I've already explained, in this post, that Wilders's call to ban the Qur'an is simply a call for consistency: his native Netherlands bans Mein Kampf as hate speech, and yet pays no attention to the manifest power of the Qur'an to incite to violence. The Netherlands should either stop banning books altogether or be consistent about it.
Spencer is seriously suggesting that Mein Kampf and the Qur'an be put on the same playing field. While Hitler was clear in his agenda to exterminate Jews in his autobiography, the Qur'an itself does not incite to violence. It is extremist Muslims who use the Qur'an to incite to violence. I used to teach at my local Islamic school here in South Florida for six years. I used the Qur'an to show my students how our religion teaches peace with people of other beliefs and that verses, such as 9:5 or 9:29, that seemed to suggest violence against non-Muslims were actually specific in time to the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, and were not to be understood as general. The two books are not the same. Spencer is being unfair here.
I disagree with Wilders's statement that Islam is not a religion. Islam is certainly a religion -- a belief-system that, like other religions, purports to relate human beings to the divine. But at the same time, I understand why he says that Islam is not a religion -- because the strictly religious aspects of Islam are actually of no concern to unbelievers at all. It makes no difference to me if a Muslim wants to pray five times a day, or read the Qur'an, or believes that Muhammad is a prophet -- except insofar as it impinges me as a political program that demands my conversion, subjugation, or death.
Spencer eludes to this often: the triple choice, as he calls it. In fact, in many instances in Islamic history have Muslim rulers allowed non-Muslims to live freely without having to pay any poll-tax or subduing them in the process. In fact, there were instances in early Islamic history where non-Arab Muslims were made to pay the jizya. Only later on was the jizya made to be aplicable to non-Muslims only. Basically, it's up to the Muslim ruler how and who he wants to tax, and not up to the jurists. He owns a copy of Majid Khadduri's The Islamic Law of Nations. He should flip it open and read it more carefully. The Treaty of 1535 between Sultan Sulayman and Francis I, the King of France gave the French living in Islamic lands "exemption from the poll tax, the right to practice their religion, and the right of trial in their own consulates by their own law." (Khadduri, The Islamic Law of Nations, p. 63). There, this is an example of how non-Muslims can live without subjugation under Muslims. Of course, there have been times in Islamic history where non-Muslims were treated horribly. But there have been plenty of times where they were treated fairly and justly.
Also, Muslim jurists can write all they want about what they think the law should be, but no one but the caliph has the authority to make the law under traditional Islamic political theory. There are plenty of instances, such as under the rule of the second caliph, Umar, where he exempted certain tribes from the jizya. Some non-Muslim tribes requested to pay the zakat instead and he allowed them to do so. (Asma Afsaruddin, The First Muslims, p. 181).
Classical Islamic law settled on certain issues making it seem like Islamic law was clearly defined and delineated on most points. But early scholars during the time of the Salaf were far from agreement on issues like the jizya and jihad (the early Hanafis and Malikis were in opposition to Shafi'i's political theory of warring against non-Muslims simply because of their faith, see Khadduri). Changing political and global realities make some of the ideas of classical jurists obsolete. Musim scholars and historians like Hamza Yusuf, Sherman Jackson, Timothy Winter, Shaykh Abdullah Bin Baya, and others have discussed such issues and have suggested as much. But I digress. It's nice to know Spencer thinks Islam is a religion.
The religious aspects of Islam obscure the fact that Islamic jihadists are pursuing a political program that seeks, no less unmistakeably than did the Communists, to replace the U.S. Constitution with a system that would deny many basic rights guaranteed by that Constitution.
The political program of Islam is generally not recognized in the U.S. today, but nonetheless there are many groups dedicated to carrying it out. They should not be allowed the protection of a religious cover to obscure their criminal and seditious activity. Section 2385 of the federal criminal code states that “whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”
I don't believe that is a fascist law. And this already existing law -- revised as of January 2, 2006 -- could and should be applied to Islamic groups that call for implementation of Sharia in the U.S., and work toward that implementation. In short, just as freedom of religion was not deemed to be a sufficient justification for Mormon polygamy in the late nineteenth century, so now freedom of religion should not be deemed to be sufficient justification for agitation on behalf of a system of laws that would deny freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people before the law.
And there is nothing fascist about saying so.
Whether it is fascist or not, I don't know. But Islamic groups that call for the implementation of Shariah in the United States are no different than Christian groups that want laws in the U.S. to reflect their belief systems (don't some Christians want gays and lesbians to not have equal rights? Isn't that a form of subjugation?). If they advocate their cause without inciting to actual overthrow of the government then they are not in violation of the Smith Act. It is obvious that Christians in the U.S. who want their beliefs reflected in the laws of this country are no different than Muslims who want their beliefs reflected in the laws of this country. The specifics are different, certainly, but the method is the same.
If Ibrahim Hooper says he wants the United States to be more Islamic, then he has every right to say that and work for that goal, as long as he does not advocate the overthrow the government in the process (disclaimer: I, myself, do not advocate for such a thing). Just like if some Christian leader said the exact same thing, minus the Islam part. It would be up to people in this country to follow what they think is right. I speak generally here, but I assume you get my point.
Many groups throughout US history have advocated for different laws based on different perspectives. Islamic people in the US are no different. There are Muslims, like myself, who are happy with how this country functions. Others may want the laws to be more conservative, such as laws against abortion, gays, etc. But Spencer is right, if they do it in a manner that is violent or forceful then they are in violation of the law. If the majority of Americans woke up one day and decided to elect congressmen who were all Hindu, and then wanted the law in the US to reflect Hinduism, would there be anything to stop them from doing this? I leave that to you all to decide.
... And let's look at what Wilders actually said. Did he say close all the mosques and deport all the Muslims? No, he did not. His ninth point makes three recommendations. First is "stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries."
This is a call for reciprocity that many others have made. Even Russia, ordinarily a friend of the jihad, asked the Saudis to allow the building of a church in Saudi Arabia in exchange for a mosque in Moscow. The Roman Catholic bishop of Mainz, Germany, asked to celebrate Mass in Saudi Arabia, in light of the presence of so many mosques in Europe. Is asking that non-Muslims be accorded the same respect and consideration in Muslim countries that Muslims are accorded in the West essentially a fascist request? I don't see why.
I thought Spencer was smarter than this. I was born and raised in the United States. This is my home. I happen to be Muslim. Why should I be punished for what the Saudis do? If I was Dutch, why should I be punished for what the Saudis do? I thought our nation was better than that. It may not be fascist, but such a request is certainly not in harmony with our country's principles of freedom and the idea of equal protection under the law.
Second, Wilders says: "Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place." Is Rusty seriously objecting to this? Incitement to violence should just continue in these places, because they are religious? It is "fascist" to want to close down places that preach violence against innocents? I don't buy it. Wilders is not saying to close all the mosques. Why not make the distinction be that those that do not teach hatred of the Infidel and the need to subjugate him, by violence if necessary, are free to stay open? That's fascist? Come on.
Why does anyone need to shut down anything? Why can't the guilty parties simply be put in jail for their wrong doing and allow the mosque to stay open? If a Catholic priest was molesting children within a church, you wouldn't shut the church down. You would jail the priest. So if some Muslim school teacher is inciting his students to violence, jail the school teacher.
And finally, Wilders says: "Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence." Here again, it is true that in many Islamic schools children are educated in an ideology of hate and violence. Iranian textbooks teach children to fight against Allah's enemies by learning combat techniques; an Islamic school in Ottawa was teaching hatred of Jews; Islamic schools in West Africa have been hubs of human trafficking; Pakistani Islamic schools are jihad factories; an Islamic school in the U.K. was shut down for ties to terrorism and for preaching hatred of Christians and Jews; and an Islamic school in Virginia taught that adulterers and apostates should be killed.
If, in light of all this and more, Islamic schools are not to be shut down, what assurances can Muslim leaders give us that none of this will go on within them? Will they throw open their doors to inspections? In reality, the current is moving in just the opposite direction. I have not called for all Islamic schools to be shut down, and think there is a great deal that authorities can do and have not so far done in order to call them to account short of shutting them down, but here again, I don't see that it is "fascist" or denying Muslims their freedom of religion to want to protect oneself from what have been hotbeds of violence and subversion all over the world. I propose that Islamic schools in the West remain open if they institute transparent, inspectable programs teaching against jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, and teaching the necessity to live with Infidels as equals in a secular society on an indefinite basis, without attempting to impose Sharia over them.
That's great Spencer. You don't want to shut down all Islamic schools. But that is clearly what Geert Wilders says.
Sure, there are plenty of Islamic schools around the world that teach that non-Muslims are terrible, etc. But the majority probably do not teach this. And again, there is this horrible problem about equal protection under the law. Spencer fails to acknowledge this in his discussion. You couldn't implement such a law in the United States. It would be unconstitutional on its face.
As for Wilders, Spencer does his best to defend his friend, but in the end he really can't. It's painfully obvious that Wilders is in complete contradiction in his demand for free speech for himself, while advocating for the banning of the Qur'an. There are other contradictions Spencer's friend Rusty describes in Wilders' speech, some of which I have shown in posts below. It is redundant now, but there is no getting around the fact that Wilders is a hypocrite. And that those who support him are equally guilty of hypocrisy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment