newhouse1390

I got this in an e-mail and thought I would get everyones take on this.

ebackhus

When I first heard about the whole stink about the cartoon and all the crap it caused, I really thought that it was totally being blown out of proportion. Every day you see things being mocked in one way or another. But the moment something comes out poking fun at someone like Muhammed, everyone starts flinging poo! If someone takes a picture of Jesus and places a bomb in His hands instead of a lamb or a child, nobody says a thing. What defines religious pride and radical fanaticism?

drbillchristian

Well it looks poorly written for one thing. He could have done a better job in terms of the e-mail's literary merit. And it's kind of stupid for the Professor to have sent it without "intending it to be made public". These student groups are roiling cesspools of political passion because it has not yet been tempered by the masses upon masses of people outside the collegiate setting that 1. Could care less and 2. Are apt to b****-slap you if you truly offend them.

(Academics really hate to get b****-slapped, and prefer to fight with words and rules.)

Finally, he signed the e-mail not as a private individual but as a professor at the University. He could have sent the e-mail anonymously if all he wanted to do was inform them of what he thought. And he could have simply signed his name if he wanted them to know who he was. But he signed his "title" at the University and thereby brought them into it.

So this speech is now governed by whatever rules the University may have.

Personally, I think some discipline is warranted, but not any kind of "cultural sensitivity" training. Rather I think a class to improve the professor's writing skills may be in order. Because he his opinions of the Islamic Student's Union (or whatever they may be called) may not reflect poorly on the University, his lack of writing skills surely do, and I think this is a legitimate area that the University could (and should) address.

Specifically:

What special qualities does being a professor of Mechanical Engineering bring to the situation of "protesting" a "protest". A better way to craft the language would have been "I am a professor of Mechanical Engineering and ..."

"protesting" a "protest" is a rather feeble and sophmoric literary gimmick that (for me at least) doesn't work. One does not protest a protest without intrinsically protesting the protestors RIGHT to protest. See further for even more misuse of the 1st Amendment.

The self-description of being a "soft-spoken" "academic" screams self-serving tripe. The attempt at painting himself is more dramatic to the reader than is the picture itself. Crude dreck that signials an inferior mind.

"... many, many, many ..." Not enough "many"s. In this case the minimum number was four, although five would be optimal in order to convey the sheer multitudes of supporters this person has."

"uncivilized slave-trading Moslems" For obvious reasons, this opens the professor (and the University) to problems.

"to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

Apparantly "awareness" is inadequate to this professor; he requires these uncivilized moslems to be VERY aware. Unfortunately my awareness is centered clearly on the possibility that the Professor may be sub-literate.

And I don't understand the quotes around the word "protests". Either they are protests or they are not. To encapsulate them around quotes invites the reader to ponder whether they are truly "protests" or not.

Well, if they are NOT "protests", then how does one "protest" them ?

I'm not sure what Constitutional protections of free speech, the press and whatever other freedoms the 1st Amendment protects have to do with the Right to Leave. IS there a Constitutionally protected 1st Amendment Right to Leave the United States ? And are all Values protected by the Constitution "Western" values ?

Finally, this implies (given that it was sent to the Moslem Student Union) that ALL Americans are non-muslims and all muslims are foreigners. The very ideas of Republican Fascism I have been describing for about a week now.

The only missing link in this chain is the identification as American Muslims as the "enemy", which then allows Republicans to suppress their speech, attack them personally when they cannot suppress their speech, and (at the extreme) torture them should the "immediate circumstances" warrant it.

Because:

What I find most interesting here is that this rather retarded treatise by a sub-literate "professor" (probably a product of affirmative action, ironically) was posted here as a what ?

Example of the kind of speech we should all support? Hell, the author himself fails to do that by the mere act of writing it.

Please, Republicans, post long posts supporting the sentiments expressed by this "professor" and save me some time describing exactly who and what you truly are.

40sondacurb

"If you do not like the values of the West -- see the 1st Amendment -- you
are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that
option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up
yourselves instead of troubling Americans."


So what the hell are we doing in Iraq?


here's an interesting fact:


"Muhammad never fought against the Christians; on the contrary, He treated them kindly and gave them perfect freedom. A community of Christian people lived at & Najran and were under His care and protection. Muhammad said, "If anyone infringes their rights, I Myself will be his enemy, and in the presence of God I will bring a charge against him." In the edicts which He promulgated it is clearly stated that the lives, properties and honor of the Christians and Jews are under the protection of God; and that if a Muhammadan married a Christian woman, the husband must not prevent her from going to church, nor oblige her to veil herself; and that if she died, he must place her remains in the care of the Christian clergy.

Should the Christians desire to build a church, Islam ought to help them. In case of war between Islam and her enemies, the Christians should be exempted from the obligation of fighting, unless they desired of their own free will to do so in defense of Islam, because they were under its protection. But as a compensation for this immunity, they should pay yearly a small sum of money. In short, there are seven detailed edicts on these subjects, some copies of which are still extant at Jerusalem. This is an established fact. The edict of the second Caliph [Of Umar.] still exists in the custody of the orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. [Cf. Jurji Zaydan's Umayyads and Abbasids, trans. D. S. Margoliouth.]"

Here's more on the Christians of Narjan:

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty631.htm


In the year 10 A.H. (631 CE), Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) received a delegation of sixty Christians from Najran in Medinah. The territory of Najran was located south of Bani Khath’am near Yemen, about 450 miles south of Medinah. They were received in the Prophet’s mosque, and the Prophet allowed them to pray in the mosque, which they did facing East. This group of Christians followed Byzantine rite.

They discussed with the Prophet the points of doctrine including the nature of God, and he replied them by reciting Surah Ikhlas (112) of the Qur’an. It begins with the word ‘Qul’ meaning ‘Say’. The translation of the meaning of the Surah is: 'Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him'. Further discussion on the nature of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) led to some disagreements, on which he recited them the three Ayats of the Qur’an from Surah Ale-‘Imran (3:59-61). After three days, the Christian delegation decided to conclude its mission.

In spite of doctrinal disagreements, the Prophet concluded a treaty with the people of Najran. The Prophet dictated the terms of the treaty to Abdullah b. Abu Bakr, who served as one of his scribes, and it was witnessed by five companions whose names are: Abu Sufyan b. Harb, Ghilan b. Amr, Malik b. Auf, Aqra' b. Habis, and Mughira b. Shu'ba. The treaty provided religious and administrative autonomy for non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State. All sincere Muslim rulers have adhered to the founding principles of this treaty in managing the affairs of non-Muslim subjects throughout the centuries.

drbillchristian

So the point is that the Muslims serve as a role model for what Christian (Republican) tolerance should look like ?

Nice read, thanks.

drbillchristian

Well now I am thinking that this could be a fraud, cause this guy doesn't look like a person who could have written the e-mail.

Definately NOT a product of affirmative action:

http://www.egr.msu.edu/me/?q=faculty/faculty&action=showperson&personid=343&departmentid=8

Fox

Whoa, what a long and tedious semantics argument.

I think that's largely beside the point. This guy is pretty closed-minded when it comes to the whole thing.

And yes, I do believe that the student body that was protesting the Danish cartoons were a bunch of hypocrites for just the reason that the professor gave, but I don't agree with his generalization. Suicide bombers and propagators of the most extreme prejudice and hate in the muslim world are a minority, but they get the most press. Sure, the Muslim world should, and probably will change its attitude towards women to more closely follow the western world, but it sure as hell isn't a group of all "uncivilized, brutal slave traders" like this fool says it is.

That said, he has every right to have written that, however bigoted and blatantly shortsighted it was.

ArtMac

Muslims so touchy and insecure in their religious beliefs that war must constantly erupt to purge all those who disbelieve. Professors who, per their constitutional right, speak their minds and are sanctioned by their politically correct overseers.

I don't know. Is this the way the world is supposed to be? Have we worked hard to crawl out of the oceans and invent wonderful devices and think such marvelous thoughts just to simply annihilate each other over versions of the truth?

I'm dismayed. I really am. I think the professor spoke truthfully and has the right to do so without sanction by 'big brother' and the PC company. I don't think most Muslims are to blame for the warlike footing the planet has been placed on but I also BELIEVE the Muslim faith and what it espouses is not helping to quench any fires either.

I really don't know. I thought there was going to be a purpose for mankind once it matured, or at least once it knew better. Why is our purpose being ignored? Why must we have come this distance just to throw it away?

I don't know, but I think the professor spoke the truth and should not be sanctioned for it.

ArtMac

Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.