| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Unbowed. "Dutch politician to make another anti-Muslim film," from Reuters / Hollywood Reporter, July 1:
AMSTERDAM (Hollywood Reporter) - Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders is planning a sequel to his anti-Muslim film "Fitna," the local daily De Telegraaf reported Tuesday. The move comes after the Dutch Ministry of Justice on Monday decided not to prosecute him for inciting hatred of Muslims with his film denouncing the Koran.
Not to mention the ridiculous charges filed in Jordan.
About 40 complaints were filed against Wilders by both Muslim and non-Muslim organizations in the Netherlands after "Fitna" was released on the Internet. A number of those groups are thought to be considering appeals against the Dutch Prosecutors decision.
Wilders also was investigated for remarks published in the newspaper De Volkskrant calling the Koran fascist and calling for it to be banned.
Posted by Marisol at July 2, 2008 12:14 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Go, Geert!
HInt: have a chat to Bat Yeor, and Mr Andrew Bostom. Get hold of 'The Dhimmi' and 'Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism'.
Let the sequel to 'Fitna' focus right in on the appalling, the bloodcurdling, Nazi-style murderous contempt of, and aggression toward, Jews, that poisons Quran, Sira, Hadith, and just about all of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and historic practice.
Right now, everyone in the whole wide world needs to know that the threats being uttered by Ahmadinejad, and assorted Saudi and Hamas and Hezbollah preachers, come straight from the black heart of Islam.
Then the *next* film could, perhaps, be produced in consultation with the writings of Mr Ram Lal, and be dedicated to the Hindu and Buddhist victims of Jihad.
After that, Mr Wilders could very profitably focus on Islam's approval and practice of Slavery; in particular, on what Islam did to Africans, for 1300 ghastly years of conquest, mass enslavement, and mass murder, right up to what happened yesterday in the Sudan. Live testimony from Sudanese Christian fugitives from jihad and escaped slaves...there are a lot of them who have fled through Egypt to Israel, and might be allowed to speak, or perhaps even to narrate the whole thing.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 2, 2008 12:30 AM
Great idea! That's the way to respond to all the bullying and browbeating he's likely to take from the ummah and the EU dhimma. In fact, he should make several of these movies, and keep doing that until they get the message that their blackmail tactics are going nowhere.
Suggestion for Wilders - call it 'Shirk' - or Disbelief, and avoid using the Danish cartoons in it. Also, there are several more verses than the ones cited in Fitnah - should zero in on those.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 2, 2008 12:33 AM
How about it Hollywood? Are you going to let an amateur "right-wing" movie-maker from Holland make all the relevant films? Don't you think you could take a break from tearing down Western society to help Geert Wilders protect free speech? Or maybe, like Wilders, you could even make a few films that tell the honest truth about historical events in the Islamic world--you know, just as a change of pace? There's plenty of authentic documentation. Just come to JW/DW for the straight skinny.
at July 2, 2008 12:39 AM
Bet the Hollywood Reporter would never refer to a "Left-wing Dutch politician." Oh yeah, the double standard is huge and points to the fact that the sensible portion of what's left of the Western world is up against the double whammy of assault by Islamic totalitarianism and liberal foolhardiness.
Posted by: Wellington at July 2, 2008 12:40 AM
What about Fitna was "anti-Muslim"?
Posted by: emet-veritas at July 2, 2008 12:59 AM
How does one go about supporting Mr. Wilders ?
Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 2, 2008 1:04 AM
Good for him. We all need to support Geert Wilders in whatever way we can.
Posted by: Eastview at July 2, 2008 1:19 AM
The truth is becoming illegal.
Posted by: Infidel One at July 2, 2008 1:28 AM
Here's the Organization of the Islamic Conference's take:
http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/topic_detail.asp?t_id=1187
"... the Dutch Public Prosecutor seems to ignore the fine line of 'responsibility' separating the freedom of expression from incitement to hatred,
hostility and discrimination."
When it comes to "Islamophobia," of course, that line is blurred to insignificance.
at July 2, 2008 1:44 AM
dumbledoresarmy: Go, Geert!
Blast it, you beat me to it. :)
Yeah, Go, Geert!
Watching this space anxiously, and don't git yersilf kilt, y'hear?
Posted by: gkong3 at July 2, 2008 1:47 AM
It's interesting that full-length films, even epics, have been made about Biblical personslities, including Jesus, Abraham, Moses, and a whole slew slue of others, but nothing on Mohammad.
I would think that the life of Mohammad, if depicted honestly, would be far more interesting than the lives of many of the others, and the sex, violence and intrigue, would insure big box office receipts. On the other hand, a made-for- television movie might be better, since viewers would be at less risk in their living rooms than sitting in a crowded movie theatre.
Posted by: rational
at July 2, 2008 1:51 AM
Yes, rational, I am thinking a modern-dress production of urban gangs or even a futuristic thing like Mad Max, with Mo and his gang first stirring trouble in Macca, then moving out to rob raisins-and-leather caravans.
Posted by: kuchuklambat at July 2, 2008 2:19 AM
Actually there was a movie made about pervy Mo, called Mohammed and even had the stamp of approval by various Muslim potentates.
Read about it here(rather amusing in places):
http://everything2.com/e2node/Mohammed%253A%2520Messenger%2520of%2520God
at July 2, 2008 2:56 AM
A movie about muhammed would include all his stupid personel habits which he pronounced as ideal practices for all people. It should include his massacres of innocent tribe people. his killings of critics, his pedophilia, his taking of wives after killing their husbands, his many insane "scientific insigts", and so on.
Posted by: desidude at July 2, 2008 3:10 AM
Hopefully this one will actually be watchable instead looking like it just popped out of Microsoft Movie Maker.
Posted by: Seth Levy at July 2, 2008 3:31 AM
"the local daily De Telegraaf"
I love that, De Telegraaf being the biggest newspaper in the country.
at July 2, 2008 3:38 AM
Invictus
OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance 5
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade, 10
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate: 15
I am the captain of my soul.
at July 2, 2008 3:38 AM
Yes, focus the next film entirely on Mohammed. That should do the trick, lift the lid. The whole edifice of Islam rests on the worship and adulation of Mohammed, the biggest fraud in history.
Posted by: johndoe at July 2, 2008 3:53 AM
Why do they have to put "right wing" before his name? Is that a moonbat code word fro "Be aware!! Hater aproaching!!!"
I sugest we put "left winged socialist" before their names.
Posted by: Crusader at July 2, 2008 4:39 AM
This is music to my ears.
Geert: Keep 'em coming.
I can't wait to see the next movie.
Could we donate towards your next flick? I am all for it.
Posted by: S Perry at July 2, 2008 5:21 AM
It's interesting that full-length films, even epics, have been made about Biblical personslities, including Jesus, Abraham, Moses, and a whole slew of others, but nothing on Mohammad.
I would think that the life of Mohammad, if depicted honestly, would be far more interesting than the lives of many of the others, and the sex, violence and intrigue, would insure big box office receipts. On the other hand, a made-for- television movie might be better, since viewers would be at less risk in their living rooms than sitting in a crowded movie theatre.
Posted by: rational
Actually, there was one, called "The Message" starring Anthony Quinn, made in 1976. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/. The synopsis is:
Handsomely-mounted historical epic concerns the birth of the Islamic faith and the story of the prophet Mohammad -- who, in accordance with the tenants of Islam, is never seen or heard (any physical depiction of the prophet is considered a heinous sin within the faith). In Mecca in the 7th century, Mohammad is visited by a vision of the Angel Gabriel, who urges him to lead the people of Mecca to cast aside the 300 idols of Kaaba and instead worship the one true God. Speaking out against the corrupt political and military leaders who rule Mecca. With the help of his uncle, a brave warrior named Hamza (Anthony Quinn), Mohammad and his followers return to Mecca to liberate the city in the name of God. The Message (originally screened in the U.S. as Mohammad, Messenger of God) proved to be highly controversial during its production and initial release. Unfounded rumors had it that Mohammed would not only be depicted in the film, but that he was to be played by Charlton Heston or Peter O'Toole. This resulted in angry protests by Muslim extremists, until director Moustapha Akkad hired a staff of respected Islamic clerics as technical advisors. The Message was shot in two versions, one in English and one in Arabic (entitled Al-Ris-Alah), with different actors taking over some of the roles due to language requirements
One has to smile at the delicious thought of the panic that Muslim's must have felt at the prospect of Charlton Heston (Moses) or Peter O'Toole (Laurence of Arabia) playing Mohammad. And, of course, the fact that there was a controversy at all about such matters we have all come to expect from the Muslims.
It was one of Quinn's better movies, and his role of Hamza, I think, might have been meant to be that of Abu Bakr. In spite of the puff job it gives to Islam, it's an entertaining movie that is well worth watching, if for no other reason than to see how Muslims like to think of themselves. Most of the story will already be familiar to JW regulars.
Posted by: Eastview at July 2, 2008 5:33 AM
Interesting news from academe!
MESA has just lost its monopoly on the study of the Near East...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3177FD66-BABA-4E29-A97C-A64646B5358A
Posted by: Cornelius at July 2, 2008 5:49 AM
Geert must carry the genes of those 14-16th century sailors and exployers, boldly going where others fear to tread...
The US used to have a flag that read "Don't Tread on Me". I always liked that Flag. If I knew where to send it, I would send Gert one of these flags..
Geert...you go boy.
Posted by: pulsar182 at July 2, 2008 5:54 AM
Cornelius,
I just checked out the FrontPage link you provided. This is, indeed, good news! The Academic Council for ASMEA is absolutely stellar. The more I read about Victor Davis Hanson the more impressed I am by him (although I am having trouble grocking the implications of his being a full time farmer until age 30).
Posted by: Eastview at July 2, 2008 6:31 AM
Eastview,
Hanson is an interesting fellow, but he is not without his political shortcomings. For example, his definition of a repressive society rests exclusively on the actions of the state. Most of us here at JW know better...that much of the Islamic world is repressive in a myriad of institutions that lie outside the apparatus of the state. This of course includes the most important institution in any society - the family, where honor killing is only the most extreme and publicized form of the patriarchal repression that defines Islam.
Having said that, Hanson is a helluva historian and an enjoyable read. And yes, I share your enthusiasm about the birth of ASMEA. Our universities worship diversity, but only of the skin deep variety. True intellectual diversity has terrifying implications for faculty...the prospect that all their sacred cows may be eventually shattered. They will certainly fight tooth-and-nail to maintain the stultifying parameters of political correctness. Gratifyingly, it looks like they'll have to.
Posted by: Cornelius
at July 2, 2008 7:30 AM
Glad to hear about Geert's sequel to Fitna.
Even better than a sequel, tho, would be a regular TV series, say a 1/2 hour show each week summarizing the latest Islamic outrages: the honor-killings, the suicide-bombings, the rocket attacks on Israel, the attacks on non-Moslems, the threats against writers and film-makers, etc. All backed up by film clips of the various mullahs, imams, and Islamic spokesmen approving these evils.
at July 2, 2008 8:04 AM
Errata Sheet:
For "right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders"
Read "Dutch politician Geert Wilders"
at July 2, 2008 8:31 AM
"Jordan's justice authorities have, however, announced that they are not planning to arrest the Dutch MP. They say the decision to prosecute him was taken as a way of sending a signal to the Netherlands."
From an article today http://www.expatica.com/nl/articles/news/Jordanian-ambassador-will-not-be-summoned.html
& the game goes on & on......
at July 2, 2008 8:53 AM
Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders is planning a sequel to his anti-Muslim film "Fitna," the local daily De Telegraaf reported Tuesday.
The lead says everything you need to know about the article and, in this case, the reporter. A journalist (as opposed to a mere writer) would say: Dutch politician Geert Wilders is planning a sequel to his movie Fitna, a production that explored Islam's sacred text, the Koran.
A movie about Muhammad that cannot show him would be pointless. It renders him a god. It can also be expected to refer only to his earlier verses, where Islam is portrayed as a religion of peace. The Meccan Jews will hardly be mentioned and their fate will not be seen at all. The fate of those who signed peace treaties only to have Mohammed break them will be glossed over. Peaceful conversions will be seen, not those that occurred with a sword at the back. The women will be ignored. You won't see Mohammed marrying a six-year-old girl.
A made-for-tv movie would do more harm than good. It would spread the lie about Islam - its purported benevolence and tolerance, not the truth of its malevolence, intolerance and outright bigotry. There would be no sponsors otherwise.
If a serious documentary or biographical movie is planned and Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad" is considered too partisan a source, I would suggest Washington Irving's "Life of Mohammed".
at July 2, 2008 9:02 AM
"Anti-Muslim" film? Hardly. More accurately, a short film showing how intolerance found in the Qur'an is acted upon by some Muslims.
It is irrefutably true, unfortunately.
Posted by: awake at July 2, 2008 9:14 AM
w00t w00t!
Posted by: kyros at July 2, 2008 9:25 AM
"...decided not to prosecute him for inciting hatred of Muslims with his film denouncing the Koran."
Muslims do the "inciting hatred" of them themselves. And they do a bang-up job. Pun intended.
To blame someone else for the world's dislike of and disdain for Muslims is disingenuous, fraudulent and phony in the extreme.
at July 2, 2008 9:31 AM
A made-for-tv movie would do more harm than good. It would spread the lie about Islam - its purported benevolence and tolerance, not the truth of its malevolence, intolerance and outright bigotry. There would be no sponsors otherwise.--PMK
Yeah, I hope it doesn't happen. It would be a big stinking pile of PC doggie-doo lies. I wouldn't be able to watch it because I'd get physically sick. I can just see on the credits, Consultants: Karen Armstrong and John Esposito.
Posted by: darcy at July 2, 2008 9:36 AM
How does one "incite hatred" by quoting the Qur'an?
Is it safe to say that anyone who cites the Bible against the Christians is "inciting hatred" ?
Posted by: Crusader at July 2, 2008 9:40 AM
What about Fitna was "anti-Muslim"?
Posted by: emet-veritas at July 2, 2008 12:59 AM
Only that an Infidel dared to show the truth about Islam. Dared to suggest it's not good, in fact, that it's evil, which it is. Using the Koran's own verses, and actual images of violent, murdering, and decidedly un-peaceful Mohammedans.
There's a reason to this old proverb, "The Truth-Teller must always have one foot in the stirrup."
There's a reason to Hans Christian's Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes," - The Truth-Teller often pays with his life for telling the truth. In the original, the little boy who dares to say "But, he doesn't have on any clothes," is pounced on by the townspeople and killed. IOW, humans can stand anything but the truth.
In current versions the theme is mutilated by sugar-coating the story. The boy gets off scot-free, and the Emperor even has an epiphanic moment in which he realizes he IS naked.
Yeah, right.
Truth-Teller Theo Van Gogh. Killed. Enoch Powell - was killed emotionally and career-wise by predicting Londonistan, which has indeed come to pass. Pim Fortuyn - killed.
Current Truth-Tellers such as RS, Wafa Sultan, Salman Rushdie, Hirsi Ali etc must hide for fear of their lives.
Anyone else have observations about the Truth-Teller in society?
Posted by: darcy at July 2, 2008 9:56 AM
Go for it Gaert.
To hear the jihadi bastards seethe is like music to one's ears.
The best jihadi is a dead one.
And the Dems ?
They should be ashamed to call the West home.
(these bastards should move to some muslim hole where they can be lost to posterity amongst their bretherin)
at July 2, 2008 9:57 AM
A Jordanian prosecutor can't charge Dutch politician Geert Wilders with blasphemy and contempt of Muslims for producing Fitna in a European nation.
Wilders can't be ordered to stand trial in the kingdom of Jordan for an action that he took in the Netherlands.
The legal system in the Netherlands won't ever allow a prosecutor in Jordan to enforce Islamic laws inside their own borders.
Islamic laws in one country ( kingdom of Jordan ) are not legally binding or enforceable in another.
The Jordanian prosecutor has been spending too much time outside in that hot Jordanian desert sun!
It is time for him to cool off.
at July 2, 2008 9:58 AM
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." -Mark Twain
Posted by: darcy at July 2, 2008 10:11 AM
Way off topic - update on Armanious murder trial:
300-year sentenceLEWISTON - A former Lewiston man was sentenced to 300 years in prison Monday for the 2005 murders of a couple and their two children in New Jersey.Edward McDonald, 28, was sent to prison after he was convicted in the January 2005 killings in which an Egyptian couple and their two young daughters were bound, gagged and stabbed.
Killed in what was described as a robbery gone out of control were Hossam Armanious, 47, his wife Amal Garas, 37, and their two daughters, ages 16 and 9
snip
Sanchez is scheduled to stand trial in September.
at July 2, 2008 10:39 AM
The truth is becoming illegal.
Good slogan, bumper stickers....billboards.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at July 2, 2008 10:40 AM
From HonestReporting:
At the time of writing, more details are emerging on today's (Tuesday July 2) terror attack on Jerusalem's busy Jaffa Street thoroughfare. A Palestinian resident of Jerusalem went on the rampage in a bulldozer, attacking two buses, a number of cars and innocent passers-by, killing at least three people and wounding dozens more before being shot by an Israeli policeman.Posted by: heroyalwhynessWhile BBC Online currently covers the story "Bulldozer rampage hits Jerusalem," this was not the original headline. Offering a glimpse into the BBC's warped journalism, the initial headline read
"Israel bulldozer driver shot dead".
at July 2, 2008 11:10 AM
woops . . .wrong thread.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at July 2, 2008 11:13 AM
"... the Dutch Public Prosecutor seems to ignore the fine line of 'responsibility' separating the freedom of expression from incitement to hatred,
hostility and discrimination."
-posted above
Exactly when was incitement to violence, a valid curb on free speech, reduced to incitement to hatred?
If incitement to hatred is a crime then Jordan needs to indict 99.44% of all imams. Anyone and everyone who recites the Koran commits a crime.
If they say, no we meant incitement to violence, that doesn't let them off the hook. (Kill the Jews, wherever you find them!)
Any imam who has issued a fatwa allowing for the murder of an infidel, another Muslim or an apostate is guilty of this crime. All who condone such acts are guilty as well. All those people on the West Bank who cheered 9/11 are to be indicted, Jordan.
Jordan has way too many cases, in the Arab world alone, to get to before it worries about Geert Wilders.
at July 2, 2008 11:32 AM
These "hate speech" actions can work both ways. I have been wondering when Geert, or someone like him, will launch a "incitement to violence" or "hate speech" legal action against the publishers of the Koran in Europe.
This would be an immense propaganda tool in bringing the violent koran passages into public light.
Posted by: madijihadi at July 2, 2008 12:31 PM
PMK: "The Meccan Jews will hardly be mentioned and their fate will not be seen at all."
I don't know that I've ever read a single reference in the Ahadith and Sira to Jews in Mecca. The tragic fate of the Jews in Medina is what figures so prominently in the life of Muhammad.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 2, 2008 1:02 PM
Geert is the Churchill of the 1930's.
Posted by: Ruebacca at July 2, 2008 1:05 PM
hay does anyone know why the oic shows a christen magority muslim minority country in south ammirica as a member of the oic
Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME at July 2, 2008 2:08 PM
One Geert. Any Army of These:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1019364000362&subj=1172059648
http://www.islamictube.net/watch/06a5846541997511989d/Three-POWER-Principles-of-Filmmaking-(Message-Mastery!)
at July 2, 2008 2:19 PM
Message Mastery for the Da'wa:
Posted by: Infidel's Delight at July 2, 2008 2:23 PM
south ammirica??? Where's that? Does your computer have a spell checker? They help a lot. I would be dead in the water without one. I'm always in hot water, but thanks to the spell checker, I'm not dead yet... :)
Posted by: duh_swami at July 2, 2008 2:26 PM
The OIC is frustrated the Netherlands won't charge Geert Wilders. Is that the Wahmbulance I hear?
Increasingly, more folks are becoming aware of the contradictions and outright deceit behind the Quran. Including forums for Muslim "reverts."
Posted by: desert dweller at July 2, 2008 2:38 PM
A movie about Muhammad that cannot show him would be pointless. It renders him a god. It can also be expected to refer only to his earlier verses, where Islam is portrayed as a religion of peace. The Meccan Jews will hardly be mentioned and their fate will not be seen at all. The fate of those who signed peace treaties only to have Mohammed break them will be glossed over. Peaceful conversions will be seen, not those that occurred with a sword at the back. The women will be ignored. You won't see Mohammed marrying a six-year-old girl.
Posted by: PMK
PMK, that's an excellent summary of the posture that's actually taken in the movie "The Message" I posted about above. It's a Muslim version of the DeMille epics designed to appeal to the faithful and make them feel good about themselves (could we expect otherwise?). That said, the movie is still worth seeing because it provides a glimpse into the minds of Muslims and the myths they operate by.
Posted by: Eastview at July 2, 2008 2:41 PM
'The Life of Mohammad', a musical comedy, Mel brooks style, starring Jerry Seinfeld as Mohammad. Wait till you hear Jerry sing 'Love Me Tender' to Aisha, played by Amy Winehouse...Jason Alexander would be Back as Ali.
A cameo role as Abu Bakr goes to Dick Cheney.
Mohammads twelve or so other wives, and slave girls, other than Aisha, are played by Britany Spears.
Hulk hogan stars as Umar, with a stunningly funny Hamza, played by 'The Rock'....All in all a fun movie...I don't think muslims would like it much, but I would...
at July 2, 2008 3:28 PM
Cornelius,
You're right about the Jews. I got my M and Ms mixed up.
at July 2, 2008 3:34 PM
How do I send a cheque to Wilders? This is great news! Another expose on the green slimes.
Posted by: IndianTiger at July 2, 2008 3:40 PM
Eastview,
I don't doubt that "The Message" is worth watching. The danger is that it would be viewed as the definitive movie about Mohammed, against which all others must measure up and to which all subsequent movies will be compared.
The idea that he cannot even be seen on screen is another puzzler. He's a prophet, isn't he? All the other prophets can be seen in pictures, even Jesus Christ. I thought Mohammed was a man, that Muslims' big argument is that he isn't a god but here they are treating him like one.
at July 2, 2008 3:42 PM
I've been trying to post to this thread, but I keep getting the "first time you post" message. If this goes through, I'll attempt to edit the previous post down to the bones.
Posted by: skevin at July 2, 2008 5:21 PM
On March 9th, 1977 a group of Hanafi Black Muslims took hostages at the B’nai B’rith building in Washington DC to protest the film, “The Message”, starring Anthony Quinn Joni Mitchell wrote a song for “Don Juan’s Reckless Daughter” called “Otis and Marlena” that refers to the incident.
Blurb about the event from Joni’s website here:
http://www.jonimitchell.com/research/g_entry.cfm?id=28
Full lyrics here:
http://www.jonimitchell.com/musician/song.cfm?id=OtisAndMarlena
I’ve yet to see the flick on cable.
at July 2, 2008 5:25 PM
Whoops. Left out a period between "Quinn" & "Joni".
Posted by: skevin at July 2, 2008 5:27 PM
Amazon has a 30th anniversary edition of The Message, including a forty-minute documentary about Arab storytelling. Irony of ironies: the filmmaker was killed in a terrorist bombing in Jordan in 2005.
Posted by: PMK at July 2, 2008 5:58 PM
Irony of ironies: the filmmaker was killed in a terrorist bombing in Jordan in 2005.
Posted by: PMK at July 2, 2008 5:58 PM
This world is never, ever, lacking in irony.
Posted by: darcy at July 2, 2008 6:08 PM
For example, my favorite Joni Mitchell album is "Hejira."
"Hejira" means the journey of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina.
Oh, the huge, colossal, enormous, irony.
Posted by: darcy at July 2, 2008 6:12 PM
PMK,that is, indeed, ironic! The subject of movies depicting the clash between Islam and the West came up in another thread a few weeks ago, in particular whether it would even be possible in today's PC climate to produce equivalents to such classics as El Cid. It was agreed that the recent "Gates of Heaven" about Saladin's recapture of Jerusalem in 1187, although spectacularly produced, was a puff piece that gave Saladin a pass while unfairly demonizing the Knights Templar defenders.
There are quite a number of epic battles involving invading Muslim hordes that fairly cry out for movies - if a film maker could be found who is brave enough to make them. These would include the Battle of Kosovo (1389), Constantinople (1453), the Siege of Malta (1565), the Siege of Vienna (1683), maybe even Decatur's battles with the Barbary Pirates (could take on the subject of slavery under Islam). Even more spectacular epics could probably be made about battles fought during the thousand-year Muslim onslaught in India.
What film maker is brave enough to tackle these subjects honestly? It's probably not possible in Hollywood or Pinewood Studies, but what about some enterprising producer/directer in Japan, or in Bollywood?
Posted by: Eastview at July 2, 2008 6:36 PM
The move comes after the Dutch Ministry of Justice on Monday decided not to prosecute him for inciting hatred of Muslims with his film denouncing the Koran.
--
Interesting choice of words. Sounds more like "Der stürmer" than anything else.
To set the record straight, Geert Wilders was spreading KNOWLEDGE about how the written word inside the KKKoran causes moslmes to behave in the many disgusting and murderous ways they do each and every day.
To that end he juxtaposed the actions of moslems captured by camera with the words of the KKKorag.
You could say that sh*t was straight out of Compton.
I am glad hew has a new film coming out.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 2, 2008 6:43 PM
A few of the people posting here have commented on the articles typifying Wilders film as anti-muslim.
I think that line could be explored further.
In an extreme method would an expose of Naziism be considered anti-german?
In a milder vein would an expose of Evangelicals be considered anti-christian?
Now Evangelicals are well known for their animus to the homosexual lobby, but no evangelical that I have ever met has called for the deaths of homosexuals just for their peculiar bent.
Sure they (evangelicals) have lobbied for not attaching the term marriage to homosexual unions, they have supported the boy scouts ban on homosexual scout leaders, they have other issues where they make their views known about the controversy but they have never as far as I have seen called for remorseless violence.
Even the worst examples of intolerance seem to have a rein on their passions against those whose ideas of love only go so far as to extend to those most physically like themselves.
But Nazis in the literature and the history are not in that vein, a Jew would not be saved by converting to another religion, or renouncing all religions. A Jew would not be safe by marrying a pure German woman, nor would he be safe if he were to join the army or cheer the loudest for Hitlers speeches.
Now the anti Islam tenor of Wilders seems to me to be less about an intractable hatred of mainly arab people, but more about a heightened concern of the tenets and doctrines of Islam which are pretty clear in their aims and intents.
Wilders thus in my opinion is more concerned with an ideology than with a group of people.
Wilders is not agitating for the annihilation of Muslims, he is not calling for burning out the homes and murderring the inhabitants. He is instead calling attention to an ideology that combines political and religious elements that have within them a history of evil against all people.
Posted by: stickman at July 2, 2008 7:03 PM
Yes! A follow up film – perhaps including Mo himself, including some of his disgusting quirks at least one of which should be given more press:
Muhammad hated dogs! .
Don’t underestimate this; there are a lot of dog lovers in the West and they should be alerted to Islam’s hostility to dogs.
The fact is that dogs are considered "unclean" animals in Islam and Muslims are forbidden to keep them as pets (for herding or hunting maybe but not pets). All black dogs should be destroyed (http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/dogs.htm ).
The Islamic population is growing with clout, and one can see anti-dog nonsense starting up in Britain:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030798/Muslim-outrage-police-advert-featuring-cute-puppy-sitting-policemans-hat.html
Shame on the Tayside Police for apologizing.
at July 2, 2008 7:35 PM
hay does anyone know why the oic shows a christen magority muslim minority country in south ammirica as a member of the oic
Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME
I guess you're referring to Surinam, which my almanac lists as 20% Moslem. It's listed for the same reason that Gabon - 4%, Togo - 15%, Mozambique - 11%, and Cameroon - 22% are listed; namely to swell the ranks of the OIC, and make it look more important. My list is far from complete; several other countries that are only 20% Moslem or less are listed among the OIC.
at July 2, 2008 9:43 PM
ebonystone,
You've explained why the oic would want to include even majority non-muslim countries in their ranks. But exactly why such countries would accept, or even seek, membership in the oic remains unanswered. Are they being bribed? Possibly, since those 5 countries you listed are quite poor. Or did their muslim minorities demand that the governments join the oic or else face civil unrest?
Posted by: sheik yer booty at July 2, 2008 11:00 PM
Anyone who wants to help fund Geert Wilders:
I've already sent my contribution. Geert is one of the only true heros in this weak, Islam-pandering nanny zone we call Europe.
God bless Geert Wilders and all who support him!
at July 3, 2008 5:23 AM
Rational wrote:
It's interesting that full-length films, even epics, have been made about Biblical personslities, including Jesus, Abraham, Moses, and a whole slew slue of others, but nothing on Mohammad.
.........................
Several people have mentioned Mustapha Akkad's 1976 film, "Mohammed, the Messenger of God" (released in the US as "The Message"). Akkad was best known for the "Halloween" movies, so he had already made films about a crazed mass killer.
Actually, though the film was pretty hagiographical, and awkwardly never directly shows Mo at all, in accordance with the ban on depicting his image. Even though Akkad got the approval of any number of Imams, he was still beset with death threats--what a surprise!
There was both a Western version, which featured Anthony Quinn and Irene Papas, among others, and an Arabic version. Apparently the two versions are quite different--it is more than just a matter of language. I'm sure, given the Muslim habit of offering vastly different messages to Muslim and non-Muslim audiences, that the differences are probably quite interesting from the point of view of us Infidels.
Akkad was never able to put together enough funding for his next project, a film about the crusades. Here is a quote from him:
"Saladin exactly portrays Islam. Right now, Islam is portrayed as a terrorist religion. Because a few terrorists are Muslims, the whole religion has that image. If there ever was a religious war full of terror, it was the Crusades. But you can't blame Christianity because a few adventurers did this. That's my message. ”
Akkad said this in 1977--over thirty years ago. In the years since, we've seen the murder of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro, the bombing of the Khobar towers, the attack on the USS Cole, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, 9/11, the Bali nightclub bombing, the Madrid train bombings, the London Tube bombings, and thousands of other terrorist attacks, and yet the rhetoric has not changed one whit.
Ironically--or perhaps not so ironically--Akkad and his daughter Rima were killed in the 2005 Amman bombings, which targeted a wedding at the Hyatt.
Posted by: gravenimage at July 3, 2008 3:59 PM
Akkad was never able to put together enough funding for his next project, a film about the crusades. Here is a quote from him:
"Saladin exactly portrays Islam. Right now, Islam is portrayed as a terrorist religion. Because a few terrorists are Muslims, the whole religion has that image. If there ever was a religious war full of terror, it was the Crusades. But you can't blame Christianity because a few adventurers did this. That's my message. ”
Posted by: gravenimage
Thank you for this info about Akkad. I had not realized he was also the producer of the "Halloween" movies. It is ironic that he was murdered by the very people he so evidently identified with and was intent on defending. If he had lived and succeeded in producing a movie about the Crusades, as he apparently intended, it almost certainly would have focused on gruesome Crusader atrocities among the "peaceful" Muslim occupiers of the Holy Land.
Posted by: Eastview at July 5, 2008 2:36 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)