Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who broke with a mainstream national party 
to form his own extreme-right, anti-immigrant platform. Wilders has directed 
most of his hatred in recent years at Muslims. Wilders has called for the 
Qur’an to be banned and in the last few months has been promoting his 
“documentary” attacking the Qur’an. Wilders has intimated that the documentary 
will show a copy of the Qur’an being desecrated or destroyed.  
  by INGRID MATTSON  
   
  Geert Wilders wants the Qur’an to be banned. Many Muslims want Wilders’ film 
to be banned. Wilders wants Muslims out of “his country” and to be denied the 
rights of other citizens to practice their faith. No doubt, many Dutch Muslims 
wish that Wilders would just go away (and Wilders has received threats of 
violence from some). Neither Wilders nor these Muslims will (or should) get 
what they want.  Now what?

Many have looked to this situation only through the lense of the law. News 
articles have focused on threats made to Wilders’ life and the calls to ban his 
film. Of course, the threats are unacceptable and criminal. Wilders should be 
afforded the full protection of the law and those threatening violence against 
his person should be prosecuted.

As for the right of freedom of speech, Wilders’ film should be treated like 
other statements within Dutch law. The Netherlands, like most other countries, 
has certain restrictions on speech that is defamatory, libelous or insults a 
group of people based on their race or religion. The Dutch Prime Minister has 
publicly stated that if the film, once released, is judged to have violated the 
law, then his government has the duty to enforce their legislation. This 
treatment of Dutch Muslims as equal citizens under the law shows to the Muslim 
world that the Netherlands is not an enemy to Islam.

My plea is that we also need to look at this issue more broadly so we can find 
better ways of living together in a world in which there will always be people 
whose views and beliefs we find odd or even obnoxious. We should not justify or 
excuse extremism of any kind, whether they are racist and hateful attacks on 
the Muslim community or vigilante violence by Muslims against those who make 
such statements. What we should try to understand is why some otherwise 
ordinary people feel caught in the middle, and are sometimes attracted, in 
part, to the emotional appeals of the extremists.

In the last few decades most societies in the world have gone through enormous 
transitions. Many European countries have had to give up significant symbols of 
their national sovereignty to join the European Union and even those who did 
not join the EU have seen significant changes in their societies due to 
globalization. Even those who have benefited economically and in other ways 
from these changes are sometimes are troubled by the loss of traditional forms 
of communal solidarity and culture: local farmers’ markets, church pews filled 
with families on a Sunday morning, neighborhood bakeries and craftsmen; 
landscapes, streetscapes and the rhythm of life have changed. Perhaps each 
generation has a limited capacity for change, or perhaps none of us, as 
progressive as we claim to be, can help but romanticize the society of our 
youth.  

An increased presence of Muslims in Europe, while part of this change, is not 
the cause of all these changes. Muslims did not cause a decline in attendance 
at European churches; they were not responsible for the fact that some churches 
have been turned into museums or bars. Muslims did not cause the declining 
birth-rate in many European societies. But the fact that Muslims are building 
mosques and attending religious services in higher numbers than European 
Christians, and that many Muslims have larger families than most European 
Christian families, makes Muslims easy targets of scapegoating. Europe has seen 
this kind of ethnic hatred before in its history. Financially-successful Jews 
were for many centuries viewed with jealously and resentment by some European 
Christians.  

Muslims should not be scapegoats for the problems not of their making. At the 
same time, we have to be fair and acknowledge the fact that large-scale Muslim 
immigration to Europe has presented real challenges to these societies. Unlike 
in the United States, many of these immigrants arrived with little education 
and were often settled in large numbers in government housing that set them 
apart from the rest of the population. The natural process of adaptation to the 
new environment was stifled by many of these well-meaning policies. On the 
other hand, blatant and persistent discrimination experienced by many 
immigrants in their daily lives, combined with the availability of some extreme 
Islamic ideologies in the communities too often mitigated against a positive 
model of integration.  

Most of the time, however, the problems have been cultural. This is because 
even when communities share the same basic values (as I believe is true of most 
European Christians and Muslims), the different cultural ways communities 
express these values can lead to misunderstandings and tensions. Our values are 
conveyed not only with words, but with our actions, our clothing, and our 
architecture.
Let’s look, for example, at the issue of respect, an important value in any 
society. What constitutes a respectful encounter with another? In many 
east-Asian societies, business cards need to be offered with two hands like a 
gift; to thrust a card out towards a new acquaintance is interpreted as rude. 
In American society, one indicates interest, respect and attention when 
speaking to others by looking them straight in the eye. In many Muslim 
cultures, such a direct gaze might be considered disrespectful, especially if 
one is conversing with an elder or a member of the opposite sex. I once had a 
student who complained to me about another student in the class: "he is so 
disrespectful to women," she said, "he never looks at me."  The young man, an 
international student from a Middle Eastern country expressed dismay at her 
perception, "I was trying to respect her by not staring at her!”

The point is that you cannot simultaneously look someone straight in the eye 
and avert your gaze from them. Only one of these culturally specific means of 
signifying respect can be adopted in any one encounter. Most people learn to 
adapt, and even become bicultural. But this process takes time, and if the 
differences are politicized or idealized, conflict ensues.

As new communities settle in areas that previously were inhabited by a dominant 
cultural group, misunderstandings can multiply. I grew up in a mid-size 
Canadian town first settled by German, and then English and Irish immigrants. I 
heard many nasty comments when Portuguese families started moving to town and 
planted their front yards with vegetable gardens. We lived in a Platonic 
universe where beanstalks and carrot tops must line up in the backyard, never 
in the front.  

These adjustments are natural, they happen every day across the world. Muslims 
have for centuries adopted their cultures and customs to new environments; that 
is why from Indonesia to Jordan to Senegal, Muslims differ in their dress, 
architecture, aesthetics, economies and other aspects of community life. 
Islamic law, in fact, requires the adoption of “good” customs as long as they 
do not violate fundamental religious principles.  

European Muslims are slowly figuring out what is necessary and sacred in their 
lives and what is cultural and can be adjusted and adapted. Most Europeans 
understand that this can be a difficult process, and they are patient and 
supportive of their Muslim neighbors. Unfortunately, the voices of 
self-proclaimed nationalists – really, racists – like Wilders, often seem 
louder and more powerful because they are threatening. This is also true of the 
extremists in the Muslim community who preach against good relations with 
non-Muslims. Although they are small in number, they can affect great damage to 
society.  

The most important thing to keep in mind in the midst of all this changes is 
that we can never live together peacefully with all our differences unless we 
are willing to respect the different choices that others make. We do not have 
to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to 
each other. This means that we do not deliberately try to humiliate each other. 
Defacing or destroying symbols of each other’s most cherished beliefs violates 
the basic principle of respect.

Wilders’ actions are designed to hurt, offend, and even intimidate. This is why 
many Dutch people, including the current government, have rejected Wilders’ 
actions and insist that such hateful statements are not consistent with Dutch 
values of tolerance and communal harmony. Many Dutch Muslims have responded 
positively to an assertion of Dutch citizenship based on diversity within the 
framework of common values and they are working with their non-Muslim neighbors 
to create a positive environment of mutual respect.

Still, there are some people who are just looking for a fight. No matter how 
many Dutch interfaith and civic groups join with their Muslim neighbors to 
demonstrate their solidarity and mutual respect, al-Qaeda and their ilk will 
point to Wilders’ film as more proof of the “Western crusade against Islam.” 
And no matter how many Muslims respond to Wilders’ film calmly, or not at all, 
Wilders will point to the violent response of some extremists as more proof 
that Islam is barbaric.  

All I ask is that we do not blame whole communities for the actions of a few. 
Muslims should not blame all the Dutch people, much less “the West,” for 
Wilders’ hateful actions. Similarly, no one should blame all Muslims, much less 
Islam, for the hateful actions of some extremists.

As for me, I have vowed that if and when Wilders releases his film, the first 
thing I will do is pick up my Qur’an, kiss it as a symbol of the reverence it 
deserves from me, then sit down and read it for an hour. This is the best 
defense of the Qur’an. 
  
  ____________________ 
  DR. INGRID MATTSON is an "On Faith" panelist and professor of Islamic Studies 
and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary. She is the president of 
the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the first woman to hold that 
position. 
  



saiyed shahbazi
  www.shahbazcenter.org

Reply via email to