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?

Muhammad the Bear: the Market Response

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.

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,

Two Books on Islamism

Two books on Islamism have hit the UK book market this year. One, “The Islamist” by Ed Husain is a biographic account by a former Islamist activist; the other “Rethinking Islamism” by Lord Meghnad Desai is an extended essay, based on arguments in an earlier letter to the Financial Times. With a personal account on the one hand and a more detached, academic approach on the other, both titles could well complement each other. Yet, one of the two is clearly a more rewarding read.

No Disciplinary Action Against German ‘Quran-Judge’

A short update to an earlier posting on a German judge who referred to the quran when denying a women a speedy divorce.

‘Der Spiegel’ now reports that no disciplinary action will be taken against this judge:

“…the investigation found no reason to discipline the judge because she protected the woman with the restraining order, and her Koran reference was actually in a decision to deny legal aid, and not within an official ruling.” (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.

Wow! I agree with a feminist –on one thing at least

The case of the Islamist German judge mentioned earlier is by now causing a scandal in Germany. Der Spiegel has interviewed Alice Schwarzer, a renowned German feminist on the topic. When asked if an independent judge shouldn’t be allowed to seek inspiration from the Quran, Schwarzer replied with refreshing clarity:

“A judge who bases verdicts on the Quran is acting on the basis of Sharia, not on the basis of the German constitution. Such a judge should have no place in a German court. “ (Source)

She was also appalled by the fact that a Muslim background is often seen as a mitigating circumstance in honour killings. Her remarks are a pleasant change from the usual multiculturalist kowtowing to any outrage committed within a minority culture. I never quite understood why western feminists are so subdued when it comes to Islamism. If the Catholic Church had ever come anywhere near in terms of sexual suppression they would have been up in arms within minutes.

German judge applies Sharia in divorce case

A German judge has denied a request for an early divorce, pointing out that the Quran gives husbands the right to beat their wives. The request for a divorce prior to completing a one year separation period was denied to a woman of Moroccan descent since, in the judge’s opinion, the violence she suffered at the hands of her husband was normal by the standards of her native cultural environment. The judge has since been taken off the case and there are at least demands for disciplinary proceedings against her.

(Source 1, Source 2)

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.