Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> West Neanderthal Drive

Personal Injury Law

: West Neanderthal Drive

Compare and Contrast

Over at The Objective Standard, Mr. John David Lewis reflects on his recent vesit to Georgia Tech. We thought a few lines about the question and answer period would be worth quoting:

The onslaught began with the first ?question,? actually a monologue that lasted nearly fifteen minutes. The monologist claimed that: (1) there is a long history of separation of church and state in Islam; (2) Islamic law is good; (3) whenever imposed, Islamic law has brought peace; (4) jihad is a ?wonderful idea? and does not mean war; (5) Islamic Totalitarianism poses no threat, since 500 million Muslims reject terrorism; (6) the tax leveled against subjugated peoples is just, because they are protected by Muslims in return; (7) I am ?ignorant of history? if I do not acknowledge the ?truth? of these claims.

I listened to him without interrupting?and even asked a legitimately annoyed member of the audience to allow him to finish?so that he could fully reveal himself. In answer, I re-read a series of quotes in which Islamic leaders?as well as a young girl on Lebanese television?call for jihad, war, and death; and I pointed out to the monologist that he must be quite angry at these Muslims for their incorrect view of jihad. But instead of being angry at those who give his presumably peaceful religion a bad name, he condemned me for reading their quotes. This is evasion par excellence?to condemn those who raise Islam?s violent past and present rather than have to face the fact that the vision of idyllic peace that one associates with one?s religion has no basis in reality.

The whole article lives here.
If this looks familiar, it may be because this is the same argument presented by one of our local tenured faculty, Professor Liaquat Ali Khan of Washburn Law School (see photo). In his latest published work, at something called MWC News ("Media With Conscience") Prof. Khan tells us:

Gradually but successfully, the propagandized essentialist terrorist and the attendant abusive language against Islam have entered political rhetoric. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Senators, and other officials are now freely using the abusive language to malign Islam, not through uncaught moments of Freudian slips but as a policy of expressive audacity.
...

One wonders why elected officials in supposedly democratic nations, which tout the principles of equal respect and dignity for all, use abusive language to wound the sentiments of more than a billion people across the world. Several explanations come to mind.

First, the abusive language may be described as an effect of an over-generalization. Suppose that Muslim militants indeed wish to impose Islam on the Anglo-American world, a supposition that even the militants would ridicule as blatant propaganda to infuriate domestic audiences. Though mounted on a questionable supposition, the label is accurate to the extent that the use of violence to forcibly modify the values of a foreign nation is indeed fascism---a definition that, ironically, would paint President Bush as an American fascist for his forcible democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if President Bush were declared a fascist, it would be wrong to describe his foreign policy as ?American fascism? because that is tantamount to an over-as well as miss-generalization.
...
Despite their enchantment for secularism, they [viz., the "anglo-American politicians"] still see this nation as Christian, perhaps Judaic-Christian, ignoring the fact that millions of Muslims, immigrants and native born, now live in all states of the United States. Hundreds of mosques in America, though under surveillance, furnish indelible signs that Islam has arrived in this country, not to forcibly convert anyone but to enrich American culture, diversity, history, architecture, sciences, and, yes, laws. Let American politicians greet Islam and Muslims with Assalaam ulaikum (peace be upon you) if for no other reason than to remind them that their religion is one of peace and not of violence.

The whole thing lives here.
We'd find it more persuasive if American politicians would start greeting Muslims with "He is risen", particularly if said Muslims were to respond without rioting or filing a lawsuit. But how likely is that during an election year? Fact is, we're skeptical of Prof. Khan's claims that no Muslim wants to replace the United States Constitution with Islamic law, and we think we're not alone in thinking so. The same goes for his suggestion that American Muslims constitute an impoverished, put-upon minority, peacefully struggling against bigotry and oppression to live in harmony with their neighbors. Is he being intellectually dishonest? We express no opinion on that score, but we will agree with Mr. Lewis about the reluctance by its nominal adherents to address the problematic behavior coming out of Islam.
This is America, and within some pretty broad limits, people are allowed to say more or less whatever pops into their heads. We would do well to remember that there are people who want to change all that, and they're not all Republican, conservative evangelical Christians.

Full post as published by West Neanderthal Drive on March 24, 2008 (boomark / email).