The Contrarian: A Podcast Interview With Professor Khaleel Mohammed


The diary below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal, yesterday September 16th when this interview took place.

San Diego University's Associate Professor of Religion, Khaleel Mohammed, PH.D is a controversy magnet. Born in the South American republic of Guyana and educated at Montreal's McGill University, Professor Mohammed is a Muslim who believes Israel belongs to the Jews. Indeed, Professor Mohammed even references the Koran to support this claim. In an interview with FrontPageMagazine.com two years ago, he cited this passage:

The Koran in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: `Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers.'"

Professor Mohammed also contends that violence in the Muslim world stems from politics not the Islamic faith. His opinions have provoked sharp rebukes from scholars who insist that Jihad, Anti-Semitism and fundamentalism are directly linked to the Koran itself. The academic believes those who link fundamentalism with the Koran are Islamophobes.

On June 25, 2004, he participated in a symposium sponsored by FrontPageMagazine.com with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and author Bat Ye'or. They engaged in a fascinating debate about the Koran's semantics and politics in the Muslim world. Since that symposium the debate between Professor Mohammed and Robert Spencer has grown personal.

Overall, Professor Mohammed has two categories of critics: westerners such as Robert Spencer who regard him as an Islamic apologist and Muslims who believe him to be disloyal to their culture.

The professor considers himself a scholarly advocate for moderate Islam and he graciously agreed to an interview with me.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THIS PODCAST


______________________________________________________________________________

ADDENDUM: Although Professor Mohammed is new to the blogosphere he expressed interest in both reviewing and responding to the comments of others. I hope he is able to. Also, please note that his website which I hyperlink above has not been updated and lists his title as "Assistant Professor" instead of "Associate Professor." Hence, I mistakenly introduced him with the incorrect title during the podcast.


Intrepid Libera... September 17, 2006 - 9:55am

The modernizing of Islam is going to be a very, very slow process because universal religion is a rational trap: the most progressive scholars have to keep quoting the Quran to make advances. Since these advances don't break out of the Quran, they can reverse at any time. It's sort of like when women had to make their equality claims by talking around Paul.

Manifest Dignity

breakingranks September 17, 2006 - 1:27pm

Professor Mohammed is a Muslim who believes Israel belongs to the Jews.

The official opinions around Israel say that Zionism must go. They don't exactly say that Israel must go.

What's the opinion of this Mohammed about Zionism exactly?

Professor Mohammed even references the Koran to support this claim.

Well, some Jews read Torah:

May 1998 marked the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Zionist state called "Israel". True Torah Jews held a rally in Manhattan to demonstrate their opposition to Zionism. Several reknowned Rabbis addressed the crowd, in English and in Yiddish.

From http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm

-- Happy fishing in ocean of noise!

Gandalf September 17, 2006 - 2:34pm

but if you listen to the interview he does say that he supports Israel's right to exist. He's also very critical of their actions in Lebanon. I would surmise that he supports a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.

I don't necessarily endorse are agree with all his opinions. He's a thoughtful man opposed to bigotry against Muslims and an advocate for moderate Islam that facilitates enlightenment and not violence. That to me is somebody worth talking, listening and engaging with. So read his material and listen to the interview.

Intrepid Libera... September 17, 2006 - 2:52pm

in Amy Waldman's recent Atlantic article on the trial of Hamid Hayat. The article - a very good one, I think - is at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610/waldman-islam

"...So critical did the prosecution believe the prayer was to its case that it called an expert, Khaleel Mohammed, a Guyanese-born, Saudi-trained scholar, to interpret it, at $250 an hour. Mohammed is an assistant professor of religious studies at San Diego State University and is best known for asserting that, according to the Koran, Israel belongs to the Jews. Most other Islamic scholars find that position politically unpalatable and scholastically indefensible. As a result, Mohammed is quite possibly more popular with Jewish groups than with Muslim ones. His testimony on the supplication was clear, consistent, and definitive.

“In your opinion, is this supplication peaceful?” another prosecutor, Laura Ferris, asked. “It’s not peaceful,” Mohammed answered. “Why do you say that?” Ferris asked. Mohammed replied:

"...Because every—just about every commentary I checked puts it in a case where someone who is in jihad makes this supplication, someone who is at war with a perceived enemy. The common phrase gives the explanation that it is to be used when in activity against an enemy. ..."

[snip]

I asked other scholars about the prayer. Mohammed had testified that it was not common—“something almost secretive,” were his words—so I was surprised when the first three people I sent it to replied immediately that they recognized it, and called it very common. Bernard Haykel, the NYU professor who had testified in the Detroit case, wrote:

"The bit you sent me is a very canonical and widely used Sunni (originally Prophetic) Islamic invocation or supplication in the event a Muslim is in fear of something or someone. It is in no way exclusive to terrorists or to Jihadis, though the latter no doubt also use it."

His translation was roughly the same as Mohammed’s, but with the caveat that “the Arabic expression ‘to be at their throats or chests’ means ‘to confront them.’”

Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary, wrote:

"I recognized the words right away. It is a traditional supplication that you will find in many, many collections of prayers … This particular supplication you have sent me is reported to have been said by the Prophet when he feared harm from a group of people."

All her prayer books gave the same reason for saying it: “to ask God’s protection from people who might do you harm.” It was certainly possible that someone with nefarious intentions would have such a prayer in his pocket, Mattson said, “but the prayer itself is a ‘defensive’ prayer; it does not, in itself, connote a desire to do harm."

I sent the prayer to Salman Masood, a Pakistani who reports for The New York Times from Islamabad. He too recognized it right away: “It is a very common prayer,” he wrote in an e-mail, “which in a very rough translation asks Allah to save one from the evil of enemies.” In a book titled The Prophet’s Prayers, Masood found this translation: “Oh Allah, we pray that you put fear in the hearts of our enemies and ask for your protection against their mischief.” (The Muslim Students Association/University of Southern California hadith database gives still another translation: “O Allah, we make thee our shield against them, and take refuge in Thee from their evils.”) Masood also found the prayer in a small booklet that teaches how to say the five daily prayers of Islam; it had a subsection with this supplication. The booklet said that “this prayer should be said ‘when you have the fear of enemies,’” Masood wrote. “It’s a very common prayer, and yes, I would say that many Pakistanis know about it.”

ScottM September 18, 2006 - 4:23pm

Ms waldman strangely never confronted me with these allegations of Muslims who suddenly found a prayer that even Professors of islamic studies in Pakistan say they did not know about! If I did indeed lie, then the matter is simple..a case could be made by the defence for perjury. But they cannot do that because of a simple fact of law: I had made available to them all the information and research i had on the matter. Suffice it to say that AFTER the prayer surfaced, it was widely distributed on the internet. Suffice it to say that I studied and lived in the middle east...and have prayed at mosques throughout the world..and I assert that those who say the prayer is a common one are simply either outrageously lying or going on what is NOW available on the internet sites about the use of the prayer post-9.11.
As for scholars who find my interpretation of 5.21 "scholastically indefensible" I have a simple answer: prove me wrong, don't make statements about what is or what is not defensible. Thus far, my arguments are simple: The text is clear and only by the most contortious refraction can it be seen to mean anything but that the land, according to the Q, belongs to the people of Moses. ALL the exegetes saw it that way..and the Qur'an CANNOT be interpreted by events that transpired post-Muhammad. ANd did the Defence lawyers not know of these Muslim viewpoints when presenting their arguments?
As to the acceptability by Jewish groups...if my scholarship is there, then I really don't care who supports or does not support it. If the Muslims in the US allow their voices to be usurped by those who are anti-Jewish, then that is their problem.

kmoham1 September 19, 2006 - 6:51pm

Koran says that the piece of land belongs to Jews (loosely speaking) and Torah says that a Jewish state anywhere is a sin.

I'm deeply satisfied with my atheism.

-- Happy fishing in ocean of noise!

Gandalf September 20, 2006 - 2:50pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.