By now, most Tory readers are probably familiar with the events surrounding Nonie Darwish’s aborted visit to the Princeton campus. Less clear, however, is whether Tigers for Israel and Whig-Clio were justified in revoking their invitation to Ms. Darwish. The explanation they cited was that her opinions were too critical not just of radical Islam, but of the Muslim religion itself. In this series, I attempt to evaluate whether or not that proposition is accurate. I hope to be in contact with Ms. Darwish soon, but in the meanwhile her website proves to be a fruitful source of information.
To begin with, it appears that some elements of Darwish’s positions are well within the American mainstream. As the founder of the organization Arabs for Israel, she expresses support for a country widely believed to be a crucial U.S. ally. And certainly few would find fault with her condemnation of terrorist violence orchestrated by Islamic fundamentalists.
Like many commentators of all stripes (including liberal New York Times columnist Tom Friedman), Darwish takes her argument one step further and accuses the global Muslim community of failing to do its part to combat extremism within its own ranks. This idea is slightly more controversial, as it implicates a far broader segment of the world’s Muslim population, but nevertheless finds substantial support among the American intelligentsia, and therefore is insufficient to explain the enraged reaction that ensued when Darwish was invited to Princeton.
What distinguishes Darwish from other Muslim and former Muslim activists against radical Islam, such as Aayan Hirsi Ali, is her record of bombastic statements, such as her accusation that Islam is “the greatest lie in human history.” Next time, I will seek to discover whether such comments are merely exceptions to a pattern of moderate, well-reasoned criticism of Islamic extremism, or if they are in fact representative of her belief system.
Sam Norton is a junior from Falmouth, Maine. He is majoring in politics.