the Inquirer says
Editorial
———————————————
Tragically, the Islamic society has become both victim as well as a perpetrator of discrimination within the space of a week. The horrific mob attack in which four Asians were stabbed (two of them City students), appears to have been racially motivated.
There is no evidence to suggest the attack is in anyway linked to the invitation of radical Muslim preachers Abu Usamah and Murthadah Khan, which was strongly condemned by the LGBT society, but there must be questions asked as to why extremism has been allowed to prosper in the Islamic society. Consider these quotes by Abu Usamah and Murthadah Khan: “Do you practice homosexuality with men? Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.”
“Allah has created the woman, even if she has a PhD, deficient. Her intellect is incomplete. Deficient. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man.” “Those whom the wrath of God is upon is the Jew and the Christian. These people are enemies towards us.”
Why does the Islamic society continue to invite hate preachers to the university? It certainly does nothing to promote integration with other communities and can often lead to dangerous and incorrect stereotyping.
It is not the university’s place to ban everyone who challenges and pushes the boundaries – as it has done on past occasions with varying inconsistency. Free speech is a universal right and should be defended, but hate speech should not. Equally, we should be free to criticise those who wish to divide us, spread homophobia and sexism,
and call Jews and Christians “filthy”.
The Islamic Society needs to take more responsibility about whom it extends invitations to. The university, a place for education, should not be the arena for non-educational talks from radicals, especially when it causes serious offence to large proportions of the student population.
Since the attacks the Islamic Society has published a graphic on its website saying “Islamaphobia is terrorism”. It also added: “Non-Muslims are also encouraged to take care of themselves and be cautious of any suspicious behaviour. Our concern is not restricted to Muslim welfare only.” With no pun intended, perhaps the society needs to practice what it preaches a little bit more. It doesn’t appear to be too concerned about the welfare of those whose Khan and Usamah’s opinions so actively risk.
Have your say and leave a comment below
[...] http://cityinquirer.com/?p=1281 [...]
Hate mongering is not free speech, it’s hate mongering.
What on earth is going on in university administration !?
[...] December 10, 2009 · Leave a Comment Tragically, the Islamic society has become both victim as well as a perpetrator of discrimination within the space of a week. To read my editorial in the edition of the Inquirer click here or… [...]
I think the newspapers comments about Muslims was hate-mongering, which may have provided the “mood music” for these guys to be stabbed. The newspapers has said it is not against Muslims or Islam. And yet here, it says: “The Islamic society has become both victim as well as a perpetrator of discrimination within the space of a week.”
Were all those attacked from the Islamic Society? Do not other Muslims (the ones the Uni newspaper purportedly has no problem with) also use the prayer room? I know for a fact that some of those attacked were not part of the ISOC. In which case, should the newspaper not fully extend its sympathies towards them?
Or are those that run the newspaper just against ALL muslims, hence the blanket damnation above. Like i said, you guys are hate preachers yourselves.
Also see the post about Awlaki. First of all, it was a posting on the message board by someone. It wasn’t put up by the ISOC itself! If we started damming websites for having objectionable posts put up by outside readers, the Guardian’s comments website would be shut down.
Furthermore, why do you guys quote the neo-con group “The Centre for Social Cohesion” and its founder and George Bush supporter “Douglas Murray”? If you don’t want the ISOC to give platforms to Islamists, why the hell are you giving platform to a neo-con that has a perverted ideology too???
P.S ask the Jewish and Christian society about their views on homosexuals. I don’t agree with homosexuality but it’s not my business. I’m not going to bully a homosexual for his/her choice, just like you shouldn’t bully Muslims (or any other group!) for not accepting homosexuality.
You profess to be liberals but like extremists you want everyone to follow your views. Liberalism is about pluralism and pluralism is about accepting different views. Accept that Muslims don’t agree with homosexuality. As long as Muslims don’t call harm on the group, there’s nothing wrong with holding that view.
Leave your response!
Thunder Thiefs
The Times got the glory this month for the Inquirer's January splash revealing the cost, well in excess of £500,000, of removing former vice-chancellor Malcolm Gillies:
January - the Inquirer
April - Times Higher Education
Twitter
Recent Posts
Most Commented
most viewed