At Jihad Watch, less than a week ago, on January 28, a YouTube video of Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.D., was put up.
The tape shows one Awadh A. Binhazim being subject to questioning by a persistent questioner. The tape received a good deal of comment (a heinzian 57, at last count) here. Many rightly deplored what they described as Binhazim's attempts to avoid stating what, in the end, he was forced to admit. That is, - under a questioner's relentless refusal to give up, and that questioner's insistence on receiving a straight answer to the question "does Islam proscribe capital punishment for those who are practicing homosexuals and do not renounce their homosexuality?," Awadh Binhazim, Ph.D., Professor of Pathology at Meharry Medical College and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Adjunct Professor of Islam at the Divinity School, Vanderbilt University, Adjunct Professor of Africana Studies at Tennessee State University, most reluctantly and begrudgingly, finally answered: "Yes."
But despite being put up just a few days ago, I think that tape is worth a rewind, and then replay, stopping here and there along the way to observe those few minutes of meretriciousness on display. And together we can observe, and analyze, the usefully distinct stages of Awadh Binhazim's effort to dodge and weave as best he can. He clearly is perfectly aware of what Islam teaches. He did, after all, attend a madrasah as a child in Kenya, then was a student of Islamic studies in Saudi Arabia, and for years has been an "explicator" of Islam to the Infidels, whenever he can inveigle an invitation, or invite himself, to present - why, practically as a public service - his exposition on Islam. He has even offered to give "free courses" on Islam - in short, a solid Muslim citizen, ready to mislead here and there and everywhere, even as he conducts his Da'wa for the Unwary. Awadh Binhazim is not one of those Muslims who is a bit hazy on what Islam teaches, someone who can claim "he didn't know." He knows.
Remember that Awadh A. Binhazim begins by saying that there is no room in Islam for questioning. The rules are laid down. You are not to challenge them, not to ignore them, and not to ask if, morally, they make sense. You are only to ask what those rules - on What Is Commanded and What Is Prohibited - and to slavishly follow those rules. What Islam says, Awadh A. Binhazim agrees that he, and all other Muslims, have a duty to accept. That's a useful admission, though of course he will now dodge and duck and try not to be held onto, as he attempts not to answer a simple question about Islam, capital punishment, and homosexuality.
But the questioner would have none of it.
So what is the first thing that Binhazim attempts? It's Tu Quoque. It's this: an immediate refusal to answer the question, and instead, a shifting attention to Judaism, to Christianity, to "other religions" that "condemn homosexuality." We do it, You do it, Everybody does it. Well, he, Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.d. (Professor Pathology at Meharry College, and Adjunct Professor, no doubt hoping and scheming for more, at Vanderbilt), ignores the precise question, eliminates the part about the death penalty, and simply reduces it to "disapproval of Islam" and then, quickly, alludes to what he would have his questioner and the larger audience believe is identical "disapproval of homosexuality" in other religions, in all of them, in fact. At this point the most obvious thing must surely come to mind: well, some religions do condemn homosexuality, but which of them, in doctrine or in present-day practice, condemns homosexuals to death? And do we have reason to believe that, at least in the Western world, the entire direction of things has been toward greater and greater tolerance, even acceptance, with both the tolerance and the acceptance often comically ostentatious, while society's new norms cause some to express their doubts or lack of shared enthusiasm circumspectly? Think of those SNL skits, or the Stewart-and-Colbert mick-mockeries, when they imitate a speaker nervously and incessantly, when discussing the topic, constantly reiterating "not that there's anything wrong with that."
The Tu Quoque at this point falls flat. The questioner, who will not be deflected, fails to be satisfied with it, and most in the audience no doubt recognized its ridiculousness, even if they haven't themselves seen the online pictures of homosexuals subject to judicial murder in Iran, or read the reports on the murder, by Muslims, on their own, applying the Shari'a punishment of death to homosexuals in Gaza, or the West Bank, or Iraq, or other places in the Arab-dominated countries where such news sometimes gets out.
No doubt the failure of this was a disappointment to Awadh Binhazim, and he quickly grasps at another rhetorical straw, in his attempts to avoid answering the question.
This time it is not Tu Quoque - "you do it too (and probably worse)" -- but rather, an attempt to confuse the questioner, and the rest of the audience. Ah, says Binhazim, we really can't answer that question, can we, because there is no country in the world where the law is the pure Shari'a, and if we have no country where the law is identical with Shari'a, then how can we give an answer as to what the Shari'a would say? We just don't have any example, in reality, of such a legal code now being enforced. But this is nonsensical. The Shari'a exists independently, in the ether of Islam, and the question was not what does Saudi Arabia do, or Pakistan do, by way of punishing homosexuals, but what does the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, mandate? Binhazim knew perfectly well that the hudud, or criminal punishment, exists in forms, more or less diluted, in a number of Muslim countries, and he also knows that there is great hypocrisy in the application of the law in those countries, so that the fantastic sexual decadence of the Al-Saud (see, for example, Robert Baer's book on the Saudis), no doubt makes them less likely, given the proclivities and experience of members of the Al-Saud, to administer fully the Shari'a when it comes to what are regarded, in the Shari'a, as prohibited acts and attitudes. To give an answer that says, in effect, nowhere in the world is the Shari'a completely identical to the law of the Muslim land, so therefore we cannot say anything at all about the contents of the Shari'a, is self-evidently nonsensical.
That too, does not dissuade the relentless questioner.
And so, finally, mentally squirming and most unhappy, Awadh Binhazim - who, after all, also was aware that in his audience were Muslims who knew the rule, and perhaps even among them converts to Islam who had learned the rule from him, Awadh Binhazim himself, in his local efforts at Da'wa - says, quickly, as if rapidity of delivery would somehow allow his admission to avoid attention, says: Yes. Yes, in Islam homosexuals who do not abjure their behavior are sentenced to death.
And there's a lesson there. The lesson is that the behavior of the questioner, the relentlessness of him (and the fearlessness, too, of course), is to be admired and emulated. For there are people like Awadh Binhazim all over this country, giving their little "introduction to Islam" talks, and they have to take questions, they can't avoid taking questions. That's not the American way, after lectures. And when they do, there should always be a handful of determined questioners ready to ask about Islam. But not always, not only, not even mainly, about homosexuality, as here.
They should ask about what Islam inculcates about the status of women. They should ask what Islam says about Art, about sculpture, and about paintings of living creatures, and list ten masterpieces of Western art whose creation would have been forbidden under Islam. They should ask what Islam teaches about Music, and what that might mean for such things as jazz, or gospel music, or any kind of music at all - with perhaps the kind most important to other members of the audience carefully mentioned. ("So you're telling us that Mozart, and Louis Armstrong, and the dancing of Fred Astaire with Ginger Rogers, and Johnny Cash with June Carter, would all be banned? You're telling me that Beyonce would be locked up?") They should ask about the Muslim attitude toward free and skeptical inquiry, and whether or not Muslims are allowed to question in any degree, at any point, what Islam teaches, and if they are allowed to discuss the morality of this or that rule, especially the rule as to what Muslims should think of, and how they should behave toward non-Muslims, and whether they agree that non-Muslims everywhere should have the exact same rights, be treated equally to, Muslims, in Muslim-ruled lands, including of course the right to build their own religious structures, and the right to freely proselytize.
And in every case, about these and other topics, the questioners (an attractive girl, for example, would not be out of place among such prepared questioners) should come prepared. They don't have to have a lot. They don't have to come with hundreds of passages from the Qur'an or several hundred Hadith. They need, however, to have the most relevant texts - not only from the Qur'an, but from the Hadith (from the "authoritative" collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and Hadith that have by those muhaddithin been assigned to the rank of being "most authentic"). They should be prepared to discuss Muhammad, and the prisoners from the Banu Qurayza, and Asma bint Marwan, and Abu Afak, and the Khaybar Oasis, and little Aisha. You will, of course, have already established that, in the eyes of Muslims, Muhammad is the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana), and the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). And thus, when you raise these matters, this may cause ill-concealed fury and even hysteria on the part of the Muslim you are questioning. And that display of hysteria can be useful, can be instructive for the other non-Muslims, until then perhaps unwary, in the audience. And that is what you are trying to do.
You are trying to take that door into the truth, opened by that intrepid questioner in Nashville, and leave it ajar. And not ajar only in Tennessee.
Fine essay, Hugh. About as dogged as was that questioner who would not be put aside by the many taqiyya efforts of various sorts by yet another well-educated but not-good-for-the-West Muslim. Most interesting how persistence by informed individuals will ultimately yield admittances from Muslims which show the true and ugly colors of Islam. We need thousands of such questioners just as we need thousands of folks like you. Alas, they are still too few, but I'm optimistic that the numbers will grow in time. Islam cannot hide what it's really about indefinitely. And that's part of the reason why, long term, I'm sanguine about liberty triumphing over repression.
"Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.D."
Any idea where this guy got his Ph.D. from?
I suspect he, like so many of his ilk, come to the US with some kind of Islamic document that is not worth the paper it is written on.
Given that the UK (and Holland) has large numbers of title mills run by Mohammedans that enable immigration with fake documentation this might be something worth looking into.
prescribe
I found on-line, needing to be updated, a description of Awadh Binhazim, Ph.D. He apparently enjoys giving courses hither and yon around Nashville -- St. George's Episcopal Church, Vanderbilt University, all as part of his personal outreach to unwary Infidels -- always on his favorite, really his only subject and reason for being, Islam.
Here it is:
Awadh A. Binhazim is currently a Professor of Pathology at Meharry Medical College and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Adjunct Professor of Islam at the Divinity School, Vanderbilt University, Adjunct Professor of Africana Studies at Tennessee State University.
Awadh Amir Binhazim was born and raised in Kenya. He studied Islam in the traditional styles of attending Madrassah at childhood age and completed his undergraduate studies at the King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, Masters of Science at University of Nairobi, Kenya, and finally his Ph.D. in Pathology at The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Professor Binhazim's interest in Islam is in Comparative Religions and Islamic Jurisprudence. He has given numerous lectures on Islam in theology classes, local churches, law enforcement agencies, and at many universities throughout the U.S., Canada, and Kenya. He has appeared in many Radio and TV programs to discuss various issues on Islam. He is the founder and program director of a series of courses (offered for free to those interested) on Islam held in Nashville, Tennessee. Within these courses as well as at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University, Professor Binhazim teaches about Islamic beliefs, spirituality, and moral code of Islam, monotheism, Muslim cultures, and civilizations. In addition, Professor Binhazim has presented several lectures on the topic of Muslims and their presence in the Americas before Columbus. Professor Binhazim is the Director of the Da'wah and Outreach program of the Islamic Center of Nashville and serves as the spokesperson of the Muslim community in Nashville.
Professor Binhazim will teach a free course at Vanderbilt, Introduction to Islam, beginning Feb. 5, 2006.
Depending on how good and persistent a questioner is, said questioner had best do a bit of pre-planning. My mind would wander to the period of time after such a questioning session has concluded when the questioner is leaving the student union building- or wherever- and walking through a dark parking lot to their car, or to a dorm. A tiny minority of peace-loving muslims (young students especially)are likely to take offense and as we have seen, some love to act violently. I'd advise having some other people with you when you take on some Muhammadan professor or speaker. It's a shame, but it's common sense.
I do fear that the fear of retribution is a big reason that more people do not ask the necessary questions more often.
One more reason why local police forces should be involved, and provide security. If necessary, the cost of such security should be borne by a university or college or, in other cases, by a special branch of the Federal government devoted to encouraging free speech on those matters where, as a result, physical intimidation has not, in the past, been unknown. It is outrageous for speakers on the subject to have to pay, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali now does (I don't know about Wafa Sultan or others), for their own security.
Act! for America is calling for action on this:
We [Act! for America] encourage you to contact Vanderbilt University—especially if you are an alumnus and/or a donor (and forward this email to others).
Respectfully but firmly ask that the university publicly and unequivocally condemn Binhazim’s statement as repugnant and incompatible with the laws of American society.
You can call or email the Vanderbilt Office of Public Affairs:
Phone: 615.343.1790
Email: beth.fortune@vanderbilt.edu
"He has given numerous lectures on Islam in theology classes, local churches,".
-- I wonder what the punishment is for even thinking of giving a lecture on Christianity or Judaism in a mosque, swift humane beheading at the very least, or maybe a tranquil stoning?
"Within these courses as well as at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University, Professor Binhazim teaches about Islamic beliefs, spirituality, and moral code of Islam, monotheism, Muslim cultures, and civilizations.".
-- Never thought one could be so ignorant as to put "Islamic beliefs", spirituality, moral code, and civilization in the same sentence.
Many above have expressed their indignation. And just now the ghost of Wallace Stevens has let me know he's not quite as amused as I hoped he would be.
Meeker: Condemn as in assert that what he is saying is wrong and untrue?!?! Who's side are you on exactly?
"publicly and unequivocally condemn Binhazim’s statement as repugnant and incompatible with the laws of American society. ", It's not his statements we should be condemning, but the so called religion he is following which dictates his views.
Let's leave it at this:
1) He says a good Muslim must not question the rules of Islam.
2) He says he is a good Muslim.
3) He says that the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, calls for killing homosexuals if they do not give up the practice.
4) Therefore, Awadh Binhazim, Ph.D. is on record as declaring that he agrees that practicing homosexuals should -- if only Shari'a could be imposed, and he devoutly wishes it could be-- should be killed.
Qaere: Can Vanderbilt University continue to countenance such an "Adjunct Professor"? What about St. George's Episcopal Church, that has had him in to tell the congregants all about Islam. And what about Meharry College itself, where he has tenure. Even tenured professors can be fired for cause, if the cause is sufficient. Is supporting the murder of homosexuals, as the ideal, what might constitute a cause sufficient to warrant his firing? Would the American Association of University Professors come rushing to his aid, or would it be given pause, given what he clearly supports?
Would those who supported Japanese Kodo, or the Nazis, during World War II, have kept their jobs in universities? What did happen to those who had, just before the war started, given pro-Nazi speeches or made allowances, or showed their hearts and minds were in the wrong, sinister place? Some of them no doubt quickly changed their tune (it happened, too, in England), but what of those who did not, but merely spoke a little more circumspectly? What did happen to them? Did university presidents, did the public, did students, tolerate such attitudes, tenure or no tenure, that now, of course, that a war was on, constituted treason? Is the war on yet? How will we know?
Errata Sheet:
For "Qaere"
Read "Quaere"
As "del" above pointed out, there seems to be one more for the errata sheet: the essay shouldn't have said "proscribe," which if I remember correctly means to forbid, but rather "prescribe," as meaning to lay down a rule. Islam does not "proscribe" or forbid capital punishment for homosexuals. It seems rather that Islam prescribes capital punishment for homosexuals.
Why is someone with a doctorate in pathology teaching any kind of religion course, free or not? Most interesting from one of Hugh's posts above is the statement that this joker has given lectures on the existence of Islam in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus. This is absurd on its face. There is ZERO historical evidence that Islam in any manner existed in the Americas before 1492. Not a single serious historian has asserted such nonsense. The man is a loon and Vanderbilt University had better move on this lest it become a laughing stock (unfortunatley, becoming a laughing stock these days in the world of higher education has become a much more difficult thing to "achieve" precisely because higher education has been so corrupted by PC/MC nonsense).
We do indeed live in the Age of Nonsense. That's exactly why Islam has been able to make such headway in today's world. A sensible world would have read Islam the riot act long ago.
In my mind, the gays and feminists find themselves in the same boat; both groups should be in the vanguard of the anti-Islamic resistance, based on instinct for self-preservation...and yet instead, both - with some notable exceptions (Bruce Bawer, Phyllis Chesler) - are in the camp of enablers and appeasers. I can't disguise my utter contempt for both groups over this singular issue.
I read a feminist screed in the Wisconsin Badger the other day, where a commenter essentially excused Islamic misogyny by pointing out that the US is episodically bombing women in Afghanistan. It was as vivid an example of 'disconnect 101' as I can remember.
To paraphrase the old Bob Dylan song: "For you never ask questions, with Allah on your side."
If this professor were white -- and even worse, a white Christian -- his career would be ruined in a heartbeat. He wouldn't have a job come Monday morning. But because he is a Brown Person -- and not merely a Brown Person but a member of the most prestigious and privileged Brown People around, Muslims -- he will be able to keep his job and the faculty administration will sweep his faux pas under the Persian carpet.
Elanor you are so right.These people are apt to become furious by any slighting of Muhammad or their religion.
They follow their religion unquestionably, and expect
non-Muslims to do the same.
Hugh sez:
Let's leave it at this:
1) He says a good Muslim must not question the rules of Islam.
2) He says he is a good Muslim.
3) He says that the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, calls for killing homosexuals if they do not give up the practice.
4) Therefore, Awadh Binhazim, Ph.D. is on record as declaring that he agrees that practicing homosexuals should -- if only Shari'a could be imposed, and he devoutly wishes it could be-- should be killed.
We could leave it at this if it did indeed end here.
But if he is such a good muslim, that means he also believes in the killing of those who criticize his prophet, the killing of adulterous wife's, polygamy, misogyny, FGM, slavery, subjugation of unbelievers, jihad to make the world Islamic by any means etc etc.
He needs to be gone. No two ways about it. If this guy is not an enemy agent I don't know who fits the description....
If you simply stand back from the whole business, you realize that the most astonishing thing is how grateful we all are that the questioner pursued his quarry, until a simple admission was made. And then we exult, that a tiny truth has at long last been admitted.
Think about it. It took an effort, a questioner, a public place, a place where there were those who themselves may have been converted to Islam through the Da'wa efforts of Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.D., so that he can try the Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque, or the Kitman-and-Cunning, but if none of that works, he cannot simply say: No, Islam does not mandate death for practicing and unrepentant homosexuals.
With what other religion does one have to go to such efforts to get out of one of its adherents, a simple statement of what that religion unembarrassedly and forthrightly inculcates, and what its adherents believe, and what actions those adherents carry out, when circumstances permit?
It's a preposterous situation where every tiny admission has to become a matter of pulling teeth. And even more preposterous because we have the ample testimony, all over the world of Islam, from Muslims who are addressing other Muslims and do not hide the truth.
Yet we, or many Infidels in this country, don't want to read what Muslims write or listen to what they say, for an audience of other Muslims. Determinedly unwary and ignorant Infidels in this country, and elsewhere in the Western world, prefer to listen to practiced apologists, to listen to their taqiyya and observe their practice of kitman (mental reservation, demonstrated by the holding back of important parts of the full story).
The desire to avoid an unpleasant reality is very strong. People will perform all kinds of mental tricks to shield themselves, to allow themselves to continue to ignore what would require, if they fully grasped it, changes in attitudes, changes in behavior. But they fail to realize that if they were to come to grips with Islam, such follies as the big wars -- let's say farewell to triumphal pomp, and the big wars, shall we? --- would not be necessary, the squanderings in Iraq and Afpakistan quite unnecesary. Better informed, we are likely to recognize and exploit pre-existing fissures within the Camp of Islam not through action, but through a wise Kutuzovshchina, in the manner of General Kutuzov, pulling back his own troops, and waiting patiently for the freezing reinforcements of General Winter to arrive.
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/01/fitna-version-francaise-geert-wilders-part-12/
le film en français, geert Wilders, Fitna
It is now becoming apparent as to what exactly islam is up to. By prosecuting Geert Wilder the dimmis are advancing the notion that no one has the right to question islam under legal threat.
Bridgette Gabriel says they must be stopped. I say they WILL be stopped.
We need to smarten up and understand exactly what it is islam is saying and believe them. They are a theocracy and the koran (every word of it) is their constitution,enforced by sharia.
Beyonce has already given a private performance of her gyratory nonsense for a Muslim, Gaddafi's son, therefore proving that she would make good harem fodder. We should lock her away ourselves!
Beyonce has already given a private performance of her gyratory prowess to Gaddafi's son in St Bart's. Therefore she would make perfect harem fodder. On the other hand perhaps we should just lock her up!
So obviously this waste of flesh believes the haddiths that espouse genocide, namely "the day of judgement will not come about until you fight the Jews and kill them".
Suppose someone who went on record stating they believe absolutely that the day of "judgement" will not come about until you fight the _______ and kill them" (fill in blank with any group other than Jews, i.e. "blacks") and see how far that person gets in life... don't see any university speaking appearances for that person, do we?
Of course, pointing out to Vanderbilt (or any other institute of "higher education" that allows this kind of drek to pontificate from its "hallowed" halls) that this cretin clearly states his support for genocide, is utterly pointless, as this spineless and usually completely ignorant "educators" are usually themselves just leftist America bashing Jew haters.
Is it true that Islam condemns the passive male homosexual as sinner, not the active male homosexual?