Hat tip to Creeping Sharia
Jamie Glazov, who also writes for Frontpage Magazine has written up an interview he conducted with George Aaron regarding the UCLA Law School and one of its professors, Khaled Abou el Fadl, of whom I have previously written.
creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/islamism-at-ucla-law-school
So we have a law professor at UCLA who favors sharia law, do we? I haven't heard of such nonsense coming out of a law school since I heard some UC Irvine law professor state a few months ago that collective bargaining rights for California state government employees had nothing to do with the state's budget problems.
Kudos to Mr Aaron for shining the spotlight on what is churning out our lawyers of tomorrow.
2 comments:
Gary, your citation to such a crassly demagoguic site calls into question whether you are a masochist, paranoid, or merely careless.
The fundamental problem with the George Aaron interview, which any teacher of English ought to be able to recognize, is that it NEVER states one empirical fact, nor cites one specific statement attributed to El Fadl. Perhaps there are some in the tangle of links, but anyone trying to make a case in an interview should be able to get down to brass tacks, not wave their arms and say "the evidence is out there." (I used to have to point that out to one "Truth Excavator" at Alexandria, and I doubt that you ever found much to admire in his rants.)
Words like "puff piece" and "stealth jihadist" are used, but what was puffy, and what stealthy, are not specified.
There is reference to "totally false smears," without stating the content of the smears, or what is false about them, and why we should believe Aaron rather than El Fadl.
Nowhere does Aaron tell us what words amount to "assiduously whitewashing and soft-soaping Sharia Islam." Nor does Aaron tell us how the words El Fadl used amount to "academic/scholastic misfeasance and malfeasance."
So, we have an unmitigated tautology, that Aaron is outraged that El Fadl is committing all these crimes against academic integrity, which we know, because Aaron says that his words are crimes against academic integrity, and since this is so, that is why Aaron says it, and therefore, something should be done about El Fadl.
HE MAY, FOR ALL I KNOW, BE UNFIT TO TEACH LAW, but the interview with Aaron would be an insult to any fish carcass it was wrapped around. What do I mean by that? I mean that Aaron has stated a case made up entirely of characterization, without one shred of evidence, relying mostly on the fact that others have made similar ad hominem statements.
Aaron caps it off in his reply to the dean. Aaron characterizes that El Fadl "obfuscates rather than clarifies a subject of study by engaging in subpar scholarship and outright deception." Nowhere does he identify what is obfuscation, why it is obfuscation, how it is therefore subpar scholarship, and what is outright deception, which would require pointing out specific lies, and proving that these statements are demonstrably, factually, untrue.
Generally, you and others who worship this sort of vague accusation call any description of Sharia other than the one you love to pillory a misleading or inaccurate characterization. If I want to know what Roman Catholic Doctrine is, I will ask the Pope, or his designated representatives. If I find THAT reprehensible, I will say "In the Pope's own words..." and explain why I disagree. I will not, however, put words in the Pope's mouth. Likewise, I will not characterize "Sharia" as "whatever an avowed enemy of Islam says it is."
Sharia is a vague term, developed after Muhammed, and has almost as many definitions as there are Muslims. Therefore, anyone either proposing to impose it, or horrified that it might be imposed, are way off base.
Aaron's characterization of how "the world is divided" between Muslims and Kafirs is so inconsistent with numerous passages in the Qu'ran, and historically documented practice of Muslim caliphates, as to rank right up there with the manner in which Jews are characterized in "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion."
It also remains unclear, from what Aaron says, whether El Fadl teaches a course on Sharia, as part of the curriculum, or gives informal lectures on it, as a sideline. That makes a big difference. I would question teaching ANY course on it in ANY accredited law school, because it is not LAW, any more than kashrut is. I suppose if the school has a section on church governance, the better to train lawyers to argue First Amendment cases, a course on RC canon, kashrut, and the various interpretations and applications of Sharia, would be appropriate, but only on that foundation.
Post a Comment