The author has no understanding of Islam at all
(Re: “The war against terrorism is a war against Islam,” 2 April 2002)
I was very offended by Joshua Somer’s bigoted views on what Islam is and his relentless efforts to connect it with violence. Given his past record of such Islamophobic rhetoric, I was not surprised at his racist comments, but rather at the Varsity’s dwindling professionalism in publishing such pointless hate-mongering.
To begin with, the author’s claim to understand Islam is clearly a lie. He correctly states that Islam is a complete way of life. However, from that he draws the conclusion that Muslims intend to impose their views on others. If Somer had actually spent at least a minute trying to learn about Islam, he would have come across the famous verse “let there be no compulsion in religion.” This is why Islamic civilization ruled the world for more than six centuries. Muslim subjects, whether they were the minority groups in Europe or the Jews living in Arabia, were treated more equally than any minority living today in any part of the world.
Somer also forgets the contributions of Muslim scientists and philosophers over the years, which were all based on reasoning and logic.
Lastly, he takes a verse (“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them..”) from the Qur’an and presents it out of context. The oft-quoted Quranic verse about killing of pagans pertains to only a particular period when the pagans had rejected a treaty and were hostile towards Muslims. It is like generalizing the American army order to kill Vietnamese guerillas for “all time to come.”
The next time Joshua Somer writes such nonsense, I hope the Varsity editors do the job they are supposed to do and prevent such virulent bursts of hatred from polluting our campus. I encourage Somer to develop a more complete understanding of Islam—a good place to start is www.beliefnet.com.
Farhan Ahmad
Offensive opinion piece implies that a few fanatics can define a religion
(Re: “The war against terrorism is a war against Islam,” 2 April 2002)
I would like to say that I very strongly oppose, and am offended by, the article written by Joshua J. Somer, as it seems to breed nothing but hatred for Muslims everywhere. As he clearly pointed out in his opening paragraph, everyone has said that Islam is not a religion of violence.
If we start pointing fingers at a religion because of a few fanatics, then Christians, Jews and Hindus are all to blame as well. Christianity has a vast history of cults. Many of them we have seen in our lifetimes.
Many still exist today and are making headlines in the southern United States. Jews, too, have their fundamentalists.
There is clear opposition within the Israeli people themselves to the fighting in Palestine, yet the government persists. We have also recently seen what Hindu fanatics have done in Gujarat, India. Should we say every Hindu walking around breeds hatred for Muslims? This would be absolutely absurd!
The point being in all of this, a few radicals cannot define a religion.
They should not define it. Any person who blames an entire religion for the actions of a few fanatics needs to re-evaluate where his hatred is coming from. Islam does not oppose reason, democracy and freedom. In fact, Islam promotes all these things.
If Mr. Somer had taken the time to research the religion in what it really says, namely the Qur’an and the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammed, he would have realized Islam does not promote the killing of innocent people—it strongly opposes it. The Qur’an, after speaking about retaliation in war, concludes by saying that “…he who transgresses thereafter, shall be sternly punished.” (2:178)
Islam is not, and was not, at war with the United States.
Therefore, any sort of killing that the fanatics think is lawful is clearly not.
This is a clear violation of the Qur’an, and any man who uses this ayah, or others like it, to promote hatred will have to answer to the Lord on the Day of Judgement.
As for Mr. Somer, if he believed in any sort of higher power, I don’t think he would have written such an outright hateful article.
Iqbal Jaffer
Abortion’s not the issue here
(Re: “What does the LGBTOUT think about abortion?” 26 March 2002)
LGBTOUT does not have an official position on abortion. As you might imagine, some LGBTQ people are pro-choice. Some are pro-life. None of them should be expected to sit quietly when homophobes are invited to campus. LGBTOUT respects diversity of action, existence and opinion. So we resent the implication that we “condemn” the speakers invited by Students for Life for their position on abortion. We condemn them because they are notorious homophobes and transphobes, as even the most cursory web search quickly demonstrates. If the Gardeners’ Collective were to invite a speaker known for homophobia, we would respond in much the same fashion, regardless of our official stance on the overuse of perennials in suburban flowerbeds. In summary, we think the question Mr. Rusac should be asking is not “What is LGBTOUT’s position on abortion?” but “Why does Students for Life keep booking homophobes to speak for the pro-life position?”
Mark Riczu
LGBTOUT Coordinator
Counterpoint to the editorial
The debate over the Varsity Centre levy touches on many nerves for many reasons. Each one of us has our own reasons for supporting or not supporting the levy. The referendum is our chance to express that. But in order to do this, we need the best possible information. That’s why I was dismayed to see the Varsity adopt a “No Levy” stand.
The Varsity editorial says the university will still build a facility on the site of Varsity Stadium with the $14.6 million it has committed. This is true, but what kind of facility? The university money will have to fund part of the demolition of Varsity Stadium, transition and construction of a new building from this money. The planned Varsity Centre will be inclusive for all students at all levels of activities. Make no mistake, the other facility will be an elite sport facility that will only house intercollegiate and, to a certain extent, intramural sports. It won’t be the “modest facility” implied in the editorial.
Second, you say the Centre is a Cadillac facility. The truth is, the track will be a medium-grade track, not a high-performance track facility like the one at York University. The ice surfaces will be NHL-sized, but that’s to accommodate existing U of T programs. The artificial field will be able to host the number of participants and variety of activities planned for the facility. That’s not a Cadillac.
Third, the assertion of premature campaigning by the Yes side is unfounded. The information campaign for both pro- and anti-Varsity Centre groups began in early January. Jorge Sousa and Bruce Kidd participated in a Students’ Adminstrative Council (SAC)-sponsored Town Hall meeting on January 10. This meeting was to help SAC gauge support for the centre and was largely attended by pro-side supporters. What this illustrates is that both groups were prepared and active in January.
Fourth, student staffers were not hired prior to the request for a referendum, as stated. Pro-Varsity positions were advertised in late January, after the COSS meeting. That’s just not breaking rules, just being prepared.
I could go on and refute every assertion made in the editorial, but I have a word limit. My point is, there are points to be made on both sides of every discussion. By taking a No stand, the Varsity has effectively helped take away the voice of those who support the Varsity Centre. That’s interesting, for a free press.
Sarah Lipton
Varsity Centre Supporter
Formal newspaper editorials are generally understood to represent the views of the masthead and staff of a newspaper. They serve a vital function, as those views may affect the content of the paper. The goal is transparency. The Varsity’s Opinion section has published numerous articles on both sides of the discussion.
