By Robert Spencer
In her statement on Geert Wilders' film Fitna, "Respecting the Qur'an," Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, seems to strike a responsible note of Islamic moderation. While in Karachi, jihadists chanted "Death to the filmmaker" and a Jordanian group called for an international arrest warrant against Wilders, Mattson - writing before the film was released -- appeared to be much more reasonable. Yet the full import of what she says about Wilders and the film is ominous in its implications for the survival of free speech and free societies.
"Wilders," says Mattson, "should be afforded the full protection of the law and those threatening violence against his person should be prosecuted." She proclaims: "We do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other." One might get the idea that Mattson, a major Muslim leader in the United States and Canada, was endorsing Western notions of pluralism and free speech, in which individuals and groups accept the possibility that they might be offended by the speech of another, but do not seek to establish the hegemony of their own perspective over society by trying to silence that offensive speech. Free speech is the foundation of a free society, and this necessarily includes speech that others find offensive; if any group is placed off limits to criticism or offense, it has become a protected class, with rights that other groups do not enjoy, and there is no more equality of rights of all people before the law.
However, there are numerous indications in Mattson's article that free speech is precisely what she does not accept. When she says that "we do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other," she is not speaking of Muslims and their reactions to Wilders' film. Rather, she is referring to Wilders himself, as is clear from the sentence that follows: "This means that we do not deliberately try to humiliate each other." She clearly believes Wilders in creating the film Fitna, which offers violent quotations from the Qur'an and then shows Muslims acting upon them, was trying to humiliate Muslims: she claims that "Wilders has directed most of his hatred in recent years at Muslims," and says that "Wilders' actions are designed to hurt, offend, and even intimidate." She decries "the voices of self-proclaimed nationalists - really, racists - like Wilders, [who] often seem louder and more powerful because they are threatening." Read more ...
In her statement on Geert Wilders' film Fitna, "Respecting the Qur'an," Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, seems to strike a responsible note of Islamic moderation. While in Karachi, jihadists chanted "Death to the filmmaker" and a Jordanian group called for an international arrest warrant against Wilders, Mattson - writing before the film was released -- appeared to be much more reasonable. Yet the full import of what she says about Wilders and the film is ominous in its implications for the survival of free speech and free societies.
"Wilders," says Mattson, "should be afforded the full protection of the law and those threatening violence against his person should be prosecuted." She proclaims: "We do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other." One might get the idea that Mattson, a major Muslim leader in the United States and Canada, was endorsing Western notions of pluralism and free speech, in which individuals and groups accept the possibility that they might be offended by the speech of another, but do not seek to establish the hegemony of their own perspective over society by trying to silence that offensive speech. Free speech is the foundation of a free society, and this necessarily includes speech that others find offensive; if any group is placed off limits to criticism or offense, it has become a protected class, with rights that other groups do not enjoy, and there is no more equality of rights of all people before the law.
However, there are numerous indications in Mattson's article that free speech is precisely what she does not accept. When she says that "we do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other," she is not speaking of Muslims and their reactions to Wilders' film. Rather, she is referring to Wilders himself, as is clear from the sentence that follows: "This means that we do not deliberately try to humiliate each other." She clearly believes Wilders in creating the film Fitna, which offers violent quotations from the Qur'an and then shows Muslims acting upon them, was trying to humiliate Muslims: she claims that "Wilders has directed most of his hatred in recent years at Muslims," and says that "Wilders' actions are designed to hurt, offend, and even intimidate." She decries "the voices of self-proclaimed nationalists - really, racists - like Wilders, [who] often seem louder and more powerful because they are threatening." Read more ...
Source: IPT News
Posts
