Great take Robert...but...

Wouldn't it suffice just saying:
"one who tries to pee on your leg and tells you it's raining."?
(lol, ok, just messin with ya...lol)

Posted by: jcom972 at August 30, 2007 10:37 PM

Robert,

Ernst may regret his advice. His students may in fact learn something by visiting this site.

I grew up in a library and have a couple of degrees under my belt, yet every time I visit JW/DW something new is encountered.

So, welcome students! Let us engage in friendly discourse regarding Islam.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 30, 2007 10:46 PM

Nobody is that dumb.

If he is a propagandist then he is on the take, that means he is riding the Muhammedan gravy train along with Johnny Esposito and many others...

Haven't you been offered any petrodollars to shut down your site yet, Mr. Spencer?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 30, 2007 10:46 PM

This is all to common in universities - particularly in the "soft" disciplines that are not quantitative. An acquaintance of mine at the University of Toronto many years ago was studying for his Masters degree in economics. One of his graduate classes was taught by a well known leftist professor (at the left fringe of the NDP - I'll let people guess who). He mentioned the only way to get a decent grade was to parrot the official line which he decided to do to "get his ticket punched" as they say. At least he was wise to the game.

Posted by: johnb at August 30, 2007 10:49 PM

He is just a typical example of the imposters that pervade the American universities. They bear all kinds of credentials, sit arrogantly in their ivory towers but couldn't engage the common bloke in a pub with their thesis, never mind one so armed as Robert Spencer. Hopefully, this pulls his pants down for the students who do visit this site and still have maintained some free space in their brains and they see him for what he is, an imposter, a showman with no content ready and willing to kiss the feet of the Islamists who would dispose of him in minutes under their tyrannical rule.

Posted by: Briars at August 30, 2007 10:53 PM

Good idea Cap'gig...but the problem is, people that militant are already so entrenched in their mental state their take has become outright dogma (one of those things which my karma has a habit of running over...but that's another story).

By the way, Robert...heads-up, we're being invaded by trolls...and one of them in another thread names cerebate has challenged your motives (something to do with monetary BS...or some such drivel)
I hope they come here & challenge you in instead of hiding behind a yesterday thread.
I'd like to see Robert swat yet another fly on the radar screen, even though he has more important things to do (just felt that challenge was way beyond the pale & worth mentioning-utter guttersnipery)...

Looks like this weekend's gonna be more exciting than usual...lol

Posted by: jcom972 at August 30, 2007 10:54 PM

A question - could Mr Spencer tell us, here, or somewhere on this site, the story of how he found publishers for his books? I'm sure we'd all love to hear about the adventures of his manuscripts, and how many 'rejection' slips he got before Regnery said 'yes'.

It seems to me entirely likely that he tried any number of publishers and that Regnery (who I think are Catholic?) were the only ones game to take him on and risk incurring Muslim ire.

What mattered was getting the books OUT and into the bookshops, ASAP.

I understand that Bat Yeor had some difficulty getting into print; as did Jacques Ellul (for articles that touched on Israel or Islam).

I notice that Mark Durie's book comparing Islamic with Christian theology, and Stuart Robinson's book 'Mosques and Miracles' (which essentially translates the warnings of Spencer and Bat Yeor, communicating it to what I would call the 'pentecostal/ charismatic' spectrum of the Christian community), were not brought out by any mainstream Australian publishing house.

Anybody know how hard it was for Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq to find publishers?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 30, 2007 11:05 PM

If Prof. Ernst feels he would not acquit himself well in debate with Robert Spencer, perhaps the thing for Spencer to do is review one of Ernst's books. Spencer, unlike Ernst, would argue the case on the merits, not sling mud. Ernst might even be pleasantly surprised at the result.

Posted by: traeh at August 30, 2007 11:06 PM

God has a way of turning these types of events into a real learning experience. Let the students come by and read up on Islam. Maybe they will learn a few things outside of class.

Posted by: threatofislam.com at August 30, 2007 11:07 PM

dumbledoresarmy,
Regery's website describes Regnery as a conservative publisher. It says nothing about Catholicism, as far as I can see.

Posted by: traeh at August 30, 2007 11:12 PM

Robert,

How about a “Welcome page” for visiting students.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at August 30, 2007 11:24 PM

To students of Carl Ernst:

Remember not to confuse the comments on these open, public threads with positions held by Robert Spencer himself. Judge Spencer only by his own positions as expressed in his articles and books.

Posted by: traeh at August 30, 2007 11:25 PM

Traeh,

There's only so much Robert to go around. Gadflies like Ernst are not worthy of his time.

The soul of American education was lost long ago. If there is any hope for the future it rests in the home-schooled, the privately educated and the free thinkers for whom classrooms are prisons.

To any of Ernst's students who've read this far: You will have to work hard to get a diploma. You will have to work twice as hard to get a diploma and an education.

There is a difference. A diploma will help you get a job. An education will help you survive.

Welcome to a truly educational site.

Posted by: USBeast at August 30, 2007 11:40 PM

Ropert -- I think you are just jealous. Don't forget that Professor Carl Ernst was awarded the very first Bashrahil Prize by that Kuwaiti foundation. And the person who was instrumental in making sure that the prize went to Carl Ernst had seen what he was up to, saw what he taught and what he wrote, saw what he was busily working toward in making sure that "Islam" and "terrorism" were un-linked, that "Islam" and "violence" indeed were un-linked, and that Americans, beginning with those impressonable students he gets his hands on while they are young (and he so kind, so thoughtful, taking such a personal interest in them, just like his new Muslim colleague Omid Safi, with the chicken-with-pita-dinners-for-students routine, that so thrills kids when they are 18, 19, 20, 21 and haven't any idea why someone is being so kind, so solicitous of them, and what a difference from all those remote and aloof professors who don't try nearly as hard as these people in the Middle Eastern and Islamic studies who try very very hard indeed, wherever they are, to ingratiate themselves, and the students never wonder why.

That Kuwaiti informant who had been visiting in Chapel Hill was particularly impressed, I think, with Prof. Carl Ernst's book "Following Muhammad." And no wonder. It is just the kind of book any Muslim would want a non-Muslim "scholar" to produce. Just perfect. A model of its kind. Just as Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, is a model...for all mankind.

So stop with the sour grapes. And don't be mad when Carl Ernst receives -- I predicted it at JW long ago -- the King Faisal Prize that is definitely in his future. Oh, he's coming along swimmingly. He can do no wrong. But don't begrudge him that. What else would you have him do?

Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2007 11:45 PM

Who the hell is "Ropert"?

Posted by: USBeast at August 31, 2007 12:00 AM

I'm sorry for this Off-Topic post but I need a little help from JW:

Hugh, and any other German-speakers here:

In searching for the English translation of Christoph Luxenberg's book, I found it (supposedly) at an online bookseller called AbeBooks.com. The title of the book is in English - "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran", but the problem is that the book's description from the publisher is only in German. I noticed the phrase "englische Ausgabe", which when run through Babelfish and Google translates as "English expenditure". I guess "Übersetzung" means "translation", so what does the publisher mean by "expenditure"? Also, from my searches, the ISBN for the English translation is 3-89930-088-2. But are different translations of the same book assigned different ISBN numbers?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I don't want to spend $56 + shipping from Europe on a book only to find out it's in German, and then have to deal with the hassle of sending it back to the German publisher. Thank you.

Posted by: Tasty Beverage at August 31, 2007 12:17 AM

Here’s a nice primer for all you young, eager learners of important things at UNC. It’s called Islam for Infidels.

Class, may I present to you the guest speaker for this lesson, Professor Fitzgerald.

Part 1
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004628.php
Part 2
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004748.php
Part 3, Section 1
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005050.php
Part 3, Section 2
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005051.php

Posted by: butterfly at August 31, 2007 12:17 AM

It's a right decision for Professor Ernst not to engage in any debate with a "paranoid conspiracy monger" (in Mr. Spencer's own word, and rightly so!) Mr. Spencer should invite people of his own mediocre caliber to debate with him, not professor Ernst.

UNC is one of the top schools in this country, exactly because they hire professors of intellectual integrity and high scholarship. Unfortunately as state schools, these top-notch Universities also have to admit some low-caliber students who grow up to become paranoids! But that’s life, anyway.

Posted by: ataa at August 31, 2007 12:47 AM

It would be interesting to know Dr. Ernst's motivation for his strange, unscholarly behavior. I used to believe that the academy was an almost sacred place, where every opinion could be heard and expressed. It is now a forum for anti-
American, anti-Western Civilization, anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, pro-Islamic, pro-Marxist, pro-moral relativist, pro-multiculturalist, pro-diversity agitprop, spewed by professors, administrators, and students. The Humanities have become a travesty of revisionist history, left-wing activism, moral relativism, social engineering schemes, political manipulation, and subjective tripe passed off as factual data.

When I was in college, professors were there to guide, instruct, and advise, not to indoctrinate. When we were assigned a research project, they encouraged us to use as many disparite references as we could find, to look at an issue from every conceivable angle before forming our own conclusions. Things sure have changed, and not for the better.

Academic freedom, or whatever they call a professor's right to express an unpopular or controversial opinion, has become the only form of free speech allowed on today's campuses. The exorbitant cost of indoctrination by biased, activist professors makes the careful selection of a college or university imperative.

Dr. Ernst's motives for disparaging this site and Mr. Spencer are unknown to me but his hit and run tactics and his refusal to debate Mr. Spencer exhibit appalling arrogance, cowardice, and dishonesty. I doubt if these nefarious characteristics will be apparent to his students, however. Apparently Dr. Ernst considers himself omniscient and peerless to insult, besmirch, and denigrate a scholar like Mr. Spencer without naming one error, one misrepresentation, one example of inaccuracy. Mr. Spencer's publisher must be on the blacklist among academics because it certainly has not impeded his books from reaching the bestseller lists. Dr. Ernst's students would learn more here in a month than in two semesters of his class.

Posted by: Susanp at August 31, 2007 12:47 AM

Tasty Beverage, one translation of Ausgabe is version, edition, issue.

Go here: http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?lang=en&service=deen&opterrors=0&optpro=0&query=Ausgabe&iservice=&dlink=self&comment=

Posted by: Pelayo at August 31, 2007 12:57 AM

Sincere greetings to any of Carl Ernst's students. I am glad that he has pointed you here; there is much to learn. As questions enter your mind, please do not by shy about bringing them up here. And, of course, ask the good professor the same questions. See whose answers conform more closely to reality; see which ones are better predictors of present and future actions. Critical, analytical thinking; that's what you're there to learn. This will be a good start.

Posted by: special_guest at August 31, 2007 1:05 AM

Students of Carl Ernst or of his colleague Omid Safi, or in other universities where the MESA-Nostrans (google "MESA Nostra") have steadily infiltrated and now run everything to do with teaching about Islam and things connected to Islam, may find amusing the following interview with Carl Ernst, upon the occasion of his winning what is certainly not going to be his last Arab-funded prize, given for his services, past, present and implied future, to Islam, and its "correct reception" in the United States.

Here it is:

Answers with Carl Ernst on the Bashrahil Prize for Outstanding Cultural Achievement in the Humanities awarded for Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (UNC Press, 2003)
UNC Press
May 7, 2004
http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecernst/FollowingMuhammad/Q&A.htm

How was the book nominated?

Very unexpectedly, I was contacted by Dr. Seham al-Freih, a professor of Arabic literature at Kuwait University, on May 7, when she called to ask me to accept the prize. I had never heard of the Bashrahil Prize, because this year is the first time it has been awarded. After making inquiries, I learned that the foundation established for the Bashrahil Prize is an organization dedicated to the support of literature and culture, and on that basis I was happy to accept the award.

How did Dr. Al-Freih become aware of the book, and why did she nominate it?

Dr. Al-Freih visited North Carolina in January 2004 to take part in the Muslim Networks Consortium meeting held at Duke University; she had been invited by Prof. miriam cooke (Duke) when the latter visited Kuwait to evaluate the Arabic program at the university there. The Muslim Networks Consortium, now consisting of nearly thirty universities in the US and a number of other countries, was created by a group of scholars at Duke and UNC, based on a series of seminars that began in 1999. The aim of the Muslim Networks Consortium is to create new models for Islamic studies, moving away from academic Orientalism, Middle East area studies, and inter-religious dialogue. By using analytical tools such as network analysis, and by embodying a new academic network that cuts across existing boundaries between academic disciplines and geographic regions, this group hopes to bring Islamic studies into the heart of the humanities and social sciences in the American university, instead of relegating them to the status of an exotic subject reserved for specialists. Literature and the arts are key elements for the Muslim Networks project. Among the fruits of the Muslim Networks Consortium is a new publication series called Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks, published by the University of North Carolina Press; my book Following Muhammad is the first book of the series, and its publication was one of the items discussed at the workshop.

Dr. Al-Freih was very impressed by what she saw of our efforts, and she expressed the wish to support this new initiative. As a member of the jury for the Bashrahil Prize, she was in a position to take action by nominating Following Muhammad for the prize at its board meeting in May; she did so with a 7-page letter in Arabic that summarized the contents of the book and highlighted its main features, especially the fact that it is written in a clear style that is accessible to non-specialist readers.. She particularly emphasized the point that my book makes regarding phenomena such as extremism and terrorism, as being the results of particular modern political mentalities rather than being somehow essentially part of Islam. She concludes, "Some cultivated Arabs believe that the author joins his voice to the voices of the elite thinkers (like Edward Said) in rejecting the notion of an absolute totalizing concept of Islam, which customarily appears in the form of fundamentalist groups, as Islam in the eyes of the West. Through the attempt to demonstrate that there is pluralism in Islam, this diversity reaches the difference of traditions in Muslim societies wherever they are. The author also calls for the need to recognize the importance of seeing these different kinds of pluralism within Islam."

Why was Following Muhammad nominated for this prize, rather than other books on Islam?

Muslims around the world have become acutely aware that, especially since the terrorist attacks against US targets in September 2001, there has been a spate of publications in America that have increasingly argued that terrorism is inextricably associated with Islam. These anti-Islamic publications range from the urbane and scholarly condemnations of modern Islamic countries by Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis to the rabid denunciations of Islam emanating both from right-wing think tanks and fundamentalist Christian organizations. This stream of negativity causes considerable concern in majority Muslim countries, since these books offer, explicitly or implicitly, a justification for new military incursions that will inevitably be seen as a new colonial regime to the peoples of the Middle East.

Following Muhammad is not an apologetic defense of Islam, nor was it written by a Muslim; defenses of Islam based on Islamic ideals are indeed readily available, but they fail to address the questions raised by the conflicts of recent years. By offering a reasoned critique of colonialism as well as a critique of ideologies like fundamentalism, Following Muhammad demonstrates that it is possible for an American author to provide a fair-minded introduction to Islam for non-Muslims. The book also provides access to Islamic civilization and culture from aesthetic and ethical perspectives, which can be appreciated by readers of any background, and it makes clear how the Qur'an and especially the Prophet Muhammad function as centers for the values and aspirations of Muslims from many backgrounds. Moreover, by emphasizing the multiplicity and pluralism characteristic of Muslim societies throughout history, the book makes it possible to reconsider the phenomenon of Islam from a non-fundamentalist perspective (whether on the part of Muslims or non-Muslims).

What is the purpose of the prize, and who were the other winners?

The Bashrahil Prize for Outstanding Cultural Achievement was intended primarily as a recognition and encouragement of artistic creativity in the different areas of Arabic literature. In this respect it aspires to achieve what the Pulitzer Prize does in America, or the Booker Prize in the UK. While certain other major cultural prizes have existed previously in Arab countries (e.g., the King Faisal Prize offered by the Saudi government, and the Owais Prize awarded by the Arab Emirates), the Bashrahil Prize is distinctive in being offered by a private family foundation that is headed by an eminent contemporary Arab poet, Dr. Abdullah Bashrahil. With this award, Dr. Bashrahil and his family honor the memory of their father, the late Shaykh Muhammad Salih Bashrahil, who was an eminent philanthropist in Mecca (known particularly for his founding of an important hospital and also for an equestrian school there)."

From the article above, note carefully the following:

"The aim of the Muslim Networks Consortium is to create new models for Islamic studies, moving away from academic Orientalism, Middle East area studies, and inter-religious dialogue. By using analytical tools such as network analysis, and by embodying a new academic network that cuts across existing boundaries between academic disciplines and geographic regions, this group hopes to bring Islamic studies into the heart of the humanities and social sciences in the American university, instead of relegating them to the status of an exotic subject reserved for specialists."

Yes: "this group [the Muslim Networks Consortium] hopes to bring Islamic studies into the heart of the humanities and social sciences in the American university."

Islamic studied will not be an "exotic subject reserved for specialists" [i.e., those who may know what they are talking about, though so far MESA Nostra, and Arab money, has done a fabulous job at keeping those "specialists" duly inhibited or made sure that only apologists for Islam end up with tenured jobs].

And how will this plan, "to bring Islamic studies into the heart of the humanities and social sciences in the American university"? Oh, by staying away from the texts, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam. By staying away from the concept of "Jihad" and the concept of the "dhimmi." By staying away from the texts of Islam -- Qur'an (unexpurgated, and not the ludicrous "Approaching the Qur'an" by Michael Sells that none other than Carl Ernst pushed the university to have incoming innnocent freshmen at UNC read the summer before they arrived, in order upon arrival to "take part" in a campus-wide discussion based on that required, but completely misleading, reading.

No, now that it is getting harder and harder to hide the texts of Islam, for they are all on-line (you can get, with a click, five translations of the Qur'an laid out synoptically for easy comparison), now that too many people are beginning to find out about the Hadith, and the "authoritative" muhaddithin, and the assigned levels of likely "authenticity," and those Hadith too, are a click away, that poses a problem for the likes of Carl Ernst. And so too does the Sira. And of course, the biggest problem of all for the likes of Carl Ernst is not Robert Spencer. It isn't Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It isn't Wafa Sultan, or Ali Sina, or Walid Shoebat, or Azam Kamguian, or Irfan Khawaja, or even, lower down, Irshad Manji. No: the biggest problem for Carl Ernst, and his careful new hire, Omid Safi (who had been previously blocked from getting that job at Harvard Divinity School, in "Islamic studies," that he so coveted and that Leila Ahmad and Diana Eck and William Graham had so tirelessly pushed, but the clearer heads on the faculty prevailed).

Here's another quote from the interview with Ernst above:

"Dr. Al-Freih [who visited Ernst in situ in Chapel Hill, and who nominated Ernst for the Bashrahil Prize] was very impressed by what she saw of our efforts, and she expressed the wish to support this new initiative. As a member of the jury for the Bashrahil Prize, she was in a position to take action by nominating Following Muhammad for the prize at its board meeting in May; she did so with a 7-page letter in Arabic that summarized the contents of the book and highlighted its main features, especially the fact that it is written in a clear style that is accessible to non-specialist readers.. She particularly emphasized the point that my book makes regarding phenomena such as extremism and terrorism, as being the results of particular modern political mentalities rather than being somehow essentially part of Islam."

Yes, indeed. "She particularly emphasized the point that my book makes regarding phenomena such as extremism and terrorism, as being the results of particular modern political mentalities rather than being somehow essentially part of Islam."

Got that? Make sure, students, that you do. Under no circumstances, if you take Carl Ernst's course, or that of Omid Safi, must you ever give the slightest hint of conceivably wondering if, after all, given what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, might there not be just a teeny-weeny connection, just the eensiest little connection, between such "phenomena" as "extremism and terrorism" and that Total System of Islam with its Complete Regulation of Life and, at no additional cost, a Complete Explanation of the Universe. Aren't there just a few passages -- just a few -- that might lead an unsuspecting an innocent Muslim to conclude that perhaps "terrorism" and that other "phenomenon" that Ernst calls "extremism" might indeed be connnected not unnaturally, with those many quite clear passages in the Qur'an, those hundreds or thousands of relevant Hadith, and those details from the Sira, or life of Muhammad including the slaughtering of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, and the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis in order to obtain loot, and the assassination of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, and the consummated marriage with little Aisha when she was nine, and the theme of bloody battles, in 78 of which Muhammad took part, and the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, which forms the basis for all subsequent Muslim agreements made with Infidels, which are to be broken as soon as the Muslims feel strong enough, and of course, such important bits of advice, nothing like the Sermon on the Mount, as Muhammad's "war is deception."

Students, ask those who have studied with Ernst but are not majoring in Islmamic studies and have gone on to other things. Ask if they can define such terms as "Jihad" and "dhimmi" and "naskh." Find out if they can list four or five of the disabilities which dhimmis, that is the non-Muslims who were "ahl al-kitab" or People of the Book, were forced to endure, if they wished to avoid immediate forced conversion or death. Ask them if, since they had taken Ernst's course, they had learned anything that might call into question the usefulness, or the truthfulness, of his course, and of his carefully-composed syllabus of readings, with no Schacht or Jeffrey or Snouck Hurgronje or Vajda or Fagnan or any of the other great Western scholars of Islam, but of course, bristling with such things as Said's "Orientalism" and Maria Rosa Menocal's fantasy, "Ornament of the World." (google that title, and "Jihad Watch," for a sampling of what this site offers).

Go ahead. You would do better, of course, simply to read on your own. You will know less about Islam, and have to undo the damage that Ernst's teaching will cause you, later on. But you are young. You can read thethe articles, and the books he will carefully leave out altoghether, or attempt pre-emptively, as with Robert Spencer, to blacken his name, or mock him, before you can decide for yourselves. It's an old trick, and an obvious one. But look -- those invitations, that Arab financial support for this or that "workshop" or "consortium," those Muslim colleagues whom one does not wish even in the slightest to offend, that attempt of someone who started from his own Spiritual Search and found Islam to make sure that nothing harms the image of Islam in the lives of his charges, and no doubt at the back of one's mind there is that vision of the letter that comes in the mail -- or is it a telephone call, just like the Nobel -- announcing that yes, you Professor Carl Ernst, have won the King Faisal Prize in the proud category of "Services to Islam."

Who could resist? Students -- oh, who cares what they learn or are kept from learning. They can take care of themselves. Besides, there's a completely new crop, every four years.

Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2007 1:17 AM

It's a right decision for Professor Ernst not to engage in any debate with a "paranoid conspiracy monger" (in Mr. Spencer's own word, and rightly so!) Mr. Spencer should invite people of his own mediocre caliber to debate with him, not professor Ernst.

UNC is one of the top schools in this country, exactly because they hire professors of intellectual integrity and high scholarship. Unfortunately as state schools, these top-notch Universities also have to admit some low-caliber students who grow up to become paranoids! But that’s life, anyway.

Posted by: ataa at August 31, 2007 12:47 AM

And just who might those "low-caliber" students be, affirmative action candidates like you? Why do you waste your valuable time perusing this paranoid conspiracy site and defending a propagandist like Dr. Ernst? Don't you have better things to do?

Certain courses in every prestigious university do indeed require professors of the highest intellectual integrity and scholarship, but islamic studies is not one of them. It is an esoteric and unnecessary course for most people, who attend college to obtain a degree that will enhance their ability to secure a lucrative job.Islamic studies is not exactly the road to professional success and wealth; one would have to be very dedicated to forge a career from it.

The Arabs, mainly Saudis, have poured billions into American Islamic Studies Departments and manned them with handpicked candidates who will teach a flawed, inaccurate, and flattering version of islam and islamic history, a politically correct version to be precise. These people are propagandists and they indoctrinate naive, young minds.

These useful idiots for islam are despicable. Their greed and lust for recognition are somewhat understandable, but to seek fame and fortune at the expense of young, malleable minds that need to understand the truth about islam is unforgivable.

Posted by: Susanp at August 31, 2007 1:26 AM

Pelayo at August 31, 2007 12:57 AM:

Great link, I was unaware of that BeoLingus site. Since "Ausgabe" can apparently also mean "version", "release", "output", and "edition", I'm going to fork over the cash for the book from the AbeBooks site.

Thank ya kindly. And if it turns out to be the German version, oh well, I tried.

And just so JWers know, I only made that OT post not because of laziness but because I spent an hour at the local HUGE Borders book store earlier this evening talking to the employees and a manager about ISBN numbers (and whether they stay the same for translations of a given book) and how to go about ordering an overseas book and ensuring that said book is the English version.

None of them knew anything definite. Color me permanantly jaded. It's a nice pale shade of green. :)

Posted by: Tasty Beverage at August 31, 2007 1:43 AM

Greetings, students. I too am a professor at a major university, though not in this field. Welcome to JihadWatch. Come back often, and be aware that comments here are largely unmoderated -- DO NOT CONFUSE ANONYMOUS COMMENTS, LIKE MINE OR YOUR FELLOW STUDENTS, WITH SPENCER'S OWN THOUGHTS AND WORDS. Be aware that provocateurs of all stripes visit here, who will try all kinds of things to try to discredit the work of JihadWatch; you are in an adult forum where freedom of speech is valued, so be on your guard about whatever you read.

You are here as students, so I shouldn't have to remind you to check all sources. Spencer, fortunately, exhaustively documents his scholarship, and you will find it easy to verify any claims. If you feel he has left questions unanswered, addressing a brief, respectful comment to him here may even elicit a response (but don't hold your breath -- he's a very busy man!)

I recommend a book report on his latest offering, "Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is, and Islam is not", for your term paper, if your professor dares to allow it (if not, ask yourself why not? -- no, ask him in class). You'll find it pleasant reading. Though scholarly and precise, Spencer writes in a clean, easy-to-read style. He does not obfuscate with complicated, unexplained technical terms, and he does not make abstract or philosophically confusing points. He labours to educate, not to impress the reader with technical babble. Perhaps this is why he has two New York Times Bestsellers (and this book is on its way to becoming his third), and it may have something to do with the fact that Amazon has ranked this book, since it came out, as the #1 title in the category of Comparative Religion. Compared to your average university text it's a real bargain, and you'll get far more use out of it! Check out his other books too.

Spencer is not only a good writer, but a great speaker. Assuming your professor is unwilling to debate with Mr. Spencer and "put the islamophobe in his place by confronting him with true scholarship", I recommend that you give him a hearing. A good starting point would be his talk last year at the Heritage Foundation.

I'll comment on the handout "Notes on the ... patrons of ... Spencer". Though it is an incomplete document, it serves an important purpose, in that it illustrates that Spencer has no secrets. All of this information is on the public record and easy to access. In this document you will find no dirt or stain. At first I thought there was little point to it, as I fully expected it to attempt to tarnish Spencer's reputation, but I couldn't see the point.

Free Congress Foundation? Encounter for Culture and Education? Encounter Books? Regnery Publishing? Not exactly an indictment of Spencer, are they? Except perhaps for a firebreathing anticonservative on a witchhunt.

No, I think the point of this brief collection (in case your professor has failed to make it clear) is not at all to stain Spencer's reputation -- it is to tarnish the reputations of these organizations through guilt by association with the "notorious Islamophobe" Robert Spencer. I'm sure they are quaking in their right-wing boots (/sarcasm)

I would recommend that you ask your professor to provide you (for comparison) with a similar list of all financial sources for the work of CAIR. Or look them up on the Better Business Bureau's charity reports Better, search their archives to see how well CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, etc., the various "charitable" islamic missionary agencies in North America, conform to standard benchmarks of accountability, or whether they even bother to file reports.

Search "islam" and "muslim" on the site. For comparison, search "christian", "jewish", "buddhist", etc. Draw your own conclusions.

I look forward to visits from the bright young intellects of this class and will be watching for your contributions here in the future.

Robert: Since the Fall term probably won't begin for a few days, it might help to post a brief link to this article every day or two for a while so they don't miss it. Also it might be helpful to keep comments open on the page a little longer than usual.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at August 31, 2007 1:55 AM

SusanP,
LMAO, beat me to it...good job.
I can't see that troll's screenname without laughing, thinking of that stupid south park episode I watched as captive audience with my youngest kid...
The boys in the episode noticed the character wendy got a boob job (hey, it's south park, so bear with me, lol), and all the boys turned into mental cavemen, and all they could utter was:
"ataa! ataa!"

I guess that's what makes this troll so comical to me. Ok, had my laugh for the moment...
...there...that's better.
:-D

Posted by: jcom972 at August 31, 2007 2:03 AM

Regarding hot-button epithets, Jacques Ellul had this to say in his 1965 book "Propaganda":

"The terms, the words, the subjects that propaganda utilizes must have in themselves the power to break the individual's indifference. They must penetrate like bullets; they must spontaneously evoke a set of images and have a certain grandeur of their own. To circulate outdated words or pick new ones that can penetrate only by force is unavailing, for timeliness furnishes the 'operational words' with their explosive and affective power. Part of the power of propaganda is due to its use of the mass media, but this power will be dissipated if propaganda relies on words that have lost their force. In Western Europe, the word 'Bolshevik' in 1925, the word 'Fascist' in 1936, the word 'Collaborator' in 1944, the word 'Peace' in 1948, the word 'Intergration' in 1958, were all strong operational terms; they lost their shock value when their immediacy passed."

Right now "Islamophobe" is such a word. To my mind, the most cogent and effective term for the set of actions and attitudes we face is "Islamic supremacy," which I have seen used here on occasion. It is worthy of wider circulation.

"Ataa," eh? Pretty close to "Atta," the surname of the gobbet of filth who led the murder gang that carried out the 9/11 atrocity.

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at August 31, 2007 2:20 AM

Elitist statements such as ataa's on behalf of Prof. Ernst may be instructive of state of mind and even somewhat amusing, but hinder pursuit of the truth. The professor has the potential to educate and inform literally thousands as well as definitively resolve this antinomy by entering into discussions/debates with Mr. Spencer. His failure to do so may convey, rightly or wrongly, a lack of forthrightness or confidence in his positions; or, perhaps worse, an intellectual snobbery that makes his thus-far unsubstantiated criticism just that much easier to discount.

Posted by: Heurist at August 31, 2007 2:33 AM

Five Reasons Why, Among the "Great Religions," Islam Is A Focus of Particular Concern:

Reason #1:

Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. This is found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as in Islamic jurisprudence. Many like to point to violent passages in the Bible as an alleged equivalent to this, but actually the Bible contains no open-ended, universal command for believers to wage war against unbelievers, as does the Qur'an (9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193, etc.).

(my bolding) The foregoing passage can be found here.

Reason #2: Muhammad said,

If someone changes his Islamic religion, kill him.

That bit of gentleness from Muhammad can be found here in the most canonical of hadith collections, Bukhari.

Reason #3:

Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes [Danish linguist] Tina Magaard. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Tina Magaard. Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. “If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence..." says Tina Magaard.

The foregoing passage can be found here.

Reason #4: Since 9/11/01, thousands have died in Islamic terror attacks all over the globe. See here.

Reason #5: But perhaps the greatest reason many people focus worried scrutiny toward Islam is that it commands Muslims to use persuasion (which would include voting), deception, terror, and demographic jihad (immigration and reproduction) to spread the rule of Islamic law all over the globe, and to subordinate non-Muslims to the status of debased, second-class citizens. See Qur'an, Chapter 9, verse 29:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

In response to worries about efforts to impose Islamic law around the world, and of late particularly in Europe (see While Europe Slept, by Bruce Bawer) some respond that when Spain was dominated by Islam, it was a multicultural paradise for Christians and Jews. But even Maria Rosa Menocal, as Spencer points out:

...in her extended whitewash of Muslim Spain called The Ornament of the World, admits that the laws of dhimmitude were very much in force in the great Al-Andalus [Muslim Spain]:

The dhimmi, as these covenanted peoples were called, were granted religious freedom, not forced to convert to Islam. They could continue to be Jews and Christians, and, as it turned out, they could share in much of Muslim social and economic life. In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax — no Muslims paid taxes — and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals.

About Muslim Spain, Andrew Bostom and Bat Ye’or write:

Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes…Most churches were converted into mosques…it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavement, deportations and killings…

Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona) was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis - like elsewhere in other Islamic lands - and could not build new churches or synagogues nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains

The humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis [Christians and Jews under Muslim rule] and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres, as in Toledo (761, 784-86, 797). After another Toledan revolt in 806, seven hundred inhabitants were executed. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa from 781 to 881, Cordova (805), Merida (805-813, 828 and the following year, and later in 868), and yet again in Toledo (811-819); the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in Qur’an 5:33*.

The revolt in Cordova of 818 was crushed by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20 000 families expelled…

… Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia [Muslim Spain], where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women. Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the …Christians and Jews.

In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade.

The Muslim Berber Almohads in Spain and North Africa (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations. This devastation- massacre, captivity, and forced conversion- was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra…

… although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews: "..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.."

Posted by: traeh at August 31, 2007 2:43 AM

Here's the Spencer link that doesn't work in the above post.

Here's the Bostom/Ye'or link that doesn't work in the above post.

Posted by: traeh at August 31, 2007 2:57 AM

To sum it up:

Prof. Carl Ernst, another whore for the Arabs, should be tarred and fethered and run out of town....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 31, 2007 3:05 AM

Robert, you say "I support assertions I make with evidence. Here is the evidence".

You then go on to say "Chick Tracts are comic books reflecting a paranoid, conspiracy-minded view of the world and purveying numerous falsehoods, such as the idea that the Vatican cooked up Islam as part of its fiendish scheme to control the world".

I have read all of Jack Chics tracts and I have never read that. Unless one could consider a de-facto religious ruler-ship from the Vatican no matter where it is located. The information that Jack Chic got for his connection of the Catholic Church and Islam was from the testimony of Alberto Rivera ex Jesuit Priest. Although many have said that Rivera was never a Jesuit there has never been any definitive proof otherwise.

The testimony of Rivera is in the The Prophet and it is there Rivera lays out the plans on how the Vatican would like to use Islam to capture Jerusalem for the Catholic Church so it could move the Vatican to Jerusalem. Which backfired on the Vatican.

If this is not true can you show me the evidence?

Posted by: havekoranwilltravel at August 31, 2007 4:15 AM

...in other words, sad that a guy like that can only muster up the pseudo-fortitude to hurl spews of disparaging remarks without backing them up, save that of his self-inflated ego that seemed to come from his Ph.D.
Anyone can hurl rocks from his ivory tower of tenure, but as Bill O'Reilly so aptly puts it to the same kind of "enlightened" ones..."hiding under his desk" when it comes time to put up or shut up.

People like ernst are the reason for such hated sites (on the islamofascists part) as http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
http://www.frontpagemag.com
...and since I'm sure his students love videos, here are some that will give ernst a stroke, but he knows he cannot refute them...

main site http://www.terrorismawareness.org/

what really happened in the middle east
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/

jihad http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/

...and of course, the one he REALLY can't stand up to, the islamic mein kampf
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/

not to mention, the movie "Obsession"
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/obsession/
It's ok...just a sample preview.

So enjoy your class, students-I even encourage you to hear his take, then see this side, and make up your own mind. Nothing can be more fair, right?...but remember my words well:
-It doesn't take a PhD with a book to know about islam, terrorism, islamofascism, etc...
-it takes personal experience, up close and personal. No substitute for experience.
-I myself have tons more experience in my encounters with them than ernst could ever hope to attain in a lifetime...up close, personal, first hand, and brutal as you could possibly imagine...and I am merely one of MANY here who do-I'm by no means the only one.
-don't wait until it's too late for islamofascism to hit you right in the face-and it will, no matter how you seek to avoid it.
It doesn't matter whether I tell you, someone else tells you, or even Jesus Christ himself tells you for that matter...it's...going...to...happen.

The rest is up to you...decide at your own risk.
"choose wisely"

Posted by: jcom972 at August 31, 2007 4:18 AM

For any newcomers to Robert's work, he's going to be on BookTV this weekend, on Saturday:

11:00 PM 38 min The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
Author: Robert Spencer

Great book for anyone not knowing enough about this violent religion.

Thanks Robert for awakening the American people and others globally, to this issue which you've been following for some 20+ years, greatly appreciated.

Posted by: scooternyc at August 31, 2007 5:13 AM

This thread should be a link on JW/DW Homepage.

Here's an assignment for Ernst's students: List the specific ways that Spencer misquotes the Qur'an, misinterprets Jihad, or falsely reports world events.

Posted by: Xero G at August 31, 2007 5:27 AM

"Muslims around the world have become acutely aware that, especially since the terrorist attacks against US targets in September 2001, there has been a spate of publications in America that have increasingly argued that terrorism is inextricably associated with Islam"

....yep, I have noticed that approximately 95% of all terrorist activities are Muslim ochestrated.....and that these Muslim terrorists are iextricably associated with Islam....and the Muslims linked to Islam are carrying out their nefarious activities in virtually every country and on every continent which indicates in my infidel mind that the Culprit of all this mahem is indeed Islam....When I see a Muslim protest march I see the hatred in their eyes, I hear their vivid anger, I witness the death and destruction they cause...I see Muslims , where ever they are in power, eliminating all non MUslims and destroying all traces of Non Muslim history...I see Muslims slowly destroying the world by many forms of their "JIHAD", slow, fast, violent, peaceful,unassuming,intimidating, and sneaky....Everything Muslims do is related to their Jihad...a lawsuit here, a lawsuit there, accusations here, accusations there, demands here, demands there, intimidation here, intimidation there, subtle deceit here, subtle decit there, the JiHAD continues.....I see Muslims reaching out to the less educated, the criminal, the weak minded individuals, slowly tranforming the mush brained ones into soldiers of the Jihad to be used for the Islamic Jihad....These homegrown Islamic influenced mushbrained dolts will be used for the Islamic Jihad in many ways, they will be used to get others to commit to Islam, they will be used for surveillance, intelligence gathering, terror plotting, civil disobedience (maybe even starting forest fires, industrial sabatoge, food contamination, water contamination, travel delays, shoddy building construction, drug running, distribution of Islamic reading materials, collection of money used for JIHAD purposes, uprooting of established educational reading material and teaching methods, political influencing, and the intimidation of the voters/

Yep , I have been convinced that Islam is the enemy and the Muslims have proven to me that they intend to destroy all that is good, to destroy all that has been created for human kindness, to destroy all that has evolved through the blood, sweat , and tears of our forefathers....

There have been many wars thoughout history, most have ended with mankind being better off,,, but the Islamic Jihad is creating a war that may ultimately destroy the world as we know it...

The Muslims may say this just is not the case,,,but I disagree and call them liars...

It is taqqiyah, dawa, and qital....all rolled into one goal....death to the infidels and I am but one infidel and I will never submit...

Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 31, 2007 6:30 AM

http://uncpress.unc.edu/images/authors/ernst_prize.jpg

Posted by: Mike_W at August 31, 2007 6:34 AM

Students,

Yes, your professor is doing a snow-job on you. When I was in school, I always made a point to "read off the syllabus" in any class I took, so I could get a different viewpoint from the one approved by the professor. As others have said, I hope you'll engage with Jihad Watch even beyond what Ernst would have you do. Robert Spenser is a man of intellectual capability and integrity, beset on all sides "by the inequities of evil men".

The idea that you need some sort of Islamic Studies degree to criticize Islam is ludicrous. I have a Ph.D. in History and I'm pretty sure that I understand the analytical methods necessary to interpret Islam just fine without going through another 6 years of graduate school. Ernst is taking advantage of you intellectually.

Posted by: venividivici at August 31, 2007 7:18 AM

We should all acknowledge our debt of gratitude to David Horowitz for his inspiring leadership in the fight against the academic malpractice of Ernst, Norman Finkelstein, Chomsky, Ward Churchill (now fired) and so many, many others that rule the roost in the halls of academe.

I recently took my daughter to look at a major university in our state. During the orientation lecture, the speaker assured us that this particular university was dedicated to achieve not only racial and ethnic diversity, but diversity of ideas.

I chuckled under my breath.

Posted by: Cornelius at August 31, 2007 7:24 AM

Ah yes, Carl Ernst, the professor who holds the Petrodollar Chair for Suborned Religious Studies at Dhimmi College in Numbskull, North Carolina. That Carl Ernst.

Posted by: jewdog at August 31, 2007 8:25 AM

As a recent university graduate I have been mulling over in my mind how we are supposed to deal with professors who have turned the classroom into their own little fiefdoms and reeducation camps. In fact I think what I am about to say should also apply to journalism also. Professors who have agendas and are open about it usually don't last very long. Thus if someone were to write a paper about how great Israel was for instance and the Professor wrote in giant red letters evil zionist empire F- then that professor would probably get fired. On the other hand a professor who had an agenda and was clever would do precisely what Ernst would do. Basically these professors pretend to give both sides, but the side they are for they hand out the most compelling material and give the most compelling arguments. For the side that they are biased against they put up strawman arguments and the lunatic fringe arguments. It is generally very hard to prove that a professor is biased in this way. He can always claim that there is limited time that he can present material and he is doing his best to give both sides, that its not his fault that one of the sides has a weaker argument.
Basically it would be like putting Hanan Ashrawi against Daffy Duck and claiming that a fair debate had been conducted when in fact Hanan Ashrawi versus Alan Dershowitz would be appropriate. So what to do? I believe that issues where Professors' views could cloud judgment and stifle debate there should be team teaching. One professor for example who is known to be pro-israel could co-teach with someone who is pro-palestinian. Both would keep each other honest, would provide the best sides for both arguments and everyone including the students would win. I think that this idea could also apply to journalism. Every online article from CNN, BBC, etc that covers a controversial topic should actually have two articles. One written by a journalist with sympathies to one side and the other written with sympathies to the other. The readers in this case would win too since they would get a better picture of the situation instead of being subtly led to the conclusions of the writer.

Posted by: soltraveler at August 31, 2007 8:31 AM

Learning about islam?

Try reading The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic.

Another politically incorrect guide to islam full of history. And facts. Unlike the Armstrong fantasy.

That and Onward Muslims Soldiers by Robert Spencer will give you a real understanding of what is happening and why it is happening. Your own crystal ball.

Students - check out any of the books listed at the top of this website.

Posted by: Borg at August 31, 2007 8:39 AM

Dear Mr. Spencer:

I would like to suggest this course of action. I tried this a couple of years ago and never heard back about it.

University of NC... it can't cost more than $150 a credit hour, can it? USF is still about $120. It doesn't SOUND like a private school; I am presuming that it is a state university.

$150 a credit hour... make a notice, on campus that you, or JW, or some benefactor, will pay for TWELVE credits of study--an entire semester--for ANY student that can convince Dr. Ernst to have a public debate on Islam, jihad, etc. It would cost about $1800 but be well worth it.

The usual motley assortment of hijab-clad, really angry girls, screaming mobot boys, and sundry hippies and other "peace and justice" misfits will be there to shout you down, prevent you appearance, etc. But you will debate him and make him look like the fool he is.

Heck, you can even set it up to go to a needy student of Dr. Ersnts choosing, or his departments choosing. A small, yet for whomever receives it vital, one-time scholarship.

I don't know what kind of budget you have, or is somebody would sponsor this... maybe you could get him to debate you on some tv show. But of course on-campus would be best.

Your admirer,

kj, the liberal Zionist

Flori-Duh

Attn CAIR: Kindly direct hate mail to fanorollins@yahoocom

Posted by: kj at August 31, 2007 8:56 AM

And Cornelius, the self-loathing Jew, "Dr." Finklestein, the professional Israel-bashing propagandist, was denied tenure.

Of course, he can pick it up anywhere else. As he will.

Posted by: kj at August 31, 2007 9:02 AM

I going out A A LIMB HERE AND SAYING SUDDEN JIHAD IS NOT THE ONLY KIND GOING ON A THE HILL.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome (in North Carolina)
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
March 14, 2006

[NY Sun title: "The Quiet-Spoken Muslims Who Turn to Terror"]

"Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers." I wrote those words days after September 11, 2001, and have been criticized for them ever since. But an incident on March 3 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill suggests I did not go far enough.

The Pit at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, the pedestrian area where Taheri-azar struck.

That was when a just-graduated student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, and an Iranian immigrant, drove a sport utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone. He struck nine people but, fortunately, none were severely injured.

Until his would-be murderous rampage, Mr. Taheri-azar, a philosophy and psychology major, had a seemingly normal existence and promising future. In high school, he had been student council president and a member of the National Honor Society. The Los Angeles Times writes that a number of UNC students found him "a serious student, shy but friendly." One fellow student, Brian Copeland, "was impressed with his knowledge of classical Western thought," adding, "He was kind and gentle, rather than aggressive and violent." The university chancellor, James Moeser, called him a good student, if "totally a loner, introverted and into himself."

In fact, no one who knew him said a bad word about him, which is important, for it signals that he is not some low-life, not homicidal, not psychotic, but a conscientious student and amiable person. Which raises the obvious question: Why would a regular person try to kill a random assortment of students? Mr. Taheri-azar's post-arrest remarks offer some clues.

He told the 911 dispatcher that he wanted to "punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world."
He explained to a detective that "people all over the world are being killed in war and now it is the people in the United States' turn to be killed."
He said he acted to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world."
He portrayed his actions as "an eye for an eye."
A police affidavit notes that "Taheri-azar repeatedly said that the United States government had been killing his people across the sea and that he decided to attack."
He told a judge, "I'm thankful you're here to give me this trial and to learn more about the will of Allah."

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar

In brief, Mr. Taheri-azar represents the ultimate Islamist nightmare: a seemingly well-adjusted Muslim whose religion inspires him, out of the blue, to murder non-Muslims. Mr. Taheri-azar acknowledged planning his jihad for more than two years, or during his university sojourn. It's not hard to imagine how his ideas developed, given the coherence of Islamist ideology, its immense reach (including a Muslim Student Association at UNC), and its resonance among many Muslims.

Were Mr. Taheri-azar unique in his surreptitious adoption of radical Islam, one could ignore his case, but he fits into a widespread pattern of Muslims who lead quiet lives before turning to terrorism. Their number includes the hijackers responsible for the attacks of September 11, the London transport bombers, and the Intel engineer arrested before he could join the Taliban in Afghanistan, Maher Hawash.

A Saudi living in Houston, Mohammed Ali Alayed, fit the pattern because he stabbed and murdered a Jewish man, Ariel Sellouk, who was his one-time friend. So do some converts to Islam; who suspected a 38-year-old Belgian woman, Muriel Degauque, would turn up in Iraq as a suicide bomber throwing herself against an American military base?

This is what I have dubbed the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims. Who knows whence the next jihadi? How can one be confident a law-abiding Muslim will not suddenly erupt in a homicidal rage? Yes, of course, their numbers are very small, but they are disproportionately much higher than among non-Muslims.

This syndrome helps explain the fear of Islam and mistrust of Muslims that polls have shown on the rise since September 11, 2001.

The Muslim response of denouncing these views as bias, as the "new anti-Semitism," or "Islamophobia" is as baseless as accusing anti-Nazis of "Germanophobia" or anti-Communists of "Russophobia." Instead of presenting themselves as victims, Muslims should address this fear by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of "infidels."

_________

March 14, 2006 update: For further information on this case as it unfolds, see "More on the North Carolina Jihadi, Mohammed Taheri-azar."

July 29, 2006 update: I am pleased to report that rayra.net has produced a list of Sudden Jihad Syndrome incidents in the United States, dating back to May 2002. I hope "rayra" continues to maintain the list.

_________

http://www.danielpipes.org/pf.php?id=3450

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at August 31, 2007 9:20 AM

Tasty Beverage:

The "englische Ausgabe" of Luxenberg's book is indeed what it says it is, an English translation. Have a look at it here:
http://www.verlag-hans-schiler.de/index.php?title=Christoph+Luxenberg+The+Syro-Aramaic+Reading+of+the+Koran&art_no=M0088

Posted by: Flying_Dutchman at August 31, 2007 9:38 AM

Dear Professor Ernst,

cernst@email.unc.edu

By now I guess you have been made aware of your treatment by Robert Spencer on www.jihadwatch.org. Just dismiss it when your students bring it up as the ravings of an islamaphobe. There's cerrtainly no need to read Mr.Spencer's piece, let alone to refute him point for point. If you were to do that it would seem as if you were debating him, which would mean that he is worthy of your attention. Men like you are above the fray however, and need not deign to acquaint themselves with facts. The mainstream press will defend you by ignoring this whole imbroglio, and of course you can bully and harm any students who get out of line in class or the student lounge. So hold your fire and your water. This will all be over soon enough.

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at August 31, 2007 9:51 AM

After reading Robert's excellent post, I have a feeling the so called "professor" will be removing Jihad Watch from his course. If any of his students still has a shred of common sense and honest inquiry, coming to this fact filled place will be start a thinking process the "professor" can't be very happy about.

I just continues to amaze me how Mr. Spencer's critics are for the most part unable to debate him. And those who do always wind up looking like the students compared to a true Professor.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at August 31, 2007 9:53 AM

Oooh! Oooh! I have another term paper idea!

It's a project I would like to undertake but don't have the time or background:

The first major paper in "The Al Qaeda Reader" (Raymond Ibrahim, trans. and ed.) is a response by Bin Laden to a public response by Saudi intellectuals to a manifesto by American intellectuals. In it Bin Laden (the presumed but not explicit author, read the introduction) argues extensively that the Saudi intellectuals perverted Islam in their response. Several times he takes a Koranic quotation they used and says, "If the verse is good, why not quote all of it?" And then he does, claiming to undermine their reading of the verse by quoting the whole verse or looking at the context in the Koran and hadiths.

The Saudi response and Bin Laden's response were both published in Arabic and circulated among Muslims (i.e., not just a New York Times full-page ad).

Mr. Spencer has often asked for detailed Koran-based arguments by "moderate" or as they see themselves "true" Muslims against what they see as the hijackers and distorters of Islam. It seems to me that a possible next step in this progression of public responses in Arabic among Muslims could have been a response by Saudi intellectuals to Bin Laden, attempting exactly the sort of arguments that Mr. Spencer has asked for and has lamented the absence of. There might be a book, or lengthy editorials in newspapers, or a collection of sermons.

So the term paper project is to find (preferably in Arabic, published for Muslims) some document or documents (broadly promulgated or not) by Muslims responding to Bin Laden based on the Koran and the hadiths and other deep sources of Islamic jurisprudence and faith; then, having found them, evaluate the coverage and cogency of their response. Did they answer Bin Laden's most important points or peripheral ones? How, specifically and in detail, did they address Bin Laden's points? Using quotations from the Koran or the hadiths? Using argument by analogy or other meta-textual approaches? There is a "science" of hadiths -- how good was the hadith science of the responders to Bin Laden? What is the status of the responders -- i.e., were they associated with a major mosque or government office or university? Bin Laden claims that the intellectuals departed far from the consensus of the ulema, so the status of the responders (i.e., their being obviously part of or not part of the contemporary ulema) is important.

Such an enterprise could obviously be much more than a term paper. It could be the core of a new book, "The Anti Al Qaeda Papers," that would collect, translate, and disseminate Koran-based and hadith-based refutations of al-Qaeda by authoritative Muslim thinkers and teachers. The publication of such a book would be welcomed by all sides of the debate, since Mr. Spencer has repeatedly asked for such refutations and his opponents have often asserted they exist.

A good place to start the research would be perhaps by contacting the translator and editor of "The Al Qaeda Papers," Raymond Ibrahim.

I personally would be most happy to co-operate in such an enterprise, within the limits of my knowledge and time.

Posted by: Pilgrim at August 31, 2007 10:00 AM

A quick thought about dismissing Mr. Spencer's arguments because his publisher is X or Y or Z.

Didn't they used to call this "McCarthyism"?

Posted by: Pilgrim at August 31, 2007 10:04 AM

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I don't want to spend $56 + shipping from Europe on a book only to find out it's in German, and then have to deal with the hassle of sending it back to the German publisher. Thank you. Posted by: Tasty Beverage

Did you happen to notice that a preview of the english translation is published online with google books?

http://books.google.com/books?id=227GhaeKYl4C&dq=%22the+syro+aramaic+reading+of+the+koran%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=leuI_-1M-t&sig=Hi7yvQwQ4-u5Q5gtg0rGnauBO0I

http://www.schiler.de/%3Ftitle%3DChristoph_Luxenberg_The_Syro_Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran%26art_no%3DM0088">Verlag Hans Schiler - Publisher

http://www.google.com/products%3Fq%3D3899300882">Google Product Search

http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/124038162&clientid=librarylink&usg=AFQjCNF86UUwkxQxbrDGKj6rcNJsqHSODg">Find this book in a library

Posted by: justamomof4 at August 31, 2007 10:34 AM

Man, if he gets this bent over Robert, I can imagine what his take would be with Dr. Jack Wheeler...lol
(For you students, he's a real-life "Indiana Jones" type, and has done immensely more research into islam than carl ernst could ever hope to claim).

By the way, pilgrim...it's less "mccarthyism" (though the blacklisting certainly has an element of truth to it), and more like outright blackmail, harassment and intimidation...not that it's any surprise to those of us who see it of such radical elements every day.

Posted by: jcom972 at August 31, 2007 10:37 AM

Uh Huh, veni vidi vici, I have a Master's degree in English.

After both college and grad school, Dr. Ernst, I certainly possess the intellectual ability to appropriately analyze Islam, or anything else I wish to analyze. So, for you to condemn Robert Spencer because his degree is not specific to "Islamic Studies" is ludicrous, and you know it.

Furthermore, I give much more credence to people without higher education but who are able to discern the evils of Islam, Mohammed, and the koran, than to YOU as a Propagandistic Islamic Apologist with your Ph.D., which apparently is worthless, since you defend something, Islam, that does not deserve defending.

And to "ataa" - Sorry, you've been so misled. Well, just stay on this site and you'll begin to improve your currently brainwashed mind!

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 10:40 AM

Flying_Dutchman:

Thank you for that link, which is apparently the actual publishing house. I'm definitely ordering the book now.

justamomof4:

I didn't even know there was such a thing as Google Books. Thanks for the links, I've apparently been slack in keeping up with new features and search capabilities on the web.

Thank you for the help everyone.

Posted by: Tasty Beverage at August 31, 2007 10:44 AM

I also e-mailed Dr. Ernst with a few thoughts, and I included, "Why don't you invite Spencer to debate you THIS SEMESTER AT UNC? Without doubt, he will accept your invitation. Or, are you too cowardly?"

What a thing of beauty to watch Spencer shred Ernst!

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 10:45 AM

As a new Introduction to Islamic Civilization student of Professor Ernst's, I was, as you anticipated, directed to your site. Professor Ernst put forth your site, among many others on the syllabus, for consideration. Despite your defensive tone I can find nothing to suggest that Professor Ernst has misled students about what your site offers. The angry tone towards himself he warns of is certainly apparent. The critical nature of your site towards Islam is also apparent. While you suggest that Professor Ernst disparages without cause the publishers of your various works, he in fact only suggests that any work published outside of a scholarly arena should be examined for bias and agenda. In conclusion, I will do as you suggest and think for myself. I find your site more like propaganda than I do the commendable action of a professor in exposing his students to as many opinions on the subject matter at hand as possible.

Posted by: Student at August 31, 2007 10:47 AM

Oh, and for the students of ernst, who are confused, not sure what to think by all this, and want to know what to ask or bring up that can REALLY put to the test as to who is kidding whom?
I have just the thing for you...just one question you need to put to ernst, to see if he's half the "enlightened" phd he claims he is...ask him only this:

Who is Ubu'l Kassim?

If he doesn't know, he's a total phony.

If he tries to confront the question with a question, you got him cornered-don't let up, and demand an answer to the question.

If he goes off in a spastic seizurelike tantrum, as if being upset at his omnipotent wisdom being challenged (a behavioral trait of malignant narcissism-a mental disorder), you'll know what's up, as you just hit a raw nerve...and one that nearly all islamists avoid like the plague.
For the answer, just cross reference the name with the site http://www.tothepointnews.com and you'll have the answer, which may shock you, but give ernst and his islamist allies a total stroke...for you will have begun to pull his curtain away and expose the great and powerful wizard of oz.

Have a good time doing it, too!
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at August 31, 2007 10:49 AM

Oh, I also agree with the many posters' here who have commented that Dr. Ernst may well regret his decision instructing students to visit JW!

When they see and read all of the FACTUAL and various newspaper and other media sources exhibited here concerning the nefarious activities of Mohammedans worldwide - well, just how long can one remain an ostrich?

You know what I'm thinking? Someone needs to e-mail the President of UNC, suggesting that Dr. Ernst may well give a student a flunking grade if he/she does come around to our side. And that would not be right, would it? Dr. Ernst needs monitoring.

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 10:52 AM

Poor "Student" up above - already brianwashed!

To the naive young'un - may I suggest you spend a little more time reading the multitude of articles posted on this site than 5 whole minutes, before drawing your PC-influenced conclusions.

Try thinking for yourself, instead of the way Dr. Ernst is encouraging you to think. Try not to be his student clone.

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 10:59 AM

"He mentioned the only way to get a decent grade was to parrot the official line which he decided to do to 'get his ticket punched' as they say. At least he was wise to the game." Posted by: johnb

If any student, at any level, wants to earn an A+ on an essay about politics, sociology, immigration or "Why I Love Toronto", s/he need only use the word "diversity" at least six times. A+ guaranteed.

Posted by: Josephine at August 31, 2007 11:25 AM

Dr. Carl Ernst, a rabid brainwasher of tender young minds, undergraduates. Only 3 months ago in high school. Children, still, in many ways.

To Students: Welcome! Please avail yourselves of the important information found on this website, and learn from Truth, not from your Apologist Professor's Propaganda. In fact, your prof is a "Dhimmi" - Now, look up that word on the 'net, also "Dhimmitude." That's an assignment from JW.

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 11:28 AM

Oops, re-reading, spotted a typo: "brainwashed" not "brianwashed!" lol

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 11:30 AM

People - you can e-mail the Chancellor of UNC - Chapel Hill, James Moeser, with your concerns about Ernst here:

http://www.unc.edu/chan/

But, beware, I read on the site that he's been lauded for his "diversity efforts." So, of course he's playing the PC game, as he must.

Also, I read that he's been Chancellor since 2000, so he was there for that fabulous Mohammedan Murder Extravaganza, 9/11.

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 11:44 AM

Mr. Spencer - someone made the suggestion that you make a Student's Page especially for those directed by Ernst to visit this site! Actually, that sounds like a great idea! You can beat him at his own game!

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 11:48 AM

Ernst's syllabus seems, at best, overly ambitious, do you think? One can't gather everything from a course from its plan, but it looks like Enrst has his students discussing issues related to globalization and Western perceptions of Islam, making a lot of assumptions, of course, about what 'Islam' is like, in the first week of class. If this is an introductory course, and it appears to be, shouldn't one first engage in some foundational work, particularly a review of central primary source material. And one would think that the Qur'an and Sunnah, with at least an overview of the structure, history, traditions of interpretation of these texts (from a non-devotional perspective, of course) would be included in that foundational work, with perhaps some historical timelines to at least begin to frame the context of study and discussion.

Instead the course jumps right into Western perspectives of Islam, because, it seems, that is what Ernst does in the required textbook. But, this is itself a secondary source that makes a wide variety of assumptions about complex and controversial topics in interpreting the history of 'Islam'. Are students made aware of that? Even in an introductory course to a less contentious subject like, say, Greek civilization, would a professor of Greek history or classics jump right into a secondary source providing an grandiose interpretations of the overall significance and meaning of Greek civilization for 'the West' (or 'the East'--these terms require interpretation and that should be made clear to students as well) without at least outlining relevant primary source material and requiring reading of some of that material?

Let's say a student critically digests Ernst's book, a secondary source, and wants to challenge some of the interpretations offered in it. What resources are provided for this student? Would she merely be considered wrong for questioning the secondary source material required in the course, or does she have the right critically assess the claims in the book? And if she has that right, what resources has the professor provided, in terms of knowledge and access to primary source material particularly, to explore alternative interpretations?

Posted by: JTF at August 31, 2007 11:51 AM

"The angry tone towards himself he warns of is certainly apparent."

Methinks the "student" doeth protest too much.

"While you suggest that Professor Ernst disparages without cause the publishers of your various works, he in fact only suggests that any work published outside of a scholarly arena should be examined for bias and agenda."

Not sure what this means, exactly, but if the 'scholarly arena' means officially sanctioned and blessed by 'mesa nostra', Robert's work will never be such.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 31, 2007 11:57 AM

He bases everything on predisposed material, and/or beliefs anyway...so there's nothing academic to begin with, which is critical in analytical thinking.
His is totally philosophical, not academic, from the word go...which is nothing less than conclusion made before intro & evaluations of the evidence is even presented...like reading the end of a book before ya begin it..."cart before the horse" syndrome.

Thats' not the work of a true academic-that's the work of a predisposed propagandist, an "I believe it's true, therefore it is true, and you will believe it too...or you are ignorant", plain and simple.
Had the students been under 18, I'd consider it child abuse...but it's still indoctrination, not education...and the students don't even realize what they're getting into (the undefiled, unbrainwashed ones, that is-the rest are past the point of no return, sad to say)...
I just hope they're ready for their first lesson, staring with taqqiyah.

Posted by: jcom972 at August 31, 2007 12:07 PM

Welcome students of Dr. Ernst. Please jump right in to these discussions, but, as a former poster mentioned, do not confuse unmoderated posts like mine with information presented by Jihadwatch and its companion site, Dhimmiwatch. Invest a little time and check back over the course of a week or so. Ask yourself - Who is stating opinion only, and who is able to back up their beliefs with facts that you can check in other sources? Ask youself - who seems afraid of debate, and who is willing to argue? Does one side try to limit agrument by ad hominem attacks and labels? Many folks who comment may seem quite partisan, but fervor is fine as long as it is backed up by truth. Again, welcome, and please comment, argue, etc.

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2007 12:08 PM

At 6:34 a link was given that offers a picture of the mild-mannered, Bardashil Prize recipient getting his prize for Scholary and Other Services to Islam. Connoisseurs will note that in profile and beard he looks a little like Professor Edward Keenan, now the Director of Dumbarton Oaks, a bliss-ful position, but there -- as the old phrase puts it -- the similarity ends.

Keenan, of Groznij-Kurbksij correspondence fame, and latterly a skeptic about the origins of "The Song of Igor's Campaign," is a real scholar. When Keenan was a student he was learning Russian perfectly, and no nonsense about it. When Ernst was a student, he was engaged on a Spiritual Search. Think back. Think back to those far-off days of summery love, or is it summer of love, with Siddhartha, and love-beads, and confusion ("Why am I here? Where am I going?"), and a Picasso print (one of two possibilities: those hands holding out those peaceful flowers, or Don Quixote and Sancho Panza) on the freshman dorm-room wall, Joan Baez and Vivaldi on the record-player, and for the carl-ernsts of this world, the love-poetry of Rumi, and inner peace and harmony, and stuff like that, and thus we have the "Sufism" of Carl Ernst, and All The Good Things About Islam. A dervish, forsooth, a whirling dervish.

Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2007 12:10 PM

I noticed that Ernst's reading list did not include "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide" by Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam", also by Bat Ye'or, and "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims" by Andrew Bostom. I found these books most enlightening. Students, do yourselves a favor, go outside the cell Ernst has placed you in, and read these books.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 31, 2007 12:12 PM

Also ask yourself, how will Dr. Ernst respond if I do disagree with him? Am I being compelled to accept his world view or risk getting a bad grade, or does the climate in his class encourage different points of view? Please establish the habit of thinking for yourself.

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2007 12:21 PM

"Student":

If you can find nothing to suggest that Dr. Ernst has misled you, then you have not really looked with a critical eye to both his work and Mr. Spencer's. No one should be surprised at the angry tone here: Ernst is, undeniably, afraid to debate Spencer and so his biased sniping is met with a certain degree of animosity. I have the same kind of animosity for anyone who lays out such comments and then refuses to defend or discuss them. It is rank didactism of the worst kind.

It is true that the site is critical of islam; or at the least of political islam. Why should it not be? Why should not sites exist critical of Christianity, or Judaism, or any religion?

And yes, Ernst disparages both without cause and without justification. I was amused at this statement: "he in fact only suggests that any work published outside of a scholarly arena should be examined for bias and agenda." Do you believe that articles inside a "scholarly arena" are not examined for bias and agenda? I review for an even dozen journals, and I can assure you that they are.

I do encourage you to think for yourself, of course, but imagining that Ernst directed you here in the interests of fair impression and not malfaisance is absurd. Do write back in; I would love to discuss with you further.

Posted by: Geoff at August 31, 2007 12:22 PM

Hi Student,

Are you being quite fair to Spencer's post addressed to Carl Ernst's students? Spencer points out that Ernst, without at all engaging Spencer's writings and arguments, uses ad hominen: very insultingly calls him "Islamophobe." Ernst also uses ad hominem against Spencer in other ways.

Your post says you find Ernst has done nothing to mislead students about Spencer, yet you offer no specific justification for why, apparently, you think the insulting ad hominem term "Islamophobe" is on-target. Wouldn't you agree that it's better to point out the specific errors in a person's arguments, than to name-call and use ad hominem? Don't you admit that's taking the low road on Prof. Ernst's part?

Isn't it arrogant of Ernst to sling insult while offering no substantive replies to Spencer's writings, and refusing to debate with Spencer? Why won't Ernst debate with Spencer and show the hundreds of thousands of people who read Spencer's work and purchase his books how he's in error? It's so much easier to sling insult than to engage in a substantive debate you think you'll lose on the merits.

(By the way, remember not to confuse comments made on these open public comments threads with Spencer's own views.)

Posted by: traeh at August 31, 2007 12:31 PM

What exactly is the "paranoid conspiracy" that Mr. Ernst refers to in relation to watching the jihad?

Is he implying that nothing which happened on 9/11 (or happened in regard to the Cole bombing, or the African embassies bombings, or the first WTC bombing, of the Beslan massacre, or the 7/7 bombings in London, or the 3/11 bombings in Madrid, or the Bali bombing, or the terrorist bombings in Thailand, ad nauseam) is worth noting for its Islamic jihadist rationale?

What is "paranoid" about keeping track of the acts of Islamic fanatics who base their murderous actions on their fundamentalist understanding of the suras in the Koran (Sura 9:5; and 9:29-30 among scores of other verses) that incite endless warfare by Muslims against all non-Muslims?

Is the news too upsetting to the prof?

Then he should complain to the jihadists, not Mr. Spencer.

Don't blame the messenger, condemn the killers.

Read the Koran: spread the dread.

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 31, 2007 12:56 PM

From this prof’s site (lined above):
“The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam.”

This guy is just awful! I suspect even many of his students can sense his malicious incompetence – he never offers examples of Robert Spencer’s false & refutable “bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice” but merely makes libelous & contemptible name-calling no doubt intended to intimidate any student from coming to Spencer’s defense – might be called “racist” or “bigots” too. That’s the way these low-lifes play their game.

If any of his students is reading this, checkout also this website where Ex-Muslims will tell you what Islam is really about. They ought to know:

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/

Posted by: FM at August 31, 2007 1:05 PM

'Student'- is that you Omid?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 31, 2007 1:09 PM

It is high time that the United States government passed comprehension legislation preventing American universities from accepting monies from foreign states that are ideologically inimical to America and democracy.
This guy (or his university) almost certainly took money from Saudi Arabia (a perfect example) or some other Islamic nation that is attempting to subvert America.

It's pretty obvious to me that is what happened with this "professor" and the university he taught at.

Considering what it costs to put someone through 4 years of college this is a serious swindle. Shocking--and bloody sickening that this sort of thing is STILL being allowed in OUR higher educational system. Isn't enough enough??

Posted by: pythagoras at August 31, 2007 1:28 PM

Perhaps the learned professor would like his university to be renamed "Mosque Hill"?

Posted by: Paul at August 31, 2007 1:28 PM

1. In the syllabus for his course, "Introduction to Islamic Civilization," Religious Studies 180, he recommends that you visit this site, Jihad Watch, as well as the site of the Chick Tract comic books.

At least students are directed to the site.

There is so much propaganda on this issue that I wonder if some of these folks aren't on someone's payroll. Money talks-especially big money. I have a gut instinct that there are a lot of "embedded" people in the wire services, in education, in the general media, paid propagandists. This may not necessarily be true for Ernst-but the #1 motive for disseminating propaganda can be money.

Folks like Robert or Hugh might find that hard to believe because they have integrity. But there are a lot of money grubbers out there. Look at Fibrahim "Farfur Style Propaganda" Hooper: this guy is a liar and a loser, but he gets a prayer rug and a cushy job with CAIR and he's a regular propagandist-getting well paid for being a liar and a loser. (When the CAIR ship goes down Fibrahim will probably cut a deal with the Feds.)

Posted by: Frank at August 31, 2007 1:29 PM

Looking over the course schedule, I'm still trying to figure out why in an "Introduction to Islamic Civilization" course, they would address the topic of religion on the web, especially so early in the curriculum.

It seems to be a pre-requisite agenda by Ernst, to squelch all conservative positions on the topic of islam entirely, to set the foundation for all subsequent "scholarship" that he will put forth. I find it odd that someone who promotes "scholarly" education about Islam, independent of agenda-driven politics, would actually engage in exactly the same thing he repudiates.

Unwittingly, Ernst has given credence to Robert Spencer as the leading alternative conservative position on Islamic jihad, his low-brow attempt to show equivalence with a fringe element like Chick Tracks, notwithstanding.

Posted by: awake at August 31, 2007 1:29 PM

"Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer."

The term "Islamaphobe" is a propaganda term. What's his motive for using a propaganda term? Ernst has a motive. It could be jealousy of Robert, it could be that he sides with the Jihadists, whatever...but he has a motive. What is it?

Posted by: Frank at August 31, 2007 1:40 PM

If we students are so easily led as to accept at face value whatever Professor Ernst tells us, would we not also be willing converts to the professed truths of this site? What would place his opinions above those of others in the uninformed mind? Those of us who really engage in our class look to the motivations of Professor Ernst, of Robert Spencer, of any author or source. While reasoned arguments are welcome, those of Robert Spencer’s lose credibility when his background in the subject matter is examined. While I by no means regard the thoughts of those outside an academic setting as immediately dismissible, the lack of any academic background in Islamic Studies and the use of publishing companies backed by conservative foundations suggest a particular agenda. As for asking what will happen if a student disagrees with Professor Ernst, the answer is quite clear: discussion. Discussion is not a forcing of the hand, it is not brainwashing. As for the rash generalizations about students’ inability to think for themselves, I suggest that a more willing audience might be found when not widely disparaging those you would have listen to you. While it is doubtless that Professor Ernst has particular opinions about Islamic culture, politics and the study thereof, do not underestimate the student’s ability to form their own.

As for the thought that criticisms of all religions should exist, I fully agree. Well reasoned, thoughtful and supported criticisms are necessary. I merely suggested that by informing us of the critical tone of Jihad Watch, Professor Ernst had not misled us.

The term “Islamophobe” is not one I had come across before Professor Ernst’s "Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer.” Initially this term seemed like a specific accusation, unsupported within the notes and therefore unfair. When I raised this objection in class however, I found most considered this term as similar to the term “anti-Semitic.” While, as with countless terms, the meaning is debatable, when considering it as we did in our discussion, I feel it is an appropriate label, given the opinions of Robert Spencer and the Jihad Watch site.

Posted by: Student at August 31, 2007 1:42 PM

Oddly enough, Mr. Ernst's class IS actually quite useful for something (and NO, it wouldn't be about educating people on Islam, that's for sure!!).

Mr. Ernst's "curriculum" provides a perfect study in the techniques used to deceive, brainwash, subvert, psychologically condition and propagandize the masses. It would ne interesting to see what is being taught to university students in the EU for example (probably the same stuff).

Propaganda 101.

Inasmuch as the world is at the threshold of a global ideological war (Islam, Communism, Socialism, fascism, etc all competing for the souls of the world's population at large) for us this is really quite an education in itself.

Mr. Ernst is unwittingly giving Americans a perfect opportunity to look into the minds of their enemies--and maybe if we get really lucky use the insight gained to thereby defeat the bastards!

Posted by: pythagoras at August 31, 2007 1:42 PM

Student,

Have a quick read of the link below. I pulled it up quickly from www.dictionary.com looking for the definition of Islamophobe

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Islamophobia

Give me a shout out when your done, if you will.

Posted by: awake at August 31, 2007 2:01 PM

I looked up 'Islamophobia' as well, and as the link you posted from Dictionary.com suggests, the term is not a hard and fast one. I stand by the statement of its fair use within the context of our class debate. I also acknowledge however, use of the term unfairly as applied to well reasoned criticism of Islamic culture. I think conversely, supporters of Islamic prejudice can claim misapplication to further their own cause.

Posted by: Student at August 31, 2007 2:12 PM

Student - Thanks for your time and your well-reasoned response. Dialogue on this level is useful, as it forces us to review our beliefs.
The terms fascist and Nazi are used so frequently that it may be claimed that they have lost most of their true meaning. That being said, I (and many fellow posters) view ourselves as akin to anti-fascits in the 1930s. I'm personally not particularly religious, but dislike Islam as a very real threat to my individual freedom. Rather than concern myself with theoretical Islam, I regard what Islamists tend to do - worldwide. Their record, vis a vis women, gays and other religions is truly abysmal anywhere they live in sufficient numbers to impact governance. If, in your view, this constitutes Islamophobia, then it is a label I gladly accept.

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2007 2:26 PM

Student,

You will find that many posters to this site (like most blog sites) tend to get emotional about issues which, for them, are "old news." And there is a tendency to assume that others are already as informed and opinionated as oneself. If you
* were unaware of the term "islamophobe" and its promulgation by self-professed jihadist supporters within the current political environment,
* and don't know the difference between being opposed to a race and being opposed to an ideology, or even think that opposition to a religion must be irrational (i.e. "phobic" because they are all basically the same, aren't they?),
* and are unaware of the genesis (financial & political) of "Islamic Studies" programs in the West (must I have studied in a Nazi-financed "Arian Kultur" program to credibly comment on German politics?),
then you are obviously new to this subject and I agree ... you should not be presumed to be close-minded and summarily dismissed.

Welcome to the "clash of cultures" ... just try not to fall into the "useful idiot" pits that so many "intellectuals" have decorated with sweet-smelling PC flowers :-)

Posted by: dry_heavz_4_alla at August 31, 2007 2:28 PM

Student,

OK, it's a start. In my experience, Islamophobia is a term used in an attempt to squelch any opinion that may be critical of certain aspects of Islam.

Many times, Muslims and Islamic apologists will accuse critical voices of Islam of being racists. This is a fundamental fallacy, since Islam is not a race, but rather a religious ideology that is embraced by people of many different races.

My goal is not to convince you here today that Spencer is right and Ernst is wrong. My goal is to keep you thinking about what you are told from sources on both side of the coin.

Ernst wrote a book that was well-received in Eqypt. They loved his take. they gave him an award and a $30,000.00 money prize for it.

Everyone has an agenda. Robert's is on the top left corner of the main page here titled "Why Jihad Watch?" It is not called "Why Islam Watch?", nor is it called "Why Muslim Watch?"

If you have not already done so, give it a read and ask yourself if that is an unreasonable position, or an "Islamophobic" one.

I have to step away for a short spill.

I am looking forward to hearing your reply.

Posted by: awake at August 31, 2007 2:30 PM

pythagoras-

What's the motive of Ernst (and others like him) for being a propagandist? He knows that the term "Islamaphobe" is a propaganda term.

This kind of thing has occurred in the past. What was Walter Duranty's motives for being a propagandist for Stalin? Why did he deny the truth, tell deliberate lies? Was it money? True belief? Was he being blackmailed? What's the motive of such people? What's the motive?

Posted by: Frank at August 31, 2007 2:37 PM

MP,

While I appreciate your willingness to discuss, phrasing such as “what Islamists tend to do” hints at a deep seated prejudice [sic]. Muslims cannot fairly be generalized as tending to do anything. There are more than 1 billion people classified as Muslim in the world today (though the term does cover quite a large variance in beliefs and practices). It is impossible to make a generalized statement inclusive of that entire population. While many people justifiably object to the practices of a small group of Muslim extremists using the backing of religious belief as a justification for violence, including the entirety of the Muslim population in this objection is irrational and unfair.

Posted by: Student at August 31, 2007 2:53 PM

Student

"Islamophobia" implies an irrational fear. But there are many good, sound, rational reasons to fear Islamic dogma. It's not a "phobia". Ernst knows the term is loaded, presumes fear of Islam is irrational. It's a propaganda term.

I understand Ernst refuses to debate Robert Spencer. Why? What does he fear? If Spencer is such a phobic fool-wouldn't it be easy for Ernst to demolish Spencer? Could it be that Ernst fears Robert Spencer and that he too has good reasons for fearing Robert?-that it's not a phobia?

You will learn much at this site. Keep an open mind.

Posted by: Frank at August 31, 2007 3:00 PM

This is why I love science and engineering, there is no room for debate. When a Christian slips on an icy sidewalk, it will hurt his butt just as much as when a Muslim slips and also lands on his butt. A Rebublican would clear away the ice so that no one slips, a Democrat would provide a grant so that the poor Muslim could buy a pillow to strap aroung his or her butt.

I racall a heated debate in freshman college English class between the teacher and a student over the meanings in Robert Frost's poem "Stoping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening." The teacher insisted that Frost was writing about a person thinking of the prospets of dying - "things to do before I sleep." When the student cited a TV interview with Frost where he denied that he was writing about death, the teacher called the student a liar. I also saw that interview. So much for academic integrity, and free debate.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 31, 2007 3:04 PM

"Muslims cannot fairly be generalized as tending to do anything".

That's nonsense. Of course they can be generalized as tending to believe in the dogmas of Islam.

Posted by: Frank at August 31, 2007 3:08 PM

"While reasoned arguments are welcome, those of Robert Spencer’s lose credibility when his background in the subject matter is examined."

This sounds like the kind of argumentum ad verecundiam b.s. that Robert alluded to. Which of his arguments do you specifically take issue with and why?

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 31, 2007 3:08 PM

Muslims will tend to believe and tend to act on the dogmmas of Islam. What are those dogmas?

Posted by: Frank at August 31, 2007 3:11 PM

Let us remember that Robert is in the business of haute vulgarisation, of mass divulgation. He would like his texts to be read, and have an effect, and he knows he must appeal to a book-buying audience that might find certain kinds of titles too dull, or who would not be put off but attracted by certain kinds of book-covers, blurbs, and so on. And he is well aware -- how could he not be? -- that at present the publishers of books that offer the kind of disturbing and ungainsayable information that his contain -- after all, every quote in his book on Muhammad could have been used by a Muslim author, for a Muslim audience. It is only when the Infidels happen themselves to quote those same Qur'anic passages, those same stories in the Hadith (found in Bukhari or Muslim), or refer to those same details -- Banu Qurayza, Khaybar Oasis, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf, Aisha, Al-Hudaibiyya -- that Muslims become enraged, and denounce the texts, always vaguely of coursee because they cannot find a single inaccuracy to point to in, for example, "The Truth About Muhammad" -- enraged because the same texts that they have no problem with if those texts are read lovingly, acceptingly, by them and by fellow Muslims, become a source of fury if Infidels dare to reprint or quote or point to them with quite a different attitude. Infidels With Attitudes must be denounced, must be accused of that tendentious, ludicrous thing, "Islamophobia."

But as my cousin M. L. K. Fitzgerald once explained, "Don't judge a book by its cover, but by the character of its contents."

And let me conclude this posting with what another cousin, Archimede Pitagorico Fitzgerald, once told me -- "Chi ha orecchie per intendere, intenda."

Which is to say: A Word To The Wise Is Sufficient.

Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2007 3:22 PM

Student, I grew up in the South during the Civil Rights upheavals during the 1960s. There were three kinds of white people. There were whites who actively participated in marches and voter registration drives to end segregation. There were whites who actively participated in the attacks, murders, and school bombings to perpetuate segregation. Then, there was the vast majority who did nothing to aid either cause. Some were for the end of segregation and Jim Crow; some were infavor of the status quo. The point is that a huge group of whites did nothing to protest the actions of the violent segregationists. These people only protested when liberals attempted to lump them with the group of violent segragationists - just like your vast group of Mislims. They secretely hoped that segregation would remain the law of the land; Just like a vast group of Muslims hope that sharia will become the law of the land.

These Muslims who do nothing to stop the violence, can only cry when they are inconvenienced or criticized. That is my judgement of an entire population. Deal with it.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 31, 2007 3:22 PM

"While reasoned arguments are welcome, those of Robert Spencer’s lose credibility when his background in the subject matter is examined."

Examined by whom? Ernst?

Ernst does not want to debate Spencer, Student. Why? He could easily prove Spencer's ignorance on the matter. Why doesn't he do all a favor and expose Robert Spencer?

Ernst is afraid that he will be exposed. He will sneer and pretend otherwise, but he would be demolished by Robert Spencer. He knows that.

Posted by: Frank at August 31, 2007 3:23 PM

Student - I am challenged to think of any place in the world where Muslims constitute a significant minority where they live in peace with their neighbors. 1.) Nigeria - conflict with Christians 2.)India - conflict with Hindus 3.) Thailand - conflict with Buddhists 4.) Indonesia - conflict with Christians...
the list goes on. In those lands where Muslims form the majority, their record is even worse - Saudi Arabia - Islam or the highway, Egypt - Coptic Christians are second class citizens, Pakistan - Christians and anyone else walking on eggshells, Afghanistan - furgeddabout it, Iran - pogroms agains any non muslim group, Iraq - Please! My point is that muslims do indeed tend to do things that I find disturbing.

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2007 3:31 PM

Islamophobe: the short course.

Phobia = fear.

Islam = "submission" (of all humanity to the will of Allah).

I do fear submitting to the will of Allah, because it requires you to abandon your critical facilities to ancient, unable-to-be-criticized dogmas.

But I'm more of an Islamopponent.

Because I, too, "I oppose all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 31, 2007 3:42 PM

So where doe one go these days if that what to get an advanced degree in sat History? I have gone back just because of professors like the above. What I can't figure out is why North Carolina has so many liberal whack job professors when the general population is conservative.

Posted by: Lady Predator at August 31, 2007 3:42 PM

Frank, that statement we both cited makes me doubt that this 'student' is who he would have us believe he is.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 31, 2007 3:59 PM

Infidel33-

Agreed.

Because what "reasoned arguments" in favor of the ceding of your reason to irrational and unexaminable (under threat of death by Islamic purists) dogmas could there reasonably be?

Somebody isn't reasoning very thoroughly.

Pop Quiz:

What reason could there be not to oppose Islam's inherent opposition to reason?

Tiles? Carpets? Aoud solos?

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 31, 2007 4:13 PM

Student

"he in fact only suggests that any work published outside of a scholarly arena should be examined for bias and agenda"

Oh man I missed the show..oh well. "Student" you must be kidding right? You are saying that work produced in the scholarly arenas should not be challenged? You have clearly never taken a science course in your life. Work is challenged and re-challenged. Every theory is based on facts. The trouble with Mr. Ernst is he attacks Mr. Spencer theory without ever presenting any facts as to why Mr. Spencer is wrong. Mr. Spencer has challenged him to a debate and he refuses. Mr. Spencer has challenged the views held by Mr. Ernst about Islam and Mr. Ernst responds by calling him an Islamophobe or attacks him because university presses won’t publish Mr. Spencer’s work. Big deal! University presses have historically been behind the times when producing important works. See Origin of Species by Charles Darwin as an example which was published by John Murray in 1859.

Simple fact is Mr. Ernst has not given one example of why Mr. Spencer’s work is flawed. I believe in the scientific method. Unless Mr. Ernst can show why Mr. Spencer’s work is flawed based on facts (not university press publication or the temperament of people who comment on this site) then yes Mr. Ernst is a propagandist.

Proof sir! Proof! Mr. Spencer has shown me his cards when Ernst show his.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 31, 2007 5:01 PM

A year ago -- on September 1, 2006, I nominated at this website Professor Carl Ernst to be the 2007 recipient of the King Faisal Prize (category: Services to Islam). For some reason he did not get it; I trust my nominating him did not work against him. In any case, I would like to take this occasion to nominate Professor Carl Ernst yet again, for few have worked as tirelessly as he has to promote, through Islamic "art and music," the image of Islam on his own campus, and on campuses throughout America through "workshops" and list-serves and all the rest of what we have come to expect of them.

The best evidence for this tireless working on behalf of Islam are the words of Professor Ernst himself in the interview he gave, to a Chapel Hill paper, about the reasons for his being chosen to receive the Barshrahil Prize. Here in pertinent part, is what he noted:

"Dr. Al-Freih was very impressed by what she saw of our efforts, and she expressed the wish to support this new initiative.[the Muslim Network Consortium] As a member of the jury for the Bashrahil Prize, she was in a position to take action by nominating Following Muhammad [by Carl Ernst] for the prize at its board meeting in May; she did so with a 7-page letter in Arabic that summarized the contents of the book and highlighted its main features, especially the fact that it is written in a clear style that is accessible to non-specialist readers.. She particularly emphasized the point that my book makes regarding phenomena such as extremism and terrorism, as being the results of particular modern political mentalities rather than being somehow essentially part of Islam."

And why was that so important? Well, Professor Carl Ernst explains:

[Interviewer] Why was Following Muhammad nominated for this prize, rather than other books on Islam?

[Ernst] Muslims around the world have become acutely aware that, especially since the terrorist attacks against US targets in September 2001, there has been a spate of publications in America that have increasingly argued that terrorism is inextricably associated with Islam. These anti-Islamic publications range from the urbane and scholarly condemnations of modern Islamic countries by Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis to the rabid denunciations of Islam emanating both from right-wing think tanks and fundamentalist Christian organizations. This stream of negativity causes considerable concern in majority Muslim countries, since these books offer, explicitly or implicitly, a justification for new military incursions that will inevitably be seen as a new colonial regime to the peoples of the Middle East.

Following Muhammad is not an apologetic defense of Islam, nor was it written by a Muslim; defenses of Islam based on Islamic ideals are indeed readily available, but they fail to address the questions raised by the conflicts of recent years. By offering a reasoned critique of colonialism as well as a critique of ideologies like fundamentalism, Following Muhammad demonstrates that it is possible for an American author to provide a fair-minded introduction to Islam for non-Muslims. The book also provides access to Islamic civilization and culture from aesthetic and ethical perspectives, which can be appreciated by readers of any background, and it makes clear how the Qur'an and especially the Prophet Muhammad function as centers for the values and aspirations of Muslims from many backgrounds. Moreover, by emphasizing the multiplicity and pluralism characteristic of Muslim societies throughout history, the book makes it possible to reconsider the phenomenon of Islam from a non-fundamentalist perspective (whether on the part of Muslims or non-Muslims)."

So Ernst's book offers that Old Reliable of the apologists, who if they fail to stop inqusisitive students of Islam one way ("you don't know Arabic, so you can't comment on Islam") they will try another: "Islam is not a monolith, so Infidels can never ever generalize about something called 'Islam" or indeed make any statement at all (unless of course those inquisitive students wish to praise it, for special exception is made for such praise). And he uses the "aesthetic" approach -- the same approach, more or less, that is used in the books by his fellow-collaborator John Esposito, with all those pretty pictures of blue mosques and the escalier derobe, in reddish baked clay, of the Samarra mosque, and Iznik tiles, and old prints of turbaned Turks from the 16th century, so that the reader or student is so bedazzled with all the couleur locale of Islam that he stops thinking about such questions as: well, what does Islam teach Muslims to think about, teach them how to regard, teach them how to treat, Infidels? No wonder Carl Ernst chooses to emphasize the "aesthetic" angle. You would too, if you had to defend Islam, wouldn't you? And of course, you would stay far away from such matters as the severe constrictions on modes of expression, on the prohibition on statuary, and on depictions of humans (no portraiture in Islam, no living creatures at all -- and the odd Bellini portrait of one or more of the Ottoman padishahlar is the exception that proves the rule, and Mughal miniatures ditto).

And then he indulges himself. Bernard Lewis is guilty of having produced an "urbane and scholarly condemnation" -- Lewis, who at his apologetic worst has written paragraphs more compelling and useful than the entire output of Carl Ernst, Ph.D. And then there are the "rabid denunciations" of the mad-dog rightwingers, in the cartoonish ernstian presentation of the universe. But "Following Muhammad" is not, Erns himself says, an apologetic work. Not at all. He wouldn't do what the enemies of Islam do, that Bernard Lewis and so many others have done. Of course he fails completely to list any of those many others who have not presented Islam in anything like the manner of gentle Sufi and sinister apologist Carl Ernst. He tells us nothing, he mentions nothing, about the work of such scholars of Islam as Snouck Hurgronje, Antoine Fattal, Majid Khadduri, David Margoliouth, Joseph Schacht, Edmond Fagnan? Georges Vajda, Henri Lammens, S. D. Goitein, Franz Rosenthal, Gustav von Grunebaum, or a hundred others whose works have transcended their time, and who were not, when they wrote, subject to the bully-boy tactics of Said or epigones of Said, or the MESA-Nostrans who have fanned out across academic America and who, armed with Arab, especially Saudi, money, have done such damage to the understanding of Islam -- damage most apparent in the folly of the effort in Tarbaby Iraq.

Hee's a little more of Carl Ernst on Carl Ernst:

"By offering a reasoned critique of colonialism as well as a critique of ideologies like fundamentalism, Following Muhammad demonstrates that it is possible for an American author to provide a fair-minded introduction to Islam for non-Muslims. The book also provides access to Islamic civilization and culture from aesthetic and ethical perspectives..."

Can you stand any more of this? I can't. I quit. For now. I need a stiff drink before dinner.

Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2007 5:07 PM

One year ago tomorrow I nominated Carl Ernst, at this very website, for the King Faisal Prize (category: Services to Islam). For some reason he didn't get it last year. But he will, of that I have no doubt. And so, in the same spirit as that of last year's nomination, I wish once again to nominate Professor Carl Ernst for the King Faisal Prize. I certainly hope that my nomination of him, both this year, and last, is taken in the spirit in which it is intended.

And for those of you who missed the nomination last year, I will re-post it right here:

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Carl Ernst
I suspect that Carl Ernst’s Following Muhammad would not be recognized by Snouck Hurgronje, or St. Clair Tisdall, or Sir William Muir, or Tor Andrae, or Maxime Rodinson, or David Margoliouth, or Joseph Schacht, or Ignaz Goldziher, as presenting a recognizable view of Muhammad. On the other hand, the straightforward presentation of Muhammad's life as set down by the most authoritative Muslim biographers, which is what Robert Spencer has given us in his forthcoming (October 9) biography of Muhammad will no doubt be dismissed as "polemical" and "unscholarly" by Ernst and three-quarters of the membership of MESA Nostra. The remaining ¼, however, will be secretly delighted with Spencer's book, even if they will not be so brave as to assign it(though they may list it among "Other Reading" on their syllabi, giving the students a hint). They will only wish that they had dared to produce something similar, but they had too much, departmentally, to lose. It required an intelligent outsider to do the necessary job, and Spencer came along and did it.

Carl Ernst's book on Muhammad leaves out all the unsettling and disturbing and indelicate parts. Instead, it gives us something as if viewed through Karen Armstrong's vie-en-rose tinted glasses,

Carl Ernst is too modest. He is a prize-winning author, recognized for his services to the better worldwide appreciation of Muhammad with his book. Following Muhammad is a masterpiece of haute vulgarization -- what Robert Spencer only pretends to be able to do -- and might as well hold the haute. That book, or rather that series of essays, is by authorial intention devoid of the usual apparatus criticus of scholarly books. Apparently Carl Ernst wished to put off, off, those scholarly lendings, and to let down his hair, and deliberately present an "unscholarly text" (no doubt contributors to the Encyclopedia of Islam will sniff, but let them -- what do they know?), easy on the footnotes, in order to find and please that wider audience that perhaps had eluded him with his previous scholarly contribution, The Shambhala Guide to Sufism.

I am informed, given Ernst’s contempt, documented here at Jihad Watch, for non-scholarly presses, that that was a book that Clarendon Press would dearly like to have published, if Shambhala Publishing hadn't gotten there first. And as for the reaction to that book in the Departments of Islamic Studies at Leiden, Aix-en-Province, and Cambridge at the news, later on, that the author of The Shambhala Guide to Sufism had received tenure at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill -- well, I don't have to tell you.

Last year I offered a write-in nomination for Karen Armstrong to be awarded the King Faisal Prize, in the category of Services to Islam. But apparently Armstrong did not make the Saudi grade. Perhaps her bizarre flitting from this to that (what is it this week from the fingers and mind of Karen Armstrong? A treatise on Buddhism? How to Bring World Peace? The Search for Bridey Murphy?) offended them, or perhaps there was something in her favorite forms of recreation that might have offended those dour and judgmental Saudi judges. She didn't win, and I suspect now that she won't. She's become, in the Western world, too well-known and too much a figurine of fun.

But I have another candidate waiting in the wings, not quite so obviously silly as Karen Armstrong. True, there is that little matter of all those Shambhala shambolic sham books on Sufism, which Saudis would hardly find to their liking but there is one way to free those judges of their doubtful minds and warm their cold cold hearts. And that way is to point not only to the hagiographical Following Muhammad but far more important, to take note of the tireless toiling in the vineyard of the Lor-- no, make that toiling or perhaps lolling in the conquered oases of Muhammad. Let us point to Ernst’s ongoing effort -- really, beyond the call of dhimmi duty -- in inveigling or forcing non-Muslim students, right in the heart of what Saudis no doubt think of as hopelessly Christian evangelical country (unaware as they must be of the special case of Chapel Hill, and even of North Carolina, the state that in the last century produced, inter alia, Ava Gardner and Walter Clay Lowdermilk, and is hardly part of the Deep South), to read not only Sells's Approaching the Qur'an but also large doses of both Esposito and Armstrong.

If such an achievement, which required ignoring criticism by parents and students, does not merit recognition as a Service to Islam, and beyond that, a well-endowed (va-va-va-voom) prize, offered in recognition of that recognition, then one hardly knows what would.

And thus it is for me both a rare privilege, and an honor, to nominate at this very posting, at this most relevant website, Professor Carl Ernst, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, to be the 2007 recipient of the King Faisal Prize.

I am sure a great many people, some of them no doubt Professor Ernst's faculty colleagues, will be happy to second that nomination.

Please note, students of prizes, that in the categories of science and medicine, the King Faisal awards go to recipients who are genuinely and entirely worthy. The results are skewed only by one thing -- no one identifiably Jewish has ever won the King Faisal Prize. That does narrow the number of potentially worthy candidates. The Infidels who have won the prize in the category "Services to Islam" deserve to be treated as the object of a separate study. For all you intrepid undergraduates casting about for a thesis topic, here's the ungainly title you are free to use: "Paying the Scholarly Jizyah: Winners of the King Faisal Prize for Services to Islam." Make it a prosopographic analysis, year by year, Infidel winner by Infidel winner. Make Sir Lewis Namier proud.

[Posted by Hugh at September 1, 2006 7:49 AM]

Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2007 5:11 PM

Welcome, "Student". Aren't you folks starting class a bit early there? My students won't see me, or my handouts, for another week yet. My first thought was that "student" was just Dr. Ernst's own pseudonym, a typical anonymous-online subterfuge, but it's possible some schools have started already, or that keen students like yourself are working ahead from online available materials.

If lectures have started, you might do us the favour of giving some sketch notes of his lectures as they happen; they may help to put things in perspective. A lot is being inferred here (by me and others) from very little information about what Dr. Ernst is planning for this course, even before it happens. I realise that this is a bit unfair, and you could help correct that for us.

But from what I read of the sketched outline of his course, there is a major gap in it that you might decide to fill in with background information about Islam based on the source documents. You couldn't do better than the "Islam 101" link you'll find at the top of this page (Not written by Spencer, by the way, but a good summary of why Spencer and others may seem to have a bit of a bee in the old bonnet about this subject -- it is the pussyfooting around the facts that you see in much academic discourse about Islam.)

Islam 101 is a super-dense compilation of all the stuff normally excised from courses and commentators who do gymnastics to avoid saying what is plain for anyone who can read a newspaper, and even more plain when they see what lies behind the news, and through 1400 years of history.) Consider it a "Coles Notes" or "Shaum's" for your class. (Though it's more like a prerequisite.)

You mention the value of knowing who the publishers are as a way to assess the scholarly quality of a work, and whether it may present a biased viewpoint. I won't deny there is merit in that; my own work (in science, not religious studies), for example, is primarily published in peer-reviewed literature, and I believe wholeheartedly in the process.

However, let us not be starry-eyed about it. Even in science there is a great deal of nonsense published in the name of acacemia, by lauded scholars with impeccable credentials, and in the "best" publications. In social sciences this sort of thing is notoriously common, and in religious studies "academic publishing" can be a matter of pure territorial domination, particularly in the field of comparative religion.

Many worthy voices are shut out of this particular discourse for the simple reason that they are too hot to handle. I was in our university bookstore this morning, and I see that Karen Armstrong's hagiographical "biography" of Mohammed is there prominently displayed on the shelf. It is also in our libraries. The book is poorly researched, and shamelessly propagandistic. Spencer's biography of Mohammed, which was published roughly simultaneously, is neither. It has received critical acclaim from numerous scholars of religious studies. It spent several months in the top 100 New York Times Bestsellers list, and most of a year in the top 100 Bestsellers at Amazon.com, while I believe Armstrong's book never broke into the top 1000 on either list.

Yet Armstrong's book is aggressively hawked in campus bookstores acrosss the continent, and in all the major retail booksellers, while most do not carry a single one of Spencer's titles; not even his bestsellers. From what I understand the university at which I teach is not alone in totally shutting out Spencer from its library shelves.

You have to ask yourself: Is this because of the publisher? Because some right-wing think tank was willing to give it their imprimatur? Get real! Our Faculty Association (representing over 1000 professional academics) is a member of no fewer than three political think tanks. Last year when we voted to renew our membership of one of these organizations, the question arose whether or not it was worth the expensive dues, since our library has a regular subscription to all of their "research reports".

Is it because the writings of Mr. Spencer amount to hate speech, and so cannot be admitted to academic discourse? I wouldn't even suggest this if it weren't such a common charge. But let us just suppose for a moment that this was the case, and that universities see it as their job to insulate poor, vulnerable students from such vitriole. Then, I'd like someone to explain to me how it is that our library stocks no fewer than ten (10) copies of Mein Kampf?

Has Hitler's work suddenly come into fashion academically, or is it not recognized that even hate literature must be entered into academic discourse, if for nothing else, to be exposed for what it is? In any case, the evidence is there to see: Spencer is a bigger hot potato in academia today than Hitler. I implore students of comparative religion to ask the big question about this: Is it because of some awful lies Spencer writes, or because he writes about such awful truths many academics don't have the fortitude to admit him into discourse?

If you conclude the former, I would dearly love to have you fill us in on some of Spencer's "lies".

You will find much hate and incitement to violence at JihadWatch -- among the Comments; not in Spencer's writing! This is because Spencer is committed to the principles of open exchange of ideas. He commonly says that the correct response to hate speech is not censorship, but more, and better, speech (and he regularly demonstrates this -- if Spencer is "defensive", he is defensive of the truth). Would that those who take issue with his writing and seek to discredit him by associating him with think-tanks, disparaging his credentials, assassinating his character and so on, would show as much willingness for all perspectives to be heard. This is one way Dr. Ernst has shown himself to be a cut above most Spencer critics: by pointing his students here. It is also why Spencer reacts almost giddily to an academic willing to admit that he exists. (See also Spencer's surprise at Derbyshire's critical, but reasonable, review of his recent book.) If you spend much time at JihadWatch you'll notice that Spencer NEVER tries to silence a critic -- he is always glad to meet them in open, civilized dialogue. Don't misinterpret his pleasure at being linked to as "defensiveness".

The debate between Mr. Spencer and Dr. Ernst gleefully discussed above will not happen for the simple reason that if such a thing were announced ahead of time, and Mr. Spencer showed up in your classroom, the lives of every student in the class, Mr. Spencer, and your professor, would be in significant jeopardy, and the university would be unlikely to provide the kind of security needed to avert an embarrassing, if not catastrophic, reaction.

If such a debate ensues I would recommend, for the safety of all involved, that it be carried out by a live internet link; an unfortunate venue because we all know that a major part of a live debate is the connection made between the speakers and their audience.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at August 31, 2007 5:15 PM

Hello from Australia to any student of Carl Ernst

I have a PhD in Medieval Studies (University of Sydney, 1995). I read four non-English languages - French, German, Latin and Italian. I concur with others who have posted here - do not just read what your professor tells you to read. If one is studying in the humanities at a university, the more widely you read 'around the subject', the better.

Coming from a lifetime of reading and study, which has taught me something about the difference between good scholarship and bad scholarship, I find Robert Spencer's books to be both beautifully written - plain and clear - and profoundly scholarly. He does not come across to me as hate-filled or obsessive, but as charitable, patient, humble and gentlemanly, and very, very widely read. I understand that he reads Arabic so his knowledge of the relevant texts derives from the originals, not from translations.

The first time I read the Qur'an was many years ago, long before September 11th 2001. At that very first reading I was disturbed by the pervasive violence of the text. Since then, I have re-read it slowly and attentively, several times. My judgement of it has not changed. I believe Mr Spencer's assessment of its nature to be completely accurate.

Do return to this website: don't forget to click on 'books', 'Islam 101' and 'Qur'an blog'. Spencer's Qur'an blog is very illuminating - he is currently working his way through the fourth Surah.

By all means track down, and read, the books that are recommended on this website. There is a whole world of accurate and thought-provoking scholarship on Islam and - no matter what Professor Ernst may have told you - Robert Spencer, and his friend Hugh Fitzgerald who posts here regularly, are very reliable guides to it.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 31, 2007 5:40 PM

Professor Ernts not only teaches Student how to apply argumentum ad verecundiam and ad hominen, but petitio principii as well, and doubtlessly the whole range of logical fallacies.

Student wrote:

While I appreciate your willingness to discuss, phrasing such as “what Islamists tend to do” hints at a deep seated prejudice [sic].

-------------

That's an example of petitio principii, also known as "begging the question," or "circular thinking." Student begins with the premise that critics of Islamists are prejudiced--and the evidence of this prejudice is the act of the criticism itself.

Student gets an F- in logic, which doubtless earns an A+ from Professor Ernst.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at August 31, 2007 5:41 PM

"But as my cousin M. L. K. Fitzgerald once explained, "Don't judge a book by its cover, but by the character of its contents."

And let me conclude this posting with what another cousin, Archimede Pitagorico Fitzgerald, once told me -- "Chi ha orecchie per intendere, intenda."

Which is to say: A Word To The Wise Is Sufficient."

- posted by Hugh

On a lighter note, this reminds me of some notable quotables:

Commodore Fitzgerald: Spoken to the ol' commodore as he led his men off a sinking ship "It's wonderful the way you just leap in, take charge, and lead the way.".


Cousin Blob Fitzgerald: He was "deathly afraid of ghosts-now he's one himself," said Hugh. The family hears him on dark, stormy nights.

Cousin Cackle Fitzgerald: He used to reside in the Fitzgerald attic before moving to a cave, where he's lived for more than thirty years. This Moses look-alike, screams with an unflagging, wild, maniacal laugh.

Cousin Clot Fitzgerald: He was sentenced to the electric chair. (Hugh: I'll never forget the day the judge imposed sentence . . .Clotty stood there, head high, shoulders back, said, 'It's a bum rap.'" Hugh said "A Fitzgerald to the end!".

Cousin Creep Fitzgerald: His nephew accidentally zapped him with a disintegrator ray gun. Hugh remembers, "There he was, giggling and laughing. Suddenly, there he wasn't-still giggling and laughing. It was kind of eerie.".

Cousin Crimp Fitzgerald: This two-headed individual (one male, one female) was "such fun on double dates,". Hugh said Crimp was "mighty handy when we needed a third or fourth for bridge, too." Crimp used to love to play the harpsichord and passed the family heirloom down through generations; he used to play four-handed compositions on it-all by himself. Crimp had one glass eye.

Cousin Cringe Fitzgerald: The family sealed a hacksaw in a pie and passed it to Cringe in jail. He ate the hacksaw too. "In fact, he developed a taste for them.".

Cousin Farouk Fitzgerald: He was nearly consumed by a swordfish. The remains of both Ferook and the fish are mounted on the wall.

Cousin Goop Fitzgerald: Hugh said, "Now there was a fellow who really knew how to look for a job. Never found one.".

Cousin Gripe Fitzgerald: He attained a mate through a marriage brokerage called Hasty Marriage.

Cousin Grisly Fitzgerald: A portrait of Grisly facing a firing squad hangs in the Fitzgerald hallway.

Cousin Plato Fitzgerald: Had two heads. The left head was size 6, and the right, size 8_.

Cousin Slosh Fitzgerald: He went down the city sewer in a "fit of pique" and completely disowned the family. "Made a whole new life for himself," said Hugh.

General Ulysses S. Fitzgerald: At Vicksburg he surrendered, but "not until they caught up with him," Hugh adds.

Grand-Uncle Grisly Fitzgerald said "He was a traitor, but he only did it for the money.".

Grandpa Droop Fitzgerald: He gave Hugh stock certificates for his twelfth birthday.

Grandpa Slurp Fitzgerald: A "handsome devil," had a bucktooth and a receding chin.

Grandpa Squint Fitzgerald: Abraham Lincoln begged Squint for his political support, but, alas, the man who got it was Stephen Douglas. In the political realm, Hugh notes, rather than run for office, "We Fitzgeralds prefer to think of ourselves as king-makers.".

Great-Grandfather Blob Fitzgerald: He pried a sacred ruby from the hand-er, head-of a Hindu (it was causing a terrible headache). The relieved Hindu presented the gem to Blob, and it became a family heirloom.

Great-Grandfather Pegleg Fitzgerald The last of the adventurous Fitzgerald, he wore a pegleg just for appearances, and was wanted by fifteen countries for piracy. He was buried at sea with full military honors blindfolded, handcuffed, and dropped off a plank.

Great-Great-Grandmother Slice Fitzgerald A distant grand to Grandmama, she sharpened guillotines. "The belle of the French Revolution," Hugh brags.

Great-Great-Great-Aunt Singe Fitzgerald: She was burned at Salem. (The family keeps her ashes in an egg-shaped urn.) Hugh organizes a seance in an attempt to reach Aunt Singe, and proclaims this incantation Fire of Salem, ol' flame of Satan, Come in Aunt Singe, we're all awaitin'.
Mamoud Khali Pasha Fitzgerald: In D. 270 he used a torch to set fire to the library at Alexandria, Egypt. "The firebug of the Bosporus," says Hugh.

Ol' Ebenezer Fitzgerald: Led the early settlers across the Great Plains and sold the first guns to the Indians.

Old Senator Fitzgerald: "So wise and understanding," they said about him just before they impeached him, Hugh reveals.

Sir Newton Fitzgerald: He was a scientist who set his house on fire during an experiment-the high point of his career.

Uncle Blight Fitzgerald, Nicknamed "Ol' Kiss-of-Death Fitzgerald" (Hugh never knew why), Blight heavily backed the presidential campaigns of such washouts as Wendell Willkie, Alf Landon, and Adai Stevenson.

Uncle Tic Fitzgerald:Married to Aunt Phobia, "he had two left feet, she had two right ones. It was a mere physical attraction,".

With apologies to the Adam's Family series,
http://www.addamsfamily.com/addams01.html

Posted by: Mike_W at August 31, 2007 6:17 PM

Here is another interview I don't see listed yet. Here Ernst gives his views of Islam from 2005.

An example:

"VIBES: If you were to recommend three main ideals for Muslims to focus on, in terms of the Prophet’s life, what would they be?"

"Dr. Carl Ernst: The concern for the welfare of the weaker and more vulnerable members of society (especially women), the dedication to justice with the acute awareness of responsibility before God, and the relentless rejection of the idolatry of the anything that is less than divine – all these qualities seem to me to be well worth the attention of Muslims today. I should add that these are qualities that could also be admired and imitated by others as well. And just to expand upon the last point, I think it should be understood that idolatry does not mean simply the worship of graven images, but the adoration of any material, cultural, or intellectual object (including ideology) as if it were divine."

Wow! Yes he will give an honest un-biased opinion.

http://www.naseeb.com/naseebvibes/interview-detail.php?aid=4032

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 31, 2007 6:21 PM

It's the same thing every time, RS challangers trip themselves up, fall down, go boom. Few of these people actually want to debate him, because none of them want to be 'boomers'. That title is already taken up by ageing hippies. This site is like the old west bar where young guns showed up wanting to outdraw some famous outlaw, or law guy.
Lots of Islamic 'Billy the Kid' types show up here hopeing to sink JW/DW ship. Many have tried, none have made the grade. What Robert has that his antagonists don't have, besides superior knowledge, is the cloak of respectability. Robert never acts outside the areas of respectability. I have read, and posted here more than three years, and have never once seen or heard, RS acting any way but respectable. Knowledge, truth, and respectability
are very powerful forces, acting together.
RS has this rare combination in action, that is why Abu Billy Al-Kid, can never beat him in a fast, or slow draw competition....

Posted by: duh_swami at August 31, 2007 6:31 PM

From a review of his book "Following Muhammad"

One out of five people in the world is Muslim; only 18 percent of those, however, are Arab. Ernst moves away from a Middle Eastern bias, addressing the pluralistic nature of Muslim societies and thought. Framing his argument in terms of religious studies, Ernst describes how Protestant definitions of religion and anti-Muslim prejudice have affected views of Islam in Europe and America. Ernst also covers the contemporary importance of Islam in both its traditional settings and its new locations and provides a context for understanding extremist movements like fundamentalism.

Yes, the problem is definitely the Protestants, definitely.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 31, 2007 6:44 PM

Student says: "MP, While I appreciate your willingness to discuss, phrasing such as “what Islamists tend to do” hints at a deep seated prejudice [sic]. Muslims cannot fairly be generalized as tending to do anything. There are more than 1 billion people classified as Muslim in the world today (though the term does cover quite a large variance in beliefs and practices). It is impossible to make a generalized statement inclusive of that entire population. While many people justifiably object to the practices of a small group of Muslim extremists using the backing of religious belief as a justification for violence, including the entirety of the Muslim population in this objection is irrational and unfair."
[Bolding added]

Foregoing the logical contradiction in Student's foot-in-mouth insistence that "It is impossible to make a generalized statement inclusive of that entire population," Student might be interested in this statement from Carl Ernst:

Ernst says: “Muslims regard the Qur'an as the Word of God.”

So, Student, judging by your own criteria, Carl Ernst has made an expression that hints at a deep-seated prejudice. Here's something from a recent survey of Muslim's opinions which suggests that Carl Ernst in his above statement may have overgeneralized. From the survey:

Q. E4 Which comes closest to your view?
Q. E5 And would you say that--?

(86%) The Koran is the word of God
(50%) The Koran is to be taken literally, word for word.
(25%) That not everything in the Koran should be taken literally, word for word.
(11%) Other/Don’t Know/ Refused
(8%) The Koran is a book written by men and is not the word of God.
(1%) Other
(5%) Don’t Know/refused

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

There you have it. 8% of American Muslims in this sample claim that they do not think the Quran is the word of God, and 5% either don't know or refused to respond to the question.

Now, Student, aren't you furious with Ernst for generalizing about what all Muslims believe? Either withdraw your preposterous criteria (viz generalization constituting "prejudice") and apologize for your insult to "MP," or apply your judgment consistently by including Carl Ernst in the category of those who express "hints" of deep-seated prejudice.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at August 31, 2007 7:01 PM

People - "Student" is NOT a "student."

Look at the writing. No, this is not a "student."

Hello IMPOSTER! OMID, IS THAT YOU? CARL, IS THAT YOU?

People, no "student" writes like that. Especially an undergraduate.

And, isn't it curious this is the ONLY "student" who has commented on the site? THIS IS NOT A "STUDENT," - SAVE YOUR BREATH, PEOPLE.

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 7:02 PM

I've taught, People, this AIN'T no "student."

So, don't even reply. When a REAL "student" comes along, you'll be able to tell by the naivete and by the sophomoric quality of the writing, especially the diction.

This ADULT IMPOSTER is just baiting us.

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 7:11 PM

Carl Ernst, are you moslem?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 31, 2007 7:11 PM

While I by no means regard the thoughts of those outside an academic setting as immediately dismissible, the lack of any academic background in Islamic Studies and the use of publishing companies backed by conservative foundations suggest a particular agenda.

Dear Student,

Apologies in advance for perhaps offending you, but your statement is rather patronising.

The idea that a piece of paper with a PhD appended to your name makes your thoughts more worthy than, say, mine, ignores the hours or study a person may have applied to a topic purely for their own education or entertainment.

When it comes to islam, for example, I do not believe that you need a degree to form a valid opinion of your own.

There are plenty of websites that make available many english translations of the quran, for example.

There are pro-islam and anti-islam sites, and I read both of them.

What informs me the most, however, are not the the letters after a person's name or who their publisher is, but the actual substance of their work.

Robert has spent many years studying islam, but he does not have a degree from Al-Aqsa University.

This does not make his work any less informed, since he does list his sources and I can follow the scholarship with my own eyes.

As for my personal opinion of islam after only really starting to pay attention and read up on it two and a half years ago, I have my own copy of the quran next to my bible on the shelf.

Whenever I hear about the respect for women, for example, I just recall sura and verse 4.34, with
it's sanctioning of domestic violence.

There is nothing like that in the bible or buddhist teachings, and I have never heard the like of it amongst my pagan and witch friends.

Nor my atheist friends.

Please feel free to read further, and start with the quran.

Regards,

L.Drummond.

Posted by: L.Drummond at August 31, 2007 7:14 PM

Ernst says: “If there are complicated political and even military conflicts referred to in the Qur'an, those deserve a full study. But they do not deserve to be treated out of context, in a selective fashion.”

But when it comes to presenting the Quran in the least incriminating possible light, i.e., the cut-and-paste job known as "Approaching the Quran," Ernst is all for selectively removing sections of the Quran from textual and historical context. Ernst says: “We are not attempting to represent Islam in toto, which is impossible to do with any book, in any case. We are not even trying to represent all of the Qur'an. We are actually making use of a brilliantly designed pedagogical package. This book presents the Qur'an the way it is studied by beginners who approach it. It consists of short and very easily encountered suras [chapters] at the end of the Qur'an, and they have a powerful language; they illustrate central themes.”

Another interesting contradiction:

Ernst says: “In the public university, we do not advocate one religion over another, and we do not attack any particular religion.”

Ernst also says: “The Qur'an is a holy object to be treated with respect, and there are complex rules governing that.”

Really. I wonder how Ernst would grade a paper that critiqued the contents of this "holy object."

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at August 31, 2007 7:14 PM

The reason I ask if you are moslem is because of your obvious respect and love shown to islam. More than one would expect an outsider to exhibit.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 31, 2007 7:16 PM

L.Drummond - this is NOT a "student."

Do not apologize. No "student" would be concerned about the "Ph.D." No "student" has even the perspicacity to make the kind of comments this "student" is making.

PEOPLE - STOP REPLYING TO THIS IMPOSTER!

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 7:21 PM

Oh, right, the term "Islamophobe" is one the "student" had "never come across" before Ernst's class, LOL! OH, RIGHT!

Go and re-read the quality of the writing, JW'ers, this is NOT a "student." It's a lying ADULT, VERY-EDUCATED, ERNST-DISCIPLE, IMPOSTER.

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 7:27 PM

Hi "Student," - I've outed you. So, where's your next undergraduate comment, "Student," LOL?!!!!

Uh Huh, we're waiting!

Posted by: darcy at August 31, 2007 7:34 PM

If Carl Ernst can pull himself out of his Sufist meditations long enough to consider focussing on more important matters within his field of study, that would be most appreciated. He might want to read about what Muslims actually believe, instead of writing about what he wishes they believed in his idealized vision of what Islam ought to be.

Will Ernst deal with the fact that 31% of British Muslims believe that apostates should be put to death?

How about some other findings about what British Muslims believe...
Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the Paradox of Multiculturalism.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/246.pdf

“That a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim.” 51% Agree, 43% disagree, 5% don’t know/refused.

“That a Muslim woman may not marry without the consent of her guardian.” 43% Agree, 51% disagree, 5% don’t know/ refused.

“That a Muslim male may have up to 4 wives, and a Muslim female is allowed only one husband.” 46% Agree, 48% disagree, 6% don’t know/ refused.

“That Muslim conversion is forbidden and punishable by death.” Agree 31%, disagree 57%, don’t know/ refused 12%. (Note. Agree 36-37% among 16-34 year-olds; Agree 19% for those aged 45+)

“That homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal.” 61% agree, 30% disagree, 9% don’t know/ refused.

Also for Ernst and his students to consider:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml

Excerpt:

Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy. Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

When asked, "Is Britain my country or their country?" only one in four say it is. Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law. According to the report, "Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws."

Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year's Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it.

The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.

End of Excerpt.

Also worth discussing for Carl Ernst and his students:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
Source: Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda. April 24, 2007. WorldPublicOpinion.org.

p. 21. “Most respondents express strong support for expanding the role of Islam in their societies, a view that is consistent with the goals of al Qaeda. Large majorities in most countries—an average of 71 percent (39% strongly)—agree with the goal of requiring ‘strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.’ Pakistanis were the most enthusiastic with 79 percent agreeing. About three in four Moroccans (76%) and Egyptians (74%) also agreed. Indonesians showed the lowest support: 53 percent agreed and 40 percent disagreed.”

Country: strongly agree, somewhat agree = total agree.
Morocco 35, 41 = 76%
Egypt 50, 24 = 74%
Pakistan 54, 25 = 79%
Indonesia 17, 36 = 53%
Average 39, 31.5 = 70.5%

p. 22. “Majorities even agree with the ambitious goal ‘to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate’ (overall average 65%). Seventy-four percent of Pakistanis agreed with this goal, as did 71 percent of Moroccans and 67 percent of Egyptians. However, in Indonesia, only 49 percent agreed while 40 percent disagreed.”

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at August 31, 2007 7:37 PM

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Carl Ernst
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week551/ernst.html

[Q] You teach a course on religion, fundamentalism and nationalism. Knowing what you know, would you have predicted there would be an attack against a Western country based on Islam -- an act of retribution against American or Western values?

[Ernst] "I don't think anyone was in a position to predict the attacks of Sept 11. The key factor was an extremist group, unlike many other extremist groups, that had a massive amount of funding and a base in a collapsing country from which to operate with near impunity. I certainly did not predict that the al Qaeda group would be operating to such an incredibly disastrous extent. We had studied the pronouncements of Osama bin Laden in some of my classes five years ago, and we considered him -- at least I did -- to be an extremist like Timothy McVeigh. But I didn't anticipate that he would have the material access to carry out his violent fantasies."

This statement suggests an appalling level of ignorance on Ernst's part. For a so-called expert in "Islamic Studies" not to have known that bin Laden et al had the doctrinal support, the will, and the means to carry out terrorist attacks on American civilians is unacceptable. It is negligence, incompetence, an "intelligence failure" within our university system. Ernst's ignorance is in part due to being largely out of touch with the real world, but it is also due to his taking in whatever brief and incomplete glimpses of reality through rose-colored glasses. And there is no doubt that the glasses that Ernst uses to view Islam bear the rose-colored tint.

His statement implies that he had "studied" the pronouncements of bin Laden without realizing that the jihadist in question had already proven to have the "material access" to implement violent attacks, including the several that were carried out in the years prior to Sept 11, 2001.

Ernst's use of the phrase "material access" also deflects attention from the ideology. The key to the 9/11 attacks was the fervent commitment and beliefs of the attackers, beliefs which happen to glorify Islamic martyrdom and supremacism, beliefs which are expressed in the parts of the Quran which Ernst, Sells, etc., have removed from view, and in the parts of the Hadith and Sira which they hope you'll ignore. The hateful beliefs were inculcated in the 9/11 attackers throughout their early years and, in particular, in their early schooling in Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf states. The al-Qaeda training camps were merely one part of that long process of indoctrination. Readers of JW will be familiar with the examples of the sorts of hateful beliefs that are taught to young Muslims in the standard curriculum in those Muslim countries. Those beliefs are straight out of the Quran and Hadith.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at August 31, 2007 8:39 PM

Ernst in the above-cited interview also said:

"Historical texts written centuries ago are not the cause of contemporary conflicts. They can be used to justify all different types of things, but if you want to understand contemporary conflicts, you need to understand contemporary history, and that is a separate issue."

This statement belies Ernst's ignorance of both the Islamic doctrine and contemporary history. Anyone who knows even the basics about recent history in the Islamic world knows that the implementation of sharia is increasing and spreading. Sharia is based on texts written centuries ago, whose pronouncements are being increasingly implemented today, as the Islamic world continues to revert to classical sharia. Part of sharia mandates warfare against non-Muslims if they do not submit to Islam or Islamic rule. The warfare or jihad in all its forms must continue, these texts state, until the "Day of Judgment," the time when (as the Koran and Hadith state that) Allah will annihilate, burn, and torture all those who are not true Muslims. It is precisely the pious jihadists' adherence to these ancient texts which motivates their conflict with non-Muslims or other Muslims regarded as apostates, hypocrites, heretics, etc.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at August 31, 2007 8:58 PM

If you are looking for an outline of the course, please refer to Professor Ernst’s class website.

Certainly works published both in and out of an academic setting should be challenged. Not to challenge is to accept blindly. While I agree entirely with the suggestion that much published outside of an academic setting is valid, well researched material, I suggest that the motivations behind it be more closely examined. While, material published within a scholarly realm is always subjected to review by other scholars with years of research and experience, the review of works outside the academic realm is not always as clear. Mr. Spencer has often published work with publishers known to have conservative backing and unbiased scholarly review is not evident. This does not invalidate his opinion, it merely suggests a bias. It is impossible to eliminate bias entirely, as any author or professed expert is going to approach a subject from their own view point. In order to form an opinion, the bias of every source should be considered.

I also do not profess to believe that Professor Ernst has not expressed his own bias in his writing. As many students in our class would tell you, his opinions are evident to us. However, he does not repress our opinions, or force his own upon us. Discussion and disagreement are an integral part of our class dialogue.

As for accusations suggesting I could not actually be a student because I lack “naiveté” and “sophomoric quality” in my writing, they hardly warrant a response. If you refuse to admit the possibility of intelligence in an undergraduate, how could an intelligent response convince you?

Posted by: Student at August 31, 2007 10:15 PM

Students from Carl Ernst's course are offered below a list of Suggested Reading, consisting of books by twenty authors, few of whom are likely to have been included on Professor Ernst’s own syllabus, or to be mentioned in whatever list of “Other Reading’ he hands out or otherwise make available.

The list was kept to under thirty authors (the list might have had 130), with a deliberate inclusion of many unsurpassed scholars from the Golden Age of Western scholarship about Islam – the period from 1870 to 1970. Many celebrated scholars are not included: there is not the “Mohammedan Studies” by Ignaz Goldziher, not Noldeke on the sources of the early Qur’an; not John Wansbrough’s “Quranic Studies,” and in the case of C. Snouck Hurgronje, possibly the most important of Western scholars of Islam, only one title is listed.

There are many other articles that one could find – that one should find – in back issues of “The Moslem World” (now “Muslim World”), especially those that appeared before 1950. A CD containing the Encyclopedia of Islam can also be obtained.

The syllabus of Carl Ernst, one suspects, contains such things as a bowdlerized Qur’an – the “Approaching the Qur’an” of Michael Sells, and texts such as Edward Said’s “Orientalism,” designed to undercut, before the students even encounter them, the scholarship of those who, in England, France, America, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, made the study of Islam their life’s work. Said himself may have been an Arab, but he was not a Muslim, never received a Muslim education (rather, he attended first an Anglican school, Victoria College, in Egypt, and then continued his education in the United States). His elementary blunders, his fantastic mistakes, have been quietly dissected by Bernard Lewis in his article “The Question of ‘Orientalism’” and, more recently, by an entire book devoted to explaining who the “Orientalists” were, and why Said, who simplified, omitted, misunderstand, or simply read, so many of them, deserves not respect but contempt – a book by the hardly unsympathetic-to-Islam English writer Robert Irwin.

I haven’t looked at Ernst’s syllabus. But I’m sure he does not include Robert Irwin’s book, nor Bernard Lewis’s article, and I assume he includes “Orientalism” as that is a staple, of the Higher Apologetics in universities. I doubt if he includes a single work by any apostate from Islam, not a single thing by Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or even Irshad Manji; he is unlikely to add the soon-to-be-published book by the articulate and brave Wafa Sultan, to any future syllabus. He is unlikely to welcome the book to be published this monty by Ibn Warraq, which shows that Said was not merely wrong, but completely, totally wrong, for it is the Western world, since the Greeks, that has been wide open to other societies, and it has been the world of Islam that has appropriated, but always claimed as its own, never giving credit to others, and which maintains an attitude of permanent hostility to all Infidels everywhere, as Islam naturally treaches. For if you are taught that Dar al-Islam must forever be in a state of war (if not open warfare) with Dar al-Harb, and that it is the duty of Muslims to participate, sometimes collectively and sometimes as an individual duty, in Jihad to spread Islam by removing every barrier to its expansion and its dominance, you are unlikely to be “open to ‘the Other’” – and Islam, as so many things, beginning with the indifference to Western ideas and institutions and art and literature (look at the near-absence of translations into Arabic), but a very great interest in Western military hardware, demonstrates this in every way, and every day. Muslims have a solemn duty to remove all the obstacles to the spread of Islam until it covers the globe, and Infidels reduced to their proper condition – that of dhimmis – who must acquiesce in Muslim rule, and endure a condition of permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity. But will Carl Ernst’s students get a hint of this? Will they read the Qur’an and Hadith with understanding? Will they learn about the figure of Muhamamd, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, or will the figure be described vaguely as “one of the great inspired leaders of history” with no attention to what counts – the details of that “great inspired leader’s” life.

They are much more likely to be treated to modish fantasies of the type that Maria Rosa Menocal, not a historian but a student of literature, produced in her feel-good fairy-tale “Ornament of the World,” thus contributing not to history but rather to the romanticized version or “myth” of Andalucia that got its start with two Romantic writers, Washington Irving with his “Tales of the Alhambra” and Chateaubriand with “Le dernier des Abencerages.”

He will do his best to undercut, in advance, to poison minds, in advance, so that they cannot possibly encounter without their minds already having been affected, any of the trustworthy, non-apologetic scholars of Islam. But one hopes you will be able to resist, and to supplement what he force-feeds you by quiet investigations and research of your own. It is Carl Ernst, who wishes to ensure that you are exposed only to his, carefully-crafted, received version of Islam and of the history of Islam, who insults – quietly, sweetly, implicitly – you, who wishes to carefully direct your reading – giving new and sinister meaning to that phrase “directed reading”; it is we who would have you read everything you can, and find out everything you can, from the hundreds of books, and thousands of articles, by the great scholars of Islam.

Toward that desired end, here is a list of about two dozen authors. See what you can find. See what appeals to you. See what sense it makes, or fails to make. The more you read, the more widely you read, the less likely it is that you will be taken in, and the more likely it is that what you read will help you not only to better understand the past, but also what is happening today, in southern Sudan and southern Nigeria and southern Thailand and southern Philipines, in Darfur and among the Berbers of the Kabyle and Morocco, and among the Muslim populations everywhere, who are raised on precisely the same texts, inculcated with the same ideas, impressed with the need to fulfil the same central duties, and who exhibit remarkably similar attitudes, toward the idea of human freedom and individual autonomy, toward the idea of free and skeptical inquiry, toward the idea of untrammeled artistic expression, and toward the very idea that non-Muslims, too, deserve to build, and preserve permanently, their own legal and political institutions and social arrangements, free from the pressure from Muslims to change or surrender them in order to please Muslims and meet Muslim demands.

Here is that list. Read around, whatever you can, whenever you can. As a "corrective" to the pabulum I assume you will be fed in the official syllabus:

1) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel, Free Press
2) Tor Andrae, Mohammad: The Man and His Faith (Routledge)
3) M. M. Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature (American Trust Publicatons)
4) Andrew Bostom (ed.), The Legacy of Jihad, Prometheus Press
5) Michael Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought(Cambridge University Press); The Koran: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press)
6) Ali Dashti, Twenty-Three Years, Mazda Publishers)
7) Sita Ram Goel (compiler and editor), The Calcutta Qur’an Petition (Voice of India)
8) Antoine Fattal, Le status legal des non-Musulmanes en pays d'Islam[for French speakers only] (Dar al-Kitab, Beirut)
9) Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, Princeton University Law
10) Toby Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West (Cambridge University Press)
11) Ayatollah Khomeini, A Clarification of Questions, Westview Press
12) Hans Jansen, The Dual Nature of Islamic Fundamentalism (Cornell University Press)
13) Arthur Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion (Liberal Arts Press)
14) Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Johns Hopkins Press)
15) K. S. Lal, The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India; Theory and Practice of the Muslim State in India (both reprinted by Aditya Prakashan)
16) Henri Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions(St. Joseph’s University, Beirut)
17) Bernard Lewis; The Political Language of Islam (Oxford University Press); Islam In History (reprint: Open Court Press); Islam and the West (Oxford University Press), The Multiple Identities of the Middle East
18)David Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam; The Early Development of Mohammedanism (both Oxford University press)
19) V. S. Naipaul, Among the Believers (Vintage Press); Beyond Belief (Vintage Press)
20) Xavier de Planhol, The World of Islam (Cornell University Press)
21) William St. Clair Tisdall, The Sources of the Koran (on-line at truthnet.org)
22) Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism; Jihad In Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton Studies in Islam)
23) Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed (Vintage Press)
24) Joseph Schacht, Mohammedan Jurisprudence; An Introduction to Islamic Law (both Oxford University Press)
25) C. Snouck Hurgronje, Islam: Origin, Political Growth, and Its Present State (Manohar Publishing—Indian reprint house
26) Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, The Lawful and The Prohibited in Islam (Al-Halal wal Haram Fil Islam), Shorouk International.
27) Ibn Warraq, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad; What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text and Commentary ; The Origins of the Koran(all Prometheus Press)

In addition, it is important for students to familiarize themselves with at least three different translations of the Qur’an, such as those of Yusuf Ali, A. J. Arberry, and Dawood. They can be found, presented synoptically, at various web-sites. Such concepts as “naskh” should be grasped before students begin to try to make sense of seeming contradictions in the text; impenetrable parts of that text should not phase students, but they should be aware of the work of Christoph Luxenberg and others who attempt to explicate the approximately 20% of the text that remains unclear.

In order to grasp the concept of the Sunna, the customs and manners of 7th century Arabia that act as a kind of gloss on the Qur’anic texts, students should familiarize themelves not only with the life of Muhammad, from the various biographies listed above, but also familiarize themselves with the collections of Hadith by Bukhari and Muslim, and read, in no particular order, at least several hundred of the Hadith until they feel familiar with them. The text by M. M. Azami above will explain the concept of “isnad” and how the muhaddithin assigned their ranking of authenticity to the tens of thousands, of Hadith (properly, “ahadith”) that they collected.

Students are asked to familiarize themselves both with Muslim websites, especially those in which fatwas are sought and given, and with the websites of those who grew up in Islam but have left it, such as the sites www.faithfreedom.org and www.answering-islam.org.

Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2007 10:51 PM

I would be curious to know if Prof. Ernst has assigned his students to read the Qur'an, especially Sura 9:29 and the Hadeeth. Wouldn't these be basic reading for his class?

Also, has he explained the concept of abrogation or how the Qur'an is organised?

Posted by: WillPower at August 31, 2007 11:15 PM

"...the lack of any academic background in Islamic Studies.."

That in itself discredits the above poster, who pretends to be a 'student'.

How idiotic, as if we didn't all know that any Islamic study course is no more than da'awa, propaganda and lipstick on a pig. The argument is as good as 'you can't drive a car unless you're a mechanic"- or 'you can't speak Arabic, so you can't possibly understand Islam'- when a simple minded halfwit like the shoebomber can say the shahada and do his 5 prayers and becomes a perfectly good muslim overnight. Do I have to be a crim to understand crime? Do I have to be a banker to undrstand how to make money?

F*#k wakademia, a whore that makes a streethooker look respectable.

Ever since my daughter was vilified, ostracised and called 'racist' in a Queensland university for speaking up against the PC-garbage they were teaching about Islam I spit on wacademia.
I wasted nights and days to write letters to the University establishment, only to receive back weasel-excuses about multiculti and the PC cult(-ure) we have been sold out and into.

No. A muslim poster who comes here peddling taqiyya should not get away with rubbish like that. What makes him think we are too dumb to educate ourselves? Does he believe we can't read and learn on our own without buying the propaganda of a Carl Ernst, a sucker for a 'King Feisal price' which makes him an academic clown, no better than the French hookers who cue up in Monaco when the Arab yachts come in, would you not agree?

This argument is as good as the 'science' in the Koran, laughable, absurd rubbish.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 31, 2007 11:24 PM

What Ph.D. did Mohammad have?

Other than a course in APS (Advanced Pedophile Studies) he was unlettered.

An illiterate, in fact.

One who thought that a woman was only worth half of a man.

And who believed that you had to wash out your nose every morning because a devil slept in their overnight.

Sounds eminently "reasonable" to me.

If by reasonable you mean irrrational, intolerant, misogynistic and homicidal.

I guess that's the magical Ernst dictionary definition.

Printed by the Upsondowns Press.

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 31, 2007 11:40 PM

Susanp: magnificent post @ 12:47

A truly objective view of Islam does not begin with the assumption that it is good or peaceful because it is one of the major religions, nor does it allow negative precepts into the beginning thought process. This is a difficult approach in these times and to succeed it takes a conscious effort to implement discipline over ideological yearnings. Do not expect any expert on Islam to keep you on the path to understanding; the most fascinating insights often come unexpectedly, from random sources.

Always ask about and dig around a little when it comes to the motivations of those you trust least and trust most. You will often be surprised. Stay away from Wikipedia for controversial subjects.

Never minimize the lessons of history.

Posted by: lycaste at September 1, 2007 12:04 AM

Hugh,

That recommended addendum to the syllabus ought to be posted as its own article, where students who come here are quite likely to see and read it.

It might be a cause of some interesting discussion in Dr. Ernst's class.

Posted by: WestwardHo at September 1, 2007 12:49 AM

Hugh,

Ernst's course website states:

"The following main texts for this course are available at Student Stores:

Carl W. Ernst, Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (University of North Carolina Press, 2004), ISBN: 0807855774

Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddima, trans. Franz Rosenthal, abridged ed. (Princeton University Press, 2005)

Kenan Makiya, The Rock: A Tale of Seventh-Century Jerusalem (Vintage Books USA; Vintage edition, 2002), ISBN: 0375700781

Fatima Mernissi, The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam (Perseus Books Group; Reprint edition, 1992), ISBN: 0201632217

In addition, we will be reading excerpts from Prof. Omid Safi's manuscript in progress on Islamic history, Memories of Muhammad .

For those who want additional background or textbook-style information, see the Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia article "Islamic World," by Marilyn Waldman (on electronic reserve), and return to it periodically throughout the class; it is a superb summary, though too dense to be absorbed in a single sitting. "

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2007fall/reli/180/001/info.htm

Posted by: del at September 1, 2007 1:36 AM

Hugh, thanks for that book list and the interesting posts.

Posted by: traeh at September 1, 2007 3:32 AM

Dear sheikyermami - I was very sorry to read about what your daughter endured at the PC Queensland U. Well, we know we are right, even if we do get called names etc...How terrible. I wish her all the best.

profitsbeard - Yeah, where's Mo's Ph.D.?

"devil sleeping in your nose overnight!" Tsk, how stupid. Is that in the K by any chance? Where can that be found?

Posted by: darcy at September 1, 2007 8:58 AM

Hugh,

That recommended addendum to the syllabus ought to be posted as its own article, where students who come here are quite likely to see and read it.

Posted by: WestwardHo

***

I agree. It was only by sheer luck (and a great deal of procrastination from the work I had planned for the day) that looked at the comments on such an "old" (for JW) posting. It should be in its own article, preferably one with a "print" button right above it.

Posted by: CJ at September 1, 2007 10:29 AM

From Carl Ernst's course outline:

"...Gaining information about the Islamic civilization, including history, politics, culture, and religion:

...through primary sources (religious and literary texts, film, art, music) that illustrate some of the ways in which Muslims and the non-Muslims with whom they interacted established the structures of their societies. ..."

Ernst claims that students in his course will look at primary sources. The chief primary sources* in Islam are (1) the Quran, (2) the Hadith, and (3) the Sira. I don't see any assignments that require reading of any of those sources, except for a reading of Sura 18. For the most part, though, Ernst has secondary sources which provide opinion, including his own, those of Omid Safi, and those of other like-minded apologists.

To his credit, though, Ernst has included some readings from Ibn Khaldun. However, as far as I can see on a cursory scan of his list, he has not included the following quote, which to me looks pretty important:

Excerpt from, Ibn Khaldun, _The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History_, translated from the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, New York, Pantheon Books, 1958, pp. 473, 480.

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time. The other [i.e., non-Muslim] religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. It has thus come about that the person in charge of religious affairs is not concerned with power politics at all. Royal authority comes to those who have it, by accident and in some way that has nothing to do with religion. It comes to them as the necessary result of group feeling, which by its very nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as we have mentioned before, and not because they are under obligation to gain power over other nations, as is the case with Islam. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own." "That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority for about four hundred years. Their only concern was to establish their religion." "Thereafter, there were dissensions among the Christians with regard to their religion and to Christology. They split into groups and sects, which secured the support of the various Christian rulers against each other. At different times there appeared different sects. Finally, these sects crystallized into three groups, which constitute the sects. Others have no significance. These are the Melchites, the Jacobites, and the Nestorians. We do not think that we should blacken the pages of this book with discussion of their dogmas of unbelief. In general, they are well known. All of them are unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Qur'an. [To] discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death."

*The primary Islamic textual sources include the Qur'an (multiple translations are available online); the Hadith including Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Sunan Abu Dawud collections (available online), and (in Shia Islam) the sayings of Ali (also available online); and the Sira, including The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with Introduction and notes by Professor A. Guillaume (translator). [First published in 1955, Nineteenth impression (2006), Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press]. Ibn Ishaq's Sira, compiled by Ibn Hisham, is one of the earliest major biographies of Muhammad.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 1, 2007 10:59 AM

"Mr. Spencer has often published work with publishers known to have conservative backing and unbiased scholarly review is not evident. This does not invalidate his opinion, it merely suggests a bias."

It certainly does. The fact that serious scholars like Spencer, Bostom, Bat Ye'or, and investigators like Ehrenfeld, Burr, and Collins are shunned by certain publishers suggest bias, fear, and the influence of petrodollars. Nice try Omid.

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 1, 2007 12:13 PM

darcy-

The nose stuff is in the Hadiths by Muslim, Volume 1, number 462:

"When any of you wakes from sleep [Mohammad said] you must ...clean your nose out three times, for the devil spends the night in the interior of your nose."

The Islamic 'intellectual' contortions to explain this are entertaining.

Potential Saudi T.V., commencial:

"Honey, give me an al-Kleenix, I feel a Satan coming on!"

Posted by: profitsbeard at September 1, 2007 3:36 PM

Liven up the Classrom this Semester. Ask Professor Ernst to describe Infidelobia and why it is so intrenched within Muslim Society.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 1, 2007 5:14 PM

Infidelophobia indeed. While Carl Ernst decries alleged Islamophobia, he has no qualms about the Quran's vile hate-mongering and demonization of all non-Muslims:

The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims):

--are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (some Christians and/or Jews were) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); are like frightened donkeys chased by a lion (74:50-51), are like cattle—nay, worse than cattle (7:179, 25:44), are like dogs (7:176);

--they (idolators) are unclean (9:28); have uncleanness set upon them by Allah (10:100, 6:125); the hypocrites are unclean (9:95).

--“evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); "enemy" (63:4); ungrateful traitors (31:32).

---“perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); are ill (84:20); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); in false pride and schism (38:2), in schism (2:137, 2:167);

--fools (2:130); foolish (6:35); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103, 10:100); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6-7), and deceived by Satan (4:60);

--Allah sends devils against them to make them do evil (19:83); Allah cursed them for their unbelief (2:88-89),

--liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 6:28, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19),

--“losers” (5:53, 6:31, 7:178-179); among the lowest (58:20); the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

In reading those above insults, keep the following points in mind:
-these insults apply to disbelievers because they are disbelievers (disbelief is the worst crime)
-the insults are assumed to be the words of Allah and are therefore true of disbelievers for all time, until the Last Day
-the disbelievers cannot do anything to improve Allah’s perception of them (He does not accept the good works of the disbelievers), except to believe in and obey Allah.
-the insulting adjectives refer to the inherent character traits of disbelievers

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 1, 2007 5:44 PM

Here's some material from Sura 18, the Sura that Ernst has assigned to his students. (When reading these quotes, bear in mind that Ernst believes that the Quran is a "holy object" that should be treated with "respect." Well, here's what he says his students should respect).

-No one may share in Allah's government.

18:26 "Say: Allah is Best Aware how long they tarried. His is the Invisible of the heavens and the earth. How clear of sight is He and keen of hearing! They have no protecting friend beside Him, and He maketh none to share in His government."

-Allah will burn and torture the non-Muslims because they did not believe in and obey Islam.

18:29 "Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!"

-Collective punishment; Allah carries out genocide on whole townships of people.

18:59 "And (all) those townships! We destroyed them when they did wrong, and We appointed a fixed time for their destruction."

-Disbelief or shirk (polytheism) cancels deeds; Allah will not accept the good works of the disbelievers.

18:104 "Those whose effort goeth astray in the life of the world, and yet they reckon that they do good work.
18:105 Those are they who disbelieve in the revelations of their Lord and in the meeting with Him. Therefor their works are vain, and on the Day of Resurrection We assign no weight to them.
18:106 That is their reward: hell, because they disbelieved, and made a jest of Our revelations and Our messengers."

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 1, 2007 6:16 PM

What a good idea. Let us all start chiming in with "Infidelphobia"

Posted by: OzzieAussie at September 1, 2007 6:29 PM

It is embarrassing to a tenth generation Son of the American Revolution from the County of Orange, North Carolina, where the country's first state sponsored university was founded that this kind of dangerous dogma could be taught at that university as anything other than dangerous dogma. And it is shameful that it is allowed on the very campus that experienced a jihadist attack just a year and a half ago. Do you even remember that, you Chapel Hill chumps?

Posted by: B.N. Sharpe at September 1, 2007 9:22 PM

Seconding cj - that Hugh's 'recommended addendum to the syllabus ought to be posted as its own article, where students who come here are quite likely to see and read it'.

To me it seems, indeed, that we are seeing here the need for a new section on the homepage explicitly addressed to 'students and teachers'; and not just university or college students such as might be studying under the likes of Carl Ernst. I am not sure how one might flag it, but it should be flagged so as to snag in the google trawling net most readily, and so as to pique interest when snagged.

Besides college students, I am thinking of the following: homeschooling parents, such as 'lydia' who came to this site to ask people where she might find 'out of the box' materials on the history of modern Israel; conscientious history, English, literature and civics teachers at high schools, or even teachers of younger children, who feel themselves not entirely content with the jejune and misleading materials handed them by the likes of CAIR or even the local imam courtesy of the Muslim parents at the school (ah, those exquisite 'discovering Islam' posters and pamphlets, a tissue of lies both blatant and subtle); concerned parents who are just a little worried, a little puzzled by the presentations given to their children by the Muslim daawa artists; and RE teachers at Christian or Jewish 'parochial' schools who wish to equip their students with a solid understanding of that other religion which so often and so loudly, in this and other western countries, 'claims kinship' with theirs.

Such people need to find themselves clearly pointed to a range of illuminating titles and materials, preferably classified according to ease of availability and use, and suitability for age group (adult/ college student; teenager; younger child; perhaps a sub-group, 'women's studies/ feminism' might be appropriate?). It could also be noted whether a given source is operating from a specific religious viewpoint, although having broader applicability (e.g. Samuel Zwemer's "The Law of Apostasy in Islam", although written from a Christian viewpoint, contains a mountain of historic documentation of the historic Islamic attitude toward any person who seeks either to leave Islam, or to invite others to leave it). Zwemer's book goes very nicely alongside 'Infidel' and 'Now They Call Me Infidel' .

It occurs to me that the animated film "Persepolis", and the graphic novels out of which it grew, written by a very talented Iranian woman in exile, would probably be suitable for intelligent teenagers [especially girls!] with adult guidance; those intending to provide such guidance would do well to apprise themselves of the Iranian sections of V S Naipaul's "Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief", and the text by Mr Khomeini which Hugh mentioned, above.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 1, 2007 10:07 PM

As JTF indicates (above), one of the more effective means of liberating college students from the burden of tried and true "old school" approaches to non-quantifiable subjects (history, sociology, etc) is to present the material under the rubric of

"non-traditional approaches to traditional subjects"

Notice how this clever but arguably unnecessary tactic gives the presenter substantially greater flexibility to appear unbiased yet maintain the power to subvert the currriculum subjectively, especially by omission.

What "Student" said about Ernst's fair and balanced effort, asking his class to reach their own conclusions, is interesting. What most of us find out later in life is that *there is no such thing* as a comprehensive, cogent and balanced information source for anything. All providers of data have some prejudice, even where they have strived to avoid it. It is your job to sift through the perspectives of those with disparate agendas, at the same time not expecting that any one source will be without bias. This is where you will find information that satisfies, as opposed to raw news reports or watered-down pablum posing as The Truth.

Please remember in your efforts to understand Islam that it is not a religion in the Western sense but rather a whole program for life, down to the last detail whether secular or spiritual. Therefore Islam is fundamentally not comparable with other major religions. It means that all expressions and actions of Muslims that are not punishable by Islamic law fall within the precepts of Islam and are therefore sanctioned by the religion. The next time you read about some terrible act committed by a follower of the faith try to find out what is the response of Muslims in that community. Then think about Western justice systems and ask yourself if all creeds are equal.

Jihad Watch has a very specific mission and no one should expect to find here the whole picture of Islam. It does not compete with any college course. If you want to see the apolitical aesthetic of Islam look up Saudi Aramco magazine. It will leave you feeling warm inside and, of course, enlightened.

Posted by: lycaste at September 2, 2007 12:35 PM

Student

"While I by no means regard the thoughts of those outside an academic setting as immediately dismissible, the lack of any academic background in Islamic Studies and the use of publishing companies backed by conservative foundations suggest a particular agenda."

This is time-worn fallback of those who value fortifying their offense strategy over genuine debate. We all know there are socially and even academically dysfunctional holders of docorates, just the same as there are humbly matriculated persons who are extremely proficient in their fields. As others have pointed out, you are guilty of what Ernst is guilty of: judgment of background and of support (publishers) but not of content. What could be more shallow. A particular agenda? Bias? So what? That is no excuse for not engaging in debate unless you have reason to believe that your opponent is plying fallacious or inaccurate information and arguments.

As for your comment about "well reasoned criticism of Islam", that is a loaded proposition. If someone is criticising something based on a motivation of justifiable concern or even fear, it can be well-reasoned, as Mr Spencer does consistently. But what you are getting at, I believe, is whether such criticism is in fact reasonable in its details and scope and tone.

When any group is called on their practices of a literally barbaric nature-- beheadings and so on-- isn't it a triffle difficult to make those critiques, especially when they are taken from religion, sound "reasonable" to the uninformed outsider? Even more so to any members of that subject group? That is the crux of the communication dilemma we face currently. It is a phase that Muslims can help mend by owning up to their behavior or worsen by embracing it with even more zeal.

Posted by: lycaste at September 2, 2007 6:18 PM

Hi Robert,
I took a comparative religion course online at
a community college in a small town many years ago.
The professor loved all my writing until we got up to Islam
(his favorite - he saved for last).
He used to write me back witty comments etc.
One of his questions was how we felt about Islam
since studying about it (I studied all religions
with textbook and suggested study materials, and
OUTSIDE suggested).
I wrote that before I studied about Islam and
Muhammad I thought that the Islamic Jihad was
from people who had distorted the Koran and
things Muhammad had done, but that I now understood
that Muhammad did all these murderous things
himself (such as turning on a Jewish town that
had saved him from Arabs who wanted to kill him
and then wiped all the Jewish people out).
He also promoted death to infidels.
I wrote that unlike before my study, I was now terrified!
The professor never answered an email from me after that!

Posted by: Watching&Crying at September 2, 2007 6:23 PM

A new addition to Ernst's syllabus has led to this new post:

Carl Ernst demonstrates anew his commitment to genuine academic inquiry

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018008.php

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 2, 2007 7:07 PM