Another War-on-Terror Blog: Denmark

Showing posts with label Denmark. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Danish Newspaper's Cartoons Back in the News

It could have been worse. David Coleman Headley and and Tahawwur Hussain Rana / Tahawar Rana were caught and charged before they could carry through on their plans. From the looks of it, they wanted to help "commit terrorist acts against overseas targets, including facilities and employees of a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2005...."

The arrests have been a major news item today. Many of the recent reports seem to be ringing changes on this U.S. Department of Justice press release:

"Two Chicago men have been arrested on federal charges for their alleged roles in conspiracies to provide material support and/or to commit terrorist acts against overseas targets, including facilities and employees of a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2005, federal law enforcement officials announced today. There was no imminent danger in the Chicago area, officials said, adding that the charges are unrelated to recent terror plot arrests in Boston, New York, Colorado, Texas and central Illinois.

"The defendants charged in separate criminal complaints unsealed today in U.S. District Court in Chicago are David Coleman Headley, 49, and Tahawwur Hussain Rana, 48, also known as Tahawar Rana, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the FBI. The complaints remained under seal temporarily after the defendants' arrests, with court approval, so as not to compromise further investigative activity...."
(U.S. Department of Justice)

There's more - quite a lot more - to the DOJ press release.

The bottom line is that another terrorist attack - attacks, more likely - won't happen. Not on schedule, at least.

And that's good news.

The bad news is that some (a few, I trust) people who are convinced that they're following - and defending - Islam apparently still have that Danish paper on their hit list.

Freedom of Speech and Callouses on the Soul

I don't approve of terrorism. I think I understand some of the emotions and motives involved, but that is not the same as condoning terrorism, or excusing terrorists from responsibility.

A few years ago, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published a number of cartoons by a Swedish cartoonist. Depending on your point of view, they were clever, sophisticated, in poor taste, or a world-class example of intellectual jingoism.

They portrayed the prophet - which is unacceptable by itself, in some flavors of Islam - in a very, very unfavorable light.

But, that sort of in-your-face contempt for religious beliefs is protected by 'freedom of expression' these days, in Western countries where 'free speech' is valued.

As a devout Catholic living in America, I'm used to seeing and reading angry, disgusting, and clueless 'comic' references to my faith. It goes with the territory. I don't like, particularly when I'm forced to help pay the salary of someone who commits sacrilege. (August 5, 2008)

I've gotten gut-wrenching angry, sometimes. But I couldn't support a bunch of crazed Catholics who wanted to kill the governor: and would, if by some freak of probability such a group existed and I had information about them, cooperate with civil authorities. Yes: I'd be helping people who attack my faith. But I'd be following my faith by being a good citizen.¹ And, I think, helping people who didn't know all that much about Catholicism what my faith was really about.

I'd probably be even more emotionally worked up, if there weren't so many callouses on my soul. Some of the subcultures I lived in weren't just anti-Catholic - they didn't approve of any sort of 'organized religion.' Except maybe some very non-Abrahamic ones. After a while, you almost get used to it.

Which may be why this blog isn't anywhere near as vehemently anti-Islam as some 'real American' ones are. As I said, I don't condone terrorism: But I do have some idea of what it's like to follow a faith that most people in my country either doesn't care about - or are hostile toward.

Two Chicago Men and 'Those Muslims'

I think it's a good idea to remember that, after wild reactions to anti-Islamic cartoons made Muslims look like out-of-control rioters - and Islam like a repressive and dangerously violent cult - the more sane and sober followers of Islam took stock of what they believed, and how they should react to insults. And came to the conclusion that

'Freedom of speech' was part of contemporary culture in many parts of the world
Violent reactions to naughty cartoons made Muslims look silly
- At best
Following culturally-normative channels of protest were a better idea

I've posted about this before. (February 13, 2008)

As I've said often: 'Islam' isn't some great, homogeneous, monolithic block of people who all feel, think, and act the same way. It's prudent to remember that the loudest, most violent, craziest of any group aren't representative of the whole group.

Related posts:

"Fitna Producer Geert Wilders: Alive and Well, and Facing Charges"
(January 21, 2009)
" 'Self-Satisfied Ignorance?' Eucharist, Quran, and Atheist Book Trashed"
(August 5, 2008)
"Freedom of Speech: It's Protected in America"
(March 27, 2008)
"Islam, Denmark, and Freedom of Speech: a Learning Experience"
(February 13, 2008)
"Swedish Dog Displays Blasphemous Images"
(September 19, 2007)
"Death to the Cartoonist! Death to Swedish Dog!"
(September 18, 2007)
"The Subway Project and 'Why Islam?' - Terrorists in the Subways! Or, Not"
(July 23, 2008)
"Pro-Islamic Ads Coming to New York City Subways: There's a Real Danger Here, of Becoming Informed"
(July 21, 2008)

In the news:

"Two Chicago Men Charged in Connection with Alleged Roles in Foreign Terror Plot That Focused on Targets in Denmark"
The United States Department of Justice press release (October 27, 2009)
"Danish intelligence: Planned attacks not imminent"
The Associated Press (October 27, 2009)
"Two Chicago Men Face Terror Charges"
The Wall Street Journal (October 27, 2009)
"Two charged by U.S. in plot to attack Danish paper"
Reuters (October 27, 2009)
"2 Chicago men accused of plotting terror attacks"
WBBM780 (October 27, 2009)

¹Which makes being a Catholic in America really interesting these days. That 'be a good citizen' thing is one of the rules I have to follow, but I also have to obey God's law.

"Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
(November 3, 2008)
"Elections and Citizenship, Catholic Style"
A Catholic Citizen in America (September 24, 2008)

Still, in could be worse. Look what happened to Thomas More.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Freedom of Speech for "Fitna" and Hezbollah, and a Prediction

'One of the differences between places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and western democracies, is that we enjoy freedom of speech.'

Today, it's hard to say that with a straight face.

A website that announced the release a Dutch documentary about the Quran, "Fitna," has been taken down by its host. It was "objectionable."

This post is longer than most, so here's a table of contents:

Now, let's get going.

Why All the Fuss about "Fitna?"

A Dutch Member of Parliament, Geert Wilders, made a 15-minute movie called "Fitna." It's about the Quran / Koran. More accurately, it's against the Quran, and against Islam. ("Fitna" seems to be a Latinization of "فتنة" - "Sedition," or maybe something else.)

"While the exact contents of the 15-minute movie, due to be released by March 31, are unknown, Wilders has said it will underscore his view that Islam's holy book is 'fascist.'

"Dutch officials fear the movie could spark violent protests in Muslim countries, similar to those two years ago after the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper." CNN (March 23, 2008)

If pre-release reports on what the mini-documentary are halfway accurate, those Dutch officials have something to worry about.

"No one has seen the film in its entirity [sic] yet but a Dutch paper which has seen some of the opening images from the film, said it shows the cover of the Koran and then images of 'a decapitation in Iraq, a stoning in Iran and an execution in Saudi Arabia, where sharia (Islamic law) is applied'."

No, I don't think Muslims are going to like that.

I think that I know how many Muslims feel. I'll get back to that later.

Back to top

"Fitna" Announcement Censored

Like any good movie maker, Geert Wilders had a '[title]themovie.com' website. "Until Sunday, this site (www.fitnathemovie.com) had shown the cover of a Koran on a black background with the text: 'Coming soon: Finta [sic!]'." Breitbart.com (March 23, 2008)

I went to "Fitna, the Movie (www.fitnathemovie.com) today.

It wasn't there.

It its place is a boilerplate announcement: "This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation. For more information about Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy visit the following URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp"

That URL is Network Solutions' "Acceptable Use Policy" page. It mentions "Prohibited Uses," including, "...profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature." [emphases mine] Blogger, the service I use for this blog, has a similar Blogger Content Policy, except that terms like "PORNOGRAPHY AND OBSCENITY," "HATEFUL CONTENT" and "VIOLENT CONTENT" are rather more specifically defined.

Back to top

"Objectionable Material" - What's That?

Network Solution's definition of "objectionable material" isn't all that clear to me. Particularly since:

An announcement of a controversial upcoming film is yanked
hizbollah.org - "موقع المقاومة الإسلامية في لبن" (English version "Islamic Resistance In Lebanon - Official Web Site") isn't

Yep, Network Solutions hosts Hezbollah's websites: Look it up at "WhoIs?." The domain is good to go until February 5, 2009, according to Network Solution's WhoIs service.¹

More accurately, I've got nothing but a strong suspicion about why Network Solutions yanked a website that some Muslims don't like. There does seem to be a two-tier system for handling complaints:

'Platinum' for objections from very emphatic Muslims, and a few other groups
'Bridge sweepings' for everyone else

That would explain why fitnathemovie.com is "objectionable," and hizbollah.org isn't.

By the standards of people who sympathize with Osama bin Laden, Iran's Ayatollah's, or other Islamic extremists, Hezbollah/Hizbollah is a perfectly reasonable organization, with lofty goals and noble methods: and "Fitna" is 15 minutes of infidel lies, whose maker should suffer the fate of Theo van Gough.

Back to top

"Why Be Concerned?

I think that it's important for people who publish to be responsible for what they create. Libel and other laws exist to deal with people who make false, slanderous, or damaging statements.

I also think that it's a mistake, and a big one, to pull down a website because of what appear to be a few objections. Particularly since controversial websites are hardly unusual.

It doesn't matter whether Network Solutions yanked a website down to appease radical Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, or people who believe that Elvis is still alive.

Anyone who has material on the web should be concerned, very concerned, when their site can be pulled down because it's "objectionable." With about 6,000,000,000 people on Earth, the odds are that one or two will find any given website or blog "objectionable."

If that sounds silly, consider this: a website, consisting of a picture of the Quran and the word "Fitna," and little else, isn't there any more.

Because it was "objectionable."

Today, it's not your website or blog that's been censored.

Tomorrow, it might be.

Back to top

"Fitna" - What Next?

We already know that Mr. Wilders doesn't approve of Islam, probably doesn't like Muslims, and has no intention of being polite about his opinions.

When Geert Wilders' "Fitna" is released, probably next week, we'll find out exactly what he packed into his 15-minute movie. It will probably be an emotionally-charged thrill ride through the decapitations, bombings, stonings, and beatings that some Muslims have made the public face of Islam.

Back to top

"Fitna" - a Prediction

Within a few hours of the release, there will be demonstrations. Loud ones. In quite a few cities, mostly in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, Muslims will set fire to flags. And, most likely, buildings, cars and people.

And people who agree with Mr. Wilders will have more evidence to back up their beliefs.

Update March 28, 2008

I'm pleased to say that I was wrong. The Islamic world broke with tradition and did not explode into a fury of anti-western riots.

After the first, and second, set of violent demonstrations in reaction to some cartoons, I'd expected another embarrassment for Muslims who are trying to deal with the Information Age.

Apparently Arsalan Iftikhar was right, when he said "We in the global community learned a lot from the Danish cartoon controversy ...."

I've been hoping that Muslims, in general, are able to live in a world where everyone is not just like them. The Fitna fizzle helps me think that this is so.

"Fitna" - Censorship and Blogs

Selected blog reactions:

"Network Solutions censors Fitna website"
Klein Verzet (March 22, 2008)
Good background, and a call for a blogburst on the topic
"Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film 'Fitna' "
American Congress for Truth (March 23, 2008)
More background
"Will any American company host 'Fitna?' Update: Wilders says, 'If need be, I’ll personally distribute DVDs;' Dutch court to rule"
Michelle Malkin (March 22, 2008)
"Will any American company host 'Fitna?' " That's a good question.

Meanwhile, other people are taking advantage of the "Fitna" online fiasco. fitnathemovie.info is a discussion of Fitna. It's hosted by T Walrecht, in Breezand, the Netherlands. It popped up February 27, 2008. Another site, http://www.fintathemovie.com/, displays two email addresses, and the promise that "This domain is for sale."

Back to top

"Fitna" and My Views

I haven't seen Geert Wilders' film, but from what I've read of his statements about Islam, and about "Fitna," I think that I'll find myself in agreement with one point made in the film: that Muslims read the Quran, or at least parts of it.

I'm not concerned about the censorship of his film's website because I agree with Geert Wilders. From what I've read, Mr. Wilders seems to have beliefs similar to the ones that made life challenging for my Irish ancestors. He doesn't happen to hate my guts, but that's no reason to agree with him, and hate someone else.

I'm concerned because I think that America supports free speech: and pulling down a website because someone thinks that its contents are objectionable isn't the exercise of "free speech." At least, not by my standards.

Back to top

I think I know how Muslims feel about "Fitna."

"Fitna" and "The Last Temptation of Christ"

The two films are not the same, obviously. "Fitna" runs 15 minutes, "Temptation" is 164 minutes long. One is made by a Dutch lawmaker, the other by a professional American film maker.

They do have one thing in common, though: both are offensive to religious groups.

It's been almost 20 years since Scorsese's "Temptation" was released, so here's some background:

"The Last Temptation of Christ" Universal Pictures / Cineplex-Odeon Films, 1988: "The carpenter Jesus (Willem Dafoe) is beset by blinding headaches and comes to the conclusion that he is the Son of God, sent down to spread the word of God to his people. He falls afoul of public and political controversy and is sentenced to death. As he spends his last hours nailed to a cross, Jesus is tempted by Satan with a vision of life as it COULD be..."

"The Last Temptation" was dedicated to showing that Jesus was human, human, human. Which is true, as far as it goes.

Although critically-acclaimed and nominated for numerous Oscars (Best Director (Martin Scorsese), Best Original Score - Motion Picture, Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture (Barbara Hershey)), not everyone approved of the film. Conservative Christians were upset, and some serious thinkers didn't like the film, either. One dissenting review noted that, "Jesus, with less charisma than Woody Allen and less clarity of vision than a youth minister on crack, mumbles some poorly modernized lines about love ..., " and: "It is a requirement for Christian fundamentalists to hate this film, normally without having seen it. And it is in vogue for more liberal minded Christians and film critics to heap praise upon it. Both reactions are inappropriate. It just isn't that blasphemous or that good." (The Film Atheist)

Maybe so. It did, however, strike me as another film in the tradition of "Jesus Christ, Superstar" which assumed that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being. Period.

Since I am a Christian, and a devout Catholic, I believe that Jesus is human. His mother is human. His Father is God. Is he human? Yes. Is he just human? No. I can't agree with the belief that Jesus is just human.

And I certainly can't agree with the idea that He is a nut case with severe headaches who does what the voices in his head say. (Yes, I know: that's not the nicest way to summarize Scorsese's character in the film.)

The nature of the Christ shown in the film is what I found objectionable in the film, not the nudity and Barbara Hershey's portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a hubba-hubba hottie who had sex with Jesus. That last was a vision/hallucination.

(Considering the quality of the sex scene, I'm surprised that the film received such critical acclaim. As Film Atheist described it as "the most reserved coupling you'll find in a film not made by Disney." I take it that he found the groovy part of the film something of a disappointment.)

Would I have stopped "The Last Temptation of Christ" from getting to theaters, if I had that power?

No.

As definitely as I think that the message of the movie is wrong, I do not think it would be right to censor it.

That's partly out of self-interest. I'm Catholic. Among the last things I would want to do is support the idea that Catholics are a bunch of heavy-handed bigots. Censoring a movie because it was in conflict with my beliefs would support that idea.

Besides, I think that what I believe can stand on its own. Two millennia ago, Roman emperors tried to stamp out the Christian Church. I don't think that Martin Scorsese is a bigger threat than Nero and company were, even if he did have Hollywood backing.

And, partly, I wouldn't censor that film, because I believe in freedom of speech, the marketplace of ideas. I believe that, when people are allowed to express their ideas clearly, those ideas will be evaluated. True ones will be accepted (eventually), false ones will be rejected (also eventually), and silly ones will go into a sort of intellectual blooper reel.

Preventing ideas from being expressed doesn't help that process. In fact, it can give the impression that the censored idea has more merit than it actually does.

¹ Hosting arrangements might change, when more people know about about Network Solution's business connection with a terrorist group. ("Terrorist" is an American designation: the EU is more open-minded about Hezbollah (a.k.a. Hizbollah, Hizbu'llah).)

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Like this post? Tweet it: Or, not: your choice.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Political Correctness, Belarus-Style? Three Years Hard Labor for Journalist Aleksandr Klaskovsky

I don't know whether a Belarusian journalist sitting in prison because he decided to publish some cartoons is political correctness run amok, old-school suppression of a free press, a kind of islamophobia, or maybe all three.

Whatever it is, it's bad news.

Back in September of 2005, the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, published 12 cartoons, depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

They weren't exactly flattering. In fact, I think some were in bad taste.

As a Catholic living in America, I'm accustomed to seeing cartoons that are impolite toward, and often wildly inaccurate about, my faith. It's one of the unpleasant side-effects of living in a free society.

That may be why, even if an unflattering - or blasphemous - cartoon about Catholicism showed up in the local paper, it's hard to imagine my fellow-parishioners rioting in the streets.

Living in a country where putting a crucifix in urine¹ is considered "art," I've gotten used to living among people who don't necessarily share my values or beliefs.

As the cartoons were republished around the world, Muslims got upset. The Norwegian embassy in Damscus was "torched," and followers of Islam made a bonfire of furniture from the Danish embassy. Protests a few days later were "peaceful," with chants of "At your service, oh Mohammed, at your service, oh Prophet of God," and the ever-popular "Death to America, Death to Israel."

"Peaceful?"

The protesters had signs, too, including: "No dignity to a nation whose prophet is insulted;" and "What comes after insulting sacred values?" That second sign raises a good question, actually.

The death toll seems to have been remarkably low:

At least 10, according to a socialist website
24 or more in Nigeria alone, as reported in the International Herald Tribune"
139, according Wikipedia, citing a website that is now heavily commercial - and is for sale - (cartoonbodycount.com)

My guess is that 139 is closer to the actual body count than the 10 reported early in the process.

I think it's odd, even considering the global scope of the events, that even an estimate of the actual number of people killed as a result of Islamic "protests" against the cartoons. But that's a matter for another time: and probably another blogger.

Back to that Belarusian journalist.

Belarus isn't an "Islamic" country. About 80% of the people are Eastern Orthodox, about 3% Muslim, and the rest are Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish.

As the Danish cartoons were spreading around the world, Aleksandr Sdvizhkov decided to publish them in the Zgoda (Consensus) newspaper. Then, in March, 2006, the Belarusian boss, President Aleksandr Lukashenko, shut Zgoda down.

Belarusian Secret Service agents arrested Sdvizhkov on November 18, 2007, charging him with inciting religious hatred. They'd probably have picked him up earlier, but Sdvizhkov had been abroad. He came back to Belarus for 10th anniversary of his father's death.

From "Freedom Remains Elusive for Journalist in Belarus Jailed For Printing Islamic Cartoons" FOXNews (February 19, 2008):

Vitaly Taras, a member of the Union of Belarusian Writers, said in an interview that Sdvizhkov's punishment was excessive. "The case demonstrates to the whole world that European values, including the freedom of speech, have little value in Belarus," Taras said.

The population of Belarus, formerly a Soviet republic, is overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian; only about 3 percent of the 9 million residents are Muslim. Lukashenko's oppressive, Soviet-style government has a history of quashing independent media, and it has close ties to Iran.

"The authorities suddenly became very worried about the feelings of Belarusian Muslims," said Aleksandr Klaskovsky, a Minsk-based independent political analyst with Belarusian News. "Prior to the scandal, Belarusian authorities told everyone who would listen that Belarus was a Slavic, Russian Orthodox country, ignoring the country's true multicultural and religious reality."

Taras said the government's crackdown on Zgoda sent a message to Muslims worldwide: "The Sdvizhkov case in Belarus can only please extremists from Hamas, and other Muslim radicals, who will be happy our authorities turned out to be on their side."

Something bad is going on in Belarus:

Political correctness run amok?
This could be the sort of sensitive response we'd see, if rabid fans of hate crime legislation had their way. There's something in nearly everyone that would like to see those who disagree with them silenced.
Old-school suppression of a free press?
I don't know that anyone, other than hard-line defenders of former Soviet republics, wouldn't agree that what's going on in Belarus is old-school, heavy-handed censorship.
A kind of islamophobia?
I know it sounds odd: but I think that's what we're looking at here. Muslims, some of them, have earned Islam a reputation for being a religion that beheads, blows up, or burns people who are judged unworthy by the local imam. It may be understandable that some governments see placating Islamic partialities at any cost as a reasonable policy.

In the short run, punishing "anti-Islamic" people and publications seems to be good news for Islam. In the long run, I think that Islam, and Muslims, will suffer loss of respect as a result of that sort of 'help.'

Since I'm a Catholic and an American, here's what the American government, and the Vatican, had to say about those Danish cartoons and how some Muslims reacted to them.

In a strongly worded statement, a U.S. State Department spokesman said Friday that the U.S. respects freedom of expression, but the publication of cartoons that incite religious or ethnic hatred is unacceptable.

The Vatican also weighed in Saturday, saying freedom "cannot imply the right to offend" religious faiths, but emphasized also that "violent actions of protest are deplorable."

The Vatican said a government should not be held responsible for actions of a newspaper. However, authorities "could and must, eventually, intervene according to the principals of the national legislation," the Vatican added.

Freedom of expression is a good idea, but there's a distinction between expressing an idea, and peeing on the wall. I think it's time that more publishers learn the difference.

Finally:

Freedom "cannot imply the right to offend" religious faiths
Even when offended, "violent actions of protest are deplorable"

¹ I'm not making that up. An "artistic" photograph, "Piss Christ," won the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition (ca. 1989). Federal funding of the award was discussed in congress. (Transcript posted by the California State University, Long Beach)

Saturday, October 20, 2007

"Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" France

French filmmaker Mohammed Sifaoui decided to infiltrate an Islamic group in France.

Sifaoui claimed to be a journalist who would make a propaganda film for them.

He is under a death sentence, and had 24/7 French police protection: a fatwa was issued against him when the nature of his undercover work became known.

He was soon joined by a Danish lawmaker.

Remember the Danish cartoon scandal?

A small group of imams, particularly Abu Laban, decided to make the 'anti-Islam' cartoons a global issue.

Sifaoui found out that the Danish cartoons weren't good - or bad - enough, so Abu Laban added a few drawings and an offensive photograph when he went to the Middle East to get support.

In the Middle East, Muslims rioted.

Back in Europe, Naser Khader, Danish politician, became the target of a bomb threat. By Abu Laban's group. Naser Khader had a medical incident involving his heart, was rushed to hospital.

Abu Laban was brought in for questioning, and explained that the death threats were a joke. Then he was released.

FOX News Commentary: PBS big bosses got wind of the allegations of liberal bias being behind the axing of "Islam v. Islamist" - and the U.S. Inspector General is now investigating.

Posts about "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:"

"Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics" - This blogger's introduction (last section of "Muslims, Terrorism, Islam, PBS, and 'Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics'")

Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics: Denmark

This is the first post I'm making, while watching "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics." My intention is to give a more-or-less real-time description and review of the film, which is interspersed with FOX News interviews.

In Denmark, not so long ago, one young man killed another, they're both Muslims. A local imam wanted to try the case under sharia law. He decided that one family should pay the other a certain amount of money: and that the Danish authorities fussed simply because they didn't understand Islam.

The imam is still working for sharia law in Denmark - and Europe.

Naser Khader, an elected member of the Danish parliament and a Muslim, thinks this is a bad idea. For this, he's been called a "traitor" to Islam.

According to Said Mansour, the minute member of parliament Khader stopped being a Muslim when he entered parliament. On a positive note, Said Mansour says he wants an Islamic society in Europe, a parallel society to the local European society.

PBS didn't like this segment. Since one of the Islamists said that he wanted a Caliphate in Europe, and the film implied this was a good idea, PBS said that the film was biased.

Posts about "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:"

"Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics" - This blogger's introduction (last section of "Muslims, Terrorism, Islam, PBS, and 'Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics'")

Another War-on-Terror Blog