Skip to main content

Anti-Islamic Film Clarifies the Difference Between Islam and the West

A clip from the film
A film called "The Innocence of Muslims" has created a furore in the Islamic world.  This film was produced in the USA.  The USA is supposed to value freedom and free speech more highly than other countries so how have the American authorities treated the film makers?

"In Los Angeles on Saturday, a California man convicted of bank fraud was taken in for questioning by officers investigating possible probation violations stemming from the making of the video. He has denied involvement in the film." (Reuters).

"A Californian man believed to be the producer of a crude anti-Islamic film which has prompted riots throughout the Muslim world, is being interviewed by police for probation violations." (Guardian)

"The Innocence of Muslims (click to view film)", is slightly hilarious and amateur.  It has actors floating above the CGI backgrounds to scenes and a feeble script.  However, it is the right of Americans and British people to make second rate films.  We cannot all be Quentin Tarantinos.  But the Islamic reaction to Western freedom of speech and expression is not limited to second rate movies, according to the Reuter's article above:

"The furore prompted an Iranian organisation to increase the reward for anyone killing Salman Rushdie, the British author condemned to death for blasphemy in 1989 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic".
"Surely if the sentence of the Imam (Khomeini) had been carried out, the later insults in the form of caricatures, articles and the making of movies would not have occurred," said Hassan Sanei, head of the religious foundation offering $3.3 million for Rushdie's death.

If the Islamic world threatens our oil there is hell to pay but when it threatens our way of life the press and the authorities are supine, even helping the Islamists in their persecution.  Journalists and media organisations, as usual, are too cowardly to stand up for our way of life.  If the media covered these events properly, showing the cartoons, films and quotations that offended Islam, then our freedom would not be threatened.  Foreigners could not attack everyone who spoke out.  It is because the media censor anything that is anti-islamic that individuals such as Rushdie are put at terrible risk and free speech is suppressed.


This rather pathetic film has done us all a favour.  It has clarified the real difference between Islam and the West: freedom.  A freedom that is being eroded by our own media and politicians as well as by the Islamists.  Islamic societies say they want "freedom" but do not include in this freedom the freedom to criticise traditional values.  They want the freedom to change their government but not the freedom to question the foundations of politics or society.

See also:

Postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism - what is wrong with the media.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b...

Do Muslim women want to wear the Burka (Burqua)?

Do all islamic women want to wear burka?  Can a woman's freedom to wear what she wants oppress other women?  Are western feminists aiding a cult that is dedicated to the destruction of feminism?  I hope to answer these questions in this article.  I would much appreciate any comments you might have if you disagree with the article, especially if you have a feminist viewpoint. Here is a description of the problems of wearing burka by a woman of Asian origin: "Of course, many veiled Muslim women argue that, far from being forced to wear burkas by ruthless husbands, they do so out of choice. And I have to take them at their word. But it is also very apparent that many women are forced behind the veil. A number of them have turned up at my door seeking refuge from their fathers, mothers, brothers and in-laws - men brain-washed by religious leaders who use physical and mental abuse to compel the girls to cover up. It started with the headscarf, then went to th...

The Roots of New Labour

This article was written in 2009 but is still useful to understand the motivation behind New Labour - from the global financial crisis through the over-regulated, surveillance society to the break up of the UK into nationalities. The past lives of Labour Ministers have long been sanitised and many biographies that include their shady communist and Marxist pasts are inaccessible or removed from the net. The truth about these guys is similar to discovering that leading Tories were members of the Nazi Party. If you are a British voter and do not think that this is important then I despair for British politics.  Had these people taken jobs in industry their past might be forgotten and forgiven but they continued in left wing politics and even today boast of being "Stalinist" or International Socialist (or in Blair's case, Trotskyist ). Peter Mandelson (first Secretary of State and Labour Supremo): "Mr Mandelson was born into a Labour family - his grandfather wa...