US College Drops Plan For Muslim Prayers Call

3 Responses

1. The azan business is not the problem at Duke, or rather it merely reflects a larger problem. The Department of Islamic Studies is not so much about objective Islamic Studies as it is about creating an academic fort, safely walled out to real scholars of Islam and peopled entirley with apologists, a Center that was in large part the handiwork of Bruce Lawrence, a Defender of the Faith from way back. And the people who have ended up there include Omid Safi, who tried to get a post at Harvard Divinity School, one to be engineered by Diana Eck and William Graham (the man who was given tenure if he would agree to serve as Dean when the previous dean had to resign after a scandal) and Leila Ahmad. Foiled, at the last minute by other faculty members who were not going to allow Eck (she of the “Pluralism Project” that is meant to brightly celebrate and further the wonderfulness of Religious Diversity, and not incidentally, pretend that Islam is a faith that can fit in, despite all the evidence it can’t, and play just as well with others as all those other faiths — Hinduism, Buddhism, and others — whose adherents are now part, as Islam’s adherents are not and, pace Eck, cannot be given how they are instructed “not to take Christians and Jews as your friends” and of course are even more hostile to those who — Hindus, Buddhists — are not even Ahl al-Kitab, People of the Book.

   The “Center for Islamic Studies” is a center for apologetics. It works with, and encourages, other apologists for Islam in the area, such people as Carl Ernst at UNC/Chapel Hill. You will not, as a student, be given a good education either in Islamic Studies (no mention of Luxenberg, no use of Antoine Fattal or Majid Khadduri to explain the treatment of non-Muslims according to the Sharia, nor the laws of War and Peace according to Islam). What you will get is taqiyya and kitman in faux-scholar robes, and of course, that recent fashion, that semi-admits to something being wrong with Islam but assumes it’s easily rectified, and non-Muslims shouldn’t worry overmuch, and that’s the theme Omid Safi pushes to encourage complacency among unwary Infidels. And that theme is “how do we reconcile Islam with modernity.” If, by modernity, we mean: how do we stop Muslims from worshiiping the figure of Muhammad, with everythin that means, including the killings of Asma bint Marwan, Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, and Abu ‘Akaf, the sexual intercourse with little Aisha when she was nine, the decapitation of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on and killing (and enslavement of the women) of the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, and so much more, known to all Muslims, and received by them not in horror but as part of what, ideally, they should emulate.

   There’s plenty wrong with Duke. And part of it is the unwillingness of others on the faculty, and the administration, to come to grips with the insensate attempt by Muslims and by their willing non-Muslim collaborators who, when they take over an institute, or even a department, make sure that they do not make the mistake of hiring, promoting, or tolerating those who — Muslim or non-Muslim — might be willing to truthfully begin to analyze the nature of Islam, but not in order to hold out hope for its “reformation” in our time, or even Safi’sblandd “coming to terms with modernity” as if the problem with Islam was simply that it was a little old-fashioned, had to receive a new release, Islam 2.0.

   Surely there are faculty members at Duke who, on their own, have become interested in, and learned enough about, Islam and the history of Islamic conquest to know that something is not right, something needs to be looked into, and monitored, at the Center for Islamic Studies, a scandal from top to bottom. And perhaps in the Administration, too, which backed down on the azan, but not out of any real understanding of why it would have contributed not to “interfaith harmony” but, rather, would be another sign, to Muslims, of their slow but steady march, in this as in other Western countriies, their dismantling of all the obstacles, little and big, to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam — not to be dismissed as a fantastic fantasy –which is the goal of Jihad, and Jihad is a duty incumbent upon all Believers, to be pursued using whatever instruments prove most effective at the time.

   The Duke brouhaha misses the main problem, which is who is teaching, and what they are teaching, and how they are misinforming, naive students about Islam, all over the land. There are places, and there are individual professor, including some who are outwardly thought of as Muslims, who do try to convey the truth and they are always worried about their positions. The professional organization for those who teach about the Midddle East and Islam, has been taken over completely by Muslim and non-Muslim apologists. A few years ago, Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami started a rival organization; Lewis is 97 and out of commission, and Fouad Ajami died last year. I don’t know how the organization is doing. Perhaps it is up to the historians, the faculty members in the history departments at Duke and Chapel Hill and elsewhere, too, to figure out how they can make the history of Islam and the West, Islam and its conquests, part of their departmental offerings, and thus remove them from the doubtful remit of the Lawrence-Safi-Ernst Center for Islamic Studies. It could be done.

   Reply

2. Well spoken Hugh. The call to prayer brouhaha is just a symptom of underlying disease and decay. Camille Paglia wrote early on about the cronyism and corruption that was infecting the Humanities departments throughout the American university system that began in earnest in the 70’s.
   We can thank the left primarily for the disaster. Unfortunately, the 60’s catch phrase of “turn on, tune in, drop out” was altered regarding the “drop out” portion. Many of these “progressives” dropped in the faculties of the humanities depts. in the 70’s with the catastrophic consequences we see in not only academia, but the media and government as well.

   Reply

3. Most likely well heeled (and aren’t they all?) Duke alumni jerked a knot in Richard Brodhead’s tail by informing him that they have options of spreading their largesse to more deserving endeavors rather than continuing to support the last several years’ inanity in Durham.
   Contributions to Emory & Henry College come immediately to mind.

   Reply