3 Comments »

1. 1 Claudia

   April 4, 2008 @ 6:10 pm CEST

   It’s not about even making Muslim voters happy, it’s fear, pure and simple. They are afraid that some insane and evil person will blow themselves up in a crowded area and they will be blamed for allowing dozens or even hundreds to die for a movie.

   In a funny way they’re a lot like the extremists. They have no expectation that Muslims are capable of controlling themselves and acting like adults (of course some aren’t, as Theo van Gogh found out). The extremists believe the same about their fellow Muslims, so they order women to go around in potatoe sacks because they think Muslims males can’t be expected to control themselves and not act like crazed gorillas when confronted with the alluring sight of a woman’s pony-tail.

2. 2 C Stanley

   April 4, 2008 @ 6:43 pm CEST

   Why should it make normal Muslims happy though, to try to stifle the free speech of a critic of Islam even if they disagree with him? Shouldn’t they recognize the problem of violent extremists who’ve hijacked their religion as the source of Wilders’ objections, and welcome his film as an opportunity to point out that people like him are mistaken when they believe that Islam actually promotes violence like that?

   I agree totally with the author here:

   "Most observers, even those who blame the West for some of Islam’s problems, agree that initiatives to counter the radicalisation of Muslims need to come largely from within Islam itself. But reform is unlikely to happen as long as Western governments and the media continue to make excuses for, or ignore completely, extremist behaviour. After all, if we won’t acknowledge that there’s a problem, why should they? If Wilders’ intention was not primarily to draw attention to the threat posed by radical Islam, but rather to draw attention to the failure to acknowledge and respond to the threat, then he’s succeeded beyond his wildest dreams."

   And I would add, that it’s not only a problem that Western media and governments won’t criticize the violent extremists, but also that they consider the sensitivities of moderate Muslims about this matter to be more important than airing the criticisms and asking the moderates to speak up to clarify that some of the critics go too far in conflating Islamic extremists with Islam itself. And that’s why I still consider this to be appeasement; part of it I think is appeasement out of fear of violent reprisal by the real extremists, but also appeasement of those moderates who consider their own sensitivity to be more important than calling out the extremists.

3. 3 Gabrielle

   April 5, 2008 @ 5:09 am CEST

   How can ‘moderates’ ’speak up’ when the actions of the jihadis are those commanded by the QUr’an? 
   Until the QUr’an is accepted as an historical document, rather than the ‘eternal, immutable word of Allah’  the ‘moderates’ have no doctrinal basis on which to stand while they ’speak up’
   They would be in great dangers, too….

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.