Richard L. Rubenstein writes in Frontpage:
In the aftermath of the ritualistic near-decapitation of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, as well as the death threats and frivolous “hate-crime” lawsuits directed against honest scholars writing about Islamic extremism, some Muslims and their western sympathizers appear determined to control, by fair means or foul, what is said and written about Islam in the West.A first-hand example of this trend can be seen in the response to the keynote address I delivered on June 9, 2005 in Krakow, Poland at the Annual Meeting of the Public Administration Theory Network (PAT-Net), an international academic organization, in which I discussed the problems raised by the rapidly increasing number of Muslims in Europe. Some of the immigrants and their European-born descendants have made no secret of the fact that they regard their religion and culture as destined by divine ordinance to transform Europe into a Muslim-dominated imperial realm. Although many have chosen the path of integration, an unknown number have repeatedly stated that they seek to replace the western secular order with a new sacred, absolutist Islamic order...
Such a monumental transformation required the active involvement of senior European officials as documented by Bat Ye’or, an internationally-recognized authority on Euro-Arab relations. She has shown that the Muslim immigration was the result of political decisions taken, more often than not, without public debate, by those same officials and their Arab counterparts in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74.
The purpose of my paper was to analyze the consequences of these decisions not to offer a solution. Of the three respondents to my paper, two academics offered reasonable critiques in a civil manner. The third respondent, Professor Mohamad Al-Khadry of West Virginia University, began by revealing that he had demanded that the program committee withdraw my invitation and apologize to the Muslim community because my speech was “bigoted, racist, hate speech.” He went on to portray me as a racist whose views resembled those of Nazi scholars dealing with Jews.
Disregarding official statistics, Al-Khadry claimed that Muslims constitute only 2% of Europe's population. He complained that I had used “the works of authors and sources who have often been accused of Islamophobia,” as if any apprehension concerning Islam was out of bounds. He spoke contemptuously of Bernard Lewis and dismissed the views of Bassam Tibi of Germany’s Göttingen University and Mahmoud Ayoub of Temple University, both respected Muslim scholars, whom I cited on population issues.
His worst spleen was reserved for Bat Ye’or and MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute). He labeled Bat Ye’or a bigot, a racist, and an “Islamophobe” and attacked MEMRI as a “pro-Israel propagandist website.” Actually, MEMRI makes available in reliable text translation and subtitled streaming video what is really said and written in the mosques and media of the Middle East. MEMRI has often been attacked for its provenance but never successfully for the accuracy of its translations...
Read it all.
The hysterical outburst of Professor Mohammed el-Khadry at West Virginia University was no doubt a good thing for the audience to observe One finds in debating with Muslims that beneath the sweet reasonableness, after a few minutes, and if one goes out of one's way to say something that one knows will annoy, the mask comes off, and the crazed hysterical outburst begins. This has been the experience of a good many people -- and it is always a desirable result. Even Tariq Ramadan, the smooth talker, can be shaken, and once shaken, cannont put the hysterical genie back into the bottle -- it has been exposed for all to hear, and on television or in person, see.
Particularly useful is any mention of Aisha, Asma bint-Marwan, the Khaybar Oasis, the massacre of the Banu Qurayza -- and mention of the attitude in Islam to music, painting, sculpture, free and skeptical inquiry. This kind of thiing -- beyond the usual pieties about "the three abrahamic faiths" and "we revere Jesus" and so on, and the usual business about the wonderful diversity of Iftar-meals and so on, gets the desired reaction quite quickly.
One has no doubt that this Mohammed el-Khadry, particularly in his astonishing admission that he tried to have Professor Rubinstein's talk banned in advance, made an impression at the meeting -- but it was not the one he expected, or hoped. Like so many others, he fails to realize the impact this kind of thing has on Western, rational, advanced man, and there is nothing like the spectacle of a hystericla fellow who has the outward and visible form of also being Wesetern, rational, advanced, and turns out to be quite other, to make Infidels in the West aware that they have a very big problem.
I think this sort of behaviour is a speciality of Arab Muslims in particular - as opposed to Muslims per se.
I recently witnessed something similar on an edition of the BBC News 24's Dateline London programme. The four guests reviewing the newspapers were focusing on the week's big story, the Israeli pull-out from Gaza. One of the guests was an Israeli journo, who talked about the political gamble Sharon was taking and public opinion on the issue in his country.
Then came the turn of Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of al-Quds. Asked whether the pull-out was good news for the Palestinians, he launched into an extended diatribe against the Is-ra-elis and the children they had murdered (including, it seems, some of his relatives). He is entitled to be cynical about Sharon and his motivations, of course, but what was extraordinary was that he lost any semblance of professional composure - and didn't appear to be able to control himself.
This was more than rage, it was something deeper. Something to do with shame, I think.
Hugh, it may have been hysterical, but it largely achieved its objective. This was quite a chilling story and worries me.
I think that the ability to to challange in a cold, calm and rational way with learned people and being protected in doing so is fundemental to our system of freedom and democracy.
I felt a bit less free after reading this rather typical story.
Hugh seems overly optimistic, considering Rubenstein's recounting of the aftermath of the hysterical Muslim and the response of Rubenstein's non-Muslim colleagues:
"Al-Khadry’s label-and-libel technique worked. Many, perhaps most, Pat-Net members agreed with him. ...Subsequently, I also learned that only a few Pat-Net members had actually read my paper.
I was later informed that motions were introduced at the conference business meeting to repudiate my address as not representative of PAT-Net and to censure Professor Dan Balfour of Michigan’s Grand Valley State University who had originally proposed inviting me and continued to support me. "
Effractor
Yes, I too have seen Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of al-Quds, on Dateline on a number of occasions.
His behaviour is - without exception - most instructive. Everything, I repeat everything, is about muslims. Muslims, muslims, muslims.
If the topic under discussion on Dateline was the world tiddlywinks championships, Atwan would somehow turn the debate into a diatribe against the Israelis and the Americans, then go on to moan about how muslims were being oppressed, humiliated, mistreated or otherwise denied by the holding of said championships. He is amazing.
If a child displayed the sort of obsessive self-absorption shown by Atwan, any responsible parent would seek professional medical help immediately.
Why they keep inviting the goose on to the programme is a mystery to me.
In any event, the term "muslim academic" is, in my opinion, an oxymoron.
So what does Hugh think will happen when nobodies like me stop caring about the reactions of sensitive intellectuals and start saying what I think, regardless of the seething and whining and complaining and cliches that are sure to follow?
Anthony
Would a Kurd sitting in the same room as a Turk behave the same way? Highly unlikely. Likewise an East Timorese in the presence of an Indonesian? No.
I'm no behavioural psychologist but it seemed to me to be the persona of someone who, given the opportunity, in the right circumstances, is capable of anything.
I searched some of the topics Hugh mentioned in his post.
This useful site turned up.
Jai Maharaj (whoever that is) gets it.