Thank you, ornamental- and Francis, also. I think Sammy Davis, Jr.
"owns" this song- the right balance of mischief and seduction. I
erred- John Bubbles wrote the music for this song and Ira Gershwin,
the lyrics; DuBose Heyward wrote most of the lyrics. Bubbles played
the Davis role in the 1935 theatre performance. The film version was
the best I could do plus the lp and playing some of the numbers on the
piano.

On Dec 4, 2:56 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> About 1:20 into this is about the only copy of it I could find online
> by the one who first seduced me from the naïve thinking that the title
> was heretical. (Sammy Davis Jr.)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tMtaIXUmbM
> A different version.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjncTfdaEHs&feature=related
>
> On Dec 4, 5:29 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Intifada was supported by Muslim countries- notably Iraq and Saudi
> > Arabia (cash to the families) but also Egypt, etc. "The things that
> > you're liable to read in the bible (Koran) ain't necessarily so..."
> > George and Ira Gershwin
>
> > On Dec 4, 7:23 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Dec, 19:11, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I see.  Glad that's all cleared up.  I'll just get a gun and head for
> > > > the closest mall now.
>
> > > > I haven't read the Koran.  I did stand watch with a Muslim for about 3
> > > > years though.  Learned a lot.  Ate a lot of his wife's tasty food.
> > > > Found out I really like curry.  What stood out with Abdul is his
> > > > complete devotion to Allah.  He'd stop everything and pray and the
> > > > phone wouldn't get answered, alarms wouldn't get checked out and I
> > > > think time stopped for him for about 4 or 5 minutes.
>
> > > The concept is that, if you are devoted to Allah, Allah will note that
> > > and reward you in the life to come.  Islam views the 'Hereafter' as
> > > being eternal, therefore in the long term, FAR more important than
> > > this temporal existence.
>
> > > > I found out revenge(according to him) was part of Islam.  
>
> > > The concept of "an eye for an eye" is a part of the Torah, as well.
> > > So is that grounds for antisemitism?  The Qur'an allows like-for-like
> > > retribution; however, it also discourages that and prefers that such
> > > vengeance NOT be enacted nor encouraged.  As an example, if a man
> > > kills you wife, then you would have the right to kill that man.  You
> > > would NOT, though, have the right to kill anyone else (like the
> > > murderer's wife, as a 'tit-for-tat' revenge).  Only the person guilty
> > > of the murder would be allowed to be put to death by the offended
> > > individual.  In the pre-Islam 'pagan-Arab' world, it was common for
> > > revenge to be taken against the entire family of the murderer.  The
> > > Qur'an put an end to that by restricting retaliation to the offender
> > > alone.  This is, without doubt, a step forward from their (the 'pagan-
> > > Arabs') previous practices.
>
> > > >This from a
> > > > guy that read from the book every single day.  He spend a great deal
> > > > of time working to ruin our bosses life because he was angry about
> > > > being embarrassed by a public comment our boss had made on Abdul's
> > > > lack of commitment to the job that made everyone in the room laugh.
>
> > > It is considered an offense to God to ridicule another indivdual.
> > > It's anti-social behaviour and encourages hatred.  Abdul SHOULD have
> > > been offended by a boss who made others laugh at him.  What was to
> > > gain by that?  Respect for the bosses discriminating ridicule?
> > > Equally, everyone who laughed, joined in the ridicule and acted anti-
> > > socially.  From what you describe, Abdul's reacted to ridicule,
> > > perhaps, in a poor fashion, but the question should be: why was he
> > > publicly ridiculed?  If it was a work-related matter, his boss should
> > > have taken him aside and discussed it with him privately.  Instead,
> > > 'the boss' publicly ridiculed him.  Sounds like Abdul has the moral
> > > high ground here and, while he has a good reason to be angry, it might
> > > have been better to look for another place to work wwhere the boss
> > > wasn't a prat.
>
> > > > Abdul's opinions on the 'rights' of women were quite different then
> > > > what is normal here in the States.  Arranged marraige, of course, for
> > > > starters.  He was 24 years older then her.  She walked behind him,
> > > > didn't speak in public, wore the burka, yadda yadda yadda.  Real
> > > > progressive.  Not.
>
> > > The concept of arranged marriages is not particularly Islamic but
> > > cultural to many various peoples who have become muslim over time.
> > > Jews used to (and still do in some cases) arrange marriages due to
> > > their former cultural practices.
> > > As far as Islam is concerned, it is better to have sex within the
> > > sanctity of marriage than it is to commit fornication.  Therefore,
> > > when people are of the age when they start to want to have sex, then
> > > the family tries to ensure that they are married, so as to prevent
> > > fornication.
> > > The wearing of a burkah is a personal choice and is not an Islamic
> > > requirement.  Modest dress is the requirement.  But 'modest dress' is
> > > open for interpretation.  Personally, given the amount of xenophobic
> > > antisemitism that is Islamophobia, it takes a brave girl to wear a
> > > burkah in public.  She's braver than one who wears a bikini.  But
> > > which, I ask you, of the two, is more likely to be 'wolf-whistled' or
> > > otherwise harassed?
> > > There is no injunction in the Qur'an stipulating that a wife should
> > > walk behind her husband.  This is another example of a cultural
> > > practice not an Islamic dictat.
>
> > > > That said, I don't think Abdul was capable of murder.  This was way
> > > > before 9/11 so I don't know for sure how he would have reacted but I
> > > > have a clue.  I was working with him when the Towers were bombed and
> > > > he expressed glee.  No kidding excitement and pleasure.  He must have
> > > > been ecstatic when the planes hit on 9/11.
>
> > > But, of course, Islam would stand firmly against such action.  It
> > > would stand against the terrorists and against those who got pleasure
> > > from their deeds.  But 9/11 was intended to be a wake-up call to the
> > > West (America in particular) for their backing of Israeli oppression
> > > of Palestinians who are subjected to having their houses, markets and
> > > work-places bull-dozed by Israel and are given nowhere else to live or
> > > work.  It is that kind of abject oppression that angers Muslims.
>
> > > > And, of course, I'll NEVER forget the footage of Palestinians
> > > > celebrating in the streets on that day.  Truly disgusting.
>
> > > Yup.  But I bet you didn't know that that was months old footage and
> > > was not an actual reaction to 9/11.  It was a media ploy used for
> > > scare-mongering and to promote Islamophobia and encourage backing an
> > > illegal war.  Fell right into that trap, did you?  So much for
> > > independent media.
>
> > > > I wonder, given your views expressed here Pat;  what do you think of
> > > > when you think of 9/11?  Sorrow or Celebration?  Enquiring minds want
> > > > to know.  I want to know.
>
> > > I think, as I said above, its intent (by OBL) was to serve as a wake-
> > > up call to the West regarding the oppression of Palestinians.  The
> > > ploy back-fired miserably and has only increased Western aggression
> > > against Muslims (eagerly backed by Neo-Con, Right-Wing, "Let's bring
> > > on Armageddon"-style [supposed] Christians who actually WANT a 'Final
> > > Crusade').  Of course I don't back terrorist tactics.  For one thing,
> > > September 11th was my wedding anniversary.  That didn't help.  But, on
> > > a more human level, I was shocked for days when I saw it and was
> > > brought to tears on many occasions thinking about it and having it
> > > 'replay' in my mind.  Terrorist tactics like suicide bombings are
> > > strictly forbidden by Islam and, therefore, should NOT be associated
> > > with it.  The fact that many suicide bombings are carried out by
> > > people who profess to be Muslim is a shame against those individuals
> > > rather than a shame against Islam, as their actions demonstrate that
> > > they are, in fact, NOT Muslims at all.
>
> > > > -Don
>
> > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 40 AM, Pat <[email protected]> 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2 Dec, 16:57, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> Muslims will be conquered by the Chinese, perhaps. The only other
> > > > >> solution is to level their countries like we did Germany and Japan-
> > > > >> who, at least, were industrialized. The only thing Islam has going 
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> it are oil deposits in various countries. But we have water.
>
> > > > > "The only thing Islam has going for it are oil deposits in various
> > > > > countries."
>
> > > > >     I take it, from that, that you have never read the Qur'an.  The
> > > > > main gist of it (Islam/the Qur'an) is that mankind should not oppress
> > > > > one another and that we should care for the orphans and elderly and
> > > > > the poor and treat all individuals with respect.  Much of the
> > > > > remainder is outlining examples of previous peoples who did NOT act
> > > > > that way and reminding the reader of how those peoples were
> > > > > destroyed.  Also, there's a fair amount of instructions on how to
> > > > > maintain women's rights to inheritance and their right to be heard--
> > > > > things that, in the West, women didn't get until the latter part of
> > > > > the 19th Century/early 20th century.  I.e., the Qur'an was, with
> > > > > respect to women's rights, some 1300 years ahead of its time.
> > > > >   The problems come in when Western society demands its right to be
> > > > > intoxicated and irascible to the point of outright destructive
> > > > > behaviour afterwards and the duty to oppress one another through usury
> > > > > and other ways (in the name of 'Survival of the Fittest', a euphemism
> > > > > for maintaining that animal instincts are the way forward!!) and
> > > > > Muslims don't understand why Western, supposedly civilised people,
> > > > > demand the right to act like idiots, screw up the environment and take
> > > > > as much as is possible from those who have the least.  Muslims don't
> > > > > view that as civilised behaviour.
> > > > >    
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.


Reply via email to