"Innocence of Muslims” Has Been Condemned, Whose One Is on Turn?...

Tverskoy court of Moscow recognized film "Innocence of Muslims" extremist and forbade to display it in the territory of Russia. Thus, the claim of the capital prosecutor's office which was achieving prohibition to display the film as extremist material was satisfied.

According to the federal law "About counteraction of extremist activity", information material can be recognized extremist after the court on representation of prosecutor's office establishes signs of extremism in it. In this case, the material gets into the federal list of extremist materials, becomes forbidden in all territory of the country and criminal liability threaten for its distributions.

Prosecutor Victoria Maslova proving today in the court position of supervising department specified that the film "refracts Islamic religion, promotes growth of religious intolerance in the Russian Federation". According to prosecutor's office, this film is directed on formation of opinion about inferiority of Moslem doctrine, as well as on incitement of national and religious hatred and superiority of one group of citizens over others.

________________________________________

From editorial board: The highest authority of Tverskoy court doesn’t demand any comments as well as, perhaps, such concepts as "Basmanny justice" and "kangaroo court". However what should we do now with the secular character of the Russian state? Whether this article of the Constitution of the Russian Federation isn’t extremist in essence?

Actually extremism is violence or, at least, appeal to violence. While statement of own opinion, even in a sharp form can’t be regarded as extremism by definition. Thus all questions of religion are taken out outside frameworks of public discussion. Whether it’s probable in secular society of the 21st century?

Actually every religion allocates very big place for criticism of "competing" faiths. Both fathers of church and Islamic teachers were noticed doing it. It’s, by the way, normal theological activity. If theologism is forbidden in Russia now, what about missionary work? Though why theologians shouldn’t argue, if they don't call for knifing?

Why do prosecutor's office and courts get worried about the film produced in America and hasn’t even been translated into Russian? About the film hasn’t been in the Russian hire and not assumed for it? At last, if film urges to kill Muslims? I doubt it very much. While it’s, of course, insulting if someone is pictured out ridiculously, but it’s not extremism in any way.

The prosecutor considers that the film "refracts Islamic religion". Whether it’s forbidden? About Islam as about dead men – either good things or nothing?

Yes, some absconding obscurantists declared that the film is wrong. Why the Russian prosecutor's office follows the tastes of the Islamic extremists, accusing, in fact, authors of the film in extremism to please them? If someone proves inferiority of some religion, whether he is guilty? Religious discord is something different – it’s when someone is killed and smashed. While criticism of this or that religious doctrine doesn't call to anything, on the contrary, it rather urges to refuse religionism.

About national intolerance – it seems that prosecutor's office doesn't know that Islam doesn't recognize national distinctions and that the concept "the Muslim people" appeared also as a result of thoughtlessness.

As to the "superiority of one group over others", let the fools from prosecutor's office know that literally all confessional groups are based on this superiority. Whence, for example, Muslims got concept "devout", if not from antagonism with other which trust incorrectly? If “orthodox" became orthodox if there were no Moslems? One shouldn’t even mention Protestants - there the conflict is put in the name. As to the Jews – several years ago the Russian parliamentarians, having familiarized with the medieval Judaic book "Shulchan Aruch", decided not to consider it extremist literature... Then they were laughed at. In vain. He laughs best that laughs last.

We have only to check on extremism, say, "Sermon on Law and Grace" written by Metropolitan Hilarion who not only called for religious discord with pagans:

"Now we are called Christians, no longer idolaters; no longer the hopeless, but longing with hope for eternal life. No longer do we build pagan shrines, for now we construct Chris’s churches. No longer do we slay one another as offering for demons, for now Christ is ever slain and segmented for us as an offering to God and the Father. No longer do we imbibe the blood of the offering and perish, for now we imbibe the pure blood of Christ and are saved….”

but also developed discord with the Jews:

"We do not blaspheme Him, as do the Jews, but rather as Christians we bless Him. We do not take counsel so as to crucify Him, but rather to worship Him as the crucified. We do not nail our Savior’s hands to the cross, but rather we stretch out our own hands to Him. We do not pierce His sides, but rather we drink from them the source of immortality. We do not extract for Him thirty pieces of silver, but rather entrust to Him each of us and all our sustenance. We do not conceal His resurrection, but rather proclaim in all our houses: “Christ is risen from the dead!” We do not say He was stolen from the sepulcher, but rather that He ascended up where He was before”.

Аnatoly Baranov, editor-in-chief of FORUM.msk

Send by mail

Print