Should University students be free to say things that offend Islam?
The College Republican club at San Francisco State University may face sanctions from SFSU and its student government on charges of incivility, attempting to incite violence, and attempting to create a hostile environment. The offense, according to club president Leigh Wolf: At an anti-terrorism demonstration, members of the club stomped on homemade flags of Hamas and Hezbollah -- symbols of terrorist organizations, but symbols that contain the Arabic word "Allah."
Not all Muslims are terrorists, nor do all Muslims respond to speech against Islam with violence and threats of violence. Some, as we all know, are; some, as we all know, do. But it does not take unlawful violence to suppress discussion. Charges of creating a hostile environment can do the job too.
Violent Islamic movements such as al-Qaeda and the Iranian hardliners pose a serious threat to the free world. Their interpretations of Islam are backed by many intelligent Muslims, and some verses of the Koran seem to support them. It is, of course, debatable whether these are the most faithful interpretations of Islam -- but that's the point: The question requires debate.
We need to discuss the interpretations of Islam that call for violent jihad against the free world, and what can be done about them without undermining our freedom of religion. We need to discuss other questions about Islam and the free world as well--questions about assimilation, about veiling, about Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to transport passengers carrying alcohol, about the poll, reported in the British newspaper The Guardian last month, that found that nearly one in three Muslims aged 16 to 24 thought conversion should be punished with death, and that even more preferred Islamic law to British law. The list goes on.
These are very serious matters whose potential significance for the future of the free world is huge. There are many things to be said about them from many perspectives. But if the issues are not all clear, the need to discuss them is. In some cases, discussion may lead Muslims to abandon immoral aspects of their traditions. In other cases, it may tell us that political action or social pressure is necessary to protect our freedom. In yet other cases, it may tell us that we could all benefit from adopting an Islamic idea. We cannot know without examining the issues.
And examining the issues will sometimes involve offense to Muslims. We should try, without limiting the inquiry, to be courteous about it -- but, "Does your religion threaten my life and my freedom?" is unavoidably an offensive question. It's an important one nonetheless.
It is important also to make our evaluation of our enemies clear. Al-Qaeda and the Iranian regime are evil and dangerous, and their evil and their dangerousness are rooted in their interpretations of Islam. Defending freedom requires acknowledging that.
Whether a particular variety of Islam threatens freedom depends in part on what its followers think should be done about insults to Islam. One of the reasons some Muslims are dangerous is that they want to suppress free speech about their religion, either through violence or through established institutional procedures. Whoever says that insults to his religion should be punished rejects in that regard the principle of free speech. If he backs his statement with action, he threatens free speech.
I asked University Muslim Student Association President Mai El Gasim about what's happening in San Francisco. At first, she declined to say SFSU would be wrong to punish its College Republicans for trampling the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah. She needed time to think and do research. After a few days, she e-mailed me saying the College Republicans "had the right to express their anti-terrorist opinions in a civil manner," but went "unintentionally too far." Finally, in a phone call, after I made some of the points in this column, she said that even speech offensive to Muslims should not be punished. If people are uncomfortable expressing their misconceptions about Islam, she said, they will not be corrected.
What's going on in San Francisco is wrong. And I'd be happier if the answers I'd gotten from El Gasim and other Muslims had been unhesitatingly, unequivocally and unanimously pro-free speech. They were not. But it seems to me from conversations with several University Muslims that they join the rest of us in honoring the value of free inquiry. Some, perhaps all, are willing to discuss even the sensitive issues surrounding Islam. These discussions may not be comfortable for any of us. But if we at the University cannot discuss these issues, who can?
Alexander R. Cohen is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer. He is a doctoral student in the philosophy department.
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | 2 days agoBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | June 9, 2024In continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
