Oops, There We Go, Again

Scion of a world-famed artist, and an artist in his own medium, Theo van Gogh died a horrible death at the hands of an Islamist assassin; paid in full for criticizing Islam and its oppressive treatment of women. Now another film has been produced, this one titled "Fitna", Arabic for "strife" or "division" and both words painfully describe the conflict, the emotions, the descent into lunacy that erupts in the Muslim world when Islam is deemed to have been insulted.

Just yesterday an Israeli researcher revealed his expert opinion that Moses, that great Jewish Prophet whose frightening experiences in confronting a material but hidden God resulting in the endowment of the clay tablets containing the Ten Commandments, was in reality yet another human being experimenting with drugs which induced para-normal visions. A kind of serendipity of then-common use of mind-altering drugs to create a peculiar other-worldly awareness, resulting in the birth of Judaic Monotheism.

Nowhere has it been seen that Jews have amassed rampaging through the streets of startled capitals where they reside, throughout the world. Much less marching in determined unison, their outrage against blasphemous aspersions cast at Moses the divine deliverer, calling for the death of the Jewish researcher who has brought dishonour to his people, and insulted the Prophet.

His learned conjecture becomes a matter of spirited debate, even amusement. Bespeaking the civilized world we inhabit. Reflecting the spirit of reason and freedom of expression.

Yet woe betide any whose unrepentant questioning of the divinity and goodness of the sacred writings within the Koran are made public. Hordes of incandescently-furious Muslims are exhorted by their imams to publicly and loudly express their seething detestation of dishonour done their religion, their Prophet, their god. Demanding death to the offender. At the very least that a deadly fatwa be issued.

The Netherlands' nationalist legislator Geert Wilders, who produced this new film in which he equates Koranic verses with calls to violence, is prepared to launch another storm of brutally wild controversy. And he appears to have the backing of a majority of Dutch who wish the film to be broadcast. With the release of this incendiary intent, protests have been launched already. If he cannot find a producer willing to air the short film, he will, at the very least, launch it on an Internet site.

In Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia, hordes of protesters have marched shouting their anger at yet another defamation of all they hold dear. Why is this so? Why are we able to shrug philosophically, nonchalantly about such matters, and those who see nothing wrong in defaming the religions of others in the most egregious way, including the burning of Christian edifices, the savaging of Christians and Jews, march in violent aggrievement at mere words, drawings, nuances of observations?

In Afghanistan the Taliban have been most mightily pleased to warn that they plan to increase attacks upon Dutch troops. Along with other NATO troops in Afghanistan; Western countries all, and as such all guilty of defaming Islam. If not in thought and deed, then in their presence in Islamic territory. As though by their very acts of atrocities they have not themselves brought shame to a religion purporting to be one of peace and good fellowship.

"It is our responsibility to point out to Mr. Wilders the possible consequences of his deeds", the Dutch prime minister reasonably announced. How is it that we can be reasonable, and respectful as well, when it is deserved, but these civilized attributes escape the possibility of enaction on the part of Muslims? "Freedom", intoned Prime Minister Balkenende, "doesn't relieve anyone of responsibility."

And, of course, he is quite correct. Everyone is responsible for the consequences of actions taken. But why, continues to ask this naive person, is responsible action anticipated only from those who represent the West, liberal democracies, and not from those who clamour bitterly against actions and words which they identify as being inimical to the dignity of Islam?

The foreign minister of Iran feels that the defamation of religious images or sensibilities should be recognized as a breach of human rights. However, abusive language defaming an entire people and the legitimacy of its government is perfectly all right. Warning that his country has plans to exterminate a neighbouring country is no breach of human rights.

Thousands of Afghans protested loudly, vehemently, violently against the impending release of the film. Along with the re-printing of the Danish cartoonists' depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. One recalls the Afghan mullahs' determination under the Taliban, to destroy the thousands-years-old statues of Buddha, blowing the world heritage treasures into oblivion.

Pakistan's foreign ministry lays accusations against the Dutch politician of "propagating the politics of hate and promoting xenophobia". And one thinks of Pakistan's coddling of the many madrassas which gave birth to al-Qaeda, and other allied jihadists whose self-avowed purpose is to destroy Western civilization for the greater purpose of introducing a world-wide Caliphate.

"If we ban Wilders' film we give up our intellectual freedom and that would be nothing less than a betrayal of our most fundamental principles", according to a professor at the University of Tilburg.

Quite.