"regarding some of my writings you have posted on your website, I have something important to say. These writings date back to the time between 1996 and 1998; we are now several years beyond that point in time. Generally speaking, I have outgrown most of those ideas and the way in which they were formulated, which I now believe was simply naïve. As you know, people grow and mature with the passage of time, with the acquisition of knowledge, and with exposure to diverse experiences. In fact, when I was in graduate school, the papers I would write one semester would appear to me completely idiotic by the end of the next semester. Such growth is a sign of life. If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about these writings."
-- from Afzaal's friendly, affable, I've-had-a-complete-change-of-heart-and-by-the-way-I-don't-want-to-endanger-my-retaining-a-good-academic-job-and-also-remaining-forever-in-this-great-big-wonderful-Infidel-land-of-yours (and who better than I, who once accepted all that "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated" nonsense, I who once repeatedly celebrated, in prose that I admit does sound as if I had thought very long, and very hard, and really really meant it, when I set out views which I was hoping no one here at Connecticut College would ever get wind of, and please don't post anything else I may have written in my wild and crazy youth.

In reply:

1. Articles written in 1998 are not exactly from the distant past.

2. The assertion, in a different political climate, by someone desperate to remain in this country and desperate to keep a job where, one can easily discover from his syllabuses, from what he says in class, even from his examinations, as to whether or not he has had -- as he assures us without giving the slighest bit of evidence, he has had.

3. The article by him posted yesterday --- and others that will be posted here, now that I have had a chance to see his meretricious reply (one can smile, and smile, and be a villain, and a past master at soft-spoken affability should not be taken, ever, at face value) and realize that more of his work deserves to be posted.

4. The notion that the kind of sentiments expressed in the piece put up yesterday -- that Pakistan is Islam, and nothing but Islam, and should be nothing else -- cannot easily be bluffingly cast aside, by someone who assures us
that "[g]enerally speaking, I have outgrown most of those ideas and the way in which they were formulated, which I now believe was simply naïve. As you know, people grow and mature with the passage of time, with the acquisition of knowledge, and with exposure to diverse experiences. In fact, when I was in graduate school, the papers I would write one semester would appear to me completely idiotic by the end of the next semester. Such growth is a sign of life. If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about these writings."

"If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about these writings."

Jihad Watch is full of examples of Muslims showing up at candle-lit and prayer vigils, engaged in all sorts of Muslim Outreach and "dialogue" activites, and then being discovered to have said, to be saying, quite different things to Muslim ears.

So if you have had a complete change of heart, tell us please exactly what you disagree with in your previous writings, those from your callow youth some 8 years ago -- when you were fully formed, an adult, and in complete possession of your faculties.

And while we are it, we, and the college that you teach at, deserves to know more about that organization you belong to, or are even an officer of -- what is it called again? Something about "Tanzeem"? And what does "Tanzeem" mean? And what does the organization try to do, and who is connected to it, and when did you decide you didn't agree with its views -- or do you still agree with its views?

The idea that you can smilingly tell Robert, and all of us, and all worried Infidels, that "if I were you, I wouldn't worry" is extraordinary. Given the evidence of your own writings and the organization to which you belong -- tell us more about it, lest we have to present the material ourselves --- one waits for a chapter-and-verse discussion as to all the things you once thought that you no longer think.

For example, do you agree with Muhammad that "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated"? Do you agree that Muslims owe their loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya and not to an Infidel nation-state, or to Infidels in the country those Muslims live in? Do you agree that in the service of an Infidel nation-state, as part of what is owed it, a Muslim should be wiling to participate in the armed services in any of its operations, including those directed at a Muslim country or group? Do you think that Muhammad is the Perfect Man, despite Asma bint Marwan, Aisha, the Banu Qurayza, Abu Akaf, and a few dozen other events in his life that for most Infidels are not exactly inspiring?

We need to know.

Tell us.

Posted by: Hugh at April 6, 2006 8:00 AM

"The only disagreement that I have with you is on the nature of this monster, how was it created, how does it work, what makes it tick, and, most importantly, how to check its growth."
--from the response

This needs to be expanded upon. He seems to be implying the problem lies not in the ideology of Islam itself and does not originate from the founder of the religion. The main argument from the Infidel standpoint is that the problems are rooted and embedded in the immutable texts themselves. The nature, creation, and functioning of the belief system are obvious to the critical reader.

He seems to be willing to admit certain problems but not all

Posted by: ChinCheck at April 6, 2006 8:00 AM

I give the man credit for responding!

Posted by: dennisw at April 6, 2006 8:03 AM

Another article by the smiling "don't-worry-about-it" Ahmed Afzaal for Tanzeem-e-Islami, an organization with which he is associated -- this an attack on the very idea of "secularism":

"Despite continuing opposition from various religious movements, and in spite of the presence of a few pockets of resistance here and there, the idea of secularism still enjoys the status of the dominant ideology of our times. Essentially, secularism does not involve any absolute rejection of religion and religious doctrines, its primary claim being that religion has no right to interfere in the matters of the temporal and the mundane world. In other words, all matters concerning social organization, economic norms, legal practices, and political affairs should 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. The secular state is willing to patronize religious sentiments whenever these can be used to gain subservience to the state authority or to achieve the goals set by the state. Thus, religious values and imperatives are often invoked to justify and legitimize political actions, to gain support for political struggle, and to influence voting behavior. At the same time, however, the secular state does not tolerate any reference to religious teachings when it comes to the process of legislation or development of public policies.

Secularism as a doctrine implies that public policies should be based exclusively on this-worldly criteria, i.e., the main concern should be the welfare of humanity in the present life with total disregard for any belief in a supernatural being, salvation of the human soul, dependence on heavenly guidance, or concern for the life-after-death. The fundamental issue in a secular state is the attainment of material prosperity and well-being in the life of this world, as this is thought to be the only road to human happiness and bliss — the ultimate highway to a worldly Heaven. The hedonistic materialism inherent in the secular mode of life continues to gnaw at the roots of the religious sentiments, till there is nothing left but sheer greed and debauchery.

The degree of religious freedom that a secular state is willing to grant its citizens varies greatly. The French are reluctant, and the Turks openly hostile, to the idea of allowing Muslim women to wear a head-scarf in government offices and on the campus; they fear that this would dangerously undermine their modern and secular values. The Americans are relatively magnanimous in this respect, although we continue to come across incidents reflecting a more rigid and less tolerant attitude on their part too. The main issue, however, is that even the secular state requires its citizens to act morally, to abide by the law, to live according to the accepted rules and norms, and such a mindset cannot be cultivated among the citizens by any of the purely utilitarian ethical philosophies. The fact of the matter is that public morality cannot sustain itself without a powerful private religiosity. Religion, therefore, is needed by the state for its own survival, simply because it is impossible to inculcate goodness of character without the support of religion, and also because all moral values are, in the final analysis, derived from the religious tradition. A growing number of Western thinkers are realizing this truth.

Zbigniew Brezezinski, who has served as the National Security Adviser to President Carter, maintains that the out-of-control secularism contains within it the seeds of cultural self-destruction. He argues that without the development of a moral consciousness and adoption of an ethos of self-restraint instead of self-indulgence, the Western society would be left with no operational criteria for defining what is right and what is wrong, and thereby will slide into self-destruction. Charles W. Colson, founder of the Prison Fellowship, asseverates that there has never been a case in history in which a society has been able to survive for long without a strong moral code, and that there has never been a time when a moral code has not been informed by religious truth. He warns that rejecting transcendental truth is tantamount to committing suicide, as a secular state cannot cultivate virtue.

Thus, the secular state needs its citizenry to act righteously, yet it is not willing to permit religion to come out of its bounds of privacy and encroach upon matters relating to the collective life. This produces a quandary: the restriction and confinement of religion within the boundaries of the individual consciousness inevitably leads to its shrinkage and gradual decline, adversely affecting the moral standards of the society and, in turn, that of the state apparatus itself. The destruction of the traditional moral order in the West at the hands of secularism is a case in point, which has led to an immense amount of suffering, wreckage, and misery in the shape of widespread violence, soaring juvenile crime, rising drug addiction, skyrocketing rates of venereal diseases, and the rapidly growing sense of futility and aimlessness among the youth, leading to the most alarming sign of moral bankruptcy — teenage suicide. All the rhetoric which one comes across in the Western world about "family values" and "back to the basics" is actually a manifestation of this very quandary.

The birth and development of secularism in the West was intimately linked with the contemporaneous shift of allegiance from God to man, from faith in revelation to that in science, and from reliance on religious authority to freedom of thought. These constituents of the modern mind emerged during Renaissance, were empowered by the Scientific Revolution and solidified during Enlightenment, finding their full realization in the secular nation state which developed during the nineteenth century. It must be stressed that the process of the secularization of state was essentially a European historical experience, basically related to the reaction against the merciless rule and venality of the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently against the hatred and violence that was perpetuated in the name of religion. Prior to the industrial revolution, secularization in Europe had the support of the Protestants, who had sought to achieve a separation between religion and state in order to purify Christianity by removing it from the realm of worldly corruption. After the decline in the political power of the religious hierarchy, and especially after the industrial revolution, the process of secularization made inroads in the realm of society and social institutions, followed by a general acceptance of liberal humanism.

It is often claimed that secularization of the state was accompanied by a positive rise in religious faith and practice at the private and popular levels. This may be true for the Christian Europe, but it cannot be true for Islam and Muslims. The reason can be understood either in terms of the difference between a mere religion (madhhab) and a total system of human existence (Deen), or by appreciating the fact that the main emphasis in Islam is upon obedience to Allah (SWT) and His Messenger (SAW), and not just on the creed, spiritual enlightenment, or the performance of specified rituals. This is not to say that these elements are absent in the Islamic way of life, but to argue that whereas Christianity primarily aims at attaining salvation through faith, Buddhism stresses the achievement of enlightenment, and Judaism emphasizes the performance of ceremonies and rituals, the fundamental thrust of the Islamic teachings is on observing the commandments of Allah (SWT) and following the example of the Prophet (SAW). The preoccupation with intricacies of creed, attainment of higher spiritual stations, and the performance of spotless rituals are quite useless if they are not accompanied by a total and unconditional adherence to all injunctions of the Shari‘ah.

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 (SWT) is the one that encompasses all realms of a person’s life. Dividing up human life into numerous compartments and obeying Allah (SWT) in one of these domains and disobeying Him in the others, is a sure way to earn the Divine Wrath. In sharp contrast to the European Reformation, therefore, all reform movements throughout Islamic history had aimed at reviving the purity of the original teachings of Islam by removing the heretical or alien accretions and by establishing or reinforcing the authority of the Divine Guidance over all aspects of life, including the state.

The rise of secular ideology in the Muslim world was essentially a matter of imposition from outside, instead of being an indigenous development as happened in Europe. The secularization of modern Turkey presents an obvious example. The new state of Turkey emerged under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, in the aftermath of the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. Ruthless and stubborn, Atatürk embarked upon a comprehensive mission of Westernization and secularization of Turkish government and society. With the abolition of Khilafah, Islam was effectively divorced from state authority and relegated to the private affair of the individual. Arabic script was replaced by Roman script, history was rewritten to suppress Turkey’s Islamic heritage, wearing of clerical garb was proscribed, religious seminaries were closed, the traditional fez was replaced with European hat, the wearing of veil by Muslim women was forbidden, co-education was imposed, and Shari‘ah was replaced by Swiss, Italian, and German laws. The state-sponsored process of secularization, however, did not succeed in erasing Islam as a political force, and the conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and stark secularism still continues today, even after 73 years.

This conflict is also alive in Pakistan, albeit under circumstances which are very different from those in Turkey. Even in the 50th year of independence, the debate is still going on as to whether Pakistan is supposed to be an Islamic state or a secular one. It is an undeniable historical fact that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, as no other slogan could have united the millions of Indian Muslims. The proponents of secularism argue that the Indian Muslims had rejected Islam when they renounced the religious leadership of the Jami‘yat Ulama-e-Hind in favor of the All India Muslim League. It is indeed true that the movement for independence was not religious in character, neither were the majority of its leaders practising Muslims. These verities do not, however, indicate any rejection of Islam; in fact, the exact opposite is true. The religious leadership of that era was, in general, alienated from the true feelings of the Indian Muslims, hence their failure to appreciate the common Muslim’s perception of the threat of Hindu majority. The real motivating force behind the movement for independence, instead of pure religious fervor, was the burning desire on the part of the Indian Muslims to preserve their separate nationhood and to cultivate their distinct identity. But the crucial question is: what was the basis of the separate nationhood and distinct identity of the Indian Muslims? Their sense of being a unique nation was neither racial or linguistic in origin, nor based upon any common homeland, but was, in fact, founded upon their ideology and religion. According to W. C. Smith, it was not a territorial or an economic or a linguistic or even, strictly speaking, a national community that was seeking a state, but a religious community. This is precisely the reason why the All India Muslim League, during the years 1940-47, appealed to the religious sentiments of the Indian Muslims and, as a result, emerged as the embodiment of their love and devotion for Islam, in addition to being the defender of their political rights. Thus, we find that the motifs of Islam, Islamic state, and Islamic Law were quite prominent in the speeches and statements made by the Muslim League leaders during the height of the freedom movement, including those made by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah himself.

In addition to the dominant current of Muslim nationhood, there was also a relatively weaker current of Islamic revivalism underlying the ebullience of the movement for independence. Both of these apparently distinct currents can be traced back to the personality of Allama Iqbal who, on the one hand, persuaded
Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah to return from Europe and lead the Indian Muslims in their struggle for freedom, and, on the other hand, invited Maulana Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi to migrate from Deccan to the Punjab and lead the Islamic revivalist struggle on an intellectual plane. Again, it was Allama Iqbal who, while working for the Muslim League in the Punjab, endeavored — though unsuccessfully — during the 1932-36 period to establish an Islamic revivalist group on the basis of Baiy‘ah, to be called Jamiy‘at Shubban-ul-Muslimeen Hind. Therefore, we find in the personality of Allama Iqbal 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 Indian Muslims in the here and now. Attempts to portray Iqbal as a supporter of secularism are, therefore, a travesty of truth. Indeed, his Presidential address to the Annual Session of the All India Muslim League at Allahabad, on December 29, 1930, is very revealing as far as the Islamic dimension of the Pakistan movement is concerned. Here are some excerpts:

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....

The demand for an independent Muslim state, therefore, must be understood in its proper context. In addition to his view that a Muslim state in this region will defend the rest of India against any foreign invasion, Allama Iqbal firmly believed that the revival of pristine Islam will be possible only after its centralization in a specified territory:

... 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.

No discussion of secularism in the Pakistani context can be concluded without referring to the famous — or notorious? — speech made by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. He said inter alia:

...you will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

On the face value, this statement is clearly a negation of the Two-Nation theory, a denial of the separate nationhood of Muslims, and a rejection of the ideas expressed by Allama Iqbal in his Allahabad address. As such, a plethora of interpretations have been offered to explain this statement. Was it simply a reference to his promise that there would be no victimization of minorities in Pakistan? Does this statement represent a serious lapse on his part due to the stress he was undergoing? Was it only a temporary strategy to appease the secular powers of the world? Does it represent his effort to cool down the tempers in the background of Hindu-Muslim riots? Irrespective of the exact interpretation that you choose to accept, the very fact that this statement was considered to be in need of interpretation speaks volumes about the matter at hand. The need for interpretation arose because this statement is diametrically opposed to the innumerable speeches made and statements issued by the Quaid-e-Azam prior to August 11. Either you seek to explain this statement differently from the way it sounds, or you try and reconcile yourself with the fact the founder of Pakistan was a hypocrite — a man who gave the impression to his devoted followers that their promised homeland would be an Islamic state, but who was actually endeavoring for a secular one. If you are not inclined to conceive of the Quaid-e-Azam as a hypocrite — and neither am I — then the only solution is to read this statement in a manner that takes into account all of the multitudinous statements made by him during 1940-47, which indicate that an Islamic state was what he had in mind, not a secular one.

The main reason for the confusion prevailing about the ideology of Pakistan is that statements are often quoted to suggest that the Quaid-e-Azam wanted Pakistan to be a modern Socio-democracy and not a theocracy. True enough. But these statements do not prove that he had a secular polity in mind. What most people do not realize is the fact that socialism — in the sense that economic justice must prevail and grossly unequal distribution of wealth must be eradicated — is an altogether Islamic imperative. Similarly, democracy — in the sense that the affairs of the state should be run in accordance with the will of the people, and that they should be free to make their own laws within the boundaries set by the Qur’an and the Sunnah — is again an Islamic imperative. That is why Allama Iqbal, the real ideologue of Pakistan, has said that Socialism can be turned into Islam if you add to it the Islamic concept of God, and that the republican form of government is perfectly harmonious with the Islamic political teachings. As for theocracy, it is best defined as the rule by a particular ecclesiastic or priestly class, and since there is no such category in the Islamic scheme of things, it is patently obvious that Islam and theocracy represent two entirely different forms of governance.

The sovereign in an Islamic state is Almighty Allah (SWT) and all Muslims are His vicegerents (Khalifah); the ultimate authority rests with the Qur’an and Sunnah; the affairs of the state are to be decided and executed with the spirit of democracy and mutual consultation (Shura); the legislature is bound by the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah which it cannot transgress; the judiciary makes sure that no law is formulated, and no decision is taken, which is repugnant to the Islamic teachings; the Ulama are there to educate the masses and to guide the parliament and the courts, but they have no real authority. The provision of the basic necessities of life to all citizens (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) — including food, shelter, security, education, and health care — is among the foremost responsibilities of the state. Thus conceived, there is no similarity between an Islamic state and a theocratic one.

As a matter of hisotrical fact, the movement for independence was energized and the Indian Muslims were galvanized into action when the Muslim League leaders started to invoke the name of Islam in their speeches and statements. They appealed to the Indian Muslims’ perception of being a community unlike any other. The invokation of an emotional and hereditary religiosity served the purpose quite well under those circumstances, but such an approach cannot suffice now. We gained our independence and separate existence as a country in the name of our distinct nationhood, the basis of which is Islam. This makes Islam the only justification for our continuing existence and stability — the very rationale for our being. Paying lip-service to Islam, however, is not going to help us anymore. What is needed is the fulfillment of the promises made during the struggle for independence — the implementaion of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah in thier totality, so as to make Pakistan an Islamic state rather than a mere Muslim "nation" state.

The conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and secularism is intensifying throughout the Muslim world. The danger is that the various Islamic movements, after failing in their efforts to realize their goals through political and democratic means, would increasingly turn to violence and even terrorism. We know from the experience of Egypt, Algeria, and other countries that such an approach could bring nothing but disaster for both Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. What is urgently required on the part of all the workers and well-wishers of Islamic revivalism is to take a step back and consider dispassionately the issue of methodology. The process of an Islamic Revolution, its derivation from the Seerah of the Holy Prophet (SAW) and its application in the modern era, has been one of the major themes of the lectures and writings of Dr. Israr Ahmad, the Ameer of Tanzeem-e-Islami. The present issue of "The Qur’anic Horizons" contains the first of the series of articles based on his Friday sermons on this very topic. These discourses were made in 1984, and subsequently printed as an Urdu book, Manhaj-e-Inqbalab-e-Nabawi. It is hoped that the points elucidated in these lectures would provide the adherents of various Islamic movements and groups with valuable insights vis-à-vis the correct methodology of Iqamah Al-Deen."

Posted by: Hugh at April 6, 2006 8:04 AM

On reading the first two paragraphs, I wondered if Professor Afzaal was going to give the equivalent of a long drink of turkish coffee: the hospitality that belies the violence to come. But he came quite close to saying, "Come share the lecturn for one class," as would be a benefit to his students.

Professor Afzaal, is Mr. Spencer NOT an expert? And even if not, is he not becoming an important public figure? Why not invite him, in keeping with the openness of the academy?

Posted by: StillBreathing at April 6, 2006 8:07 AM

And here is one more by smiling Dr. Ahmed Afzaal, entitled "The Cultural Assault":

"An unprecedented "explosion" of information has become the hallmark of our age. The technological advancement in the field of mass communication, achieved during the last one hundred years or so, has had a number of important consequences for the human race. Indeed, it is due to the ubiquitous use and influence of mass media that we find ourselves in a world that is radically different from that of our ancestors. In these pages, we wish to bring to the fore the fact that many of the changes brought about by the mass media are neither wholesome nor desirable.

In general, we regard the marvels of modern science like the cinema, television, computer, satellite dish, and the Internet as wonderful inventions that have enriched our lives and made them less burdensome. When someone points out the negative aspects of all this technological progress, the immediate response one gets is that all inventions are neutral in themselves, their good or evil lies only in the manner of their use. But is it really so? Social scientists do not agree on this issue. The debate is between the Instrumental theory of technology and the Substantive theory. The former is based on the common sense idea that technologies are neutral and have no valuative content of their own. They are not inherently good or bad, and they can be used to attain different ends as desired by the persons or institutions in control. The latter theory argues that each new technology brings with it a new cultural system and restructures the society as an object of control. Every new technology is designed to function in a particular and limited way, and, in practice, it does interact with the rest of the reality in specific and unique ways. Inventions cannot be judged in a vacuum, disassociated from the human beings who use them. As such, every new invention leads to changes in human activities, life-style, and even values. Technology, therefore, is not essentially neutral. While it often has beneficial effects, there are darker sides too that are usually ignored or accepted as a normal part of modern living. According to Neil Postman, Chairman of the Department of Culture and Communication at New York University, "anyone who has studied the history of technology knows that technological change is always a Faustian bargain: Technology giveth and technology taketh away, and not always in equal measure. A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided." (Speech to German Informatics Society, October 11, 1990)

Unfortunately, the recent development of science and technology has taken place in a milieu that is bereft of a stabilizing principle, devoid of a faith in Divine Guidance that would have ensured the ethical use of new inventions and gadgets, limiting their deleterious effects to the minimum. Consequently, technological progress has turned out to be more of a menace for humanity in many respects than a blessing. American social philosopher and historian Lewis Mumford (1895-1990) writes, "scientific knowledge has not merely heightened the possibilities of life in the modern world: it has lowered the depths. When science is not touched by a sense of values it works — as it fairly consistently has worked during the past century — toward a complete dehumanization of the social order. The plea that each of the sciences must be permitted to go its own way without control should be immediately rebutted by pointing out that they obviously need a little guidance when their applications in war and industry are so plainly disastrous.…" (The Lewis Mumford Reader, edited by Donald L. Miller, New York: Pantheon Books, 1986)

There can be no doubt that as far as the basic human predicament is concerned, the explosion of scientific knowledge and rapid growth of technological expertise have failed to provide any solutions. Industries have grown, but the environment has been shamelessly abused and at places destroyed; acceleration of the production-consumption cycle has brought natural resources to the verge of depletion. Life has become easier and the standard of living has improved, but only for a chosen few in selected parts of the world. Sophisticated weapons have been developed, but are almost always used to achieve unjust and immoral ends. Extraordinary prosperity has arrived in the industrialized world, but only at the cost of hunger and repression in poor nations. Amazing progress has occurred in various medical sciences, but the major part of humanity continues to languish in its misery and suffering. Flow of information and ideas is taking place with remarkable swiftness, but generally in a manner that safeguards and promotes the interests of a small privileged group. As a matter of fact, the very idea that technological progress could somehow cure the afflictions of mankind is seriously flawed. No technology — no matter how wonderful — can provide solutions for the age-old dilemmas facing humanity. Rather, it is only through a recourse to Divine Guidance that we can avoid these pitfalls, and achieve a balance between justice and prosperity, between freedom and equality, between material progress and respect for nature.

Easy and quick availability of information is the most prominent consequence brought about by the communication media. This in itself is often viewed as the panacea for human race. But we too often forget that information is not synonymous with knowledge, data is not understanding, mere facts do not constitute wisdom. We are constantly being bombarded with the latest and most up-to-date pieces of information about all conceivable subjects. A great deal of this information consists of disconnected facts and half-truths that are lacking in perspective, background, and relevance. Instead of making our lives more meaningful, therefore, this flood of information is only adding to our perplexity and alienation. The basic problem is that we do not have a holistic conception of reality, a coherent world-view that can provide us with a sense of meaning and purpose amid this deluge of data. In the absence of authentic knowledge of reality, we are like a little boy who, unable to see the big picture, is mystified by the small pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Obviously, giving him more and more pieces of the puzzle will only increase his confusion, unless the overall pattern is first pointed out to him. Here again, technology is of no use in answering the age-old questions that have been tormenting mankind. Instead, it is only through a recourse to Divine Guidance that we can acquire reliable and authentic knowledge of reality; it is only on the basis of this knowledge that we can make sense of the world and sift the relevant from the extraneous.

None of the most basic problems being faced by the human race — repression, tyranny, injustice, social disintegration, exploitation, alienation, and spiritual emptiness — is caused by a shortage of information or lack of latest technology. None of these problems can be solved, therefore, by just increasing the quantity of information that is easily available. On the contrary, the vast amount of data that are now accessible to us often serve to obscure the real issues, hiding them in a cloak of technological brilliance. In ancient times, the weak and the oppressed were excluded from learning the truth, lest they should rebel; today, the truth itself is lost in a plethora of irrelevant and inapplicable information. A whole entertainment industry has sprung up to keep the minds engrossed in an overwhelming ambiance of fun and enjoyment, arousing wayward carnal desires while discouraging any serious and substantial thought. While this state of affairs has a lot to do with the vested interests of those who control the mass media and the flow of information, the role of the nature and bias of technology itself should not be overlooked.

In order to make sense of the contemporary scenario, we first need to comprehend a basic fact. In every society, there is a small minority of intelligent and powerful individuals that enjoys a position of leadership vis-à-vis its values, ideals, trends, and the general direction of its drift; this is also true at the global level. We are living in an age of materialism, not because this viewpoint has triumphed over religion in a fair battle, but only because it happens to be the creed of the powerful elite of our times, with rare exceptions. This elite is able to exert an immense amount of influence over the thought and behavior of the masses — the majority of human beings who tend not to think on their own but to follow the dominant current of their time. In the contemporary world, the most effective means through which the elite is able to guide its followers is the mass media.

Today, the mass media is being used to propagate and reinforce a materialistic culture throughout the world. This culture is characterized by a strong emphasis on the pursuit of material possessions and sensual gratification, along with a corresponding disregard for spiritual and other-worldly ends. Since ours is the age of mass communication, trends and ideas rapidly diffuse throughout the world and quickly become global in their scope and influence. Consequently, the materialistic mindset that originally took shape in Europe during the 18th century has now become so pervasive that it transcends geographical and political boundaries as well as religious affiliations and linguistic or ethnic divisions. There is virtually no escape from the global culture!

Of all the modern mass media, television is the most powerful because of its omnipresence. We have come to accept this little piece of technology as an indispensable part of our lives, and only rarely do we pause to think whether it has any adverse effects, whether we can live without it, or whether we should put serious limits on its use. Those of us who have been raised on a continuos and heavy diet of daily television viewing would find the idea unacceptable — even horrible — that television should be altogether eliminated from our lives or, at best, allowed a very restricted and carefully monitored role. This, however, is precisely what we need to do in order to avoid its deleterious and addictive influence.

Although they are deeply interconnected and probably inseparable, the harmful effects of television can be classified into two categories: those caused by the very nature of its technology, and those related to the peculiar manner in which it is being used in today’s world. First of all, we need to categorically reject the myth that television depicts reality as it exists. The spokesmen for the popular media often argue that they are just showing a mirror to society. Not at all. Television is, in fact, a perpetual guide and mentor for the audience. It gives legitimacy to certain ideas and informs the viewers as to what forms of behavior, dress, and manners are currently in style. It provides them with a framework of conduct, determines their value structure, and gives them role models to emulate. Television deeply influences the viewers’ sense of right and wrong, and sets for them the criteria for success and failure. It even affects the pattern of their conversations and fantasies.

The depiction of "reality" by television is almost always selective and biased. Television guides our attention towards certain specific topics, deciding for us as to what issues deserve our focus and what are merely frivolous. The overwhelming emphasis today is on entertainment. As a result, the viewer’s attention is diverted from serious and relevant problems to sex, fashion, sports, and music, until critical thinking gives way to a mentality that will trivialize anything and everything. Indeed, why would anyone bother to grapple with questions about God, the purpose of life, and the accountability in the Hereafter when he or she can enjoy TV shows that are much more exciting and amusing? Why would anyone take the trouble of thinking through the question of exploitation and injustice that have become rampant in the world when he or she can spend the same hours sitting zombie-like in front of a flickering screen, drowning the tribulations of life in a sea of entertainment? According to Marie Winn, "the television experience allows the participant to blot out the real world and enter into a pleasurable and passive mental state. The worries and anxieties of reality are as effectively deferred by becoming absorbed in a television program as by going on a ‘trip’ induced by drugs or alcohol." (The Plug-In Drug by Marie Winn, New York: Penguin Books, 1985) Indeed, for many viewers, television is just a method to cope with boredom and a meaningless existence.

This is precisely what Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) predicted in his celebrated satire Brave New World: that people would be laughing instead of thinking, and they wouldn’t even know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking. The Huxleyan nightmare is one in which the government has no need to censor dissenting viewpoints or to hide the truth. It is much easier to control the masses through a tyranny of pleasure. In the brave new world, the masses are offered a surfeit of entertainment, non-stop distractions of the most fascinating nature that ensures a state of perpetual amusement and happiness. According to Huxley, these non-stop distractions "are used as instruments of policy, for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situation." That nightmare has now become a reality. Television not only numbs the viewers’ sensibilities, it effectively isolates individuals from each other so that they can no longer participate in an organized effort to reform the society.

Probably the most frightening aspect of television is its ability to indoctrinate. Hooked on TV, the viewer becomes a passive recipient of ideas and opinions that are deliberately presented in a way so as to give him or her certain specific impressions. The contents of television programs can be controlled, their messages can be kept more or less uniform, and they can be repeatedly shown to the same audience. It is well-known that images which are seen over and over again, especially in a relaxed state, get deeply ingrained in the viewer’s memory from where they profoundly affect the manner in which he or she feels, thinks, and behaves. Research has also shown that the brain’s left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while a person is watching television. This allows the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and non-critically, to function unimpeded. All this make television a powerful tool of mass manipulation.

The same fact can be explained in another way: The key to enjoying any tele-drama is suspension of disbelief; the viewer must withhold his or her faculty of critical analysis in order to enjoy television’s images and sounds. Consequently, one cannot enjoy television and not get influenced, at the same time, by the world-view and values that the producers are trying to promote. The potential for control is enormous. It has been pointed out that, "as real-life experience is increasingly replaced by the mediated ‘experience’ of television-viewing, it becomes easy for politicians and market-researchers of all sorts to rely on a base of mediated mass experience that can be evoked by appropriate triggers. The TV ‘world’ becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mass mind takes shape, its participants acting according to media-derived impulses and believing them to be their own personal volition arising out of their own desires and needs. In such a situation, whoever controls the screen controls the future, the past, and the present." (The Perfect Machine by Joyce Nelson, Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1992)

Here, the difference between printing press and television is quite significant. In contrast to a reader who must actively use a considerable amount of mental effort to gain understanding from what he or she reads, television viewers passively receive images and sounds that stimulate and delight the senses but provide very little insight or awareness. When ideas are presented before us in a book or newspaper, we are usually able to analyze them critically, judge their value, challenge and refute them if need be. However, when the same ideas are injected into unsuspecting minds through captivating images, it becomes practically impossible to resist them. Since television’s non-discursive visual imagery is emotional and associative, it acts sub-consciously by sanctioning some forms of thought and behavior while invalidating others. Indeed, the value structure of an entire people can be transformed by means of the subtle messages and indirect suggestions found in apparently innocent television programs and commercials.

Some critics have pointed out that serious and substantial discourse is impossible to achieve within the format provided by contemporary television programs. This is because the goal in all TV shows is to have very short segments that can stand on their own; the basic idea is that the programs must be fun to watch, and that they should never be a burden on the viewer’s intellect or memory. As a result of this format, the most serious of happenings and the most solemn of ideas appear trivial on television. According to Neil Postman, it is not just that the television is entertaining, "but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format of the representation of all experience…. No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is for our amusement and pleasure." (Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, New York: Penguin Books, 1985)

Television has an inherent bias towards presenting ideas and events as disconnected from everything else; it must provide constant stimulation through variety, novelty, and movement in order to keep the viewers glued to the set and to prevent them from changing channels. The emphasis in television shows is always upon performance, not on ideas; the aim is to get applause, not to encourage reflection. Since television must turn the most serious of enterprises into entertainment, it has a tendency to promote a muddled view of reality among heavy viewers, a mindset that is not willing to see anything as deserving serious attention. Even its news bulletins suffer from this ailment. Postman writes: "TV news has no intention of suggesting that any story has any implications, for that would require viewers to continue to think about it when it is done and therefore obstruct their attending to the next story that waits panting in the wings…. [No] matter how grave any fragment of news may appear…, it will shortly be followed by a series of commercials that will, in an instant, defuse the import of the news, in fact render it largely banal." (Ibid.) A prime example of the trivializing effect of television news came in 1991, when wholesale killings and devastation in Iraq were presented to the global audience as nothing more than an amusing show.

A number of reforms have been suggested to reduce the addictive and trivializing effects of television. These suggestions, however, are not likely to be implemented as long as the mass media is controlled by huge multinational corporations. The immense power of television is today being used mostly to serve the interests of these corporations on a global level. How is this possible? The spread of Western capitalism has ensured that the primary messages being conveyed through television will be more or less identical throughout the world. As a result of competitive as well as "imitative" pressure, even public television in countries like Pakistan is now following in the footsteps of commercial media. At the heart of this uniformity of content lies the capital-media nexus, a system that works in specific ways to promote a global culture of mindless consumption and hedonism.

Today, most of the mass media is controlled by large corporations that are themselves parts of even bigger conglomerates. Their goal is to catch viewers by seducing them with non-stop, round-the-clock entertainment and news. Once the viewers are caught, they are "sold" to other businesses who want to advertise their products. It is important to understand that the audience does not provide the money that makes the media work, advertisers do. It is not difficult to see, therefore, that the mass media serve the interest of the advertisers and not that of the viewers. An audience that thinks critically does not provide the happy and relaxed atmosphere in which advertisements can have their persuasive effect. Television — by encouraging us to enjoy and laugh but not to think and question — is serving the purpose of these corporations very well.

The businesses that buy time on electronic media have just one goal: to sell their products. This requires that a consumer mentality be cultivated among the viewers. Indeed, consumerism cannot survive unless the masses are preoccupied with enjoyment and pleasure-seeking. It is the desire to own better and more expensive items than one’s neighbor that drives a consumer economy. It is obvious, therefore, that the global media must use highly sophisticated methods of indoctrination to destroy traditional values and eliminate simple and austere life-styles, as these constitute major obstacles in the way of consumer capitalism. Their methodology is to spread the secular mindset on a global level so as to achieve a certain uniformity of thought and life-style, this homogenization of culture being an essential requirement for the flourishing of market economy.

With a disturbing sense of déjà vu, one is reminded here of the numerous reports prepared for the East India Company in the 19th century. These reports dealt with the steps needed to be taken in order for the British economic enterprise to succeed in India. Invariably, they concluded that the indigenous culture of the natives had to be dismantled if the British economic enterprise was to have any chance of prospering in this part of the world. Thus, it can be seen that the cultural assault by the mass media in our own times is actually an extension of the colonial offensive on the cultural and religious traditions of non-Western nations. One may ask, in the words of the Qur’an, "is this the legacy they have passed down from one to the other?" (Al-Dhariaat 51:53)

It is easy, therefore, to pinpoint the basic idea that is being ingrained in our minds through the popular mass media. Gently and skillfully, we are being led to believe that the life of this world is the only thing that really matters; that we should get our pleasure right here and right now; that we must not delay our gratification for there is no Hereafter; and that life itself is a game in which the one who owns the most expensive consumer products is the ultimate winner.

What effect does all this have on the viewer? A constant sense of aimlessness and alienation is probably the most common disease of our age. This is further amplified by television shows and advertisements that foster the feelings of self-doubt, inadequacy, and anxiety among the viewers regarding their standards of living and material possessions. The emphasis, therefore, is shifted from who you are as a person to what you own. Heedless or unaware of Divine Guidance, one feels spiritually empty and, searching for solace, gets carried away in the never-ending cycle of wanting, working, and having. But the pain does not stop. So one works harder — disregarding all scruples — and buys still more, hoping that the promise of eternal bliss will be fulfilled if he could just have a microwave oven, a bigger refrigerator, a latest car, a better house, a holiday trip to Europe. Things continue to accumulate, but the heart is hardened in the process. The promised peace never arrives, but death does. A life-time spent in running after illusions is nothing but a Satanic hoax, about which Allah (SWT) had warned us: "He makes promises to them, and arouses in them vain desires; and Satan’s promises are nothing but deceptions" (Al-Nisa 4:120). Today, this function of deceiving mankind by arousing false hopes is being performed quite ingeniously by television. Satan must be smiling!

That the international media has practically become a manipulation tool in the hands of a small financial aristocracy is a fact too obvious to miss. Jerry Mander, a former advertising man, wrote two decades ago: "Without such a single, monolithic instrument as television, the effective power and control of these huge corporations could not be harnessed as it presently is. Monolithic economic enterprise needs monolithic media to purvey its philosophy and to influence rapid change in consumption patterns. Without an instrument like television, capable of reaching everyone in the country at the same time and narrowing human needs to match the re-designed environment, the corporations themselves could not exist." (Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander, New York: Quill, 1978) With the growing popularity of American movies and TV shows, advent of the satellite dish, and the drive towards globalization, Jerry Mander’s observations have now become as much applicable to the whole world as they were to the American society of twenty years ago.

More recently, Edward S. Herman and Robert W. McChesney, co-authors of The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism (Washington D.C.: Cassel, 1997), have shown that most of the mass media today is controlled by the Big Ten, giant corporations that are global in their scope, although a majority of them is based in the United States. During the past two decades, corporate capitalism has greatly increased in its global perspective and reach, and the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization are serving its interests in different ways.

The authors argue that just as the world is being pushed towards a socio-economic model similar to that found in the United States, the world’s media are also being pushed towards a model found in the United States. The American socio-economic model is one of market hegemony, minimal state provision, the supplanting of the citizen by the consumer, and a commercial media providing the entertainment-cum-advertising culture appropriate to the socio-economic model. The U.S. model entails a displacement of the public sphere (forums where issues related to the community can be discussed and debated) with entertainment mixed with serviceable propaganda, as this is what the corporate system prefers. The authors aver that the spread of the U.S. media model is weakening public broadcasting systems and strengthening the commercial media in the rest of the world. Consequently, advertisers are increasingly in a position to shape media performance and standards; as a result, we should expect an increase in light entertainment, sex, and violence on television, and a parallel decrease in hard news, investigative reporting, documentaries, and debates on public and community issues.

Closely related to the commercial exploitation by mass media is the issue of propaganda, as alluded to above. Ours is the age of dajl, or deception: things are rarely what they are made to appear before us. Many of us are enchanted by foreign media because their news — in contrast to that of the government-owned local television — gives an impression of variety, objectivity, and neutrality. This impression, however, is often illusory. In addition to the promotion of a materialistic mindset, the involvement of the financial and political stakes of the elite in the international broadcasting industry ensures that only certain news stories will appear on the screen, that these stories will be presented with a predictable slant, and that all facts and happenings that may be damaging to the interests of this elite will not be shown at all.

Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, co-authors of Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988), have presented a wealth of evidence to show how a propaganda system works in apparently free societies. The authors describe five "filters" through which the news has to pass in a capitalistic-democratic country like the United States before it can appear on television. They argue that since the powerful elite share the same values but disagree on the tactics needed to attain their common aims, this disagreement is reflected in media debates and gives a false impression of diversity and free expression. On the other hand, views that challenge the legitimacy of those aims or suggest that state power is being exercised in elite interests will be completely excluded form the mass media.

In this perspective, what course of action should a Muslim adopt? Understanding the intricate and deceptive workings of the modern world and sharing this knowledge with others is obviously the first step. At the same time, Muslims need to realize that the influence of global culture is so powerful that a single individual has no chance of successfully resisting its onslaught; therefore, closer links, greater cooperation, and cultivation of mutual support among like-minded people is urgently required. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) has said: Be with the jama‘ah and avoid firqah, for surely Satan is with the (one who remains) alone, but he stays away from the two. (Tirmidhi)

It is also important to realize that we cannot go out on a mission to save the world unless we first save ourselves and the members of our immediate family. In this respect, we need to replace television viewing with positive, healthy, and family-oriented activities in accordance with Islamic teachings. We must realize that life has a definite purpose, and squandering our time away for the sake of superficial entertainment is an insult to the human soul. The only weapon with which we can fight the deception of our age is the Holy Qur’an, the Book of Allah (SWT). The choice, therefore, is clear: either we turn towards Divine Guidance, or we lose ourselves to dehumanizing materialism.

Ahmed Afzaal

Posted by: Hugh at April 6, 2006 8:08 AM

AHMED AFZAAL: "I did believe your lecture was coherent, concise, to-the-point, and, most of all, it was internally consistent. Your facts were correct and the logical links you developed were virtually flawless."

Reconcile the above statement with:

AHMED AFZAAL: "The only disagreement that I have with you is on the nature of this monster [jihad], how was it created, how does it work, what makes it tick, and, most importantly, how to check its growth."

That's a very broad "only disagreement."

In other words, to Mr Afzaal, (and we can see this coming a mile away), jihad is not derived from the core texts as you insist Mr Spencer, but rather came about through historical, political, economic circumstances and a misreading of the core texts (how often have we heard that).

As far as "checking its growth," modifications in Israel's behavior (i.e., its right to defend itself) and American foreign policy (ditto) are to essential if the "monster" is to be tamed.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 6, 2006 8:10 AM

Christ Hugh, when I logged on, you hadn't posted a thing. By the time I posted, you'd stolen my thunder in spades.

Well, great minds think alike (lol).

Posted by: Cornelius at April 6, 2006 8:13 AM

Hugh, I'm an Orthodox Jew and we're not gung-ho on absolute secularism either. Neither are many a Christian or other religious persons.

BTW, the professor seems to know nothing about Judaism if he can describe it as emphasizing "the performance of ceremonies and rituals."

In fact, Judaism is totally life encompassing, and in certain ways, Islam merely immitates what Judaism espoused for 1000s of years beforehand.

I think Hugh's earlier post on this thread raises important questions of doubt. It would be really interesting if the professor and his students, past and present, decided to participate in this discussion.

Posted by: Shy Guy at April 6, 2006 8:14 AM

A little more on Ahmed Afzaal:

"Ahmed Afzaal was born in Karachi in 1966 and received his MBBS from Dow Medical ... He has served as the General Secretary of the Tanzeem-e-Islami of North America..."

Who wants to tell us about Tanzeem-e-Islami? Perhaps Dr. Ahmed Afzaal will tell us about it. What is its stated goal? What does it hope to accomplish here in North America?

Perhaps we, and those at Connecticut College -- those who hired him, unwittingly, those in the Adminstration who assumed that those who hired him had thoroughly looked into him, those on the facutly who stand to lose if Connecticut College stops being a beneficiary of alumni loyalty, those students who may have been misled, or who did not take his course because they knew something was wrong but would would, in fact, like the option of learning something about Islam that might conceivably be close to the truth, and not mere MESA-Nostran apologetics, should look at the web page of Tanzeem-e-Islami.

Well, here is where to start:

http://www.tanzeem.org.pk/resources/articles/index.htm

Read, at that site, his articles, and those of others that he helpfully translated and that he thinks so much of. Read and read, and ask yourself if his sudden and incoherent change of heart -- as expressed above -- is something you wish, even in the slightest degree, to take seriously. Or if this display of taqiyya/kitman, or whatever you call it, should not arouse our suspicions even more, far more, than they were before?

Posted by: Hugh at April 6, 2006 8:15 AM

l have just a quick reply to this Professor Ahmed Afzaalm, he has insulted Mr.Robert Spencer by not inviting him as an equal. By inviting him as a student, he wants to show the other students that Mr.Spencer stands below him, and only equal with the students. this sad professor might have some well spoken statements, but any adult can see what he has done. He is a farce and should be sent back!

Posted by: Lulu at April 6, 2006 8:23 AM

can't read it all now. but our point (and professor, you should accept this) is that even if the secular world is insufficient to the task of giving meaning to life, the revelation of Muhammed was just too self-serving, especially as he aged. It seems to be Islam itself (with its intense regard for this historical figure) that gives a green light to sadism; a green light to murdering those who wittily make fun of the great Poo-Bah Mohammed; a green light to sexual involvement with 9-year-old girls.

The violence of Islam is not a minor chord: Islam is what it is. In the view of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus, many of the major chords of Islam are AGAINST spiritual ideals.

If you are man of good faith, you will consider that in America, you can convert without being slaughtered. Why not take the country up on this most important opportunity? We call this "freedom."

Posted by: StillBreathing at April 6, 2006 8:23 AM

Lulu, I'd like to let Mr. Spencer decide whether he's insulted or not by sitting with the students and having an opportunity to discuss the issues with them after class, if they so desire.

Posted by: Shy Guy at April 6, 2006 8:26 AM

Or is it allowed to ask: Are you now an apostate, do you fear having your throat cut by a true believer?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 6, 2006 9:06 AM

Mysteriously, my previous posts disappeared. Is a 'sanitized' version acceptable, Mr. Spencer?

"...Today, the mass media is being used to propagate and reinforce a materialistic culture throughout the world. This culture is characterized by a strong emphasis on the pursuit of material possessions and sensual gratification, along with a corresponding disregard for spiritual and other-worldly ends..."

That's the reason why Al Waleed buys up every Newspaper he can get his hands on, that's why he bought up shares in Fox and CNN & told Murdoch to change the headlines from "Mohammedan intifadah" to 'youth-riots in Paris'...

"... a strong emphasis on the pursuit of material possessions and sensual gratification.."

Standard dreck by a Mohammedan agit-prop.

How come I always see them in burkhas, with big Mercedes limousines, in Munich, Rome, Geneva, Milan, driving up to the Gucci/Vuitton/Dior/Cartier/ Rolex shops, filling their 'spiritual' needs...

Give it to me Afzaaal, what (if anything) made you 'change your mind?' Are you no longer a a believing Mohammedan?
.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 6, 2006 9:21 AM

"The only disagreement that I have with you is on the nature of this monster..." -Ahmed Afzaal

To which I might add, that the only disagreement I have with Mr. Afzaal is over the nature of man, the nature of Truth, the nature of Justice, tbe nature of Wisdom, the nature of Tolerance, the nature of Freedom, the nature of Mercy, the nature of Mind...in fact the entire nature of Reality.

Other than that, we can agree to "wish everyone on earth true and lasting peace" (that is, if we could ever agree about what Peace is).

Soothing words designed to paper over these differences serve no one, the professor's beloved students least of all.

But I suspect he knows that.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at April 6, 2006 9:26 AM

Thanks Hugh for the link.
Dr. Ahmed Afzaal and friends needs deconstruction. Look at the company he keeps. I just read through a few of the other writers.

His pal Dr. Israr Ahmed
" The third and ultimate step in this level of jihad is "qitaal" which means to kill and get killed in establishing the complete Islamic system as explained in the preceding text. Conquering other countries is one way of spreading Islam and this was necessary in the past as there was no other way to get the Islamic message across to people living in otherwise inaccessible countries. In the present times, with such advanced communication channels, it is possible to get the message of God across to all four corners of the world without having the need to conquer them. "
So if they cannot get their message acrossif we do not convert or surrender), (then kill and be killed in establishing Islamic Rule and Sharia ?
It is very surprising to me that this man is teaching at a college in the United States.I suspect the other writers on the site live in Pakistan, hence the more virulent articles.

Posted by: The Pig Loving Maldivian at April 6, 2006 9:27 AM

Geeez, give the guy some credit he is a well educated, well spoken, well written and completely trapped by the monster that is islam. He is also very stupid if he thinks we didn’t see right through that response. Obviously, Robert has struck a nerve with this guy, Go Robert!

Posted by: Ronin at April 6, 2006 9:28 AM

I am with dennisw on this one. Although I have read all that I ever want to read on Islam... I have learned more then I heave ever wanted to learn on it also.... I would hope any kind of open dialog with someone who really wants to be on the side of peace in that religion...

However, with the understanding of Islam that more of people like me (not educated and well spoken as Mr. Spencer and Hugh)... People like myself are becomming more familiar with the deceptions (taqidda (sp?), dawa, and kitman) that are involved inside of that religion...

I also realise that when teachers of Islam that offer a more cooperative version of the religion speak about it in public... they get eliminated by the more "educated" people of the religion of peace.

In regard to a peacful existence with Islam, I try to remain optimistic... I am well aware after two recent trips to SWA that hope may just be a glimoring mirage.

Posted by: Weatherob at April 6, 2006 9:29 AM

"Extraordinary prosperity has arrived in the industrialized world, but only at the cost of hunger and repression in poor nations. Amazing progress has occurred in various medical sciences, but the major part of humanity continues to languish in its misery and suffering."

I was wondering if he would do it, and he did not disappoint. Technology and progress as a zero-sum game. For people in the industrialized world to have more food, people in the less advanced must have less. Advances in medical technology in the first world is the implied cause of "misery and suffering" in the third. As if it were the case that if the more advanced nations did not have these things, the less advanced countries would be better off. The greed, corruption, violence, lack of industrialization, and inefficient farming methods in these poor victim countries is always someone else's fault. "I didn't create the problem, so why should I try to fix it? I'll just guilt-trip those rich Americans, Europeans, and Japanese until they give me what I need". That song and dance got old a long time ago.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 6, 2006 9:30 AM

From Ahmed Afzaal's piece:

This is precisely what Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) predicted in his celebrated satire Brave New World: that people would be laughing instead of thinking, and they wouldn’t even know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.

Aldous Huxley? The Muslim can quote kuffar for his purposes. And often does. He also mentions a Marie Winn, who from her name sounds to be not just a kafir, but a woman. (You can't always tell; people have so many sex changes these days.) And he quotes Chomsky, who, according to his Prophet, is descended from an ape or a pig. Why doesn't he wonder why Islam has not produced an Aldous Huxley or even a Chomsky?

Research has also shown that the brain’s left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while a person is watching television. This allows the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and non-critically, to function unimpeded.

A likely story. It depends what you're watching. In any case, logical analysis is the enemy of Islam. How much critical scrutiny did Mohammed allow? And if non-Muslims are so hedonistic, what about those 72 virgins/raisins and rivers of wine, promised to believers? Nothing very spiritual about that.

...to enjoy and laugh but not to think and question

These are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Interested at April 6, 2006 9:35 AM

Jerry Mander???

Posted by: Interested at April 6, 2006 9:36 AM

Eisenhund, the first step in the recovery process is admitting you have a problem. Have you ever seen islam do so? We don't have a ten-step recovery solution for islam. I have my own 45 caliber solution but I have to wait until it is legal to implement it.

Posted by: Ronin at April 6, 2006 9:38 AM

Eisenhund, the first step in the recovery process is admitting you have a problem. Have you ever seen islam do so? We don't have a ten-step recovery solution for islam. I have my own 45 caliber solution but I have to wait until it is legal to implement it.

Posted by: Ronin at April 6, 2006 9:38 AM

Eisenhund, good point... I have terrible habit of reading only the highlights of any diatribe...

So I missed that one compleately! In that regard I would say... Tell that to the people (Chirstians and tibal folks) forced into slave camps in the Sudan. I am sure they get a three course meals...

Or to the money going out of oil rich countries... for what? Food and shelter for the poor and hungry around the world? No... for madras to bring up more mudjahadians...

Makes me ill...

Posted by: Weatherob at April 6, 2006 9:38 AM

And he quotes Chomsky, who, according to his Prophet, is descended from an ape or a pig. Why doesn't he wonder why Islam has not produced an Aldous Huxley or even a Chomsky?

Posted by: Interested

Take our Chomsky - please!

Posted by: Shy Guy at April 6, 2006 9:41 AM

Shy Guy, you have a point.

In a free society, the price you pay for Shakespeare is Celebrity Big Brother. Or Chomsky. (Bet he looks better in a leotard than George Galloway.)

Posted by: Interested at April 6, 2006 9:47 AM

-Ronin

I'm leaning more towards 7.62 or .338 Lapua, but I guess we just differ in our preferred range of engagement.

-Weatherob

Trust me, it took an herculean effort and focus to get that far. I usually do the same thing as you for many of the literary windtunnels.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 6, 2006 9:50 AM

No offense to Mr. Fitzgerald, of course.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 6, 2006 9:53 AM

Students have a way of creatively twisting the names of professors who are not well-liked. One can only imagine what nicknames Dr. Afzaal has garnered behind his back.

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 6, 2006 10:09 AM

Laaafz?

Posted by: Interested at April 6, 2006 10:12 AM

Eisenhund, since I am now retired and have absolutely no plans to ever grace the SWA countries with my presence again, any violent engagement with the followers of old mo will take place in close proximity to my home. The old stand by of body, body head works wonders in the conversion process from violent jihadi to quiet and non-violent ex practitioner of islam. As you know, this battle has many fronts, voices and methods. I would never support genocide for example but I would also never consider discussing the benefits of peaceful coexistence with a rattlesnake in my living room. I have long suspected/hoped some of the lurkers on this list are legislators, intel types, policy makers, military officials and academics. Many would probably endanger their jobs by posting (too non-PC, muslims are our allies) but at least we can help educate them and attempt to speak on their behalf. The entire JW/DW staff and most of you regular posters continuously amaze me with your knowledge and commitment to this fight.

Posted by: Ronin at April 6, 2006 10:28 AM

-Ronin

I got out after thirteen years, but let's just say my traveling days aren't over yet.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 6, 2006 10:46 AM

Understood, take care and watch your six.

Posted by: Ronin at April 6, 2006 10:57 AM

Thanks and will do.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 6, 2006 11:12 AM

"I believe I learn more from them [students]than what they learn from me."

Dear Professor Afzaal:

If that's the case, what right do you have to be teaching them and getting paid (handsomely, I suppose)for it? You should resign immediately, no? Whenever I hear teachers pronounce such silly, politically-correct, "enlightened" self-deprecation, I tell them to get into another profession urgently.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at April 6, 2006 11:41 AM

shyguy your words "Lulu, I'd like to let Mr. Spencer decide whether he's insulted or not by sitting with the students and having an opportunity to discuss the issues with them after class.
l did not entend it to sound that way, Mr.Spencer is l am sure man enough to know when he is insulted.
When Mr.Spencer asked to be invited to speak and discuss to the class, he did not ask to be a student, although we learn over the years. Mr.Spencer has enough logic and knowledge to allow discusions, and if he were to appear as an equal, that is to the good proffesor" it would legitimize his points. Mr.Spencer has the ability to bring out the truth and logic to people, something that the proffesor would fear, and it shows by his lack of confidence to stand alongside Mr.Spencer. Some people are confident enough to take being insulted and walk away with the knowleged the he/she is the better person. Altough l do not know personally Mr.Spencer, by his actions and words l know he is the better person than this so called proffesor!

Posted by: Lulu at April 6, 2006 11:46 AM

Lulu, it is very common for academicians to invite their fellow academicians to be observers to their lectures and classes. Being invited as an observer does not automatically imply insult.

Posted by: Shy Guy at April 6, 2006 12:02 PM

Professor Afzaad, another question: If you subscribe to the McChesney-Herman-Chomsky vision of the American society, may I ask you what you are doing here? I'm not trying to be provocative, and it's not a rhetorical question. I'm really curious. I came to this country because I wanted to escape a totalitarian "paradise" like the one you espouse, Islam.
How about you? What are you looking for in this society? If America is so dark and materialistic and devoid of spiritual and community values, why, again, are you here?? I suppose you made a deliberate choice, that you are not just your god's puppet.

Really. Honestly. Logically: What are you doing here, in my country, trying to undermine it?

Posted by: ovidius_naso at April 6, 2006 12:25 PM

"I therefore enjoy deconstructing it for my students"

O.K..let's see ya go on the evening news or all-that-jazz-erra and do some deconstruction,huh?
What's the matter,Bud?Too attached to your head?

pbuyall

Posted by: anonamustafa at April 6, 2006 12:36 PM

Never believe ANYTHING a Muslim tells you and that includes this Professor Afzaal. I certainly do NOT believe him. Taqiyya is not an alcoholic potable!

First of all, Islam as we know it today is derived from Kuranic scriptures--and the Kuran, as anyone able to read it can observe, presecribes what the western democracies term "first degree murder." Since the Kuran presribes first-degree murder, Islam MUST incorporate that into its actions since the Muslim is obligated to "submit" to the will of allah which is explicitly expressed in detail in the Kuranic scriptures. Notice that at the Beslan school hijacking, the Islamic terrorists at work were seen to be clutching their Kurans as they massacred all those children and adults.

No one need "believe" that Islam incorporates first degree murder into its teachings anymore than they need "believe" the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The truth will continue to be the truth regardless of what we "believe." Or what this professor Afzaal tells us is the truth about Islam.

Anyone disputing that Islam incorporates what to us is first degree murder in its teachings can look it up in the Kuran. It's there!!!!

It is also a historical fact that Islam has slaughtered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings. This is a direct product of the Kuran's teachings. Muslims are not making crazy mistakes. They cold-bloodedly stake out civilizations and attack them and continue attacking them at every level until they 'submit.' They do this because this is what the Kuran commands them to do. And in the process these people subject the civilization of their choosing to unfathomable horrors.

Lie as this professor Afzaal will, places like Yugoslavia, Greece, India, Thailand have been at the receiving end of the sword of the prophet and can attest to the brutality of Islam better than our good professor ever could. According to Serge Trifkovic, Islam has slaughtered at least 50 MILLION Christians during the twentieth century alone. Look at the horrors Islam presently is incurring in Sudan. Fourteen centuries of genocidal Islamic jihadi wars render islamic claims to being peaceful pure FICTION! So too does the Kuran. As anyone who bothers to read it in the western democracies can see.

That is all anyone needs to reject Islam in toto and all who propagandize for it.

And for this professor's information that Americans get their information from big corporations that control the media I would remind him that large corporations have a broadly-based ownership of millions of shareholders. It is not exactly true that the American media is controlled by a handful of people who hide reality from Americans. For his information there is a law in US media that requires for every viewpoint resented to the public via the airwaves a counter-viewpoint must also be presented.

So to Afzaal's chagrin, the taqiyya presentation of his about Islam is going to be countered by the TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM as seen at Jihad Watch.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 6, 2006 2:17 PM

Shy Guy:

Afzaad invited Robert Spencer to be his student, not an observer. This is clearly a put-down (literally), especially coming from a Middle Easterner, where family ranking is crucial, e.g.,to call a grown man a "son" is an insult.

The last article of Afzaad's that Hugh put up was a rehash of 30-60 year old sociology that has never been proven. Most of the people I meet on the street do not believe anything that they see on television.

This is at the end of Afzaad's writing:

"The only weapon with which we can fight the deception of our age is the Holy Qur’an, the Book of Allah (SWT). The choice, therefore, is clear: either we turn towards Divine Guidance, or we lose ourselves to dehumanizing materialism."

Afzaad has set up a strawman based on fear of an overwhelming "other" which does not exist as depicted. So, he appears to be a Qur'an-thumping snake-oil salesman, loosely cloaked as what passes for an academic these days.

Posted by: HaMalach at April 6, 2006 2:59 PM

Afzaal. Sorry.

Posted by: HaMalach at April 6, 2006 3:00 PM

The amusing thing is that he writes English far better than Ron Geaves does.

There is more thought there in those two pieces than I would have expected. Nevertheless, even though Afzaal may well not perceive it himself, the movement of each is driven by where he wants it to go, and he passes smoothly over matters that really require far more thought than he would be willing to give and far more sympathy than I suspect he is capable of.

Of course, at the end of the day, what he wants, as he tells the reader is a:

total system of human existence

In his heart he is a slave, and would have everyone be the same.

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 6, 2006 3:15 PM

Contrary to many of the posts here, I believe the Professor's reply was professional and courteous. This battle for western civilization must be fought on two fronts, not one. Yes, we should point out all of the problems with Islam's theology. But we should also go further, debating with Muslims wherever possible and encouraging them to engage the demons that dominate some aspects of their faith.

I hope that Mr. Spencer will take him up on his offer and take the class. Perhaps then he will be able to assess to what degree the students are being brainwashed, and come to the class in the future as a guest lecturer. At a minimum he would have the podium to present an alternative point of view. Who knows - the professor might become the "moderate muslim" that he has been seeking all of these years.

Posted by: Ernie Banks at April 6, 2006 4:20 PM

"Finally, you and I both agree that the violent and extremist form of Muslim fundamentalism is a horrible monster, and that it is the duty of both Muslims and non-Muslims to control and subdue this monster."
I find it interesting that the good doctor Afzaal said that we have a duty to control and subdue "...the violent and extremist form of Muslim fundamentalism..." and said nothing of the fundamental beliefs taught to all (with the possible exception of investigators, new converts and those lost in dhimmi darkness) from the pillars of Islam.

Posted by: infidelion1095 at April 6, 2006 4:34 PM

"the violent and extremist form of Muslim fundamentalism is a horrible monster, and that it is the duty of both Muslims and non-Muslims to control and subdue this monster."

Infidelion1095, I agree with you. Since when is it someone's responsibility to subdue the monster another has created?

It reminds me of the parents of children who are ill-prepared and misbehaved and who expect school professionals to fix the problem their ineptness has created.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at April 6, 2006 5:00 PM

Now children, it's story time. A long, long time ago in a kingdom far, far away, there lived a strange and wonderful people called the "truth-seekers." In fact, these people were so interested in finding out the truth about things they developed a whole method of inquiry just to learn more and more about everything they could.

But, as they learned more and more about things, they forgot the admonition of their forefathers to "know thyself" as well and soon they forgot more and more of the old wisdom that had led their fathers to become truth seekers in the first place and because their new method of finding out about things was so successful and gave them so much power, they soon knew all about how things worked but, in their pride and arrogance, totally forgot to inquire about why things were and in even more egregious error, they completely forgot how things should be.

Their knowledge increased, but their wisdom disappeared and soon the old code of honor, adherence to truth in word, thought and deed, became a just another distraction which no one thought he could afford.

Then the deceivers appeared among them and sought to confuse the people in order to gain power over them and to take away their freedom. They deceived them about the nature of their ancestors, the original truth-seekers, whom the deceivers called hypocrites. And the people lost faith in themselves.

Then there appeared a few representatives of the old wisdom, who had studied the old books, and learned the old ways and who could point the way toward truth once more, for indeed children, the stream of mind runs in only two directions: toward truth and away from error, or away from truth and toward error.

The poor people had been walking in circles of desolation but after hearing the restorers, quickly perceived Truth and vowed once more to pursue and treasure it above all things. They remembered the old wisdom for it rang like a bell in their hearts and eventually they rose up as one and cast out the deceivers.

Then the people became known as truth-seekers once again and they lived happily ever after.

The end.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at April 6, 2006 5:33 PM

Hugh wrote:

and also because all moral values are, in the final analysis, derived from the religious tradition. A growing number of Western thinkers are realizing this truth.
======================================
I hesitate to enter in discussion with such a prolific writer but heck,

Doesn't this lead to moral relativism. If the source of your morality is what God told you, I could base mine in what God told me and it could be completely different from yours. Isn't this exactly the muslim's argument to replace western civilization?

Posted by: 2pacshakur at April 6, 2006 7:58 PM

Okay, gloves off.

Sociology and the use of words: I received a very high-level education at an Ivy League University. When I took Sociology 101, a friend and I, intellectual wags, decided to take the list of descriptive words provided by the professor, memorize them, and insert three words chosen at random for each answer on the (insert words for answer) midterm. At random. I received a 93 on the midterm, and my friend received a score in the 90s. I never took another sociology course.

Academics: The University has never been a place where discourse was actually free and open any more than the Corporation is devoted to making better widgets. However, in the past 25 years or so, the buying and selling of University chairs, attitudes, departments, etc has gotten ridiculous. The Muslims, very good at organization and strategy (and it doesn't hurt that they demand hierarchical obedience)are nothing if not political. So they fit right in at the university level, as we have seen.

Ahmed Afzaal: He's not acting alone and he has even told us so in one of his articles. So continue to find out who his connections are and you will go a a long way to totally identifying him.

Back to the University: The best classes I took were those that instructed in techniques of critical thinking. The content classes were full of elisions ("the act or an instance of dropping out or omitting something..." Webster's Third Int'l Dictionary). Half the story is sometimes worse than no story at all. See: Ahmed Afzaal.

Or, as they say in Washington, "Do you want the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth?"

Posted by: HaMalach at April 6, 2006 8:09 PM

A conceptual structure built of mirrors, all reflecting nothing but themselves, ends up as a labyrinth with no exit (Huis Clos).

The mind needs to have at least one 'open window' (freedom of inquiry) to 'breath'.

Islam, like all other self-contained 'truths', strangles the intellect with its insistence on inescapable, undeniable 'revelation'.

As if a superstitious pedophile in 620 A.D. could add anything to what Heraclitus, Aristippus, Xenophanes, Leucippus, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Pythagoras, Anaximander, Epictetus, Ovid and even Marcus Aurelius plumbed long before he hobbled his first camel.

The mind shrivels in the petrie dish of 'accepted perfection'.

Give me the 'Songs of Solomon', the wit of Jesus, "On the Nature of Things" by Lucretius, the poems of Catullus or "The Satyricon" anyday.

There is life, open-ness, joy, sardonic exhuberance and the liberation of thought and vision. A cornucopia of riches and refreshment.

Islam is like wax fruit in comparison.

Unnatural, as it lies apparently flawless.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 6, 2006 9:07 PM

"breathe".

(I inserted the "e" but logo-gremlins deleted it upon posting. Djinns of deconstructionsism?)

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 6, 2006 9:09 PM

Rebecca:

"know thyself"

The oracle at Delphi.

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 7, 2006 5:44 AM

"Hugh wrote:

and also because all moral values are, in the final analysis, derived from the religious tradition. A growing number of Western thinkers are realizing this truth.
======================================
I hesitate to enter in discussion with such a prolific writer but heck,"

2pacshakur, Hugh did not write that. He posted one of, Ahmed Afzaal's, articles. Mr Afzaal wrote it.

Posted by: redwine at April 7, 2006 6:23 AM

profitsbeard, bravo. well put.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at April 7, 2006 8:38 AM