I have just looked at Fitna, Geert Wilders' movie. It shows 9/11, Madrid, and London bombings, interspersed with texts for the Quran, and interspersed with bloodthirsty sermons from fundamental mullahs expounding those texts.
Then as a kind of antidote, I looked at Schism, based on Bible texts, and showing western violence.
It is all a kind of leap back into the Middle Ages.
It is possible that by banning Wilders, who calls for the Quran to be banned, Government has averted demonstrations, clashes and a further cohort of redicalised Muslim youth. By banning him, they have resiled just a bit further from free speech. Free speech or riots? Irreconcilable question - a Koan.
I have debated with Islamophobes on openDemocracy. They are individualist fundamentalists themselves, mirrors of the Islamists, a paired couple of forces who are doomed to waste their lives in total struggle against their polar opposite. That is a matter for them.
For the rest of us, the way should be to defend ourselves against Islamist attacks with intelligence services and the police, and by banning hate speakers from both sides from our country. We should also avoid making things worse by invading Islamic countries, and by avoiding provocation.
Persecution strengthened the early Christian church. Wilders and the Islamophobes will strengthen the Islamists if we give them undue attention.
A wise friend said "Leave fundamentalists alone. They will end up boring themselves to death"
Jimjay has a helpful blog on this.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Friday, February 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Somali Pirates - a new beginning for Somalia?
A couple of years ago I raised the possibility that the Green Party should call for enforcement action against Somali pirates, because they force aid organisations to go by long land routes. As I feared, the proposal fared worse than if I had suggested putting kittens into a large catapault to see how far they could fly.
Although I am a Quaker, I would not oppose intensive policing action in Somali waters by navies preferably under the UN flag. If they go in in sufficient numbers, the pirates would be unable to move, so violence would be minimised.
This should be a part of a wider initiative to re-establish peace and democracy in Somalia. So far, the international community worked intensively to set up the Transitional Government, then sat back and waited for them to get on with it. There is far more to setting up a democracy than installing a committee and calling it a government. Democracy has to be built from the grassroots up. The traditional tribal leaders should be involved. As should the Islamic Courts Union, who really did bring peace and hope to Mogadishu in until the Americans set the warlords on them in the name of the War on Terror (remember that?).
Yes, Sharia law is very problematic, with hand cutting, gay bashing &c, but if the alternative is indefinite rule by the gun, and if this is what the local people want, then I would say Yes to the moderate Islamic courts.
Somalia is a complex problem, but the UN should see it as a challenge, and set about mending it. If they can help Somalia, they can help anyone.
Although I am a Quaker, I would not oppose intensive policing action in Somali waters by navies preferably under the UN flag. If they go in in sufficient numbers, the pirates would be unable to move, so violence would be minimised.
This should be a part of a wider initiative to re-establish peace and democracy in Somalia. So far, the international community worked intensively to set up the Transitional Government, then sat back and waited for them to get on with it. There is far more to setting up a democracy than installing a committee and calling it a government. Democracy has to be built from the grassroots up. The traditional tribal leaders should be involved. As should the Islamic Courts Union, who really did bring peace and hope to Mogadishu in until the Americans set the warlords on them in the name of the War on Terror (remember that?).
Yes, Sharia law is very problematic, with hand cutting, gay bashing &c, but if the alternative is indefinite rule by the gun, and if this is what the local people want, then I would say Yes to the moderate Islamic courts.
Somalia is a complex problem, but the UN should see it as a challenge, and set about mending it. If they can help Somalia, they can help anyone.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Viks' Roundabout Dog
On June 11, 2007, Vilks was invited to participate in an art exhibition on the theme "The Dog in Art" (Swedish: Hunden i konsten) that was to be held in the small town of Tällerud in Värmland. Vilks submitted three pen and ink drawings on A4 paper depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a roundabout dog. (Wikipedia) Controversy has followed.
This controversy is a kind of Koan - a putting together of two mutually irreconcilable principles. We in the West regard freedom of expression as inviolable, while Muslims regard the image of the Prophet as sacred. it is the irresistable force meeting the immovable object. Who gives way?
There is no answer that can satisfy both sides at this point in time. In years to come, Muslims will absorb a more Western approach, tolerating the views of others, accepting that not everyone believes as they do, and accepting that living in Western societies, they have to live with provocationists like Viks.
Meanwhile, Viks' action is probably setting back the day that Muslims learn to be tolerant. He is almost certainly strengthening the attitudes and influence of hard line Islamists, and weakening the position of Muslims who are learning to relax. This is not to say that Viks should not have done what he did, because in the same way, to say this would simply provoke him to do it again in spades.
What we can say is that if we value toleration, perhaps we should try to tolerate the sensitivities of Muslims with regard to the image of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and upon all the world including provocationist artists).
This controversy is a kind of Koan - a putting together of two mutually irreconcilable principles. We in the West regard freedom of expression as inviolable, while Muslims regard the image of the Prophet as sacred. it is the irresistable force meeting the immovable object. Who gives way?
There is no answer that can satisfy both sides at this point in time. In years to come, Muslims will absorb a more Western approach, tolerating the views of others, accepting that not everyone believes as they do, and accepting that living in Western societies, they have to live with provocationists like Viks.
Meanwhile, Viks' action is probably setting back the day that Muslims learn to be tolerant. He is almost certainly strengthening the attitudes and influence of hard line Islamists, and weakening the position of Muslims who are learning to relax. This is not to say that Viks should not have done what he did, because in the same way, to say this would simply provoke him to do it again in spades.
What we can say is that if we value toleration, perhaps we should try to tolerate the sensitivities of Muslims with regard to the image of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and upon all the world including provocationist artists).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
