"If you think that I have misused or misunderstood this material, then meet me in an open discussion and debate, either in your classes or in any other venue of your choosing."

May I suggest a TV PPV special with the proceeds going to the victims of the "hijackers of a religion of peace" since I am sure that as a "modern muslim" he abhors terrorism as much as I do.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at April 5, 2006 12:14 PM

Faculty members, administrators, and the less gullible students should perhaps take a look at the Tanzeem organization, its stated goals and views, with which Prof. Ahmed Afzaal is apparently associated.

Here is one of his articles, on the poet Iqbal (one generation away, incidentally, from Hinduism) and on the rightly-ordered Muslim state. It is a call for the total islamification of Pakistan, a political, economic, social, and moral order where there is Islam, and only Islam. Read particularly the last paragraph. See if you think someone like this is the precise person who should be purporting to teach students at Connecticut College anything like what Islam is about -- and what Islam says about the division of the world between Believers and Infidels, and the uncompromising hostility that must continue to exist between them, as long as those Infidels, anywhere in the world, put up any obstacles to the legitimate goal of Muslims everywhere, and certainly, judging by his writings, of Prof. Ahmed Afzaal, that "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated."

Here is just one sample of the quality of thought, and the world-view, of Dr. Ahmed Afzaal, now teaching unwary American students, who depend upon him to inform them fully and truthfully about Islam:

"I read with great interest the article by Javid Iqbal, entitled "The Problem of Implementing Iqbal’s Ideas in Pakistan," published in Dawn magazine (June 21, 1998).

Iqbal spent his mental energies and literary genius in trying to demolish the false idols of the mind — idols that manifest themselves as ideologies competing with Islam, such as territorial nationalism, materialism, and secularism. Iqbal based his philosophy on the teachings of the Qur’an and upon the love and obedience of Prophet Muhammad (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). As any serious student of Iqbal can testify, the Qur’an and the Prophet are two of the most central themes of Iqbal’s thought, frequent references to which are found throughout his Urdu and Persian poetry.

The ideas of Iqbal can be actualized in Pakistan only by creating a politico-socio-economic order that is based on the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and not by attempts to circumvent these injunctions by means of clever but fallacious arguments.

I believe that one of the main hurdles in implementing the ideas of Allama Iqbal is the confusion about his teachings that still prevails among our best intellectuals. The article by Javid Iqbal is a case in point. For instance, Javid Iqbal defends the idea of secularism — and even (mis)quotes a Qur’anic ayah in its favor! — but then he goes on to talk about the "Islamic state" and the issue of "legislation of Islamic laws." After describing the capitalistic and atheistic versions of secularism, Javid Iqbal claims that the "spiritual democracy" of Iqbal can be implemented only in a purely secular state, saying that: "He probably contemplated that state as genuinely Islamic in which all religions were equally free, authentically tolerated, respected and accepted." This is a truly astonishing statement. A state in which all religions are treated in exactly the same way, and no preference is given to any of them, can be anything but an Islamic state. If we want to have an Islamic state, then Islam has to be given a clear and decisive preference over all other religions, all other systems of life, and all other ideologies. Otherwise, it would be sheer hypocrisy to call a state "Islamic" if the people and the state do not intend to surrender themselves completely before the Qur’an and Sunnah.

By definition, an "Islamic state" is one where Islam reigns supreme as the dominant politico-socio-economic order, and where all other religions, systems of life, and ideologies are tolerated as long as they do not challenge the supreme status of Islam. In this sense, an "Islamic state" is not synonymous with a "Muslim majority state." Defending the idea of secularism and demoting Islam to the rank of a powerless dogma, at par with other religions, is not an authentic interpretation of Iqbal. In fact, attributing a secular interpretation of Islam to Allama Iqbal is a blatant and brazen travesty of truth.

In his Presidential address to the Annual Session of the All India Muslim League at Allahabad, on December 29, 1930, Allama Iqbal had made the following observations:

Is religion a private affair? Would you like to see Islam, as a moral and political ideal, meeting the same fate in the world of Islam as Christianity has already met in Europe? Is it possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and to reject it as a polity in favor of national polities, in which religious attitude is not permitted to play any part?... The proposition that religion is a private individual experience is not surprising on the lips of a European. In Europe the conception of Christianity as a monastic order, renouncing the world of matter and fixing its gaze entirely on the world of spirit, led by a logical process of thought to the view embodied in this proposition. The nature of the Prophet’s religious experience, as disclosed in the Qur’an, however, is wholly different.... It is an individual experience creative of a social order. Its immediate outcome is the fundamentals of a polity with implicit legal concepts whose civic significance cannot be belittled merely because their origin is revelational. The religious ideal of Islam, therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other.... (Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, ed. By Syed Abdul Wahid)

This quote makes it quite clear that Iqbal did not favor secularism, nor was he a proponent of a secular interpretation of Islam.

Javid Iqbal has correctly observed that Iqbal criticized materialism by arguing that the discoveries of modern physics make the position of a materialist very untenable. The following sentences are taken from Iqbal’s lectures on the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, as quoted by Javid Iqbal in his article. However, the inference he draws from this quote is totally irrelevant and simply does not follow from what Iqbal has said. According to Iqbal: "The ultimate reality, according to the Qur’an, is spiritual and its life consists in its temporal activities. The spirit finds its opportunities in the natural, material and the secular. All that is secular is therefore sacred in the roots of its being. The greatest service that modern thought has rendered to Islam and as a matter of fact to all religions, consists in its criticism of what we call material or natural, a criticism which discloses that the merely material has no substance until we discover it rooted in the spirit. There is no such thing as a profane world. All this immensity of matter constitutes a scope for the self-realization of the spirit. All is holy ground." (Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p.155)

Iqbal has made a very significant point here. He has made it absolutely clear that there is no dichotomy in Islam between the religious and temporal spheres of life. Islam gives us detailed guidance not only on how to perform prayers and how to purify our souls, but also on how to conduct our daily lives, how to interact with each other, how to perform our financial transactions, how to dispense justice, and how to run a state. The teachings of Islam are not restricted to the personal and the private but they also include and cover such fields as the social, legal, cultural, economic, and political domains of human activity. Secularism, on the other hand, divides human existence into two airtight compartments: It allows individuals to have whatever religious beliefs they choose for themselves; it permits them to conduct their acts of worship and to perform social ceremonies in accordance with their respective beliefs. However, secularism refuses to allow any religion to play any meaningful role in the running of the collective affairs of the society or of government. Under a secular polity, all matters concerning social organization, economic norms, legal practices, and political affairs are to be decided and executed in terms of liberal, democratic, and non-religious criteria, while religion is to be treated as a personal and individual concern.

In sharp contrast to secularism, Islam asserts that the entire human existence is one unified whole; it cannot be bifurcated into the religious or spiritual on the one hand and the secular or mundane on the other. The kind of obedience that is accepted by Almighty Allah is the one that encompasses all realms of a person’s life. Dividing up human life into numerous compartments and obeying Allah in one of these domains and disobeying Him in the others, is a sure way to earn the Divine Wrath (Surah Al-Baqarah, ayah no. 85). As such, Islam demands its domination over all spheres of life, whether private or public, spiritual or mundane. The affairs of a "worldly" nature are not to be discarded as unclean and unworthy, therefore, but they are to be conducted as a religious duty and in accordance with Divine Guidance. There can be no doubt that the credit for reviving this dynamic concept of Islam in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, after centuries of neglect and stagnation, goes to the genius of Allama Iqbal.

Despite the clarity of Iqbal’s vision, however, Javid Iqbal makes the following muddled observation: "In the light of the above analysis and in Iqbalian terms, to consider secularism as profane is a Christian way of talking and not Islamic. Therefore, Muslims are not justified in regarding "secularism" as something bad, wicked, profane or anti-God." This is another astonishing statement by the learned writer. What Iqbal has actually said is that the "secular" (or the worldly aspect of life) is not profane as everything comes from the spirit, and Javid Iqbal concludes that since the "secular" is not profane, therefore "secularism" is not bad, wicked, profane or anti-God," incorrectly assuming that "secular" is the same as "secularism." They are not the same: "secular" simply means worldly, mundane, or temporal, whereas "secularism" is a political ideology that refuses to allow any religion to play any significant role in the public domain. Javid Iqbal’s conclusion is diametrically opposed to what Allama Muhammad Iqbal has really said!

Javid Iqbal has observed about Allama Iqbal that: "Any interpretation of Islam which approved feudalism and discriminated between man and man, was not acceptable to him." This is an accurate interpretation of both Islam and Iqbal’s view of Islam, but the question that is to be addressed is the following: Is this idea only to be propounded and celebrated or do we need to implement it in reality too? If it is to be implemented, is it possible to do so without establishing a true Islamic state? Can we eradicate feudalism and establish equality, peace, and harmony among the Muslims while disregarding the imperatives of Islam concerning social justice? And if we succeed in establishing Islamic justice in Pakistan, would that be a secular state or an Islamic one?

Allama Iqbal firmly believed that a free Muslim country was needed both for the revival of Islam and for the establishment of social justice through the implementation of Islamic Shari’ah. In his Allahbad address, Iqbal had said: "I therefore demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim State in the best interest of India and Islam. For India it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power; for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilize its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of the modern times." (Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, ed. By Syed Abdul Wahid) Clearly, Iqbal demanded a free Muslim state so that the pure and pristine teachings of Islam can be actualized, and Islamic law, Islamic education, and Islamic culture can be revived and rejuvenated. Does that sound like the conception of a secular state where all religions are to accepted equally?

Allama Iqbal wrote to Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah on May 28, 1937: "After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at least the right to subsistence is secured to everybody. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states." (Letters of Iqbal to Jinnah, quoted in Iqbal: Poet-Philosopher of Pakistan, ed. By Hafeez Malik). Can a state be called "secular" if it implements the Islamic Shari’ah?

Describing the Muslim political constitution, Allama Iqbal articulated the first principle of an Islamic state — the sovereignty of Allah — in these words: "The law of God is absolutely supreme. Authority, except as an interpreter of the law, has no place in the social structure of Islam." (Islam as a Moral and Political Ideal, in Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, ed. By Syed Abdul Wahid). Can a state in which sovereignty belongs to God and not to the people, and where the "law of God is absolutely supreme" rather than the laws made by mortals, be called a secular state?

According to Iqbal, the social order of Islam as a universal polity is established on the principle of Tawheed, and the working of this principle found its best implementation in the life of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and subsequently during the time of Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah. How, then, can we say that Iqbal thought of the Caliphate as an outmoded form of government? Because of the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in his time, Iqbal reinterpreted the system only to give a fresh vision of Islam. But he did not waver from the fundamental Islamic principles, i.e., the Qur’an and the Sunnah, as the foundation of his thought and action. Through the recent publication of the book Musalmano ka Siyasi Nasbul Ain by late Dr. Burhan Ahmad Farooqi, a very important aspect of Iqbal’s life and thought has come to light. The fact that Iqbal had made efforts to establish, during the last years of his life, an Islamic revivalist party based on the traditional Islamic institution of bai’ah, provides us with concrete evidence of his unwavering faith in the teachings of Islam and their practicability.

Javid Iqbal refers to a statement by Allama Iqbal to show that he was not averse to the idea of "nationalism" in a Muslim majority state "for there Islam and nationalism are practically identical." It is important to realize that Allama Iqbal has emphasized repeatedly, both in his poetry and in his writings, that the idea of territorial nationalism is one of the biggest adversaries of Islam, and I seriously doubt that he would have compromised on this issue. Indeed, Iqbal fully realized and eloquently articulated the dangers inherent in the idea of territorial nationalism, at a time when even the most prominent scholars of Islam were unable to grasp its hostility to the Islamic spirit. However, what is usually not realized is the fact that, in Iqbal’s thought, there is a rare blend of the highest idealism along with pragmatic realism. While envisioning the renaissance of Islam and the revival of the Muslim Ummah in the distant future, Iqbal was fully aware of the problems being faced by the Muslims in the here and now. He preached pan-Islamism and advocated the cause of the unification of the Muslim Ummah, not along territorial lines but on the basis of their common faith and culture. At the same time, Iqbal also realized that this goal cannot be achieved in the near future as the Muslim Ummah is suffering from all kinds of divisions. His apparent tolerance of the idea of nationalism in the context of Muslim majority states should be seen as a temporary and pragmatic approach to deal with a problem of an immediate nature, not one that can be adopted as a matter of permanent policy.

As far as the idea of "Pakistanis nationalism" is concerned, it must be realized that the Indian Muslims had achieved their independence on the basis of a strong negation of territorial nationalism, and that this leaves us no way to take a U-turn and start encouraging the development of a nationalism based on territory. Moreover, territorial nationalism is promoted only when there is no other way of uniting a people. Pakistani Muslim cannot be united on the basis of race or language, but they can be united on the basis of their common religion and those aspects of their culture that arise from religion. Far from uniting the Pakistani Muslims, the cultivation of a nationalism based on territory will only foment more and more separatist and schismatic tendencies along provincial, linguistic, and racial lines. And this is precisely what has happened! The only bond that can unite us is that of true Islam, everything else will only divide and re-divide us into smaller and smaller factions.

Javid Iqbal has referred to the problem of the legislation of Islamic laws and to the issue of ijtihad. It must be pointed out that, in an Islamic state, the institution of ijtihad is meant to solve new problems and issues for which no clear verdict or guidance is found in either the Qur’an or the Sunnah, and that this is to be done without transgressing the limits set by the Shari’ah. Contrary to what some modernists have implied, ijtihad is not meant to change the Islamic injunctions to suite changing times. Unfortunately, this is the impression given by Javid Iqbal when he said: "…the Islamic law is to be interpreted and legislated by each generation of Muslims in the light of their own needs and requirements and the changed conditions of modern life." Certainly, each generation of Muslims will face issues that were not faced by the previous generations and it must, therefore, resort to ijtihad in order to deal with them; however, ijtihad is — by definition — always done within the boundaries set by the Qur’an and Sunnah, and not by transgressing those boundaries. One of the most fundamental principles of an Islamic state is derived from Surah Al-Hujurat, ayah no. 1: "O you who believe, do not go in advance of Allah and His Messenger…."

What is the best way to make Islamic laws in a modern Islamic state? Allama Iqbal believed that the republican form of government is perfectly harmonious with the Islamic spirit, and that only the elected representatives of the Muslims can perform the duty of legislation. Since even the absolute majority of the elected representatives cannot change or violate an Islamic injunction and therefore they have to make new laws within the general framework of the Qur’an and Sunnah, Iqbal came up with the idea of a Board of Ulama to guide the legislative assembly in the process of law-making. However, the problem with this idea is the following: If this Board of Ulama is given a decisive authority over the people’s representatives, this will lead to the rule of a religious class and therefore to a theocratic state. On the other hand, if the function of this Board of Ulama is limited only to guide, suggest, and recommend, with no implementing authority, there is a clear possibility that the legislative assembly might violate the injunctions of the Shari’ah and no one would be able to stop it from doing so.

The problem before Iqbal was not "who will do ijtihad?" because obviously any competent scholar can give his opinion on any matter and no restriction can be placed in this regard. Instead, the problem before Iqbal was "whose ijtihad will become law?" and this is the crux of the matter. When Iqbal said that the Parliament will do ijtihad, knowing that the Parliament will not be made up of scholars and experts of the Islamic law, what he meant was that the legislative assembly will have the prerogative to decide as to which ijtihad will assume the force of law. Indeed, ten different religious scholars can give ten different opinions about a particular issue, each giving arguments to support that his opinion is nearer to the Qur’an and Sunnah, but it is the Parliament that will have the authority to decide in favor of one of these opinions, which will then become the law.

If it is settled in the Constitution that no law can made that is totally or partially repugnant to the Qur’an and Sunnah, then the Parliament will be bound by this and will be forced, therefore, to seek the expertise of Islamic scholars so as to avoid any violation of the Constitution. Since the judiciary is the custodian of the Constitution, any dispute as to whether a particular law is within the limits set by the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah or whether it violates those limits can be referred to the Supreme Court, which can declare it as invalid in the latter case, forcing the legislative assembly to make an alternate law.

The methodology described above is already part of the Pakistani Constitution, but it has been rendered quite ineffective by various means. The Objectives Resolution is now an operative part of the Constitution as article 2-A, which clearly lays down that sovereignty belongs to Allah and that the authority of the people, to be exercised through their representatives, is a sacred trust that is to be used within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. The imperative that no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to the Qur’an and Sunnah is also part of the Constitution as article 227, but is made virtually impracticable by the round about manner of its implementation provided in Section IX. The establishment of the Federal Shariat Court and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court through article 203 was also a step in the right direction, but numerous restrictions were also placed on the FSC which made it rather ineffective.

The overall methodology is very sound and practicable. The Federal Shariat Court is supposed to examine existing or new laws and give its verdict regarding whether or not they violate the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah. If they do, the Court will inform the Parliament that the said law will become invalid after a specified period, and will ask it to make new law to replace the old one within the specified time. The authority of making laws still remains with the representatives of the people, as advocated by Iqbal, but the judiciary will make sure that no transgression of the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah occurs in the process of legislation. The Court will, of course, seek the guidance of Ulama and other experts in formulating its verdict.

In order to make the above procedure truly effective, we need the following amendments in the Pakistani Constitution. Firstly, it should be mentioned in article 2-A that the Objectives Resolution shall take precedence over the entire Constitution. Secondly, a new article 2-B should be added to state that the Qur’an and Sunnah shall be the supreme law of Pakistan and therefore all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah and no law shall be made that is repugnant to such injunctions. Thirdly, all restrictions on the Federal Shariat Court should be lifted, the number of its ulama judges increased, and the status of the judges of the FSC should be raised to that of the judge of High Court and Supreme Court so as to enable them to work without any pressure.

The ideas of Iqbal will be implemented in Pakistan only when we realize that, for the Pakistani Muslims, there is no escape from Islam. Our almost total reliance on the West and our disregard for the imperatives of the Qur’an and Sunnah constitute the primary reason for our spiritual, moral, political, social, economic and, above all, intellectual decadence. A return to Iqbal means a return to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and the Islamization of the Pakistani Constitution will be the first major and decisive step in this direction."

Do you think his students will be better informed about Islam from having taken his classes -- or less well-informed about Islam than those who do not take his classes?

Perhaps students taking the class, once their grades are safely in (and they don't feel the need out of some misplaced gratitude to defend the professor, for his invitations to dinners at home, his ostentatious kindliness, all that sort of well-rehearsed thing, nor even the good grade they get), before reporting, first should do as much research as they can about Islam, and then compare that with what they have been force-fed, so plausibly and smilingly, in their classes.

Then seek to make sense of it all.

Posted by: Hugh at April 5, 2006 12:29 PM

I agree with the venue you suggested Mr. Ape Pig. Prime time tv. These guys are like liars. You know how a liar will skirt the issue, change the subject, blame another person. That's the way these islamic people do when you try to pin them down on a topic.

It's there in the koran, in black and white for all the world to see. And they can't say it's taken out of context.

Posted by: freewoman at April 5, 2006 12:29 PM

Then seek to make sense of it all.
Posted by: Hugh at April 5, 2006 12:29 PM
--------------

Or for the shorter version: Professor Afzaal lies and is full of shia.

Posted by: Texican at April 5, 2006 12:40 PM

Perhaps Dr. Afzaal would be more comfortable speaking to an academic peer like me, an avid student of Mr. Spencer and an admirer of Mr. Spencer's non-apologetic scholarship.

Timothy F. McDonough, Ph.D.
Political Economist
Secure Undisclosed Locationville, TX

Posted by: DrMack at April 5, 2006 12:49 PM

He'll run a mile before he consents to debate you. If by some miracle he does show up, he'll be forced to resorting to ad hominem attacks within the first five minutes.

Posted by: MP at April 5, 2006 1:00 PM

That makes horrifying reading, Hugh.

I was put in mind of this comment on the revolutionists by Burke:

"In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows."

Burke: Reflections

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 5, 2006 1:03 PM

RS, no need for you to waste your time with this twirp. I'll be happy to step up and discuss his beloved Mohammedan He-Man Woman Haters club with him.

Posted by: DCWatson at April 5, 2006 1:30 PM

... a question-and-answer period that was sometimes sharp on both sides...

They get upset when you don't have that glazed Pod People stare on your face. They get even angrier when you challenge their desmonstrably false and self-serving assumptions.

... you would be using my books as textbooks in your upcoming classes...

And in so doing commit academic fraud with total disregard to Islam scripture and actual history (i.e., non-fake history). But... that's what professors do these days, so I'm sure that Professor Ahmed Afzaal will win a major award for his pioneering work in this area, maybe even have John Esposito, PhD, pin a medal on his hairy chest.

MO KORANS MO HADITHS MO SIRATS MO ACADEMIC FRAUD LESS FREE SPEECH MO

Looking at Islamic history, some of the earliest Moslems got fidgety when the God-endorses-murder thing was introduced, likewise when the abrogation thing was put in, and so on.

But they were stupid, avaricious, and self-deceiving, and so went along with the whole whole scam. Especially after the booty take from the first Banu raid. Cash in hand, they even worked to help develop the criminal scam it into a fake religion that to this day is widely hailed as a real religion, even a great religion. Just ask our national leader, Tim Russert.

Q: Are these middle class students listening to these professors as stupid, avaricious, and self-deceiving as were the dirty and bedraggled Mohammedan acolytes from 622 AD?

A: Yes. But maybe even stupider, cuz they don't get the war booty that God worked so hard at explaining how to divvy up. In fact, they'll be the ones paying it in the years to come, after the trouble has started and ended, when it is no longer Miller Time, but has devolved into Dhimmi Time.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 5, 2006 1:37 PM

Robert: It might be fun to attend to Afzaal's class, engaging in all the typical habits of the modern college freshman: After all, the idjit said to show up as a student.

Show up late, in pajama pants, flip-flops, and a t-shirt advertising the alcoholic beverage of your choice. Sit in the front row, but don't put away your iPod. Loudly crack open a can of Mountain Dew-- that's breakfast, man. (All the better if a nearby vending machine sells Pop-Tarts or Sno-Balls. Make as much noise unwrapping them as possible.) Proceed to go to sleep.

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 5, 2006 1:38 PM

Hugh asks "Do you think [Prof. Afzaal's] students will be better informed about Islam from having taken his classes -- or less well-informed about Islam than those who do not take his classes?"

Well, if he teaches American students what he wrote in that long excerpt which Hugh quoted, then obviously American students will be better informed about Islam.

The more pertinent question is, is Prof. Afzaal as candid to his American students about his Islamic hostility to secularism and equality as he is in this article excerpted by Hugh? One would like to know whether his American students have been, in fact, learning what he calmly and lucidly states in this excerpt -- that authentic Islam is hostile to secularism, democracy, and equality for all religions and non-Islamic ways of life. Or have they been learning a cleverly packaged obfuscation of this? It should be easy to ascertain this: simply contact, say, 50 of his students over a 2-year period, present them with a couple of juicy paragraphs out of Hugh's excerpt above, and ask them if they ever heard Prof. Afzaal teach them this about authentic Islam.

Posted by: Television at April 5, 2006 1:47 PM

I detect a separate new JW/DW piece by Hugh coming up on the main page any moment now.

This site and its contributors has lead me to do just as Robert mentioned others are doing. I've been peering into the Quran, Sunnahs, Hadiths and even fatwas.

I've finished reading Robert's book "Islam and the Crusades" and I've just begun reading Andrew G. Bostom's "Legacy of Jihad".

I've found numerous Muslims on various forums that cannot give a straight answer when confronted with facts which they deny, once you substantiate your claim.

Today, I posted this on IsraPundit. I'm waiting to see if the guy responds.

Yesterday, I spoke with a 60 year old Iranian rabbi who, while knowing quite well what dhimmitude is through living through it, was very unaware that the Crusades were a direct defensive response to Islam's wars and conquerings of the Middle East and vast swaths of Europe.

Read and learn! Read and learn!

Posted by: Shy Guy at April 5, 2006 2:20 PM

Muslim 'professors' and Islamic apologists can try to baffle their critics with B.S., but hit them with the truth, and they will scatter like bugs do when the lights are turned on.

Posted by: DCWatson at April 5, 2006 2:26 PM

daveconcerned, April 5, 2006 12:58 PM

re: "define: ad hominem"

On 21 March 2006 in response to Jihad Watch’s topic, “Fitzgerald: We are amazed”, I wrote, “When Galileo was brought before the Holy Office of the Inquisition, his tormentors were not unlearned parish priests. No. They were truly Renaissance men, whose erudition would put to shame most modern academicians. They were also fully vested in a political system whose survival required the maintenance of an empirically untenable orthodoxy. In short, Galileo’s antagonists knew with certainty that his heliocentric model was correct, but were nonetheless obliged to attack it and him as the matter of survival.” Even the Catholic Encyclopedia supports this position.

Paolo responded, “Remain in your vainglorious ignorance, sir. Unfortunately freedom of speech does not seem to imply a corresponding duty for anyone who opens their mouth to know what on God's green earth they are talking about. But at least it allows me to call you an arrogant, insufferable, and pathetically stupid dolt.”

As you see, Paolo scrupulously avoided engaging my thesis; instead, he attacked the man. That behavior is “ad hominem”. This is classic behavior for the cornered, frightened fanatic.

Posted by: allen at April 5, 2006 2:31 PM

daveconcerned, April 5, 2006 12:58 PM

re: "define: ad hominem"

On 21 March 2006 in response to Jihad Watch’s topic, “Fitzgerald: We are amazed”, I wrote, “When Galileo was brought before the Holy Office of the Inquisition, his tormentors were not unlearned parish priests. No. They were truly Renaissance men, whose erudition would put to shame most modern academicians. They were also fully vested in a political system whose survival required the maintenance of an empirically untenable orthodoxy. In short, Galileo’s antagonists knew with certainty that his heliocentric model was correct, but were nonetheless obliged to attack it and him as the matter of survival.” Even the Catholic Encyclopedia supports this position.

Paolo responded, “Remain in your vainglorious ignorance, sir. Unfortunately freedom of speech does not seem to imply a corresponding duty for anyone who opens their mouth to know what on God's green earth they are talking about. But at least it allows me to call you an arrogant, insufferable, and pathetically stupid dolt.”

As you see, Paolo scrupulously avoided engaging my thesis; instead, he attacked the man. That behavior is “ad hominem”. This is classic behavior for the cornered, frightened fanatic.

Posted by: allen at April 5, 2006 2:32 PM

I once had the pleasure of attending a mosque in Saudi Arabia. The purpose of this visit was a “cultural exchange”. This was in 1991, Desert Storm had just finished and I was encouraged (read: forced) to attend what was basically a sales pitch for islam by my (so-called) superiors.

In those days I was young Monkey Piglet. The only knowledge I had of islam was what James Clavell told me in his book Whirlwind, so I was somewhat interested in what they had to say (but still bitter about being “encouraged” to go).

We learned: (i) Jews, Christians, and muslims all worship the same God (imagine my surprise ). (ii) muslims revere Mary much more than Christians do (if anyone knows why they say that please let me know) (iii) Jesus never referred to himself as the Son of God (iv) Women sit in the back of mosque so as not to “distract” the men from their prayers. It was this revelation that caused me to disregard most of what was said after, since I noticed there was female solider in front of me. Having spent the better of a year in the desert I must admit he had a point. It was/is distracting.

The PhD (Piled High and Deep) did say a couple of things in the Q&A session that did get my attention. When asked why they didn’t use toilet paper he answered that it was because it was a waste of water, and “napkins” aren’t sanitary (apparently a hand is more hygienic).

What REALLY got my attention was an answer to “Why do you hate the Jews?” (In the interest of full disclosure I am NOT Jewish). He hemmed and hawed and said it was political. They don’t really hate the Jews per se. (Here’s the attention getter) He also asked his own question “Why do you love them so much, they killed your Lord?” I was floored (fortunately it wasn’t a long drop since we were in a mosque, muslims haven’t invented pews yet). Ignoring the fact the he had JUST TOLD us that “Jesus didn’t die on the cross” he was merely trying to drum up some anti-Semitic sentiment. I tuned out then, and have distrusted islam ever since.

The point of this long diatribe is this, if some uneducated solider in a frank Q&A session can trip up a PhD and make him show his true colors, I can only imagine what a Robert Spencer could do. I personally would love to see it, but the free-world NEEDS to see it.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at April 5, 2006 2:43 PM

There is nothing Professor Afzaal can say or do to that will change the nature of Islam which as we all know is institutionalized first degree murder.

Since Islam is in essence a human sacrifice cult there is nothing any of us can do to make it stop killing. KILLING is what Islam DOES. Taqiyya as seen here and spread by the likes of our good professor Afzaal is designed to be a support system which enables Islam to KEEP ON KILLING. And so it does.

Jihadi armies (aka terrorists) are fully aware of this and undoubtedly grateful for his efforts (as is we would think the Babylonian moon-god Marduk aka Baal aka al-lah).

Posted by: pythagoras at April 5, 2006 2:48 PM

Television,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Prof. Afzaal's rant correctly states the position and ideology of the Islamists. But sowhat if he is t(pr)eaching the moderate version of Islam to his students. He would just respond that his personal beliefs are his own and that he will teach only mainstream Islam to his students. The end result, Jihad in action. And of course he will be applauded as a voice of moderation.

And I also thought of surveying his ex-students. Would be very interesting indeed. At any rate, his current and future students should be given this excerpt with the intention of letting the students know what his 'personal feelings' about Islam are, a type of disclaimer if you will.

Posted by: William The Crusader at April 5, 2006 2:49 PM

allen: I think I know who this guy Paolo is--and he's a moron. He apparently has been spreading via the internet the 'Socialist' propaganda lie that the United States started the Cold War(and other beauties we won't get into here).

I wouldn't waste any more time on this idiot.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 5, 2006 3:00 PM

Mr. Spencer knows Islam and the Koran better than most Islamic scholars because he is objective. Islamic scholars have something to prove, that the Koran is infallible truth for all time as is Muhammad's life and words. Their brains get twisted trying to prove this unprovable lie.

The Islamic scholars I see have an insane streak. Koranically induced

Posted by: dennisw at April 5, 2006 3:01 PM

William, "[Prof. Afzaal] He would just respond that his personal beliefs are his own and that he will teach only mainstream Islam to his students... future students should be given this excerpt with the intention of letting the students know what his 'personal feelings' about Islam are, a type of disclaimer if you will."

As Prof. Afzaal makes clear in his essay excerpted by Hugh above, there is in Islam no difference between the "personal" and the other spheres of life (political, social, legal, religious, pedagogical). If Prof. Afzaal were to find refuge in the defense you conjecture, he would be clearly contradicting himself.

Posted by: Television at April 5, 2006 3:24 PM

Mr Ape Pig wrote "He [a Muslim lecturer] also asked his own question “Why do you love them so much, they killed your Lord?” I was floored (fortunately it wasn’t a long drop since we were in a mosque, muslims haven’t invented pews yet). Ignoring the fact the he had JUST TOLD us that “Jesus didn’t die on the cross” he was merely trying to drum up some anti-Semitic sentiment."

What I think Muslims mean when they bring up this trope is: "Why do you love Jews so much, when you think that they killed your Lord?"

Even if a given Muslim doesn't have the brains to present it this way, this question still stands logically, given the relative positions of Muslims (Jesus was never crucified), Jews (Jesus was not the Messiah and is most certainly not God), the Jewish priestly caste of the time of Jesus (Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, the punishment being death), and Christians (the Jewish leadership (and many numbers, though not all, of the common Jewish folk at the time of Jesus) were guilty of rejecting Jesus' divine role and of at the very least conspiring with the Romans (if not pressuring the Romans) in order to have Jesus executed, and his execution actually happened as a result).

Posted by: Television at April 5, 2006 3:32 PM

What I think Muslims mean when they bring up this trope is: "Why do you love Jews so much, when you think that they killed your Lord?" (It was probably phrased exactly that way)

I just thought it was inappropriate to ask that question,given his position Jesus and his (according to islam) non-death.

It served no purpose other than to try to drive a wedge between Christians and Jews.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at April 5, 2006 3:46 PM

on Jesus

I would be hard-pressed to prove it, but English is my native language.
(Sorry, folks)

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at April 5, 2006 3:47 PM

this question still stands logically

Then it is logically answered by saying that this would involve a concept of collective guilt. Modern people in the West who are alive to their civilization's moral inheritance have long since abandoned such notions and now find them not merely mistaken but morally repugnant.

But I think Mr. Ape Pig was right to understand the utterance as he did, and right to see some kind of purpose in the question. Some of the things these people have said strike me as showing a kind of bafflement (because such an attitude is so foreign to them) and envy when there are good relations between people of different religions, and I think they would like to sow dissension if possible.

******

New piece from Steyn:

How many wake-up calls do the French need?

France, of course, has riots and counter-riots on the streets. But the point is applicable to other European nations and, in time, to the US, too, if nothing is done.

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 5, 2006 3:56 PM

Apologists such as Prof. Afzaal amaze me.

They state that persons such as Mr. Spencer take certain Koranic passages "out of context" and that one cannot rely on "transliterations" of the Koran from the Arabic. They insist that there is no theological justification in the Koran, hadith, etc. for any type of violence. Yet, radicals with religious training, such as Qaradawi and Khoemeini, rely on citations to those same passages to justify acts of violence.

Apologists are essentially stating that persons who have undergone years of religious training in Islamic traditions don't understand what those very same traditions say on the matter. This is akin to a Roman Catholic such as Phil Donahue telling Pope Benedict that the church has no theological grounds for opposing abortion (this is just for illustration, I don't want to start a flame war on abortion). Of course, Donahue might have a good moral argument as to the necessity of legal abortion (protecting a woman's health/life, etc.), but that is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand - which is whether there is a basis for the Pope's belief in Roman Catholic theology.

This point has been made here countless times by various posters. You'd think some of the apologists would realize the problem with their position it by now.

Posted by: Darius LaMonica at April 5, 2006 4:02 PM

I'd also like to say that Schwartz's claim, effectively ridiculed by Mr. Spencer in the linked piece, is, I think, refuted by Wittgenstein's arguments in the Philosophical investigations (Section 243 onwards).

But I suppose that would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 5, 2006 4:11 PM

pythagoras, at April 5, 2006 03:00 PM

re: "allen: I think I know who this guy Paolo is"

Thanks for the heads-up. I thought as much.

Posted by: allen at April 5, 2006 4:11 PM

ad hominem -> "To the man"

The argument is made to the man rather than to the point.

This is a fallacious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacious) form of argument.

It is the absolute favorite of the non-thinking class, but not the only dodge they use to avoid arguing the point under discussion.

The central method in their debate is to disallow evidence and reasoning. They replace these with unsupported (and unsupportable!) assertions and how they FEEL about something.

Posted by: Rob at April 5, 2006 4:14 PM

It's there in the koran, in black and white for all the world to see.

For maybe 1% of the civilized world to see. Tops.

So, we are the illuminati, not a bunch of wealthy retrograde Europeans. Praise the Almighity, for I have seen the light! And it was dim. And grim.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 5, 2006 4:31 PM

I look forward to hearing from you.

Don't hold your breath.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at April 5, 2006 4:38 PM

Rob, at April 5, 2006 04:14 PM

Re: "The central method in their debate is to disallow evidence and reasoning."

A favorite method is avoidance, often taking the form of swirling about on one's petticoats and storming from the room in righteous indignation, saying, perhaps,"Do not bother answering, sir; having said what I think of you, nobody will be surprised that I have no intention to ever have anything further to do with you." - Paolo, 21 Mar '06

Posted by: allen at April 5, 2006 4:45 PM

Professor Afzaal and other Islamic apologists have a real problem. They can use any of the standard taqqiyah techniques when confronted about the violence encouraged, no, required by the Qur'an:

1) Deny deny deny, even in the face of explicit evidence.

2) Claim that the quote is taken out of context.

3) Claim that the quote is incorrectly translated, since Arabic is the only language in the history of mankind that cannot be translated into any other language.

4) Ad hominen attacks.

5) Make vague general dismissive responses to the specific and unambiguous examples.

But in the end, they are trying to argue a false point, that Islam does not condone violence. All the rhetorical tricks in the world can't change that. And so we see the challenges to them, like Robert's, becoming bolder and bolder. Just like with the CAIR vs. anti-CAIR court case last week, when all the bullying tactics and manoeuvering is done and it's "go time", their case just dissolves into nothing.

What they do have is lots of money, and money buys influence, and we see the evidence of that influence every day in our politics and our media.

Posted by: special_guest at April 5, 2006 4:52 PM

special guest, you gave me an idea. Do you think naseem would pay me to say something positive about islam? Lol, I'm not for sale but what a concept, buy a blogger.

Posted by: Ronin at April 5, 2006 6:57 PM

If the 'professor' doesn't speak in Arabic to his students about the Koran, isn't the entire class a fraud according to his own (ill)logic?

The intellectual contortionism of such fulminating characters is always entertaining (like a two-bit flea circus), if not particularly instructive.

Add up the hominems and win a free Qur'an!

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 5, 2006 7:10 PM

Aside to D.C. Watson:

One of my favorite recent examples of muslim chivalry on display occurred during the Egyptian ferry sinking a couple of months ago. According to reports, many of the women and children had donned life jackets and were waiting for the crew to deploy the 10 huge life boats and 100 some-odd rafts. The crew told them to take off the life jackets, there was no need to abandon the ferry. Then, the captain and crew put on the jackets, lowered one of the motorized boats, got in, and took off. Sir Galahad, eat your heart out!

Posted by: Infidel33 at April 5, 2006 7:16 PM

The ideas of Iqbal will be implemented in Pakistan only when we realize that, for the Pakistani Muslims, there is no escape from Islam.

Nice. Can anything sound more cultish than this?

Posted by: yadayada at April 5, 2006 8:07 PM

From an above posting:

"...There is nothing Professor Afzaal can say or do to that will change the nature of Islam which as we all know is institutionalized first degree murder..."

Well, he doesn't intend to change the nature of Islam: As you can see in his very own writing above, the good 'professor' want's more Islam, more institutionalized murder, not less.

Also, Darius LaMonica describes this lunatic as an 'apologist' -but he is anything but: By his own writing the good professor Azaal is a Mohammedan agit-prop, an enemy agent of the first degree. It simply baffles me that as such he can be a tenured professor and lecture western, in this case US- students and spread his filth legally.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 5, 2006 8:14 PM

Do not faculty members and university administrators have a duty, one that many of them would no doubt rather not fulfill, when propagandists are routinely hired to teach about Islam, and whose writings can easily be discovered -- vide supra for an example -- and shown to be horrifying in what they reveal about the mental set of the writer.

Would a professor of astronomer do nothing if he discovered that someone in his department was teaching not astronomy but astrology? Would a biologist simply sit back if he found that someone hired to teach biology was found to be giving lectures, found quite convincing by freshman, on why Creationism made as much, or far more sense?

In the atmosphere today, with everyone tip-toeing around so as not to make waves, and not to offend in the slightest gross apologists and propagandists for Islam, who will go to great efforts to avoid having their students find out some of the most basic things (including the contents of the Hadith, and many important details in the life of Muhammad), and are careful to suppress mention of serious Westeern scholarship on Islam (and what's more, tend to inhibit any questioning by insisting that 1) only those who know Arabic well can form any idea of what Islam is all about -- which leaves out about 80% of the world's Muslims and 2) no one who is not a Muslim can conceivably understand what Islam is all about and 3) people who grew up in Islam, as Muslims, but who then left the faith, in the very act of leaving that faith suddenly were stricken with amnesia so that they cannot possibly recall anything of interest or value about what it was they learned, and the attitudes and atmospherics that surrounded them, when they were growing up as Muslims. Amazing, but true: jettison Islam, and whoosh -- you promptly become completely unreliable as an informant about the belief-system.

Surely there are those, possibly in the History Department, or other departments, who are sufficiently sure of themselves (and of course have tenure) to begin to raise the issue of the competence of those who are clearly not capable of imparting anything like a useful or accurate account of Islam, its canonical texts, its tenets, its world-view, its view of treaty-making with Infidels, its view of the ultimate role of Islam in the world, its division of the world between Dar al-islam and Dar al-Harb, its rejection of pluralism, its insistence that Muslimms can owe their loyalty only to Islam and fellow Believers -- these are things that American students need to know, and the likes of Ahmed Afzaal are certainly not going to teach them.

What is to be done? In the first place, it would be good for administrators and faculty members outside the field of Islam, as a duty to something higher than the merely departmental politicking and squabbling, but rather to the truth, and to the students having some chance of being taught in at atmosphere free of intimidation, sly propaganda, and brainwashing at every step. They can't ordinarily fend for themselves; their notion of what constitutes a "good professor" is often shallow, amounting to being delighted at some "good guy" to seems to take a real or feigned interest in them and of course makes few demands, and gives them high grades. It is the duty of faculty members to make sure, in the first place, that people capable of writing the kind of blood-curdling stuff that one can find in the article on Iqbal above, are not hired in the first place.

Who was on the hiring committee? Who thought that hiring this man to teach about Islam would be a coup or a catch, and who, paying attention, realized it would do the students no good?

Duty calls.

Posted by: Hugh at April 5, 2006 8:39 PM

When any Islamist says that we American Infidel Dogs do not understand Islam because we do not understand Arabic, it is our duty to reply and ask how the Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians, and other non-Arabs learn the Koran. We must not let them use this slimy tactic. I was once confronted by a devout Muslim who insisted that I knew nothing about Islam because I had not read the entire Koran. Later, after my slow brain caught up with me, I remembered this as a reply, alas too late: "One does not have eat every apple in the barrel to find out that it is full of rotten apples."

The most famous or infamous ad hominem attack is to add the suffix “phobe” to any word de jour. I have never been called an Islamaphobe to my face, but if it ever happens I hope that I have the presence of mind to reply that my concern over Islam is not a phobia but genuine concern molded by the events of the last five years and the support that violent jihad has from almost every prominent Islamic spokesman in the Muslim world. I do not have a phobia about poisonous snakes, but I do not want them in my house.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 5, 2006 8:44 PM

-allen

Would this be the same 'Paolo' that yohanbiimu and I engaged in http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010908.php? The one who tried to further his arguments by addressing me as 'Cagnaccio' (mad dog)? He is the resident ad hominem hypocrite. Best to just acknowledge his 'greatness' and move on. He's far above us unenlightened rubes, especially those of us of the American persuasion, what with our death penalty and all.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 5, 2006 9:08 PM

"2) no one who is not a Muslim can conceivably understand what Islam is all about..."
-Hugh at April 5, 2006 08:39 PM

Isn't that a way of saying that if one is not born a mohammedan, then one could never become one? That would in effect make "reversion" impossible. If one reads all the same texts as a mohammedan but does not take the shehada or whatever, then one wouldn't understand. So all it takes is to repeat their little oath three times and *poof*, instant enlightenment? Or is it that once you've read the qur'an and sunnah you're instantly a mohammedan whether you want to be or not? Sorry, but maybe its just too much for this former Infantryman to wrap his head around. I prefer grunt logic: "keep shooting at the other guy 'til he stops shooting back". Not to mention "if someone in a building is shooting at you, its not a mosque, its an enemy position" and "it ain't a war crime if the area ain't secured yet"

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 5, 2006 9:23 PM

Pelayo, at April 5, 2006 08:44 PM

Re: "Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians, and other non-Arabs learn the Koran."

Do they understand Arabic? Maybe, they merely parrot the Koran, relying on others, such as Professor Afzaal to elucidate.

Posted by: allen at April 5, 2006 9:51 PM

allen: My thoughts regarding Paolo's "avoidance" post: good riddance to him!

pythagoras

ps-now if only we could stop him from scrawling any more of his anti-American socialist propaganda/nonsense (palmed off as counter-terrorism writings) on other websites we'd be all set.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 5, 2006 11:31 PM

If one reads all the same texts as a mohammedan but does not take the shehada or whatever, then one wouldn't understand. So all it takes is to repeat their little oath three times and *poof*, instant
Posted by Eisenhund

There is a "revelation" somewhere in the Qur'an (I didn't look it up so I can't cite it) that says non-muslims are not permitted to understand the Qur'an. The line goes something like: " we covered their hearts and minds lest they might understand, and we made their ears deaf." Since a non-muslim cannot understand the Qur'an, the only way he can "revert" is "by the mouth", or by force. The Qur'an (The Recited Revelation) is only to be recited, and analytical study is forbidden. Many non-Arabic speaking muslims memorize the Qur'an in Arabic and have no idea what the words mean.

I think that muslim Islamic scholars are deeply resentful and suspicious of non-muslim Islamic scholars, regardless of their knowledge and expertise on the subject of Islam, and they believe that only a muslim can truly understand Islam. That is one reason they consistently discredit people like Mr. Spencer although they cannot refute anything he says. They go to great lengths to obfuscate the vile filth in Islam and it is quite humiliating to have it exposed by a kafir. They automatically go into the defense mode, which leads to more obfuscation, apologetics, and outright lies. When all else fails, they resort to the "out of context" excuses or accusations of racism, Islamophobia, etc.

Posted by: Susanp at April 6, 2006 12:03 AM

Pelayo-

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn quoted a Russian proverb as the motto of his 'Gulag' books that fits your bill:

"You only need one mouthful to know the entire taste of the ocean."

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 6, 2006 12:44 AM

So the qur'an is like a crazy magic spell? You have to say it out loud to make it work? Sounds kinda like some grimoire like the Lemegeton (actually a set) to me, except for the fact that the latter is readable and sensibly constructed.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 6, 2006 2:19 AM

Eisenhund sez:

grunt logic: "keep shooting at the other guy 'til he stops shooting back". Not to mention "if someone in a building is shooting at you, its not a mosque, its an enemy position" and "it ain't a war crime if the area ain't secured yet"

Good mate! As long as they say that, they don't wallow in the BS of PC! In other words: There's hope after all...

Susanp:

You're always on the money:

"They go to great lengths to obfuscate the vile filth in Islam and it is quite humiliating to have it exposed by a kafir. They automatically go into the defense mode, which leads to more obfuscation, apologetics, and outright lies. When all else fails, they resort to the "out of context" excuses or accusations of racism, Islamophobia, etc..."

But still, the bastards are allowed, 'tenured' to spread their filth and to confuse and indoctrinate our kids in our universities!~

for heavens sake, somebody make an end to this charade!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 6, 2006 8:00 AM

To Eisenhund (Iron Dog?)

I am not Paolo, Pelayo was a Visigoth nobleman who won the first battle in the series of battles that began the eventual expulsion of the Moors (Muslims) from Spain. I have read only one post from Paolo and I could not understand it. I chose Pelayo because I hoped that it would highlight my beliefs.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 6, 2006 6:25 PM

Oh please. Arabic is a cognate language to Hebrew and Aramaic. It is all there in the Arabic and Hebrew grammarians of the 10th-12th cs. Forgive me if I have gotten the cs somewhat incorrect. The language issue is accurate. So please do not accept this Arabic blue sky. There are plenty of Israelis and other Jews, not to mention others, who understand Arabic. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: HaMalach at April 6, 2006 10:38 PM