Here we see more of the war against reality that is pandemic on college and university campuses today. University of Wisconsin Madison student Ali Khan was “livid” because the class discussed “Islam and the West,” “The origins of Jihad,” “Al Qaida,” “9/11,” “The Islamic State” and “Jihad in Africa,” even though it also discussed the KKK and other non-Islamic terror groups. Khan complains: “There’s a whole module titled ‘Jihad.’ This legitimizes a perception that the concept of Jihad is one-dimensional, single-faceted, and inherently violent and connected to terrorism.” No, it doesn’t, although his complaint is a commonly repeated one. To study jihad in this context is simply to recognize that jihad is what jihad terrorists say they’re doing. To refuse to acknowledge that or to study it because of some a priori view that Islam is a religion of peace and jihad means taking the kids to school or blowing milk bubbles through a straw is to cut oneself off from understanding the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists as they state it. Why should the study of their self-perception be off-limits?
Khan adds: “Will we be discussing the different types of jihad (by the heart, tongue, and hand)? Is the professor an Islamic scholar who can accurately speak about jihad?” Why should those be discussed, except insofar as they are relevant to the discussion of jihad terrorism? Does a discussion of the Mafia’s self-professed Catholic identity have to include material about Catholic charitable activities? Khan’s underlying assumption is that the university is obligated to portray Islam in a favorable light, and if any negative information is presented, then it has to be balanced with positive material. This assumption seems to be shared also among the establishment media. But why must this be so? Why can’t there be a study of jihad terrorism in a dispassionate, accurate manner, without further considerations of how people are going to think about Islam one way or the other?