In response to my post yesterday on the German Koran indictment case, Some Guy in Chicago writes:
I’m struggling to understand the nature of your question “about whether or not we should place the Koran in the category of ‘book’ or ‘text’ at allâ€Â
I mean, I don’t think you honestly believe that the Koran is merely a tool to incite violence against non-muslims (as you have quite throughly argued about the nature of identity politics to empower such perverse interpretations)…so I’m trying to see how you belive the above indictment could possibly be able to distinguish between the Koran as a weapon and the Koran as a religious text?
Or is there another value you would like to assign to the Koran that I’m missing?
This is a fair question, and perhaps I didn’t make myself as clear as I should have.
What I was trying to suggest with all my blather about text as talisman (or the book’s ontology) was that the Koran—as it is currently being used by those who are claiming to speak for it—is clearly something other than a simple religious text. (Note, for instance, the deference western elites extended to the Danish cartoon protesters, as well as the claims by German-born chairman of the Moslem Central Council of German, Ayyub Axel Köhler, that “A constitution after the principle of the division of powers into the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers, is nowhere to be found in the Islamic theory of the State. From an Islamic viewpoint, this is obvious, since the laws – the laws of God – in the form of sharia, are already made and thus no legislative power is needed, in that sense of the word. Only Allah is the legislative power.â€Â)
Clearly, the book is being used as both an all-purpose, migratory superconstitution and as a call to arms by those currently in control of the narrative of Islamic identity politics (the Dubai Port Deal uproar is a clear indication who Americans, at least, believe control the current Muslim leadership).
Further, its physical being is not to be violated—which would place it in the category, say, of a our flag. We’ve sponsored flag-burning bans here in the States (all unsuccessful, thank goodness), but the point is, what I’m asking—if, in fact, such a ban can be justified under certain conditions—is not too far afield, I don’t think.
The question becomes, what would the effect be of a nation putting its foot down against those who would presume to introduce such a direct and outspoken threat to its sovereignty and law from within?
The way I see it, a nation who introduced such a ban would have to withstand the outrage and rioting initiated by the passage of such legislation and insist—implicitly—that some type of reform to Koranic interpretaion take place —then hope moderate Muslims insist upon such a change (after all, we’re constantly told that the radicals now in control of the Islamic identity narrative don’t speak for the majority of Muslims anyway); alternately, the nation sticks to its guns and insists on the same kind of “prohibition” of the Koran the Saudis place on the Bible.
All of which questions are (for me, at least), a thought exercise. As a strategy to defeat the pernicious strain of Islam, would it prove effective in compelling change—a change in the nature of current Islamic identity politics—or would it backfire as a gesture of infidel provocation?
My guess is, multiculturalism as a social organizing force has sapped western liberal democracies of their will to prohibit current official (Wahabbist) Islamic teachings within their borders (though the vast majority of Americans, victims of horrific reporting and congressional grandstanding, had no problem nixing a port deal with a moderate Muslim ally that is likely to set us back in the memetic war, and weaken our economy, to boot).
But is it a violation of free speech to deport imams preaching destruction of the west, and using the Koran to do so? Or to prohibit the use of Wahabbist sermons coming straight from Saudia Arabia into US mosques and Islamic cultural centers? Or is there some overriding national security question that overrides free speech claims under such circumstances?
I don’t know. But it’s worth discussing, I think.
Ataturk was fully aware of the need for a secular basis for Turkey’s legal system:
He didn’t abolish the Koran, but made it clear the government was not using it as a constitution.
I like your question, Jeff.
I, not being a free speech absolutist, would have no problem with a federal law prohibiting advocation of Sharia law. Since that in effect advocates overthrow of the Constitution, it might even pass SCOTUS muster. If the fuckers can’t accept our traditions, I say go to hell!
The liberals would go apeshit though.
From what I understand the Koran would represent the flag, the constitution and the 10 commandments all rolled into one. The flag in its symbolic physicality, the constitution and the 10 commandments for its sharia. Insofar as it could be used as a call to arms, which is what is happening right now, countries would have the right to classify it as incendiary propaganda and ban it.
It is text within context . The text is yes, a book held as sacred to a certain culture. it is however within the context of a secular other culture, that has chosen through revolutions and the electoral process, to hold “even more sacred†the separation of church and state. Multiculturalism can only apply when all agree on its value. The case that presents itself in Europe right now is the existence of a large constituency that neither believes nor wants to hold those principle held “sacred†by Europeans while participating in its economic progress. If it weren’t so, we would be seeing massive migrations to Saudi Arabia and not Europe.
Am I being horribly retrograde?
Hmmm.
Sedition.
Sedition
The Koran can be used any way the interpreters desires. If it’s Sedition, then throw his ass in prison for the next 40 years.
Post 20,000. Some kind of milestone, I imagine. I’ll be back with more substance later, I hope, but for now, congratulations!!
So the idea I’m getting from Jeff is
Western countries have disabled, through their adherence to political correctness and multiculturalism, their ability to jail or deport dangerous Islamic clerics, imams, etc.
Is the only option left to ban the text which they are using to spread their message?
Sucks if it is, since the commenter above points out that it can be twisted almost to any interpretation that a person wants.
Of course, the Koran seems to feature a convenience in this aspect, in that it is very easily interpretted in a way that is seditious or incendiary.
I still think that they need to throw these guys out of the country or jail them, or take some action against the SOURCES of the speech, not the speech itself.
Summary: Germany messed up bad, and either they start hitting these guys with whatever they can to preserve the peace, or they might have to do some decidedly un-liberal (that is, classicaly liberal) things to clean up the mess.
Double-Dog-Secret-Summary: Europe is doomed. Again!
It is time to include advocacy of violence among the elements of violence that can be acted on. If you can be jailed for saying bomb in an ariline terminal, then you can be jailed for advocating jihad.
referenced in two seperate Protein Wisdom posts? I should e-mail Jonah at NRO about Battlestar Galactica and turn this lowly yahoo account into a blogging mega-star account!
Ok- shooting from the hip:
Obviously, the Koran in-itself (assuming we believe such a Sartrian item exists) simply is what it is. It’s simply some set of physical, observable properties that is reproduceable for others to observe in a similar manner. The value Islamisists have located in it- as talisman- is what we seek to attack.
Sadly, European Multiculturalism is poorly equiped for such an attack. Classic Americanism holds that one can indeed fetishize just about whatever they want to, so long as that action is kept within their personal realm (property). However, once moved into the interpersonal realm, it is subject to the criticism (and, in some cases, laws) of the general public. However, European Multiculturalism is founded on the concept that one cannot judge the other on their fetishization (or even interpretation or empowerment) of objects or events. As such, they are unable to articulate an attack against the viewpoint (or the viewer), and instead attack the object viewed.
Assuming that Germany cannot simply reverse course on their philosophic/political ideology, would such a move either (a) serve to begin that shift or (b) somehow reconstitute modern multiculturalism into an ideology capable of reaching the “other”?
I think of the two, (b) is more likely, but at the same time such a course is frought with peril. Easily such an attack on the Koran as object could be turned into the flare point that shifts the peaceful platitudes of multiculturalism into an identity war (assume due to miscommunications to or misinterpretations by moderate muslims cause such a reform to be seen as “your culture, in so much as it is related to the concepts contained in the Koran, is wrong”). As a practical measure for combating extremeism, I think Germany has to come up with a very meaningful way to extend a sense of “German-ness” to the Muslims who have been kept from such a community for years…and also demonstrate that there are essential similarities between “being German” and “Being a Muslim”.
sidenote to noah- a US law outlawing advocacy of Sharia seems redundant.
tw: Self, as in I wasn’t overly shocked when Bill Self left for greener pastures, and I think Bruce Weber will be able to find players who can fit his system and play at a level needed to compete in the Final Four.
Most Muslims believe in the doctrine of the eternal Quran: the Quran was not created, but has existed alongside God for all of time. So it’s more like Jesus than like a book.
further thinking (hopefully that becomes a trend!)- It also seems likely that such an “assult” on the talisman only proves the fetishizer’s empowerment of the object. After all, how could such a book not hold actual powers if the national government of Germany is afraid of the book and “assulting” the book?
But avoiding the talisman empowers it also! To the fetishizer, avoiding it is averting (lowering?) one’s eyes before the mighty object!
It seems to me there are two questions of a psychological nature to answer here- (1) how do you demonstrate to those who could potentially become entranced with the fetish item that the item is, in fact, without power? and (2) how do you deprogram someone already convinced?
Isn’t this where we have to go visit Neo-Neocon’s blog? She’s the psychologist…I’m just the nerd.
I don’t know about such a law being redundant…I leave that to the lawyers. But it would certainly be headline news if the FBI went to a mosque and arrested an imam for practicing/advocating sharia law among his flock insofar as it involved only ‘minor’ violations of the rights of female muslims for example. Or advocating violence against non-muslims.
If this is a viable may to confront the multicultural madness, maybe the US should show a little leadership. Its unbelievable what the UK for example allows to go on even tho in general the free speech is much stronger in this country.
Agricola beat me to the point I wanted to make. The Koran is closer in status to Christ than to any text or object in Western culture–literally, the Word made flesh. Among other things, this gave scriptural inerrancy a force in the Muslim world contempletely unlike the literalism of some conservative Protestants, and ensured that textual criticism as Christians and Jews know it would never get started in Islam.
It also makes it much harder to make even the mildest criticism of the use of the Koran as an incitement to violence. (Muhammad might not have cared much about women’s rights, or progress generally, but when it came to creating an unstoppable cultural meme he was a freakin’ genius.) So I’ll agree with most of the commentors, who seem to feel that benning the Koran would go too far; most of the threat can be dealt with under precedents of incitement to violence. Moreover, such restrictions (deporting Wahabist imams, for instance), makes the point that the Islamofascists are most definitely interpreting the significance of the Koran and making decisions about how to act on its injunctions. If that makes them less hypocritical than less unhinged Muslims, so be it. Acting literally on some of the Bible’s injunctions has been illegal for a long, long time.
A ban on the Koran would also validate the Islamofascists’ mistake of granting power to a bunch of words on paper that it simply doesn’t possess. I own a copy of Mein Kampf, and reading it never made Nazism sound cool. I also own a copy of the Koran, and you’ll have to pry it out of my cold, dead infidel fingers.
There’s inciting violence, and then there’s inciting violence. If I sit at my desk here and say I think all politicians should die (or Muslims, or westerners, or whatever), that’s my opinion, and is stated with no expectation of action based on that opinion by myself or others. If I make the same statement as leader of a group of people with the expectation that as a result of my words people will be harmed, then I have done something to intentionally incite violence. There is a whole lot of context and meaning that goes into the distinction.
Current context of teachings of the Qur’an are different the world over. The interpretation is important, as is the context, as is the textual basis for statement. So this situation appears to have clear legal (and moral) precedent. For example: owning a bible – neutral; advocating a crusade – bad; participating in a crusade – worse; leading and participating in a crusade – worst. Similarly – owning/reading the Qur’an – neutral. Saying you should kill all westerners/overthrow government – bad. Leading jihad – worst.
But you have to maintain a pragmatic basis. Just saying you support a jihad has somewhere between little and no affect on anyone. Unless it does. By which I mean if you say you support violence and that is a clear motivational factor to your supporters who they become violent, you can and should be held responsible for your actions. In the same way, the Qur’an has been around for a long time and has not always led to violence against westerners. Meaning, logically, that the book is not the sole cause of violence. The cause of violence is book + context + interpretation. If there were no context of anger, the interpretation of the book in a violent manner would be very unlikely to take hold. So, governments must be responsible for changing the context (feeling of alienation of Muslims in the West) while at the same time taking action against the voiced interpretations that are likely to lead to violence or that have led to violence.
The thing being interpreted that leads to violence is not so important in this argument. The same people could take another “talisman” and base violence upon that thing (barring the obvious transition difficulties), but the book is neither catalyst here nor something that if removed would take all its ideas with it.
Also, finally, the separation between church and state becomes less important when the church is attacking the state. When a religion decides to take political as opposed to spiritual goals upon itself, the protections still exist regarding the initial spiritual basis for the religion (thoughts, practice, people not discriminating against you) but those protections fall by the wayside on the political aspect. The government has to prove a compelling reason to prohibit a portion of religion from being practiced – I’m pretty sure that stated intention to overthrow the government falls into that sphere.
A book is a passive object. It makes no sense to arrest a book for advocating violence. In this case, the author is long dead, so he is out of reach too. The person who publishes the book, and the one who buys it may or may not agree with what it says about the use of violence.
A person in the previous thread pointed out that the Bible also preaches violence, but we don’t ban it. He was lambasted by people who asserted that the Bible is not used as a justification for murder. Right. Usually. In most cases. Still, that only proves the point that it’s the interpretation rather than the text that is the problem, because just a few hundred years ago the Bible was interpreted to sanction the burning of witches. It is those who interpret the Koran as a justification for violent jihad, and who advocate murder or the overthrow of the West, who should be arrested, and either jailed or deported.
As SGIC pointed out, focusing on the Koran itself empowers it. It gives the impression that we are afraid of a book. He says that ignoring it also empowers, but that is only true if we allow it to function as a talisman, protecting those who advocate illegal acts. If we refuse to let the imams hide behind their religion while fomenting violence and revolution, we can disempower both them, and their interpretation of the Koran.
We don’t have to ban Mein Kampf, because the Nazis were destroyed and discredited 60 yrs ago. When we have done the same thing to the jihadists, their text–or their interpretation of their text–will be as marginalized as Mein Kampf.
TW: To call for violent jihad within a country should be a crime, to call for it from outside the country is a declaration of war.
utron,
You are scaring the shit out of me. “Unstoppable cultural meme”?
Just last week at UNC Chapel Hill an otherwise outwardly sane Iranian immigrant college grad, rented an SUV drove down to the quad and mowed down a bunch of students fortunately not killing anyone. Did it to advance the will of allah!
Of course the UNC admin. declines to characterize the incident as terrorism!!
perhaps I’m beating around the bush in my second post- because I think I know the answer, even if I can only articulate it in a fairly vulgar way: how does one go about humiliating the Koran?
Isn’t that the remedy for dealing with such fixations? force the fetishizer to confront the fact that their fetish item cannot help them/protect them/etc?
I don’t think the law proposed does that.
Also- how do we humiliate the Koran without upsetting Andrew Sullivan…after all, aren’t we then tortureing the Koran? Oh wait, I had to ask, so of course it’s torture! SNAP!
SGIC,
Well, there is one sure fire way to cast a pall on the infalibility of the Koran.
But I’m pretty sure that the Arab Street would become, shall we say, inflamed, were we to give Mecca and Medina each a 450 kT makeover to make a point about the talismanic nature of a religious text.
BRD
BRD- well, that is one way to get the point across…
But I think Western Civ has managed to “humiliate” the Bible (or perhaps the edifice of the Church as a whole) from it’s previous stature of say…500 years ago or so. And while there was certainly violence involved in that “humiliation”, there were other elements.
It seems one inroad has to involve publicly promoting interpretations of the Koran as a man-made item…that as a text it has undergone historical changes and re-interpretations over the years (I assume there is something to point to on this…but I’ll immediately admit I’m not even a novice when it comes to discussing the Koran as either a religious text or historic document) and that an individual Muslim’s reading and understanding of the Koran is, in itself, a personal philiosophic effort.
Seems a bit anti-climatic, that conclusion. Also not overly seductive as a philosophic stance to stand opposite Islamicism.
The Koran is an angry, xenophobic, and incoherent blast of narcissism from the bowels of the oily Earth.
Really. Pick one up sometime and just start reading at random. It’s a lot of bluster and hatred and there’s no question that its adherents use it like a tool to justify what they do against themselves, their neighbors, and modernity itself.
ANY document that justifies killing me, I object to.
another method- another road to “humiliation” should be generated by holding the koran to it’s own standards and showing that (1) it’s fervent Islamisist abusers are unable to exist within the standards of Islam itself and (2) the standards and concepts within the Koran are, themselves, unable to maintain self-sufficiency? A sort of Hegelian critique of islam as a state of knowledge?
Again- my lack of knowelde regarding the Koran precludes me from offering any specific critique…
I’m pretty ambivalent on this too, Jeff. On the one hand I hate the idea of speech of nearly any kind being outlawed. On the other, support for Nazism and Holocaust denial have been illegal in Germany for 60 years so it seems to me that if your society’s criminalizing some hate speech you should do so on an equal basis.
I’d be absolutely against it here, but I’m not sure what I think of it in Germany. In any event, I think it’s a discussion that deserves a hell of a lot more play than it’s probably going to get.
Just to be clear since this is tricky ground, I mean that I would absolutely support a Muslim cleric who was speaking out against our society so long as they were not advocating or disingenuously excusing violence.
I think Farrakhan’s an ass, but I’d fight to support his ability to be one for instance. I guess my point is I think advancing Wahabbism is protected speech, but once you cross into Abu “Hooky†Hamza territory and advocate taking up arms you’ve opened another kettle of fish.
The EUropeans don’t really have free speech so this is just more of the same. They’ve banned denying the Holocaust, exalting Nazis and ridiculing religions and I’m sure there are other speech codes so this isn’t hypocrisy.
I don’t think it will work, banning religious objects and religions often backfires.
The Romans didn’t have any luck banning Christianity, but they did pretty well with the Druids. The British did pretty well with banning suttee and the Spanish with banning the gods of Mexico.
You have to be totally ruthless with no let up. I don’t know if the current German gov’t could be that ruthless. They would ease up and the outcome would be worse than if they did nothing. It would anger both the Muslims and non-Muslims.
I figure they’ll talk about it but won’t actually do it. That would be the worst of both worlds, they won’t have their ban but they will still rile up the Muslims and they’re already ready to rampage.
Then, I figure the EUropeans will do what they do best, go on a killing spree. It’s what they do.
If someone here advocated violence against people who insult the bible, and that advocacy was acted on, he would be nailed quick for conspiracy. Muslems need to learn about appropriate responses to an insult. If they cannot learn or will not, then they need to be quarantined and excluded from polite society.
I am not talking about banning the Koran (or the Bible for that matter). How about a constitutional amendment:
Religious freedom does not include the right to subvert or deny the constitutional rights of other citizens.
Let the Congress and Supreme Court take it from there. Start with laws allowing for speedy deportation of aliens advocating violence based on religious teachings (where speedy is defined as less than 30 days).
Noah,
Interesting point, but it would open up approximately 14.9 million issues on other things, such as abortion, pedophilia, and so on. Our religious system is too tied into the Judeo-Christian tradition to use what would otherwise be an attractive proposition to face the problem of religion-inspired violence.
BRD
Didn’t Abu Hamza use as his defense that he was just preaching the words of the Koran?