Akbar Ahmed, advocate of “dialogue,” claims “Islamophobes” are “linking Islam to violence, terrorism and intolerance”

akbarahmed.jpgAkbar Ahmed

Akbar Ahmed is the quintessential example of a “moderate” Muslim engaging in “dialogue” with Infidels who have no idea of what his goals for that “dialogue” really are. This article, however, is unintentionally revealing. “Interfaith dialogue: “˜Dialogue of civilisations” key to global harmony,” by Aroosa Shaukat for the Express Tribune, December 3:

Trying to get two sides to engage in a meaningful dialogue is “like standing in the middle of the road, with people attacking you from both ends,” said author and academic Dr Akbar Salahuddin Ahmed as he discussed his efforts to raise awareness about Islam in the West, at a lecture here at Forman Christian College on Monday.

Dr Ahmed is currently the Ibn-e-Khaldoon chair of Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington and has written several books about interfaith dialogue. His lecture at Sinclair Hall, titled “˜Building bridges over troubled waters”, is part of a series on interfaith harmony being organised by the Centre for Dialogue and Action.

It’s interesting that Ahmed holds the Ibn-e-Khaldoon chair. Ibn-e-Khaldoon, or Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), is renowned today for his pioneering historical works. But it is doubtful that the authorities at the American University in Washington know that in his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, Ibn Khaldun wrote that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.” Unless the chair was named by Akbar Ahmed or people who share his point of view, it was probably named by people who assumed that Ibn Khaldun was a “moderate,” and would be shocked to learn that he was an advocate of jihad. This is particularly fitting since Akbar Ahmed himself is not what he is generally assumed to be.

“Building bridges”: Such bridges are all too often just proselytizing mechanisms to convert them to Islam, not an attempt to engage in genuine dialogue — as the Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb explained:

“The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”

Is this what Akbar Ahmed is trying to do? There are several indications that it is indeed. Read on.

Dr Ahmed said it was vital to understand the need for a platform for interfaith dialogue in a highly polarised world. There were two main narratives regarding current global events in the media, he said. One described a clash of civilisations and the other a dialogue of civilisations, with the former gaining wider acceptance after the attack on America on September 11, 2001.

Ignoring geographic, ethnic and sectarian differences, he said, the clash of civilisations narrative lumped the entire Muslim world on one side against the whole of Western civilisation on the other. “So basically it comes down to Islam and the West, which I find highly simplistic and reductionist,” he added.

Dr Ahmed said that he had initiated interfaith dialogues in mosques and churches in the United States after 9/11. “There were people linking Islam to violence, terrorism and intolerance,” he said. “I simply could not be a silent spectator in this debate, either as a Muslim or as a scholar.”

This is a very common Islamic supremacist tactic to try to deflect attention away from the numerous calls to hatred of and violence against Infidels by Muslim clerics: to claim that non-Muslim foes of jihad and Islamic supremacism are “linking Islam to violence, terrorism and intolerance” in some unacceptable and illegitimate way, when all that they’re really doing is reporting on how Muslim clerics link Islam to violence, terrorism and intolerance. By speaking this way Akbar Ahmed is ignoring the fact that Islamic jihadists link Islam to violence every day by pointing to the Qur’an and Sunnah to justify their terrorist acts, and pretending that the only connection between Islam and violence is being made by “Islamophobes” — a disingenuous practice that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also follows in its attempt to intimidate the West into criminalizing all criticism of Islam so that the jihad can advance unopposed and unimpeded. That Akbar Ahmed would indulge in this cynical sleight-of-hand also is not a promising indication of his “moderate” bona fides.

Some in the US media attacked him for trying to build bridges between Islam and the West, he said, particularly “˜Islamophobes” like Robert Spencer and Pamela Gellar [sic] who had built reputations on attacking the religion after the September 11 attacks, he said. He was called a “Muslim apologist” and criticised in some newspaper editorials.

I never attacked Akbar Ahmed for “trying to build bridges between Islam and the West” as such, and neither did Pamela Geller. I attacked him for his inaccurate and misleading characterizations of Islamic teaching and the current situation. In 2006, I was interviewed by Brian Lamb for C-Span; then, in an extraordinary manuever I have never seen done for any other interview of anyone, before he ran his interview with me, Lamb taped a show with Ahmed, devoted entirely to playing my interview bit-by-bit and having Ahmed set the record straight about my “errors” and the true, peaceful Islam. C-Span ran the Ahmed show commenting on my interview a week before it ran my interview itself; ever since then I’ve always referred to my C-Span interview as my “pre-refuted interview.”

As you can see here, during his segment Ahmed keeps sidestepping the problems with how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. When Lamb asks him about the violent passages in the Qur’an, he starts talking about Rumi and says nothing about the specific problematic passages of the Qur’an at all. He sidesteps a great deal more as well — not a sign of a man who is genuinely interested in honest dialogue.

And as for dialogue, when Lamb asks Ahmed if he has seen a documentary I was in, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, Ahmed responds: “I know the work of Dr. Spencer and I know a lot of these arguments because I”ve been a scholar of Islam for the last several decades. So, I”m very aware with all my friends and colleagues. And we interact with them. We debate. We discuss.” But this was patently dishonest, as he has for years now ignored my numerous invitations to “debate” and “discuss,” which I conveyed personally to some of his students, as well as through emails and  Jihad Watch posts. And in those years he has gone from calling me a “distinguished scholar,” as he does on C-Span, to calling me an “Islamophobe” — another alarm bell, since “Islamophobia” is a propaganda construct, designed to intimidate people into thinking there is something wrong and bigoted with resisting jihad terror and Islamic supremacism. Even worse, Ahmed has even blamed the “radicalization” of New York jihad bomb plotters on “Islamophobia,” as if resistance to jihad terror is what causes jihad terror.

That a disingenuous Islamic supremacist like Akbar Ahmed would be so widely feted and respected as a “moderate” is yet another indication of how confused, compromised, and cowed the West is today.

OIC blames free speech for "Islamophobia" in the West
Western view of Mideast tainted by media "bigotry," say "journalism experts" on Al Arabiya panel
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Has it become that modern man is no longer capable of cognitive dissonance? First we had Prez Dubya (Yale/Harvard) proclaiming that Islam is a religion of peace. That after 3,000 were mass murdered by 19 men who stated that the dirty deed was done in the name of Islam.

    Now, we’ve got this Ahmed dude biterly declaiming attempts to link Islam to violence. I don’t know which is more fantastic, that he’s the Ibn-e-Khaldoon chair of Islamic Studies at the American University, or that such a department exists at all.

    Dialogue of civilisations

    Another quibble is whether Islam is a civilization at all. We’d need a definition of the word for that to pass.

  2. says

    … “Islamophobia” is a propaganda construct, designed to intimidate people into thinking there is something wrong and bigoted with resisting jihad terror and Islamic supremacism (98:6 vs. 98:7, 9:5, 9:29 “… with willing submission” fulfilled in 9:111).

    Fascist(98:6 “worst” vs. 98:7 “BEST”) Allah declares war on anybody who “reject his signs (Quran)” 7:103 -> 5:33 “crucifixion”

    “Islam’s biggest enemy is the Quran. If people learn what is in that book, Islam will be finished.” ” Ali Sina

  3. says

    I saw Akbar Ahmed several years ago with a rabbi and pastor. The rabbi and pastor were both rather meek and spineless, but at least authentically peaceful and decent. This Ahmed was also spineless, but everything he said was cunningly passive aggressive and supremacist in support of Islam. He was a fraud (as far as the forum went, but not as a Muslim), liar and just plain evil, but the other two and the audience were just too gullible to sense it, having no experience with such a two-faced serpent of theological evil.

  4. says

    Spencer alerts the reader to the normative extremism of Ibn-Khaldun, the great 14th century Muslim version of a Thomas Aquinas whose name is titular for the sumptuously accredited university “Chair” on which Prof. Akbar Ahmed seats his prodigously moderate behind and from which he propagandizes ex cathedra. Spencer quotes from Ibn-Khaldun’s great work the Muqaddimah

    “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”

    Another telling quote from the Muqaddimah:

    “The other [i.e., non-Muslim] religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense.”

    This — in conjunction with the quote Spencer provided — is as direct an avowal of the fundamentally offensive nature of Islamic war as any.

    For more on Muslims like Akbar Ahmed and the gullible Christians who fawn all over them, see my essay Liberal Christians and Islam:

    http://1389blog.com/2012/06/01/liberal-christians-and-islam/

  5. says

    Akbar Ahmed, advocate of “dialogue,” claims “Islamophobes” are “linking Islam to violence, terrorism and intolerance”
    ………………………..

    Really”who but an “Islamophobe” could *possibly* make such a linke? sarc/off

    More:

    Akbar Ahmed is the quintessential example of a “moderate” Muslim engaging in “dialogue” with Infidels who have no idea of what his goals for that “dialogue” really are.
    ………………………..

    Yes”not a “moderate” at all, but just a Taqiyya artist intent on Da’wa and enabling Jihad.

    More:

    Trying to get two sides to engage in a meaningful dialogue is “like standing in the middle of the road, with people attacking you from both ends”
    ………………………..

    What grotesque, false moral equivalence”these “sides” would be violent Jihadists, and those who oppose violent Jihad.

    More:

    …Dr Akbar Salahuddin Ahmed as he discussed his efforts to raise awareness about Islam in the West
    ………………………..

    And why is this important? There is no such frenzied effort to raise awareness about Hinduism in the West”or Buddhism, or Shintoism, or any other non-Western faith.

    The unspoken idea is to disavow the clear Islamic basis of Jihad terrorism, and to brand anyone who dares notice that basis as a beyond-the-pale “Islamophobe”.

    More:

    Ignoring geographic, ethnic and sectarian differences, he said, the clash of civilisations narrative lumped the entire Muslim world on one side against the whole of Western civilisation on the other. “So basically it comes down to Islam and the West, which I find highly simplistic and reductionist,” he added.
    ………………………..

    What crap. This is indeed how *Islam* sees not just the West, but the whole of Dar-al-Harb.

    More:

    Dr Ahmed said that he had initiated interfaith dialogues in mosques and churches in the United States after 9/11. “There were people linking Islam to violence, terrorism and intolerance,” he said. “I simply could not be a silent spectator in this debate, either as a Muslim or as a scholar.”
    ………………………..

    Well, of course not! After over 22,000 Jihad terror attacks, the filthy Kuffar might start to get a clue”unless Taqiyya artists like Ahmed can convince them otherwise…

    Here’s more from the appalling Akbar Ahmed:

    “Akbar Ahmed contends war on terror is being used to justify oppressive policies”

    http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/akbar-ahmed-contends-war-on-terror-is-being-used-to-justify-oppressive-poli

    In it, he decries the “War on Terror” for having been even as comparatively effective as it has been, bemoaning its having “disrupted this balance” between Jihad and the defense against it.

    Just two years after 9/11, he had the gall to put out a book titled “Islam Under Siege: Living Dangerously in a Post-Honor World”..

    His latest project is “Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam[edit]

    “Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam”, where he lauds the incursions of Muslims into the United States, glossing over the concomitant rise in Islamic terrorism here as supremacist Muslims work to “Islamoform” our society.

  6. says

    No Golden Rule in Islam…so the purpose of dialogue cannot be respect.

    The purpose can ONLY be to trick people so they will be unaware of jihad.

  7. says

    All excellent comments that recognize this soft-spoken, lying sleaze for what he is: a taqiyya artist. This is the 2nd pincer movement of the jihad. Terrorism on the one side, and so-called “dawa” on the other.

    The worst part of it is that people ignorant of islam, what it is, and what it stands for (mostly on the Left, but some also on the “conservative” right) that actually form a 3rd pincer that aids the other two. It’s bad enough having to fight the “stealth” and violent jihadis; but when the PCMC mind virus (or the vote-seeking shills) is figured into the equation, that makes the effort to combat jihad and sharia an almost impossible task.

    Thank you, Robert – and Pamela – for the thankless and often dangerous work you do for the sake of freedom. A lonely and difficult task indeed. However, your words ARE getting through. The progress is slow; but people are starting to wake up to the danger. And some are learning to recognize the taqiyya artists for what they are. Unfortunately, for the most part, they are not the people in any position to make a difference.

  8. says

    Cameron in his usual half educated manner has now cited Qutb as a dangerous influence.

    What? Now he belatedly semi get’s it but what to do?

    Purge every Islamic bookshop of Milestones?

    Government inspectors or heaven forfend, the police checking out literaly thousands of shops which quite proudly sell this whining Islamic polemic?

    Just imagine?

    Here’s Qutb from this piece.

    “The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”

    And does he think it’s just a tiny minority who lap this stuff up in droves?

    Here’s that ‘minority’ in action.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoMeUcC_M20

    And here..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxgju1NHBEw

    (PS: not one arrest on that day!)

    And returning to topic showing the link between all of this, Akbar Ahmed glibly spouts..

    ‘Ignoring geographic, ethnic and sectarian differences, he said, the clash of civilisations narrative lumped the entire Muslim world on one side against the whole of Western civilisation on the other. “So basically it comes down to Islam and the West, which I find highly simplistic and reductionist,” he added’.

    Reductionist?

    Watch those videos and see reductionism in action.

    Denmark and the kuffar is reduced to one hated enemy even though these parasites live here and in Denmark with a good 50% claiming welfare.

    It is beyond parody.

    And whenever these so called moderates open their mouths it’s all lies, hollow posture, alternating threat and false allegiance.

  9. says

    “There were people linking Islam to violence, terrorism and intolerance,” he said.”

    Where do people get these silly ideas, anyway?

  10. says

    LemonLime, thanks for the further information on Ibn-Khaldun’s condoning of violent Jihad”and for the link to your fine article on “interfaith outreach”, the Jewish and Christian dhimmis who fall for it, and the Mohammedan wolves like Akbar Ahmed who exploit their well-meaning naïvité.

  11. says

    George wrote:

    “There were people linking Islam to violence, terrorism and intolerance,” he said.”

    Where do people get these silly ideas, anyway?
    …………………………….

    Grimly hilarious, George.