'Anti-Islamic film' removed from Website

I.Citation

'Anti-Islamic film' removed from website

March 29th, 2008

J-post.com

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632358848&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

II.Summary

Dutch legislator Geert Wilders had his film Fitna (meaning "ordeal" in arabic) recently removed from an internet website. The film focuses on the supposed ideals of the Islamic religion, and of it's people, as seen by Wilders. In it, he argues that Islam aims to rule the world, one in which restricted freedoms permit the persecution of gays and women. "Islam and the Koran are dangers to the preservation of freedom in the Netherlands," states the legislator boldly. Fitna's perspective gives the viewer no indication that the extremists in which it discusses make up a mere minority of the Muslim people, never shying away from using violent terrorist footage out of context to support it's argument. This aspect of the film has not gone unnoticed, and is a core argument towards it's content. In response, many of the faith (and not of the faith) have spoken out in outrage. "It is not Islam that should be stopped, it is fear-mongers like Geert Wilders who should be stopped from spreading their hatred," said Zakaria al-Sheik of the Rassoul Allah Yajmana. While the vast majority agree, there are still few who are unfazed by Wilders' Fitna. Dutch Muslims claim the film blatantly misrepresented their faith, but that Wilders had in fact stayed well within the boundries of acceptable material. Regardless, the majority of those who've watched the film disagree with it and it's offensive, one-sided opinion of the Islamic religion.

III.Reactions

a) I think this article fits the fifth Ap World Theme: Cultural, religious, and intellectual developments. The article talks about a movie made by a dutch legislator against Muslims. That has a lot to do with culture and religion, in that the production of media fits in with culture, while it's topic of Islam fits in with religion. It made sense to put it in this category.

b) As long as there has been an opinion, idea, style, race, or religion, there have been misinterpretations, and ignorant persecutions of them. Ignorance to difference often forms hatred or fear towards it. The less people know of something, the easier they are swayed by hateful opinions and views. It's much easier to say you dislike something, than to take some time to actually learn about it, and get the facts before you judge it. Unfortunately, that's what happens often globally, and even more so in the United States. Since september 11th, Islam has been in the limelight of persecution. The wounds were still fresh, and in that circumstance it was extremely difficult to treat the attackers, or at least people of the same persuation, lightly. Since then, the prejudice has gone down, but is definitely still present.

c) In this article, it's difficult to determine what aspect the author is writing from. I can guess that they would most likely be japanese or asian, due to the fact that they are writing for a japanese news website. But they could also be from Amsterdam in the Netherlands, because it says below the title the article was written by the Associated Press there. They are also an outsider to the situation, being that there are no obvious opinionated statements in the article.

d) The article is written by an outsider, because there is no strong opinionation towards either side of the argument. This also means that there is little biased comments made by the author. However there are biased comments made by the people in the article. You can't tell their gender from this article, mostly because the issue has nothing to do with gender.

e) I would've liked to hear from a higher up Muslim spiritual leader, preferably the Caliph. His input would've given more impact to the situation, and would help me finalize my decision even more so than I laready have. The Caliph is supposed to represent all Muslim people, or the purist opinion of Islamic faith, so hearing from him helps me to know if what Geert had made was truly wrong or whether it was acceptable.

f) From what I've read, I couldn't possibly support what Geert Wilders had made. His narrow-minded "facts" about all Muslims are ridiculous claims made by a fearful and ignorant man. His view is a filter, in that he only takes in the bad and ignores the good about the Muslim people and their faith. It is people like him that spawn hateful opinions and prejudices against unique ideals, and spread misinformation for the uninformed public to soak in like a sponge. While his film does show the negative, extremist side of Islam, he neglects to show the positive. Only a small percent of Muslims act in such a way, while the rest are good people and are in all ways opposed to extremist views. So, I agree with those opposed to Fitna and it's hateful view of Islam.