I will not link to the film because it presents real life violence.
The film is quite vague which allows the viewer to perceive the situations mentioned in this film in a fearful manner when other approaches to these issues can be more helpful. It allows itself to be open to interpretation.
It mentions several verses in the Koran. Now it is well known that the early Muslims ended up fleeing Mecca and migrated to Yathrib (modern Medina) in 622 and after that there followed a war between Mecca and Medina ending with Mecca's defeat in 630. So it is not surprising that these circumstances should be reflected in the early writings of the Islamic religion such as the Koran. But there is no discussion of this at all in this film. There is no attempt to outline or describe what prompted these words. If one knew nothing about early Islamic history one would be utterly stumped and confused about those verses. Making people confused about historical facts is not helpful.
It presents a verse of the Koran and shows one of planes hitting the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. Does anyone think somebody just read those words and decided to do such a horrible thing? If so that would be quite incorrect. 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy committed by Al Qaeda. It was not committed just because someone read those words.
Footage concerning the Madrid bombing of March 11, 2004 in which 192 innocent people were murdered is shown. Immediately after that a Muslim cleric is shown saying that Muslims killing non-Muslims is a good but there is no evidence to note whether this individual had anything to do with that attack. Who are these Muslim clerics? The Madrid bombing was a clandestine, criminal conspiracy committed by a cell inspired by Al Qaeda but, it appears, not directly linked with the Al Qaeda terrorist network. So why are clerics who, as objectionable as their words are, shown next to images of that dreadful terrorist attack?
Footage of a sword wielding cleric and a three year girl insulting Jews as "apes and pigs" is shown.
Footage of various terrorist attacks, including the bombing in London in 2005 in which 52 innocent people were murdered, are shown. What did those individuals have to do with those acts?
The criminal murder of Theo van Gogh is mentioned.
Also the murder of Nicholas Berg by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terrorist organization (which is now known as ISIL) is shown. Personally I wish this film did not show that most horrible and dreadful murder.
A man is shown saying that if a Muslim should convert to Christianity he should be executed. Who is he? Where or when is saying that? Does his government enforce such things? The viewer is not informed of that context by the film.
Newspaper clippings of one ex-Muslim being assaulted and death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali are mentioned. Such things are most regrettable.
The film shows a cleric standing beneath portraits of Khomeini and Khamanei talks of Islam being destined to be the universal religion. The film then shows President Ahmadinejad making grandiose statements.
One cleric is shown saying that Islam used to rule the world and will do so again. It should be noted that in the COGs it is often asserted that the Roman Empire and its alleged revivals used to rule the world. It might be helpful to view such words in that way. In the same way that statement is not literally true. There was never a time in which the whole world was ruled by Muslims.
It is a common trope of Islamophobia that attempts to live peacefully with Muslims or to accommodate them is somehow giving in to them or letting them dominate. Attempts to be culturally sensitive is presented as somehow shameful.
It is also a common trope of xenophobia to imagine that other people will somehow take over the whole society. That is seen in this film by stating that many Muslim immigrants have moved to the Netherlands then showing disturbing pictures under the alarmist caption, "The Netherlands in the future?!"
A graph of the number of Muslims in the Netherlands is shown. It is shown that in 1909 and 1960 the number of Muslims in the Netherlands was quite small and then in 1990 and then it mentions a completely topic in which it is stated that 55 million Muslims live in Europe. It seems odd to throw in a statistic for a completely different matter in such a chart.
Pictures of mosques in the Netherlands is shown accompanied with the words "Welcome to the Netherlands."
Pictures of two gay men being executed by hanging are shown.
Children getting cut in a Shia Muslim ritual named tatbir in Arabic. Left unmentioned in the film is that it is a contested practice among Shia Muslims with some Shia religious authorities choosing to forbid it.
Women undergoing female genital mutilation is shown. This terrible practice designed to control female sexuality did not specifically originate among Muslims. Rather it is of ancient origins and pre-dates Islam. May the day soon dawn in which female genital mutilation is no longer committed.
A beheaded woman's head laying on the ground is shown. The film does not explain the origins where this disturbing image or explain the circumstances of this frightful incident.
Photos of women about to be hanged is shown.
Also footage of a burqa clad woman being executed is shown. I suspect that footage is from Taliban ruled Afghanistan but the film does not say.
These terrible things are presented under the caption "The Netherlands in the Future?!" How a minority of immigrants from many different nations could possibly displace and dominate a prosperous and flourishing society such as the Netherlands is utterly fanciful. This is a completely unreasonable fear.
Afterwards pictures of newspaper clippings are shown supposedly providing evidence that the Netherlands is being taken over by Muslims. Most concern serious topics that deserve attention.
However some of the clippings seem a bit odd. One mentions a school closing down during Muslim holidays. (Just one school?) I suspect the kids will just be happy not having to go to school for a day.
Another clipping mentions that Ankara wishes for Turkish to be taught in Dutch schools. What is wrong with encouraging people to learn another language?
One newspaper clipping mentioned in the British teacher in Sudan was compelled to flee the country after being accused of blasphemy. Left unmentioned is that many Muslim organizations condemned the British teacher's arrest.
Also what does this incident in Sudan have to do with promoting the teaching of Turkish which is mentioned in another cited newspaper clipping? The choice of topic indicates that viewing Sudanese and Turkish issues as being part of the same issues is arbitrary. What does Sudanese people have in common with the Turkish people? But the ideology of Islamophobia insists on viewing these very different peoples as part of some mythical collective which is supposedly menacing towards whites in the Netherlands.
The film makes the following statements near the end.
Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you.
The Government [of the Netherlands] insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you. ...
Now, the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.
Defend our freedomThe first sentence is quite vague and subjective. It can be viewed in differing ways.
Is it wrong to respect another person's religion? Again being accommodating and living in peace with persons of another religion is equated as being a shameful thing to do.
The film talks of "the Islamic ideology" but there is a wide diversity of opinions about many things among Muslims. There is no single "Islamic ideology" but rather there are many different interests throughout the Muslim world. The Muslim world is divided into many nation states each with their own interests. And even within each nation state there are many competing political interests. Some are right wing. Some are left wing. Some are rich. Some are poor. Some are religious. Some are very religious. Some are quite secular. Some live in rural areas. Some live in urban areas. They work hard and seek to advance themselves like anyone else. There is no single political interest uniting them all.
The film says, "Stop Islamisation." But what does "Islamisation" mean? This statement is quite vague and can easily be viewed in different ways by different people. But it is often the case that Islamophobic demagogues will present attempts to accommodate and to be friendly towards Muslims as shameful and a sign of somehow giving in to them.
The film says, "Defend our freedom" but it is seems that "our freedom" excludes people who just happen to be Muslims. This statements invites us to exclude Muslims.
Having watched this film I found myself perplexed to think that some take this film at face value. Events are portrayed in a simplistic manner. Muslims are presented as scary people. Muslims are presented as though they are hostile but this is not true for everyone. Practices are presented in a sensationalist manner often overlooking disagreements about such things within the Muslim world. Persons saying inflammatory things are presented alongside images of horrifying violence without presenting any evidence that they were involved in those violent acts. It is absurdly and hysterically implies that "[t]he Netherlands in the future" will feature frightful atrocities by (stereotyped) Muslims. The film seeks to shock the viewer but it is not that informative.
After watching it I find myself sadly persuaded that it is correct to classify this film as Islamophobic.