That’s how we lose our First Amendment rights, and we’re well on the way. Alansari-Kreger tries to make his argument sound high-minded — it’s all about building bridges and fighting against division, you see — but it still comes down to censorship and authoritarianism.
“Of double standards and ‘free speech,'” by Omar Alansari-Kreger, Star Tribune, August 16, 2022:
How much thought do everyday Americans give to their First Amendment rights? For the majority, censorship is seen as something inherently alien, associated with repressive regimens abroad. Freedom of speech is considered to be inseparable to the very meaning of being an American or a citizen of the “free” world.
However, the attack last week on famed novelist Salman Rushdie revisits a rather pertinent question: What is the best way to define free speech in America? Does it imply we can voice or publish whatever, wherever, or whenever we want no matter how inflammatory, incendiary, undermining and polarizing the message?…
Salman Rushdie has undoubtedly gained fame and notoriety as an outspoken atheist and secular humanist. Rushdie self-identifies as a “hard line atheist.” However, is he also an equal opportunity one? To paraphrase Rushdie when called out on his Islamophobia, he responded: No, it is unfair to label Islam violent, but to my immediate knowledge, no writer has never gone into hiding for criticizing the Amish.
As a Muslim American, I cannot resist wondering: Has Rushdie criticized the Amish in the same way he criticizes Islam and Muslims? Rushdie’s magnum opus, “The Satanic Verses,” is arguably best described as a work caught somewhere between religious romanticism, pre-Islamic mythological allegory and new age metaphysics centered on the duality of man….
If Rushdie really wanted to prove he is in fact not an Islamophobe, why did he limit his focus in “The Satanic Verses” to Islam? Why not develop the work into a multivolume trilogy equally targeting Christianity and Judaism the same way Rushdie targeted and subsequently attacked Islam?
Could the author that wrote “The Satanic Verses” write a novel on a Jewish concentration camp inmate coming of age by assuming the identity of an SS commander because one night he received divine revelation prophesying Hitler as the long-lost messiah who would deliver the chosen people from their corruption due to hidden knowledge of Hitler’s paternal Jewish ancestry?
Had Rushdie written such a distasteful novel, would we continue to hail and cherish his work as championing free speech in the free world? In a sociocultural reality where any ounce of criticism weighted against Israel is instantly considered anti-Semitism, such a plotline seems unimaginable, as it should be….
As a free society, we share a civic responsibility to use our First Amendment rights to build bridges rather than reinforce divisions if we have any hope in restoring “defamatory equality” and justice in speech and press freedoms….
Karen says
FFS. Big sigh. ?
mortimer says
Is Omar Alansari-Kreger hoping to use free speech to impose censorship? That would censor Muslims as well.
Why does Omar Alansari-Kreger think he can compare the Amish with Islam? There is no one in Amish religion who speaks like Ayatollah or who creates a universal death sentence to hunt an apostate in every country.
Khomeini rebuked the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd (people like Omar Alansari-Kreger) in the following diatribe:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]….Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other ayahs and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
-Ayatollah Khomeini
gravenimage says
Spot on, Wellington.
somehistory says
As a “mozlum”…forget the American part, this idiot writes only in favor of his death cult and all must be restricted to only complimentary …if there were any…things one can say or write about mozlums.
mozlums come to the “land of the Free” and then want to put shackles on those who were born here of parents who were born here and on those who fled such places as this mozlum describes for the very reason that they actually wanted to live free of the restrictions placed on them by the likes of this scum.
If rushdie had written bad stuff about the Amish…most likely he would have had to make a long search to find something, unless he lied big time…they would not be putting out a hit on him and offering money in the event that someone killed the author.
This idiot’s arguments are the same as what other idiots have written. The Freedom of Speech…for which Washington and others fought long and hard to establish…is to be measured according to members of a death cult who can’t stand to have their beliefs held up for examination, criticism or just to publish the plain facts of what they are all about. mozlums want to prevent the very things that were the main thoughts of the Founders….Freedom to speak one’s mind, even when others don’t like hearing the words, and Freedom to worship as they choose, to be all they could work to attain and be “equal” to others in respect to being allowed to *try* whatever they wanted.
Others have written plenty regarding Christians….much of it untrue and biased…plenty of stuff on Jews and making untrue claims, many of such claims coming from mozlums and no one has had a death threat from those who were lied about. His argument on that point fall flat….as they always do.
If mozlums don’t like the Freedom, they can go elsewhere and make it soon. Very soon. We who love and appreciate Freedom to say what we believe and what we think, won’t miss you. We would be happy that the infestation was over and done. So go, go now.
gravenimage says
Somehistory, Omar Alansari-Kreger has been spouting apologia for the Armenian genocide. He refers to those condemning the Armenian Genocide “haughty”.
https://www.startribune.com/a-prejudicial-history-rethinking-the-armenian-genocide/564382962/
He cites the career of Armenian Güllü Agop in the Ottoman Empire as supposed proof that there was no discrimination against Armenians there–without ever nothing that he converted to Islam and changed his name to Yakub.
No mention that the Armenian Genocide wiped out over a million people–most of the Infidel population there.
And the Star Tribune ran this. I’m sure all the Muslims in Minneapolis approved…
somehistory says
he’s a “mozlum”, and an “idiot” just as I said. I wouldn’t call him an American and he is not friend liberty or truth.
A “snake in a suit” like Dr Robert Hare wrote about.
Westman says
“As a Muslim American, I cannot resist wondering: Has Rushdie criticized the Amish in the same way he criticizes Islam and Muslims?”
I cannot resist wondering if Omar Alansari-Kreger has deeply studied his own religion. Where in the Amish religion is the requirement to subdue the world? Where is the killing of Apostates? Where is the Amish God’s declaration that men are superior to women? When did a “prophet” of the Amish order the killing of dogs? Or the killing of his critics? You can leave the Amish religion without keeping a watchful eye over your shoulder.
Islam is incompatible with the rights guaranteed to all citizens under the US Constitution. Any obfuscation to suggest they are compatible relies on the ignorance of the hearer.
While Islam remains in the realm of personal religion, not injected into secular law, not exercised as an alternate law system, nor publicly threatening citizens public behavior, it poses little risk to society. When expressed as supremist or demanding public adherence to its own standards, Islam should ecpect to be roundly criticised as would any other organization making the same demands.
No alternate systems of justice, such as Sharia Courts should ever be allowed; being themselves societal divisions that offer special or adverse justice in place of guaranteed citizen rights.
mortimer says
I doubt Omar Alansari-Kreger is ‘ignorant’. I think he is having us on with his TAQIYYA.
– “Taqiyya permeates almost all the activities and dealings of Muslims with non-Muslim societies…” – former sheikh Sam Solomon
– “Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.” – Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam (London: Mu’assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004)
– “Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.” – from Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, p. 32
– ‘One who does not lie has no Islamic Faith (Iman)’ . [Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafia in Al-Musanaf, Volume 7 page 642]
– “The Taqiyya is my religion, and the religion of my ancestors … He who doesn’t practice al-Taqiyya, doesn’t practice his religion.” – Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq
– Abu al-Darda, a companion of Mohammed said: “(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people).” (Reference 13. Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p81)
– Allah is the best of deceivers – “Allahu khayru al-makireena” – K. 3:54; cf. 8:30
gravenimage says
Agreed Westman and Mortimer.
somehistory says
Great comment, Westman.
mortimer says
Sharia law doesn’t recognize the First Amendment and would nullify it.
Omar Alansari-Kreger is pretending he doesn’t realize this already
Sharia law gives the control of all speech to the mullahs. Under Sharia law only the mullahs have the freedom of expression. That means that no one in Sharia law society has a right to disagree with the mullahs.
Jamie James says
It is a novel, have you read it? Most people who criticise it have never read it
Ray Jarman says
I am curious about how many of the critics of Rushdie have even read the “Satanic Verses.” The first time that I read the novel, I thought the inner story of the people running into the sea, thinking they would reach the other side was strange but after reading the Quran and other books, I re-read the book and saw things that I completely missed or misunderstood. The segments concerning the two who survived the plane exploding in the air (the scene where one of them saw the female terrorist falling to earth was amusing) was beautifully written and the outcome was perfect. The most tragic segment (at least to me) was the outcome the man hiding in the house of the ladies of the night.
I remember jogging with a friend back in late 1980’s when the news of the fatwa from Iran was announced and I mentioned how disgusted I was but my friend said that Rushdie should not have written about Islam. To me, my friend’s statement was as terrifying as the fatwa itself.
somehistory says
I don’t know if you are a Bible reader, but there is a verse that says, “Oppose the devil and he will flee from you.”
this is similar to what Mr. Raymond Ibrahim has written about mozlums being *brave* when weakness is shown by their enemies, but lacking courage when their enemies show strength and a willingness to oppose and fight them. When their enemies are determined to fight, mozlums back off.
We all must speak about their evil belief and the atrocities committed in the name of their ‘god.’ to remain silent emboldens them.
Ray Jarman says
Somehistory, I totally agree and believe me, a lot of people I know never wish to discuss the ills of today’s world. I have learned to accept being called a racist for simply responding truthfully and I wear it as a badge of honor.
somehistory says
any time anyone…and I mean *anyone* calls me names in an attempt to insult me, and silence my voice, I remember what the people called Jesus and, like you say, it is an honor to be in His company.
mortimer says
Ray Jarman: “my friend’s statement was as terrifying as the fatwa itself”.
I don’t know if your ‘friend’ was a Muslim, but he seems to have had the instinct that Islam is an ‘HONOR/SHAME’ culture.
When honor is lost, Muslims believe ‘honor’ is a real thing like money. Islamic ‘honor’ is restored when it paid back in blood.
Since Rushdie survived, Allah and the mullahs have not received their ‘payment’.
tim gallagher says
In my opinion, islam fosters the division in society. It is totally them and us in its view of things. The Koran is full of hatred for any non-believers and calls for them to be killed if Muslims get the chance. The chances of having peaceful interactions with Muslims in any society is zero. This guy is an idiot. islam has no intention of getting along with non-Muslims and never has had and it never will.
somehistory says
Tim, as you know, mozlums are taught to lie. And the majority of them…the ones who speak about their poor victimhood, etc….are clearly psychopaths. Psychopaths **never** accept responsibility for any thing that goes awry, any errors, any mistakes or crimes. Psychopaths lie and point the finger of blame at anyone they believe may either accept the blame or can’t defend themselves.
Psychopaths take and take and the only thing they give, is trouble. mozlums like this fool, are psychopaths. He knows his own book says to not make friends with others and to ”strike necks,” strike terror and keep up the pressure until the infidel feels “subdued.”
These are not things that help people get along together and “build bridges.”
build a bridge between you and mozlums and they’ll cross it to murder you and rape your wives, sisters and daughters.
tim gallagher says
I agree, somehistory. Certainly, the Koran, their main play book, divides people up into Muslims and the hated non-believers who are hated, so this man needs to be truthful enough to admit that Muslims are generally not the slightest bit interested in ending divisions in society. Islam divides society completely into the members of their evil ideology and the rest of us. As you say, most Muslims will lie continually and any bridge built will be used by Muslims to stab the hated non-Muslims in the back when the chance arises.
somehistory says
And the saddest part, Tim, is that so many, many ,many people fall for the lies mozlums whine in an effort to keep an upper hand; to be the masters over us infidels.
Many of the unknowning, treat mozlums as if they really are here to get along and be a productive citizen, and would not think any differently when someone such as you or another person with some knowledge of the facts, tries to enlighten them to the dangers. they don’t see the world as mozlums do….to be conquered and enslaved…and they don’t believe mozlums …as people….would do that either. The concept is too foreign to them.
tim gallagher says
I agree, somehistory. Far too many slow learners around the place who are sleepwalking to disaster with their delusion about islam’s nature.
gravenimage says
Star Tribune hits Rushdie: We must ‘use our First Amendment rights to build bridges rather than reinforce divisions’
………………………………………
Ah, right–because what is more indicative of “building bridges” than *trying to behead a peaceful novelist?
And Omar Alansari-Kreger is demanding that we submit to the demands of these Islamic thugs.
And look at his using sneer quotes over the civilized world being considered free. Of course, if he has his way it won’t be for much longer.
More:
However, the attack last week on famed novelist Salman Rushdie revisits a rather pertinent question: What is the best way to define free speech in America? Does it imply we can voice or publish whatever, wherever, or whenever we want no matter how inflammatory, incendiary, undermining and polarizing the message?…
………………………………………
What he really means is how can anyone be allowed to criticize Islam. Muslims rarely care if anyone else is criticized, and besides Muslims regularly say the most vicious things about Infidels. But Infidels are not demanding this kind of censorship in most cases.
More:
Salman Rushdie has undoubtedly gained fame and notoriety as an outspoken atheist and secular humanist. Rushdie self-identifies as a “hard line atheist.” However, is he also an equal opportunity one? To paraphrase Rushdie when called out on his Islamophobia, he responded: No, it is unfair to label Islam violent, but to my immediate knowledge, no writer has never gone into hiding for criticizing the Amish.
As a Muslim American, I cannot resist wondering: Has Rushdie criticized the Amish in the same way he criticizes Islam and Muslims?
………………………………………
What grotesque calumny. There is nothing in Amish faith or ideology that teaches murdering their critics. And there are certainly people who poke fun at the Amish, so it is not as though this has never been tested.
Whereas of course Islam *does* teach the murder of “blasphemers”, and the death Fatwa came from the highest-ranking and most famous of all modern Shia clerics.
More:
Rushdie’s magnum opus, “The Satanic Verses,” is arguably best described as a work caught somewhere between religious romanticism, pre-Islamic mythological allegory and new age metaphysics centered on the duality of man….
If Rushdie really wanted to prove he is in fact not an Islamophobe, why did he limit his focus in “The Satanic Verses” to Islam? Why not develop the work into a multivolume trilogy equally targeting Christianity and Judaism the same way Rushdie targeted and subsequently attacked Islam?
………………………………………
So what if he had? Jews and Christians would have criticized the books, and some would have made a very public point of not buying them. But no Jew or Christian would have called for his murder, and certainly no Jew or Christian would have tried to behead him.
And Muslims still would have gone after him just the same.
And look at this madness, in any case–this assumes that Salman Rushdie had nothing at all to say in his work, but just should have been an “equal opportunity offender”. Ridiculous.
And Muslims regularly laud the Holocaust and condemn Jews. I imagine that Omar Alansari-Kreger knows this.
More:
As a free society, we share a civic responsibility to use our First Amendment rights to build bridges rather than reinforce divisions if we have any hope in restoring “defamatory equality” and justice in speech and press freedoms….
………………………………………
What the hell is “defamatory equality”? I did an online search, and the *only* place I can find this phrase is in Alansari-Kreger’s very article, so this is hardly anything that people are clamoring for. I suppose this would mean that for things to be equal that people have to condemn crime and good citizenship just the same, condemn kicking puppies and petting them, condemn robbing your neighbor and not stealing from him. In other words, to condemn evil and good in just the same way–the definition of enabling evil.
Andrew Blackadder says
The photo of this wee muslim fellow had me question what sex that ”person” is…
The main reason Rushdie wrote a book that was about a muslim situation is because he knows something about islam as writters are always told, write what you know, and thats why he never wrote about Amish,Jews,Buddhists, Hindus but only about islam..
I guess thats just way too hard for a silly wee self righteous muslim like this one to get his silly wee head around.
Though perhaps he figured that the Authors name could be thought of as Rush Die….
Why do these muslims live in the heart of ”The Great Satan” as there are just so many lovely peaceful tolerant compassionate and understanding islamic Nations around the World…. NOT….