If it Walks and Talks Like a Fear-Mongering Propaganda Film, it’s a Fear-Mongering Propaganda Film

fitna-the-movie.jpg 

I just watched Geert Wilder’s 15-minute film, Fitna. I don’t even know where to begin.

If Wilder’s aim was to present Islam as an intolerant and authoritarian religion practised by brutal, intolerant anti-Semites, he succeeded with flying colors. He also succeeded in offending millions of people—Muslim and non-Muslim—with his bigoted, xenophobic, Islamophobic propaganda film. Because that’s exactly what Fitna is; a fear-mongering propaganda film.

Fitna opens with a quote from Sura 8, Verse 60 of the Q’uran:

And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah’s way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.” [Note: I saw at least three translations of this passage but I copied the one used in the film]

The next scene shows footage of the airplanes flying into the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. Another scene consists of footage from the Madrid train bombing. The pattern is repeated throughout the film, with quotes from the Q’uran followed by scenes of radical Muslims denouncing the West, Democracy, and ranting against Jews and other non-Muslims, and committing horrendous acts of violence. In one scene, a hijab-clad woman is shot in the head. In another, a man dressed in an orange jumpsuit—like the ones worn by prisoners in American jails—is beheaded by a group of armed and masked men. At the end of the scene, one of the murderers holds the severed head up to the camera. Footage of Muslim clerics and militants spouting anti-Western, anti-Jewish, and other violent and intolerant language is played and replayed throughout the film. The film is also peppered with images of newspaper headlines announcing everything from fatwas—religiously sanctioned hits—to the murder of Dutch filmmaker (and compatriot of Geert Wilder) Theo Van Gogh. And so on and so forth.

In the final part of the film, Wilder shifts his focus from the global Islamic menace to the local Dutch and European context. Bar graphs show the exponential growth of Holland’s and Europe’s Muslim populations. These figures are then contextualized by more footage of Muslim clerics announcing their plan for Islamizing Holland. Fitna ends with an exhortation to Muslims to “tear out the hateful verses from the Quran.”

There’s a lot wrong with this film but I’m going to focus only on the deliberate—it can’t be anything else—conflation of Islam with violent militancy. A good chunk of the footage shows Muslim radicals from Hezbollah (easily recognizable ) to other, less well-known groups. Some of the stock footage used in the film bears captions identifying the militants as Al Qaeda. In other footage, judging by the way the men are dressed, they could be Afghani or Pakistani. Elsewhere, the film shows soldiers of a formal national army, dressed in combat fatigues and marching in formation. But all in all, it’s hard to tell who’s who and where they live and/or fight. And I think that’s the point. Wilder’s aim is to identify, using extremely broad brush strokes, a Muslim menace that is universal, not linked to a particular nation, region, or state. What’s important is that they’re all Muslim. In one scene that’s meant to highlight Islam’s ambition of global domination, the footage shifts from Muslim clerics delivering sermons on how Islam ruled the world before and will do so again, to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad espousing the universality of the Islamic Revolution.

At the end of the day, Fitna accomplishes nothing more than the deliberate conflation of Islam with violence. More seriously, by presenting only the most insanely brutal, intolerant, and authoritarian Muslims, Wilder seems to be insinuating that all Muslims are murderous haters of Jews, women, children, the West, Christians . . . basically all things good and decent. At no point does he even hint at the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the Muslims shown in his movie are not representative of Islam or the billion or so people around the world who call themselves Muslims. It’s truly sad how quickly Europeans have forgotten that the very same type of propaganda was used to dehumanize Europe’s Jews in the lead-up to the Holocaust.

But Fitna’s success as both a film and a piece of propaganda will be measured by it’s ability to turn people who don’t already fear Muslims into Islamaphobes after they see the film. I doubt whether Fitna will sway any tolerant person but for those who already suspect, fear, or hate the practitioners of Islam, this film will be fuel for their antipathy.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “If it Walks and Talks Like a Fear-Mongering Propaganda Film, it’s a Fear-Mongering Propaganda Film

  1. The movie Fitna plays up to those who are Islamophobes throughout Europe and beyond. You and I both know preoccupied the UK and the rest of Europe is with respect to its Muslim populations and how often, Muslims tend to be ghettoized because of insitutional racism from elite levels. This sort of attitude regarding Muslims can be seen from debates about immigration and how it is geared to controlling the amount of “brown” re, Muslims are allowed in.

    I personally hope that diasporic Muslims (especially those born and raised in Holland) can come up without a thoughtful reply to this bigoted film.

    I thought you’d be interested in this article in the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/10/islam.religion

    Anyway, on a side note, I saw Irshad Manji at SOAS a while back and she pretty much is an apologist for those associated with Geert Wilders (i.e. Ayaan Hirsi Ali). This leads me to another point: how Queer Muslims (Irshad is one of them) view their faith/sexuality vis-a-vis their often conservative and traditional upbringing. Often times, Queer Muslims tend to espouse the same racist and bigoted arguments about Islam because of their own experiences of discrimination and violence from the Muslim community for being Queer. I wrote to you a while back about my views on Manji and said:

    “I think she has a warped sense of Islam and being Queer. It has a lot to do with her introduction to Islamic education, which from what I have gathered, wasn’t a plensant experience, as well as being Queer and having extremely conserative and traditional parents. I do agree with some points of her arguments, but the majority is completely orientalist in thought. I dislike how a lot of Western commentators use Manji to point to an alternative in Islamic thought– she isn’t the alternative, she is just someone who is skilfull at using her Queer status to present equally backward opinions with a liberal face. This does nothing to help those Muslims looking for alternative interpretations, especially Queer Muslims.”

    Kuddos for a great article! x

    Like

  2. Mandy,

    Your comments are fine by me. And not just because you said you like my blog and my points. 🙂

    I can vouch for your first and third “unsourced” quotes as I have seen, read, and heard them before so I know they’re real. The second one is new to me. It might behoove us to check its authenticity.

    As always, thanks for reading the blog and leaving comments. And for taking part in this vital conversation.

    Like

  3. Meh, okay I used the first 3 quotes but I didn’t look for the sources which to me is unacceptable so I’d like to retract them. However the Human Rights Watch quotes are straight out of their original articles so I’d definitely like to keep those….

    And my comment seems a bit emotional so I said “everyone” which really only applies to “everyone who thinks Muslims are the scum of this Earth.”

    Just had to clarify:)

    Abdul,
    I really do like your blog, you make some very insightful comments!

    Like

  4. Pingback: Media Districts Entertainment Blog » If it Walks and Talks Like a Fear-Mongering Propaganda Film, it’sa …

  5. Hmm, vas, if all you can do is direct quote what the media glosses on the front, then you haven’t been doing much of your own research.

    “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.”
    – Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

    “(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.”
    – Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

    “Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.”
    – Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

    “Human Rights Watch research found that many of the attacks on populated areas did not appear to have had a specific military target. ”
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/17/isrlpa18071.htm

    “Israel views restricting fuel and electricity to Gaza as a way to pressure Palestinian armed groups to stop their rocket and suicide attacks,” said Joe Stork, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “But the cuts are seriously affecting civilians who have nothing to do with these armed groups, and that violates a fundamental principle of the laws of war.”
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/07/isrlpa17994.htm

    Honestly, I love how everyone loves to blame Muslims for terrorism and absolutely ignores the level and extent of violence that occurs elsewhere in the world. It’s like you can’t function past what the media feeds you!
    Good job vas, thanks for the lesson on how much freedom to you is based on what YOU want it to be and not actually on the concept of free choice.

    Like

  6. Pingback: War n Human. Hate is us. Why Forgive? « HAPLOGROUP - bit that makes us human.

  7. I am an American. The information the Geert Wilder is gay does not sway my support for him. He is the only one on the planet with the “gonads” to counter islamo-fascism. The people who have the most to lose when islamo-fascism rears its head appear in this order.

    Fellow muslims. Those who do not subscribe the the 7th century teachings which are antiquated.

    People of the Jewish faith. Many times extremist muslims have repeated that they wish to “wipe Isreal off of the map.” What understanding and peace loving people these murderers claim to be.

    Homosexuals. Iran’s Hitler, Amidenijhad, (SIC, and i dont care) claims there are not homosexuals in Iran. Why? They are all hung. Evidence: Geert’s video.

    There has to be a rapid outcry by the mainstream muslims about the terrorism commited in the name of Allah. Where are they? I know they exist. The Jews must be willing to defend themselves at all costs. I will stand by their side as my forefathers did when they freed them from the ovens. The homosexuals, must join in this epic battle as well. We cannot afford to let the extremists to take over America, Europe, Egypt and eventually the world. Wake up! I pray that I am not one of the few who has to turn out the lights as we are pushed out of our homes. God speed Geert Wilder.

    Your friend in the U.S.

    Like

  8. Iain,

    Here are my responses:

    It is fair enough to suggest that the majority of people do not support “mindless ” violence but the acts of terror are not considered to be such mindless acts now are they? the Justifications and qualifications range from the “decadence” of the west to claims to all territory that was every under the control Islamic empires but by far the most worrying concern about all members of the Islamic Diaspora is the endemic anti-Semitism that as the film suggests is inculcated in Muslim children from a very early age and so much of the acts of terror are justified on a hatred of the Jews and by extension their ally the USA.

    A couple of things. First, the “mindless” violence is not condoned by anything close to a majority of Muslims. You’re looking at a handful of Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia (perhaps other areas too) who are engaging in violence and seeing them as the norm. Most of Africa is Muslim yet the conflicts there are not usually couched in terms of Islam. There is a tendency to look at all conflicts that involve Muslims as proof that Islam is inherently violent and I don’t believe this is right. Northern Uganda has a large Muslim population yet the conflict there is not viewed as the result of a violent Islamic culture or tendency. When the Sudanese government was warring against the people of Southern Sudan, who are Christian, many people used that as evidence of Islam’s violent nature. Now that the conflict with the South has been resolved and the Sudanese government is committing crimes against humanity in Darfur—and for the record, I think the Sudanese government’s treatment of its people is DEPLORABLE—the argument is no longer made about Islam being violent since the “Darfurians” are also Muslim. However, the argument is being put forward that it’s a case of Arabs doing violence against non-Arabs. Local political and economic considerations are totally marginalized in favor of a racial—in lieu of religious—argument. If someone wants to villify a population badly enough, they will find whatever reason to do so. If it’s not religion, then it’s “race,” as the case of Sudan shows.

    Secondly, in most cases where Muslims do violence, they do it to other Muslims. Instead of using this as an excuse to denigrate all Muslims, we should show compassion for the Muslim victims of Muslim violence. We can’t only care when the violence is done to “Westerners” or other non-Muslims. As for taking over land once held by Muslims, I again think that only a fringe group aspires towards this goal. In the matter of violent verses in the Q’uran, if these verses were so compelling to adherents of the religion, wouldn’t you see many, many more Muslims engaging in violence against “infidels.” Clearly that’s not the case. These verses were written at a time when the new Muslim communities in Arabia were under tremendous threat so there is a historical context in which they should be seen.

    That being said, I think it’s deplorable that some Muslims—in doing violence to other people—use these passages as justification for their acts. However, people seeking legitimacy for their violence will use any means to do so. George Bush said at one summit on the Red Sea that God told him to strike Saddam. The Dutch Reform Church of the South African Boers favored a passage from the Old Testament that said the sons of Ham (one of Noah’s sons) were turned black for their sins. This was justification for the mistreatment of Black South Africans. In the US, Christian slaveowners used passages from the Bible to justify their enslavement and brutalization of Africans. The Catholic Church declared that indigenous people in South America did not have souls, thereby legitimizing the massive genocidal campaign of extermination against indigenous people in South America and the Caribbean. My point in bringing this up is not to defend, justify, or qualify the violence carried out by some Muslims. My point is that whenever people choose to do violence, they will find any justification for it. Religion often happens to be a convenient excuse.

    Finally, I too am deeply troubled by the blatant anti-Semitism of many Muslims. But I don’t think this can be removed from the political context. We have no way of knowing how strong this feeling was before the creation of the state of Israel, which has done so much violence to Arabs and Muslims. Is Zionism the sole cause of this Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism? I’d be stupid to say it is. But it’s always a two-way street. Israelis and Jews don’t have to publicly proclaim their fear and/or hatred of Muslims and Arabs because they have a state apparatus and a military machine to take care of the problem. And please don’t think there isn’t Islamophobia and Arabophobia in the Jewish community. I’m Jewish and I will not share on this space what my Jewish mother has to say about Arabs and Muslims. Should we judge all Jews by her sentiments? Absolutely not. But if my mom were 50 years younger and a man serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, God alone knows what kind of violence she would do to the Arabs who crossed her path.

    The problem is that those billion people are not all violent murderers and I would never claim that they are .

    Rather the problem is not that all Muslims are terrorists, but that most of the terrorists are Muslims.

    Islam certainly seems to have a great problem with notions of free speech and individual liberty and in the end it is not that the vast majority of Muslims even condone acts of violence but that they do nothing to stop it or even to speak against it and by their inaction they express a tacit approval the acts (and some like the Palestinians dance in the streets to celebrate acts of terrorist violence)

    I disagree that most terrorists are Muslims. I’m not even going to engage you on your definition of “terrorist” because that’s a too-long conversation for another day. However, in the US, when a hate crime is committed against a person of color, you don’t hear an outraged populace demanding that the White population do something to stamp out racism or that the White community do some introspecting to get at the root of its hatred of people of color. Likewise, the Latin American armies and paramilitaries who slaughtered so many civilians in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. were Catholic. Their actions were never seen as an indictment of all Christians or Catholics. The war in the non-Muslim Democratic Republic of Congo has killed over five million people. No Muslims here so no attention is paid to the issue (compare to Darfur). In India, Hindu nationalists carry out violence in the name of a supremacist Hinduism, but these actions are not taken as an indictment of Hinduism. But whenever Muslims do violence—to other Muslims or to non-Muslims—it’s automatically seen as further proof that Islam is an inherently violent religion.

    Yes it is possible to find passages in the old testament calling for the killing of the “unchosen” but by no stretch of the imagination are they considered instructions for current members of that faith to kill unbelievers there are 164 verses in the Koran which do call the faithful to kill unbelievers .

    Again, just because a few crazies kill in the name of obeying Q’uranic edicts does not mean that those edicts are commands today’s billion or so Muslims. I can do whatever I want in the name of whatever religion but I don’t see how that reflects on the other practitioners of that religion. There are crazy right-wing racists in the US who use religious—among other—arguments to say that non-White people should be wiped out so the “White” race can rightfully rule the planet.

    And I would not argue that even the aforementioned verses are an indictment of all Muslims but there is a vast difference between Islamic and Christian history insofar as spreading the faith by the sword, in one it is mandated and in the other it is actually contrary to the teachings of the faith. I am sure that I don’t need to say which is which now do I?

    Try telling that to the descendants of the Caribs, the Mayans, and the Incans who today practise Catholicism. Tell that to the Black Americans who were forcibly converted to Christianity after being taken into slavery. Tell that to the Jews, Muslims, and others who were converted under pain of torture and death by the Inquisition. But that’s all besides the point. Many areas of the Muslim world were not converted by the sword. Many other areas were. There’s no denying that. But many people were also Christianized under threat of torture or death.

    But it is not a matter of returning a favour Abdul, it is about refusing to submit to the implicit and explicit threats made against anyone who criticises the excesses of the most zealous followers of the Islamic faith.

    You read my words too literally here, Iain. The issue is not about submitting to threats against anyone who criticizes the zealous excesses of the craziest Muslims. Geert Wilder’s film does little to differentiate between the most zealous and the most pacific. It seems that many critics of Muslim violence have trouble separating the violence from the religion. I include you in this group. I ask only for rational analysis and criticism. Where is the religious component in the FARC’s violence, or in that of the other Columbian paramilitaries? Where’s the religious analysis of Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers or Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army? Nowhere to be found, that’s where.

    But when it comes to violence carried out by Muslims, it seems most people only recognize one unit of analysis: religion.

    Like

  9. Moray,

    Thanks for your comment. I do not know that Mr. Wilders is gay but that is totally irrelevant.

    I am very critical of some Muslims’ attitudes towards homosexuality, including some that were highlighted in the film. But I do not think that Mr. Wilders’ film is worse simply because he may or may not be gay.

    You’re right that this might have motivated him to make the film but I think we would all be better off criticizing the film on the basis of what it reveals about Mr. Wilders’ mindset. Criticizing the film on the basis of his alleged homosexuality is pointless at best and at worst, opens you up to accusations of bigotry, intolerance and homophobia.

    Like

  10. In response to #8:

    No doubt the events portrayed in the film are real. I don’t doubt the authenticity of the images for one minute. My quarrel with Mr. Wilders’ film has nothing to do with free speech. I am a big defender of free speech (see some of the comments posted on my blog). My quarrel is that his collage of images all portray only the violence and intolerance of some Muslims. This I believe would give an uninformed viewer the impression that all Muslims are violent and intolerant. I suspect that was indeed Mr. Wilders’ intention, and that is wrong.

    I could cobble together footage of Israeli soldiers attacking Palestinian civilians and argue that all Jews are anti-Arab. That would be wrong. Likewise, I could put together a video of American soldiers killing Iraqis and Afghans and argue that Americans (or Christians) hate Muslims. That would also be wrong. Because any rational person knows that the actions of Israeli soldiers against Palestinians are not representative of Jewish attitudes towards Arabs, nor do the actions of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan represent the attitudes of Americans or Christians towards Muslims.

    Mr. Wilders has unlimited freedom of expression and he should exercise that freedom to make his opinions known in any way he pleases. But the rest of us also have freedom of expression and we should use it to express our opinions and challenge his.

    After all, that’s what freedom of speech is all about. It’s not about insulting or denigrating entire populations. It’s about the exchange of ideas.

    Like

  11. Pingback: Fitna! Or fit for discussion? ‘I don’t hate Muslims. I hate Islam’ « HAPLOGROUP - bit that makes us human.

  12. Most people outside The Netherlands aren’t yet aware that Mr Wilders is gay.

    I’m 100% sure that he’d never have made this film if Islam wasn’t so threatening to gays and to the liberal enviroment in Western Europe where gays are now flourishing.

    In his scared little imagination he likes to think he can fire up everybody else to defend him and his gay brothers.

    He is exactly the western equivalent to those rabid religious maniacs we see in his film – they are scared too, as they know that their days are numbered. They know very well that most muslims in the modern world have no time for the spreading of hate and violence, they just want to live peaceful and safe lives – and who knows, maybe in their quiet way they are already changing Islam – hence the 11 million viewers for Afghani Idols last week!

    Like

  13. As for the “silent majority” being keen on lionizing the violent ones, that’s a matter of opinion. I don’t know how many Muslims you know and how much you talk to them about politics and their political views. I’m certain you wouldn’t find a majority that supports such mindless violence.

    It is fair enough to suggest that the majority of people do not support “mindless ” violence but the acts of terror are not considered to be such mindless acts now are they? the Justifications and qualifications range from the “decadence” of the west to claims to all territory that was every under the control Islamic empires but by far the most worrying concern about all members of the Islamic Diaspora is the endemic anti-Semitism that as the film suggests is inculcated in Muslim children from a very early age and so much of the acts of terror are justified on a hatred of the Jews and by extension their ally the USA.

    There are over a billion people on this planet who consider themselves Muslims. If you really believe they’re all violent murderers—or that they condone violence and murder—I don’t know that there’s anything further I can say to you.

    The problem is that those billion people are not all violent murderers and I would never claim that they are .

    Rather the problem is not that all Muslims are terrorists, but that most of the terrorists are Muslims.

    Islam certainly seems to have a great problem with notions of free speech and individual liberty and in the end it is not that the vast majority of Muslims even condone acts of violence but that they do nothing to stop it or even to speak against it and by their inaction they express a tacit approval the acts (and some like the Palestinians dance in the streets to celebrate acts of terrorist violence)

    Finally, don’t kid yourself. Any holy book (the Old Testament especially) is full of passages about God calling on his people to spill the blood of some other people. I’m sure a simple Google search might reveal some of these passages.

    Yes it is possible to find passages in the old testament calling for the killing of the “unchosen” but by no stretch of the imagination are they considered instructions for current members of that faith to kill unbelievers there are 164 verses in the Koran which do call the faithful to kill unbelievers .

    But few people are silly enough to argue that these passages are an indictment of all Christians. Much blood has been spilled by people who practised the Christian faith—crusaders, conquistadores, slave traders, Nazis, Fascists, colonists in Africa, Asia, and Australia. The list is long and bloody. But most people today know better than to argue that those Christians represented all Christians.

    And I would not argue that even the aforementioned verses are an indictment of all Muslims but there is a vast difference between Islamic and Christian history insofar as spreading the faith by the sword, in one it is mandated and in the other it is actually contrary to the teachings of the faith. I am sure that I don’t need to say which is which now do I?

    Too bad so many Christians seem incapable of returning the favor.

    But it is not a matter of returning a favour Abdul, it is about refusing to submit to the implicit and explicit threats made against anyone who criticises the excesses of the most zealous followers of the Islamic faith.

    Like

  14. Iain,

    You obviously know so much more about Islam and its adherents than I do, so I won’t say anything more on this issue.

    As for the “silent majority” being keen on lionizing the violent ones, that’s a matter of opinion. I don’t know how many Muslims you know and how much you talk to them about politics and their political views. I’m certain you wouldn’t find a majority that supports such mindless violence.

    There are over a billion people on this planet who consider themselves Muslims. If you really believe they’re all violent murderers—or that they condone violence and murder—I don’t know that there’s anything further I can say to you.

    Finally, don’t kid yourself. Any holy book (the Old Testament especially) is full of passages about God calling on his people to spill the blood of some other people. I’m sure a simple Google search might reveal some of these passages. But few people are silly enough to argue that these passages are an indictment of all Christians. Much blood has been spilled by people who practised the Christian faith—crusaders, conquistadores, slave traders, Nazis, Fascists, colonists in Africa, Asia, and Australia. The list is long and bloody. But most people today know better than to argue that those Christians represented all Christians.

    Too bad so many Christians seem incapable of returning the favor.

    Like

  15. Winslie,

    You’re absolutely right. I just hope this doesn’t provoke the desired overreaction which will lead to more bad blood and more literal blood being shed.

    Let’s hope everyone sees this Wilders guy for the attention-seeking bigot that he is.

    Like

  16. Abdul,

    Spot on! This is a deliberate attempt to incite hatred – pit humanity against itself and must not be allowed to succeed. But alas, it will but im glad it shant be like minded people like you and I. Furthermore, it is a sad irony that for all his talk of western civilization (Gandhi called it a good idea once) and the usual neoconservative gobbledegook, its amazing how a minority has been presented as the representtaive of a billion plus. That is some great liberal thinking! Considering that the chances are very low for a non-violent reaction from the other side, I only hope more dont get killed in this malicious attempt to preempt more bloody violence.

    Best
    Bharat

    Like

  17. Really you are in denial if you don’t think that the problem of Islamic extremism does not have it’s origins in the faith itself just about all of the horrendous scenes in the film are from the Islamists themselves as are the citations from the Koran.
    While it is easy to say that the violent minority are not representative of Islam as a whole I don’t see any evidence that the silent majority that you cite are doing anything of substance to counter the propagators of Islamic terrorism, to the contrary they seem rather keen to lionise them instead.

    Like

  18. Too right!
    I’ve just posted a comment on http://mazaqah.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/dutch-mp-posts-islam-film-on-web-we-have-the-link/

    I am pleased to see that you have not reacted as many are bound to.

    I’m going to be lazy and copy it here;

    This is all about white supremacy and Islam as a religion of violence.

    I am a Christian and if I wanted to, I too could portray Christianity as a religion of violence.

    This battle is not about winning arguments, because White supremacy is an entrenched and accepted belief that can only be denounced through prolonged dialogue.

    I fear that he will succeed in goading the Islamic cleric’s to come out with fatwa’s.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s