Is political Islam a threat? Or merely a menace? The debate has raged since 9/11/01…and now it’s raging on Truth Jihad Radio! In light of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, we’ll discuss the myths and realities of political Islam with “political Islamophile” Dr. Fouzi Slisli, a genuine academic expert, and “political Islamophobe” Dr. Bill Warner, an…er…interesting autodidact.
First hour: Professor Fouzi Slisli, expert in political Islam. Fouzi Slisli is an interdisciplinary humanities’ scholar trained in the textual traditions of Islam and of Europe with a consistent focus on the relationship of religion to politics, literature and aesthetics. He received a BA in Literature from University Mohammed I in Morocco, an MA in Dramatic Studies and a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Essex in England. In the European tradition, his work focuses on the relationship of secular literature to religion and politics and he recently completed a book on this topic. In the Islamic tradition, his work focuses on the relationship of Islam to politics.His work confirms that religion cannot be dismissed as simple dogma, but is rather a complex ideological system whose understanding demands an interdisciplinary approach and rigorous textual and philosophical analysis. His work has been published in Race and Class, Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, The Journal of North African Studies, and his first book is currently under consideration at Syracuse University Press.
Second hour guest: Anti-Islam crusader Bill Warner. A math and physics Ph.D. and Religious Studies autodidact, Bill Warner has apparently been on a mission to denigrate Islam since September 12th, 2001. Some excerpts from his website:
“Dr. Warner’s training in scientific theory and mathematics shaped how he analyzed Islamic doctrine. The first step was realizing that the Islamic texts had been made deliberately difficult to read and comprehend.” He makes them easy to comprehend in such publications as:
Warner argues that those with knowledge about Islam draw that knowledge from people like him…while “The Party of Ignorance draws its arguments from what Muslims say about Islam.”
Can you imagine applying that hermeneutic to knowledge about, say, Judaism? “Knowledge” about Judaism would be what anti-Semites say; while “ignorance” would be anything based on what Jews themselves say. Or how about knowledge about the U.S.A.? Could we dismiss everything Americans themselves have ever said about the U.S.A., and build an interpretation based only on the words of hostile outsiders? Doesn’t this hermeneutic produce a rather one-sided, pejorative discourse on whatever subject it’s applied to? How will Bill Warner defend it? Tune in and find out…