FITNA And Islamofascist Rage

Pre-emptive Rage by Diana West in the Washington Times was written before the film was released:

The film is by Geert Wilders, a Dutch member of parliament who wants to reverse the Islamization of Europe and believes the Koran should be banned along with Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for inciting hatred and violence. The film is called "Fitna," Arabic for upheaval. And just the thought of "Fitna" has Europe in upheaval, cowering before widely anticipated Islamic outrage expected to range from diplomatic huff, to economic boycott, to rioting, even bloodshed, over this still unseen ten-minute film.

Such mass psychosis has erupted before — Satanic Verses Rage, Koran Rage, Cartoon Rage, Pope Rage, even Teddy Bear Rage. But never has an Islamic "rage" begun to build without actual cause. For the first time, we are seeing rage preparations and precautions before "offense" has been given or taken.

The Film was 16 minutes, not 10 and was shown on LiveLeak. LiveLeak has taken it down because of threats to its personnel.

The reaction from the supposed defenders of Western freedom was nothing short of sickening:

At a press conference earlier this year, the online Dutch site NIS News Bulletin reported that Mr. Balkenende "stressed repeatedly and with irritation that Wilders and no one else was responsible for any violence that might break out after his film's release." And when Sheikh Tantawi indicates that providing "protection" for Mr. Wilders is a bad idea, it not only sounds like a mafia don calling for a hit, it also echoes the dean of Dutch journalists, Henk Hofland. As Thomas Landen of The Brussels Journal reports, Mr. Hofland urged the Dutch government to withdraw state protection from Mr. Wilders, who lives under constant threat of assassination. "Let him feel what it is like for those whose lives he endangers," said Mr. Hofland, adding that any murders committed in retaliation for Mr. Wilders' opinions on Islam would be the responsibility of Mr. Wilders, not the murderers.

Volokh watched it:

Parts of it are an indubitably sound reminder of the dangers posed by extremist Islam, and the support that it finds from some traditional Islamic religious teachings.

Other parts assert that extremist Islam is a problem at the heart of the Islamic world generally, and of Islam in the Netherlands and in Europe, and not just a tangential matter (the way that fundamentalist Mormon outliers are tangential to modern Mormonism, or, even more extremely, the way the Branch Davidians were tangential to the Seventh-Day Adventists from whom they sprang). But here too Wilders' view seems sound: Unfortunately, while by all accounts most Muslims do not adhere to the extremists' views, the extremist movement is prominent enough in Middle Eastern and European Islam that it is indeed a peril to freedom.

Nor does the rhetoric strike me as excessive. This is of course a rhetorical work, not an academic inquiry, and it's trying to stir people emotionally. But I didn't see much of hyperbole or gratuitious insults. Wilders is arguing against an important and dangerous ideological movement; my sense is that his approach is well within bounds of legitimate criticism.

The Belmont Clubs Wetchard

By publishing the film Wilders has accepted responsibility for crossing a line in the sand. This act will provoke two possible responses. Protests, boycotts, demonstrations and legal action are almost certain to follow demanding the withdrawal of the film of Wilder's censure. There is also a high probability that attempts will be made to attack Western targets in general in reprisal. Radical Islamists, perhaps accustomed to authoritarian social situations, may regard the Dutch broadcasters unwillingness to broadcast Wilder's film as a mere exercise in "plausible deniability" and hold Western society "collectively responsible" anyway.

But the real significance of Wilder's film is to illustrate the growing loss of control by Western governments over the narrative over the nature of the War on Terror. By criticizing Islam itself, a growing number of voices including Geert Wilders and recent convert Magdi Cristiano Allam (who called Islam "inherently evil") have taken one more step towards tearing down the notion, so carefully constructed by George Bush after September 11 of separating terrorism from the "religion of peace".

This is an incredibly important point. Thanks to the connectivity of the Internet, ideas that governments consider "dangerous" can't be stifled any longer. That's why when LiveLeak dropped it, the FITNA has already been downloaded to literally thousands of computers who spread it like a virus. I have several links.

Scott at Powerline

The Dutch Prime Minister says he rejects the interpretation, but he seems to do so because he fears that it has some merit. His comments put me in mind of the bumper sticker "Support mental health or I'll kill you."

The film would not be worthy of note were it not for the fear and threats of violence that the its release has generated. The Iranian regime that commits mass murder in the name of Islam has condemned the film as "hideous" and called on European governments to block the showing of the film. Or else, I guess.

From Little Green Footballs:

Following the release of Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, the European Union is quick to reassure the Islamic world that the whole idea of “free speech” is probably overrated: EU condemns Dutch anti-Islam film.

I have in the past deplored the lack of respect shown for various religions, especially when they could be considered blasphemous ("Piss Christ" is an example that comes to mind). However, that horse has left the barn, at least in regards to Christianity and Judaism. Those who are in the forefront of trying to silence Wilders were also the ones manning the barricades in support of Andres Serrano . The motivations appear to be a mixture: hatred of Christians and Jews, hatred of Western Civilization and rank cowardice.

And today via ReutersU.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday condemned as "offensively anti-Islamic" a Dutch lawmaker's film that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.
The story was reported by Lewis Krauskopf and edited by Mohammad Zargham. You can't make this stuff up.