| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
It's no surprise that no spine would be found in such quarters. It is a bit of a surprise that the usually reliable Washington Times would headline this article "Dutch TV stations refuse anti-Muslim film." If the film -- which I have not seen -- vilifies Muslims, then such a headline would be justified. But if it does what Wilders says it's going to do -- illustrate quotations of the Qur'an with scenes of Muslims acting upon them by committing violence, then how is that "anti-Muslim"? If Muslims commit violence and justify it by reference to the Qur'an, as they do on a more or less daily basis, why is it "anti-Muslim" to call attention to this?
This is, of course, the same kind of witlessness that in Britain has led Jacqui Smith to label Islamic terrorism "anti-Islamic activity." The assumption -- unproven though taken for granted everywhere -- is that those who commit violence in the name of the Qur'an must be misusing it. Hence they themselves are "anti-Muslim," as are those who report on their misuse.
But in fact, reality is not pro- or anti- anything. It just is what it is.
By Leander Schaerlaeckens in the Washington Times:
BRUSSELS — Private and public television stations have refused to air the anti-Muslim film "Fitna" by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, fearing a violent backlash that prompted the government to raise its terror threat level yesterday."I had hoped that a television broadcaster would say: 'You have the right to do this, we will give you a podium'," he told Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad.
[...]
A local newspaper reported Monday that the Dutch government is considering banning the film on the grounds of national security.
The government is reluctant to set a precedent against freedom of expression, but is worried about a violent backlash and economic repercussions.
The film has provoked official condemnations from Iran, Bangladesh and Pakistan and sparked several demonstrations in Afghanistan.
The Taliban announced on its Web site that it will not tolerate the "Crusader war" waged through "Fitna" and the reprinted Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
The cartoons, first printed in September 2005, sparked global riots in which more than 100 people died.
In Afghanistan, protesters demanded that Danish and Dutch NATO troops withdraw from their country, Reuters news agency reported.
Mr. Wilders is defiant against pleas from Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who asked him to reconsider releasing his film. He responded that Mr. Balkenende was a "weak leader" and spineless for refusing to stand for freedom of expression.
Indeed he is, and he and Sarkozy and the lot of them should have the decency to resign. But of course there is no one on the horizon in Europe, except Wilders himself, who would chart a course that would be any different.
Posted by Robert at March 7, 2008 4:29 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
At what point does a government or a government-backed institution such as public broadcasting lose legitimacy?
It appears as though Wilders is giving his government every opportunity to maintain its legitimacy, and he is an honorable man.
If his government continues to fail in its duties, this episode will be part of the bill of particulars detailing the impetus to restore legitimate government to power in his and other countries.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 7, 2008 4:48 PM
The strong stand alone.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 7, 2008 4:51 PM
at March 7, 2008 4:54 PM
Thank you interestinconundrum. The url has been saved
Posted by: old fogey at March 7, 2008 5:10 PM
Thank you interestinconundrum. The url has been saved.
Posted by: old fogey at March 7, 2008 5:12 PM
Wilders is brave. I hope he doesn't meet the same fate as Pym Fortuyn (and I know HE was killed by some dhimmi).
I fear islam, but I utterly despise these idiots who proclaim their tolerance and denounce the "bigotry" of people like Wilders whereas in reality they are just spineless cowards.
I'd like to think they will be the first to get screwed by islam. But they won't be. When things get too bad, they'll be able to move to a non muslim country if they need to. They'll have the money to do that.
Posted by: Celsius at March 7, 2008 5:32 PM
But in fact, reality is not pro- or anti- anything. It just is what it is.
From the American Heritage dictonary: "anti-" means "opposing, against".
I'm against beheading. Aren't you?
at March 7, 2008 5:55 PM
EU-nuch Theory:
Let's prevent any criticism of people who will kill you if you criticize them.
Worked for the Mafia.
Will work for Islam, the new Mob.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 7, 2008 6:01 PM
Rumors are that the Dutch government is already aware of the exact content of the film, since Wilders' phone and data traffic are allegedly being monitored by the Dutch national spy agency AIVD.
Also Wilders' bodyguards are on AIVD payroll.
at March 7, 2008 6:55 PM
Cowards Cowards COWARDS!
My contempt for these Dutch dhimmi fools knows no bounds.
Posted by: darcy at March 7, 2008 7:46 PM
Wilders is of the same ilk as those in the Dutch resistance who printed all kinds of mean things about the Nazis and got innocent Dutchmen tortured and killed. Selfish, Selfish.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 7, 2008 7:55 PM
So the movie will spread via the Internet. So what else is new? Isn't that the last frontier for patriots and freedom fighters anyway? And who will the Muslims blame when we see the movie, pulling the rock back and shining some light on their dirty-deeds-done-dirt-cheap?
Muslims are angry. Muslims demand this. Then they demand that. They don't want to play nice. They don't want to share. They take other peoples' toys, lands, lives. Who do they remind us of?
Time to play the movie and stand by to spank any misbehavin' Muslims and put them all to bed, once and for all.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 7, 2008 8:05 PM
Well I will boycott Denmark..
Posted by: GrennBeck at March 7, 2008 8:42 PM
Cantor,
I know from experience that you are a relentless and indefatigable fault-finder, but does even basic reading comprehension ever enter in?
Let's try again. Read slowly, now. This is what I said:
But in fact, reality is not pro- or anti- anything. It just is what it is.
To which you responded:
From the American Heritage dictonary: "anti-" means "opposing, against".I'm against beheading. Aren't you?
Now, any fair-minded person would understand that my statement above is not, as you took it, an abdication of all moral judgments. Here again, you seem to think, as you have in the past, that I would lightly and casually contradict the import of all my work for years now.
It might be more likely, and more charitable, for you to consider that maybe what I meant was that reality has a certain character, that A is A, that existence exists. If the Qur'an teaches violence against unbelievers, it is not an act of hatred for Muslims to point that out. It is simply a matter of fact.
Now once that is established, one may evaluate that fact in different ways. One may think that fact is a good thing, like Osama bin Laden. Or one may think that fact is a bad thing, like me. But these judgments do not inhere in the fact itself.
You are an irritant, a poor thinker, and an unfair judge. I have banned you several times, and probably will soon do it again.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 7, 2008 9:07 PM
Robert,
I'm with you. I totally believe that A is A and that existence exists. And like a lot of things, reality is what it is. It's like if someone you have feelings for doesn't like you or if you have a business deal that goes south because somebody else made a better offer than you did and there's nothing you can do about it, it is what it is. I tell my kids that all the time.
Look at how much ground the Muslims have gained since I started posting here four years ago. You warned us and while we've been getting the word out, Sharia creep has been moving right along. But I think people always end up taking a stand when they figure out what is worth dying for. And I think nit-noid comments make our already difficult work-a-day lives and night time freedom fightin' activities that much more tedious and taxing.
Just so you know, there are a lot of us here who very much appreciate what you do and are grateful that you keep doing it. We love you and think you are very smart and totally get what you say. I don't know why some people don't.
Have a really good, jazz filled weekend. ; )
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 7, 2008 10:10 PM
The Netherlands was an outpost of tolerance in past centuries, but no more. It has bowed to the whims of Islamists who have no genuine interest in civil liberties or tolerance, but simply wish to quash all criticism of their religion of Islam. When in recent years has Christianity or Judaism gotten such a free pass? Also, when has Islam ever refrained from referring to Christians or Jews in the most degrading terms in its mainstream thought? If you have any doubts, just look at the archives of MEMRI or other translated sources. It goes on this very minute.
Posted by: Worry01 at March 7, 2008 11:05 PM
"If the Qur'an teaches violence against unbelievers, it is not an act of hatred for Muslims to point that out. It is simply a matter of fact."
How many Muslims follow the Qur'an? A minority or a majority? Is it not rational to hate them for doing so?
Rather than tilting against an abstraction, Islam, it is more concrete to condemn those human agents who actually concretize that abstraction -- the hundreds of millions of Muslims how are either implementing the evil proscriptions and prescriptions of the Koran (not to mention the Sunnah), or those others who are either actively or passively enabling that evil.
I think Geert Wilders is "anti-" the Muslims who follow Islam -- for he is "anti-" Islam. How could he not be against the Muslims who follow Islam then? And how can we tell which Muslims among the 1.2 billion do not follow Islam? Should we even try to discern the differnce? Is it our problem?
What does your distinction mean, if it is not trivial?
Posted by: cantor at March 7, 2008 11:35 PM
Never one to heed direct warnings, cantor said:
Rather than tilting against an abstraction [...] What does your distinction mean, if it is not trivial?
It brings to mind another tilter and his personal quest to save the fair maiden and uphold chivalry. Ride on, Don Quixote, ride on!
Posted by: special_guest at March 8, 2008 1:18 AM
"Rather than tilting against an abstraction, Islam, it is more concrete to condemn those human agents who actually concretize that abstraction -- the hundreds of millions of Muslims..." -- Cantor
Cantor,
I have no knowledge of any history between you and Robert as I've not seen any public disagreements until now.
Quite apart from any of that, I take issue with your preference for condemning Muslims over condemning Islam. Yes, Islam is an abstraction, but it is the inspiration and prime mover. Muslims are mere followers. Yes they "concretize" Islam through actions, but without primative and unquestioned Islam they fall away like leaves in October and have no foundation.
Our job, in my view, is to: 1) Crush the active jihadists and defend Non-muslims from militant Muslims (something you yourself agreed to in another thread a couple of weeks ago).
2) Subject Islam itself to a thorough and brutally honest examination as to why it inspires such violence and hatred from millions of its most committed followers [imo, Robert does a remarkably effective job in this most dangerous and thankless task]. Truth is powerful. Emerging truths about Islam, once out in the open, cannot easily be suppressed, denied, ignored, or erased. At least in the Non-islamic world. The Non-islamic world is our first concern.
Now I'm out of time unfortunately, but other approaches are also effective. I don't think blanket condemnations of a billion Muslims help.
As for how Wilders could be against Islam but not be against Muslims, isn't the Christian ideal of "Love the Sinners, Hate the Sin" applicable? You don't have to be Christian to see how that might applly to Islam and Muslims. Muslims are redeemable, Islam probably isn't.
What do others think?
Posted by: alexon at March 8, 2008 1:41 AM
Or, maybe better put as Humans are redeemable, Islam (probably) isn't.
Posted by: alexon at March 8, 2008 1:48 AM
"It brings to mind another tilter and his personal quest to save the fair maiden and uphold chivalry. Ride on, Don Quixote, ride on!" s_g
I'm not sure you were suggesting this s_g but I don't think Robert is quixotic at all.
Posted by: alexon at March 8, 2008 1:58 AM
cantor
You and Robert are obviously talking at cross purposes. The question at hand is whether pointing out the virulent contents of the Qur'an is an act of hatred (be it of Islam or Muslims) in and of itself, not whether that hatred itself is or isn't rational. I'm myself of the opinion that it's not irrational to loathe Muslims (I certainly do), but if somebody isn't addressing that topic, whatever the reason, you aren't doing a service by forcing him to do it, particularly when it's not essential to the momentary task at hand.
Had Robert stated that it's wrong to hate Muslims/Islam, or wish for Islam to disappear as a school of thought in respectible circles, you might have an argument here. But when that's not what's being asserted, why be the one to press it?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 8, 2008 2:03 AM
alexon
I think special_guest was referring to cantor - hence the equinine reference here
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 8, 2008 2:06 AM
Oops, make that equine
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 8, 2008 2:08 AM
Cantor,
That's not what I asked. You are shifting the argument. You took issue with my statement about the character of facts, and suggested that I have no moral problem with the evils of Sharia.
I called you out on it, and instead of answering, you brought up a separate question: whether the distinction between Muslims and Islam is legitimate.
Worth asking, and worth discussing. But are you really interested in truth here, or just in playing prosecutor? If the former, then answer my other questions first. If the latter, then go away, which, if you keep this up, you will be doing soon (again) anyway. You have consistently portrayed me as saying things I don't say and then pilloried me for saying them, and I am not of a mind to continue allowing you to do it on my nickel.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 8, 2008 2:32 AM
Cantor & Robert - what are we to make of these 2?
As a quiet and long time observer of the somewhat "testy" dynamic between Robert and Cantor, I personally think that you guys actually like each other. ((((gasp))))
Why else does Cantor keep coming back for more, and why else does Robert keep letting him back. Because you 2 are Buds, that's why. Deep down you both appreciate the others efforts, and you both support each other in your own 'sporty' way.
As I look past the complaints and the criticism of one another, I see two guys who share something in common, which is what draws you together; but please don't change, because it makes for some interesting & fun discussions. Love you guys!
Posted by: champ at March 8, 2008 3:11 AM
Champ:
Speaking for myself, no. And I think it's rather obvious at this point, from the evidence of this thread and others, that your assertions aren't true the other way either.
Why someone would spend all his time sniping on false pretenses rather than doing something positive of his own is beyond me, but then again it isn't worth spending any time pondering.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 8, 2008 3:46 AM
All this arguing about abstractions. Personally I find it a distraction & I am honest enough to say that I cannot quite follow the thread. Or is it I am just not interested in following it.
Posted by: ericthekuffar at March 8, 2008 4:13 AM
"Or, maybe better put as Humans are redeemable, Islam (probably) isn't."
Hi Alexon,
Well, I agree with the first part of your statement that humans, including Muslims, are redeemable, all the way up until their last breath. But I will state emphatically that Islam is not redeemable and should be destroyed. I don't know why this is so difficult for so many of us. The system is flawed; it was flawed from the get go and it promotes the basest and most vile forms of behavior, and rationalizes that behavior in the name of itself. Of course a system that allows men to have sex whenever they want as long as they are married and to control every aspect of the woman (women) involved and the marriage will always be appealing to our human nature. Of course a religion that allows you to steal your neighbors goods just cuz' you wanna' will appeal to that same human nature. And a religion that allows you to kill people and break things while stealing their stuff, especially their women, has got to be Nirvana for some who live on the planet.
But some people search for a higher meaning, for a transcendent experience, for true communion with God. I think that's what the human heart desires when we can quiet down enough and shut out the noise of the world to hear what the heart is saying. And therein lies the difference between Christianity and Islam, the former searching for something outside the self and denying it and the other feeding self and making it bigger and badder.
The inherent qualities of Islam make it unpalatable to the human heart. To make it palatable would be to change the nature of Islam and cause it to cease to exist. I don't see how a system that has caused untold misery for probably billions of people can be compared to one that has brought joy to billions and built the European culture that we all pine for. If what Robert says is true, that reality is, then the reality of human nature is that while we may sometimes choose the easier and more base path because it feels good now, taking the high road and not hurting others to give temporary pleasure to ourselves will in the long run, feed our hungry hearts. Since Islam does the exact opposite, since it destroys rather than creates, feeds, promotes or protects, and since it does this at the expense of its victims, i.e., people who live on this earth, I think its a no brainer that we need to get rid of it. 1400 years of evidence that it does not play nice with the other children is enough.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 8, 2008 6:54 AM
I believe somewhere in the Bible...apologies for not citing chapter and verse....God says 'you neither love nor hate and thus I vomit you out'. I think one can grasp the gist of that. There are times when it is necessary to hate the hateful. Our present zeitgeist has rendered all hate taboo and even punishable by law. We are weakened by this aversion to righteous hatred, constantly pushing the peace and love handed down from the 60s and ersatz holy men like Ghandhi. This approach is seriously inappropriate, misguided and downright dangerous in the face of Islamic jihad. So let's get back to hating. This will give us the energy and will to defend truth and freedom. Wilders is not afraid to hate nobly and advertise the fact.
Posted by: johndoe at March 8, 2008 8:40 AM
believe somewhere in the Bible...apologies for not citing chapter and verse....God says 'you neither love nor hate and thus I vomit you out'. I think one can grasp the gist of that. There are times when it is necessary to hate the hateful. Our present zeitgeist has rendered all hate taboo and even punishable by law. We are weakened by this aversion to righteous hatred, constantly pushing the peace and love handed down from the 60s and ersatz holy men like Ghandhi. This approach is seriously inappropriate, misguided and downright dangerous in the face of Islamic jihad. So let's get back to hating. This will give us the energy and will to defend truth and freedom. Wilders is not afraid to hate nobly and advertise the fact.
Posted by: johndoe at March 8, 2008 8:40 AM
Great post, johndoe. Yep, I proudly hate Nazis, Naziism, KKK, Mohammedans, Islam. And for MANY good reasons. If you would like a list of those concrete reasons, just ask. Unlike PC Leftists, I don't name-call, I provide concrete reasons based on these groups' hate-filled ideologies - "Mein Kampf" and the "Koran."
at March 8, 2008 9:58 AM
alexon said
I'm not sure you were suggesting this s_g but I don't think Robert is quixotic at all.
Wow.
That is a mischaracterization worthy of ... oh, never mind.
If, on the other hand, that is an attempt at humor, my hat's off to you. Nicely done.
So. Anyways.
Where is Wilder's film?
at March 8, 2008 1:59 PM
Robert:
You are probably right - and my attempt at playing "peacemaker" was obviously a failure at best. I was simply trying to lighten things up between you guys, but I know that isn't going to happen. Hope I didn't offend you, because that wasn't my intention. I respect your work and wish that other's would too (hint, hint), but that is out of my control.
I do need to find the off-switch with my playfulness, because it isn't always appropriate during certain discussions both here and in my everyday life, and this was definitely an off-switch moment I should have seen coming. Sorry. I apologize for being obnoxious.
I'll get back on topic.....
Posted by: champ
at March 8, 2008 2:22 PM
Here's Pat Condell's latest, and it's a good one:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=30a_1204991129
Posted by: Sounder at March 8, 2008 6:17 PM
Very eloquently put Isabella. I agree.
To me, Islam is a cancer. Sometimes the cancer is in remission when Islam is weak and contained, but mostly it is just malignant -- a constantly threatening and often deadly tumor on Non-islamic people the world over.
We would all love to be rid of Islam, but how?? Some, like Daniel Pipes, think the cancer in/of Islam can be treated and neutralized, or contained, maybe even reformed (to mix metaphors). I do hope they are right but I have grave doubts that it's possible (especially the hope for reform).
On the other hand, the prospect of unending war with Islam is even more bleak. Expulsion of Muslims, at the very least any of whom which show signs of militancy or sedition, from Non-muslim lands, is another possibility. Plus a halt to Muslim immigration (and welfare payments to those already here) could be the right self-defensive and civilization-preserving policies. They are Draconian measures, but so is the violence and aggression against us. It may well come to this.
But then so too would probably come uncivil war between political left and right which might leave us even more weakened and open to Islamic subjugation. This is why we need to reach out, convince, cajole, compromise (yes, even that), and gather together the largest possible alliance/coalition to resist and turn back Islamic supremacy and expansion. The goal being not to destroy Islam (not a realistic prospect) but rather to boot it out of Non-muslim lands. A Draconian but possible option. Things will need to get a lot worse though before such actions are considered, and there's the rub. By then it may be too late. Hopefully not.
Posted by: alexon at March 9, 2008 4:59 AM
Thanks for the link to Pat Condell's latest Sounder!
Another Slam Dunk! I don't agree with everything he says but he gets a LOT more right than he gets wrong. I think he is very effective. Go Pat Go!
Posted by: alexon at March 9, 2008 5:07 AM
hi s_g, I definitely wasn't trying to mischaracterize anything you said. Since Cantor himself was almost certainly alluding to Don Quixote by his use of "tilting" I thought maybe you were playing on that characterization by saying in essence, "Yes, Robert is a gallant knight defending all that is good and true; Ride On Robert, Ride On".
Which would also suggest that Robert is quixotic and all that entails. Oh nevermind, it doesn't matter. I think Cantor's been banned again.
And where is that Wilder's film. I think we would all like to see it appear soon, and widely.
Posted by: alexon at March 9, 2008 5:26 AM
Alexon:
Cantor has not yet been banned again. But apparently, in what is perhaps not a surprising move in light of his his mean-spiritedness and "Gotcha!" mentality, he has withdrawn when called out on what he is doing.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 9, 2008 6:42 PM
To Isabelthecrusader and Johndoe:
You each have made postings above which I think are brilliant. Thank you.
Generally, to get back to "Fitna", did any of us really expect any Dutch TV station (or any station world-wide) to air this movie? Does Wilders? I think the real benefit of the movie is that it has highlighted just how well "strike terror into the hearts of your enemies" really works.
Ridiculously, instead of praising Wilders for his courage, the "lefties" are accusing him of all sorts of vile ulterior motives. They don't even realize their comments are generated out of cowardice.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Xerxes at March 10, 2008 11:03 AM
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.)