Muslim Awareness Week at Marquette

It’s coming up. The poster for the event is here.

We have criticized various Muslim and Arab (not quite the same) events in the past, when they featured a virulent anti-Israel bias, or featured hard leftist anti-American speakers.

At one point, it became so bad that the local Jewish community and Jewish faculty complained to Marquette, and urged that the university try for more balance. (Since these events are virtually always cosponsored and financially supported by Marquette, it’s not any sort of violation of academic freedom to urge that Marquette as an institution take a more balanced approach.)

But this event seems rather moderate and constructive. Most Americans understand little about Islam, and “coming to understand” doesn’t mean one has to adopt an anti-Israel and anti-American viewpoint.

More Academic Fascism from Radicalized Muslims and Leftists

From the American Thinker:

The virulence of anti-Israelism and antisemitism at The University of California, Irvine campus, for instance, has been so flagrant and endemic in recent years that it actually prompted an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, the findings of which were issued in a damning 2007 report. But San Francisco State University is not far behind in the ignoble way it has enabled its Muslim students’ organizations to create a veritable reign of terror on campus against Jewish and pro-Israel students, while simultaneously attempting to silence voices of opposition, a situation made evident this January when SFSU’s College Republicans were once again pushed into the limelight for their outspoken challenges to the school’s ubiquitous Palestinianism.

Playing off the recent indignity suffered by former president Bush when an insolent reporter hurled a shoe at the President’s head during a press conference, the College Republicans had set up a booth to let students who so wished to sign an anti-Hamas, anti-terror petition and throw a shoe at a Hamas flag. Deeply “offended” by the Republicans for daring to condemn terrorists, rather than the Israeli state in defending its civilians from genocidal attack, members of SFSU’s General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) and socialist club overturned the table, seized the Hamas flag, and were physically aggressive enough in their assault of the Republican students to result in two of their members, Muhammad Abdullah and Jeremy Stern, being put under arrest.

The outcome of this event, one would think, would be fairly straightforward, since the pro-Hamas protesters clearly violated SFSU’s own rules for student behavior, which clearly prohibit “conduct that threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person within or related to the university community, including physical abuse, threats, intimidation, [or] harassment,” all of which the Republican group experienced.

But in the morally-inverted world of academia, the Republican group, for the third time, find themselves the target of punishment and censure, not their attackers, and the “offended parties” -- the GUPS and the socialist club -- have made some breathtakingly audacious demands to the SFSU administration: the College Republicans must be punished or sanctioned for throwing shoes at the Hamas flag; pending charges should be dropped against the two protesters who assaulted the College Republicans and seized the Hamas flag; and, most ominously for defenders of free expression on campus, a forum should be created to “educate” students about what forms of speech the “offended” students deem acceptable or unacceptable, including what the Left regularly tries to proscribe as “hate speech.”

Of course, “hate speech” is simply speech that you don’t like.

Expressing hatred of whites, males or Christians is an absolutely normal activity around any university.

Of course, one could say that the College Republicans’ protest was rather provocative and uncivil -- a relevant observation if you think only genteel speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Were only the College Republicans acting out in a provocative way on an otherwise peaceful SFSU campus, they might well be rebuked for being crude and demonstrating impolite and impolitic behavior. But not only has the campus gained notoriety for the outrageousness of some of its morally-defective protests, but the same “offended” parties who sought punishments for the College Republicans, the General Union of Palestinian Students, have continually been at the center of a succession of riots, protests, and anti-Israel, anti-American hate-fests and counter-protests at which radical speakers regularly, and with unbridled invective, denounce and demonize Jews, Zionists, Israel, Republicans, and America.

Most notorious, for example, was the Muslim student-sponsored, pro-Palestinian April 2002 demonstration that included odious flyers and posters depicting a dead Palestinian baby on a soup-can label imprinted with the words “Palestinian Children Meat, slaughtered according to Jewish rites under American license,” echoing the centuries-old blood libel of European antisemitism that accused Jews of murdering Gentile children and using their blood to bake matzos -- a slander that has, not surprisingly, currently gained credence in the Arab world. Even if the perpetrators of this cruel protest consider this type of expression merely “academic free speech” and legitimate debate about Zionism, and also disingenuously claim that that there is no underlying Jew-hatred here, only debate about Israeli policies, and even if they are to be believed, might not such flyers possibly offend Jewish students on campus? Could accusing an ethnic group of infanticide possibly be construed as “intimidation” or fostering “incivility” on campus?

Fascists, here as elsewhere, simply aren’t willing to apply their anti-free speech doctrines in an even-handed way.

Which is why, in some borderline cases, we are less disturbed by restrictions on speech than about even-handedness. If people who want to shut up speech know that they might be subjected to exactly the same restrictions they want to impose on others, that would constitute a built-in protection against excesses. The situation, in other words, would be a prisoners’ dilemma.

But on a modern university campus, where all people are divided into politically correct “victim” groups and politically incorrect “oppressor” groups, even handedness is hard to find.

Hijab-for-a-Day at Marquette

From an e-mail sent to all faculty:

This WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, the Muslim Student Association is hosting Hijab-for-a-day! Wear a hijab (headscarf) for one day, and then come in the evening ready to discuss your experiences!

We will be having a hijab-wrapping workshop on TUESDAY, from 12-1, in the International Center (AMU 407), where we will demonstrate different styles from around the world and provide you with a chance to ask questions and to learn more about how Muslims dress and why they do so.

On Wednesday night, at 6 pm, in the MCC, we are hosting an Outspoken so that people can come to discuss their experiences throughout the day. How did you feel? Did people look at you differently? Did your opinion of those who choose to wear the hijab change at all?

Please bring your own scarf (rectangular, pashmina, square, triangle, etc. . . . as long as it’s large enough to cover your hair, we can make it work) on Tuesday. If you do not have one, we will have a few available for you to use.

For more information, please contact Shazeen Harunani (shazeen.harunani@mu.edu) or Pam Peters (pamela.peters@mu.edu)

It’s almost certainly too late, by the time you see this, to make the Tuesday session (although we have blogged about the entire schedule of events), but it will be interesting to see how this unfolds (no pun intended).

Unlike most “multicultural” events at places like Marquette, this strikes us as a genuine example of multicultural consciousness raising. Muslim covering has long been derided by feminists as a symbol of the subjugation of women under Islam, although recently Muslim women have had some success in packaging it as a kind of feminist statement.

It’s perhaps best to view this as an example of modesty in dress -- something that Christian conservatives should applaud. Admittedly, Marquette women virtually always dress modestly by U.S. and Western standards (one virtually never sees any cleavage around here), but the Hijab is a symbolic statement that the average Marquette student would benefit from learning about.

Islamic Heritage Celebration at Marquette

Just announced, Islamic Awareness Week, with a variety of events, ranging from a “Gaza Conflict Memorial” to a film called “Stand Up: Muslim American Comics Come of Age.”

We have been rather critical of the Arab Student Association (not the same as the Muslim Student Association) for rabid hostility toward Israel and the Jews.

But again, the Arab Student Association is not the Muslim Student Association. So are we going to have the same sort of bias that the Arab Student Association has shown?

We particularly wondered what the “Gaza Conflict Memorial” will be like. But now we know. One of the speakers is going to be hard-leftist Simon Harak, who can be counted on to blame the whole situation on Israel -- and throw in a lot of anti-Americanism too.

There is a movie titled “Cities of Light: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain.” It pushes the now politically correct notion that when Muslims ruled Spain, all was sweetness and light -- a nice piece of mythology that sounds good, but is historically suspect.

The trip to the Islamic Center is also interesting, since Othman Atta, the president of that organization has defended Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israel, and blamed the entire situation on the Jewish state. Another person associated with the Center, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, was associated with a “charity” that raised money for Hamas.

Not all the events are so suspect. We wonder what feminists think about the “Hijab Wrapping Workshop,” for example.

Perhaps it is normal for Muslim students to take the “Muslin” side of conflicts in places like the Middle East. But that doesn’t require wanting an end to Israel. And it doesn’t require a defense of terrorism. Some parts of this program risk reinforcing the stereotype of Muslims as violent and extreme.

Muslim Student Association’s Case Against Shoebat

He was controversial when his speech was announced, and he remains controversial.

Walid Shoebat will speak at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee tonight.

And his talk will be followed by a panel sponsored by the Muslim Student Association attacking Shoebat and supporting Muslim belief.

We have advance copies of some of the material that will be used to attack Shoebat.

The handouts include:

• An article claiming that his biography made up, and questioning whether he really was a terrorist
• A list of talking points likewise questioning his background, and attributing extreme beliefs to him
• A statement from the Muslim Student Association at UC Davis that “called today on the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to investigate and deport Walid Shoebat, a self-confessed ‘ex-terrorist.’”
• A handout claiming that Shoebat has preached violence, rather than peace
• A statement from the UWM Muslim Student Association claiming that Shoebat is a “purveyor of hate, fear and violence.”

This latter statement has some bizarre elements.

For example:

We firmly believe in Shoebat’s right to promote his hateful views and his right to demonize Islam and Muslims. Neo-Nazi’s, the KKK and Shoebat all have the right to speak and we firmly uphold that right. However, we also believe that a venue other than a university would have been more appropriate for Shoebat to disseminate his bigotry and xenophobia. Shoebat has no academic credentials. He is a charlatan, a snake oil salesman and a fraud. Shoebat is a former “nobody” and is now an extremist Christian terrorist.

This sounds a bit bizarre in the face of the fact that the Muslim Student Association did try to get Shoebat’s speech cancelled.

Our experience in dealing with the Kennedy assassination might give us some insight on issues like this.

In the first place, people will come forward to tell “interesting” but quite false stories about their participation in important historical events. For the most part, these people are attention seekers.

On the other hand, when a witness gives testimony that certain people don’t like, it will get twisted out of context and all sorts of bogus claims will be made against the witness.

Either way, the Muslim students may have much more success discrediting Shoebat than they had trying to shut him up. In the very tolerant American culture, people automatically side with the person who is the object of a censorship attempt. But if it’s just speech (Shoebat’s) against speech (Muslim student’s) it’s an equal playing field.

There is a lesson here.

End of lecture.

Muslim Violence in Middle East Targets Christians

From Christianity Today, the fact that Muslim violence in the Middle East, which usually seems to target Jews (in Israel) and fellow Muslims (in Iraq) also targets Christians.

1. Lebanon gets worse as Christians targeted

Two commuter buses were bombed Tuesday in the small Christian village of Ain Alak (photos). “Many residents simply shrugged over the culprit’s identity, a seeming gesture of weariness over a crisis that has brought Lebanon perilously close to civil war,” The Washington Post reports. But everyone agrees that the target was Lebanon’s Christian community, and the victims were among the poorer members of that community.

“The buses were packed with students, blue-collar workers, Sri Lankan maids and women making their way to Christian theology lessons,” the Los Angeles Times notes.

“The attacks, spaced 10 minutes apart … appeared to mark a new chapter in Lebanon’s months-old crisis, with the aim shorn of any apparent political objective beyond killing civilians,” says the Post.

If you haven’t read our recent coverage of the Lebanon crisis from the perspective of two Lebanese evangelicals, be sure to read Martin Accad’s “The ‘Jesus Manifesto’ for Lebanon” and Riad Kassis’ “The Colors of Lebanon.”

2. Coptic Christians attacked again in Egypt

It seems not to take much for Muslims in southern Egypt to attack Christians in the area. Reuters reports that “rumors of a love affair between a Muslim woman and a Coptic Christian man” set off a riot in Armant, with Muslims attacking Christian shops and a minivan. Eight Muslim men (who are permitted to marry Christian women, but whose daughters are not allowed to marry Christian men) were arrested.

Of course, conservative American Christians are much more likely to side with the Jewish victims of terrorism than more secular Americans, and more likely to favor a tough line against terrorism anywhere.

But if there remain any Christians who are (illogically) thinking “this terrorism stuff is just a threat to other people,” the only advice we can give is “wake up!”

More Muslim Censorship On a College Campus: San Francisco State University

Via Eminent Domain, the story of how an anti-terrorism demonstration at San Francisco State University angered Muslim students.

The incident had echos of a case at Pace University where activist Muslim students objected to, and got the administration to censor, a documentary film about terrorism.

At San Francisco State, the College Republicans produced large copies of the flags of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah and walked on this.

The upshot: they got into trouble with the univesity, and face disciplinary hearings. From the The Volokh Conspiracy, quoting the San Francisco Chronicle:

This story starts with an “anti-terrorism rally” held last October on campus by the College Republicans. To emphasize their point, students stomped on Hezbollah and Hamas flags. According to the college paper, the Golden Gate (X)Press, members of Students Against War and the International Socialist Organization showed up to call the Republicans “racists,” while the president of the General Union of Palestinian Students accused the Repubs of spreading false information about Muslims.

In November, the Associated Students board passed a unanimous resolution, which the (X)Press reported, denounced the California Republicans for “hateful religious intolerance” and criticized those who “pre-meditated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence.”

Now you know that there are students who are opposed to desecrating flags on campus -- that is, if the flags represent terrorist organizations.

But wait -- there’s more. A student filed a complaint with the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development. OSPLD Director Joey Greenwell wrote to the College Republicans informing them that his office had completed an investigation of the complaint and forwarded the report to the Student Organization Hearing Panel, which will adjudicate the charge. At issue is the charge that College Republicans had walked on “a banner with the world ‘Allah’ written in Arabic script” -- it turns out Allah’s name is incorporated into Hamas and Hezbollah flags -- and “allegations of attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment,” as well as “actions of incivility.”

At an unnamed date, the student panel could decide to issue a warning to, suspend or expel the GOP club from campus.

Maybe SFSU should just put up a sign that reads: Conservatives need not apply.

Volokh notes:

Sounds to me like SFSU is acknowledging that under SFSU rules, desecrating Allah — or, to be precise, desecrating religious symbols — is indeed prohibited. Everything old (here, blasphemy bans) is new again.

What is new, of coure, is that Islam is protected against blasphemy, and Christianity is not.

And flag desecration is bad, unless it’s the American flag.