FREE AND IN DIGNITY!!! That is obscene. There is no freedom in Islam. They died simply to kill as many infidels as possible, nothing more.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 30, 2004 5:10 PM

This seemed strangely conicidental to me because I will be interviewing for a postdoctoral position at Northwestern. It sounds as if I will be on the front lines in the debate with radical Islamists there.

Posted by: Dilophos at December 30, 2004 5:12 PM

Dilophos:

I expect you will in any case, but please note that Alam is at Northeastern, not Northwestern.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 30, 2004 5:14 PM

Such a repugnant screed, it's hard to know where to begin. Glorifying the 19 hijackers? I thought a true Muslim would never fly a plane into a building and kill thousands of civilians. Apparently it's our fault for building tall buildings, so "vunerable to clandestine attacks." Well, yes, if you like to destroy things.

"The attacks of 9-11 were in many ways a work of daring and imagination too; if one can think objectively of such horrors." I suppose you'd think that way if you were a nihilist. Alam purports to speak for the glorious freedom fighters, who decry the corrupt Islamic leaders who "have secretly worked with Israel to complete the dismantling of Palestinian society." It's always the Jews, isn't it?

"Will the Islamic world be smashed into a collection of micro-states - ethnic, sectarian and tribal entities - allied to and dependent on the US and Israel for their survival?" Brother Alam, you are so there already. The umma looks might fractured to me. Maybe some tiny sliver of responsibility lies with the Muslim society.

Posted by: kelley at December 30, 2004 5:18 PM

Shahid Alam has been churning out Jihadist defenses for some time. Physically, he appears to be the descendant of Brahmins -- one wonders what tortures were inflicted on them to make them "revert" to Islam. Mentally, he is quite a piece of work. He came to the United States in 1988, and managed to disguise, for a while, and only to the precise extent necessary, in order to conduct his resistible rise through the ranks at Northeastern. He is the author of two Marxist accounts, of why "Imperialism" (European, not Arab -- the most successful of all imperialisms, that make a man from the subcontinent take on an Arab name, and worship the behavior, the Sunna, of 7th century Arabs) retarded economic development. He seems to be under the impression that when, for example, the subcontinent obtained its independence, all kinds of development took palce that hadn't before -- exhibit number 1 would not be, one suspects, the current chaos and nightmare of Pakistan. Nor does he explain how the Arabs of the Gulf, who had no Europeans save for the odd intrepid explorer, enter their domains, failed completely to develop economically or in any other way -- and now that they have received the largest transfer of wealth, and unearned wealth to boot, in human history, it becomes ever more implausible to blame "imperialism" and "colonialism" for M. Shahid Alam (website maintained by M. Junaid Alam) to argue.

If his two overlapping and marxisant works of fifteen years ago (1999 and 2000) are hardly worth noting, what about the productivity of this "Department of Economics Chairman" since? Economists have no trouble producing dozens or hundreds of papers (cf. Alexander Gerschenkron). How is Alam doing? Once he had obtained tenure, it seems, things slowed down. In 1983, a 4-page papger; in 1984, a 5-page paper; in 1991 -- seven years later -- a 7-page paper (one page a year); in 1992, a 30page papger; in 1994, a 22 page paper, and in 1995, a 16-page paper. Nothing related to economics in the last ten years has turned up -- but perhaps there is something).

But like Edward Said, whose interest in literature, like his interest in culture, was akin to that of Lunacharsky and Goebbels, Alam's interest in economics is as an extension of his hatred -- for that is what it is -- of the United States, the country in which, I have not the slightest doubt, he is secretly delighted to live in, and would hate to find out that he cannot, or that naive Infidels will not turn out to be quite so welcoming, given what they are learning, and what varioius acts reported in the daily press suggest, for his children in this country he hates so very much, but insists on living in.

He might better combine the schoolgirl gush of his Calibanish riffs on Western literature (e.g. "About Saddam they were never wrong/The Oil Meisters..." and similar embarrassments), and his hatred of the West, by moving, lock stock and suburban barrel, back to Pakistan, possibly to assume a position in the government -- ghazals and all.

As for the little matter of how such a man managed to be awarded tenure, and what one is to make of the standards that apparently obtained -at least at some time in the past -- for this non-productivge and apparently now full-time Defender of the Faith -- well, that is a question for his embarrassed colleagues. They should not repeat the error, nor should faculty members in any other department, in any other university.

And what can be done about Alam himself? One hopes that the magic word "Tenure" is treated just as it was treated during World War II -- that is, ignored. For a good many people who had spouted pro-Nazi sympoasthies before the war promptly shut up (I can think of a teacher of German literature at Temple University, for example), or were shut up -- sometimes by losing their jobs. There is no absolute freedom of tenure. This is misunderstood.

While tenure itself deserves re-examination, not least because of the strange system by which people have to fret, and worry, and produce works that neither they nor anyone else actually have an interest in, and that this is now well known to one and all, and besides, it justifies all sorts of post-tenure idiocy that simply cannot be permitted, it deserves special examination because the enemmies of the Western, Infidel world have found their securest purchases -- when not directly working for the Arabs -- in universities.

But until people understand what it is that people like Alam are defending -- that is, until they study the canonical texts of Islam, and read the testimony of ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, and understand the attitude in Islam that places such severe limits on artistic expression, scientific or indeed any free and skeptical inquiry, and supplies a belief-system that enshrines the mistreatment of non-Muslims once Muslim rule has been attained, in the system that we in the West now call dhimmitude (from "dhimmi" or, as in Alam's neck of the woods, "zimmi"), and much else in Islam that directly contradicts all that is best in Western civilization, without offering any compensating liberties (for a system that offers a Complete Guid to the Universe and Regulation of Practically Everything is bound to limit mental freedom and personal autonomy).

Northeastern administrators need to know that donors will no longer simply donate to it, or indeed to any university, that harbors people who, from what they regard as the safe perch of tenure, proceed to undermine the Infidel position, and to legitimize the JIhad. It may not, at this point, be possible to get their attention. They may huff and puff and insist that they will never interfere with a professor's "right to express himself." Oh, really? Then did they oppose the firings of tenured pro-German professors during World War II, or their being silenced? Why not? And if they found that understandable, what is the difference here? Is the difference one of not sufficiently understanding Islam? If that is the case, then some study of Islam is in order, so that the full outrage of what Alam preaches -- economics seems to have gone by the wayside, just like the biochemist who, upon getting tenure, spends his time taking photographs of wildflowers (we all know the stories).

What does one wish fellow faculty members, or university administrators, to do? There is the power of the purse. Why should the likes of Alam, publishing Muslim propaganda, be given raises? Why should his salary which comes out of the Economics Department budget, be transferred to others more interested in writing, and teaching, economics? Why should things be made easier for him, and not more difficult, in a thousand ways?

Perhaps the best way to handle this situation is for the Federal government to legislate a bit more in the area of federal funds. Here is the proposed legislation:

No federal funds may be given to an institution which knowingly retains on its faculty a person or persons who through his or her acts or deeds furthers the goals of those who would engage in the Jihad against the entire civilized world. Evidence of such acts or deeds would include financial or intellectual support for named terrorist groups or propaganda on their behalf."

Other clauses can be added; phrases re-worked. Legislative drafting can be done by those who know about such matters. But once in place, that kind of legislation will get the attention of faculty and administrators. Faculty members will not relish having to give up government support, and some, at least, will begin to see -- after the next big attack somewhere, or the next -- that the government is serious, and so are would-be donors, and it is time for the kissing to stop.

For there seems to be no other way to deal with the problem of those who have already, in a much more innocent, and indeed criminally negligent age, have passed out tenure not only to those who may be simply going through the scholarly motions until they have reached the paradise of permanent (and as they see it, wrongly, not-to-be-undone) empoloyment, but those who, in far more sinister fashion, are helping those who would not for one minute permit our political, economic, social, and intellectual understandings and arrangements to continue -- for they are all contradicted by the Shari'a, all the product of Infidel misunderstanding of the proper, submissive role of Man.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2004 5:52 PM

...nineteen Arab hijackers too demonstrated their willingness to die – and to kill – for their dream.

There isn't anything else of merit in his screed worth commenting on so I'm done with this one.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at December 30, 2004 5:57 PM

Here is his website:

http://msalam.net/index.htm

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 30, 2004 6:02 PM

The ultimate irony is the confusion such individuals perpetuate, especially being positioned in the idea factory. In this case, Cortes and Montezuma would be a more appropriate analogy.

For the ordinary American it would be advisable to pay more attention to what's happened in Europe and canadastan. The collective will has been influenced by the axis of ideas: collaboration between the main stream media, the state and those who control the education of your children.

The only way to make others aware of the threat of islam is engaging in a line of rhetorical questions that will shield you from prosecution via hate laws (state censorship).

Remember if you put your statements in the form of a question, you can't be attacked or accused of promoting an idea. Some may perceive this as mere politics, yet it's vital in the hostile climate created by so called liberals. Having worked at a university for many years this is a highly effective method of challenging "intellectuals". Most of them have their pavlovian responses to any assertions, they're quite good at disarming ideas, however since it takes more intelligence to respond to a substantive question, many can't respond well to notions outside their sophmoric dialectic tricks.

Regarding Islam, a simple question: Why have the followers of Jesus literally conquered the world and the followers of muhammad haven't? Why is this so?

Posted by: newtopia at December 30, 2004 6:28 PM

Isn't Northeastern a tier 4 school?

This school is in Mass.

Does anyone know of any other teachers there?

Posted by: Lynn at December 30, 2004 6:53 PM

Truly, an ABOMONATION. For shame.

Posted by: Just_Linda at December 30, 2004 6:55 PM

After reading the whole thing it sounded like a cross between A People's History of the United States and the CAIR website. And basically wrong about everything.

Posted by: superdawg at December 30, 2004 9:08 PM

There is nothing, absolutely nothing that these parasites can possibly offer or contribute to make our world a better place.
.
Sooner or later it will come to it that we have to round them up like cattle and export them to their Arab masters, where they can truck behind camels and follow their 'peaceful religion' by cutting each other's limbs off...

Posted by: Terminator at December 30, 2004 9:13 PM

In this essay professor Alam goes on to give voice to the 'hyjackers' in extended quotations. But who is he quoting? No one, I presume. Is he 'presenting' his interpretation of what the hyjackers 'would say' or is he indirectly voicing his own opinion? The point of the essay is clear: Muslims must fight and shape their own destiny! Well, that is what the hjyackers are saying as well. But fight how? 9/11, the shot heard round the world is acceptable. And, consider this:

"“Mobilize now,” they repeat, “and we will join again your political struggle at home – in the Islamic lands stretching from Mauritania to Mindanao, from Bosnia to Borneo, from Jerusalem to Jakarta, from Tangier to Tanzania, and from Karachi to Kasghar. If you are willing to struggle, to fight, to secure your own homes, your own societies, your enemies cannot bind you through surrogates. America and Israel will have to fight you in your lands. Is America ready to fight a billion and a half people in their own streets, their own squares, their own backyards?”

Is professor Alam advocating that Muslims fight in the streets and squares of America? That is the only plausible interpretation of these remarks. He wants Muslims to fight to shape their own destiny. America fights against that. 9/11 was a daring, imaginative response, 'the shot heard round the world'. How can one not interpret these remarks as advocating violence in the 'streets and squares of America'?

Is Northeastern university will to keep on the faculty a person who argues that Muslims should kill Americans 'in their street and their squares'? What squares? The quad at Northeastern? How can these remarks not imply that professor Alam finds it not only acceptable but admirable to kill Northeastern students and administration in the 'fight against America'?

Posted by: JTF at December 30, 2004 9:17 PM

Northeastern has been on a building spree, and is attempting to become a much better school. Alam got in, and got his tenure, under the wire, judging by the slim pickings of his scholarship (no, I'm not including the schoolgirl imitations of Auden; the less said about his "poetic" side -- Caliban aping Prospero -- the better). The economics department has not improved in the way, for example, that the economics department at B.U. has done. Pecking orders, however, are often silly. The "stars" are often the "stars" because they ignore students, and are so busy running around consulting and pocketing large sums that they become those "stars." This is not a feature only of economics departments, but the rewards are particularly large there.

I would like to draw attention again to the suggestion above for a Federal law that could deal with faculty members who, seemingly protected by tenure that was meant to protect views -- but not to protect those who engage in propaganda for a ruthless enemy, and who redefine the mass murder of innocents as the fulfillment of a noble "dream." There are limits, and Alam has passed those limits.

If the Northeastern University Trustees and President pull a Bollinger -- appointing a committee of fellow-travellers, with it all ending in a predictable tsk-tsking and a promise elicited from Alam not to "do it again," that will not be satisfactory. Ihe problem is that when these matters are raised, instead of thinking clearly and rationally about the real performance of Alam, or of others like him, the natural tendency seems to rally round some entirley non-existent solidarity. Alam is promoting a primitive belief-system based on a clear distinction, a manichaean distinction, between Believer and Infidel. He is a stout defender -- as the article above shows -- of the mass-murder of civilians. There is no other way to describe what he wrote above. He has a view of "colonialism" that of course ignores entirely the fact that the Arabs and Muslims themselves suffered less from European colonialism than any other non-European people in the world, and that they, with their black and white slave trades, and the forced arabization that accompanied islamization, have been the most successful practitioners of imperialism in world history.

President Frankland should resist any temptations to react with bromides about academic freedom. He should think clearly about what, in 1942, he would have done with someone who uttered a screed defending Nazi Germany, or the Rape of Nanking. Would he have, when demands were made for the firing of such a person, invoked "academic freedom"? The answer is: No. So the real problem is one of understanding exactly what Alam is saying. He is saying exactly what someone supporting Nazi Germany or Kodo Japan would have been saying. He is defending the worst example of violent Jihad, one that no one in the civilized world should be defending. Or should be defending from a post at a university, a university that, like all non-profits, benefits from special tax treatment, which means that every American taxpayer is, directly or indirectly, helping to subsidize this university.

Eventually the cliches about Islam will topple. Eventually the hatred for Bush, or Ashcroft, or "fundamentalist Christians," will no longer be enough to protect Muslims pushing the Jihadist agenda. Eventually intelligent refugees from Europe will arrive on these shores, with their own warnings about the islamization of Europe. Eventually enough defectors from Islam -- such as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina-- will get through to large Infidel audiences in a way that even the most articulate of Infidels cannot. Eventually the brigade of apologists -- the members and especially the officers of Mesa Nostra, as it has come to be known -- will be shown up for their series of preposterous remarks, and their completely sanitized presentation of Islam and of Muslim history, when they bother to mention Islam at all.

Alam is in the Economics Department, and at least there he is not in a position to do as much harm as he might in a history or MIddle Eastern department (still, it would be fascinating to consider how he plays favorites, or punishes enemies, in that most political of institutions, the "Department." Would that one had a hidden tape-recorder at departmental meetings.)

But university administrators and trustees cannot give up their responsibilities to monitor the offerings by invoking "faculty autonomy." A few years ago Harvard Medical School had on its faculty one John Mack, a psychiatrist who himself had written an award-winning but worthless biography (that completely ignored both Richard Aldington and Elie Kedourie on the mythomane T. E. Lawrence) of Lawrence of Arabaia ("Prince of Disorder"), and who then came to believe, publicly, in UFO's and the testimon y of those who claimed to have met with, or been kidnapped by, intergalactic travellers. Now Mack fortunately was limited in the damage he could do.

But imagine if there were not one Mack, but a whole department full of Macks, each of whom protected the others -- that is like the situation at Columbia's MEALAC. And it is exactly what can happen elsewhere. Who will monitor the syllabi to see if, for example, students read the real, not the bowdlerized, Qur'an? That they learn about, and become familiar with, the hadith? That they read the sira (biography) of Muhammad, without any passages being censored -- and read not the Muslim versions alone, but also those of Andrae, Muir, Rodinson, Jeffrey. That they learn about the history of Muslim conquest, and the history of the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, as studied by several generations of Western -- English, American, German, French, Italian, Greek, Spanish, Russian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, Czech, Polish, Swiss, Armenian, Swedish historians -- and as testified even in the accounts of such Muslims as the traveller Ibn Battuta, or as set out in the works of Muslim theologians. At this point, it is a scandal that there is not a single chair, not even a single course, and in most university courses on Islam, not a single reference to the history of dhimmitude. That has to end. Let those who wish to endow chairs use their money wisely: a "Chair in the History of Dhimmitude" would be money well spent.

That is why President Frankland, however closely he may work with a certain other administrator at Northeastern, has got to manfully face his pedagogic responsiblities -- which connect to, but are not identical with, all that fundraising that presidents, whether of universities or of countries, now have to spend much of their time worrying about. A little more Jacques Barzun in the mix, please, and a little less of the Ultimate Fundraiser, would be welcome.

And let Congress get into the act: No Federal funds will be given to universities or any institution of higher learning that knowingly retains on its faculty or staff those who support or promote terrorism, or any other instrument of Jihad," as determined by a committee which will be appointed by Congress, and should include among its members such people as Ibn Warraq, Walid Phares, Ali Sina, and all those who are most skeptical of the general idea that "moderate" Muslims make up the vast majority, and with those "moderates" we supposedly have no quarrel. For if we have no quarrel with "moderate" Muslims (whatever that means) we then must regard with equanimity the future islamization of Europe.

If you do, then stop right here. But if you do not regard that possiblity, or likelihood if people do not educate themselves, with equanimity, then you should support every measure designed to stop propaganda on behalf of the enemy -- with a particularly egregious example, that of poetaster and quondam economist Shahid Alam, whose unforgettable (but not in the way he thinks) effort is presented above.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2004 9:41 PM

JTF,
I think you missed something here:

"America and Israel will have to fight you in your lands. Is America ready to fight a billion and a half people in their own streets, their own squares, their own backyards?”
------------------------

Posted by: kentim at December 30, 2004 10:00 PM

Well said Hugh.
Remarkable that this turkey gains a living from an American educational establishment.
Do those who do the hiring have no responsibility to the young minds that they are supposed to be informing, educating.

This guy should be tarred, feathered and put on a plane to somewhere.

To paraphrase Dana, outa here a****le.

Posted by: dby at December 30, 2004 10:10 PM

Dana,

The only way to stop these Islamic worms from further boring into our academic institutions is for alumni and students--current and prospective--to put pressure on the university and college administrations.

State universities and colleges can be pressured by state governments, if these are prodded into actions by the state's citizens.

Of course, if students were to avoid classes taught by Islamic worms, these would soon dry up, wither, and blow away. There appears to be a trend now of students resisting such insanities (U. of North Carolina) as having to read the accursed Koran before admission.

I share your frustration and our apparent impotence--at this point--to stop what is coming our way. Here is a piece from Victor Davis Hanson's website that paints not so glum a picture as we are wont to see:

December 2004
Response to Readership

The only ones that can prevent an impending world war may be moderate Muslims. I would appreciate your thoughts on the potential for a wider struggle against radical Islam regarding these players: Russia, China—neither of whom would give quarter to terrorists like the US has—and moderate Muslims, who seem to say nothing. What do you believe the possibility is of a truly “global” war on Islamofascism?

Hanson: Let us look at the world strategically for a second from the eyes of a radical fundamentalist: India is out of bounds, since its nukes and Hindus don’t take lightly to Muslim terrorism; Islamisicsts don’t do well in Chinese provinces, and note the rhetoric about American oil hegemony doesn’t apply to China’s massive entry into the Gulf—a billion nuclear Chinese without a Constitution might just do something stupid if their tankers were attacked. And then there is Japan and Europe who are waking up. And of course the US is not the same country as it was under Bill Clinton in the pre-9-11 days. No need to mention Russia on the issue. So the world does not look good for bin Laden. Even his backyard is shrinking: Afghanistan gone; Iraq going; Turkey off limits; Iran under scrutiny, and reform is elsewhere in the air. We of course wish dramatic results. But this is a weird way of war waged in the shadows as much as on the battlefield; ever so slowly a consensus is emerging that Dark Age Islamicism is failing and the jihadist is a liability that just isn’t worth it for most Middle East regimes. If we keep up the pressure we can crack it all wide open, and in 2-3 years bin Laden’s fascism will be about as viable as Nasser’s Pan-Arabism and all those silly “united Arab republics” he tried to create.

http://www.victorhanson.com/

Posted by: unicorns62000 at December 30, 2004 10:22 PM

What a load of shite from this Scumbag Professor!
Had a quick look at his site : this guy is obviously an Anti-Semite. And very arrogant too.
Time the FBI took a look at Shahid Alum, he should definitely be photographed and fingerprinted.

Posted by: Morgane at December 30, 2004 10:48 PM

I was in Australia on R&R in November, 1969. At that time it was reported that the Red Chinese military determined that they believed they would win a nuclear war if they got into one.

They figured they could lose a billion plus people in a Nuclear exchange, and still win, as they would still have a billion plus people left over after the blast and fallout effects.

Lets see, a billion and half Muslims, verse 2.3 billion+ Chinese. I don't think Osama can do his sums. And this Prof at Northeastern University dreams about fighting us in our streets. I have an idea...I think he should be the first to come out to fight us in our streets. Someone has to be first at it. This guy is a coward, he is all mouth and no guts. He wants someone else to do the dying. Just as Osama wants someone else to do the dying. At least Osama puts his out on the razors edge.

I wonder how this Prof would react knowing USA wanted to plant a 5,000 lb. Daisy Cutter bomb through his office window via lasar beam.

Posted by: SCV at December 30, 2004 11:02 PM

OK. Here is a my idea.
We try to get one (just one) Congressperson in the House or Senate to introduce a resolution for a Declaration of War against Radical Islam. Then they try to get a co-sponsor.
The reason we need a DECLARATION OF WAR is so that the US can legally take into custody and deport Radical Islamists. In other words, not only do we want to have Professor Shahid Alam thrown out of Northeastern University, we also want him legally thrown out of the USA. To be legally thrown out is to be DEPORTED. Period.
In fact the Congressperson above can use Shaid Alam's statements and activities as Exhibit A in the argument.
Then the other 400-500 congresspeople who do not support the War Resolution would have to explain why they want to allow Shaid Alam to stay in this country. They will be put in the position of defending Alam's right to stay in this country. So I think the War Resolution will pick up supporters because I think that a majority in the USA want Islamofascists deported.

Posted by: sparrow at December 30, 2004 11:42 PM

Thanks kentim. I did misread that sentence and retract. But, the implication that prof. Alam deems killing of American civilians in the 'fight against America' to be acceptable, stands, of course. 9/11 was, after all, simply the act of revolutionaries with a just cause, 'the shot heard round the world'.

Well, then, why not another?

Posted by: JTF at December 30, 2004 11:46 PM

Greetings fellow JW posters, my name is Earthling and this is my first post. It was about 4-5 weeks ago when after reading an article about Islam and more particularly Jihad in our West Australian newspaper I decided to find out a bit about what Jihad is really all about. Since then I have been continually expanding my knowledge of the history of Islam and Jihad and its current status in the modern world through the internet, print media, television and books. In my quest for knowledge and subsequent exploring on the internet I managed to discover this site about 2 weeks ago. I have held off from posting anything as I wanted to continue my education of Islam until I thought I had read enough (from both sides of the debate) to form my own independent opinion. What I have found out so far has greatly disturbed me.

Following the link I have read the entire article and I would just like to discuss a few quotes that were not posted in the summary above.

"We announce the failure of a billion and a half people – keepers of the Qur’aan and heirs to a moral civilization"

From what I have learnt of the Qur'aan so far (which is a surprising amount for only 4-5 weeks study) I would say that it is the most immoral piece of literature I have read since I had the dis-pleasure of reading Hitler’s "Mein Kampf".

How any Muslim who followed the Qur'aan even semi literally could claim they would be an heir to a moral civilisation is beyond my reasoning to understand. How is having 4 wives, moral. How is considering anyone who doesn't want to join your religion an infidel who must be either converted, subjected to Sharia (i.e. to be a dhimmi) or if not killed, moral. How is a woman being only worth half as much as a man in the eyes of Islamic law, moral? How is being able to have sex with livestock as long as you sell the meat to the neigbouring village, moral.

The answers to all these question are, IT IS NOT MORAL. So how can Muslims who follow the Qur'aan as it is meant to be followed by instruction from Muhammad lay claim to be heirs of a moral civilisation.......the answer is they CAN'T.

Here is another quote from the whole article

"Or will the Muslims oppose this new ‘civilizing mission’ and regain the freedom to shape their destiny in ways that allow the integral Qur’anic society, just, inclusive, creative, seeking knowledge, taking the middle road, to once again enrich our common human sojourn on earth?"

This just made me LOL, as it is the exact opposite society that Muhammad the (only) prophet of Islam wanted to be created in the name of Islam and Allah i.e. unjust (look at the treatment of woman), exclusive (only Muslims), taking only our road (if not your an infidel), Islam does not seek knowledge it actively shuns it (no science, no TV, no music etc.....I'm sure you get my drift. As for the enriching of our common human sojourn........there could never be anything common about our sojourn on earth. We want society to move forward into the future in a positive inclusive way (that’s one of the reasons we have this problem with them in the first place), while they want to drag it back to the 7th century and into a new dark age of despair and misery........common my arse.

oh.... one last thing....don’t you have to have freedom in the first place to regain it ??????

Posted by: Earthling at December 31, 2004 2:43 AM

And before they bravely went out to strike at the darkness of the 'Big Satan' they knocked back some stiff drinks and a got a little stank on their hang-low with a couple of strippers...

Posted by: Kemaste at December 31, 2004 3:59 AM

I've tried to bring together all the facets of the Professor Alam case. The America and Jew-hating well runs deep. Enjoy.

Posted by: John-Paul Pagano at December 31, 2004 7:28 AM

I hope that someone has actually forwarded the article to the FBI and DHS, rather than just expecting the government to magically "know" about this guy.

Posted by: CGW at December 31, 2004 7:44 AM

The larger point is why do American universities
continue to support people like Professor Alam?
Federal funds should be cut off to schools who hire radical scum like that.

Furthermore, all Muslims in the U.S. should be registered and tracked. (Something that should have happened immediately after 9/11.)

Posted by: Richard at December 31, 2004 9:24 AM

For those of you who haven't seen John-Paul Pagano's response to Alam, I'd encourage you to drop by his weblog. It's an intelligent, well-researched rebuttal to such tripe and deserves to be forwarded around the world.

Posted by: kafira at December 31, 2004 9:29 AM

At his website there is another article about "Is America the Greatest Nation?", read that one too.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 31, 2004 10:28 AM

so that who might live in dignity, might I ask?

Muslim women in their burqas who get stoned to death for getting raped?

14 year old boys who are whipped to death for eating a snack?

girls who are publicly hanged for "having a sharp tongue"?

This man is a traitor and we need to consider propagandists like him no better than the terrorists themselves.

Posted by: vrkbarracuda at December 31, 2004 10:43 AM

The professor portends that the use of violence to achieve one's ends is justified if done to stop oppression.

If a world-wide Islamic Government is eventually established and Christians and Jews are relegated to second-class citizenship and those who reject converting to Islams are killed, all according to Islamic law.

Then using that logic, Christians and Jews and others who escape execution for rejecting Islam are within their rights to use violence against muslims. The dhimmi status in Islam is oppressive. It is nothing other than Religious Aparthiedism.

It seems to me that using this logic would not lead to peace but to continued violence and bloodshed.

But I thought Islam meant "peace?"

Posted by: Nodhimmi at December 31, 2004 11:46 AM

To the best of my knowledge, both the Americans and the British were armed on April 19, 1775. On that date, neither side killed innocents.

By the way, committing suicide and being brave are two different things. But than again, when one is raised to think of the beating of women as a pleasant pastime, we can see how the differences might get blurred. Personally, I am not a Jew, but I certainly admire the bravery and fighting ability they displayed on the first day of their nations existance. Amazing, Professor Alam, how your hero's heroism seems to go the way of the morning dew when a little face to face courage is required.

One other thing, thank God (my Christian God), that my kids did well enough in school to get into a competitive university and don't have to worry about being taught by the likes of the cited professor. One can only hope he has not been awarded tenure.

Posted by: RIslander at December 31, 2004 12:35 PM

Only in America, could one freely express oneself, without the fear of being jailed. One could never freely speak in an Islamic country. This article is to blaspheme the innocent thousands of people who were executed in pre-meditated murder. It is person, such as Professor Alam, who need to be aggressively profiled. Where is the " peace " in the deaths and destruction of 9-11? Glorification of 19 terrorists is that of a corrupt and sick brain. Again I ask... A religion of peace?

Posted by: flameon1 at December 31, 2004 12:55 PM

Let the good professor talk and write. His words can be used as non-examples, reasons why Islam cannot be allowed to take root in the United States and why Muslims should not be trusted.

The power of the alumni could take care of this creature. Surely there are alumni of Northeastern University that would take exception to his words and would not care to have him teach their children.

Posted by: epg at December 31, 2004 1:35 PM

I'm just making a wild guess here that most of Prof. alam's students don't read Jihadwatch every day. I'll put a dollar on a bet that the good Prof.' neighbors don't know what he writes about them; and the same dollar, if you will, on the grocer being in the proverbial jahaliyyah. How many people know about this guy? Who would stop to look at a post-up of his smiling face with a few quotations underneath:

Hi, I'm teaching young men and women at the uni. here, thanks to your money, that the "Glorious 19" are going to rise up and kill some more of yours, and that's a good thing 'cause they're just like the Minute Men. I teach economics at Northeastern University. Call me. I'd like to get your name and number so my jihadi friends can put you and your family on their list. Happy New Year.

A photocopier, a bucket of sloppy paste, and a paint brush, next thing you know, our prof is on vacation in Mecca. That is, of course, if anyone here lives in the man's hometown, and if anyone here is interested in braving the weather for an hour in the night. but if not him, and if not there, there are others everywhere else. It is cold outside though. and it's strange being outside putting up posters like some street kid making money advertizing a local rock group. I'd like to know how people feel about doing such things. Maybe it's inappropriate for people in the West to be sneaking around in the night like resistence fighters in occupied Euope in the 1940s. I'd like some feed-back on that question. What do you think about putting up a hand-bill on a hoarding? Would you actually make up a poster and paste it to a wall in your town or city? Please let me know.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 31, 2004 1:35 PM

Well said, Everybody.

And Earthling, glad to have you! Fine comment, especially, as you say, for 5 weeks' study! Maybe I can help you understand one point that disturbs you. You asked,

"How any Muslim who followed the Qur'aan even semi literally could claim they would be an heir to a moral civilisation is beyond my reasoning to understand."

"Moral" is the issue here. A "moral code" is a set of values that we choose to guide our thinking and behavior. The operative term here is "CHOOSE."

Most of us have CHOSEN, to one degree or another, "LIFE" as the fundamental value to guide our thinking and behavior. The thinking and behavior which tend to support life are generally regarded as "GOOD" while the thinking and behavior which tend to destroy life are generally regarded as "BAD."

There's a lot more to ethics (one of the five major branches of philosophy, the most important weapon we have in this war, and one we must master to use effectively), but that'll do for starters.

See, Islam didn't choose "LIFE" as its "standard of the good." It chose death in the service of the Ummah. Every thought and action they take is toward that end; the deaths of their own, the deaths of others, including babies, is regarded by them as "GOOD" if, in any way, including inspiring terror in the hearts and minds of the Unbelievers, it aids them in creating an Islamic planet.

Long live "LIFE!"

Posted by: cubed at December 31, 2004 2:12 PM

How did a Brahmin become a Muslim? Easy. The choice is life as a Muslim or death as a Brahmin. What would you have done?

We all know that it is practically impossible for a University to fire a tenured professor. The problem is, they talk one talk prior to tenureship and another after tenureship. Has anyone here ever heard of Glayde Whiting of FSU? He was a rabid White Supremist that taught psychology. Never uttered a peep until he was tenured.

The way to deal with these scum (who ironically claim that Mossad assassinates pro-palestinians all over the world although in reality no one ever lays a finger on them) is to arrest them and try them for encouraging jihad. That's what we did with Al-Aryan.

Posted by: kj at December 31, 2004 2:18 PM

epg,

I agree with your comment: "Let the good professor talk and write. His words can be used as non-examples, reasons why Islam cannot be allowed to take root in the United States and why Muslims should not be trusted."

There is nothing more revealing than the horse's mouth.

While we need to have people like this professor educate us about their goals, and we should not silence him, we nevertheless are not obligated to pay for him to have a podium. If Northeastern is a taxpayer-supported institution, why in the hell is he there?

Let him pay for his own damned podium!

I have no problem with tracking him, either. Tracking per se is no violation of any right.

Posted by: cubed at December 31, 2004 2:20 PM

Hi All

Someone explain to me please :)

I was watching DISCOVERY CHANNELL last night in UK regarding ATTA and Co and the documentary explained ATTA etc as part of a group of SALAFISTS an extreme MUSLIM faction, and that these were the peopel who were actually behind 9/11

Bemused ????

Posted by: breadwinner at December 31, 2004 2:23 PM

Try

junaidalam@msalam.net

Probably one of Shahid's li'l jihadis.

Posted by: kj at December 31, 2004 2:28 PM

Just an idle thought...

Think of 'Oklahoma', 'Cats', 'Les Miserables', 'West Side Story', 'Sound of Music', 'Phanthom of the Opera', et al.

Given that Islam is such a great civilization, ie Mathematics, Music, Science, Medicine, Engineering, Economics, Research, Exploration...how is it that I can't think of one Islamic Musical that has appeared on Broadway?

How is it that I can't think of one Islamic Musical that has appeared anywhere in the world, even in Cat-Box Land?

I challenge JihadWatch readers to consider writing the ONE great Islamic musical. What title would you pick for this great work of art? Given that they can't produce one musical in 1350 years, I think they need some help from us. I will get you started...

We Have.................They Might Have

Cats...................Dogs and Pigs
Les Miserables..........We are already miserable,
........................thank you very much
Sound of Music..........Sound of Silence
........................Sound of the Sand Dunes
........................Sound of Jew Killings
......................Sound of Crusader Killings
Phamthom of the Opera....Phanthom of the Dunes
.........................Opera of the 72 Virgins
West Side Story..........West Bank Story
Oklahoma.................Basra (?)

Gee, they have such great material to choose from..surely they have produced in 1350 years at least one lyricist, at least one composer.

Maybe I need to mail OBL a copy of Sheila Davis' book 'The Craft of Lyric Writing'.

Imagine, 1350 years and they can't produce a musical. Amazing...

Posted by: SCV at December 31, 2004 3:13 PM

I think that famous Moslem Joseph Heller wrote the ultimate Islamic musical: "We bombed in New Haven."

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 31, 2004 3:32 PM

But enough of that. Ias anyone willing to paste up sheets on walls exposing our Moslem cousins working hard in our midsts? Is it reasonable to ask people to do such a thing?

And furthermore, while Dickens wrote Graet Expectations, do not forget the Islamic sequel, Gone with the Wind.

Hey, what about the classic of Islamic ceramics. Hairy Pottery?

The most famous Moslem novel of all time staggers me with its sheer size, if nothing else: Moby Dick-head.

Finally, there is the moralists dream of the man who reverted to Islam and gave up alcohol, the work we know and love, A clock-work Orange Juice.

Happy New Year, folks. aqnd let me know whaqt you think of exercizing yur democratic rights by leafleting and pasting.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 31, 2004 3:39 PM

"Happy New Year, folks. aqnd let me know whaqt you think of exercizing yur democratic rights by leafleting and pasting.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 31, 2004 03:39 PM"

Hmmmm. . .Actually, not a bad idea--it would probably make the news, and that would start some controversy, and there's nothing like a little controversy to get people's attention. . .

I wish I could remember who, in a recent posting, actually suggested flyers.

BUT! If you do it, you should get permission if you do it on private property (spreading out flyers etc. on someone else's property is not a "right," and doing something like that without the property owner's permission can cause a wee legal problem for you).

If you go around on public property putting them under windshield wipers etc., you might want to be relatively unidentifiable while you're doing it, just to avoid unnecessary problems.

The initial flyer might contain a list of introductory readings for the uninitiated. Nothing inflammatory, just educational. Of course, CAIR & Co. will see it as inflammatory, but who cares? Maybe it could contain a short article from a well-respected source, and a few quotes from the Koran.

Hmmm. . .

Posted by: cubed at December 31, 2004 4:37 PM

I've had too much coffee today; here I go again.

SCV, the reason that you haven't heard too many musical compositions by Muslims is that music is regarded as sinful. Let me once again quote our Ayotollah Khomeini:

"Music corrupts the minds of our youth. . .There is no difference between music and opoium. Both create lethargy in different ways. if you want your country to be independent, then ban music. Music is treason to our nation and to our youth."

Those statements were made to the directors of Radio Iran in Qom.

In another talk, given to university students, he said that the introduction of music into Iran was a "plot by foreigners. . .[to]. . .lead our youth astray."

The Ayatollah made this statement, too, in a different meeting in Qom, and it gave the overall metaphysical (another of the five major branches of philosophy--it's important, folks) view that Islam has of existence:

"Allah did no create man so that he could have fun. . .The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardhsip and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials."

I'm not making this up. He really said it, they believe it, and that's that.

Hmmm. . .If anybody spreads out any flyers, maybe a bunch of quotes from our friend the Ayatollah can be on them.

You know, Islam is more like the Nazis than many of our history-deprived citizens can appreciate; both the Nazis and Islam hold no secrets. In each case, they were (and Islam is) completely open and honest about every goal, every method, every belief, EVERYTHING! Neither one held back at all on anything.

All we have to do is convince our policymakers of the truth about themselves that they themselves openly declare every day.

Posted by: cubed at December 31, 2004 5:01 PM

Man, our education system is so screwy

Posted by: juicealot at December 31, 2004 5:44 PM

Is professor Alam advocating that Muslims fight in the streets and squares of America? That is the only plausible interpretation of these remarks.
Posted by: JTF at December 30, 2004 09:17 PM

Yes this is why todat we found 3 50 calb. near a creek neer Fort Rily??

Just like in Iraq they Place the weapons and send their MONSTERS??

REMEMBER A gun in hand is better that 2 cops on the Phone!!!

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 CRUSH ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at December 31, 2004 6:32 PM

is to arrest them and try them for encouraging jihad. That's what we did with Al-Aryan.

Posted by: kj at December 31, 2004 02:18 PM

It is called sedition!!!

IF WE CAN GET THE LIBS TO STOP SUPPORTING THE MONSTERS THIS WOULD HELP CALLED TH ACLU??

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 Crush ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen

Posted by: Catherine at December 31, 2004 6:41 PM

A little textual analysis of that last telling phrase is in order: "the history of a unity dismembered, of societies manipulated by surrogates, of development derailed and disrupted, of a people dispossessed."

What could Alam mean by these words? A "unity dismembered" -- does he mean the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies, which allowed the Arabs freedom from Turkish domination? Apparently he does, so he must have no qualms about such domination, as long as the caliphate -- which Ataturk abolished in 1924 -- had remained. So Alam yearns for the Caliphate.

And "the history of societies maniulated by surrogates"? Presumably Alam means that the wonderful countries of the Muslim world are actually run by puppets of the West. Really? The viciously anti-Western House of Saud? That they are corrupt, and enjoy indulging all sorts of tastes that violate the rules of Islam (especially in the West) does not make them Western puppets. What other puppets do you have in mind? The sheikhs of the Gulf? The rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran? The mild police-state run by Bourguiba's heirs in Tunisia? The generals who run Egypt and Algeria? The latest King of Morocco? Alam has a right to despise the quality of the Arab and Muslim elites. But he blames the West as puppet-master, when he should really ask himself one question: What is it that makes democracy so inimicable to Islam -- could it be the teaching that one must submit to the ruler, no matter how bad he may be, as long as he meets just one condition -- that he be a Muslim? Might that explain why, of all the Arab and Muslim states, the only one that even approximates a democracy is Turkey, and that happens only because of the 80-year history of Kemalist constraints on the very Islam of which Alam is so fond, and fondly believes is the answer to the world's ills.

"Of development derailed and disrupted."

What does this mean? What "development"? The onlly time that Algeria experienced a development in its economy -- other than the unearned, unmerited oil-and-gas bonanza -- was during the 132 years of French rule, from 1830 to 1962. Then the Berbers were not oppressed by the Arabs (read Kateb Yacine, Mr. Alam -- it will do you good); the Jews (after 1970) were no longer forced into the misery of the Shari'a and became, according to the loi Cremieux, citizens of France and so no longer subject to local -- i.e. Muslim -- law. As for the French settlers, they brought agriculture, the sole source of wealth in Algeria other than the oil. For the first and only time in Algeria's history since the Christian civilization of North Africa (Tertullian, St. Augustine) was conquered by the forces of Islam, bringing desert ways (see Xavier de Planhol on how the Arabs brought with them their own ways that lead inevitably to the "desertification" of previously-rich agricultural areas) was conqueed by Islam, North Africa had some semblance of order, tranquillity, and development.

The same is true of modern Egypt. Only under Lord Cromer's administration of the Civil Service (roughly, from 1882 to 1922) did modern Egypt function without the usual corruption; that legacy lasted until Nasser and the Colonel's coup, which in turn led to a stratokleptocracy that outdid in the theft of government funds even fat Farouk.

Surely, what Alam means to tell us is this:

Even though, since 1973, Arab and Muslim countries have received between 5 and 6 trillion dollars, purely as the result of a geological accident and not through any enterprise or effort on the part of the Arabs and Muslims themselves, not one Arab or Musolim country has come close to creating a modern economy. The rich Gulf states exist on the labor of Westerners in the professions, and Asians in the slave-labor jobs, subject to the whims and fantasies for which their Saudi, U.A.E., and Kuwaiti male masters have acquired a reputation.

And while Pakistan, having reduced its Hindu population from 15% (at the beginning) to 1% today, subsists on handouts from Infidel states and from sums sent back from the Gulf, India forges ahead with something like that modern economy. While Malaysia practices the disguised "jizya" on Hindus and Chinese of the Bumiputra system that favors Muslim Malays, non-Muslim Singapore forges ahead.

Indeed, despite the fantastic oil wealth -- and the foreign aid that pours in from Infidel states that have been inveigled into supporting the likes of Egypt and Jordan and now Iraq -- there has been no progress.

Note to Alam's students at Northeastern: see what blend of resentment and no-longer-concealed hatred for the West, and fury that Islam has failed to dominate as it should -- for which of course Infidels are to blame, are always to blame -- you can spot in "Professor" Alam's classroom presentations. And ask yourselves the question -- what is it about the belief-system of Islam that makes it the enemy of free and skeptical inquiry, of artistic expression (music, sculpture, paintings of living creatures), so aggressive, so manichaean? And what is it that leads its adherents to become so intellectually and morally idiotized, as the little exhibit above by Alam so memorably demonstrates?

Posted by: Hugh at December 31, 2004 6:59 PM

Note to self: please try not to read about who Susan Sontag really was and then read about this Islamic-academic-looney and his beliefs. The column on Sontag can be found on http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6189 by Ralph R. Reiland. This kind of back-to-back, double-slap crap is enough to drive me crazy.

Posted by: timdaddy at January 6, 2005 11:18 AM