Jeff Jacoby and Irshad Manji on Fitna the Movie

Jeff Jacoby has a good review of Geert Wilder's 15-minute film Fitna, and he notes a disconnect: there's a greater condemnation about a movie which depicts violence done in the name of the Koran, than there is for the violence acts themselves.

"....it isn't as though Wilders had to invent anything. The violence Fitna portrays is horribly real, and the fanatics who commit it are explicit in saying they do so as Muslims."

"Where is the Islamic world's outrage against that? When has Iran's foreign ministry ever excoriated the beheading of a hostage, or the poisonous sermon of a jihadist imam, as 'heinous, blasphemous, and anti-Islamic?' How often has the Organization of the Islamic Conference thundered its disapproval of 'honor killings' or Islamist anti-semitism? When Theo van Gogh was murdered in public, when the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a repressive terror state, when fatwas were issued for the murder of Danish cartoonists  - where was the chorus of Muslim anguish then?"

Irshad Manji thinks that Fitna was a boring harangue, and that Geert Wilders missed an opportunity to make an even better film:

"A more engaging approach would have been to pepper the film with positive verses from the Qur'an, thereby revealing that Muslims who expound hostility are actively choosing to ignore the better angels of Islam."

"There are plenty of positive passages to highlight. The possibility for women's dignity is shown by 3:195, which states that God rewards 'any worker among you, be you male or female -- you are equal to one another.' Imagine aligning that passage with the shot of a woman's body mutilated by an honor killing."

By all means, Irshad, make that movie.  That could be a powerful statement. But who decides which Koranic passages to believe and act upon, and which to ignore?  Can any of Allah's literal words be refuted or ignored? 

Robert Spencer asks where is the outrage over this children's film produced by Hamas, a puppet show of a child killing President Bush?

Please act now and sign a petition to the Dutch government in support of Geert Wilders here. 

   

Comments

[Shawmut]

You have asked, Miss Kelly, who decides what passages of the Koran have relevance? There is the Doctrine of Naskh (Abrogation) whereby 'allah' says it sends a better message than a previous one and so the later one replaces, in importance, the earlier. This is why Moslems often employ 'taqiyya' (lies, dissimulation to present a false, positive image of Islam) by reciting to non-Moslems passages of the Koran which have been superceded, in relevance, by later ones. For example: quoting Sura 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion" is a favorite to use because it implies religious toleration. That was not actually the case in the context of that verse but, more importantly, that verse, and hundreds of others in the Koran, were superceded by the Sword Verse (Ayat al-Sayf) and others in Sura 8 and 9 which call for the forced conversion, subjugation in a persecuted status (as dhimmis paying jizya) or death, of non-Moslems. (Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid states: "The Ayat al-Sayf and similar verses abrogate those saying that there is no compulsion to become a Muslim."

For those interested in the subject of Abrogation, I recommend: http://www.meforum.org/pf.php?id=1754

[ERS]

I am for freedom of expression. Let people make their films, produce their works of art, speak their minds, without fear or threat of violence.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

[Sissy Willis]

Great post. I'm wondering whether Irshad Manji is aware of the Doctrine of Naskh (Abrogation) commenter Shawmut brings up??? It would appear to make mincemeat of her argument.

I'm sorry she was bored. I myself was rather moved by it all. As I wrote in my own post on the subject:

"Tchaikovsky's haunting 'Arabian Dance' -- based upon a Georgian lullaby -- is woven in and out of the soundtrack, with its images of mayhem and carnage, to ironic effect.

[Shawmut]

Often Moslems, who recount to non-Moslems certain verses which appear to be tolerant and peaceful, are employing Taqiyya, because, apart from being aware of the Doctrine of Abrogation, the verses they employ would, if recited in full, present a negative view to a non-believer. For example, Manji quotes 2:62 which is abrogated by 3:85: "If anyone desires a religion OTHER THAN ISLAM ('submission to "allah"'), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost". It is also the case that 2:62 is followed immediately by 2:63 which refers to Jews as "be as apes despicable". Also, Verse 109:6 quoted by Manji as a sign of tolerance is actually the final line of the following verses, starting with 109:1 (109:1-6): "Say of you who deny the truth (Islam), I do not worship that which you worship, neither do you worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which you have (ever) worshipped, And neither will you ever worship that which I worship, Unto you your moral law (religion) and unto me, mine." In other words, those who do not worship Islam are forever separate from those who do and Islam is the only true worship. These are words addressed to the 'kaffir' (the non-believer, the non-moslem). There goes all that inter-faith 'dialogue'! (Or is a 'trialogue'?)