On campus, is heckling free speech? Or just rude?
By Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed
USA Today, 2/17/2010
Every few minutes during a talk last week at the University of California at Irvine, the same thing happened. A student would get up, shout something critical of Israel, be applauded by some in the audience, and be led away by police.
The speaker —Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States— was repeatedly forced to stop his talk. He pleaded for the right to continue, and continued. University administrators lectured the students and asked them to let Oren speak. In the end, 11 students were arrested and they may also face charges of violating university rules. (See video of the event)
Those who interrupted Oren, not surprisingly, are strong critics of Israel who believe that they must draw attention to the Palestinian cause. But an argument put forward by some national Muslim leaders in the last week has sent the discussion in a new direction. Those groups maintain that interrupting a campus speech — even repeatedly — should be seen as a protected form of speech.
"The students voiced political views to shame the representative of a foreign government embroiled in controversy for its outrageous violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Delivering this message in a loud and shocking manner expressed the gravity of the charges leveled against Israeli policies, and falls within the purview of protected speech," said a letter released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. That statement followed one by Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which said: "These students had the courage and conscience to stand up against aggression, using peaceful means. We cannot allow our educational institutions to be used as a platform to threaten and discourage students who choose to practice their First Amendment right."
Those statements are quite different from the view of Irvine officials. Michael Drake, the chancellor, had this to say after the interruptions: "This behavior is intolerable. Freedom of speech is among the most fundamental, and among the most cherished, of the bedrock values our nation is built upon. A great university depends on the free exchange of ideas. This is non-negotiable. Those who attempt to suppress the rights of others violate core principles that are the foundation of any learning community. We cannot and do not allow such behavior."
All of this raises the question: Is interrupting a campus speaker ever a legitimate form of free expression?...
"That's definitely not free speech," Jarret S. Lovell, a professor of politics at California State University at Fullerton, said of the interruptions at Irvine and similar tactics elsewhere. Lovell is a scholar of protest and the author of Crimes of Dissent: Civil Disobedience, Criminal Justice, and the Politics of Conscience (New York University Press).
Not only does Lovell think the tactic is wrong in that it denies a hearing to whoever is being interrupted, but he thinks it fails to win over anyone. "When you only hear sound bites" from those interrupting, the students come off as intolerant, he said. "There are so many better ways to demonstrate."
...As one who identifies himself as critical of Israel's policies and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, Lovell said that the Irvine hecklers should realize what will happen next. "It's only a matter of time until Norman Finkelstein speaks at UCI and Jewish groups shout him down," Lovell said of the controversial scholar viewed by many Jews as anti-Israel...
Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, defended his group's defense of the interruptions at Irvine. He said that it was unfair to say that the students who interrupted were trying to shut down the talk because they voluntarily left the room after each interruption, and let the talk start again (until the next outburst at least) and eventually let it finish. "Let's put it in perspective. The speaker had an hour to speak, and they each had less than a minute."
Ayloush noted that he is frequently interrupted when he gives lectures, and that it goes with the territory. "We firmly believe that both the representative of the foreign government had the full right to speak and the students being addressed have the right to express their speech, too," he said.
Asked why it might not be better to organize protests with a rally outside or leaflets or signs that don't interrupt a talk, Ayloush said such approaches might well be better, but that this was beside the point and that he wouldn't exclude the heckling strategy used at Irvine. "These are all tactics and different methods of expressing their free speech, and everyone might have their favorite," he said. "The First Amendment was never intended to be exclusively polite and courteous."
Yet another perspective holds that some, modest interruption (less than what took place at Irvine) may be seen as an expression of free speech that doesn't limit the right of a speaker to be heard.
Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, said he holds that view, although he said this was not a question on which AAUP has a policy. And he said that he believes that "most faculty members regard interruption as unacceptable."
Nelson said he is a fan of the speech/protest policy of the University of Michigan. That policy says: "Within the confines of a hall or physical facility, or in the vicinity of the place in which a member of the university community, invited speaker, or invited artist is addressing an assembled audience, protesters must not interfere unduly with communication between a speaker or artist and members of the audience. This prohibition against undue interference does not include suppression of the usual range of human reactions commonly displayed by an audience during heated discussions of controversial topics. Nor does this prohibition include various expressions of protest, including heckling and the display of signs (without sticks or poles), so long as such activities are consistent with the continuation of a speech or performance and the communication of its content to the audience."
Along these lines, Nelson said that some brief demonstration against a speaker doesn't strike him as an assault on free speech "so long as the speaker is allowed to continue." He added that "an interruption that signals extreme objection to a speaker's views is part of the acceptable intellectual life of a campus, but you have to let the speech go on," and he said that he did not believe that repeated interruptions were appropriate in that they would disrupt a talk. "Free speech doesn't mean you are able to trample a campus event."
While defending such a tactic as potentially consistent with ideals of free expression, Nelson added that he personally always favored other approaches. Nelson was at a speech by John Sexton, the president of New York University, after that institution ended recognition of its graduate student union and fought off a strike by supporters of the union. Nelson said he walked to the front of the auditorium, turned his back on Sexton and stood silently through the talk. While the speech was not about graduate unions, Nelson said he wanted to show "my rejection of everything he stood for." But he said he wouldn't have interrupted...
About Me
- Hussam Ayloush
- Hussam has been a lifelong human rights activist who is passionate about promoting democratic societies, in the US and worldwide, in which all people, including immigrants, workers, minorities, and the poor enjoy freedom, justice, economic justice, respect, and equality. Mr. Ayloush frequently lectures on Islam, media relations, civil rights, hate crimes and international affairs. He has consistently appeared in local, national, and international media. Full biography at: http://hussamayloush.blogspot.com/2006/08/biography-of-hussam-ayloush.html
Friday, February 19, 2010
Politics, religion and ignorance — an unhealthy mix
Politics, religion and ignorance — an unhealthy mix
By Hussam Ayloush
IFN Guest Columnist
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Lancaster, a growing city of 145,000 people just north of Los Angeles, recently became embroiled in a heated religious controversy after its mayor called for actively cultivating a Christian city and a member of its city council wrote bigoted anti-Islam comments in an online post.
During his official State of the City address, Lancaster Mayor Rex Parris said his city was “growing a Christian community” while the PowerPoint display behind him showed a large Christian cross and the phrase “2010 Growing a Christian Community.”
He also used the speech to promote a ballot measure that would ratify the city council’s ongoing practice of inviting clergy who mostly invoke the name of Jesus Christ before city council sessions.
Last week, Lancaster City Councilwoman Sherry Marquez posted a short rant on Facebook saying “the Muslim religion is all about ... beheadings, honor killings ... they don’t even blink at killing their own wives/daughters, because they are justified by their religion ...”
In response to these two incidents, CAIR-LA, along with other interfaith and civic leaders, decried the councilwoman’s remarks and asked her to meet with members of the American Muslim community in order to begin to understand how inaccurate her comments were and to gain some understanding of the true beliefs of the constituents she seems to disdain.
Later, CAIR-LA sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice calling for an investigation into a possible violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by Mayor Parris.
The Antelope Valley Human Relations Task Force called for an emergency meeting to investigate the remarks by both elected officials as possible hate incidents and to collect information from individuals who may have been adversely affected by those remarks.
What we are witnessing in Lancaster is an unhealthy mix of politics, religion and ignorance. This controversy needs special attention and a long-term remedy.
The issue here is not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Both these rights are ones I cherish dearly and pledge to defend for every American, including individuals I may completely disagree with.
In the mayor’s case, the issue of concern to me and many other people of various beliefs is simply the upholding of our constitutional principle of separation of church and state, and maintaining the values of inclusiveness and fair treatment.
Parris is an official elected to public office serving Americans of diverse faith backgrounds. He is required to honor and uphold our Constitution. It is that simple.
As an elected official speaking in his official capacity at an event paid for by the city, the mayor must not promote a particular religion — a news story reported that Parris is now offering to reimburse the city for its cost of putting on the event.
In fact, no elected official should be in the business of promoting or favoring a specific religion in his/her official capacity. I would not agree with any mayor, senator, president or elected official in our country using public or elected office to advance the Muslim faith or any other religion. How would residents and citizens of other faiths feel if this happened?
We have a secular government and a pluralistic nation whose Constitution respects the practice of religion, or lack of it for those who choose. Pastors, imams, rabbis and all private citizens are welcome to work on building and promoting any religious community they wish, but our government and its officials must not.
As a person of faith, I strongly value the important positive role that religion, including Christianity, plays in benefiting society. Equally valuable is the parallel and separate role our government and Constitution play.
Being pro-Constitution is not equivalent to being anti-religion, anti-Muslim or anti-Christian.
Our nation and its citizens have thrived for more than 200 years on the Establishment Clause, which mandates that the government will not establish any official religion. The Establishment Clause has allowed all religions to be treated equally and to flourish and contribute to society.
This principle is expressly affirmed by the Supreme Court’s rulings that have fashioned two separate spheres for religion and government, and have explicitly established the government’s neutrality on religion.
Our purpose in filing the DOJ complaint is not to undermine the important positive role that religions, including Christianity, play in benefiting society, but rather to protect religious freedom and ensure that Lancaster and its elected officials abide by the same constitutional separation of church and state as the entire nation.
The city of Lancaster and other public and religious leaders have a critical job now — to take appropriate measures to ensure a secular and inclusive government representative of all residents.
Hussam Ayloush is the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greater Los Angeles Area.
By Hussam Ayloush
IFN Guest Columnist
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Lancaster, a growing city of 145,000 people just north of Los Angeles, recently became embroiled in a heated religious controversy after its mayor called for actively cultivating a Christian city and a member of its city council wrote bigoted anti-Islam comments in an online post.
During his official State of the City address, Lancaster Mayor Rex Parris said his city was “growing a Christian community” while the PowerPoint display behind him showed a large Christian cross and the phrase “2010 Growing a Christian Community.”
He also used the speech to promote a ballot measure that would ratify the city council’s ongoing practice of inviting clergy who mostly invoke the name of Jesus Christ before city council sessions.
Last week, Lancaster City Councilwoman Sherry Marquez posted a short rant on Facebook saying “the Muslim religion is all about ... beheadings, honor killings ... they don’t even blink at killing their own wives/daughters, because they are justified by their religion ...”
In response to these two incidents, CAIR-LA, along with other interfaith and civic leaders, decried the councilwoman’s remarks and asked her to meet with members of the American Muslim community in order to begin to understand how inaccurate her comments were and to gain some understanding of the true beliefs of the constituents she seems to disdain.
Later, CAIR-LA sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice calling for an investigation into a possible violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by Mayor Parris.
The Antelope Valley Human Relations Task Force called for an emergency meeting to investigate the remarks by both elected officials as possible hate incidents and to collect information from individuals who may have been adversely affected by those remarks.
What we are witnessing in Lancaster is an unhealthy mix of politics, religion and ignorance. This controversy needs special attention and a long-term remedy.
The issue here is not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Both these rights are ones I cherish dearly and pledge to defend for every American, including individuals I may completely disagree with.
In the mayor’s case, the issue of concern to me and many other people of various beliefs is simply the upholding of our constitutional principle of separation of church and state, and maintaining the values of inclusiveness and fair treatment.
Parris is an official elected to public office serving Americans of diverse faith backgrounds. He is required to honor and uphold our Constitution. It is that simple.
As an elected official speaking in his official capacity at an event paid for by the city, the mayor must not promote a particular religion — a news story reported that Parris is now offering to reimburse the city for its cost of putting on the event.
In fact, no elected official should be in the business of promoting or favoring a specific religion in his/her official capacity. I would not agree with any mayor, senator, president or elected official in our country using public or elected office to advance the Muslim faith or any other religion. How would residents and citizens of other faiths feel if this happened?
We have a secular government and a pluralistic nation whose Constitution respects the practice of religion, or lack of it for those who choose. Pastors, imams, rabbis and all private citizens are welcome to work on building and promoting any religious community they wish, but our government and its officials must not.
As a person of faith, I strongly value the important positive role that religion, including Christianity, plays in benefiting society. Equally valuable is the parallel and separate role our government and Constitution play.
Being pro-Constitution is not equivalent to being anti-religion, anti-Muslim or anti-Christian.
Our nation and its citizens have thrived for more than 200 years on the Establishment Clause, which mandates that the government will not establish any official religion. The Establishment Clause has allowed all religions to be treated equally and to flourish and contribute to society.
This principle is expressly affirmed by the Supreme Court’s rulings that have fashioned two separate spheres for religion and government, and have explicitly established the government’s neutrality on religion.
Our purpose in filing the DOJ complaint is not to undermine the important positive role that religions, including Christianity, play in benefiting society, but rather to protect religious freedom and ensure that Lancaster and its elected officials abide by the same constitutional separation of church and state as the entire nation.
The city of Lancaster and other public and religious leaders have a critical job now — to take appropriate measures to ensure a secular and inclusive government representative of all residents.
Hussam Ayloush is the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greater Los Angeles Area.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
IN PALESTINE - A touching song by Rich Siegel
IN PALESTINE
Music by Rich Siegel
Lyric by Dave Lippman and Rich Siegel
Copyright 2009, all rights reserved
Way to Peace Music Publishing, ASCAP
Music by Rich Siegel
Lyric by Dave Lippman and Rich Siegel
Copyright 2009, all rights reserved
Way to Peace Music Publishing, ASCAP
Rich Siegel- "In Palestine" from Richard A Siegel on Vimeo.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Corey Saylor: Is America a Christian Nation?
By Corey Saylor
Feb. 16, 2010
The founders wrote, and the state's ratified Article VI, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution which states, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Additionally, the First Amendment, added to the Constitution as part of the deal to get it ratified, says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Library of Congress published a piece entitled "The Founding Fathers and Islam” in 2003 and that hallowed institution concluded, “The Founders of this nation explicitly included Islam in their vision of the future of the republic.”
However, in all honesty, whether our nation was founded as a Christian or not is an argument best left to academics debating over the dusty tomes of history.
America was definitely founded as a nation that counted African Americans as three-fifths of a human being (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, but the language was wisely scrubbed by the Fourteenth Amendment) and denied women the right to vote (took them until 1920 until someone wised up and enfranchised the all the ladies, credit to Wyoming for giving them the vote first).
We evolved for the better. The slaves secured their natural right to liberty. Women secured their natural right to vote.
Today, America is a multi-ethnic and multi-faith society with a shared set of core values: individual freedom and dignity, rule of law under which everyone is treated equally, individual opportunity, all committed to fostering the common good, etc.
Christianity is there, contributing to the good of our nation. But so are Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and a host of other faiths.
Feb. 16, 2010
The founders wrote, and the state's ratified Article VI, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution which states, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Additionally, the First Amendment, added to the Constitution as part of the deal to get it ratified, says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Library of Congress published a piece entitled "The Founding Fathers and Islam” in 2003 and that hallowed institution concluded, “The Founders of this nation explicitly included Islam in their vision of the future of the republic.”
However, in all honesty, whether our nation was founded as a Christian or not is an argument best left to academics debating over the dusty tomes of history.
America was definitely founded as a nation that counted African Americans as three-fifths of a human being (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, but the language was wisely scrubbed by the Fourteenth Amendment) and denied women the right to vote (took them until 1920 until someone wised up and enfranchised the all the ladies, credit to Wyoming for giving them the vote first).
We evolved for the better. The slaves secured their natural right to liberty. Women secured their natural right to vote.
Today, America is a multi-ethnic and multi-faith society with a shared set of core values: individual freedom and dignity, rule of law under which everyone is treated equally, individual opportunity, all committed to fostering the common good, etc.
Christianity is there, contributing to the good of our nation. But so are Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and a host of other faiths.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Mayor Parris apologizes for religious remark
Mayor Parris apologizes for religious remark
LANCASTER, Calif. (KABC) -- Recent comments by the mayor of Lancaster have generated a religious controversy. An Islamic group claims the mayor improperly used his office to promote Christianity.
The mayor met with local religious leaders Monday and apologizes for his remarks.
In a state of the city address a few weeks ago, Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris described the city as a Christian community.
"We are a growing Christian community and don't let anybody shy away from that. I need Lancaster residents standing up and saying we are a Christian community and we're proud of it," he said in his speech.
His comments drew strong reactions from religious groups in the Antelope Valley.
Some say that they think the mayor's remarks excluded non Christians.
Monday afternoon at Lancaster's City Hall, Parris along with many religious leaders supporting him, gathered to clear the air. Parris apologized for his remarks and said he wanted to clarify what he meant.
"I think that communities are robust and vibrant when we do everything we can to facilitate all churches, all religions, all faiths to have a robust, vital part of that community," said Parris...
The Council on Islamic American Relations, a Muslim civil rights group, indicated that it plans to file a complaint with the Department of Justice, but the complaint has not been filed yet. The mayor is running for election this year.
(Copyright ©2010 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Lancaster mayor in spotlight (Contra Costa Times)
By Kevin Modesti
Contra Costa Times
02/05/2010
An American Muslim group said Friday it has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to look into Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris' remark last week that the city is "growing a Christian community."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations' Los Angeles-area office said in a statement that Parris' comment in support of a municipal ballot measure endorsing prayers at city meetings is a "possible violation" of the Constitution's First Amendment restrictions on laws regarding religion.
CAIR said the letter from executive director Hussam Ayloush to the Department of Justice also alludes to last week's comment on Facebook by Lancaster City Councilwoman Sherry Marquez that beheadings are what Muslims "are all about."
Alyoush said in a statement the complaint is not intended "to undermine the important role that religion, including Christianity, plays in benefiting society but rather to ensure that the City of Lancaster and its officials abide by the same Constitutional separation of church and state that the entire nation abides by."
CAIR's announcement came two days after an anti-hate-crime group called the Antelope Valley Human Relations Task Force said it will hold a hearing Monday to discuss whether the Parris and Marquez remarks constitute "hate incidents."
In an interview Friday, Parris called the groups' actions "outrageous" and said again that his comment was misrepresented, and that it reflected his opinion, not city policy.
"I certainly did not mean to make anybody feel excluded," Parris said. "To anybody who was truly offended, I apologize to them. But I don't regret making the statement."
Contra Costa Times
02/05/2010
An American Muslim group said Friday it has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to look into Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris' remark last week that the city is "growing a Christian community."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations' Los Angeles-area office said in a statement that Parris' comment in support of a municipal ballot measure endorsing prayers at city meetings is a "possible violation" of the Constitution's First Amendment restrictions on laws regarding religion.
CAIR said the letter from executive director Hussam Ayloush to the Department of Justice also alludes to last week's comment on Facebook by Lancaster City Councilwoman Sherry Marquez that beheadings are what Muslims "are all about."
Alyoush said in a statement the complaint is not intended "to undermine the important role that religion, including Christianity, plays in benefiting society but rather to ensure that the City of Lancaster and its officials abide by the same Constitutional separation of church and state that the entire nation abides by."
CAIR's announcement came two days after an anti-hate-crime group called the Antelope Valley Human Relations Task Force said it will hold a hearing Monday to discuss whether the Parris and Marquez remarks constitute "hate incidents."
In an interview Friday, Parris called the groups' actions "outrageous" and said again that his comment was misrepresented, and that it reflected his opinion, not city policy.
"I certainly did not mean to make anybody feel excluded," Parris said. "To anybody who was truly offended, I apologize to them. But I don't regret making the statement."
L.A. Times: Lancaster mayor comes under fire from Muslim organization
Los Angeles Times
February 5, 2010
A Muslim advocacy organization is requesting a Department of Justice investigation into whether comments made by Lancaster’s mayor were unconstitutional.
In his State of the City address last week, Mayor R. Rex Parris said Lancaster was “growing a Christian community.”
"And don't let anybody shy away from that,” he said to an audience of ministers. “I need [Lancaster residents] standing up and saying we're a Christian community, and we're proud of that."
The Greater Los Angeles area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations sent a letter Friday to the department requesting an investigation into whether Parris’ comments violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which bans the government from supporting or endorsing a religion.
"The divisive statement made by the mayor, when analyzed in context of other recent developments, represents a disturbing pattern by the city of Lancaster," said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR-LA.
Parris said he stands by his comments.
A spokesman for the Department of Justice wouldn’t comment on whether it had received the letter or whether other groups have complained about the mayor’s comments.
Complaints like the council's are “reviewed to determine what action, if any, is appropriate,” said Alejandro Miyar, a department spokesman.
-- Raja Abdulrahim
February 5, 2010
A Muslim advocacy organization is requesting a Department of Justice investigation into whether comments made by Lancaster’s mayor were unconstitutional.
In his State of the City address last week, Mayor R. Rex Parris said Lancaster was “growing a Christian community.”
"And don't let anybody shy away from that,” he said to an audience of ministers. “I need [Lancaster residents] standing up and saying we're a Christian community, and we're proud of that."
The Greater Los Angeles area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations sent a letter Friday to the department requesting an investigation into whether Parris’ comments violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which bans the government from supporting or endorsing a religion.
"The divisive statement made by the mayor, when analyzed in context of other recent developments, represents a disturbing pattern by the city of Lancaster," said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR-LA.
Parris said he stands by his comments.
A spokesman for the Department of Justice wouldn’t comment on whether it had received the letter or whether other groups have complained about the mayor’s comments.
Complaints like the council's are “reviewed to determine what action, if any, is appropriate,” said Alejandro Miyar, a department spokesman.
-- Raja Abdulrahim
Muslim group seeks govt probe of mayor's remarks
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Friday, February 5, 2010
LANCASTER, Calif. -- A Muslim group filed a federal civil rights complaint Friday after a Southern California mayor remarked that he was "growing a Christian community" in a state of the city address last week.
In a letter to the U.S. Justice Department, the Council on American-Islamic Relations claimed Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris violated the civil rights of non-Christians and shouldn't have used his official capacity at a city event to advance a particular religion.
The civil rights group also said Parris referred to an April ballot measure that would endorse prayer at city meetings without restricting its content, including references to Jesus Christ, as a way to "validate a Christian stance."
Such a mixing of church and state is "unhealthy, unconstitutional and very divisive," said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR in greater Los Angeles.
"The role of any faith, of religion in general, is needed as much as the role of government... Our concern is when the wall of separation is blurred," said Ayloush, whose letter requested a Justice Department investigation.
Parris, who was elected mayor in 2008, said he made the comment in a speech to Christian ministers at an event he paid for and thought it was appropriate. He said he was sorry if anyone was hurt by the remark, which was not his intent.
"I think it is totally ludicrous," Parris said Friday. "Something very dangerous is happening in America when a profession of your faith can end up in actual government hearings.
"All of us get to express our opinion wherever, whenever we want to, including opinions of faith, and that is what I did and that is what I will continue to do."
The controversy follows an uproar in the bedroom community about 40 miles north of Los Angeles about anti-Muslim remarks posted by a city councilwoman on her Facebook social networking page.
Muslim community leaders criticized Lancaster Councilwoman Sherry Marquez for a posting about the 2008 beheading of Aasiya Hassan in New York that reportedly read "this is what the Muslim religion is all about." Marquez apologized for the effect her comments had on the city at a recent City Council meeting.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
BYU publishes classic text written by Islamic philosopher, Avicenna/Ibn Sina
By Michael De GrooteMormon Times
Wednesday, Feb. 03, 2010
Avicenna, who died in 1037 A.D., may not be a familiar name to many people in the West, but his multivolume masterwork, "The Healing," is well-known in the Islamic and Arabic world.
A section of Avicenna's work from "The Healing" called "The Physics" was translated by Jon McGinnis, an associate professor in the department of philosophy of the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The resulting two volumes, titled "Avicenna: The Physics of 'The Healing,'" are now available as part of BYU's Middle Eastern Texts Initiative.
"(Avicenna) was one of the greatest minds to walk this earth," Daniel C. Peterson, a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at the Mormon school, said in a phone interview.
BYU published another portion of "The Healing" in 2005 titled "Metaphysics of 'The Healing.'" The current translation is a brilliant synthesis of Aristotelian ideas and Avicenna's own philosophy, Middle Eastern Texts Initiative director Morgan Davis said in a press release from BYU's Maxwell Institute, and is a crucial text for understanding many of the concepts Avicenna develops more fully in the "Metaphysics."
...The publication of Avicenna's work is "an acknowledgment of the great contributions Arabic and Islamic civilization have made to the world," Peterson said. "It is an expression of respect for Muslim tradition on the part of Latter-day Saints."
The book is published by BYU Press and distributed by the University of Chicago Press.
---
Learn more about Ibn Sina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)