I have had an exchange with someone identifying herself as "Andrea22072" on the thread "Northeastern Prof Shahid Alam slimes Jihad Watch, LGF again" that I thought was worth making into a post of its own, since it deals with many of the issues being bandied about in connection to the controversies surrounding Alam and Ward Churchill -- chiefly, "academic freedom."
Andrea22072 began by posting this as a comment there:
After learning of the focus on Professor Alam by FOX News, and reading the statement by Bill O'Reilly regarding the Professor's work, I stumbled upon the jihadwatch.org website.Saying that I am appalled at the strangulation of academic freedom, the smearing of those who do not hold to specific ideologies, as well as the outright twisting of those individual's works that dare seek out socio-political truths that deviate from "accepted" patterns of that search.
While I am unsure if this post will be "approved" by the site and posted along with other comments I wish to convey my disappointment and outrage at this attack on Professor Alam and to inform those that frequent this site, as well as the site owner, that those individuals who hold to the notion of academic freedom, in research, writing, and thought, will not submit to attempts to defame those who have the courage to speak the truth in the face of mass propaganda and fear.
I thank you for this website as it enabled me to obtain information on other individuals, like Professor Alam, who are critically focusing on these issues in order that I may lend my support to them. I hope that those who read of the statements made regarding Professor Alam actually reads his work and does not simply rely on others to interpret the works for them and draw conclusions based on others views.
I replied:
Andrea22072:It is Shahid Alam who has defamed me, not the other way around.
He has suggested I orchestrated death threats against him. I expect he knows that this is false.
I challenge you to produce one statement I have made about Shahid Alam or his "academic work" that is false.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Her further reply:
Mr. Spencer, Thank you for your reply to my recent post; I sincerely appreciate the opportunity you have provided for dialogue.I appreciate your statement regarding the suggestion of your orchestrating death threats as I have no evidence to the contrary and hope the views you express would be defended in the course of discussion and not simply in actions that would be considered reactionary. Likewise, I would hope that you appreciate the fact that there are many individuals that choose a reactionary method of response to his work regardless of where they arise (again, not stating that you have initiated these methods).
I never accused you of "falsifying" Mr. Alam's work; my statements indicate a misrepresentation of his ideas. After reading many of the Professor's works (only after becoming aware of the controversy) I was struck by the lack of focus on the thesis of his work by those that argue against it. In Mr. Alam’s article, “America and Islam” he raises fundamental and important questions to those Muslim extremists that I have yet seen raised by those who adamantly argue against his work. Your statement regarding those who use personal attacks against those whose ideology does not match their own is well founded; I would be eager to hear responses based on Mr. Alam’s actual premises and thesis instead of a few selectively chosen passages that have not been taken within the context of his argument. I have not, as of yet, found any argument against the Professor’s work that critically discusses the propositions contained within his work as opposed to the mere repeating of selected passages that could be viewed as inflammatory.
It appears (from your response to Alam’s article) that you rely on a “moral compass” to direct your research and writings. I am interested in this statement and would ask how you define “moral compass”. Your response misses the fundamental argument raised in Alam’s work – that the ideologies of the dispersion of “freedom” promulgated by the US and the ideology of Muslim extremists are more similar than different in their purpose to free their people of tyranny. I am in no way defending Sharia law just as I am not defending the US ideology based on specific premises. I am simply attempting to go outside both to examine the impact of Western actions on current situations and how Western actions, in large part, negatively impact the very situations that are trying to be remedied (by negative impact I mean by actually serving to exacerbate terror and further alienate those extremists who then pose a greater threat to Western ideals).
Aside from the specific controversy of Mr. Alam I am increasingly concerned at the attempts to silence those who are critical of current Western policies, especially within settings of academia. I do understand that it is very easy to sink to personal attacks, derogatory statements that do not address the issues raised, and threats of physical harm and it is this reason that misrepresentations are important. I am not proposing that you have been the source of these reactionary responses only that a selective focus on small portions of the works, while choosing not to discuss the premise and thesis contained in those works, serves to undermine discussion and discourse on the issues proposed.
Again, I appreciate your reply and your willingness to engage on these issues. I look forward to your thoughts.
And my last:
Dear Andrea22072,I think it is much more likely that those who would "choose a reactionary method of response" are those who oppose my work, not Shahid Alam's. Shahid Alam knows this to be true; that is, for example, why I do not publish my address or whereabouts, while his are readily available even now, after he has received these putative threats.
I respectfully disagree with your contention that I missed "the fundamental argument raised in Alam’s work – that the ideologies of the dispersion of 'freedom' promulgated by the US and the ideology of Muslim extremists are more similar than different in their purpose to free their people of tyranny." I confronted that argument head-on in one of the pieces about Alam that I wrote -- and you clearly have read it, since it is also the one in which I refer to a moral compass. But here it is, for your convenience: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16537
In any case, as for a moral compass, I believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The 9/11 hijackers, insofar as they believed in Sharia, did not. (For a precise elucidation of the differences between Sharia and the Declaration, cf. the Sufi Sheikh Tabandeh's critique of the Universal Declaration). Whatever you wish to say about how the West is, in your view, exacerbating terror, the Sharia is still the Sharia. To say that its adherents are trying to free people from tyranny is true from their own perspective; it is objectively false, however, insofar as the Sharia itself is tyrannical, and destructive. (Please pardon the reference if you do not believe in objective truth.)
As for trying to "silence" the professor, this charge is beyond ridiculous. Shahid Alams fill American universities and reign virtually unchallenged as they fill American youth with their ideas. If anyone has been silenced, it is the noble (yes) Orientalists of the past -- Jeffrey, Margoliouth, Muir, Schacht, Wansbrough, and others -- who did real academic work on Islam and Middle Eastern issues, in sharp contrast to the dreary politicized Saidist lockstep that reigns supreme today and of which Shahid Alam is but one of many, many representatives.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Dear Mr. Spencer:
In this exchange with Angela, you are your typical brilliant self.
Thanks for being there with your scholarly guidance.
Sincerely,
Jocko
"I am appalled at the strangulation of academic freedom, the smearing of those who do not hold to specific ideologies, as well as the outright twisting of those individual's works that dare seek out socio-political truths that deviate from "accepted" patterns of that search."
So am I. That's why I support Robert Spencer and his work.
Mr. Alam’s actual premises and thesis instead of a few selectively chosen passages that have not been taken within the context of his argument.
I LIKE HOW SHE SAYS ONLY A FEW, WHICH FEW DO YOU THINK SHE MEANS DOSE SHE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT OR IS THIS SOME MULSUM PLANT TO DENIE THEN PONCE??
WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY WHO HAVE NO IDEA?? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I DID NOT FALL OFF A TRUCK TODAY??
WONDER IF SHE IS AWARE OF WHAT THEY THINK OF WOMEN??
LUST:
Qur’an 33:51 “You may have whomever you desire; there is no blame.”
Tabari VIII:187 “The [sixty-two-year old] Messenger of Allah married Mulaykah. She was young and beautiful. One of the Prophet’s wives came to her and said, ‘Are you not ashamed to marry a man who killed your father during the day he conquered Mecca?” She therefore took refuge from him.”
Qur’an 66:1 “O Prophet! Why forbid yourself that which Allah has made lawful to you? You seek to please your consorts.”
Qur’an 66:4 “If you (women) turn in repentance to him, it would be better. Your hearts have been impaired, for you desired (the ban) [on how many girls Muhammad could play with at a time]. But if you back each other up against (Muhammad), truly Allah is his protector, and Gabriel, and everyone who believes—and furthermore, the angels will back (him) up.”
Qur’an 66:5 “Maybe, if he divorces you (all), Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you—submissive, faithful, obedient, adorers who worship, who travel, and are inclined to fasting—previously married or virgins.”
Tabari VIII:117 “Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself. Muhammad gave Dihyah her two cousins instead.” Ishaq:511 “When he protested, wanting to keep Safiyah for himself, the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.”
Bukhari:V5B59N524 “The Muslims said among themselves, ‘Will Safiyah be one of the Prophet’s wives or just a lady captive and one of his possessions?’”
Tabari VIII:110 “When Abu Sufyan learned that the Prophet had taken her, he said, ‘That stallion’s nose is not to be restrained!’”
Bukhari:V4B52N143/V5B59N523 “When we reached Khaybar, Muhammad said that Allah had enabled him to conquer them. It was then that the beauty of Safiyah was described to him. Her husband had been killed [by Muhammad], so Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself. He took her along with him till we reached a place where her menses were over and he took her for his wife, consummating his marriage to her, and forcing her to wear the veil.’”
Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “Muhammad commanded that Safiyah should be kept behind him and he threw his cloak over her. Thus the Muslims knew that he had chosen her for himself.”
Ishaq:517 “When the Apostle took Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, ‘I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people.”
Qur’an 33:30 “O Consorts of the Prophet! If…any of you are devout, obedient, and submissive in the service to Allah and His Messenger, and does good, to her shall We grant her reward twice. We have prepared for her a generously rich provision.”
Tabari IX:126 “The Messenger of Allah married fifteen women. He combined eleven at a time and left behind nine.”
Ishaq:311 “The Apostle saw Ummu’l when she was a baby crawling before his feet and said, ‘If she grows up, I will marry her.’ But he died before he was able to do so.”
Tabari VII:7 “The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six.” Ishaq:281 “When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three.”
Tabari IX:128 “When the Prophet married Aisha she very young and not yet ready for consummation.”
Bukhari:V9B87N139-40 “Allah’s Apostle told Aisha, ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams [a.k.a. sexual fantasies]. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen.”’”
Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”
Tabari IX:133 “Juwayriyyah was chosen by the Messenger for himself on the day of the Muraysi raid from the captives.” “Muhammad married Umm, who had embraced Christianity.”
Tabari IX:134 “Muhammad took Zaynab [his daughter-in-law] but Allah did not find any fault in the [incestuous] relationship and ordered the marriage.”
Tabari IX:135 “When the Prophet scrutinized the captives on the day of Khaybar, he threw his cloak over Safayah. Thus she was his chosen one.” Tabari IX:139 “The Messenger married Ghaziyyah after the news of her beauty and skill had reached him.”
Tabari IX:137 “Allah granted Rayhanah of the [Jewish] Qurayza to His Messenger as booty [but only after she had been forced to watch him decapitate her father and brother, seen her mother hauled off to be raped, and her sisters sold into slavery].”
Tabari IX:137 “Mariyah, a Copt slave, was presented to the Prophet. She was given to him by Muqawqis, the ruler of Alexandria.”
Tabari IX:138 “The Prophet married Aliyyah, a Bakr woman. He gave her gifts for divorce and left her. He also married Qutaylah, but he died before he could consummate the marriage.”
Tabari IX:139 “Layla approached the Prophet while his back was to the sun and clapped him on his shoulder. He asked her who it was and she replied, ‘I am the daughter of one who competes with the wind. I am Layla. I have come to offer myself to you.’ He replied, ‘I accept.’” [Layla shared her story with her parents.] “They said, ‘What a bad thing you have done! You are a self-respecting girl, but the Prophet is a womanizer.’”
Tabari IX:147 “A eunuch named Mubur was presented to Muhammad along with two slave girls. One he took as a concubine, the other he gave to Haasn.”
Ishaq:186 “He took me into Paradise and there I saw a damsel with dark red lips. I asked her to whom she belonged, for she pleased me much when I saw her.”
Bukhari:V4B52N211 “I participated in a Ghazwa [raid] with the Prophet. I said, ‘Apostle, I am a bridegroom.’ He asked me whether I had married a virgin or matron. I answered, ‘A matron.’ He said, ‘Why not a virgin who would have played with you? Then you could have played with her.’ ‘Apostle! My father was martyred and I have some young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl as young as them.’”
Tabari VIII:100 “The Messenger sent Hatib to Muqawqis, the ruler of Alexandria. Hatib delivered the letter of the Prophet, and Muqawqis gave Allah’s Apostle four slave girls.”
Bukhari:V9B86N98 “The Prophet said, ‘A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.’ ‘O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent?’ He said, ‘By remaining silent.’”
Bukhari:V5B59N342 “Umar said, ‘When my daughter Hafsa lost her husband in the battle of Badr, Allah’s Apostle demanded her hand in marriage and I married her to him.’”
Tabari VIII:1 “In this year the Messenger married Zaynab bt. Jahsh [a first cousin: Allah’s Messenger came to the house of Zayd bin [son of] Muhammad. Perhaps the Messenger missed him at that moment. Zaynab, Zayd’s wife, rose to meet him. She was dressed only in a shift…. She jumped up eagerly and excited the admiration of Allah’s Messenger, so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly, ‘Glory be to Allah Almighty, who causes hearts to turn!’ So Zayd went to Muhammad. ‘Prophet, I have heard that you came to my house. Why didn’t you go in? [Dad,] Perhaps Zaynab has excited your admiration, so I will leave her.’”
Tabari VIII:4 “One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. Now there was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd.’”
Tabari VIII:3 “Zayd left her, and she became free. While the Messenger of Allah was talking with Aisha, a fainting overcame him. When he was released from it, he smiled and said, ‘Who will go to Zaynab to tell her the good news? Allah has married her to me.’ Then the Prophet recited [Qur’an 33] to the end of the passage. Aisha said, ‘I became very uneasy because of what we heard about her beauty and another thing, the loftiest of matters, what Allah had done for her by personally giving her to him in marriage. I said that she would boast of it over us.’”
Qur’an 33:4 “Allah has not made your wives whom you divorce your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths.”
Qur’an 33:6 “The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, and his wives are their mothers.... This is written in the Book.”
Qur’an 33:37 “You hid in your mind and your heart that which Allah was about to manifest: you feared the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zayd had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We gave her to you, joining her in marriage to you: in order that there may be no difficulty or sin for the Believers in the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah’s command must be fulfilled.”
Qur’an 33:38 “There can be no difficulty, harm, or reproach to the Prophet in doing what Allah has ordained to him as a duty. It was the practice (approved) of Allah amongst those of old that have passed away. And the commandment of Allah is a decree determined. (It is the practice of those) who deliver the Messages of Allah, and fear Him. Allah keeps good account. Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Last of the Prophets with the Seal: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.”
Qur’an 33:48 “And obey not (the behests) of the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites. Disregard their noxious talk and heed not their annoyances, but put thy trust in Allah. For enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.”
Qur’an 33:50 “O Prophet! We have made lawful to you all the wives to whom you have paid dowers; and those whom your hands possess out of the prisoners of war spoils whom Allah has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of your uncles and aunts, who migrated with you; and any believing woman if the Prophet wishes her; this is a privilege for you only, and not for the rest of the Believers; We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom they possess; in order that there should be no difficulty for you and that you should be free from blame.”
Qur’an 33:51 “You may put off whom you please, and you may take to you whomever you desire. You may defer any of them you please, and you may have whomever you desire; there is no blame on you if you invite one who you had set aside. It is no sin.”
Qur’an 33:28 “O Prophet, say to your wives and consorts: ‘If you desire this world’s life and its glittering adornment, then come! I will provide them for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner. And if you desire Allah and His Messenger and the latter abode, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the good-doers an immense reward.”
Qur’an 33:30 “O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you are guilty of unseemly conduct, shamelessness, or lewdness, the punishment will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah. But any of you that is devout, obedient, and submissive in the service to Allah and His Messenger, and does good, to her shall We grant her reward twice. We have prepared for her a generously rich provision.”
Qur’an 33:32 “Consorts of the Prophet! You are not like any of the (other) women. Fear and keep your duty, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire. Stay quietly in your apartment. Make not a dazzling display like that of the former times of Ignorance. Perform the devotion, pay the zakat; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah wishes to cleanse you with a thorough cleansing. And bear in mind that which is recited in your houses of the revelations of Allah and the wisdom.”
Qur’an 33:36 “It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option. If any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a wrong Path.”
Qur’an 4:23 “Prohibited to you are: your mothers, daughters, sisters.... Also (prohibited are) women already married, except slaves who are captives.” [Rape is okay with Team Islam.]
Bukhari:V5B59N459 “I entered the Mosque, saw Abu, sat beside him and asked about sex. Abu Said said, ‘We went out with Allah’s Apostle and we received female slaves from among the captives. We desired women and we loved to do coitus interruptus.’”
LOVE OF MONEY:
Qur’an 64:16 “Fear Allah as much as you can; listen and obey. Pay the zakat. Those saved from covetousness prosper. If you loan to Allah a beautiful loan, He will double it. He will grant Forgiveness: for Allah is most ready to appreciate.”
Tabari VI:82 “I asked Abbas, ‘What is this religion?’ He answered, ‘This is Muhammad bin Abdallah, who claims that Allah has sent him as His Messenger with this religion and that the treasures of Chusroes and Caesar will be given to him by conquest.’”
Ishaq:113 “When I was a merchant I came to Mecca during the hajj pilgrimage. While I was there a man came out to pray and stood facing the Ka’aba. I asked, ‘What is their religion? It is something new to me.’ Abbas said, ‘This is Muhammad who alleges that Allah has sent him with it so that the treasures of Chusroes and Caesar will be open to him.”
Bukhari:V4B52N267 “The Prophet said, ‘Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause.’”
Bukhari:V4B56N793 “The Prophet said, ‘If you live long enough the treasures of Khosrau will be opened and taken as spoils. You will carry out handfuls of gold and silver.’”
Bukhari:V4B56N795 “I have been given the keys of the treasures of the world by Allah.”
Tabari VIII:16/Ishaq:454 “Soon the trial became great for the Muslims and fear intensified. One said, ‘Muhammad was promising us that we should eat up the treasures of Chosroes and Caesar, and now none of us even can go out to relieve himself!’”
Qur’an 93:4 “Soon will your Lord give you so much you shall be well pleased.... Did He not find you poor and made you rich?”
Qur’an 108:1 “To you have We granted Kausar, the fountain of abundance.”
Tabari VI:95 “Abu Talib said to Muhammad, ‘Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining about you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other?’ The Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the jizyah tax.’”
Qur’an 9:29 “Fight against those People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not follow what Allah and His Messenge acknowledge as the true religion (Islam), nor accept Our law, until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission.”
Qur’an 68:3 “Nay, truly for you is a never-ending reward.”
Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their children and woman taken as captives. The captives were divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him.”
Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “Abi Huqayq held the treasure of the Nadir. He was brought to Allah’s Messenger, and he questioned him. But Huqayq denied knowing where it was. So the Prophet questioned other Jews. One said, ‘I have seen Kinanah walk around a ruin.’ Muhammad had Kinanah brought to him and said, ‘Do you know that if we find it, I shall kill you.’ ‘Yes,’ Kinanah answered. The Prophet commanded that the ruin should be dug up. Some treasure was extracted. Then Muhammad asked Kinanah for the rest. He refused to surrender it; so Allah’s Messenger gave orders concerning him to Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.”
Ishaq:515 “When the people of Fadak heard of what had happened, they sent word to the Messenger, asking him to banish them and spare their lives, saying they too would leave him their property. So Khaybar became the prey of the Muslims, while Fadak belonged exclusively to the Messenger of Allah, becoming his personal property.”
Qur’an 8:1 “They ask you about the benefits of capturing the spoils of war. Tell them: ‘The benefits belong to Allah and to His Messenger.’ So fulfill your duty to Allah and the Prophet.”
Tabari VIII:142 “Whoever prays our prayer and turns to our Qiblah is a Muslim. Incumbent on whoever refuses is the payment of the jizyah tax.”
Qur’an 9:42 “(Prophet) had there been immediate gain (in sight with booty in front of them), and the journey easy—a near adventure—they would (all) have followed you.”
Qur’an 9:55 “Let not their wealth nor their sons dazzle you or excite your admiration (Muhammad).”
Qur’an 9:57 “Some slander you, blaming you (of partiality) in the matter of (the distribution of) the offerings [stolen spoils]. If they are given part of these, they are pleased, but if not they are indignant and enraged!”
Qur’an 9:59 “(How much more seemly) if only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and said, ‘Sufficient is Allah! His Messenger will soon give us His bounty. We implore Allah to enrich us.’”
Qur’an 9:75 “Amongst them are men who made a deal with Allah, that if He bestowed on them of His bounty [booty], they would pay (largely) in zakat tax (for Allah’s Cause [Jihad]). But when He did bestow of His bounty, they became niggardly, and turned back (from their bargain), averse (refusing to pay).”
Qur’an 5:13 “Loan Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from your evils, and admit you to Gardens.”
Qur’an 5:119 “Allah will say: This is the day on which the Muslims will profit from Islam…”
Bukhari:V4B53N376 “While Allah’s Apostle was accompanied by the people on their way back from Hunayn, the Bedouins started begging for things so aggressively that they forced him to go under a Samura tree where his outer garment was snatched away. On that, Allah’s Apostle stood up and said, ‘Return my clothes. If I had as many camels as these trees, I would have distributed them amongst you; and you will not find me a miser.’”
Bukhari:V4B53N377 “While I was walking with the Prophet he was wearing a Najrani outer garment with a thick hem. A Bedouin came upon him and pulled his garment so violently that I could see the imprint of the hem on his shoulder caused by the violence of his pull. The Bedouin said, ‘Give me something from Allah’s Fortune which you have.’ The Prophet turned, smiled, and ordered that a gift should be given.”
Tabari IX:34/Ishaq:595 “Khuwaysirah came and stood by the Prophet as he was giving gifts to the people and said, ‘Muhammad, I have seen what you have done today.’ ‘Well, what did you see?’ He said, ‘I don’t think you have been fair.’ Allah’s Messenger became angry.”
Bukhari:V4B53N374 “The Prophet said, ‘I give to the Quraysh so that they will desire Islam, for they are nearer to their life of Ignorance and it is not strong in their hearts.’”
Bukhari:V4B53N375 “When Allah favored His Apostle with the properties of the Hawazin tribe as Fai booty, he started giving to some of the Meccan men up to one-hundred camels each. Whereupon some Ansari said, ‘May Allah forgive His Apostle! He is giving to the Quraysh and leaving us out, in spite of the fact that our swords are still dripping with the blood of the infidels.’ When Muhammad was informed of what they had said, he called for the Ansar and gathered them in a leather tent. ‘What is the statement which I have been informed?’ The smart ones replied, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! The wise ones did not say anything, but the youngsters said, “May Allah forgive His Apostle; he enriches the Quraysh and leaves the Ansar poor, in spite of the fact that Ansar swords are still dribbling with the blood of the infidels.”’ The Prophet replied, ‘I give them more because they are still close to the period of Infidelity and have just recently embraced Islam. You should be pleased to see them becoming rich.’”
Tabari IX:36/Ishaq:596 “‘Prophet, this group of Ansar have a grudge against you for what you did with the booty and how you divided it among your own people.’ ‘Ansar, what is this talk I hear from you? What is the grudge you harbor? Do you think ill of me? Did I not come to you when you were erring and needy, and then made rich by Allah? Do you hold a grudge against me and are you mentally disturbed because of the worldly things by which I conciliate a people and win them over so that they will embrace Islam and become Muslims?”
Tabari IX:79 “In this year the zakat was made obligatory, and the Messenger dispatched his agents to collect it. The verse was revealed: ‘Take the zakat from their wealth to purify them.’”
Tabari IX:86 “He orders you to give one fifth of Allah’s booty and pay the zakat tax. It is enjoined on the faithful from their land and property…. And don’t seduce the Jews or Christians for incumbent on them is to pay the jizyah protection tax. Allah’s Apostle dispersed his representatives to every land where Islam had entered to collect the zakat.”
Tabari IX:196 “Fatimah [Muhammad’s daughter] and Ali [Muhammad’s adopted son and Fatimah’s husband] came to Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger. They demanded Muhammad’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute.”
Bukhari:V5B59N546 “Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet, sent someone to Bakr, asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Apostle had left of the property taken from the Fai booty gained without fighting in Medina and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus [Muhammad’s fifth of the booty gained through fighting] of the Khaybar booty.”
Bukhari:V9B84N59 “When the Prophet died, Arabs reverted to disbelief. Umar said, ‘Should we fight these people?”’ Bakr said, ‘By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat, as Zakat is the right to be taken from property according to Allah’s Orders. If they refuse to pay me even so little as a kid they used to pay, I will fight with them for withholding it.’”
Qur’an 20:131 “Do not covet what we have granted other people. Nor strain your eyes in longing for the things We have given for their enjoyment, the splendor of the life, through which We tempt them.”
Bukhari:V5B57N119 “The people used to send presents to the Prophet on the day of Aisha’s turn [to have sex with him]. Aisha said, ‘His other wives gathered in the apartment of Um Salama and said, “Um, the people send presents on the day of Aisha’s turn and we too, love the good presents just as much as she does. You should tell Allah’s Apostle to order the people to send their presents to him regardless of whose turn it may be.” Um repeated that to the Prophet and he turned away from her. When the Prophet returned to Um, she repeated the request again. The Prophet again turned away. After the third time, the Prophet said, “Um, don’t trouble me by harming Aisha, for by Allah, the Divine Inspiration [Qur’an surahs] never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman among you except her.”’”
Qur’an 2:195 “Spend your wealth in Allah’s Cause [fighting infidels]...send such gifts as you can afford.” Qur’an 2:215 “They ask you what they should spend. Say: Whatever they spend is good…. Allah is aware of it.”
Qur’an 2:245 “Who is he that will loan Allah a beautiful loan, which Allah will double to his credit and multiply many times?”
Bukhari: V9B87N127 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been awarded victory by terror so the treasures of the earth are mine.’”
Qur’an 59:8 “The spoils are for the Emigrants who were expelled from their homes and from their belongings while seeking the bounty of Allah, and aiding His Messenger: such are the sincere ones. They are loyal.”
Qur’an 63:10 “Spend out of the substance [booty] which We gave you before death comes and you say, ‘My Lord, why didn’t You give me respite for a little while? I wish I had given (more).’” [The Noble Qur’an footnotes a Bukhari Hadith to explain this verse.] “The Prophet said, ‘Everyday two angels come down from heaven. One says, “O Allah, reward every person who spends in Your Cause.” The other says, “O Allah, destroy every miser.”’”
Tabari VII:106 “Abu Azzah, you are a poet, so aid us with your tongue. Join our expedition and I swear before Allah I will make you a rich man.’”
Qur’an 3:14 “Beautified for men is the love of the things they covet, desiring women, hoards of gold and silver, attractive horses, cattle and well-tilled land. These are the pleasures of this world’s life.”
Qur’an 3:181 “Verily Allah heard the taunt of those who said, (when asked for contributions for the war): ‘Allah is poor, and we are rich!’ We shall record their saying and We shall say: Taste you the penalty of the Scorching Fire!”
Qur’an 8:69 “So enjoy what you took as booty; the spoils are lawful and good.”
Ishaq:327 “Allah made booty lawful and good. He used it to incite the Muslims to unity of purpose. So enjoy what you have captured.”
Ishaq:324 “Allah taught them how to divide the spoil. He made it lawful and said, ‘A fifth of the booty belongs to the Apostle.’ [
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Victory[FREEDOM] to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
I think that andrea or any other western woman who has any sympathy or support for islam should perhaps live under sharia rule as a woman in an islamic country before they judge. They will see for themselves that islam while proclaiming to "hold women in the highest regard" actually enslaves them. How does andrea feel that as a woman muslims consider her mind to be "deficient" as spelled out in the koran, in other words andrea the islamic god feels that women are inferior in every way, even going as far as to say the "the majority of hells inhabitants are women".
Yes, women like andrea need a dose of reality and living under sharia would certainly be an eye opener. Why take a smiling imam's word, or the word of a muslim professor as to how "wonderful" islam treats women, please, try shaira on for size and then make an educated judgement....oops no educated jusdgements for women, we are, according to islam sadly lacking in every way, except to be used for the sexual pleasure of men and as baby making machines.
"Your response misses the fundamental argument raised in Alam’s work – that the ideologies of the dispersion of “freedom” promulgated by the US and the ideology of Muslim extremists are more similar than different in their purpose to free their people of tyranny."
This is a conclusion, not an argument; but the background argument is based on a false analogy, as Spencer points out. The fallacy is so obvious, horribly bad, one must raise further questions of context. Fallacies are normally used with strategic purposes in mind: ad hominems can throw off an opponent and beg for counter-assertions that one can 'shoot down'; the straw man leads the argument away from the real point and oversimplifies a claim for the simple-minded audience, a way to win by misrepresentation. And blatant, provocative false analogies? Usually the speaker wants to suck the audience in, dazzle them, excite them, provoke some, and capture others; and these kinds of false analogies are common in charged political and religous contexts.
Well, Spencer makes the point: the analogy is ridiculous. And why can't the gallery ask some blunt, simple-minded questions? Alam uses evaluative not descriptive language in characterizing the hijackers: and the evaluative language is not mildly positive but glowing. These folks look like heroes.
Why can't folks, who are already past the rotten analogy, go to the implicature of these comments and ask: Well, then, what would be so wrong about another 9/11, prof Alam? What do you say?
This is not focusing on what is inflammtory; this goes beyond the rotten argument to the most fundamental issue of context: the sentiments of the author, the purpose of the argument (that seems to be buried in a vicious religious bias).
CAIR promptly jumped on the case of that Army
General who made the comments about "sometimes
shooting people is fun".
But of course they haven't had any criticism of
people like Alam, Churchill and their ilk.
Here we have the face one of the fanatics who will
soon be plotting the next incident for the
apologists to applaud about:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/ts/020405wardchurchill&tmpl=sl&e=1
"...strangulation of academic freedom..."
EXAGGERATION ALERT -
"...outright twisting of those individual's works..."
EXAGGERATION ALERT -
"...attack on Professor Alam..."
EXAGGERATION ALERT -
"...mass propaganda and fear..."
EXAGGERATION ALERT -
"...actions that would be considered reactionary..."
OBFUSCATION ALERT -
"...Muslim extremists are more similar than different in their purpose to free their people of tyranny..."
DECEPTION ALERT -
"...and further alienate those extremists..."
DHIMMI ALERT -
"...attempts to silence those who are critical of current Western policies..."
EXAGGERATION ALERT -
How dare we defame Islam.
It's just a "small" "minority" of extremists.
P.S. Good post USAgirl.
Professor Emma Perez, right, Associate Director of the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado reads a statement during a news conference in Boulder, Colo., on Tuesday, Feb. 1, 2005, in support of colleague Professor Ward Churchill and his freedom of expression and First Amendment Rights. Professor Adrian Gaskins, left, and two other staff members offered their support as well. Churchill, provoked a furor when he compared victims of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks to Nazis.
WONDER IF SHE IS PART OF LARAZA OR LA MEACHA???
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen [this includes the lib's who support them]
PS
Heard today this guy is tenurad so it will cost the collage big bucks to get ride of him so I would suggest that any who give money to stop giving and put your money to a better use??
The outrage at the "strangulation of academic freedom" in the case of Churchill and Alam is interesting. I wonder how long it would take for a tenured professor to get fired at the behest of CAIR and the multicultural project organizations because of a statement such as, "Almost all terrorists are Muslim", a statement which could easily be substantiated by empirical observation.
The word "reactionary". A perfect example of leftist twisting and perversion of language to suit their REGRESSIVE TOTALITARIAN agenda. S.O.P. for leftists, institutional hegemony has it's privileges.
-------------------------------------------
(modern)
Definition: [n] an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism
[adj] extremely conservative
Synonyms: extreme right-winger, far-right, reactionist, right, ultraconservative
See Also: Blimp, Bourbon, Colonel Blimp, conservative, conservativist
================================
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Re*ac"tion*a*ry\, a.
Being, causing, or favoring reaction; as, reactionary
movements.
\Re*ac"tion*a*ry\, n.; pl. {Reactionaries}.
One who favors reaction, or seeks to undo political progress
or revolution.
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blahhbla blahhhhh blah blah!!!!
Thank you again, Mr. Spencer, for your circumspect commentary.
Academic freedom?
Blatant abuse of priviledge, thats what I call it.
Ward Churchill deserves more than a bloody nose!
Put him together in a sack with Alam and Emma Perez and wack 'em with a baseball bat before you dump them on a pile of garbage! How low can one sink to call the victims of 9/11 "little Nazis"?
This is really a case where the low- lives have taken over, where the lunatics are running the asylum!
As long as people like Robert Spencer have to fear for their life, cowardly news services don't allow for airtime, (for fear of causing "controversy"), as long as anyone speaking out against the utterly vile and pernicious agenda of the Islamists is himself vilified, and every attempt to silence everyone that exposes them for what they are is dismissed as "Islamophobic"- we have reverse discrimination and suppression of truth, and we can't have that!
"Will not submit to the effects of mass propaganda and fear"-
Well, Andrea, WE will not. The mass propaganda is pretty much on the side of Saudi money, and I suspect you are on their payroll too, otherwise you would not sound off like that?
But I am sure that here on JW we could chip in to buy you a one way ticket to Saudi Arabia, just make sure you stay there!
Wait a sec.....
I consider myself a reasonable man with a history of supporting my country in various ways thoughout my life. For example, early on I was a combat Marine in Vietnam. In this venture I was severely wounded and had much time to conteplate my and the then administrations motives for the attempt to establish "freedom" and "democracy" in a foriegn country. I came to the conclusion that any honest attempt at freedom and establishment of democracy must come from those directly affected by "tyranny", be it the Vietnamese, Iranians, North Koreans or Iraqi's. Sure, lend a oppressed people a hand as we were aided by the French during the course of our own revolution against British rule. Yet, to unilaterally decide what is "moral" and good for a forien nation seems to me ludicrious and doomed to failure.
Spencer reports that "To say that its adherents are trying to free people from tyranny is true from their own perspective; it is objectively false, however, insofar as the Sharia itself is tyrannical, and destructive" Have not U.S. policy makers been "tyrannical" and "destructive" in their attempt to induce "freedom" and "democracy" in nations we may feel threatened by? Whose "moral compass" is broken or perhaps interpreted incorrectly?
Thanks for the Jihad Report and the discourse allowed by the site owner.
Respectfully,
J Mankowski, USMC Retired
'Yet, to unilaterally decide what is "moral" and good for a forien nation seems to me ludicrious and doomed to failure.'
Yep. I am quite sure the two million murdered by Pol Pot would agree with you on that score. And let's not forget the movie 'The Killing Fields'- the end result of of unilateral decision by the North Vietnamese as to what is moral and good.
And I am sure the people who died in Spain as the result of a bombing that was being planned even before we hit Afghanistan, would be wondering why islamofascists thought it was 'moral and good' to unilaterally decide what was right for them...
And etc.
And etc....
Why is J. Mankowski, a "wounded combat veteran" and thus obviously a male, signed in as "moshegirl"? Gender identity confusion? Sex change operation? Or could it be . . . TAQIYYA?
Can't you just smell the muslim troll?
moshegirl,
While I appreciate and deeply respect your service and sacrifice for this country, I will have to disagree with you concerningr post.
Isn't that what is grand about our country? Your contribution to secure this right is proof of that.
I will admit that our country is not perfect. There have been numerous times where our policies, while intended for good, have turned tragic in their planning and implementation.
That is the difference. The Constitution in its intention is good. A decent code written to ensure the never ending quest to grant the basic freedoms for all. Sometimes it fails yes, but most of the time it does not.
Sharia, on the other hand, depends upon the "moral compass" of those who wield that law.
Beginning with Muhammad and with slight deviations throughout time, history has shown the world that the "moral compass" of those implementing that law have been less than ethical.
Sharia is a law to be wielded by the absolutist, the autocrat, the emir, the sultan and indeed the goal, of the caliph.
Yes, the USA makes a lot of mistakes, but the ambition is a moral one.
Posted by: moshegirl at February 5, 2005 09:49 AM
WELL! WELL!
So you have never needed any help??
OH but that is not true if as you say you were wonded some one was there to help you??
so what you say makes no since??
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200502040750.asp
February 04, 2005, 7:50 a.m.
The Global Throng
Why the world’s elites gnash their teeth.
Do we even remember "all that" now? The lunacy that appeared after 9/11 that asked us to look for the "root causes" to explain why America may have "provoked" spoiled mama's boys like bin Laden and Mohammed Atta to murder Americans at work? Do we recall the successive litany of "you cannot win in Afghanistan/you cannot reconstruct such a mess/you cannot jumpstart democracy there"? And do we have memory still of "Sharon the war criminal," and "the apartheid wall," and, of course, "Jeningrad," the supposed Israeli-engineered Stalingrad — or was it really Leningrad? Or try to remember Arafat in his Ramallah bunker talking to international groupies who flew in to hear the old killer's jumbled mishmash about George Bush, the meanie who had ostracized him.
Then we were told that if we dared invade the ancient caliphate, Saddam would kill thousands and exile millions more. And when he was captured in a cesspool, the invective continued during the hard reconstruction that oil, Halliburton, the Jews, the neocons, Richard Perle, and other likely suspects had suckered us into a "quagmire" or was it now "Vietnam redux"? And recall that in response we were supposed to flee, or was it to trisect Iraq? The elections, remember, would not work — or were held too soon or too late. And give the old minotaur Senator Kennedy his due, as he lumbered out on the eve of the Iraqi voting to hector about its failure and call for withdrawal — one last hurrah that might yet rescue the cherished myth that the United States had created another Vietnam and needed his sort of deliverance.
And then there was the parade of heroes who were media upstarts of the hour — the brilliant Hans Blixes, Joe Wilsons, Anonymouses, and Richard Clarkes — who came, wrote their books, did their fawning interviews on 60 Minutes, Nightline, and Larry King, and then faded to become footnotes to our collective pessimism.
Do not dare forget our Hollywood elite. At some point since 9/11, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Whoopi Goldberg, and a host of others have lectured the world that their America is either misled, stupid, evil, or insane, bereft of the wisdom of Hollywood's legions of college drop-outs, recovering bad boys, and self-praised autodidacts.
Remember the twisted logic of the global throng as well: Anyone who quit the CIA was a genius in his renegade prognostication; anyone who stayed was a toady who botched the war. Three- and four-star generals who went on television or ran for office were principled dissidents who "told the truth"; officers in the field who kept quiet and saved Afghanistan and Iraq were "muzzled" careerists. Families of the 9/11 victims who publicly trashed George Bush offered the nation "grassroots" cries of the heart; the far greater number who supported the war on terror were perhaps "warped" by their grief.
There were always the untold "minor" embarrassments that we were to ignore as the slight slips of the "good" people — small details like the multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that came to light due to the reporting of a single brave maverick, Claudia Rosett, or Rathergate, disclosed by "pajama"-clad bloggers without journalism degrees from Columbia, sojourns at the Kennedy School, or internships with the Washington Post. To put it into Animal Farm speak: elite New York Times, CBS News, and PBS good; populist bloggers, talk-radio, and cable news bad.
In place of Harry Truman and JFK we got John Kerry calling the once-maimed Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet," Senator Murray praising bin Laden's social-welfare work, Senator Boxer calling Secretary of State Rice a veritable liar for agreeing with the various casus belli that Boxer's own Senate colleagues had themselves passed in October 2002. And for emotional and financial support, the Democratic insiders turned to George Soros and Michael Moore, who assured them that their president was either Hitlerian, a dunce, or a deserter.
Then there was our media's hysteria: Donald Rumsfeld should be sacked in the midst of war; Abu Ghraib was the moral equivalent of everything from Saddam's gulag to the Holocaust; the U.S. military purportedly tried to kill reporters; and always the unwillingness or inability to condemn the beheaders, fascists, and suicide murderers, who sought to destroy any shred of liberalism. Meanwhile, the isolation of a corrupt Arafat, the withdrawal of 10,000 Americans from a Wahhabi theocracy, the transformation of the world's far-right monstrosities into reformed democracies, and the pull-back of some troops from Germany and the DMZ went unnoticed.
What explains this automatic censure of the United States, Israel, and to a lesser extent the Anglo-democracies of the United Kingdom and Australia? Westernization, coupled with globalization, has created an affluent and leisured elite that now gravitates to universities, the media, bureaucracies, and world organizations, all places where wealth is not created, but analyzed, critiqued, and lavishly spent.
Thus we now expect that the New York Times, Harper's, Le Monde, U.N. functionaries who call us "stingy," French diplomats, American writers and actors will all (1) live a pretty privileged life; (2) in recompense "feel" pretty worried and guilty about it; (3) somehow connect their unease over their comfort with a pathology of the world's hyperpower, the United States; and (4) thus be willing to risk their elite status, power, or wealth by very brave acts such as writing anguished essays, giving pained interviews, issuing apologetic communiqués, braving the rails to Davos, and barking off-the-cuff furious remarks about their angst over themes (1) through (3) above. What a sad contrast they make with far better Iraqis dancing in the street to celebrate their voting.
There is something else to this shrillness of the global throng besides the obvious fact of hypocrisy — that very few of the world's Westernized cynical echelon ever move to the ghetto to tutor those they champion in the abstract, reside in central Africa to feed the poor, give up tenure to ensure employment for the exploited lecturer, or pass on the Washington or New York A-list party to eat in the lunch hall with the unwashed. Davos after all, is not quite central Bolivia or the Sudan.
First, there is a tremendous sense of impotence. Somehow sharp looks alone, clever repartee, long lists of books read and articles cited, or global travel do not automatically result in commensurate power. So what exactly is wrong with these stupid people of Nebraska who would elect a dense, Christian-like George Bush when a Gore Vidal, George Soros, Ben Affleck, Bruce Springsteen, or Ted Kennedy warned them not to?
If the American Left is furious over the loss of most of the nation's governorships and legislatures, the U.S. House, the Senate, the presidency, and soon the Supreme Court, the Europeans themselves are furious over America's power — as if Red America is to Blue America as America is to Europe itself. Thus how can a mongrel culture of Taco Bell, Bud Light, and Desperate Housewives project such military and political influence abroad when the soft, subtle triangulation of far more cultured diplomats and sophisticated intellectuals from France, Germany, and Scandinavia is ignored by thugs from Iran, North Korea, and most of the Middle East?
Why would the world listen to a stumbling George Bush when it could be mesmerized by a poet, biographer, aristocrat, and metrosexual of the caliber of a Monsieur Dominique de Villepin? Why praise brave Iraqis lining up to vote, while at the same hour the defeated John Kerry somberly intones on Tim Russert's show that he really did go into Cambodia to supply arms to the mass-murdering Khmer Rouge — a statement that either cannot be true or is almost an admission of being a party to crimes against humanity if it is.
Second, political powerlessness follows from ideological exhaustion. Communism and Marxism are dead. Stalin and Mao killed over 80 million and did not make omelets despite the broken eggs. Castro and North Korea are not classless utopias but thugocracies run by megalomaniac dictators who the world prays will die any minute. The global Left knows that the Cold War is over and was lost by the Left, and that Eastern Europeans and Central Americans probably cherish the memory of a Ronald Reagan far more than that of a Francois Mitterrand or Willy Brandt.
But it is still more disheartening than that. In the 1960s and 1970s we were told that free-market America was becoming an anachronism. Remember Japan, Inc., whose amalgam of "Asian Values" and Western capitalism presaged the decline of the United States? Europeanists still assured us that a 35-hour work week, cradle-to-grave entitlement, and secularism were to be the only workable Western paradigms — before high unemployment, low growth, stagnant worker productivity, unassimilated minorities, declining birthrates, and disarmament suggested that just maybe something is going very wrong in a continent that is not so eager for either God or children.
Perhaps the result of this frustration is that European intellectuals damn the United States for action in Iraq, but lament that they could do nothing in the Balkans. Democrats at home talk of the need for idealism abroad, but fear the dirty road of war that sometimes is part of that bargain — thus the retreat into "democracy is good, BUT..." So here we have the global throng that focuses on one purported American crime to the next, as it simmers in the luxury of its privilege, education, and sophistication — and exhibits little power, new ideas, intellectual seriousness, or relevance.
In this context, the Iraqi elections were surely poorly attended, or illegitimate, or ruined by violence, or irrelevant, or staged by America — or almost anything other than a result of a brave, very risky, and costly effort by the United States military to destroy a fascist regime and offer something better in its place.
Yet as Yeehah! Howard Dean takes over the Democratic party, as Kojo Annan's dad limps to the end of his tenure, and as a Saddam-trading Jacques Chirac talks grandly of global airfare taxes to help the poor, they should all ask themselves whether a weary public is listening any longer to the hyped and canned stories of their own courage and brilliance.
— Victor Davis Hanson
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT AMEN
I would like to ask that academics broaden their study of the west to examine, critique, and "stand outside" the sacrosanct "other" just for once.
For instance, I would like them to examine the repressive regimes of the Middle East themselves and their relation to racism, sexism, tribalism, and Islam. Then I will trust their critique of western colonialism.
I would like them to study and analyze the governments of Mexico and Korea, say, and their political system, economics, and culture for hints as to why their people are emigrating to the US in such vast numbers. Then I will trust their charges of racism against the US.
Why is there no course in an American university on these subjects? Where is the "academic freedom" of studying only the results of problems, like terrorism and illegal immigration, and shutting down any discussiobn of their source?
Here is a picture of the "professor" - hard to see why anyone would object to him teaching the youth of America. What a joke!
http://www.satyamag.com/sat.site.images/churchill.jpg
To clarify my above post, that is a picture of Ward Churchill, not Alam.
Did someone mention Vietnam? And make presumptions based on myth and disinformation?
-------------------------------------------------
Background on Vietnam:
"Le Doan’s Alarming Report
What follows is one of five major definitive statements regarding South Viet Nam of which there is almost no reference in the nearly exclusively politically leftward analysis dominating the media and academia. In 1958 North Vietnamese communist party commissar Le Doan visited South Viet Nam. He returned to the north with an alarming report. Economic and general conditions for the South Vietnamese people were improving at a rate that was a threat to communist revolution and communist expansion, and such progress had to be stopped or there would be insufficient dissatisfaction in South Viet Nam to exploit for organizing revolution. Certainly, there would be little spontaneous motivation in the South to adopt the mess that was going on in the North."http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/vietnam2.htm
--
Why we were there:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon4/ps11.htm
http://ngothelinh.50megs.com/Diem-Kennedy.html
What happened:
"It required 15 years of incompetence and deliberate subversion to yield the triumphant proof the political left was looking for and trying to engineer. What was supposedly proven was that the ideas of socialism and communism were so great and overwhelming that not even the most powerful army in the world could suppress them or stop their spread. That is supposedly why America and the South Vietnamese lost the war. That's the conclusion we are sold today."
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/vietnam9.htm
--
A similar analysis:
http://www.skytroopers.org/vietnamlookingback1.htm
"One reason America's agonizing perception of "Vietnam" will not go away, is because that perception is wrong. It's out of place in the American psyche, and it continues to fester in much the same way battle wounds fester when shrapnel or other foreign matter is left in the body. It is not normal behavior for Americans to idolize mass murdering despots, to champion the cause of slavery, to abandon friends and allies, or to cut and run in the face of adversity. Why then did so many Americans engage in, or openly support, these types of activities during the country's "Vietnam" experience?"
Kentim, you got that right. And here is another reason why kennedy, kerry, kj and co. are wrong:
Iraq is Not Vietnam (By Senator Steve Pearce, a Vietnam Vet)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Pearce20050205.shtml