| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Dhimmitude in the Netherlands: Jihad Watch reader Willem has kindly sent in this English translation of a news item in the Dutch newspaper Trouw, published yesterday.
Willem explains:
It concerns a case of censorship of a Dutch professor for daring to criticize Islam. To my knowledge this has not happened before in the Netherlands, and I think it deserves the widest possible publicity.I think this is a deeply worrying development, the more so as it comes on the heels of a report commissioned by the Dutch government and published last Wednesday in which it is recommended to deal in a more "flexible" manner with "secularism" in order to provide Muslims with more space. Which is, of course, a coded way of saying that criticism of Islam should be off limits.
The subject of Dr. Van der Horst's lecture was "The Myth of Jewish Cannibalism," a reference, of course, to the so-called Jewish Blood Libel myth. As far as I can see the other Dutch national newspapers have virtually ignored this news. An exception is NRC-Handelsblad which printed a few lines on page 3 that will only be clear to the initiated.
And here is the translation:
"Islamic antisemitism / Censorship of professor’s farewell lecture"Trouw, 18 June 2006
Prof. dr. Pieter W. van der Horst has deleted passages on modern Islamic Antisemitism from his farewell lecture, which he gave yesterday in Utrecht.
The University Board had urged Van der Horst to adjust his farewell lecture, according to Van der Horst out of fear for negative responses from Muslims.
The profesor of New Testament Studies, who is since 1969 a member of Utrecht University’s Faculty of Theology, is very indignant about the affair, calling it “an outrageous infringement of my academic liberty”.
The text of the lecture landed quite some time ago on the desk of Prof. Dr. W.H. Gispen, rector magnificus of Utrecht University. Van der Horst was called to justify himself before a commision of four. In the Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad he says: “The Muslim students might make trouble, the rector could ‘not even guarantee my safety’, the lecture was ‘below scholarly standards’.”
In his farewell lecture ‘The Myth of Jewish Cannibalism’ Van der Horst wanted to call attention among other things to “a great global problem, namely that part of the Islamic world has taken over the torch of hatred for the Jews from the nazis and is carrying it forward enthusiastically. The Islamisation of European Antisemitism is one of the most horrendous developments of the last decades.”
In the incriminated passage the professor foresaw he would be accused of ‘islamophobia’. “But one should never close one’s eyes to matters one does not like to see or which don’t fit a picture of the world that is often determined by ideological blinkers.”
In a written response, the University Board confirms the interview with the departing professor. “In that interview Van de Horst was urged (not forbidden) not to pronounce certain passages because they did not form part of a scholarly discourse and by their nature should not form part of of an academic farewell lecture.
The University Board says it regrets Van der Horst views the advice as a restriction of academic liberty.
Posted by Robert at June 18, 2006 6:28 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Prof. dr. Pieter W. van der Horst should simply have refused to give in.... either speech in full or no speech. As for the coward, let's use the proper word, Prof. Dr. W.H. Gispen, rector magnificus of Utrecht University, he should be ashamed of himself. He is selling his own freedom first, the dhimmi lackey.
Posted by: Turbinehead![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 18, 2006 8:03 AM
One of the great Reformation-Enlightenment universities clamping down on religious criticism could not be a clearer signal. EUrope is entering a new Dark Age which promises to be darker than the last one.
Posted by: Beagle at June 18, 2006 10:40 AM
I think dialogue is needed between the professor and the university board. If they could only discuss this they would realize that their differences are really slight:
The Professor:
"The Islamisation of European Antisemitism is one of the most horrendous developments of the last decades."
The University:
"Mentioning the Islamisation of European Antisemitism is one of the most horrendous developments of the last decades.”
at June 18, 2006 11:11 AM
But, this deleted (anti-"Satanic") passage is the perfect thing to be in a "Farewell Address".
Because it signals a farewell to Civilization.
Abetted by the lafaards in Utrecht.
That's "cowards" in Dutch.
(A word that they will probably want to Orwellianly remove from the Nederlands Woordenboek [or "Dutch Dictionary"] shortly... to pre-emptively prevent the accusation.)
Lafaards! Cowards!
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 18, 2006 1:15 PM
"The Islamisation of European Antisemitism is one of the most horrendous developments of the last decades.”
THAT is unscholarly. This is the disease of self-loathing Europe, and those Secularist Zealots and Fanatics in the West. We see the Anglican prelates, the Presbyterians, even some Catholics and those like this "profesor of New Testament Studies, who is since 1969 a member of Utrecht University’s Faculty of Theology" conflating "European Antisemitism" with the 1300+ year old pattern of Islamic Genocide against Jews. It is SICKENING. It is also part of the reason Muslims look at 'the West' in European academica, the Press, and in Politics, and conclude that they see a culture which is homorrhaging its legacy, and rife for conquest. The eating machine of Islam is not dumb and insensate in this regard only -- a primitive shark is a genius when it comes to attacking and eating its prey.
Posted by: jsla at June 18, 2006 1:27 PM
I meant to type "ripe", not rife, though Europe is certainly rife too.
Posted by: jsla at June 18, 2006 1:29 PM
How nice it would be if Professor van der Horst were to deliver the full, uncensored text of his final lecture to an academic audience elsewhere.
Is it conceivable that, for example, Harvard Diviinity School's faculty, ignoring the machinations of William A. Graham (its accidental Dean), and Diana Eck (friend of Karen Armstrong, who spoke at her wedding, and director of that grant-getting underatking, the "Pluralism Project"), and of cousre of Leila Ahmad, might extend an invitation to Prof. van der Horst? Might Boston University's School of Theology do so, for surely Paula Fredericks and others would like to hear Prof. Van Der Horst? What about Boston College's Jesuits? Or what about the Epicopal Theological Seminary, or Andover Theological Seminary, or Princeton Theological Seminary, and all the seminaries across the land, where Prof. van der Horst might give that farewell speech the full text of which was denied him, and his students?
Unlikely to be any attention paid to this by the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, the Association of University Professors, Irene Khan or Kenneth Roth or anyone else stoutly defending certain liberties of certain people throughout the world, and especially in the Western world, when that Western world attempt however maladroitly and half-heartedly to defend itself then the Jewish Theological Seminary, or seminaries.
In Holland, a celebrated professor of New Testament Theology is prevented by his own rector, rettore magnifico, on the advice of a committee, from delivering the full text of his farewell speech, because Prof. van der Horst wished to say something about the blood libel against the Jews, in time and in space, and does not limit it to little Hugh of Lincoln, or to the trial of Mendel Beilis in Russia (where defenders of Beilus included Kerensky, with the total support of every advanced and liberal Russian), or all the other examples in Western Christendom (see "Europe and the Jews" by Malcolm Hay), but also dares to talk of the existence, and the great menace, of Muslim antisemitism. The failure of Western non-Muslims to begin to see that as a problem, to connect the Lesser Jihad against Israel with the Greater Jihad which is only spurred on by the realization of the palpable abandonment of Israel by many in Western Europe, will harm the Jews of Europe, and in the end, of course, will destroy Europan civilization, such as it is, such as it was, such as it might still be.
Posted by: Hugh
at June 18, 2006 1:53 PM
It's a shame the Europeans don't have a few Charles Bronson clones walking around. Given the physical violence against citizens in the streets,coupled with these intolerant attacks on all RATIONAL forms of criticism, these leeches deserve to be looking over their shoulders for a change.
Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at June 18, 2006 3:29 PM
The Qurayza met their misfortune. In humiliation the Jews found no helper. A calamity worse than that which fell upon the Nadir befell them. On that day Mohammed came to them like a brilliant moon. We left them with blood upon them like a pool. They lay prostrate with the vultures circling round.
--- Ishaq:480
Shouldn't all Islamic texts be banned as hate speech?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at June 18, 2006 3:34 PM
APF-
Don't be an Islamophobe on Father's Day!
(CAIR's newest greeting card title, also.)
That's an inspirational spiritual message if you just read it rightly.
From the other side of the Koran, specifically.
(Interesting to know that Mohammad was a 'Moonie'.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 18, 2006 3:47 PM
The short answer to the question posed by Mr. Fitzgerald is a resounding "no." The fact of the matter is that the whole infrastructure mentioned in Mr. Fitzgerald's post - from Harvard Divinity School to the ACLU and Human Rights Watch - are part and pacel of the Gramscian left whose objective coincides with that of Islam: to undermine and destroy the foundations of the traditional west. The remarks of Dr. Van der Horst cannot be expressed because they fail the test of political correctness - a doctrine imposed in entire sectors of western life as vigorously as Sharia law is in the Umma.
As long as these people control the levers of power in every single western institution - be it political, academic, corporate, or military - Islam will continue its relentless advance, aided and abetted by these filthy traitors. The only reason the hard-core Marxist left hates liberals like Bush and Blair is because they aren't destroying what's left of the west and surrendering to the jihad fast enough. Make no mistake, both the hard left and the neo-Jacobin corporatists share the same objective in the long run. These folks are not reformable. I hold zero hope of any repentence on their part. In a way they are more evil than the jihadis themselves. While Muslims are blunt about their ultimate objective - even their deceptions are transparent, the traitors who aid them are always the ones preaching "tolerance", "diversity", and "multiculturalism." They deserve nothing less than the sword.
As long as western peoples continue to accept the lies that they have been spoon-fed for the last 50-60 years, there is no hope at all of stemming Islam's tide. Liberalism will never defeat Islam, for it cannot even bring itself to recognize Islam's nature. This is hardly surprising, as total nihilism lies at the core of both Islam and liberalism. For there to be any hope, westerners would have to recognize that their own culture is truly superior, they have a sacred duty to preserve their nations and people from destruction, and that taking positive action to do so will involve discrimination against the precious "other." It will also involve a necessary rejection of the vast tower of lies that permeate every aspect of western life and the complete overthrow of those whose have promoted and propagated the lies.
Posted by: Carolus at June 18, 2006 6:36 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)