Comments on: John Miller’s Open Letter to Mark Steyn

By: Jobius

Jobius — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:46:36 +0000

Steyn may not have gone to college, but he’s proved himself a better fact checker than Journalism Doctor John “There is no Blue Book” Miller.

And spare us the humorless hand-wringing about cheap jokes leading to “false prejudices and hate crimes.” Levitical dietary laws are inherently funny, whether in the original or the Islamic version. Would you censor Woody Allen for his joke about some scholars believing that the Torah merely suggested not eating pork at certain restaurants?

By: david

david — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:33:13 +0000

Excuse me, guys. The book you are claiming was debunked, the Little Green Book, may indeed have been debunked. But perhaps you should have spent a little more time reading Steyn’s reply than you spent cutting and pasting from it. Steyn wasn’t quoting from The Little Green Book. He was quoting from a scholarly translation of the Resaleh. Here is the full bibliographic entry for the book on the Middle East Institute’s Research Guide on Ruhollah Khomeini: ” A Clarification of Questions: An Unabridged Translation of Resaleh Towzih al-Masael.” Translation by J. Borujerdi. Boulder: Westview Press, 1984. 432p. / BP 194.2 K4813 1984.”

So I’m sorry Steyn doesn’t give you a citation to an academic translating those words in a scholarly journal. He can only give you a citation to a scholarly translation of the original book by the great man himself. As I recall, in the heirarchy of sources that would be considered a step up.

The debunking you cite above appears to refer to a different book. Now that that’s straight, perhaps you could go back to Steyn’s article and respond to what is actually there?

Law is Cool:

We do not have to respond to what he says. Our source above indicates there were many “scholarly” works that were unattributable along with the book in question, and his response does not substantiate his sources objectively. The experts specifically cited the quote Steyn reproduced as being a hoax, over 25 years before he ripped it from Fallaci.

Our point remains irrespective of any source, which remain unsubstantiated by any accredited scholar to date, Steyn irresponsibily used the quote for a cheap laugh.

This also revealed his research process, which consisted of dating people of a Persian background, and the poor editorial scrutiny afforded to his work. Just because something is written in Farsi does not mean it’s authentic either.

By: MShah

MShah — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:53:50 +0000

The only unfair thing about the book, is that you could do the exact same thing with the Talmud if you wanted to.

Does that mean Steyn is going to start quoting the Talmud in the same way?

Nah, that will probably result in a hate crime.

By: Cheryl Boglarsky

Cheryl Boglarsky — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:54:54 +0000

I think this “give-and-take” is incredible. Please see Steyn’s rebuttal http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1516/26

By: Ali S

Ali S — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:40:15 +0000

well known to people who pay attention to the writings of the Shi’ite hierarchy…

And that would be you?

Somehow reactionary, right-wing blog are not the most credible sources.

By: Jay Currie

Jay Currie — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:58:21 +0000

What’s fun about Miller is that he simply has no idea what he is talking about. The particular book Steyn was referring to is well known to people who pay attention to the writings of the Shi’ite hierarchy. Miller’s attempt to smear Steyn has entirely backfired and his persistence in beclowning himself has made him a laughing stock.

The poor man should simply have the grace to retire from Ryerson and avoid engaging in blog battles he has no chance of winning. He is far too used to the days when “journalists” could write their version of the truth without risk of contradiction much less “fisking”. Miller’s train has left the station.