Wilders' movie "Fitna" released

[ddt]

Of course I'm making jokes about making an "elephant out of a mouse", as we use to say over here. The view of Islam as being portrayed in Wilders film seems to be conform to the same view some republicans hold, like those who believe in phrases like Romney's "Islamofascists are the threat of the century".

I agree with you on this. Islamic extremism exists. We should be vigilant in combating it. But we should not exaggerate: it is not an existential threat to our societies. At least in Europe, there is no sign that the threat is bigger than that of the terrorist organizations of the 70s: the IRA in the UK, Action Directe in France, the Brigate Rosso in Italy, the CCC and the Nivelles Gang in Belgium, the RAF in Germany and the Moluccans in the Netherlands.

I remember an interview with Egon Bahr a few years ago. He was German Minister in the 70s, during the first wave of RAF attacks. He said that, in hindsight, Germany had come awfully close to being a police state back then. He expressed also his worries that current measures against the islamist threat were even bigger than those in the 70s.

I think that's the crux of the matter: if we give up our values in response to this threat, they win! We should not compromise on our freedom of expression, but we should also not compromise our judicial system; and things like Gitmo, Patriot Act and extrajudicial renditions exactly do that. Those measures are not exclusive to the US, but they have swiftly been exported to Europe too.

A problem in all western countries is that people may distance themselves from the society they live in - or that people are excluded from the society itself. In this case people may listen to extremist ideologies to find their place within a society that failed to integrate them - which at least partly seems to be the case in the Netherlands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Netherlands#Housing.2C_education_and_employment

In all European countries, the muslim immigrants typically are poorer than the average autochtone population: they immigrated to here do the menial jobs. In Holland, this position is exacerbated by the fact that they come from the poorest regions in their home countries: Eastern Anatolia in Turkey, the Rif Mountains in Morocco. Moreover, they were not obliged to learn any Dutch before they came.

And, as we all know, poverty and under-education are inheritable conditions, on a statistical level. And those who rise above it, may face discrimination, e.g., in the form of not being invited for a job interview because they have an allochtone name.

 

[mrbaracuda]

getting killed for slaughtering holy cows in India.

Same thing.

Really? Can those who kill the person in question who slaughtered a holy cow in India back their action up with Hindu scripture or the behaviour of the religion's founder?

On the other Hand, Theo was famous for extra-ordinary controversial statements like "I suspect that Ms. Gans [Jewish historian] gets wet dreams about being ****** by Dr Mengele". Could've cost his life as well - hitting the wrong jewish person. No surprise here either.

Again: Could the "wrong jewish person" base his actions on Jewish scripture or behaviour of the religion's founder?

Anyway: I don't see how Wilders could make any case against Islam in the Netherlands by mainly focusing on some parts of Islam in third-world societies. The fact is that Islam at least was getting closer to the western way of life - even if I suspect that interference in the Middle-East, especially violent interferences, rather drastically brake or even reverse those developements and therefore play into the hands of radicalism.

You might have missed the part where for example in Germany the majority of participants of the integration summit / Islam conference can't even accept our constitution the way it is and those same people range from orthodox to extreme. Those are the people who are demanding things for Islam (and undermine moderates' endeavours), not the ever so silent "majority of moderates".

Yes, and I think it is a must read. I had no idea just how oppresive Muslim societies could be.

I'll try tomorrow.

Thanks. Oh and yes, I also hear about that from our "own Hirsi Alis"; mainly Turkish women like Necla Kelek and whatever the other's name is.

 

[ddt]

Hm, interesting though. I didn't remember Fortyun forming his own party and being a right-winger while also being openly gay. My guess is that's a rare breed. Shame.

He started out as a communist, and slowly shifted right. A very rare breed. But in the Dutch political landscape, being a right-winger and gay is not very surprising. The conservatives in moral issues can be found mainly in the Christian-Democrat party, which occupies a centre position in socio-economic terms. Before WW1, "left" in NL meant the social democrats and various stripes of liberals, whereas "right" meant the various christian parties.

He was outspoken about the big numbers of allochtones in general and the integration problems this posed. Of course, he referred to the biggest segment of those, the Germans -- they have proven to be a fifth column once before.

Oh my, you are right! But of course! Why haven't I seen it before? It all makes sense now! And damn your usage of allochtones! Silly Dutch, coming up with new words all the time!

Sorry about that word "allochtone"; I didn't realize it wasn't a proper English word. It is used for people of foreign ancestry. Most of these people actually are Dutch citizens.

As to the Germans: before WW2, German housemaids were popular in the well-to-do circles. Many of them indeed spied that way on the government.

When it comes to aliens, Germans indeed form the biggest group in the Netherlands - always have, BTW. I like mentioning it because people are very imprecise when it comes to discussing these issues. When it comes to things like not knowing the language, people don't mean Germans or Americans not knowing Dutch - they mean Turks or Moroccans. Myself, I experienced the reverse when I lived in Germany and German colleagues discussed in my presence about aliens.

 

[mrbaracuda]

And, as we all know, poverty and under-education are inheritable conditions, on a statistical level. And those who rise above it, may face discrimination, e.g., in the form of not being invited for a job interview because they have an allochtone name.

I thought you got your article 1 of the Dutch constitution for that?

 

[mrbaracuda]

Sorry about that word "allochtone"; I didn't realize it wasn't a proper English word. It is used for people of foreign ancestry. Most of these people actually are Dutch citizens.

Oh don't apologize. I like that word and what it contains; I was just a bit confused.

When it comes to aliens, Germans indeed form the biggest group in the Netherlands - always have, BTW. I like mentioning it because people are very imprecise when it comes to discussing these issues. When it comes to things like not knowing the language, people don't mean Germans or Americans not knowing Dutch - they mean Turks or Moroccans. Myself, I experienced the reverse when I lived in Germany and German colleagues discussed in my presence about aliens.

The reverse is.. that Germans talk about Americans and Dutch not knowing German?

 

[ddt]

And those who rise above it, may face discrimination, e.g., in the form of not being invited for a job interview because they have an allochtone name.

I thought you got your article 1 of the Dutch constitution for that?

Yes, we have. But unfortunately, many forms of discrimination quite simply cannot be proven to be discrimination - or only can be shown on a statistical level.

When you have a Turkish name and send out 20 applications for jobs you're qualified for, and you don't receive a single invitation for an interview - yes, that's discrimination, but of which of those 20 companies?

When you happen to be married to someone with a Dutch name, you can try it both with your own name and your partner's name.

Otherwise, you could try with a fictitious name, and some have done so.

 

[ddt]

The reverse is.. that Germans talk about Americans and Dutch not knowing German?

I meant that, when I lived in Germany, German colleagues discussed about aliens (Ausländer) in my presence and with me - ostensibly not meaning me with what they said.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I agree with you on this. Islamic extremism exists. We should be vigilant in combating it. But we should not exaggerate: it is not an existential threat to our societies. At least in Europe, there is no sign that the threat is bigger than that of the terrorist organizations of the 70s

Terrorism-wise maybe, but it's not just about that. It's also about people being threatened and that seems to be an existential threat to those who criticise Islam.

Reminds me of this:

And I disagree with Jsiv's view that Governments shouldn't take a position at all - especially if parts of the countries in question do have large groups of muslim citizens. Quite the opposite: It wouldn't be fair not to adress their citizens.

Are the Wilders and Westergaarts less worth defending than the Muslim minority and their religious feelings, that governments throughout Europe (and I think all EU member states) condemn the movie, call it hate speech among other things, thus stifle the freedom of speech and expression of those criticising Islam and what comes with it, make terms like "Islamophobe" as acceptable as "anti-Semite", eventually playing into the hands of organisations like the OIC who want to get rid of those freedoms we have in Europe that run counter to those in Islamic or Muslim countries?

I think not.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I meant that, when I lived in Germany, German colleagues discussed about aliens (Ausländer) in my presence and with me - ostensibly not meaning me with what they said.

Well, we like our neighbours.

 

[Oliver]

Terrorism-wise maybe, but it's not just about that. It's also about people being threatened and that seems to be an existential threat to those who criticise Islam.

Reminds me of this:

Are the Wilders and Westergaarts less worth defending than the Muslim minority and their religious feelings, that governments throughout Europe (and I think all EU member states) condemn the movie, call it hate speech among other things, thus stifle the freedom of speech and expression of those criticising Islam and what comes with it, make terms like "Islamophobe" as acceptable as "anti-Semite", eventually playing into the hands of organisations like the OIC who want to get rid of those freedoms we have in Europe that run counter to those in Islamic or Muslim countries?

I think not.

Quite frankly. The movie is a joke - the assumption that there is a terror-boogeyman out there that is about to overthrow the western civilisation is starting to bore me to death and if dutch politicians are allowed to rant about whatsoever, then politicians from the same country should be allowed to make counter-statements as well, shouldn't they?

What strikes me is that Wilder visited a lot of muslim countries, defined their way of living as being "chaotic" and somehow manages to draw the downfall of the Netherlands nevertheless - without even bothering about the differences between the deepest ME and Europe concerning Islam.

And I wonder what experiences you made here in Germany that made you think that this topic is even worth the breath to mention it. Even the muslim community all around the world is disappointed by the lack of controversy:

Niederländische Imame verurteilen "Fitna" - und predigen Gelassenheit

...Aber heute - am Tag nach der Veröffentlichung des lange angekündigten und viel gefürchteten Anti-Islam-Films des Rechtspopulisten Geert Wilders - ist es vollkommen ruhig in Slootervaart...

"Wir ignorieren das einfach"
"Das lässt mich kalt, der will doch nur Aufmerksamkeit - und die kriegt er von mir nicht."
"Ich spreche doch auch nicht schlecht über den Glauben von Herrn Wilders, wenn er überhaupt einen hat"
"Die Niederländer werden Wilders das Gegenteil beweisen"

Well, at least I agree with the Muslims reaction in Slootervaart: "Boooooring!"

Oh, and one would imagine that teh evil Iran would at least burn some flags or something - but they didn't mind either. Only some guys in Pakistan and Bangladesh made some fuss [aus alter Gewohnheit heraus]:

http://www.presstv.ir/search.aspx?q=fitna

 

[FireGarden]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I don't know whether the moderates are either ignorant about the subject or just don't care. In the case of my sister I'd say it's the former, but I'm engaging her in discussions and also showed her Fitna yesterday. Sadly, she's a bit, well I don't know how to say it. She seriously asked me "What should I do? Get more radical?"

Hmm, more radical.

[...] What do you think is stupid about the movie?

What's stupid about the film?
The message your sister saw, for one thing.
There she is believing what she believes when along comes Wilders saying: "No! The Quran tells you to kill the unbelievers. You're not a proper Muslim!"

The choice Wilders gives her is to become what he thinks a Muslim should be or give up Islam.

That is so dumb.

He doesn't even acknowledge that the Quran can and IS interpreted in other ways.



And that doesn't even get to whether the film is honest. Wilders may not be stupid, but he's preaching to the downright lazy if he thinks people will not look up the quotes in context and google what Muslims in general think about those verses. (There's a thread in R&P where this is also discussed, I won't bother to cut and paste.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110011

I think there is enough we know about Moselm Extremism to condemn it without using bad evidence.

Is extremism Wilders' target?

 

[mrbaracuda]

What's stupid about the film?
The message your sister saw, for one thing.
There she is believing what she believes when along comes Wilders saying: "No! The Quran tells you to kill the unbelievers. You're not a proper Muslim!"

Oh I wouldn't say too much about my sister as she's not the most clever person, if you know what I mean. She doesn't know much about Islam or its history - and is a Muslim who advocates shari'a. Yet it surprises her when what happens in Iran to gays is not what she used to call "un-Islamic".

The choice Wilders gives her is to become what he thinks a Muslim should be or give up Islam.

That is so dumb.

Where does he not give them an other choice? Personally I really like the end part where he, ah, let me just quote myself.

What I really liked though was the end about how the Muslims themselves should tackle the problem and that it wasn't for people like Wilders. I think that's somewhat of a concession of Wilders heh.

So he gives them a real good choice in my opinion. Not admitting there's much wrong in Islam and its teachings and the mainstream interpretations does not lead anywhere.

He doesn't even acknowledge that the Quran can and IS interpreted in other ways.

He also doesn't say Fitna is the only interpretation.

(There's a thread in R&P where this is also discussed, I won't bother to cut and paste.)

Will read that soon; thanks for pointing it out.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I would like to bring up the meaning of the word Fitna. From Wikipedia:

Fitna (فتنة) is an Arabic word, generally regarded as very difficult to translate but at the same time is considered to be an all-encompassing word referring to schism, secession, upheaval and anarchy at once. It is often used to refer to civil war, disagreement and division within Islam and specifically alludes to a time involving trials of faith, similar to the Tribulation in Christian eschatology. The term originally referred to the refining of metal to remove dross [1], but became common in apocalyptic writings and is often used to refer to the First Islamic civil war, in 656–661 CE, a prolonged struggle for the caliphate after the 656 assassination of the caliph Uthman ibn Affan. The Second Fitna, or Second Islamic civil war, is usually identified as the 683–685 CE conflict among the Umayyads for control of the caliphate. The third one refers to the taifas in the end of the Caliph of Córdoba's rule.

Emphasis mine. This should be acknowledged. I think I got his overall message and I doubt he would mind stronger moderate Muslims at all, who get rid of these pages, verses and interpretations in whatever way. Like I said: Never admitting there are these mainstream, century-old interpretations of for example Jihad and outright denying this and to label the Jihadists "un-Islamic" or whatever does not help the moderates in the slightest way.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Quite frankly. The movie is a joke - the assumption that there is a terror-boogeyman out there that is about to overthrow the western civilisation is starting to bore me to death and if dutch politicians are allowed to rant about whatsoever, then politicians from the same country should be allowed to make counter-statements as well, shouldn't they?

Sure; the question is in which way. Condemnation of it is pretty hard.

one would imagine that teh evil Iran would at least burn some flags or something - but they didn't mind either. Only some guys in Pakistan and Bangladesh made some fuss [aus alter Gewohnheit heraus]:

http://www.presstv.ir/search.aspx?q=fitna

Iran didn't mind? Are you insane? From MSN News (and others:

On Wilders, Iran said the 17-minute film showed Westerners were waging a "vendetta" against Islam, and warned of repercussions.

I wonder what Iran could mean with repercussions. Probably peaceful protests outside of Dutch embassies in ME countries.

(ETA) Also this from the MSN Article:

But Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende warned against drawing easy conclusions.

"We are not past it yet... Sometimes it can take months before the true repercussions are felt," he told journalists.

Like we had with the Muhammad cartoons.

Muslims, Christians and people of other convictions can easily live together in peace. The problem is not religion, but misuse of religion to sow hatred and intolerance. That is why we are calling for respect for everyone's deepest convictions.

What if there is a long-standing, established interpretation and judiciary system based on a religion that fosters intolerance?

 

[RandFan]

The realistic picture is that there isn't a threat for any western country to get assimilated by a radical muslim ideology.

Why? - Because most Muslims over here honestly think that those by western societies critizised practices, mindsets, traditions and ideologies are indeed antiquated. Plus they feel comfortable with our western freedoms once they see themselves as accepted and helpful part of the society.

Than you for responding.

I see zero evidence for what you are saying. If and when significant numbers of Muslim women take of their burkas, head scarves, whatever then I will believe what you say is true.

 

[FireGarden]

Oh I wouldn't say too much about my sister as she's not the most clever person, if you know what I mean.

I'm not here to defend your sister. It's just that her comment illustrated nicely what was stupid about Wilders' film.

What I really liked though was the end about how the Muslims themselves should tackle the problem and that it wasn't for people like Wilders. I think that's somewhat of a concession of Wilders heh.

Except that your sister already believes in a long-standing, non-radical interpretation of Islam. What is she supposed to do? Give up that understanding of Islam in favour of the 'truth' spread by Wilders?

What problem is she supposed to solve? That murderers will always find a way to justify their acts?

Maybe democrats should solve the problem of America spreading democracy with guns and bombs. Does America's support of Pinochet, Saddam, the Shah, .... demonstrate the only understanding of Western values?

Maybe I should make a film illustrating that the Declaration of Independence is a truely racist document and that Americanism is all about slavery and racism, because it was adopted by racist slave-owners and Jefferson's comments on slavery were edited out. It refers to the original owners of the land as "merciless Indian Savages".

The fact that this doesn't accurately describe America wouldn't stop me if I was Wilders. And if I had a pro-American sister I'd tell her to watch the film and she'd say: "So what am I supposed to do? Colonise land and enslave people?"

He also doesn't say Fitna is the only interpretation.

I think he strongly implies it.
What references does he make to other interpretations?

 

[mrbaracuda]

I'm not here to defend your sister. It's just that her comment illustrated nicely what was stupid about Wilders' film.



Except that your sister already believes in a long-standing, non-radical interpretation of Islam. What is she supposed to do? Give up that understanding of Islam in favour of the 'truth' spread by Wilders?

What problem is she supposed to solve? That murderers will always find a way to justify their acts?

Maybe democrats should solve the problem of America spreading democracy with guns and bombs. Does America's support of Pinochet, Saddam, the Shah, .... demonstrate the only understanding of Western values?

Maybe I should make a film illustrating that the Declaration of Independence is a truely racist document and that Americanism is all about slavery and racism, because it was adopted by racist slave-owners and Jefferson's comments on slavery were edited out. It refers to the original owners of the land as "merciless Indian Savages".

The fact that this doesn't accurately describe America wouldn't stop me if I was Wilders. And if I had a pro-American sister I'd tell her to watch the film and she'd say: "So what am I supposed to do? Colonise land and enslave people?"

What a ridiculous answer.

I think he strongly implies it.
What references does he make to other interpretations?

None as far as I can see but what does it matter? It still doesn't mean he says it's the only true interpretation of Islam. Where does the movie say Islam is only that?

If you think about the title in the context of schism between those so-called moderates and radical Muslims and trials of faith in terms of whether to accept and follow or challenge these interpretations I doubt that he means what you think.

 

[FireGarden]

What a ridiculous answer.

What is ridiculous about it?

 

[Pardalis]

The thing I don't get is why all this commotion for this one bad video?

I've seen far worst anti-American garbage on Youtube, and nobody is making a fuss about it. Why the double standard?

 

[mrbaracuda]

What is ridiculous about it?

Bringing in your disapproval of American politics.