In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Islamophobes in the Ivory Tower

Jill

There isn’t a question that the bed-wetters at JihadWatch are a bunch of hateful bigots who have nothing better to do than shriek, “The Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming!”* I don’t go over to their site very often (and I’m sure as hell not linking to it), because it’s so chock full of teh stupid that I can feel my brain cells dying as soon as I see their orientalist logo and images of Scary! Arab! Men!

But it looks like Robert “pee pee pants” Spencer — New York Times best-selling author of brown-people-scare-me-let’s-kill-them screeds — has taken his vitriol onto the pages of Emory University’s student newspaper. And thank goodness for Ali Eteraz, who puts on his rubber boots and goes wading into Spencer’s giant pool of shit:

Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute “Sharia” worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists. Instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology.

The article then quotes various legal scholars from Islamic history that purportedly support the thesis of the article. It then, generously, concludes with challenging a college student to a debate.

Immediately one has to look at the most obvious of errors in this piece.

First, none of the scholars Spencer cites to were alive after the year 1406 A.D. The only link he offers between the past and today is the assertion that one of the jurists, Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328), is a “favorite of Osama bin Laden and other jihadists.” Yet, on the basis of the fact that one jurist, from more than 600 years ago, is the “favorite” of Bin Laden, Spencer derives his conclusion that Jihad is a “constant” element of “mainstream Islamic theology.” One scholar. 600 years removed. One Bin Laden. Can a reasonable person really believe that such a link proves something about “mainstream Islamic theology”? One doesn’t have to attend Emory University to be able to answer that.


Now, you would expect that someone who has essentially dedicated their life to opposing “jihad” would understand the fundamentals of Islam, yeah? No.

The next problem is the very use of the term “Islamic Theology.” Spencer seems to believe that when he quotes from “jurisprudence” he is automatically speaking about “theology.” We see this when he says:

Instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. It is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence.

I’m afraid to inform the distinguished New York Times bestselling author on Islam that Islamic Theology is very distinct from Islamic Jurisprudence. Islamic Theology is an altogether different discipline encompassing metaphysics, philosophy and eschatology. It is called Kalam. (One would be well advised to read Profesor Wolfson’s Philosophy of the Kalam in order to see how distinct Islamic Jurisprudence truly is from Islamic Theology). Kalam is speculative philosophy which produces theological precepts. Islamic Jurisprudence, as with all jurisprudence, on the other hand, deals with actual legal problems. The word for Islamic Jurisprudence is fiqh. I am very interested in learning how Kalam and Fiqh became one and the same.

Check out Ali’s full post.

*Cue Darleen or some other Republican suburbanite with a major persecution complex: The Muslims are coming and I will not be a Dhimmi!

35 thoughts on Islamophobes in the Ivory Tower

  1. WHY DO YOU HATE BED-WETTERS, JILL???

    Just thought I’d get that out there before it’s brought up in the monster thread.

  2. jill, thanks for the link:

    this was hilarious:

    *Cue Darleen or some other Republican suburbanite with a major persecution complex: The Muslims are coming and I will not be a Dhimmi!

    i know that you don’t agree with d’souza (and I have my own disagreements with him since im also on the left)

    but he pretty much demolished jihadwatch today and in addition called them islamophobic

    By the way, I told you that these kinds of attacks could happen at American universities to women and other minority groups too. Well, a litle research revealed that David Horowitz, whose publication of an anti-Muslim ad was what prompted Jihad Watch to first post their hateful editorial, had PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED hateful advertisements about african americans at Emory University (and others). When that happened, closet racists from the right also write editorials to the Emory paper.

    So thus far you have: hateful advertisements by the right towards blacks, followed by closet racists editorials

    Then hateful advertisements by the right towards muslims, followed by open and notorious islamophobes.

    do you think women are next? maybe gays? maybe gay women?

  3. Well, D’Souza thinks that the mullahs have the right ideas when it comes to restricting the freedoms of women and queers.

  4. zuzu

    d’souza can think that, but even a vast number of muslims dont agree with the mullahs

    its weird, when i was growing up in pakistan, there was no such thing as a ‘terrorist’

    back then most of us spent our time hating the mullah for being ass backward (in a very rural part of pakistan mind you)

    the entrenched social problem in the muslim world isn’t the terrorist, its the mullah

    problem is that the war on terror which synonymizes terror with islam, has everyone convinced that terrorism is the problem and thus mullahism gets off scott free

    people in the west need to treat the gwot as a political problem so that progressives in the west and reformers in the muslim world can again (or for the first time) link up to address the rights of women and queers

    (there is plenty of positive signs about advancement of women’s rights in muslim world; pakistan’s women protection bill was a good first step; the leading sheikh in egypt just allowed women to not only lead mixed congregation prayer (many american churches dont even alow that), but also to hold political power), btw, he also permitted hymen reconstruction surgery

    jill has also linked to the major edict out of al-azhar banning fgm and calling it unislamic and barbaric

    you’re welcome to check our our site from time to time for updates on the state of reform

    you can start with the ‘feminism tag’

  5. btw, he also permitted hymen reconstruction surgery

    If that ain’t progress for women, I dunno what is! Maybe soon they’ll allow women to show their faces in the daylight, too!

  6. jrod

    dont u think ur comment belongs @ jihadwatch?

    in large parts of the muslim world women do not wear the niqab

    and as to showing skin, ah child, go to beirut or karachi and stay up past 9

  7. I’m aware that not all arab women are equally oppressed. I was making snark. About the insane idea that Hymen Reconstruction is in any way an indicator of women’s rights. It’s not. I’m terribly sorry for trying to make a joke.

  8. If hymen reconstruction can save the lives of women who might otherwise be killed for not being virgins, then it’s an issue of women’s rights whether it’s allowed or not.

    That’s not to say it’s not problematic, but deal with the killing first, then the reasons for killing.

  9. “About the insane idea that Hymen Reconstruction is in any way an indicator of women’s rights. It’s not.”

    No, but a declaration that a woman is not required to present proof of virginity if her husband cannot present proof of his virginity is a fairly big step forward.

  10. If hymen reconstruction can save the lives of women who might otherwise be killed for not being virgins, then it’s an issue of women’s rights whether it’s allowed or not.

    I take your and preying mantis’s point. Saving lives is paramount, but it still seems like very very thin gruel if that’s what passes for women’s rights.

  11. It may seem insignificant to a person who lives in a country where women can vote and aren’t killed for not being virgins.

    Baby steps.

  12. After reading the link, it does sound like a step forward, believe it or not — the imam basically said that if a woman feels she has to undergo hymen reconstruction surgery to avoid violence against herself, it’s permitted. That would be as opposed to, say, saying that such surgery is not permitted (halal), which would have even worse repercussions. Imagine if it were said to be not permitted, and a woman’s relatives found out that she’d had it. Not a pleasant thought.

    And he also emphasized that a man has no right to insist that his wife be a virgin when they marry unless the man is willing to show proof that he is also a virgin. So the hymen reconstruction surgery is basically approved solely to prevent women from being harmed by their families, not because it’s required by Islam in any way, shape or form.

  14. halal

    You mean haram…

    I’m going by the terminology that Ali used in the blog entry. Myself, I don’t actually know.

  15. Your cheap shots about incontinence are what prevent us from building a movement towards social justice. It’s privilege, dammit, privilege! Also, they make Baby Jesus cry. And pee.

  16. It’s sort of an article of faith (HAW HAW) among the Arab-bashing right that every single crazy batshit thing any Muslim scholar or religious figure has ever said forms the basis of all contemporary Islamic thought. About a week back, Hugh Hewitt had a respected Army general on his show and got really pissed at him because he didn’t know anything about 12th Imam theology. Hugh didn’t think you could possibly fight Islamofascism without an encyclopedic knowledge of this fringe nut belief, which is sort of like saying that the Allies couldn’t possibly have beaten Hitler in WWII if Eisenhower and Patton hadn’t read the complete works of the Comte de Gobineau.

  17. Oh and by the way, Arab doesn’t equal Muslim. Pakistanis aren’t Arabs, and neither are millions of other Indian, Indonesian, Philippine, Yugoslavian, Turkish, Iranian, Nigerian (and many other countries) Muslims. Furthermore, there are some Christian and Jewish Arabs, in fact, most Arab-Americans aren’t Muslim.

  18. I’m sorry to break it to you, but Islam is an enemy of the people. It, for one that may be of importance to you, is a highly sexist ideology. Certainly some modern muslims may be liberal with their text, like moderate Christians but these moderates are just more philosophically confused than fundamentalists (read Sam Harris, ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ or ‘The God Delusion’ by Dawkins).

    Feminist philosophy must accept (and has been by many prominent feminists) that religion is an enemy that promotes racism, sexism, class inequality, and is an opiate to the masses.

    The human rights of Middle Easterners is a different issue. All human life should be respected and afforded equal value. Philosophies however, should be shown no mercy when they are unreasonable, and especially those that are dangerous, promote bigotry, violence, sexism, genocide, and elitism (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to name just three).

  19. Oh and by the way, Arab doesn’t equal Muslim. Pakistanis aren’t Arabs, and neither are millions of other Indian, Indonesian, Philippine, Yugoslavian, Turkish, Iranian, Nigerian (and many other countries) Muslims. Furthermore, there are some Christian and Jewish Arabs, in fact, most Arab-Americans aren’t Muslim.

    Of course. But you wouldn’t know that by reading JihadWatch.

  20. Yawn.

    From your link…

    ” I completely accept the usual rejoinder from critics that there are many areas of Islamic Law where today’s jurists have simply accepted the opinions of jurists from the past (and done injustice). This includes women’s rights, minority rights, and the issue of apostasy, among others. However, as time passes, more and more Muslim jurists are making up their own minds about these issues. I’m not even a jurist and I am doing my own thinking about these matters.”

    See he acknowledged “injustice.”

    All better.

    So, meh, no big deal… some clit choppin, adultery stonin, no big deal when put into the “context” of Islam in a modern world. Don’t worry though, they’re making up their minds.

    It’s also amusing if you scroll through his post, he uses a link to a Telegraph article citing a Spanish Muslim organization as the only major Islamic organization to issue a fatwa explicitly condemning bin Laden as an example of laudable Muslim moderates. I’m sure Muslims in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia took note. Convinced to me to Muslims “universally” condemning the actions.

    ” I hope that is obvious by now. The way islamic jurisprudence evolved to make rules limiting violence serves as a model of how islamic jurisprudence will evolve to give rights to women, minorities and non-Muslims. I wish that Spencer would recognize this and leave Muslim reformists from having to correct his errors.”

    Yes, because despite conceding “that there are many areas of Islamic Law where today’s jurists have simply accepted the opinions of jurists from the past (and done injustice),” Robert Specer should clearly stop posting examples of such injustices.

    Thsi is all assuming we accept his bullshit premise that Spencer can only cite examples from hundreds of years ago to support his conclusions.

    Which I personally don’t.

    http://WWW.MEMRI.ORG

  21. I’m going by the terminology that Ali used in the blog entry. Myself, I don’t actually know.

    Then it was a typo. Haram means it’s illegal; the Hebrew cognate, kherem, means boycott. Halal means it’s legal, whence you get “Halal food,” the Muslim equivalent of kosher food. There’s another complication I don’t remember – if I remember correctly there are two degrees of non-halal things, of which haram is one, but I don’t remember whether haram is the stronger or the weaker degree.

  23. I’m not a religion scholar, so I’m not about to get into any theological debates about the merits of x or y religion. However, I think it’s a fallacy to say that religion has to be sexist. Some religions, such as Christianity, Islam and Sikhism started out as significantly less sexist than society as a whole in those regions, although over time they have assimilated sexist traditions from other religions or from secular culture.
    The only way to end sexism is to end sexism. Ending religion without ending sexism will result in sexist atheist men, and I’m willing to bet that they would use Darwinism/biological determinism to justify the abuse and dehumanization of women – that women are inherently unable to go into politics, the military or science, that men are “wired” to rape, we’ve heard the excuses already.
    While there are many atheists who are pro-feminist and supporters of human rights, they are not all like that. Larry Flynt and Camille Paglia are atheists – what have they done for feminist goals? And people have committed horrible acts of violence in the name of religion, but they have done so in the name of secular ideology (like during the French Revolution) and atheist communism (millions killed by the Khmer Rouge and the USSR).
    Also, what about women like Mukhtar Mai? She was subjected to a community-sanctioned gang rape as punishment for an offense that a relative had made and expected to kill herself afterwards. Instead, she fought back and she’s dedicated herself to promoting women’s human rights. Yet she still wears the hijab.
    I do support ending the blatant religion-related abuses of women, such as female genital mutilation, bride burning and forced polygamy. I think that can be done without obliterating religion altogether.

  24. WHY DO YOU HATE BED-WETTERS, JILL???

    Just thought I’d get that out there before it’s brought up in the monster thread.

    You know, I have a serious question.

    Why is it OK to make fun of bed wetters, which can be a crippling condition, but it wouldn’t be OK to call them pussies? Why not just call them chickenshits? Can I call them fat asses and photoshop sandwiches in their hands, or will that piss off some group that matters?

  25. Why is it OK to make fun of bed wetters, which can be a crippling condition, but it wouldn’t be OK to call them pussies?

    I probably shouldn’t even respond to this, but the term “bed-wetters,” in the way I used it, is clearly meant to be a comment on the irrational fear of Robert Spencer et al. Not something which takes a swipe at his appearance, or a group of people who are traditionally mocked and undervalued and have their civil liberties stomped on.

  26. See he acknowledged “injustice.”

    All better.

    So, meh, no big deal… some clit choppin, adultery stonin, no big deal when put into the “context” of Islam in a modern world. Don’t worry though, they’re making up their minds.

    That’s not what he said at all. I think Ali realizes there’s a long way to go towards women’s rights in many majority-Muslim countries. He’s simply pointing out that painting them all with a broad brush doesn’t make sense, and that lots of individual people in those countries very much believe in justice and equal rights.

    The constant targeting of Islam is tiring. Yes, it’s important to cover human rights abuses all over the world. But why target Islam? Do we say that all Christians are evil because of the actions of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib? No, we realize that some people do evil things, and we need to conquer that. Some of those evil things are deeply cultural. The way to counter-act that is not to shit all over their culture and call them all savages — we’ve tried that, and it doesn’t work. At all. We need to support the reformists from the inside.

    Oh, and Spencer could give two shits about human rights. Feel free to read his website; it’s all about how Muslims are trying to take over the world. He’s a nut.

  27. Then it was a typo. Haram means it’s illegal; the Hebrew cognate, kherem, means boycott. Halal means it’s legal, whence you get “Halal food,” the Muslim equivalent of kosher food. There’s another complication I don’t remember – if I remember correctly there are two degrees of non-halal things, of which haram is one, but I don’t remember whether haram is the stronger or the weaker degree.

    It was a bad sentence construction on my part — I juxtaposed “not permitted” and “halal.”

  28. So, meh, no big deal… some clit choppin, adultery stonin, no big deal when put into the “context” of Islam in a modern world. Don’t worry though, they’re making up their minds.

    So, meh, no big deal … some rape of 1-in-4 women, some executing retarded people, no big deal when put into the “context” of Christianity in a modern world. Don’t worry though, they’re making up their minds.

  29. and I’m willing to bet that they would use Darwinism/biological determinism to justify the abuse and dehumanization of women

    What’s with the future tense there?

    I really hate the “what about Stalin and Pol Pot?” arguments, but you know, it’s just wishful, elitist bullshit to think that all we need do is sweep away religion and we’ll all become enlightened whatsits.

  30. I really hate the “what about Stalin and Pol Pot?” arguments, but you know, it’s just wishful, elitist bullshit to think that all we need do is sweep away religion and we’ll all become enlightened whatsits.

    Word.

    I read a great article this week on the divisions in the Middle East being primarily local/political and religion takes a secondary place mostly as a rhetorical device to get people on their respective sides and rally the various groups. Sort of like U.S. politics.

    I’d try to dig it up but my head is full of plegm and I’m about to go get intimate with the sofa.

  31. mythago – I was mostly discussing misogyny among religious fundamentalists, and they’re generally the ones who don’t believe in evolution, preferring to use religious codes and theology to subordinate women. Of course there is a lot of secular literature that uses science to justify sexism.
    I don’t believe that there is anything inherent about religion that makes it evil. Neither is there anything inherent about atheism. In a feminist world, religion would not be used against women or any other group – it would be one’s way of relating to the world spiritually, whether you believe in one God or many gods, whether you believe in heaven, hell, shamanism, don’t know, or nothing at all. People use it as an excuse to justify their own violence.

  32. People use it as an excuse to justify their own violence.

    Exactly. They use religion as an excuse. That’s what bugs me about some people (not you) who insist that religion causes violence/sexism/racism/whatever – they’re buying into the fundamentalists’ worldview.

  33. Wow, this spencer dude really wants us to judge religions on their rhetoric up to 1400, eh?

    Well, let’s get started on the fathers of the Church, then.

    First reading, I guess, would be Saint John Chrysostom (c.347-407) :
    Eight Homilies Against the Jews. That should be a warmup. Remember, still a saint – he could even be called the Saint of the Nuremberg laws, since he promoted anti-jewish legislation. In his wonderful interpretation of the book of Jonah, for instance, he insert passages about the descendents of Jonah who “have committed the ultimate transgression” by killing Jesus, and now must pay with ‘no mercy’. He compared the synagogue unfavorably to a brothel, and he provided a handy divine inspiration mandate for beating and murdering jews. A regular nice fella. Then St. Ambrose, always ready to get a group of good christians together for a synagogue burning might come next. These guys you might say are founders in the religion of love. During the crusades, when anti-semitic pograms were common – led by priests, oftentimes – some members of the church hierarchy showed mercy and saved those jews who would agree to be baptised. One way ticket there, guys – as a decree from Pope Innocent III said, those who converted, “he who is led to christianity by violence, by fear and by torture … must be duly constrained to abide by the faith they have accepted by force.” Christian kings of course enjoyed protecting Jews until they had acquired property, at which point they would do things like Philip le Bel did in 1306 – seize all Jewish property and order Jews to leave France, under pain of death, in three weeks. We aren’t talking getting in your car, either.

    Anybody who wants to compare the Islamic world pre 1400 with the Christian world would do well to remember – the Christian world was infinitely more violent, more intolerant, worse to women, minorities, outsiders, peasants – or just worse, period.

  34. Plus, I *guarantee* you that if anyone claimed (even satirically) that Roman Catholic Church still adheres to the teachings of Brs. James Sprenger and Henry Kramer, O.P., who were writing (and being endorsed by the Vatican) less than a decade before Columbus “sailed the ocean blue,” Spencer & co would denounce them as anti-Catholic bigots.

    Even mentioning that there was an Inquisition (“Hey, Torquemada, whaddya say?”) is itself proof of anti-Catholic bigotry, to the Neotrad radicals…even if they then turn around and say “Yes, and we need another one soon!” (They have mastered all forms of Cognitive Dissonance and transcend mere logical forms bound by the Laws of Non-Contradiction, you see, Grasshopper…)

  35. Plus, I’m still not sure if the Catholic Church has ever condemned rape, so long as it was legal rape. (If so, it’s only been *very* recently and not mentioned specifically but only under the general condemnation of rape in the new Catechism.)

Comments are currently closed.