Omid Safi comments on Islamophobia:

One of the characteristics of Islamophobia today is the extent to which various groups who otherwise have little in common with one another come together to depict Muslims and Islam in a reified fashion as being inherently violent, inherently opposed to the West, misogynist, etc.  Some (not all) of these groups consist of:

1)  Western Triumphalists (see Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, etc.)
2)   Unrepentant Orientalists (Bernard Lewis)
3)  Christian Evangelicals (Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell)
4)   Right-wing Zionists (Daniel Pipes)

One of the remarkable aspects of the recent rise of Islamophobia is the degree of cooperation among the above groups:  Bernard Lewis, to take one example, came from the Orientalist rank, lent his theories to Western Triumphalists like Huntington, and is eagerly seized upon by many Zionist organizations.   I will come back to this point in just a second, about Robert Spencer.

Here is one example, involving myself.  Look at the way that a Catholic conservative thinker, Robert Spencer.   Spencer wrote a note on my class, Islam and the Modern World (Religion 329), taught in the Spring of 2004.  Here is the post, which I will copy before it can be taken down or altered.

 

April 11, 2004

Spencer makes the Enemies' List at Colgate U
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001527.php

omidsafi180.jpeg
Omid Safi

More academic dhimmitude, or perhaps, in this case, taqiyya: a class at Colgate University called "Islam and modernity," being taught this spring by one Omid Safi, has listed me within a group of "Islamophobes, Neo-cons, Western triumphalists." (Thanks to Mrs. Obelix.)

Students are required to write a three-page report on one figure (or all of them; Dr. Safi is not quite clear on this point) from this rogues gallery:

Critical reports on Islamophobes, Neo-cons, Western triumphalists, etc.: 3 pages each on. Include: a brief biography, intellectual history, and comments on Islam (and/or Middle East where relevant)

-1) Bernard Lewis, 2)Samuel Huntington, 3)Fareed Zakaria, 4)David Frum, 5)Paul Wolfowitz, 6) Leo Strauss, 7) William Kristol, 8) William Bennett, 9) Daniel Pipes, 10) Charles Krauthammer, 11) Alan Bloom, 12) Robert Spencer, 13) David Pryce-Jones, 14) Stephen Schwartz, 15) Bat Yeor,16) Jerry Falwell, 17Pat Robertson, 18 Francis Fukuyaman, 19Patricia Crone 20 Niall Ferguson 21 Robert Kagan 22 Dore Gold 23 Ibn Warraq

 

I am honored to be included in such an illustrious list, and to be mentioned in the same breath as Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Patricia Crone, Daniel Pipes, David Pryce-Jones, and other great thinkers.

But of course this list is ridiculous on its face. People like Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Crone, Huntington and others are serious scholars who have done important work. On what basis can they legitimately be lumped together with people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and William Bennett? I don't mean to insult those gentlemen in any way, shape, or form; but I am sure they would be the first to admit that their statements and writings about Islam are not scholarly, but political — and that to include the scholars with the political advocates demeans the scholars' objectivity. Which is, I'm sure, exactly what Safi meant to do.

Even worse, of course, is the propagandistic basis of this list and the course in general. Labeling a group of people "Islamophobes" in a course about Islam is hardly conducive to freedom of thought. It is especially silly in light of the fact that one person on Safi's enemies list, Stephen Schwartz, is a Muslim himself.

And for my part I vehemently reject the "Islamophobe" label, which is only a tool used by Islamic apologists to silence criticism. My work is dedicated to identifying the causes of jihad terrorism, which of course lead straight back into the Islamic texts. I have therefore called for reform of those texts — a necessity that should be obvious to anyone of good will, although I have no illusions that it is forthcoming soon or ever, or that it will be easy. I have dedicated Jihad Watch to defending equality of rights and freedom of conscience for all people. That's Islamophobic? Then is the fault in the phobe, or in the Islam?

Meanwhile, the hapless Colgaters must write a five-page report on "important Muslim thinkers." This list includes Khomeini, Mohammad Khatami, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, along with more moderate types like Sa'd al-Din Ebrahim, Tariq Ramadan, and Shirin Ebadi. Some who are much more influential today — such as the radicals Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abul Ala Maududi — don't make the list. But I also think it's interesting that Safi's good guys get five-page papers and the bad guys get three-pagers — evidently it's not all that important in academia these days to study an issue from a variety of perspectives.

But I am not so naive as to think that universities are about objective inquiry and freedom of thought anymore.

Posted at April 11, 2004 10:07 AM
 

 

Notes:  The following represents questions and comments on the Jihadwatch website:
 
Only one question: does he have tenure?

Such apologetics and propaganda for the Jihad at a 501(c)(3) organization are being subsidized, indirectly, by American taxpayers. It used to be that brainwashing took place when you were a helpless POW, in places like Pyongyang, Hanoi, and Beijing. During the Cultural Revolution one had to denounce one's own counter-revolutionary sins, don a dunce cap, and be publicly humiliated while expressing public remorse. Now, instead of Mao's Little Red Book, we have the little Blue Books of American exam-taking, in which dutiful, submissive, and grade-fearing students bow their heads, and regurgitate the pap their "professors of Islamic studies" demand of them.

In this "professor's" ludicrous course, some palpable pap about "Islam confronting modernity," with a breathless parroting of fashionable academic terms that carefully avoid the little matter of what Islam is actually all about, he shows himself to be completely uncomprehending of what free, skeptical, and disinterested inquiry can be -- his task is to present assorted straw-men, knock them down, and make sure the students, just like those Chinese during the Cultural Revolution, are forced to denounce them (albeit in "papers" and "exams") and, he devoutly hopes, once programmmed will go out into the world to pooh-pooh all those who have dared to criticize Islam. And students will fear to take issue with the sinisterly amiable lecturer, master of all he surveys, with the all-important power of the grade over his cowed students, and especially over any who dare to dissent.

This travesty of learning, this lecture-hall thought-control (grades are a way to either reward the submissive regurgitators -- verily, Islam means "submission" -- and to punish those guilty of the "thought-crime" of -- well, thought. Can the students, the Colgate faculty, the administration, the Trustees continue to stand for this?

Posted by: Hugh at April 11, 2004 11:03 AM

Congratulations, Robert Spencer. Being on these lists means you are getting to them and effecting cultural change. It is a perverse award, but it is telling.

Posted by: Ilhad at April 11, 2004 11:35 AM

I was glad to see Bat Ye'or's name on the list too. It was only a couple of years ago that Esposito was telling the media that Bat Ye'Or was an academic joke.

Now they are taking her seriously enough to attack her. Excellent!

Posted by: Susan at April 11, 2004 12:29 PM

Robert, look at that list; are you absolutely certain that you couldn't have a conference, seminar, or formal meeting of some sort on the subject of how Islam endangers us? It looks to me as if having a lot of these experts serving as faculty members would be a huge drawing card.

Surely if the costs of having the conference were kept reasonable, and tuition or fees could also be kept within reason, there would be no problem with cost overruns. Vendors, such as authors, could offer their goods outside the conference halls, there could be post-lecture panel discussions, etc. We do this sort of thing all the time in medicine, and it's a very good format.

Judging from the postings at this site, I can't imagine that the audience interest wouldn't be there. I suppose that it would draw a strong anti-American element to protest, but in a sense, that would be good, since it would clarify to the general population some of the differences we have within our own country, demonstrate to those who have serious concerns about Islam but who feel alone that they aren't really alone, and maybe even make some of our Muslim "friends" a bit nervous, since there could be no doubt that bit by bit, they are being "outed."

Please give it some thought. Sure, you would become the enemy of the PC crowd, but since you already are, it would only increase the number of enemies you have--and provide millions of dollars worth of publicity.

Posted by: cubed at April 11, 2004 01:02 PM

P.S. Maybe it would ultimately provide a little bit of pressure on the politicians, too. . .

Posted by: cubed at April 11, 2004 01:05 PM

Mr. Spencer, consider it a badge of honor. At LGF we've been called gay, homophobe, islamophobe, fascist, racist, neonazi jews-for-bush. I guess those are all synonyms for truth-speakers these days...

;-)

Posted by: zorkmidden at April 11, 2004 02:40 PM

Mr. Spencer - Congratulations. You are correct in characterizing this as attempt to silence your criticism, and then, of course, ours. Hugh is also correct in his description of the "academic courses" that are nothing more than "regurgitation for grades" of the opinions and bias of the instructor.
It is an outrage than anyone affiliated with a college can get away with offering and teaching such a course and with creating and publishing an "enemies list."
Politically correct speech and non-hate policies are just lipservice on many of today's campuses when the perpetrators are Muslim or Muslim-apologists.

Posted by: epg at April 11, 2004 03:42 PM

The silver lining is that some of Safi's students might actually start READING "Islam Unveiled", instead of merely READING ABOUT Spencer's books.

Futhermore (perhaps due to moral clarity?) writers like Spencer and Ye'or are so much easier to read than double-talking John Esposito and tedious know-it-all Edward Said.

In effect, this can backfire on Safi.

Anti-jihadis in the area should donate copies of these books to Colgate University library in order to help bring about Safi's meltdown.

Posted by: Milan at April 11, 2004 04:04 PM

LOL Not only are you in the power group, Mr. Spencer, you also present a calm and intelligent presence when speaking on television. Now -- if we could only have all of you from this "list" speaking together at one time in the same room ... What an impact! Congratulations.

Posted by: BJ at April 11, 2004 05:41 PM

Well done, Robert! You have made the A-list of those academics fighting to preserve Western civilization from the Islamist onslaught.

(Note: As for Islamo"phobia"- I must say, I have not seen evidenced in your work any fear whatsoever. Acuity, clarity, perceptiveness, analytical competence- but never fear of Islam.)

Posted by: Earl at April 11, 2004 06:23 PM

The list of people the students have to report on is excellent. Some of the students will actually learn something, despite the professor.

I still remember writing a report when I was 10 or 11 years old on the Byrd dynasty of Virginia. That was part of my earliest political education.

Posted by: Promethea at April 11, 2004 09:14 PM

I live in Upstate New York and attended a public lecture by Professor Safi over two years ago at the Utica Public Library. Although I did disagree and question much of what was presented in his lecture on Islam I nevertheless found him to be a well-meaning, courteous, sincere, and kind individual both at his presentation and through several e-mails I exchanged with him over the next 2 years.

I think that what would be both useful and honest would be a curriculum where both the works of, for example, Edward Said and Bat Ye'or, might be read, evaluated, and discussed rather than the one-sided approach the Dr. Safi favors. Also, it might be helpful for Dr. Safi to consider that as a Iranian/Persian of Muslim decent, his Zoroasterian ancestors shared much of the bloody and unhappy treatment doled out to other dhimmi peoples throughout the Near East, North Africa, and beyond.

With best wishes to all. Matthew J. Fleming
 

Posted by: Matthew J. Fleming at April 12, 2004 05:38 PM

I bet that some are out there smiling smugly because they have plenty of cash to disseminate their lies. Cash to fund slanted textbooks, cash to fund universities chairs, cash to fund "educational centers," and so on. Yet who will fund Robert? Ask around. Some of us must know folks with deep pockets.

Posted by: epg at April 12, 2004 09:18 PM

As a student in Professor Safi's "Islam and the Modern World" course, I am not only shocked at the insults directed towards my professor, but insulted that the students in his class are portrayed as "hapless," "cowed," and "dutiful, submissive, head-bowed" individuals. Essentially, we are described as mindless human beings. Every student enrolled in this course had full access to a class description before signing up and enrolled knowing what we would be discussing. The accusations being made about our assignments and the legitmacy and intentions of Professor Safi are ludicrous and completely false, and I personally find it quite odd that they are being made without any true insight or firsthand accounts of our course.

The assertion by "Hugh" that the students in the class will "fear to take issue with the sinisterly amiable lecturer" as for concern that we will receive a poor grade, could not be farther from the truth. As a Roman Catholic, I have never once felt as though I was being judged by Professor Safi for my own background or beliefs, and he is constantly encouraging us to bring up any thoughts or ideas, even those we might think to be challenging his own beliefs, because he respects all of our opinions. He encourages us to think critically and analyze everything we read, and I cannot think of one student who feels powerless or frightened in any of his courses.

Basically, I simply do not understand how people think they know so much about Professor Safi, his class, and the way he teaches without ever attending a course. That, to me, is the absolute greatest ignorance.
 

Posted by: alissa at April 20, 2004 08:35 PM

My dear alissa,

I take it, then, that you have no problem with his a priori labeling of the work of an entire group of writers, which includes many serious and internationally respected scholars, with the dismissive and tendentious label of "Islamophobe"?

Leave me and my books out of it, although I reject the label for myself as well. I invite you to read the works of Bat Ye'or and then come back and tell me she is "Islamophobic."

Best regards
Robert Spencer

Posted by: Robert Spencer at April 20, 2004 08:39 PM

After reading this string of comments about my professor, I feel compelled to respond. First of all, I am offended by your insinuation that we 'hapless colgaters' are subject to brainwashing by Professor Safi. By your rationale, every introductory class I have taken has brainwashed me. Secondly, I think you have all placed to much emphasis on the "Islamaphobe" assignment. In case none of you knew, Colgate has highly demanding cirriculum. Three pages is nothing. In Safi's class alone we have had to write 30+ pages on topics other than "Islamaphobes. In my four classes combined, I have written close to 100 pages this semster. We don't all spend our time pondering a 3 page assignment we had in the begininning of the year. Furthermore, you have all failed to grasp the methodology behind professor Safi's grouping of Islamaphobes. As he explained it in class, the list was made up of people who have been publically critical of Islam. There is no secret agenda aimed at demeaning the work of serious scholar by grouping them with Falwell and Roberstson. Safi was simply trying to introduce us to some popular ciritcisms of Islam so that we could engange them in our other readings. He never told us to criticize them. He simply told us to objectively summarize their views on Islam. At no point have I suspected that Professor Safi has a 'secret agenda', as some of you seem to suggest. Although I don't plan on studying Islam in the future, I feel privelged to have gotten the opportunity to study with Professor Safi. I have never come across a person who seems so firm in his commitment to peace and understanding among people. Frankly, I am shocked by the way you all have villanized him. He is probably one of the nicer, more understanding professors at this institution. I dont understand how presenting the pluralistic and peaceful aspects of Islam is a bad thing. Yes, there is much ugliness in Islam. We see it in the news all the time. I think everyone should get the whole picture, the good and the bad. If we rely just on what we see on the news, we run the risk of being brainwashed in a much more dangerous way. Imagine if we judged Christianity just by what we saw in the news. Are pedophile preists the norm? Of course not. Do the actions of extreme christian cults like the branch davidians relfect christian values? of course not. Similarly, we cannot denounce Islam as a religon of violence and hate simply because some people chose to distort it's teachings.

In closing, I would like to say that I am appalled by what I have heard on this message board. On the whole, you people appear to be quite an intolerant bunch. How can you pretend to know "what islam is all about"? Have you spent your life studying it? Are you a Muslim?
You compare Safi to Mao? Utterly Ridiculous.

"Does he have tenure?" That's a horrific comment. I though you were a proponent of freedom? Who sounds like Mao, now?

Posted by: Josh at May 2, 2004 02:51 PM

My dear Josh,

"First of all, I am offended by your insinuation that we 'hapless colgaters' are subject to brainwashing by Professor Safi."

Please specify where I made such an "insinuation." This is a piece about Safi's lack of academic objectivity and objective vilification of my work and that of others. Nowhere does it say you or your fellows are brainwashed. If you see through what he is doing, I applaud you.

"By your rationale, every introductory class I have taken has brainwashed me."

I take it you have not studied logic.

"In case none of you knew, Colgate has highly demanding cirriculum. Three pages is nothing."

That was precisely my point.

"Safi was simply trying to introduce us to some popular ciritcisms of Islam so that we could engange them in our other readings. He never told us to criticize them. He simply told us to objectively summarize their views on Islam."

He told you to do that by labeling us (wrongly) as "Islamophobes."

"I dont understand how presenting the pluralistic and peaceful aspects of Islam is a bad thing."

No, that's just swell, Josh. But calling me names, and calling other people names, and thereby demeaning serious scholarship -- that's not so swell.

"How can you pretend to know 'what islam is all about'? Have you spent your life studying it?"

Actually, yes.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: Robert Spencer at May 2, 2004 03:00 PM

Mr. Spencer: When I asked "Have you spent your life studying Islam" I was not refering to you. I am well aware of your credentials. I should have clarified that I was responding to "Hugh".

Also, keep in mind that the main purpose of Safi's course is to introduce us to the discourses taking place in progressive and liberal muslim circles. the three page paper was assgined to provide some background on the criticims of Islam, that is all.

Posted by: Josh at May 2, 2004 03:36 PM

My dear Josh,

I suggest you ask Professor Safi why, if "the three page paper was assgined to provide some background on the criticims of Islam," did he tag me and others with the inflammatory, pejorative and inaccurate label of "Islamophobe."

You can also tell him that I'd be happy to come to Colgate this fall and speak to his class about these issues. We can make the whole thing question/answer.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: Robert Spencer at May 2, 2004 04:00 PM

Getting off the topic, I have a few questions id like to get your opinion on.

What kind of approach do you advocate for dealing with the problem of international terrorism? (Broad, I know)

Do you beleive U.S foriegn policy over the last thirty years has consistently reflected our commitment to the ideas of democracy and justice?

Don't we run the risk of creating more hatred towards 'the west' by pursuing only military policies?

Should we put pressure on Israel to appease the Palestininians? Wouldnt that ease tensions and save lives in the long run?

Thanks.

Posted by: Josh at May 2, 2004 04:45 PM

My dear Josh,

"What kind of approach do you advocate for dealing with the problem of international terrorism? (Broad, I know)"

I respectfully suggest you read my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers."

"Do you beleive U.S foriegn policy over the last thirty years has consistently reflected our commitment to the ideas of democracy and justice?"

You are asking me to comment on US foreign policy since 1974; this is a huge topic, involving 6 presidents, about 15 congresses, etc. In any case, my writings focus on jihad, which I demonstrate in "Onward" is not a reaction to any particular policy from outside the Islamic world. My books are not apologetic works for any political policy.

"Don't we run the risk of creating more hatred towards 'the west' by pursuing only military policies?"

Yes. The ideological struggle is pivotal.

"Should we put pressure on Israel to appease the Palestininians? Wouldnt that ease tensions and save lives in the long run?"

Appeasement by anyone is never wise, and always encourages the one being appeased.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

 

 


Pay attention to a few themes on the above post:

1)  Accusation of taqiyya:  the notion that one is hiding one's true belief to survive.  This is a common accusation against many moderate and liberal Muslim thinkers, including Tariq Ramadan.

2)  Accusation of dhimmitude:  the notion that one seeks to create an Islamic state in which Jews and Christians would be second class citizens.   There is no proof given, of course, on how one little professor at Colgate is going to create an Islamic state, of all places in the United States

3)  Look at the first question of the first comment:  "Only one question: does he have tenure?"  This can be taken as nothing other than an attempt to silence academic voices and discussions by threatening the source of their employment.

4)  Without me asking them to, two of the students in the class, named Josh and Alyssa above, wrote back to contest Robert Spencer's views.  Their main point was that unlike Mr. Spencer, they had actually been in the class.  Their objections are never acknowledged.

5)  Here is a bigger issue about who Robert Spencer is.   Does he have a PhD in Islamic Studies?  Is he teaching as an academic?  Does he present his views at the American Academy of Religion, Middle East Studies Association, American Oriental Society, etc. (established, respected academic organizations that specialize in the study of Middle east, different religious traditions, etc.)  Are his books published by academic publications?    Answers are no, no, and again, no.

Carl Ernst wrote a very insightful essay positioning Robert Spencer in his proper context:
 

 

 

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/spencer.htm

"ROBERT SPENCER, the director of Jihad Watch, is a writer and researcher who has studied Islam for more than twenty years. He is the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery [1]) and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter [2]). He is coauthor, with Daniel Ali, of Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics (Ascension) and coeditor of the forthcoming essay collection The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation [3]. He has written seven monographs on Islam that are available from the Foundation: An Introduction to the Qur'an; Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context." (http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/)

Who are the publishing firms that publish Spencer's works? Who funds them? Some information on these patrons is given below. This information is significant because these books are not scholarly, and they do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses. They are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations. They need to be evaluated differently from scholarly studies, since their agenda does not have to do with the scholarly goals of the humanities and the social sciences. In particular, the lectures given by authors such as Spencer on college campuses may be misunderstood as being equivalent to scholarly research. While it certainly may be acknowledged that scholarship has political implications, independent research needs to be distinguished from hired polemics.

1. Regnery Publishing Inc. (http://www.regnery.com/index.html) is a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, considered by many America's leading conservative publishing company, whose headquarters are located in Washington, D.C.

"The country’s leader in philosophically conservative books, Regnery provides well-written, sought-after books focusing on current events, politics, biographies, history, philosophy, and religion.

Regnery also maintains an active custom-publishing division for corporate clients and fundraisers. Regnery has published, and continues to publish, many of the seminal works of the conservative movement, including The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, God and Man at Yale by William F. Buckley, Jr., and Witness by Whittaker Chambers.

Not content to rest on its publishing laurels, Regnery’s current list of authors reads like a virtual “Who’s Who” of conservative thought: The Honorable Caspar Weinberger (The Next War), Dr. Marvin Olasky (The Tragedy of American Compassion), Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Hand of God), NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre (Guns, Crime, and Freedom), not to mention recent New York Times best-selling authors Gary Aldrich (Unlimited Access), Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II (Year of the Rat), Michael S. Hyatt (The Millennium Bug: How to Survive the Coming Chaos) and Ann Coulter (High Crimes and Misdemeanors)."
(http://www.regnery.com/eagle/eagle.html#regnerypub)

2. Encounter Books (http://www.encounterbooks.com/) is an activity of Encounter for Culture and Education, Inc., "a tax exempt, non profit corporation dedicated to strengthening the marketplace of ideas and engaging in educational activities to help preserve democratic culture."

Encounter for Culture and Education, Inc. has in turn been funded with $4,635,000 for its publications over the past ten years (see data on Encounter for Culture and Education at http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?98), all from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (see http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm).

"With over $700 million in assets (down to $489 million in 2002), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin is the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundation. As of the end of 1998, it
was giving away more than $30 million a year [The Bradley Foundation 1998 Annual Report].
Its financial resources, its clear political agenda, and its extensive national network of contacts and collaborators
in political, academic and media circles has allowed it to exert an important influence on key issues of public
policy. While its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in the
areas of welfare "reform" and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers."

3. The Free Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org/): "Free Congress Foundation is politically conservative, but it is more than that: it is also culturally conservative. Most think tanks talk about tax rates or the environment or welfare policy and occasionally we do also. But our main focus is on the Culture War. Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture? Or will we continue the long slide into the cultural and moral decay of political correctness? If we do, America, once the greatest nation on earth, will become no less than a third world country."

Run by New Right strategist Paul Weyrich, FCF evolved from the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress and Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, and was founded by Colorado beer magnate Joe Coors. Other groups affiliated with FCF include Free Congress Political Action Committee. Publishes Empowerment! See also Coalitions for America. It has received almost $24 million in funding from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and other conservative sources in the past twenty years (see http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=126)

 

By the way, the Carolina Seminar on Comparative Islamic Studies was part of a process to feature Robert Spencer's ideas at the University of North Carolina:

*March 31, 2004. Robert Spencer, author, "Unveiling Islam: Disturbing Questions about the World's Fastest Growing Faith." 7:00-8:00 p.m., 105 Gardner Hall. Sponsored by the student group Faith and Scholarship, UNC-CH.

Once Carl Ernst pointed out the connections of Robert Spencer to conservative organizations, what was Robert Spencer's response?  To write a column called:  "Well done, good and faithful servant: American prof's book on Islam wins award in Cairo"

Insightful enough is one common in the above note from "Hugh":  "No doubt he is a giant in the earth compared to Karen Armstrong or John Esposito, but how does he stack up against real scholars? How about comparing him to Michael Cook or Patricia Crone or Bernard Lewis"   What is interesting above the list of people that have been identified as "acceptable" scholars by this "Hugh"? That they, particularly Lewis and to a lesser extent Crone, fall in the category of Orientalists.

*************************************************************************************************************************

 

Now, let's come back to the question of the relationship between a conservative Christian polemicist against Islam (Robert Spencer), and a right-wing Zionist, Daniel Pipes.   It is worth pondering what else connects these two together, aside from their mutual hatred of Islam and Muslims.  This is what I mean by Islamophobia today being a phenomenon that brings together right-wing Christians and right-wing Zionists.

Note how Daniel Pipes picked up on Robert Spencer's column:

 

Weblog:
 
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/381
 

Omid Safi's Closed Classroom
December 3, 2004

Omid Safi's Closed Classroom One of the founders of the Progressive Muslim Union (an organization whose fake-moderation I recently exposed) is an academic named Omid Safi. He makes a great noise about being "progressive" and has even written a book titled Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism. (However, as Alyssa A. Lappen shows in an outstanding review at amazon.com focused on blinkered chapters by Khaled Abou El Fadl and Farid Esack, Safi's book is not at all progressive but "decidedly reactionary.")

I have belatedly noted the posting of the syllabus to Safi's course, "Religion 329: Islam and modernity," given in the spring semester of 2004. There is much that is pseudo-progressive in this document, but this assignment to students really caught my attention:

You are each required to turn in a report on a significant person who contributes to a negative public presentation of Islam and/or Muslims; whose political views and/or scholarship shape how Islam is presented today. This group is a broad coalition that includes folks from diverse backgrounds, such as unrepentant Orientalists, outright Islamophobes, Neo-conservatives, Western triumphalists, Christian Pentecostals, etc.:

Report: 3 pages. Include: a brief biography, intellectual history, and comments on Islam (and/or Middle East where relevant)

1) Bernard Lewis, 2)Samuel Huntington, 3)Fareed Zakaria, 4)David Frum, 5)Paul Wolfowitz, 6) Leo Strauss, 7) William Kristol, 8) William Bennett, 9) Daniel Pipes, 10) Charles Krauthammer, 11) Alan Bloom, 12) Robert Spencer, 13) David Pryce-Jones, 14) Stephen Schwartz, 15) Bat Yeor,16) Jerry Falwell, 17)Pat Robertson, 18) Francis Fukuyaman, [sic] 19)Patricia Crone 20) Niall Ferguson 21) Robert Kagan 22) Dore Gold 23) Ibn Warraq

[*Stephen Schwartz directs his critique at the Wahhabis, and is affiliated with Sufism, but he has fully identified himself with Neo-con think tanks and political ambitions.]

What is so particularly offensive about this assignment is not the topic itself – I am pleased for students at Colgate University to read my writings about Islam – but its prejudicial presentation. Robert Spencer noted this problem back in April 2004, when he criticized

the propagandistic basis of this list and the course in general. Labeling a group of people "Islamophobes" in a course about Islam is hardly conducive to freedom of thought. It is especially silly in light of the fact that one person on Safi's enemies list, Stephen Schwartz, is a Muslim himself

Call me old-fashioned, but I think a professor is supposed to inform and inspire his students, not tell them what to think. Safi's labeling the persons on his list symbolizes the insecurity and tyranny of Middle East studies. (December 3, 2004)

Dec. 4, 2004 update: Robert Spencer saw the above weblog and in response writes me:

In April, when I wrote the sentences you quote, the footnote explaining that Stephen Schwartz is a Sufi was not on Safi's syllabus. It was likely added as a result of my post, since several of Safi's students contacted me angrily when it was first posted.

 

Pipes reprinted the same article in his Campus-Watch, the much maligned website designed to report on professors of Islamic studies and Middle Eastern studies who have been suspected of making comments critical of US foreign policy vis-a-vis Middle East, Israel, etc.   Here is that citation:  http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1411