Wednesday Notes

by Cliopatria

Carnivals: Four Stone Hearth XIII, the anthropology/ archaeology festival, is up at Tim Jones's remote central. If you hurry, it's not too late to nominate an excellent post in military history since 1 March for the first Military History Carnival. It goes up tomorrow at Gavin Robinson's Investigations of a Dog. Send nominations today to mhc1*at*4-lorn*dot*com, use the mailform, or use the carnival form.

Crazy Bill: Scott McLemee,"A Dish Best Served Cold," Inside Higher Ed, 11 April, looks at William Shakespeare's"batshit crazy play", Titus Andronicus.

Race/Gender: The Duke lacrosse case will end today with the dismissal of the two remaining charges against the three young men. As that case neared its end, the case against Don Imus takes its place in the headlines. It is as if we cannot be without a race/gender-related public outrage to feed personal outrage. Cliopatria's friend, Claire Potter, who blogs at Tenured Radical, and our colleague, KC Johnson, blogging at Durham-in-Wonderland, mix it up over the issues. For my part, I think that the gender issues in both cases trump the race issues. I don't understand why women at Duke tolerate a party-life that accepts the hiring of strippers as normal. It's also disgraceful for commenters at KC's site to flaunt racist and sexist attitudes and inappropriate for them to post Professor Potter's e-mail address. I argued with KC from the beginning about this case, but his larger work in exposing the charges against the lacrosse players as fraudulent has been heroic. Congratulations, KC.

Elsewhere: Tariq Ramadan of St. Anthony's College, Oxford, gave the first of three lectures via satellite video at Georgetown yesterday."European colonialism, political manipulation by Middle Eastern autocrats and the influence of minority Islamic groups he described as ‘literalists'," have created tension, rooted in history, between Islam and democracy, he noted. But Ramadan listed"five ‘indisputable' principles of Islam that are also fundamentals of democracy: the rule of law, equal rights for all citizens, universal suffrage, accountability of government and separation of powers."

PSAs: Hey, a belated happy 3rd birthday to sepoy's Chapati Mystery! And the new address for Miland Brown's blog is World History Blog. Please adjust your blogrolls and browsers accordingly.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

I. Ahmad Khawaja - 4/12/2007

Mr Green,

You might find this item on Tariq Ramadan to be of some interest:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/13136.html

As for the issue of defamation, I would not take Ralph Luker very seriously on that subject (or any subject). He, Jonathan Dresner and Rick Shenkman had me thrown off of HNN last year on the same grounds--this after Luker brazenly lied about me on this site in full view of several witnesses. Confronted repeatedly with evidence of his mendacity, he evaded the issue and told me at last to go away. Evasion and appeals to authority are his areas of specialization. (Naturally, HNN has deleted the entire record of this exchange--very convenient for them, and revelatory of their attitude toward debate and evidence.)

Don't let him intimidate you. His view of "HNN's guidelines" is purely opportunistic: he wields them to squelch speech he doesn't like, and violates them with impunity because he knows he can; who here has the courage or integrity to insist that he do otherwise? The answer, I'm afraid, is: no one.

In fact, none of what you've said above is "defamatory" or even close to it. My suggestion, however, is that you recognize ahead of time the fraudulence of the people who run this site and realize that if you keep challenging them as you have, they will keep treating you as they have. Don't take my word for it; just try the hypothesis on for size and see how long you last. The important thing to see is that the problem derives from them, not you.

Irfan Khawaja

Jonathan Dresner - 4/11/2007

It seems that freedom of speech does have its limits.

You're just figuring this out now?

Alan Allport - 4/11/2007

I have deleted the worst of the comments.

Good grief; so the ones that remain aren't even the worst?

Ralph E. Luker - 4/11/2007

Mr. Green, Defamation is against the law. Calling Finkelstein a "Nazi" was defamation by anyone's definition. And that's how you began and, even after being warned, you persisted in it. Neither Finkelstein, Ramadan, nor I defamed you. Defamation is beyond "undesireable speech". It is illegal speech in American law. If you can't abide by HNN's guidelines for comments, you won't be allowed to comment here.

Elliott Aron Green - 4/11/2007

I feel that I have been defamed. Be that as it may, you might consider the contradiction between, on one hand, suppressing undesired comments by a blogmaster, and on the other, championing freedom of speech for a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman [Tariq Ramadan] whose speech many consider undesirable. It seems that freedom of speech does have its limits.

Ralph E. Luker - 4/11/2007

Mr. Green, If you can remain civil and do not defame people who disagree with you with ad hominem remarks, you will be allowed to comment at Cliopatria. Otherwise, your comments will be deleted, as they were the last time you commented here. In fact, if you persist in defamation, you will be banned from commenting at HNN altogether.
The quotations are from the Washington Post article that I linked to and don't claim to be direct quotes of Ramadan, himself.
I don't need your instruction about dhimmitude by you. It is comparable to the subordinate status once occupied by Jews (or Muslims) in the Christian states of Europe and considerably better than the assumption of enslavement that African Americans experienced in most of the history of the United States.
No one claims that you must accept what Ramadan says uncritically. The refusal of your government to allow him to come to the United States and teach, however, betrays a fear of freedom.

Elliott Aron Green - 4/11/2007

I believe that Luker correctly quoted Tariq Ramadan, when he claimed that there are:

"five ‘indisputable' principles of Islam that are also fundamentals of democracy: the rule of law, equal rights for all citizens, universal suffrage, accountability of government and separation of powers."

What I would like to know is whether Luker takes Ramadan seriously. It seems that Ramadan is saying what Westerners want to hear. But he is being disingenuous in the extreme. Indeed, Islam does support the rule of law, Islamic law, shari`ah. This law holds that non-Muslims are inferior in rights and must be inferior in rights.
Further, in a truly Islamic state, can the non-Muslim --the dhimmi be a citizen at all? Someone should clarify that issue with Ramadan. Did his grandfather who founded the Muslim Brotherhood believe in the equality of non-Muslims or their eligibility for equal citizenship in the Islamic state? Perhaps Prof Luker could look up dhimma in the Encyclopedia of Islam, and get a view on the economic exploitation, humiliation, and inferiority that the non-Muslims in Muslim states have been subject to. The Encyc of Islam tends to edulcorate and embellish its subject, but the info it contains should be enough to show up Tariq Ramadan as the disingenuous propagandist that he is.

Ralph E. Luker - 4/11/2007

Thanks, KC. I was pretty sure that you were pre-occupied and not able to moderate the comments as usual.

Robert KC Johnson - 4/11/2007

Ralph's absolutely right about the comments.

I was, unfortunately, traveling today (to the Triangle), and forgot to put the blog's comments moderation on before I departed, so several hours worth of comments went unmoderated. I have deleted the worst of the comments.