Geert Wilder's Fitna

(welcome, Instapundit readers!)

UPDATE: The YouTube version was pulled offline, but I found another from Google Video via Rusty.

The ridiculousness of the film speaks for itself, I think. However, Ali Eteraz performed the thankless task of reviewing it anyway. Also, do not miss Thabet's link roundup about the subdued response to the film's release by muslims in Europe and elsewhere.

Warning, very graphic images. Absolutely NOT work- or children-safe.

The cartoon portraying the Prophet Mohammed SAW as a hook-nosed terrorist with a bomb in his turban, over which a lawsuit has been filed, appears in the first 15 seconds.

The tone and style of the film is lifted straight out of the most fevered swamps of the blogsphere and talk radio. I don't really see how this makes any coherent argument other than "terrorists are evil" which is hardly a point of contention. The link of Islam to terror is ham-handed and clumsy and at many times outright laughable. However, for someone with confirmation bias predisposing them to believe the link exists already, this will no doubt be seen as a devastatingly rigorous argument. To someone with no a-priori image of Islam, its actual persuasive value is practically zero. It is solely a guilt-by-association polemic, and a rude, ugly, obscene fear-mongering polemic at that.

Part II tomorrow.

UPDATE: I have received some emails from people asking why I would want to publicize this. (No, no death threats yet. Don't hold your breath.) As I discussed at a thread at Dean Esmay's blog, The film is it's own best counter-argument. It is so over the top that it undermines itself. If censorship against the film succeeded, then people would only know it exists and it would have some credibility accorded to it by virtue of the mystery and controversy. Like Janet Jackson's nipple, though, once (ahem) laid bare it's not that big a deal, and just kind of pathetic.


Nightstudies said...

I didn't realize that there was another part of the film after this.

So when I said I'd seen half of the film, I meant that I had seen the first half of this part.. Of course I've seen the whole thing now.

"As I discussed at a thread at Dean Esmay's blog, The film is it's own best counter-argument. It is so over the top that it undermines itself."

Funny I would say the fact that this part of the film makes no argument and lets the hatred of speeches from the pulpit and of Muslims come through is what makes it very strong.

How can it be "over the top" when the only people speaking are Muslims, their leaders and the Koran?

Do you know the world "gestalt"? This movie allows one some perspective by keeping argument out of the way and thus letting people perceive the hatred, bigotry and violence that permeates Islam and Muslims.

Nightstudies said...

Aziz, you traveled thorough Sunni countries. You've been to Mecca right?

Did they make a Shiite like you feel comfortable? They didn't did they. And you're a Muslim.

I know a couple of former Muslims who tell me about how their families back in Pakistan think about everyone who isn't exactly the right sort of Muslim, who've told me how they celebrated 9/11..

You can't deny the hatred. It's not the film that's "over the top" it's the reality that's so beyond the pale that some might think that it's mere exaggeration.

dannie chOOng said...

do we see any major violent demonstrated by the (hardcore) Christian when the show "Da Vinci Code" was release two years back ? likewise, i hope the Islam community can practice tolerance and fan any possible detestation with peace. after all, most religion known today does condemn violent right ?

Sumatra said...

Documentaries are created to show one side of an issue. This one was made to show the other side to the media which sometimes is too politically correct.

All I can say is he left of Daniel Perl unless I missed it somewhere.

Sumatra said...

Documentaries are created to show one political point of view. This one was created to show the other side of an issue that it seems you cannot speak about because it is not politically correct.

The only thing I can saY is he forgot Daniel Perl unless I missed it somewhere.