| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
I just got this message from Omid Safi:
Put this on your webpage:You and I are not friends, and we are not friendly. I oppose, challenge, and stand up to the thinly veiled bigotry that you foster. For my part, I will spend my life standing up for women's rights, for rights of the oppressed and marginalized, opposing both Islamic extremists and western triumphalists. If you had taken a moment to read my essay in the Progressive Muslims book, you would have a sense of what I stand for.
That being said, sir, in polite society (which I assume we are in) we do not call people by their first name until we are given permission to do so. I have not given you permission to call me by "Hi Omid!", nor by "my man."
And lastly, I can't tell you what a great pedagogical tool it is for me to be able to show my students the level of hate that shows up on websites like yours. You can hide behind, "it is an un-moderated list" all you want like a coward. I will use direct quotes like: "Believe it or not, I don't "hate" muslims, I hate Islam" to make the point about Islamophobia to my students. At the end of the day, I am unconcerned with whether or not you recognize Islamophobia as a real social issue, sir. As a scholar I do care about whether the United Nations does. (it does.)
Substitute Judaism or Christianity in the above quote, and see how most decent human beings would be outraged. I will take my work to those folks, and keep struggling for justice. You do what you think is best.
Oh, and lastly, I only invite credible scholars of Islamic studies to Colgate to speak about Islam. Get a PhD in Islamic studies (which you don't have), publish a book by a credible university press (which you have not), and then we'll talk. Academic credentials do mean something, you know.
All the best,
Omid Safi
Have you ever noticed how self-important and humorless these pseudo-academic ideologues can be? My man Safi seems to be the Emily Post of academia -- who knew?
He objects to statements not made by me, but by posters here, choosing the statement "Believe it or not, I don't 'hate' muslims, I hate Islam" as an example, and tells me it's cowardly to tell him it's an unmoderated board. All right, Omid. You straighten this out for me -- you having a Ph.D. and all, it will be easy for you. Tell me exactly how it is that I am responsible for someone who posts that he hates Islam, but presumably not responsible for someone who posts (as someone did here) on the same thread that "blanket-hating Islam is not going to make it any better"? Or am I responsible for both opposing views? By dismissing the idea of unmoderated comments as meaningless, you indicate once again, Omid, that your grasp of the concept of free speech as tenuous at best.
But of course, Safi is reduced to quoting a poster whose identity isn't even known to me as if his words were mine because he probably knows that if he actually opened one of my books, he wouldn't find the "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" that he wants to find. And that, of course, would belie his biased and propagandistic characterizations of those writings.
Moreover, about that poster's statement: Omid seems to think that it is somehow "bigoted" to have an opinion about a belief system. All right, Omid, I'll play your mutatis mutandis game: I guess it would be wrong to say "I don't hate Christians; I hate Christianity." So I guess Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell are taught at Colgate as examples of deplorable and hate-filled Christianophobic bigotry, eh, Omid? And what about this little matter of Omid "opposing both Islamic extremists and western triumphalists"? Omid, my friend, you don't, uh, hate Western triumphalism, do you? Don't you stay awake nights wondering if you're provoking anti-American bigotry? You don't? Well then, I'm sure you understand how I can oppose the Islamic jihad ideology, Sharia, and dhimmitude, in the name of "standing up for women's rights, for rights of the oppressed and marginalized," as a great man once put it, without hating anyone, or engaging in "bigotry" or "racism" -- can't you Omid?
Safi also ignores the increasingly massive evidence of corruption at the UN, and subscribes to its politicized and propagandistic endorsement of "Islamophobia." I'm sorry, Omid: am I supposed to be impressed that Kofi Annan is wringing his hands about "Islamophobia"? Your faith in the UN is touching, but do you really think it is incorruptible? Have you heard of a little matter -- something about oil-for-food? Sex abuse among UN aid workers? Oh, and you might want to request a review copy of my new essay collection, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. You'll be interested in a section there entitled "Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the UN," containing many never-before-published and seldom-seen documents detailing the sorry record of Islamic states on human rights issues at the UN -- often acting in the name of Islam. I suppose "Islamophobes" like me made all that data up, eh, Omid?
Finally, I will not book a flight to Colgate, as I have no intention of getting the Ph.D. in Islamic studies that you evidently require of speakers. As I explained before, and as you have not addressed in any way, shape, or form, the field is so politicized these days as to make honest scholarship virtually impossible. It is dominated by pseudo-scholarly hacks who parrot the tired and intellectually laughable politically tendentious lines of the likes of Edward Said -- but I don't need to tell you that, do I, Omid?
It is ironic, Omid, that you sneer at the idea of inviting me to Colgate, when you have already done so. You're the one who introduced poor dumb uncredentialed folks like me into the debate by adding us to your course's enemies list of "Islamophobes," triumphalists, "unrepentant Orientalists," etc. It appears that you do not wish to allow us to speak for ourselves, but rather, loftily, no doubt waving your diploma all the while, you will explain our works to your hapless charges. You have not allowed them to form their own opinions about our work by calling us these names at the outset, and you are evidently afraid to let them hear us (or at least me) and judge for themselves. I must say, you are the very model of a modern academic.
Finally, you doubtless know that the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. People should listen to you and not to me because you have a Ph.D.? I'll bet you that I could spend five minutes at Colgate and find ten refutations of the idea that a degree confers expertise bumbling around in classrooms. What you have not done, and evidently will not do, is actually confront and attempt to refute the substance of the arguments I have marshalled in my books Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers. It's a lot easier to hide behind your sheepskin, ain't it, Omid?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Posted by Robert at February 8, 2005 2:40 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
As a scholar I do care about whether the United Nations does. (it does.)
Because the UN is the ultimate arbiter of what is real and what is not.
After all, they decided there's no genocide happening in Darfur.
Posted by: Robert Crawford![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 8, 2005 3:55 PM
It has been a slow process, but little by little the made men of MESA Nostra have seized control of many courses, and in some cases whole departments, having to do with Middle Eastern studies.
One Omid Safi would like us to treat him with the dignity that one would offer Joseph Schacht, or Antoine Fattal or David Margoliouth or C. Snouck Hurgronje, or Bat Ye'or, or Ignaz Goldziher. Why? We all know the farce that MESA Nostra has made of Middle Eastern studies, and who gets hired, and promoted, and by whom, and why -- not everywhere, but in a good many places. We are aware of the dreamy belief that the "best person" to "teach about Islam" must be a "Muslim." Who hired Omid Safi? How did his resistible rise become so irresisistible?
He really seems to believe that his "Ph.D." entitles him to respect, without more. What was his thesis on? Who read it and passed upon it? What else has he written? Is he a cultivated man, full of vast learning, some kind of Muslim Arnaldo Momigliano or Oswyn Murray or Peter Green, or is he a tendentious hack, full of ressentiment toward the more advanced non-Muslim world, and able to twist most of his charges -- not the more intelligent, less gullible ones, but most -- around his little finger, for his idea of education, like his great respect for Authority (and to think that it used to be people on the left who would flaunt that bumpersticker: Question Authority). Yes, Omid Safi's authority is non-existent. In his mishandling of evidence, in his breathtaking illogic, in his sullen calibanish nursing of pseudo-grievances against so very many, he has earned no authority whatsover. A thousand Ph.D.s, a dozen doctorates honoris causa or ex grege eundem, would not confer that authority.
Posted by: Hugh at February 8, 2005 4:16 PM
What a pompous bastard this Omid schmuck is. Does anyone have his home telephone number, or his address?
Posted by: Moe Goldberg at February 8, 2005 4:30 PM
Moe,
I would ask you not to contact him. If you do, always remember: be polite and substantive. Do not engage in name-calling, etc. Don't give him more ammunition for his smears.
Best
RS
at February 8, 2005 4:35 PM
The clownish demand for deference to degrees, when those degrees are so often devoid of meaning, is one more illustration of the mistaking of outward validation, however trivial or meaningless the manner in which such validation was obtained, as somehow conferring in ward merit. One sees the same phenomenon among others strutting about university campuses, convinced like Podsnap of their own merit and importance, though they have nothing in common with those who went before. What conceivable likeness is there between, for example, the members of Columbia's MEALAc faculty and such past scholars of Islam who taught at Columbia as Joseph Schacht and Arthur Jeffery? Or what conceivable comparison can be made between the older generation of teachers and scholars -- Jacques Barzun, say -- and those who have taken their titles, and their chairs, but have nothing in common with them. A few old fuddy-duddies try to maintain standards, join the National Association of Scholars, and mock the decline and fall. But really. Safi, Ward Churchill, the assorted khalidis and dabashis, are what, in literature and history, the poor young are so often likely to get. And they know no better. And they lack the ability to learn and think on their own. And everyone is afraid, not least the dwindling number of faculty members with some modicum of sense, and of course the university administrators, compleat political animals, fearful of making waves.
If there is an anti-Barzun prize, let it be awarded this year to Ward Churchill, but do put Omid Safi in the running for next year. He has earned it.
Posted by: Hugh at February 8, 2005 4:36 PM
Hey there Omid,
there are many different societies Omid, and many different norms as to politeness;
i would have thought that you, with all those letters after your name, fewer by the way than i,
would know that.
Having spent most of your allotted years and energy studying islam, please note i capitalize religions not fascist ideologies, i can but imagine your anger and frustration as your life's work turns out to be a total waste.
When you find you are in a hole Omid, and islam is about the biggest hole around, stop digging and climb out. As we say in this country, get a life.
I like muslims, and hate islam,
like Germans, and hate the nazi ideology,
like Russians, and hate communism;
do you have some problem with this Omid ?
To all those in islamic studies, stop wasting your time. Over one third of all the doctorates granted by Saudi universities, and they grant a lot of doctorates, are in islamic studies. Doctorates in islamic studies are a dime a dozen, cheaper by the gross, don't waste your valuable time.
at February 8, 2005 4:45 PM
The dismissal of Spencer's substantive views on Islam because he lacks a Ph.D. and is not published in the 'right press' is a veiled appeal to authority. Prof. Safi's students should go take a look at their critical thinking textbooks (a required course at Colgate, I hope.) Look up the section on fallacies and read about fallacious appeals to authority (or go ask your theology or philosophy profs about how thinkers like Aquinas or other philosophers approach these kinds of arguments): Spencer's arguments, his views, the content of his books, have been dismissed without addressing his reasoning and evidence. This is a blatant fallacy.
It seems Prof. Safi is the one who has provided us all with examples, that is, examples of fallacious appeals to authority. Any critical thinking or philosophy instructors at Colgate in need of examples to teach their students how NOT to argue?
(I hope educational standards at Colgate are not so low that there are not faculty and students who would deplore this kind of reasoning.)
Posted by: JTF at February 8, 2005 4:51 PM
Omid's hypocrisy is breathtaking. His craven response to even the slightest criticism is typical of all authoritarians. Yet his list of non-persons is wholly acceptable in his mind. I don't know how a human brain can be contorted in such an illogical fashion. I must conclude we are looking at another anti-American taqiyya expert. They are a dime a dozen in academia.
Omid would put "Neo-cons" in death camps all the while extolling his virtues as a humanist. Some pigs really are more equal than others, dontcha know?
Posted by: Beagle at February 8, 2005 4:51 PM
Omid Safi:And lastly, I can't tell you what a great pedagogical tool it is for me to be able to show my students the level of hate that shows up on websites like yours.
There is a big difference between the hatred that you read here, and the hatred of islamists originating from islam. The hatred that you read here is a reaction to the utter barbarity of islam as a religion. It is reaction to beheadings, then proudly displaying the results on the web. Above all, it is reaction to the attempt by islamists to shut down freedom of expression, using murder and fear of murder, as a tactic.
Omad Safi should use the koran as an example of hatred. In fact Islamists do precisely that, as they go about their beheadings, throwing acid in the faces of girls who do not wear the hijab, or murder Christians, Hindus, Jews and any other.
One regularly sees this type of muslim polemicist; a sanctimonious hypocryte, ignoring the hateful nature of islam, while berating those who point out the failings of the muslim world.
at February 8, 2005 4:57 PM
Is that my quote, "I don't hate Muslims; I hate Islam?" I do say that often.
Spencer, bet him 10,000 dollars to his favorite charity that you could beat him in a debate.
Put up the money and tell the liars to put up or shut up. Tell them if YOU lose, they get a hefty donation to their favorite charity. If THEY lose, all they have to do is publish a retraction (or publicly announce one).
I've done this several times (just with one-hundred dollars) for some of the loudmouth Muslim apologists and Israel haters (but I repeat myself) on campus when I was in college.
No takers ever took me on.
KJ
at February 8, 2005 5:00 PM
Omid Safi Get a PhD in Islamic studies
A PhD in "Beckam" would be far more valuable, entertaining and illuminating.
Posted by: DP111 at February 8, 2005 5:06 PM
Well...lah tee dah!
Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 8, 2005 5:48 PM
Hi Omid, my man. Ward Churchill probably has a PhD too. Do I have to take him seriously?
Posted by: Van Helsing at February 8, 2005 5:56 PM
Get a PhD in Islamic studies
A PhD in "Beckam" would be far more valuable, entertaining and illuminating.
LOL.
at February 8, 2005 5:56 PM
I'm not fat im big boned. That suicide bombing was freedom fighting. What? That head hacking was taken out of context. Eh? Rights in Islam? Yeah women have loads. Has long as they do what their told (or else).
Posted by: freestar at February 8, 2005 6:02 PM
Welcome students of Omid Safi!
Jihadwatch/Dhimmiwatch will provide a real (and much cheaper) education on islam than any pompous, issue-dodging, lying professor of Middle Eastern studies ever will!
But if you want to waste your money, follow Safi's advice and "pay no attention to those 57 countries behind the islamic curtain!"
Posted by: 3812Michelle at February 8, 2005 6:22 PM
Posted by: 3812Michelle at February 8, 2005 06:22
Welcome students of Omid Safi! PMJihadwatch/Dhimmiwatch will provide a real (and much cheaper) education on islam than any pompous, issue-dodging, lying professor of Middle Eastern studies ever will!
Now that is a great idea.
Perhaps Mr Spencer should consider setting up a University of Jihad Watch.
As this site is a world renowned site for the examination of the fundaments of islam, only advanced degrees, such as PhDs will be awarded. Mr Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald could serve as examiners of any thesis presented. Ibn Warraq, Daniel Pipes and Ali Sena could serve as rotating external examiners.
I suggest this, half in jest. Half in jest only - as there is a serious lack of genuine scholarship in ME and islamic studies. The reason for this is simple; a muslim is unable to study the koran in any mode except reverence. Yet genuine scholarship requires critical examination and even demolition, of any dogma, hypothesis or theory. As such, a muslim is singularly unqualified to be a scholar of islam.
If one accepts the above criteria for scholarship, then I suggest that such a University, would be the only place that qualifies for genuine scholarship on islam.
at February 8, 2005 7:21 PM
" I will use direct quotes like: "Believe it or not, I don't "hate" muslims, I hate Islam" to make the point about Islamophobia to my students."
Nice to see he's teaching his students to think for themselves, instead of telling them what to think...
I had professors like this before: tell them what they want to hear and you'll be rewarded with high marks (regardless of merit), disagree with their point of view and you'll be equally penalized.
"Substitute Judaism or Christianity in the above quote, and see how most decent human beings would be outraged."
In fact, substituting any religion in most contexts where islam is used would be an outrage.
Posted by: Belisarius at February 8, 2005 7:29 PM
Omid Safi states: "For my part, I will spend my life standing up for women's rights, for rights of the oppressed and marginalized."
Well standing up for women's rights in islam should be a breeze as they don't have many, if any.
However, standing up for the rights of the oppressed and marginalized will take a bit of doing, as almost everyone under islam is oppressed and marginalized.
Omid Safi certainly has his work cut out.
Posted by: leelion at February 8, 2005 8:18 PM
Oh, and to think I naively assumed we were all done with Omid Safi. I must remember to make an appointment to get my head examined sometime next month when my schedule opens up.
So, "That being said, sir, in polite society (which I assume we are in) we do not call people by their first name until we are given permission to do so. I have not given you permission to call me by "Hi Omid!", nor by 'my man.' " !
Tell me in polite society do we call each other ,"unrepentant Orientalists, outright Islamophobes, Neo-conservatives, Western Triumphalists, right-wing Christian Evangelicals" without permission? Would I need permission to call Omid Safi an unrepentant outright nitwit?
Dear Students of Colgate University,
Whatever you heard about the value of your diploma, I must caution you. The Wall Street Journal — no doubt you have been warned that is a right wing publication, but be fearless for a moment and bear with me — did a study and found out that with the exception of elite Ivy League Universities, there is no difference in the doors opened by a degree from a private college and one from a decent state university. You are paying tuition of $31,230 for the 2004-2005 year. Many of you will begin your adult life in enormous debt thanks to this tuition. SUNY Stoneybrook would offer you the same educational advantages for $4,350 per year in-state or $10,610 per year out of state. What are you paying all that extra money for? It sure as heck isn't intrinsic quality as we have all seen now thanks to Professor Safi.
Parents, think of this next time you write a tuition check for junior.
Love to all,
M
at February 8, 2005 8:32 PM
Safi would never publish the words of Robert Spencer on his website because his ideology can only be held up as long as it is not exposed to criticism.
Safi has spoken. He is but a raving lunatic, unable to refute a single of Spencer's arguments. Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. Every first-term student knows that. Why is Safi lacking that knowledge? Maybe it is because he's only got a PhD in Islamic Studies?
at February 8, 2005 9:01 PM
Safi should listen to the timeless words of Edward Said: "How much lower can we sink?"
at February 8, 2005 9:03 PM
No doubt he'll pick and choose from the comments, and use ones that express the justified anger and frustration of readers at the disgusting practises of Islam worldwide, at what it does to its victims. He won't delve into the cause of our readers' anger, conveniently ignoring the many examples of "women's rights" under Islam, and the "tolerance" towards Christians in Muslim-dominated countries. No, he'll pick the feisty, spicy comments and say to his hapless students "See! Islamophobia!"
What a useless degree. No wonder more and more people are saying many university degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on. And a PhD to boot! Someone told me PhD stands for Pizza Hut Delivery. Not very nice, but understandable when we look at who has PhDs and what drivel they get it in.
at February 8, 2005 9:50 PM
That being said, sir, in polite society (which I assume we are in) we do not call people by their first name until we are given permission to do so. I have not given you permission to call me by "Hi Omid!", nor by "my man."
Omar, now that's just plain arrogant.
Posted by: DCWatson at February 8, 2005 10:04 PM
I don't like this Omar guy, he's full of himself, and full of shit to boot. If you read this Omar, Spencer's no coward. How bout a tag match, you and the partner of your choice vs. Me and Spencer, best two out of three falls. I'd bet your paycheck on us.
Oh, and remember to wear your necktie.
Posted by: DCWatson at February 8, 2005 10:34 PM
"You and I are not friends, and we are not friendly. I oppose, challenge, and stand up to the thinly veiled bigotry that you foster."
Now look what you've done - you've pissed him off! You just couldn't keep your mouths shut could you? Mr. Safi, as he likes to be called, aside from being a fearless warrior of Islam, also has a delicate side to his nature which needs fostering and nurturing, and calling him a "pompous, issue-dodging, lying.." etc. is hardly going to bring out this sentient touchy-feely side of his personality. He told you he was clever, and he's even got a piece of paper to prove it - and you just laughed at him. That wasn't very nice was it?
Now, I want you all to say sorry.
at February 8, 2005 10:39 PM
Oh my God, I'm guilty! I made this Islamophobic comment to mathandhumanity yesterday. I don't have a Ph.D., but I do have a Masters degree. If Omid Safi, that pompous immigrant quisling, pedant, and inculcator of innocent American youth, has the right to disseminate Islamic deception under the guise of academe extraordinare, I have the right to express my opinions about Islam, which, I might add, are not borne of ignorance.
Are doctorates exempt from accusations of Islamophobia? I would be willing to bet that if one had ten Ph.D.'s and criticized Islam, one would still be an Islamophobe. How convenient Dr.Safi, how utterly representative of academic freedom and diversity of opinion. And by the way, the U. N. is IRRELEVANT, or hasn't he heard? Is he hoping that corrupt cabal of miscreants will sanction the criticism of Islam? If they should get off of their lazy asses long enough to discuss world events, they'll have to debate it for twenty years before making any rash decisions. I guess he'll just have to deal with Islamophobia the same way we're dealing with Islamic imperialism and terrorism.
Professors like Safi are besmirching the integrity of our once great universities.
Posted by: Susanp at February 8, 2005 11:26 PM
The problem here is that Mr. Safi has been backed into a corner by the logically sound theses of Mr. Spencer. Therefore, it is easy to understand why Safi has to appeal to the one or two year difference in post-collegiate education between a Masters degree and PhD degree.
Posted by: Dilophos at February 8, 2005 11:53 PM
So Professor Safi makes an appeal to 'authority'?
Well, Skippy, here's how it works. Responsibility comes from above, authority comes from below. If you were commissioned as an officer by your country, the bars on your shoulders give you the responsibility of your office. The responsibility you hold came from above, the powers that be that granted you your commission.
Authority comes from below. If you are on the parade ground, before 5,000 troops, and you order them to right-face...what do you have if none of them move on your command? You have nothing. Until those below you obey your commands/orders, they haven't given you any authority over them. Authority comes from below.
So when you appeal to 'authority', I guess you are addressing us smucks on Jihadwatch. And we aren't recognizing any authority you can appeal to. You want it (authority)? You earn it. You are exhibiting entirely too much ego. Grow up, calm down, and address the arguments presented in this debate. If you don't know how to respond, Colgate probably has some public speaking and debate courses. Colgate will probably let you audit the courses. Answer - don't hide - Robert Spencers arguments. Engage and debate. Truth will prevail. Truth wins. Truth is eternal. Truth is unchanging. If truth is on your side, you will win. What is your belief system? Can it stand the light of critical examination? I believe you Mussies don't like criticism. No one does. I believe you Mussies can't take criticism. Why not? If truth was on your side, you could stand it. Gee, does that mean that deep down, you actually fear you bet on the wrong horse? What do you know that we don't. What is your deepest, darkest fear?
PS: Drop down and give me fifty...and I want to hear that belt buckle clink!
Posted by: SCV at February 8, 2005 11:59 PM
Hay my man Omid,
First of all one need not a Ph.d to pick up a Koran or a history book to see the veracity of islam.
Now lets be real Mr. Main Man Big Ph.d,
Answer me this. Due you accept the actual historical and scholarly inquire (unbiased from a non Muslim, because a Muslim who speaks out against or questions the divine book is an apposite and must be killed) of the Koran and of Islam? i.e.
Allah is the name of the Arab pagan moon god. (note: a moon and a star(sun) is almost exclusively shown with Islam)
You worship and walk around a meteorite. (The sign of Islam is the Crescent, sometimes along with a star, just as was the Babylonian Goddess worship)The most holy object in the Kaaba is the black meteorite stone, once the throne of Isis, now connected with Allah. Another goddess objects in the Kaaba are the Crescents and the towers. Towers have been one of the main symbols of Babylonian paganism since the time of Nimrod. His followers decided to build their own tower, their own name. Later, Nimrod's wife, Semiramis, erected a 130 feet tower in Babylon. Babylonian pagans prostrated themselves before this icon, even mentioned in the third chapter of the Book of Daniel.
Those familiar with the Biblical story of Daniel's friends should recognize this. The whole world bowed down in worship for the king's pagan gold image. The astonishing issue is, however, that Muslims still do. The prostrate themselves in the direction (qibla) of the former Goddess symbols in Mecca, now Allah's sanctuary.
From the beginning, towers or obelisks were symbols of pagan worship as conducted in Babylon and Egypt, and later all around the world. The obelisk was originally a symbol of Baal (Nimrod) and sexual rituals in the context of sun-worship. We also see these matzebah images in various places in the Bible, such as I Kings 14:23, 2 Kings 18:4, 23:14; Isaiah 17:8, 27:9; Jer. 43:13; Ezk. 8:5; Micah 5:13).
‘Allah’, in fact, has a genealogy that can be traced through Yemen to Babylon, the mother of all idolatry. In Babylon, paganism began at the time of Nimrod, the alleged builder of the Tower of Babel. After the confusion of languages, Babylonian idolatry spread all over the world. Nimrod had been dei-fied and was known as Baal, Molech,.... and finally, as Allah. The Baal worship was conducted by sacrifices, prostrations and kissing the idol, (See I. Kings 19:18) which was the same type of service conducted at the Kaaba and other places in Arabia. There are also traces of a direct Baal worship among the Arabs: "And God helped him [King Uzziah of Juda] against the Philistines, and against the Arabians that dwelt in Gur-baal, and the Mehunims [probably Mineanites from Yemen]." (II Chron. 26:7) It was common to add Baal’s name to the city where he was worshipped and thus it was obviously so in Gur. Inscriptions with Baal’s name have been found in Central Arabia at some oasis where Arabian inhabitants had settled. The great scholar William Robertson Smith argues that the
most developed cults of Arabia belong not to the pure nomads, but to these agricultural and trading settlements, which the Bedouin visited only as pilgrims, not to pay stated homage to the lord of the land from which they drew their life, but in fulfilment of vows. (William Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites. The Fundamental Institutions (London, 1902), 109.)
In Arabian archaeology a large number of inscriptions on rocks, tablets and walls, have pointed to the worship of a family of four; one male and his three ‘daughters’ or goddesses. Those three goddesses are sometimes engraved together with Allah, represented by a crescent moon above them. But Allah was the ‘Lord of the Kaaba... Lord of Manat, al-Lat, and al-Uzza...and even as ‘Lord of Sirius’.’(Peters, Muhammad, 98.) His ‘daughters’ were his associates, helpers and were themselves worshipped, after the manner of ancient Babylonian customs and symbolised by astronomical symbols.
Al-Lat, the female version of the Aramaic Allah, was the ‘Lady of the Temple’ at the Semitic Pantheon of Palmyra, frequently mentioned in sources from ancient periods. Her cult was shared by the tribes of Bene Maazin and Bene Nurbel in that city. The former tribe probably provided the guardians or priests for her sanctuary, which was probably established after the Nabatean occupation of Syria, including Damascus, in 85 BCE. (Javier Teixidor, The Pantheon at Palmyra, 55-58.)
Al-Lat was the mother goddess (al-Ilahah), representing the sun. She was the mother figure among the gods and goddesses, the Great Earth Mother of ancient mythology, and the Astarte of the Arabs. Javier Teixidor states:
Al-Lat... is mentioned by Herodotus; in old Arabian inscriptions; and in the pre-Islamic poets; and was the great mother goddess who, under various names, was worshipped all over the ancient world. Ta’if, a town near Mecca, was the centre of her worship [in Arabia proper]. (Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 24, 38.)
Allat was the equivalent of Ishtar-Astarte in the mother-father Semitic cult worship. In contrast to the Fertile Crescent region, the Arabs worshipped her as the sun, not the moon which is masculine in Arabia. However, the Semitic cults connected the goddess worship with love, and thus, its absence with the opposite
There are telling evidences, however, that much of the quran QurŸan has been derived from Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian and Buddhist origins.
The very word quran QurŸan, which occurs some seventy times in the book and means "a recitation", is not derived from an original Arabic word.
Yada, yada, yada. Had enough, I could go on forever and end up writing a book. (Oh shit my man I don’t have a PhD in Islam though. Would a PhD in history or archeology suffise for you, my man? Cause I or anyone else get one to Co-Author it my man.)
Now my man lets look at some fact from the so called divine and never wrong and always has the last word and is the truth Koran.
Muhammad was:
Illiterate (how does some one gain biblical knowledge unless it’s by word of mouth, maybe that explains all of the errors and inaccuracies in the divine book where the illiterate got his stories mixed up from the Torah and Christian bible. One perfect example, Nestorian Christians who populated the Damascus and Northern Arabia during time of Muhammad. These Christians thought that it would be impossible to kill the Son of God and believed that god tricked the Jews and sent someone else who looked like Jesus to be crucified, thus he saved his favorite Son. Clearly word of mouth.
A Pedophile (6 year wife hit it a 9 years)
Mass murderer who did none of his own fighting.
Seditious women hating beater
Never worked any miracles
Never healed the sick
No value for human life
No prophecies came true
Never preached peace or love, only violence
Racist said that blacks (Africans) were pug nosed raisin heads.
Obviously made up Islam from a little bit of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrian, Manichaeism, and a whole lot of Paganism and inhumane tendencies.
These issues just begin to scratch the surface of the legitimacy of Islam.
Sincerely yours my man,
The Mr. Non PhD Haven Dude.
P.S. If the shoe fits wear it.
at February 9, 2005 12:46 AM
great post Cpt, reading that makes me realize how much histoy and religious history i have yet to learn.
Posted by: leelion at February 9, 2005 2:13 AM
Hey you guys: I love you all!
Your comments (what could I possibly add?) are so spot on, there is nothing to add!
So I can only say: Wouldn't it be nice if we could all meet up and have a good time, celebrate over the last Omid gone (not only this one, I mean him and all the others too) having lost his unnecessary assignment to a higher place of learning, having his visa revoked and given notice to leave within 24 hours, I would call this a cause for celebration. It doesn't win the war, but it's just another battle...
Posted by: Terminator at February 9, 2005 5:01 AM
Hey you guys: I love you all!
Your comments (what could I possibly add?) are so spot on, there is nothing to add!
So I can only say: Wouldn't it be nice if we could all meet up and have a good time, celebrate over the last Omid gone (not only this one, I mean him and all the others too) having lost his unnecessary assignment to a higher place of learning, having his visa revoked and given notice to leave within 24 hours, I would call this a cause for celebration. It doesn't win the war, but it's just another battle...
Posted by: Terminator at February 9, 2005 5:01 AM
Wow, that was very interesting on the origins of Islam I did not know the links to the earlier Arab religions. Thanks for the history lesson, I bet Mr Safi did not get this from his PHD.
Posted by: Daffersd at February 9, 2005 5:56 AM
There are several fronts in the war against the jihad. There is the one where anti-American professors at our universities, armored with PhDs and publication by university presses, poison the minds of our non-Muslim youth with clever and not-so-clever taqiyya. Then there is the one where multiple PhDs in Islamic Studies, Middle East Studies, and like soft subjects, skewed by politicized departments, will serve for naught.
Though the latter is more spectacular, being a clash of flesh and bone as well as of mind, and is won by blood and guts, it is the former jihad that is more dangerous. The insidious infection of the intellectual elite can be for a time counterbalanced by the grass-roots ranks that will fight in the streets, the fields, and wherever the enemy raises its cloth-wound head, until the infected intellectual elite achieves political power. At that time, our enemy has achieved a desired schism.
This is why a movement such as Jihad Watch is important. It can, and already has, drawn intellectuals into its ranks, people who do not boast of their degrees and being published by university presses, who just the same, however, are able to wake up and warn young and not-so-young minds of the danger posed by the academic jihadists.
Publication by commercial houses, I believe, is more remunerative than that by academic presses, and reaches a wider audience--even if professors assign their own works as texts and required reading to their students. The scholarship can be of the same or even of a higher level than that claimed by the academes. What is more important, however, is that by referring to primary sources, such authors as Robert Spencer can serve up the raw truth. That truth is unpleasant for and indefensible by taqiyya-spewing professors, no matter how these twist and writhe. They contest the truth with cheap jabs at a dearth of multiple advanced degrees and lack of publication by ideologically compromised university presses. What will win here is getting the message out quickly to as much of the uninformed population possible, not self-styled superior scholarship.
Another weapon employed by the academic and lesser (no reference to lesser and greater jihad here) jihadists is to smear all who stand up to the Islamic onslaught as suffering from "Islamophobia." Never mind that this is a misnomer for the aversion to the ideology being foisted on us, it is another weapon of the jihadists. As everything else in this ideology, except for the hate and violence, it is copied from a prior usage, custom, or in this case a term. As antisemitism is already in use, and anti-Islamism sounds clumsy, Islamophobia is the term of choice. The people at Jihad Watch do not fear Islam, whether without or with reason. They are, however, repulsed by it, and the more they delve into its original sources, the deeper this revulsion.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 9, 2005 6:37 AM
Dear Cpt and others:
There's no mention of Semiramis in the Bible. As for Nimrod, he was the first to be called a king (Genesis 10:8-12). The supposition that the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11) is his work is a supposition based on the account of it appearing right after the table of nations, in which Nimrod is mentioned. As for Daniel, the erection of an image which all were to worship was the work of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3)--hence an event of the 6th century BC rather than the most ancient past. Frankly, while I consider myself well-educated in Bible and Christianity, I'd really like to know the ultimate source of the tale that Nimrod's wfe was Semiramis.
To get back to other matters, maybe Dr. Safi doesn't believe in an unlimited jihad and maybe he sincerely does condemn the likes of OBL--after all, what claim does OBL have to the Caliphate? The debates whether all conservative Muslims are pro-terrorist or Islam is a false religion are two different debates.
Posted by: Kepha1 at February 9, 2005 8:18 AM
B.S. in Sophomoric Self-Importance. Ph. D. in Bigoted Tantrums.
Were he the awesome scholar he clearly believes he is, he would not have made a fool of himself with that letter. Best of luck for this website.
at February 9, 2005 10:37 AM
Unfortunately I do not have the time or inclination to any effort to construct a polite comment but the following sums it up;
What an obnoxious tosser.
Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at February 9, 2005 11:45 AM
Islamiphobia,by it's very definition means "fear of Islam."
Nobody here is afraid of Islam.To the contrary,most people here are very outspoken and aware of Islam and becoming more aware every day.
Most Americans in general are not afraid of Islam although they may be unaware and un-educated in the teachings of Islam and the Quran.
There is only a small minority among us that are truly afraid of Islam.These are the media groups,schools,governmental agencies and apologists for the apologists,the dhimmi who cave in to Islamic groups at the first sign of controversy.They are the only ones that truly express "Islamiphobia".
JLP
PS:I may be completely wrong about this,but I don't think he ever would tell his students to view this website even though he wants to infer that he has.Coming here might bring up questions from his students that he doesnt want to answer or even hear.He dismisses Mr.Spencer's offer to debate based on the very same fears.
Posted by: John Lee Pedimore at February 9, 2005 11:56 AM
Hello again,
Couldn't resist!!!
Old joke heard first (by me) on the Long Island Railroad, while I was busy persuing my own MS(W).
BS- we all know what this means!
MS- more of the same!
PhD- piled higher and deeper!
I told this once to a PhD psychologist I worked with. He did not laugh. Oh well!
Posted by: Carolyn Murphy at February 9, 2005 12:17 PM
That being said, sir, in polite society (which I assume we are in) we do not call people by their first name until we are given permission to do so. I have not given you permission to call me by "Hi Omid!", nor by "my man."
Don't we know our place yet?
at February 9, 2005 12:18 PM
Omid Safi, Ph.D., engages in use of the typical instruments that the postmodern academy delights in when attempting dialectics. These include but are not limited to:
(1) Appeal to authority (as so correctly pointed out above)
(2) Argumentum ad hominen
(3) Faulty metaphysics
(4) Assignment of moral equivalency where there is none
(5) Straw man arguments
(6) Denial of history in favor of revisionism
The bad news is that Omid Safi should not be engaged until he brings his rhetoric up to the level of acceptable dialectical dialogue. The good news is that the battle is engaged. We can look forward to more such acknowledgement of the influence of Jihad Watch by the poseurs who would purport to be our betters.
Robert Pirsig addresses such sophistry quite eloquently in both "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and "Lila."
Posted by: ted at February 9, 2005 12:37 PM
Before joining in the sport of bashing Omid Safi, I checked out his website. It appears that he has respectable academic credentials (a Ph.D, M.A. and B.A.all religion from Duke University) and a good publications record. He certainly is no Ward Churchhill.
Some of his articles are even interesting and even progressive, particularly for a practising Muslim. For instance, in one he says
After September 11, almost every Muslim I know found himself or herself repeating this phrase: "Islam is a religion of peace. The actions of these terrorists do not represent real Islam." And yet I am less and less satisfied with this mantra. Let me be clear here: at a fundamental level, I believe that the Islamic tradition offers a path to peace, when the Islamic imperatives for social justice are followed.
Yet there is something pathetically apologetic about turning the phrase "Islam is a religion of peace" into a mantra. It is bad enough to hear Muslim spokespersons repeat it so often while lacking the courage to face the forces of extremism in our own midst. Hiding behind the simple assertion that "Islam is a religion of peace" does not solve our problems.
In another,he says:
I also believe that we have a moral duty to speak up against the culture of violence that now pervades segments of Iraqi societies, a violence that is unleashed against UN workers, fellow Iraqis, and yes, American soldiers. Our task is to do more than condemn, but rather work with Iraqis in finding a way of voicing their righteous rebellion of resistance, indeed their jihad against the American occupation, while doing so in a non-violent way.
In speaking against both of these forms of violence, I recognize that we are led to an isolated space in the middle. And yet it is from this space in the middle that we reach out to all of humanity. In doing so we recall the Qur’anic injunction that states notions of social justice (‘adl) and spiritual excellence (ihsan) are indeed connected. May we bring some healing into this much-fractured world. May that healing begin with you and me, at this very moment.
He also has some relatively progressive things to say in an interview.
I wouldn't hold his snobbish obsession with a Ph.D. and university presses against him. Indeed, it is shared by many of my good friends who hold academic appointments.
The main problem with Professor Safi from our point of view is that he is obviously a very attractive and persuasive communicator to many people and that his ambitious community outreach activities documented on his website could very well succeed in convincing many less informed people that Islam is a relatively benign religion and that it does not pose a threat to national security. And I needn't tell you all what is likely to happen if we let our guard down. Another problem that is not necessarily entirely due to his being a Muslim is that he is a proponent of a left-wing and mildly anti-American point of view that unfortunately seems to permeate the nation's universities.
A real question we need to ask ourselves is whether we should spend so much effort (and in some cases, not including Mr. Spencer, vitriol) criticizing people like Professor Safi versus focussing our attack more sharply on the more militant Islamists and their apologists like Tariq Ramadan. The risk is that we may alienate a lot of people who think Professor Safi is a relatively reasonable guy being unfairly attacked.
Posted by: Patrick at February 9, 2005 1:28 PM
Sorry some of the links in my posting got screwed up. Professor Safi's website is here. It provides links to the articles cited.
Posted by: Patrick at February 9, 2005 1:31 PM
No, Feralee, Ph.D. does not stand for "Pizza Hut Delivery." My father explained to me what it means years ago: "Piled Higher and Deeper."
As to the substance of which the high and deep pile is composed, I'm much too polite to use the word in a public forum where someone of Prof. Safi's delicate sensibilities might take offense.
Let's just say it doesn't smell nice and you'd prefer not to step in it...
Posted by: Cato the Elder at February 9, 2005 2:08 PM
Some lovely posts from an Islamic Forum, a moderated forum, no less.
On Theo Van Gogh:
"I dont have an opinion about the murder, just good to know his dead."
"but it is good to know there are less evil people on this earth now, especially those who hate Islam"
"He had to be killed, he was attacking Islam, and it is the duty of all Muslims to protect Islam."
"could have been a muslim or just disguised himself as one to to avoid suspicion. if he was muslim, y would he dress up and in traditional clothes to murder Gogh... to make himself a suspect? doesn't make sense."
On Israel:
"May Allah destroy Israel and country which supports Israel."
"Death to israel!"
This was just a quick search, there is plenty more, but I have to get back to work.
Somehow I don't this would make his list of pedagogical tools.
at February 9, 2005 2:41 PM
"Bigoted: holding very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity and unwilling to accept different views." Encarta, 1999 edition.
OK, that makes me an anti-Islamic bigot, and proud of it! Before 9/11 and all I've learned since then, I was totally innocent of the evil Islam does, but I'm a pretty quick teach, and I guarantee that I will continue to hold very strong opinions on the matter of Islam for the rest of my life.
Once one has properly identified the nature of something and accurately judged it to be evil by the standards of a valid moral code, it would be improper not to be a bigot.
OT, but of great interest to those of us who admire Western Civilization, here is a book review from Thomas Sowell, an economist for whom I have enormous admiration and respect (he's black, by the way). I guess since I have such a strong opinion about his intelligence and ability, that makes me a bigot in this case, too.
It is full of answers to the jerks who contend that the West (especially America) is evil because of slavery.
Bury the Chains: How The West Ended Slavery
by Thomas Sowell (February 8, 2005)
Article website address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=4126
[CapMag.com]To me the most staggering thing about the long history of slavery -- which encompassed the entire world and every race in it -- is that nowhere before the 18th century was there any serious question raised about whether slavery was right or wrong. In the late 18th century, that question arose in Western civilization, but nowhere else.
It seems so obvious today that, as Lincoln said, if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. But no country anywhere believed that three centuries ago.
A very readable and remarkable new book that has just been published -- "Bury the Chains" by Adam Hochschild -- traces the history of the world's first anti-slavery movement, which began with a meeting of 12 "deeply religious" men in London in 1787.
The book re-creates the very different world of that time, in which slavery was so much taken for granted that most people simply did not think about it, one way or the other. Nor did the leading intellectuals, political leaders, or religious leaders in Britain or anywhere else in the world.
The dozen men who formed the world's first anti-slavery movement saw their task as getting their fellow Englishmen to think about slavery -- about the brutal facts and about the moral implications of those facts.
Their conviction that this would be enough to turn the British public, and ultimately the British Empire, against slavery might seem naive, except that this is precisely what happened. It did not happen quickly and it did not happen without encountering bitter opposition, for the British were at the time the world's biggest slave traders and this created wealthy and politically powerful special interests defending slavery.
The anti-slavery movement nevertheless persisted through decades of struggles and defeats in Parliament until eventually they secured a ban on the international slave trade, and ultimately a ban on slavery itself throughout the British Empire.
Even more remarkable, Britain took it upon itself, as the leading naval power of the world, to police the ban on slave trading against other nations. Intercepting and boarding other countries' ships on the high seas to look for slaves, the British became and remained for more than a century the world's policeman when it came to stopping the slave trade.
"Bury the Chains" carries this incredible story forward only to the time of the banning of slavery in the British Empire. One can only hope that either Adam Hochschild or someone else writes an equally dramatic and compelling book on the saga of the worldwide struggle against slavery.
Chances do not look good. The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen. Moreover, what destroyed slavery in the non-Western world was Western imperialism.
Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.
As anti-slavery ideas eventually spread throughout Western civilization, a worldwide struggle pitted the West against Africans, Arabs, Asians and virtually the entire non-Western world, which still saw nothing wrong with slavery. But Western imperialists had gunpowder weapons first and that enabled the West to stamp out slavery in other societies as well as in its own.
The review of "Bury the Chains" in the New York Times tried to suggest that the ban against the international slave trade somehow served British self-interest. But John Stuart Mill, who lived in those times, said that the British "for the last half-century have spent annual sums equal to the revenue of a small kingdom in blockading the Africa coast, for a cause in which we not only had no interest, but which was contrary to our pecuniary interest."
It was a worldwide epic struggle, full of dramatic and sometimes violent episodes, along with inspiring stories of courage and dedication.
But do not expect Hollywood to make a movie about anything so contrary to their vision of the world.
About the Author: Thomas Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college.
Copyright 2004-1997 Capitalism Magazine. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
at February 9, 2005 3:17 PM
I "love" this - all in the same breath:
"You and I are not friends, and we are not friendly. I oppose, challenge, and stand up to the thinly veiled bigotry that you foster...That being said, sir, in polite society (which I assume we are in)..."
Obviously we are NOT in polite society, are we? We're more in the Foaming-At-The-Mouth Society of angry pseudo-intellectuals who need to visit their friendly neighborhood veterinarian.
Posted by: Mike at February 9, 2005 3:23 PM
To Patrick: thanks for your post.
I noticed that Safi said in one of his publications that he wrote, "It is bad enough to hear Muslim spokespersons repeat it so often while lacking the courage to face the forces of extremism in our own midst." It would seem that he would get along with Robert Spencer and the bloggers of Jihad Watch if he indeed followed his implication and addressed the extremism within Islam.
However, actions speak louder than words. It is obvious from his course syllabi and his course communiques with Robert and course ad hominen attacks that he is spending his time attacking the very people pointing out the issues in the Islamic political theology from whence extremism arises. By his activities, he is, in essence, defending extremism.
Regarding your statement, "I wouldn't hold his snobbish obsession with a Ph.D. and university presses against him. Indeed, it is shared by many of my good friends who hold academic appointments." I'd just like to point out that the attitude you have described is indeed the fallacy of appeal to authority. This fallacy involves not arguing the issues, but rather basing the acceptability of an argument on the perception of the authority of its source. While credibility is important, at the crux, an argument has no credibility if it is false, no matter what the source.
Posted by: ted at February 9, 2005 3:52 PM
Omid is a dyed in the wool muzzie and R.S. exposed him for that, especially how he manipulates his 'hapless charges' who are paying $ 31.000.00 for such a worthless certificate:
"Islamic Studies"- If they don't get to learn about the nature of the beast then they are wasting their time.
I would bet on it that I have learnt more from JW/DW about Islam than most who have gone through such a course. But nothing beats the experience of travelling or living in Muslim countries. I can say,'been there, done it' but I have no desire to EVER go to any Muzzie country again.
And we should pass laws to keep them away from our shores if we don't want to see the blood in the streets...
Posted by: Terminator at February 9, 2005 4:13 PM
Termonator:And we should pass laws to keep them away from our shores if we don't want to see the blood in the streets...
Blood has been flowing freely in our streets for sometime now, as islamists excercise the hate that they learnt from the koran.
Posted by: DP111 at February 9, 2005 5:13 PM
Patrick,
In one of the Safi articles you linked, he writes:
"Once we fail to engage . . . any . . . group . . . as human beings, it is easy to justify bombing them . . . .
" . . . a war that is premised on us not engaging the humanity of the people that we have bombed, of us not seeing their corpses and their suffering . . . . "
Dr. Safi is apparently unaware that in a war--and we are egaged in a war, albeit with an enemy our government will not name--the point is to destroy the enemy before he destroys us. In all wars, the enemy must be dehumanized or our humanity makes it difficult to kill and win, which is the point of all wars. When we have the enemy in our sights, we cannot dwell on how he looked as a baby, how he loves his children, how his wife and mother will miss him, how his face looks so much like our own, etc. When we have him in our sights, we squeeze the trigger--and go on to the next one. Sad, deplorable, tough? Perhaps, but if it's kill or be killed, the former is what we must do.
As for alienating people who find Dr. Safi a reasonable guy, if they buy his taqiyya, there is not much we can do ro get them on our side. People such as Dr. Safi--the seemingle "reasonable" Muslim--are mure dangerous than the out and out jihaist.
at February 10, 2005 1:38 AM
You know, I don't think that decent people are overly offended by comments such as:
"I don't hate Americans, I hate America."
or
"I don't hate Christians, I hate Christianity."
The list is endless. I've heard both of these statements more than once while working toward my degrees in Psychology and Criminal Justice. I've not only heard them from students, I've heard them from professors.
Quite frankly, I think the "I hate Islam" comment so offends Dr. Safi because it is about Islam. Furthermore, Dr. Safi needs to come to terms with his own dripping black hatred of not only Robert Spencer, but of everyone that is a part of this board. Opposition is a part of life, Dr. Safi. Get over it.
As a student myself, I would like to know if Dr. Safi really believes that all of his students truly accept his arguments. Given the degrading snobbery that he has subjected us all to, I doubt very much that his students feel free enough to question or challenge him, but like hostages to an overbearing, power-wielding maniac, they sit in quiet agreement, regurgitating verbatim his own catch phrases.
I've been in classes like that, Dr. Safi. Students do not learn and do not grow under such conditions. Do not assume, Dr. Safi, that just because you mentally intimidate and cage your students, that they accept or even believe anything that you're telling them.
It is a fatal flaw of academics to assure yourself that others put as much value in your PhD as you seem to, or that your students are incapable of brilliant, independent thought. Any scholar that is not open to a debate is no kind of scholar. You know it and your students know it as well.
at February 10, 2005 12:18 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)