Something caught my eye in the Reuters story Jason commented on:
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday condemned as “offensively anti-Islamic” a Dutch lawmaker’s film that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.
Interestingly, Ban’s condemnation of Dutch politician Geert Wilders’ film on fundamentalist Muslim violence as “offensively anti-Islamic”may tacitly admit Wilders’ point.
Imagine a Mississippi filmmaker were to produce a movie linking the violence of abortion bombers and the Bible verses they use to justify their actions. Being an extremely devout evangelical, I would hardly call that work anti-Christian. It would condemn those twisting Scripture for their own fatal machinations; and it would condemn those executing violence, a proportion of Christians so small as to make laughable any conflation of them or their ideas with the faith itself. A film such as this would be anti-abortion-bomber not anti-Christian.
But Ban didn’t say Wilders’ film attacks those taking the Qur’an out of context or that it condemns those tiny numbers of Muslims embracing v iolence. He didn’t say it was anti-violence as its hypothetical, Christian analog might be categorized. Instead he labeled it anti-Islamic, accidentally acknowledging that perhaps the only circumstance under which this film could be anti-Islamic is if it accurately portrays some sect whose size and interpretation of the Qur’an makes conflation with the whole anything but laughable.
This is precisely why both fundamentalist and moderate Muslims have denounced the film: They’ve been left no choice but to conclude, much like Secretary-General Ban, that Wilders’ attack on Islamists specifically is also an attack on broader Islam; and if that is their conclusion, then perhaps such an attack is not without reason.
Custos
wolkingsworld
Barrett Coldyron
ljdecker
triggrhappy
mollypitcher
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 29, 2008 at 5:57 pm
aristotlethegeek
Do not attribute what Ban Ki Moon has said to accident. For, he understands what is at stake when he terms the film anti-Islam. You may or may not agree with his ‘freedom carries responsibilities’ line (I do not). But he is too intelligent to make statements just like that.
That apart, no matter what people say, the film skates on thin ice on the charge of raking up Islamophobia. I would still not ask for a ban because it is a matter of freedom of speech. Something that might offend me might not offend you, and vice versa. So who decides?
Your abortion bomber parallel does not fit because in Wilder’s film, he has put the pieces together in a manner that leads one to conclude Islam is dangerous. Stop Islamisation, he says. Outside of the film, his political ideology includes putting limits on migrants into Holland, Muslims being the primary target. He also wants the Koran to be banned. What would you say if your hypothetical Mississippi abortion clinic bomber filmmaker, after showing all the gory footage concluded that the Bible preaches hatred, so it should be banned, and that Catholic migration into the US should be controlled, or stopped altogether? That is what Wilder is after.
Use of Islam by radical elements is a serious threat that cannot be brushed under the carpet in a fit of political correctness. But one should also consider the effects of tarring an entire race or religion with the same brush based on the actions of a few (okay, more than a few) members.
Even after considering all these arguments, whatever the consequences, and whatever the provocation, banning the film is unacceptable.
March 29, 2008 at 11:58 pm
triggrhappy
“even after considering all these arguments, whatever the consequences, and whatever the provocation, banning the film is unacceptable.”
This is exactly the context in which we are discussing this film and at least you understand our argument, that any attempt at banning this film is a slap in the face of freedom.
However you make other points that I will address as well. Saying that this film borders on “raking up Islamophobia” is simply your opinion and since you posted yours, Ill give you mine. That allegation is patently absurd. People like me, who are often called “islamophobes” dont have any irrational fear of muslims. What we fear is the threat of MILITANT Islam, which is perfectly justified since its practice and practitioners refuse to allow discorse on the topic, and any deviation from the lifestyle they endorse constitutes a death sentence. That lifestyle might be an acceptable scenerio for you but I shall never submit to ALLAH.
You also state that Wilders argument in favor of limitations on immigration into his country, particularly on muslims, constitutes proof positive that he indeed is a islamophobe preaching hysteria. While on the surface many would agree, look deeper at his main argument. Moderate muslims again are not the problem here. It is the radical form of Islam that is and that form of Islam is practiced now in places like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, ect.These are the very places where militant ideologies are bred. So why on earth, if you have a problem with militant Islam would you go and import more of the same strain of Islam and deposit it into the culture? That seems counter- intuitive to say the least.
Finally, you say also argue what if the bible preached hatred? Would you ban it and control immigration of christians? Well, I’ll answer your hypothetical question only after answering that we both know that its not the Christian population that are rioting every week in the streets or lighting entire sections of cities on fire, or going on murder sprees after the smallest of provocation. You see, when comparing the bible and the torah used today by christians and orthodox Jews you would find many verses that could be considered as inflamatory. Gods old testament commands of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” for example. Other stories such as the Isrealites lead by Joshua into the promised land and killing all those that inhabited the land or Gods destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah could be construed as example for Christians and Jews to slaughter all those we disagree with. But that doesnt happen, since we in America, in Europe as in most of the world have moved ourselves past the 13th century. We can look at the scripture and put it into its historical context, which is more than I can say for the followers of Islam who still live there and insist, at the point of a AK mind you, that we live that way too.
I for one, am with Wilders. Enough is enough of this PC bull!