I attended the presentation by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders on Temple’s Main Campus on Tuesday, October 20. He touched on the concept of free speech, however, it came over as a mere ruse in an effort to spew his anti-Islam, anti-Muslim rhetoric. Free speech is valued; however, free speech should not be used as an umbrella for hate speech.
I tried to take down significant points that would be refuted during the MSA’s pre-planned Peace Not Prejudice week, scheduled for November.
Wilders highlighted things that he readily admitted did not represent all Muslims. He validated his scare tactic by saying that he separates Muslims from Islam. For Muslims, the ideology of Islam is what defines us. Anyone who attempts to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims demonstrates a lack of understanding of what Islam is and what being a Muslim means. We get our title of Muslims because we have adopted Islam as our way of life. To claim that there is “no such thing as moderate Islam” is to discount the fact that Muslims are encouraged in the Qur’an that this is a religion of balance and moderation and are encouraged by the Prophet to seek a balanced way and not be too extreme.
Wilders made two other significant generalizations. The two emotionally sensitive practices he mentioned were female circumcision and honor killing. As one student aptly pointed out, these two practices are tribal and cultural practices that are not sanctioned by Islam.
Muslims deplore when people who have political or social agendas use religion as an excuse for inflicting harm and pain on others. National Muslim organizations, professors, and others have repeated this ad nauseam. Historically people have attempted to violently silence others because they disagree. Many of the world’s leaders who transformed people, such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, have been assassinated because others were intolerant of their views. This is a human condition, not an Islamic one.
Discrimination is not endemic to Islam. It is endemic to an intolerant worldview – very akin to the worldview Wilders and Horowitz espouse. Extremist views are not endemic to Muslim societies, nor are they alien to the divisively-labeled western countries. Extremist, intolerant and xenophobic leaders have emerged in the Middle East, Asia, Israel, U.K., U.S. and now in the Netherlands.
It was refreshing to see Temple students show Wilders and Horowitz that intolerance is unwelcomed.
Horowitz and Wilders should do some research before coming to a research institution. However, they learned firsthand why Temple is heralded as one of the most diverse campuses. Temple might offer some of the lowest tuition rates, but this is one case in which you get a lot more than what you pay for.
Thank you Temple students for making your voices heard, and thank you Temple administration for reassuring all parties that they can continue feeling safe and welcomed at Temple.
College of Education
It is ridiculous that presenting real extremists Muslims and their own words and actions are hate speech. The extremist hate and desire to conquer, for them dialogues and negotiations are only a tool to achieve their goals. Freedom of speech and diversity prevailed because of courageous students from Temple University Purpose and many, many others—who are not acknowledged because of the bias of the media—who stood for principles and constitutional rights. Justice prevailed again as it prevails every time when the people of the United States of America, do not compromise our rights and freedoms in the name of diversity demanded by the ones who practice it the least.
Who are the bigots?
“Hamas in their own voices”
Extermination of Jews and Americans, who are the bigots?
Cute little girl indoctrinated to hate
Jihad on Campus – Saudis’ Multi-Million Dollar PR Agenda
Jihad against Muslims who became Christians
Islamic Revolution | International Quds Day 2009
Who are the bigots?
I’d also like to point out how bigotted, ignorant and intolerant it is of Qaiser to condemn the spiritual commitment of Muslims who observe honor killing fatwas.
By what authority does Qaiser excommunicate (takfir) his devout jihadist brethren— as “not sanctioned by Islam”— when they practice “honor killing” to enforce sharia fatwas?
Again, the prerogative to issue apostacy fatwas is granted only to his dead false prophet, or authoritative representatives of his mythical Ummah. Which one is Qaiser invoking?
Have his MSA handlers of the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood approved Qaiser’s anti-jihadist fatwa?
Now before MSA apologists pull out their canned answer (that the Koran doesn’t command honor killings), let’s review the evidence. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR4107
In the showcase “moderate” state of Jordan, penal code, Article 340 (hyperlinked above) states: “(a) He who discovers his wife, or one of his maharim [female relatives of such a degree of consanguinity as precludes marriage], while committing adultery with another man and kills, wounds, or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty; (b) He who discovers his wife, or one of his sisters or female relatives, with another in an illegitimate bed, and kills, wounds, or injures [one or both of them] benefits from a reduction of penalty.”
The Jordanian Islamic Action Front (IAF) issued a fatwa that declared honor-killings are seen as favorable by Islam; male relatives should punish their female relatives and not leave this duty to the state. Ibrahim Zayd al-Kaylani, head of the IAF’s Ifta committee, said that a man who restrains himself from committing an honor killing, leaving this unpleasant burden to the government, “negates the values of virility advocated by Islam.” Article 340, Kaylani added, is based on “the Islamic principle that allows a Muslim to defend his honor, property, and blood.” Muhammad ‘Uwayda, dean of Zarqa University’s Shari’a College and a member of the lower house, stated that while the Shari’a does prohibit individuals from taking the law into their own hands, “cases where a man catches his wife committing adultery are the exception.” The IAF issued a fatwa to the effect that “canceling Article 340 would contradict the Shari’a.”
Thus, we see the showcase “moderate” state of Jordan has declared that honor-killings are part of Islamic dogma.
I do not intend to go into the range of legal doctrines circumscribing Muslim immorality laws. Suffice it to say, Westerners are well aware of the campaign to hide these (and other) shameful aspects of your religion of mysogyny.
In point of fact, it is Qaiser’s co-religionists (not Americans) who remain unaware of his moderate/rejectionist views forbidding “the action of force”— as evidenced by the ubiquity of this practice in Muslim cultures globally.
Muslims like Qaiser can chew the carpet and mutter the Koran until they’re blue in the face, hoping to discern truths from the illiterate, psychotic babblings of a dead false prophet. But don’t expect Westerners to waste our breath convincing his co-religionists.
Qaiser needs to refute his jihadist brethren (who typically don’t read the Temple News)— which shouldn’t be difficult in light of his rejection of Wilder’s observation that honor killings for rape are in line with Islamic teachings.
But despite a great deal of bluster, there is no large-scale organized movement of Muslims countering the jihadist doctrines— and no coherent moderate Muslim theology that teaches against jihad or the subjugation of women on Islamic grounds.
Islam’s sharia law system is ossified and unchangeable. The values put forward and acted upon by the culture of “honor killings” are mandated by the Koran and praised in the hadiths, Sira, and by hundreds of thousands of scholars and billions of Muslim voices that have exhorted death for immorality over the ages. Indeed, public execution of women for immorality (adultery, etc.) is commanded— and widely practiced in the Muslim world.
Instead of smugly lecturing Westerners, Qaiser should go to Gaza— or Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Paris banlieue, etc., ad nauseum— and try challenging his co-religionists about how honor killings misinterpret the Koran. Any guesses how long Qaiser’s apostacy would be tolerated?
After reading another article of Mr.Qaiser Abdullah I discovered that he is the same Qaiser Abdullah who wrote a comment against the post from the outstanding graduate student, Nathan Shrader. Why am I surprised and condemning that Mr. Qaiser Abdullah wrote this comment? He is an adjunt professor at the college of education!!! He is openly expressing his bias and attacking a student who is courageous to stand for what is right and constitutional. I am a non-traditional student who have experienced being in class with this kind of professors and I resent the one way brain wash they are imposing on their students. Can you see why so many Americans who attend higher learning institutions hate their country?