Is it possible to say anything critical of Islam, without being "anti-Islamic?"
On March 27th, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders’ long-awaited film about Islamization, Fitna, was released on the Internet despite a concerted effort to prevent its showing.
Fitna was swiftly denounced in all the usual elite corners. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called it “offensively anti-Islamic.” The European Union declared Fitna would “serve no other purpose than inflaming hatred.” Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said, “We reject this interpretation. The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence.”
Well, I have seen Fitna not once but twice. I can state without equivocation that it is not anti-Muslim. Wilders undoubtedly criticizes the words of the Koran and the deeds of some Muslims. But does this make one anti-Muslim?
If Wilders had made a film documenting the abuse perpetuated by Catholic priests against children and the Church’s efforts to cover it up, would this make Wilders anti-Catholic? If Wilders had made a film documenting the segregationist views of some white churches in the American South in the 1950’s and 1960’s, would this make Wilders anti-Protestant? If Wilders had made a film criticizing Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians, would this make him anti-Semitic? Absolutely not. If Wilders had made any of the three films I mentioned above he would have received accolades and awards. But evidently the words and deeds of some Muslims are off-limits and immune from any form of criticism.
How does showing the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Madrid train bombing make Wilders’ film “offensively anti-Islamic?” While some people would rather take comfort in the thought that the U.S. government planned 9/11 or blame the War in Iraq for the attacks in Madrid, both of these acts were committed by al-Qaeda. The last time I checked al-Qaeda does not adhere to Presbyterianism.
If the European Union believes Fitna “serves no other purpose than inflaming hatred” then why haven’t we seen mobs of Christians and Jews burning down mosques throughout Europe? Could it be that a vast majority of Christians and Jews abhor violence and are law-abiding? There is some irony that Wilders exposes Muslim imams who call upon their congregants to kill Jews and yet in the eyes of the EU it is Wilders who is inflaming hatred.
Do the vast majority of Muslims really reject extremism and violence? Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, a survey done by the Sunday Times found that 40% of British Muslims supported Osama bin Laden and believed he had “cause to wage war against the U.S.” OK, that isn’t a majority but it’s pretty damn close to one. Too close for comfort.
It is well worth noting that hatred is a learned behavior and many Muslims learn this behavior very early in life. Fitna shows an excerpt from Saudi TV. A 3½-year-old girl named Basmallah is being interviewed and is asked what she thinks of Jews. She replies by calling them “apes and pigs.” She is asked who called Jews “apes and pigs” and Basmallah replies, “Allah.” Basmallah is then asked where Allah said Jews were “apes and pigs.” “The Koran,” little Basmallah declares. If King Abdullah is serious about wanting an interfaith dialogue between Muslims, Jews and Christians his education system and media has to get their House of Saud in order and put an end to this behavior. But somehow I doubt we will see Gentlemen’s Agreement with Gregory Peck and John Garfield on Saudi TV anytime soon.
If the vast majority of Muslims really do reject extremism and violence, where is the hue and cry from the Muslim community in Britain and abroad concerning the eight men currently on trial for plotting to bring down jetliners over the Atlantic Ocean in the summer of 2006? When the arrests were made, Khali Sofi, chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee, expressed “shock and disbelief,” not gratitude and relief.
There are eight men currently on trial in London for this plot. On April 4th, prosecutor Peter Wright played videotape depicting six of the men which was intended to be aired after they had carried out the attacks. One of the defendants, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, states, “We will take our revenge and anger, ripping amongst your people and scattering the people . . . decorating the streets.” It is estimated that had the attacks been carried out it could have resulted in the deaths of about 1,500 people. The men were planning to detonate flights from London’s Heathrow and Gatwick airports. The airlines targeted were American Airlines, United Airlines and Air Canada.
Perhaps most frightening of all is that most of the men charged with this crime were born in Britain and several of them had converted to Islam. How can anyone consider Wilders’ film incendiary if Muslims born in Britain are ready, willing and able to kill their fellow countrymen? Don’t the teachings of Islam deserve scrutiny if those who convert to Islam end up being involved in a terrorist plot? When is the last time a convert to Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism plotted to blow up an airplane full of civilians?
The UN Secretary General, the European Union and the Dutch Prime Minister can shoot the messenger all they want. What happens when those who kill in the name of Islam come for them? Would they wonder why they didn’t listen to Wilders? Would they also ask why there was nobody left to speak for them? No, they would probably blame Wilders and then blame themselves for not having been tolerant enough towards Muslims.
"Is it possible to say anything critical of Islam, without being 'anti-Islamic?'"
No, because criticism is not allowed. [How can you question perfection?] Apparently, you aren't even allowed to ask the question because that implies thinking, which is also discouraged.
"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine… My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." – Neville Chamberlain, 1938 speech given in defense of the Munich Agreement
Europe has never exactly been known for their strong stances against crazed, murderous, rampaging, empire-building extremists. It's just a shame that the rest of the world has followed their example, history be damned.
For those who love irony, this essay should get top marks. If I understand it, Aaron Goldstein, presumably Jewish, saw the movie twice and can’t see why Muslims should find it offensive. It merely tells the truth from his point of view – although one is left wondering if most Muslims would share his point of view.
Muslims in Britain supported Osama bin Laden after 9/11, at least a sizable minority of Muslims did. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor, felt America deserved 9/11 and spoke truth to power about “chickens coming home to roost” after 9/11. Presumably his congregation (Americans) supported him, at least a majority did since they recently moved him, at their expense, into a million dollar home. And, our potential future president of the United States supported him also, at least as far as rationalizing Rev. Wright’s statements.
According to Obama, Rev. Wright is extreme in his views but has cause, historically, to be extreme, unlike Obama’s grandmother, who acts like a typical white person when reacting to black men riding the subway. As opposed to petroleum, white guilt is an ever renewable resource, and all Democrats and many Republicans forgot to speak out against black racists once Obama had patiently explained it to them. But, the situation is different for Muslims somehow – they need to denounce terrorists constantly to prove how peaceful they are.
Are Muslims taught to hate? Emphatically yes, at least according to Goldstein. But, black Americans aren’t taught to hate, at least according to Obama, even though our government deliberately invented AIDS to decimate the African American population according to his pastor. Can we hold Obama responsible for the words of his pastor – wonder how Goldstein would answer that question? It’s really not our way to hold a presidential candidate fully responsible for the words or actions of his pastor and Obama repudiated those hateful words – well, sort of.
Maybe we should accord American Muslims the same chance as Obama to “sort of” explain the actions of their co-religionists. With the media in revered and sympathetic attention, could we hold a nationally televised press conference in, say, Dearborn Michigan and allow American Muslim spokesmen to explain the historic basis of their prejudices the way Obama did?
Goldstein’s problem, like many Americans, is that he can’t accept the similarity between the actions and words of a few Muslim terrorists and a few black American nut jobs. Millions of American’s have voted for Obama as a Democratic nominee and very likely would vote for him as a future presidential candidate. Are all these, our fellow citizens, fully supporting black racists they way Goldstein sees all Muslims supporting terrorists? If Obama is elected, would that mean over 50% of Americans support the racist ranting of our president’s religious leader?
There are over a billion Muslims in the world and we can’t wish them away. Provoking Muslims with books, cartoons and movies doesn’t seem terribly smart. Since the provocations are based solely on fear, has it occurred to polemicists like Goldstein that Muslims see through this posturing and clearly understand the weakness that drives it?
Skurka,
So the point, then, is that white guilt and willful self-delusion are, in fact, highly desirable qualities that should be applied equally to all "minority" groups? Pretending against all logic that Barack Obama is not a radical racist despite his 20 year deeply personal relationship with a man who is a radical racist means that we also should pretend that Muslims do not support terrorism, hate and violence, despite the fact that a seemingly disproportionate number of violent terrorist groups are associated with the Muslim religion, and an enormous proportion of the "normal" Muslim population supports their actions? Admiring the nude emperor's beautiful suit of clothes means we should extend the same courtesy to the prince, the duke and the earl as well?
By the way, it appears Goldstein is a default Muslim persecutor by virtue of his ethnicity, but what, pray tell, was Geert Wilders' motivation for "provoking" Muslims? What universal character flaw is shared universally by all Dutch (or is it all "white"?) people that would inspire such an action?
Wilders is a self centered hypocrit who avoids any serious discussion.
He initially started out with valid points, however soon fell into his own world.
That said, there is nothing bad about his little film. Just one view point amongst many. He hyped it up to such a degree and caused a scare amongst the establishment politicians (which is his favourite past time).
The Muslim response to criticism reminds me of a comedian that was portraying a politician. He made some stupid remark and then realized what he had done.
He then makes the statement " I didn't say what I just said and anybody that says I did is a damn liar."
The Muslim is saying "You didn't read what you just read in the Koran and if you say it's in the Koran you're a damn anti-Muslim."
The same goes with quoting their leaders. "My leader didn't say what he just said and if you say he said it that makes you a damn Islamo-phobe."
Patrick Mulligan: Whatever frightens you about Muslims and the topic of Muslim terrorists is making you emotional – and incoherent. I can’t make heads nor tails out of your comments. Goldstein, in this essay, faithfully followed the standard “Islam is a religion of terrorists” script and offered the usual conservative bumper stick rhetoric when reviewing a propaganda movie.
The childish comments of 3 year old Basmallah represents the views of all one billion Muslims, regardless of their age or level of education? That’s not meant as a provocation and an insult to Muslims – making a 3 year old’s beliefs regarding Jews representative of all adults following a major religion? Are you now including yourself among those simple minded souls addicted to religious bigotry?
And, do you suppose that somewhere in pre-Nazi Germany, there might have been a Jew or three with more than their normal share of greed and committed to dishonest business practices? Or, one or two Jews whose personal hygiene was less than Martha Stewart’s on the smell-o meter? Do you think the Nazis could have produced their own warped version of such a movie – “Fitna , the truth about Judaism and Jews”?
We, as a nation, have a serious problem related to terrorism, religious based or otherwise. Cartoons and movies insulting Islam or the Prophet Mohammed don’t help, they only present a simple message of fear that clearly states: “I’m weak, kill me.”
Skurka,
I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I am frightened by the discussion of Islam or Islamic terrorism. I'm also not sure how you're unable to understand the question I posed to you. If your mastery of the English language and logic is such that you actually did not understand my post, then I find it hilariously ironic that you are trying to imply that I am somehow more simple than yourself. Likewise, if you cannot understand why government-run television stations encouraging children to view entire other races of people as inferior because of their religion or ethnicity is symptomatic and symbolic of a larger cultural problem, then it is pointless to even have a discussion with you. I got that impression from your initial ranting about the necessity for self-delusional "tolerance" of violence and criminality if it emanates from minority cultures, viewpoints, or religions, and I'm now sure of it given your equation of religious criticism of Islam with the Nazi Holocaust. Unfortunately, it is not possible to communicate with irrational people – insane religious zealots and yourself included.
[...] Uncategorized pointnine 8:14 pm And another interesting article. [...]
Mr. Skurka is right. We have no business "provoking" people of the Islamic faith.
Even if Islam is a political/religious system of governance and laws interpreted by its most respected and faithful elders as the justification for mass murder and subjugation of entire societies,what place is it of any infidel to be provocative?
Seriously, Mr. Skurka, until those within Islam dare identify and "provoke" (those of their faith who deserve it) on any kind of scale, it will be up to cartoonists and other westerners to do it for them.
If moderate and peaceful Muslims don't like the job the fed-up western world is doing, they are free to step in and take a switch to their own naughty children. If they feel westerners are painting all Muslims with the same brush, they can easily make it clear where the sympathies of "most" Muslims lie (afterall, if they really are "most," then they have all the power they need. How about:
Just once, I would like to hear a high-ranking and respected Muslim cleric issue a Fatwa calling for the deaths of the terrorists whom moderate/most Muslims claim are "hijacking" their religion.
If terrorists truly are evil men perverting the meaning of Islam, what is holding Muslims up from openly and officially declaring that Bin Laden and his brothers are breaking Allah's laws and are doomed to burn in Hell after being brought to justice under Sharia law on earth?
What is stopping them from reminding every Muslim of their obligation to exercise the justice Allah demands for those who break his laws?
Islam is either the peaceful faith of millions of Muslims who desire to live and let live, or it is as it is described in the Koran – the only true religion and one that must be accepted as law by all mankind, by force if need be.
I'd ask which is it, moderate/most Muslims? But as the Koran permits lying to non-believers like me, how do I know if I'm getting a truthful answer?
The answer is, I don't. But some mighty actions by the mighty "most" and "moderate" Muslims to bring down and bring to justice, and send to Hell, the terrorist offenders of Allah's law would go a long way in convincing me they really are who they say they are.
To comment 11.
Criticism happens all the time within Muslim states (note I did not say Islamic).
Just because you are not aware of it, or that the Western media do not report, does not mean it is not happening.
Also, there is no such thing as a high-ranking cleric (except perhaps Shia Iran with numerous titles). There is no clergy in Islam. It is not and cannot be compared to the Christian idea of clergy.
Leigh,
A cleric of import to great numbers of Muslims, one with thousands of followers and the power to reach outside faithful via media, would be a high-ranking cleric, as compared to those with few followers and no real impact on Muslims outside his local sphere. One can rank a cleric as easily as one can rank the top restaurants.
I don't live in a cave. If you know of a public condemnation of terrorism from clerics of note, complete with death sentences issued against them in the name of Allah, please point me to it.
"Criticism happens all the time within Muslim states (note I did not say Islamic).
Just because you are not aware of it, or that the Western media do not report, does not mean it is not happening.
Also, there is no such thing as a high-ranking cleric (except perhaps Shia Iran with numerous titles). There is no clergy in Islam. It is not and cannot be compared to the Christian idea of clergy."
Cite an example. While you're at it, see if you can turn up a serious critique of Marxist economic theory from Stalinist Russia. If criticism were happening in Islamic (notice how I said "Islamic") states "all the time", then it shouldn't be cause for murder, rioting, looting and pillaging when satiric cartoons are published, or when external examinations of the religion are made available to the public. Protesting or questioning the content of those works would be perhaps understandable. Issuing global bounties for the murder of the creators of the works and destroying the property of completely unrelated people is an odd choice of response for a "religion of peace". I didn't see any abortion clinic bombers or Crusaders burning cars outside the theaters when The Last Temptation of Christ, or The Da Vinci Code first debuted. And Andres Serrano certainly doesn't live in hiding, requiring private security personnel to comfortably walk the streets.
"Islamic" means "of or relating to Islam". As in, "an Islamic celebration". To call a state "Islamic" is not grammatically incorrect. Adherents of Islam are called "Muslims". A state is not an individual, and consequently cannot be an adherent of anything. It would be grammatically improper to call a state "Muslim".
There are clergy in Islam. Without such, there would be no distinction between laypeople and experts of the faith, and no teachers or keepers of the faith. There are various titles in the various traditions of Islam for clergy members. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_religious_leaders
Comment 14. Cite examples?
The Jakarta Post frequently publishes articles from Islamic scholars that challenge interpretations of the Quran (usually the challenged interpretations are those of the Saudi sponsored scholars). I mention this one because it is in English and easily accessable.
Strangely enough, one of the places where you can find the most open criticism is in Iran. The most vocal ones frequently find themselves under housearrest or worse. One of the most discussed is the role of the ulama within a state – a discussion predominantly within Shia Iran rather than the Sunni neighbours. A proponent outside of Iran can be found in Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq. They belive that the Ulama should act as guides, and not have direct control of the state.
Numerous other criticisms exist. It is important to note that they are cricitisms of interpretations of the Quran and Hadith – not criticisms of the Quran.
As to clergy within Islam, there is none. Distinction between laypeople and scholars is based on recognition – especially within Shia teachings. It is based on education and knowledge of the Quran, Hadith and religous jurisprudence.
In some areas, the state tightly controls those who have access to the wider public – commonly those who issue the call to prayer and acts as the prayer leaders (Egypt and Saudi Arabia are rather notorious for this). Their survival is dependent on appearing legitimate by using religious justification (classic example being the ties between the Saudi rulers and Wahabism).
Many scholars, in order to gain recognition, follow a populist line – many are no better or worse than a normal politician.
Leigh,
It's great to know their are political/religious wranglings in Islamic states (who would have guessed). But have you got something from anyone who has declared that the Muslims slaughtering innocent people in the name of Allah are actually breaking Allah's law? Has anyone issued Fatwas against them? Called for justice to be done in the name of Allah?
Where does a Muslim's heart lie?
Question for any Muslim: Is Osama Bin Laden going to Hell or do you suspect he will be rewarded in Heaven with whatever the going number of virgins is these days?
One of the main arguments I always hear is "The percentage of radical Muslims is only 10-15%". In a religion of 1.2 billion 10-15% comes out to 120-180 million people. My 8 years in the Army took me to 7 different Islamic countries and the 10-15% is a conservative guess. How people can casually make comments defending radicals shows their lack of understanding of the world outside the comforts of a free nation. Having said that, if "moderates" really were against what the radical wing said and did they would be more vocal, seeing how they have an 800+ million person advantage.
Pat Skurka said, "Cartoons and movies insulting Islam or the Prophet Mohammed don’t help, they only present a simple message of fear that clearly states: 'I’m weak, kill me.'"
I disagree. Cartoons & movies are a way of dealing with the insanity. They are seen as provocative because they're perceived as being ridiculing and denigrating.
Then again, some of us think that philosophies (including religions) that advocate violence ought to be ridiculed.
I solved this problem a few months ago by converting to Islam. Now, by definition, anything I say about any subject (including Islam, as the logic goes)cannot be criticized.
Phillip Bin-Ellis Jackson.