What “Fitna” Has Taught Us
Mike McNally summarizes what happened in the last couple of months after Wilders announced that he would make a movie, how it was received by quite some Muslims, and how the Dutch government (and other European governments) dealt with it. It’s a fairly good article, I encourage you to click on that link and read it.
The double standard is something that’s bugging me most about this entire affair. I disagree with those who say that the Dutch government wants to appease extremists - they don’t, they want to make normal Muslims happy, since they’re also voters - but the fact of the matter is that if this film was about Christianity, the Prime Minister would not have said anything about it.
But now, because he feels he must treat Muslims like little children, he spoke out and condemned the movie well before it was even made.
Idiotic.
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.
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.
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….