My February 21st article in Pajamas Media exposes an American University Professor, Professor Akbar Ahmed, who has been concealing his 30 year relationship with a Muslim Brotherhood front group known as the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the insidious movement operated by IIIT, known as the “Islamization of Knowledge.” This movement is defined by its own proponents in the following terms:
Islamization of knowledge simply refers to an attempt through which those aspects of the body and purpose of knowledge and of the process and methodologies of discovering, validating, imparting and applying it, which oppose Islam, are identified and made subservient to the Islamic worldview. [Italics in original]
…
Whatever runs counter to the Islamic worldview constitutes an Islamization target…the task involves replacing what is un-Islamic with what is Islamic. It could take the form of recasting an existing discipline or developing a new one.
An example of the Islamization of Knowledge is Professor Ahmed’s recent U.S. media tour in which he claimed, falsely and preposterously, that the Founding Fathers admired Islam. This was an attempt to “Islamize” Americans “knowledge” of their nation’s founding. I debunked this in detail, in a Pajamas Media article, last October.
Professor Ahmed’s website carried three separate responses to my February article. Two were written by his research associates who worked on Ahmed’s recent book, and the third was written by Prof. Ahmed, himself.
All three responses were suffused with insults, invective, and ad hominem, to a degree so ill-befitting a university professor and his research associates, that it is potentially embarrassing to American University. After all, if the facts were on their side, Prof. Ahmed and his associates would have little use for invective and ad hominem.
But, it’s not unusual to see such unscholarly, schoolyard insults, used by Professor Ahmed and his associates. Last year, Ahmed’s Research Associate, Frankie Martin wrote a similar attack piece in the Washington Post about me, replete with the same invective.
Ad Hominum and Invective
Professor Akbar Ahmed goes on a particularly unscholarly tirade accusing me of “fear and hate mongering” and writing “Islamophobic nonsense.” Jonathan Hayden follows Ahmed’s lead in his response by hurling insults like “Islamophobic,” “paranoid,” and “sophomoric,” and likewise, Craig Considine throws epithets like “Yellow Journalist” and claims that my facts are “lies” and are as “credible as supermarket tabloids.”
Yellow Journalism is defined as “the type of journalism that relies on sensationalism and lurid exaggeration to attract readers.” It’s interesting, however, that Considine considers it appropriate to hurl ad hominum attacks at me even though it is prima facie clear that I provide over forty links to document Ahmed’s associations with the IIIT and the Islamization of Knowledge movement. Considine doesn’t even attempt to deny my facts. He merely avoids discussing them while presenting himself as a character witness for Professor Ahmed.
Misrepresentation of Facts
The most egregious statement was by Jonathan Hayden who wrote that I “invented a meaning for” the Islamization of Knowledge when in actuality, I quoted verbatim and cited to IIIT Scholar, Dr. Malam Sa’idu Sulaiman’s work entitled Islamization of Knowledge: Background, Models and the Way Forward (2000).
Hayden portrays Prof. Ahmed’s association with IIIT as ending in 1981:
Ahmed was asked in 1980-81 while he was at Princeton, to write on the subject, given no royalties, only tasked with furthering knowledge.
On the contrary, per his own CV, Ahmed is currently a member of the International Advisory Board of AJISS, a journal which is a joint publication of the AMSS and IIIT. Hayden omits acknowledging any of the facts I provide, including: books, articles, conference presentations, associations and key players to illustrate how Ahmed has an ongoing relationship with the IIIT, and is a long time practitioner of the Islamization of Knowledge. Prof. Ahmed’s published books and articles in support of the Islamization of Knowledge are seen throughout his career, e.g. Toward Islamic Anthropology (IIIT,1986), Islamization of the Disciplines, (IIIT, 1989)(IIIT,1995) Education: the Islamization of Knowledge (1995), Islam and Freedom of Thought (2000) and The Sage Handbook of Islamic Studies (2010). Both Toward Islamic Anthropology (IIIT,1986), and Islamization of the Disciplines, (IIIT, 1989) were published by IIIT and are listed in the IIIT catalogue (2009).
Next, Hayden makes an astounding misstatement of fact:
Most often, when asked, we provide a condensed version with a “Selected Books” and “Selected Recent Articles” as in the CV that Rubenfeld cites. “Selected Recent Articles” means we choose only the most recent articles.
Contrary to Hayden, the CV I link in my article, far from including only the most recent articles, as Hayden purports, in fact dates all the way back to 1976 – and stops in 2002. This is Prof. Ahmed’s CV presented on the American University website. I took issue with the fact that Ahmed’s work in the Islamization of Knowledge is concealed in this CV.
Hayden maintains that Prof. Ahmed “was given no royalties, only tasked with furthering knowledge.” Well, let it be known that I was not paid to write these articles exposing Professor Ahmed. The reason I did so was to further the public’s knowledge.
“Islamizing” the Facts
In Craig Considine’s response, he describes Ahmed’s views on the Sufi poet, Rumi.
Ever since I can remember, [Ahmed] has always emphasized the works of the Sufi poet, Rumi, who writes about love, compassion and tolerance, all very ‘liberal’ values.
Prof. Ahmed has indeed been promoting the work of Rumi for years. From a 2007 interview in the Washington Post.
“You’re seeing the Americanization of Rumi,” Ahmed says. “I am mighty pleased, because the message is coming across — the message of love. We are transcending our prejudices and stereotypes.”
The same year, Ahmed participated in a documentary as both a consultant and an on-screen commentator for the film, “Rumi Returning,” which extols the poetry of Rumi. The film continues to be shown around the globe, and has, since its 2007 premiere, appeared on at least 330 PBS stations.
Let’s take a look at this poet Rumi whose works, according to Considine, Prof. Ahmed has “emphasized,” “ever since I can remember.”
Maulana Jelaluddin Rumi was a 13th century poet who recited stories as a “display of affection and love for the Holy Rasool” (i.e. the Islamic Prophet Mohammed). The Masnavi of Maulana Jajalu-‘D-Din, Muhammed Rumi (also known as Mathnawi), is considered Rumi’s “greatest work.”
Rumi wrote the Masnavi in his native Farsi. 700 years later it was translated into English. Below, I will be referencing the Rumi translations of Reynold A. Nicholson and E. H. Whinfield. Both of whom are approved by the Mevlevi Order of the International Mevlana Foundation, an organization which preserves the Rumi legacy. The Mevlevi Order described Reynold A. Nicholson as “greatest Rumi scholar in the English language.”
Rumi’s Masnavi is a compendium of Sufi stories, many of which describe interactions between Christians, Jews and Muslims, and contrary to Considine’s ideal of love, compassion and tolerance, many of Rumi’s poems are quite the opposite.
The Masnavi characterizes Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians as disobedient (1150. Vol. III), accursed (1200. Vol. III) infidels (405. 825. Vol. III). It describes the Messenger of Allah (Mohammed) as a Prophet of the Sword. It holds that in the Sufi sect of Islam, the right thing is war and terror.
Since the Messenger (of Allah) was the Prophet of the sword, (the people of) his community are heroes and champions. In our religion the right thing is war and terror; in the religion of Jesus the right thing is (retirement to) cave and mountain.” (490.Vol. VI)
Contrary to Considine’s naive understanding of this poet, Rumi displays intolerance and lack of compassion for others. For example, Jews are described as having white bodies, but black hearts (1025. 1050. Vol. VI), and as miscreants (1370.Vol. V), accursed (965. Vol. VI), merciless (990.Vol. VI) asses (1005.Vol. VI) with stony hearts (1030. Vol. VI).
From Book V, Story X:
Those who lapse from repentance, in forgetfulness of their former experience, may be compared to the Jews changed into apes and swine by ‘Isa. [Isa is Arabic for Jesus.]
This is a glaring example of the Islamization of Knowledge. Considine’s own knowledge of this poet, Rumi, has been so “Islamized” that he blithely presents views of Rumi that are utterly mistaken on the facts. All facts that put Islam in a bad light appear to have been “Islamized,” i.e. removed from Considine’s own knowledge. Note: the cost of an American University undergraduate degree is $72,000.
Through his own works, and through the works of his students and research associates, Ahmed is seeking to Islamize the knowledge of the American people, by deceiving them into thinking that Rumi represents a centuries-old Islamic tradition of, in Considine’s terms, “love, compassion and tolerance,” when in fact Rumi is nothing of the kind.
Much Ado About Nothing?
Prof. Ahmed begins his own response in his piece entitled Much Ado About Nothing, by invoking ad hominum and invective: “Some notorious bloggers who spread hatred against and fear of Muslims have recently raised questions about my work after the publication of my book Journey into America last summer.”
I am not the first to draw attention to Professor Akbar Ahmed. Former Pentagon Specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, Stephen Coughlin lists Akbar Ahmed as a member of Muslim Brotherhood entities: IIIT and AMSS, in a 2007 Analysis of Muslim Brotherhood’s General Strategic Goals for North America Memorandum. The Global Muslim Brotherhood Report also has had several articles in recent years associating Prof. Akbar Ahmed with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ahmed has now been exposed in two shocking attempts to Islamize the knowledge of the American people. The first was his attempt to cause Americans to believe incorrectly that the Founding Fathers admired Islam. The second is his attempt to convince Americans that Rumi represents a centuries-old Islamic tradition of “love, compassion and tolerance,” when in fact Rumi is nothing of the kind.
Still say it’s much ado about nothing, Professor?
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.