Yvonne Latour

Joseph Klein and Ron Paul

by Yvonne Latour           

During the January 17^th Fox News Presidential Debate the topic of al Qaeda and Taliban supporters was brought up. Ron Paul’s response was to adopt a “Golden Rule” policy stating that the United States should not do to other nations what we don’t want done back.  Paul also stated that the reason for their attacks is because we assaulted them first.

Joseph Klein responded with this article stating that Paul’s policy is absurd. Joseph Klein uses examples from the Qur’an and a previous dealing with a Muslim ambassador to point out the reasons behind jihadists’ activities. He believes that the attacks were not provoked because the US assaulted Islamic states; rather, he believes they hate the US for not being Muslim.

Ron Paul’s idea of foreign policy may be a little less absurd than Joseph Klein claims. Ron Paul seems to be looking at a broader array of Muslims compared to Joseph Klein, who chose to focus on jihad and political leaders who were involved in a more literal approach. Joseph Klein’s view is very narrow and does not take into consideration the larger majority of Muslims who choose a less violent approach to the faith. The verses he uses from the Qur’an all do suggest violence but out of context of larger passages it is hard to tell the true meaning behind the verses.

Some questions come to mind after reading this article. Joseph Klein makes seemingly factual claims but what is the extent of his own knowledge of the faith and culture? Does other media portraying Muslims as violent and bent on destruction sway him or does he truly have a grasp of the majority of the people? Why would Muslims try to destroy a country whose second largest religion is Islam? Klein does not present both sides and the article is published on a very politically conservative website aimed at readers who probably share the same ideals.

Klein brings up the point that Muhammad himself launched his own jihad against non-believers and those who did not want to convert. It is true that Muhammad did use violence, but in John L. Esposito’s book Islam: The Straight Path, it is made clear that his conquests were motivated by political reasons “rather then racial or theological” ones (p. 16). Another problem with Klein’s argument is his use of the word infidel. By definition an infidel is someone who does not hold a faith or who does not hold a faith that is the same as another’s. Klein is referring to the US and Israel as infidels as if they are the only enemy of extremist Muslims like members of al-Qaeda.  However, realistically and based on the definition of this word, this group of Muslims views all non-Muslims and non-believers in all countries as the enemy.

Joseph Klein needs to be more open about possible foreign policies and not have such a close-minded approach to the Muslim people.

Geert Wilders Continues Orientalist Tradition with film Fitna


In 2008, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders released the film Fitna, which purports to be a movie about the Qur'an, and which consists of the display of Qur'anic verses alongside violent and other disturbing images.  The images are allowed to speak for themselves, depicting Islam as a brutally intolerant religion whose followers have little or no regard for human life (warning: this film contains images that may be disturbing or inappropriate for some viewers):

The problem with Fitna, however, is that the viewer is given absolutely no context within which to understand these verses and images.  We do not know whether the Qur'an is being translated accurately.  We are not told whether the ideas expressed in these ayat are to be understood within the context of a larger passage or a specific historical event.  Neither are we informed about the origins of the clips and other images depicting Muslims wielding swords and calling for the deaths of Jews and Christians.  So, not only are the Qur'anic verses taken out of context, but the clips themselves are also pulled out of their contexts and portrayed as singular events.  The film is powerful because it lets the images speak for themselves, but this is also its deepest (and most unforgivable) flaw.

Not long before Fitna's release, Wilders was interviewed on Fox News about the film, and during this interview he defends his point of view by reverting to arguments that have their roots in the Orientalist tradition of Europe, as that tradition is defined by Edward Said:

Rejecting what he perceives as the failed political system of multiculturalism, Wilders claims that the Islamic civilization is "retarded" in its development, harkening back to an earlier period of European history during which social Darwinism ruled the intellectual landscape.  In his book Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World, Carl Ernst begins with a chapter entitled "Islam in the Eyes of the West", in which he discusses this long history of European elitism.  During his assessment of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" (interestingly enough referenced here by the interviewer), Ernst states, "it lacks the overt dependence on racial theory that was fashionable in the nineteenth century, but it shares the basic prejudice of reserving true civilization for Europe, which is opposed by barbarism everywhere else" (7).  It seems that Wilders has inherited this prejudice and assumes that there is a sharp distinction between the "West" and "Islam" and that these two ideological behemoths are currently in the midst of a culture war.

Wilders is certainly entitled to his opinion of Islam, and he is entitled to his freedom of speech in expressing his concern for the efficacy of multiculturalism or his fear of those Muslims who interpret their religion radically and advocate for violence.  He even admits that not all Muslims are terrorists, but in the next breath he states, "I don't believe in a moderate Islam" and that Muslims who wish to assimilate must get ride of the portions of the Qur'an that are deemed unacceptable within the context of Dutch society.  He claims, essentially, that Muslims must become more "like us" in order to live in the Netherlands.  He is entitled to these opinions.

The primary problem is how he has expressed his view of Islam in Fitna.  The film is not a measured or serious study of Islam or the Qur'an.  It is, at the most basic level, a piece of anti-Islamic propaganda.  And this piece of propaganda will do nothing but enrage Muslims and widen the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims attempting to live together all over the world.

Welcome to the Foundations of Islam blog!  This will be a space for critical reflection on the presentation of Islam by the media.  Please feel free to think openly and discuss the posts with one another in a respectful manner.