Richard Sudworth(Photo: © CMS)In the debate over the Geert Wilders film on Islam, the choice is not that simple, argues Richard Sudworth
Freedom of speech or community cohesion – that’s the simple choice we're being presented with over the screening in the House of Lords of the notorious Fitna film.
The film links acts of Islamist terrorism with verses from the Qur'an and statements from extremist preachers. But is it really so simple?
I'm disturbed by the weight that some Christian leaders are giving to the need to show the film and would like to suggest that we do a bit of ‘reverse hypotheticals’ here.
Double standards?
How would we feel if a film were produced of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia (or the Soweto township killings, or Hutu genocide) to a soundtrack from the book of Judges (each of these episodes had overtly Christian justifications)?
We would be rightly horrified as Christians and claim:
- that our scriptures were being misinterpreted
- that an unfair juxtaposition of the worst of our faith with certain sources of that faith was being presented
Some may even say that Christians are already being put in that negative light, and therefore why should Islam get preferential treatment? Well, I might reply that just because the Christian faith is vilified does not mean standards of public judgment should automatically fall for all – do unto others as you would have done to you.
The issue for me is not merely about freedom of speech, nor even about community cohesion. It is about wanting the good of all and treating others how we would like to be treated.
I heard one of the Christian hosts of the film presentation speaking about the damage done to the British values of freedom of speech. Too often we invoke religious arguments when our Christian base is threatened only to resort to secular liberal arguments to condemn others. Since when did freedom of speech become the ultimate measure of Christian pronouncements?
Parable of the Good Muslim
Consider the Samaritans in the Bible - we must recall that they were a cultural and religious ‘other’ to the Jews. For the Jews, they were impure and dangerous. Josephus, the historian, records a number of ‘terrorist’ atrocities perpetrated against Jews. So you get the context for the mutual suspicion in some of the gospel encounters.
What a wonderfully challenging and humbling parable we have in that story of the Good Samaritan. That symbol of uncleanness and violence becomes the agent of God's mercy to the suffering Jew!
If our only understanding of Islam is the film Fitna, the parable of the Good Samaritan (‘the Good Muslim’?) may be what we need to read again.
There are real issues within Islam about the texts of violence. I would be the first to advocate – directly and confidently to Muslims – that those texts should be abrogated. But showing an emotive film that suggests Islam is inherently violent in the chambers of government was rightly seen as provocative and engendering of hatred.
As Christians, maybe we need to ask ourselves: “Does this film make me love my next door neighbour Muslim more?” If not, then let's be free not to see it.
Richard Sudworth is a CMS mission partner and consultant for Faith to Faith. He is based in Birmingham and blogs at www.distinctlywelcoming.com