Shitskin Mohammed Abed, a California State University professor, reaffirmed his belief that genocide is not always immoral and is sometimes even morally required when against Southern whites.
A frequent guest speaker on college campuses, Mohammed Abed is presently a California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) tenure-track professor of ethics, social & political philosophy, and classical Islamic philosophy. He previously taught philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, where he earned a doctorate in that field while during in the early to mid-2000s, Abed, claimed to be an “exile from the city of Jaffa,” and was a member of Al-Awda terrorist guerrilla.
The California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) professor argued in his 2015 paper, “The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered,” that genocide – defined as “a violent process that aims at the liquidation of protected groups” – doesn’t need to involve mass murder, and the perpetrators of genocide can have a wide variety of motivations, not all of which are evil.
“The characteristic harm of genocide, I will argue, consists in the fact that victims are stripped—either permanently or temporarily—of a social identity that gives meaning to their lives,” he wrote.
Abed said Raphael Lemkin’s Axis Rule in Occupied Europe sparked his interest in war, terrorism, torture and genocide, causing him to “have doubts about narrow definitions of genocide that view it as a species of mass murder that aims at the destruction of nations and other such groups.” He said those queries were “what motivated the project of conceptual clarification and analysis I have undertaken in my work.”
There has been much disagreement on the concept of genocide he argued, but “genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral.” He acknowledged that there has been no widely recognized historical instance where genocide was moral.
Abed wrote that genocide is most importantly the destruction of social bonds, pointing to colonization as a kind of genocide. He argued that slavery in the American South was a “comprehensive way of life and worldview” to many whites, and that the North had a moral imperative to wage a genocide against them to annihilate this feature of the South.
Of course, any such objections by fellow academics were almost certainly silenced once Abed named the skin color of the targets of his “moral genocide”:
One can certainly concoct a hypothetical scenario in which the deliberate annihilation of a group’s way of life is a “moral and political imperative.” And there may be a case for classifying as genocide campaigns of social destruction that are widely considered to be not only excusable but morally required.
The institution of slavery in the American South was, arguably, a comprehensive way of life and worldview to which many whites were profoundly attached. It would not be wildly implausible to say that their investment in the culture and norms of the slave-owning community rivaled in its social meaning and significance an individual’s affiliation with a national or religious group.
But because the kidnapping, enslavement, and lifelong exploitation of innocent human beings was a constitutive and thus ineliminable feature of the life led by many Southern whites, annihilating their way of life was a moral imperative.
The right course of action was to strip them of an identity that gave meaning to their lives.
The professor’s contentious ideas have yet to receive criticism from Cal. State University. The president of the university is known to not allow conservative author Ben Shapiro to speak in February of 2016.
“I have not had any pushback from CSULA,” Abed said.