Now that we have launched our Send Us Your Syllabus project, it is useful to recall how it all came about. Carl Ernst's mention of Jihad Watch and of Robert Spencer is an obvious attempt, of course, to preempt those of his students who might, just might, on their own find out about this site, which is highly dangerous, "subversive" in the best sense, of the likes of Carl Ernst and of MESA Nostra (see here, here, and here for information about MESA Nostra). By mentioning it, and then by undercutting it as best he can, Ernst hopes to somehow neutralize the effect of what that site contains, and the other information about Islam -- books, articles, websites run by former Muslims -- that might, shall we say, "confuse" his students and knock them off the True Path, fi sabil Ernst or fi sabil Safi or fi sabil Khalidi, Dabashi, you name it.
In this respect he is doing exactly as any propagandist -- not someone seeking the truth but seeking to suppress the truth -- would do: trying to keep within narrow bounds what those whose minds he is attempting to mold can find out about. What is fantastic is the amount of success that such people have had in universities, not only those who are at Arab-funded "Centers" as at Exeter and Durham in England (where they carefully vet the faculty and the courses, and drive out any of those, such as Denis MacEoin, who dared to tell the truth), or at strategically-located Georgetown, that has not one but two such "Centers."
One of them, smack in the middle of Washington, is John Esposito's Arab-funded fiefdom, started with seed money from a Lebanese islamochristian contractor and now financed by the Gulf Arabs and the Saudis, that "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding" where lean, mean, jogging John Esposito churns out the coffee-table books, full of pretty pictures of blue mosques and turbaned Turks and Iznik tiles that get you so that you forget to ask that question you were meaning to ask (what was it again? Oh yes, "well, what about Islam?"), so dazzled are you by the couleur locale and easy appeal-to-the-eye of those photographs. And then there are his "scholarly" contributions (The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?), about which the less said the better.
And cheek by sagging jowl to Esposito's operation is another "Center" that drapes itself in the Georgetown colors: that Arab (mostly Kuwaiti, I believe) funded "Center for Contemporary Arab Studies," where goodsir Michael Hudson, and a Khalidi or two, and others have done their bit to make sure that no one figures out that the most important thing to know about, when discussing the Middle East or Arabs, is Islam, Islam, Islam. Its texts. Its tenets. Its attitudes. Its atmospherics. No, you won't hear about that, you lazy Congressional aide, calling up the "Center" for advice on something to do with the Middle East. Nor will that equally lazy journalist, or that anti-Israel journalist (who could we have in mind? Novak? Georgie Anne Geyer? There are so many to choose from) who wants a nice quote to stick into his story that will buttress his slant, his transparent prejudices.
It was the same when Martin Kramer's devastating little book on the state of play in Middle Eastern studies came out, Ivory Towers On Sand. This short book was going, intelligent apologists for Islam knew, to find its way into the hands of graduate students, certainly, and possibly into the hands of the cleverer undergraduates as well. Oh dear. What could be done? So they began to do what Roger Owen, once a "well-known PLO groupie" (J. B. Kelly's description of him to me) and lowly lecturer of some sort or another at St. Antony's, who somehow -- god knows how -- managed to get to Harvard, and even to become that appetizing thing, the "A. J. Meyer Professor of Middle Eastern Economics" (according to Kelly, author of "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West," A. J. Meyer was nothing to write home about either, on his supposed specialty of "Middle Eastern Economics"), with that plush chair funded by...well, who do you think might have funded such a chair? What Arab government? Or what oil company, intent on currying favor with the Saudis and others? Go ahead, find out by calling Harvard and let's put the results right here, shall we? Owen cleverly assigned Kramer's text. He assigned it but made sure it was attacked in a hundred undercutting ways, using not a sword but rather a bare bodkin, inserted here, and here, and here, and here.
Carl Ernst isn't quite as clever as Roger Owen. But he's trying. He's giving it the old college try.
Meanwhile, let's all listen to that "Varsity Drag."
Honestly though these apologists really do more harm than good. Even to their own ideologies. When I was learning about Islam my primary sources of information were of the traditional lefty multi-culti variety. At first this satisfied my curiosity and appetite for information, but as time went on reality kept flying in the face of what I had been taught. Multi-culti dogma is unable to clearly articulate why folks like Robert are wrong. In fact they never even include other points of view in their teaching, which is why they are unable to make a clear antithesis to his arguments. Any thinker worth his/her synaptic activity will over time find the truth, this coupled with the fact that they were mislead will usually lead to anger on the part of the student.
Cheap personal shot:
Q: What do you get when you cross Rodin’s The Thinker with Pee Wee Herman and petrodollars?
A: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jle2/
pez:
Too funny!
Hugh-
If Robert was a similar propagandist as "the Moe Howard Distinguished Professor Karl Ernst" at UNC, Robert could claim to be a "refugee" since his family were Christians who fled Turkey. (I think they came to the USA in 1918 when they fled Muslim tolerance.) In any case, Robert could then position himself as a "victim" and accuse the Moe Howard Professor Ernst of "insensitivity" and racial profiling. Hell, it works for "Palestinian refugees"(I think they are in the 3rd or 4th "refugee" generation). Why not for Robert? Why can't he call himself a refugee from Islamic tolerance?
Robert the "refugee": Robert could accuse Ernst of being "anti-refugee" and a bigot against people from Turkey. Robert has to pull a Goebbels "I'm a victim" on Ernst and attack him as a racist, etc.
Hugh,
A interesting article is in U.S. News and World Report, issue September 10th, 2007. On page 48 is the title" Islam vs Science, are muslum beliefs compataible with critical inquiry?". The story centers on universitys in islam's world. Could this be a news report of sorts, of a Syllibus?
The base achievments of the followers of islam are listed, from the ninth to the 13th century.
One of the most basic responsibilities of a scholar is to defend his or her thesis; to debate with those who espouse differing points of view. A student, for example, who refused or neglected to defend his/her claims on an essay or test would not properly receive a passing grade. Likewise, scholars are expected to defend their claims when those claims are challenged by others--be those "others" members of the general public, journalists, politicians, other scholars, etc.
Carl Ernst has failed to meet this most basic requirement in (1) refusing to support his claims about Spencer's work with any substantive evidence or reasoning, and (2) actually declining to debate or discuss these issues with Spencer when given the opportunity to do so. Perhaps Carl Ernst believes he is "above the law" so to speak; that he does not actually have to do the work of substantiating his claims or defending himself in debate. Rather, he seems to think that his ad hominem sniping can take the place of legitimate debate. That is unethical and suggests that Ernst lacks either the knowledge or the ability to dispute what Spencer says about jihad and related topics. Here's the brief exchange from last year between Spencer and Ernst, where the latter declines to debate any substantive issues:
From Spencer to Ernst, August, 2006.
Spencer: "...The invitation to a debate remains open...I look forward to hearing from you..."
Ernst's reply to Spencer:
Ernst: "I am not interested in having a debate with you, and I stand by my remarks on the biased and nonscholarly nature of your publications and publishers."
And Robert replied:
"Dear Dr. Ernst,
Thank you for your gracious reply. It is interesting that neither you nor anyone else can document any specific inaccuracy in my works, but rather persist in unsubstantiated broad-brush claims to "bias" and such, while pretending that academic publications and presses are free from bias. One would think that it would be easy, if what you say is true, to defeat me handily in a debate and thus discredit me once and for all. But we'll never know, will we?
Cordially,
Robert Spencer"
Ernst, instead of debating Spencer on substance, simply elaborated is ad hominem insinuations on his website, trying to pass those insinuations as genuine scholarly commentary. A question students must ask themselves is 'Why won't Ernst debate Spencer?' Ernst had time to add paragraphs of ad hominem, but not substance. What does that say about Ernst's methodology? What does that say about his ethics?
Let's have a look at Ernst's (E's) paragraphs of ad hominem and insinuation:
E: "Who are the publishing firms that publish Spencer's works? Who funds them? Who supports his work? Some information on these patrons is given below (the numbers refer to the citations of the organizations marked in bold in the paragraph above)."
There is always the possibility that source of funding could have an influence on a scholar's work, whether that work is inside or outside of academia. Consequently, scholars are expected to provide information about their sources of funding. Spencer has done so, forthrightly. (Ernst omits, by the way, the fact that a portion of Spencer's "funding" comes from the general public who chose to buy his books or donate to his website. These are people of all political and religious or non-religious stripes). The onus then is on Ernst to show where and how these sources of funding have contributed to inaccurate or misleading statements in Spencer's work. However, Ernst does not even attempt to take that simple step. Again, Ernst has not even touched the substance of Spencer's work.
E: "This information is significant because these books are not scholarly,"
I read Robert's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and found it quite scholarly, in fact, loaded with scholarly references to support his claims. In particular, Spencer addresses the opposing points of view substantively.
E: "...and they do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses."
That's a misleading statement, because it could imply that books had somehow failed peer review. That's not the case. For a professional author like Spencer, the review process happens out in the open in the public sphere. The books are reviewed and discussed by a wide spectrum of columnists and various experts and pundits. Moreover, Robert addresses critics of his work, including those who make substantive claims and those who--like Ernst--engage in non-substantive attacks consisting of textbook examples of fallacies such as ad hominem, poisoning the well, etc. Yet, given the opportunity to "review" Spencer's work in substance, Ernst declines, claiming it has not passed "scholarly review"(!)
E: "They are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations. They need to be evaluated differently from scholarly studies, since their agenda does not have to do with the scholarly goals of the humanities and the social sciences."
As if scholars within academia don't have political views! Anyways, Robert Spencer claims he is trying to bring to the public attention some important and neglected information about Islam. Spencer offers much-needed criticism of the various Islamic texts and beliefs. What Spencer claims seems to me to be highly consistent with the object facts to my knowledge viz the contents of the Islamic texts and present-day reality. In terms of a claims-to-facts ratio, I would say that Spencer presents a very high percentage of fact (about the Islamic texts, Muslims' interpretations, present-day attitudes, etc) and lets the reader draw his/her own conclusions from this mountain of evidence.
E: "In particular, the lectures given by authors such as Spencer on college campuses may be misunderstood as being equivalent to scholarly research. While it certainly may be acknowledged that scholarship has political implications, independent research needs to be distinguished from hired polemics."
A lecture is a lecture; research is research. Ernst seems a little confused there. As to whether the talks are scholarly, that depends on the substance and format. As I understand it, the talks involve Spencer's usual just-the-facts approach, with opportunity for question-and-answer at the end of the lecture.
E: "The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice."
Here is where Ernst has most completely abandoned any pretense of presenting an honest, objective, scholarly opinion. No evidence for alleged prejudice is presented. He simply resorts to name-calling, attempting to stigmatize Robert by erroneously and unjustifiably alluding to racism. These are clearly illicit tactics, though by whatever means he uses, Ernst probably remains "scholarly" in his own mind.
E: "They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam."
The degree of suspicion afforded to any claim is determined by the substance of the claim in relation to reality and probability. The claims of those who resort to unsubstantiated ad hominem and violate other basic rules of argument should be regarded with extreme suspicion.
E: "I make these remarks because Spencer was invited to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill in the spring of 2004; I shared these observations"
What observations? Ernst was making insinuations, accusations, not observations.
E: "...with UNC students at the time to indicate that his views have no basis in scholarship..."
Spencer provides all his scholarship for anyone to scrutinize in his references. Anything he says about the Quran can be checked easily by anyone with a Quran or library/internet access. All news sources or references to other scholars can be checked easily.
E: "(he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity)."
I gather that Ernst has a very circumscribed idea of what constitutes "Islamic studies". Spencer has been studying Islam for over twenty years and has written or edited several well-researched books on the subject. Moreover, Spencer keeps up-to-date on what is happening (in the real world) in relation to Islam to an extent far beyond that of Ernst. But if Ernst demands that the person have a PhD in Islamic studies, then why is Karen Armstrong on his reading list without any "warning" about her credentials? And why are other scholars of a less apologetic bent, but who do have PhDs in Islamic studies or Islam-related areas, not on Ernst's course list? What standard, exactly, is Ernst applying here? Whatever his standard, he doesn't seem to be applying it consistently.
The bottom line is that Spencer is an expert in jihad, as Walid Phares writes:
WP: "...Robert Spencer, an expert on historical jihad, responds with a 'politically incorrect' but academically sound and challenging work. Spencer displays an enormous amount of well-researched material. He throws the ball back into the camp of Arabist historians."
To my knowledge, Ernst is not an expert on jihad, historical or otherwise. Ernst seems to be more interested in public perceptions of Islam, calligraphy, Sufism, poetry and Islamic art, etc. Even so, why doesn't Ernst, with all his academic ability and knowledge of Islam, do a bit of research and try to argue against Spencer's claims in substance?
E: "For further information on Islamophobia, see my book Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (UNC Press, 2003), and The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy, ed. Emran Qureshi and Michael A. Sells (Columbia University Press, 2003). Note that both of the latter books are published by university presses on the basis of blind peer review by qualified scholars."
That doesn't mean the claims are true. Some scholars have deliberately submitted hoaxes that have passed peer review. While peer review is useful, it is no guarantee of anything. Claims must always be evaluated on the basis of evidence and substance, not on the basis of whether this or that clan of academics thinks the writings are sufficiently interesting, or pleasant, or inoffensive. The idea that "blind" peer review is truly blind is also questionable. It is likely that a close group of scholars, who are in communication, and who are familiar with each others' work (including through conferences, etc., which often take place before a specific article is submitted for publication), will recognize the identity or probable identity of the author. There's no substitute for evaluating the substance of the claim directly, but that seems to be something that Ernst is determined to avoid.
Ernst: "The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice."
And by "making an example" of Spencer in this way, Ernst is in effect telling students that if they arrive at and present well-researched conclusions like Spencer's, they are going to be falsely accused of prejudice. In other words, they're going to be in big trouble from their prof. What might students fear? Receiving a low grade? Being failed? Being thrown out of the university? Being falsely accused of racism? If Ernst truly believes that criticism of Islam constitutes racism, how far will he be willing to go in punishing a student over it?
Any students in Ernst's class who worry about these types of problems do have options. They can contact their adviser, or the university's ombudsman. However, it should be pointed out, up front, that tenured profs tend to get their own way and tend to be immune from penalty. That's why it's important to research the prof before enrolling in a course. In my opinion, Ernst's unsubstantiated attacks on Spencer are sufficiently egregious that I would not take any course by Ernst. I've read the Islamic texts in enough detail to judge for myself that Spencer is accurate while Ernst is doing a public-relation whitewash.
Why doesn't Ernst invite Spencer in to deliver a talk -- one that Ernst can then rip to shreds for his class, using the Islamic texts to show just how idiotic Spencer, that "right-wing conservative," is? Wouldn't that put to rest all the doubts now raised in the minds of students, as to the objectivity and intelligence of their very own teacher, and winner of the Bardashil Prize (and nominee -- I nominated him myself -- for the King Faisal Prize for Services to Islam) Carl Ernst?
Yes. Spencer should be invited to go on down and make a fool himself. Put him right up there, show the students what he's like. That will permanently set them straight.
This brief review was obtained from a North American university library's search catalog. I've embolded the part that caught my eye.
Following Muhammad : rethinking Islam in the contemporary world / Carl W. Ernst. Publication info Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, c2003.
Review
Ernst, a professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is not a stranger to Islam-related controversy. His recommendation of Michael Sells's book Approaching the Qur'an to the UNC Summer Reading Program for incoming freshmen spurred an international firestorm. Following Muhammad itself was rejected by the publisher that had commissioned the manuscript, as some editors there objected to publishing a book that could be construed as supporting terrorism. Despite these obstacles, Ernst brought the book to another press with rewarding results: it is a pleasure to read. Ernst has a multilayered and self-assured understanding of Islam, and his writing exemplifies a fluency in explaining it that is unique to him, even compared to better-known scholars of the religion. Delicate and complex points about Islam as a religion and culture, about Sufism, and even about Osama bin Ladin, flow off the page effortlessly, with only a few spots that are too abstract. Rather than addressing the standard introductory information about Islam, like the Five Pillars, he has organized his book by themes, with chapters on topics such as ethics and spirituality. The book's greatest strength is Ernst's unrelenting but well-reasoned critique of how the West has consistently marginalized Islam and Muslims from the first encounters onward. Ernst is fair, however-while he admonishes the West for indulging in negative and inaccurate stereotypes of Islam and Muslims, he calls upon Muslims to participate fully in the pluralistic society the world has become. Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Appeared in: Reed Elsevier Inc.
Copyright Reed Business Information
The above review of Ernst's Following Muhammad can also be found on Amazon.
Other notes from the Amazon reviews:
-Omid Safi appears to have posted 4 out of the 14 reviews!
-Selected quotations from another review:
Tolerance of other religions:
P46: "PreIslamic pegan groups still exist today in some Muslim countries. 3000 members of the Kalash trace their descent form the soldiers of Alexander the great and practice polytheism."
"Unlike Christian European, Muslim society has no equivalent to the inquisition to implement a systematic policy of repression of religious minorities."
On the status of women- P42 "women has never been ciphers or non-entities in Islamic history. Aísha [one of Muhammad's wives] transmitted> 2000 hadith [reports] from the prophet and was the principle leader of an unsuccessful revolt."