Hey Geert Wilders,
I’m disappointed. Hype… so much of it, and all we got was some boring so-called film that did the usual de-contextualized cherry-picking from the Koran and showed video portions of the very Muslim lunatics who do the same shit for the sake of preaching their politically-motivated heinous garbage.
Is that all you’ve got? The least you could have done is include something of intellectual value but I’m not sure you’re capable of that.
I understand your legitimate concerns regarding the future of Europe and your country if the radicals you showed in your cute piece of work became a dangerously large number. What I don’t understand and will not accept is you insulting me by putting me together, and in fact the majority of Muslims, under the same category as those filthy butchers and idiots you displayed in your compilation.
Great job. It’s so nice of you not to draw any distinction whatsoever between me and what’s supposed to be a common enemy we both share. You totally get it. Islam is a big fat monolith.
Alright fine, you’re right. I admit it, I’m lying. Truth is, all of us Muslims are desperate for some infidel blood. We just love drinking it. It’s so thirst-quenching, we wanna suck you dry, which is why this kick-ass intellectually enriching thing of yours still insulting.
1.2 billion Muslims and all we’re capable of is September 11th, London’s 7/7, Madrid’s trains and a number of other terrorist attacks? That’s it? For a group so enormous, we’re surely doing a pretty crappy job tearing your veins apart.
Thanks for implying that we Muslims are both retarded and terrorists. Oh and thanks for wasting 15 precious minutes of my day. Ali’s friend is right.
“I could have masturbated in that time.”
Sincerely,
Drima
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent letter.
I am hoping that we can get together and reissue the 1976 film The Message directed by the late Moustappha Akkad.
What do you think?
Wilder’s “film” seems to take a page right out of the Soviet propaganda handbook because during the Cold War the Soviets used these same tactics to demonize the USA. They would take real articles from American newspapers that reflected the worst behaviors found within the USA — a gang shooting in Los Angeles, pimps abusing prostitutes in NYC, a rape in Chicago, a kidnapping in Boston, etc. You get the point. Then they’d take their carefully chosen clippings, group them altogether, and tell their public, “Look! Read about what America is like right from their own newspapers,” in order to make the USA — and by extension, the west — seem as if it were the most corrupt, violent, and dysfunctional society that the world has ever seen. Clearly, that is not the case, but the carefully crafted pattern of articles sure made it come across that way. The Soviets were committed to use propaganda to perpetuate their own agenda and, hence reliance upon them by suggesting that they were the only legitimate option for international safety. Wilders is doing the exact same thing.
what’s your take on those verses?
Drima,
Right with you.
In fact I just had an email exchange with a friend on the continent.
Here’s what I wrote to him, translated:
Well, you can see it either way.
It is correct that the Quran contains many violent phrases. But the Quran is a collection of quotes, it is difficult to see them in context.
I am not a supporter of the terrorists, as you know; but Islam is, for me, first this:
http://www.amislam.com/
http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/koranzionist.html
And the film has the potential to insult those people and their religion.
P.S.: I am of course of the opinion that it is legal and right to make such a film or to watch it. But I don’t have to like it.
Now, what should we do about it?
Should I watch the film? Should I tell people not to watch it or tell them that it is nonsense but that they should watch it?
I am sure colleagues and friends will ask me as everyone knows that I have an interest in religion and history.
What would the best way to handle this?
Or should I stay out of it?
I can write a blog entry, I suppose.
yeah, so much hype, and the film totally sucks.
Don’t worry, “we” infidels know the difference btwn information and hate propaganda. It will only appeal to those who already made up their minds that Islam is “the” problem.
Please, Muslim brothers and sisters: don’t give him the gratification of being insulted. It’s not worth it. Wait till some quality insult comes around.
Honestly, a highschool student could have produced a better Islam-critical animation.
But…. More than 50 years ago the face of Germany was Nazism. Only a small percentage of Germans were Nazis. But they Germans, Nazi or not, stood by and watched genocide. Their passivity permitted it and therefor they are rightly culpable.
Today the face of Islam is atrocity, mass murder and terrorism. If Islam wants to change this, more Muslims have to become less passive and start rebelling against this enormous wave of hate and violence.
Well written Drima!
All this hype, and for what? 15 minutes that could otherwise have been very much better spent. Even by Ali’s friend
I dunno if I agree with you. On one hand, yes, it’s a childish flick. But then again, it will, perhaps, do more good than harm. For too long has the West avoided all and any discussion of the… how shall we put it… darker sides of Islam. And we all know that these darker sides are mainstream in most places and the norm for most Muslims.
Perhaps if the West will start reacting to Islam with hatred, Islam will be forced to change.
I like Western civilization. I would rather see Islam destroyed than have to watch the West being raped and murdered. Sorry.
Dear Raccoon, I resent your comment and strongly disagree with it.
Yes, there are some aspects like the crappy treatment of women which are mainstream amongst Muslims. Anti-Semitism I admit, can also be considered mainstream but support for terrorism and terrorists is NOT mainstream and neither is support for authoritarian Islamic States.
I understand that there are many in the West with attitudes that can be considered pacifist (something even *I* myself dislike) so yes I see your point to a certain extent. Like I said, Wilder’s concerns are legitimate BUT, when no distinctions are made between the blood-thirsty radicals and other Muslims, the so-called film becomes nothing but evil hateful propaganda.
It’s completely unacceptable. Wanna know what I find acceptable? MEMRI.
MEMRI has been accused of propagating hateful propaganda against Muslims, a charge I don’t believe is true because while MEMRI shows lots of the sickening bullshit that gets said on Arab media by wacky people, it still also shows the many sane voices of Arab and Muslim intellectuals.
Big difference between Geert Wilders and MEMRI. Very big difference.
Drima –
The lack of distinction in “Fitna” between different denominations (so to speak) of Islam, between schools of interpretation and between plain ol’ psychos who are using Islam as a nice cover for doing whatever their sick minds can dream up; this lack of distinction is indeed a problem.
But perhaps it is needed as a shocker, a slap in the face of the West and Islam as one.
The difference between MEMRI and Mr. Wilders is the difference between apples and oranges. One is an organization dedicated to the translation of assorted Arab media so’s to bring it to the West and let people judge it as they see fit;
The other is a pretty radical (by Western standards) politician going for the shock and wave effect.
One is presenting information for intellectual analysis;
The other is playing on emotions to stir up a storm.
My point is that a storm is needed, and needed ASAP. Because this kind of proves Wilder’s point (something on which he, I am sure, counted). What is needed is real discussion of the issue of Islamic terrorism and political Islam in general (which is practically the same) in the West and in Islamic world.
What we have right now is lack of discussion, fettered by fear of injury and death from both the radical Muslims and the radical Leftists (as Pim Fortuyn could have testified had he been alive). This should be stopped, and Holy Cow label should be removed from Islam in Europe and elsewhere.
This is why I believe Fitna to be a useful and beneficial movie. It has ignited discussion. I hope it’ll let this discussion break from its customary fearful walls.
And dude… don’t rest my comments, just throw stuff on me
Drima, I hope you can stay true to your blog name and give a response that does not involve insulting the various minorities that read your bolg. If those verses have an entirely different meaning out of context then in response you need to justify how taking them in context, somehow makes them peace promoting verses. Read in context, it is very very hard to make ‘strike terror into the heart of the unbeliever’ adopt any other meaning without being unfaithful to the text.
BTW… about Muslims and support for terrorism… it looks like about one quarter to one half of Muslim populations directly support terrorism.
Which is… well… not very good. But seems to be getting better
The link above should have been one about LiveLeak pulling Fitna due to concrete and immediate death threats to its personnel. Can’t find the right one now
rest = resent. WTF is wrong with me?
I believe I can say as a Dutch woman that the hype was mainly created by Dutch politicians and media and not by Wilders himself. Hell, he hardly participated in interviews surrounding his movie whatsoever.
There were protests, flag burnings, calling for revenge on the Netherlands way before the movie was out. The point Wilders made, had been proven way before he showed this movie.
I also believe that he meant this movie to be a shocker and a wake up call for those who justify violence as shown in the movie because of those verses in the Quran and a wake up call for those who did not know about those verses or violence by those kind of violent muslims.
Drima, he complimented the Dutch Muslim community for the way they reacted to his movie. This Muslim community openly stated (finally, I must say!) that they were against those violent actions by other muslims and they indeed believed that they had to be more outspoken against that or that they will become more outspoken against that. I hope they will keep their word.
Some people believe this movie is creating more distance between muslims and non-muslims. I doubt it. Violence denouncing muslims, muslims who will not see non-muslims as merely “dhimmis”, will be accepted with open arms. It’s all about respect, Drima.
The movie is actually not made by Wilders, but by those fanatic muslims. And yes, I can imagine that as a violent renouncing muslim you can be insulted – but then you should not be insulted by Wilders, but by those violent muslims.
And that’s the whole point.
(if you want to attack wilders on his views and so on, there are many other reasons to attack him for. Just not this movie)
And this kind of reactions also proofs Wilders point:
http://revolution.muslimpad.com/2008/03/27/congratulations-geert-your-%e2%80%9cfitna%e2%80%9d-movie-has-created-more-mujaahideen-amongst-the-muslims/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee4_1206625795
The Removal of “Fitna”
“Official LiveLeak statement
“Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed comments from certain members of the British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members, Liveleak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one another’s culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.”
Drima, what you see in the post and the replies on that post above (in that link I gave) are showing a few contradictory things:
A. islam is peaceful
B. those who reject islam shall be humiliated (or worse)
A. jews and christians are the people of the book and should be respected
B. jews and christians are non-believers and should be treated as such
A. islam is not forcing anyone
B. if you will not become muslim you will be humiliated (or worse)
and so on and so on and so on.
It’s like Haniyeh saying one day he wants the arab countries to support his rocket firing “resistance” against Israel and the next day he says he wants to have a calm with Israel.
Drima, do not let emotions control you. This movie is not about people like you. This movie is not meant to insult reasonable muslims. It’s meant to open ones eyes and warn that one should not fall for violence or hidden violence behind peaceful promises.
no contradiction.
“jews and christians are the people of the book and should be respected”
came before
“jews and christians are non-believers and should be treated as such”
there is a concept of precedence, that verses that were written later take precedence over ealier verses.
Raccoon,
“this lack of distinction is indeed a problem.”
I’m glad you mention this. Like I said, Geert’s concerns are legitimate but if he wants to “wake people up”, he can do so without forgetting to make very necessary distinctions.
Suzanne,
I’ve been really happy with the response of the Muslim community in Holland so far. As for Wilder not intending to be nasty towards all Muslims, there’s no way of going about it.
He compared the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It’s kinda like me telling a patriotic American, “hey dude, I don’t hate all Americans but I think your country has a very evil constitution” and still expecting he’ll be cool with me.
anon and bugsbunny,
Regarding violent verses, read this:
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/the-slayer-verse-95/
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/03/14/on-the-noble-quran/
Cheers.
neither link provides a response to my comment. If you’re going to use the ‘out of context’ argument, expect that at some point you need to explain what the meaning is ‘in context’.
still waiting on that response.
Wanna know what the meaning is in context? Read the first link again. Did you even check it? It explains one of the verses.
Such verses were revealed during times of war. They should be understood historically and not as commands to be followed today.
Here you go…
***************
As we are aware, the “slayer verse” is the fifth verse in the Surah. It bears looking at verses 1 to 5 to see exactly what the circumstances of the verse happen to be:
“A declaration of the dissolution of agreements from God and His messenger to the idolaters with whom you have made [no-war] agreements. Thus, you [O polytheists] may freely traverse in the land for four months, but know that you shall not escape God’s judgment and that God shall surely humble the unbelievers. A proclamation [should be made] to these people from God and His messenger on the day of Hajj-e-Akbar, [declaring] that God and His messenger are no longer under any obligation toward these polytheists. If you repent, [O polytheists,] it shall be better for you but if you turn your backs [paying no heed], then know that you shall not be able to escape God’s judgment. Give these rejecters the glad tidings of a painful punishment, except those polytheists who have not dishonored their treaties with you and have not aided anyone against you. With these, fulfill your treaties till the appointed term. Indeed, God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them.” ( Al-Taubah 9: 1 – 5).
As Moiz Amjad points out:
A close look at the above verses shall suffice as evidence to the fact that the directive, “Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them” is given against those polytheists with whom the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet (pbuh), had entered into an agreement and who had disregarded this agreement and aided others against the Muslims. Obviously, these qualities cannot be generalized on all the polytheists of the world [today].
We know that 9:5 relates to treaties in the time of the Prophet between the Prophet and the polytheists of Mecca from verse 9:7, which states:
“How can there be any responsibility of these agreements on God and His messenger, except those with whom you made agreements at the Sacred Mosque? Thus, so long as they uphold their part of the treaty, you should uphold yours. Indeed God loves the righteous.” (Al-Taubah 9: 7)
In other words, looking at the circumstances and context of verse 9:5 it becomes very difficult to reach the conclusion that the verse is a timeless directive to all Muslims for all times to kill all polytheists in all places.
***************
There. That’s my response.
Drima, this is how you see it and some others see it this way as well. But not the radicals whose acts have been mentioned in this movie.
Concerning Wilders; he’s a freak and he said many stupid stuff. Nevertheless, he also stated many times that his aversion was not against muslims as followers of a religion, but against the religion.
One might wonder then how he is against the religion. You, Drima, put it into context. Wilders is of the opinion that this is not possible with the Quran (unlike the jewish/christian bible).
@bugsbunny, i know about mecca and medina verses. Is that what you mean with “come after”? Because the Quran is not really chronologically written, is it?
“i know about mecca and medina verses. Is that what you mean with “come after”?”
Brilliant Suzanne, you know the concept. So verse B takes precedence over verse A.
Though not a muslim, I’d agree with you. I knew about these difference in the Quran when reading about Mohammed Taha.
But as I said: not all muslims would agree with you. I mean, it’s not without a reason that Taha got killed, nor that horrible sermons are spread in some mosques and that children are brainwashed in rather hating the other human being for not being muslim (apes and monkeys) than having respect towards the other.
To put it in Wilders words:
those who see it the way as you, Drima and many others see it, ripped the “dark side” pages off the Quran already.
LOL
Bugsbunny and Susanne -
Theology is not worth the energy spent on it. Let’s face it – any religion can be used as a justification for violence. Even Buddhism, apparently.
It’s all a question of interpretation. Drima and OBL are both interpreting the same texts while reaching diametrically opposed conclusions. And we can have Francis and Arnold (no, not THAT Arnold).
It should be noted, however, that not all religions are equally easy to interpret in a violent way. Islam – sorry, Drima – is the easiest to interpret thus. And Jainism is probably the most difficult one
But, Suzanne, Islam can be interpreted as peaceful and even pacifistic. While I am aware that the Ahmadis are not considered Muslims by most Muslims, they have convincing arguments in their defense.
Awwww, crap, I fucked up the HTML again. I shouldn’t write stoned
LOLLL
Drima darling, you are my hero!
“Drima and OBL are both interpreting the same texts while reaching diametrically opposed conclusions.”
Yes, but I am pretty sure that Drima is completely sincere, whereas I am convinced that OBL is/was lying through his teeth.
Suzanne,
Let me explain. The Koran can be split into two essentially: the part written in Mecca, followed by the part written in Medina.
On close examination you will find that all the pleasant verses such as there is no compulsion in religion actually are in the Mecca section. The verses which talk about fighting christians and jews and making them submit are in the Medina part.
Now there is general consensus amongst muslim scholars, not nut jobs or fundies but muslim scholars, that the Medina verses have abrogated the corresponding Mecca verses.
That is why today it is the MEDINA part that is CODIFIED in Sharia law by most muslim states, thereby making things like conversion illegal and punishable by death.
Okay, but nobody, including Muslims, seem to have the faintest clue as to how to filter out extremists from the rest of the Muslim population when it comes to immigration policy. Even if they do, there seem to be no guarantees that the children of moderate Muslim immigrants may not wind up more radical than their parents (as we saw with many of the suicide bombers in the UK). How can some government bureaucracy be expected to pull that off?
The fact that most Muslims are moderate holds little consolation for people like Wilders who run the risk of being murdered in their own countries for holding negative opinions of Islam.
Obviously, jihadists and a fair number of Muslim scholars around the globe disagree with you on this point. Therein lies the problem.
Bugsbunny,
Now there is general consensus amongst muslim scholars, not nut jobs or fundies but muslim scholars, that the Medina verses have abrogated the corresponding Mecca verses.
Did God change his mind? I always wonder about things like that, because when Muslims claim the Quarn is the literal and unaltered word of God, then the implication is that when there are verses that completely contradict other verses, that God made some mistakes that later needed to be corrected. I don’t know about Muslims, but Christians consider God to be the only perfect being… and perfect beings don’t make mistakes. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be perfect. Right? We don’t have the same problem with our scripture, because it was written by men, and it’s based on the imperfect perspective and the imperfect recollections of men.
Craig said:
‘Did God change his mind? I always wonder about things like that, because when Muslims claim the Quarn is the literal and unaltered word of God, then the implication is that when there are verses that completely contradict other verses, that God made some mistakes that later needed to be corrected. I don’t know about Muslims, but Christians consider God to be the only perfect being… and perfect beings don’t make mistakes. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be perfect. Right? We don’t have the same problem with our scripture, because it was written by men, and it’s based on the imperfect perspective and the imperfect recollections of men.”
I think that’s the fundamental difference between islam and the two other monotheistic religions. Though some scholars and believers have a judeo-christian approach to the quran which you, Craig, described above, many, however, have not.
“Did God change his mind?”
He might.
“I always wonder about things like that, because when Muslims claim the Quran is the literal and unaltered word of God, then the implication is that when there are verses that completely contradict other verses, that God made some mistakes that later needed to be corrected.”
No, that’s not the implication at all. It simply means that different statements apply to different contexts.
If the Quran contains the word of G-d, it certainly lacks the context in which the word was given (especially since the Quran is not in order).
Some verses are (supposedly) G-d’s law, some are things Muhammed said, some are G-d’s (or Muhammed’s) commands for a specific situation.
Some are descriptions of historic events.
“I think that’s the fundamental difference between islam and the two other monotheistic religions.”
In my experience it is Christians who significantly differ from the Semitic interpretations of the original Semitic texts.
Also, there are more than two other monotheistic religions.
There are even more than two other Abrahamic religions.
Andrew said:
“In my experience it is Christians who significantly differ from the Semitic interpretations of the original Semitic texts.”
Like?
Andrew also said:
“Also, there are more than two other monotheistic religions.
There are even more than two other Abrahamic religions.”
Yea, sure. I should have added the other two of the largest monotheistic religions. Coz that’s what they are, arent they?
Andrew said:
“In my experience it is Christians who significantly differ from the Semitic interpretations of the original Semitic texts.”
Like?
Andrew also said:
“Also, there are more than two other monotheistic religions.
There are even more than two other Abrahamic religions.”
Yea, sure. I should have said “the other two of the largest monotheistic religions”. Coz that’s what they are, arent they?
“Like?”
Islam and Judaism agree that G-d is one. Christianity has the Trinity with a son and some “holy spirit”.
Islam and (rabbinic) Judaism don’t have priests, Christianity has mediators between G-d and mankind.
Islam and Judaism believe that the Semitic creator god “El” is in fact the only god and revealed His name to Moses. Many Christian denominations believe that Allah and the Christian god are two different entities.
Islam and Judaism both believe that it is possible to find the truth without reading specific Islamic or Jewish scripture. Christianity believes that one must hear and believe the word of Jesus to know the truth.
Islam and Judaism both believe that G-d doesn’t have a physical form and that prophets are human beings. Christianity believes that Jesus is G-d and walked the earth.
There are lots of other details which I think become apparent when you talk to Muslims about religion.
“Coz that’s what they are, arent they?”
I don’t know. There could be more Sikhs than Jews, and not every Jew is religious to any extent.
I prefer the term “world religions” because while Judaism doesn’t have that many representatives, it has certainly had the greatest impact on world history.
Dear Drima,
It has been a long time since I took part in commenting. Let me first of all to commend you on your piece and your responses to the many comments received. Second, I believe the best possible way is to ignore this film and concentrate on efforts to show the true face of Islam and the majority of Muslims to the Western world. It is easy to cherry pick verses and actions without researching context and needs. It is like equating middle age crusades or 19th century colonialism to true christian beliefs.
Egyptian in Germany
Andrew said:
“Islam and Judaism agree that G-d is one. Christianity has the Trinity with a son and some “holy spirit”.”
But according to christians it’s a trinity in one. They are all the same (= 1). Like the brain and heart are two different parts of the human being. At least this is how I understand that trinity principle.
“Islam and (rabbinic) Judaism don’t have priests, Christianity has mediators between G-d and mankind.”
It’s an easy way to control the people. If God says so, it’s easier to follow. Rabbis and imams have a more difficult path to follow: they have to use argumentation to convince the people. Which in reality appears not to be such a difficult job after all.
And also, islam and judaism also have prophets. They were no mediators? Especially Mohammed I’d call a mediator.
And what about that entity who struggled with Jacob? (heh, what’s the meaning of the name Israel again? Exactly.)
“Islam and Judaism believe that the Semitic creator god “El” is in fact the only god and revealed His name to Moses. Many Christian denominations believe that Allah and the Christian god are two different entities.”
I see them also as two entities. Just because I do not believe in islam. Muslims might believe in the same entity which they call Allah but their view, concept and understanding of Allah is different then my view, concept and understanding. The christian god is also different then mine. Because the whole trinity thing I do not believe. Therefore I see the christian god also as a different entity as the my god. Does not mean christians can believe in the same god.
“Islam and Judaism both believe that it is possible to find the truth without reading specific Islamic or Jewish scripture. Christianity believes that one must hear and believe the word of Jesus to know the truth.”
You can buy the truth but never sell it.
On this one you might be right
“Islam and Judaism both believe that G-d doesn’t have a physical form and that prophets are human beings. Christianity believes that Jesus is G-d and walked the earth.”
I think that would be to easy to say it like this. How else can Jesus have said: why father have you forsaken me (or something like that).
If I understand it correctly he’s the flesh version of God: the heart of the body (and “the father” is in the brain).
Furthermore I’d like to refer to the story of Jacob again.
“I prefer the term “world religions” because while Judaism doesn’t have that many representatives, it has certainly had the greatest impact on world history.”
Aaaa. A jewish conspiracy at last.
It is up to the muslims to make sure poeple understand the difference between the bad and the good islam and not Wilder. Instead of complaining about the wilder’s clip, the muslim film makers should get on their real “jihad” and produce a clip or two presenting something “objective”. Up until now, no muslim film makers has ever put forth a documentory attacking these fundamentalists and presenting the problematic of context regarding Islam.
What does it take to make a clip? There is plenty of money and talent out there. But they prefer complaining and wining about their sorry state of inertia while the other muslims (the bad) wreck avoc on the perception of islam in the eyes of the world. Or do they seem incapable of critizining the bad fellow muslims for fear of being labelled apostats?.
Ait-hamad:
“It is up to the muslims to make sure poeple understand the difference between the bad and the good islam and not Wilder. Instead of complaining about the wilder’s clip, the muslim film makers should get on their real “jihad” and produce a clip or two presenting something “objective”. Up until now, no muslim film makers has ever put forth a documentory attacking these fundamentalists and presenting the problematic of context regarding Islam.”
A counter-movie had been made by the Arab European League. Well, counter-movie. It’s more: how can I attack jews best in a movie to show them that us muslims are the victims and not the jews? Or whatever they were trying to say.
btw, i just realised i did not see the whole movie as the youtube-one was not complete.
The “Mohammeds are coming to you” theme I did not see before. That would not have been necessary, imho.
Andrew,
Islam and Judaism agree that G-d is one. Christianity has the Trinity with a son and some “holy spirit”.
It takes some study to understand the trinity. The concept is that God and Jesus were of the same essence (not the same being, though) and that essence is referred to as the Holy Spirit. Some (most?) Christians believe that all humans contain some amount of the Holy Spirit, and that can vary a lot depending on how close to God they are (or become). Jesus is different because we consider him a complete embodiment of the Holy Spirit. I admit to having some issues with the Trinity myself, and I’m not alone in that, based on conversations I’ve had with other Christians. Also, there are a fair number of Christian denominations that aren’t trinitarian
Islam and (rabbinic) Judaism don’t have priests, Christianity has mediators between G-d and mankind.
Protestants don’t. Protestants don’t have any hierarchy of clergy, and believe that the Bible is the only valid doctrinal source, and that it is clear enough that a reader can interpret the meaning for themselves without needing anybody to explain it to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
Islam and Judaism believe that the Semitic creator god “El” is in fact the only god and revealed His name to Moses. Many Christian denominations believe that Allah and the Christian god are two different entities.
Yes. Because the God of Islam doesn’t seem like our God. It almost seems impossible that our God could ever support some of the things that Muslims believe in.
Islam and Judaism both believe that it is possible to find the truth without reading specific Islamic or Jewish scripture. Christianity believes that one must hear and believe the word of Jesus to know the truth.
You’ve been talking to a lot of fundamentalists, eh?
Or Catholics, I suppose?
Islam and Judaism both believe that G-d doesn’t have a physical form and that prophets are human beings. Christianity believes that Jesus is G-d and walked the earth.
Oh, no. That isn’t right at all, Andrew. Maybe you should spend as much time studying Christianity as you have studying Islam?
There are lots of other details which I think become apparent when you talk to Muslims about religion.
I have talked to Muslims about Islam, Andrew. And about Christianity.
PS to Andrew:
Islam and Judaism both believe that G-d doesn’t have a physical form and that prophets are human beings. Christianity believes that Jesus is G-d and walked the earth.
That is actually a non-trinitarian belief. There are some Christians (mainly a few fundamentalist Protestant denominations) who believe Jesus was God in the flesh. They tend to use the words “Christ” and “God” interchangeably. Trinitarians believe Jesus was fully human. In fact, he had to have been capable of sin (which God is not) in order for his example and his sacrifice to have had any meaning.
Suzanne said: “A counter-movie had been made by the Arab European League. Well, counter-movie. It’s more: how can I attack jews best in a movie to show them that us muslims are the victims and not the jews? Or whatever they were trying to say.”
What are talking about? Do you mean making a movie to counter the jewish …? Can you be more specific. Who is talking about jews anyway? It does not make sense. I do not beleive you understand what claim I was making in my commentary. My claim is clear.
Suzanne said: “btw, i just realised i did not see the whole movie as the youtube-one was not complete.”
I am glad you told us that you did not see the whole clip, for a while I thought I was missing a clip made by a muslim group. Can you provide a link so you can feast our eyes on this counter-balance clip against hate monger infidels like Wilders and compagny who hate islam ?
The “Mohammeds are coming to you” theme I did not see before. That would not have been necessary, imho.”
Again, I am lost. Which theme? do you mean a film?
@Graig and Andrew,
Why discuss the monothesitic religions. Their differences or similarities does not add anything to the subject of this thread. The point of this thread is Wilder’s clip and Drima’s open letter against it.
@Drima,
I think Wilder has the right speak this mind and produce this clip. It is his opinion. I did not find the Fitna clip incendiary at all, in fact I suspected the worst. Of course, it is not about islam per se but about the possible dangers of islam and how it can lead to disasters if interpreted in a certain way. One cannot disprove the claims overtly stated in the Coran about the capture, torture and the halal killing of infidels, apostats and hypocrites. As I said earlier, it is for muslims to publish or produced something to counter the questions that Wilder’s is trying to raise. Should these sourates not be understood literally? What are the alternatives? Where are our oulemas? Are they all calling for jihad to plunder and kill the infidels and the unbeleivers?
Why can’t the moderate muslims produce something? or should we let the crazy of Allah define for us and for all the world what Islam is? I am not talking about Memri stuff, those clips do not reach wide audiences in the West. Something big is needed, and event like that of Wilder’s . People were eager to see this clip, due to its widespread media information.
You can be against the clip, but you cannot undo its loop effect it has on the world, unless moderate stop complening and start actively goind after those who give islam a bad name.
‘unless moderate stop complening and start actively goind after those who give islam a bad name.’
And that, right there, is what we have been waiting for. It is so easy for Muslims to get out, in large numbers to cheer the terrorists who flew planes on 9/11 or to protest settlements in a country they have nothing to do with or other issues that do not/should not affect them yet they can’t protest against terrorists who insult them by giving their religion a bad name? I don’t see how you can blame the world for having a negative image of Islam.
Lynn, last year 100,000 Pakistanis converged in the streets of Karachi to vehemently protest Islamic extremism.
Hundreds of thousands of Jordanians, be they liberal or conservative, Christian or Muslim, Bedouin or Palestinian, etc., came together in a fiery show of unity against al-Qaeda terror in the wake of the Amman bombings.
In August, Algerians in Algiers came out in full force against the bombing of a police station that killed scores of people.
We have been protesting, and we will continue to protest in spite of your ignorance.
AIT-HAMAD:
“What are talking about? Do you mean making a movie to counter the jewish …? Can you be more specific. Who is talking about jews anyway? It does not make sense. I do not beleive you understand what claim I was making in my commentary. My claim is clear.”
The Arab European league is. They made a “counter-movie” so to speak: http://www.almouftinoun.com/
You said:
“I am glad you told us that you did not see the whole clip, for a while I thought I was missing a clip made by a muslim group. Can you provide a link so you can feast our eyes on this counter-balance clip against hate monger infidels like Wilders and compagny who hate islam ?”
See above the link. And I did not see the whole Wilders clip before.
“Again, I am lost. Which theme? do you mean a film?”
The fear part of Wilders movie about how scary it should be with mosques in your country
“Lynn, last year 100,000 Pakistanis converged in the streets of Karachi to vehemently protest Islamic extremism.”
That’s true.
“Hundreds of thousands of Jordanians, be they liberal or conservative, Christian or Muslim, Bedouin or Palestinian, etc., came together in a fiery show of unity against al-Qaeda terror in the wake of the Amman bombings.”
Yes. They protested when the terrorists hit THEM. They didn’t protest because the terrorists insulted Islam by being terrorists, they protested because the terrorists hit THEM.
“In August, Algerians in Algiers came out in full force against the bombing of a police station that killed scores of people.”
Very good.
“We have been protesting, and we will continue to protest in spite of your ignorance.”
Have you or any Muslim you know ever protested the murder of Jews, the attempts to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jews, the treatment of Jews in Arab countries, or any anti-Semitic propaganda in Arab countries?
It’s easy to speak out against attacks against your interests. But what does that have to do with what Lynn was talking about?
I know that Muslims are indeed protesting:
http://www.amislam.com/demo.htm
However, they are few in numbers.
Do you know about any other protests organised by Muslims against terrorism, not because the terrorists attacked them but because the terrorists insult Islam?
I appreciate the protests in Jordan (and Morocco). It’s more than what happened in America or Europe, that’s for sure.
It’s like I said at the time of the Danish cartoons:
Yes, it’s wrong to associate Muhammed with bombs.
And the Iranians should never have done it.
Danial,
I had a look at your site.
Answer me this:
When Hizbullah fires rockets at an Israeli University, do you consider that “defending Lebanon”? (Note that the university in question was NOT a legitimate target and no fire originated from it.)
Does Hamas’ charter call for an Islamic state or not? (Note that I know that it does.)
Thank goodness for Hellenization. Even an atheist like myself can see that Christianity fundamentally lacks the insular legalism that makes Judaism and Islam inflexible. Some of the debates in the Talmud are mind-numbing in their legalism. Christianity, with some exceptions, has never had much use for anything like long lists of mitzvots, complicated halakhic legalisms, hadiths or fatwas. It has largely foregone such things in favor of more general principles whose interpretation is largely left open to individual believers rather than being determined by scholars.
Fortunately, Judaism, being a minority religion in every land it was practiced for so many centuries, has necessarily developed a tradition of being adaptable to the times. Muslims have been a majority religion in numerous lands since the beginnings of Islam and, as a result, have never developed an equivalent to Jewish pragmatism.
“Thank goodness for Hellenization.”
Another term for “flexibility” is “mob rule”.
Judaism has always had a strong oral tradition that allowed for flexibility (positive such).
Thank you Andrew.
Danial, what I would love to see is a ‘Million Muslims March’ can you organize that? Haj would be a wonderful time since there are so many together at one place. Better yet, let’s get a ‘Million Muslim March’ on every continent at the same time! Maybe you can organize it for next year? Get some good speakers together, get the media there to see all these peaceful Muslim speakers calling for peace for ALL human beings. Let’s hear them calling for the excommunication/shunning of any Muslim heard talking about ‘apes and pigs’ or for ‘death’ to ANYthing. And I would love to see men AND women speakers and I would like to see it televised from around the world also. Do you think you could pull that off? If you could, without any riots or murders or burning embassies, I will eat my hat and then become the most pious Muslim the world has ever seen. But, until that time, I will take each Muslim on an individual basis but I will judge the religion on my reading of Koran/hadeeth and what I see of the actions of the masses.
“And I would love to see men AND women speakers”
That’s a good point. It must be men and women.
We have to see that both can feel comfortable to speak up.
@Suzanne,
Thank you for the link you send, I really appreciate it. I was not aware of the site as well as the contents of the it. I am sorry if I have been too bluntly sceptic and a bit harsh about muslim response for Wilder’s video. I just did not understand your earlier comment about a response clip, and that you have not seen it, or whether one can be critical of jews etc… I just was lost about what you were trying to say.
I am sorry for misunderstanding you.
Anyway, the clip in the Almouftinoun website
is very strange and counter-productive. First, before seeing the clip by European Arab League, I was appauled to notice very disturbing cartoons shown there. One was depicting Hitler and Anne Frank sleeping together, telling her : “How about this in your diaries Ann”. If this is not the worst taste cartoon ever, I do not know what is? To sink this low is beyond me, and using sexual humiliation in the case of both Ann Frank and Hirsi Ali is close to madness and cheer blunt vulgar which proves the tasteless means (sexual rape) by which some individuals goes to deal with women to do not fit their mysogyntic worldview.
Since I am open minded, and an ex-muslim (I am amazighen from Algeria, now Canadian citizen for more than 15 years) I was ready to forget the cartoons and see the clip you mentioned directly, and I did. Afterwards I said to myself even if the clip were to be objective and a good response to Wilder’s clip in alleviating the misunderstanding the West has regarding Islam as a religion, surely the cartoons are going to put off people, because it is the first thing visitors see when they enter the site. Either site designers and creators are die-hard anti Jewish or else European Arab League clip makers are crazy. If one wants to convince people that Muslims are discriminated against by the Western Nations than I think the site is trully working to undermine that same claim the muslim opponents of Wilders are trying to make. It is sheer stupidity and ignorance of public relations purposes and dimensions.
Anyway, let me move to the clip. The clip does not deal with Islam as a religion (as did Wilder’s) which is to say showing what Islam is, and what sourates positively dictate the goodness of islam. The clip however tried to describe Wilders as a zionist due to his visits to Israel or his wife who is Jewish. Again, we see the same blame game of Jewish conspiracy which by deduction in the eyes of Arabs is anti-muslim. Haven’t the clip makers thought that they were making the clip mostly to counter Wilder’s devastating propaganda clip (if we want to call it that and give them the benefit of the doubt) in order to sway public opinion in the West or present a more balanced view of Islam? I beleive that they have a problem with figuring out what they mean by an audience. They completeley miss the point.
The clip also tries also to show throught some clips of violence the discrimination that Muslims are facing in Europe and Israel. Showing some statistics would have been appropriate, instead of cars burning in suburbs of Paris. By showing the consequences (stone throwing younth and cars burning) of youth marginalization or discrimination instead of actual cases of discrimination, (people telling their stories of racism) the clip goes into a self-righteous proclamation that discrimination will bring forth more violence. This can be taken as a sort of a threat. A sort of saying out loud: “See what will happen if you discriminate and not allow us to built mosques.”
I think the clip was not good to counter the effect of one-sided view of Islam that Wilder’s was trying to convey. Again, I am not sure how people have seen it and how many found it as an eye opener to the true image of Islam. This is less likely given what I have seen.
In fact, the clip is counter-productive, overtly sentimental and not reflective enough. Again this clip proves that muslims clip makers and moderate muslims in general have a more bigger problem of communicating their view of what Islam is really about (the positive I mean). They are trapped in this victimization culture which whether it is real or not, is not bridging the gap between the Islamic values and western values.
“When Hizbullah fires rockets at an Israeli University, do you consider that “defending Lebanon”? (Note that the university in question was NOT a legitimate target and no fire originated from it.)”
No more legitimate than bombing a power plant or an airport, right?
I don’t agree with Hezbollah but what do you expect them to do? Sit back and watch the Israelis bomb the shit out of their country? It’s obvious which killed more: IDF actions than shitty rockets by Hezbollah.
“Does Hamas’ charter call for an Islamic state or not? (Note that I know that it does.)”
If they did, then how come they are considered murtads by al-Qaeda and the ilk? Why are they blasted as nationalists by al-Qaeda then?
“No more legitimate than bombing a power plant or an airport, right?”
Really? A university filled with students that do not shoot at anybody is a target like an airport?
Are you out of your mind?
Power plants and airports are legitimate military targets, schools and universities are not.
Again, can you tell me how exactly Hizbullah defended Lebanon by bombing a Jewish university?
“I don’t agree with Hezbollah but what do you expect them to do?”
I often sit around without attacking other people at all.
I realise this is not always practical. For example, if someone wants to murder Jews that strategy might not work.
But I can still expect them to do it, can I?
Do you seriously blame Israel for shooting back after five years (5 years!) of being shelled by Hizbullah? And do you seriously believe that Hizbullah’s attacks were some sort of “defence” against Israel’s reaction?
You are one sick individual, you know.
“Sit back and watch the Israelis bomb the shit out of their country?”
Yes. Everybody knows that Israel bombs Lebanon for fun, despite the obvious expenses. And the fact that Israel bombed Lebanese targets AFTER Hizbullah’s attacks shouldn’t worry us, should it?
Who told you that Israel would have bombed Lebanon at all, if it hadn’t been for Hizbullah’s attacks? Why do you pretend that that is a well-known fact?
You are an anti-Semite, and not even a bright one.
“If they did, then how come they are considered murtads by al-Qaeda and the ilk? Why are they blasted as nationalists by al-Qaeda then?”
Perhaps Al-Qaeda think Hamas are not radical enough?
So, can I assume that you generally believe that a power plant and a university filled with young students are equally valid targets, or does it only apply to universities where such students are Jews?
What about kindergartens, the typical targets of Hamas and the PLO? Are Jewish kindergartens military targets like bomb factories? I have met some evil Jewish toddlers…
Do you know that I have never met a single Jew or Israeli who would defend attacking Arab kindergartens or Arab universities as comparable to attacking an airport???
The most right-wing Zionist is not as evil as you are. And you think you are a moderate?
Wow.
antiwahhabi…
At least the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia had the decency to call Hizbullah’s attack on Israel an “adventure” rather than claim that there was obviously nothing else Hizbullah could have done.
The simply idea of doing nothing and NOT murder Jews didn’t even come to Danial’s mind.
The fact that the Jews shoot back when attacked is NOT an excuse for attacking them.
I realise it was easier in the old days when the Jews didn’t shoot back.
Is there any evidence that they deliberately attempted to target the university? Because they have crappy rockets
No, are you?
Neither of them are legitimate military targets, where do you get that from?
I agree that schools and universities are not legitimate, at all.
It does not.
Yes I do expect them to negotiate as they have done in the past, such as prisoner exchanges.
The minute Israel starting bombing civilian targets, they lost all moral ground in that case.
Ironic coming from someone who thinks it’s acceptable to take away land from others.
Yeah I’m the sick one that supports self-determination and the right to defend oneself.
Yes because in the past, prisoner swaps were the norm. And perhaps if the 2 soldiers had not crossed Lebanese territory, they wouldn’t have been in this situation, now would they?
No one told me, except for their actions during the July 2006 war. The fact that more than a thousand Lebanese were killed, yet that doesn’t provoke the ire in you.
The fact that they kept bombing indiscriminately without any regard for civilians, especially in Qana, proves that point.
Yeah I’m an anti-Semite, because I dislike Israel’s actions, and think that groups have the right to fight back when attacked.
You think Jewish blood is more important than Lebanese blood, how about that?
Obviously. al-Qaeda wants Hamas to fight for a global struggle, while Hamas is limited to Palestine.
It was tongue in cheek.
Those are not legitimate military targets according to the just war doctrine. And what’s with this constant reference to Jews? You assume that I hate Jews, which is further from the truth.
Ironic that I get called a Zionist by other Muslims yet I get called an anti-Semite by others.
Stop being an idiot. Of course schools are not legitimate targets. You’re grasping for straws here, aren’t you?
I recall back in 2002, right-wing Jews plotted to bomb an Arab girl’s school in East Jerusalem. Forget that or are you deliberately lying?
Yet many defend the brutality they have imposed on Gaza. Why silent on that?
Apparently you either have never met a Kahanist or you’re lying out of your ass in order to save face.
Kahanists still justify the brutal shooting of the Hebron mosque by Baruch Goldstein. The Jewish Task Force comes to mind, right?
Right back at’cha. You see no problem in murdering Muslims yet you cry foul if others are killed.
hahaha yeah. Yet these Wahhabis didn’t blink an eye when Shi’as in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan were being killed by their agents adamant about spreading their puritannical bullshit to the masses.
The only reason they condemned Hezbollah was that they fear the rise of Shi’ism in the region. Luckily for them, that was temporary due to the execution of Saddam, which provoked widespread resentment towards the Shi’aa.
Like to put words in people’s mouths, do you?
I can state that you see no problem in launching rockets onto Gaza, murdering scores of civilians and not showing any sympathy for the victims. How does that feel?
Indeed, but this wasn’t the case at all.
Stop being such a drama queen.
“Yes I do expect them to negotiate as they have done in the past, such as prisoner exchanges.”
So how exactly does one negotiate a murder attempt?
How many rockets does Hizbullah get to fire? Maybe limit it to one per week?
There is nothing to discuss. Hizbullah can either not fire rockets or face the consequences.
“The minute Israel starting bombing civilian targets, they lost all moral ground in that case.”
So Israel should simply wait it out until Hizbullah decides that they are out of rockets or feel bored? Israel must not shoot back?
Hizbullah fired rockets from civilian areas, THAT’S why those areas were under Israeli fire. (If you don’t believe that, ask Hizbullah why exactly they fire from those locations!)
And if Hizbullah cannot know where exactly their rockets land, they should simply not fire them at all. It’s that simple.
“Ironic coming from someone who thinks it’s acceptable to take away land from others.”
It is acceptable and it has been done in history. I am from Germany. We lost lots of land to Poland and Russia. Similarly Arab countries have lost land to Israel after attacking Israel.
I do indeed believe that taking land from a defeated aggressor is legitimate and that bombing universities is not.
“Kahanists still justify the brutal shooting of the Hebron mosque by Baruch Goldstein. The Jewish Task Force comes to mind, right?”
I will NEVER tell anybody that I understand them, agree with them, or believe that I thought they didn’t have a choice. I have never, I never will.
You won’t find me write excuses or say anything in their favour.
And it’s interesting that you would bring it up. You apparently believe that all Zionists would defend those actions just like you defend Hizbullah. Well, you are wrong. I despise murder regardless of who the murderer is and who the victim is. I am not like you!
“Right back at’cha. You see no problem in murdering Muslims yet you cry foul if others are killed.”
I see no problem in murdering Muslims? Where did I say that?
I see your problem. You actually assume that others are as evil as you are.
If Israel should ever decide simply to fire rockets into areas from which it hasn’t been attacked, you will find me speak up against Israel. Don’t believe me? Thought so.
But that’s not my fault.
My “wow” was directing at what you said, your “right back at’cha” was directed at what you CLAIM I might say. That’s the difference.
“Those are not legitimate military targets according to the just war doctrine.”
Actually, power plants and airports are. In fact anything that is used as a cover is. If Hizbullah shoots rockets from behind an apartment building, the building becomes a valid target (and Hizbullah’s act is a war crime).
“And what’s with this constant reference to Jews?”
Right. After all, we are only talking about a conflict that involved Hizbullah’s attempt to murder Jews (Nasrallah even invited Jews from all over the world to come and be killed). What would Jews have to do with it?
“You assume that I hate Jews, which is further from the truth.”
Your attitude that trying to murder Jews is something that cannot be avoided is really enough for me. If that’s what you think about people you don’t hate, I really do not want to know what you say about people you hate.
“I recall back in 2002, right-wing Jews plotted to bomb an Arab girl’s school in East Jerusalem. Forget that or are you deliberately lying?”
Deliberately lying because I didn’t mention something?
Perhaps right-wing Jews plotted to bomb a school.
How do you know? Did somebody discover the plot? What happened to them?
“Like to put words in people’s mouths, do you?”
I didn’t you actually did say that there was nothing else Hizbullah could do but bomb Israel.
“Indeed, but this wasn’t the case at all.”
So, what did happen?
The way I remember it:
1. Israel withdrew from Lebanon.
2. Hizbullah kept firing rockets into Israel for five years.
3. In summer 2006 Hizbullah increased the rate.
4. Israel started shooting back.
5. Hizbullah abducted two Israeli solders.
6. The conflict escalated.
Where exactly did Hizbullah NOT have a choice?
“The only reason they condemned Hezbollah was that they fear the rise of Shi’ism in the region.”
Yet that was still better than claiming that Hizbullah didn’t have a choice but to bomb Israel.
Amazing, isn’t it? I agree with your opinion regarding Wahhabis in general, but perhaps I am wrong.
Andrew and Danial,
Would both of you be kind enough to give this discussion of middle east politics an eternal rest?
Maybe another thread would be created and then you can take your comments to the next level.
Thanks you.
LOL
That was practically inevitable
Andrew, I still don’t understand why you keep insisting. They know the truth.
HTML no likes me. Link = http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Yf4y9TV8Ms
“Would both of you be kind enough to give this discussion of middle east politics an eternal rest?”
We were talking murder in the name of Islam, not politics. People like “what else could they do” Danial are precisely the type of person who will make Europeans believe the crap Wilders says about Islam in his movie.
The alleged inevitability of Muslims murdering infidels (or even worse people, like the sons of pigs and donkeys or whatever) is PRECISELY what makes many people in Europe and America think that Islam itself is the problem.
And the European and American left pick up the same vibe and attach their moral relativism to it and arrive at the “yes, and they are right to do it” conclusion, effectively neutralising any attempt to oppose right-wing anti-Islam sentiments.
Fact is that moderate Muslims have to oppose groups like Hizbullah, not find excuses for them. And if the Wahhabis think that Shia influence in the Arab world is a bad thing, I very much tend to agree with that appraisal considering what that influence has been so far. (Wahhabi influence is also bad, but Saudi Arabia’s criticism of the Shiite militia is valid and necessary.)
Hizbullah are killing (Sunni and Christian) Arabs and Jews in Israel and moderate Muslims should of course be opposed to that. And by “opposed” I mean something more than a “I don’t like it but what could they have done instead?” attitude towards Hizbullah’s attempt to eradicate Jews.
“Andrew, I still don’t understand why you keep insisting.”
I don’t know. Pet peeve of mine, being shot at by Hizbullah and being told that they had to do it (or were right to do it or any excuse really).
I agree with Saudi Arabia, I guess. What exactly do the Shiites even want from us?
“They know the truth.”
Of course they do. I keep forgetting. It’s just that I am _always_ surprised when I am told what I, a Zionist, apparently believe.
Are there any arguments against Zionism that are not based on what the opponent thinks Zionists believe? Why don’t they ever ask us? (And why do they use fake quotes when they try to find something evil about Zionism?)
@Ait-hamad,
The people behind the Arab European League are not really moderate, I’d say. Perhaps that explains
Thanks for your analysis. I can only agree to that.
@Suzanne,
I approached the clip by the Arab European League from a neutral point of view despite the fact it was posted in a this website that was the grandmaster of bigotry. Regardless, this proves that Muslims (moderarte ot not) are unable to come up with a constructive defense of their own beliefs. Rather they resort to defensive mechanisms and denial of the real issue.
@Andrew.
I did not mean no offense by suggesting you take a rest. I think you have provided enough explanations of religions or politics, it does not matter. It just get boring and it is the rehashing of the same stuff over and over. That’s all. You have convinced many people that you are bright and very analytical indeed. No need to go futher, you are not breaking new ground.
@ait-hamad, what about that conference Drima just posted about? And except the Arab European League who are *ssh*l*s anyway and in many ways, muslims in the Netherlands reacted in a decent, modest way.
E.g.:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vrr3C7nHvAM
Pity it’s not subtitled. But i found some quotes in this forum of what had been said:
http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article.php?aid=1366301
The blog writer write about Aboutalebs (the man on the right in the middle) reaction :
“Rather, the cabinet should put to Muslims the words that deputy minister Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Muslim, enunciated clearly in the television program Pauw & Witteman: “Muslims must think about the fear generated by their religion. The majority [of Muslims] remains silent and that is not good. We have chosen for the Netherlands, precisely because of the freedom here. This has to be said. I miss the [Muslim] voice that distances itself from extremism.”
as the writer in that blog states:
“This is the fitting reaction to the core question of Fitna.”
@drima, btw, that blog article on fitna is worth to read
@Suzanne,
Thanks for the links. Too bad the Dutch clip was not subtitled, I would have enjoyed the debate. The other article was excellent in clarifying the issue of free speech. Some muslims think of it as hate speech of course. And it is not. What was hateful about showing some facts? I would accept that argument that the facts about the perverted interpretation of Islam shown in the clip were out of context. But this can only be accepted if there is a genuine rebuttal of those facts. And this, moderate moslems are not willing to do. They resort (as Drima did) of blaming Wilders of putting them in the same category with those would be nasty muslims, hate mongers, backwards looking, stuffy face looking, death loving assassins. This is not Islam they cry out. What is Islam then?? I find the reaction too evasive. And they make things worse by reacting like a misunderstood minority of muslims. For example, using the masturbation example at the end of the “letter” is a trully amazing and sorry state of affairs. Again it does not differ from the vulgar Almouftinoune website showing a sexual humiliation of Ann Frank and Hirsi Ali. Drima should have been sensitive. If this is how the moderate muslims respond, they have a lot to work on the change things to the positive. Again I am just observing things how moderate moslems cannot deal head on with the issue.
At Livespeak website where I first saw the clip the day it was released, the clip was removed after several hours because of threats. Then according to the news these moderate muslims (the hard liners are in Paskistan LOL) thanked Livespeak web managers for promoting understanding and dialogue. WHAT? If this is a way dialogue, I do not know what sort of dialogue this is, perhaps it is a dialogue of death. I do not know. As someone said, it is the muslims in the Netherlands who should be thanked for keeping their cool and steadfest faith in the hearts and minds instead of spewing their vulgar diatribes and death sentencing curses. They are trully faithful to their beliefs and manners.
Now the Dutch government find itself in a hole after the decision to reject Wilder’s clip to be viewed on TV. The decision was primarly influenced by the fear of violence after the government received threats from some segments of muslims. Holding a government under threat that’s the worse that could have happened. One can then, for that matter, threaten the govenment if they do not support Hamas for example. In a democracy, you do not threaten, you persuade you influence you work hard to make your position heard. But let’s face, the moderates do not have enough statistical mass density on their favor when they take on what is written in the Coran. They are trully stuck or lost.
Leave a Comment