Stanford ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Panel: Je Suis Ferguson?
by Cinnamon Stillwell and Rima Greene
What does the Islamic terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January have to do with the 2014 police shootings of African-American men in Ferguson, Missouri and Long Island, New York; San Francisco’s troubled Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood; and the Occupy Wall Street movement? A recent panel discussion at Stanford University, “Terror, Freedom, Blasphemy: Reflections on Citizenship in Our Times,” used the connection between the struggles—both real and imagined—of minorities in the U.S. and those attributed to Muslims worldwide to deflect attention from Islamic radicalism in the West.
Sponsored by the Sohaib and Sara Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, the afternoon discussion took place in a Center for International Security and Cooperation conference room with a long, narrow table in the middle, at the head of which sat the panelists. Approximately forty people—a mixture of students and locals, many of them eating lunch—were seated at and around the table, some spilling out into the hallway. Framed posters lined the walls with slogans such as, “China Builds the Bomb” and “International Arms Control,” but none spoke to Iran’s highly-contested efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
In his introduction, Shahzad Bashir, Lysbeth Warren Anderson Professor in Islamic Studies, explained that:
The idea for this event came from a discussion between myself and [fellow panelists] Robert Crews, [and] Aishwary Kumar, and grew out of a general frustration about the state of the world.
According to Bashir, the latter included such disparate subjects as:
[T]he torture information that came out of the U.S. Senate; what’s happening in Iraq and Syria; what’s happening in Ferguson, Missouri and Long Island; events in Nigeria, and what happened in Paris most recently. . . . We wanted an occasion where we could draw the connections between these events.
The inclusion of Destin Jenkins, a PhD candidate in Stanford’s history department who delivered a completely unrelated talk titled, “Citizenship, Debt, and Structural Violence: From Hunters Point to Ferguson” and who admitted that, “I am somewhat of an interloper, working on San Francisco, nothing about Paris or Islam,” achieved the organizers’ goal. As Jenkins put it:
I want to use this as an opportunity to think about the troubling connections between the enactment of citizenship and the structural violence against the African-American community of the Hunters Point neighborhood [in San Francisco] after WWII.
He thanked co-panelist Robert Crews, history professor and director of the Sohaib and Sara Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, for “reaching out” to him. Later, Bashir ratcheted up the absurdity by directing an audience question about the European migration of jihadists to Jenkins, who responded, predictably, by discussing Hunters Point.
Crews began his talk by stating that, “African-Americans are subjected to legal state violence and massive incarceration.” Later, he described American foreign policy as “The fetishistic abuse of brown and black, Arab and African bodies” and referred to “Latinos” being “targeted in . . . operations.” After stating his intention to “focus first on the American context and its relationship to global militancy,” Crews detailed an extensive list of grievances against the U.S., including “widespread torture,” “Abu Ghraib,” “Guantanamo,” “solitary confinement,” “black sites,” “war crimes,” “the military justice system,” and “films like American Sniper, Lone Survivor, Zero Dark Thirty.”
Turning briefly to the subject at hand, Crews expressed his displeasure not with the perpetrators of the Paris attacks, but with the Western response, which he ascribed to anti-Muslim bigotry and media manipulation:
The media presents [sic] all the values of Western civilization under vicious assault by the forces of barbarism, savagery, and unreason. Citizens everywhere identified with the slogan “Je Suis Charlie Hebdo.” Civilization against the humorless and thin-skinned Muslims who fail to accept the conventions of modern times, citizenship among them. What was the incidence which demanded the presence of global elites? It was perfect for the global media stage.
Of the attack’s victims or the savagery of mass murder, he said nothing.
Aishwary Kumar, an assistant professor of modern South Asian and global intellectual history, opened by citing a European Law Enforcement Agency (Europol) report to allege a low level of Islamic terrorism, concluding that, “the war on terror” is as much “militaristic” as it is “a war against our own depressed psychologies.” He then lamented that the huge solidarity march in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo attack was “led by a roster of some of the greatest war criminals you will ever find on the streets . . . there was [British Prime Minister] David Cameron.” He excoriated Cameron and the other “war mongering leaders” because, of all things, “None of these leaders came out for Occupy Wall Street.” That Cameron and other world leaders would as readily camp-out with the professional agitators of the now-defunct “Occupy” movement as they would join forces against a murderous, global ideology is a farce that only a professor could conjure.
Instead of defending free speech against the imposition of Islamic blasphemy laws, Thoraya Boumehdi, an Arabic instructor at the Stanford Language Center, attacked the very concept of freedom of speech:
[T]here is no freedom without respect. . . . If someone attacks the beliefs of others, that is an assault on his freedom; freedom stops where others begin.
“We must not allow hatred to hide behind the excuse of humor,” she added, before reaching the asinine and ahistorical conclusion, “Islam has been a great civilization which has been haunted for centuries by populations that were not Muslim.” The many non-Muslim victims of Islamic supremacy over the centuries, particularly those today suffering at the genocidal hands of the Islamic State (ISIS), would beg to differ.
French political scientist Denis Lacorne, a then-visiting scholar at Stanford from Sciences Po in Paris, provided the sole exception to the parade of apologetics among the panelists. Lacorne gave a robust defense of secularism and free speech, noting that, “The attack against Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons . . . reproduces France of the eighteenth century as if the Enlightenment had not taken place.” In reference to French philosopher and playwright Voltaire’s 1736 play “Mahomet,” which portrayed Islam’s prophet Mohammed as a violent fanatic, he asked, “Can we perform today his play? The sad answer is, no we can’t. It’s too dangerous. No one is going to do it.” As proof, he detailed the role of Swiss academic and Oxford University professor of contemporary Islamic studies Tariq Ramadan in preventing the play from being performed in Geneva in the 1990s, noting that it “has not been performed since then.”
The question and answer period offered few challenges from the audience, with one member pronouncing sycophantically, “what a wonderful event this was” and “how it exemplified the best of Stanford’s higher education.” A man seated nearby could be overheard making the bizarre claim that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “would have chased everyone here away” were she still teaching “global dominance” at Stanford, but for the heroic “students who protested too much at her classes.” In fact, Rice—a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, located next door to the building housing the panel—currently teaches at Stanford and she gets high marks from her students for including a variety of viewpoints. For others, however, political diversity is a vice.
Despite the panel’s stated aim of offering a better understanding of the issues of “terror, freedom, and blasphemy” surrounding the Paris attacks, speakers proffered a cacophony of grievance politics, victimology, and obfuscation. Rather than enlighten, they sought to whitewash. It was just what we’ve come to expect from the “experts” filling the ranks of Middle East studies.
Berkeley resident Rima Greene co-wrote this article with Cinnamon Stillwell, the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.
mortimer says
The purpose of this colloquy seems to have been to destroy European civilization and to establish Islam as the state religion of the USA.
America has a gun culture that leads cops to be hypervigilant to potential threats. That won’t change for a long time.
It isn’t a black thing, it’s a handgun thing.
Spot On says
If American academia spent less time developing anti USA propaganda along with student indoctrination….and more time educating our students, we might all be able to enjoy a better life.
Islam is indeed being promoted by the left to be the official religion of the USA.
Peter Charles says
But didn’t Kerry say just the other day that the world was safer now than ever before? Factual evidence is that cops are not shooting persons of color arbitrarily. The Ferguson shooting was clearly not arbitrary, the young thug was, stupidly on the attack of a police officer and fully capable of killing him has the LEO not shot him. Very occasionally there is a bad LEO who makes a bad shoot, and that is a terrible thing. It s not the usual thing, and FBI Stats show this.
If you are black and born American your life expectancy is double that in Africa, you have a standard of living unequaled by any black populations anywhere in Africa and have medical services that are the envy of any African nation . That’s the way of the world now, and pretending that things are better for blacks or persons of color elsewhere is just wrong. Imagining that islam would make things better is so wrong it borders insanity.
gary fouse says
Attacks in Europe, Boko Haram, ISIS, al Qaeda, everywhere you look, Muslims are warring against the world and against civilization itself. And here we have these academic apologists playing the victim role. It is beyond sickening.
Georg says
Well, when you have the POTUS droning on about “historical grievances”, “crusade”, “Christ”, “worried and afraid”, portending he’ll “stand with the Muslims” before getting the evidence, saying “no one should be targeted because of how they worship” while calling the atrocity at Hyper Cacher “random”, assuring us Iran isn’t seeking the bomb because Ayatollah says so, Homeland Security Secretary speaking of the “plight of Muslims” in America, their Scooby Doo press flunkies blaming the whole thing on unemployment necessitates ethnic cleansing…
What I’m saying is– IT SOUNDS LIKE A *$#)@(! ISLAMIC STATE MANIFESTO! Is it any wonder?
Spot On says
” Muslims are warring against the world and against civilization itself.”
This is called “promulgating Islam”. Muslims are promulgating their religion according to Mohammed’s plan as written in the Koran.
Islam must be outlawed to prevent war.
Angemon says
Those SNL screenwriters have met their match.
Like, for example, in 8th century France, where the islamophobic, bigoted non-muslims cowardly attacked muslims. Or in the Iberian Peninsula, where Spanish and Portuguese islamophobes drove those poor muslims out. And the two sieges of Vienna? Completely the fault of non-muslims. Same for the Barbary Wars.
Or maybe he’s saying that in a more literal fashion: that islam has been, and is, haunted by the ghosts of the non-muslim populations it slaughtered – meaning that non-muslims are catching up to how islam has been interpreted and implemented through history, and its results, and simply can’t overlook the 270 million deaths.
mortimer says
Islamic Melodrama 101 combined with Islamic Victimology 101…a maudlin display of self-pity.
Spot On says
You are joking, of course.
Georg says
‘deluded, indoctrinated. hate-filled and dangerous prat’
Orthodox Muslim?
gravenimage says
juancolina wrote:
Angemon
You are a deluded, indoctrinated. hate-filled and dangerous prat.
……………………………..
Juancolina, Angemon was *joking*. Didn’t you see his reference to SNL?
Angemon says
juancolina posted:
“Angemon
You are a deluded, indoctrinated. hate-filled and dangerous prat.”
My turn now:
*ahem*
You’re either (momentarily or permanently) incapable of recognizing sarcasm or you’re a mohamedan.
Did I do that right?
gravenimage says
Stanford ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Panel: Je Suis Ferguson?
What does the Islamic terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January have to do with the 2014 police shootings of African-American men in Ferguson, Missouri and Long Island, New York; San Francisco’s troubled Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood; and the Occupy Wall Street movement?
…………………………
Nothing, of course. But this is not merely muddying the waters with unrelated matters, since Ferguson and the Occupy movement both drew *Jihad supporters*.
This is actually serving to undercut any criticism of Islam.
This rather reminds me of last week’s Bill Maher show, where one of the panelists, while supposedly condemning the rise of antisemitism in Europe, claimed that this paralleled the rise of “right wing” groups that are “Islamophobic”. This implied that both Jews and Muslims were threatened by bad “right wingers”.
But, of course, this is not true at all. The rise of antisemitism in Europe is almost entirely Muslim, and “right wing” groups like PERGIDA are actually trying to peacefully draw attention to this and other Muslim violence.
This may have been ignorance on this panelist’s part—it does not even seem conceivable that what happened here at Stanford might have been innocent.
More:
The media presents [sic] all the values of Western civilization under vicious assault by the forces of barbarism, savagery, and unreason. Citizens everywhere identified with the slogan “Je Suis Charlie Hebdo.” Civilization against the humorless and thin-skinned Muslims who fail to accept the conventions of modern times, citizenship among them. What was the incidence which demanded the presence of global elites? It was perfect for the global media stage.
…………………………
This is a common modern trope, especially common on the left—to bring up a position in a sneering tone, and the not bother trying to actually debunk it, hoping that the sneer will be sufficient. In what way is the above *not* the case? Who cares if it made for a good photo op or not—the only question is whether homicidal Muslims *really are* barbaric, savage, and unreasoning.
More:
Of the attack’s victims or the savagery of mass murder, he said nothing.
…………………………
Of course not! What is butchering twelve innocent people in cold blood compared to a supposedly cynical photo op by world leaders? sarc/off
More:
Aishwary Kumar, an assistant professor of modern South Asian and global intellectual history, opened by citing a European Law Enforcement Agency (Europol) report to allege a low level of Islamic terrorism, concluding that, “the war on terror” is as much “militaristic” as it is “a war against our own depressed psychologies.”
…………………………
Is that so? What about for the Jihad terrorists themselves? They seem to be amassing quite a body count…
And are we to regard the growing death toll as no more than a figment of our “own depressed psychologies”? Tell the loved ones of the Charlie Hebdo victims that…
More:
He then lamented that the huge solidarity march in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo attack was “led by a roster of some of the greatest war criminals you will ever find on the streets . . . there was [British Prime Minister] David Cameron.” He excoriated Cameron and the other “war mongering leaders” because, of all things, “None of these leaders came out for Occupy Wall Street.”
…………………………
Good God—you can’t make this sh*t up. It’s a parody of itself. So now not supporting the amorphous “Occupy” movement is a “war crime”, but gunning down twelve innocent people is not.
More:
Instead of defending free speech against the imposition of Islamic blasphemy laws, Thoraya Boumehdi, an Arabic instructor at the Stanford Language Center, attacked the very concept of freedom of speech:
[T]here is no freedom without respect. . . . If someone attacks the beliefs of others, that is an assault on his freedom; freedom stops where others begin.
…………………………
More insanity. This panel just attacked the beliefs of people who fail to support “Occupy”—so, clearly, she does not uncritically condemn all attacks on the beliefs of others. And how could anyone? If one has to “respect” every point of view—even those of fascists—then one cannot express any opinion at all.
More:
“We must not allow hatred to hide behind the excuse of humor,” she added
…………………………
In other words, the victims *deserved it*. Good God…
More:
“Islam has been a great civilization which has been haunted for centuries by populations that were not Muslim.”
…………………………
What does this even mean? That Muslims should never have to deal even with the existence of “filthy Infidels”? Well, why not? After all, Islam is genocidal, and many parts of Dar-al-Islam—Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen—have in fact been “cleansed” of all Kuffar.
Should Paris be the same? How about Palo Alto?
More:
French political scientist Denis Lacorne, a then-visiting scholar at Stanford from Sciences Po in Paris, provided the sole exception to the parade of apologetics among the panelists. Lacorne gave a robust defense of secularism and free speech…
…………………………
Bravo, Monsieur Lacorne! That it took a Frenchman to stand up as the only representative for freedom of speech at a major American university is sobering, indeed…
Georg says
It’s become a sad state of affairs in America to say the least. The simple fact is, Islamic aggression is being excused because of a form of soft bigotry which the left should be embarrassed about. Monsieur Lacorne became acquainted with this administration’s top-down buffoonery where everything is about the color of one’s skin and not the merit of their argument; meritorious discourse has become retarded, untenable, and even impossible.
Georg says
“This rather reminds me of last week’s Bill Maher show, where one of the panelists, while supposedly condemning the rise of antisemitism in Europe, claimed that this paralleled the rise of “right wing” groups that are “Islamophobic”. This implied that both Jews and Muslims were threatened by bad “right wingers… This may have been ignorance on this panelist’s part—it does not even seem conceivable that what happened here at Stanford might have been innocent.”
Like Valerie Jarrett said panelist is Iranian; make of it what you will.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Georg. I didn’t catch who the panelist was, but it explains a great deal. This must have been Elahe Izadi, the only panel member I was not familiar with.
Not simple cluelessness, then—but deliberate Taqiyya.
And even though Bill Maher is generally refreshingly Anti-Jihad—especially for a liberal—I noted that he didn’t know enough to call her on it. I’ve long noticed that this is the problem with what I like to call “common sense” Anti-Jihad—if it isn’t backed up with any real knowledge of Islam, then even good people can still quite easily be snowed.
Georg says
What a fantastic article by Robert. It’s really a shame his clarity and cogence on these issues, and an event like this in particular, isn’t more widely appreciated. Hopefully that will change soon, but those of us who do benefit from his expertise and talent are enormously appreciative.
“Islam has been a great civilization which has been haunted for centuries by populations that were not Muslim.” The many non-Muslim victims of Islamic supremacy over the centuries, particularly those today suffering at the genocidal hands of the Islamic State (ISIS), would beg to differ.
I am so glad Robert pointed to this. It is a distilled example of the myopic view and strategy of the left and Muslim supremacists where they a) absolve themselves of blame for anything and everything for no sound reason– except for that in this political climate (due to an odious few) they can get away with it, and b) here’s the myopic part, assure their total historical and present lack of agency. They sell themselves out in the long-term in order to grasp at straws for political points in the short-term. Listening to them, they are responsible for nothing which happens to them or which they do– and particularly if it places them in a bad light. How convenient… Throughout life you meet individuals who hold such a persuasion about the universe and them and it’s always best to get far, far away. Anyone who’s taken elementary statistics knows being interminably unlucky is… well, impossible. The mass who gathers around and jeers them onward toward embracing this impossible victimhood are short on reason and long on hatred. It is a mob. You or I could stand up in the audience afterwards and lean in to the mic and pronounce, “Cornflakes” to humming righteous indignation, nods, and applause. It is a farce of emotional reactionism > intellect. History should guide us all correctly here.
Spot On says
Possibly as more people search for answers to the daily violence on TV, they will come upon JW for answers. Robert and some of his friends are providing a valuable resource, and not without risk I might add.
Salah says
“Islam has been a great civilization…”
Yeah, absolutely. The greatest civilization ever! (sarc/off)
Camel urine? delicious! Tchin-tchin!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2013/06/islamic-medicine.html
Astronomy? “the sun sets in a muddy pool” Wow!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2013/06/islamic-astronomy.html
lois says
What is the matter with you. Ive been to every muslim country but 2 stans in Asia. Women have no rights. It’s arrange marriage No dating but the Saudi men go to Baharim to pjckup women. I’ve seen it with my own eye. They’re sick
gravenimage says
Lois, Salah is a staunch Anti-Jihadist. He has a wry sense of humor, but he takes opposition to Jihad very seriously.
Ernie says
Self reflection is a beautiful thing . Honesty is a beautiful thing . A quest for truth needs both . Denis Lacorne is the real scientist here . The other members of this panel prove their own incapability/inferiority to a scientific approuch/standard . Money talkes , and Stanford University receives large sums of money from …… Saudi Arabia . Independence is a beautiful thing too .
Ernie says
Sorry , APPROACH it must be .
Verballistic says
Fortunately this low-profile confab of pointy-headed intellectuals and America-hating leftists should have precious little impact on ordinary Americans, who are getting increasingly put off by Obama’s delusional denial of the Islamic component of Muslim terrorism.
Spot On says
What is new about anti western academia attempting to conjure up ways to hasten western society’s demise. This panel is focused on certain events such as “Ferguson” and the recent “Charlie Hebdo” events in efforts to promote Islam in black neighborhoods. They falsely demonstrate the commonality of U.S. blacks with Islam. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have or are seeking donations from Saudi Arabia towards this effort.
Yes, there are many Mosques in Ferguson and yes there were ISIS signs at the Ferguson demonstrations. (No mention in Media that everything that happened was based on a big giant lie and knowingly used by the MSM as leftwing propaganda.) Much worse was the almost certain complicitness of Missouri’s Democrat Governor (and Obama?) in promoting the mayhem in Ferguson by ordering the National Guard to protect other corporate properties adjacent to Ferguson but not where the action actually took place. The Governor also ordered local and state police to stand down all during the mayhem and looting.
Far worse is the continuing promotion of Islam in America by Academia, the left MSM, leftwing politicians, and certain Republicans.
Georg says
If you spoke of Islamic slavery in a college classroom you would be branded a racist.
Again, the 6th pillar of Islam: Irony
Joe Shmo says
I wonder excuses these cretins would they use to defend Islamic conquest of the world if they couldn’t use things like civil rights and victimhood? The very ideas and beliefs that have been generated by the free world and don’t exist in Islam. You have to hand it to them, they’re doing a great job of sabotaging “our miserable house from within.”
gravenimage says
All too grimly true, Joe.
Colin says
Some one up column says “Muslims are fighting against the world” and in Britain we see in every political party people who are ready to indulge Islamic insurgency, to explain it, to ‘understand’ it, to defend it in context. Before WWII there were people in every party ready to make Hitler’s every move intelligible to everyone, and then end up saying in 1940, “We were deceived, we had no idea, etc,etc.”. Some of these “deceived deceivers” were were high up in their parties.
JDaug says
So let me get this straight. Jihadwatch was rightfully OUTRAGED by the attack on Charlie Hebdo because it was an attack on freedom of speech. And now it is OUTRAGED by a group of scholars and citizens who have dared to gather together and discuss ideas in what is clearly a protected right of freedom of speech.
Doesn’t anyone see the paradox here? If freedom of speech is what you care about, you have to defend everyone’s freedom of speech.
Gary Fouse says
Sounds like a college pot party. Or were they smoking their socks?