Canon, the diagnosis is exact. The academy that has spent centuries applying historical-critical method to the Pentateuch, the New Testament, and every other sacred text treats the same method applied to the Qur’an and the early Islamic sources as a category error. The term that enforces the exception is “Islamophobia.” It is not a descriptive category. It is a prohibition. It converts ordinary historical inquiry into a moral offense and thereby protects one particular claim to revelation from the standards applied to every other claim.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia in the sense the term is used. There is only the refusal to grant the Apostasy of Mohammed the unique immunity it demands. Islam is not a religion in the ordinary sense. It is the system that presents itself as the final and superseding revelation, rejects the prior covenant, and has historically treated the refusal of that claim as a political and military problem. The academic institutions that now decline to examine its foundational texts with the same tools they use on the Bible are not practicing neutrality. They are practicing submission to the demand that one particular text remain outside the methods that dismantled every other sacred claim in the West.
The pattern is already visible. Supervisors decline proposals on the textual history of the Qur’an. Journals prefer the traditional narrative. Funding from states that treat apostasy as a capital offense shapes what can be said. The result is not balanced scholarship. It is the progressive insulation of one system from the critical standards that once applied to all. The residual capacity for ordinary historical method still exists. It is simply no longer applied where the consequences are highest. The Father remains in charge of the larger sequence. The present duty is simply to refuse the prohibition and keep the method available.
The Islam religion says criticizing the Q'aran and Mohammed is not allowed. So by definition, any criticism is Islamophobia.
Bottom line, Islam is not compatible with traditional western liberal values. I'm Danish. The Danes already found out what happens when you put out a cartoon of Mohammed.
My guess is universities may be concerned about real Jihad like backlash if they criticize Mohammed or the Q'aran.
Canon, the diagnosis is exact. The academy that has spent centuries applying historical-critical method to the Pentateuch, the New Testament, and every other sacred text treats the same method applied to the Qur’an and the early Islamic sources as a category error. The term that enforces the exception is “Islamophobia.” It is not a descriptive category. It is a prohibition. It converts ordinary historical inquiry into a moral offense and thereby protects one particular claim to revelation from the standards applied to every other claim.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia in the sense the term is used. There is only the refusal to grant the Apostasy of Mohammed the unique immunity it demands. Islam is not a religion in the ordinary sense. It is the system that presents itself as the final and superseding revelation, rejects the prior covenant, and has historically treated the refusal of that claim as a political and military problem. The academic institutions that now decline to examine its foundational texts with the same tools they use on the Bible are not practicing neutrality. They are practicing submission to the demand that one particular text remain outside the methods that dismantled every other sacred claim in the West.
The pattern is already visible. Supervisors decline proposals on the textual history of the Qur’an. Journals prefer the traditional narrative. Funding from states that treat apostasy as a capital offense shapes what can be said. The result is not balanced scholarship. It is the progressive insulation of one system from the critical standards that once applied to all. The residual capacity for ordinary historical method still exists. It is simply no longer applied where the consequences are highest. The Father remains in charge of the larger sequence. The present duty is simply to refuse the prohibition and keep the method available.
Semper Fi Brother and have a Blessed day Sir 🙏
Just another reason to be an Islamophobe.
The Islam religion says criticizing the Q'aran and Mohammed is not allowed. So by definition, any criticism is Islamophobia.
Bottom line, Islam is not compatible with traditional western liberal values. I'm Danish. The Danes already found out what happens when you put out a cartoon of Mohammed.
My guess is universities may be concerned about real Jihad like backlash if they criticize Mohammed or the Q'aran.
......and mohamet is still a heretic.