Why Is The World Watching?
U.S Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama made the claim last Tuesday, after dropping 3 of 4 state primaries to his Democratic rival Hilary Clinton, that the world was watching what he and his supporters were doing. “The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves,” he said. “What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?”
One may find it hard to argue with Obama on this point, as his candidacy has certainly alerted the world to a different face of American politics. Yet “the world” is an attentive place, and people are inclined to follow a story as much for its audacity to hope as its audacity to bully. One such story, which has had a development of outlandish proportions, is about the yet to be released movie “Fitna”. As I imagine most readers will already know, Dutch MP Geert Wilders’ 10 minute film is set to aggravate an already scrutinized Muslim population, both in his native country and around the world.
His film’s message is rather simple and has been made numerous times by the man himself: Islam is fascist, and the Qur’an incites violence of deadly proportions. Wilders’ insistence on making these points central to his political career has not come without personal cost; the man has had to leave his country for a period of time, travel with constant security surveillance, and even work out of a prison cell at one point in his life. According to some he has taken up the mantle of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Dutch politics, although he’ll tell you he’s been making these statements long before anyone began listening to him.
Wilders’ latest attempt at international infamy is one of precision and deliberation. While last year’s Muhammed caricatures inflamed cultural tensions well after their publication, the Dutch politician’s first cinematic venture has already managed to provoke significant reaction from officials of governments that are oft-labeled illegitimate and non-representative by their constituents. Iranian officials have threatened an economic embargo and the Egyptian foreign ministry has patronizingly lectured the Dutch government on free speech and responsibility. Never mind that neither of these suddenly defensive bodies retains any authority upon which to issue statements of responsibility. They have already played right into a game which has been designed to provide ideological vindication for its designer.
As the world reacts to his unreleased film, the bleach blonde-haired politician has seemingly taken it all in stride. “It’s not the aim of the movie but people might be offended, I know that. So what the hell? It’s their problem, not my problem,” Wilders remarked in a recent television interview with an American network. The statement is masked in unwavering bravado, although it does expose a flaw in his plan which could soon turn his native population fully against him. A recent poll revealed a majority of Dutch citizens in support of the film’s broadcast, while also wary of its consequences of the Netherlands’ international image and its relations with Arab nations:
The poll by TNS NIPO for RTL television showed that 54 percent thought the film should be broadcast although 76 percent expected it to increase tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims and 74 percent saw worsening relations with Arab nations.
The survey of 600 people conducted on February 29 showed that 68 percent expected a boycott like that seen against Denmark after cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed appeared in a Danish newspaper.
The Dutch government has taken exhaustive measures to distance itself from both the film and the politician, while cautioning that citizens and companies abroad could conceivably bare the brunt of Wilders’ actions. NATO’s secretary general has joined this chorus of vigilance, warning of the potential backlash on Dutch soldiers serving in Afghanistan. “If the [troops] find themselves in the line of fire because of the film, then I am worried about it and I am expressing that concern,” he said in a television interview. With the majority of Dutch citizens now siding with free-speech over outrage, it has been suggested that any significant backlash against their country as a result of the film could swing a tide of resentment directly at the leader of the Freedom Party.
“In Holland we have a tendency to underestimate the significance of some of our politicians’ actions,” remarked Thomas Luijken, an active member of the student political party NOVUM. “With Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whether you agree with her or not, we did not realize the impact she would have around the world.” When I asked him whether, after considering the controversy this film is being met with and the warnings of harm to Dutch interests overseas, he would be willing to take a stand either for or against Wilders, he responded resolutely. “If people protest overseas, that’s their right, unless they become riots and not protests. But if Dutch are negatively affected by this abroad and this results in some sort of violence, I would join a protest against (Wilders). It’s not a very Dutch thing to do, but if (a protest) happened I would join it.”
While this was one person’s reaction, it was emblematic of relative Dutch apathy to the issue. Although media outlets have obsessed over the story for weeks now, local Muslim groups and other offended parties have responded with arguments of legality and social sophistication. In the southern city of Maastricht, the areas’ largest mosque has held discussion nights opening its’ doors to all interested parties for a ‘respectful dialogue’. Others’ who feel slighted by the movie, and with Wilders himself, have sought legal action against the politician who was recently described as a ‘rising star’ by a piece in the Guardian.
Yet what is worrying about this story is its’ propensity to attract judgment on the basis of foreign reaction. The movie’s release and broadcast may not necessarily stoke severe social tensions within the Netherlands, but looks bound to provoke an international reaction disproportionate to the issue itself. Religious leaders from Egypt and Syria have demanded the EU take action against those who insult religion, for example, bringing back into focus an increasingly familiar debate of cultural sensitivity versus freedom of speech.
What is undeniable at this point is that the world is indeed watching. They will watch both the provocation as well as the ensuing outrage, which if significant will likely find its source well beyond the borders of the Netherlands. When asked to give one statement on the issue, knowing that many around the world will be listening, Thomas Luijken grinned, and calmly issued perhaps the most pertinent of advice one could give. “Don’t take this man too seriously,” he said, “we really don’t.”
The world is watching. Here’s hoping they see an over hyped controversy for what it truly is.
(Karim blogs over at Outsider On The Inside)
Join the Conversation
Pingback: Why Is The World Watching? : Outsider On The Inside
“Overhyped”, how can that be when the great majority of serious conflicts in the world have as their center a disparity between religions and ethnicity. cultural differences are a naturals foundation for conflict in a world where competition for scarce resources continues to prevail, and religious differences exacerbate the conflicts. Your argument is dependent on a narrow and distorted worldview, but does that not describe Islam today?
Sometimes firemen fight fire with fire. But that can be a risky game for the rest of us. You don’t fight extremism with extremism. It won’t work. If you counter extremist views, with extremist views, which is what Wilders is trying to do, then you stoke the fires of extremism, with no sensible outcome in sight. Pretty soon, people become so enraged at one another, that no one is able to figure out what the fighting is all about.
Some people would view this film as free speech. But even free speech must be kept in check when a storm is brewing. You are not allowed, for example, to falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater, even in the name of free speech, because pandemonium is the likely result. Free speech must sometimes take a back seat to the need to keep the peace.
The only way to defeat ideological extremism is to counter it with common sense. Extremism will fall by the wayside as people begin to see the utter nonsense of it. And you can give your arguments a good measure of credibility by putting some serious investment dollars on the table. Make sense to people, invest in their well being, and inspire them with a sense of hope, and you will go a long way to marginalize the extremists in the eyes of their own people. The ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.
So I agree with you, Karim, that Wilders’ approach is dangerously mistaken. He chooses to fuel the fires of resentment. He feels entitled to do that, but he does a disservice to his cause and to his country.
David B. Brooks,
I would agree with your comment, although I would still argue that this story is overhyped. The media coverage has been ridiculously excessive, and the movie hasn’t come out yet. Government officials no less have responded with preemptive anger and threats.
I don’t know anything about Islam’s “worldview”.
Nissim Dahan,
What Wilders is doing is sadly misguided, yet the reaction has been equally so. There are many ways to fight extremism, but I don’t believe this was ever intended to be one of them.
“I don’t know anything about Islam’s “worldview”.” That is part of the problem. As Ayaan Hirs Ali has stated numerous times, Islam itself is extreme. It is not just a religion but a culture, essentially a 7th century Arab tribal culture incapable of dealing with the realities of a civilized world whose population has multiplied thousands of time since the 7th century, yet because the Quran and the Hadith are “sacred” they do not change and adapt. The conflict is between “civilizations” although I would contend the culture of Islam is much less civilized as it has not allowed itself, and its people to progress and more fully develop the human potential as the west has building on 5,000 years of experience and thought from Classical Greece through the Roman Empire, as well as the Saracen and Moorish exchanges in Europe half a millennium ago.
No one has the right to say and believe their’s is the only true faith, or that there’s is the only way humans should live. The reason is quite simple: the conflicts that will engender will only contribute to humanity’s not surviving the challenges that face the billions of people now living on this planet. Unless we realize that human survival is founded in cooperation and not competition, we will not survive.
Islam must be challenged for its fundamental extremist principles and beliefs. Then it is up to all Muslims to learn that to survive and flourish in this world the other 2/3rds of humanity must also survive and flourish in their own ways with everyone respecting and supporting each other, or we will all by failing to meet nature’s challenge to our occupation of the planet.
David,
Again I find myself agreeing with some of your post, and in fact I’ve argued before that reliance on ancient texts to develop a modern frame of morality and society is indeed misguided. I do differentiate however between a conflict of civilizations and one of a religious system struggling to maintain a collective identity, maintain a ‘nation’ for instance, despite the ethnic and cultural differences of its followers.
I agree with this, yet it would have to be applied to any faith system. The solution, I suppose, would be to purge humanity of faith and rely on reason. However, I don’t see this ever realistically happening, where we are not in competition with each other in some form.
I still maintain my argument that it is not useful to poke a rabid tiger when out of its cage just to prove it will do some harm.
Also, on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I believe any faith is extreme in that it supposes to know a form of absolute truth. But allow me to ask you, how would you propose “challenging Islam for its fundamental extremist principles and beliefs?”
Wilders has put Muslims in a position whereby they either shrug off the film and its challenge to open debate of Wilders’ thesis that Islam is a fascist poligion, a political religion, or they riot and prove themselves generally to be out-of-control fanatics who cannot cope with the social world of Modernity. Either way, Muslims lose: no riots and murders in the streets around the world and the whole bluff of Muslim violence will fade to black, showing that anyone can now do as they please to insult and degrade the image of Mohammed and Islam at will; or Muslims will riot and kill indiscriminately in an orgy of religious fanaticism and self-pity, showing the world yet again that Muslims generally are savages who do not have a legitimate place in the Modern world. Not nice, is it? No, but none of it is Wilders’ problem.
Wilders wins either way.
Karim,
“Also, on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I believe any faith is extreme in that it supposes to know a form of absolute truth. But allow me to ask you, how would you propose “challenging Islam for its fundamental extremist principles and beliefs?”
If you have in fact read “Infidel” Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s biographical book, the answer is within. She is considered an apostate, from Muslim perspective and atheist, which may be true from a religious perspective. But she got to that juncture in her own life by educating herself and in particular to the thinking of the European Enlightenment the ideas contained are those that are the foundation of democracy in the western world. for one it counters the idea there is any absolute truth, that truth is relative to the evidence, the essential principle upon which science and the accumulation of knowledge and understanding is founded. Identity as it is understood in democratic civilizations comes from within the individual as part of the total education process by finding oneself in the relationship you acquire with the world by learning of it it and how you see yourself reflected by that world.
From the earliest evidence of human activities 10′s of thousands of year ago their have been indications that humans have a spiritual dimension to there being. This was later fortified as the entire world was explored by Europeans in the last few centuries, finding a huge diversity of pre-literate cultures that also displayed a diversity of beliefs and faiths in the spiritual. However, previous to the civilized societies that began in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Asia between eight and ten thousand years ago, what we call religious today was then a spiritualism that was closely tied to nature, as people then lived entirely within and by means of nature. Only when organized agriculture allowed civilized people to move away from nature did any supernaturally based organized religious institutions develop. And it is clear from history that organized religion was a tool used by the society’s leadership to suppress and oppress the common people to the advantage of the leaders, which of course included the “priests”.
For Ayaan Hirsi Ali knowledge of human history and its wealth of ideas replaced religion, she still has faith but it is now based on what she understands it is to be a free and self-sufficient individual human being.
The challenge to Islam is in the knowledge and understanding of what it is to be human that has been acquired by western civilization since the time of the earliest Greek philosophers 5000 year ago that has been built upon and developed since, and in part with the assistance of Muslim scholars from the time of the highest ascendance of the Caliphate in the 13th century, who had preserved the knowledge of the Greek and roman Empires that were lost in Europe during the Dark Ages.
Islam can begin to understand why the west is threatening to their faith and what is left of Islam, by first of all just reading the primary documents that are the foundation of western democracy like the British Magna Carta, the American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, as well as the United Nations Human Rights Declaration. These documents define what a free human individual is and what rights and privileges all humans should have and enjoy are. This contrasts with a faith that demands obedience and submission to the will of a supernatural god. It is my understanding that Islam translated into English means “those that obey”. In the west all individuals are free to be whoever they decide to become and are required to only obey laws equally applied to all they themselves have agreed to live in accordance with.
The western civilizations did not acquire their individual freedoms easily. Europe was dominated by autocratic monarchs with the aid and assistance of a suppressive and oppressive Roam Catholic Church for centuries, and freedom and self governance was won only after much upheaval and many hard fought battles. Today Islam is largely poor, ignorant and dominated by superstition, fear and resentment for the conditions of life imposed by their cultures. The anger and hatred that persists does more harm to Muslims than it does to anyone else in the world. Islam cannot defeat the west without destroying themselves. The only winning solution is to join the wast and the rest of humanity on an equal basis to met the challenges all humans face for their survival on a planet that is becoming increasingly hostile because of our own disrespect and neglect of nature
Dag,
Your analysis is probably on target. But it is essentially nihilistic because it will not do anything to open the closed minds of Muslims who have immigrated to Holland and now reside there.
A better policy to deal with Islamics in Europe would be to present them with both a carrot and a stick. Give them the opportunity to fully integrate by embracing european democratic values, obtains training for employment, and a period of time to accomplish this or if they cannot or do not want to immigrate after a set period of time cut them off from all support, social services, free health care, and invite them to move elsewhere all expenses paid.
Many Muslims have immigrated to the United States, and most have put am effort into integrating, applying for citizenship taking the necessary classes in American government and civics to pas the citizenship exam. Those that achieve American citizenship and are self sufficient supporting themselves are relatively content and glad to enjoy a better life for themselves and their families In American than they had in their homeland.
America is no better than Europe, but all Americans were once immigrants, and over now several hundred years of practice we have a pretty good success rate even though we have a political problem with 12-14 million illegals from south of our border.
Above, David B. Brooks Writes:
“Dag, your analysis is probably on target, but it is essentially nihilistic because it will not do anything to open the closed minds of Muslims who have immigrated to Holland and now reside there.”
David continues with a hopeful plan to suggest ways and means of integrating Muslims– as individuals– into the Modern West, an admirable goal, to say the least, though I feel that the outline is naive in that it’s based on a utopian vision of Humanness that leads one to various strains of socialism, the very epistemology that creates this kind of historical and on-going problem in the first place. His suggestion that my input here is nihilistic is fair, given the length and depth of my comment above. Let me briefly counter such charge:
The Modern world, in its infancy, a world we today sometimes seem to think is eternal and universal, i.e. that there have always been televisions and aeroplanes and supermarkets, and that only the capitalists have prevented the wide-spread availability of such, is in fact hardly more than 250 years old at its best, and then nothing we would recognize as our Modernity at all. We have emerged, we in the Modern West, from the Agricultural Revolution only recently, ca. 1750, with the advent of modern and rational agriculture, and only in small parts of the world even to this day. That bifurcation of the means of producing agriculture allows for capitalism, for market farming, i.e. for the end of “peasant” economy, capitalism having a rough beginning, but a mellowing present where it is allowed to flourish. And that is not far. It is also fiercely resisted by the world’s majority, the pastoralists of Islam, those who live as herders and part-time hunter-gatherers with the confines of definable and semicoherent cities. It is this rationalism of social relations, of life within cities and settlements that challenges the folk who have “forever” lived outside the confines of this beginning Modernity, outside the rule of positive law, inside the bounds of family and tribal jurisdiction and social relations. Until 1798, until Napoleon invaded Egypt, the Muslim world had no challenges worth mentioning to its “dogmatic slumbers.” Cairo was awakened by the deafening roar of cannons and the printing press. Islam has not since that day had any rest. It will not rest again in this life time, perhaps not ever. A Human eternity of sameness was destroyed in a week by invading Modernists, and the Muslim world has not gathered its senses to this day to make sense of itself in the face of the change. This is not limited to Muslims, particularly those in the Middle East. The same shock of uprootedness is the prevailing condition of the Left in the West. We have had, since the French Revolution, a reactionary movement, both in France, and particularly in Germany in the form of Romanticism, a vying to return the world to its pre-Modern state, a fascism in itself and nearly by definition. In short, the Modern world is new to those few who experience it directly; and it is new and alien, disruptive and threatening to those many who do not want it; Modernity, then for both those in the outer world of pre-Modernity and those within is not considered a blessing at all. It is a condition to be destroyed. Very few of us truly love it, though many take from it what they can in the same way they would as pastoralists and hunter-gatherers finding this or that beneficial thing. Modernity as epistemology is not universal, even among Modernity’s people.
It is utopian to think that anything other than centuries of renewed colonialism and exercise of Western Manifest Destiny will make universal the Modernity we in the West take for granted, those of us who do. Patch-work reform is not a viable programme for the world’s hostile anti-Modernists, for Muslims and the West’s Left dhimmi fascists, to assimilate and accustom themselves to Modernity’s strangeness and alien ways, ways unlike anything een or imagined in any of our million years of Humanness. We, Modernists, we are Revolutionaries utterly different from all other peoples in any other and all other times and places. We will not win over the masses by trickery and doo-dads. Pleasant words from well-meaning Modernist social workers and care-givers will not erase these million years of sameness in the human who “feels” his life in a state of natural and eternal Irrationality.
For every successful immigrant into America, there is at least one, I am guessing, native born American who leaves the modernity of the nation for the realms of Irrationalism and the mind of the primitive, though he remains in the state, a driven anti-American, anti-Modernist, collectivist, socialist, and so on. He might live in a city but only as a pastoralist/ hunter-gatherer or at best a Gnostic professional committed to the rite of Human sacrifice in appeasement of the savage gods of his temper. Plans of any sort will not directly or efficiently address the condition of innate Man.
So, yes, I can understand ho this might seem nihilistic on the face of it, there seeming to be no solution short of war to extermination by one side victorious or the other. Beyond the mere nihilistic face of it, there is a path to universal Modernity, though it will not come tomorrow or next year nor even ever. That path is the incremental plodding of aporia, best achieved through market economics and free inquiry. Sorry to say, it lacks the fascist “grand gesture” to make it appealing to many living in a state of pre-Modernity with its overwhelming sense of mediocrity and alienated social relationship in Nature. Being a Modernist is really and truly kind of boring. That it works is hardly interesting to those who cannot live with it, those who cannot give up the response to the call of the wild. I’m highly sympathetic; and I am also more than happy to pursue the challenge those of our cousins who will present it to us in coming times, I being a man who is often more akin to Muslims than to my fellow Modernists in that and likely only in that sense.
America, to conclude, is not a geographical entity, as some mistakenly assume, but is a state of mind, Americans being elsewhere becoming, as I understand too well, more American than those who remain. America is a revolution of the mind, available to anyone anywhere at any time. Any Muslim willing to submit to the American ethos can become American in a few years and be so forever, and he need not leave the farm or the cave. He must only leave the confines of his previous location in the mind. William Blake, a bundle of confused contradictions of the mind, writes that a man can make a Heaven of Hell or a Hell of Heaven. It is indeed in the mind. One need not roam the Earth in search of anything, it all being available to one who wishes to accept and submit.
What hope from my clear plan? Not a bit, though it is available, and therefore not a nihilism at all.
For a very brief introduction to this line of reasoning, not much reasoned at all, one may turn to the following outline:
http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2005/05/aether-uber-mench.html
And from there, years now of detailed critique of the “Romance Origins of Left Dhimmi Fascism.”
Thank you, David, for your interest and response.
Regards, Dag Walker, Vancouver, Canada.
Well, time for a bit more simplistic commentary:
First, let me point out that Islam is being offered moral judgement by the Dutch, in this particular case. Pfff. I for one would never be affected by commentary from a culture with legalized prostitution and drug use. Hippies.
Now, there is no doubt that there are some pretty savage movements going on in the Islamic world, who consider themselves to be quite a bit more Muslim than most of the rest of said world. Well, so what? The entirety of nastiness in the Muslim world still has mountains of skulls to build before it can equal the heavyweights of murder done by those wonderful European philosophies, Nazism and Communism, holding the title at some 30 million slaughtered!
Free speech is not at issue here, and in fact is being bolstered by the response of the offended segments of the Muslim world holding protests and making vague threats against the west. It’s always great to see folks in the streets with placards, even if they are protesting against essentially what they are doing. I think this whole grumbing about “the Islamic question” has less to do with philosophic problems with the Umma in Europe than with the White folks being nervous and annoyed with having far more oddly dressed brown people around than they are used to, being judgemental of their drinking habits and casual sex. I have to go now and finish building my 3 meter high snowpile at the end of my driveway.
Dag,
It is not a utopian view of humanness which some 400 year ago began the quest for a greater potential in human life by Europeans who explored and settled new world, most of which are established democracies like not just the United State, but Canada, Mexico a dozen and a half South and Central American societies of great diversity, as well as Iceland, Australia and New Zealand. Variations of human culture that have thrived because no arbitrary limits are imposed on people by religion or politics.
Those you describe living in the Umma, the pastoral heart of Islam are not free to become even a shadow of their potential being too ignorant of the rest of the world to realize they are slaves obedient to a religion that is also their culture and their government.
If the Umma of Europe continues to refuse to integrate into the societies they came to to escape a lack of opportunity in their homeland, they will find even less opportunity and diminishing acceptance and tolerance as time goes on and patience wears thin. In a less democratic atmosphere in Russia for instance, what I predict is already occurring and the non-Russian immigrant population is beginning to face and ugly decision, whether to stay and starve or return to their homelands.
You are correct America and all democracies are a particular state of mind. But you do NOT SUBMIT to anything as no submission is required or expected. If anyone embraces democracy they embrace freedom and the liberty to define yourself true to who you are inside assuming an identity that does not depend on any kind of submission to anything external.
You quote Blake who like most who lived in his time was still a slave to religion. You can never become a fully self sufficient and independent human being capable of fully developing your human potential when you submit to be a slave to anything, gods, other people, drugs, alcohol any of the many escapes from the courage it takes to be everything you can be in truth to yourself and to all others.
Eric and David have made further comments that I wish to respond to in some detail, though I’m not free at this moment. Please remain with me till I can come back and give this the time it deserves. Thanks for your patience.
Regards, Dag Walker.
First, I think it’s both very ironic and very archetypal for such a conflict to originate from the Netherlands. The country has allowed almost every type of behavior including prostitution, drugs, and created a city such as Amsterdam. In such a country where there are virtually no limits on behavior, citizens are free to form biases and judgments as they please. From a fundamental standpoint, the Dutch should be most acquainted with the “live and let live” worldview. Fundamentally, people can choose to believe what they believe as long as their rights do not infringe on the rights of other people to happiness. In Holland, I don’t see how the Islamic faith is instituting any sort of fascist regime that creates a daily negative impact on the Dutch citizens. Therefore, I do not see any motive other than sheer ignorance driving the creation of Wilder’s video.
Second, the attitude of the Dutch government towards this is completely absurd. The fact that the Dutch are willing to have complete déjà vu with respect to anti-Islamic Dutch media is stupid. The Dutch government needs to get off the politically correct fence and enforce a regulation against open defamation of a group of people
Third, the potential of this video to incite violence worldwide is enormous. The stupidity of the human race never fails to astound me. The determination of a select group of people to spread their discriminatory messages throughout the world in the most offensive way possible is futile. Because the fact of the matter is that most Dutch citizens will still remain neutral towards Islamic faith, despite what Wilder decides to publish. But his film will only promote more and more stereotypes. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. That’s all I have to say about it.
Alex.
My response to your views follows:
“First, I think it’s both very ironic and very archetypal for such a conflict to originate from the Netherlands. The country has allowed almost every type of behavior including prostitution, drugs, and created a city such as Amsterdam.”
Until it was over-immigrated by uneducated Muslims mostly from Africa, Amsterdam for any educated, civilized person was a very desirable place to live freely with the greatest opportunity to maximize the development of the human potential. Why should people not be free to govern themselves if they have access to knowledge and education to be able to govern themselves? If an individual succumbs to alcohol, drug or sexual addiction isn’t that the individual’s responsibility and the consequences of it are penalty enough. Are you such a weak person you cannot govern your own life that all temptations should be removed by law and religion?
“In such a country where there are virtually no limits on behavior, citizens are free to form biases and judgments as they please. From a fundamental standpoint, the Dutch should be most acquainted with the “live and let live” worldview.”
The contrary solution of what you describe is government/religious suppression and oppression. So you prefer fascist tyranny over freedom? Is your view of human nature so negative that you believe what it is to be naturally human is inherently evil? If that is the case why should anyone be allowed to live?
“Fundamentally, people can choose to believe what they believe as long as their rights do not infringe on the rights of other people to happiness.”
Yes that is a primary right expressed in the American Declaration of Independence. But you argue against it saying people should not be allowed the freedom to choose what you think is bad for them. Who are you or anyone, any religion the arbiter of what is and is not human? the only caveat to total individual freedom is that the individual and the society holds a person responsible for the consequences of the exercise of those freedoms.
“The fact that the Dutch are willing to have complete déjà vu with respect to anti-Islamic Dutch media is stupid. The Dutch government needs to get off the politically correct fence and enforce a regulation against open defamation of a group of people.”
If people enjoy freedom the primary essential freedom supporting all is freedom of speech. Criticism of government, politics and religion is therefore fair game. Everyone and every idea and belief in a free society has the same opportunity to both be criticized and to respond to that criticism. So why does Islam claim a special exception to freedom of speech, has it no means to defend itself on its merits? To answer that on the basis of a small familiarity with the Quran and Hadith, I would say the beliefs are in human terms indefensible and many of the charges against the Muslim faith including gross gender discrimination and a tendency to violence as a solution to human social problems cannot be denied either on the basis of the texts or on the basis of how Islamic societies affect human life where Islam is predominant.
“Third, the potential of this video to incite violence worldwide is enormous.”
Only the Muslim faith would react to criticism with uncontrolled violence which harms mostly Muslims themselves. So why does no other faith if criticized respond with violent hysteria and madness. Why is Islam the exception in the world, and does it in terms of what it has done for its people is so wonderful it should not be questioned and criticized? Finally if the Muslim faith and Islam so great why do so many immigrate outside of Islam? And then when they complain because they cannot assimilate and succeed. do they not return to their Islamic origin, but prefer to act destructively to the societies who have offered then hospitality?
Alright, first, I really wasnt even responding to any of your posts in particular. But since you took it upon yourself to personify an objective review, I will respond.
First, you claim “The contrary solution of what you describe is government/religious suppression and oppression. So you prefer fascist tyranny over freedom? Is your view of human nature so negative that you believe what it is to be naturally human is inherently evil? If that is the case why should anyone be allowed to live?”
The fundamental objective of a government is to serve the people. It doesnt matter which governmental model you choose to use, the desires of a sect of society must be subjugated in order to provide for the common good. HOWEVER, the subjugation of these desires does not result in the complete ignorance of the basic rights of a group to avoid harassment. In the United States, the media is not allowed to make any generalizations based on race, and therefore, that same right extends to a personal designation of religion. No person should feel oppressed because of their personal beliefs. Refusal to believe otherwise is a bigoted, self propogating, egotistical view of the importance of yourself and your beliefs. You have no right to judge another human for what they believe, and you have no right to trivialize the significance of their beliefs with racist cartoons and videos. Did you have a kindergarden teacher that never taught you to treat others as you wanted to be treated?
In response to your claims about the Quran and Hadith and the Muslim faith when speaking about violence.
It is an undeniable truth that there are armed and dangerous Islamic extremist groups. And in recent years, such groups have been a main source of destruction. NOT BY ANY CLAIMS THE ONLY SOURCE OF TERRORISM, but they are certainly a unified group promoting their anti-western agenda by the use of violence against innocent citizens. As you claim to know everything about rights and human hospitality, how do you feel about Islamic extremism? Do you believe that calling them and their faith fascist and destructive in the global media will really alleviate the problem? No. It wont. The problem of Islamic extremism should not be ignored by the global media, but it should not immunize the world to the idea of Islamic extremism by generalizing any follower of the Quran as a fascist terrorist.
And finally, since you seem so intent on criticizing everything dealing with Islam, how many Western Media news stations could criticize a figure such as the Catholic Pope and not face rioting outside of their stations? Just because that there is not as identifiable figure of Islam, that does not excuse the widespread criticism of their faith because of the actions of a few extremists. There is no explicit rule prohibiting the criticism of the pope or any religious figure in the media, but somehow, the Islamic faith seems to be criticized much more frequently and much harsher than any other major religion. So until I see that the Islamic faith is being criticized as harshly as any other, I would not poke your finger inside the lion’s cage and tempt it to bite. Because there are extremist groups who will react negatively towards the generalizations made in Wilders video and the ramifications of these actions will not promote world cooperation and coexistence. I do not harbor such a delusional world view that I believe that everyone can join hands and work in peace, but nonviolent coexistence is a universal goal that should be worked for. Unless you harbor such a discriminant worldview that those who control the media have the right to criticize whomever they like.
Eric,
I am in no way selectively discriminate particularly towards Islam compared to other religions. All major religions are based on texts, written words, and I did in college study comparative religions at some depth and an anthropology student. Each can be evaluated in respect of universal human values and rights for what they are, and each has been quite thoroughly criticized in hundreds if not thousands of books, essays and magazine articles over the last couple of hundred years. The Pope and Catholicism contrary to what you suggest has been a frequent focus of severe criticism, and Europe was for centuries embroiled in religious wars – but not in modern times. Today Islam is the only major religion at the center of violent contests that can be called war.
As to your last paragraph, I can only answer the obvious. The west is almost exclusively liberal democratic based on a set of rights, the foremost of which is freedom of speech and assembly. There is no official government censorship of anything save someone yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Whether the Muslim faith deserves criticism is not the issue to me, all organized religion on merit deserves much criticism for all have failed humanity as just another means for some people to oppress, suppress and subjugate other people limiting their right to determine their own lives individually. Muslims who come to western democracies have no basis to complain of criticism of Islam – we did not ask you or force you to leave your homelands and reside in Europe and the Americas. So that old saying applies, “If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen”. If you don’t like the consequences of living in a free liberal democracy, you can leave. As another saying goes, when in Rome live as the Romans do – or don’t visit Rome.
Addition:
You speak very often of your right to criticize as you please. However, I ask you to consider, where does your right to criticize people’s beliefs infringe on their right to their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
And furthermore, I am not Islamic however I am Arabic. And as a person of Middle Eastern descent, I am fully aware of the lessons taught in the Quran and the discrimination against women it teaches. I am aware of its profound impact on daily life to a level that many in western culture find appalling. However, it is a personal choice to believe in the Islamic faith. And since I do not know the motivation driving the belief of every individual who believes in such Allah and his teachings, I cannot judge their faith. Unless you have developed the power to be omnicsient I dont think that you are qualified to judge either.
According to Esra’a, Mideast Youth is a student-owned independent network dedicated to eliminate extremist ideologies and ignorance from the Middle East.
Arabs, Iranians, Kurds, and Israelis post side-by-side to prove the fact that moderation, interfaith understanding, and sanity does exist in the region.
If you continue to allow the media to publish videos that call the Islamic faith fascist and the Quran a text that incites violence, understanding and extremism is not being eradicated. It is promoting these ideals by allowing them to become part of the mainstream.
“I ask you to consider, where does your right to criticize people’s beliefs infringe on their right to their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”
I can see no conflict at all in my right to free speech infringing on any one else’s right as you claim. You do not have to listen, and you have the same ability as you are now doing to counter my arguments, It is like television: people criticize what is on television, so I say then turn it off or don’t watch, you have the freedom not to watch, no one is forcing you to endure something you find offensive.
“I am aware of its profound impact on daily life to a level that many in western culture find appalling.” “Unless you have developed the power to be omnicsient I dont think that you are qualified to judge either.”
Faith of any kind a person believes in can and does influence how they think, make decisions and act on what they believe. The consequences of that action like the death and injury inflicted by suicide bombers who are motivated by religious zeal is just one of many inhumane and unjust consequence of faith. And on that basis because it affects the world I live in I feel compelled to condemn both the believe and a faith that can be so easily used to justify terrorism and inhumanity. The saddest part id what it does to Islamic believers because the hatred and anger is so often taken out in suffering by other Muslims much more so than any harm to Westerners.
“Arabs, Iranians, Kurds, and Israelis post side-by-side to prove the fact that moderation, interfaith understanding, and sanity does exist in the region.”
That is a commendable objective. However to accomplish anything in terms of such goals demands the ability to think freely, something I see little evidence of in what is written by the few, rare Islamic moderates mostly living in the west. Most that is written in English comes through Britain, and some of it I see and read. Sadly I am little impressed because these writers are as enslaved by the Quran and Hadith as the hordes of more conservative Muslims living all across the globe from Gibraltar to Jakarta.
“If you continue to allow the media to publish videos that call the Islamic faith fascist and the Quran a text that incites violence, understanding and extremism is not being eradicated. It is promoting these ideals by allowing them to become part of the mainstream.”
The one thing you don’t understand and must accept is that the those of us who see and understand the Muslim faith and what is written in the Quran and Hadith is understood very readily as being fascist and the texts are liberally peppered with violent solution for almost every kind of social deviance from the culture prescribed by Muhammed. And there is no means by which these opinions can be silenced any more than we in the west can silence Jihadists who condemn western society and culture.
The one big difference between the West and Islam is in the West we are more inclined to live and let live and able to be tolerant of the fact others believe and live by different values than we do. But the Jihadists, and according to polls most of the population of the Islamic world, is apparently unable to be tolerant of the differences of others like those of us in the West, or to live and let live themselves. The consequences escalated to the maximum on 9-11, an attack without real provocation, and America has not been or should be expected to not respond to.
It is my opinion, and one shared by very few, that there is only one solution and that is for the West and Islam to come to an agreement there is no basis to ever agree and therefore to disengage and live separately with a virtual wall, a void world between the West and Islam as if neither side existed.
Pingback: Wilders Having Some Trouble | Outsider On The Inside
Pingback: "Fitna" Reaction | Outsider On The Inside
Pingback: ‘Fitna’ Reaction - Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead
Pingback: 2008 March 28 | Outsider On The Inside
Pingback: Fitna Reaction | Wrongblog