Filed under: Europe, Islam, Religion, The Netherlands — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 26, 2008 @ 3:06 pm CET
Well, great. All this controversy for nothing: Geert Wilders’ movie will be finished two months later than he thought. It will now, most probably, be aired in March. This means that Wilders’ opponents have the time to sue him as to prevent him from airing it; either on television or on the Internet.
This probably means that the Netherlands will calm down a bit in the coming month and then, in March, the controversy will start all over again. Message to Wilders: either air the thing or don’t do it. Give an exact date and then we can wait for it. This, however, is ludicrous.
It’s good news for Dutch living in Muslim countries of course: it means that they’ve got more time to pack their bags for the evacuations.
Meanwhile, Wilders gave the first minute or so of the movie to the Telegraaf (Dutch newspaper) to prove that he’s indeed working on a movie.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
1 Altaf
January 27, 2008 @ 9:10 am CETGreet Wilders
You knowledge on Islam is very poor. Mohamad the prophet of Allah (God) said what was revealed to him by Allah. Quran is word of Allah. Probably You have not read Quran and I am sure you need to take lesson on Quran. My suggestion is that after you study the Quran ver well, take a tution on the subject and then think of making a film not smaller but bigger one. I hope that should be OK with you, otherwise you make fool of your self.
Altaf
2 Ahmad
January 28, 2008 @ 4:40 pm CETAltaf. Unfortunately like most muslims you have been brainwashed by the idea that Koran is peaceful. The truth is totally the opposite. Before you advise Wilders to read and understand Koran, I think you should do that yourself first. Read what "has been revealed" after the Hidjra of Muhammad. You will learn a lot more than the seemingly peaceful message you acquired within your family and society.
3 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 4:49 pm CETAhmad what the Koran says or does not say is much less important than how Islam as a religion is practiced or not. Much of the Christian Bible is peaceful and that didn’t stop the Crusades or the Inquisition. If Altaf has been taught to be peaceful and respect others, I firmly believe that’s what counts, and not what’s actually in the book.
4 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 5:01 pm CETI think you’re contradicting yourself there, Claudia. As you say, much of the Christian Bible is peaceful- the fundamental message of the New Testament certainly is so. Therefore the Christian Church eventually came to see the errors of the Crusades- by looking back more faithfully to the Word of God. If the same is true of the Koran, then it makes sense to make the comparison- but if the text overall doesn’t have a basis for rejecting "conversion by the sword", and Mohammed himself advocated that (this is my understanding, though I plead guilty to limited understanding of the Koran as a whole) then there’s not a similar basis to use the holy book itself to set the faith back on the right track.
5 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 5:09 pm CETC. Stanley, we’ve been over this before. I actually dedicated a whole post to the subject, you’ll recall. I’m afraid we simply have to agree to disagree. To me the true meaning of a religion is how it’s practiced and not what the book says. I’m not inclined to think that your average American Jew isn’t really a Jew because he doesn’t follow the mind-numbing number of rules and regulations contained in the Torah. Likewise all religions have shown that what their books say often have very little to do with how the’re practiced. How true the religion is to the book is something that matters only to those who believe that the book is the God Given Truth. To the rest of us, the behaviour of the faithful is the really important thing.
hehe, Captcha "in- spiritual"
6 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 5:18 pm CETI understand, Claudia, but I think my point that you may be missing is that the way the religion is practiced IS influenced by the book, because as you say, "how true the religion is to the book is something that matters only to those who believe that the book is the God Given Truth." That’s exactly the point I’m trying to make: there’s a good chance of a religion reforming itself if the book itself can be used to argue for reform. The book part might not matter to you, but because it is the basis for belief among the believers, it is critical that the book can credibly support the reform agenda.
7 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 5:20 pm CETMaybe a better way to explain it is that for you as a secular person, it makes sense that reformers of a religion could simply argue that parts of the book should be ignored- but for practitioners of the religion, that doesn’t work. You’ll always have people insisting that if the book says that violence is appropriate in some situations, then this is what God wants. It’s only if you can use the book itself to argue against that that you’ll be able to convince such people that their interpretation is wrong.
8 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 5:22 pm CETChristine, as someone who actually read the Koran - unlike you
- I know that the reform movement can rely very heavily on the Koran. In fact, the problem isn’t so much the Koran, as it is the additional writings and "interpretations" by 13th century Islamic scholars.
9 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 5:25 pm CETOK, you know, Christine I respect you greatly so I wouldn’t say what I would tell any other comment: "perhaps you should pick up a copy of the Koran and read it yourself. After that do some research on how what came to mean what (see comment above).
Again, I would say that, but I don’t
I mean… "it’s my understanding that… but I don’t know much I admit." That’s something… infuriating
10 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 5:28 pm CETFair enough, Micheal, and I’m not trying to claim otherwise. I just think it’s an important point to understand that the books have to be used for the justification of reform, while Claudia seems to think that it’s just a matter of people deciding to practice the religion more peacefully. That would be like saying it didn’t matter if a country didn’t have a Constitution to support human rights, as long as the folks running the country decided to enact laws which pretty much adhered to those principles.
And on what you are saying, the same is true for Christianity, that interpretations come into play. But here I do see an advantage in the more centralized structures of most Christian churches (particularly the Roman Catholic Church, of course
) Do you agree with that view at all, that it may be more problematic to deal with radical fundamentalists due to the decentralization of Islam?
11 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 5:37 pm CETWell, Michael, I was being honest in admitting that I’m relying on second hand accounts of the Koran. But what’s infuriating too is when you say, ‘pick up a copy of the Koran’. Sorry, but I haven’t the time or interest to really study it in the way that I’d need to to answer that question. If someone asked me to explain how Christ’s message cancelled out any tendency toward violence in the Old Testament, I could explain that to them. I wouldn’t say, "Oh, go read the Bible." So I would think that someone who has read the Koran could also give an explanation for what I’m questioning: Is there or is there not something in the Koran itself which would refute any attempts to use Mohammed’s violent conquest as justification for violence in the name of Allah?
12 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 5:52 pm CETYup!
Many verses even. It’s all about what verses do you focus on and how do you interpret the verses you focus on. For instance, in the Bible it says that God killed the enemies of Israel in battle. Right? They had a fight, the Israelites won. That’s it. We see that as historical (and a sign of what God can do). Now, you can interpret that verse like that, but you can, then, also say: "see! this verse is written FOR AND ABOUT today! we MUST fight for GOD will SLAY our enemies!"
No… that was back then…
Aside from that, it’s also interesting that the Koran is very clear about one thing: the message is, don’t fight against non-Muslims, unless they want to fight against you / declare war on you. When they do, then fight for all your worth (something we can all generally agree with I think). Now, what do Islamists do? They ignore the verse part of that sentence and then pretend that the second part stands on its own.
The verses about women are interesting as well: what Mohammed did was very progressive for his age. If you interpret the Koran and the ‘rules’ in that regard, it becomes perfectly clear that as times change, Muslims should change their behavior as well.
Of course, this is also interesting with regard to the veil, which wasn’t normally worn by Muslim women until 5 generations after Mohammed lived / died.
13 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 6:07 pm CETI get that, Michael, but it still leaves things open for cherry picking IMO. What I’m trying to say about Christianity is that I really don’t think there’s the same vague wave of the hand about "that was then, this is now". Instead, we have Jesus who came as the Messiah, but NOT the militant leader that the Jewish leaders expected. Jesus specifically taught that God’s Kingdom was of the next world, not this one- that we weren’t supposed to fight to create it here. I just don’t see any parallel in Islamic teaching, do you? Any one deciding factor that really argues against anyone who would say that those past accounts of the glory of conquest are not only history, but that God has specifically sent a messenger (and of course, even more convincingly in Christianity, it’s the Son of God who is God himself) to say no to the violence?
14 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 6:15 pm CETyes i do actually: you seemingly have chosen to ignore the new testament. jews don’t have the new testament. if they were going to interpret it like islamists do, you’re in danger as well. yet they don’t.
15 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 6:21 pm CETBut Michael: that gets back to my analogy- perhaps some countries could have a good record on human rights but still not have a Constitution to back that up. Just saying that the Jews no longer interpret the OT that way doesn’t prove anything other than that this particular group has embraced the peaceful interpretation. I still say it matters that other interpretations are possible unless there’s something in the Scripture itself that argues against that.
16 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 6:35 pm CETThat can be found. And make no mistake about it, the Bible can be interpreted in a less peaceful way as well. Why do you think they interpreted it differently for 1500 years? For all your "this is clearly what the Bible says" talk, the great minds of the past always differed with you.
Now, when I read the Bible I agree with your interpretation, and that’s the same with the Koran. If I read it, I really don’t see how people can interpret it in a violent, aggressive manner. Well, they can by simply ignoring the inconvenient verses that oppose violence in such a way, etc.
In other words, your reasoning is wrong. You seem to argue that peaceful people have to interpret it in a radically different way, and ignore parts, etc., whereas the truth of the matter is that this doesn’t go for moderates, but that Islamists have to ignore entire passages in the Koran if they want to pursue their radical agenda.
If you ignore most of the New Testament and focus completely on the old, and ignore peaceful verses in it and only read the aggressive ones, well, you can preach violence as well.
As the Dutch intelligence agency puts it: extremists have a cut and paste Koran. In order to be peaceful Muslims don’t have to do so. They should simply stop reading radical interpretations and focus on the book itself and on their own interpretation.
Interestingly enough, that’s exactly what Christians have done.
17 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 6:47 pm CETFrustrating that neither you nor Claudia seem to be getting my main point. Let me try it this way:
I see three possibilities with a holy text of Scripture that might contain passages which could be interpreted as advocating violence in the name of Yahweh/God/Allah. First possibility is that the main body of the religion can embrace the violence, use this to gain worldly power. Obviously that has happened at times and we want to know what other possibilities would help prevent that.
Second possibility is that the religious leaders who don’t want violence to be endorsed will argue against interpreting in that way- but they don’t have a specific theological reason to show how the text as a whole (or one major section of it which corrected the previous parts) should be seen as advocating nonviolence.
Third is that there is something within the text itself- a voice within the Scripture- which provides the basis for the overall theology to be nonviolent. The New Testament is such a basis for Christianity- and when Christians eventually saw that they’d gone astray, their leaders corrected this BY USING THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES (and not just passages of it), to show how Jesus’ message was a wholesale repudiation of violent conquest in the name of religion- not by using new interpretations of man. In other words, we have the authority of the voice of God himself on which to base the interpretation.
The way I see it, Islam still has elements of one but the majority of its followers would fall under category two. Jews are pretty much all number two, and Christians are number three except for occasional extremists who can’t claim to have the authority of any mainstream church.
18 sash
January 28, 2008 @ 7:11 pm CETAll this stuff about wars was in the old centuries when the Quraan was revealed. revelations came down for them times and wars were for them times. people who read the Quraan and kill are sinners because the Quraan is The word of Allah and its a means of peace, again when we read the Quraan its says kill in self defence that again was for them days not nowadays. but if this film is released then it could bring out a war. No one Could bare to see their Holy Book teard up. Simply this film should be banned.
19 sash
January 28, 2008 @ 7:13 pm CETNo muslim can bare to see the Quraan teard up
20 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 8:13 pm CETChristine, I probably haven’t read as much of the Bible as you and haven’t read the Koran at all, but I can’t help but get the feeling that your opinion is heavily colored by the fact that you are a Christian, and therefore naturally believe in the superiority (not in any arrogant sense, but still) of your holy text. Thus, you are comfortable saying that Muslims and Jews MUST ignore pieces of their holy texts to be modern peaceful religions but deny the same thing of Christianity at least in part because you think Christianity is true. It’s not missing the point to realize that leading thinkers within the church interpreted the book very VERY differently for thousands of years, and only recently came to the "realization" that the global intent was peaceful. Likewise, Islamic scholars could come to the realization that the overall intent of the prophet was a religion of peace. Of course others can believe that in order to do that they have to ignore pieces of text, since they don’t believe the words are true. Likewise, I believe that in order to treat women as full equals to men, Christians must ignore pieces of their Bible.
By the way bless (ejem) that cherrypicking, the world would be a tribe of warring extremist tribes without it.
21 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 8:14 pm CETClaudia: this could very well be the first time that you and I are in complete agreement on a matter of religion.
22 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 8:26 pm CETMichael, there’s a first time for everything! Hell, maybe one day you’ll say something nice about Obama or me about Hillary!
23 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 8:27 pm CETI can make that first time today: OBama is a great speaker.
24 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 9:34 pm CETOK, I’ll do my part; Hillary is a strong woman, who always clearly rebelled at what a First Lady "ought to be", and I find that admirable.
25 Ali
February 8, 2008 @ 5:31 am CETDear Ahmad,
First, I think your brainwashed, because your the one who don’t know anything about Quran and it is spelled as QURAN NOT KORAN. Second, Quran book itself gives us the message of peace and mankind. I hope you read the Quran and UNDERSTAND IT. And all those people who judge other people or their religion, or their BOOK, before you do that PLEASE TAKE SOME TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR RELIGION IS ASKING AND DONT JUST JUDGE THEM WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IS THAT PARTICULAR RELIGION, BOOK IS SAYING. THANK YOU AND MAY ALLAH BLESS ALL OF US
26 C Stanley
February 8, 2008 @ 2:30 pm CETClaudia, I missed this when you first posted it, so I’m sorry for the late response to it.
I honestly don’t know how you can interpret it that way. Muhammed himself led military conquests while Jesus preached against that; one of the main reasons Jesus was a threat to the Jewish leaders of his time is that he taught that the Messiah was not going to be a militant leader who would establish a Jewish kingdom here on earth. There are OBVIOUS differences in the teachings themselves that are not open to interpretation. Obviously it was wrong that Christian leaders took quite a while to come to terms with the message of peace and nonviolence, but it’s also obvious that their actions DID represent a misinterpretation of Christ’s message.
I see no such parallel with Muhammed- he didn’t tell his followers not to fight, he actually led them in battle.
27 Mel
February 17, 2008 @ 8:53 am CETC Stanley
Since you have honestly professed a lack of knowledge of Islamic history, I’ll try and brief you with some details. Mohammad’s message of Islam is effectively a global brotherhood. When he migrated to Yathrib (now Medina) he had created a document, a proto constitution that outlined the rights of the people in the city. He explicitly stated that Jews, Christians and Muslims were all the "Muminoon" ie true believers. All had the same rights. The Jews of Yathrib generally held the Arabs in contempt and were not impressed with this upstart who claimed he was a prophet. They made trouble for him, and continued doing so until they were eventually expelled. As did the Arabs of Mecca. The persecution of Muslims in Mecca has been documented. There were two wars that were launched by the pagan Arabs with the intent of annihilating the new religious movement: The battle of Badr and the battle of Uhud. Many of the ‘violent verses’ in the Quran are a response to these events. It’s kill or be killed. As a charismatic leader Mohammad had to lead his troops in battle. Islam is a highly pragmatic religion. When threatened, fight back, when at not at war, deal fairly with your neighbors. Islamic history has been far more tolerant than Christian history. From the intellectual center of Cordoba, Spain, to the multicultural speldour of Baghdad, Islamic history is a testament to tolerance with even Jews making it up to high positions.
Quote from a Sephardic Jewish history site: "Jews, Moors and Christians lived and worked together in this tolerant atmosphere. Many Christians adopted some of the Moors’ culture and became known as mozarabs. Jews similarly adopted Moorish customs, studied Arabic and the Koran while Arabs studied Hebrew and Jewish scriptures. A striking example was Hasdai ibn Shaprut. He was a famous Jewish physician who rose to become personal physician and chief advisor to the Caliph and his chief tax collector. "
Check out this sentence, coming from a Jew its weight is immeasurable: " Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Christian Europe flocked to Spain much as they did to the USA in our day." http://www.sephardicgen.com/seph_who.htm
Now compare that to 9th century London.
Much of the xenophobia of Islam today should be seen from the perspective of 19 century European colonization. If you remove Western Imperialism form the equation, your picture of modern Islam will be distorted.
Hope this helps
28 Rick
March 7, 2008 @ 9:41 pm CETFitna - the movie of Geert Wilders. An informative site. http://www.fitnathemovie.info
29 Nina Karam
March 23, 2008 @ 8:18 pm CETLearn about the real Islam:http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm
30 XX
March 28, 2008 @ 4:44 pm CETDear Guys, The media war against Islam is a part of some malicious powers plan, who are hungry for oil. Watch the movie Farenheit 9/11 and many other documentaries. These are not directed by any Muslim. Read the comments of some renown think tanks regarding the thirst for Oil. Many documentaries have been filmed to explain the conspiracies, many forums have discussed the matter with clear examples. Moreover, many geographical surveys have revealed the realities that the deposits of oil have started getting dry all around the world. As per a survey North American deposits will dry first, then East European and then West European ones. At the very end it will come the turn of Middle East Asian deposits. Now the worry for the West is that how will they keep their supremacy without having enough energy resources. So they have to come to Middle East to capture the oil reserves. To do so they must start first propagandize against Islam and then change the pictures of Muslims. Cause the Middle Eastern region is populated by Muslims. No matter if any North American or Israeli or any other supported intelligence agency will conduct a bomb blast or a suicide bomb blast and then put it on the neck of Muslims. This is the part of the game. Why there were no suicide bomb attacks before the capture of Afghanistan and Iraq? Who had ever heard from any source about Al Qaida before the capture of Afghanistan. This was all the creation of CIA and a very well planned campaign has been launched to fulfil the plan. Greet Widlers is one of the puppets who is trying to cash the opportunity. By making such a film what he would have earned would be enough for rest of his life. There is no need for Muslims to be violently agitated on such incidents. Many more might be on the way. Adapt only one strategy ?DON?T BUY ANY PRODUCT THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS SUPPORTED SUCH KIND OF NON-SENSE? Muslims are free to adapt a peaceful strategy same as any other free person. XX