Dutch PM rejects interpretation of anti-Islam film

 

THE HAGUE  ( 2008-03-28 10:05:24 ) : 

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said on Thursday his government rejects the interpretation of Islam presented by far-right politician Geert Wilders in a short film posted on the Internet.
"The film equates Islam with violence. We reject that interpretation," said Balkenende at a press conference shortly after the film, titled "Fitna," appeared on the LiveLeak video sharing website.
In a short statement delivered both in Dutch and in English, Balkende said the government "regrets" that Wilders released his 17-minute movie on the Internet, as he had been vowing to do.
"We believe it serves no purpose other than to offend," he said. "But feeling offended must never be used as an excuse for aggression and threats."
The prime minister added that the government felt heartened "by the initial restrained reaction by Dutch Muslim organisations".
In initial reactions, those organisations seemed relieved that Wilders' film -- which mixed violent images of terror attacks with Koranic texts -- was not as bad as expected.
Some feared Wilders would destroy a copy of the Koran in the film. Instead it concludes with a page being torn out of a phone book, and text on the screen saying it is up to Moslems "to tear the spiteful verses from the Koran".

Microsoft catches social networking religion. And most folks are wondering where Facebook will land in this mess. The larger question: Is there a business hook here somewhere?

Yup, I hear the crickets too.

Social networking remains a consumer thing. And to the blogosphere it’s an opportunity to work in a Mark Zuckerberg quip, toss in Google as a reference and navel gaze a bit about the “conversation.”

But there has to be a corporate use in here somewhere.

Tuesday’s news that Yahoo is supporting OpenSocial and Google is stepping away to assure “neutrality” and interconnect social apps is a big deal. OpenSocial can now forge ahead as a real standard. Meanwhile, Microsoft has also entered the social network standard game (boy this all sounds familiar after awhile) and launched its own initiative. The gory details are fortunately rounded up by Techmeme.

I can’t help but think that this neutral OpenSocial foundation is a good thing for the enterprise. Perhaps enterprise apps will hook into OpenSocial. Perhaps vendors–beyond Oracle and Salesforce.com–will flick to the effort. Perhaps corporations will become more social.

Until then, however, there isn’t much of a huge plan when it comes to businesses.

Last week, I spoke to Joe Kraus, Director of Product Management at Google, about the enterprise implications of OpenSocial. Even though OpenSocial will be “forever free and open” there’s a lot of work to do before this becomes even slightly interesting to the enterprise.

Among the highlights of my conversation with Kraus:

• Social networking is the new black. Most killer apps are social by nature–email, IM and photo sharing for instance. Companies have been slow to adopt these uses–beyond email of course.
• Social networking isn’t a destination site. It will branch out through the entire Web. How will corporations handle this branching out process?
• Enterprises will adopt social standards like OpenSocial to embed third party applications. The rub: “These applications will need policies around them,” says Kraus. Simply put, a lot of social applications are frivolous–throwing sheep, awarding virtual beers (what’s the point folks?) and poking people. Surely, there’s a business function here somewhere.
• How do you tighten up social applications? “Social applications are loose in consumer land,” says Kraus. “We expect them to become much tighter in enterprise land.”
• What’s the model? Consumer social applications are built around advertising. In the corporate world that model won’t fly. What exactly will corporations license?
• Whatever develops in the socialprise will begin with CRM. “Salesforce and Oracle both see the opportunity, but CRM is a social application to begin with,” says Kraus.

India's Supreme Court orders fresh riots probe

NEW DELHI  ( 2008-03-25 21:03:35 ) : 

India's Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a special team to start fresh investigations into some of the worst incidents during sectarian rioting in the western state of Gujarat in 2002, a report said.
The court asked a five-member team, which will include senior police officials from Gujarat and a former head of India's federal Central Bureau of Investigation, to report back in three months, the Press Trust of India agency said.
Indian media described the move as a "setback" for the state government and its recently re-elected leader, hawkish Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi, who was also chief minister when the riots broke out.
Mainly Hindu mobs rampaged through Muslim neighbourhoods for three days, hacking, burning, shooting and beating at least 2,000 Muslims to death.
The team will examine some of the most serious attacks, including the Gulbarg Society killings that saw at least 39 people burned to death, including a former MP, after a mob set fire to a Muslim-dominated housing complex.
It will also investigate the fire in a train carriage that killed 59 Hindu pilgrims and sparked the violence. An earlier inquiry concluded the blaze was accidental.
The court issued the order in response to a petition filed by the National Human Rights Commission, asking for investigators from outside the state to look at the incidents.
The state government, which rights groups allege tacitly supported the anti-Muslim pogroms, has been accused of dragging its heels in prosecuting those accused in the riots.
More than 4,250 cases were filed with state authorities but police dropped more than half, citing lack of evidence.

The Qur'an (Quran, Koran) is the Holy Book of Islam and the religion's most sacred writing.  The word itself means "recitation."  It is a series of "revelations" that Muhammad claimed to have received from Allah at various (often highly convenient) times in his life and then dictated to scribes. 

The book is divided into 114 Suras (chapters) that contain ayat (verses).  The Suras are not arranged chronologically, but rather by size, with the larger ones appearing first. 

The Qur'an was compiled in the years and decades following Muhammad's death from snatches of writings on papyrus leaves, wood carvings, animal bones and especially the memory of his companions, who were beginning to die off.  There is generous redundancy within the text as well as contradictions - which are said to be resolved through "abrogation," whereby later verses have authority over earlier ones when there is an apparent dispute between them.

Although the words in the Qur'an are believed by Muslims to be those of Allah, and not Muhammad, there are several places in the narration where this simply doesn't make sense.  In some cases, Muslim scribes mended the problem by inserting the word "say" in front of certain text to make it appear as if Allah is commanding Muhammad to speak in the first person.  In other cases, their clean-up work was not quite as thorough (such as the famous 27:91, in which the word "say" is not in the original Arabic).

The words of the Qur'an are said to be the literal, eternal words of Allah himself, relevant to all people at all times (it is unclear why personal directives such as 33:53 were included).  It Qur'an is not a book of history (although there is some badly garbled Biblical narration scattered about).  The verses that issue rules and edicts are generally open-ended.  Very few are bound by historical context within the actual text.

In fact, the Qur'an is almost incomprehensible in and of itself.  Directives, topics, diatribes and incomplete accounts of Old Testament and mythological characters seem to appear from out of nowhere and then disappear just as quickly with very little stream-of-thought consistency.  Themes are disjointed and shifting, something that would not be expected of a perfect book of instruction.

External sources, such as the Hadith (narrations of Muhammad's words and deeds) are essential for understanding not just the context of what is being said, but often the very meaning of critical passages.  Even so, interpretations are often arbitrary and, since there is no longer a central authority in Islam, various Muslim factions often claim confidence in remarkably different applications of the religion and its "true meaning."

Older versions of the Qur'an would be helpful in the study of certain words (since vowels are often left out of transcriptions) but unfortunately ancient texts are usually either destroyed or hidden from public view by authorities, since they differ somewhat from modern versions - and thus throw into question the Qur'an's internal claim to be the invariable word of God.

The Suras of the Qur'an can be grouped into two distinct periods in Muhammad's life.  There is the earlier "Meccan" period, when Muhammad had little to say about violence or "fighting in Allah's way."  Then there are the "Medinan" Suras and later, in which the commands to violent Jihad and intolerance increase corresponding to Muhammad's military strength.  The bloody 9th Sura (the Verse of the Sword) is one of the very last to be handed down by the prophet of Islam, and it came at a time when the Muslims had already achieved power over their neighbors, forcing into exile those who would not convert.

Every 12th verse of the Qur'an speaks of either earthly or divine punishment against unbelievers.  Other religions are said to be "cursed by Allah."  The more tolerant verses (though popular with contemporary apologists) are less numerous than the later, more violent ones - which are believed to abrogate those that precede them.

Grammatical, theological and scientific errors abound within the Qur'an, but they are "explained away" through elaborate and complicated theories that may seem absurd to the more objective, but serve to reinforce the faith of those who will believe that the book is perfect in every way regardless of what it contains (to say otherwise is to incur a death sentence).

The exaggerative praise that accompanies the Qur'an (a book that literally tells Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves) makes Christian fundamentalist claims about the Bible "containing God's word" seem rather tame by comparison.  Syllables of the Qur'an continue to be committed to memory with a level of fanaticism that has not diminished over the generations.

Allah apparently spoke in the obscure Quraish dialect, which few Arabs at the time understood all that well (and even fewer still today).  This is significant because Muslim apologists often use this point advantageously, particularly with regard to the passages of the Qur'an that are contrary to modern sensibilities.  Often the apologist will cynically insist that such verses have a different meaning in the "original Arabic" (even if this alternate meaning seems to have eluded thirteen centuries worth of Arabic-Islamic scholars).

The most honest English-language versions of the Qur'an are probably the earlier ones (Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Shakir).  More recent translations are usually tainted by the personal preferences of the interpreter, which is very often dictated by the palatability of contemporary Western tastes. 

A quick test for determining whether a version of the Qur'an is true or "PC" is to turn to verse 4:34 and check whether the word "beat" or "scourge" is used in the instruction to discipline belligerent wives.  If it is there, then the copy is probably closer to the original Arabic than the more recent "whitewashed" versions.

If you are serious about acquiring a Qur'an, however, then also check to be sure that verses 4:24, 23:6, 33:50 and 70:30 all stay faithful to the Arabic by using the word 'captive,' 'slave,' or 'those whom thy right hand possesses' in reference to the women authorized by Allah for a man's sexual use.  Contemporary translators are notorious for ignoring the original Arabic and pretending that Muhammad is speaking only of wives, when, in fact, he is speaking of two distinct groups: wives and non-wives.

The Qur'an distributed by CAIR, Muhammad Asad's "The Message of the Qur'an," is a 20th century Westernized translation that is designed to manipulate the naive reader into preferred conclusions by changing the wording of unflattering verse and offering mitigating commentary to convince readers that they are not seeing what they are really seeing. 

We recommend the highly readable non-Muslim translation from CSPI (or the abridged version), but balancing it with occasional references to the MSA website, which contains the Pickthall, Shakir and Yusuf Ali Muslim translations.