Islamofascists Continue To Prove Fitna's Point

It seems the Islamic world will do anything to continue to prove the point that the Dutch parliamentarian was making with his new film "Fitna." The film showed a number of verses in the Koran interspersed with Islamic sermons, footage of terrorism, and Dutch newspaper headlines.

It started with liveleak.com, the first website to share the video, pulling the video from their website after only one day because of serious threats to their staff. As LiveLeak put it, "in the end the price was too high." So the response to a video showing an Islamic prediliction toward violence and terrorism is intimidation and violent threats.

A Jihadist website responded to the video by posting in Arabic that "if there is no check on the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions." This was along with a picture of Osama bin Laden and the World Trade Towers burning in the background. These words have been attributed to Bin Laden himself, his response to the famed Danish cartoons in a more recently released tape.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference added its voice to the criticism of the film released by the Dutch lawmaker. OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu condemned "in the strongest terms the release of the film 'Fitna' by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders." This is their full right, to object if they so please. But, pray tell, would it not be more productive and appropriate if the OIC were condemning clearly, constantly, and loudly the throat slitters, head choppers, and suicide bombers that murder innocents, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, in the name of Islam?

A militant believed linked to al-Qaida's deputy chief Ayman al-Zawahri, Qari Mohammed Yusuf, told The Associated Press last week that "foreigners will be attacked. The situation will change, change, change" because of the film. Whether this is true or not is yet to be seen, but that there is truth in the film that is being proven by the Jihadist response is undoubtable. Furthermore, hundreds of Islamists staged angry protests across Pakistan over the film. This may not seem like a lot, and it is a relatively small number compared to the response to the Danish cartoons, but it does not take many people to carry out Jihad operations. The Taliban has also threatened retaliation against Dutch troops in Afghanistan.

Now comes Omar Bakri, the Libyan-based Jihadist Muslim cleric who has been barred from Britain. He makes the exact point that "Fitna" itself was making in no uncertain terms. He says exactly what Wilders film itself meant to say. Bakri did not think the film was very offensive at all. He said, "On the contrary, if we leave out the first images and the sound of the page being torn, it could be a film by the Mujahideen."

The Human Rights Council has also gotten in on the action. The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted a resolution Thursday in a 21-10 vote. It said the Council was concerned about the defamation of religions and urged governments to prohibit it. Interestingly, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer. It is well known that the Human Rights Council is a joke, and this only goes to prove it. But the response of the Arab and Muslim dominated Council should not surprise anyone. And I raise the same objection I did earlier with the OIC. Condemnations of the film were also heard from the UN Secretary General who said "there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.” Why is the right of free expression not at stake here? Is the right of free expression not at stake when Muslims sensitivities are offended? I saw the film and I personally saw no incitment to violence either. What I did see was a film depicting how the Islamic religion and its holy book are being used by the ones who are truly violent and hateful to justify their actions.

The response from the Islamic world was predictable. It is what we have come to know all too well. Empty condemnations of hate speech but hardly ever a condemnation against terrorism itself. There have also been threats and promises of violence, which we can only pray will not be fulfilled. No one has happened to be killed over this. But then again, that's why the Dutch lawmaker has a constant security detail. Al-Qaeda websites have already posted photos of Wilders with statements such as "The Dutch, enemy of Allah, has done what he threatened to do and distributed his film." Whether one fully agrees with the content of Wilder's film, or his politics, has become irrelevant. The response of the Jihadis has shown us that the free world must be willing to stand up for his right to express himself and must end the cowtowing to Islamofascist intimidation.
Tweet