Middle East studies in the News
Duke Professor Bruce Lawrence: Pamela Geller a "Free Speech Jihadi"
Let's be clear on who we're dealing with here. Bruce Lawrence is emeritus professor of Islamic studies at Duke University. In 2013 he was reported as saying that Islam "has no connection with terrorism and the propaganda of the forces which are trying to link Islam with terrorism is baseless." In 2005, he said that Osama bin Laden sounded "like somebody who would be a very high-minded and welcome voice in global politics."
So it is no surprise that Lawrence would be blaming Pamela Geller for having the gall to be attacked by violent jihadists in Garland, Texas.
"The jihad of Pamela Geller (COMMENTARY)," by Bruce B. Lawrence, Religion News Service, May 6, 2015:
Let's pause and think for a moment about how ghastly Bruce Lawrence's moral equivocation is here. Three days after Islamic jihadists tried to commit mass murder at our free speech event in Texas, Bruce Lawrence is writing not about the jihad of Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi, and discussing how such people can be stopped before they take up their AK-47s, but about how "the jihad of Pamela Geller" can be stopped. And what does the respected professor recommend for that? Reading some poetry by Muslim mystics:
In the first place, the existence of Muslims who are peaceful does not negate the existence of Muslims who are not; nor does it negate the responsibility of free people to resist jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.
But also, Lawrence is opposing Sufism to violent jihad in the wake of a jihad attack by a Muslim named Soofi. Even the Muslim writer Stephen Schwartz, in a vicious attack on Pamela Geller after the jihad attack on her, admitted: "Soofi's very family name is dismaying, as it suggests a background in the spiritual tradition of the Sufis." Also, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the recently killed former Iraqi army general, was the leader of a Naqshbandi Sufi group that was allied with the Islamic State — clearly al-Douri and his comrades did not believe that Sufism and violent jihad were incompatible. Sufis led the Chechen jihad for centuries, and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna prescribed Sufi spiritual exercises for the early Brothers — even at a time when the Brotherhood in Egypt did not eschew violence. So Lawrence's assumption that Sufism is somehow antithetical to violent jihad simply has no basis.
It is only the second fire that matters to any Infidel. There may be hundreds of millions busy peacefully waging the "greater struggle"; what does that do to stop those Muslims who show up at art exhibits with AK-47s?
First it was "the jihad of Pamela Geller," and now "Charlie Hebdo inaugurated the New Year with death and carnage in Paris, then Copenhagen." Is Bruce Lawrence really this morally inverted? Charlie Hebdo did not bring death and carnage to Paris or Copenhagen. Islamic jihadists did. They are wholly and solely responsible for the death and carnage.
What exactly was outrageous about opposing what would have been understood by many Muslims around the world as a triumphal mosque built at the site of a jihad victory, a la the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, or converted cathedrals like the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, etc.? Lawrence doesn't say. He just takes it for granted that his RNS readers will shake their heads in multiculturalist dudgeon.
Geller was referring in this "bellow" (did Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi "bellow," Professor Lawrence, or were they more soft-spoken?) to the fact that the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur'an and most common prayer in Islam, ends with the request that Allah "guide us to the straight path, not the path of those who have earned your anger, or the path who have gone astray." As Lawrence doubtless knows, many mainstream Muslim exegetes of the Qur'an explain that the "straight path" is Islam (cf. the title of one of Islamic apologist John Esposito's books, Islam: The Straight Path), while "those who have earned your anger" are the Jews and "those who have gone astray" are the Christians.
Can Lawrence demonstrate that to be false?
Does Lawrence then support the jihad savagery of those "Palestinians" who murder innocent civilians, such as the Fogel family, and then celebrate the murders?
So does that mean we have to love Islam so as not to provoke the "respondents to Geller's parlor game"? If we just don't offend them, then all will be well? If we don't dare draw Muhammad, but submit instead to Sharia blasphemy restrictions, they won't hurt us? If we signal to them that violent intimidation works, we won't be rewarded with more violent intimidation?
Lawrence represents this statement as an outrageous claim on Geller's part. He doesn't mention the fact that it comes from a Hamas video that ran on its official TV station, containing the words, "Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah." Our ad was (quite correctly) pointing out that the jihad of mystical communion and romping through the daisies that Hamas-linked CAIR was representing as the principal meaning of jihad was the not, unfortunately, the only understanding of jihad among Muslims.
Where does Geller ever say that jihadis are "subhuman beasts, worthy of any assault, whether a punitive police or all-out military action"? Why, nowhere, of course. She wants them defeated, as any sane person would, but she has never denied their humanity — which is more than can be said about the fusillade of media attacks on her and her motives. But in any case, here again, Lawrence's entire piece falters on the fact that the existence of peaceful Muslims and peaceful understandings of jihad does nothing to negate the existence of violent Muslims and violent understandings of jihad.
How ironic that Lawrence would call Pamela Geller a "free speech jihadi." He means, of course, that she is a terrorist, but he has just spent his whole article telling us that there exists a jihad that is good and wholesome and beneficial for the soul; so if Pamela Geller is a "free speech jihadi," might she not be on the side of the angels, trying to defend this all-important freedom against encroachment from bullies, supremacists, killers, and cosseted, blinkered academics?Note: Articles listed under "Middle East studies in the News" provide information on current developments concerning Middle East studies on North American campuses. These reports do not necessarily reflect the views of Campus Watch and do not necessarily correspond to Campus Watch's critique.
Campus Watch contact e-mail: email@example.com