This story demonstrates the effects of a poisonous alliance between Islamic radicals and some university faculty. The purpose of such behavior as that of Professor Spielberg and the "Muslim graduate students" she "alerted" about this novel is, via threats used as censorship, to make Islam--even here in the U.S., and in contrast to ALL other religions--immune from criticism.
That is, the purpose is to give Islam a *specially privileged* position and status in Western society, including in the U.S., a specially privileged status unlike that of ANY other religion here in the West, and comparable to the immunity Islam enjoys from being questioned in societies where Islam is dominant.
The poisonous connecting link between some university faculty and Islamic radicals is "multiculturalism"--whose precepts can (a) turn Muslims into "third world victims", while (b) they do not expect or require that *Muslims themselves* be multicultural (i.e., tolerant of the opinions of others).
The even larger question this story raises is this. The tradition of freedom of speech here in the West depends on everyone in our society accepting that some things will be said that will make you uncomfortable. You have to put up with it. But what if there is a significant minority that does NOT accept this covenant and will NOT put up with it? What if there is a minority that, if some members feel "uncomfortable" on a topic, responds with threats and violence? Since the primary duty of the government is above all to maintain social peace, the danger is that freedom of speech will in such a situation go by the boards. This is already happening in places such as Canada and Holland in regard to criticism of Islam. Less direct than outright suppression of freedom of speech by government are appeals to "responsibility". Translation: don't make Musllims angry. Anyone else must put up with criticism, yes--but they cannot, and so we must adjust.
Actions such as those described in this article constitute a grave threat to the tradition of freedom of speech.
Incidentally, no serious Muslim questions that Mushammad married Aisha when she was six and "consummated the marriage" when she was nine. That is the tradition.
This story demonstrates the effects of a poisonous alliance between Islamic radicals and some university faculty. The purpose of such behavior as that of Professor Spielberg and the "Muslim graduate students" she "alerted" about this novel is, via threats used as censorship, to make Islam--even here in the U.S., and in contrast to ALL other religions--immune from criticism.
ReplyDeleteThat is, the purpose is to give Islam a *specially privileged* position and status in Western society, including in the U.S., a specially privileged status unlike that of ANY other religion here in the West, and comparable to the immunity Islam enjoys from being questioned in societies where Islam is dominant.
The poisonous connecting link between some university faculty and Islamic radicals is "multiculturalism"--whose precepts can (a) turn Muslims into "third world victims", while (b) they do not expect or require that *Muslims themselves* be multicultural (i.e., tolerant of the opinions of others).
The even larger question this story raises is this. The tradition of freedom of speech here in the West depends on everyone in our society accepting that some things will be said that will make you uncomfortable. You have to put up with it. But what if there is a significant minority that does NOT accept this covenant and will NOT put up with it? What if there is a minority that, if some members feel "uncomfortable" on a topic, responds with threats and violence? Since the primary duty of the government is above all to maintain social peace, the danger is that freedom of speech will in such a situation go by the boards. This is already happening in places such as Canada and Holland in regard to criticism of Islam. Less direct than outright suppression of freedom of speech by government are appeals to "responsibility". Translation: don't make Musllims angry. Anyone else must put up with criticism, yes--but they cannot, and so we must adjust.
Actions such as those described in this article constitute a grave threat to the tradition of freedom of speech.
Incidentally, no serious Muslim questions that Mushammad married Aisha when she was six and "consummated the marriage" when she was nine. That is the tradition.
I thoroughly agree.
ReplyDelete