Colgate University eh?
Anything to do with toothpaste?
Our boy does sound as if he has the "Ring of (over)Confidence"

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 9, 2005 9:25 AM

A little full of himself? This type of academic wears his degree as a badge of honor. Unfortunately our universities are full of them, men and women that spend their lives defending the thesis that brought them there, splitting hairs, putting each other and everyone else down, shamelessly spouting irresponsible and inane pronouncements.

Posted by: epg at February 9, 2005 11:06 AM

Perhaps, in the dim past, one might have had some respect -- based largely on ignorance -- of that appetizing thing, the "doctorate." But too many people have attended too many graduate schools, and are well aware not only that what often characterizes those who stay on is stamina rather than intellectual merit, the willingness to endure all sorts of idiocy that is now inflicted.

Imagine, if you will, some hapless graduate student who has to take a pro-seminar or a course from Fredric Jameson, or endure Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak, or Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, or Rashid Khalidi, or Ward Churchill, or Homi Bhabha. Prose that is something, but is not English, notions that are something, but not thoughts.

Long ago William James wrote of the "Ph.D. Octopus" and the mistake of emulating, in the United States, the German system which presupposed quite a different preparation before graduate school. Jacques Barzun warmly took up the theme -- and his book "Teacher in America" as well as his much darker and grimmer and mocking articles about universities of the last few decades, should be collected and re-published.

Omid Safi is one more jackanapes who believes that his receipt of a "doctorate" means something. It means exactly nothing. It could mean that he is a new Barzun, or Schacht, or Arthur Jeffery. It could also mean that he is one more among thousands of degreed fools, running around assorted campuses.

Now that it is not Milton, or Comenius, or John Henry Cardinal Newman, or Alfred North Whitehead, or Jacques Barzun, who desides which schools are "the best" but rather that profound student of Western education, U. S.News and World Report, with its measurements of how much money people get, and what the faculty-to-student ratio is, and how well the entering students have done in filling out those little boxes in the multiple-choice tests that are so essential to the Higher Learning in America (yes, I know they've just added an "essay" component to their little test, but compare that inconsequential addition to what is required in other countries, to the Italian maturita, with its viva voce examination, or the French baccalaureat, of forty years ago, when you had to know something, and have some literary and historical sense).

That Safi, like Podsnap, is "quite satisfied...above all other things, with himself," that he invokes a degree instead of a display of well-crafted prose that offers evidence of -- evidence, that he trots out some loyal indoctrinated students to parrot, every bit like North Korean students singing the praises of Kim Chon-Il or his father Kim Il-Sung, and is well-pleased to have them display precisely the kind of mindless parroting that he should, if he had any sense, be trying to hide -- well, there are plenty of Safis hanging around, who have climbed their greasy poles, aiding and abetting one another at MESA Nostra or similar organizations.

For the miserable state of academic life in America -- at least where history and literature are concerned -- see "Academic Questions," a journal put out by the National Association of Scholars. The Summer 2004 issue is particularly rich on the misuse of history, the nonexistence of standards, and the sheer nonsense that gets approved by various bodies of teachers of history who know very little about history.

If you have children, you are stuck, but you can monitor. Watch every course they choose, every syllabus, and do not assume because that child is at some school that U.S. News & World Report likes that this means anything, any more than Omid Safi's "doctorate" does. Advise them on courses, sniff out the MESA Nostra (and MLA and other now-debased organizations) back-scratchers, the Bellagio-bezonians who in their prefaces thank several dozen people who, when their turn comes, will thank them, those who teach English but cannot write an English paragraph, those who do not confuse Max Beloff with Marie Boroff, Alexandre Kojeve with Alexandre Koyre, Jean Starobinski with Jean Seznec, or even Frances Yates with Francis Haskell, because at this point they haven't the faintest idea whom, or what, is being talked about.

Posted by: Hugh at February 9, 2005 12:28 PM

Islamophobia. Seems they don't like that word. Seems it upsets them.

So I proffer here for all to select a new term, one that does express what it is supposed to mean. I have made up several terms; perhaps we could take a vote and begin using, worldwide, whatever term the majority finds best. One that CAIR and their ilk can really sink their teeth into...

islamocognizant
islamapprised
islamosentient
islamoconscious
islamoperceptive (my favorite)

So far one vote for islamoperceptive.

Posted by: Moe Goldberg at February 9, 2005 1:22 PM

Hugh,
Among the requirements for my BA (that's right, a lowly BA) I had to pass an oral and written comprehensive examination on my entire course of study which included Aristotle, Plato, Shakespeare (his insights into politics), Rousseau, Marx, Mao, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Aquinas (again, just his politcal writings), Spinoza, Maimonides, the Federalist Papers, the US Constitution, and more that I cannot quite frankly remember.
I do not doubt for a minute that my lowly BA is worth more than eighty of Omid's PhD's tied together ala Iranien (see http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=28825&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs).
And now that I come to think of it, Mr. Spencer's degree is in religious studies, is it not? Am I mistaken in thinking Islam a religion?
I believe that the good professor should refrain from discussing anything except Islam. On the topics of Jews, Catholics and Evangelical Protestants he must according to his own standards keep silent until he has his PhD in Jewish Studies, Catholic Theology and Protestant Doctrine.
M

Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at February 9, 2005 1:31 PM

The overinflated ego cases at the MESA Nostra are not offering people an education, they're offering them a Furniture Fair - a chair in a room that costs you thousands of dollars, absorbing the toxic, gaseous emanations from the swamp of some fevered academic charlatan's mind.
It has become a verifiable sign of intelligence that people avoid these expensive charades like The Plague - it is far wiser, economical and informative to judiciously spend your money reading the selected works of legitimate scholars.
Why would anyone in their right mind prefer an hour or two a week stuck in a room subsidizing the Baghdad Bobs of the MESA Nostra when they can instead enjoy a book by Bat Ye'or, or the undeservedly maligned Robert Spencer, in the comfort of their own home? With the money you save, you can buy yourself a house, instead of that fur coat Omid Safir has been wanting to buy his wife for Valentine's Day.

Posted by: Mike at February 9, 2005 3:10 PM

WTF? I thought for sure that I posted this before....maybe it was at the previous Omid article.

First, was the "I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam" quote from me? Because I have said that before.

[Mr. Spencer, your attention please:] Second, challenge Professor Safi--I mean, Omid--to a debate. I know that you aren't afraid to debate in public. So have him put up or shut up. Tell him that if you lose, you pay ten-thousand dollars to his favorite charity. If HE loses, he doesn't have to pay anything, but does have to issue a public retraction.

Before you do that, ask him who his favorites charities are. Then after he refuses to debate, contact them and tell them that they are being denied a substantial contribution, and why.

Find a jihadwatch-er at Omid's college (or in the same town) to put up fliers all over campus announcing that Omid won't debate, even though he has no financial risk and stands to make $10k for his favorite charity.

Better yet, put up fliers all over campus offering a 10,000 dollar one-time scholarship for any student that can arrange a debate between Omid and you, but only if you lose the debate. (Goddam! What a great idea!) Surely among his throng of amdiring students someone would like a free years tuition. (Or thereabouts. I have no idea how much tuition costs at his college.)

I tried the same challenge back at USF with a li'l ISMer that tried to start an "alternative" campus newspaper. It was mostly a bunch of crap. I think I posted one of his puff pieces here on Al Aryan's sex toy (a.k.a. Muslim wife.) If anyone asks, I'll post it again.

I bet him $100 dollars to his favorite charity that I could take any ten issues of his little rag and find over 100 anti-Israel, -Israeli, -Jew, or -President Genshaft (the USF president that fired Al Aryan); or pro-"palestine", -"palestinian", -arab, -muslim, or -Al Aryan citations. I said that if I win, he doesn't have to pay anything, just publish my proof of his biases.

I spread the word all over campus and guess what? He denied his favorite charity $100.

I actually got the idea from the amazing James Randi and his CONTINUAL offer of ONE-MILLION DOLLARS to anyone that can "prove" anything paranormal (I'm not sure if they have to pay him if he fails.)

So like someone says they can see an aura around a person. If it is indeed "around" them it should extend beyond the top of their head a few inches. So if an aura seer looked at a block wall one inch taller than the person behind it, they should be able to see the aura, right?

Amazingly, no aura seer has come forward to collect the easy million dollars.

Posted by: kj at February 9, 2005 3:14 PM

Keith, you seem to have missed it. I challenged him to a debate already. He refused because I lack a PhD. That's why I suggested he debate Pipes.

Best
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 9, 2005 4:01 PM

Safi's argument is actually much worse than the kind representation of it here by Spencer: a Ph.D. and publication in a 'university press' are considered necessary conditions for 'credible scholarship', since Spencer is not 'credible' insofar as he lacks these traits. Safi is not presenting a few rough and ready conditions that one must meet to get an invitation to debate; he is dismissing Spencer's work and Spencer himself. Spencer cannot have any views or arguments worth listening to because he does not live up to the proper 'authoritative conditions'. Isn't this what it means when one says that another is not 'credible'? As I said elsewhere, this is an argument from authority, as Spencer acknowledges with the little quip from Aquinas (Been reading the Summa lately Spencer?). Safi presents a truly disgusting piece of reasoning that should be unworthy of even an undergraduate at Colgate.

And yet in his course syllabus the predetermined, provocatively named, categories for certain scholars and other 'undesirables' (And so many. How can students actually read and comprehend what all these folks are saying? Why not become more focused in your reading list professor?) seems to fit this same pattern of 'pigeonholing', an activity sanctioned by the authority of the 'qualified professor'; one gets a category, kind of like a badge, and that's where you fit. And then some categories might function like a genus for all the species of folks. 'Islamophobe', is that the genus? And what is 'Islamophobia' again?

This is all nonsense. And how would one categorize Bertrand Russel, for instance? He held so many different views over his lifetime, for very different reasons, what pigeonhole will we find for him? What about an Oriana Fallaci? Does she belong to the genus of 'Islamophobe' but the species of 'leftist'? But she is now called a 'rightist'? Where does she go? Darn, doesn't that just irk you when you can find the category that's 'just right'?

Students and faculty who actually think for themselves do not like categories, especially biased politicized ones; it is a simple-minded method for neglectling the task of reading and thinking that leads to the misrepresentation of thought, theory, concepts, arguments, and most of all, people themselves, who are the most complex beings of all.

Colgate should be absolutely ashamed of this course and the way professor Safi as represented himself in this forum.

Posted by: JTF at February 9, 2005 4:08 PM

There is an old joke about two "diplomats," "respected" members of the "International Community," who meet at some U.N. gathering. Each is surprised to learn, when they are introduced, that they have the same name.(We'll call each one "Hazmat Abu Jihad al-Jaziri").

"How do you spell your name?" Diplomat #1 asks Diplomat #2. "Oh," says Diplomat #1, "I spell my name this way." And on a piece of paper he laboriously traces a capital "X." "There -- Hazmat Abu Jihad al-Jaziri." "And how do you spell your name?" he asks Diplomat #2.

"Oh," says Diplomat #2, "I spell my name this way" -- and just as laboriously, Diplomat #2 traces on the same piece of paper a capital "X" followed by a small "x": Xx.

"Well, says Diplomat #1, pointing to the capital "X," "I can read this -- Hazmat Abu Jihad al-Jaziri, but what's this" --and he points to the small "x."

"Oh, says Diplomat #2, that is "Hazmat Abu Jhad al-Jaziri, Ph.D."

Posted by: Hugh at February 9, 2005 4:53 PM

kj-
My answer to your question is in yesterday's "Illegal Entrants" thread.

Posted by: Mike at February 9, 2005 5:39 PM

"Hazmat Abu Jihad al-Jaziri"
Now THAT's funny.

Posted by: Mike at February 9, 2005 5:44 PM

To Moe Goldberg:

I vote for "islamocognizant"

Posted by: ted at February 9, 2005 6:11 PM

To be a Ph.D. is the being of a variable.

And ya never know what predicates come along darn thing either...

Posted by: JTF at February 9, 2005 7:37 PM

Daniel Pipes would eat Safi for breakfast.

Posted by: feralee at February 9, 2005 9:11 PM

Dear Mr. Safi,

You seem to make the same errors as Communist regimes. Marxism was of course a “perfect” ideology, flawless and beyond debate, so when Lenin, Stalin, Mao or even Pol Pot found their national economies to be sluggish, they immediately found scapegoats: “Christians”, “Zionists”, “the CIA”, “American imperialists”, “Western lackies”, “Fascists” etc., who of course acted as spies, dissidents and saboteurs. Everybody was to blame but not the “flawless” ideology of Communism. So we witness an almost identical scenario with Islam. The humiliatingly low GDP’s of most Muslim nations, the folly of autocratic regimes, creative inertia, technological dependency and internal strife can not be blamed on Islam or Muslims, as this would bring into question a supposedly divine ideology. No, if the Muslim world has become an embarrassment to itself, the fault (of course) must lie with external forces, and anybody that dares to point out the blindingly obvious becomes an Islamophobe, an Orientalist, a Western/Christian Triumphalist. Mr. Safi, this sounds like the rhetoric of a battered, deeply paranoid and suspect ideology.

Your course has disturbing parallels with the way Marxism is taught in places like Cuba and North Korea. The fact that your course treats Islam as a work of perfection and beyond criticism, and demonizes all critics, means that it has zero objectivity. Mr. Spencer raises a fair point, you have given his learned and highly articulate books the status of “study material” for your students, so that they may form a critique of his views, and yet the man himself is not worthy of a debate? Mr. Safi, this does not ring true.

Tell me, Mr Safi, what would happen to Mr. Spencer if he were to run a private course or even a mere seminar in ANY Muslim country. You know full well he would be murdered, Mr. Safi. And here you are, a safe, free and prosperous man in the USA, telling us of our social inferiority.

It is an eternal truth that the more respectable any given thing is, the more resilient it is to criticism. Islam’s ultra sensitivity to any scrutiny is highly indicative of its profound imperfection. Thus we find it protected by a phalanx of lies, deceptions, thugs and charlatans.

Islamic civilization is replete with vitriol and self importance yet Western Triumphalism is a sin? What may we ask are the successes of Islamic civilization? The pointed arch and algebra? (The much vaunted “Arabic” numbering system was in fact from Ancient India.) Please tell me anything invented by a Muslim in the 20th Century? This is not a facetious question, I would be interested in having a correct answer. My own nation, of merely 20 million souls (Australia) has given the world ultrasound imaging, the black box, and a host of smaller inventions such as Racecam TV and the baby safety capsule. Great Britain, a mere island, has given the world computers, the television, radar, penicillin, the jet engine, the theories of evolution and gravity, cloning, printing (moveable type) and a thousand other inventions and discoveries. Please tell us why it is so vile and offensive for us Christians and Westerners to congratulate ourselves on advancing humanity, and yet for Muslims to laud their own modest contributions is something perfectly acceptable. Your logic seems to be born of envy and a festering inferiority complex.

As for your academic qualifications, I concede that I myself left school at the age of 16, so I am glad you have condescended yourself sufficiently to read the thoughts of a common man (if indeed you did). My education was provided by the public library system and the limited knowledge found therein. My world view was formed merely by the world itself - through having lived on four continents. My salary stems not from the pockets of taxpayers but from my own entrepreneurial skills. My academic achievements include one book published about colonial India (for which I spent three years reading 19th century Indian newspapers on microfilm) but alas, this is all a mere chimera and is worthless garbage when compared to the greatness of your academic reputation.

To close, Mr. Safi, in our society addressing somebody as “mister” is acceptable for complete and utter strangers. It is also a form of deference or paradoxically it can be a sign of cold disdain. As Mr. Spencer (I presume) neither wanted to refer to you deferentially nor contemptuously, and as there had already been some written banter between you, he did in fact follow correct etiquette by using your first name. It was in fact a polite and gentlemanly gesture and not a sign of undue familiarity - unless that is you are an aristocrat, which I doubt. You are obviously completely unfamiliar with our culture, probably because you hold it to much in contempt to fully appreciate its subtleties.

Please forgive me for not offering you the normal courtesy of signing my real name. The problem is that we must live in fear of your barbaric co-religionists and such niceties must be withheld.

Yours faithfully

Posted by: Timbo at February 9, 2005 10:46 PM

Did Omid Safi snub Robert Spencer because of Mr. Spencer's putative inferior academic credentials, or because he believes he is inherently superior because he is a muslim?
Maybe Mr. Safi, the great muslim scholar, doesn't engage in debates with dhimmis.

His caustic missive was dripping with condescension and hostility, not to mention irreverence and contempt for Mr. Spencer's
valuable contributions on the subject of Islam.
I am sure he believes that only a muslim is qualified to present an exegesis of the doctrine of Islam. In reality, muslims are the least qualified because they are incapable of objectivity. How could he or any other devout muslim admit the flaws, errors, contradictions, and blatant malevolence in what they believe is the immutable word of allah, even if they noticed these incongruous defects?

Many scholars have dissected and maligned Christianity with a hostile vengeance. They have ridiculed, disputed, and denied its legitimacy, but nobody called them Christianophobes or bigots. Nobody threatened to kill them for blasphemy. Maybe that's because Christians don't suffer from intrinsic inferiority complexes or irrational fear, and Christianity has nothing to hide, unlike Islam. Muslims like Mr. Safi, who engage in fallacious arguments to avoid addressing the real issues, only prove that eveything Mr. Spencer and others have exposed about Islam is irrefutable.

Posted by: Susanp at February 10, 2005 12:29 AM

I posted this on Safi's previous comment, it has a little insight to the origin of Islam.

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.

Posted by: Cpt at February 10, 2005 1:34 AM

I posted this on Safi's previous comment, it has a little insight to the origin of Islam.

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.

Posted by: Cpt at February 10, 2005 1:35 AM

AAARRRRGGGHHH!!

Too much credit for Omid!

What's a piece of paper from an "Islamic University" in Saudi Arabia? Can you wipe the toilet floor with that? I doubt it.

The irony is, that such crap is accepted in US Universities today and that such people can actually promote superstition, bigotry, hatred and nonsense (in the name of "Allah") at a place of higher learning in the US of A, where people pay more than 32.000.00 Dollars for what? Islamic stupidity?

This day and age all religion should be banned into the realm of the paranormal, and only those interested in obskurantism should pursue such studies. But any self respecting, literate and upright walking (I forgot: civilized!) person should flee from this nonsense like the plague...

Posted by: Terminator at February 10, 2005 7:25 AM

I am a student of Safi, and although I do not claim to speak in his name, I feel compelled to break up your little round of backslapping ("Man, isn't it great that we aren't like those stupid Muslims?" LOL!!!11!) to comment on a couple of responses people have made here.

The first thing that comes to mind is your absurd notion of a debate between yourself and Safi with a prize if he "wins". What you fail to address is how you define "winning". The person having more persuasive arguments perhaps? Its all a subjective matter then. Some people thought Bush won the presidential debates (You forgot about Poland!). What comes to mind is Kent Hovind, a prominent Creationist with a similar gimmick- a $250,000 offer for anyone who can provide evidence of evolution. I'm sure no one here is dumb enough to believe in creationism, but the analogy stands. Since neither party will accept defeat, it is impossible that the money would be paid.

Otherwise, short the toothpaste jokes that are sure to come (good one guys! I bet you thought really hard to come up with those!), Colgate University is an excellent institution with exceptional faculty. Professor Safi is no exception. He is universally well liked and well respected by his students. Feel free to check www.ratemyprofessors.com for other opinions.

I also would like to register my contempt for Mr. Spencer's characterization of my classmates and I as "hapless students" that Professor Safi is hoisting his opinions onto. I have taken a number of courses on Islam and the Middle East now and have a fairly good understanding of the region and issues of Islam. This is not to say that I am an expert, far from it. What I do mean to say is that I am able to formulate my own opinions and am far from the parrot you would characterize me as. And, at the very least, I am able to converse on a topic without resorting to blindly insulting things that I have an extremely superficial understanding of (cpt). I am also able, through a command of basic history, to create rational theories for why things happen. This sense of history is obviously lacking in those people who would dismiss all Muslim accomplishments because they do not fit with what you consider success. Perhaps many people here have forgotten about the experience of colonialism in the Middle East. Perhaps you would ignore that period when European states deliberately prevented Middle Eastern states from following self determination. Would you advocate keeping millions of people in ignorance and poverty to protect your "interests" in a region? Is that what Christianity is about? During colonialism the Europeans were the barbarians, but barbarians wearing suits. When you look at Turkey, an Islamic nation relatively untouched by colonialism, you see a much more advanced state. For those few of you who know history, I'm sure you can trace the emergence of "fundamentalist" Islam in much of the Middle East from this period.

I do not mean to detract from the successes of Christian states, nor be an apologist for problems in Islam today. I would like people to understand that there are good and bad sides to everything. Terrorism is not a purely Islamic issue, as history will also show. I'm sure that all of you have been hurt or somehow offended by Islamic extremism, but the solution is not to hate all Muslims, it is to understand the roots of extremism and fight those. I doubt any of you know much about Professor Safi, but he is one of those people who teaches tolerance. There are problems in Islam today, but your attitude is nearly as extreme as the attitudes of the extremists you hate so much. Psst, by the way, its those attitudes towards them that strengthen their public appeal. Do you want to know why I'm writing here? Because when you hate Muslims you make Muslims hate you. Your words, the actions of the president, are all serving to make the country and its citizens less secure. I'm sure that most of you are happier hating people than understanding them. Give it a try though- stop hating Muslims for a while, try to reconcile the various countries, help finance education the way we do in other 3rd world countries (or a PR campaign, the white house certainly knows enough about that!), give it some time, and we'll see how it works out. I mean hey, at this point we really can't do much to make the people over there even more antagonistic, can we?

Sincerely, a Colgate University student.

Posted by: Outsidesmoke at February 10, 2005 10:45 PM

To Outsidesmoke: Thanks for your post. Jihad Watch has a year-and-a-half of archives you may search for a copious amount of information the substantiates much of what is said in opposition to Professor Safi's arguments. Feel free to spend days and weeks searching and reading. I'm sure you can read many posts by many of the very bloggers on this very thread that will amply demonstrate the depth of their knowledge.

I'd like to point out that an event called 9/11 happened, and I lost friends, half of my local fire department, etc. In the old days we called this an act of war. War isn't over until it's over. Capitulation is not an option. If you have read the Quran in your Islamic courses, you may have come across some interesting texts like the following:

"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Quran 9:5

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Quran 9:29

Please note use of terms like "slay," "take captives," "besiege," and "ambush" when the Quran speaks about the Kuffir. Also note phrases like "pay the tax" and "state of subjection."

These should amply answer your idea that, "the solution is not to hate all Muslims, it is to understand the roots of extremism and fight those." I agree, we should fight those who would take action as taught by the Quran to slay, take captive, besiege, ambush, forceful payment of the jizyah tax, and subjection of Americans and our friends. Indeed, this is the root cause you seek to understand and fight. You're in the right place.

Posted by: ted at February 11, 2005 12:18 AM

This sense of history is obviously lacking in those people who would dismiss all Muslim accomplishments because they do not fit with what you consider success. Perhaps many people here have forgotten about the experience of colonialism in the Middle East. Perhaps you would ignore that period when European states deliberately prevented Middle Eastern states from following self determination. Would you advocate keeping millions of people in ignorance and poverty to protect your "interests" in a region? Is that what Christianity is about? During colonialism the Europeans were the barbarians, but barbarians wearing suits. When you look at Turkey, an Islamic nation relatively untouched by colonialism, you see a much more advanced state. For those few of you who know history, I'm sure you can trace the emergence of "fundamentalist" Islam in much of the Middle East from this period

Colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to the Middle East. Colonialism did not keep "millions of people in ignorance and poverty." In fact, it did just the opposite! It galvanized the first real progress and growth in these stagnated, retrograde societies. Women gained autonomy, shed the veil, went to school and were able to work outside the home for the first time in history! Many archaic, inimical Islamic societal customs were abandoned and the economies and standard of living were greatly improved. Islamic fanaticism was kept well under control by the "cruel" Europeans. The biggest mistake they made was to leave and unleash the Islamic lunatics, many of whom formulated the agenda and provided the inspiration for today's crazed Islamic savages. Fundamentalist Islam has existed since Muhammad created Islam and went on a killing spree across three continents that hasn't stopped yet.
True, the Europeans had no right to impose their values and culture on these people, but it was probably the best thing that ever happened to them.
As for Turkey, it became "advanced" by pure force, when Ataturk abolished the caliphate and secularized Turkish society. He took these drastic measures because he realized that Turkey would continue to wallow in ignorance, illiteracy, stagnation and poverty if he did not remove the barriers imposed by Islam. Islam stultifies progress and he knew that. I'm sure you have studied the Ottoman Empire. What is the difference between Islamic colonialism/imperialism and the Western variety? Islam has engaged in far more of both than all of the West combined.
But don't despair, the fervor for Islamic ineptitude and retrogression has returned to Turkey with a vengeance. The only thing that might contain this insanity is Turkey's desire to join the European Union but once the Islamic mania builds momentum, it's difficult to stop.
Egypt, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon were more modernized, progressive, and enlightened thirty years ago than they are today.
The fruits of Islam are rotten.
The people of the Middle East are much more repressed, illiterate, destitute and miserable under the rule of brutal dictators, tyrants, and megalomaniac mullahs and imams than they were under the European colonists.
Haven't you figured it out yet? Muslims do not accept blame or responsiblity for anything. All of their problems are caused by past colonialism, current U.S. imperialism, or their most despised enemies, the JEWS. There are at least 25 diabolical conspiracies against Islam and muslims today. Tomorrow there will be 25 new ones.

Posted by: Susanp at February 11, 2005 1:29 AM

This sense of history is obviously lacking in those people who would dismiss all Muslim accomplishments because they do not fit with what you consider success. Perhaps many people here have forgotten about the experience of colonialism in the Middle East. Perhaps you would ignore that period when European states deliberately prevented Middle Eastern states from following self determination. Would you advocate keeping millions of people in ignorance and poverty to protect your "interests" in a region? Is that what Christianity is about? During colonialism the Europeans were the barbarians, but barbarians wearing suits. When you look at Turkey, an Islamic nation relatively untouched by colonialism, you see a much more advanced state. For those few of you who know history, I'm sure you can trace the emergence of "fundamentalist" Islam in much of the Middle East from this period

Colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to the Middle East. Colonialism did not keep "millions of people in ignorance and poverty." In fact, it did just the opposite! It galvanized the first real progress and growth in these stagnated, retrograde societies. Women gained autonomy, shed the veil, went to school and were able to work outside the home for the first time in history! Many archaic, inimical Islamic societal customs were abandoned and the economies and standard of living were greatly improved. Islamic fanaticism was kept well under control by the "cruel" Europeans. The biggest mistake they made was to leave and unleash the Islamic lunatics, many of whom formulated the agenda and provided the inspiration for today's crazed Islamic savages. Fundamentalist Islam has existed since Muhammad created Islam and went on a killing spree across three continents that hasn't stopped yet.
True, the Europeans had no right to impose their values and culture on these people, but it was probably the best thing that ever happened to them.
As for Turkey, it became "advanced" by pure force, when Ataturk abolished the caliphate and secularized Turkish society. He took these drastic measures because he realized that Turkey would continue to wallow in ignorance, illiteracy, stagnation and poverty if he did not remove the barriers imposed by Islam. Islam stultifies progress and he knew that. I'm sure you have studied the Ottoman Empire. What is the difference between Islamic colonialism/imperialism and the Western variety? Islam has engaged in far more of both than all of the West combined.
But don't despair, the fervor for Islamic ineptitude and retrogression has returned to Turkey with a vengeance. The only thing that might contain this insanity is Turkey's desire to join the European Union but once the Islamic mania builds momentum, it's difficult to stop.
Egypt, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon were more modernized, progressive, and enlightened thirty years ago than they are today.
The fruits of Islam are rotten.
The people of the Middle East are much more repressed, illiterate, destitute and miserable under the rule of brutal dictators, tyrants, and megalomaniac mullahs and imams than they were under the European colonists.
Haven't you figured it out yet? Muslims do not accept blame or responsiblity for anything. All of their problems are caused by past colonialism, current U.S. imperialism, or their most despised enemies, the JEWS. There are at least 25 diabolical conspiracies against Islam and muslims today. Tomorrow there will be 25 new ones.

Posted by: Susanp at February 11, 2005 1:29 AM

Susanp: You are getting better all the time! Hugh couldn't have done it better!

I hasten to add: The Afghan king also tried to better things in his country, but the Islamists made sure that the burkha stayed on and the king had to go!

The Shah of Persia, Reza Pahlevi, too often portrayed as a brutal dictator and butcher, wasn't anything like that: I was in Iran 3 times in 1969, and Iran was a very pleasant place! The Shah tried just about everything to bring his people into this century, but we all know what happened: Khomeini "happened" thanks to France and Peanut Carter!

The best example of all is probably Algeria: Under the French the most prosperous, civilized place in North Africa and ever since the French left a disaster! What did they ever achieve by themselves? And the Islamic hellhole they have created for themselves is all because of colonialism?

Have an 'outsidesmoke' my young friend! Just make sure you smoke the 'right stuff'...

Posted by: Terminator at February 11, 2005 5:53 AM

Outside:

"Perhaps many people here have forgotten about the experience of colonialism in the Middle East. Perhaps you would ignore that period when European states deliberately prevented Middle Eastern states from following self determination."

PLEASE!!!!! The European colonial experience in the Middle East lasted for about 3 decades! It happened before 95% of Muslims were even born, GET OVER IT! If European colonialism is the source of all evil, tell me why Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland do so well? Even Japan had a period of European occupation. Come to think of it, even America was a former colony, and a few neighbouring Christian countries like the Bahamas, Bermuda, Antigua etc. are well off and happy despite being British outposts and the descendents of plantation slaves. Even Latin American nations have more freedom and more diverse economies than Muslim countries these days - and they had a very rough colonial experience.

When will you Muslims stop pointing the finger, and just be a little bit honest about your dire civilization and the evil that Islam breeds?

Islam really is a culture of blame. Everything is our fault and they take responsibility for nothing.

Posted by: Timbo at February 12, 2005 8:53 AM