Jihad vs. Terrorism episode II

Assalamualaikum, You heard about FILM " FITNA" made by Dutch(Holland). Moreover they refused to apologize because they considered it a practice of freedom and democracy. I ask you all to put your hands with other MUSLIMS and boycott the Dutch's products. 1.6 billion Muslims could really slap the economy in Dutch. Please copy this text and forward this text to as many Muslims as possible Via Email via SMS Via Scrap..... I ask u,as a Muslims... Can't u spare 5 minutes in order to spread this message among Muslims ...ASAP? REMEMBER THE PROPHET (SAW) MIGHT ASK YOU ONE DAY,' WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN THEY MADE FUN OF ME?

Let us consider this message. I assume everyone who happens to be a muslim and uses internet networking sites and applications may have come upon this message once or twice. This message has been circulating wildly in the net since the inception of Fitna.

The first sentence is, "Assalamualaikum, You heard about FILM " FITNA" made by Dutch(Holland)."

The sentence is, as if, implying that the government of Holland made this film purposely with every intention to harm Muslims and Islam. (Or sponsored, or endorsed, or in any sense had to do with the production of this film).

In Jihad vs. Terrorism (JVT) episode I, I have already stated that Wilders is only exercising his will and giving out his opinion. The government of Holland had nothing to do with this film. It is Wilder's opinion of Islam, not The Netherlands'.

The continuing sentence "Moreover they refused to apologize because they considered it a practice of freedom and democracy".

Now, the question is, WHO IS THEY? Is it the Dutch nation as a whole? Or is it the Dutch government? Or is it Wilders? Since "they" in the English Language refers to "a collective group of people", we can safely assume that they in the sentence refers to, at least, the former two, which is the Dutch nation and the Dutch government.

Why in this sense does a man's doings become a nation's sin? The person who creates, direct and produces Fitna is Wilders, not the entire Dutch population and their government. Therefore, the Dutch are not to be blamed for Fitna. It is in their constitution that "freedom of speech" and "democracy" is to be practiced. What Wilders is doing in producing the film Fitna is that he is exercising his "freedom of speech" and "democracy". Also, in JVT ep. I, I have links to sites that shows that some Dutch are apologizing for Fitna, even though they have nothing to do whatsoever with the film. But some irresponsible people keep forwarding these kinds of messages without any investigation to the message's claim. Thus, the 2nd sentence, "Moreover they refused to apologize because they considered it a practice of freedom and democracy" becomes redundant and also irrelevant. The they in this sentence is not valid anymore, and should, in any case, be replaced by Geert Wilders.

How many muslim nations or countries are actually practicing "freedom of speech" and "democracy"? The only countries close to being "democratic" are SEA Islamic countries (Indonesia, Malaysia) and even these countries are not regarded as fully democratic because of certain laws and certain attitudes that they have against non-muslims. Westerners see that religion (Islam is mostly the focus) has become sort of like an obstacle to personal freedom and democracy. No Islamic governments, elected or not, has shown that they are capable of making Islam as a choice for a democratically governing a country, thus unable to show that Islam is also a religion of personal freedom, of free governance. There is little wonder then, that some western countries view muslim governments as tyranny.

To be continued...