Well, here we go. Geert Wilders has released his anti-Koran film "Fitna" on the Internet. You can watch it here. Warning: there are some very strong images of burned and mutilated bodies, victims of Islamic terror attacks. And there is a very brief audio moment from a video Islamist terrorists in Iraq released, in which they cut the head off a Western hostage. I do not recommend this film if you are sensitive.
The film does not feature desecration of the Koran. Repeat, does not.
What it does is feature passages from the Koran urging violence against non-Muslims, interspersed with video footage of terror attacks, as well as imams and other Muslims urging savage attacks on infidels and Westerners. It is crude propaganda, but very effective, I'd say. Wilders doesn't have to make this stuff up, unfortunately. At the end, his message (directed to the Dutch, and more broadly to the Europeans) is: "Stop the Islamisation." He explicitly says Muslims want to take over Europe and impose their own laws and customs on liberal democratic societies of the West. This film is intended as a wake-up call to Europeans to defend themselves and their civilization.
Here's the text of a Radio Netherlands news dispatch:
Anti-Qur'an film Fitna goes online Published: Thursday 27 March 2008 19:28 UTC Last updated: Thursday 27 March 2008 20:03 UTCThe Hague - Dutch politician Geert Wilders has released his anti-Qur'an film, Fitna, on the internet. The website of his Party for Freedom (www.pvv.nl) contains a link to the site where the film, which lasts approximately 16 minutes, can be seen.
Before it begins, viewers are warned that they may see shocking images; these include pictures of the terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London. Fitna also contains fragments of interviews with the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, translations of verses from the Qur'an, newspaper headlines about death threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and quotes from sermons delivered by orthodox imams. It also notes that the number of Muslims living in the Netherlands has risen from 54,000 to 944,000 over the last hundred years.
Towards the end, a hand is shown grabbing a page of the Qur'an; the image is accompanied by the sound of tearing paper. Dutch subtitles then explain that the sound was that of a page being torn from a telephone book. In a written declaration, Mr Wilders declares that it is not up to him to tear malicious verses out of the Qur'an, but that Muslims themselves must do that.
1945 saw the triumph of democracy over Nazism and 1989 the fall of Communism. Mr Wilders believes that that the time has now come for Islamist ideology to be defeated.
Like I said, it is strong. But not as strong as anti-Western, anti-Semitic hate routinely heard and seen in the Muslim world (a robust sampling of which Wilders offers in this film). I would call this film propaganda, certainly, but it doesn't operate on hate. It operates on fear, which is a different thing.
Whether you think that fear is legitimate will dictate how you respond to this film. I wonder if anybody who watches it (it's 15 minutes long) will have their minds changed one way or another. Please offer your comments below. Warning: I am going to watch this thread closely, and will remove any abusive comments about Muslims or non-Muslims.
Question: Was "Fitna" necessary? I don't know the answer to that. I really don't. I'm thinking about it. The answer, I'm guessing, will depend in part on the Muslim response to it worldwide.
UPDATE: I was thinking more this morning about the nature of propaganda. It's meant to exaggerate a truth, or truths (or, to be most precise, what the propagandist believes to be true) for the sake of stirring the masses to action. In World War II, the US Government engaged in propaganda efforts to get the American people behind the war effort. I think most of us would a) recognize the justice of the American cause; b) recognize the need for urgency and commitment on behalf of large numbers of people in service to the goal of winning the war; and therefore would not find c) the manipulation of emotions to achieve that goal to be objectionable. There is no time to sit around parsing syllogisms when the survival of the nation, or vital national interests, are at stake.
I remember sitting through Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and thinking it to be crude propaganda, even though underneath all that bluster and unreason were some good and necessary points. But it struck me as deeply dishonest, almost unethical, the way he twisted facts and corrupted the truth in service of his ideological agenda. It was a corruption of the artist. Well, Geert Wilders is not an artist, but a politician. Still, there is something corrupt in the way he manipulates legitimate grievances for emotional effect. You would think watching this film that all Muslims are defined by the worst among them. Which isn't true.
Still, the good Muslims don't seem to be stopping the bad ones and their evil ideas from proliferating. And it is also true, at least it seems so to me, that the Dutch public, and the wider European public, has not and will not take the Islamisation of their liberal democracies seriously. It's easy for me to look on from afar and tut-tut Wilders for his crudeness: I am not living through the collapse of my country's culture in the face of the Islamic challenge.
Can one licitly fight a mortal threat to one's culture by telling a partial truth, a distorted truth, or even a lie?
All of which is to explain further why I'm not sure what I think of "Fitna." Your thoughts, as ever, are welcome.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Manfrede:
Well, you are referring to the events in the year 710 AD, when King Witiza of Spain died. In the Visigoth tradition, succession of kingships were not based on hereditary norms, but based on the election of Nobles and elders. Thus, when King Witza's sons were passed over in favor of a strong milatary general, the sons appealed to a Count, named Julian, who was associated with the King's court. The Kings sons seemed to have encouraged Count Julian to "Treason" as he went to meet the Mohamaden Musa and convince him to "Attack Spain". And of course, those friendly Muslims after taking over Spain decided decided to send peaceful missionaries to France shortly after, correct. While those friendly Muslims were "peacefully converting Spain", they were simultaneously trying to "peacefully convert" the borders of China in 712 AD, do the same in India has Muhammed Son of Qasim led the first Muslim army into INdia where he personally killed the King of India and gained control of what is today modern Pakistan(Hmmmmmmmmmm). In 715, the first Muslim armies were "peacefully laying siege to Constantinopile".
So, it is you who need to read history my friend. It seems to be a reasonable hypothesis that you are a "National Catholic Reporter" Catholic and filled with the "Spirit of Vatican II", or should I dare say should be properly interpreted as "Spirits of Vatican II", which seem clearly opposed to the Holy Spirit. As Pope Benedict pointed out, too many in the Post Conciliar CHurch have forced an interpretation of the Council as "hermaneutic of discontinuity".
With respect to "persons who practice" Islam, I said nothing. Again, there is a Dogma of Holy Mother CHurch called "Original Sin", which, in case you forgot, Vatican II did not reject. The Readers Digest summary of this doctine is that "all humanity" is fallen and falls short of the way God created us. Thus, for this reason, Christ became incarnate and out of love and through the paschal mystery, reconciled us back to God. As G.K Chesterton once said, the Doctrine of Original Sin is the one Catholic Dogma that can be "empirically verified". How true that statement is. So, do I believe Christians have sinned individually or collectively, of course, it would be "heretical to assert" otherwise.
What I was saying is that Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, because of its ability to be "self-critical" and its willingness to engage in philosophy and thus reason (e.g., St. Augustine used Plato; St. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle), and the concept of "the Development of Doctrine" allows Christianity to be self-reflective. Islam, on the other hand, at least as I see it, does not have this ability. Perhaps Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech will give Muslims the framework to reconcile their faith with reason, and non-muslims. I can only hope so.
Still, while on technical note, all Muslim countries may not codifiy Shiria law into their countries laws, all Muslim countries defacto apply the principles of Shiria law nevertheless. I don't have to go to a Muslim country to find this out. Again, tell me in what Muslim country do "non-muslims" have the same rights as Muslims". You want to hold up Turkey, well Patriarch Bartholemew can't even open a seminary for the Orthodox Church in that country. You mention Syria, a country that finances "hizboallah", give me a break!!!. Are you telling me that if a muslim in Syria converts to Christianity, there are not state imposed consequences?????????
So, I will freely acknowledge that I am no PC-Lefty/multiculturalist/ self-hating American of Italian ancestry who hates Christianity and Western Civilization. I don't see all cultures as equal and thus, I do believe that Christianity and Western Civilization are the best hope for the world.
Sorry to tell you, St. Domenic but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Yes, Syria supports their pro-Iranian surrogate Hizbullah and the good old USA supports a government in Iraq made up of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI, now ISCI), the Dawa Party which actually practiced terrorism against the US (including attacking the US Embassy in Kuwait) and the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) which is the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq. We are arming and supporting these folks - your tax dollars at work.
And yes, in Syria there is no state sanction for people converting to Christianity (their own families do object to it). It is US-puppet Afghanistan that sentences converts to death.
As for "PC-Lefty/multiculturalist/self hating American of Italian ancestry" - is this a subtle insult? Are you painting a skewed vision of yourself? It can't be me because I am not of Italian origin and don't hate Christianity and Western civilization. But I also don't hate Islam and "Eastern" civilization.
Well, Manfrede, I have a little knowledge about Syria, and you say there are no state sanctions, well so be it. I still have my doubts, but if families committ "honor killings" and the state does nothing to punish family members who kill other family members, is the state not complicit?????. Furthermore, if I have a little knowledge of Syria, the last post you made about the Muslim conquest of Spain in the early 8th century showed you know less of that period history. So, I would say in the grand scheme of things, you are on the shorter end of that one.
My "subtle insult" was a criticism of secular leftist who have got the West into much of this mess. I was not implying you were of Italian ancestry as I had defined myself as an American of Italian ancestry in an earlier post. My point was that many in the West are suffering from self-hatred, do to largely marxist constructs.
So, yes, I do have a problem with the Islamic Faith, not human beings who practice that faith, as those individuals are always persons entitiled to dignity as being created by God. Still, Islam, as a Faith and ideology that seeks to impose its will on all aspects of civil, criminal, economic and social laws, etc, is something that needs to be debated. Mr. Magdi Allam's quote about his conversion (see asiatimes 26 March 2008) front page story I think illustrates the philosophical problems of Islam:
“The miracle of the Resurrection of Christ has reverberated through my soul, liberating if from the darkness of a tendency where hate and intorance in before the “other”, condemning it uncritically as an “enemy”, and ascending to love and respect for one’s “neighbor”, who is always and in any case a person; thus my mind has been released from the obscurantism of an idelogy which legitimizes lying and dissumulation, the violent death that leads to homicide and suicide, blind submission to tyranny—permitting me to adhere to the authentic religion of truth, of life, and freedom. Upon my first Easter as a Christian I have not only discovered Jesus, but I have discovered for the first time the ture and only God, which is the God of Faith and the God of Reason”
Prais be to God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, as it seems seems both Pope John Paul II, of Blessed memory, through his encyclical “Faith and Reason”, which is a philosophical encyclical, and Pope Benedict’s Regensberg lecture, a serious Theological lecture, both influenced Mr. Magdi Allam.
God bless Mr. Allam and God Bless Pope Benedict
Well, I have no problem with the last three paragraphs of your last post, St. Domenic.
I'll practice some Christian charity and let the rest go.
Odd that "Fitna" seems to strike so many like a bolt from the blue when "Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam" played repeatedly on Fox News a few months back and is still readily available on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKt7J1U1Cs8&feature=related
It's much longer and, yup, a hell of a lot scarier than "Fitna."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.