Pro-Islamic tevisionism accepted by cowardly academics who would not tolerate it elsewhere. That's hypocrisy!

Submitted by GWK (United States), Aug 18, 2008 at 16:28

Dorine, I don't think it's the New York Times sault, nor that of the MSM, although there is an unbalanced resistance to be seen as saying anything against any one religion. The NYT doesn't go after Scientology either.

While fear of Muslim retribution through violence is a real concern in defeating freedom of the press, the greatest threat to freedom on information and the truth is the seemingly open embrace of Muslims by many on the left and by academia as a correct path toward expanding "mutual understanding". But, having met these tenured propagandists at many decent colleges and universities, I am afraid that university administrators trying to present "both sides" of the coin, have accidentally allowed one-sided propagandists to distort the truth about Islam's voilent and intolerant historyand that no academic standards keep so called "Islamic Studies" depatrtments in check.

It is as if revisionism was being rewarded in academia by academics who would not tolerate it elsewhere. That's hypocrisy and it's against all principles of academic rigor.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".