Dutch Jewish group: Anti-Islam film is 'counterproductive'

[Violet_Crumble]

The newly-released anti-Islam film by right-wing Dutch legislator Geert Wilders drew condemnations from the Netherlands' Central Jewish Board, which Friday called the film's focus on anti-Jewish preachings by Muslims "counterproductive" and "generalizing."

In keeping with Wilders' belief in a Judeo-Christian partnership in the face of "the threat of Islam," the 15-minute film, entitled "Fitna" - Arabic for strife - shows clerics calling to behead Jews, Koran passages equating Jews to "apes and swines" and photos of demonstrators promising "another Holocaust" and praising Adolf Hitler.

In a statement following the film's online release, the board said that Wilders - the leader of the Party for Freedom - was guilty of serious generalizations. "Wilders presented demographics on the increase of Muslims in Europe with pictures from scenes of terrorist attacks, suggesting all Muslims are potential terrorists," head of the Hague-based Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, Dr. Ronny Naftaniel, Saturday told Haaretz.

While the anti-Semitic material Wilders compiled "demonstrates some Muslims have terrible ideas about Jews," the way Fitna portrays reality serves to "polarize Dutch society," the board said, adding this was counterproductive to the fight against extremism.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said he was "proud" of Dutch Muslims for their peaceful reaction to the film. Parliament is due to discuss Fitna on Tuesday.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/969825.html

[MADem]

1. The film is pretty harsh. It would be sort of like characterizing Christianity by taking

some of the worst and most intolerant passages from the Bible and juxtaposing them with hateful speech from the Falwell-Oral Roberts types, and then showing some footage of atrocities that resulted from the war, and using it to paint all Christians as 'bad.'

The key word in that piece is "some" -- yes, "some" Muslims have terrible ideas about Jews, and Christians, and everyone else for that matter, but some Christians, Jews, and You-Name-Its return the favor.

The best thing that could be said about the film might be the production values. As a piece of propaganda, it's well put together. Carefully shot, good editing, clever use of tricks of the trade. But that's all it is, really--propaganda.

[China_cat]

2. My husband watched that online

and he was rather disgusted by it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. Tikun Olam blog had great commentary on that dreck:

Fitna: Dutch for "Garbage"

Yes, I know Geert Wilders’ anti-Muslim diatribe, Fitna, has been watched by 400 zillion YouTube viewers. That must make it right, right? Wrong. I watched the first minute or so at the behest of a very nice fellow who’s been helping me upgrade my Wordpress installation. As soon as the first panel from the Koran was displayed on screen quoting a verse that threatens death to all and sundry and was followed by the 9/11 plane flying into the World Trade Center, I knew what I was in for. That was enough for me. Do I hear Islamophobia, anyone?

For those of you who have friends, relatives, co-workers, ex-lovers, exogamists, enemies, bores or boors urging you to watch this piece of dreck, read Ali Eteraz’s clever evisceration, Fitna Farce.

And by the way, if anyone thinks you couldn’t make the same film about Judaism or virtually any world religion, they’re sorely mistaken. Do you know how many acts of war, murder, fratricide, genocide and terror there are in the Bible? Many. So many they make my skin crawl. Do you know how many villainous acts Jews commit in the Bible? Many. Does this mean that Judaism is evil? Of course not. Does is justify the hatred of anti-Semites? Of course not.

Does any of what I’m saying justify any of the heinous acts or images seen in Wilders’ film? Of course not. Islamist extremism is no more justified than Jewish extremism.

more...


http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/03/29/fitna-dutch-for-garbage/#more-3034

[msmcghee]

18. According to Wiki . . .

The film's title comes from the Arabic word fitna which is used to describe "disagreement and division among people", or a "test of faith in times of trial". Fitna was released to the Internet on March 27, 2008.

[aranthus]

4. I think people will see this film for what it appears to be.

I haven't seen it and have no desire to, but it certainly sounds:
1. Bigoted.
2. Immoral for accusing the large number of innocent muslims of being terrorists.
3. Counterproductive by making the people we need as allies feel threatened by us.

Maybe, however, it will provoke a real discussion about both sets of extremists.

[subsuelo]

5. I've no interest in it myself

Would rather see it not receive all the publicity it seems to be picking up

[aranthus]

6. I understand your point.

I have no interest in seeing it either. But it's here, it's goihg to make the news, and the best that we can hope is that people will realise what it is. If there is no violent response from Muslims, that will be the best retort to the film that they could give.

[Vegasaurus]

7. Agreed

We don't need more inflammatory movies, etc. What's the point?

However, if there are riots as a result, it will have done nothing but to support the film's basic underlying premise, no matter how wrong it may be,

[msmcghee]

8. We do need more inflammatory movies.

That's how freedom of speech works. If you have a point of view - even if it's inflammatory - you have the right to publish it and spread it. No-one here has ever said that Arab publishers don't have the right to publish the Protocols - although there has been due criticism of the contents and discussions about its popularity.

The way to counter a view you disagree with is to publish your own in opposition.

Is this all about that 14 minute production I saw on a DU supplied video clip link? If it is I'd wonder why it's creating such an uproar. The graphics are basically a montage of terrorist attacks that have been seen by just about everyone in the world who has a TV over the last few years. There are hundreds of U-tube amateur productions by GI's in Iraq showing US violence against Iraqis that are far more disgusting.

In any case, I believe in the first amendment and don't think it should be diluted when it comes to messages some people don't like to hear or see except in special cases. You probably were not suggesting that but I just wanted to chime in. :thumbsup:

(Before anyone gets clever - I am talking about free speech in society - not speech in a forum like this where people voluntarily agree to limit their own speech according to rules that apply to all members equally.)

[aranthus]

9. You're right. I wasn't suggesting censorship of any kind.

I too am a firm believer in the First Amendment, and the right of free speech. I also believe that there are obvious points to make about Islamist extremism. But a dishonest film that tries to tar all Muslims as terrorists isn't helping. I also question whether it is a good idea to deliberately provoke people, as the film seems to intend. It's not censorship to accuse the film of bigotry and dishonesty (though it could be an inaccurate accusation, of course). That's just speech in opposition.

[msmcghee]

10. If it's the film I saw . .

. . I didn't pick up any explicit message about "all Muslims are terrorists". Certainly the author's POV is that there is an Islamist terrorist movement that uses bombings of civilians in the West as a means of political coercion - and that movement bases "their ideology" on specific verses of the Quran.

I think most Americans understand implicitly that all Muslims are not terrorists. For example, there are Mosques throughout the US in major cities. There are US Muslims who are members of congress and who are not disparaged for their faith. New York city seems to depend for its public transportation for a great part on the skills of thousands of Muslim taxi drivers some of whom refuse to give rides to blind people with seeing eye dogs, etc. (In NY, locals tend to see them as them being typical New Yorkers rather than typical Muslims.) The guy who's probably going to be the next president of the US is named Barak Hussein Obama. He had a Muslim father and he went to a Muslim school when he was very young.

That's the good thing about freedom of speech. When somebody expresses a strong point of view - since these are so common, everyone's reaction at first is skeptical because we're so used to it - we know we're only getting part of the story - and so we wait for the opposing viewpoint which will be posted somewhere on the internet - usually within a few minutes. And we'll probably be just as skeptical of that one.

IMO the world would be a more peaceful place if everyone acted like typical New Yorkers - outspoken, argumentative, often outrageous - and totally accepting of whatever weirdness comes along. ;)

[subsuelo]

11. "if there are riots as a result ..."

"if there are riots as a result, it will have done nothing but to support the film's basic underlying premise"

Skip the subtleties and spell it out please.

Explain.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Nothing subtle about it: provides ammunition for those who want to see Muslims as savages.

I'd love to see a movie based on the all the killing and murder in the Old Testament.

Or a movie that outlines all the blood shed over the past 2000 years in the name of Christ.

[subsuelo]

14. providing ammunition is different from supporting the premise

[shira]

22. the muslim "threat" in this movie is of course out of line....

...but to compare modern day Islamic extremism to Christianity of the middle ages or Judaism in the days of the bible goes to show how much Christianity and Judaism have reformed and secularized with their own enlightenment movements over the centuries. Christianity and Judaism's extremist leaders have been and are to a great extent marginalized by their own mainstream followers. Their threats are contained. The freedom to disagree and criticize very liberally their views exists in western culture.

OTOH, The problem today with Islamic extremism is that its leaders are not as marginalized in the same way. Fanatical and brutal tyrants run most Islamic countries. Their govt's allow and encourage certain extremism in their media (that we in the west would never tolerate). Hatefilled imams and mullahs are not marginalized and dealt with by their fellow religionists like Jerry Falwell or Meir Kahane were treated/ignored.

While I agree that all people are just people - the sad fact is that all their leadership is not the same. When Islamic govt's worldwide start really cracking down on their extremists, end the dictatorships, have true elections with true democracy - real checks and balances - civil liberties, tolerance for ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, etc...only then will we be able to truly compare Islam to Christianity and Judaism - when the horror shows of the past are truly relegated to the dustbin of history. We all have our stupid fanatics. It's what our societies choose to do with them that makes the difference here. Muslim leadership is regressive and not moving progressively into the 21st century. This is the real danger if left unchallenged.

Right? Wrong?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I thought you had me on ignore, Veggie...

Peek-a-boo! It's not possible to even see a thread that's started by someone you've got on ignore, y'know :)

Tell me more about why you think if there was a riot it'd be supporting the films basic underlying premise. What exactly do you think the film's basic underlying premise is if it isn't an attempt to portray Muslims as terrorists etc?

[azurnoir]

12. Just watched the film on youtube

it proves if nothing else that the Koran like all 3 of the Abrahamic books is contradictory and easy to cherry pick, the Islamaphobes(sp) always forget or ignore this passage

2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[msmcghee]

13. Right on! n/t

[LeftishBrit]

16. That is ignored by the Islamophobes *and* by right-wing Muslims...

just as right-wing Christians ignore such phrases as "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "What you did not unto the least of these, you did not unto me"; and miss one of the essential points of the story of the Good Samaritan: that the good guy was a member of an ethnic and religious minority group.

[azurnoir]

19. you are right about that

"right wing " Muslims, the quote I posted is no representative of the whole of the Koran than the ones in the film.

[LeftishBrit]

15. I haven't seen it and probably won't...

from the sound of it, it's pretty bigoted; and as others have said, you could probably create a similar film about taken-out-of-context religious phrases and violent actions by Christians, Jews, Hindus, or *any* other religion (e.g. the statement from the New Testament, "I come not to bring peace but a sword", combined with footage of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, and related terrorist outrages?)

In any case, the mere fact that it was produced by Geert Wilders puts me off immediately!

I am glad that the Central Netherlands Jewish Board have spoken out about it!

This said, I agree with others that it should not be censored: partly because I believe in freedom of expression, and partly on the more pragmatic grounds that an outright ban on something like that generally gives it more publicity! I would rather see it sink through lack of interest.

[Scurrilous]

17. Uproar Over Anti-Islam Film Falls Flat

<snip>

"The leader of Netherlands' anti-immigration party, Geert Wilders, posted an anti-Islam film Thursday that was expected to raise an uproar among Muslims. So far, the fallout has fallen flat.

Wilders posted his film on the Internet after local distributors declined to release it. His film entitled, "Fitna," which translates to "Discord" in Arabic, suggests the Quran promotes violence and acts of terrorism. The 10-minute film shows various verses of the Quran followed by a montage of violent photos and video ranging from the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center to photos of the Shiite ritual of self-flagellation.

Wilders concludes the film with a graphic, saying it is up to "Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses of the Quran. Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you." Wilders urges his audience to "stop Islamization, defend our freedom."

So far, the protests over the film have been largely over legal issues. European news reports say Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard will sue Wilders for using his copyrighted image of the prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. News reports also say Dutch rapper Salah Edin is seeking legal recourse for his picture appearing in the film mistaking him for the man who murdered Dutch film director Theo van Gogh.

Small protests over the controversial film have sprouted in the Muslim world but have remained nonviolent."

more

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Meanwhile in LGF-land, they're absolutely orgasmic about the film...

There's a rush to be the first to see it and nod sagely about how this proves how violent and terroristic Muslims are. I'd link to some reviews, but we're not allowed to link to those sorts of sites, but this comment from one bigoted piece of crap bears repeating. Imagine if a DUer were ever to say something like this? 'Sadly, it sounds like the film may have a valid point!' ;)