Religious Texts Taken Down After Complaints

Current disclaimer:

"The University of Southern California does not screen or control the content on this website and thus does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such content. All content on this website is provided by and is the sole responsibility of the student organization from which such content originated, and such content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the University administration or the Board of Trustees"

Propoosed Change:

"The University of Southern California has determined that unlike other ancient religious texts, ancient Islamic texts contian informtion of an extremely heinous and vulgar nature, therefore the some of the content on this website has been screened. Furthermore, the University of Southern Calfornia does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of the remaining content. Any complaints regarding the remaining content on this website should be directed to the University administration or the Board of Trustees"

Michael Delaney of CA 2:33PM September 29, 2008

I don't normally like to get into these discussions, but as a university faculty member, a proud American, and someone who spent years carefully studying Islam, I feel that I should provide a few "insider" thoughts... I'm not trying to defend either Islam or the university, but rather just trying to put things in perspective...

For one thing, YES, the Quran and Hadith contain some rather forceful passages on holy war. But to really understand Islamic scripture, you need to see it in the same light that the people of Arabia, at the time, saw it in. They saw the Quran as a sequence of instructions that built on each other, and occasionally revised one another. Thus, for instance, there are several passages on alcohol, one that says that it has great benefits but even greater harms, but doesn't prohibit it, and a second one that prohibits praying while drunk, and then a third one that finally prohibits drinking, period. Muslims at the time didn't see contradictions between these verses. Rather, they saw each verse as building on the previous, and adding to it, and perhaps even revising it. With this in mind, it's important to understand that, from a purely chronological perspective, the holy war passages are sandwiched between two other sets of passages that talk about peace. Mohamed promoted peace when he was a lonely preacher in Mecca, then ordered holy war after immigrating to Medina and being attacked by his fellow Meccans, then promoted peace again after triumphing and capturing Mecca. Moderate Muslims look at this chronology and conclude that the holy war passages pertain only to that particular time period, and aren't meant as a universal message.

Moving on to pedophilia, yes, Mohamed did consummate his marriage to Aisha when she was only 9, and this CERTAINLY fits today's definition of pedophilia. But it's important to also look at the fact that Mohamed married Khadija when he was only 16, and not yet seen as a prophet, and she was 40. Khadija was not seen as a pedophile when she married Mohamed, and Mohamed was not seen as a pedophile when he married Aisha. People were different, culture was different, and both marriages were seen as normal. I am very glad we live in a society, today, that would label both marriages as abusive. But it's unfair for us to apply these definitions to marriages than happened roughly 1400 years ago.

Moving to freedom of speech and university websites: YES, of course, Muslim students have the right to post the Quran and Hadith on their website. But the university shouldn't have to pay for it! So the university has the right to remove the material.

Finally, moving on to the reasons the material was removed, look at it this way: universities make most of their cash, today, through endowed donations. This is making it increasingly important for universities to control their web image - which is FAIR! It would have been nice, though, if university officials had abstained from insulting students' faiths.

Sam of MI 12:00AM September 10, 2008

Its more passive aggressive. But look at the crusades, Slavery, and Native America, it works!!

of NC 2:36PM September 09, 2008

The sad fact is that the majority of Abrahamic religions, be it Christianity, Islam or Judaism are extremely violent religions. The Bible, as well as the Koran contain ridiculous directives that end up with people killing one another for the sake of some god or some idea of righteousness. You cannot separate the Old Testament from the New Testament any more than you can separate Jesus from the Bible. The only reason he is believed to be the Messiah is because the Old Testament heralded his birth. To discount the Old Testament is to then say that it's message of a Messiah coming to the earth is also not worthy of consideration. Just so we keep things on an even ground. Nonetheless, it's easy to see, if one but look, that these religions are ridiculously violent and proclaim no other end than the violent death and destruction of all those who do not believe in accord with it's vision of what is right.

For the university to take down the texts perhaps have more to do with the website being associated with the university, a state-funded organization, and therefore subject to the laws of the separation of church and state. At least, as far as I can tell, that's the only way their decision would hold up against the ACLU, but then again, maybe not.

of NE 1:05PM September 09, 2008