Recently, I reported on the decision of the University of Southern California to order the Muslim Student Association to remove a controversial hadith from its (university sponsored) web site.
Predictably, the MSA has responded with outrage.
A statement issued by the Muslim Student Union at USC suggested that the hadith was being taken out of context, and called the school's decision to remove it from the website "unprecedented and unconscionable." (Israel Today- September 12, 2008)
Taken out of context? I will again post it and let the reader decide.
“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him….”
Question for the MSA at USC: What part of that was taken out of context? Specifically what words are taken out of context? What words are misunderstood?
I recently received a response to my original post from a certain Mohammad attaching an article whose thesis is that hadiths are subject to debate among Islamic scholars. Fine, but my point is this: Whatever the history behind the hadith, the central point is that the Muslim Student Association at USC chose to put it up on their university website.
So, as far as I am concerned, the MSA can be outraged all they want. They can have CAIR file a lawsuit on their behalf. The wording in the hadith is unacceptable in a civilized and pluralistic society. We cannot allow this kind of ignorant, hateful language that advocates murder against our Jewish fellow citizens. If these students want to propagate this kind of language and sentiment, there are other countries where they can go and live-not here.
But Gary, if the nut-jobs aren't allowed to have their say, how will we know who the nut-jobs are? Get them out in the open, I say.
ReplyDeleteIf it's a university-sponsored website, then I agree that it's the university's prerogative to take it down. However, I do feel that they should be allowed to have their say, no matter how hateful it is. That's part of being in America, and hearing hateful, offensive things is the price we pay for living in a free society. Silencing people is what they do in places like Saudi Arabia, and the less we are like them, the better.
lance,
ReplyDeleteLet's use common sense, OK? calling for the murder of people is not free speech. We are not trying to snuff out opposing viewpoints, we are trying to prevent murder.
We're going to have to arrest a lot of people then. It's a rather slippery slope.
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeletebelieve it or not, there is a legal line when it comes to inciteful speech that directly leads to violence. I am thinking of that KKK guy Tom metzger who was prosecuted for inciteful statements that led to an act of violence against someone.
That is a good point - and these people should definitely be monitored to make sure that they never get the opportunity to act out on their rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI am sure they are being monitored.
ReplyDelete