"Hummus restaurants?" Excuse me, Mr. Nelson, but you're nuts.

Posted by: darcy at October 29, 2007 11:15 AM

"A musical comedy about competing Hummus restaurants in the West Bank. A must see."
-- from Kurt Nelson's missive to "the Dartmouth community."

Imagine you are Jacques Barzun. Imagine you are trying to explain what is wrong with the American university today, as part of a a newchapter to be appended to a re-issue of "Teacher in America."

You could do worse -- could you do better? -- than start with the sinister sentimentality -- captured in that repeated word "folks" -- of Kurt Nelson, and of his treacly reductionism, including that "West Bank Story" which he so highly recommends as a "must see" in which one learns nothing of what prompts the Lesser Jihad against Israel, but the viewing of which is, no doubt, a lot less taxing than becoming familiar with Qur'an and Hadith and Sira, or for that matter with the Hamas or PLO Charters, or a thousand relevant documents, including the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine and such works as "Islam and Dhimmitude." No, stick with the tragicomic tale of "competing Hummus restaurants in the West Bank." According to Kurt Nelson, it's a "must see" -- for all the "folks" in what is not merely an institution of higher learning, but rather a "community."

Gush. Gush with a purpose. Sinister gush.

Posted by: Hugh at October 29, 2007 11:28 AM

Sentimental. Sentimental and evil. Dostoyevsky's description of the karamazov's father.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 29, 2007 11:33 AM

Hmm... a West Bank musical comedy. They could put it on a double bill with that old favorite, "Springtime for Hitler".
Having Hillel support the sort of nonsense proposed is like having the turkeys vote in favor of Thanksgiving. Oh well, I guess they've got to get Kapos from somewhere.

Posted by: MP at October 29, 2007 12:19 PM

Wow. When Robert presents well-documented evidence of the support for violence in the Qur'an, the response is usually ad hominem attacks, tu quoque attacks, or easily disproven vague denials. Anything other than a reasoned thoughtful response.

"A musical comedy about competing Hummus restaurants in the West Bank."

This is the reponse? Wow. They are really flailing.

Posted by: special_guest at October 29, 2007 12:38 PM

From the article

Wednesday November 7th 6:00 PM Collis Commonground hear students Muslim students about the Muslim faith and what unites this unique and diverse group, eat dinner and discuss.

Just wondering, will there be throngs of people pounding on the walls, stamping their feet, and chanting "Racists! Racists!" to disrupt their dinner-theatre performance? No, I didn't think so.

Posted by: special_guest at October 29, 2007 12:46 PM

"unites this unique and diverse group.."
-- from Kurt Nelson's handout

Note that "diverse." "Diverse" is good. Diversity Day. Diverseness everywhere you look. Always good. But here it has another purpose. It is the "don't you dare say anything about Islam because"

1) Islam is not "monolithic"
Or, expressed otherwise:
2) Muslims are diverse.

What this means is that some Muslim men wear the Central Asian tubeteika and choban, and others wear business suits in Dearborn, and some women wear the kalwar shameez, and others a burqa, and others go the full-fledged route, burqaed and niqabbed, while still others merely the scarf or hijab.

But this misses the point. The same Qur'an, with the same passages, the same Hadith (that is, the same "authentic" Hadith in the collections of the most "authoritative" muhaddithin, such as Bukhari and Muslim), the same Sira with the same examples of Muhammad's behavior, Muhammad who is the Perfect Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, and the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil.

In that respect there is no diffrence. There is no "Euroopean" Islam, no "American" Islam. The texts and the tenets remain the same. Superficial differences having to do with food and clothing are not enough to make Islam -- as opposed to Muslims -- "diverse." It is not surprising that this would escape the attention or be beyond the wit of Kurt Nelson and those who have an unshakeable vested interest in Interfaith Feelgood as a substitute for study and thought.

But imagine if students at Dartmouth took the same tack, and offered the same unexamined and baseless and confused notions of what they should believe, as the same substitute for study and thought, in their classes on physics or history or anything else, for that matter. Those who long ago endowed the Tucker Foundation would, one suspects, not be happy with how it is presently being run, and for what purposes, and with what assumptions, the assumption for example that ideas don't really matter, ideologies don't matter, and we are not to inquire into them too deeply, but merely assume, with the Higher Bomfoggery (Brotherhood of Man, Fatherhood of God) that Everyone The Whole World Over Wants The Very Same Thing, and we are all God's chillun', and why oh why can't we get along, and we would get along, wouldn't we, if only those sinister people insisting that we study just a bit before parroting a prefabricated worldview would just shut up, just go away. Not exactly what campuses are supposed to be for: the active discouragement of thought. But that's it. That's the way it is, and not only being spouted by self-preening sinecure-holders at Dartmouth -- see Scott Appleby, Defender of Tariq Ramadan, see the scandalous destruction of Islamic studies at Columbia, where Arthur Jeffrey and then Joseph Schacht once walked the halls. See See See.

Posted by: Hugh at October 29, 2007 1:01 PM

'You could do worse -- could you do better? -- than start with the sinister sentimentality -- captured in that repeated word "folks" '

I've been unsettled by the the use of this word by politicians for the past few years. It's always made my flesh crawl.

Hugh just nailed the reason why.

Excellent.

Posted by: Big Luke at October 29, 2007 1:02 PM

Ah, a meeting of the mindless. How quaint.

Posted by: breezy55 at October 29, 2007 1:03 PM

Look on the bright side, Robert,
at least we know how Churchill felt amidst the naive chamberlain fans in the 1930s...and we know how that turned out, too.

Nothing like watching history repeat itself.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 29, 2007 1:21 PM

In the next 10-25 years how is all this going to pan out?

Posted by: Big Luke at October 29, 2007 1:31 PM

Instead of responding directly to Robert Spencer's presence on campus . . .
..............................................

Well, of course not. It was the same at Berkeley. At no time did I hear any of the counter-protesters address *any* of the points brought up by Nonie Darwish or any of the other Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week speakers.

First, many counter-demonstrators claimed that anyone supporting Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is racist and (oddly) homophobic. Literature handed out during the events claimed that anti-Islamo-Fascists support "Christian Fundamentalists" who "argue that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death and women should not work outside the home"

Of couse, these are *actual* enforced policies of the most extreme Shari'ah states. Iran has hanged young gay men. In Taliban-controlled Afghanistan women working outside the home were killed. Women today in Saudi Arabia can be beaten or imprisoned for merely being out on the street without a male relative.

No regime anywhere in the West has such policies, nor is there any discussion that they should adopt such policies.

This literature was put out by "The National Project to Defend Dissent and *Critical Thinking* in Academia" (emphasis added; no further comment necessary)

Posted by: gravenimage at October 29, 2007 1:42 PM

Robert -- No, I did not note any hateful, violent or false statements being made by you at Dartmouth. You were very careful to explain the madness behind 9/11; starting with the misinformed perspective of the Left, as well as the different factions within Islam and the rise of what we characterize as "radical Islam".

Kurt Nelson's letter is dangerous because it sends the wrong message by labeling the Truth as dark and hateful and something to be avoided. He is a fool to direct attention away from the Truth about this evil threat, and instead encourages folks to fill their belly with food while leaving their minds empty and vulnerable to these lies. Shame on you Kurt.

Good job Robert!

Posted by: champ at October 29, 2007 2:31 PM

Mr. Nelson is not interested in truth. Mr. Nelson is not interested in confronting evil. Mr. Nelson, for whatever morally-challenged reason, does not even recognize evil. Mr. Nelson would prefer to stick his head in the sand and, in arrogant ignorance, pretend that everything is alright. Little does Mr. Nelson realize that the ideology that he blindly protects would slice his skinny little throat without a second thought. Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Nelson's allies, are absolute cannon fodder and would be the very first to crumble when exposed to those who are in obedience to the full commands of the qu'ran. Mr. Nelson should start writing a book called "How to Be a Victim'. His sequel could be, 'How to Get Conquered By Islam.'

Posted by: angryeagle at October 29, 2007 2:33 PM

Mr. Spencer: In the video provided, the first student in the Q&A session asks about "CIA-fascism" awareness and so forth, and you quipped something in reply, followed by clapping from the other students. Unfortunately, the audio is washed out and I'm unable to understand what you said. Could you clarify, please? Thanks.

Posted by: Jonas Salk at October 29, 2007 3:01 PM

I could only get the first 2 minutes of the speech. Anyone know why the video is so short?

Listening to that opening two minutes, I will take issue with Robert's postulation that the 9-11 could have or would have occurred regardless of US foreign policy. Had the US been behaving as a compliant dhimmi state, joining the rest of the world in isolating Israel and voluntarily removing its forces from the region, the attack in all likelihood would never have occurred.

This does not mean for a minute that our policies were wrong (certainly not our policy of supporting democratic Israel), or that the attacks were in anyway justified from a moral standpoint. But they did indeed occur as a result of our policies. We were attacked not because we are infidels per se, but rather because we are powerful infidels who are an impediment to the fulfillment of Jihadist aspirations.

I think it's important to make that distinction. Admitting that we were attacked because of our policies in no way implies that those policies were wrong or that we deserved what we got.

The Liberal/Left would draw the conclusion that weakness and appeasement are the lessons to be learned. Those of us with better sense have appropriately concluded that a vigorous defense of our civilization is what is called for.

Now, can anyone please tell me how I can access the entire speech?

Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2007 5:13 PM

I read one of Robert's books (it was great!!) and have been reading his comments on Jihadwatch for months and at no time have I been shocked by or even aware of adverse, unkind or cruel remarks about Muslims. (Sometimes I want to scream out that his comments don't go far enough, that his points don't "get to the point" of the evasiveness, dis-honesty, illusions of pride and brutality that govern Muslims. As I have said before, all Muslims read the same Qur'an!! I do not believe there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim! Able to lie convincingly and capable of keeping his mouth shut? YES! But moderate? NO!)

Posted by: youngtimer at October 29, 2007 5:32 PM

Attacked with a musical comedy. I guess they are running short of rioters and bombers. All army's run out of volunteers eventually. When this happens it's time to break out the heavy artillery, musical comedy.

I have read RS books, I have read RS writings on this site and others, and I have viewed/listened to his videos. At no time did I see or hear RS indulge himself in anything near hate speech or violence.
I have been aware of the many instances (not all of them) of these things directed against him.
The very charges are preposterous. RS knows he is under close watch for language like that, and would not incriminate himself, so to speak. Besides, hate and violence are not his style of communication.
Scholarly, rational, factual, truth, is his forte. If you don't give them a wedge to drive in they will have to invent one. In this case it could be worse than a musical comedy and a hummus contest.
If we could just get more muslims into musical comedy and hummus, rather than jihad, we would be doing something. The jihad singers and dancers,
an idea who's time has come...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 29, 2007 5:33 PM

I read one of Robert's books (it was great!!) and have been reading his comments on Jihadwatch for months and at no time have I been shocked by or even aware of adverse, unkind or cruel remarks about Muslims. (Sometimes I want to scream out that his comments don't go far enough, that his points don't "get to the point" of the evasiveness, dis-honesty, illusions of pride and brutality that govern Muslims. As I have said before, all Muslims read the same Qur'an!! I do not believe there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim! Able to lie convincingly and capable of keeping his mouth shut? YES! But moderate? NO!)

Posted by: youngtimer at October 29, 2007 5:34 PM

It might be helpful in the long run to keep tabs on all these mental giants like Kurt Nelson, who is such a great Hummus licker without the need for intellectual food.

But how about a Jihad Watch data bank that collects and compiles data of all obstructionists, corrupt officials, closet Muslims in positions where they shouldn't be, etc etc.

Just an idea...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 29, 2007 5:37 PM

OK...watched the whole thing.

I think most would agree that Robert has become the world's pre-eminent spokesperson for the anti-Jihad. His presentation - even when speaking extemporaneously - is practically seamless.

There wasn't a single word spoken in that lecture that promoted hatred.

Nonetheless, Robert remains a dangerous man....he has thoroughly digested the theology of our enemies and he knows it as well or better than they do. His weapon is the truth, and he wields it with dexterity.

As always, what comes across is not just Robert's formidable knowledge, but also his lack of pretension and most importantly, the moral foundations of his overall message.

I loved his comeback to the moonbat who suggested a 'CIA-fascism awareness weak"...

In a spontaneous but scathing repudiation of academe, Robert replied:

"You have that the rest of the year."

Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2007 6:50 PM

Cornelius,

You are quite a character! Even after years of posting here you're still looking to find 'hatred' or something objectionable in Spencers speeches. Me thinks you are another victim of political correctness gone overboard...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 29, 2007 7:11 PM

a showing of the Oscar Winning WEST BANK STORY with discussion. A musical comedy about competing Hummus restaurants in the West Bank.
..........................

Yes, I googled this, and it actually *did* win an Oscar this year. Obviously, this is a riff on West Side Story.

"Dueling falafel shops"? (this is how NPR describes them). I suppose any of the actual conflicts in the West Bank were too difficult--suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israel, attacks on Jewish settlers and Palestinian Christians, attacks on Muslims by their more extreme co-religionists, Fatah revenge attacks against Hamas over the insane violence of Gaza--nope, no story here! Dueling falafel shops it is!

You just can't parody this stuff.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 29, 2007 10:33 PM

Shiekh,

In case you didn't notice, Robert challenged us to listen to the speech and try to detect any hate speech: "So I ask you to do so, and to write in the comments field below if you believe anything I said was hateful or violent, or even false."

I was just doing my part.

Me thinks you're slightly moronic.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2007 10:57 PM

Question if you watched the video:

There was one thing I couldn't hear that I really wanted to hear: a young male questioner asked Robert if there shouldn't be a "CIA Fascism Week," and Robert said something in response that made the audience laugh and clap, but I couldn't hear what it was.

Anybody catch it?

Posted by: traeh at October 30, 2007 1:41 AM

Cornelius wrote:

"Had the US been behaving as a compliant dhimmi state, joining the rest of the world in isolating Israel and voluntarily removing its forces from the region, the attack in all likelihood would never have occurred."

Nonsense. Spain ran out of Iraq years ago with its tail between it legs & to this day it continues to the the target of jihadi plots. If the jihadists' goal really was to force the West to act in a more accommodating manner toward islamic countries & to withdraw from the region, they would have taken Spain off their target list to induce other western countries to follow Spain's example. They didn't.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at October 30, 2007 2:20 AM

Question if you watched the video:

There was one thing I couldn't hear that I really wanted to hear: a young male questioner asked Robert if there shouldn't be a "CIA Fascism Week," and Robert said something in response that made the audience laugh and clap, but I couldn't hear what it was.

Anybody catch it?

I had a tough time catching this part of the talk as well, but here is what I think I heard.

First, I think the questioner asked the question whether the CIA should also have a fascism awareness week for every country in the world and every sect in the world?

And I heard Robert say that "you guys have it every week of the year. All we are asking is for is a tiny bit of equal time (for Islamic-fascism)"

Posted by: Razdan at October 30, 2007 6:42 AM

SHIEK: "Spain ran out of Iraq years ago with its tail between it legs & to this day it continues to the the target of jihadi plots. If the jihadists' goal really was to force the West to act in a more accommodating manner toward islamic countries & to withdraw from the region, they would have taken Spain off their target list to induce other western countries to follow Spain's example. They didn't."

RESPONSE: There was the recent uncovering of a bomb plot in Spain to blow up the National Court, so you do have a point.

Nonetheless, I still maintain that an effort of the magnitude of 9-11 would never have been undertaken had the USA been more compliant in its response to Jihadist demands. The attack was inevitable for as long as America pursued its own national interests and continued fulfilling its obligations as a 'great power'.

The Liberal/Left advocate the abandoning of American national interests and of its obligations as a great power (the precise word is appeasement). Such a policy would most certainly diminish the necessity for Jihadist violence. But what the Liberals don't know or don't care is it would also accelerate the Islamization of planet earth.

I believe the two outstanding issues used by Bin Ladin to justify the 9-11 attacks - US support for Israel and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the world's oil supplies from another mis-adventure by Saddam - were entirely appropriate policies for the world's only super-power. Nonetheless, to suggest that 9-11 had NOTHING to do with American foreign policy is as disingenuous as saying it had nothing to do with Islam.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2007 12:41 PM

The video of my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk at Dartmouth College last Friday night, courtesy Harrison Sonntag is no longer available at google.
Is there anywhere else we can view it? I would
love to see it! Thanks.

Posted by: Watching&Crying at October 30, 2007 8:01 PM

I'm working on putting the video up on Guba, another video site. Apparently, they have rejected it for its content. Not surprisingly, you can still find numerous jihadist propaganda videos. I'll post the link here and send it to Mr. Spencer, as well.

Posted by: TheBigH at October 31, 2007 2:46 PM

Finally got it up on Guba. Watch it here: http://www.guba.com/watch/3000095246?duration_step=0&fields=8&filter_tiny=0&pp=6000&query=1077082&sb=0&set=5&sf=0&size_step=0&o=0&sample=1193876322:de8be23a47565babff22c98c3e215e5670b89eb3

Posted by: TheBigH at October 31, 2007 8:29 PM

Sir:
The link to the video of your Dartmouth talk comes up dead.
Could you please refresh it? Thanks

Posted by: sebjoeko at November 1, 2007 3:36 PM