Associated Press – March 28, 2008
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands – A Dutch legislator’s film that portrays Islam as a ticking time bomb aimed at Western democracy prompted denunciations from Muslim capitals and street protests in Pakistan, but a restrained reaction from Dutch Muslims who had expected worse.
The 15-minute film entitled “Fitna,” an Arabic word meaning “ordeal,” by anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders was posted on a Web site late Thursday. It evoked symbols that Muslims called offensive, and drew on well-worn footage of terrorist attacks and anti-Western, anti-Jewish rhetoric that was meant to alarm the native Dutch.
Hundreds of Muslims demonstrated in Pakistan. The Foreign Ministry summoned the Dutch ambassador to deliver an official complaint against what it called a “defamatory film which deeply offended the sentiments of Muslims all over the world.”
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the movie. “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here,” he said in a statement released in New York.
“The real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict,” the U.N. chief said.
Condemnations also came from the government of Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Iran and Jordan.
“It is not Islam that should be stopped, it is fear-mongers like Geert Wilders who should be stopped from spreading their hatred,” said Zakaria al-Sheik of the Rassoul Allah Yajmana, a Jordanian group formed to protect the image of Islam.
The Council of Europe said the film was a “distasteful manipulation” that exploits fear. The World Council of Churches said it failed to distinguish extremism from mainstream Islam. “Extremism is a problem for most religions and needs to be countered through inter-religious dialogue,” said Rev. Dr. Shanta Premawardhana.
Dutch Muslims said the film misrepresented Islam, but that Wilders had largely stayed within the bounds of acceptable political discourse – winning praise from Wilders himself for their civil reaction.
Wilders argues in the film that Islam’s objective is to rule the world and impose an Islamic order without Western freedoms, where gays would be persecuted and women discriminated against.
The film employed elements and symbols calculated to offend Muslims. It reproduced pages of the Quran with the voice of an imam intoning the text. Alongside appears translations in Dutch or English of passages calling on followers to defend the faith and slay their enemies.
The film begins with the Danish cartoon image of Muhammad with a fuse in his turban. The same image concludes the film with the fuse lit and a ticking clock counting down the seconds, then fades into blackness broken by flashes of lightening and thunder.
Kurt Westergaard, the artist who has lived under police protection since the cartoon was published two years ago, objected that Wilders had violated his copyright. “I won’t accept my cartoon being taken out of its original context and used in a completely different one,” he told Denmark’s TV2.
In another provocative image, a hand turns a page of the Quran as the screen darkens and the sound of tearing paper is heard. A printed text says it is only a telephone book being torn, and adds: “It is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Quran.”
The film concludes with a scrolling text saying that the West had defeated the Nazis and communism, and now must defeat an Islam that “wants to dominate, subject and seeks to destroy our Western civilization.”
Wilders told reporters he made the film because “Islam and the Quran are dangers to the preservation of freedom in the Netherlands.”
Even before its release, the Dutch government went out of its way to distance itself from Wilders, but was powerless to gag him.
It set up a crisis center to deal with the anticipated outraged reaction, but Muslim demonstrations failed to materialize after the film hit the Internet and Dutch TV stations broadcast excerpts.
“I want to pay tribute to Muslim organizations and the way they have reacted: Moderate reactions despite totally disagreeing with its contents. The Cabinet is proud – proud of people who react in this way,” said Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.
Mainstream political parties and many Muslims dismissed the film as a political tactic to polarize society and scare people into supporting Wilders, whose reactionary Freedom Party holds nine seats in the 150-member Dutch parliament.
Mohamed Rabbae, leader of a group representing members of the Netherlands’ large Moroccan immigrant community, said the film was “less bad” than expected from Wilders’ prior comments.
Rabbae called on Muslims abroad to be calm and let Dutch Muslims deal with Wilders. “Harming Dutch people harms us,” he said.
“I wasn’t personally offended,” said Imad el Ouarti, a worshipper at El Umma mosque in Amsterdam. He said Wilders had taken Quranic texts out of context and had reused images that have been seen thousands of times since Sept. 11, 2001. “It’s just tasteless and non-creative, as if a child had pasted it together.”
In Rotterdam, a court said it would rule on April 7 on a petition by the Dutch Islamic Federation seeking to gag Wilders and order him to publicize an apology.
Wilders’ lawyer Serge Vlaar said the federation “wants to ban a point of view,” which he said was not possible under Dutch law.
Federation lawyer Ejder Kose countered that “my clients are not attacking freedom of speech. This is about ending the unjustified insulting of Islam.”
Outside the courtroom, a pro-Wilders demonstrator shouted far-right slogans until police bundled him into a car.
—
Associated Press Writer Mike Corder contributed to this article.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted March 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm
More about the film is here including a detailed plot summary. I tried to find a link to the film so we could see what we’ll be discussing but it was taken down. Quite likely it’s somewhere else on the internet but I haven’t tried to track it down; perhaps someone else would.
I want to digest this a little before I comment on it, other than to congratulate the Muslims of the Netherlands for restraint compared to other reactions in other times and places.
posted March 28, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Enough credible groups find this film problematic that were mentioned in the above article to have doubts about the film. I will look for more of this in the news. One thing is very certain too many people are taking words and actions out of context and painting erroneous pictures right now, here in the US and over seas as well it seems. If you want the right kind of attention you don’t do this.
posted March 28, 2008 at 5:22 pm
The Muslims of the Netherlands are to be commended for their calm in the face of the film done by Wilders. He is against immigration and has a reputation for his strong feelings. From the article it seems he set out to get a strong reaction to his movie, and cause problems. He is exercising his freedom of speech allowed by Dutch law. However there is freedom of speech and then there is inciting riots caused by that “speech” or film as in this case. If nothing else, he seems to have exercised poor but deliberate taste.
posted March 28, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Aside from all this, I expect the film is poorly made and boring. There are probably no talking animals or appliances, no spectacular explosions, no aliens or monsters who “come in peace”, no kissing or anything steamier, and no food fights. So WHAT is the point? It is bad enough to make a film that angers not only your opponents but also the people you would like as allies. It is far worse to make something that is simply a waste of celluloid (or electrons if it was digital) and electricity. Not only that, but I bet they charge the equivalent of $10, the popcorn is stale, and the candy has melted under the lights. OK, it’s Europe, so the beer is flat, the wine is cheap, and the pastries droop.
Who sold this man the camera? Thee is someone powerless to blame!
posted March 29, 2008 at 7:02 am
It would appear to me that if someone congaratulates another for their restraint, then they would accept that the people they are congratulating have good reason for restraint. Which would make the movie seem more true. The problem with madmen who rant the rages of demon visitations is that many fall victim to a message that is anything but devine.
posted March 29, 2008 at 8:21 am
“The problem with madmen who rant the rages of demon visitations is that many fall victim to a message that is anything but devine.”
Uh, what demon visitations? What madmen? Wilders? Some Muslims? All Muslims? The Dutch?
What message? The movie? Islam? Freedom of the press?
Care to make another stab at communicating something? Anything?
posted March 29, 2008 at 8:28 am
nnmns
sure, it appears Mohammad’s message is much easier to “pervert” by a very tiny minute almost nonexistent group of radicals (probably just one or two people)than the message that Christ brought.
posted March 29, 2008 at 9:11 am
Just what message did “Christ” bring?
And why is it wrapped in so much contradictory and unintelligible verbiage in the Bible?
Some have called the Bible an owner’s manual but many others have pointed out that any company that put out an owner’s manual that incompetent would be out of business.
I’m waiting eagerly for Christianity and Judaism and Islam and more to go out of business.
posted March 29, 2008 at 9:40 am
So saith oneinchrist, ‘ it appears Mohammad’s message is much easier to “pervert” by a very tiny minute almost nonexistent group of radicals (probably just one or two people)than the message that Christ brought.”
oneinechrist,
You seem to think that Christ’s message has not been equally subverted, manipulated, an mangled. If nothing else, red the preceding article about parents allowing their child to die. Any message of peace and love can be tweaked simply and without much effort. Religion in general has been the source of incredible and terrifying amounts of violence, torture, and death. Christianity is no exception.
posted March 29, 2008 at 9:49 am
Keep waiting, nnmns. It ain’t gonna happen!
As to the film, I don’t care to see it. Wilders has a right to make it and show it. Muslims have a right and an obligation to object to it. But no one has a right to react to it with violence. The minority of Muslims who do react with violence simply lend credence to Wilders’ film.
As to the message of Jesus Christ, it is actually quite clear and simple: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Enough said.
posted March 29, 2008 at 11:09 am
Riddle me this, WC: Why should someone have to “believe” in him (and what does it mean to believe in him)? Could that actually be a gimmick designed to get people into a church and paying dues?
posted March 29, 2008 at 11:53 am
You don’t have to believe in Jesus nnmns, but if you meet Him you might find his message a good one and one that if followed will always soften your path in life on this earth. Jesus didn’t invent todays Church, people did. Here again what a Church does with Jesus teachings will give them exactly what they put into it, the same as what we put into our lives will give us exactly how happy and productive we’ll live our lives.
posted March 29, 2008 at 11:57 am
No, it is not a gimmick to get people into church and it has nothing to do with paying dues. I actually do not know of any church that requires people to pay “dues.” In the churches with which I am familiar giving is entirely voluntary and no one checks up on who gives what.
I would very much like to answer your more important question about what it means to believe in Jesus and why, (www.tmpministries.com) I can and do explain a lot of things about the Christian faith.
posted March 29, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Dues, tithes, same difference. One may be more socially enforced than the other is all.
And Christianity, with the key invention of original sin and the un-checkable claim of eternal life, good or bad depending on whether you believe what we preach in our church just right, is the supreme marketing opportunity. And it’s seized by scads of bright eyed new preachers every year. No doubt some of them want to serve their fellow people but also no doubt some want to victimize the credulous. And most kids in the US are raised so as to be credulous about religion.
posted March 29, 2008 at 4:43 pm
How cynical.
posted March 29, 2008 at 8:30 pm
WC:
John 3:16, was one that I read in the far past, wondering why any father would sacrafice his son! It made no sense and still doesn’t. One of many, many reasons I’m no longer a “Christian”.
You said you knew of no church that required people to pay “dues.” Yes, that is the idea, but I have yet to be in any church that doesn’t keep track if just how much someone has paid. In fact many “suggest” that you give a certain percentage of your income to support the church. Mormons want 10% and I’m not sure , but even other churches ask for tithes (10%, not sure).
I agree that Wilder had the right to make the film, & that no one has the right to react violently to it. But I think he set out to cause problems to prove his point.
posted March 29, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The wisdom of pagansister, “I agree that Wilder had the right to make the film, & that no one has the right to react violently to it. But I think he set out to cause problems to prove his point.”
I agree completely that Wilders set out to cause problems. So how do we put out this fire? But suffocating it (not him). If everyone were to ignore his film it would not get screened, reviewed, or protested. Let him rant and fuss like a brat. Ignore him and he will lose energy and maybe even slow down enough to listen.
posted March 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm
jestrfyl:
“If everyone were to ignore his film it would not get screened, reviewed,or protested”.
Unfortunately all the fuss about it makes folks want to watch to see what all the fuss is about.
posted March 30, 2008 at 1:21 am
“I wasn’t personally offended,” said Imad el Ouarti, a worshipper at El Umma mosque in Amsterdam….”
What does that mean? Wilders didnt “get” too him or that he has no problem with westerners getting their heads cut-off?
“In Rotterdam, a court said it would rule on April 7 on a petition by the Dutch Islamic Federation seeking to gag Wilders and order him to publicize an apology.”
I dont think many moslems in europe quite understand democracy. One has to wonder why a really religious moslem would even emigrate to Holland. Freaking Holland! for f*cks sake.
I saw Irshad Manji’s pbs doc, in it she went to Holland and interviewed a teen moslem who was in some hip-hop group for dialogue between moslems and non-moslems…. he said the killing of theo van gogh was wrong but that he should not have made that film… apparently the kid has no problem with women being beaten in his community.
Pim Fortyn has been killed, theo van gogh has been killed, and I’ve heard dutch women are harassed at public pools of all places for wearing bathing suits.
I dont think things are going at all well in the Nederlands.
posted March 30, 2008 at 7:17 am
Riddle me this, WC: Why should someone have to “believe” in him (and what does it mean to believe in him)? Could that actually be a gimmick designed to get people into a church and paying dues?
So that one isn’t fooled by someone who claims to have a devine message yet tells something different than jesus did.
like if you love God yet hate your neighbor you are a liar. Infidel or not.
The two most important commandments LOVE GOD AND LOVe your neighbor just like you love yourself.
IOW If mohammad says you should treat unbelievers different than believers, then his message isn’t from the same god.
AS fas as tithing goes. Istitutionalized religion is anything but religion, god is a relationship between you and him, not a social event that you meet people and play bingo.
posted March 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“IOW if Mohammad says you should treat unbelievers different than believers, then his message isn’t from the same god.” oneinchrist
So let’s see, if the message is different from one religion to another, then there is more than one god, because each religion “worships their own god” and thinks all others are false.
“As far as tithing goes, institutional religion is anything but religion,god is a relationship between you and him, not a social event that you meet people and play bingo.” oneinchrist
Name one church that doesn’t expect “tithes”. All churches are institutions.
posted March 31, 2008 at 7:52 am
Name one church that doesn’t expect “tithes”. All churches are institutions.
pagansister
Who teaches? and who is supposed to pay him? Yet if you have time more than money you should spend yout time teaching about god rather than tithing, yet many would rather work and pay someone else. Then you have tithing.
Yet if you understood the philosophy about giving, you would understand what you receive in turn.
I help people. but only occasional tithe My god is my worship to him and my teaching of him to my children.
posted March 31, 2008 at 7:55 am
So let’s see, if the message is different from one religion to another, then there is more than one god, because each religion “worships their own god” and thinks all others are false.
pagan sister
Which is the whole purpose Jesus spoke ‘through me is the only way.’
IOW Listen to what i say, folllow my examples and you shall know the way.
posted March 31, 2008 at 10:05 am
“IOW Listen to what i say, follow my examples and you shall know the way.”
Megalomania: a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur
And as far as tithing it’s not proof there’s no church that requires tithing to give reasons why they want them. And there may be a church someplace that doesn’t require it but we all know most churches encourage it or more and at a minimum you’d be pretty uncomfortable if you didn’t.
Now this is a question whose answer I don’t know. How many of you know your minister’s/preacher’s total income and benefits? There’s salary, perhaps a free house, perhaps (I’m guessing) free or reduced prices at some parishioners’ businesses. Probably some free meals when they stop by for a visit? Anything else?
I don’t claim they are all well paid but some of them are very well paid and I just wonder how many people know how much their preacher gets.
posted March 31, 2008 at 11:20 am
nnmns
I sure wish I was serving your “church”(I expect it is a fantasy one, however). My members know every penny I receive. There are no reduced prices at member’s business because most of my members are retired and moved here from far away. I do get an honoraria for Memorial Services and weddings (few, that I do). Any organization that does not require funding is probably lying or hiding income sources with ecclesiastical euphemisms. It is no secret that jesus himself said, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”. The idea is to get our hearts and our treasures as well as our time and our talents all in a single conjuntion. No small feat.
1inXP,
You are reading too much into Jesus’ simple words. He said, according to John, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me”. The thing is, only John includes these words, making it unlikely to be Jesus’ own, but Johns interpretation of Jesus’ intent. Now we can roll around in the “innerancy mud”, but I choose to stand on dry land and not get tangled in that mess. I orefer to think Jesus was offering the better route for those people in that time. All roads may lead to Rome (or Jerusalem, or New York, or L.A.) but not every route is the best. There are many routes to enlightenment. If that were not so why would you think God chose so many people outside the establishment to speak God’s Word?
posted March 31, 2008 at 2:22 pm
j, I suspected you are not overpaid. You don’t seem to have the instinct to stress the parts of Christianity that could really pull in the dough. When I allow in my posts for the existence of preachers who want to serve people I’m thinking about you and folks like you.
posted March 31, 2008 at 3:20 pm
oneinchrist:
With your quote “through me is the only way” you’re saying your god is the ONLY god, right? Everyone’s idea of their god or goddesses is different and there actually is not just one god, IMO.
posted March 31, 2008 at 3:23 pm
jestrfyl:
Am very sure, just like nnmns, that you are not overpaid! I think the preachers that are “overpaid” are the rip off artists, on TV….who use the “tithes” to buy their mansions, cars etc.
The honest, true ministers could use more money, I expect.