Well, here is Fitna. If there is anything wrong in the way it portrays Islam, surely the proper reaction would be to point out calmly where the mistakes lie.
I have just watched it, and I can spontaneously think of the following flaws:
Some developments are presented as obviously undesirable (at least by implication) when it is not always clear why: Fitna bemoans the availability of Sharia compliant loans; why is this a problem rather than simply a new but voluntary contractual arrangement catering to a new customer group? Why is it a problem if an Islamic school sponsors a trip to Mecca?
Other points are more controversial, but there is still plenty of room for disagreement. The film points out, for example, that the Burka is not banned in the Netherlands. Why should it be? There may be a case in some scenarios (e.g. where hiding your face constitutes a security hazard) and in those cases no religious dress-code should give rise to a special exemption. Beyond this, I predict that opinions on the desirability of a ban will be strongly divided.
Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch claims the film is accurate. I haven’t read the Quran and couldn’t read it in Arabic at any rate; like many, I have no way to check whether the translations in the subtitles are accurate.
I expect that a lot of Muslims and multiculturalists will now be offended –I don’t think that greatly matters. What interests me is whether there are any factual errors, misleading interpretations etc. So if anyone reading this knows of any, feel free to use the comment function to point them out.
Update: Germany’s Der Spiegel points out that the film –which is supposed to illustrate quranic verses put into practice– wrongly attributes female genital mutilation to the Quran. (This crime is regularly committed in some Muslim societies but apparently has no foundation in the Quran itself.)
Labour’s Hariet Harman has proposed the introduction of quotas that would discriminate by race or sex to establish a politically preferred sex and ethnicity composition of the work force in a particular firm. (source) Many readers commenting on this telegraph article have argued that this move would be illegal under European rules. It probably wouldn’t be: the European Court of Justice already ruled in 1997 that sexist discrimination can be acceptable when it is undertaken with an egalitarian political motive.Read the rest of this entry »
The archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks on sharia have, to some degree, been simplified in public discussion. However, a full understanding of Dr. Williams’ argument does nothing to improve his message and does not weaken the conclusion that a partial adoption of sharia is unlikely to be feasible. Full knowledge of the lecture delivered at the Courts of Justice merely defines Dr. Williams’ outlook as collectivist and authoritarian.
Dr. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury has this month destroyed what little was left of his reputation by calling for the formal acceptance of parts of sharia in British law. It is worth noting that he was not the first to do so. Dr Suhaib Hasan, a Muslim Council of Britain spokesman, had done much the same thing in late January.
I will not elaborate on how and why official recognition of a separate body of religious law is incompatible with the notions of a secular state and equality before the law. Others havedone so extensively and more prominently.
There are two aspects of this discussion which are worth pondering in more detail:
1. If there is a move towards the acceptance of sharia, can it remain partial in scope? and
In a recent telegraph column, Simon Heffer argued that heroin addicts should be made for to pay for their NHS treatment. He further argued that making users of illegal drugs pay for their treatment is justified because these drugs are illegal, even though some legal drugs may also give rise to expensive health problems. Making drug users pay for the health costs of their drug habit is not implausible in principle. The problems lie in the details of Heffer’s argument and they matter in practice.
Legal and illegal drugs
The argument that illegal drug consumption deserves a harsher treatment simply because it is illegal Read the rest of this entry »
Back in October, Jack Straw demanded a ‘Bill of Rights and Responsibilities’. I anticipated at the time that positive rights would receive more emphasis in such a project –at the expense of negative rights constraining the power of the state. Straw’s recent comments in the Guardian appear to confirm this prediction.
¡Me gusta cuando calla, porque está como ausente!
Se below for an artistic interpretation of the recent Hugo Chavez - Juan Carlos love-in:
To be fair on Chavez, it must be hard for the chubby autocrat to suddenly find himself at a meeting were others not only can disagree with him but need not even ask his permission before doing so. I guess he just isn’t used to this anymore.
With just about everyone outside Sudan agreeing that the whole Muhammad-the-Teddy-Bear affair is crazy there is surely no need to repeat this. The market, meanwhile, responds in a predictable way: for an increasing choice of cuddly Muhammads see e.g.here.
As reported by the BBC, Tony Blair kept quiet about his religious beliefs while in power since doing otherwise would have led people to write him off as a nutter. Of course, religious beliefs can translate into all kinds of behaviour in politics –even within the same belief system: Camillo Torres and George Bush were both inspired by Christianity after all.
If there is one trait that religious fanaticism is most commonly associated with, this would be the true believer’s readiness toRead the rest of this entry »
In the first two thirds of this lecture, Straw comments on similarities between the ECHR and the German Constitution’s Basic Rights, he also elaborates on the need to respect human rights while fighting terrorism. On the whole, this part of the lecture does not seem unreasonable. The last third of the lecture then demands a UK Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. This part of the lecture is much less specific, but for a number of reasonsRead the rest of this entry »
