 Good evening. Welcome to Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons, a panel discussion. My name is Jason Hoskin. I'm the President and Founder of the USC Objectivist Club. The USC Objectivist Club is a university student organization whose purpose is a study of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ein Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountain Head. This event would not have been possible without the dedication of the Ein Rand Institute. It has been a consistent source of financial, moral and logistical support for this event. We'd also like to thank Professor James Moore from Social Policy and Planning and Development for his financial support as well as his help in publicizing this event. We'd also like to thank our esteemed panelists and moderator for agreeing to participate in tonight's event. For those interested in the club and in Objectivism, there is information at the table in the lobby for you to take as you'd like. If you value tonight's event and look forward to more of these events in the future, you might consider becoming a financial supporter of the club. Donations will be accepted at the information table in the lobby. Also, you can make a donation via our website, www.useobjectivistclub.com, which has a paypal button where you can make donations electronically. Before I turn the microphone over to our moderator for this event, who will then introduce the panelists and give some background information about this event, I'd like to remind you all of our Standards for Audience participation this evening. This is a panel discussion, which includes the opportunity for audience questions and answers. We are here for respectful, rigorous, and passionate intellectual discourse. If you want to disrupt or interrupt the proceedings, we're here to protest. Security will be escorting you out of the building. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Our moderator for this evening is Dr. Edwin Locke. Dr. Locke is Dean's Professor Emeritus of Leadership and Motivation at the University of Maryland. He has published more than 230 articles, chapters, and books on subjects such as leadership, work motivation, goal setting, job satisfaction, incentives, and the philosophy of science. He is internationally known for his work on human motivation. He's the author of such books as The Prime Movers, Traits of the Great Well Creators. And now, without further ado, Dr. Edwin Locke. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to tonight's panel discussion, Unveiling the Danish Cartoons, A Discussion of Free Speech and World Reaction. Last fall, on September 30th, the Danish newspaper, Jelens Posten published 12 cartoons depicting Mohammed. The cartoons were commissioned to illustrate an article in freedom of speech and were on the climate of fear of criticizing Islam that has been growing among European intellectuals. Apparently, that fear was well founded. The cartoons sparked a firestorm of controversy that has reached a climax in recent months. The Islamic world erupted into violent protest with rioters setting fire to the Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon. Death threats and widespread calls to inflict violence on the cartoonists have sent them into hiding for fear of their lives. Some of the cartoons that generated this response will be on display this evening shortly. In America, the right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment to our Constitution, which reads as follows, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Similar protections of freedom of speech exist in virtually all Western countries. Issues to be addressed tonight will include, what is freedom of speech? Does it include the right to offend? What is the significance of the worldwide Islamic reaction to the cartoons? How should Western governments have responded to this incident? How should the Western media have responded? Let me now introduce our panelist for tonight. On my right, Dr. Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. He taught world history at the University of Chicago, 1978-82, history at Harvard University, 1983-84, and policy strategy at the Naval War College, 1984-86. He worked on the policy planning staff at the State Department in 1983 and was director of a Philadelphia think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute for 70 years before starting the Middle East Forum in 1994. Dr. Pipes is the author of 12 books, plus numerous newspaper columns and a weblog. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, and he appears weekly in Israel's Jerusalem Post, Italy's La Pinione, Spain's La Raison, and monthly in the Australian and Canada's Globe and Mail. His website, danielpipes.org, is the single most accessed internet source of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, The O'Reilly Factor, The Today Show, BBC, and Al Jazeera. On my left, the other panelist, Dr. Yaron Brooke, is president and executive director of the INRAN Institute. As a recognized expert on objectivism, the philosophy of INRAN is interviewed extensively by the print radio and television media for the objectivist position on current events and issues, such as the war in Iraq, internet control and censorship, threats to freedom of speech, and other issues. His recent media appearances include TV interviews on Closing Bell and The O'Reilly Factor. Dr. Brooke's previous service in the Israeli Army Intelligence and years of extensive research have given him an expertise on the Middle East conflict and American foreign policy in that region. Universities and community groups around the country have hosted his most recent speeches on the situation in the Middle East, which include talks on the moral case for supporting Israel and why America is losing the war on terror. So we'll now pause while the cartoons are put up. Here's how tonight's format will go. There will be an opening statement by Dr. Pipes for ten minutes, an opening statement by Dr. Brooke for ten minutes, and I will pose five questions to the two panelists, and they will have, depending on how it's been pre-organized, between two and four minutes to respond to the question. When those questions are completed, we will have both written and oral questions from the audience, and I'll give the rules for that after we finish the main program. So to start the evening off, Dr. Pipes will now give his opening statement. We will have a gentleman, if you'd hold up, give you the two-minute sign and the 30-second sign. Thank you, Dr. Locke, for the kind introduction. I thank Jason Hoskin and the Objectivist Club for hosting us, the Ayn Rand Institute for Taking the Initiative, and the University of Southern California for allowing us use of its facilities and protecting us. I think it's important to be here, and I'll explain why in the next few minutes. The issue at hand, I believe, ultimately is not really about freedom of speech. The issue could well have been something else, or the specific could well have been something else. The issue ultimately here is whether we in the United States are going to live under some form of Sharia law or not. Whether Islamic law will decide what we do or not. The instance in this case happens to be cartoons of Mohammed. But it could well have had to do with other issues. For example, concerning the status of women, concerning halal food, concerning many other points. The key issue is whether we in the United States are willing to allow the imposition of an alien legal code on ourselves. Are we going to give a special privilege to Islam, such as it has in Muslim majority countries? Or is Islam going to join the other religions in the United States and the free-for-all and the marketplace of ideas and the critique and the positive and negative discussion that comes with that? We are used to in this country having a freedom of speech concerning religion. We're used to giving no religion special status. Islam historically has had a special status in countries where it predominates. And the impetus, the historic impetus of Islam is to expand and to win such special rights elsewhere. That is at base what's at issue here. The first time the Islamic world in some fashion tried to control the debate or the discussion in the West occurred 17 years earlier. When in February of 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini ruler of Iran sent out an edict in which he condemned Salman Rushdie for publishing a novel of Satanic verses in London in which he made fun of Muhammad. And at that point Khomeini said, you may not do this. He indicated that the laws that apply in Iran apply also in England. The issue at that time was rather similar to this one. And it became clear to Westerners that if you speak in a less than complementary way about Muhammad, you will be penalized. This was round two. Some cartoonists did draw cartoons that were less than complementary and they were penalized, which brings me to my second point. The traction of these ideas depends very much, very much on the left in our societies. Where the left ignores and repudiates the position of radical Islam, you find that the Islamists are very weak and apologetic. For example, just two weeks ago, there was the story of an Afghan Muslim born who converted to Christianity. He was in judgment and on his way to execution for the audacity to leave Islam and join Christianity. When the outside world got wind of this, intervened, he was found insane and let go and he now lives in Italy. All this happened just within days. Now, there was no leftist that I encountered or heard of who said, you know, this makes sense to me that a Muslim who wants to convert to Christianity should be executed. No one, but no one in the West said this makes sense. And therefore, the Islamist organizations and thinkers and spokesmen all backtracked and found excuses and said, well, that's not really the case. We don't really execute people, which was not true. They do execute people. But the key point I'm making here is that because the left renounced the Islamist program, the Islamists had to backtrack and apologize, obfuscate. In a case like the Danish cartoons, where the left was generally antagonistic but not entirely so, you find that the cartoons did the cartoon issue was not, as in the case of the apostasy of a Muslim, was not a slam dunk. It was not a clear case where the Islamist organizations and spokesmen had to retreat. In fact, they felt pretty confident. And then when you go to a third case, such as the balance between national security and personal rights, where the left is standing solidly with the Islamists, you find that the Islamists are very aggressive. So the key factor in how radical Islam fares in our societies is not so much the Islamist program, but how much of a support it gets from non-Muslim and specifically leftist elements. In looking back on the cartoon crisis, which began in early February or began as an international phenomenon in early February and lasted for about three weeks, I think the key question to ask is what is the net effect? What is the balance? How do things look as a result of that? More specifically, are cartoonists more likely to do what they did back in September of 2005, or are they less likely? Is such an act been made more possible because of the crisis, or is it less possible? And to my mind, I think there's no doubt that it's less possible. The Western world has been put on notice that there will be many deaths, there will be much protest, there will be economic consequences if you engage in this kind of activity. So we are working backwards. We are less free than we were a few months ago. What would have been the solution? What would have been, I believe, the right thing to do? Would have been a unanimous Western response, as in the case of the Afghan who converted to Christianity, saying, no, this is not acceptable. We do not do business like this. We do have freedom of speech, and that includes the freedom to criticize one religion or another, including Islam. It means the freedom to make fun of Jesus, to make fun of Muhammad, to make fun of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. There is equal opportunity to criticize. But because we did not do that, because it was only a partial response, because only some newspapers, because only some television stations showed these cartoons, in effect we had on balance a weakening. And that's why I'm here today, because I think it's important that we show these cartoons, that we assert the freedom we have to show these, to speak about them, to talk about these issues. I regret that we need to have security for these sort of events, but I'm delighted that we have the security. I'm delighted that the Ayn Rand Institute and the Objectivist Club have taken initiative, because I think in each of our ways we need to assert the need to demonstrate that we are free. We do not live under the Sharia. We have no intention of living under the Sharia. And here is the symbol of our will. Thank you. Good evening. I'd also like to thank Jason with the USC Objectivist Club and my colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute for putting on this event. I'd also like to thank Dr. Pipes for joining me tonight on this panel. And of course Dr. Locke for the second time agreeing to be our moderator. Why are we here? Why show the cartoons? Why is the Ayn Rand Institute now on its fourth event, such event, and by the time we're finished there'll be at least five of these all across the country? The reason we're here is I think that events demand it. The publication of the cartoons, the response in the Muslim world but more importantly if it is the response in the West. What was the response in the West? Well, for the most part it was silence. It was showing the demonstrations in the Middle East but leaving it at that. It was the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal representing both left and right deciding not to publish the cartoons. It was Danish cartoonists going into hiding for fear of their lives. It was President Bush and the State Department declaring that while we all have the right to free speech, I guess in some theoretical sense, we need to use it responsibly, which in other words is a codename for not offending anybody, not getting anybody upset, not putting anybody at risk. I think this is a horrific response and this is why we are doing this. We are doing this because the US government and US media have in my view neglected their responsibility to stand up and to defend free speech in this country. So given that our media and given that our government is not doing what is necessary, what are we to do? What are we as the citizens of a free country supposed to do? Well, I think this is what we're supposed to do. We need to stand up to evil. We need to refuse to be silenced. We need to show that we will exercise our rights without fear, with security, but without fear, that we will not let the intimidation work because when those riots happened in the Middle East, what was the goal of the riots? What was the goal of burning down embassies? What was the goal of killing people? What was the goal of threatening the cartoonists with, where is it over there, with beheading? Behead all those who offend Islam? What is the goal of that? It is to silence us. And if we care about our freedoms, if we care about our right to speak, we have to stand up against that intimidation and say, no, we will not be silenced. We will not let you intimidate us. And if our government defaults on its responsibility to stand up to you and has, as Dr. Pipes mentioned, for 17 years now, since the Solomon-Rushti affair, because of course the Bush Seniors Administration did exactly the same thing. And did he condemn both Rushti and the Iranians for issuing the fatwa? If they will not do it, then we as the American people need to stand up and do it. Not only do we need to show the Muslim population or those radical Muslims who demonstrate it, who would want to intimidate us, who want to silence us, but much more importantly, in my view, we need to show Americans. And we need to show our own government. The American people will not be silenced. Then in spite of their weakness, we are not weak. And I think the importance of doing it on campuses, though all these events have been on campus, and I'm glad to see quite a few students in the audience tonight, is that the America we are talking about is the America of the future. The America where rights are going to be restricted is your America. The America that you are growing into, if you will, that is the rest of your lives. And it is crucial for you as students to start now defending your rights, to start now defending your freedom. If we don't, if we don't stand up, then what conclusions are the rioters going to make? What conclusions are they going to come to? That we can be intimidated, into silence. That today it's cartoons, tomats, and editorials in the New York Times. It's what appears on the Einren Institute website, or Dr. Pipes' website. It's other issues like food and how we treat women and so on. If they riot, if they intimidate us, if they threaten our lives, we'll just fold. We'll give in. And they can establish, they show real law on America, on Europe, on the rest of the world as they desire. And really, if you take this even broader, what of other groups? What will they learn from this? I mean, there are plenty of groups that would love to see American society and the West change. Well, they might learn that intimidation and violence works, whether it's environmentalists on the left or whether it's radical Christians who would like us to behave in different ways than we behave today. If they riot, if they burn a few buildings, we'll capitulate, we'll just fold. We'll change. What is truly at stake here is our freedom. It is our freedom of speech, but more broadly, all of our freedoms are at stake. Every one of them. And of course, what makes this particular issue all the more significant is that it is about freedom of speech. Because speech is the only way in which we can't object. Speech is the only way that we can say no. This is wrong. We're in this auditorium, not going to raise guns and go out and burn our own buildings and demonstrations against. Our tool is reason. Our tool is discussion. It's debate. It's mind. It's speech. And as a consequence, this issue is even more important because it is about speech. Because once speech is eliminated, we are truly defenseless. I mean, the Einwand Institute has to shut down because if offending somebody is the criteria, we offend pretty much everybody. Go to our website. You can see. Now, what are the writing Muslims want? Well, they want our submission. As Dr. Pipe said, they want us to submit to Sharia law. They want to subordinate our will, our minds, our wishes to theirs, to their faith, ultimately, to their God, to their religion. The ideology that drives them to tell it to any slum demands that complete subjugation of everything to their interpretation of God's words, to their interpretation of Islam. Now, what kind of ideology are we talking about? Well, we're talking about an ideology that I think is illustrated in these posters and an ideology that is illustrated in their actions after the publication of the Danish cartoons. We're talking about an ideology that is focused on using force. On using force to burn buildings, to riot, to kill, to force people into thinking, or at least to think in particular ways. This is an ideology of faith that can only deal with disagreement through violence. Because it is rejected explicitly the use of reason. And that is, again, what we see in the way they deal with the West. Whether it's by killing somebody because they converted or they have converted Christianity wanting to kill them, or whether it's letting girls die as they escape a burning house because they're not dressed appropriately. Whether it's stoning somebody for adultery or be heading an infidel. Their ideology demands violence against those who disagree with them. Now, to some extent taken seriously, all religion demands that because its tool is fundamentally faith and not reason. Christianity, Judaism, other religions have gone through a absorption of elements of reason into them over the last 200 years, 300 years, and they're not violent anymore. The case, the problem we face today is a violent form of religion that wants, that demands enslavement and through the use of force. Note here that these demonstrations, these riots were part of a much broader war. They were part of a war that started decades ago, that part of a war that was made real to the American people on September 11th. But in a sense, these riots, all of this war is meant to bring about the sharia, this subjugation. But in a sense, this is worse than September 11th. Not in what they've done, obviously, but in how we've responded. After September 11th, we were outraged. We demanded action. And indeed, a government did act. What have we done with the Danish cartoons? We have folded, we have accepted their intimidation as our way of life, we have not acted, and we have basically shown them that they can win, and I think we've just invigorated them. We've given them more strength. I think doing this, by having these kind of events, by standing up to them, is the only way that ultimately we can win this ideological war. Thank you. Here's the first question. Dr. Brooke will be the primary responder with four minutes, and Dr. Pipes will be the second commentator with two minutes. Question is, what in your view is free speech? Some people claim that it's important and of value, but that certain limitations must be upheld. They claim that it's better to refrain from publishing offensive materials out of respect for the views of others. How do you respond to that? Free speech is the recognition of the role of reason in human life. It is the recognition that human beings survive, thrive, succeed, advance through the use of their mind. And speech is just one aspect of that. It is a way in which we communicate what we think. It is part and parcel with our reasoning, our ability to think. And the only thing that can block the ability of a human being to think is force or the threat of force is intimidation. That is what limits our ability to reason and therefore limits our ability to live, advance, progress. So if we respect reason, if we want to live in a society in which we discuss ideas in which we prosper in which we advance, defending our right to speech is like defending our right to think. It is essential, it is crucial. It is a direct derivative from the right to life and the right to liberty, which is in our Declaration of Independence. And it is an absolute. It is an absolute. There are no exceptions to the right of free speech. You have a right to say whatever you want to say. Unless you're in violation of somebody else's rights, like the theater owner. You can't shout fire out at theater because there's a contract, there's an implicit contract there with the theater owner. He's let you in under certain conditions and you can just say whatever. If you will come to my house I have a right to kick you out if you say certain things. It's my property, I have a right so you can't violate my rights on my property. But other than that you can say whatever you want to say. And what's important here is that free speech is meaningless, has no meaning if it excludes the right to offend people. If we didn't offend anybody, we wouldn't need a right to free speech. We'd all be chatting about what would that even mean? Try to imagine a world in which nobody ever offended anybody else. The whole basis for the right of free speech is the fact that we sometimes disagree and the principle is that you can't use force. We can disagree but you can't slap me because we disagree. You can't punch me because we disagree. You can't burn down my embassy or my building because we disagree. More than that this country was founded think about the declaration of independence. What is that document? If not an offensive document. I mean if you were British at the time and you read it you would have been thoroughly offended. The founding fathers called the British crown a tyranny. They called them all kinds of names and accused them of crimes and accusations. It was very offensive to the British. But that's the founding document of this country and it illustrates the founding principles of this country. The principles of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness under which freedom of speech falls. So no, you have no obligation to respect the feelings of others. How do we in the West deal with somebody offending us? Well we ignore them or we write a letter to the editor or we argue against them or we hold an event and we discuss it. We don't go out and write and use force. So write to protect our ability to act against the use of force. In this country you should be able to say whatever you want without fear of being threatened with force. Thank you. Freedom of speech is a concept that does not really exist historically in the Muslim world. It has always been assumed that the government and the religious leaders are beyond criticism. Even today, for example, in many countries the political leadership is exempt. By law from criticism and of course so is Islam as such and more particularly specifics of Islam and most especially the prophet of Islam, Mohammed who is seen as someone who cannot be criticized. And what's interesting is that Mohammed in classical Islamic understanding is a human with human foibles. But as his reputation has grown over the centuries in common Muslim understanding he is someone who has an exalted position and may not be criticized in any fashion. So that is the historic situation there is no such concept as freedom of speech. In modern times in particular in the last two centuries Western ideas have impinged on the Muslim world and ideas of freedom of speech can be found enshrined in many constitutions and many laws. They do tend to not deal with politicians and religion but even so one finds occasional spokesmen and women for a freedom of speech position who will go out and criticize. And indeed we have in the audience today one notable instance of that Dr. Wafa Sultan of Syria who is now resident in this area who was on Al Jazeera in late February and made these points to an Arabic speaking predominantly Muslim audience and did so with great along. These sorts of incidents do take place but they take place within the context of bringing what is basically a Western concept to the Middle East or to the Muslim world. It does not exist historically in the Muslim world. I've been asked to announce if he wished to hand in a written question as opposed to oral question and we'll take both. Please pass them to the outside end of the aisles and they'll be picked up. We won't guarantee to answer everyone but we'll answer as many as we can before we have to close. Second question Dr. Pipes will be the primary responder with four minutes. What do you make of the reaction of the cartoons in the Islamic world? What do you say to the claim that Islam is a religion of peace in the light of the violent demonstrations we've witnessed? By my count that's two questions and they're fairly different. On the question of the reaction of the cartoons in the Muslim world there was a genuine and nearly universal horrified reaction precisely for the reasons I just explained. In the Muslim world one does not encounter criticisms of this or particularly this cartoon it is unheard of and therefore the body politic doesn't have an ability to cope with something like this. We who live in a free society are used to this kind of caricature and a lot stronger than this one I might point out. In the Muslim world caricatures are made of others Americans, Israelis Danes, yeah to be sure but one's own leader or one's own religious sensibilities are left untouched and therefore there was a deep and abiding shock at the audacity of anyone who would do such a thing and indeed many have shown a horror and a genuine horror and a horror which has to be understood in context. These are people who are not exposed routinely to such give and take the reaction expressed itself in a number of countries in violence. I suspect few of you know the country where there was the most violence. It was Nigeria where no one exactly knows but something like the 150 or maybe 200 dead as a result of internecine fighting between Christian and Muslim groups in Nigeria in northern Nigeria the Muslim elements attack Christian elements as though the Christian Nigerians had anything to do with these cartoons but they were kind of local stand-in and in reaction in the south of the country where the Christians predominate they in turn attacked Muslims. There were violence of course in Syria and Lebanon with the burning of the embassy which could have had state support in some fashion in Pakistan and in many other countries and all several hundred people probably died as a result of this which by the way was more than the Rushdie affair which I think had about 60 deaths. Second question was what do I say to the claim that Islam is a religion of peace in the light of these violent demonstrations. Well the president often referred initially after 9-11 several times referred to Islam as religion of peace. I took objection to it then and continued to it. Now not that I would say Islam is a religion of violence or Islam is religion of anything else. I would say that it is not possible to define a historical phenomenon of 1400 years in one word. One sees in different places in different times different Islam. Islam has been quietist. Islam has been aggressive. It has been many things over this period of time in many places and I would not believe I do not believe it is correct to take a single term to essentialize it and to ignore all these differences. Furthermore Islam has inherent to it the notion of jihad which has historically meant the spread of Muslim rule to new territories. Not the spread of Islamic religion to new peoples but the extension of Muslim rule to new territories and that has by necessity required violent action. Jihad does not have to be violent but historically it has predominantly been violent and therefore in this very core Islam has a military component against non-Muslims that cannot be papered over. Thank you. Dr. Brooke will have a two minute comment. I think I have said something about the reaction of the cartoons in the Islamic world. They obviously as Dr. Pipe stated, they don't have the concept of freedom of speech particularly as it relates to criticizing their own religion and they responded with violence, horrific violence across the entire Middle East. The issue of whether Islam is a religion of peace let me just note that in my view no religion can be viewed as a religion of peace. As I said briefly before any system of thought that relies primarily, that wants to grow and relies primarily on faith and the more consistently it relies on faith the more it is going to use force the more it is going to use violence. If you reject reason as a tool for convincing people as a tool for arguing with people as a tool to change people's minds then what is left? If you can't reason with them and I think inherent in faith inherent in religion is the inability to reason with somebody about something that is inherently not part of this reality not part of this world relies completely on faith and therefore ultimately in every religion's history when it is taken seriously when it is taken consistently it is turned to violence whether it's Christianity during the inquisition whether it's Judaism in the Old Testament no religion when it's expanding when it's trying to bring in new recruits can stay peaceful and of course today Islam is nothing but a religion of peace at least not as it is manifest in the people who claim to speak for it. All right, thank you. Third question Dr. Brook will have the first four-minute reply. Can you comment on the reaction of the Western media and intellectuals to the cartoon controversy? Why have so few supported the Danish newspaper? Well the response as again as I've already mentioned the response I think of the Western media and West intellectuals has been pathetic to put it mildly rather than I think the only one is the Philadelphia Enquirer that published one cartoon there might have been one or the other I don't think a single major US newspaper published the cartoons none of the networks maybe I think Fox gave a glimpse of them once but none of the networks have really published them the intellectuals have either been silent or have been against the publication of these cartoons in the name of being responsible media acting responsibly let me say what I think the media should have done, what I think the response should have been in contrast I think that as soon as the lives of the cartoonists were threatened as soon as intimidation was used every single media outlet in the United States should have published every single one of the cartoons if possible on the front page you know there's a scene I don't know how many of you have seen the movie Spartacus it's a great movie so I highly recommend it there's a scene at the end of the movie where the Romans they've got all the slaves these rebellious slaves hundreds of them and the question is asked who is Spartacus and Cook Douglas plays Spartacus and he's about to get up and one of the slaves gets up and says I am Spartacus and soon enough everybody has stood up and said I am Spartacus in the face of intimidation the western media should have stood up and said we are all Danes, we are Spartacus, we will if you want to intimidate western media you have to intimidate all of us and of course if everybody becomes a target if every single news outlet in the United States become a target then nobody is a target it's only when you can say cartoonists are this one newspaper this five newspapers it's only then then there's a real risk and there's real intimidation but when everybody stands with those cartoonists nothing would have happened let me just address what I think the US government should have done the US government should have explicitly articulated the fact that we live in a country that respects freedom of speech it should have said that it will not tolerate will not tolerate any threats to the lives of US citizens to the lives of the media to the New York Times and that if there are threats emanating from any countries out there they will demand that those countries arrest the people threatening that and if not then that is as close to a declaration of war as you can come to when a citizen of a particular country threatens the citizens of the United States and its own government will not stop them then its open season for the United States to go after those people itself the United States should have stood up and defended the rights of its media of Borders Bookstore which is now not carrying the magazine Free Inquiry because Free Inquiry is going to publish a cartoon so Borders is announced we're not going to carry this because we're afraid and you know what I can't blame them because the US government has defaulted on its one responsibility to protect our lives and it has defaulted on that and therefore while I think that it's cowardly aborted to do so you know you can't blame them when they get the sense that their lives are really in danger and the cost of protecting their stores would bankrupt them that is the job of the US military and the US police not the job of private security firms thank you I'd like to associate myself with with Dr. Brook comment about every media outlet should have published this I very much believe the same thing it's an interesting footnote to this cartoon crisis that they were first published other than the Hulins Post in original page the second place they were published was an Al-Faj newspaper in Egypt October of last year and they were presented in the context of look at what the Danes are saying the paper came the paper left no one paid any attention it's a footnote it had no importance but it is important in retrospect because it shows that the response to these cartoons in of themselves was mild it took a provocateur it took an agent to turn these cartoons into what they became in the Rushdie case it was Ayatollah Khomeini in this case it was a Palestinian Imam in Denmark called Abu Laban who made it his issue and who agitated both within Denmark and then when that didn't get far he went to the organization of the Islamic conference which could be considered the Islamic version of the United Nations of some 57 I believe states that meet every so often and he brought these cartoons to them and in addition he conjured up three fraudulent cartoons which were even more aggressively understood in Muslim eyes and he showed these 15 cartoons around at the OIC meeting and started things rolling at that point it's also noteworthy that there were editors in Jordan and Malaysia who published these cartoons to their detriment they lost their jobs, went to jail it is noteworthy that in Europe a number of major publications including François and Die Welt published these cartoons several newspapers in Italy so it was not it was not Denmark left alone to hang it was the Europeans with some solidarity or European editors and publishers joining in that it could have been a lot worse that Danes could have been isolated in a way they were not intellectuals avoided their question one found very little comment from intellectuals and this was quite in contrast to the quite parallel events of 17 years ago when Rushdie himself being an intellectual figure garnered great intellectual support for example American Penn and other Penn affiliates of authors of well known authors came to his support when didn't find a similar kind of intellectual support this time I would again note what I said before about the left when the left is solidly with the rest of us then we have an isolation of the Islamists the left was moderately solid on this question so it came out moderately bad as opposed to terribly bad it could have been worse, it could have been Denmark all by itself and as it turned out it was not it was a quasi-European issue as Dr. Brook points out American newspapers didn't I'm a little bit more lenient on them because I figured that this wasn't really an American issue it was more a European issue it was the EU together and the EU did a reasonable editors not the states with their Danish compatriots so poor marks but they could have been worse and I was surprised actually in retrospect that the European editors did what they did it took a strength that I wouldn't have expected to see in them next question Dr. Brook will have the primary response of four minutes what impact do you think the cartoon crisis is going to have on free speech in the United States well I think it depends on whether we stand up against the silence that has occurred it depends on whether we stand up to both intellectuals to our media outlets and ultimately to our government I fear that long-term this is not going well that there are too few of us standing up to on this issue there are too few of us who are advocating for the absolutism of freedom of speech for not allowing intimidation to silence but this is not going to happen tomorrow we're not going to suddenly wake up in a world where Americans don't have free speech free speech this is if it's going to go bad it's going to go bad slowly through very small steps when countries commit suicide they don't do it all at once increments this is a very poor showing for Americans in terms of defending free speech particularly because of the uniqueness of free speech in this country I think Europeans have a far different tradition of free speech generally Europe has more rules against what they call hate speech and so on we do not have that we have traditionally viewed speech in an absolute way in the fact that we in this country which so much part of our tradition was silent on it does not bode well for the future so this is going to be an incremental thing and I think that it's going to be important as more and more challenges are made to free speech that we stand up that we advocate the free speech position reject the notion that offending somebody does not qualify under free speech or that we have to be responsible in what we say we have to stand up against that and we have to fight it but you know there are already signs of a deterioration of free speech in America whether it's a variety of different speech codes on campuses I mean this is not a new phenomena and I think it's just going to intensify this is just reaffirmed it if you will a variety of different speech codes a variety of different issues that you can't discuss on American campuses a variety of different words you're not allowed to use on American campuses and in the media there are other ways in which free speeches is being violated with this understanding of free speeches as an absolute right and what that means is lacking in American society so whether it's fines against TV shows that some bureaucrat finds offensive or whether it's deans who do not allow the showing of the cartoons on the campus like happened at NYU at an event that we did last week this is slow but it's slow constant erosion in this freedom and it's really up to us and to you as students to stand up and reject the notion that free speech has bounds that free speech has limits thank you the privileging of Islam is moving apace let me give you a few instances in Australia two evangelical preachers of Pakistani origin gave a private seminar on Islam where they said some other hostile things in the back of the room prompted by a government agency and digital recorder holders who then went to the authorities and said look this is hate speech those two preachers have been found guilty in awaiting sentencing they probably will be going to jail for this in Canada an evangelical man was protesting the use of a public high school high Muslim students for prayer pointing out that Christian students could not do the same he was found criminally negligent and was sentenced to a certain number of community hours that he had to serve an Islamic organization in Britain about two months ago a law was nearly passed it lost 283 to 282 and it only lost because the prime minister was told that this would pass and he could go home and it would have passed it's a religious incitement law that would have effects such as in Australia we have a first amendment they don't we are less prone to that kind of criminal legislation against free speech and criticizing religion but even here one sees this kind of privilege and take place one sees it in the kind of examples that Dr. Brook gave but one sees it in lesser ways as well another good example though it's not an American one is Nat West, a leading British bank which used to give out piggy banks guess what it doesn't give out piggy banks anymore for fear of offending anyone we are getting to the point especially in Britain far worse than here where there is a reluctance to engage in what have been habitual and normal offending Muslims because they are imposing their Islamic legal ways, their shabby ways on ourselves, I say no we do not want to live by the sharia thank you final question Dr. Pipes will be the first responder for four minutes do you see any trends or care to project future trends in the relations between Islam and the West but make two points a an incipient separation of civilizations not clash of civilizations but separation I note and this is larger than the cartoon crisis but includes it I note a kind of mutual distaste that one sees between Muslims and Westerners that takes form in a number of ways for example the irritation the mutual irritation and lack of comprehension over this cartoon issue one sees it over the Afghan who converted to Christianity total miss total lack of communication total difference of viewpoint but one sees it in more specific and material ways one sees a separation of money it used to be that a lot of money from the Muslim world in particular Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states would come here and to Europe one sees less of it coming here by far the numbers are quite dramatic I think the 25 this is an estimate something like 25 billion dollars came from Saudi Arabia in 2000 and now it's in the order of one or two billion one sees in terms of movement of people tourists are less going to places like Tunisia or Egypt because of problems they worry about there are conversely students are coming less to the west so I think while I wouldn't want to exaggerate the scope of this I think what one sees is the beginnings of a mutual distancing between Muslims and Westerners finally I'd like to note that the key question in terms of future trends is whether we in the west cherish our historic ways or whether we're willing to give them up do we want to keep the Koran do we want to keep the constitution as our basic document or are we willing to substitute it with the Koran that is ultimately what the question comes down to because there is in this country a growing body of people who say that what we have here is inferior to what they are bringing with them we have a growing population in this country that is arguing that they are bringing with them an ideology of radical Islam that is superior to what we have here it's not to say all Muslims want this it is to say that there is a certain body of radical Muslims who believe that there is a shari way of Islamic law that projects a form of government that is superior to what we have in the west and it is up to Westerners to decide whether they will accept that and change their ways or whether they will stand up for their historic ways and customs that is ultimately the question that faces us as Westerners Dr. Burke yeah I'd like to definitely second that last statement by Dr. Pipes I agree with it completely and I think that is the core issue that we face we would, I think we are at war today we are at war with an ideological enemy there is an ideological struggle that is has turned over the last 25-30 years violent whether it was with the taking of the hostages in Tehran in 79 whether it's the numerous terrorist attacks since whether it's the Salaman Rushdie affair or these cartoons of course September 11th there is a violent struggle but note that if it was just an issue of weapons and armies and military might be over very very quickly the United States has the mightiest military in human history never mind in the world today the problem the West faces is an issue of will the will to use that military in this conflict and more fundamentally the will to stand for our values the will to stand for the ideas that we believe in the will to stand and reject sharia reject islamic fascism reject these ideologies that want to enslave us and we can only reject them if we have something positive to offer as an alternative and that's why the left cannot reject and in my view the right cannot reject today because they do not have that respect for the founding principles it's being watered down by by ideologies that have been prevalent in university campuses for the last hundred years we need to resurrect the pride the understanding of our founding principles and be willing to fight and die in order to preserve them because they are the foundations of our freedom and without that willingness to fight we will commit suicide because they won't beat us we will beat ourselves we will we will commit suicide as a consequence thank you thank you we have before we have to leave the building close to an hour and a half for questions so here are the rules for the question period we'll accept either written or oral questions questions accompanied by insults will not be answered also please do not give speeches this is a question period if you want to give a speech you'll have to organize your own panel so I'm going to start with two written questions then I'll take two oral questions and I'll go back and forth so I think this first one is for Dr. Pipes has Christianity no violence or bloodshed in its history under the reconquista of Spain in 1492 Jews, Muslims and all minority religious groups were forced to leave when does Islamic history begin for Dr. Pipes 1900 or since its inception I actually got my PhD in the history of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries so it does begin back then by the way there will be one minute answers in order to ensure that we will get through as many questions as we can does your interrupting count on my time you got extra time for that yes of course Christianity has a violent history does Islam one could give a better example than the reconquista one could give the crusades as the paramount violent act of Christianity I wouldn't say that Christianity is a religion of peace either nor that it's a religion of war Christianity has changed and just as Christianity has had different forms over to millennia so has Islam the point is at this time that with rare exceptions Christianity is not a violent religion has changed there are exceptions to be sure but it is no longer the violent religion that it once was Islam is a more violent religion than it ever was in the past a traditional Muslim a say 14th century Muslim would not recognize the September 11th assault as something that is within Islam and murder people going to work in a foreign country like that so while Christianity has become more peaceable Islam has become more violent Dr. Brooke do you wish to comment on that question just briefly I think that's absolutely right and I think the what's happened I think to Christianity and to religion in the west that has not happened to Islam is the introduction of reason into western thought the west went through enlightenment Thomas Aquinas brought Aristotelian, Greek ideas about reason and about the human mind about rational thought into the religions imperfectly as that combination might work it has definitely eliminated at least for now the use of force by a predominant number of Christians and other religionists in our culture and when I think when what Islam needs as any religion needs is exactly that it needs to rediscover or to discover reason it needs to discover rationality and that brings about a respect for the individual and a respect for discourse rather than an abandonment of violence okay next question I'll put to Dr. Brook first what are the reasons for the protest aside from an ideological one do you believe it had anything to do with the economic situation they apparently Muslims what they mean live in I have a difficult time believing that this situation is purely ideological and has nothing to do with the political and economic situation in these places please address these issues well I think it's predominantly ideological because the cultures in these countries are predominantly religious cultures even the so called secular Arab countries like Syria and like Lebanon and Egypt have significant parts of their population that are radically Islamic they take this radical Islamism Islamic totalitarian ideology seriously now as Dr. Pipe stated the cartoons were published nothing much happened it took some inciting it took inciting by religious leaders I think it started with the Palestinian Imam and then it kind of he went to the Middle East and it spread through other Imams and you know there's reason to believe that some of the countries maybe the Syrian government the Iranian government sponsored these or helped them along or supported them but look terrorism in general violence in general are not a socio-economic phenomena they are not a socio-economic phenomenon poor people in non Islamic countries don't fly airplanes into buildings that is not how they express their frustration at being poor and if they're frustrated at being poor why lash out at the Danes they should be lashing out at their own regimes that are keeping them poor because they're keeping them enslaved okay we'll take questions from the floor not only is it not a matter of poverty but the record shows repeatedly that the most virulent Islamists come from rather prosperous affluent and privileged educated and privileged backgrounds take the 9-11 hijackers take the four British bombers last July that's terrorists in particular but more broadly if you look at the Islamist movements in throughout the world you see that their main support comes from the middle classes if anything but it is basically not having to do with wealth what it has to do is a sense of identity and a sense of grievance the Muslim world is not flourishing as it was in centuries past and that the way to bring the Muslim world back to its prosperity and strength is by returning to this imagined form of Islam that we're calling radical Islam is nothing to do with personal circumstances nothing to do with poverty okay Miss, I guess we would like you to be at the microphone so the lady you're first you can address either panelist or both actually I'm not really sure whom to address this question but I am puzzled about something there are some who believe that we should all have the right to free speech but that we should impose a sort of moral restraint but I'm wondering whose moral restraint you could say mine but I imagine that my morals are somewhat different from some of yours so is it your morals and if so why why are your morals better than mine or better than his or better than anyone else's I mean even if your god is giving you the moral high ground that judgment is not really mediated out until you're dead so in the meantime I'm wondering if someone can answer that well I know it wasn't a question I know it wasn't really a question you're absolutely right and that is exactly why I think freedom of speech is an absolute and that you cannot enforce you should not you cannot enforce moral standards because then it becomes exactly what you stated whose moral standards who gets to decide which god and who as he whispered to lately you know who's the latest prophet that he's whispered the truth to because they're competing versions of what god tends to whisper to people and what about people who don't believe in god so there is no by which we can define what is responsible free speech and that's why we need complete freedom indeed many of the people who have advanced civilization who have advanced humanity were considered heretics Galileo is of course the classical example and many people who burnt at the stake during the middle ages and so on were saying something new and different that didn't fit into the morals of the period and therefore you know were burnt or killed or imprisoned so you cannot put a mall standard or any kind of any other kind of standard on speech it needs to be free and that's what morality actually demands because that's what human life actually demands free speech okay next questioner thank you an Iranian newspaper shortly after the media explosion of the Muhammad cartoons announced a cartoon competition of holocaust cartoons the newspapers reasons for hosting this competition were to highlight the fact that anti-semitic cartoons less than complimentary complimentary to Jews the Jewish experience or the Jewish culture of exploiting past victimization would not be published in western papers let alone be defended because of their subjectivity to the label anti-semitic if you had a paper would you publish these holocaust cartoons do you think that to be anti-semitic has the same social connotations as to be anti-islamic and if not what accounts for this difference you raised a lot of questions that's a long question who would like to go first you raised a lot of questions first the muslim media is filled with the most vile anti-semitic cartoons far far worse than any of these here vile to the nth degree and so it is a little bit hypocritical that those who engage in these vile assaults in another religion are demanding complete impunity for their own secondly freedom of speech means freedom established by the government that we can say what we want none of us will go to jail we'll be protected for saying what we want it does not imply that every newspaper owner is required to publish anything that you happen to send to them there's not a freedom of speech within say a newspaper television station the editor producer has the right to decide what he or she wants to do thirdly it is rather telling that the Iranians would come up with this notion of making fun of the holocaust when we are so used to I mean it makes no difference to us more cartoons more anti-semitic cartoons do any of us respond with shock to that these are banal these are well anyone can go see them they're in the culture all the time where exactly are they well it's not particularly it's not particularly a source of great humor the murder of 6 million people that there are plenty of publications in this country and other western countries and especially in this country because we have the greatest freedom of speech which are ridiculing the holocaust and denying the holocaust and the like this is ordinary this is pure pablum for us it doesn't shock anybody have you seen any of these cartoons does anybody care to reproduce them they're irrelevant to us nobody's burning embassies or engaging in widespread hostilities the sort of response the muslim world had because we're used to this our skins are thickened by the fact that we are used to the free flow of ideas the muslim world is not used to that and therefore responds with this horrified reaction of how can you do this there's no comparison there was there was really no comparison first of all anybody in the united states should have a right to publish anti cartoons that ridicule the holocaust and indeed as dr pipe stated they're all over the web just go and find them and our publications indeed dedicated to anti-semitism and neo-nazi literature it does exist in the united states it is available as horrific as it is but more than that what are we comparing here we're comparing ridiculing on making fun of the murder of 6 million innocent individuals to the portrayal of muhammad with a bomb in his turban now it's not a great cartoon but it represents a real issue there are people out there in the world right now blowing themselves up in the name of muhammad and that's what this cartoon illustrates it illustrates the fact that there are people who in the name of their religion islam are blowing themselves up so this is a debatable cartoon it's something that's of interest that's something that needs to be debated there's nothing to debate about the murder of 6 million Jews so they're not commensurable in any way and to that the fact that what we object what we're objecting to here and the reason we're publishing these cartoons is because of the response if every time every time a cartoon ridiculing the holocaust was published in the United States Jews walked out into the streets of Manhattan and burned down buildings and burned down embassies and went to the Midwest and found a few rednecks and hung them up I don't know then I'd be having a panel here condemning their actions that would be wrong that would be wrong it is the violent response to the cartoons that we're condemning and it is the complete and utter intolerance in the Muslim world today for dissenting ideas that we're condemning intolerance that does not exist in the West it does not exist in the West I'll go back to two written questions this is really related to the last one how do you respond to the Austrian government's imprisonment of the British historian David Irving who had denied the existence of the holocaust is this an insult to his freedom of speech please comment yes in my view it is an insult to his freedom of speech I do not believe in laws against hate speech even when that hate is targeted against Jews even when that speech is targeted against Christians even when that speech is as horrific as it is to deny and stupid and irrational as it is to deny the existence of the holocaust the best thing for people like that is just let them say this nonsense in their own publications in their own little groups and for the rest of us ignore it because it's stupid and ridiculous it is a violation of free speech to put people like that in jail now let me make one distinction that I haven't had a chance to make what is between speech and inciting to violence inciting to violence what these guys are doing here with their placards calling for beheading and expressing the willingness to do that it's not just a sign it's that they're willing to do this it's not speech it is violence it is violence so when a mafia boss sends his henchmen to kill speech we prosecute him for murder when you incite for the murder of people I'm not talking about ideas that might be interpreted by somebody I'm talking about literally say death to Americans behead the cartoonists that is not speech that is violence and therefore that is prosecutable as a violent crime I think that answers this next question please comment on the Islamic response simply their own exercise of their right to feed him of speech I think he's made clear that it's the actions that are relevant here not to mention the killing and the destruction of buildings and the burning it was more than just placards okay here's one that's just an insult so I'm not going to repeat it say did I do too yeah no I didn't do well problem is I want to try to you can come up afterwards I'm trying to get things that were not answered already if this is about freedom of speech why weren't the comics of Jesus published by the same newspaper and why is holocaust denial a crime isn't that freedom of speech just a comment just a comment on the issue of Jesus I mean where have you been people the number of just ridiculous depictions of Jesus in American newspapers in American art museums all over the place but that's the difference how do we deal with that in the west well we write a letter to the editor saying we don't like it we boycott the museum we ignore it we argue we have a debate we lobby congress to restrict money to the national endowment for the arts we deal with it in a reasonable in a reason oriented way that in contrast again with how the Muslims reacted in the Middle East by again burning buildings killing people by inciting violence killing of these artists okay your next this question is for Dr. Pipes Dr. Pipes how do you reconcile your vehement defense of free speech tonight with the founding operation of Campus Watch an organization for those who don't know that actually tries to curve academic discourse on Middle East issues on American universities don't you think you should have the same rights actually tries to curb free discussion on universities is that what Campus Watch is about have you been to Campus Watch have you been to the Campus Watch website not personally the Campus Watch homepage describes the purpose of Campus Watch which is an organization or a project that I started in September 2002 and its goal is to critique Middle East studies in the United States and Canada just as theater critics go to the theater and tell you if it's a good play or a bad play just as political analysts give you an assessment of the politician whether he's doing a good job or bad job just as consumer reports tells you whether it's a good vacuum cleaner or toaster so we are saying good job or bad job now if you could explain to me how that is curtailing anyone's free speech I would be very interested in learning the answer we at Campus Watch are a small think tank they have yet to give us powers of incarceration or arrest we have yet to go into anyone's classroom and close it down we have no such powers we don't seek them what we seek to do is critique now what happens is the university some university professors are so so inured to such its parallel to what I was saying about the Muslim world they're not used to criticism and so university professors are used to the to not being criticized to the adulation of their students and the respectful treatment of their peers and don't get criticized and we say these are people who are out there in newspapers, out there on television out there in books they're giving important interpretations of absolutely vital issues like who is the nature of jihad and who is the enemy and therefore we have the right absolute right to criticize them as they have the absolute right to give their interpretations they have the right to give their interpretations we have the right to critique them sounds good to me doesn't sound good to you okay Campus Watch is a wonderful expression of the existence of free speech in the united states it is an illustration of free speech look the only way to violate somebody's rights the only way to violate somebody's freedom of speech is by using force is by using a gun and Dr. Pipes said it exactly he has no ability to incarcerate professors who he doesn't agree with I'm sure he's not advocating for that he's not intimidating professors by saying if you don't advocate for a position we're gonna we're gonna kill you or we're gonna blow up your car we're gonna the only way you can violate somebody's rights is by using force and by having a website that presents a different position than the position presented on universities all across the country that is an expression of more freedom of speech there's nothing that represses freedom of speech in there next question about some of the things that were said earlier it was said that every single U.S. publication should have published the cartoons and then it was said that it was open season for the U.S. to go after these people I guess before I continue with the question I'd like to know exactly what is meant by open season and going after and which people were referring to I don't feel like I can since it was my comment it is open season to go after anybody who threatens the lives of Americans and where the government let's say I remember there was a Pakistani you mean threaten as in make a statement let me finish and I'll make clear what I mean there was a Pakistani Imam that declared a million dollar reward for the head if you will of a cartoonist that person is the equivalent of the head of a mafia sending his henchmen to commit murder he is a murderer and if the Pakistani government won't do anything about it I think that the U.S. government has a duty to do something about and doing something about it means arresting if possible or killing him if possible that's what it means okay we are talking about killing him though you said he made it for a declaration that he made he's taken no actual actions I have already said that inciting violence I've given the example of a mafia leader I don't know what more I can do inciting violence calling on people to murder other people is violence somebody if I stand up here and say and what legitimacy because you're real passionate about what I say and you're going to follow me because I'm your Imam or I'm your leader or whatever go kill her then I am inciting murder and the police should come in here and arrest me that is not an issue of free speech it is an issue of violence I agree there is also there's a number of references okay you got one question so could you tell us what you want to ask quickly oh I'm sorry I asked one question there's a long line behind you as far as the references that are made over and over to Muslims to Americans to Danish you tend to put people into these large groups and as an alleged rational thinker I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to identify individuals by their memberships in these particular groups and make irrational judgments based on these stereotypes rather than using your mind to formulate your opinions of individuals as you meet them and can base them on the real evidence I grew people based on the ideas they espouse I have nothing against Muslims indeed we have here Muslims that I would be happy to be very glad to hear that very friendly with if they espouse ideas that are not threatening to my life people who believe today in Islamic totalitarianism, radical Islam jihadists there are a variety of different ways to describe this but in the notion that they should force Sharia down my throat all of our throats I group them all together absolutely they are the enemy and we are at war with that enemy the enemy is not everyone who believes in Islam but it is everyone who burnt buildings who supported the flying up airplanes into buildings killing 3,000 Americans everyone who supports the insurgents in Iraq everyone who supports violence as a way of dealing with the west is my enemy I am grouping them based on their ideas indeed not all Americans are good guys but in a discussion where we are talking about cultures, countries it is inevitable to talk about Americans having certain values, sure there are Americans who love and Americans that I hate but as a country we as Americans country respect individual rights freedom of speech that is a particular ideology that I support that I think is good absolutely good and anybody who rejects that and is willing and is trying to force us to change through the use of force violence is wrong is evil is bad and is the enemy simple thank you back to written questions now this is a wonderful question because it is so much modern universities let me read it this is on the epistemology of knowledge or reason it is conditioned by our surroundings our culture, our environment, our history our values what makes US an unquote superior to Muslims quote Syria laws they may be rational quote unquote to followers of Islam ultimately it is a matter of personal choice I don't believe that it is illegitimate to support the application of the Sharia it is a point of view I reject it I personally don't want to live under the Sharia I doubt that many Americans do and I'm calling on fellow Americans fellow westerners to reject the Sharia now why to object to the Sharia for a very wide range of reasons it is a religious law dating to the 7th century it was formulated over several centuries following the 7th century that has ideas about or precepts about human interactions that are utterly foreign in many specifics to what we as Americans hold dear if Americans with large choose the Sharia over the constitution that is their right I will argue against it I don't want to live as say as say that the Afghans did under the Taliban I don't want to live in that kind of society where for example women are not only not allowed to work but not even allowed to go to school where virtually all amusements are closed where any kind of disruption of the public order as severely understood by the Taliban leads to execution these are not the ways I want to live you want to live I reject the whole premise of the question that is that there are many reasons and that we are somehow just a product of our environments and of our culture and again I think that the Muslims here in this room that have rejected that culture and that background because they have adopted reason reason is one thing it is not different things to different people reality is one reality you can you can see it, you can recognize it you can identify it or you can ignore it reject it, turn your head away from it rely on mystical revelation in its place reason is one and the reason that I want to live in America and not in the Middle East is because reason rights, individual rights and the political system of America is fundamentally pro-human life pro-every human life it's pro-European life it's pro-Muslim life it's pro-every individual's life who is going to adopt reason and respect individual rights there's no accident that immigrants to this country thrive and it matters not what their ethnic background it matters not what their cultural background was at least historically it matters not what even their religion was originally they came to this country to the extent that they adopted the ideas at the core of this country they succeeded and they thrive because reason, freedom, individual rights are pro-life Sharia, or for that matter Christian law in the Middle Ages are anti-life anti-human life they're bad for Muslims, they're bad for Jews particularly Jews are Christians but they're bad for every human being qua as a human being and that's why I reject it I reject it because there is such a thing as a universal truth there is such a thing as universal good and it ain't in any kind of religious law it's in religion it's in religion it's in reason it's in the requirements of human survival of human life what does it take to live prosper and succeed and what that takes is reason and freedom freedom as expressed in the founding documents of this country and in the concept of individual rights of which freedom of speech is one of those thank you this is for Dr. Pipes you were accused by Arab media of being responsible for starting the whole Danish cartoon idea could you talk about that please yes I was it began on February 6 when a far leftist American writer noted that Fleming Rose the editor who commissioned these cartoons had a year before those cartoons visited me in my office in October 2004 and had done an interview with me which came out a few days later in Hulens-Posten and this wacko leftist writer conspiracy theorist came the conclusion aha well it's obvious that if Rose came to my office to interview me and produced this interview in Hulens-Posten which I put up on my website in Danish then clearly I gave him the idea let me state for the record this is nonsense he came and did a journalist interview with me and wrote it up it's subsequently been translated in English and it's on my website and it's a standard interview giving my thoughts on radical Islam but what I found so interesting about this was twofold one that by and large the media did not pick up on this idea that I instructed Fleming Rose but rather softened it to say that Fleming Rose is an admirer of mine a disciple of mine or so forth not that I actually told him to do it which again is nonsense he's no disciple we met for half an hour and he interviewed me and secondly it shows the bankruptcy of thought on the far left and among the Islamists that they would pick up on such a conspiracy theory this notion circulated in websites it made it into some respectable publications in Belgium for example the weekly equivalent of Time magazine called Knuck published this in Jordan Major Daily had it and so forth I have to admit I had a fitful night when this first came out thought oh my god I am now being brought into this but I'm happy to say two months later that it was just a side phenomenon a way of identifying Fleming Rose let me reiterate I had nothing to do with his decision I had no knowledge that he was going to commission these cartoons this was something I learned about in the media as the rest of you okay gentlemen I have a slightly less inflammatory question in regard to an example brought up earlier by I believe it was Dr. Brook you mentioned that the American Declaration of Independence was also similarly a blatantly offensive piece of legislation directed towards the British government however at the same time the American Declaration of Independence also emphasized the necessity for a decent respect for the opinions of mankind now it seems clear to me that such a respect when it can differ to the extremities among several members of the international community do you believe that one set internationally accepted definition of respect was achieved? I'm going to try to figure out what the question is so yes and I think the standard needs to be nonviolent that is I have no problem with Muslims all around the world writing letters to the editor to European newspapers condemning the cartoons telling them that they think it's offensive telling them that they're ridiculous that Islam is not this way Muslims could have written essays they could have written books Danish newspaper my guess would be that they would have published those letters as would have most European letters and that is what is meant by respect that is an exchange of ideas now again if those ideas are so off the ball and ridiculous and laughable there's no obligation certainly to publish other people's opinions and if those ideas are clearly inciting violence then you don't have to or in flaming violence you don't have to publish them and indeed you shouldn't publish them so the standard is again the standard is reason the standard is if you object to what I've said you know if there's a form to tell me to write to me to express your objection use words use ideas use reason to challenge what I have to say but notice that that's not what happened and indeed that's not what happens instead of dealing with ideas instead of dealing with reason instead of writing instead of challenging violence broke up because there is no ideological comeback it is this is a faith that wants to at least elements within it would like to expand it through the use of violence and that's the way they express their views I differ slightly in that you have given really two alternatives one is writing a letter to the editor and beheading and I would note that there is a third way, a middle way which is for example an economic boycott of Denmark which is neither as innocuous as one or as abhorrent as the other and it is indeed I would argue in the long run not terrorism not violence as such that promotes the radical Islamic agenda but it is such actions as a boycott of a small country a country about a third the size of the greater Los Angeles area in terms of population it is the intimidation the intellectual intimidation that takes place it is the economic intimidation it is the forceful pushing of this ideology in a nonviolent way that is ultimately more dangerous than the violent actions so while not disputing the total inadmissibility of the violence I would say don't only focus on violence that is not the only problem next question in the name of God the most gracious, most merciful I praise God and may the prayers of God be on His prophet Muhammad peace be upon him what I would like to say is I personally cannot sit here and take these two individuals seriously when they come and tell me that it is okay to sit here and offend people you have to have a question this is not a speech I'm coming to my question what I would like to say is that when they come and tell me that it is not okay to go ahead and offend people then I obviously question what comes out of their mouths and everyone knows that it does not take morality to question to know that offending people is wrong your fifth grade teacher taught you that in elementary school what I would like to also add is that when you want to learn about Islam you don't go to people that incite hate such as the two men when you learn about the African-Americans I'm asking my question what is your question? I'm coming to it when you want to learn about African-Americans you don't go to the Ku Klux Klan when you want to learn about Nazis the Jews you don't go to the Nazis what I would like to say and encourage everyone here if you want to learn about Islam go to a mosque not to these two men my question is tell me everyone get this Islam is the fastest growing religion not only in the world in the United States itself so how do you reconcile everything that you're saying with the fact that 1.3 billion people the second largest religion in this world is Islam what I found so interesting about your little lecture is that you started by saying there must be no offense and then it seemed to me that you were offending me you were pretty offensive to me weren't you what gives you the right to offend and yet not these cartoonists why? because you have a superior ideology that you may offend and they may not point two about the fastest religion that is nonsense nonsense Islam is not the fastest excuse me everyone does not know it Christianity is by far the largest and fastest growing religion in this world and if you don't know that you're not paying attention to facts on the ground then obviously you're not paying attention either let me just say I think Dr. Pipes made a great point when the other side wants to offend they go ahead and offend and indeed they burn down whole embassies never mind offend they kill people never mind offend they have some kind of a right to do that but we stand up here and say you have a right to ask that question indeed you have a right to offend me and Dr. Pipes not so much in this form because we purchased it but in your own form absolutely we're defending your right to speak and you're coming out and offending us and absolutely the numbers are that the Catholic religion is indeed the fastest growing religion both in Asia and in South America not that I advocate for that either I think you've heard my opinion on religion in general I would love to see atheism as being the fastest growing and I work long days to try and make that happen okay back to written questions here's a historical question for Dr. Pipes he stated freedom of speech did not exist in the Muslim world did not the Muslim governance of Spain is an example in which this was not the case in fact philosophers and people of all faiths were allowed freely to practice such as the Jewish and specifically mentioned Averroes do you believe that such a government denied freedom of speech and what about Muslim countries such as Iraq and Syria pre-1900 what are then the origins of Sephardic Jews and where did they live if not in these countries let me make clear that by let me reiterate that by freedom of speech I was talking about the freedom to insult one's rulers and insult Islam and none of these places and times was that available what there was available particularly in medieval Islam and indeed I wrote my undergraduate thesis on this topic was the freedom to explore rationality and explore specifically the implications of Greek thought Averroes is such a figure he and other philosophers as known in Arabic attempted to reconcile the rational thinking of the Greeks with Islam and this attempt proceeded for several centuries until and roughly the 13th century was basically closed down and has not taken place in a systematic way since then but my point was about the freedom to insult leaders and the religion that did not exist let me just add to that because I think it's important to a point I made earlier and that is that Islam thrived as a culture in both present and later in Spain for exactly the reason that Dr. Pipes mentioned that is the introduction into that culture of Greek ideas of rationality and reason and indeed it flourished during that was in my view its cultural peak and it was the rejection of Greece that followed the 13th century that has resulted in a decline in the Muslim world during that period where was the west? the west was in a dark ages dominated by horrific Christian theocracy and it's only with the introduction through Aquinas of Greek thought into the west of Aristotle of reason into the west that led directly to the renaissance and ultimately to enlightenment and to our benefit we didn't abandon those Greek ideas yet in a major way although most of our professors and most of our universities are attempting to in mass today to abandon that heritage of reason and rationality so that is what makes great culture and great civilizations reason rational thought one more dozens of passages in the Quran called for the killing of infidels does this constitute an incitement to violence? should the Quran be protected under freedom of speech? there was an interesting court case in Calcutta about 20 years ago where a group of Hindu plaintiffs made this point and said the Quran should be banned given Indian strictures against hate literature needless to say the court did not approve that but this is a recurring theme just in Norway a couple of years ago the call went out that the Quran given its offensive qualities how it does not offensive in the sense that calling for the death of people does not meet the requirements of Norwegian law that it should be banned clearly this is not going to happen the Bible has some violent parts of it too the key is not the contents of the book the key is what is made of those contents with the rarest of exception Jews and Christians do not go back to the violent parts of the Bible and turn them into a program for action that is however the case in Islam so while I would in no way encourage the banning of the Quran I would encourage and I think we have to do everything possible to encourage an understanding of the Quran that moves beyond those violent passages reinterprets there is a lot of fluidity in understanding a sacred scripture like the Quran and turns it into a modern, moderate and good neighborly basis in a way that it is not at this moment and I am optimistic that that will happen there is no reason to expect that the hideous phenomenon of radical Islam which is so powerful today will be powerful in the distant future as well okay question I would like to preface by saying that no one in this room is supporting radical violent Islam or supporting violence and burning of buildings in response to cartoons so I feel that that is not the point here but you seem to be arguing that Islam and the East is a threat to freedom and that the West or America should and is best suited to fight that threat but then is it not counterproductive for the United States to be combating these supposed threats to freedom with the Patriot Act illegal wiretapping, extended detention in Guantanamo Bay and other such policies that restrict the freedoms of not only foreigners but also citizens of the United States and therefore are being as much if not more of a threat to the freedom of speech and other such freedoms let me start by asking you how you know that no one in this room supports violent Islam can I ask can I ask as a question does anyone in this room support radical violent Islam you didn't ask the question I just did you started by asserting it I would not take that for granted if I were you and I still don't take it for granted if someone supported it would they not stand up and say so right now please how innocent are you okay go ahead please please answer my question on your point about civil liberties and freedom of speech and the like look anytime during war whether it be Revolutionary War Civil War, World War I, World War II and other wars there have been limitations placed on civil liberties this is what happens in time of war this is what is happening today I don't care for the infractions on civil liberties anymore than you do but I think what I see that you don't see is it's necessary for our common defense I don't like to be specific going through airport security I don't care for it I suppose you don't care for it I don't know anyone who enjoys standing in line and semi-stripping and all that taking the shoes off but we accept it as part of the deal that we are safer on that plane for doing that and writ large all the examples you give some of them wrongly done but all of them are in the effort to assure our safety and therefore are legitimated I fundamentally agree with that my concern with the Patriot Act and all these other things is that this administration has not defined the war in a way that's winnable I would like to see a horizon a point in which these go away because we've won the war and I would like to see articulated a strategy for victory versus a strategy for you know for decades long war as President Bush and other politicians have described it I don't think there needs to be a decades long war if we had a strategy to actually win it and I would have liked to see Congress actually declare war that would have given this also some finality in terms of these restrictions I have a little bit more unease about the federal government taking on these these violations of some of our rights without a sunset with the idea that federal government tends to unless there is a clear cut sunset tends to keep this going the RICO Act comes to mind which was just going to be about the mafia and then of course turned into every businessman today has been prosecuted under RICO so that is my worry but if a war is declared if we are at war and I think we are at war then certain emergency measures have to be taken in order to secure Americans for the duration of the war and we need to do away with them if the war is over I would advocate for the America to win this war and win it quickly so we can go back to the kind of America you want next question I have a question that is sort of long but hopefully not too long why choose to respond to radical elements in the Muslim world who are the source of force and intimidation that we both despise Jew, atheists, Muslim, Christian by defending these cartoons of speech these cartoons are closest to every Muslim's heart it is someone that Muslims love intimately in whose way of life they gratefully follow it acts like these that confuse the Muslim world as to the definition of various freedoms it is hard enough to advocate for freedom in the Muslim world when the word freedom is used to justify entire wars in the Muslim world when I see that picture over there which says freedom go to hell resulting in confusion that is caused by people with power with an inability to respect the people they want to convince about their ideas so why defend these cartoons in this way my main argument in the introduction was that there needs to be an assertion that we are not living under Sharia we are not living under the Sharia that the cartoons which are offensive to you and the cartoons which are offensive to me have a right to be published without you or me engaging in efforts to suppress them be they violent or non-violent I do not believe that the United States or Denmark for that matter but specifically the United States should adapt Sharia constraints I do not believe that we should live according to that and I will fight living under the Sharia and this is my symbol had there been no pressure to suppress it we would never have known about some obscure cartoons in a Danish daily it is only because of the efforts to suppress it and when there are efforts to suppress it I say no can I ask a quick follow up question or should I come back just two comments one is why were these cartoons published in the first place why did the Danish newspaper even commission these cartoons and published them and it was to show the fact that there was already so much self-censorship going on in Europe it was to show that Sharia in effect was already impacting much of European society where people were not willing to criticize Islam openly where people were not willing to draw pictures of the Muhammad for children's book where people were so intimidated that they were silenced and the Danish newspaper wanted to show that to make that real to Europeans and indeed they made it more real than even they thought that they would because I don't think they anticipated the extent of the violence that occurred let me also say this in the Muslim world about freedom this big debate going on outside you're not going to teach the Muslim world about freedom by relinquishing it that is by compromising on it it is important that when the debate about freedom occurs that it be understood what freedom means and freedom means the right to offend and that the appropriate response to being offended is to ignore or to debate or to try to reason with the other person so that is a if what you're concerned with is the message that the Muslim world gets then I think it's a really important message that the Muslim world get that people who believe in freedom won't compromise that freedom it's such an important value to us it's so inherent in our lives it's so fundamental to our way of life that we're not willing to give it up and hopefully that will inspire them and alternatively it might cause them to think twice about rioting again I just wanted to say that I think what you believe is defending freedom by not falling back because of these responses from Muslim communities in Europe I think that is not necessarily standing up for freedom it's giving the wrong message to the Muslim world by saying like you're willing to insult rather than listen but anyway given that certain Muslims have made mistakes in judgment politically do you feel it unfair to slander the symbol of all of what is good in religion we ourselves have not slandered we are asserting the right of others in this case the cartoonists to live as Westerners and make fun of religious leaders political leaders races you name it all the sensitivities are out there there are no taboos name me a taboo in this society something that we may not talk about every last one has been broken and this one must be broken too yes and I don't know exactly what the question meant but if you meant what gives you the right or why would you attack religion anyway well because I think it's wrong and I have a right to my opinion and not only that I think it's detrimental I think it's not good for the people who hold it I don't think it's good for society religion is good for anybody again whether it's Islamic religion, Christian religion any religion and we live in a country where I am free to say that to some of you might be insulted by me saying that whether you're Christians Jews or a lot of Jews don't like me because but that's what freedom means that's what living in a country where I can say what I want to say about religion and you can say what you want about religion and you know I think I'm right and I think you'd benefit from listening to what I have to say but you can walk away you can not read our website you know ironman.org you can walk out that is the beauty of freedom and again offending somebody insulting somebody is not just some sideline of what freedom means freedom means that you have a right to do whatever you want to do as long as you don't violate other people's rights that's what freedom means including speech but you know I probably do in my personal life stuff that might offend some of you but that's none of your business okay one more question written question why do Mr. Pipes and Mr. Brook have such a double standard in their plea for freedom of speech in the media they insist that Islam must be criticized for the media to show their freedom however they make no mention of how mainstream media is on a leash when it comes to Israel any explicit criticism of racist Israeli policies or Israeli military crimes is immediately labeled anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish and is shut down the obvious avoidance of the American media on the issue of Israeli military crimes is unacceptable to reiterate points that we've made before freedom of speech means the freedom to say what you wish it does not guarantee you an op-ed in a leading newspaper yeah I don't know where to start but I think that is the key newspapers have a right to do to write what they want I happen to think I personally happen to think that American newspapers tend to be quite anti-Israeli and not pro-Israel enough and that they tend to be pro-Palestinian and tend to overemphasize those things that would be perceived as negative when Israel goes out and tries to defend itself against horrific violence so the whole premise of the question is wrong but indeed newspapers in the United States can publish what they want if you want to write an op-ed advocating for a different position you have a right to do so if you start your own newspaper you have a right to try to sell it and take any positions you want in that newspaper but there is such a thing as facts, truth and the facts and the truth are not consistent with your claims about Israel thank you thanks for taking the question I think there's no more thing there's no statement made in this entire discussion that I could agree with more as the Pope said that what is fundamentally at issue here is not a clash of civilization is not a clash between ignorant radical Muslims or an educated intellectual Westerners it's basically a lack of understanding it's fundamentally that and that only so my question essentially leads from this and I hope you will allow a small to part one so what I was hoping to hear today was a rational position for those who find the protest to these cartoons offensive it's not about the violence violence is just a previous question it's not something that anybody here at least is advocating it was essentially what Dr. Pipschitz said that you are opposed to the very protest or the very concept that people would not take this as a valid criticism what you are missing here sir is not the fact that we're not sorry it's not the criticism you have criticized and many others have criticized it's slander that Muslims find offensive and I would like to ask that when you come across these type of issues for instance I came here to learn from you what your position was where did you go which Muslim scholar or academician did you go to to understand what Muslims position on this was and why was it that they considered this radically different from the other criticism on Islam and Muslims that have come across I have no argument against I'm not arguing with you that Muslims see this as slander that this is a particularly delicate subject I'm perfectly aware of that what I am saying is that in the context of this country there are no taboos everyone gets slandered in some publication or rather and that Muslims do not have the right to be privileged and to exclude criticism of themselves their actions or their profit if everyone else had that right then Muslims would have their right my basic position is not going beyond the cartoon issue is that Muslims have the same rights as others they do not have special rights so if a government is in the habit of making land available at low prices to churches, synagogues Hindu temples and what not then absolutely Muslims have a right to the same privilege of subvention or some other sort whether or not I think it's a good idea is another story but the right is there should no other group get such a privilege then Muslims must not get it either so for example I took a fence on learning a few days ago that the Canadian foreign ministry started a Muslim or a group within the foreign ministry there is no other such religious group within the foreign ministry I took a fence when I can go on and on because there are all these special privileges that Muslims are demanding in the west whether it be municipal swimming pools that allow women only bathing at certain hours municipal not private it's fine, municipal is not fine or such issues as the land or such issues as being privileged by not having the same criticism that other religious figures directed at their religious figures I'm saying no to special treatment no to privileging, same rights as everyone else not special rights I'm sorry I don't think Dr. Pike his answer was very valid but it was not to the question that I posed my question was that where do you go to to understand the Muslim perspective I'm sorry there was only one with the question mark at the end I'd like to answer the comment I'm going to answer the comment that you made and that is that all that's involved is a lack of understanding because if all that was involved was a lack of understanding then your question was legitimate then I should go and research and figure out what's really behind that but when people fly airplanes into buildings but people did fly airplanes into buildings you can say you don't advocate for that did people burn down embassies in Beirut people did burn down embassies in Beirut are people inciting violence against the West are people insisting on Sharia law in the West yes that is who we perceive as the enemy that is who the enemy is that is who we are fighting against so I don't need to go and understand Islam when I see somebody running at me with a knife I need to shoot him that's it ok next question ok so my question is how do you reconcile the fact that you said that force is a problem force is a problem in freedom of speech and so on and so forth like you can have freedom of speech without with discourse and so on with the war in Iraq which is killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and they're evolving pretext which is currently it's changing all the time it's currently liberation or freedom how can you impose that by force which is US is doing with causing hundreds of thousands of deaths which like pales in comparison to the deaths caused on the other side and second the US is support for oppressive tyrannical regimes in funding like Egypt Jordan and namely primarily Israel well let me start by saying that I am no fan of American foreign policy in the present certainly not in the past I was a critic of the war in Iraq I did not think it was the right war the right thing to do at the time I thought there were more pressing things that need to be done in the war in the war on radical Islam I think that on Islamic totalitarianism on this ideology but given that given who Saddam Hussein was given his animosity to you know his threats towards the United States given his attempt to murder a United States president given everything that he's done he was I'll use the term again fair game for the United States to eliminate him to get rid of him to the United States I think a minor threat relative to other countries in the Middle East but a threat nevertheless and it was completely legitimate for us to get rid of him now I disagree with the way the war has been handled I disagree with the idea of us staying there and bringing so called freedom I don't believe this administration knows coherently what freedom means but I certainly don't think that it is appropriate in a war of self defense in the context of the Middle East to try to force that I would have liked to see us if we were going to go to war on Iraq go in destroy what we thought was a threat the Hussein regime and get out of there and get on to the business of what is necessary to win this war and that is identify Islamic totalitarian regimes and organizations and go after any regime that actively supports that I think the number one regime that supports that kind of terrorism the number one regime that advocates for it in its media in its sermons on Fridays and through its presidents is Iran and I think that should have been the target from day one but you know we are at war we are at war here and to evade the fact that we are at war look we killed more Germans than the Germans killed Americans when we went to war against Germany Germany started a war against us and we killed many many many more Germans in winning the war if you go to war you need to go to win it and you need to do whatever is necessary to win that war I find your question about Iraq astonishing because you seem to be asking it from the point of view of Iraqi interests Iraqi welfare and yet the clear implication of your question is the Iraqis we better off under Saddam Hussein some humanitarian people are can you answer the question I didn't ask you to interpret my thoughts I would go to a mind reader for that can you answer the question I did you didn't answer the question he insulted me can you answer the question please you asked two questions he answered one I dealt with another I'm not going to get into American foreign policy in Egypt and Jordan and Israel this is not our topic tonight first of all let's talk let's meet again some other time and talk about US policy in the Middle East that's not our topic tonight there's more violence in Iraq right now than it was in Saddam I hate Saddam I don't like him but there's more violence and killing in Iraq happening there more than 13 years ago a girl would walk to her school without being raped 15 years ago but right now it's easier for that to happen that's number one number two is the usage of the term anti-Semitism anti-Semitism I have to give a couple of facts and then I'll give a question please short comments Islam some people say that Islam is anti-Semitic but that's very uneducated because Quran which is an Arabic is a Samite language so this is very historically mistake number three some people said that he would encourage even atheism we have seen what atheism have done to the world like the Soviet Union and the violence it has caused so please don't encourage atheism number no the question is the question is coming you've already had two I'll give you the question I'll give you the question I'll give you a question you've had two questions I didn't give a question I just highlighted some mistakes that you guys have done I've said both questions I'll give you my question I'll give you my question I have to give you my question I have to ask you to leave is this free of speech do you think this is free of speech? okay I'll answer two of your points the first one about how there's so many more deaths in Iraq today again points the fact that you wish that Saddam Hussein was still there I find this just amazing that you think that Iraq would be better off as Saddam Hussein still in power as far as anti-Semitism in the Quran I don't know that anyone brought that issue up but the notion that it was written in a Semitic language it can't be anti-Jewish because the Quran was written in Arabic it can't be anti-Jewish is a very let me give you a brief a brief education in the term Semite and Anti-Semite the term Semite is a pseudo-scientific term that was developed in the 19th century to group together a number of languages I shouldn't say pseudo-scientific it was a valid term to group together a number of languages including Hebrew and Arabic but many others as well in the in 1889 an Austrian anti-Jewish writer by the name of Wilhelm Maher came up with the term Anti-Semite this was pseudo-scientific the notion that there's a Semitic race and he's against the Semitic race this term although very inaccurate it becomes standard in many western languages including English it's not a good term anti-Jewish is the term it's what one refers to it's not talking about Semites in general it's talking about Jews that's what the term only means now the fact that the Quran is in the Arabic language and Jews speak or have historically spoken a language related to Arabic is utterly, utterly irrelevant furthermore no one actually said that the Quran is anti-Semitic well the Quran has many elements in it some of which are quite friendly to the Jews dating from the period when Muhammad was trying to win Jewish support and then some quite negative towards the Jews at a time when Muhammad was negative towards Jews and fighting Jews so you can find as I mentioned before many things in a sacred document and they can be interpreted in many ways but this was not an issue that we raised here let me just address two of the comments you made one is if you want to blame anybody for the violence and the killing in Iraq right now blame the Shi'ite militias and their surgeons they're the one inflicting the violence if the Iraqis if the Iraqis valued and wanted freedom they would have embraced the American troops and they would have established a free country in Iraq they are the ones killing each other there are hundreds of thousands of deaths if those numbers are even accurate primarily a sectarian civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis going on right now that if the America left would continue and actually intensify and get worse but to accuse atheism of the horrors of communism and fascism is absurd first of all the fascists were certainly not atheists they strongly advocated for religion or pro-religion and were very pro-faith as if you read Gables or Hitler or any of these they claimed to be Christian and they were very proud of faith qua-faith they had direct communication with someone the communists replaced faith in God with faith in something else in the proletarian but it was still essentially faith it was still essentially a religion and it was faith in a collective instead of faith in a unobservable, unknowable when I talk about atheism particularly in the context of my emphasis over and over and over and over again about reason and rationality I am talking about that reason and rationality as the guide to human life as the only tool of cognition as the only tool of knowledge and then the only tool of decision making of action and that certainly the communists didn't advocate because they were very anti-reason and certainly the fascists didn't advocate because they were very anti-reason read them Marx is very anti-reason and certainly the hitlers of the world are very anti-reason what I am advocating is individualism personal responsibility not following a collective not blindly doing what some guru or leader or collective so-called consciousness advocates but doing what is in your own rational self-interest what your reason dictates and that has nothing to do with those horrific movements of the 20th century and they are not atheistic movements they are both religious movements of a different type than the classical religion that we're used to but they're both still religious movements because they're based on the what is religion about the essence of religion is faith and the essence of faith is the rejection of reason because faith demands the number one thing is it demands that you accept without evidence that is the essence that is what faith means look it up in the dictionary okay okay another written question you made no distinction between peaceful and radical Muslims do you see no distinction does all Muslim ideology as practiced by Muslims worldwide demand violence I believe this was in fact answered I think it's worth answering I do draw a distinction between Islam the religion and radical Islam the political ideology our enemy is radical Islam it is a movement that is minoritarian has perhaps 10-15% of the Muslim world supporting it wanting to have the sharia and post on it most Muslims do not it is intolerant intransigent highly ambitious to take over countries as in Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and ultimately many others including this one it has a cosmic it seeks worldwide to Germany and sees itself in a cosmic battle with the West in general and the United States in particular no this is not about Islam the religion this is about a certain reading of Islam that has become very prominent and powerful in the past few decades okay how do you feel about increasing conversion rates of Americans to Islam can we stop people from accepting Islam I have no feelings people can convert to whatever religion they wish I mean I do have feelings but I have the same feelings about people becoming evangelical I worry about the radicalization of Islam in the United States and the fact that so many of the Muslims organizations and Muslims in the United States have been influenced by these violent streams within globally Islam but if somebody is converting to just you know what is it what would it be normal I don't know if there is such a thing but non-violence and non-advocacy of Sharia then we live in a free country and they can do that okay we'll go back to oral questions now please do not precede your question with a speech just ask the question okay just one say most gracious most merciful I bear witness that Muhammad is the best man that ever lived and the best man that will live to the end of the world and my question is in regards to your claim that Islamic Sharia advocates throwing your ideology against people with the sword now if you look at history that the last 100 years which have been ruled by Christian Jewish secular atheist ideologies has forced millions of people to die who was the one who dropped Hiroshima Nagasaki who was the one that killed 3 million people in Vietnam who was the one that killed millions of people in Korea who are the ones who are occupying a country I don't see 135,000 Iraqis or Saudis in America pushing Sharia law who is the one that occupying a base in Guantanamo who has the one that has been occupying people's we got the question America first of all let me say I already said I'm not going to stand here and defend American foreign policy so I'm not going to defend all the different wars you cited dropping of Hiroshima Nagasaki was an incredibly dropping of the bombs in Hiroshima Nagasaki was an act of moral heroism on the part of President Truman it was an act it was an act it was an act of self defense it was an act that not only that it was an act that saved hundreds of thousands of young American lives an act that saved millions of Japanese lives not that I think it should have been dropped for that it was a morally heroic act this country America is luckily not a Christian country it is the greatest country that has ever existed it is the freest country it is the freest country that has ever existed it is only because this country came into existence that anywhere in the world can you stand up and say that and I can sit here and talk about it because until America came into being there was no free speech or individual rights anywhere in the world and it is all you have to look is at the fact look at the surroundings look at the freedom we have here the prosperity we have here the success that we have here because our founding fathers created the first secular not Christian country in the history of the world the first country in the history of the world to protect individual rights and that is why we are so prosperous, so successful so happy and so open to debate to these kind of discussions quick two points first you said that Muhammad is the best man who ever lived and secondly that he was perfect and that is an important distinction and a very Islamic distinction secondly your long listing of American misdeeds or ledge misdeeds reminds me of just a few weeks ago I was at a conference at which one of the speakers gave a long listing of Islamic misdeeds going back to the very origins of Islam but can always pick atrocities the underside but I think giving a one-dimensional view of Islamic history or American history is terribly useful not everything Americans have done is to be proud of great mistakes have been made there's some really terrible things that have happened the key is the full picture not to isolate the wretched the worst but to look at the picture of a whole the Muslim world as a whole over centuries and the United States over its two centuries this otherwise is just cheap demagoguery it's important to look at the whole picture alright we have time for one final question my question is regarding in this forum we have been fighting for the freedom of speech I would just like to ask the thing that this thing is made a point that if something is limited restricted it's no more free so you said that if some speech actually incites towards violence is attributed towards violence and that restricts and that puts a limit to a free speech does that kill the topic the other point is that keep it to that one question yeah I'm just taking the same question the same question Ben take any I have to we're literally out of time otherwise I'd be happy to again I made this distinction if you are advocating for violence if you're inciting violence it's not just an academic discussion about a passage in the Old Testament that calls for violence but you are literally saying to people go and kill go and behead that is not speech that is violence it's the same as if I walk into a bank and say I've got a gun in my pocket I'm not showing you the gun it's right there empty your vaults and give it to me anything that is violence it's not speech I can't say well you have a right to say that you're robbing the bank that is violence or if I sit around with my pals and scheme how to murder somebody or how to rob the bank that is not speech that is violence so it's not a limit on speech it's categorizing what speech what is and isn't speech the advocation of FOD is not speech it is violence and therefore it is banned in a civil in a society that respects individuals that is my point I hope, thank you very much there was a lot of disagreement in this audience but I hope you've learned something in America this kind of debate can take place and nobody gets killed this kind of forum is what America is all about please thank the two panelists very much and thank you for coming