The screening of an anti-Islam film by a controversial far-right Dutch lawmaker inside Capitol Hill on Friday, February 27, is infuriating American Muslims and raising eyebrows.
"I am a strong an advocate of First Amendment free speech. However, this is not about free speech, but rather an issue of propriety, timing and venue," Representative Keith Ellison said in a statement mailed to IslamOnline.net.
Conservative Republican Senator John Kyl has invited Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing Party for Freedom, to screen his controversial film in a cozy chamber of the Capitol Hill known as the L.B.J. Room.
"Senator Kyl has every right to host anyone he chooses, however it becomes a question of propriety to use the United States Capitol as a venue for the condemnation of an entire religion," insisted Ellison.
The documentary, entitled "Fitna" – an Arabic word for sedition or strife – accuses Qur'an of inciting violence.
It also juxtaposes verses from the Muslim holy book with reports of the 9/11 attacks, as well as gruesome images of the 2004 Madrid bombings and the 7/7
London bombings.
The film release has drawn condemnation from Muslims worldwide and anti-discrimination groups.
The Dutch government has distanced itself from the documentary and its content.
Wilders was recently denied entry by the British government because of his extremist views.
He was detained by immigration officials at Heathrow Airport on Thursday, February 12, and forced to board the next flight back to the Netherlands.
Wrong Signals
Radwan Masmoudi, from the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, also criticized the screening of the controversial film in the Capitol Hill.
"I know he doesn't have a beard and he looks nice with his blond hair, but his views and his opinions are extremely mirror image, exactly mirror images of what al Qaeda has been trying to teach," he told CNN.
"He is the al Qaeda of the Netherlands."
Wilders is notorious for his fierce criticism of Islam.
He had called for banning the Muslim holy book described it as "fascist" and comparing it to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
In January, a Dutch court ordered that Wilders be prosecuted for inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.
Ellison, America's first Muslim Congressman, said screening Fitna in the Capitol Hill sends a wrong message to Muslims.
"At a time when President Obama has said to the Muslim world, ‘We are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest,’ the showing of a film that denigrates the faith of 1.4 billion of the world’s citizens does not foster mutual respect or mutual interest."
The Obama administration has promised to turn a new leaf in America's relations with the Muslim world after eight rocky years under George W. Bush.
In his inauguration speech, Obama vowed to seek a "new way forward" with the Muslim world.
His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, in her first foreign trip hoping to restore US image.
"At a time when the US should be providing renewed leadership for peace and more understanding between the West and the Muslim world, one has to question the wisdom and judgment of promoting a film that erroneously condemns an entire religion—especially in the US Capitol," Ellison insisted.
Oh well. As far as I'm aware, incitement of hatred (which I think this is) is legal in the US and the people there, including the government, can exercise their freedom to view this movie, although I personally don't think it is appropriate or right from a moral viewpoint.
Of course, the ironic thing in all this is that he wishes to use his freedom of speech to get the Qur'an banned as hate speech (which wouldn't be enough to get it banned in the US) but also as a book which supposedly incites violence. He makes this argument by taking certain verses out of context and juxtaposing them with images of atrocities, some of which are apparently not even carried out by Musims although I can't confirm this since I haven't watched the film in it's entirety. I think to do so would be to give it undue worthiness and attention.
From reading and watching people's reactions to the film, I have the impression that most intelligent people are not really convinced by it. For those who wish to know the truth, there are plenty of places where they can find it, this forum being one of them. In any case, I say we leave him to get on with it and upon Allah is his fate.
Last edited by Uthman; 02-28-2009 at 11:17 AM.
Reason: Grammar
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
There is a foreign element threatening America. He believes the Qur'an promotes violence. He creates videos of Muslims committing terrorist acts and hopes mainstream media plays them. He is committed to the clash of civilizations -- Islam vs. the West. Britain, our primary ally, denied him entry, claiming he was a threat to public order. Now he wants to come here.
This foreign element does not speak Arabic. He does not pray five times a day. He does not have a beard. He is not even a Muslim. He is Geert Wilders, a Member of Parliament from a right-wing party in the Netherlands. Why he's so interested in amplifying Osama bin Laden's message that Islam promotes violence and division I don't know.
A lot of people are mad about this. But I don't think this is the time to get mad. I think this is the time to think strategy, and to remember core American values.
First, strategy.
1) If this becomes a conversation about free speech, go ahead and hand Geert Wilders the trophy because he wins. The truth is lots of things qualify under free speech. Dirty jokes. Ugly lies. Stupid rumors. Probably Fitna does too. Let's not get into that cat fight. The issue isn't whether it's legal to screen Fitna in the LBJ room, but whether it's American to do so. Shouldn't the best of America be on display in the Senate? Shouldn't Capitol Hill be amplifying our tradition of pluralism rather than returning to the dark days of racism?
2) If our best idea is to protest Wilders we give him the images he wants -- the heroic free speech crusader surrounded by a group of angry looking (preferably bearded) people shouting him down.
3) We shouldn't try to get Fitna banned. And we shouldn't try to get Wilders deported. We should simply point out that Wilders highlights a choice for America: Should we engage one-fifth of the world's population by punching them in the mouth or by reaching our hand out in friendship? Which approach represents the American way?
As God and America would have it, the American Way happens to be on display the same day that Wilders is screening his film. It's a made-for-TV contrast.
Thursday afternoon, Senator John Kerry will be hosting a hearing on how the US. can best engage Muslim communities around the world. Kerry is concerned about the dismal image of the U.S. among a large swath of humanity, and is convinced that we can improve this by better communicating American values.
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright will be testifying, as will Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, and me. My guess is that all of us will say the first step to improving America's image and foreign relations is simply showing respect towards our fellow human beings, including Muslims. Quite universal, really. Africans want respect. Europeans want respect. Americans want respect. Muslims want respect. Pretty basic.
President Obama understands the American virtue of showing respect to others. In his Inaugural Address he told the Muslim world "we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." His first interview was with Al Arabiya, where he stated "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect."
I'm confident that most Americans, seeing the stark choice between Kerry's hearing and Wilders' film, will choose the best of our nation instead of the worst of someone else's country.
Come to think of it, I'm glad Geert Wilders is on Capitol Hill. I hope he drops by our session. Maybe he'll learn something about American values too.
Eboo Patel is founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based international nonprofit that promotes interfaith cooperation. His blog, The Faith Divide, explores what drives faiths apart and what brings them together.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Well the first amendment of the United States constitution does state:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Even though this amendment talks about not favouring one religion over another, it does stipulate that everyone has the freedom of speech.
Whether it infringes upon the rights of others, or whether it crosses the line between freedom of speech and completely offending and disrespecting millions of Muslim-Americans is another thing.
Did they say why they're screening the movie at Capital Hill, and who will be watching it?
The movie is controversial and is causing a lot of dissonance in Europe, and so I think it's perfectly reasonable for Congressional leaders to watch it so they can evaluate its impact in international relations. That's part of their job. If that's all they're doing, then I don't even see what this has to do with free speech, let alone offending Muslims.
But if they're projecting it on the side of the building and inviting the public to check out how evil those Muslims are, then yeah, that would be pretty lame. But it doesn't sound like that's what's happening at all.
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Your Mom is ugly. Your dad is a bum. And I mistook your sister for your brother.
See what I did there?
You exercised your first amendment right?
Congratulations, and welcome to America, a place where you don't get punished for saying things that offend people.
You know, things like "unbelievers are wicked fools and deserve to have burning oil poured down their throats in hell."
I saw an interview with one of the individuals who set up this viewing of the movie. The intention is not to "support" it, but to see it for themselves so they can speak on the issue(when and if it arises) out of knowledge and not heresay. I would assume that on some level the U.S. and British governments have corresponded on the issue of the film and the possible impact it has on Muslim citizens of both countries.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Did they say why they're screening the movie at Capital Hill, and who will be watching it?
The movie is controversial and is causing a lot of dissonance in Europe, and so I think it's perfectly reasonable for Congressional leaders to watch it so they can evaluate its impact in international relations. That's part of their job. If that's all they're doing, then I don't even see what this has to do with free speech, let alone offending Muslims.
But if they're projecting it on the side of the building and inviting the public to check out how evil those Muslims are, then yeah, that would be pretty lame. But it doesn't sound like that's what's happening at all.
You exercised your first amendment right?
Congratulations, and welcome to America, a place where you don't get punished for saying things that offend people.
You know, things like "unbelievers are wicked fools and deserve to have burning oil poured down their throats in hell."
Yawn. Guess what? Allah just let you exercise your first amendment right! You got to mock some aspect of religion without being struck dead.
Later on, when you have to answer for your mockery, you will get what you deserve!
Hopefully, they'll watch it and roundly condemn it for what it is; unashamed incitement. But i still don't see how such a production warrants being granted an audience with US legislators. It's astounding, it really is. And even though i understand that the US and its citizens revere and have vowed to uphold these freedoms, i still believe that here in Europe, we have a much more acute understanding of what this is in relation to freedom of speech, an abuse of that privilege.
I saw an interview with one of the individuals who set up this viewing of the movie. The intention is not to "support" it, but to see it for themselves so they can speak on the issue(when and if it arises) out of knowledge and not heresay. I would assume that on some level the U.S. and British governments have corresponded on the issue of the film and the possible impact it has on Muslim citizens of both countries.
The elephant in the room is this thing has been available on YouTube for the past year or so.
Do they not know how to work these silicon doohickeys?
I jest. Badly. It's probably a matter of professionalism etc. Though, given the ICT use of his election campaign, I'd be surprised if Obama had not already seen the film electronically.
I thought that you could say that in America and it would be legal...
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
Hmmm, I checked on that Fred Phelps guy that just got banned from entering Britain. The things he's been saying about "fags" make me feel confident calling black people animals would be indeed legal in the US.
The U.S. only infringes on speech when that speech is deemed to present a danger to society. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. Saying insulting things about a particular person or even a whole population isn't something that can be deemed "illegal". Unless the issue is slander or defamation.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
The U.S. only infringes on speech when that speech is deemed to present a danger to society. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. Saying insulting things about a particular person or even a whole population isn't something that can be deemed "illegal". Unless the issue is slander or defamation.
How can you tell if something is slander or defamation.
Allah has a response to these people who invocate corruption and hatred. Allah confirms to us that these attempts to extinguish the light of Allah(SWT) is fruitless. These attempts only greater enhances Allah SWT Deen which is already evident if previous attempts including the so called "War on Terror".
[At-Tauba 9 Verse 32]"Fain would they extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His Light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it)".
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Well the first amendment of the United States constitution does state:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks