I received an email from someone who I take to be Muslim regarding the Fitna film I displayed yesterday. The email is too long to produce in total, so I want to concentrate on the arguments the emailer makes regarding Geert Wilders' claims concerning the Koran:
1- Verse 8:60 which talks about an obligation to be strong to defend oneself from the enemy is immediately followed by a verse requiring muslims to lean to peace if their enemy reciprocates. The producer of the movie chose not to mention that following verse (Verse 8:61)2- Showing scenes from 911 or the train explosions in Europe is meant to stir the emotions of the western viewer to link these crimes to muslims rather than linking them to terrorists. Why not show scenes from the Basque terrorist acts or scenes of Tamil terrorists in South Asia or Hindu terrorists in India. What about Sebrenisca in Bosnia?3- Verse 4:56 describes scenes in the Hereafter and has nothing to do with actions in this life.4- Verse 47:4 talks about conduct during war and about standing firm in battle but also talks about how to treat prisoners of war. The producer chose not to translate the context of war and on how to treat prisoners of war.5- Verse 4:89 calls for pursuing the "war criminals" who killed muslims to force their conversions from the Faith. Of course the producer did not translate the whole verse to explain the context and did not translate the following verse 4:90 which lists circumstances when pursuing War Criminals may not be allowed.6- The producer showed a speaker talking on TV about fighting the enemy but again did not translate the context. The speaker explained that fighting should be in self defense.7- Showing scenes of an innocent little girl stating she hates Jews because the Qur'an stated they are like pigs and monkeys. This is in reference in the Qur'an to an ancient Jewish tribe before Islam and Christianity who used to make tricks to overcome the requirements of the Sabbath observance. Some people try to politicize this verse but despite what the Zionist giving bad name to Jews this is not how the vast majority of Muslims regard Jews.8- The scene showing a Palestinian Iman calling for fighting the Israelis is again out of context. He is a person whose land was stolen and whose nation was kicked out of their homes by the Israelis. The Israelis claim that their religion ordered them to do what they did. What do you expect from oppressed people in similar circumstances?
The emailer goes on to make the familiar argument that jihad is about personal struggle, not violence against others. The author than makes various historical arguments about the peaceful nature of Islam as compared to other religions and other movements. For example:
If history could be called as witness it will testify that religious minorities always prospered in Muslim lands until the 19th and 20th Centuries when European colonized the entire World and started stirring troubles. It was Muslims who saved the victims of the inquisition of the Middle Ages and many oppressed scientist during the Renaissance.
As I have other points to make here, I shall simply state that this is dubious history, at best, and tries to explain the world's woes as the product of European colonialism. For example, Islam did not go from a small local religion in the Eighth Century to dominating the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Europe by the Sixteenth Century simply because the people of those regions were asked nicely to convert. For a discussion of colonialism as an explanation current maladies, see Bernard Lewis's indispensable article Roots of Muslim Rage.
As I said in the original post, I am not a Koranic scholar so I will not try to adjudicate a dispute over interpretations of that book. So let me just say this. First, there are "sayings attributed to the Prophet" that also have authority for most Muslims, so one must take those into account when discussing the Islamic belief system. For example, it is a saying of the Prophet that there shall not be two religions in the holy land (this is not a direct quote but the gist of it), which explains why non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca and why Christian churches are not allowed in Arabia. Also, while certain verses of the Koran speak of jihad as a personal struggle, there are other verses that clearly lend credence to the notion of jihad as commonly translated as "holy war." And throughout history this more violent interpretation of jihad has been accepted by many Muslims.
But let's not get distracted by theology. As Prof. Blanchard intimates, the question isn't necessarily what the proper interpretation is of the Koran, but that fact of Muslim violence. Even my fairly reasonable interlocutor gives a partial pass to Palestinian terror and hate by blaming those darn Israelis for creating a state in the 1940s. The emailer states "What do you expect from oppressed people in similar circumstances?" I expect them not to preach race hatred and the glory of killing innocents. And if one is to be a warrior, I expect the warrior to put on a uniform and fight as a soldier in an army, not sneak among civilians, using the non-combatant as a kind of cover. The Palestinian leadership fails to do any of these things.
Geert Wilders may have produced a piece of propaganda, and Rod Dreher seriously considers that notion. Does Wilders have an anti-Muslim streak? His Wikipedia entry (admittedly not definitive) gives a little evidence toward that conclusion, for example his comparison of the Koran to Mein Kampf, but mostly he seems like a mainstream liberal (as in liberty loving) politician.
The fact that there has been considerable outcry about this film tells you Wilders is onto something. If Wilders had offended any other religious group in the world there wouldn't be nearly this much anger, and certainly no one, Wilders himself or the folks at LiveLeak, would have to fear for their personal safety. Heck, in America Wilders could get a government grant for bashing Christianity. If he attacked Jews at the UN half of the member nations would vote a commendation for him. The attention Wilders is getting stems largely from the fact that we all know that what he is saying can get him killed and those who promote his film are in the same boat. As Dennis Prager wrote last week, if the Tibetans were violent they would garner more world attention, too. The focus on Geert Wilders is explained only by the fact that we all know that there is a credible threat of violence behind those who condemn him loudest. Capitulation to that, as Prof. Blanchard notes, means the end to liberal society.
Perhaps the segment of the Islamic world that is anti-Western, anti-modern and pro-violence represents a perversion of Islam. But they exist and they are making demands. Opposition to this militant faction is an offense to Islam only if Islam is at its heart anti-Western, anti-modern and pro-violence. I suspect it is not, and it is the Muslims themselves who must lead the way in denouncing those who sully the name of Islam.
When the Danish cartoons came out, I was opposed to publishing them (scroll down). I find it juvenile to insult people just because one can. That's a pretty low use of one's freedom. But as the threats of violence mounted my opinion changed. The violence and vitriol surrounding that incident made publishing those cartoons a defense of freedom, not simply a childish insult. The Wilders film is the same. Whatever its shortcomings, the death threats against the film maker and those who distribute the film make it's reproduction an act of a free person combating those with tyrannical souls. Thus, I will post it here again:
Recent Comments