The Netherlands looks set to remain on high alert tonight as it awaits the release of a short film by Geert Wilders which is thought to be highly critical of the Quran. The short film may not be shown for another two weeks, as the Dutch MP attempts to find a television channel which will show his work.
Though the contents of the film are still unknown, they are thought to include desecration of the Quran - which Wilders has already said should be banned in the Netherlands. Comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf (which is already banned in Holland), Wilders has previously said:
"Not only the sale, but also the use in mosques and ownership in a household context should be punishable. If the current legislation does not allow that, then a new law on banning the book should be introduced. This book incites hate and murder, and therefore does not fit in with our rule of law. If Muslims want to participate, they must distance themselves from the Koran. I know that is asking a great deal, but we have to stop making concessions."
Despite not having seen the short-film there have already been international outcries. The Grand Mufti of Syria has condemned the film and the Iranian Parliament has warned of ‘extensive repercussions from Muslims throughout the globe’ if the film is released. These are the only two really good reasons so far for showing the film. Such threats make it a necessity rather than a choice to show the film.
But aside from the inevitable fall-out, blame for which will be fired every way, does this not return us once again to the central irony of the Islamist extremists (an irony which can seemingly neither be explained nor understood).
If a person points out that a precept of someone else’s faith is violent then there are only two sensible ways to respond. If your faith does not have any violent precepts then show that this is the case. If it does have violent precepts then admit that it has violent precepts but stress that you yourself would not follow them up.
What is not plausible – something which the Parliament of Iran has yet to learn – is claiming that your religion is peaceful while threatening to kill anyone who argues to the contrary.
Comments (4)
william:
'Apart from that, I think the idea of banning the Qur'an is nonsensical in a liberal society. I am staggered that Mein Kampf is banned in Holland.'
I agree. Waste of police time, even if it was ethical to suppress freedom of thought. There's no point in fighting a battle you can't win, it only exposes your weakness and weakens you by taking up resources to no effective end. Far better to play to your strengths and argue for at least some form of clarification on the 'difficult' verses.
A solution put forward by the Sudanese scholar, An-Na'im, a professor at Emory, was to reverse the traditional order of abrogation to give preference to the Medinan suras, which preach peaceful co-existence.
The war-like Meccan suras traditionally have taken precedence.
Posted by M Clyde | January 25, 2008 10:29 PM
Posted on January 25, 2008 22:29
Debate on the Quran is needed and we should not shrink from this. Wilders' criticism is tough but there are just some things you have to confront head on. No dancing around the issue like the dance of the seven veils will do.
Like many people, I am trying to understand this whole phenomenon. It is the key issue of our time. The Quran is the justification for all Islamist violence: it was Sayid Qutb who said: 'We must return to and assimilate the Quran, in order to apply it, to put it into practice...'
I first read the Quran over 30 years ago when some friends of mine were interested in Sufism. Expecting to find a poetic spiritual text like the Upanishads, I was appalled by its hateful and gloating violence, its persistant justification of killing in the name of God, its permitting the beating of women, its material and sexual vision of paradise, its clear and repetitive hatred of Christians and Jews, its random presentation and its many internal contradictions. I'm afraid nothing has reduced that first impression of a crazy book that did not seem to be recited by a man in a state of grace. Rather this was the rantings of an impassioned ideologue intent on dominating his followers and all who resisted him. God was an instrument of terror. There was no demonstration of a loving God despite the constant incantations of his merciful qualities.
This was well before current problems arose and at a time when I was very sympathetically disposed towards Muslims, or at least Sufi Muslims.
My Muslim friends would tell me that the Quran 'needed careful interpretation'. That, I think, is the understatement of all time.
I wondered how a great faith could be constructed on such a flawed document. That my Muslim friends knew God, I did not doubt. Was this because of the Quran - or despite it?
It gradually became apparent to me though, that for most of the history of Islam, Quranic interpretation was a specialist field controlled by an educated clerical elite, the ulema. It also took place in a Muslim majority context, where the 'infidel' was not present to any extent to excite passions. All Muslims knew of their faith was the five pillars. Indeed Qutb's moderate rival in the Muslim Brotherhood, Hudaybi, stated that all that was necessary to be a Muslim was the two professions of faith.
Whilst historically Muslims were taught to recite the Quran this does not mean that they knew or reflected on the exact meanings of the words, rather as Christians used to mumble the Latin Mass. It is only recently that mass literacy and mass publication has enabled Muslims to finally read the Quran in their own language in large numbers, with rather predictable results.
There are 1.2 million Muslims worldwide and the ulema have lost any control over the interpretation of the Quran that my Muslim friends warned me was essential. And I really don't know what we should do about that.
Posted by M Clyde | January 24, 2008 11:11 PM
Posted on January 24, 2008 23:11
Douglas, I agree with the logic of what you say and think this kind of point needs to be made again and again and again until Muslims either recognize the incoherence of their position and change, or the world sees them as tyrants and fools.
Apart from that, I think the idea of banning the Qur'an is nonsensical in a liberal society. I am staggered that Mein Kampf is banned in Holland. Why not go the whole hog and ban the Communist Manifesto, the Rights of Man, Utopia, 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and the Bible. The Bible contains more passages inciting violence and worse than the Qur'an. It's just that Jews and Christians recognise that such material is historically conditioned and not to be taken or applied literally, if at all, today. So what we need to work towards is encouraging, through a myriad of ways, Muslims to do the same with respect to the Qur'an.
Posted by william | January 24, 2008 9:27 PM
Posted on January 24, 2008 21:27
Douglas, I agree with the logic of what you say and think this kind of point needs to be made again and again and again until Muslims either recognize the incoherence of their position and change, or the world sees them as tyrants and fools.
Apart from that, I think the idea of banning the Qur'an is nonsensical in a liberal society. I am staggered that Mein Kampf is banned in Holland. Why not go the whole hog and ban the Communist Manifesto, the Rights of Man, Utopia, 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and the Bible. The Bible contains more passages inciting violence and worse than the Qur'an. It's just that Jews and Christians recognise that such material is historically conditioned and not to be taken or applied literally, if at all, today. So what we need to work towards is encouraging, through a myriad of ways, Muslims to do the same with respect to the Qur'an.
Posted by william | January 24, 2008 9:27 PM
Posted on January 24, 2008 21:27