Back Towards The Locus

I hold these truths to be self-evident…

• Geert Wilders is an arse.
• Geert Wilders should not have been invited to the House of Lords (because, as we’ve established, he’s an arse).
• Geert Wilders should not have been banned from Britain (arseholishness is not a crime).

The stupidity of the decision to ban Wilders is obvious. As Ed Hussein pointed out on Newsnight, he visited Britain in December and garnered scant recognition. Now that he’s been barred one can hardly escape his bewildering peroxide locks. Besides, he doesn’t directly incite violence and should be allowed in whether I, or anyone else, likes it or not.

Do I think that the decision represents a capitulation to Islamic will? No, because – though an incalculable idiot – I’m not completely braindead. If the government was awash with some sinister dhimmitude it wouldn’t make a habit of invading predominantly Muslim countries. It’s more likely to be gesture politics; if they’re accused of Islamophobia they can point to the banning and squeal “but look how much stick we got for this“.

However, I wanted to set out why Wilders is so objectionable, and to that end have rewatched Fitna and scribbed some thoughts below…

Intellectual Dishonesty

It’s repeated ad nauseum that Wilders doesn’t use “hate speech”, but juxtaposes quotes from the Qur’an with images of atrocities. While untrue, this is an accurate representation of much of Fitna.

However, some of these quotes aren’t entirely as they seem. For example, over scenes of the 9/11 attacks Wilders quotes Sura Anfal 008.060…

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

Scary, indeed. But if he’d gone onto 008.061…

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).”

Ah, so it’s actually “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power” if “the enemy“ isn’t inclined towards peace. A fairly significant difference, no? And it’s fairly revealing that Wilders so blankly ignores it.

Preceding images of the tragically murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Fitna quotes from Sura Muhammad 047.004…

“Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them bind a bond firmly on them.”

My translation, by the respected Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali, puts this verse rather differently…

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”

The difference between “meet[ing] Unbelievers” and “meet[ing] Unbelievers (in fight)” is evident, and Wilders’s dishonesty is clear. To cut words into his agenda so methodically – especially in a film which asserts such dramatic conclusions and offers so dramatic a solution – is luridly dishonest.

Propagandistic Intent

Throughout Fitna, Wilders bombards the viewer with screams, bombs, cries and mutilated corpses. It’s saturated in sounds and images that convey horror and inspire fear. This is, I think, is a fair tactic in a documentary if the filmmaker wants to shock viewer out of complacency, but that’s all Fitna is, and so those who hail it as “the truth” are only revealing their own idiocy. It’s not an analysis; it’s a stylised piece of propaganda.

As I covered in my analysis of Obsession – another hysterical anti-Muslim work – none of these doomsayers seem to have advanced a thorough Global Jihad thesis. Multiple, wide-ranging attacks are horrific, but don’t prove a uniquely rapacious, expansionist movement. Unfortunately, in his conclusion, Wilders baselessly assumes that he’s already done this…

“In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe.

In 1989, Communism was defeated in Europe.

Now, the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.”

How would this ideology be “defeated“? Well, Wilders himself supports administrative detention, as well as the banning of the Qur’an and the construction of Mosques, and an end to Muslim immigration. His Political Manifesto contains policies typical to the bloviated nationalist, such as “test[ing] children on knowledge about national identity“.

In addition, Wilders’s leading cheerleaders are among the most fanatical neoconservatives, whose racist agendas are well served. In distinguishing Islam as a near-unique Other, he automatically prejudices his followers against Muslims. Thus, they are more likely to accept differing standards of treatment; aggressive foreign policies and authoritarian domestic policies.

Now, of course, fanatical political Islam is a grave threat to many. The murderers currently menacing South Pakistan, for example…

“Pakistan (Reuters) – Islamist fighters called a 10-day ceasefire from Sunday in Pakistan’s northwestern Swat Valley, where peace talks were underway that could restore Islamic sharia as the main system of law in the region.

Militants seeking to impose the strict form of Islamic law have also destroyed more than 200 girls schools in the mountainous valley, once a popular tourist destination, just 130 km northwest of Islamabad.”

What’s imporant to remember, though, is that most of the victims of these people are Muslims. If, as Fitna implies, Islam and its followers were monolithic, we wouldn’t see such dramatic differences in behaviour.

None of what I’ve written constitutes a defence of the Qu’ran. Obviously, I’m not a Muslim, I’ve never seen any reason to respect Islam as a religion and it may propagate many loathsome things. Certainly, the snippets shown in the film are dreadfully unpleasant, but Wilders has to distort them to find political relevance. There are serious arguments to be had concerning theology, liberty and where they conflict, but the Bouffant Boy’s dishonesty and propagandistic intent show that he has no part to play in it.