It’s great that Rutgers apologized. Usually universities and colleges shun those who have been smeared as “Islamophobes,” with no right of appeal or any chance for open discussion.
But note this: “The petition calling on the school to block Daftari misquoted the 2015 speech she gave at the Heritage Foundation when she said ‘Islamic terror claims to take its teaching from the Quran.’ The petition left out the word ‘claims,’ changing the meaning of her words and claiming she was ‘hate-mongering’ by ‘equating Muslims everywhere with ISIS.'”
There are numerous problems with this. If Lisa Daftari had actually said that “Islamic terror takes its teaching from the Quran,” would this mean that she was “hate-mongering” by “equating Muslims everywhere with ISIS”? Neither of those claims make any sense. The statement she made, and the statement she was misrepresented as making, are both statements about the Qur’an, which is a book that is publicly available and that anyone can read. Apparently it is not “hate-mongering” to say that “Islamic terror claims to take its teaching from the Quran,” but it is “hate-mongering” to say that “Islamic terror takes its teaching from the Quran.” So it seems that one must believe that the Qur’an does not teach terrorism, or else one is guilty of “hate-mongering.”
Why must this be so? The Qur’an has Allah saying that he will strike terror in the unbelievers (3:151), and that he inspired the angels to strike terror into unbelievers (8:12), and that Muslims should strike terror in unbelievers (8:60). Must one ignore this or explain it away, and deny the plain and obvious fact that Islamic jihadists cite the Qur’an to justify their acts of violence and terror, or else be charged with “hate-mongering”? Cannot one read a book and come to a particular understanding of it, and an entirely reasonable and well-supported one at that, without there being a moral judgment on his interpretation?
And how would seeing the Qur’an as inciting Islamic terror be “equating Muslims everywhere with ISIS”? Is noting that the New Testament tells Christians to love their enemies and turn the other cheek equating Christians everywhere with Mother Theresa? There is the book, and there are the people. Any individual Muslim may or may not live by this or that teaching of the book, just as any individual Christian may nor may not live by any given teaching of his or her holy book.
This is the muddled thinking that prevails in universities today. But anyway, Lisa Daftari only said that Islamic terror claims its inspiration from the Qur’an, not that Islamic terror actually has any connection to the Qur’an, and so she is acceptable to speak at Rutgers. Universities are places where ideas are evaluated on their merits, but only some ideas, you see. And fewer and fewer all the time.
“Rutgers apologizes for canceling alum speech after she was branded ‘Islamophobe,’ ‘bigot,'” by Caleb Parke, Fox News, October 17, 2018:
Rutgers University has apologized to a foreign policy expert and alum of the school after they scrapped her university-sponsored speech initially scheduled for Tuesday following left-wing protests.
Lisa Daftari was invited to speak on “Radicalism on College Campuses,” but her talk was “postponed” by Rutgers officials with no explanation following a Change.org petition that slammed her as a “hate-mongering” “Islamophobe” and “bigot” before a dueling petition urged the school to let Daftari speak.
“A small handful of campus bullies decided that they can throw around the word ‘Islamophobia’ in an unethical and irresponsible way, because it is one of the social justice buzzwords, and get their way,” Daftari told Shannon Bream Friday on “Fox News @ Night.”
The petition calling on the school to block Daftari misquoted the 2015 speech she gave at the Heritage Foundation when she said “Islamic terror claims to take its teaching from the Quran.” The petition left out the word “claims,” changing the meaning of her words and claiming she was “hate-mongering” by “equating Muslims everywhere with ISIS.”
Following a media firestorm, Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Academic Affairs Ben Sifuentes-Jáuregui sent a letter Monday afternoon apologizing to Daftari and offering four new dates in November to reschedule her talk.
“I want to write to clear up any confusion regarding your invitation to speak at the University. To the degree that I may have contributed to the confusion, I hope you will accept my apology,” Sifuentes-Jáuregui wrote. “Such free and respectful discussion is fundamental to Rutgers’ core values and is practiced every day at Rutgers.”
But Daftari told Fox News she was unsatisfied.
“The university unilaterally canceled the event without looking into baseless allegations and falsified quotes,” Daftari said. “After the cancellation received considerable media and campus attention, Rutgers only proposed to reschedule the talk in an insincere, last-minute PR attempt to mitigate the appearance of bias.”…
mortimer says
Does Rutgers think ‘IT ISN’T BIGOTRY WHEN MUSLIMS DO IT?’
Is AL WALAA WAL BARAA also ‘bigotry’??? The hatred of KAFIRS ‘for the sake of Allah’ is an ESSENTIAL (non-optional) teaching of Islam.
RUTGERS’ LEADERS SHOULD INFORM THEMSELVES about ISLAM …
ISLAM HAS A DOCTRINE OF HATE: ‘AL BARAA’ = Islamic Apartheid, Shunning
‘Baraa’ is HATRED towards Kafirs ‘for the sake of Allah’…Al Bughoud or Al Mu’adaat (hatred) is the opposite of Al Muwalaat (love towards Muslims). Baraa is:
– To Hate
– To keep distance from
– To be enemy to
– To desert
– To decline to help
– To disrespect
– To put down
– Not to ally with
– Not to support
Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be cleansed) from the dirty kufaar and from kufr and shirk.
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed (Islamic faith) and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen (i.e. wrong worshippers). So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen, then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
-“The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca. – https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/al-wala-wal-bara-according-to-the-aqeedah-of-the-salaf-parts-123/
-Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Atiq said:
“There isn’t in the Book of Allah the Exalted – after the issue concerning the obligation of tawheed and the forbiddance of its opposite (kufr=wrong belief)- any issue which has as so many proofs, nor so clearly explained, than the issue of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’.” (W-B is ‘Islamic apartheid’)
– from Sufi scholar Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): “The honour of Islam lies in INSULTING kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to HUMILIATE them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain TERRIFIED and TREMBLING. It is intended to hold them under CONTEMPT and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
– from ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan”: “… true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and NEVER support them.”
– from Umar Sulayman ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ashqar, “Belief in Allah”: “The Muslim should regard the Kuffaar as ENEMIES and HATE them because of their kufr (wrong belief), just as he hates their kufr (disbelief) itself.”
– from [Chap.iv] “The Islaamic Concept of al-Walaa’ wal-Baraa’” by Khalid El-Gharib: “… to SHOW ENMITY to those who show enmity to Allaah and His Messenger”.
(Note: Muslims are to visibly demonstrate their ENMITY or HATRED towards the kufaar)
– from a lecture given by Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal (H.A.): “The implication of al-Baraa is that one HATES for the sake of Allah (SWT)…Al-Baraa means to recognize who your enemies are and to HATE them and EXTERMINATE them in their Endeavour to get rid of your Deen, al-Islam…Al-Baraa is to HATE the people who propagate Baatil (falsehood)—the Muslim should HATE them and (at least desire to) KILL them when the time comes.”
(Note: not ‘if the time comes’, but ‘WHEN the time comes.)
– “Killing a Kafir who is fighting you is OK. Killing a Kafir for any reason (i.e. criticism of Islam), you can say, it is OK – even if there is NO REASON for it. You can poison, ambush and kill non-believers. You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don’t ask shall I do this, just do it.”Abu Hamza al-Masri (Egyptian born British Cleric)
– “As a Muslim, I must have hatred for anything non-Islam” – Anjem Choudary.
– “The matter is clear on this issue. It is obligatory to disassociate and absolve oneself from the disbelievers and their religion. The issue of al-Walaa wal-Baraa is from among the greatest obligations in Islaam.” (Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzan, 2005, p. 308)
– Obligation to Hate Kufaar: “With regard to matters of love and hate in the heart, the Muslims’ attitude towards non-Muslims is based on the latter’s attitude towards Allaah. If they worship Allaah and do not associate anything in worship with Him, then they love them. If they associate others in worship with Him, or disbelieve in Him, or worship others alongside Him, or are hostile towards His religion and hate the truth, then it is obligatory to hate them in our hearts.” – Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
elee says
Every now and then in academia somebody does some actual inquiring. That happened here. Rutgers should be highly praised to this.d
eduardo odraude says
Not sure about that. Rutgers only gave in to counter-pressures. Arguably the way Rutgers “solved” this was not a matter of principle but a surrender to lots of complaints and bad publicity. Following Rutgers’ own principles (if they have any), what would Rutgers administration do? Would they be like so many universities today? Suppressing speech by anyone who does not agree with the “social justice” fanatics and their mobs who label anything they disagree with as “hate speech” and therefore act as free speech laws can be suspended?
gravenimage says
Probably true, Eduardo.
Still, this shows how important it is to push back.
Westman says
One thing we can fully expect from the Left is being too lazy to verify what they hear. Any dolt can make a claim on campus that aligns with Leftist attitudes and the trigger is pulled. They could all be standing in 10 square miles of nothing but desert sand when an instigator yells, “fire”, and they would expect the government to bring water and the media would write headlines of, “Neglected minorities burning up due to government mismanagement of water resources”.
eduardo odraude says
“act as free”
should be
“act as though free”
mgoldberg says
I went to Rutgers 1n 2004 I think it was, when Natan Sharansky was invited to speak. I was stricken with the flu days before and was weak still… but I went as I was concerned with what might happen. They didn’t search any bags. The first two rows were cordoned off for arabs and leftists to speak first and they trotted in with not a little arrogance. Sharansky, a short bald man of significant and quiet presence, began to speak and give hard dollars and cents, in depth analysis. Suddenly a marxist jumped up and out of his army coat he threw a cream pie into Sharansky’s face. The Israeli security team immediately got to him, and lead him away, unhurt in any way. Later the next day he’d claim he’d had his nose broken by the security team. I watched the whole takedown and he was unharmed.
Sharansky at the time, was given a towel, and smiled and said to the crowd ‘I’m afraid it’s unlikely that it was a kosher cream pie”
He was totally unruffled, cleaned his face and calmly went about delineating the entire lecture on Israel, and the issues and though the front two rows had been filled with muslims, arabs, leftists, they slowly slithered out as each an every objection that they thought to toss at him was quietly dismanted in his presentation.
Now it’s 14 yrs later and here we are. The left and muslims working endlessly to end any discussion, and they almost got their wish, and without any reprisals. Lisa Daftari should demand complete security not merely for the event but arrest for any students or anyone who disrupts the presentation and video filiming for reference.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that account.
Wellington says
A meaningless apology.
gravenimage says
Rutgers apologizes for canceling foreign policy speech after Leftists brand speaker “Islamophobe,” “bigot”
……………..
So is Rutgers going to allow Lisa Daftari to speak?
DHazard says
Allah “claims” Arabs are superior to other men.
Allah “claims” men are smarter than women.
Allah “claims” if you rape a slave it’s not rape.
Allah also makes numerous “sciency claims” that he probably should have kept to himself, knowing that science would come along after his mistakes were finalized. He really likes making Muslims look stupid.
Lydia Church says
A true apology is followed up by making good (as it goes with repentance).
Let them invite her again then!
Wellington says
It’s a non-apology apology. They are quite frequently issued by the Left. As here.
Terry Gain says
Pointing out what the Koran actually says is indeed hate speech. Leftist morons who pretend that the Koran does not contain such speech hate to hear that it does and they therefore hate such speech.
Baucent says
Left wing bullies can apparently stir up hatred towards anyone who disagrees with them, brand them with all sorts of lies and get away with it, because Academics are terrified of being branded as well.
Ken Olson says
Let’s see if a November date comes through.
TWG says
Definition “Hate Speech”:
Anything spoken or written or alleged to have been spoken or written that islammunists hate. Only applicable to white, Conservative non moslems.