Fitna by Geert Wilders

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Fitna

by Geert Wilders

EDIT: There is some kind of monkey-business going on that I don't understand. When I program the film's title with the URL, it automatically transforms into "http:///" on being published. I did this several times with the same result. Either there is a serious glitch or there is some serious hacking going on with forum html or something. This being the case, if anyone wishes to see the film as hosted on LiveLeak, here is the URL in a form that will not be altered. Just copy/paste it into your browser's URL field. For some reason the embed code was not affected, so the video shows up here.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

I just saw this film. After all the publicity, and especially because of the notieriety of the Islamist murder of Theo Van Gogh for making Submission (Part 1 - 6:01 and Part 2 - 5:10) and the entire controversy surrounding Wilders, I think it is pertinent to provide it here on OL for discussion.

For the record, I do not think it was an especially good film, unlike Van Gogh's, which shows the soul of an artist shining through. It was made to be propaganda and it shows. Frankly, I think it fell flat after the enormous build-up. It has more of a feel of a Web 2.0 mash-up than a movie proper. Still, there are the death threats and fatwa against Wilders and those will not go away because the film is not very good.

Fitna is basically segmented into 4 parts, each presenting a violent Sura from the Qur'an as introduction (stylistically the best four segments of the film), followed by footage of Islamist terrorist activities from news broadcasts, all to the music of Grieg and Tschaikovsky.

Here is what fitna means:

Fitna (word) - Wikipedia:

Fitna (فتنة) is an Arabic word, generally regarded as very difficult to translate but at the same time is considered to be an all-encompassing word referring to schism, secession, upheaval and anarchy at once. It is often used to refer to civil war, disagreement and division within Islam and specifically alludes to a time involving trials of faith, similar to the Tribulation in Christian eschatology.

Interestingly enough, the film gave Wikipedia as its official site, prompting Wikipedia to post the following on the article to the film:

Fitna (film) - Wikipedia:

At the end of the film Fitna the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fitna is referred to as a source to find the official website of the film. Wikipedia has no affiliation with Geert Wilders or this film. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written from a neutral point of view and does not endorse any opinions.

The above article gives a lot more information for those interested.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

It is Wilders, not Wilder.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I actually thought so too from having seen him on TV, but I kept seeing the following statements (from the top of a Google search—my emphasis):

Here: "What brilliant billionaire in this country, or collection of them, will fund and then distribute Geert Wilder's planned movie?"

Here: "Network Solutions Takes Down Geert Wilder's Fitna Website."

Here: "Geert Wilder’s Fitna."

And so it goes for over 92,000 hits.

I will correct it above from Wilder to Wilders.

[Mike11]

Its always sad to see communication specifically designed to shut down communication. In the mind of the fanatic everything is certain, the sides are black and white, and nothing matters but the blood of our brothers shed by the enemy. It is a very comfortable place to be though. It requires no empathy and even less self criticism.

I see no meaningful difference between the film itself and what it criticizes. The form of propaganda demands a hateful and ignorant isubstance doesn't it?

[Ruben Hiddink]

I think this movie by itself is hardly worth discussing. The fact is that Wilders has been purposely stirring up gut feelings in The Netherlands for a few years now. The more he keeps making random statements in crude words, the more politicians and the media get on his tail, the more attention he gets and the more votes he's getting in polls. Fitna is nothing more than just that. After having called the Minister of Integration and Housing "totally insane" in a debate and warning the people for "a tsunami of Islamisation", among a bunch of other radical outcries throughout time, he just had to take it one step further and make a statement through a movie, much like Van Gogh, who went out like a martyr. That's how you achieve a status of immortality.

That's all that Fitna is: a promotional stunt. You can't say Wilders did a bad job at it either, having dominated the headlines for four consecutive months about a movie that no one had even seen yet. And all the while, he has kept the media and the entire parliament busy preparing responses to his actions and his film, about every new detail that leaked, about the possible consequences, about the nature of freedom of speech, about rights... It all worked out perfectly for him. He was the main subject of debate; he himself, and he didn't even have to respond to anyone's statements. The job was done for him. The movie itself doesn't even matter anymore.

All of this painfully exposes modern democracy for what it is: you create a hype and you feed off it. The one with the loudest voice will be the one who gets all the attention. Politics isn't about ideology or progression; it's simply about being heard and making promises that a lot of people will identify with. And so it happens to be that it was the leader of a small opposition party, "Democrats 66", who most clearly went against Wilders in the past few months. He managed to get the number of votes for his party to triple in the opinion polls in just two months. So is that really how we decide who's the best to run the country for us - based off media dominance, about some non-issue?

Let me add that Wilders never intended to bring a solution to any problem. He'll say close the borders and send all Muslims back to the Middle East. Start by closing all mosques, close Islamic schools, ban the burqa, and all of a sudden The Netherlands are supposed to be paradise on earth. His fellow politicians have addressed Wilders for not trying to come up with a constructive plan, but what did they expect when the voting audience - and thus more power - comes so easy?

Ruben

Edited March 28, 2008 by Ruben Hiddink

[Mike11]

What that post reminded me of --

V: [Disguised as William Rookwood, meeting with Inspector Finch] Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young up-and-coming politician. He's a deeply religious man and a member of the conservative party. He is completely single-minded convictions and has no regard for the political process. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of 'national security'. At first, it is believed to be a search for biological weapons and it is pursued regardless of its cost. However, the true goal of the project is power, complete and total hegemonic domination. The project, however, ends violently... but the efforts of those involved are not in vain, for a new ability to wage war is born from the blood of one of their victims. Imagine a virus - the most terrifying virus you can, and then imagine that you and you alone have the cure. But if your ultimate goal is power, how best to use such a weapon? It is at this point in our story that along comes a spider. He is a man seemingly without a conscience; for whom the ends always justify the means and it is he who suggests that their target should not be an enemy of the country but rather the country itself. Three targets are chosen to maximize the effect of the attack: a school, a tube station, and a water-treatment plant. Several hundred die within the first few weeks. Until at last the true goal comes into view. Before the St. Mary's crisis, no one would have predicted the outcome of the elections. No one. But after the election, lo and behold, a miracle. Some believed that it was the work of God himself, but it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members made them all obscenely rich. But the true genius of the plan was the fear. A year later, several extremeists are tried, found guilty, and executed while a memorial is built to canonize their victims. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. And through it our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A video with the following text now appears on the Liveleak site where Fitna used to be:

The Removal of “Fitna”

Official LiveLeak statement

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed comments from certain members of the British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members, Liveleak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one another’s culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

The video is being hosted on Google video, YouTube and other places right now and a Google search can locate them. After the dust settles a bit, I will try to find a link that will not be removed and post it here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to state clearly that despite any political exploitation of this issue by Wilders:

1. I do not support or condone the death threats against the employees of Livewire to remove the video, and

2. The news footage in Wilders's film is real and did happen. It is not made up. So regardless of any other consideration, I have no words to express my contempt for those who use random killing of innocents as a form of publicity, fearmongering and persuasion. These people claim they are religious. They are nothing but cowardly thugs. They disgrace Islam and their Allah.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some other options have become available:

Here it is on Google Video: Fitna.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here it is on Brightcove: Fitna.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is an mp4 version hosted on Solo Passion that can be downloaded (right click and chose "save target as" or "save file as" to download it to your hard disk): Fitna.

Hat tip to Julian Darby for staying on this and William Green (presumably) making the mp4 copy. Solo Passion's thread where these links are found is here: Fitna: A film by Geert Wilders.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

ff

Edited March 29, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I think this post is contemptible, if not for hypocrisy then at least for ignorance.

--Brant

I think this movie by itself is hardly worth discussing. The fact is that Wilders has been purposely stirring up gut feelings in The Netherlands for a few years now. The more he keeps making random statements in crude words, the more politicians and the media get on his tail, the more attention he gets and the more votes he's getting in polls. Fitna is nothing more than just that. After having called the Minister of Integration and Housing "totally insane" in a debate and warning the people for "a tsunami of Islamisation", among a bunch of other radical outcries throughout time, he just had to take it one step further and make a statement through a movie, much like Van Gogh, who went out like a martyr. That's how you achieve a status of immortality.

That's all that Fitna is: a promotional stunt. You can't say Wilders did a bad job at it either, having dominated the headlines for four consecutive months about a movie that no one had even seen yet. And all the while, he has kept the media and the entire parliament busy preparing responses to his actions and his film, about every new detail that leaked, about the possible consequences, about the nature of freedom of speech, about rights... It all worked out perfectly for him. He was the main subject of debate; he himself, and he didn't even have to respond to anyone's statements. The job was done for him. The movie itself doesn't even matter anymore.

All of this painfully exposes modern democracy for what it is: you create a hype and you feed off it. The one with the loudest voice will be the one who gets all the attention. Politics isn't about ideology or progression; it's simply about being heard and making promises that a lot of people will identify with. And so it happens to be that it was the leader of a small opposition party, "Democrats 66", who most clearly went against Wilders in the past few months. He managed to get the number of votes for his party to triple in the opinion polls in just two months. So is that really how we decide who's the best to run the country for us - based off media dominance, about some non-issue?

Let me add that Wilders never intended to bring a solution to any problem. He'll say close the borders and send all Muslims back to the Middle East. Start by closing all mosques, close Islamic schools, ban the burqa, and all of a sudden The Netherlands are supposed to be paradise on earth. His fellow politicians have addressed Wilders for not trying to come up with a constructive plan, but what did they expect when the voting audience - and thus more power - comes so easy?

Ruben

Edited March 29, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think this post is contemptible, if not for hypocrisy then at least for ignorance.

"Hypocrisy" and "ignorance" regarding what in particular, Brant? Are you aware that the poster is someone who lives in The Netherlands and might possibly have more close-up knowledge of what's happening there than you have? Whether the statements made are correct or not, on what basis would you claim to know they're springing from "ignorance"? (And as to "hypocrisy": it's the first post of a new list member; there's no way you could have any basis for assessing the post as hypocritical unless the poster is someone known to you from previous contexts.)

Ellen

___

[Ruben Hiddink]

I think this post is contemptible, if not for hypocrisy then at least for ignorance.

--Brant

Next time you make such statements, please do not refrain from stating your arguments. The way you put it, I can only guess about your reasons.

What I intended to do with my post, was give some background information, so that it would become possible for 'outsiders' to put this film into context. I feel that is absolutely necessary, before you can even start discussing the subject. My statements are all based on observable facts - with the exception of Wilders' intentions, which leave little to guess after observing the facts.

So please do state your claim, and we shall see if it holds any weight.

Ruben

[Ruben Hiddink]

To support my case about the questionable state of the democracy in The Netherlands, let me paint a quick picture of the political sphere (150 parliamental seats total) as it was over the past two elections and as it is now. You can pretty much say the political sphere is pretty much shattered, even more now than it had been in the past.

CDA ("Christian Democratic Calling") - slightly conservative democratic centrum party

May 2003: 44 [29%], Nov 2006: 41 [27%] (-7%), polling March 23, 2008: 31 [21%] (-24%)

PvdA ("Party For Working") - social-democratic with watered down socialistic roots, slightly left from the center of the political sphere

May 2003: 42 [28%], Nov 2006: 33 [22%] (-21%), polling March 23, 2008: 24 [16%] (-27%)

SP ("Socialist Party") - neocommunistic and popularistic

May 2003: 9 [6%], Nov 2006: 25 [17%] (+177%), polling March 23, 2008: 18 [12%] (-28%)

VVD ("People's Party for Freedom and Democracy") - progressive liberals, right from the center of the political sphere

May 2003: 28 [19%], Nov 2006: 22 [15%] (-21%), polling March 23, 2008: 17 [11%] (-23%)

Geert Wilders' PVV ("Party For Freedom") - right winged one-issue party, fighting Islamic immigration (split off from VVD in 2004)

May 2003: 0, Nov 2006: 9 [6%], polling March 23, 2008: 14 [9%] (+50%)

GL ("Green Left") - neocommunistic and environmentalistic

May 2003: 8 [5%], Nov 2006: 7 [5%] (-13%), polling March 23, 2008: 9 [6%] (+29%)

CU ("Christian Union") - religious and conservative but slightly popular

May 2003: 3 [2%], Nov 2006: 6 [4%] (+100%), polling March 23, 2008: 7 [5%] (+17%)

D66 ("Democrats '66") - liberals, slightly left from the center of the political sphere

May 2003: 6 [4%], Nov 2006: 3 [2%] (-50%), polling March 23, 2008: 10 [7%] (+233%)

SGP ("Political Reformed Party") - extremely conservative, orthodox reformed Christians

May 2003: 2 (1%), Nov 2006: 2 (1%), polling March 23, 2008: 2 (1%)

PvdD ("Party For The Animals") - animal activist one-issue party

May 2003: 0, Nov 2006: 2 (1%), polling March 23, 2008: 2 (1%)

Rita Verdonk's ToN ("Proud of The Netherlands") - popularistic progressive right wing party (split off from VVD in 2007)

May 2003: 0, Nov 2006: 0 (Rita Verdonk got enough preference votes for 9 seats of her own, while she was still part of the VVD), polling March 23, 2008: 16 (11%)

Source: Maurice de Hond's weekly opinion poll on Sunday March 23, 2008 (four days before the release of Fitna)

So what does all this tell you? The traditional big parties (CDA, PvdA, VVD and D66) are all failing to stabilize the political sphere and do something constructive with the uproar in society. They're providing plenty of space for populists to come up through the gut feelings in society. That's how the Socialist Party came up in 2006: through stressing the problems in nursing homes and the struggle to survive of those who are on welfare. That's how Geert Wilders' "Party For Freedom" came up in 2006: through stressing the problems with Islamic immigrants. Rita Verdonk's stunning come-up since 2007 is a spin-off of the very same theme, albeit in a less radical manner (she simply pleads for strictness and action).

That's what people base their votes on: the stances of the parties on certain issues, which are put forward by populists. They don't even have to prove themselves through bringing up solutions - just the fact that they are able point out the crucial issues seems to be enough. Who even cares about ideology anymore? That's how the Christian Union managed to grow so well in 2006: people thought they had a very considerate stance on the issue of immigration and integration. Because of their new popularity, the Christian Union ended up in the coalition of the current cabinet, but now that they're banning smoking from the horeca, raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, interfering with parenting issues, and putting forward plans to closing the shopping malls on Sundays, all of a sudden people are starting to grow dissatisfied. I wonder why... What did they expect from a conservative party?

So back to the issue of Geert Wilders' Fitna... I think it is pretty obvious that he made this film merely for shock value, just to stay dominating the headlines and keep his name, as well as the issue, prominent. Remember that he's not one of the big shots in Dutch politics, but he sure is doing a great job in promotional issues.

Fitna is all shock value, and I can even hardly disagree with the things he says in that movie, although I disagree with how he implies that all muslims are potential terrorists. The things he says in his movie are all factual though. It's pretty amazing to hear the Iranian president Ahmadinejad say that the views in Fitna are dispicable. Of course they are, but a part of it is coming from his own country! How much of a hypocrit can he be?

Fitna was made to stir up gut feelings and create a critical atmosphere. As soon as any muslim gives in to feeling offended, Wilders can claim his victory and say he was right about the bad temper and close-mindedness the Islam supposedly feeds muslims with. It's a sad state of affairs.

Ruben

[Brant Gaede]

I think this movie by itself is hardly worth discussing.

Muslims with their utterly rotten and revolting religion are taking over Europe and Mr. Hiddink gives a factual exposition about democracy in Holland. He's either stupidly ignorant of the threat or hypocritical by covering it up with all this factual blather, for he would be honestly focused primarily on that threat and not educating us about Dutch politics for which I don't give a good God damn. And that goes for all those European appeasers wallowing in their wishy-washy politically correct politics. I'm not apologizing to him one little damn bit.

--Brant

[Ruben Hiddink]

I think this movie by itself is hardly worth discussing.

Muslims with their utterly rotten and revolting religion are taking over Europe and Mr. Hiddink gives a factual exposition about democracy in Holland. He's either stupidly ignorant of the threat or hypocritical by covering it up with all this factual blather, for he would be honestly focused primarily on that threat and not educating us about Dutch politics for which I don't give a good God damn. And that goes for all those European appeasers wallowing in their wishy-washy politically correct politics. I'm not apologizing to him one little damn bit.

--Brant

Ah, a honest reply, I like that.

Well, I did tell you why I think the movie is hardly worth discussing: because Wilders himself doesn't really care about the situation either; thus the film was not made as an attempt to stop what you call a revolting religion taking over Europe. The film is a simple piece of propaganda, to stir up gut feelings, through which he aims to obtain power. The Dutch political situation shows you exactly why you shouldn't expect an answer to the real issue any time soon. Did I fail to make my case clearly enough for you to grasp? I'm sorry if you couldn't destillate that from my story about the background of the movie.

Now what is it that you wanted to say about the content of this movie?

Ruben

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ruben,

Welcome to OL!

As you can see, it gets a little heated around here sometimes, but you seem to be holding your own pretty well.

About the film, I think it is useful—Wilders's self-promotion and all. Here is my reasoning:

When people in a free country are intimidated with death threats into giving up their freedoms because of organized thugs, it is the duty of the government to meet those thugs with repressive measures and even lethal force. This is the case of Liveleak right now removing the film and the British government investigating and neutralizing the threats. (I hope Scotland Yard is on its gig, too.)

Public news agencies and communications venues are used to receiving death threats all the time from kooks, so Liveleak's plight is nothing new. But there is a critical difference from the normal situation with kooks. Islamist death threats come with organization, funding, a moral sanction from holy men and lots of followers, many of whom are hidden among family and friends within the Muslim culture.

There is a cause and effect chain that Wilders's film makes clear: passages in the holy book provide grounds for the words of the holy men, who provide a moral sanction for the thugs, who actually go out and randomly kill and maim innocent people. Wilders's technique is to juxtapose the violent passages in the holy book against the tragic results and jump over the rest of the chain.

I do not agree with Wilders that this constitutes proof that the entire religion and community are rotten, as evidenced by the 93% Muslims against terrorism polled by Gallup, but it does highlight two serious problems.

1. The government needs to hold up (LOUDLY) before all people everywhere that individual rights take precedence over any holy book. It must base all its actions on that premise—including ferreting out the thugs and raining the hammer of Thor down on their heads. And:

2. Although the cause and effect chain Wilders shows does not work that way with the vast majority of Muslims, it works that way with enough of them to constitute a serious danger to free people. This means that the 93% Muslims against terrorism mentioned in the 6-year 35-country Gallup study need to deal with these violent passages in the holy books and pull the moral teeth from them. These passages need to be categorized in the same manner animal sacrifices were categorized in Judaism and Christianity, i.e., as something pertaining to an historical period that lost validity with the rise of individual rights and new moral codes. This needs to be dealt with on a high level within Islam, with top holy men making official pronouncements that morally neutralize the passages, and Muslims freely speaking out in the press and other places supporting them.

This last point is where I see the real intellectual battle lies to defeat Islamists. I see no other starting point. Fanatics need to be exposed for what they are in such a manner that no amount of rationalization or adherence to a doctrine will allow followers of that religion or philosophy to ignore their true nature. Once fanatics are exposed clearly and undeniably to their own people as what they really are (murderers and thugs), they lose their following.

In general, anti-Islamist fanatics do more harm than good. They claim that Islam does not permit anything but world domination, so the whole religion is rotten to the core and any intellectual effort other than total destruction of that culture is untenable. This obviously convinces no one but a small choir who was already convinced. But in the case of Wilders's film, I believe the publicity is focusing enough on the cause-and-effect reasoning chain that fanatics use that it is making people on all sides uncomfortable. And that is a good thing. When people are uncomfortable, they do something about it. We have to remove the moral sanction from the fanatics.

I only wish the film had not been made as such a low-budget mediocre mash-up—even with public domain music to cut costs. (Unlike Van Gogh's film, which really is a beautiful film qua film.)

Michael

[studiodekadent]

MSK,

I think its great that you have a levelheaded approach to Islam. I have enjoyed how you keep growing your Middle East section, discussing serious intellectual issues, and being sensible about this.

I find it very frustrating when Objectivists will accuse all Islam of terrorism, yet not worry about the Evangelical Jesus Nazis taking over the USA. The double standard is appalling. The fact is that the texts of both religions are just as bloodsoaked as eachother. If Christianity can be relatively tamed (a taming which needs to be done again, given how the evangelicals are taking over), so can Islam.

[Alfonso Jones]

MSK,

I think its great that you have a levelheaded approach to Islam. I have enjoyed how you keep growing your Middle East section, discussing serious intellectual issues, and being sensible about this.

I find it very frustrating when Objectivists will accuse all Islam of terrorism, yet not worry about the Evangelical Jesus Nazis taking over the USA. The double standard is appalling. The fact is that the texts of both religions are just as bloodsoaked as eachother. If Christianity can be relatively tamed (a taming which needs to be done again, given how the evangelicals are taking over), so can Islam.

Well put. A good indication of the danger in the USA from the Evangelicals is provided by considering what the Christian Church has done when it has been able to secure political power - the Inquisition, etc..

Religion seems to naturally drive toward seizing of state power through a simple chain of "reasoning" which seems to look something like this...

1) The eternal state of all these people is absolutely dependeng on them Doing X / Believing X.

2) Some of them doing Do X / Believe X, and seem unlikely to change unless something (beyond rational persuasion) is done.

3) If the believers seize control of the reins of state, and compel Doing X/Believing X then "that is God's will" and furthers "God's Kingdom."

and there we go. In the USA, we seemed to be heading toward a step 4 --- the weakening of the influence of religion on government (weakening or repeal of "Blue Laws" forbidding some types of commerce on Sunday, legalization of abortion, etc...) And then along came Falwell and the alliance Reagan/Falwell, and the trend reversed.

Alfonso (Bill)

[Brant Gaede]

I think this movie by itself is hardly worth discussing.

Muslims with their utterly rotten and revolting religion are taking over Europe and Mr. Hiddink gives a factual exposition about democracy in Holland. He's either stupidly ignorant of the threat or hypocritical by covering it up with all this factual blather, for he would be honestly focused primarily on that threat and not educating us about Dutch politics for which I don't give a good God damn. And that goes for all those European appeasers wallowing in their wishy-washy politically correct politics. I'm not apologizing to him one little damn bit.

--Brant

Ah, a honest reply, I like that.

Well, I did tell you why I think the movie is hardly worth discussing: because Wilders himself doesn't really care about the situation either; thus the film was not made as an attempt to stop what you call a revolting religion taking over Europe. The film is a simple piece of propaganda, to stir up gut feelings, through which he aims to obtain power. The Dutch political situation shows you exactly why you shouldn't expect an answer to the real issue any time soon. Did I fail to make my case clearly enough for you to grasp? I'm sorry if you couldn't destillate that from my story about the background of the movie.

Now what is it that you wanted to say about the content of this movie?

Ruben

Nothing. Just like you. It would be great if Europeans had the balls to show it. And what is ipso facto necessarily wrong about propaganda? Let the bastards have it! Right between the eyes!

--Brant

[Ruben Hiddink]

Thanks for the warm welcome Guess I'll have to adapt to the climate here, but I'll be fine either way ;)

1. The government needs to hold up (LOUDLY) before all people everywhere that individual rights take precedence over any holy book. It must base all its actions on that premise—including ferreting out the thugs and raining the hammer of Thor down on their heads.

I'm absolutely supportive of your suggestion here. I'm afraid it's very unlikely to happen though - individual rights aren't exactly the measure in Europe these days. For example, in the very same opinion poll I posted somewhere above, at least 47% of the Dutch voting audience votes for political parties which are more left winged than the American Democrats. In fact even today 18% are still voting for communist parties... It's not very likely for a government to start campaigning for individual rights in a political climate which is all about altruistic doctrines. The first polling results after Fitna show a slight move towards the right, but only marginal. It'll take a hundred more Fitna's before people may start to take individual rights seriously... If, by then, they're not so shook by the suggestion of terrorism that they've given up all individual rights for the sake of national security...

2. Although the cause and effect chain Wilders shows does not work that way with the vast majority of Muslims, it works that way with enough of them to constitute a serious danger to free people. This means that the 93% Muslims against terrorism mentioned in the 6-year 35-country Gallup study need to deal with these violent passages in the holy books and pull the moral teeth from them. These passages need to be categorized in the same manner animal sacrifices were categorized in Judaism and Christianity, i.e., as something pertaining to an historical period that lost validity with the rise of individual rights and new moral codes. This needs to be dealt with on a high level within Islam, with top holy men making official pronouncements that morally neutralize the passages, and Muslims freely speaking out in the press and other places supporting them.

This last point is where I see the real intellectual battle lies to defeat Islamists. I see no other starting point. Fanatics need to be exposed for what they are in such a manner that no amount of rationalization or adherence to a doctrine will allow followers of that religion or philosophy to ignore their true nature. Once fanatics are exposed clearly and undeniably to their own people as what they really are (murderers and thugs), they lose their following.

Isn't that exactly the problem - that the ones in powerful positions in the Islam, even those in western countries, are more radical than their actual following? The average European muslim has found his way in every day life, but the mosques keep importing radical imams from the Middle East who then proceed to spread fundamentalism through their Friday speeches... It's exactly these "top holy men" who are preventing the Islam from fully integrating in the west. Surely they're not going to neutralize their messages and their religion - that would be against Allah's will. There goes the blank check of religion again.

So what can be done? Within Europe, it might be the every day muslims who need to take a stance. As soon as they massively take position in favor of the progressive freedom of the west, the imams will ultimately have to adapt to their audiences (unless they don't care about losing their power). Thing is, every day muslims aren't exactly loud about their opinions. It seems they're devoid of belief in individualism, thus they willingly hand over the power over their beliefs to these holy leaders, whom they are told are more qualified for judgement.

Perhaps in Europe, people lack the moral strength to become role models for individualism and freedom. You can see it in the shattered political sphere, and you can see it in the lack of direction in the people: hardly anyone knows what he's doing, never mind why. There is no example to be set by a people without confidence, beliefs or direction. Isn't that what must be overcome first, before any Islamic threats can be neutralized?

In general, anti-Islamist fanatics do more harm than good. They claim that Islam does not permit anything but world domination, so the whole religion is rotten to the core and any intellectual effort other than total destruction of that culture is untenable. This obviously convinces no one but a small choir who was already convinced. But in the case of Wilders's film, I believe the publicity is focusing enough on the cause-and-effect reasoning chain that fanatics use that it is making people on all sides uncomfortable. And that is a good thing. When people are uncomfortable, they do something about it. We have to remove the moral sanction from the fanatics.

The Wilders film surely is making people on all sides feel uncomfortable, but people have been like that for a while now (remember that this has been a long process already), and things aren't exactly getting better by the looks of it. If anything, this film helps to strengthen the already polarized stereotypes. The nuance is gone, whereas it's precisely nuance that's needed to improve this situation. I don't think this'll bring us closer to a solution - if anything, a clash might become more real every minute, but perhaps that's just what we need?

Ruben

[Brant Gaede]

The real problem for various European countries has to do with demographics and standard political short-sightedness and cowardice. The essence of Islam has to be exposed and vitiated, but waging a religious war is not a proper state function. Europe is going to be radically transformed, the only question is into what? I'll be visiting Europe in a few years, but only as a tourist. I've no problems with individual Muslims who want to live in peace and don't want to kill or convert me.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Isn't that exactly the problem - that the ones in powerful positions in the Islam, even those in western countries, are more radical than their actual following?

Ruben,

Not all and not most. Not by a long shot.

A real nasty form of Salafi Islam is imported from Saudi Arabia. They don't like the term, but it is called Wahhabism. One extremely important component of their influence is funding. Saudi Arabia is pouring oodles of money from oil profits into spreading this fundamentalist form of Islam through education programs in other countries. But Wahhabism is not representative of the majority. Not even close. Moderate Muslims even resist it. The 93% of all Muslims surveyed by Gallup who are against Islamism is more than proof of that.

One really good intellectual measure would be to learn about this and raise public awareness of it. Another (if you have the interest) would be to seek out moderate Muslim organizations and help connect them with funding sources. There is an interesting study by the Rand Corporation (nothing to do with Ayn Rand) linked to here on OL about establishing moderate Muslim networks. The Rand Corporation is one of the back doors into the Pentagon, so I have no doubt there is plenty of funding available to anyone who is interested enough to follow the leads.

There are plenty of top Islamic leaders and holy men who are not Wahhabists—or even Salafists for that matter. Despite their funny names (to us), the main ones should be discussed more often. This takes learning and effort. It is boring, I know, and anyone doing this will start to be seen publicly as a prospective convert to Islam or useful idiot of the Islamists something like that, so it takes balls and a thick skin against mud-slinging. But it is a job that sorely needs doing.

That's not much, but it's a practical start. And it is effective, albeit slow.

In fact, the publicity generated by the Wilders film could be used to help educate the public on the difference between the Wahhabism being pumped into Europe's mosques (and other mosques around the world) through money contributions and other denominations (although Muslims do not call different schools of Islam "denominations"), with letters to the editor of newspapers and magazines, calls to radio and TV shows, Internet efforts, etc.

Those who choose to do this, though, will have to understand that some people on their own side will constantly be trying to shoot them down (metaphorically). There is a very vocal radical anti-Islamic group of intellectuals and commentators who seek total destruction of all Islamic culture, although they do not say it openly. They consider any argument in favor of moderate Muslims to be misguided at best and always make a point of saying so. They oppose all efforts at education with harsh rhetoric.

In fact, Wilders is one of them.

Michael