“They made teaching Islam from an objective perspective very difficult because they knew what the ‘real’ Islam was. Of course they didn’t.” Or maybe they did, but this professor, certain that Islam was a Religion of Peace, was sure that they were actually misundertanders of Islam, no matter how pious they were and how much Qur’an they knew.
In any case, university officials were apparently indifferent to the prospect that they had jihadis on campus. They knew Islam was a Religion of Peace as well. The prospect was no doubt inconceivable.
“Warnings about potential Muslim radicalization went ignored, ex-U of C prof says,” CBC News, June 25, 2014 (thanks to Loren):
A former University of Calgary professor says he warned the school’s administration years ago about the potential radicalization of some Muslim students, but nothing was done.
Aaron Hughes, who now teaches at the University of Rochester, N.Y., said he wanted to speak out after a series of CBC News stories revealed that several young Calgarians have headed overseas as jihadists in Iraq and Syria.
“I was very much bothered by the conservative nature of the Muslim student body,” the religious studies scholar said.
Aaron Hughes, a religious studies scholar who used to teach at the University of Calgary, says his warnings to school officials about possible radicalization of Islamic students were not heeded. He spoke to CBC News via Skype from Rochester, N.Y., where he now teaches. (CBC)
“They made teaching Islam from an objective perspective very difficult because they knew what the ‘real’ Islam was. Of course they didn’t.”
Hughes said that during his eight years as a religious studies professor at the U of C, there would always be a member of the Muslim students association monitoring his courses.
“It made it difficult because as you know, Calgary is a fairly diverse city and there are all kinds of different Muslims. And I know a number of Ismailis often felt threatened by the more Sunni Muslims who thought their version of Islam was the correct one,” he said.
“I was definitely aware of the potential for radicalization on campus.
“That is another venue in which potential radicalization could occur, so not just at mosques, but also on campus.”
Hughes said he took his concerns to university officials, but nothing was done.
“I had been mentioning the conservative nature of these students and the university; they just weren’t interested in it,” he said.
School says prof’s concerns should go to police
U of C officials responded to Hughes’s comments with a statement on Tuesday, saying they’re committed to fostering an environment of free and open debate of ideas. Any concerns with illegal activity should be taken to police, they added.
Calgary police say the issue is on their radar, confirming that they are aware of about two dozen youths who have left the city to fight overseas.
Hughes said he’s not surprised, but that when he lived in Calgary, he saw no evidence of police looking into the issue.
“When I was living in Calgary, I was probably the person objectively that knew more about Islam than anybody. Not once did I ever have a conversation with anyone from the Calgary police services,” he said.
“I really think it’s an issue that needs to be addressed in places like Calgary where there’s such a large Muslim population.”
Bradamante says
Here we see a huge part of the problem of our See-no-evil policy on Islam. The only time anyone is willing to do anything is when people have broken the law. If we could have open and honest discussion of Islamic teachings and goals, we could debate these people and turn public opinion against them. Instead, we’re required to pretend that everything’s OK until the bodies start piling up. PC liberals assume that anyone who speaks up against Islam is pushing for some kind of racist genocidal violence, but all we actually need is honest public debate. As the Citizen Warrior site has pointed out, nobody had to herd the KKK into concentration camps. They just lost all public respect. We could do the same with Islam except for the no-talking rules.
Ashley says
Hey Brad! Good to see you here. I believe you and I stumbled upon JW around the same time (during the Americana fiasco).
Anyhoo…I agree. If we cannot openly discuss and debate “the problem”, we’re doomed. To ignore the proverbial elephant in the room will lead to dire consequences.
This is all a learning curve to me and I have much to conquer. There was a time in my life when I didn’t give much thought to Islam. I just wrote it off as a rather quirky, quaint religion.
Feels like that was another lifetime ago.
Dave Sharp says
Great summation without all the hysterics.
Diane Harvey says
Underscoring why our 1st Am. and the freedom to speak the truth are sooooooo important.
mortimer says
Right on! ‘See-no-evil’! Muslims must be deprogrammed because Islam is not merely a method of prayer…it is a form of Stockholm syndrome!
zulu says
Children of war: ISIS kidnaps 140 Kurdish schoolboys and are ‘brainwashing’ them into becoming suicide bombers
Pupils aged 14 to 16 being held hostage in rebel-controlled city in Syria
Forced to take lessons in Sharia law and watch horrific execution videos
Escaped boy said armed fighters threatened to behead them if they fled
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670487/ISIS-kidnaps-140-Kurdish-schoolboys-brainwashing-suicide-bombers.html#ixzz35l34qHD2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Fears ancient city used in The Exorcist could be destroyed by ISIS fighters after they take control of territory
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670380/Fears-ancient-city-used-The-Exorcist-destroyed-ISIS-control-territory.html#ixzz35l3Mtqt3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Ashley says
Bravo, Mr. Hughes! Bravo! May you sleep well at night knowing you did the right thing. I’m only sorry your warnings fell on deaf ears.
Canada’s loss. Glad you are now here in the States. Wishing you the best at The University of Rochester
Holger_Danske says
But Ashley:
He was PART OF THE PROBLEM! Raising awareness is one thing, but he is STILL under the deluded impression that Islam is somehow innocuous. THAT is the most dangerous of all.
Ashley says
I must be hopelessly dense.
I fail to see how Hughes is part of the problem. My takeaway from the post was that a professor of religious studies signaled the alarm and the powers that be didn’t give a damn. The University didn’t care. The Calgary police didn’t care.
This wouldn’t be a story if Hughes just kept his mouth shut and didn’t stir the pot. Hughes did the talk and walked the walk. I understand there is an expectation on my part to slam the guy…but from where I sit, I just can’t do that.
Angemon says
I *think* Holger_Danske is trying to say that Mr. Hughes only spoke out because his hubris clouded his political correctness and moral equivalence. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Hughes seems to be sporting the ever growingly dangerous “islam is a religion of peace and those who commit acts of violence in the name of islam don’t know what islam is” PC line of though.
Mirren10 says
”This wouldn’t be a story if Hughes just kept his mouth shut and didn’t stir the pot. Hughes did the talk and walked the walk. I understand there is an expectation on my part to slam the guy…but from where I sit, I just can’t do that”
I agree with you that Hughes did the right thing, in warning the Uni; the fact that these warnings were ignored, is hardly his fault. And you’re right, many others would have simply kept their mouths shut, so kudos to him for that.
What Holger_Danske is saying however, is very much the same as the point that Robert makes, in the article; ie: that Hughes is still clinging to the idea (hope ?) that there is a **real** islam which isn’t inherently violent.
“They made teaching Islam from an objective perspective very difficult because they knew what the ‘real’ Islam was. Of course they didn’t.” Or maybe they did, but this professor, certain that Islam was a Religion of Peace, was sure that they were actually misundertanders of Islam, no matter how pious they were and how much Qur’an they knew.”
I wouldn’t go as far as Holger_Danske does, in stating that Hughes is ”part of the problem”, as that obviates the fact Hughes *did* warn the uni authorities.
But I think Professor Hughes still has a way to go, in really *understanding** what islam is all about.
Ashley says
Thank you Angemon and Mirren10 for taking the time to clarify …politely I might add.
Peter Buckley says
It’s hilarious watching these people scratching their heads, wondering how we can stop this “radicalisation”, as if some unidentifiable mysterious exterior force is influencing all these “radicalised” muslims.
I repeat: “radicalisation” occurs when a muslim enacts MEDINA Islam rather than MECCA Islam. Since MEDINA Islam “abrogates” Muhammad’s earlier teachings in MECCA, these “radicalised” muslims are interpreting the Quran in the CORRECT way. Can somebody please explain this to these clueless individuals. It’s very simple really. Muslims themselves admit it:
“When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jul/01/comment.religion1
el-cid says
And, as I understand it from Robert, it is against Islamic doctrine to attack without provocation. Therefore by definition ALL attacks must be justified as retaliation. This is the game that Jihadists have been playing for years in their conflict with Israel and the press always reports their “grievances” no matter how brazen the unprovoked attack may be.
Islam is a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion. Its paths lead to death and destruction for its adherents and all people.
It took the Spanish 500 years to figure it out and finally act. Note that the current government invited the Jews back but not the Muslims. I wonder why that is?
gravenimage says
el-cid wrote:
And, as I understand it from Robert, it is against Islamic doctrine to attack without provocation. Therefore by definition ALL attacks must be justified as retaliation
………………………..
This is the case in the absence of a Caliphate, El Cid.
A Caliph, though, can declare offensive Jihad without cause—save that of taking more land and slaves for Islam.
But as you note, it hardly matters, since pious Muslims can frame the most vicious unprovoked attack as “retaliation” for *something*.
Wellington says
Good for this professor though I have one quibble with what he said and that is his reference to the Muslim students as conservative. They are not conservative. They are reactionary. Conservatives embrace liberty and equality under the law. Reactionaries cannot be trusted on either of these matters. Huge difference. Conflating conservatives with reactionaries is very common and very wrong.
el-cid says
A useful distinction. Thank you.
What he should have said is “fundamentalist”
That is not the same as “conservative”.
voegelinian says
“fundamentalist” may make sense in our Western framework, but it is not helpful — in fact, injurious — when superimposed upon Islam. All these qualifying terms have a function to perpetuate the Moderate Muslim by another name (thus all those Muslim students who were not “fundamentalist” or not “conservative” and who were “lax” or “ignorant of their own Islam” become the New Moderates).
A rose by another name smells the same.
el-cid says
Ah! Very astute. The War of Words. You are a black belt 🙂
voegelinian says
There’s more than that one quibble that, all told, should concern us and arouse our disdain for this professor. If a PC MC in an influenntial position (e.g., college professor) is conscientious enough to try to alert authorities to the Tiny Minority of Extremists but is otherwise actively involved in reinforcing the wall that forever separates Islam from that Tiny Minority of Extremists — thereby doing his small part to help endanger all our lives.
“When I was living in Calgary, I was probably the person objectively that knew more about Islam than anybody.”
The arrogance of the academic who shows the symptom of an inability to consider his expertise has the whole thing grievously wrong. Many academics and professional Experts out there confuse the knowledge of data with the interpretive frameworks by which that data is made meaningful in broader terms. I.e., they think because they are experts in the data, that then the interpretive frameworks they have adopted must be as simply True as is the data. This cultural attitude becomes most unfortunate when that interpretive framework happens to be PC MC concerning Islam.
“They made teaching Islam from an objective perspective very difficult because they knew what the ‘real’ Islam was. Of course they didn’t.”
That “Of course” betrays his intellectual narcissism, joined at the hip with the PC MC interpretive framework he thinks is as “objectively” true as is* the data.
Allah help us from the influence of such Experts.
* I don’t treat “data” as a plural noun; ancient Greek, whence the word is derived, often treated an ostensibly plural noun as a singular in the sense that it denotes a collection. That makes eminent sense to me.
Holger_Danske says
They are to be considered FUNDAMENTALISTS. Not Conservative or radicals, or extremists.
They are the fundamental (deep rooted) and have the teachings and the official interpretations of the teachings on their side. The FUNDAMENTALISTS have the upper hand by being correct about Islam.
The extremists are those that do not adhere to the teachings and take liberties with interpretation. Those are the same people that are at risk of fine folks like ISIS and Al- Queda for not being Muslim (pious) enough. The radicals are those that do not adhere to the literal (pure) interpretations of the cult.
So these torublemakers are truly FUNDAMENTALISTS, not Extremists, or radicals at all.
Kepha says
Respectfully differ, Wellington.
Yes, as a Christian conservative, I’m all for that wonderful older balance between liberty and law we had in the West, and that welter of legal and political rights that grew up in the Anglosphere between 1215-1789 A.D.–even if I am highly suspicious of all these new “rights” our judges find in the Constitutional penumbrae while weakening those found in the clear light of the text.
However, in an Islamic context, these “reactionary” Islamicists are indeed “conservative”. They seek to conserve an Islamic shape to society in which Muslim males are securely dominant; Dhimmi peoples are second- and third-class subjects rather than actual citizens; and women are chattel. Their desire to practice predation on any non-Muslim society foolish enough to admit them also smacks of the 7th century model of Islam as justification for Arab looting and subjugation of neighbors.
While I don’t agree with Alasdair MacIntyre’s Roman Catholicism, he makes a very cogent argument in _Whose Justice? Which Rationality?_that terms like “justice” and “rationality” take their meanings from traditions of discourse. Hence, it is difficult for many, who are steeped in the enlightenment liberal tradition, to even imagine that any pre-modern tradition can be “rational” or truly have a conern for “justice”. While sometimes the traditions will have a close to impossible time talking to each other, they may also talk past each other.
Wellington says
Don’t see your point, Kepha. I certainly don’t think that all pre-modern traditions are not worthy of being called rational or should be considered devoid of a concern for true justice, not by a long shot, but Islam from its outset should be. It was born reactionary, born bad, and should never, I submit, be graced with the term “conservative.”
Mirren10 says
”It was born reactionary, born bad, and should never, I submit, be graced with the term “conservative”
I agree.
To paraphrase Lady Caroline Lamb, ”islam is mad, bad, and dangerous to know.”
I hope you and your wife are doing well, Wellington.
Kepha says
Look, Islam was, as Mirren said, “born bad”. Hence, the Badmashes want to conserve that bad tradition. “Conservatism” is also something conditioned by the tradition of discourse that uses the term. Hence, I have no problem being a Western Christian conservative; can respect conservatives from certain other traditions even while disagreeing; but see Islamic conservatism as a bad and dangerous thing.
Sheikh Hasan bin Sobah says
“They made teaching Islam from an objective perspective very difficult because they knew what the ‘real’ Islam was. Of course they didn’t.”
*****
Always amusing to listen to PC-restricted non-Muslims tell Muslims what Islam is all about. Even the current Pope has gotten in on that game.
Endless entertainment.
Jay Boo says
‘Officials’ love to find an excuse to change the topic to filter their agenda through rather than admit that there is a stink in the room.
I wonder if some ‘defenders of Islam’ will appear and attempt the same here today with diversionary comments.
Ashley says
I agree with your quibble, Wellington. Nothing “conservative” about radicalization. But I’m going to give the good professor a pass on his choice of words. He addressed his concerns, and they went unheeded. I respect the dude.
PRCS says
They’re not “radicalized” and it’s not “radicalization”.
That’s a misrepresentation that needs to be overcome.
They are literalists, and Allah expects literalism of his every slave.
voegelinian says
I’ve noted before how Ashley’s residues of PC MC from her previous pre-Islam-Awareness life continue to inform her judgement on the issue. This is yet another sign & symptom of that phenomenon. Seeing the glass half full and ignoring the half empty may ordinarily be a good thing, but not when our lives are at stake. This small precious nucleus of Canaries-in-a-Coalmine—We few, we happy few, we band of brothers (and sisters)—otherwise known as the Counter-Jihad needs to be more rigorous about this ongoing movement to wake up our society, and we need to hold people’s feet to the fire — particularly influential people like this professor who is so smugly sure of his academic expertise to know “objectively” that Islam itself is not a problem, only its “conservative radicalization”.
Nobody else is going to do it, so we have to do it. It dismays to see so many even in the tiny Counter-Jihad who drop everything in their desperate need to see crumbs drop from the PC MC Mainstream Tabletop down to the floor where we cringe, cower and scramble in our hunger for our society to wake the hell up to the fact that Islam is evil and dangerous and so are all Muslims who enable Islam.
Ashley says
Voegelinian says: “I’ve noted before how Ashley’s residues of PC MC from her previous pre-Islam-Awareness life continue to inform her judgement on the issue. This is yet another sign & symptom of that phenomenon. Seeing the glass half full and ignoring the half empty may ordinarily be a good thing, but not when our lives are at stake.
___________________
I’m not sure if your comment is intended to be a slam directed at me or not.
To clarify, I’m here to learn.
I’ll happily cease commenting if you feel I don’t contribute to the discussion.
Wellington says
You contribute, Ashley, so don’t cease commenting. Voegelinian does make many valid observations but it’s best to remember that, unlike the rest of us in the counter-jihad movement who were reared on mother’s milk, voegelinian was reared on dill pickles.
Ashley says
Thank you, Wellington. Not only for your kind, reassuring words but also for the chuckle.
John C. Barile says
Our noble and pious Imam Voegelinian [Hesperado to the fully initiated] wishes to purge our ranks of any hint of jahaliyya–ignorance–all those infidel PC/MC moral-equivalence notions we carry over from our mushrikin pre-Enlightenment days.
Lead us, O Glorious Iman, back unto the Right Path, lest we be among the Accursed for whom await humiliation and most Horrible Torments!
John C. Barile says
“Lead us, O Glorious Imam, back . . . .
voegelinian says
No need to read anything more in what I said. I’m all for people of various styles and outlooks all contributing to the conversation — which includes people like me who take issue with some of those outlooks.
Mirren10 says
Don’t you *dare* cease commenting here, Ashley !
Voegilinean, however he likes to style himself as such, is *not* the definitive voice of the countrr-jihad.
Man up, lass! Say what you think, and if you disagree with what voeg says, state it, without fear or favour !
Ashley says
Thanks for the support and encouragement, folks!
It certainly wasn’t my intention to irritate you, Voegelinian.
I’m pretty tough-skinned and welcome criticism when my comments are deemed flawed. But I felt your slam was unnecessary. I make no apologies for respecting Professor Hughes. Hughes saw a problem, reported it, and watched it go unaddressed. So he walked. I admire that. I never said he was the poster boy for the counter-jihad.
I’ve let it go.
Be well Voegelinian.
voegelinian says
“Man up, lass! Say what you think, and if you disagree with what voeg says, state it, without fear or favour !”
I don’t know why this unremarkable truism is being melodramatically amplified.
Ashley says
In response to Mirren10, vogelinian replies, “I don’t know why this unremarkable truism is being melodramatically amplified.”
__________________
Melodramatically amplified? Mirren10 came to my defense. Mirren10 offered words of encouragement to me. So now you see fit to attack Mirren10?
You clearly have a far better grasp on Islam than I will ever achieve in my lifetime, vogelinian. I respect that.
But you also possess an arrogant posture that is a real turn-off.
Ashley says
Thank you, Philip.
I’m trying to let it all go…
Shit. I think I’m going to go back to lurking. At least I learn from reading…I have NO intention of leaving JW. But I’m uncomfortable posting comments here, especially when other good folks are being dragged into the fray. Such upheavals distracts from our common interests and concerns.
Thanks for your friendship, Philip.
I’m sure vogelinian will find fault with my “thanks for your friendship, Philip” line. Probably too “melodramatic.”
John C. Barile says
Ashley, if you cease to post here, we will all be poorer for your absence. In spite of any issues or conceits of my own, I want to learn, too. How I can I learn, if not from people of courage, enthusiasm, and sincerity like you?
voegelinian says
“Hughes saw a problem, reported it, and watched it go unaddressed. So he walked. I admire that.”
He did do that. But his years of reinforcing the PC MC paradigm in a position of relative influence (teaching, writing books, participating in colloquia and debates, giving interviews, etc.) tends to undermine that good deed. And anyway, he wasn’t opposing Islam. He was opposing the Tiny Minority of Extremists who happened to be intruding upon his academic world.
“The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”
—Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr.
voegelinian says
It’s baffling why Ashley is letting merely one person (little old moi) disable her interest in commenting here and contemplates receding back to lurking — especially when so many other JWers have rallied to her support and attacked me (as a rule I hesitate to deploy the “attack” word indiscriminately, like so many others do here — except where it is perfectly accurate, as it is here). I also notice, once again, how certain JWers here indulge in the distraction of personal recriminations (and delusions of same) while conspicuously avoiding the substance I brought up).
Angemon says
“A former University of Calgary professor says he warned the school’s administration years ago about the potential radicalization of some Muslim students, but nothing was done.”
He’s a better man than the professor talked about here, who told to a muslim student not to criticize islam:
Ashley says
More:
Aaron Hughes, a prolific author on religion who holds a PhD on Islamic studies, said he once found a message scrawled in Arabic across his classroom’s chalkboard endorsing Islamic Jihad and Hamas, widely considered a terrorist group by western countries.
Hughes, who is Jewish, said he interpreted the message as anti-Semitic, but he said the university declined to remove the offending student from his class.
“I would have to go teach this class as a victim staring my aggressor in the face,” he said.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Students+extremist+views+pushed+professor/9974866/story.html
Sheikh Hasan bin Sobah says
A non-Muslim professor asserts that he knows the true nature of Islam over the claims of a practicing Muslim?
PRCS says
Conservative, as it relates to religious literalism/fundamentalism is correct:
adjective:
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
noun:
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
We don’t hear much about Muslims willingly accepting changes and innovation in Islam’s “divine” teachings.
They’re certainly not liberals (as that word is commonly used).
voegelinian says
The word may be technically correct, but the massive overwhelming interpretive context that dictates how its function should order the broader data about the problem of Islam is not correct — and in fact is endangering our lives; for that interpretive context is PC MC, and it erects an ontological wall eternally separating Islam and the Vast Majority of Muslims from the Tiny Minority of Extremists/Conservatives/Fundamentalists/Islamists/Radicalized Muslims/Et Cetera.
PRCS says
No,
You’re wrong.
voegelinian says
Well, I’m glad you cleared that up.
PRCS says
A;waus glad to help, Hesp.
gravenimage says
Actually, Robert Spencer has commented many times on the odd phenomenon of referring to Muslims who take their Islam seriously as “Conservatives”, as though they tend to vote Republican.
This has the effect of characterizing many who oppose Jihad in just the same terms as Jihadists themselves.
Wellington says
PRCS: If one is going to call Muslims conservatives, then who, pray tell, would be reactionaries? Dictionaries aside (they’re rather, as Jane Austen said of honesty, greatly overrated), do you not see the problem when someone like Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher are called conservatives and Muslims who want to blow us up are also called by such a name? Talk about muddying the waters. No, for my money, I will continue to call such Muslims reactionaries and great folks like Reagan and Thatcher conservatives.
Angemon says
I just call them purists. Don’t they try to practice islam as closely as they can to the way it was practiced by butt-pirate muhammad back in 7th century arabia?
John C. Barile says
I understand you clearly, PRCS. You use correct terms according to their proper context. Devout Muslims are arch-conservative. When they tell you that they categorically reject Aristotelian logic and Socratic dialogue, they just couldn’t be liberal.
John C. Barile says
Yes, Hesp, they are reactionary.
voegelinian says
All Muslims are enabling Islam. That’s all that matters for our purposes. If all this luxuriant taxonomy helps us defend ourselves from all Muslims and their diverse ways of trying to subjugate us (and kill us when we resist), I’m all for it. However, we have the massive fact that a taxonomy very much like the one which too many Counter-Jihad folks indulge in is already being used in the mainstream, and it’s killing us and continuing to make us vulnerable to jihad. And I don’t see much indication that these Counter-Jihad folks who indulge in such a taxonomy are being careful about the distinction between a superficial diversity of the Umma and an underlying unity of it.
PRCS says
I imagine that devout, Orthodox Jews are pretty conservative, too.
And probably Buddhists, too. And Jains. And many other religions as well.
I think that some here cringe at that adjective because so many in this country have come to associate that word in its political context alone; without considering its place in traditional, conservative religious teachings.
The reason I don’t agree with ‘Hesp on these things is his “ain’t never gonna happen” belief that we should–or ever would–deport American born Muslims and his failure to consider that the phrase “every Muslim” includes babies just out of the womb.
PRCS says
Actually, I’ve posted here for 10 years. Hesperado and I have tangled many, many times over that thinking.
He writes quite well, of course, and is an informed indificual.
But I disagree–greatly–on tactics.
John C. Barile says
I agree, PCRS, it just “‘ain’t never gonna happen.'”
We suppress the seditious and their enablers to the limits of the law; that doesn’t mean that we violate the Free Exercise of Religion.
Indiscriminate mass deportations of Muslims as Muslims is an absurd and extreme proposal.
John C. Barile says
I agree, PCRS, it just “‘ain’t never gonna happen.'”
We suppress the seditious and their enablers to the limits of the law; that doesn’t mean that we violate the Free Exercise of Religion.
Indiscriminate mass deportations of Muslims as Muslims is an absurd and extreme proposal.
voegelinian says
Delving a little into Prof. Hughes, I see that evidently he’s not simply an anti-Orientalist — he’s an anti-Orientalist who situates himself in a rare position in academe between Orientalism and the modern “apologetic” interpretation of Islam. This is all well and good in the abstract, but it tends to become irrational when one reflexively assumes that two sides are both wrong and that one’s own mind is rarely open enough to see the truer space between them (where “truer” is inflected through the prism of a post-modern disinclination to succumb to “essentialism”, where “essentialism” insists there is an “Islam” that can be analyzed, and where the perspective of Prof. Hughes, unlike lesser mortals, can see the real reality of multiple Islams, some “conservative” some loosy-goosy, mystical and wonderfully charming).
One big problem with this is that it assumes there was something wrong with Orientalism, whereas as Hugh Fitzgerald used to argue, it was the great Orientalists of Western yore — before what he called “the Great Inhibition” in academe (and throughout Western society) to appropriately and intelligently condemn Islam — who were the true scholars of Islam. One would like to see Prof. Hughes definitively tackle Orientalism and explain in detail why and where its paradigm is faulty; but one suspects that were he to do so, the result would be a tissue of post-modern jargon that consistently tries to neuter the ability of Orientalism to condemn Islam (by, among other clever maneuvers, pulling the Persian rug out from under the discussion through “deconstructing” Islam out of existence!). Et freaking cetera.
I’m currently suffering a long radio interview with Prof. Hughes in which he is comfortably waxing and expatiating; I may report more later when I finish.
P.S.: In that radio interview, Prof. Hughes says he had a “Lebanese Shi’ite grandfather”. In the context of his shameless (albeit complicated in the post-modern sense) love affair with Islam (devoting his life to lovingly palpate its history and culture), such a familial revelation arouses the analogy of a black professor, say of the Cornel West variety, who would reveal that his great grandfather was a white slave-master from the Deep South who raped one of the underage slave girls on his plantation and that the tragic progeny of that violation resulted down the generational line in that black professor — who then goes on to write scholarly book after book finding various torturous, oh-so-sophisticated ways to exculpate and even glowingly admire those Southern white slaveowners of his people.
http://newbooksinislamicstudies.com/2012/12/05/aaron-hughes-theorizing-islam-disciplinary-deconstruction-and-reconstruction-equinox-2012/
el-cid says
You are the master of the paradigm. Your command of English without compare.
Your taxonomy would be extremely valuable.
I would use it “religiously”–it is exactly what the Islamic Supremacists are doing.
Please publish it on your site when it is ready.
mark says
Listen, I live in Alberta, have lived in Calgary, and Calgary is just down the road from me now. Many people assume that Alberta is red-neck, good ol’ boy country. It is not, sadly. This province is not as liberal, ‘progressive,’ and politically correct as Ontario and Quebec. But it is quickly becoming that way. Conservative talk radio has been overtaken by leftists; we’ve already had a liberal for premier in conservative dress; and virtually everyone is falling in with the gay agenda. Muslims, in a milieu like that, will get away with murder.
voegelinian says
Welcome to the whole damned West.
Wellington says
Again, voegelinian, this time with your humorously terse response to “mark’s” appropriate and informative post, I find myself aligned with you, though you do make it damn hard at times (just look at this particular thread for confirmation) to be an ally. Truth resides with you to a great degree but, alas, diplomacy does not. Just sayin’.
Sovereign Man says
As an Albertan, everything you say is true. Is there a refuge for free-thinkers anywhere anymore? Even Texas seems to be going down the pipes with the PC Islam lover Rick Perry.
Mirren10 says
”Melodramatically amplified? Mirren10 came to my defense. Mirren10 offered words of encouragement to me. So now you see fit to attack Mirren10?
You clearly have a far better grasp on Islam than I will ever achieve in my lifetime, vogelinian. I respect that.
But you also possess an arrogant posture that is a real turn-off”
Don’t worry, Ashley. I’ve had run-ins with voegelinian before, and no doubt will again. It doesn’t bother me at all. 🙂
Yes, voegelinian is very knowledgeable, (and arrogant), but for you to say he has more knowledge of islam than you will ever have is not so.
You came here to learn, as I did. I’ve been here over 4 years now, and I’m still learning. Most of us here are.
As Mr jihadski cogently says, JW can be a ”tough playground”, but don’t worry about that, or dragging others into the ‘fray’. That’s part and parcel of the action here.
gravenimage says
You pretty much summed things up, Mirren.
Wellington says
Mirren10: I didn’t know Lady Caroline Lamb said that. Thanks for letting me know and thanks for your best wishes to my wife and me. Hope you are doing well. As ever I remain
Conservatively yours,
Wellington
Mirren10 says
Wellington, Caroline Lamb said **Byron** was ”mad, bad, and dangerous to know”. I juxtaposed it with islam, because I thought it fitted nicely.
Wellington says
Ah, my bad. I missed that key word “paraphrase.”
Indeed, Wellington posted and was toasted.
Mirren10 says
It’s not often you miss anything, Wellington !
Take care, mate.
Wellington says
Thanks for that poem by Byron, PJ. Well, he may have been mad, bad, etc., but he also could write.
On a different topic, I just wanted to indicate my agreement with you on man-made climate change, something you posted about on the thread from yesterday dealing with the absurd Slate article (I here too offer my kudos to you for shutting up JIMJFOXX on this—–what an annoying man he is). I have always smelled a rat with it. Let’s see, man puts about 8 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly while the oceans of the world pump into the atmosphere on a yearly basis hundreds of gigatons of CO2 and yet man is the culprit. I know that the oceans absorb a lot of what they put out of CO2 but not everywhere and I don’t see how a mere 8 gigatons more of CO2 would make anything but a nugatory difference, if even that.
Also, back during the Paleozoic Era, in the midst of it, the earth went through an horrific ice age, far more extensive than the last one which possibly ended with the retreat of the Wurm glaciation some 12,000 years ago, and yet during this Paleozoic ice age atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than they are today, up to ten times higher. So if CO2 causes warming, then how is this explained? One explanation is that the sun was a bit dimmer then and this negated the extra CO2 but I tend to think this is a desperate explanation designed by certain folks in that new religion whose acronym is AGW. BTW, while George Carlin was way too liberal for me on many issues, he could sometimes be both right and funny. If you haven’t seen it already, google “George Carlin on global warming” for a lot of laughs——-and truth.
Always good to hear from you, PJ. Now, back to the fight.