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

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage