Jihad Watch, LGF slimed by Shahid Alam

Yes this is a hate site. (Well it should be if it isn't)

And yes I am a hater.

Hater of EVIL that is.

How can anyone not hate what is evil? How can anyone not hate those baby butchers and mass murdering jihad terrorists, unless they themselves are evil?

This holiday season, I am most thankful that there are brave scholars including Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, who continue to speak out in such a respectable and intelligent manner. If only there were a Robert Spencer *within* Islam who was willing to examine and pursue a path of change. Unfortunately, the few who dare do this end up with fatwas on their heads, like Salman Rushdie and the like.

Are Muslims so filled with doubt that their religion and culture cannot withstand logical discourse? Apparently so. How tragic that they are so afraid.

This is such a valuable website. Thank you, and have a wonderful New Year everyone.

Ruby

This is the classic brainwashing by the repetition of reading the Quran,it creates the mindset of "Paranoia" and "Denial" just as drug substance abuse fools the user into a false reality of not being addicted and have total control to stop at any time.

Muhammed convinced himself that Allah blessed him with a 6 year old wife that he could screw the ass off once she became 9 since Muhammed had such high moral and ethics,abusers protect themselves by believing that everyone else is wrong and they're conspiring to attack them,so in turn the Paranoia is accepted as a wellfounded response to defend their version of reality.
The fact that western Muslims deny the 9/11 attack was an Islamic act and that the pilots
weren't "True" Muslims ,just show how deep this twisted "Death-Cult" created by Muhammed can destroy a mind and justify slaughtering millions of people while having a special dispendsation from Allah since HE comanded it in the Quran.

Misogynists and pedophiles assume they're normal,any attempt to change their belief results
in outbursts and senseless rants like those of CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper when he defends Muhammed by attacking the persons comment while producing no FACTS to back up his arguement.

NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE

Bob, an excellent post today!

I think the point that whatever one's purported justification for action with respect to one's external "enemies", the morality of one's cause must also be measured by what one does and plans to do within one's OWN sphere is to little noted.

It's actually a fine debating point I think, to GRANT the justice of Osama's complaints about America's foreign policy, etc., for the sake of argument, but then to say, "What is he FOR in the Islamic world?" I think that makes his essential viciousness a lot clearer for those who have problems with American actions in the world and I wonder why it isn't more often used.

After all, the Nazis were AGAINST some things worth being against, but what they were FOR was horrific. The Minutemen were FOR something good in America, not merely AGAINST British hegemony.

As so often, liberals know what they don't like, but their idea of what is to follow is absent or vapid or cloudy or unrealistic...or...evil.

Is it hate to refuse to live as a dhimmi in a worldwide Islamic caliphate? IF we are permitted to live at all. The koran is specific in what happens to conquered populations and I'll do what I have to to prevent the Islamization of my homeland.

Robert, I'm not surpreised that our State Dept. is letting the Terrorists, in the disguised forms of "professors", into the country under the guise of "academic freedom". Dr. Shahid Alam is only one of the latest examples how the USA is training the next generation of terrorists. Frankly, I'm not really that suprised about Dr. Shahid Alam.

What really suprises me is the absurd remarks from Michael Sheuer, former head of the CIA's Usama bin Laden unit. All I can say is thank God, Mr. Sheuer has been relived of his duties at the CIA. I doubt if he's ever met a Terrorist he didn't admire. His praises of Usama bin Laden in the New America Foundation conference are unbelievable. Gosh, they're only insurgents. No wonder the CIA was so dysfunctional.

The most important that can be done now is to help Iraqis register for their upcoming elections. www.iraqocv.org Let's prove that Iraqis love Freedom more than Tyranny. The US voting locations are Washington, DC, Detroit, Mich.,Chicago, Ill., Nashville, Tenn., and Los Angeles, Ca. If anyone's interested in volunteering, write me I've got the latest info. RSH

This should come as no surprise. It's the typical Islamic response. It fits in with the rest of the Islamist boot scrapers' replies.

Shahid Alam, you're ridiculous. However, please keep talking. By all means, don't let any of us stand in the way of you publicly expressing your feelings and opinions. It's a great tool for assisting us in continuously proving our point.

"Yes, Professor, they are fighting for their freedom as they see it. So were the Nazis, striving to free Germany from the so-called "Jewish threat" and the encirclement of hostile powers. But someone who wrote in 1938 about the Nazis' returning dignity to the German people would have deserved the condemnation of free men, just as Shahid Alam deserves that condemnation now."

Fantastic!

By the way... the American Revolution prolonged slavery by over 60 years (a schism that caused the civil war) and condemned the Native Americans to almost total destruction (unlike British Canada, which never had much in the way of slavery, civil war and genocide). So hey, if OBL is all about hate and war, (which he is) perhaps this Muslim fruitcake (Shahid Alam) isn't 100% wrong. I still think he should be kicked out of your country though - historical arguments aside.

Prof. Alam notes the differences in the 'ideals' of American revolutionaries and so-called al-Qaeda. But he does not address the central issue: What are these 'ideals' and to what degree does he endorses these 'ideals'? He obviously recommends in this essay that Muslims should stand up and violently resist what he sees in American and Israel attempts at 'domination'. Presumably this means he finds quite acceptable, and perhaps satisfying, the killing of American soldiers in Iraq. Well, what about attacking the homeland to achieve the ideals of the Islamic 'insurgency' (jihad)? Why not? The essay implies directly that he has no problem with such attacks against American civilians, and there is nothing in the piece in Counterpunch that I can find that directly rejects killing Americans civilians; why not send a second shot heard round the world?

Well, if he is against it, he should not only say so, he should explain precisely his position on the so-called 'insurgency', i.e. Jihad. Given that this view is implied in his writings then how in the world can he be shocked with the vociferous and angry reactions. He writes an article that implies that it is acceptable to murder the families American citizens on trains, planes, buses, whereever, and he expects Americans not be upset with him?

The 'hate speech' retort won't fly, I am afraid; he advocates a position that, in my opinion, has left the domain of reasonable discourse insofar as it tacitly endores indiscriminate violence waged in real time against his interlocutors; under such circumstances concerns for life and security take precendence. The burden falls to prof Alam to explain why such violence is not acceptable, and, in so doing, he should explain precisely why his remarks should remain above suspicion of taqiyya.

The "good" professor is worried about getting the
same treatment that Theo Van Gogh received for expressing his right to free speech by Muslims ?

Ironic I would think. Funny how he doesn't make any reference to that incident in his hypocritical
bleating about being "targetted by hate groups".

The most people will do here is ask for his resignation, not his head.

The problem with Islam is that even educated muslims like Northeastern University professor Shahid Alam can't see the difference between 18th century American colonists firing on the British Army and 20th century Arab terrorists firing on unsuspecting civilians in their struggle for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Professor Alam's parallel for the 9/11 terrorists should have been with those refered to in the Hebrew Bible's Hosea " "They sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind."

Congratulations Robert. You must be doing something right in order to attract a hate rant from this bigot.

I thank you for writing this blog for those of us who dont have the time or knowledge to investigate for ourselves. I have alerted several people to the dangers of militant Islam by using articles from this blog.

You are performing a valuable public service, keep up the good work.

How did you guys/gals end up with Alam,
did he emigrate, is he a citizen ?

And can you send him back somewhere ?

With the hundreds of millions of people on the planet who would like to live in America, become American, i'm sure you could do better than him.

As for the university, shame, shame, to sully your reputation with alam. Academic freedom does not cut it, that guy should not be teaching kids anything.

As for Sheuer, i feel much safer with him out of the CIA; where do they find these turkeys.

Mike Scheuer unfortunately understands the gravity of what Rumsfeld would call the "Global Pansurgency" against the U.S. all too well. There is a very serious misunderstanding about the nature of the threat and the actions the U.S. is taking.

The threat will not be resolved with mickey mouse games like taking people's toenail trimmers away when they fly the friendly skies.

It is much deeper than any Potemkin "War on Terror" or Bin Laden fanstasy could ever be.

The real conflict is about raw brute-force power in a worldwide Hobbesian death-struggle for survival. It is about control over people and resources, disguised in silly schoolboy politics so the masses understand who they must obey.

If you don't believe me, just wait until petroleum is priced in Euros.

This article relates to the discussion of Professor Shahid Alam, though it is about a similar professor at another university.

The professor's harassment claims seem disingenuous
User comment on article: [Hamid Dabashi:] Columbia University's Hysterical Professor
Submitted by Yoel Natan (yoelnatan@gmail.com), December 02, 2004 at 19:16

Back in the 1990's, it was safe to claim that the police looked into a harassment situation without anyone calling one's bluff. However, now that most police departments are computerized, it is possible to call and ask for police report numbers over the phone. Police can also search their daily blotters. Thus, not providing a police report or blotter number in response to requests casts serious doubt on whether the police were contacted at all over the harassment that Professor Dabashi alleges.

The professor's claims of harassment by mail, phone and email seem both hyperbolic and anachronistic. Previously it was safe to falsely claim one was being harassed, or exaggerate the amount of harassment, because the authenticity of the attacks could not be easily determined. Nowadays, however, there is DNA analysis of saliva on envelopes and stamps, computerized matching of fingerprints on letters, scientific analysis and profiling based on threat-letter contents, audio-analysis of voice mail recordings, and caller-ID phone tracing.

The professor's claims of computer hacking seem dated—as in nineties-ish. In the 1990's, networkers were a bit naïve and named computers and computer accounts after the person to which they were assigned. Moreover, the network administrator's user name was by default "Administrator," meaning that a hacker merely had to come up with the correct password to penetrate the entire network.

Nowadays, Administrators make their networks less transparent by disabling the "Administrator" account, and by giving all the computer names and accounts generic names like ps1234. What this means is a hacker would be hard pressed to locate, much less hack, Professor Dabashi's computer, without having first compromised an entire computer network at Columbia. Thus it becomes harder to believe that Professor Dabashi's computer was hacked without there being a shred of evidence to support this claim.

Finally, Dabashi's complaint of receiving "tons" of emails sounds dated, too. One wonders how all those emails sneaked past modern anti-spam software installed both on email servers and Columbia's local network. Furthermore, these emails are generally traceable by looking at the detailed email header information. The police would have found this information quite useful for catching the stalkers and harassers, if, in fact, "tons" of spam emails ever existed.

This guy M. Shahid Alam claims that he is "testing free speech in America." Whose free speech? Is there someone censoring him, muzzling him? He appears be able to say whatever is on his mind. That the mainstream media do not give him free access is not a matter of freedom of speech but of their editorial policies.

He objects to our free speech. He doesn't like that we are free to criticize him, to rebut his ridiculous argument that OBL and the hijack-murderers were the equivalent of American colonial minute men.

Before 9/11, he was working on "the question of Qur'anic reasoning; it would explore the different modes of reasoning that this Book employs to convey its message." Whether the Koran, with its contradictions, is logical or contains "different modes of reasoning," equal to or superior what Mr. Alam calls "Western reasoning," is debatable.

Mr. Alam's own reasoning, however, leaves much to be desired. The 9/11 hijack-murderers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither of which are colonies nor occupied by the United States. Hence what he calls their "insurgency" was unprovoked and unjustified.

That the oil under Arab-Islamic lands and Israel are to blame for this "insurgency" is also faulty reasoning. There are further examples of lack of logic in this piece, readily apparent

The reason for the rejection of Mr. Alam's writings by mainstream media can be blamed on his imprecise thinking rather than on the curtailment of what he values in the United States and certainly could never have in any Islamic country: freedom of speech.

Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are a comprehensive collection of journalist essays and academic thought concentrating on discrimination occurring within Western countries.

The public opinion is correct in its offence of Islamic terrorism and the blatant disrespect shown by Muslim people to Western culture and lifestyle.

Remember to vilify the right of free speech and opinion with a label such as “hate” in today’s society is verging on a criminal offence. I for one am highly affronted by this.

By the way... the American Revolution prolonged slavery by over 60 years (a schism that caused the civil war). . ."

Posted by: Timbo at January 1, 2005 11:55 PM

Here's a "brief history of slavery."

Slavery had its origins in remote pre-history, and unfortunately, continues today, de facto if not de jure, in certain Muslim countries.

In the western world, slavery began to fade with the collapse of the Roman Empire and the associated collapse of industry and the need for labor. Most involuntary servitude "morphed" into systems of serfdom and indentured servants. Slavery was rare, and ownership of a slave was primarily a "status symbol" for the slave's owner.

That changed when colonists came to the vast, raw lands of North and South America. In the pre-industrial era, there were no machines to perform the work of developing the land, and so the thousands of years old traditional slave trade of Muslim Arabs in Africa stepped up to the plate. They expanded their business to fill the suddenly increased labor needs of the new lands, and captured millions of people to sell in the coastal slave markets.

The sudden increase in the slave population presented a problem, in that slavery up to then had become so rare that there was little in the way of a legal structure to govern the practice. The answer was to reach back to ancient Rome and import, with a few modifications, their slave code.

Many of the concepts that were later to be included in the United States Constitution had their origins in the pre-Revolutionary period. By the time the American Revolution was over, the final work on the Constitution began in ernest.

At least three of the prime movers in Constitutional matters had serious concerns about the morality of slavery; George Mason, a southern slave owner, refused to sign the Constitution because his desire to include prohibitions against the further importation of slaves was not adopted. Thomas Jefferson, another southern slave owner, wrote openly about the immorality of the practice, even writing an anti-slave clause he wanted included in the Constitution, but it was overridden. Ben Franklin, a Pennsylvanian, was so anti-slavery that he was considered a pre-cursor to the Abolitionist Movement.

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the need for human labor began to be replaced by machines. Industry, a highly productive means of making money, was concentrated in the north, and dominated by machine labor. Agriculture, a far less productive means of making money, was concentrated in the milder climate of the south, and was slow to switch from human labor to machines.

The Civil War was a war between economies, industrial and agrarian, with slavery, already beginning to fade under the emergence of the Industrial Age, as a side issue. It was the "single issue" reason for the support of the conflict by many abolitionists and others who found slavery a morally reprehensible problem, just as there are "single issues" for many voters today that influence them to side with one party or the other.

During the war, Lincoln freed the slaves of the South only, as a means of weakening the enemy; slaves of the North remained in bondage until after the war, under pressure from Abolitionists.

So rather than extending slavery, the American Revolution was the starting gate for its disappearance, not only in the United States, but world wide.

Except, of course, in many Muslim countries.

By the way... the American Revolution prolonged slavery by over 60 years (a schism that caused the civil war). . ."

Posted by: Timbo at January 1, 2005 11:55 PM

Here's a "brief history of slavery."

Slavery had its origins in remote pre-history, and unfortunately, continues today, de facto if not de jure, in certain Muslim countries.

In the western world, slavery began to fade with the collapse of the Roman Empire and the associated collapse of industry and the need for labor. Most involuntary servitude "morphed" into systems of serfdom and indentured servants. Slavery was rare, and ownership of a slave was primarily a "status symbol" for the slave's owner.

That changed when colonists came to the vast, raw lands of North and South America. In the pre-industrial era, there were no machines to perform the work of developing the land, and so the thousands of years old traditional slave trade of Muslim Arabs in Africa stepped up to the plate. They expanded their business to fill the suddenly increased labor needs of the new lands, and captured millions of people to sell in the coastal slave markets.

The sudden increase in the slave population presented a problem, in that slavery up to then had become so rare that there was little in the way of a legal structure to govern the practice. The answer was to reach back to ancient Rome and import, with a few modifications, their slave code.

Many of the concepts that were later to be included in the United States Constitution had their origins in the pre-Revolutionary period. By the time the American Revolution was over, the final work on the Constitution began in ernest.

At least three of the prime movers in Constitutional matters had serious concerns about the morality of slavery; George Mason, a southern slave owner, refused to sign the Constitution because his desire to include prohibitions against the further importation of slaves was not adopted. Thomas Jefferson, another southern slave owner, wrote openly about the immorality of the practice, even writing an anti-slave clause he wanted included in the Constitution, but it was overridden. Ben Franklin, a Pennsylvanian, was so anti-slavery that he was considered a pre-cursor to the Abolitionist Movement.

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the need for human labor began to be replaced by machines. Industry, a highly productive means of making money, was concentrated in the north, and dominated by machine labor. Agriculture, a far less productive means of making money, was concentrated in the milder climate of the south, and was slow to switch from human labor to machines.

The Civil War was a war between economies, industrial and agrarian, with slavery, already beginning to fade under the emergence of the Industrial Age, as a side issue. It was the "single issue" reason for the support of the conflict by many abolitionists and others who found slavery a morally reprehensible problem, just as there are "single issues" for many voters today that influence them to side with one party or the other.

During the war, Lincoln freed the slaves of the South only, as a means of weakening the enemy; slaves of the North remained in bondage until after the war, under pressure from Abolitionists.

So rather than extending slavery, the American Revolution was the starting gate for its disappearance, not only in the United States, but world wide.

Except, of course, in many Muslim countries.

This professor really ticks me off. His hypocrisy
and pseudo intellectual trash is so slanted and
ignores even his own background:

He is from Bangladesh and educated there.
A brief check of Bangladesh's bloody history
should have told him how his his fellow Muslims
have treated his own former countryfolk. Read
this article which summarizes what West
Pakistan's (today's Pakistan) Muslim army did to
Bangladesh in 1971:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html

Yet he spouts off like an expert on U.S history.
According to his background, he continued his
education in Pakistan. I guess he approved of
their ethnic cleansing of his country.

Of course, such a selective view of history to
portray the alleged oppression of Muslims as being
the "reason" for 9/11 and other such heinous acts
is part of their agenda. He is adept at the use of
the language and Western academic freedoms, but
that still does not hide his true twisted aims.

“Americans have been trained to see only their own greatness, not the human costs that others have been made to pay, and continue to pay, for these successes..”
(M Shahid Alam – from Counterpunch)

Substitute "Muslims" for "Americans" and the irony in that statement speaks for itself.

Cockburn and other far leftists should be roundly damned for their moral equivalence. Presumably they permit this guy to spout off his BS because they are obsessed with the global economic injustices of American capitalism. Where is the economic justice under Islam? Why do Muslim societies create total economic misery for their masses? But now ADD TO ECONOMIC MISERY the huge affront to human rights - especially women's rights - that Islam represents - and it becomes OUTRAGEOUS that the left is so obsessed with capitalism (economic rights) that it is apparently willing to dispense entirely with HUMAN RIGHTS. So who in the end is really and completely totally obsessed with MONEY at any cost?

Just wondering if Cockburn has ever permitted the KKK to spout off at his site under the guise of 'free speech' because there is NO DIFFERENCE.

By the way... the American Revolution prolonged slavery by over 60 years (a schism that caused the civil war) and condemned the Native Americans to almost total destruction (unlike British Canada, which never had much in the way of slavery, civil war and genocide).
Posted by: Timbo

I know Canada likes to project a nice guy image but it simply wasn’t like that. We did have slavery (till the British outlawed it in 1833) at about the same level as the Northern States. We had our genocide of native populations. For example, Newfoundlanders wiped out the entire Beothuk tribe on the main island. We have not always been kind to other tribes either. We have had a few rebellions and uprising. None on the scale of the American civil war, but hey, we have to spend a lot of time just keeping warm.

ALL of Islam plays the propaganda war. Just like Hamas is the violent arm of Islam, these "professors" are the psychological arm of Islam. There are also financial, political, spiritual, technical, and apologetic arms of Islam, and so on. There has never been any spiritual entity on the face of the earth more self-centered than Islam. If we are going to understand anything about the nature of Islam, we must understand first, that it is deceitful. This means disguise in more ways than one.

Report
I totally agree, from the constant looming threat of terrorism, the insidious creeping into our legislative and education systems down to the offensive attacks at the very essance of who and what we are. All designed to bring about apathetic, weary indifference in us

We have alot of skill and power ourselves!

Professor Alam's thesis is incorrect. Al Qaeda is more like the British in that they attacked America and Americans have to fight them off. True, the British had claim to America prior to losing the Revolutionary War. But then again, have we not heard such tripe as Colombus saw minarets in the New World as he made his fateful voyage of 1492? Does not Islam consider any portion of land they may have once stepped in to be theirs forever? So would it not seem to make sense that America is fighting of aggressors who lay claim to OUR LAND?

;-)

Ironic that Professor Shahid Alam makes these comments while enjoying the very freedoms that the great Satan has bestowed upon him. Freedoms that no Islamic country has the power of will to provide. Only infidels can make provide these kinds freedoms, that is why this Moslem and many more like him live in the land of and under the direction of infidels.

Uncanny that any Moslem is content in a Christian Nation. So content they will fight to stay!

Where will Professor Shahid Alam live after his cohorts turn the great Satan into the Moslem Republic of formerly Free America? He must think he would be the head boob in charge, little does he know that he is low boob on the totem pole.

All tyrants and meglomaniacs, Hitler for one, claimed they were just fighting a defensive war, so why should Osama and this western educated mouthpiece be any different? All I can say there is a heck of alot more free speech here in the USA than in any Muslim country, where insulting scum like Allah or Muhammed can get you killed!

From my post to Massright.com -

I've run across this guy too, previously, after sending him a snarky email: after a couple of exchanges, he responded by implying that Islam's goal (which he thinks is a fait accompli) was to overthrow democratic societies by willfully outpopulating them through demographic manipulations. Very uncool, I thought.

Thanks for learned comments surrounding my post. I expected blind patriotic abuse, and instead I received reasoned arguments, which was a pleasant surprise.

To compare OBL to a separatist, anti-taxation uprising in 18th century America, is of course, very crass. However, to react to this cleric's strange outburst as if he had insulted a saintly institution is understandable (if you are American) but also mistaken.

Going by the evidence (i.e. Canada)I am convinced that the American Revolution was a spanner in the works of North American emancipation. As for the Native Americans, yes there were certain abuses in Canada, but it is very clear that they understood that the republic was a grave enemy. Take for example, the battle of Oriskany, fought near New York in 1777. It was not one of the largest battles of the war but it was certainly the most vicious for its size, with over a third of all participants killed and injured. The strange thing about this battle was that it didn't involve the British army! The revolutionaries fought Native Americans and Loyalists. Not only did the Native Americans fight for the Crown but they did so with wild enthusiasm. The same happened in the war of 1812, when they valiantly held the Canadian border. Although largely ignored in America (because it poses too many awkward questions) it seems obvious that the native inhabitants saw their fight for liberty and freedom as being upheld by the British. The subsequent treatment of Native Americans in the USA has also shown that they were not foolish in this respect.
Also, I can't accept that a nation that did not completely ban slavery until the 1860's was a good example to the world - no way!

----

As for Bangladesh, after independence their government ravaged the lands of the Buddhist Chakma tribe, robbed their ancestral territory and virtually enslaved them.

See the United Nation's Working Group On Indigenous Populations ANTI SLAVERY SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. 1984 report for BANGLADESH.

Also try reading ON THE BRINK OF BENGAL by Francis Holt.

Just to let you guys know, Shahid Alam means "witness forever", at least that is what 'olam means in Hebrew. It appears to be a Semitic root, so maybe it is the same. It is hardly surprising then, to see that he is a Saidist, and a Jihadist himself.

Ruby said: If only there were a Robert Spencer *within* Islam who was willing to examine and pursue a path of change.

Hi Ruby, check out Ali Sina at Faithfreedom.org (NOT Faithfreedom.COM). Faithfreedom.com was set up to attack Faithfreedom.org., the latter being Ali Sina's site.

Ali Sina is an ally of Spencer and was recently in a symposium/debate on Spencer's side. The two of them debated two Muslims. It was about gender equality and Islam. The symposium is probably still available at Frontpagemag.com. As Spencer said of him, Sina was "devastatingly effective" in that debate.