidid is NOT an Arab. You can hardly point to non Arab usage of Arab names to prove a point about someone who claims to have been born and raised in Saudi Arabia. Ask yourself this question, if YOU had a poster named "Farah" would you go on the assumption that the person was a male? If not, why not? As to George Farah, why not throw in Joseph Farah, you are aware that those are last names right?
Mahmood expounds "Oh yes, and that other thing: if you're an Arab you can't possibly - or is it shouldn't - speak English fluently!"
The person/people behind "The Religious Policeman" write English as a native speaker. I have some history in the translation field and there is a clear distinction between speaking fluently and speaking as a native speaker. The two are hired and paid differently by translation firms because there is a definite qualitative difference between the two. YOU, Mahmood, speak and write English fluently, but it is obvious that you are NOT a native speaker. The mistakes you make, sometimes word usage and sentence structure gives it away. The person/people behind "The Religious Policeman" are native speakers of English. This is not to say that him/her/they that write the blog were not born in the USA and are native speakers AND Arabs, but that is NOT the story they tell. They explain a Saudi birth and childhood there, hence their story is not of a native speaker of English, even if the writing is. There is a obvious disconnect there.
Mahmood-"He is accused of not having any empathy with normal Saudis to which I reply: hogwash. The learned gentleman did not bother to read The Religious Policeman's posts but depended on pathetic comments which reenforced his own peculiar views on citizen journalism. Jealousy comes to mind!"
I am certain Mr. al Khazen read the blog. He certainly read mine. Farah has stated, as have other Saudi bloggers out there, that the methods in which "The Religious Policeman" seeks to get his points out are bound to offend even the most liberal Saudi. So if it is clear that Saudis are not going to listen to his message, just who is the message directed at? From the posts at least it would seem the most anti Arab and anti Muslim out there are the ones getting "the message."(Whatever that might be). As to Mr. al Khazen being jealous, again you are engaging in the character assassination that you decried in the beginning of your post. Why would the former editor-in-chief of a paper like Al-Hayat be jealous of a blogger with no name?
Mahmood-"What irks me however is this learned gentlemen should know better than to attack all anonymous bloggers and commenters as incredible simply because he doesn't know their names. What does it matter?"
I believe that Haitham, whom I hope you do not character assassinate like you have done to me and Farah, said it best in his post on the subject. I suggest referring back to his comments on this issue. In part he says:
"But is there a difference with anonymous blogs? I think the answer is a resounding YES! If a blog is anonymous, we need additional validation that it is okay to trust this blog. The more critical the issue, the more validation we need. In fact, for some really high stakes issues like our politics, religion, social issues, etc.. there may never be enough validation to trust an anonymous blog. When someone is giving you a political, religious, social, etc advice, you need some solid indices that it is okay to trust them."
But in sort, if someone is claiming to be trying to change an entire people and religion, to have any credibility their identity SHOULD be known. Imagine an anonymous Nelson Mandela? Heck, keeping in context here, imagine an anonymous Rania al-Baz?
Mahmood-"Yes, some anonymity is objectionable; it is objectionable if you do have constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of expression backed up by society, tradition and unbiased judicial system. In other words if there is no threat to your life and for those who are near and dear to you."
Explain how someone like Farah, someone who is known in her society, gets away with the stuff she writes about Saudi Arabia, needed reform in Islam, you name it? There is a threat to her, yet she blogs on. A 21 year old university student. "The Religious Policeman" claims to be in London, if the stakes are so high, why not take his family out and claim asylum? Doesn't he realise that if the Saudis want to find him, they most certainly will? A satellite connection will not keep the true identity of the person blogging as "The Religious Policeman" secret.
Mahmood-"The Religious Policemen and others are justified in using anonymity because their lives ARE dependent on hiding their true identity, or are we naive enough to demand full disclosure if that very disclosure is going to end their lives violently and prematurely?"
This doesn't really fly Mahmood. Like I have said before, Farah posts things that are just as attacking on Saudi culture, society, and Islamists, and does so from the heart of Riyadh. Everyone knows that it is her blogging, she actually gets a lot of flak from other students at her school because of this. Yet Farah remains alive, Alhamdulillah, and her family are not sweltering in prisons, even though they are all within easy grasp in the middle of the Islamic radical heartland.
to be continued…
Abu Sinan, this is the longest comment I ever read. I think it has broken the records and the codes
I'm afraid I have to cut it into half or more to fix a technical issue here, which is the "Latest Comments" on the sidebar.
Part 2:
Mahmood-"I personally don't care who The Religious Policeman is in person, and I don't even care if he is even a born-again zionist zealot. What I do care about however is that he is highlighting aspects of our culture that we generally want to sweep under a carpet and pretend that it just did not happen."
I agree, I don't really care what his/her/their REAL identity is. If they are Indian, Pakistani(He loves that cricket) or whatever. What I don't like is what I, and other non character "assasinatable" people, find are the blatant inconsistencies in his story.
The man/woman/people, cannot even post in Arabic. They cannot even find their own materials in the Arabic press. For all of YOUR character assassinating, you have yet to address some of the most disturbing questions that are asked:
1. Why cant he find his own source material in Arabic, either print or TV?
2. Why does he resort to using translations from Arabic from someone else's site? Is he unable to come up with his own? From the complete lack of Arabic materials on his site, this would seem to be the case.
3. Why was he caught posting under a Jewish person's name at "Little Green Footballs"? Here is the link to the blog owner of LGF telling us that "The Religious Policeman" and "Sol Rosenblum" are the same person. Here the administrator at LGF tells us that the "The Religious Policeman" and the Jewish man are using a British ISP. But what, wasn't he supposed to be in Saudi at this time and using a satellite connect, as he claimed? Why a British ISP, and why lie about being in Saudi and the satellite connection? Here "The Religious Policeman" verifies that he is claiming to currently reside in Saudi and use a satellite connection, yet the owner of the LGF site says his ISP is out of the UK. The owner of LGF blocked "The Religious Policeman's" British ISP. He removes this block so that they can ask him why he was posting as a Jew. "The Religious Policeman" admits to posting under a Jewish man's name. His excuse is rather lame, but you can read that and be a judge of it. On LGF he is asked about his lack of knowledge of Arabic. When asked to have a conversation or answer questions in Arabic he goes off on some trantrum about Prince Nayif, as if that would keep him from answering mundane questions in Arabic. Heck, if he wanted to prove he could speak Arabic, why not do his little rant about Prince Nayif and the refusal to answer questions IN ARABIC?
4. Why is he unable and unwilling to engage in Arabic conversation? No one is asking him to speak textbook Fus7a, but a little guttural Najdi accent would be just fine. This is not absolute proof that he is an Arab, he could pay an Arab translator to be there for the session for all I know. The problem for him, however, if he does pay or ask someone to translate for him then it lets someone into the fact that he cannot speak Arabic, compromising both him and his claimed identity.
5. Mahmood, why don't all of us set up a time to meet at "The Religious Policeman." We can coordinate it with him/her/them. No personal questions at all allowed to "the Policeman" in case Prince Nayif is snooping. How about just a nice 30 minute session on his comments section, in Arabic, about any subject we want, movies, Hollywood, music, you name it. Two rules, no personal questions to "the Policeman" and no comments in English. Sounds kosher eh? No native Arabic speaker would have an issue with this right?
Mahmood-"I firmly believe that he (or she) is doing us - Arabs and Muslims specifically - a huge favour in unearthing those idiosyncrasies which should be addressed head-on. How else is there going to be any credible change in our societies?"
I would agree, and did agree, when I first found the blog. I even sent him an e-mail, like I did yourself, seeing if he could give me direction for my fight with the Saudi government. I checked his site every day whilst he was gone waiting for him to come back. Since he came back he has dealt with this important subject manner in a worse and worse way, addressing it in ways that are sure to turn off most Saudis, if not Arabs and Muslims. There will never be change, as Farah has said, by someone insulting and consistently attacking and belittling an entire people and religion. I agree with his stated goals, even if I don't think these are his real goals, but I COMPLETELY disagree with the manner in which he is doing it. It is counter productive and will only make matters worse.
I pointed out the site to one of the leaders of a well known Saudi secular dissident group here in the Metro DC area. It, incidentally, is run by a Saudi SHI'ITE. The person I talked to even told me that the site and its material was presented in a way that was counter productive and that presenting such things, in such a manner, will not help their cause in the slightest. That kind of refutes the stated claims of "the Religious Policeman" doesn't it?
Mahmood-"How else can we prevent another 15 or 150 girls from dying because they were prevented from receiving help from males simply because they were un-hijabbed? Wouldn't a father, a husband or a son prefer to keep his female relative alive even if she was rescued completely in the nude? I would."
I fail to see, like the leader of the REAL Saudi dissident group, how his site will help prevent anything. Historically, when extremists are confronted with material that is insulting and degrading they crack DOWN, not free people from oppression. "The Religious Policeman's" site does nothing more than provide a forum for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim posters, nothing more. It will have ZERO effect on the Saudi reform movement, as the leader of a secular Saudi dissident group told me himself.
For me and many others the stated goals are lies, the background of "the Religious Policeman" is a lie. So if he/she/they are not who they claim, what is their agenda, who are they? In an arena where a false step can cause one to be imprisoned, tortured, or even killed, it is vital we get to the truth in this matter. Was he/she/they put on the net to get information on REAL reformers, only to shut down 2-3 years from now after all of the information gathered through private e-mails and the like has been used to round up and lock up people in Saudi Arabia?
I don't know, but as someone who has a genuine interest in Saudi Arabia, its people, and reform in Islam, I would like to find out the truth.
Mahmood, you write: "And pray how do they reach the conclusion that the Religious Policeman is not authentic?"
I would ask you how you come to the conclusion that the "Religious Policeman" is authentic? It would seem there is MORE than enough evidence out there, some of which I have supplied in this post, to have serious questions about who this person is. What is YOUR evidence in his favour? What, that he has bits of knowledge that are gleemed from exclusively English websites, papers, and translations from Arabic? That his almost exclusive resource for getting material out of Arabic publications comes from a group founded by a former member of the Israeli intelligence? That he has the "insider" knowledge that a junior member sitting on the Saudi Arabian desk at a think tank might have?
Mahmood, you have made a poor case in "The Religious Policeman's" favour. Your post relied almost completely on personal attacks and character assassinations, the type you claim to abhore, and provided us with no factual basis to make us think that the "Religious Policeman" is who he claims to be. Farah, myself and others have provided factual information regarding his lack of knowledge of Saudi history, his inability or unwillingness to speak Arabic, and proof that he has posted under Jewish names at well known neo-conservative sites.
You have offered nothing tangible. You said in your post:
"The learned gentleman did not bother to read The Religious Policeman's posts but depended on pathetic comments which reenforced his own peculiar views on citizen journalism."
Pure supposition. You dont know whether or not he has read "The Religious Policeman's" posts. There are many of us who have who come to the same conclusion that Mr.Khazen did and I know I have read probably every post written on that blog.. You cannot not get out of that fact by attacking myself or Farah, as people you personally KNOW and RESPECT say the same thing as we have.
It would seem to me that you again fall into the trap of accusing someone of somthing and then doing the very same thing yourself. Character assassination being one, and supporting someone based on nothing more than the fact that they reinforce your particular views on a subject.
You support "The Religious Policeman's" views and methods, therefor it seems you have left your critical thinking and ability to question at the door. It is clear that there are far more questions, based on tangible items, than there are answers in this case. You have ignored these for no other reason than the person agrees with you. You have offered us nothing in the way of proof. You stand guilty of everything you have accused Mr. Khazen of.
I worry about those brave men and women really working for freedom and reform in not just Saudi Arabia, but in the wider Islamic world. I dont want to see deaths, imprisonments and torture because everyone was willing to take the word of one site and overlooking what are very valid questions. People's lives are at stake, we oew to it them to be MUCH more critical of this situation than we are.
Regarding anonymous blogs:
Yes, anonymous blogs are more difficult to trust. Some, like the Religious Policeman, might even be suspected of being disinformation in some sort of disguise - but we should also respect, I think, that just saying your mind and publishing whatever you think might be a dangerous matter in some countries.
I mean: I've admired Iraqi bloggers like Salam Pax and Riverbend, and they're anonymous; if some Syrian or saudi blogger (say) would want to get into a
really critical discussion of Syrian or Saudi society, anonymity might easily become advisable.
So … anonymity may easily become a disguise for disinformation, BUT it may also become an indispensable tool for dissidents. So I guess that means it's up for the reader of each anonymous blogs to use his/her own critical faculties upon deciding what to trust and what not; and always remember to be just one (or, at the very least one) tad more suspicious of an anonymous blog than of its non-anonymous equivalent.
The internet allows a dialogue, the problem is zionist have a need to control all forms of dialogue, the internet has gotten too big too fast and they've lost ther ability to control it, but the attack on Islam and Arabs must continue, so they pose as Muslims attacking Christian, Jewish and Hindu forums and blogs, of course they pose as Christians, Jews, Hindu's and Atheist's attacking Muslim forums and blogs…
With the advent of the internet cross cultural exchanges are occuring more frequenlty, understanding is developing, the one thing Evangelical Zionists fear the most…
Regarding Israel, Israel was established to fulfil an Evangelical prophecy, it's sole purpose is to be destroyed, but by Jesus, Hitler failed to carry out the Evangelical dream of utter annihilation of Jews, so during the Rapture, jesus will perform the Final Solution…
{ 4 } Trackbacks
[...] ? ??? ????? ?? ?????? That is the one side of the argument on anonymity. Haitham Sabbah agrees, "If a blog is anonymous, we need additional [...]
[...] , Blogging, Breaking News, Freedom of Speech08. January 2006
In the spirit of the "constructive and hot discussion" in the last two day regarding a [...]
[...] ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ? ??? ???? ????? ? ??? ???? ?? ????[...]
[...] t just my opinion, the general consensus among genuine Arab bloggers seems to be that he's a fraud. A(Reply to this) [...]
Post a Comment