What is wrong with Fitna – the Movie?

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.)

Sharia in Britain: What is Dr. Rowan Williams’ Vision for Society?

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 have done 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

2. What do the archbishop’s remarks imply for the social order more generally?

Criminalising Stupidity

Udo Voigt, leader of Germany’s thinly disguised neo-Nazi party NPD is facing charges for suggesting Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Heß for the Nobel peace prize.

Germany’s equivalent of Nick Griffin is undoubtedly a politically unpleasant character and this is undoubtedly a very stupid idea. Aside from being

Fear of Sociology: Freedom of Speech and Anti-Terrorism in Germany

Firebombing a country’s army is usually seen as more than a lack of good manners. A nascent terrorist organization in Germany –the ‘militante gruppe’- has been doing just that and several of its suspected members have now been arrested. Two of these arrests, however, have sparked international protests from colleagues in the UK and the USA as well as Germany itself. Strange as this may seem, it is an event of which readers in the UK should take note.

Censorship in Action

Channel 4 is apparently being reported to ofcom for representing radical Muslim preachers out of context. Of course, people can in principle be misquoted and this would indeed be a violation of journalistic standards, so the mere fact that ofcom is looking into such an issue may well be defensible. What is more worrying is that criminal charges were considered in this case,

Hitler and Free Speech

The Grauniad has received some attention with a pro-censorship propaganda piece in a ‘comment is free’ column by some Cath Elliot. She argues the by now familiar line that principled support for free speech causes people to commit hate crimes. Naturally, she takes the opportunity to point out that Hitler too spoke freely. Less common is her partial admission to an implied key assumption: Ms Elliot actually spells out that this argument presupposes that people are generally incapable of thinking for themselves.

Unfortunately, she stops there and doesn’t work out the further implications: if humans can’t think for themselves, who is to think for them? After all, if people generally can’t think for themselves, then the same should be true for their elected (human) representatives. And how can they have the ability to elect representatives in the first place if they can’t independently think and decide who should represent them etc. By and large the piece is so poorly argued, I could spend all night fisking it. I can’t be bothered to do that though and will therefore concentrate on her invocation of the Führer.

Deborah Lipstadt on Banning Holocaust Dennial

As the EU is set to outlaw ‘Holocaust dennial’, Deborah Lipstadt is speaking out for freedom of speech. She has made this point before, but her current article in sp!ked goes beyond short remarks on censorship and offers a principled defence of freedom of expression.

“I shudder at the thought that politicians might be given the power to legislate history. They can hardly fix the potholes in our streets. How can we expect them to decide what is the proper version of history?” (Source)

Free the Film

It now looks as if Mullah Dadulla will never have a second career as a DJ –what a waste! Yet, however great the loss to techno music, we should not forget the minority of secular Muslims over their more flamboyant Islamist counterparts.

In the US, it appears that the Public Broadcasting Service is determined to do just that: the film “Islam vs Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Centre” is apparently being suppressed by the PBS –with the unintended consequence of boosting interest in it. This film, which seems to focus on the role and problems of secular Muslims in the West, sounds like a much needed contribution and it should find a keen audience well beyond the US. There is a review here.

Update: A (now obsolete) link to a petition has been removed from this post. The film can now be ordered here.

O’Reilly’s Code

A Little Fable

“Alas,” said the mouse, “the whole world is growing smaller every day. At the beginning it was so big that I was afraid, I kept running and running, and I was glad when I saw walls far away to the right and left, but these long walls have narrowed so quickly that I am in the last chamber already, and there in the corner stands the trap that I must run into.”

“You only need to change your direction,” said the cat, and ate it up.

(Franz Kafka)

Tim O’Reilly has drafted a code of conduct he would like bloggers to adopt and has also designed a very ugly batch he would like them to display. Most of what needs to be said about this has been said (see here and here). I will add just one point:

O’Reilly links his code with a badge labelled ‘civility enforced’. My concern is that once one such code is widely accepted, others will follow. Those others may not be voluntary any longer –at least not in all countries. Add the fact that some people have very odd ideas of what constitutes civility, then imagine where this may lead…

Quote of the Day

“What difference are you to any illetrate in the streets?” (source)

An Islamist activist requesting that Leeds University censor a lecture on Islamic anti-Semitism. Academia’s capital of censorship duly complied.