Followup: Harvard Sharia/Apostasy Debate

Greta provided an excellent summary of the Harvard Sharia/Apostasy Debate when she commented:

In the spirit of wrapping things up, let me offer this short summation of my personal reflections on this issue and the comments here:

1) The issue of whether Taha's views (or University-sanctioned position) are appropriate is one that can be debated openly and people of good will can disagree--if this incident serves to spur constructive debate about the modern practice of ancient faiths that is a good thing.

2) In pursuing these questions, we must be aware of the geo-political context--one in which the demonizing of Islam as part of specific political agendas is not properly understood by the public, and used to justify atrocities against Muslims.

3) A double standard exists that seems to make it acceptable to speak of arabs and Muslims in terms that we would not find acceptable if applied to ther groups.

4) A double standard exists that singles out Islam among the three Abrahamic faiths for special scrutiny, however appropriate that scrutiny may be in terms of our modern "hegemonic human rights discourse" for all three faiths and their canons.

5) The process of pointing out these double standards especially through examples, especially from Judaism, invites accusations of bigotry against those pointing them out, despite the fact that current geo-political reality (vis a vis the role played by Zionism in the middle east) is a context outside of which current discussions (esp. critiques) of Islam are not fully understandable.

Sphere: Related Content