Controversial activist Nonie Darwish to speak at Whig Hall

Her lecture last November was called off the night before when both of the hosting student groups, Tigers for Israel and Whig-Clio, withdrew their sponsorship, citing her criticism of Islam and concerns voiced by some members of the campus community. On her blog, Darwish has criticized Muslim law for encouraging “vigilante street justice to bring about Islamic submission.”

Soon after the cancellation of last fall’s event, Whig-Clio and The Princeton Tory decided to invite Darwish again. Today’s talk is titled “Human, Minority, and Women’s Rights Under Islamic Law” and is also co-sponsored by an outside organization known as CAMERA — the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

“This is something that’s been on the back of my mind since the initial event was canceled,” said Aaron Smargon ’11, president of the Tory. “It wasn’t so much that I agreed with the speaker. I don’t endorse her views necessarily, but I thought she was treated very unfairly. I kind of wanted to send a message that speakers should not be treated this way.”

He added that his motivation for re-inviting Darwish was “mostly [the issue of] free speech.”

Muslim Life Coordinator Sohaib Sultan said he supported “the free exchange of ideas and perspectives” but did not view her visit as beneficial for the University and its community.

“I would say Darwish goes into the area of irresponsibility,” he said. “A true scholar is one who examines different perspectives and someone who is fair in their analysis and their approach. Nonie Darwish is not such a person ... Somebody who is unfair in their analysis I think creates more division and is not really a helpful voice on campus.”

Darwish’s two books “Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Implications of Sharia Law” and “Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror” primarily discuss criticisms of radical Muslim laws and Islamic fundamentalism.

Still, some say, she unfairly condemns Islam as a whole.

“I am amazed by the fact that a second Princeton student organization would have such an interest in listening to old bigoted cliches from an Islamophobic former-Muslim, who is as much of an expert on Islam as an average Jew for Jesus is about Judaism,” Yoel Bitran ’11, president of the Princeton Committee on Palestine, said in an e-mail. Bitran added that he was expressing his personal opinion and was not speaking on behalf of PCP.

Rafael Grinberg ’12, former vice president of TFI and a campus representative for CAMERA, argued that others have inaccurately interpreted Darwish’s views. He said the notion that she condemns Islam as a whole was “completely false.”

“She doesn’t accuse anyone of anything,” he said. “She makes very clear the difference between Islam as a religion and radical Islam as a politicized movement. That came up last time the event was canceled. I was really surprised that people had that view of her ... That people have this ridiculous conception of her is unfounded.”

While he does not share all of Darwish’s views, Grinberg said, extending an invitation to her was standing up for free speech.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

“She was canceled because people disagreed with her,” he said. “They dropped their co-sponsorship because they didn’t want to look bad.”

Saud Al-Thani ’12, president of the Muslim Students Association, said in an e-mail that “the level of discourse on religion on campus has been reduced to the dissemination of hate speech.”

But Smargon argued that Darwish’s views were not hateful toward particular people.

“I think when speech turns into hate speech, that should not be permitted,” he said. “But [Darwish] doesn’t attack a person,” he explained. “She doesn’t attack people. She attacks an ideology. You should be able to attack an ideology in at least an American university setting. I would challenge anybody that thinks that this is hate speech to find any quote in which she attacks a person.”

Sultan, however, dismissed this type of reasoning as “phony.”

“Hate speech is not just about attacking people,” Sultan said. “It’s about distorting people’s beliefs and their practices and speaking about them without proper understanding or proper knowledge. Eventually what ends up happening is that for the people who buy into this type of rhetoric, the antagonism created within those people will also be directed toward the people that practice the ideology.”

Charlie Metzger ’12, president of Whig-Clio, said that the society often agrees to co-sponsor controversial speakers invited by other student groups and wanted to remain consistent.

He added that because Darwish’s talk will focus on the rights of minority groups under Shariah law and not her views of Islam as a whole, the talk was appropriate for a University setting.

Metzger added that there were some disagreements about the format of the lecture, noting that CAMERA resisted his idea of having a faculty respondent present a counterargument at the end of Darwish’s talk.

Metzger is also a columnist for The Daily Princetonian.

“We in Whig-Clio tried very, very hard,” he said. “It was supremely ironic to me that an organization whose stated goals are fairness and accuracy would not allow a faculty respondent with a Ph.D. in Near Eastern studies to respond to and, if necessary, fact check Darwish ... We feel that in the interest of intellectual honesty, there ought to be balance in events our society sponsors.”

Daniel Kowalski ’12, public relations chair for MSA, also voiced concerns about Darwish’s scholarly integrity.

“If she were coming as an academic, I could respect it, but she’s not,” he said. “Scholars, they’re knowledgeable about current papers on the issue, and they have an in-depth knowledge.”

Whig-Clio is instead planning a panel discussion slated for next week with Sultan, Muslim student leaders and professors in the Near Eastern studies department to respond to Darwish.

Smargon said he welcomed opponents of Darwish to come to the talk and participate in the dialogue.

“We want Darwish to be challenged,” he explained. “We don’t want her to get a free ride from students. What scares me a little bit is the degree to which people are emotional or irrational about it. I want there to be rational questions.”