Westerners seek real Middle East...at an American School

Here's an article about increased study of Islam and the Middle East in general since 9/11:

The number of American students at the University, known as AUC, has about tripled since 2002 and reached a record of more than 400 this year.
...
After unrest in Lebanon dimmed the appeal of the American University of Beirut, Arabic programs in Cairo are meeting demand from the United States, Canada, and European countries.

Notice that, even though they're in Cairo, they go to an American-ran, liberal arts school, and not an actual Islamic institute. The "foremost" Islamic school is actually in Cairo too: al-Azhar University. But, Americans might have a hard time going there...because they ban non-Muslims from enrolling. Of course, not a single university in the West forbids Muslims from enrolling, not even the most devoutly Christian universities. Where is the reciprocity? And who is really holding back dialogue? Just another example of what I've been talking about. Why don't groups like CAIR push for opening up Islamic universities to non-Muslims if they actually want non-Muslims to learn about Islam, as they say?

Here's something else from the article:

Weakley, the Baylor student originally from Kentucky, said he would try to reverse some stereotypes about the Arab world when he returns to Texas.

"People think everyone here is a terrorist or they hate you because you are Christian," he said. "That's not the case. When I get back I am going to tell my friends that these are good people."

How many people actually believe such sweeping generalisations? Sounds like he has some stereotypes of his own.

Censorship in the Islamic World

I said yesterday that the ISU was on the case of blocking this site in Saudi Arabia. Apparently they've done so, and now apparently the United Arab Emirates is doing the same. I note that the visits by the censoring agencies of these countries were the only visits to this site from those countries. They censor me before anyone else from their countries even manages to find my site! Makes me wonder what their procedure is -- a pretty thorough-going one anyway. **

But what it really makes me wonder about is the level of censorship in the Islamic world. It's high across the board, and another. And it's not limited to websites. Books too are banned indifferently from websites in many Muslim countries, and press freedom infringed as well.

And, again, here I think of the call for dialogue we always hear between the West and Islamic societies. I've mocked this call for dialogue before, and now I find a new ground on which to question it. How could there be dialogue if so many Muslims cannot even gain access to the side that is critical of their ideology? In the West we have no problem reading their positions: Saudi propaganda, even though it is much hated, floods into Canada, the US, and Europe for example. But nothing that breaks the party line is let into Saudi Arabia.

Let Muslim countries uncensor the critics of Islam. Then perhaps dialogue can begin. How could it be otherwise? The start of dialogue is 100% depending on this first action of the Islamic world, not the Western world.

** UPDATE: Apparently all traffic is routed through the ISU, and so it was not at all necessarily the ISU itself that was viewing the site. I apologise for the assumption.

Congratulations to Faisal Kutty

Faisal Kutty is a lawyer in Ontario. He is Vice-Chair of the Canadian branch of CAIR, a group which was recently named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF terrorist funding trial. As is usual with members of CAIR, he is not at all concerned with promoting "relations" between Muslims and kafirs, as CAIR claims to want to, but is rather concerned with advancing particularly Islamic goals with no regard for kafirs. Let's just go over some of these.

He argues in favour of the implementation of Sharia courts in Canada. He pulls on there being a backlog in the courts as a reason for implementing Sharia courts to deal with family-issues of Muslims. Why not just buttress the secular system if it is backlogged? Far too radical an idea for Kutty -- we clearly need Sharia law.

He pushes for even more Sharia in Canada with the establishment of Sharia-compliant banks.

He wants to strengthen the Human Rights Commission in order to combat "rising...Islamophobia." Even though he produces no examples of Muslims' human rights being abused, and certainly not of them being abused in any way over and above non-Muslims. This is the same Human Rights Commission that was investigating Free Dominion for making "anti-Islam" statements, as if criticising a religion was somehow a crime.

He hopes for the Canadian government to quash Jewish charities that send money to Israel. Apparently it's not enough just to defend Muslim interests, one must also attack the interests of members of other religions.

He laments the existence of free speech in Canada as seen in the republication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons and calls these "hate speech." He looks at various ways that those who publish the cartoons might be tried in Canada. Here's an example of this supposed hate speech:This is not hate speech. It is a poignant caricature of a historical (or not so historical) political leader. It's wit lies in graphically connecting him with violence and deceit by the inclusion of an obscured bomb as part of his headdress. Islamists want to stop the publication of this cartoon because it calls them what they are, and their ideology what it is: violent and deceitful. If Muslims disagree that their prophet was essentially wicked, then they are free to counteract that perception with their own arguments. But Kutty and the extremists would rather just try to silent their critics, as if that helps their case.

Finally, here's one of the most bizarre claims made by Kutty in an article about the Islamic practice of the Hajj: "In fact, as part of the spiritual experience, the [Hajj] links people across religions who believe in the common origin of humanity through a past shared by several Abrahamic traditions." What? Kafirs are specifically forbidden from going to Mecca as the Hajj does. How does a pilgrimage, which excludes non-Muslims, "link" Muslims and non-Muslims, as Kutty contends? How is excluding like linking? It's the exact opposite! That anyone would make such a claim is almost beyond belief. But Kutty, you did it. Congratulations.

Faisal Kutty's idea of "linking" people of different faiths put into practice in Arabia:

Takfir

A kafir is someone who rejects Islam. This we should all know by now. The labelling of someone as a kafir, is called takfir. It's actually not wholly clear what it is that makes one a kafir, even though Muslims seem pretty settled on what it is. I'll tender this as a definition: "Someone who doesn't believe in Islam after some number of Muslims has grown frustrated with trying to convert her. " This is not an exactly serious definition but rather it points to the root of the problem with delineating the concept. Muslims don't say every non-Muslim is a kafir, only those who are "clearly aware of [Islam] and what it entails" and yet still remain non-Muslim. On this they're settled. But then what is the method to determine who is "clearly aware"? On this they offer nothing. Essentially what happens is that Muslims will just assume the group of kafirs are clearly aware based on what these kafirs have been told already, and from that I get my definition. What underlines all this is the Muslim assumption of indubitable knowledge on the subject. Here's some quotes:

"...don't give up on a non-muslim because most people are good people who simply need a break from the anti-Islamic propaganda around them."

"Guiding a Non-Muslim to Islam only possible by the Grace of God. Our job is to help others understand Islam - that is our basic duty. And only then inshallah, will non-muslims move in the direction of becoming one of us." (From here.)

"In my view, most people in today’s world did not reject the message because simply they are not aware of what Islam is. This is largely due to the biased international media" (From here.)

And that seems to be the fundamental position of the Muslims. That they do not enter into dialogue when they discuss religion -- they only lecture their position, because they already assume that they are right (before they have even heard your position!) -- you, the kafir, is the one who is wrong and merely needs to see the truth. I've never once seen anything like a Socratic discussion between a kafir and a Muslim on the issue of religion. Have you?

We always hear about how there should be more dialogue and less outright criticism which is just really "speaking past" one another. But what would this dialogue look like? One must be willing to change his beliefs in a dialogue, not just be professorial. But are Muslims willing to change their beliefs? I have yet to see any evidence of this. So I'll stick with doing that evil of "speaking past" and just continue to criticise them, and I suggest this approach to everyone else who is still willing to defend a non-Islamic position. What's the point of dialogue if it can't get anywhere? Might as well take up defensive positions and hunker down in "Fortress West" behind our walls of syllogisms and scientific method. But hey, prove me wrong.

We Are Less Than Human

From Jihadwatch, a look into what some Florida Muslims are saying about their kafir neighbours:

The kaffir (kuffur) are the enemies of islam. They are less than human unless they revert to the one true way. It is acceptable to be rude to them - regardless of where you live, for they are less than us.

Less than human....it's no wonder that some seem to have no problem killing us. But where could they possibly get such sentiments from? What do the Islamic texts say about kafirs? "They are the worst of creatures" (Quran 98:6).