Motions for Geert Wilders to introduce to the Dutch Court where he is on trial for insults to Islam.
1. Something not blasphemy under Islam is not an insult to Islam under Dutch law.
2. Non-Muslims can not decide what is blasphemy under Islam.
3. The judges are not Muslims, so the case must be dismissed. The court lacks competence to rule on the basic issue at hand.
4. If non-Muslims can decide what is blasphemy to Islam, then Wilders claims his interpretation of Islam is that they are not blasphemy.
5. To decide if something is blasphemy under Islam, the court must rule whether the Gates of Ijtihad are open.
6. The court is not competent to rule whether the Gates of Ijtihad are open. Therefore the case must be dismissed.
7. That the Gates of Ijtihad are open and so open that non-Muslims can interpret Islam and that Wilders simply expressed his view of Islam through the open Gates and so it was not blasphemy and therefore not an insult to Islam.
8. Dutch courts would have to rule on Islam and the Gates of Ijtihad over and over. Suppose a Muslim woman said the Gates were open and that her children could wear skimpy Dutch clothing and have pre-marital sex. Muslim clerics condemn her for blasphemy to Islam. She says the Gates are open and that modern Islam is the same as standard Dutch morals and culture. The court would have to decide. Moreover she claims that the clerics saying she is blaspheming Islam are blaspheming her version of Islam and that her version is the same as George Bush and of Dutch liberals. She claims that the Gates are so open that Bush had the right to interpret Islam and that when Bush said Islam is a Religion of Peace it was Islamic and that it also meant that Muslim girls in Holland could wear skimpy clothes and have pre-marital sex.
Further examples of Dutch courts having to rule on Islam
9. A Muslim man claims the Gates are open and prints out a copy of the Koran with his laser printer. He then cuts out the parts he thinks are not valid. He rescans in the cut paper. Clerics say this is blasphemy. The man claims its not because the Gates of Ijtihad are open and the parts of the Koran he cut out are no longer part of Islam.
10. Same as prior case, but the man claims the Gates of Ijtihad are closed, but those parts of the Koran were never supposed to be in it. He cuts out the intolerant parts.
11. Another man cuts out the tolerant parts.
12. A Muslim has doubts about Islam and writes them on his webpage. These doubts are called blasphemy. He recants some but not others. Dutch courts have to decide if he has insulted Islam.
13. Another Muslim man does the same, but then leaves Islam. He then gives a specific list of parts of Islam he condemns. These are modeled on Bertrand Russel’s Why I am not a Christian.
14. The Inquisition was set up to decide what was blasphemy for the secular courts to act. So the same would have to be done today. Moreover, this would be needed for each religion and the Inquisitions would all have jurisdiction over every person even those not in their religion. This would violate Dutch law.
15. If a Muslim leaves Islam it is a blasphemy and insult to Islam because they deny Islam is true. Thus Muslims can’t leave Islam under Dutch law.
16. If Muslims can leave Islam, they can’t say why, even to their family because they can’t insult Islam.
17. That Wilders believes in a religion of freedom of speech and religion and that under his religion he can comment on Islam in any way.
18. That religions are contradictory and that believing one is a denial of the others.
19. That religions are not contradictory and therefore Wilders statement was not an insult to Islam.
20. All people of Jewish, Christian or Islamic heritage even non-believers are part of one common religious ethos and may freely comment on it and any aspect of it.
21. That religion is dynamic and changing and that people can comment and criticize religions or aspects of them as part of a common spiritual development of mankind. I.e. the Gates of Ijtihad are open for all religions and for mankind as a whole.
22. The gates of Ijtihad are closed for all religions and no religion can change even if its part of that religion. In that case, Wilders acted under his religion which requires criticism of intolerant religions.
23. The whole idea of Dutch courts ruling on matters of religion is absurd and unworkable. Its just a way to get at critics of the government’s policy and is thus a form of totalitarianism. It is not applied evenly because that is impossible in matters of religion and what is blasphemy and who is blaspheming which religion.
24. Part of the reason that Europe went to tolerance of religion was it is not practical for courts to be involved in such disputes. This was based on two millenia or more of experience with the secular government enforcing religion. The separation of the two was based on long practice of the inherent unworkability of having the secular government enforce religion.
25. All religions are part of one common spirituality of mankind and that all statements including criticisms are allowed as part of the ongoing evolution of spirituality in the species Homo Sapiens.
26. Geert Wilders is a Great Wise Elder of the common religion.
27. Geert Wilders as a Great Wise Elder can not blasphemy the common religion which includes Islam as a subset.
Please repost and/or add to these.
Setting up the machinery to determine blasphemy of belief systems would require an extensive court system in each belief system. This could include even those who follow Ayn Rand or Shakespeare. Doubting that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare could be deemed an insult. Some may prefer the King James Bible, others not. Some may not like string theory or the Higgs boson.
Earlier material on motions for Wilders: