Dutch Anti-Muslim Speech Guilty Of Hate

Endy Bayuni, writing in the Jakarta Post, urged Muslims throughout the world to simply ignore the new film, “Fitna” by Geert Wilders, the Dutch right wing fanatic. “Wilders is just as guilty of spreading hated through his lens about Islam as the Muslims who preach and use violence against what they perceive to be the enemies of Islam.” Bayuni regards the film as simply another example of Islamophobia in the Western world. “Let’s just hope Europeans have the common sense to dismiss Fitna as nothing more than as a propaganda tool for the Dutch politician’s anti-immigration platform.” He believes Wilders deliberately made the film so hateful in order to elicit within the Muslim world a violent reaction which he could use to prove all Muslims are prone to violence.

Since the goal of Fitna is convincing the Western world that violence is inherent within the Muslim religion, the best response for Muslims is following the wise advice of Bayuni by exhibiting the sounds of silence. A demagogue like Wilders can only thrive if people resort to violence, but what would happen if the entire Muslim world simply ignored his film? Muslims have suffered damage by violent responses to a few cartoons that, if ignored, would never have been seen by more than a few thousand people. Instead, by rioting and attacking Denmark, mobs gave cartoonist what they desire — fame.

Related Posts

  • Guy Aylward

    Contrary to the rejection of Fitna as an anti Muslim film by Bayuni and others, I find Fitna to be an accurate portrayal of recent events. The western world stood by once in the face of evil and Hitler was allowed to build his forces to the point of world war. We cowed to his threats and pretended that they were little more than saber rattling. Should we do the same with the radical Muslim threat?

    There is no uncertainty that terrorist Muslim groups are building forces not only in their native countries, but worldwide. Western countries have been inundated by terrorists who find our laws and cultural sensibilities to their liking. We do not want to be seen as discriminatory because of our bleeding heart attitudes. These attitudes are soon to be our downfall if we do not act. Wilder is merely pointing out the obvious.

    If expressing the truth through facts is discriminatory, count me as one of the discriminators. The threat must be exposed and eliminated.

  • http://www.theimpudentobserver.com Fred Stopsky

    Facts may bother you but here they are:
    In the recent Pakistan election, religious fundamentalists got 8% of the vote. They get less than 10% in Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population. There is no evidence of any substantial “Muslim terrorist” following in any European society, the United States, Canada, etc…
    George Bush is a terrorist but you refuse to classify him in that category. He is responsible for the growth of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about organizing to get rid of him?

  • Guy Aylward

    As you like to cite facts, you might want to review my comment again. I did not suggest that all Muslims are responsible but that Muslim terrorists are not only responsible but on the rise.

    Facts don’t bother me – people who generate facts to support politically driven theories are another subject.

  • http://www.theimpudentobserver.com Fred Stopsky

    More Americans have died as a result of the disastrous policies of George Bush than those killed by your Muslim terrorists. There were NO terrorists in Iraq prior to the Bush invasion. We could have crushed the Taliban in 2001 if Bush had not diverted troops to the crazy invasion of Iraq. And, by the way, the Iran government of Khatami provided military intelligence to assist Americans fighting in Afghanistan. The Khatami led government also offered to negotiate all issues with the US but Bush turned him down. So, who is responsible for the rise of terrorism-Muslims or Bush?

  • Guy Aylward

    Fred: You’re making a couple of assumptions that are nor in play here. First, you can’t bait me into a debate over the merits, or lack thereof, of President Bush. Returning to the point, we weren’t in Iraq when 19 terrorists flew planes into US buildings killing over 2,000 people. Also, through many administrations, it has been unacceptable to deal with nations who threaten the peace of the world. Iran has repeatedly threatened world peace with offensive saber rattling.

    Finally, Bush, Congress, and the governments of most Western nations were under the belief that Iraq did indeed possess WMD or the materials and expertise to develop same. Based on the intel, our congress (including the Dems) believed that there was a genuine threat.

    Your political leanings are your right, but, if you are a person who values facts, those leanings should not influence your FACTS.

  • http://www.theimpudentobserver.com Fred Stopsky

    Please read the latest information from Great Britain which is just beginning to release secret documents about the invasion of Iraq. The original draft document presented to Tony Blair did NOT have any mention of WMD as a threat.
    Iran in 2001 offered Bush a deal that included ending all aid to Hamas and Hizbullah, closing down any military atomic energy program and offering to help in Afghanistan. The Shiite Iranians hated the Taliban and al-Qaeda and were only too happy to see Bush wipe out their enemies. In return, Iran wanted Bush to end sanctions, to unfreeze money from the Shah’s era and to accept Iran as a peaceful nation. Bush turned down the offer.
    Lastly, terrorists do NOT pose a “threat” to the security of any post industrial society. That is pure rhetoric and hysteria. Nazi Germany posed a “threat” not a few thousand militants. More people die in car accidents in any year than all the killings by “terrorists” in the past five years.
    I challenge you to cite any information which is not based on facutal data.

  • Guy Aylward

    Having not seen the released documents RE: Blair, I’ll take your word for it. However, the British presentation of intel at the time was similar to that of the U.S.

    More Americans died in car accidents last year than died in Iraq and Afghanistan together. Does that make, in your estimation, the wars legitimate? I’d guess not based on previous statements. Is it okay with you that even one American should die of a terrorist attack? Does your info make terrorism okay with you?

  • http://www.theimpudentobserver.com Fred Stopsky

    1. To assume a member of Congress has in his or her possession as much access to information is to be extremely naive. President Bush controlled the information. Read Colin Powell’s experience with the Bushman.
    2. Yes, there are terrorists in this world. Yes, they can kill people. But, terrorists do not pose any threat to the security of the United States. To make such statements is to disply pure hysteria.
    3. George Bush created more terrorists than Osama bin Laden ever did.
    4. British officials have made some excellent suggestions in dealing with terrorism in Afghanistan and Bush has rejected them. One, they wish to purchase the entire poppy crop which would rob the Taliban of money and bring farmers over to the government. Two, the British have suggested greater emphasis on developing local militia. These are two simple suggestions but they make sense if you wish to deal with terrorism.
    5. The new leaders in Pakistan have suggested calling for a jirga and enlisting tribal chiefs but Bush is furious.
    6. Bush’s buddy, the Saudi Arabian government continues its policy of funding madrasas schools which educate future terrorists. End the funding.
    7. Exert pressure on Israel to hald West Bank housing and to agree to an immediate cease fire which means no more killing of Hamas leaders. Insist on including Hamas and Hizbullah in peace negoations.
    You and I differ. I want to utilize a variety of nonviolent strategies to confront terrorism. You believe it can be done with guns and planes. Where is the proof the Bush policies work?

  • Guy Aylward

    Since you never asked, let me say that I am not a big supporter of Bush or his policies. I was trying to make the point that the film, “Fitna” was not a terrible offense as it was merely stating facts. I also tried to steer away from purely political notes and stay on course with my original point. To that end, the only point I totally disagree with you on is number 3. The actions taken by our government served to create a gathering place for terrorists, not the terrorists themselves. Finally, I would like to pursue a variety of strategies to combat terrorism and believe that non-violent methods are always better than violent strategies. That said, we can’t be seen to have our hands tied, or be afraid to take a stand when needed.

    I’ve enjoyed our discourse and wish you the best, Unfortunately, I’m leaving for a well deserved vacation where I hope I won’t have internet access.