FITNA Controversy Continues
by Andre Soares
Recommended reading: On the The Independent’s Indyblogs, Jerome Taylor discusses Geert Wilders‘ as-yet-unreleased anti-Islam short Fitna.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
"An unapologetic critic of Islam, Mr [Geert] Wilders‘ rabidly populist rhetoric has won him both fans and enemies in a country already strained with religious tension following the murder of the controversial Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh [right] by an Islamist extremist in 2004.
…
"Whatever its content, this sort of stuff [contained in Fitna] is gold to all extremists (be they Muslim or not) who like to view the current state of the world as an epic battle between good and evil.
…
"Like the Danish cartoons, Fitna The Movie, will no doubt once more plunge Europe into another heated debate over free speech. Some will see Mr Wilders as an irresponsible and bigoted individual who is knowingly creating a situation that could lead to violence and greater misunderstanding. Others will view him as a brave libertarian pioneer unafraid of standing up to those who would use violence to accomplish their aims."
***
It’d be interesting to see if those who claim to be fighting for freedom of speech — at least whenever something or other anti-Muslim is involved — would be eager to defend the publication or broadcasting of radical anti-biblical works like, say, a sexually explicit comic strip involving the Virgin Mary (attacking women’s submissive role in traditional Christianity and Judaism) or perhaps showing Jesus having a sexually explicit gay liaison with one of his apostles (as an attack on Christianity’s and Judaism’s anti-gay stance).
Or even something stomach-churningly graphic tying the Bible to the bloody violence this planet has endured for millennia. A case could certainly be made for that, just like a case could be made for the dangers of any holy book in existence, no matter who is/are the idolized god(s).
Now, how many dailies or TV stations in The Netherlands or elsewhere would even consider publishing or broadcasting such images?
In the United States, there was much outrage following the exhibition of Andres Serrano’s "Piss Christ" in the late 1980s and of Chris Offili’s art work "Holy Virgin Mary" a decade later. And those were "mere" art works, seen by a, relatively speaking, minuscule number of people. Additionally, neither work of art, though offensive to some, was a direct attack on Christianity per se.
The text below was taken from the PBS website:
"When Nikos Kazantzakis publishes The Last Temptation of Christ in 1955, the Catholic Church bans it and the Greek Orthodox Church excommunicates him. Three decades later, acclaimed director Martin Scorsese releases his screen adaptation of the novel. The film, according to its prologue, ‘is not based on the Gospels, but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.’ Scorsese, known for such masterpieces as Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, portrays Jesus as a confused man who struggles against his dual nature, in thoughts more than action.
"Before The Last Temptation of Christ is completed, Christian groups worldwide condemn it as blasphemous, although Christian theology teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, and that to say otherwise is heresy. Preproduction begins at Universal Studios in 1983, and until the film’s release in 1988, groups affiliated with the Christian right demonstrate against The Last Temptation of Christ through petitions, phone campaigns, radio broadcasts, and street protests.
"Aware of mounting organized pressure against the film, in 1987, Universal hires a liaison with the Christian community, a born-again Christian himself, and arranges a private advance screening for agitated groups, including Reverend Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association and Bill Bright’s Campus Crusade for Christ. The audience is especially disgusted by a closing image: Christ on the cross is tempted by Satan with visions of a ‘normal’ life with the prostitute Mary Magdalene, replete with sex, marriage, and children. Some 1,200 Christian radio stations in California denounce the film, and Mastermedia International urges a boycott against parent company MCA. Bill Bright offers to reimburse Universal for its investment in The Last Temptation of Christ in exchange for all existing prints, which he vows to destroy. Universal responds with an open letter in newspapers across the country, saying that acquiescence to these forces would infringe on the First Amendment rights of all Americans. On the day the letter appears, more than 600 protesters, sponsored by a Christian radio station in Los Angeles, picket MCA headquarters."
***
(It should be noted that The Last Temptation of Christ was not intended as a work critical of Christianity.)
Speech is never free. There’s always a price. The price of Wilders’ demonization of Islam as the root of all evil could well be dozens — if not hundreds or thousands — of deaths. But the worst thing about this potentially bloody mess is that the victors will be the radical factions within Islam. Wilders must be aware of that — and quite possibly that’s exactly what he and his supporters want.
Nicholl Screenwriting Competition Underway
Thomas Doherty to Discuss HOLLYWOOD’S CENSOR
FITNA: Anti-Muslim Short Controversy in The Netherlands
Forbidden Hollywood: Pre-Code Movies on TCM
The Six Years That Shook the World (of Film)
Kenneth Turan on MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AND YOU!
Women’s Picture Vs. Chick Flick
THE DA VINCI CODE - Notes/Trivia
CRASH - Awards and Nominations
Comments
26 Responses to “FITNA Controversy Continues”
So, Andre, you know better than Mr. Wilders?
Already here on your pages I read that: “Note: All comments are moderated, and may be edited at the discretion of the moderator. Different views and opinions are welcome, but abusive/bigoted remarks and generic (spam) comments will be deleted. Also, please be aware that the Alternative Film Guide has no information pertaining to or access to distributors’/producers’ film prints.”, which tells me that any reaction is anyway obsolete. You’ve chosen your side or at least you leave a backdoor for yourself there in what you wrote. You are just same affraid of moslims as the stupid majority influenced by censored media. Enjoy your life and write no things about which you have no knowledge. I wish you many happy and free years under sharija rules. Hope you will enjoy the thing you said Mr. Wilders is demonizing. And I hope that you will begin to enjoy it as soon as possible.
I hate people, who judge things that noone has yet seen.
Stupid people.
PaNKio,
No, “any reaction” is not “obsolete.” That note is simply a way to discourage those whose idea of commenting on a subject is cursing someone else.
True, I haven’t seen “Fitna,” but I have read what “Mr. Wilders” has said about Islam, and I’ve read a description of the film.
Now, don’t distort what I wrote. The fact that I’m against anti-Muslim bigots doesn’t make me *for* Islamic bigots.
In fact, that’s exactly the point of my post. Works such as “Fitna,” in which a non-Muslim attacks “the other side,” will only serve to empower those very Muslim fanatics everyone is afraid of.
Stupid people indeed…
You fail to mention that the works Christians legally protested against were shown and no one was murdered for it. Would you not agree that there is an enormous difference to succumbing to threats of worldwide violence and ignoring devout legal protest?
I am not a religious person in any sense. I am for freedom of speech and religion for everyone and diametrically opposed to global blackmail. I will watch this movie in whatever form it is published just as I watched other controversial films when they were published.
Say no to violent censorship.
Kevin,
First of all, thanks for writing.
You make a good point. But then again, I believe you’re comparing apples and oranges.
One can’t forget that there’s — at least on paper — an official separation between the government and religion in the vast majority of countries with large Christian populations.
If those countries had a socio-economic-political system similar to those in, say, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, you can be sure there would have been widespread bloody protests at the time “The Last Temptation of Christ” came out.
(I should add that there *were* isolated terrorist attacks following the release of “The Last Temptation of Christ.” For instance, in Paris, Catholic fanatics threw Molotov cocktails inside a movie theater showing the film. About a dozen people were injured. Admittedly, to the best of my knowledge, there were no reported deaths — though a number of countries DID ban the film at the time — reports include India, Mexico, Chile, and Israel, among others — because of Christian pressure and/or fear of Christian/religious violence.)
Also, bloody protests or no, those “devout” Christians were adamant about muffling Universal and Martin Scorsese. Their vociferous threats and intimidations may have been legal, but they *were* threats and intimidations all the same. And all that against a film that wasn’t even an attack on their religion.
Now, I’m in full agreement with you when it comes to saying No to violent — or non-violent — censorship.
That includes saying No to Geert Wilders, self-proclaimed Freedom of Speech Fighter, who wants to ban the Koran in The Netherlands. (How does one spell HYPOCRITE in Dutch??)
I’d also say a loud Yes to responsible freedom of speech, and an equally loud No to dangerous hate speech.
No belief system that responds to insult, perceived or real, with violence should be tolerated. Contrary to Mr. Soares opinion, censoring offensive material is in fact what makes victors of “Radical” Muslims. The reaction to Islamic intimidation should not be to appease, but to denounce.
Mr. Soares, may I pose a scenario? While passing in the street one morning you direct at me an offensive remark regarding the usefulness Calculus. I react by gathering fellow students, burning vehicles (yours, as well as those of complete strangers) and proclaiming threats on the lives of you and your family. Upon whom is the onus in the prevention of violence? My view would be that you are a jerk, and that myself and friends are nuts and should be committed to an insane asylum. While even basic arithmetic is infinitely more useful than Islam, I think you get the point.
Mark,
You completely missed the point of my argument. The vast majority of Muslims will NOT react with violence to “Fitna.” The deranged ones will. THEY should be denounced. Not *everyone* who’s a Muslim.
Also, your scenario has absolutely nothing to do with the demonization of a culture or a group of individuals. Cultures and groups of people have been demonized in the past — because of their ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, skin color, political beliefs — in various parts of the world. We know where that has led.
Now, is basic arithmetic more useful than, say, Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism? Why single out only one religion as inferior to basic science? Why put down only one culture? Every culture/religion has its positive and negative aspects, no?
While the planet is going to rot, people everywhere keep themselves busy pointing fingers at The Other as if that’ll solve the world’s problems. It won’t. It will just make them worse.
And in the meantime, the polar ice caps are melting away at a FRIGHTENING rate.
In Exodus there are sections (Ex. 31:14, 35:2) that proscribe the death penalty for failing to observe the Sabbath. However, when is the last time you heard a Christian or Jewish leader (outside of very tiny minorities, as in less than 1%) threatening dissidents with death? Furthermore, movies exposing aspects of fundamentalist Christianity (such as Jesus Camp) or slandering Israel are presumably allowed in the Netherlands, so why should one dealing with Islam be banned?
Also, its not so much about supporting the film itself as supporting the right of Wilders to make and publish it. To quote Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. Personally I found the film mediocre, but I think it raised some important points, points that cannot be ignored any longer by stifling debate in the name of ‘multiculturalism’.
“outside of very tiny minorities, as in less than 1%”
That’s exactly my point. Focusing on tiny minorities — among Muslims — to demonize 1 billion people.
Nowhere in my piece do I advocate the banning of “Fitna.” All I say is that hate speech does have serious consequences.
Now, you really want to compare “Jesus Camp” with “Fitna”?? Either you’re kidding or you’ve never watched (nor *at least* read the synopsis of) either film.
the problem is that they are not tiny minorities. The ruling government of Iran has put forth statements advocating the destruction of Israel and denying the Holocaust. 86% of British Muslims favor implementing sharia law, which punishes non-Muslims with exile or death. Millions of Muslims across the globe last year demonstrated against cartoons published in an obscure Danish newspaper, and killed 99 people. The Wahhabi government of Saudi Arabia stones gays. The Afghan mullahs advocate the execution of a reporter who “criticized Islam”. Thats a significant trend among the Islamic world, no?
also, what I meant by the comparison was that both films met with a similar response from the communities they portrayed (although of course fitna was more biased and ideological by far)
Luke,
I discuss the separation of government/religion in one of my comments above.
“Millions of Muslims” didn’t kill 99 people. That’s the sort of inflammatory fact distortion that is so dangerous. A handful of fanatics among the protesters cause violence and “millions” are blamed for it.
“86% of British Muslims favor implementing sharia law, which punishes non-Muslims with exile or death”
That’s another distortion of the facts. Those interested can read the real poll numbers here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/30/immigrationpolicy
As for gays being stoned in Saudi Arabia, do you believe that if radical Christians or Jews or Hindus or you-name-it were The State that gays wouldn’t suffer a similar fate? Go on dreaming…
I still remember the US Christian dolt who blamed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 2001 on gays, feminists, and liberals.
Imagine if that guy and his deranged followers had been The Government Itself, with the absolute power to do as they pleased. Things in the US would look just like Saudi Arabia or Iran, but with a Christian bent of intolerance to them.
Dear Andre,
I respect your opinions, thoughts and way of thinking. I wished people who left comments on your site had the slightest ideas of what freedom is. They think that freedom is being able to insult or disrespect others. That is not freedom but rather ignorance. It is sad to see that most people are pushing for what is so called “clash of civilization”. Instead of trying to bridge gaps between civilizations.
I ask Mr. Luke when was the last time did you hear about a Muslim director or artist created an art piece that was critical of Christianity? Or when was the last time did you hear about a Muslim director directing a film demonizing the Christian religion. If you can name one film, then your the man.
People also talk about movies that were critical of Christianity. I need to remind them that those movies were done by Westerners not Muslims.
And if freedom is what you guys champion and fight for, then why is it wrong when some ignorant like Ahmadi Najad expresses his feeling about the Holocaust. Doesn’t he have the right and FREEDOM to express his thoughts. Why this double standards.
And again Mr. Luke… Where did you get the information about the Saudi government stoning gays? Is that a fact or you just assumed. For the record, that is not the punishment in Saudi. Nor, has been any ruling for such a thing. In addition, not ever, has a gay person got stoned to death in Saudi. It would be much better if you got your facts right and did some research before you start arguing about something.
Cheers.
I just watched Fitna. Yes it’s inflammatory. The reason that there aren’t any current anti-Christian, anti=Jew, anti-whatever films made by Muslim directors is that non-Muslims are not blowing things up in a random way against innocents. Yes, American and their allies are killing innocents in Iraq, but that is in a predictable consequence of traditional war. It’s not as consequence of the cowardly acts of fanatics.
Freedom of speech is important. Freedom of superstition, which is what all religion is, is not. If any groups gets out of line, Christian fundamentalist, radical Zionist Jew or fanatic Muslim, they should not be tolerated in any way.
Hi Andre,
As a 40+ yo moderate muslim I sometimes feel under attack from both sides, radical christians and islamists.
Your comments hit home. It bothers me to see some of the replies - there are just as many radicals and extremists outside Islam as there are inside it.
It also bothers me that some muslims choose to react with violence which is not indicative of how a typical christian or jew reacts. However this unaceptable islamist reaction may be because of the lack of structures and systems for voicing one’s opinion as there are in the western world.
Taufiq (real name)
Luay, I’m sure that gays don’t have an easy life in Saudi Arabia, but I should have looked into that “stoning” remark before replying to Luke.
I found this web page with some information on the matter:
http://www.globalgayz.com/saudi-news.html
Kai,
“Freedom of speech is important. Freedom of superstition, which is what all religion is, is not.”
Actually, “freedom of superstition” is extremely important. That’s freedom of thought you’re saying is unimportant! In the US, freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right — as it should be everywhere.
I’m not a religious person. I don’t believe in god or goddess. But others should feel free to believe in whatever or whoever they want. Much like I should feel free NOT to believe in any type of divinity.
Taufiq,
Thanks for writing. The day people everywhere get into their heads that fanatics and radicals — no matter their persuasion — are all fighting for the *same* hateful cause, and that people of peace — no matter their religious/cultural/ethnic background — are ALL on the same side, the world will be a much, much better place.
Hi Andre,
The problem could be that there is no visible discussion in the moslim world at all. The moslim intelectuals are being condemned to death if they are open. In my opinion, this approach has nothing to do with searching the truth,
Ivan
Sir,
When you say ‘apples to oranges’ using the socioeconomic strata differences as your main point you are incorrect. Let me say it clearly at a low enough level so that all can understand. Nobody has been blown up or beheaded lately over a Christian film, I noticed no bombings over the infamous ‘Piss Christ’ in the US. You say it would be different IF, well, IF worms had 45s, Birds wouldn’t fuck with them. IF this was different, IF that was different cannot be even remotely valid points. To even consider your arguments as valid one would have to suspend reality which, I believe, is something most people will not do. I’m sure I speak for you also when I say most people want this to stop, how will it be done, the extremists cannot all be killed and I’m not even sure the majority deserve that fate, they are misguided by zealots. What needs to happen is for the true Muslims who say they love their religion and make claims of its peaceful nature should speak up LOUDLY. Failure to do so only implies that they actually agree with at least a portion of the barbarous actions being undertaken in the name of their religion. For what it’s worth, I’m a deist; until people stop dying in the name of a religion as interpreted by man it can be no other way. Thanks for the opportunity for discourse.
bullocks with Islam.
Freedom of Speech IS MY RELIGION.
telling me what I can say, or watch is violating my faith.
jihad on censorship!
Thomas,
What I actually refer to in my comment aren’t “socioeconomic strata,” but radically different socio-economic-political systems. (See above.)
In one of my comments I also refer to terrorist attacks following the release of “The Last Temptation of Christ.” So, even when there’s an official separation between religion and the government, Christian fanatics can get very violent.
Imagine now if such a separation didn’t exist.
Unreal? Akin to worms with 45s?
Well, just take a look at history. We could go as far back as the Inquisition or as recently as the colonial wars of the 20th century.
Europeans saw themselves superior to Africans and Asians because the English, the French, the Italians, the Spaniards, etc. were White Christians.
That wasn’t that long ago. One really doesn’t have to stretch the imagination all that much in order to place current events in a “different” socio-economic-political context.
As for Muslims speaking up loudly against the terrorists in their midst, I’m all for it. Though I assume that job will be much easier for European Muslims than for those living in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan. See Ivan’s post above.
In fact, I’d love *everyone* on the planet to speak up LOUDLY against fanatics of ALL kinds.
After all, history doesn’t happen in a cultural vacuum.
ADDENDUM: Re: Loud-speaking Muslims. It’s not enough for them to speak up. The world media has to propagate their message. Most people probably don’t know about it, but many Muslims DID take to the streets (in NYC) to protest the terrorist attacks in the US and many others took to the streets of Germany to protest Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh’s murder following the release of his short film “Submission.” But “good” Muslims don’t a good story make, do they?
I just got through viewing Fitna. The conclusion that one could come to is that sometimes the truth is ugly. I do not see where Wilders is portraying anything that is not true. The Islamic fundamentalist threat does exist. The goal of those that espouse this view is to establish a world governed under Sharia Law. They are prone to use any means necessary to establish this.
The verses in the Quran that the film shows are in the book and are written as such.
The Quran does include inflammatory passages that do motivate the Islamists to commit acts of terrorism, and that are used by them as justification for their deeds. For them, they are doing “God’s work”. Those who do not recognize this are hiding their heads in the sand.
Wilder is doing nothing more than pointing out facts. Sometimes the truth can be very ugly. Hiding one’s head in the sand or obfuscating ugly truths can be ultimately very dangerous.
Having just viewed Fitna I bacame aware that most of the things being said about Islam could just as well been said of Christianity 500 years ago. As Christians evolved and civilization continued more liberal views of freedom of speech and relition has developed. Still we cannot ignore the perception of the west that Islam has. We keep blaming “radical muslims” for the violence and for fomenting hate and they do but they are speaking to millions of uneducated people willing to believe. The poor and illiterate have always been fodder for radical thoughts and ideas. The political leaders of Muslim countries will not be able to stop this trend, they tend to use it to their advantage. Until Muslim religious leaders are willing to step up and denounce violence and encourage acceptance and coexistence it will not stop.
While I do feel the film is inflammatory, I still believe in freedom of speech. All people have to be secure enough to allow others to say things they do not like or believe.
Andre,
Thought and knowledge evolve and expand understanding. Our foundation, “…truths self evedant, all men are created equal…” was and is a place to start. As witness to the wrenching struggle to raise ourselves to this ideal I take pride in our recent presidential candidates, unthinkable just a few years ago. The foundation of Jewish thought is do to others what you want done to you. It is faith and this plain truth that has given us strength to survive thousands of years of evil intent. If Islamic thought is allowed to evolve who knows what could result? Meanwhile mirrors need to be held up to stimulate the process. Either a reflection of horrific images or a real life result G-d forbid, such that stopped the march of naziism; cities laid waste, people vaporised, leaders executed.
THE FILM HAS NOTHING BUT HATE!
IT REFLECTS THE HATERD IN THOSE WHO ASSEMBLED THESE BLOODY PICTURES!
• THE PICTURES ARE THOSE OF DESPERATE REACTIONS OF SOME DESPERATE INDIVIDUALS LIKE AL-QAEDAH.
• THE VERSES MENTIONED ARE THOSE RELATED TO THE HISTORICAL PERIOD WHEN THE NON-BELIEVERS IN MAKKAH WERE KILLING AND OPPRESSING THE MUSLIMS AND THEN THE MUSLIMS WERE ALLOWED TO FIGHT BACK AFTER LONG SUFFERING.
• THE TALKS PRESENTED ARE THOSE OF SOME FANATICALS WHO ARE NONT POPULAR.
• MODERATE VOICES WERE NOT PRESENTED!
>>>>> SO WHAT IS THE DEAL!!!
Lets start with clearling some misconceptions. People have a freedom of speech. They should not be silenced due to violence or threats of violence. “Piss Christ” was an extremely incendiary piece of work. Put this thing in perspective - think about “Piss Mohammed”. Now, try to figure out whether “Piss Mohammed” is worse than the Wilder’s movie, or the cartoons. Just think about it. Imagine it.
The second step is to learn what happened in America when “piss Christ” was released. American public was outraged and said so. She said so in articles, not in violence. Did the public demand the author to be beheaded? No. The public demanded that the government withdraws the financial support for “Piss Christ”. Most of the debate was centered about the right of this abhorent work to be subsidized by the taxpayers. The left-wing guys were screaming “censorship” because the right-wingers wanted the government to stop funding the exposition of this work. Sophisticated Europeans thought that Americans were showing themselves to be religious fanatics by refusing to fund “Piss Christ”. Moreover, lets not forget not a single person was killed.
I hope this gives you a little bit of perspective.
BTW, I am planning to make a “Piss Mohammed” work. Do you think any European or American government funded museums would exhibit this work? No? Well, you got your answer then.
Today, blasphemy against Islam is dangerous. And the European governments will use their power against people who are brave enough to blaspemy against Islam. By all means, Islam is the new State religion in Europe.
400 years ago the Dutch started to moved away from the crippling and debilitating influence of the Roman Catholic Church. Book printing and literacy made it possible for each individual to form opinions and not just copy those preached by the Church. Society made sure that everybody, no matter how simple, was able to express their opinions with no repercussion other than maybe ridicule. Fast forward to the 21st century and enter 1 million Muslims, that either haven’t learned to form opinions or are too afraid to express them.
The Dutch would like to know with whom they are sharing the table with every day, but they are only getting statements from officials, not the majority of individual Muslims. In an attempt to at last provoke a reaction this movie was made. Please tell us: WHO ARE YOU? WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHERE ARE YOU AT? Are you with a 1400 year old book, enticing violence against non-Muslims and promoting to ignore individual rights of non-male Muslims within your own community or what? We want to hear YOUR opinion not what your Imam tells you to say or think.
No matter how crude or simplistic this video is (I’m afraid a lot of people won’t be able to get past), it is posing a valid and fundamental question that will hopefully contribute to a rise in human consciousness not only in the Netherlands.