| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Khalid Hasan of Pakistan's Daily Times has been upset with me for years. In January 2003 he charged that in my book Islam Unveiled I subject "the Holy Prophet’s person (PBUH) to blasphemous criticism." In June 2004 he lamented over my book Onward Muslim Soldiers: "How one can fight such ignorance, I am unable to say." In August 2005 he picked up his lament again: "Meanwhile, Islam-bashing goes on without let or hindrance. The publishers of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) claim that it is a bestseller." It was, Khalid, it was: it stayed on the New York Times Bestseller List for four months.
However, amid all this breast-beating Hasan never gets around to specifying even one inaccuracy in any of these books. Instead, he lists their contents as if that inaccuracy was self-evident -- as if it was obviously false that while "Jews and Christians do not accept violent passages in their holy books in a literal sense, Muslims do," or that women face difficulties under Islamic law, or that the human rights record of Muslim countries is generally poor, or that "secularism" -- that is, non-religious government -- "will be unable to overcome the hurdles it faces to secure a foothold in the Islamic world."
But in his latest lament over my alleged "Islam-bashing," Hasan enlists help from Akbar Ahmed, the Islamic scholar from American University who was allowed to comment on my interview with C-Span's Brian Lamb last summer before that interview even aired. And Ahmed, as you'll see, has some harsh things to say -- which is a pity, since on C-Span he said: "I know the work of Dr. Spencer and I know a lot of these arguments because I’ve been a scholar of Islam for the last several decades. So, I’m very aware with all my friends and colleagues. And we interact with them. We debate. We discuss." But he never responded to my invitation to debate and discuss these matters. If he wants to do so, I am available.
"British channel to screen documentary on Islamic art," by Khalid Hasan in the Daily Times, with thanks to Brian of London:
WASHINGTON: The Glories of Islamic Art, a three-part documentary presented by Dr Akbar Ahmed, is to be screened by Britain’s Channel Five later this month.[...]
Dr Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at the American University here, said old prejudices about Islam were resurfacing, and one of the world’s greatest and most humane religion was being portrayed once again, as it was in colonial times, as an inherently violent and fanatical religion that encouraged or condoned terrorism, as monolithic, backward and inferior. It is being accused of subjugating women and denying them their equal rights, making it out to be a religion incompatible with modern Western and democratic values, or even as the implacable enemy of Western civilisation.
Dr Ahmed said, “If you think I am exaggerating, take a look at the Amazon.com website and read the blurb of books, such as The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic or The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer, who is also the editor of a huge anthology of articles entitled The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, and whose latest book, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, is advertised as a book that ‘gives the truth about Muhammad’s convenient revelations justifying his own licentiousness; his joy in the brutal murders of his enemies; and above all, his clear marching orders to his followers to convert non-Muslims to Islam or force them to live as inferiors under Islamic rule’. Books such as these do not merely disseminate a totally inaccurate account of Islam and Islamic history, but they do so in language that is outrageously abusive, and would never be tolerated if applied to any religion other than Islam.”
"A totally inaccurate account of Islam and Islamic history"? Prove it.
"In language that is outrageously abusive"? I'd like to see him substantiate that from the book itself.
"...would never be tolerated if applied to any religion other than Islam"? What utter hogwash. Does he expect us to forget the deconstruction of Christianity that goes on relentlessly in the mainstream media?
Dr Ahmed lamented that it was so rare nowadays to encounter a book or a film that had anything positive to say about Islam because several media pundits, in collusion with politicians, preferred to pander to the prejudices of the general public. “We live in the age of the politics of fear. Islamophobia clearly pays. For example, the recently released documentary ‘Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West’ has been an instant box office hit,” he said. The Glories of Islamic Art would prove to be a healthy antidote to neo-orientalist rhetoric used to malign and misrepresent Islam, he added. This television series does not aim to cover the whole history of Islamic art and architecture, but focuses on three great Muslim cities – Damascus, Cairo and Istanbul – moving chronologically from the Umayyad dynasty to that of the Fatimids and Mamluks, and finally to that of the Seljuks and the Ottomans. Other cities, such as Jerusalem, Cordoba and Granada, are briefly discussed. A future project may explore other great Muslim cities further east, such as Isfahan, Delhi and Lahore.
Well, I like Islamic art myself, and I'm sure it will be a great series. But how it will serve as an "antidote" to serious discussion of the jihad ideology and its implications, I'm sure I don't know.
Posted by Robert at November 29, 2006 9:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Robert Spencer, you got them by the balls.
Posted by: EliasAlucard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 29, 2006 9:48 AM
Aren't action like art exhibition side tracking the issues? Soothing? Stab in the Back then?
The end of one law for all?
Ethnic and religious courts are gaining ground in the UK. Will this lead to different justice for different people?
Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales.
"Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law. It's not Islamic, it's not religious - it's just a cultural thing."
The 29-year-old youth worker wants to ensure that other members of his community remain subject to the law of their ancestors too - he helps convene an unofficial Somali court, or "gar", in south-east London.
read the full story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6190080.stm
at November 29, 2006 9:55 AM
Utterly laughable. If Islam is portrayed negatively it is because it IS negative. Nobody has to make anything up or even exaggerate-the record speaks for itself. Not even a Muslim can find anything positive about 9/11 (unless you enjoy the death toll-something most of the world does not enjoy). I guess they want us to make things up because then Islam might finally look good. They want us to be just like them-liars and frauds. Sorry, not interested.
By the way, what kind of art may we expect from the peaceful ones? Positive paintings of raping burning and head chopping? Or will we see some more of the artwork submitted in that Iranian contest that claimed the Holocaust was a fake from a few months ago?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 29, 2006 9:59 AM
"Not even a Muslim can find anything positive about 9/11"
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS
---------
Actually, a lot of muslims do find 9/11 positive. Haven't you seen clips on YouTube of how the muslim world was rejoicing after 9/11?
Posted by: EliasAlucard at November 29, 2006 10:02 AM
EliasAlucard-
True, but aside from the death toll what could those idiots find positive about it? Because of 9/11 we've ruined their paradise in Afghanistan and got rid of Saddam Hussein. I suspect that a lot of Muslims would rather go back to the pre- 9/11 days, when America slept even more than it does today and they could continue their subversions all over the place unnoticed.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 29, 2006 10:18 AM
This islamic art they're going to air...how old is it? Doesn't islam prohibit painting or drawings of people? I'll bet if the artists are modern, they'd be beheaded.
Posted by: freewoman at November 29, 2006 10:29 AM
It is being accused of subjugating women and denying them their equal rights, making it out to be a religion incompatible with modern Western and democratic values, or even as the implacable enemy of Western civilisation.
Dr Ahmed said, “If you think I am exaggerating"
No. But that's the thing, you see. We know you're not exaggerating. That's the whole point. You're not exaggerating, and neither is the Ayatollah, or the president of al-Azhar, or Omar Bakri, or anyone in Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Pakistan, or even that bastion of moderate moderation, (jive) Turkey.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at November 29, 2006 10:40 AM
"Does he expect us to forget the deconstruction of Christianity that goes on relentlessly in the mainstream media?"
Not only deconstruction, but outright mockery in the wider ambit of pop culture, for decades.
And not only the mainstream media and pop culture, but throughout academe, for at least 300 years now (increasing exponentially with each passing generation), Christianity has been subjected to a radical and variegated deconstruction and critical analysis of kinds and degrees that would be impossible in the mentally stultifying and repressive Muslim world.
at November 29, 2006 11:04 AM
Akbar Ahmed is a plummy-voiced, smooth-talking "snake" (the noun, I believe, comes from Ibn Warraq). He managed somehow -- he's not the first anglophone, pseudo-"moderate" Pakistani apologiset to do so, nor the last -- to get a position filling an academic seat that might, were he not sitting comfortably in it, be given to someone who might enlighten rather tha buffalo his naive students.
About those naive students: that plummy voice, those English tweeds (child of zamindars? what is Akabar Ahmed's history as a most unrepresentative representative of Muslim Man), and above all the little business of taking his students to Pakistan (who pays for those airfares?) where they then go to a mosque, and see their champion, their soft-voiced teacher-hero, confront those "immoderate" Muslims and tell them they should "welcome" these Christian guests and so they do, and the students, impressionable and very impressed, come away thinking what a swell guy, what a wonderful guy, what a guy to be trusted, is our own Professor Akbar Ahmed.
A crock. A predictable crock.
Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 11:17 AM
Last week we were introduced to the concept of TurnSpeak, and its origins around Adolph Hitler and his Nazis. Duggy I think gave the link.
Well, I nominate Khalid Hasan as the Master TurnSpeaker. Reading his text above, Mr. Hasan is to be praised for the precision of his 180 degree turnabouts, his completeness, his passion, and his fake indignation. His false history is so outrageous that it defies any broad based challenge.
Don't get no better than that.
Not even a Muslim can find anything positive about 9/11.
The vast majority of all Moslems worldwide were elated at the mass murder, and reveled in the symbolism of long delayed revenge against the West it did, and still does, represent. Moslems were dancing in the streets and openly weeping with joy from south Phillipines to Vancouver.
Remember, from the very outset, around 615 AD, one of the central tenets of Islam is victimism. Victimism is the engine from which these people derive their energy.
That's why Islam aligns so well with Marxists. Do a word count sometime on the frequency with which the words "exploited" and "victim" appear in the writing of Marx and Engels, and the hundreds of thousands of Marxist writers since.
at November 29, 2006 11:19 AM
Would we expect less from a denizen of American University, that citadel of Political Correctitude?
Posted by: counterjihadi at November 29, 2006 11:28 AM
Considering the penchant tnat islamists have for revisionist history.
I will be curious to see how much of the "art & architecture" they claim will actually be the product of the various cultures and societies they have overrun and raped.
They will probably claim the Taj is a mosque.
at November 29, 2006 11:37 AM
This is all funny.
We are saying that your ideology promotes violence and we have to do something about it, you want to distract us from the main issue and focus us on the development and beauty of cities over the years.
We are saying that your mujihadeens are quoting your koran to support their jihad and fight against us, and we have check and discovered that they are correct - those commands are there in the koran. What they are doing is out of conviction and not because Spencer or Serge Trifkovic quoted from the koran.
Dr Ahmed, you have left all these serious issues that have to do with life or death, and want to tell us the
"whole history of Islamic art and architecture, but focuses on three great Muslim cities – Damascus, Cairo and Istanbul – moving chronologically from the Umayyad dynasty to that of the Fatimids and Mamluks, and finally to that of the Seljuks and the Ottomans. Other cities, such as Jerusalem, Cordoba and Granada, are briefly discussed"
What a distraction! A nice way to dodge all these questions that your 'religion of peace' is raising.
Posted by: Nwachinemere at November 29, 2006 11:43 AM
Excerpt from a previous posting that dealt, in words close to those in the posting above, with Akbar Ahmed (see the second and third paragraphs) :
"In a recent Jihad Watch post, Robert Spencer dealt lucidly with the treatment of women, adducing the unambiguous Qur'anic texts, explaining the hierarchy of both muhaddithin and of the hadith assigned rankings of authenticity by those same muhaddithin (and keeping in mind that Qur'anic passages cannot be trumped by hadith). In doing so, he offered exactly the resource needed for those who are tongue-tied, or not quite able to come back when, as talk show hosts or as guests, they are forced to endure the nonsense of some apologist for Islam.
Those apologists include the greedy Esposito; some pseudo-fighters-for-women's-rights in Islam who keep telling us that the "problem is entirely cultural" and "has nothing to do with Islam" (Fatima Mernissi and Leila Ahmad in their recent much more defensive incarnations, Sherin Ebadi who is not quite the heroine to Iranians in free-throated exile that one might have been led to believe); and the plummy-voiced Akbar Ahmed, who prides himself on his own "moderation" but who is objectively furthering the Jihad when he utters nonsense about Islam. He once denied flatly that Ibn Khaldun ever mentioned Jihad until presented with the clear text from Ibn Khaldun mentioning Jihad -- not what one should expect from the "Ibn Khaldun Professor" at American University.
Ahmed is objectively furthering the Jihad even more when he takes his "American students" on "field trips" to Pakistan. Once there he puts on a great show for them, taking them to a mosque, ostentatiously demanding that they be treated well, for they are "guests" and so on. The American students, already entranced with his way with words, fall for this hook, line, and sinker. He can now tell them that Islam is whatever he says it is and those innocent students will believe him -- a nice example of Daniel Pipes's bizarre attempt to hold out hope by telling us that "Islam is whatever Muslims say it is," instead of what the Qur'an and Hadith say it is.
A few more such handy guides such as that provided by Spencer here are needed: on the permanent duty and definition of Jihad, on the treatment of non-Muslims when first encountered, and then after they are conquered, and another few topics. Then every talk show host and every Op/Ed editor will be mentally prepared to take on those apologists. And so will, eventually, even the slow and dimwitted among our rulers, who will have to stop uttering hopeful banalities or pretending that Islam is something it isn't, as if we could wish away a grim reality."
Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 12:10 PM
When Dr Ahmed speaks you get the feeling that there is another Quran that most of us are not reading, or aware of when reflecting on our attempts to understand the under pinnings of the Islamic Ideology.
When strongly challenged would Dr Ahmed pursue the ridiculously lame, and deceptive excuse for non-muslims understanding of the Quran, that if it is not written in Arabic that it is in correct? And of course we remember the terrific responses of Dr. Wafi Sultan on that point and many others,never mind that over 85Pct. of Muslims do not read Arabic.
Does Dr. Ahmed simply ignore the surahs in the Quran that reflect the jihadist and antisemitic,and anti-non muslim behavior? Does he dismiss them as if they are not applicable or somewhat dormant in less the Umma is in a state of dar-al-harb?
Dr. Ahmed knows far well what is written there but he like all good Muslims are required by the Quran and the teachings of Mohammed to practice the deceiving (taquiya),half truths (kitman) of non-muslims. This is in fact a practiced exercise that they are proud to perform on the naive, and the ignorant who we classify as dhimmis'.
Posted by: Mackie at November 29, 2006 12:25 PM
Robert, don't hold your breathe. When people cannot defend their position, they either attack the other person, or change the subject.
Folks blinded by Islam do not want to hear the truth about Islam. They are COMFORTABLE in their beliefs and would prefer to stay in them, even if they are a lie.
People do not like to be challenged for what they believe because it puts into question their intelligence and their experiences of their religion - right or wrong.
This being the case, I would not expect to EVER get a legitimate response from the guy.
Posted by: The Goobs at November 29, 2006 12:52 PM
Another chance, provided by infidel funds on an infidel invention and exploiting the infidel infrastructure to illustrate how the tatterdemalions of Islam are sometimes capable of producing the tiniest dribble of fine things over a great span of time if provided with that span of time, and a nearly unlimited unwarranted unearned river of plundered loot.
What will we see?
No doubt an example of an excellent building here, aped in form and design from somewhere else -- probably erected as a triumphal gesture over a desecrated site where a superior building from a superior culture once stood, now annihilated and forgotten because all who would have remembered have been exterminated, expelled, or indoctrinated...
A fine textile there which usurps not only the technology and innovations from somewhere far away and untouched by Islam's genius, but also exhibiting another in an endless torrent of plagiarized cultural strands now claimed as Islam's own and exploited as an exemplary specimen of Islam's wonderfulness, when it's truly anything but...
A fascinating little machine which is yet another regurgitation of another fascinating little machine which came to the Muslims in any one of a hundred million ravaged carravans of plunder from a ransacked city or a kidnapped emissary from a far better place or a raped nation and culture, now unquestioningly exhibited as an irrefutable example of the transcendental superiority of Islam when it's simply an irrefutable example of another item raped looted and hijacked by Muslims to extoll the virtues of Islam...
But where are the Titians and Van Goghs, the John Donnes and the Arthur Rimbauds? Where are the Michelangelos and the Carravaggios or the Christopher Wrens and the IM Peis?
That's what I want to know. I've seen all that other stuff, and, quite frankly, I'm embarrassed at Islam's nearly universal fewnesses and monotony, made all the more embarrassing and monotonous by the fawning efforts of the BBC to aid Muslims in misrepresenting and foisting their propaganda on the rest of us.
Examples of 'their great civilization'? Nearly ALL of the evidence points in the exact opposite direction. Why should any of us play along?
Posted by: jsla at November 29, 2006 1:08 PM
ART!!! big frickin' deal...
Wasn't Hitler a painter before he was a megalomaniacal genocidal madman??
Posted by: religion of(blown to)pieces at November 29, 2006 1:37 PM
Hasan is guilty of changing the subject, one of the strategies used by expert Muslim practitioners of taqiyya and kitman.
Posted by: Eleanor at November 29, 2006 2:04 PM
Another documentary to be aired, extolling the greatness of Moslem culture. Okie dokie.
This tactic is becoming a bit tedious. It shows a difference in priorities as seen by so-called moderate Moslems and the larger host societies in which they are embedded.
Instead of moderate Moslems taking effective action to make their moderate form of Islam the only kind of Islam, and letting these advance be known to an increasingly sceptical non-Moslem world, they treat non-Moslems to another round of "See. We love art as much as you do" when most of the world would like to hear genuine words to the effect of "See. We love freedom of conscience as much as you do."
Instead, Akbar Ahmed will now explain (again) to the world the wonders of Islamic art as seen in, oh let's say, the Hagia Sophia for instance. You know the one, that former mosque in the former Constantinople, formerly ruled by a Byzantine emperor who had the temerity to complain that the only thing new brought to mankind by Islam was evil and violent.
Posted by: Chatillon at November 29, 2006 2:11 PM
Almost evey program about the glories of "Islamic Art" focuses primarily on architecture. While there is no denying the beauty of much "Islamic" architecture, the truth is that the greatest examples were expropriated from pre-Islamic cultures. Two examples that are most lauded are the Taj Mahal and the Dome of the Rock.
The Taj Mahal was based clearly on the Hindu designs and was contructed by Hindu artisans. The Dome of the Rock was based on Christian designs and was built by mostly Christian artisans. There is even some evidence that the Taj Mahal may be an expansion of a pre-existing Shiva Mandir and the Dome of the Rock might be a re-covering of the original Christian shrine built by Emperor Justinian.
Architectural plagiarism is still just plagiarism.
Posted by: Provoslavni at November 29, 2006 2:43 PM
We live in the age of the politics of fear.
______________
Here are my two cents...
Yes, we do live in an age of the politics of fear. Do you want to know why? We do so because it is based upon our personal experience; our reality. Muslims have blown up the two World Trade Center Towers. Muslims have blown up a giant Buddha. Muslims have shot at innocent Jews in the United States. Muslims have killed innocent school Children in Russia. Muslims have killed Catholic nuns and priests. These are not dreams; false-hoods, or other non-reality entities. These are veritable facts. Truth; reality. Based on these truths the rest of the Civilized world is afraid. Afraid of Islam and with good reason. I am not racist or Islamic-phobia. I DO NOT have an irrational fear of Islam. I have a very sane RATIONAL fear of Islam. But of course, Islam has dis-connected reason from faith and added violence to faith. Those were my two cents. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Monkeywho at November 29, 2006 3:13 PM
Will paintings of the beheadings be on display?
Posted by: juicealot at November 29, 2006 3:21 PM
how it will serve as an "antidote" to serious discussion of the jihad ideology and its implications ?
it is just a silly distractant.
in his book 'Living Islam', Akbar Ahmed considers Tamerlane's love of poetry to be somehow more significant that his unprovoked wars of aggression.
those wars were the direct cause of death for millions of people, mostly non-combatants and mostly Muslims, many of whom were systematically slaughtered after surrendering.
this seems to me to be similar to using Hitler's fondness for dogs as grounds for arguing that he was really a nice chap, and puts me off listening to anything else Akbar Ahmed may have to say.
at November 29, 2006 4:22 PM
Islamic Art is an oxymoron.
You can see it in and on any Mosque, and in the Al Hambra..it is called Calligraphy..the art of writing, but art it isn't.
Posted by: Nariz at November 29, 2006 6:10 PM
It is being accused of subjugating women and denying them their equal rights, making it out to be a religion incompatible with modern Western and democratic values, or even as the implacable enemy of Western civilisation.
can this dr.achmed answer how the taliban can kill teachers who teach girls in afganistan? how about treatment of women in saudi arabia? this is the tip of the iceberg mr. achmed, your cult is a slavemaking one at that.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 29, 2006 6:42 PM
Western art is the art of the West. Islamic art is the art of... the Ummah? Move an Islamic artist to the U.S. of A. or the U.K. Does he then become a Western artist? He remains an Islamic artist. There are French artists, Russian artists, Polish artists, Chinese artists....and there are Islamic artists. Not Arabian? Not Persian? Not Somalian? Islamic. Islamic Artists.
Posted by: Emerson Twain at November 29, 2006 7:07 PM
The vast majority of all Moslems worldwide were elated at the mass murder, and reveled in the symbolism of long delayed revenge against the West it did, and still does, represent. Moslems were dancing in the streets and openly weeping with joy from south Phillipines to Vancouver.
Regrettably, this is quite true. Family friends hear the ululating call eminate from Arabic districts in Windsor and London, Ontario. Mississauga also, I believe.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at November 29, 2006 9:58 PM
Posted by: jsla
What will we see?
Odds on we wont see this
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_face_hidden/siyer-i-nebi-beheading.jpg
A miniature (nakış) from Siyer-i Nebi
depicting Ali bin Abu Taleb beheading Nasr bin al-Hareth in the presence of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions.
The picture in the above link is more than 500yrs old,it is taken from
Siyer-i NebiEd. 5.0
A six-volume 16th-Century work written and illustrated for Sultan Murad III.
In Turkish, the title means 'Rules [of Muslim Conduct] of a Prophet'
It is amazing that it was commissioned by a moslem ruler
Curiously, in this depiction Muhammad's face has been 'whited out'. Whether that was the original artist's affectation or the work of a subsequent 'religious censor' is unknown.
Around the end of the 14th Century, a Mevlevi dervish who came to the palace of Sultan Berkuk, the Mameluke ruler in Cairo, undertook an important duty, At the wish of the Sultan, Mustafa son of Yusuf from Erzurum was to write the book Siyer-i Nebi, in which once again the life of the Muslim Prophet would be invoked and the subject would once again be made into an epic.
Posted by: shiva
at November 30, 2006 9:22 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)