Merged: How an unseen film triggered a panic throughout the West [Archive]

View Full Version : Merged: How an unseen film triggered a panic throughout the West

Skybird

03-20-08, 05:55 AM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,druck-542255,00.html

All this leaves Wilders is the Internet -- unless, of course, he decides not to show the film, which no one has seen and of which no one can say whether it even exists. The truth is that the "provocateur" has already achieved his goal. Wilders has managed to portray the Dutch and the Europeans as cowards, shouting "we capitulate!" before the battle has even begun.

As he sees it, they are loath to intervene in Iran's internal affairs but raise no objections when Iran intervenes in their internal affairs. They behave as if they want to protect the members of all religions against insults and abuse, all the while overlooking the fact that it is usually the members of one religion who respond aggressively whenever they are accused of having a propensity for violence.

Wilders could not have achieved more if his film had been shown.

mrbeast

03-20-08, 08:53 AM

It seems to me that Wilders film is nothing more than a ploy by him to incite Muslim extremists to commit violence. This would no doubt increase support for his hardline policies concerning imigrants. I don't really see much merit in his film take this as an example:

According to Wilders, it would be shown on a split screen, with verses and suras from the Koran on one side and examples of Sharia law being carried out on the other, including a beheading and a stoning.

What important point is this going to make? Other than being calculated to cause maximum offense.

This whole situation is very tricky and appears to have many of the hall marks of a no win scenario. Ban the film and then be accused of appeasing Muslim extremists. let the film be released and no doubt there will be riots and killings, maybe not in the Netherlands, but elsewhere.

IMO I think in this case the prevention of extreme violence might trump the freedom of Wilders to make his opinions of Islam public. That is a terrible situation to be in as I firmly believe in freedom of speech, but we need to remember where all the deaths occur when something like this blows up and its not Europe. It would seem unfair that people in third world countries should end up paying for our freedom of speech with thier lives.

I'm in no way giving licence to Muslim extremists, I have nothing but contempt for their twisted creedo and ultra aggresive response to any percieved slight against Islam. Extremists only make up a small minority of Muslims but they have a very loud voice which too often drowns out the more 'moderate' voices. The progressive strand of Islam needs to make its voice heard above the fundamentalist loonies, until then we will see this type of situation time and time again.

It seems intersting that Wilders wants the Koran and Mein Kampf banning, so he seems in favour of some censorship when it suits his purposes.

Yahoshua

03-20-08, 09:19 AM

Would you still object if it were a split-screen film showing text of chinese domestic policy on one side and then showing their abuses in Tibet and against their citizens on the other?

Saudi Arabia still has stonings and beheadings (it's literally a weekly rally after mid-day prayers every friday), but ignoring them doesn't change the fact that they still happen. So why should the muslims be so offended about something they already condone?

Skybird

03-20-08, 09:20 AM

What important point is this going to make? Other than being calculated to cause maximum offense.

If you cannot see that, nobody can help you. One could also stop showing documentations about the atrocities commited by the Nazi and inside KZs.

What such docus and Wilder's scene have in common: you have an ideology quoted by it's content, and the display of results that it triggers in hard reality.

That is the important point such displaying are going to make. ;) Judge a tradition by its outcomes, not by what it claims it wants to be seen as.

And as Broder at the end says anyway: important is the kind of behavior Wilder was able to trigger by simple procclaiming to show that movie - that so far nobody has ever seen, and can comment on. muslim world already is in arms again, and Western dhimmis already bend over again in rushing ahead obedience.

If the movie does not even exist: a perfect and highly educational stunt by the man! :up: He rose a mirror and showed us our real face.

Note that I do not further comment on the man, I do not know much about him, and don't care, and in no way I say that I agree or disagree with his other political activities. That some see him as controversial does not mean anything to me.

Happy Times

03-20-08, 11:00 AM

New 'Bin Laden tape' threatens EU

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7306002.stm

Fish

03-20-08, 01:48 PM

New 'Bin Laden tape' threatens EU

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7306002.stm

Nothing about the film, so it's probable not a recent recording.

SUBMAN1

03-20-08, 02:36 PM

Finially - someone is trying to make a film about how things really are.

Reality sucks since the Governments are trying to make you believe you live in fantasy land.

Good for him! :up: I want to watch it.

-S

PS. They better not censor it!

mrbeast

03-20-08, 02:40 PM

Would you still object if it were a split-screen film showing text of chinese domestic policy on one side and then showing their abuses in Tibet and against their citizens on the other?

No I wouldn't object to that because what Wilder is proposing to do and your hypothetical film are not the same. Wilders film is generally about Islam. Islam is not a nation or a government.

If your hypothetical film was gennerally about Chinese people and purported to represent what Chinese people believed in or supported; then showed images of the Chinese government commiting atrocities, with the association being that Chinese people advocated such behavior then it might compare.

Of course this assumes that thats what Wilders film will do. That is what I fear it may do.

Saudi Arabia still has stonings and beheadings (it's literally a weekly rally after mid-day prayers every friday), but ignoring them doesn't change the fact that they still happen.

If someone made a film about specifically Saudi Arabia I would have no objection, considering that it was no done in a deliberately inflamatory manner. I have already seen documentaries that show what happens in Saudi Arabia and it is an abomination.

So why should the muslims be so offended about something they already condone?

Here you assume that all Muslims advocate or condone public floggings, forced amputations and public beheadings. But this is nt the case. Its this lumping together of all muslims that is unhelpful and simplistic.

If you cannot see that, nobody can help you. One could also stop showing documentations about the atrocities commited by the Nazi and inside KZs.

What such docus and Wilder's scene have in common: you have an ideology quoted by it's content, and the display of results that it triggers in hard reality.

My fear is that Wilders film will not inform people but simply pander to exsisting prejudice and stereotypes of Muslims, simply stressing the negative aspects of Islam above all else. Nazism ideologically, culturally politically had absolutely no redeaming features. Nazism is to all intents and purposes a 'dead' ideology and those who still cling to aspects of it are tiny in number and unlikely to cause many deaths.

My objection is that Wilders film may be inflamatory and pander to streotypes, be designed purely to get a reaction adding nothing constructive to the discourse on Islam in the modern world and will cause the deaths of innocent people, and as I previously posted those deaths will more than likely be in poor Muslim countries where the populace already have to endure meadievilist societies. I find that objectional when this film is simply to serve Wilders populist political agenda.

By painting all Muslims as extremists you simply alienate the moderates and feed the fundamentalists more ammunition.

And as Broder at the end says anyway: important is the kind of behavior Wilder was able to trigger by simple procclaiming to show that movie - that so far nobody has ever seen, and can comment on. muslim world already is in arms again, and Western dhimmis already bend over again in rushing ahead obedience

The response, when this film has been reportedly grandstanded by Wilder in the manner it has, is predictable. Authorities who seem to be dancing to the extremists tune may simply be trying to keep control of the situation.

If you look in the Old Testement of the Bible it has many references to Genocide and other objectional acts, yet no one proposes making a film to point out this. Imagine what the reaction would be from Jewish groups if we showed just how fascist, elitist, genocidal, incestuous, sexist and racist it really is.

My personal view is that, generally, Abrahamic religion is a curse on mankind and has poisoned the world for over 2000 years. Thats not to say that I hold any animosity to Jews, Christians or Muslims, but all three religions in my view cause no end of suffering. I would say that it has caused more deaths than all the other religions of the world combined.

But I feel this film will only serve to pour more petrol on what is already an inferno.

Freedom of speech is a precious gift but I think we still have to use our heads before we open our mouths.

Ultimately this could all be moot: there may not be any film to show. ;)

Letum

03-20-08, 03:44 PM

SUBMAN1

03-20-08, 03:57 PM

That Wilders guy claims to be "anti Koran" so finally that film will most probably put all the Muslims in the same bag. If he was only anti religious I wouldn't mind, but actually he states that the Koran is a fascist book and at the same time he's fond of Israel so I guess he has nothing against the old testament. That man is a joke.Isn't the Koran a facists book? ANd whats wrong with Isreal?

-S

SUBMAN1

03-20-08, 03:59 PM

HA!
He wants free speech and he wants to band the Koran in the Netherlands. :doh:

He is unjustly and irrationally prejudice in the extreme and it is his ilk that are in part the
cause of them problems he complains about.

He paints many, many, many good, honest moral men with the same hateful brush.Hahahahaha! That is funny! :D :p :up:

Islam is only going to roll over you if you think that way. The other way, you put it back in its place - and that place is out of peoples lives. The only way to do that is to speak the truth, not sugar coat everything you run across.

-S

SUBMAN1

03-20-08, 04:04 PM

Wilders is anti Koran but is fond of Israel, it's rather odd don't you think ?No. Whats wrong with Isreal?

-S

SUBMAN1

03-20-08, 04:14 PM

Israel is a Jewish state, so it's tied to the old testament. The old testament is as bad as the Koran if you take the text literally. Yet Wilders says the Koran is fascist but he's fond of Israel. So I think that this guy isn't really anti Koran, he's just anti Arabs.I bet that has nothing to do with it. Last I checked, Isreal isn't in your face and blowing up your buildings. I think this is simply just anti whiny babies who like to kill people when they don't get there way. That is what it looks like.

-S

SUBMAN1

03-20-08, 04:42 PM

I wish you were right, but Wilders claimed himself to be anti-Koran. If he can't stand that book he shouldn't stand the old testament as well. Yet he doesn't bash the old testament nor does he say that all Jews are the same as orthodox Jews. That's quite double standard. Saying to moderate people that they're fascist isn't the best way to get rid of radicals I'm affraid.I don't see it that way. I can see his need to say the Koran is facists simply because it is purported to be the word of God himself and not questioned, which leaves it mandatory that all Muslims take over the world. They have no choice in the matter. THe Old Testement doesn't call for this, and is actually superseeded by the New Testement if you are a Christian.

And these are not moderate people.

-S

Happy Times

03-20-08, 04:56 PM

Islam is to the believers a one nation, i treat it like that. Funny how the lefties defend islam to the end, when it is the number one threat to everything they believe in.:rotfl:

PeriscopeDepth

03-20-08, 05:00 PM

So all Muslims are trying to take over the world? I guess I'd better watch my back.

SUBMAN1

03-20-08, 05:07 PM

So all Muslims are trying to take over the world? I guess I'd better watch my back.Sharia law is mandatory.

-S

mrbeast

03-20-08, 05:08 PM

SUBMAN1

03-20-08, 05:08 PM

I know about the new testement, that's why I was specific about the old one and Wilders having no problem with it.
But still I quite disagree, how can you say that "these are not moderate people" ? There's about 1.5 billion of Muslim people on Earth, I can hardly imagine what it would be like if they were all radicals.And the majority of them seem to riot when a simple cartoon is released.

-S

PeriscopeDepth

03-20-08, 05:13 PM

mrbeast

03-20-08, 05:15 PM

Skybird

03-20-08, 06:58 PM

If your hypothetical film (...) Of course that assumes that that's what Wilders film will do. That is what I fear it may do. (...) My fear is that Wilders film will not (...) My objection is that Wilders film may be (...)

Must I comment here?

Here you assume that all Muslims advocate or condone public floggings, forced amputations and public beheadings. But this is nt the case. Its this lumping together of all muslims that is unhelpful and simplistic.

As a matter of fact, the quran calls for wars of conquest and enforced subjugation of others, it aloso orders the discirminating treatement of dhimmis and Jews and Christians - in no way Quran allwos to see them as equals, in no way. It is not that believers have a choice regarding these, but an obligation. Those you wouold call "moderates" are not folliwjhng Islam - they are violating Islam. Also, the Hadith, which inlcudes the sharia, calls for penatlies like those you listed. These penalties are not in violence of islam, but are representing it's most central scriptures.

be designed purely to get a reaction adding nothing constructive to the discourse on Islam in the modern world and will cause the deaths of innocent people, and as I previously posted those deaths will more than likely be in poor Muslim countries where the populace already have to endure meadievilist societies.

Okay, so they manage to bring Muslims in poor countries to death all by themselves, becasue other cultures, like ours, are not Islamic. What does this tell us about islam? Two things, at least. First, they are idiots. Second, they are brutal. Nice ideology that teaches people to behave this way. Anyhow, I couldn't care less if they kill themselves.

By painting all Muslims as extremists you simply alienate the moderates and feed the fundamentalists more ammunition.
You and many people in the west need to learn one thing, really: Islam is a fundamentalist relfgious and political ideolgy. It is fundamentalist by definition and self-understanding. It wants not to coexist and practice tolerance - it wants to rule and doiminate about all others. What is not idlamic, by definition is Islam's enemy. As long as there are enemies, there is no peace. Peace in Islam's understanding means there is nothing left than just itself: then there are no more enemies, so there is peace. Moderates as you call them, some of them, mayb e cindivinced of Wetsern ethics and value sindeed, and may be convinced of many of the inherent grim aspects of Islam indeed, and leave them out of their understanding of what islam is. but in fact by that they are already violating Islam. thgey are apostates already, and by Islam'S law must be killed. Islam's quran has no reformist section, like the glad tidings are in the bible. Quiran even has nothing that compares to the new testament, it only compares to the old testament. The Bible went beyond that - Quran not. islam got stuck with it'S head in the a$$ of history - 1400 years deep. the clash of civilisations is not only a cultural conflcit, it also is a clash of ages: medieval inquisiton versus modern humanism, so to speak.

If you look in the Old Testement of the Bible it has many references to Genocide and other objectional acts, yet no one proposes making a film to point out this.
well, expect fundamental Christians, who compare to the fundamentalism that Islam is by essence and who suffer from the same handicaps for the same reasons, Christians beeing serious in following what Jesus tried to teach are beyond that and the old testament. I oftehn have argued that the old testament and the glad tidings present two totally different conceptions of "God".

Imagine what the reaction would be from Jewish groups if we showed just how fascist, elitist, genocidal, incestuous, sexist and racist it really is.
So what,m who cares? Is it forbidden to speak out a truth just because radical may threat to vandalize in the street? are they the rulers of the place, then? I say: kick their a$$es, for they already claim more than what is theirs, and alraedy have done damage enough, and have caused far too much violence and war and hate and intolerance - becasue wellmeaning soft-hearetd people like you gave room to them, too uch room, and appeased them and fell back, all just to evade conflict at all cost, no matter how high the price may be.

The price is too high, i say. Our problems with relgions come from that we already have payed too much respect to it. Fundamentalist relgion never is satisfied, it wants more, and wants all. It will never stop. And the more it gets, the more fanatical it becoms, becasue by getting more, it becomes the stronger. It does not want your reason. It wants you to give up your reason, and reject your brain, and submit to it'S tales.

My personal view is that, generally, Abrahamic religion is a curse on mankind and has poisoned the world for over 2000 years. Thats not to say that I hold any animosity to Jews, Christians or Muslims, but all three religions in my view cause no end of suffering. I would say that it has caused more deaths than all the other religions of the world combined.
So you say you agree with me that theistic relgions are bad and have caused a lot of terror and violence - but you nevertheless say they should be allowed top continue, for confronting them would lead to conflict, while letting them have their will also leads to conflict, but that you accept to let happen? you are contradicting yourself.

But I feel this film will only serve to pour more petrol on what is already an inferno.
An Islam-made (and wanted!!!) inferno, I insist to specify. It is oltiical tactic to engage the West on every smallest, stupid, meaningless opportunity, becasue by the laws of probability, a sufficently huge number of incidents see some occaiusons where these see the West making more concessions,l and making more small steps to fall back. At the same time, Islam is totally safe from being confronted with any demands on recipricty and mutual deal on the basis of 1:1 - sine the West thinks that is racist and causes conflict, it does not do that.

Freedom of speech is a precious gift but I think we still have to use our heads before we open our mouths.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. When you say it shall end here and there - you already have given it up. In the end: free speech does not kill - but fathwas, stonings, assassinations do. islam is no equal to free speech, and it has not to demand that free speech must be limited in order not to oppose Islam'S views. And must we really care for Islam'S view at all? Or better: shoiuld we care for islam'S views? If I need to choose between free speech and islam's - or any religious or political ideology's - demand to limit it, I know what I choose, every time. and nif nthat would mean conflict, I am willing to let loose al hell, if necessary. Becasue such ideologies have to demand nothing from us - NOTHING.

Ultimately this could all be moot: there may not be any film to show. ;)
For having understood that, you show a surprising ammount of rushing-ahead obedience to Islamic demands.

And this is probably what the man really wanted to demonstrate. ;)

Skybird

03-20-08, 07:19 PM

That Wilders guy claims to be "anti Koran" so finally that film will most probably put all the Muslims in the same bag.

Those who really follow it in it'S meaning - ARE in the same bag, yes. How could it be any different?

If he was only anti religious I wouldn't mind, but actually he states that the Koran is a fascist book and at the same time he's fond of Israel so I guess he has nothing against the old testament. That man is a joke.

As I said i do not know abiut theman and his political views. but regarding the Quran, it is the written basis of a totalitarian, intolerant ideology that aims at becoming the only ruler there is and to which all world and mankind must submit. The swcriptures of Jews is the thora, btw, not the old testament, as far as I understand it. Also, Jewish scholars were quite aware of the cruel nature of the god described in their books. that is why since over 2500 years their philosphers habe become very clever and witty in finding reasons that allow them to think of and understand this God as some more friendly, human-loving gentlemam (instead of the mass-killing, psychopathic tyrant that kills and tortures and calls for wars of conquest as the old testament depicts him). That is the reason for the literal hairsplitting thinking which Jewish philosphy and humour is famous for. Nevertheless, they contradict themselves - if you would say that, i would agree.

when muhammad was young, he educated himself in Jewiosh religion for around ten years, due to his contatcs he made duriong his many travels for his uncles whose caravans he led around. He then thought that he would be able to talk on same eye level with Jewish scholars, which he tried after he fled from Mekka to Medina and met three Jewish tribes there, settling around the city' land. He was wroing, he was not able to compete with them, and they showed him how huge his lack of understanding Judaism really was. This made him bitter, and since I also see him as highly narcissistic, it is the reason why Islam hates jews so much: becasue this self-inflicted humiliation made muhammad hate Jews as well. He started war and drove two tribes away. H ehtne decieved the thir one and talked him into a peace treaty - which he broke short time after and in a new war of suzrprise, he deafted them and took them all prisoners. He then ordered the mass-execution of all males, no matter the age, on the marketplace in Medina (that is why archeologists are forbidden - by death penalty, as far as i know - to start digging in Medina centre), which meant the massacring of 800-900 people and kids (monumental for the standards of that time), and all women and girls were led into slavery. the tribe sized to exist. We have a word for that today: we call it genocide.

Since muhammad invented and designed islam to support his personal ambitions, it reflects his pernal motives and driuves until today. you cannot understand why islam is like it is without knopwing about the historical true Muhammad. i would even say this is the most imporant thing you can know about Islam, even more important than the Quran itself.

Skybird

03-20-08, 07:22 PM

Skybird

03-20-08, 07:30 PM

Islam is to the believers a one nation, i treat it like that. Funny how the lefties defend islam to the end, when it is the number one threat to everything they believe in.:rotfl:
Indeed. Socialists and communists helped Khomeni a lot to overthrow the Shah. they were stupid eniough to believe they could control Islam, and that a shared enemy would make Islam their friend. But after Khomeni was safe in power, the first thing he did was to get rid of these "allies" - hundreds of these party's members, if not thousands, ended up hanging at trees and light masts. Since then, they do not play a great role in the open anymore. But they have a small milita carrying out terror strikes both against Iran, and in earlier times aginst America. Today, they cooperate with the American troops in Iraq and supply them with intel information from inide Iran. that is why Iran is pressing so hard to make america stop its support for these guys.

And that is why america now opportunistically supports them and keeps them alive inside Iran. :D They are probably closer to information on the nuclear program than anybody else, and thus a precious source.

FIREWALL

03-20-08, 07:44 PM

The Graveyard's are full of people who want to take over the world.

Sadly as many Graveyard's of brave people who stopped them. :cry:

Happy Times

03-20-08, 07:51 PM

Islam is to the believers a one nation, i treat it like that. Funny how the lefties defend islam to the end, when it is the number one threat to everything they believe in.:rotfl:

Whats funny is how ignorant you appear to be. Have you ever heard of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims?

I for one am not defending Islam I just object to a crude and simplistic response to it.

I can see his need to say the Koran is facists simply because it is purported to be the word of God himself and not questioned, which leaves it mandatory that all Muslims take over the world

Well they've been dragging their heels for a while, is all I can say. ;)

I could bet ive done more studying on islam than you have, ive even got the quran.
Read these for a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba

The whole "religion" is sick scam of an murderous pedophile based on nomadic tribal law and paganism, explains alot, huh?

mrbeast

03-20-08, 07:51 PM

OK OK OK Skybird I surrender!........at least for tonight! :D

How you churm out post after post like that I'll never know. :o

Seriously though we shall have to return to this another time. But in short I agree with some of what you say, disagree with some of your points and need to clarify some of my own arguments. But right now I need to get some shut eye! :zzz:

PeriscopeDepth

03-20-08, 07:53 PM

Skybird

03-20-08, 08:13 PM

but I remember that there's more to Islam than only Muhammad, otherwise there would be no Sunni and Shi'ites.
No. the splitting into the two camps took place after Muhammad'S death. It wasn nothing else but a banal but epic struggle for political power. The Caliphs were the institution that should take over the power from muhammad, one could say (not precisely), that they were what the ope is in christianity. Until the fourth Caliph, Ali, there were no real problems, and the first Caliphs were focussed on filtering and creating the final and official form of the Quran anyway. But the legitimation of Ali'S right for the seat of being Caliph was questioned by others wanting to win the title of Caliph for themselves, and Ali questioned their right in return. A civil war started that in principle lasts until today, it is fair to say it is the longest lasting war in the history of mankind. The party of Ali (Shiat Ali) formed the today's Shia community, inferior in power and numbers, whereas the mainstream is called Sunna, which dominated and persecuted the Shias (that is why suffering plays such a big role in Shia tradition and is made a cult of, comparable to the cult of constant mouring the past by the Jews). the Shiat Ali more or less lost the war. Ali'S sons were killed, himself probabaly too, but Shia mystified the event and descrobed it to be the withdrawing of the "missing Imam", for whose return Shia communities are waiting like orthodox christians are waiting for the returning of Jesus. His shrine is located in Kerbala, Iraq, that is why the city is so highly sensitive an issue.

This civil war is more critical to the poltical constellation in the middle east than is the presence of American troops in Iraq. because for the first time ever, in the form of Iran the shia are rising to equal if not superior power, and for the first time ever they cannot fall victim to another supression and persecution by the Sunni community. The concept of allowing lying and deceive over one's turee identity and intention also became allowed first in the Shia community, as a tool to survive under Shia supression, it later was taken over by Sunnis as well regadring the eternal mission to overcome all the non-Muslim world. But originally, it was a defensive measure against the Sunnis. An offensive tool it was turned into by the sunni tradition, which it is today for shias as well. The balances of power between shia and sunni have shifted today, and still are shifting. It is a confrontation that most obviously is fought out between strong Iran and weak Saudi Arabia. They also run low-intensity wars in form of the different militias in Lebanon and Palestine - it is not only a fight agai8mnst Israel, but a fight Sunni versus Shia influence. For the Muslim world, this is the real most important issue on the list - it is not Israel (of which one has learned to live with more or less), and it is not the american occupation of Iraq. These are only numbers two and three on the list.

Happy Times

03-20-08, 08:38 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba

Just another one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity

Well the fastest growing "reform" movement inside Islam is Wahhabism, they especially target the young, future leaders of the islamic world and immigrants in the West.

Reminds me of Communism that targeted the youth, students and formed fifth columns in democratic countries, with the ultimate goal of world domination.

DeepIron

03-20-08, 08:41 PM

I've found that while being attacked, I seldom have time to engage the attacker in philosophical dialog concerning their theological beliefs. So...

My solution to attacks from disadvantaged sociopaths and religious extremists of all kinds:

http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/images/9fullbodyarmour.jpg

Full body armor. Don't leave home without it...

Happy Times

03-20-08, 08:44 PM

My solution to attacks from disadvantaged sociopaths and religious extremists of all kinds:

http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/images/9fullbodyarmour.jpg

Full body armor. Don't leave home without it...

That picture is an insult you infidel crusader!!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/muslimspope.jpg

Skybird

03-20-08, 08:47 PM

So all Muslims are trying to take over the world? I guess I'd better watch my back.Sharia law is mandatory.

-S
It would be, if every Muslim interpreted their religious texts literally. Judging from the actions of the vast majority of the Muslim population, I would have to say most do not.

PD But Subman is right. Ypu need to chnage your understanding what a true muslim is. If he does reject even some parts of sharia - he is not muslim in Quranic understanding. You may describe him as something, as anything, as whatever you want, but not truly islamic. The term Muslim/Islamic is reserved to describe a certain type of ideolgy with a certain set of key features - and an understanding of shria being mandatory. It is understood to be the tool keeping the faithful on the way laid down in the quran - voluntarily, or enforced.

Let'S not confuse labels, terms and names. It has become a bad habit in western disucssions of islam. And we alread pay high prices for that.

So when you say Muslims are ________, you do not refer the billions of people who call themselves Muslims, but really must not be if they don't follow what you may consider core parts of the text: eg's killing infidels and taking over the world?

I'm not being facetious, just asking for clarification.

PD
You may remember that I also refuse to accept all of today'S Christians as Christians. In this term, the word "christ" is included", it is Jesus (called the Christ) who is the basis of true Christianity, and consequently, the scripture christianity must base primarily on are his teachings, as reproted and told in the glad tidings - these are the heart and core of christian scripture. Before Jesus, there wasno such thing like "Chrstian relgion". There was Judaism before, and not before Jesus appeared there formed somethign up that was refrred to him and was called Christianity.

the message of Muhammad, and Jesus are totally antagonistic to each other. both men lived what they preached, the one preaching peacefulness, forgiveness, and rejecting aggression and earthly goods that just would pass while only soul's qualities could last through times and maybe find a place in "heaven" (it was not Jesus saying that by gods forgiveness everybody could find entrance into heaven, he even said the opposite, that everybody needs to make his own effort and that many do waste their life; it was the church introiucing the concept of sins and a forgiving daity - by that the church laimed a psotion of power by mediating between God and man, which founded it's politcvial and social influence). However, Jesus even died in the way he lived, and recommended to spend life. miuhammad did the same, but since he was little more than a bandit, he robbed and murdered, waged war and conquered, and this is pretty much what the quran, in more or less msystified form: by separating between Muslims and non-Muslims - demands as well. this is no surprise, since Muhammad invented his little clever ideolgy to give himself a relgious status that allowed othersnot to question is claim for power and rulership without risking to be accused of heresy: the quran pretty much reflects muhammad's own attitude on things, his drives for goals and deeds and actions. Both Jesus and muihammad's message couldn't be any more different.

So, since these things are included in the Quran, and the Quran got stuck on the level that compares to the old testament, not the new one or the glad tidings, a reformation nevcer took place, and where schlars and sects tried that, Islam was very successful in supressing them, wiping them out, killing them with the same drive and ambition, but far greater success, like the inquisition acted in medieval europe. Islam is fundamentalism, fundamentalism is not a sub-chapter inside Islam. And it is all that what muhammad was: intoerant, aggressive, conquesting, wanting to be in total control of others, of individuals, families, communities, state. there is no limit, and thus nom space for tolerant coexisting. the systematical repression and discriminating of Jews and christzians is ordered for in the Quran, ranging from limiting cloathing (and signaling cloating) over jobs, career options , and the obligatory submissive behavior of dhimmi towards muslims, ignoring that being under penalty (in a law suit that again discriminates non-Muslims, and females anyway). For example, if you think yellow batches on cloathing of jews was an invention of the Nazis, you are wrong - it'S demanded for by Islam (dont remember this moment if Quran or Hadith/Sharia). ;)

Islam forbids by law (this is exactly one of the prime issues sharia fas cinstructed for!) to fall off from it (death penalty), and it also forbids not to follow the demands of quran in full detail (severe penlty, even death penlty). In fact Arabs often attacked African Muslim people to sell them as slaves by accusing them of not being trulky muslim by not folliwng Muslims rules to the fullest. the main interest for these wars of course was slavery and the profits from it, but the acusation nevertheless is in confomrity with Quranic law: it is not allowed not to follow isdlam in full detail.

So you see why I say everybody not following Quran in full, but only partially, is n ot reall representative for Islam'S self-understanding and definition. Christianity formed a tradition of splitting into several sects and churches, some branches being not as strict as others, but in islam, this is a big no-no. Muhammad wanted to keep his community (his power basis) together at all cost, and for that totalitarian control and uniformity, no chance for rebellion by threatening apostacy with death (like Mafia does today, for example), it was necessary to rule out any chance to ever leave Islam (muhammad's party) alive, or not to follow the cult completely. True Islam does not know half things. really, it is like with the Mafia: once oyu have become a family member, you never can leave again, if you do, you need to hide, for you get hunted.

That's why I say it is fundamentlist by nature. fundamentalism is not an internal distortion - it is it's true nature. Thus, "Muslims" already violating aspects of Islam, and maybe reall with all their heart are attracted by freedom and certain western values Islam is totally hostile to, may be respectable people (if they are not deceiving you, but are real) - but one thing they are not: being truly representative for Islamic ideology. In the past, one "Muslim" member of this forum whom I really do like in a way became very angry when I told him that by his defense of certain key values of wetsern societies I cannot accept him as a true Muslim. Her was angry - but for me, it was a compliment. what I told him in fact is that I do not see him as a totalitarian stuoid fanatic.

If I would tell anybody I really see him as a Muslim - he would have all reason to feel deeply offended - of poor himself. :)

Not everything that is branded as muslim, is Muslim. And not every Christian is truly a Christian. In fact I say: most Christians are not at all. so you see, I talk and argue on the level of the real core of ideologies, not about superficial labels.

PeriscopeDepth

03-20-08, 08:58 PM

So all Muslims are trying to take over the world? I guess I'd better watch my back.Sharia law is mandatory.

-S
It would be, if every Muslim interpreted their religious texts literally. Judging from the actions of the vast majority of the Muslim population, I would have to say most do not.

PD But Subman is right. Ypu need to chnage your understanding what a true muslim is. If he does reject even some parts of sharia - he is not muslim in Quranic understanding. You may describe him as something, as anything, as whatever you want, but not truly islamic. The term Muslim/Islamic is reserved to describe a certain type of ideolgy with a certain set of key features - and an understanding of shria being mandatory. It is understood to be the tool keeping the faithful on the way laid down in the quran - voluntarily, or enforced.

Let'S not confuse labels, terms and names. It has become a bad habit in western disucssions of islam. And we alread pay high prices for that.
So when you say Muslims are ________, you do not refer the billions of people who call themselves Muslims, but really must not be if they don't follow what you may consider core parts of the text: eg's killing infidels and taking over the world?

I'm not being facetious, just asking for clarification.

PD You may remember that I also refuse to accept all of today'S Christians as Christians. In this term, the word "christ" is included", it is Jesus (called the Christ) who is the basis of true Christianity, and consequently, the scripture christianity must base primarily on are his teachings, as reproted and told in the glad tidings - these are the heart and core of christian scripture. Before Jesus, there wasno such thing like "Chrstian relgion". There was Judaism before, and not before Jesus appeared there formed somethign up that was refrred to him and was called Christianity.

the message of Muhammad, and Jesus are totally antagonistic to each other. both men lived what they preached, the one preaching peacefulness, forgiveness, and rejecting aggression and earthly goods that just would pass while only soul's qualities could last through times and maybe find a place in "heaven" (it was not Jesus saying that by gods forgiveness everybody could find entrance into heaven, he even said the opposite, that everybody needs to make his own effort and that many do waste their life; it was the church introiucing the concept of sins and a forgiving daity - by that the church laimed a psotion of power by mediating between God and man, which founded it's politcvial and social influence). However, Jesus even died in the way he lived, and recommended to spend life. miuhammad did the same, but since he was little more than a bandit, he robbed and murdered, waged war and conquered, and this is pretty much what the quran, in more or less msystified form: by separating between Muslims and non-Muslims - demands as well. this is no surprise, since Muhammad invented his little clever ideolgy to give himself a relgious status that allowed othersnot to question is claim for power and rulership without risking to be accused of heresy: the quran pretty much reflects muhammad's own attitude on things, his drives for goals and deeds and actions. Both Jesus and muihammad's message couldn't be any more different.

So, since these things are included in the Quran, and the Quran got stuck on the level that compares to the old testament, not the new one or the glad tidings, a reformation nevcer took place, and where schlars and sects tried that, Islam was very successful in supressing them, wiping them out, killing them with the same drive and ambition, but far greater success, like the inquisition acted in medieval europe. Islam is fundamentalism, fundamentalism is not a sub-chapter inside Islam. And it is all that what muhammad was: intoerant, aggressive, conquesting, wanting to be in total control of others, of individuals, families, communities, state. there is no limit, and thus nom space for tolerant coexisting. the systematical repression and discriminating of Jews and christzians is ordered for in the Quran, ranging from limiting cloathing (and signaling cloating) over jobs, career options , and the obligatory submissive behavior of dhimmi towards muslims, ignoring that being under penalty (in a law suit that again discriminates non-Muslims, and females anyway). For example, if you think yellow batches on cloathing of jews was an invention of the Nazis, you are wrong - it'S demanded for by Islam (dont remember this moment if Quran or Hadith/Sharia). ;)

Islam forbids by law (this is exactly one of the prime issues sharia fas cinstructed for!) to fall off from it (death penalty), and it also forbids not to follow the demands of quran in full detail (severe penlty, even death penlty). In fact Arabs often attacked African Muslim people to sell them as slaves by accusing them of not being trulky muslim by not folliwng Muslims rules to the fullest. the main interest for these wars of course was slavery and the profits from it, but the acusation nevertheless is in confomrity with Quranic law: it is not allowed not to follow isdlam in full detail.

So you see why I say everybody not following Quran in full, but only partially, is n ot reall representative for Islam'S self-understanding and definition. Christianity formed a tradition of splitting into several sects and churches, some branches being not as strict as others, but in islam, this is a big no-no. Muhammad wanted to keep his community (his power basis) together at all cost, and for that totalitarian control and uniformity, no chance for rebellion by threatening apostacy with death (like Mafia does today, for example), it was necessary to rule out any chance to ever leave Islam (muhammad's party) alive, or not to follow the cult completely. True Islam does not know half things. really, it is like with the Mafia: once oyu have become a family member, you never can leave again, if you do, you need to hide, for you get hunted.

That's why I say it is fundamentlist by nature. fundamentalism is not an internal distortion - it is it's true nature. Thus, "Muslims" already violating aspects of Islam, and maybe reall with all their heart are attracted by freedom and certain western values Islam is totally hostile to, may be respectable people (if they are not deceiving you, but are real) - but one thing they are not: being truly representative for Islamic ideology. In the past, one "Muslim" member of this forum whom I really do like in a way became very angry when I told him that by his defense of certain key values of wetsern societies I cannot accept him as a true Muslim. Her was angry - but for me, it was a compliment. what I told him in fact is that I do not see him as a totalitarian stuoid fanatic.

If I would tell anybody I really see him as a Muslim - he would have all reason to feel deeply offended - of poor himself. :)

Not everything that is branded as muslim, is Muslim. And not every Christian is truly a Christian. In fact I say: most Christians are not at all. so you see, I talk and argue on the level of the real core of ideologies, not about superficial labels.
Typical Skybird, ask for a clarification and get a full length op-ed. I was afraid of this, but seriously...This is a great post, and unfortunately I am not going to take the time to respond to it properly now as I have to go out to dinner soon :p. But I will later tonight. For now I will say that we agree on most broader points, our differences are in the definitions. Those superficial labels, as you say. :)

PD

Edit: okay, so not tonight. but I am going to have a Skybirdian friggin' post for you when it's done this weekend.

PD

Foxtrot

03-21-08, 04:11 AM

I yet need to see the Jesus cartoons which were not published by jylland posten (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics)...Kinda ironic, isn't it? :hmm:

nikimcbee

03-21-08, 05:36 AM

Tchocky

03-21-08, 06:04 AM

I yet need to see the Jesus cartoons which were not published by jylland posten (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics)...Kinda ironic, isn't it? :hmm:
As far as I remember it was a different editor that commissioned the Muhammad drawings. Doesn't completely tarnish notions of hypocrisy, rather it complicates them.

Skybird

03-21-08, 06:56 AM

I yet need to see the Jesus cartoons which were not published by jylland posten (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics)...Kinda ironic, isn't it? :hmm:
But we have a tv series making ridicule of the church and pope, and not speaking for your country that i dont know: in germany we have critical cartoons in newspapers whenever something on church policies is being reported. and sometimes they even do not stop at naking jokes about jesus hanging ´from the cross.

not to mention monthy python's life of brian.

@Skybird : allright, but this is only rhetoric.
So says you in your wisodom whose source and origin remains mystery to me.

You see you're being radical :).

In this time where words does not mean anything anymore since everybody uses them in a different meaning, I ussually get called worse than "radical" when opposing and rejecting Islam. Usually I get called a Nazi, or a racist. If you say i am radical and if you want to say that I am very uncompromised and detmerined in my rejection of Islam by that, I take that as a compliment, for you say I do not negotiate and completely refuse to deal with an ideology that I do not see as any better than that of the Nazis, and that in fact honours me (and yes, there have been "friendly" Germans being convinced by the friendly image they have created inside their heads all by themselves of what they thought Nazism was, for they did not know all the evil grim apsects of it, and what was happening in that hidden camp behind that forest. Such people were NOT dealing with the real Nazism out there, obviously, and were not representative for Nazism). And if you believe it or not, I even received (paper) letters with death threats here were I live, calling me infidel scum that will see the thousands pains of hell for an eternity to come.

I love it when some brain-amputated meaningless little sucker with a head full of poison thinks he needs to plan decide and speak on behalf of a deity. Stupid idiot.

It's clear with the example you gave that saying to a "moderate" or "progressist" Muslim that he isn't Muslim doesn't help much.
Help in what? I think precision in using terms and labels always is of helpt, even if that means some people need to relearn what these labels mean. that'S for example why I refuse to call islam "fascism". I never talk of Islamofascism, liek som eother critics. Both are totalitarian concpts, yes, but fascism is linked very directly to a certain time, place and Italian politicl movement, of which Islam is no part. Every fascism is totalitarianism - but not every totalitarianism is fascism.

An interesting article, it's a google traduction so not the best but it should do : here (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rue89.com%2F2007%2F11 %2F22%2Fa-87-ans-gamal-al-banna-veut-toujours-reformer-lislam&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=fr&ie=UTF8)
Yes, reform attempts there have been time and again in Islmaic history, and I often have said that. But I also had to point out that these attempts were fought dpown bitterly, and that Islam has been far more successful in keeping them down or even anihilate them. The historical Sahaladin, which is so much mystified and set out as a shining exmaple of Islam'S bright glory even here in the west, a just and tolerant king whom we shall owe so much - well this man has been amongst those rulers who was especially eager in surpessing any reformist thinking in Islam, which by islamic law simply is heresy and must be penalised. sahaladin gave orders to execute quite many promising "reformist" thinkers during his rulership, and killed some of the most promising alternate thinkers in all Islamic history.

Thinik twice what idols you worship, dear Westerners. History books will tell you that by his grave there shold be an encription, saying something like "He cleaned the earth from the dirt of the infidels".

Last but not least you judge a foreign ideology by how it deals with critics. If critics like the woman in your article would be so very representative and so much supported in islam (both moderate and radical Muslims, to use your separation), then I wonder why persons like this throughout history of Islam experienced so little support from "moderates".

If there are moderates indeed, I drmand them not to remain silent, but to stand up and fight against the evil within their muslim community, rip many pages out of the Quran, make certain primnciples regarding ethics and values obligatory and madatory and integrated part of Islam'S message - which would mean to stop Islam being Islam, of course. As long as they do not do that, Islam in egenral bcomes stronger by the number of heads in their families, and thus I need to see them as neither supportive, nor true in saying they want to respect those parts of our values they have accepted from Western culture (at least they say). some things do not go together. What is a liberal Nazi? A democratic stalinist? A humanistic Muslim? you eithersupoort Islam, or you don'T, just ripping it apart and picking what you like, and refuse the others content - that is not possible in Islam. You should have understood by my earlier replies that Muhammad wanted to prevent especially this falling apart, and falling into subgroups, and islam'S laws reflect that. the main factor of power and strength in Islam is it's monolithic unity - and this is not design by random chance, but was muhammad's intention. Unity mans strength, strength means to enforce unity, no matter how, no matter the cost. That is why apostcy is under thread of death penalty. Once Islam owes you, it owes you forever. Once a member of the honourable family, you leave it only throgh death. Once in the infnary trench, you either fight or get court-martialed and executed. It'S the same pattern and the same intention in all three examples: strength by (totalitarian) unity, unity by strength.

Skybird

03-21-08, 07:20 AM

Anyhow, I wanted to point at the reaction Wilders managed to cause by what currently is not more than a bluff, and what this tells us about ourselves and our leaders, and societies. that it has turned into a long discussion of Islam itself again, was not really my intention. So maybe we ( and I :) )could focus on the topic then and stop testing Neal's patience any longer. ;)

And all what has been said about Islam here - by me in attack, and others in defense - has been said many times before throughout the past three years anyway. so, it is not really any new.

peterloo

03-21-08, 10:25 AM

I'll try to get the topic back on track

It is a worrying trend to see, Muslims having conflict with Christian country, and vice versa.

Clearly, it is vital for us to respect each other's religion. It is inappropriate, for anyone of us, to offend each other's religion. This is vital in the world, since all of us hold different beliefs

What some of the mass media is currently doing, is offending Islamatic religion. Doing this, not only offends others but also devaluates one's dignity. Furthermore, at this moment, when the radical Islamatic groups are rampant and hostile to Westen government, it would be wise for anyone to stop offending them since creating these stuff, does nothing good except degrading one's dignity and creating another enemy out of air.

Skybird

03-21-08, 11:01 AM

Couldn't disagree more. If I offend "radical Islamic groups", as you called them I couldn'T care less, and if they turn violent, okay - then confront them on their own stupid terms that turn them towards violence. what you essentially recommend is that the threat of violence, the Islamic bullying of non-Islamic societies and trying to intimidate them - should be rewareded by falling back, giving them what they want, and respect them in their aggressive behavior that is a mixture of lacking control of temper, primitve mind setting, straight stupidity and murderous hysteria.

Avoiding conflict at all costs is no virtue, Peterloo. some fights need to be fought, for things are at risk that are too precious to hand them over only in order to avoid conflict at all cost. weakness is no virtue, never, for it always reduces your options, and limits you ability to act by free will. when you are weak, you must agree to do what you are being forced by the other to do. when you are weak, you do not have the strength to follow what you want to do by free will. You may even be forced to do what you consider to be the wrong thing, for you are not strong enough to follow what you consider to be the prinrciples you think of as being right. Weakness is never anything else than weakness. The americans have a wonderful saying, somethign that Rooseveelt said, and I like that quote very much: "Always speak with a low voice and have a strong club with you." It means do not search conflict, do not foolishely launch conflict over things that are not worth it - but be prepared to fight any moment, for you do not know the other's mind, and you may not wish to surrender to his demands, and you cannot know if somebpody already lies in waiting to assault you, depsite your noble, well-meant thinking. Or to sum it up with Shakespeare: "Readiness is all." Accepting weakness as such and considering it to be adorable and okay and not wanting to change it, puts disgrace on the person willing to do so. Being weak is a fate many cannot avoid, and the shame does not lie in the fact itself. But trying to declare it a virtue, a glory, a fame - that is most disgusting, and a shame indeed. Being strong, incrasing your options thta way, but act responisbly despite your strength - that is the way to go, that is a sign of deserved fame, and sense of responsibility.

By the attitude I see at work on a wide general scale today, I am glad and feel lucky that Hitler haunted my country 70-80 years ago and not today, becasue today nobody would have the spine and guts anymore to confront the Nazis and even go to war to prevent europe turning into the questionable glory of 1000 years of German Reich.

Avoiding conflict at all cost is no priority of mine, but securing certain objectives - that is my priority. If these can be won without conflict - okay, fine, I'm all for it, I am pragmatic and economic. If not, I accept conflict as well. As little conflict as possible, but as much as is needed to make sure certain essential key objectives are achcieved. Acchieving the objectives - that is my priority. In this europe of peace-drunken, lulled and bored people who do not value peace and freedom becasue they never had to live without it and thus easyheaded waste it with both hands and give it away all too foolishly, I necessarily must me perceived as a radical, becasue by the standards of this society, my determination cannot escape to be perceived as just that. Must I care for that, and change my mind just because of that? Certainly not.

peterloo

03-21-08, 07:32 PM

Skybird, of course, I agree with using (minimal) force to retilate those terrorist groups (like al-Queda) in case that the key objectives cannot be obtained via peafceful means

If one country is going to wage war on another, the country attacked should not retaliate, in my point of view. But what these peoples are doing is just provocative, as I see.

I'm not avoiding conflict, I'm just trying to condemn a minority of people who offend others religion and try to bring unstability to the general public, this includes discrimination towards others, or trying to create groups of people who are unfriendly to each other, which results from their foolish act

I understand that my final statement
when the radical Islamatic groups are rampant and hostile to Westen government, it would be wise for anyone to stop offending them since creating these stuff, does nothing good except degrading one's dignity and creating another enemy out of air.
might imply an avoidance of conflict by pleasing the radical Muslims.
However, as what we see, the newspaper which posted a offensive cartoon concerning Muhammed did caused trouble, not only to the editor who published it but to the government officials (who is olibigated to protect the editor) and his friends, his family, who are completely innocent in this event but are at stake of being killed by radicals, because of this foolish act. That's like, offending others' religion = offend your family + friends.
It is just like nobody is first agressive towards you since you were first neutral. But your action provocated others and make another person hostile to you. This person is the enemy created by you.

peterloo

03-21-08, 08:16 PM

You're being far too much "politicaly correct". I'll narrow the answer to the cartoons : carricatures are meant to be disrespectful. Most politics are carricatured, some of them drawings being far more offensive than the "Islam cartoons" which were actually not really "good" for carricatures. Yet I don't remember of any politic burning down the house of a cartoonist, do you ?

I am sometimes too down to earth when I consider the events.

If you consider those carricature, yes, they are offensive, I must admit, especially in point of view from the government. However, I believe, as they are aimed towards a policy, the polics do not get offended as they might consider that it is another comment towards a policy. No policy is perfect, so there must be some people agreeing that and disagreeing that. That means a new policy must be welcomed by some while criticized by others. Furthermore, they probably have got used to that.

However, it might be another story when it comes to religion. Islamatic religion, is the second greatest religion in the world. With millions of followers, I must say that some of them will get flamed and angry by that, since they are peaceful while being tagged as radical, the God they believe in is friendly while being labelled as hostile.

Maybe I make a analogy as well:
If I say John Bush's "No child left behind" policy is completely nonsense, John Bush won't get mad on me, probably because he has got used to critisms
However, if I say that all USA people are nonsense because John Bush's nonsense policy, I'm sure some people will get mad on me

This, the difference between the number of people concerned, perhaps, makes the difference.

Good analogy through. I havn't considered viewing the event in this way before :)

Happy Times

03-22-08, 12:05 AM

If you consider those carricature, yes, they are offensive, I must admit, especially in point of view from the government. However, I believe, as they are aimed towards a policy, the polics do not get offended as they might consider that it is another comment towards a policy. No policy is perfect, so there must be some people agreeing that and disagreeing that. That means a new policy must be welcomed by some while criticized by others. Furthermore, they probably have got used to that.

However, it might be another story when it comes to religion. Islamatic religion, is the second greatest religion in the world. With millions of followers, I must say that some of them will get flamed and angry by that, since they are peaceful while being tagged as radical, the God they believe in is friendly while being labelled as hostile.

So they are peaceful but cartoons can make them radical and violent?:dead:

Maybe I make a analogy as well:
If I say John Bush's "No child left behind" policy is completely nonsense, John Bush won't get mad on me, probably because he has got used to critisms
However, if I say that all USA people are nonsense because John Bush's nonsense policy, I'm sure some people will get mad on me

This, the difference between the number of people concerned, perhaps, makes the difference.

Good analogy through. I havn't considered viewing the event in this way before :)

So what, will they burn an embassy?:doh: Im wondering what makes people this soft that they wont defend their freedoms. I could make an analogy how they probaly are walked all over in their private life also.:hmm:

PeriscopeDepth

03-22-08, 01:39 AM

Well Skybird, I'm tired and need to hit the post button. Let me know if any of this doesn't make sense, we'll go from here I guess!

This argument we're having is concerning two points, at least as I see it. Identity; and to what standards you hold a religion, or more precisely what standards you hold those that identify themselves with that religion

If you hold people to a religious standard that is absolutely stringent, in fact the same standard as the extremists do, what are you accomplishing? That is what you seem to do when you say true Muslims are all extremists. As it stands now perhaps, but if the western world gives them that definition, does that not alienate the moderates? We HAVE to give the moderates a way to be accepted without them having to change the word of god in the face of their conservative enemies. We put the moderates between a rock and a hard place when using terms like Islamo facism. It simply fuels the argument that their conservative enemies make.

The trouble with saying that not everyone who thinks they are Muslim is Muslim is a big one. Largely because the process of converting to Islam is more or less THINKING of yourself as a Muslim and uttering a few words. Labels become very important here. Those who label themselves as Muslims and are in fact "moderate Muslims", not "true" Muslims by your definition become become rather angry when you assault their spiritual identity, as anyone would. And again, alienating the moderates just isn't a good idea. Just gives more credibility to the conservatives. I mean, great, you've made a fine technical point by stating that most who identify themselves as Muslims and Christians are not technically because of their religious texts. But it doesn't accomplish anything. Those religious texts are thousands of years old, and robbing someone of their identity because they don't follow them to a T is just counterproductive.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that some of the core principals of Islam are born of an age where tribal banditry was the norm (and was until very recently). Context in formation of religion is very important. Islam was expansionist not because Mohammed was an evil guy, but because it had to be to survive. Christianity was forgiving because the Jews of the Roman era had already accepted their place as second class citizens (very established second class citizens, but second class none the less), and "turn the other cheek" was a value of the time as tribal warfare was just as big a value in the context of the tribes of the Arabian penninsula.

You remark that Islam is fundamentalism. But really, what religion is this not true of? Those who wish to claim the "true" credentials of ANY religion will always trend towards fundamentalism. This is true both in Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The problem of religion; unlike, say the US constitution, is that the constitution is widely accepted as a "living document". Religious texts simply will never be, because you can't just go ahead and change the "word of god" to fit the times as easily as you can the constitution. Yet, Christians have managed to do this GRADUALLY over time. Not by literally changing the text, but widely accepting that it doesn't need to be followed literally.

You say: "Christianity formed a tradition of splitting into several sects and churches, some branches being not as strict as others, but in islam, this is a big no-no. Muhammad wanted to keep his community (his power basis) together at all cost, and for that totalitarian control and uniformity, no chance for rebellion by threatening apostacy with death (like Mafia does today, for example), it was necessary to rule out any chance to ever leave Islam (muhammad's party) alive, or not to follow the cult completely."

By formed a tradition, you mean experienced several centuries of the worst warfare mankind had seen to that point? It was a pretty big f'in "no-no" for Christians at first as well! I think you take the Christian church splitting into sects and becoming moderate a little lightly. It took a lot! Of time, argument, and blood. This ended with several Christian sects, and even the grandfather sect (Catholicism) was moderated over time. Something that hasn't happned to the Islamic religion for many reasons, not because those that "run" the religion are inherently evil. But because the conditions that surround them have caused them to act inherently evil to survive. As I recall, one of the events that caused such reform in the Catholic church was the Crusades. Young men were being sent to die by religious figures promising them entry into heaven. These Christian religious figures used religion as a mean of politics. Furthering their own causes and that of their allies under the name of god, which is pretty hard to argue with. Eventually, this caused a turning point in the Christian faith. One that lead to moderation and several different sects. I'm not saying that Islam is there now, but I think they're getting to that point. It's hard not to see the parallels unless you are trying not to.

PD

Foxtrot

03-22-08, 04:14 AM

Foxtrot

03-22-08, 05:04 AM

Skybird

03-22-08, 10:41 AM

Skybird, of course, I agree with using (minimal) force to retilate those terrorist groups (like al-Queda) in case that the key objectives cannot be obtained via peafceful means

I did not say "minimum force". I said "as much force as is needed. That is something totally different.

If one country is going to wage war on another, the country attacked should not retaliate, in my point of view. But what these peoples are doing is just provocative, as I see.
Aha. Well, not with me. I don'T tell everybody he shoudl. attack me, but if he does, I strike back as hard and quick as I can to make the attacker combat-incapable as soon as possible.
Or imagiennthis: Russia not dfeending against germany in WWII. america not fighting agsint Japan after pearl Harbour. Etc etc etc. I fear you are very illusory.

I'm not avoiding conflict, I'm just trying to condemn a minority of people who offend others religion and try to bring unstability to the general public, this includes discrimination towards others, or trying to create groups of people who are unfriendly to each other, which results from their foolish act
Tolerance must know limits. To tolerate something means to know what is "us". By that standard, "us", you decide what to tolerate, and what not. If you tolerate all and everythinbg, no matter if it is deserved or not, no matter if it valuable or not, no matter if it threatenin you or not, you goive up your own identity, becasue when you tolerate everything, you no longer can make a difference between what is "us" and what is "not us". Also, tolerating what is of bad and evil, is not tolerance, but a crime, and actively supports this evil.

the newspaper which posted a offensive cartoon concerning Muhammed did caused trouble, not only to the editor who published it but to the government officials (who is olibigated to protect the editor) and his friends, his family, who are completely innocent in this event but are at stake of being killed by radicals, because of this foolish act.
totally the other way around. what you do is decalring the vitim the perpetrator. Not the newspaper cause dtrouble, they practice their freedom of free speech one year ago, and in recent weeks showed their soldiarity to defend this precious value for which our ancestors have fought and suffered miserbaly over decades and centuroies, amongst other freedom for which they payed with blood and life. Who is causing troubles is those you call the redicals. The newspapers are not the probplem. That redi9cals try to inditmadte them silence thewm, make them subjugate to their opinion of what they should be allowed and what not - that is the problem causing troubles.

That's like, offending others' religion = offend your family + friends. It is just like nobody is first agressive towards you since you were first neutral.
Islam is not neutral. Islam wants to rule, and wants it all. In no way it is neutral and tolerant. I have explained that often enough now.

But your action provocated others and make another person hostile to you. This person is the enemy created by you.
Nonsens. If we live in our homes and culture the way we do, this is our right, and shows our cultural identity, our history, the set of values and morals and laws and freedoms that define what we call the West, or our home, our culture. Foreigners coming into our homes, have do adapt to that, or have to lave. And in other countries and cultures, they have to accept that we do not have any oblöigation ro run our home, our culture the way they run theirs. It is not that we have infiltrated for example Pakistani newspapers and made them print these cartoons. It were our newspapers, inside our culture, inside our homes. And they did not any different than ölike they do with events and issues from our own homes and culture. also note, that no other group cocntsnatly, by routine and regularity, causes such troubles, like Idslamic communities, it alsw<ys seems to be them. We have plenty of asian here in Europe, too. koreans - no problem. Chinese, Taiwanese, no problpem. Japanese: no problem. We have South Americans: no problem. north Americans: no problem, and neighbours fromn european countries: no problem. But whenever there is an uproar about the West commanded to chnage and bend accoridng to another culture'S norm and views, you can bet that it is Islam. And that is no generalization, or undiscriminatpory racism. It simply is an empirical truth. But IOslamic foreigners have only rigzht that we shall not interfere witzh their values and habits inside their own home nations where they came from. They do not ujhave any rigzht at all to tell us that we must accept Islam'S views to limit our own habits and freedoms. Again: this is our culture and history, our homes and values, our ethical and philosphical tradition. And Islam has to piss off here when it wants to mess with these. It has no tradition and no rights and no demands to make at all in our Western home culture. And while it nevertheless ripllefires demands and demands at us - it refuses and reciprocity ina cting like it demand sfrom us to act, and rejects most if not all of those rights to foreign cultures and religions in Islamic countries, that it yells to demand for itself here in our western home culture. Cannot become any home hypocritical, and arrogant.

Don't always tell me we have consense, and how much we agree, you and me. we have no consens, and we do not agree at all. ;) No use in trying to ignore that.

Skybird

03-22-08, 11:12 AM

If you consider those carricature, yes, they are offensive, I must admit, especially in point of view from the government.
They are bdaly drawn, boring, and by far not en par with some other carricatures we usually see in newspapers regarding worl poltics oru own own businesses.

However, I believe, as they are aimed towards a policy, the polics do not get offended as they might consider that it is another comment towards a policy. No policy is perfect, so there must be some people agreeing that and disagreeing that. That means a new policy must be welcomed by some while criticized by others. Furthermore, they probably have got used to that.
However, it might be another story when it comes to religion. Islamatic religion, is the second greatest religion in the world. With millions of followers, I must say that some of them will get flamed and angry by that, since they are peaceful while being tagged as radical, the God they believe in is friendly while being labelled as hostile.
No Islam, is no peaveful "relgion", neitzher is it'S God (a deity that absically is a distortion of the God--concept of abrahamic religion, which was redesigned to fit into Muhammad's agenda. In other words: it is highly opportunistic a concept, and reflects all what is of bad and evil in man'S soul, calling for war, conquest, subjugation, and threatening terrible revenge in case you do question the legitimicy of this concept, or do not obey this God). A friendly God? make a reality check, man.

Maybe I make a analogy as well:
If I say John Bush's "No child left behind" policy is completely nonsense, John Bush won't get mad on me, probably because he has got used to critisms
However, if I say that all USA people are nonsense because John Bush's nonsense policy, I'm sure some people will get mad on me

Again make a reality check. Your cenctp of what Islam is, how frienedly, tolerant and peaceloving, is nonsens. And history proves it wrong as well. Not because Islam was violtated - but becasue it was followed. this is a differtence that hardly can be stressed to often and too much: violence and wars of agression of Christian nations are not becasue Jesus called for it, but took place due to explciit violation of Jresus' message. Conquest and military agression, discirmination and subjugation of ithers in Islam is not in violation of muhammad's will and the Quran - but by following it and being obedient to it. Islam did not only defend against the house of war, as the world of infidels (all world where Islam is not present i the house of war) is called, but in principle makes fighting aginst it aggressively a precodntion for it's concepot of war ever become relaised in some distant future: peace is wehre nothing is left than Islam, deleting anything that is not Islam is bringing peace.

And this ideology first captured the old Roman christian provinces by force and aggression - and then had the nerve to tell Christianity until today that it's efforts to win back what had been lost to Islamic conquest was an agression by Europe! Ha...! Orthodox Islam until today demands to be given bacxk provinces in Spain and Southern Europe! becasue it is islam'S claim that every place that it ever has conqured and put it's foot on shall be it's own until all end of time, and every place that ever was subjugates shall never be given up and shall never be accepted to ebcome non-Islamic again. that is part of Islam'S doctrine.

This, the difference between the number of people concerned, perhaps, makes the difference.
Not for me. Content that I compare to my knowlege and earlies life experience and my standards decides about what I perceive as right and wrong - neither masses yelling in the street, nor some ideology telling me it demands my culture to obey it's own foreign rules. If numbers where making the difference, then I mist conclude that Hitler was right, because so many jubliated him in the beginning.

I will never understand why some farmer on the other side of the world must think it is his business what people on the other side of the planet are doing in their own home, and how they run their culture. I also will not forget why some peoppe critice so willingly th eoh so hurting offending of islam - but compeltely forgive and ognore the daioly ofgending of Jews in Muslim medias throughout the middle East, the dail hate speeches aginst the West and the the calls for war and murder of christians, and that currently a TV sow in Palestine indoctrinates small children to hate Jews by having a children's magazine with a funny rabbit - which has an exploisve belt aroiund the waste and teaches how wonderful it is to massacre Jews.

well, THAT is offensive, and hurting the human dignity. And it shows why this one cartoon showing Muhammad's head as a bomb is so damn true - becasue Islam really has o much aggressivenbess and violence on it's mind indeed. No other rleigon or poltical ideolgy has caused so many wars and fought so bitterly, like Islam. No other idoelgy ever launched such a long-lasting, successful military conquest, as islam did after muhammad's death. This shoud, be taken into account when making such noise about these cartoons. But they make noise about it, becasue experience tells them that by that they can make wetswrn stepping back another couple of steps - again.

And nor forget that many cartoons showed up in the Eastern nations, that the Danes were accused to have prouced, but instead they havent. many people in the Eats protesting against the csrtoons haven'T seen a single on of them. And other have seen cartoons that never had been drawn, but were created by Islamic hate-prtechers and demagogues who said they brought them from Denmark, but inf act have prudced them themselves to inflame more public riots and aggression of the masses against theWest - to give the west greater trouble.

So when they threaten to burn themselves in protest - I will be the first who will happily hand them the matches. Self-burning is no argument I mjst respect, or even must take note of. It only is one of many illustration how much hysteria and stupidity islam is causing in some people's mind. But agreed, this is the case with fundamentalists of other religions as wel - but that does not make Islam any less dangerous.

Skybird

03-22-08, 01:03 PM

Oh damn NO!!!

PD,
I had written a thorough answer, for one hour, adressing all your points and making it a clean and round a package, really. we would have disagreed on some and agreed on other things, but you would have liked it.

And then I hit the amazon-button which is directly placed over the page-menu button where i wanted to paste and copy it all to notepad before posting the file, just in case the text get lost while the forum software is messing up.

It's all lost.

And I am sorry, but after already have written two other longer replies I do not feel like wishing to write it all again. Maybe tomorrow. Sorry.

Scheiße.

when expecting longer writings, I mostly write i Notepad and then insert it here, I rarely forget that and write in the forum window. but when I do forget it, in two of three times something bad happens.

Of course, it never happens with one-liners.

PeriscopeDepth

03-22-08, 01:20 PM

Happy Times

03-22-08, 01:42 PM

But we have a tv series making ridicule of the church and pope, and not speaking for your country that i dont know: in germany we have critical cartoons in newspapers whenever something on church policies is being reported. and sometimes they even do not stop at naking jokes about jesus hanging ´from the cross.

not to mention monthy python's life of brian.

So it says: "Look, we have a freedom of speech. We can insult our own so we have a ticket to insult yours." :shifty:

I yet need to see a drawing of Jesus (gently pushing kid's head downwards toward his groin region after having surreptitiously withdrawn his manhood from his pants) by a Middle Eastern artist.

Just Google..:roll:
And the Jylland Posten cartoons didnt have one either?:hmm: Though Muhammed was a pedophile, it wasnt normal even in thosedays that you had sex with 7yo children.

That picture is an insult you infidel crusader!!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/muslimspope.jpg

Have you checked if this pic is not photoshoped? Or you just copy and pasted like a brainless zombie from a bad B-movie? :stare:
I found two versions of one pic, which may have been posted here before.

No i didint because in the context it doesnt matter, it was humour...:doh:
The brainless Dhimmi is you for defending violonce over cartoons, but you probably would be against Christians rioting. And here is a video from the same demonstration your photoshopped picture came from, and what do they have written in their signs?:roll:
JIHAD AGAINST EUROPEAN CRUSADERS, EUROPE WILL PAY. YOUR ANNIHILATION IS ON ITS WAY., SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM etc...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs

And the original version is the one that says BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM. The one saying BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT is the photoshopped one, i understand why someone thought it would be funny. Do you feel better now that you know the truth?:p

http://www.net-games.biz/funny-pictures/pictures/1465.jpg

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/behead768453_1.jpg

Happy Times

03-22-08, 02:03 PM

I seriously don't think that hating Muslims folks is going to pay anyone's mortgage, solving anyone's personal problems, keeping corrupt politicians from running for elections, corporate scandals and frauds, controlling girlfriends and wives with nagging habbits...:damn:

It not about hate, its about standing up for our culture, heritage and freedoms.
Some people still give value to these things.

Skybird

03-22-08, 04:14 PM

If you have the time to try and redo your post, I look forward to reading it. :)

Will do that - but not tonight. ;)

Onkel Neal

03-22-08, 06:05 PM

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has said that while he rejects Wilders' views, he supports his freedom of speech — but warns him the film may put Dutch national interests at risk. Protesters in Afghanistan burnt Wilders in effigy on Friday and demanded Dutch troops withdraw from the NATO mission there.

Here we go again :)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23757212/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23757212/)

Happy Times

03-22-08, 07:54 PM

The movies site.

http://www.fitnathemovie.com/

:doh:

Im really getting angry, though i havent burned anything or threatned to kill anyone.:p

Happy Times

03-22-08, 08:11 PM

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West 1-10

Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Islam to Western civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television, it reveals an 'insiders view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FE5A96CBDC2582F7

bradclark1

03-22-08, 09:12 PM

Skybird

03-23-08, 06:26 AM

Thats why you do the long ones on Notepad first and then paste it onto the browser.:smug:
Yes, sure. Read my second last paragraph. I just don'T do it with short answers - or what I initially expect to become not more than short answers.

Well, length is relative... :88)

Skybird

03-23-08, 11:35 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7310439.stm

The US hosting service, Network Solutions, said it was investigating complaints that it may have breached guidelines on hate language.
Dutch politician Geert Wilders says the 15-minute film describes Islam as "the enemy of freedom".
The planned release has sparked angry protests in many Muslim countries.
The Dutch government has disassociated itself from Mr Wilders' views, but there are fears the film will spark protests similar to those that followed the publication in Denmark two years ago of cartoons seen as offensive to Muslims.
The film has already been condemned by several Muslim countries, including Iran and Pakistan.
Hate messages
Mr Wilders' film is entitled Fitna, an Arabic word used to describe strife or discord, usually religious.
Mr Wilders wrote a commentary in a Dutch newspaper on Saturday.
"The film is not so much about Muslims as about the Koran and Islam. The Islamic ideology has as its utmost goal the destruction of what is most dear to us, our freedom," he wrote in De Volkskrant.

"Fitna is the last warning for the West. The fight for freedom has only just begun," he said.
He had been using Network Solutions to promote the film.
But on Sunday, Network Solutions said it had received a number of complaints that were under investigation.
It said the site was suspended until it was established whether the content of the site violated Network Solutions' terms of acceptable use.
They include "material that is obscene, defamatory, libellous, unlawful, harassing, abusive... hate propaganda" and "profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature".
Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.

Bravo. Yelling the loudest once again pays off and gets you the constitutional protection for free speech getting cancelled. Today is a great win for Islam. Europe, and the fearful West in general, as usual will be too stupid to see, and will celebrate it's own freedoms and laws being turned against it in order to finally overthrow them and what they stand for. Stupid idiots.

But there will be the justice of karma: In the end, europe will not escape to get what it deserves by it's behavior, and if it gives up its freedoms so willingly - it will get to be freed of these freedoms indeed, well-deserved. If you cannot value freedom, you do not deserve freedom. No right then to complain about freedom being taken away from you.

At least we seem to know now that the film does exist for real.

P.S.,

PD, I'm sitting at it. Patience, please.

DeepIron

03-23-08, 11:44 AM

It not about hate, its about standing up for our culture, heritage and freedoms. Some people still give value to these things.
Or at least try to... I don't give in to Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus or Mormons for that matter... Not me brother...

Nor do I go out of my way to force my views, social or otherwise, on anyone. Live and let live, each will meet his/her Maker one on one someday...

Skybird

03-23-08, 12:03 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7310439.stm
Bravo. Yelling the loudest once again pays off and gets you the constitutional protection for free speech getting cancelled. Today is a great win for Islam. Europe, and the fearful West in general, as usual will be too stupid to see, and will celebrate it's own freedoms and laws being turned against it in order to finally overthrow them and what they stand for. Stupid idiots.

But there will be the justice of karma: In the end, europe will not escape to get what it deserves by it's behavior, and if it gives up its freedoms so willingly - it will get to be freed of these freedoms indeed, well-deserved. If you cannot value freedom, you do not deserve freedom. No right then to complain about freedom being taken away from you.

At least we seem to know now that the film does exist for real.

P.S.,

PD, I'm sitting at it. Patience, please.

I think it's even worse than a victory for Islam, it's also a victory for people like Wilders and all his counterparts in other countries. Now they can take the pose of the victims and get sympathy for their overall stinky ideas.
The whole thing is so stupid, I can't believe it.

Nice way to turn the thing by 180°. But I do not know Wilders and his political goals, and I say it is unimportant what the film contains and says. That it is neither Chrstianity, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, Atheism, and other religious -ism, nor politcal left, centre, right parties being so successful to make the West bendind over to willing to get spanked again, and that it is always Islam taking this course, unhindered from the socalled moderates - this is the one point. the other point is that it has been successfully demonstrated that by intimidation and threat you can very easily make the West to surrender it's most precious constitutional rights and freedoms, and effectively capitulate to the violent dogma of the attacker. I wonder why we are so proud that our ancestor have suffered and fought so long and misrableyto gain these rights against bitter opression from medieval church and political nationalism - when we throw them out of the window so happily just because some little nothing from the stoneage yells "Give up your freedom and become like me, or I will not like you anymore!"

As it is said: if you want to stop a huge crowd and make them flee or surrender - just block the road with four or five thugs in black shirts who put on their leather gloves pointedly.

But why runnign away, when one can fight and defeat them?

Happy Times

03-23-08, 01:07 PM

I was saying that if the governments in charge are being weak on that sort of problem with islamists, they give room to our own extremists.

I have said this also, if goverments wont step up, the violent conflict will start at some point.
But probably it will still start in the near future anyway, no way to stop anymore.

DeepIron

03-23-08, 01:19 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/23/dutch.koran.ap/index.html

It's total hypocrisy. And moreover, if Network Solutions gives in, it will simply set a precedent and open the doors to other groups to demand the same treatment if they feel they been maligned or mistreated.

BTW, I for one WILL watch it if it's ever released. Then I will make up MY OWN MIND as to the "truthfulness" it contains.

Happy Times

03-23-08, 01:41 PM

BTW, I for one WILL watch it if it's ever released. Then I will make up MY OWN MIND as to the "truthfulness" it contains.

Excatly!:up:

DeepIron

03-23-08, 01:51 PM

Quoting from BBC:
The planned release has sparked angry protests in many Muslim countries.
A. Then ban the showing of the film in YOUR COUNTRY.
B. If Muslims are trying to say "they are not the enemies of freedom", then prove it and stop killing those who exercise their free rights.

It said the site was suspended until it was established whether the content of the site violated Network Solutions' terms of acceptable use.
They include "material that is obscene, defamatory, libellous, unlawful, harassing, abusive... hate propaganda" and "profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature". So now, Network Solutions becomes the determining agent of what content is right and what is wrong?

If so, and they pull the site, then I suggest we start a campaign that forces ALL porn sites hosted by NS to be shutdown. Why? Because porn is offensive...

AG124

03-23-08, 04:53 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2008/03/16/russian-cartoons.html

Found this on CBC a while ago - thought it might be relevant here. I personally find this even more troubling than violent Islamic protests against offences to their own religion - they have no right to protest against even that, IMO, but this doesn't even affect their religion. They just want to ban other people from watching because it is in opposition with their beliefs - very concerning but not at all surprising, I guess. Ultra conservative Christians appear to be involved this time too.

@ Skybird - you appear to have already addressed this earlier, and I usually don't get involved in these types of discussions, but I wanted to ask you opinion in regards to something you and Periscopedepth were discussing on page 3:

If there are moderates indeed, I drmand them not to remain silent, but to stand up and fight against the evil within their muslim community, rip many pages out of the Quran, make certain primnciples regarding ethics and values obligatory and madatory and integrated part of Islam'S message - which would mean to stop Islam being Islam, of course. As long as they do not do that, Islam in egenral bcomes stronger by the number of heads in their families, and thus I need to see them as neither supportive, nor true in saying they want to respect those parts of our values they have accepted from Western culture (at least they say). some things do not go together. What is a liberal Nazi? A democratic stalinist? A humanistic Muslim? you eithersupoort Islam, or you don'T, just ripping it apart and picking what you like, and refuse the others content - that is not possible in Islam. You should have understood by my earlier replies that Muhammad wanted to prevent especially this falling apart, and falling into subgroups, and islam'S laws reflect that. the main factor of power and strength in Islam is it's monolithic unity - and this is not design by random chance, but was muhammad's intention. Unity mans strength, strength means to enforce unity, no matter how, no matter the cost. That is why apostcy is under thread of death penalty. Once Islam owes you, it owes you forever. Once a member of the honourable family, you leave it only throgh death. Once in the infnary trench, you either fight or get court-martialed and executed. It'S the same pattern and the same intention in all three examples: strength by (totalitarian) unity, unity by strength.

If you hold people to a religious standard that is absolutely stringent, in fact the same standard as the extremists do, what are you accomplishing? That is what you seem to do when you say true Muslims are all extremists. As it stands now perhaps, but if the western world gives them that definition, does that not alienate the moderates? We HAVE to give the moderates a way to be accepted without them having to change the word of god in the face of their conservative enemies. We put the moderates between a rock and a hard place when using terms like Islamo facism. It simply fuels the argument that their conservative enemies make.

The trouble with saying that not everyone who thinks they are Muslim is Muslim is a big one. Largely because the process of converting to Islam is more or less THINKING of yourself as a Muslim and uttering a few words. Labels become very important here. Those who label themselves as Muslims and are in fact "moderate Muslims", not "true" Muslims by your definition become become rather angry when you assault their spiritual identity, as anyone would. And again, alienating the moderates just isn't a good idea. Just gives more credibility to the conservatives. I mean, great, you've made a fine technical point by stating that most who identify themselves as Muslims and Christians are not technically because of their religious texts. But it doesn't accomplish anything. Those religious texts are thousands of years old, and robbing someone of their identity because they don't follow them to a T is just counterproductive.
I don't think this is exactly what PeriscopeDepth was saying, but should we encourage 'moderate' muslims to dissect violent parts of their religion and basically make it into something technically (but presumably illegitimately so in the eyes of true islam) peaceful? I know that if they did so, the product would no linger be something which could truly be called islam, as I accept your (Skybird) thesis that Islam is an ideology which is rooted in violence and crushing control of its subjects - I am not arguing that Islam can legitimately be made peaceful. I am also not arguing that this is the case in western society right now - for every 'moderate' muslim that urges restraint from violence their appear to be thousands screaming for our blood (I remember a story on CBC once about a 'moderate' muslim in Ontario(?) who was publicly urging Islamic moderation, but had to go into hiding because of the overwhelming surge of threats from other muslims against him, his wife and children because of his anti-violent message (or something close to that - I don't know where the story is now).

Basically, what I asking is should we try to encourage a watered-down, illegitimate, fake, and peaceful version of islam? As you have argued, such a vision of Islam would no longer be true to the Koran, but I personally don't care if muslims truly follow their faith or not - someone can believe in the great green flying spaghetti monster for all I care, as long as they are not trying to force me to accept it or using it as a launching pad from which to make threats to spill my blood. Or is this even possible? And if it is, how should we go about it? And if not - well, what exactly should western society do, other than refusing to given in to selfish islamic demands everytime those demands are trust in its face?

BTW - one last note; it is interesting that pretty much the only person I have ever known who has spoken out against islam was an arab student from Pakistan who isn't religious himself - he said in one of our classes that he's personally heard (on several occasions) muslims sitting around just laughing at Canadians for accepting everything they demand, and declaring that it is only a matter of time until Canadian society falls apart (I'm not making this up, and I don't think he was either) - his point was that they were not integrating into Canadian society after moving here as he believed they should. He also said that islam is not interested in tolerating the beliefs of others, and there was no way that islam would ever accept equality for women in any form (our topic for that week in legal philosophy). Our professor (who is very liberal), looked frightened and asked him to stop.

:-?

Forgive me if this has been addressed before - I just feel more and more afraid when I see news reports with constant islamic demands, threats, and riots directed at various western societies and when most people around here (not on this forum - in RL) appear to be pretending it is not happening or look frightened when someone tries to talk about it, or state that the majority or mulsims encourage peace and integration while only a handful of non-conforming ones cause trouble (when it always seems to be the other way around to me). I just don't know what to do anymore.

:-?

Happy Times

03-23-08, 05:19 PM

I just don't know what to do anymore.

You are not alone in that feeling.

Skybird

03-23-08, 06:03 PM

Actually I didn't mean to turn anything, just saying that it's 2 birds hit with one stone. Giving away freedom of speech is unacceptable and I felt sorry for the hosts when I saw this morning that the website was down, with some gibberish about complaints and bla bla bla. I sure agree about people being too "soft" when it comes to their rights, and that's not only on the islam matter.
I was saying that if the governments in charge are being weak on that sort of problem with islamists, they give room to our own extremists.
Ah, that clears it up a bit - I see where you were aiming at. I agree, indeed often say that over here with regard to governmental policies failing and the right wing becoming stronger especially in Eastgerman areas.

Skybird

03-23-08, 06:10 PM

AG124,

as I said a long reply to PD got lost yesterday before I could post it, but I am sitting at doing a second, and thorough reply. I apologize in advance for its length, but so far this discussion here keeps to be civil and fair, and PD showed good will to understand me and I intend to honour that on equal terms and show as much good will to make clear where I come from and why, in reply to the points in his last posting. I also enjoy him and me agreeing on some and disagreeing on other things without him or me becoming angry at each other - that's really good, and fair doing.

I also will try hard to keep the number of typos low. :lol:

If you could have some patience, you maybe get your answer in my reply to PD. Else, ask again then. ;)

Let'S keep this dicussion as civil as it has run so far , guys :up: , then this could continue as a really good thread.

Skybird

03-23-08, 06:14 PM

BTW, I for one WILL watch it if it's ever released. Then I will make up MY OWN MIND as to the "truthfulness" it contains.
Me to, but as I alraedy said I do not consider the content of the movie to be the deciding issue at all. The reaction he managed to cause is the really important issue. I prefer free speech - even when producing some foul results - to even just partial censorship : where there is honey, you have to deal with the bees, so it goes. the only exception I am willing to make is Nazi propaganda - due to 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust and millions more killed in Europe during WWII being a convincing and proven historical argument why there is no argument left to allow Nazi propaganda.

At least that is the legal situation in germany.

AG124

03-23-08, 06:17 PM

@ Skybird - I am a very patient person.:) I remember you mentioning the error on page 3 and losing a post; I look forward to reading it in its completed form,

Happy Times

03-23-08, 06:19 PM

BTW, I for one WILL watch it if it's ever released. Then I will make up MY OWN MIND as to the "truthfulness" it contains. Me to, but as I alraedy said I do not consider the content of the movie to be the deciding issue at all. The reaction he managed to cause is the really important issue. I prefer free speech even producing some foul results to censorship - where there is honey, you have to deal with the bees. the only exception I am willing to make is Nazi propaganda - due to 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust and millions more killed in Europe during WWII being a convincing and proven historical argument why there is no argument left to allow it.

at least that is the legal situation in germany.

Well if someone is preaching genocide it probably is against the law in any western country. The question is why are the Islamist allowed to continue theirs? :hmm:

Happy Times

03-23-08, 06:53 PM

Opinions on this film? I thought it was rather balanced at gives a good picture of the threat.

Skybird

03-23-08, 07:21 PM

Three active Islam-threads may be testing the mod's patience. Let's keep it together.

Steel_Tomb

03-24-08, 08:25 AM

With all due respect Skybird, why? Its hardly spam, I'd rather keep them separate so we can have different discussions on each subject, instead of just blurring it into one massive inconclusive thread.

I thought it was a very good documentary, I applauded it for its message that not all muslims are like this, which is good it would be a shame to alienate them in that manner. Opens your eyes to the threat the western world faces from Islamic extremism. With the number of asian countries, especially Iran close to becoming a nuclear power... I would be very worried about the technology and weapons that these deranged people will posses in the not so distant future. I was shocked to see Muslims on the streets of London making those speeches, I would have expected police with SMG's to take care of those mindless scum.:damn:

Takeda Shingen

03-24-08, 08:42 AM

Merged. We already have a thread on this topic.

The Management

Skybird

03-24-08, 01:05 PM

PD,
my promised in-depth reply.

This is one of the rare opportunities we talk about religion and islam here without leaving it to shortcuts and catchphrases and simplified abbreviated thoughts. Also I see some good will at work here to make oneself transparent for the other, and understand the other in return. I don’t think Neal will interrupt if it stays this way. So I think your reply deserves a thorough reply indeed, and thus tried to recapture what I have written and lost on saturday. Forgive the length, but you asked for it. At least I did not miss any of your points that way.

If you hold people to a religious standard that is absolutely stringent, in fact the same standard as the extremists do, what are you accomplishing? That is what you seem to do when you say true Muslims are all extremists. As it stands now perhaps, but if the western world gives them that definition, does that not alienate the moderates?
I do not give them that definition – Islam gives them that definition. Mind you that early this year for example turkey’s Erdogan angrily told the Western nations to stop offending Muslims by discriminating between moderate and radical Muslims, for that were truly offensive for Muslims indeed because their faith., he said, did not know such a difference. If you want to tell Muslims what Islam is while you being a Westerner, an infidel, a non-Muslim – you better address not me, but their speakers who make their comments unopposed by the wide majority of Muslims worldwide. I therefore pick the most likely explanation for that behaviour – and take it that they agree with him, and speakers like him. If that is not the case, they actively must fight that impression, and if they don’t, they shall not complain for being hold responsible for that behaviour they show. I am not willing to make it more complicated as long as I cannot see this explanation failing.

We HAVE to give the moderates a way to be accepted without them having to change the word of god in the face of their conservative enemies.
“We” have to? WHY? It is not our job to teach them, to change them, or push them around and into dogmatic frames that are creations of our own minds, but that do not have much in common with Islamic self-understanding that derives from it’s scriptures as well as the example set by Muhammad. In their nations, we can leave them alone (although they refuse to leave us alone in OUR nations). But where they move here, we have the right to demand them to comply with our standards, for me have no obligation to change in our homes according to their demands. If they don’t like it, they should pack their things and move back to where they came from. We do not have any obligation to change Islam, neither in the West, nor in the orient – if they feel disadvantaged by living according to Islamic standards of civilisation, it is up to them to change that, and making reforms from within their community. Also, I am absolutely sure that trying to change a foreign cultural context from outside, as an outsider and foreigner, does not only fail, but does more bad than good in this context of Islam. For Muhammad designed his privately invented cult especially with this on mind: to prevent weakening by communal fracture and falling apart. Changing their Muslim community’s basis without doubt will be painful an experience for them, but it is nevertheless themselves needing to make it through that. The West also had to go this way, and over centuries our ancestors suffered and fought bitterly – but there are no shortcuts in the usual evolutionary flow. See Ataturk, who tried to bypass in a revolutionary way. I told of my views and experiences in Turkey repeatedly, and I must say: his project failed, and most probably was too weak to succeed from the very beginning. Today, the EU-Eurocrats are in the same position; and from a different direction: America as well. The EU is naive in assuming it has what it takes to change Islam, and America is naïve to think it could enforce democracy on the wide Islamic world – so far, these attempts have achieved the direct opposite of what was intended and strengthened the “radicals” only.

Also, you said we must give them alternatives without them needing to change the word of their god. But you ignore that the word of god cannot be changed by human, that would be heresy that causes aggression in Islam immediately, and the word they believe in is what it is. The Quran is untouchable, in principle. The mere thought of needing to “correct” it, change it, for true Muslims is almost unthinkable. Because: “is written” and “the Quran is the will of God that already existed before Muhammad came” (Muslims do not think of Muhammad as the founder of Islam, but the prophet declaring Allah’s will. And it is no friendly, well-meaning tolerant, peace-loving deity speaking here. Id you say they should be allowed to not change these words, you allow them to continue to believe in a message of conquest, aggression, megalomania and hate-filled intolerance against everything that is not Islamic. Because that was how Muhammad practiced, and thus how he constructed his deity to be. It is a brutal tyrant. How could you assume there could come any good from not putting this deity’s words into question? It MUST be put into question, and MUST be challenged. Sparing Islam from that need for too long is not the solution, but is the origin of all the trouble coming from Islam. You could as well say “we needed to fight tyrants like Hitler, without touching the ideology of Nazism and giving it a bad name”. You contradict yourself, that’s how I see it.

There is a lot of sweet words in the Quran that usually get focussed on, talking of peace and tolerance and a life of love and freedom – but people usually totally ignore the many “but” in it that bind these words to conditions that limit their meaning and/or validity. Yes, be peaceful to thy next and tolerant – but only if he submits to Islam. Stay away from raising your weapons if they do not attack you – but only when they accept to pay protection money and accept to be treated with discrimination and having not the same rights like Muslims have. Yes you are not allowed to commit suicide – but only when you fight the infidels and can kill them by an attack that sees your life ending: then you are allowed to accept killing yourself. Etc. – you see the pattern. I read the better part of Quran, the first three quarters, then I had enough – and it went like this from the beginning to the point where I stopped. – (In the second section, the prose has changed in style, is no longer given in complete texts the more you come to the end, but gives the impression to have been put down in haste, or uncompleteness, and whole Suras give the impressions to be notes for later chapters only, fragments of ideas for texts that were not realised.) - Possible only that there were a few passages between the sweet words, and the limiting conditions of their validity. That’s how it is, sorry. I did not write the damn thing.
We put the moderates between a rock and a hard place when using terms like Islamo facism. It simply fuels the argument that their conservative enemies make.
I do not use that term, and have often explained why. Fascism derives from a certain specific political party in Italy, or better a political movement of the so-called “black shirts”, and the term is embedded into that specific historical context in which Islam plays no role, while parts of it’s ideology and goals found there way into Germany, too, as we all know. I talk of totalitarianism, and both fascism and Islam are totalitarian. But not every form of totalitarianism is fascism, or Islam, nor is Islam fascism or vice versa.

You say we put them between a rock and a hard place. I say, if “moderate Muslim” means claiming to follow Muhammad’s teaching but nevertheless accepting and living by certain rules and values of foreign cultures – ours – that Islam is totally hostile to by definition and inner essence, then they choose that place all by themselves. That is – assuming they are real and not deceiving – a compliment for them, for they have realised that there are problems with Islamic teaching and they want to move beyond that. But then there is no reason why they still want to be seen as members of a cult that before they have said they see problems with. Because the additional values and freedoms they want to benefit from know no pendants in Islam, and are met with determined hostility by Muhammad.

The trouble with saying that not everyone who thinks they are Muslim is Muslim is a big one. Largely because the process of converting to Islam is more or less THINKING of yourself as a Muslim and uttering a few words. Labels become very important here. Those who label themselves as Muslims and are in fact "moderate Muslims", not "true" Muslims by your definition become become rather angry when you assault their spiritual identity, as anyone would.
“uttering a few words” – it is not possible to express enough contempt on an understanding that cultic rites like this are true spirituality, I more compare it to dancing around the golden cow and simple, comfortable superstition that does not put a workload or responsibility upon the believer. But we are not talking about Harry Potter here: spells mean nothing, and lip-confessions cannot replace deeds. But where the deed is talking for itself – speels are no needed anymore anyway. So why respect that nonsense? It helps to keep people caught by their own stupidity. You say I am not respectful. I see it like Kalil Gibran, a Lebanese poet: “They say to me when I see a sleeping slave I shall not waken him, for maybe he dreams of freedom. But I say if you see a sleeping slave – wake him and explain to him freedom.”.

Anyway, understand where I come from (sorry for the long excursion, but I think it is important if you want to understand me - if you think it is too long and you do not care for it anyway, simply ignore all what is in italic in the following):

As a baby, I was baptized, and “became” a baby-protestant, at least that’s what they tried to explain to me later. I already was wondering how that could be when I was quite young, and before I even went to school, but I was told that it is not adequate for a boy of my age to wrinkle my brow. Today, all that baptizing means nothing to me anymore, and I left church membership more than half my life ago. At least, leaving is possible! ;) That they nevertheless will claim to mean it well with you and care for your soul nevertheless while you slam the door in their face can be ignored as arrogant rethoric that comes as natural part of their agenda. :lol: Since I was not asked and could not decide back then, baptizing babies compares to a baby born in Islam that already is Muslim only by the fact that the parents were Muslim. And different to me, the Muslim baby later in his/her life cannot leave Islam without being threatened with death by Islamic law. Being baptized means nothing for me, and doing like this with babies I find disgusting and inhumane, and the claim of possession both the church and Islam claim to have over human beings who were not given a single word in it, should be attacked indeed, and I reject this practice totally, fully, uncompromisingly, and call it a barbaric, poisonous, inhumane infestation of the mind of those that are the most weak and defenceless: babies, and children. Shame on religion doing like this! It is a violation of man’s dignity, and it makes him a slave by declaring him a member no matter his will, and that way, making him a possession, an object – but defending that dignity of man is articulated in the very first of all the articles in the German constitution: “The dignity of man is untouchable”. It is Article 1 in our Grundgesetz. Let people grow up, learn, make their own choice later in their life – because only then they also can be held responsible for the decision they make. And that responsibility is vitally linked to what true freedom is, and justice.

At late elementary school, I founded a “Geheimclub”, a secret club with friends of my age I used to play with, and membership was achieved by light of a candle and swearing a holy oath and mumbling some magical spells and meaning it honest with all your heart. :lol: Infantile, without doubt. But the point to note here is: it were kids acting like this, it was me doing as best as I could by the range of my mindset of that time. I would have felt deeply hurt if somebody would have laughed about us, but today: I laugh myself. You see, I have moved beyond that. As I see it, many faithful people practicing such rites and all too often are limited to that alone – got stuck at that infantile stadium and children’s play. Missionizing I see in this light. And the way you become Muslim by mumbling spells about what you witness (without having been there) and what you believe (but do not know). Sorry, but that leaves me totally unimpressed and does not stop me from mocking about it. “The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon itself”, they say in Zen, but such behaviour excels in focussing on the finger. Cult and rites and believing never can or should try to replace true spiritual experiencing. And that dimension is missing in the churches, in Islam, and in all other institutionalised forms of religion – including many if not most Buddhist sects! I avoid all of that like the plague – that it all is indeed.

At Gymnasium (=high school, most likely) I repeatedly got banned for longer times from religious lessons – I was asking too many questions and expressed too much criticism of the teachers. “Was ein Häkchen werden will, krümmt sich beizeiten!” :lol: (German saying corresponding to „there is nothing like starting young“).

Also, I had my own mentor, who educated and trained me together with his son for many years both spiritually and regarding martial arts. This did not save me from becoming a rebellious juvenile and young adult who wanted to prove himself and try out new things. Having been educated by standards of Chinese Chan-Buddhism, Taoism and Christian mystic, all of these three not really being that totally different from each other, I nevertheless followed friends at university into “experimenting” with Tibetan Buddhism, in the Kagyu-lineage. There, after some time, I was “baptized” again, in German it is called “Einweihung”, I was given a Buddhist name and was welcomed as a new member of the Sangha (community of faithful). I formed a closer relation with one lama whom today I see in a critical light, he and two others then gave another honour to me and declared me to be one incarnation of the Mahakala, that is a powerful but positive guarding demon protecting the lineage from evil and dark demons, it had something to do with how they perceived me, meditation experiences, and a certain dream pattern that followed me for years and in which I used to draw evil beasts and demons into dense forest and slaughter them there in bitter fights. Others would have called these as nightmares, for me it felt quite naturally and exciting. They also took into account the translation of the Buddhist name they themselves had given to me before, and which translated into “ powerful fearless life”. Eh – pardon? That they had called me this in an arbitrary, controlled, decided act of their own – should be proof that I should be what they called me as and what they saw in me? That is a no-brainer for me, a self-fulfilling prophecy – today.

Back then, I was proudto the max, and I was proud to call myself “Buddhist” and being seen as a demonic safeguard :lol: But think yourself: being proud to be religious? Being proud to be member of a religious club? I don’t know about you, but today I can’t get true spirituality and being proud to be spiritual together – in no way. If you are proud to be spiritual, this is already the evidence that you are not spiritual at all, but are a hypocrite showing off.

In other words, I was a total fool, and an idiot-squared. I made ridicule of myself, really. Nobody laughs louder about me back then – than I do myself today.

But the former basic training payed off and led me back to the basics, and into independence from all these foolish cults and rites and beliefs. From second half of university years on, I trained people in Kum Nye, that is something from Tibet that compares to Tai Chi, but is more easy to learn, and also better supplements body-oriented psychotherapy, since it causes a lot of stress on your muscles. After these student rounds, I added Zen meditation and combined both, and in the past years I first “treated” (or trained or taught, however you want to call it) rehabilitation patients from stationary psychotherapy, which in the end led to totally free groups that were open for everybody, and saw patients slowly fading out, and ordinary people taking their places. All ages, both genders, a wide social spectrum, all in all I estimate I had around 250-300 people in the past years, but I have ended that some time ago by handing the lead over to therapist whom I knew from university, and who shares my general orientation. This summer, I’m about to start in free voluntary work in this field again, in association with a local psychiatry and – believe it – the local Protestant church. And yes, they know that I am atheist through and through. I do it for free, because of the simple fact that I can afford it. But it will be more focussed on psycho-therapy indeed, and less on meditation. The basic orientation I prefer are classic gestalt-therapy, Bioenergtics, existential analysis, Farrelly’s “provocative therapy” and Erickson’s hypno-therapy. I will have a special legal condition with the hospital (since I am not officially practicing and am not officially enlisted as hospital staff), and the test-run is planned for nine months. If the experience is good, I will have the option to extend the “engagement” and/or train others in my approach, who then take over. It will, by all reason, also depend a bit on my interests, and if I like to continue, or not. Because that choice I can afford, too, and after having worked for free already over several years, nobody shall point fingers at me.

I think this explains a bit how I see if not all world, so at least issues that deal with body, soul and mind – and it may explain my mind-setting of trying to be realistic and reasonable, maybe stoic, and it explains the standards to which I compare for example – religions.

Skybird

03-24-08, 01:06 PM

And again, alienating the moderates just isn't a good idea. Just gives more credibility to the conservatives. I mean, great, you've made a fine technical point by stating that most who identify themselves as Muslims and Christians are not technically because of their religious texts. But it doesn't accomplish anything. Those religious texts are thousands of years old, and robbing someone of their identity because they don't follow them to a T is just counterproductive.
But the willingness of others not to confront Islam for it’s inner contradictions, it’s historic record of aggressiveness and conquest and subjugation, and the inability and even lacking willingness of most Muslims to do that, allowed Islam in the past to grow, to spread and to become stronger, because nobody gave Islam any reason to question itself and eventually see any need to change. It never was forced to think critically about it, and those starting that inside Islam, for the most good murdered or landed in prison, some highly originally thinkers amongst these: human mind is not so easy to beat, you see. These potential reformists never saw as much support as they would have needed to succeed – or to survive. In a wider context, oil also plays a negative role here, because it allowed many Muslim nations to live by oil and form societies and wealth in the modern time that again does not force them to ask questions about wether their way of living culture really is that clever and survivable and competitive. There was no need to break through the historic fatalism the dogma is causing, and to develop their world beyond it. But “von nichts kommt nichts” = from nothing there originates nothing. They have their income, they can already live by it, their dogma tells them how and why to accept the social differences and injustices that are there and why to accept tyranny and that it all is not really important as long as all this serves the praising of Islam and spreading it’s causes - no need to adapt to other standards, ways of living, thinking, working – so no need for social reform, for education systems taking into account that there may be a world beyond Islam’s dogma. Pat Condell often says the problem with religion is not that it is not been given enough respect – but that it already has been given far too much respect and acceptance for it’s claims of things that are not it’s own. He is absolutely right in that. What you call for, I do not see as the remedy, but the cause of our troubles with Islam in special, and any form of fundamental religion in general. If you want to help Muslims reforming not Islam (that is not possible I think), but to reform their culture and societies to move beyond Islam and for a new, more pleasant form of religion and/or spirituality – you need to force them to confront the uncomfortable inner truths and contradictions in the dogma they believe in right now, you shall not allow another century passing by appeasing this dogma only, and seeing it grow and spread and learning another century that there is no need at all to ever change and ask questions about itself. You want to help Muslims develop their culture? Then confront them without compromise. I want to say that I managed to talk three or four former Muslims out of their religion that way, despite the very massive consequences this caused them with their families. They suffered more or less from these consequences, but none of them ever accused me for having fought with them sometimes very bitterly. As I see it, they turned into free thinkers, and gained a level of intellectual freedom and free life that really was worth it. Freedom is no right, but an ability that must be learned, and that must be taken when the opportunity arises, and that must be defended when it is threatened – but it is no right. Who says, where is it written that it is? Nature doesn’t know it, it only knows needs adaptation to these, or failure to do so, which means extinction. Muslims are not being born as dumb idiots – but Islam tries to turn them into dumb idiots by education. So, there is always - hm – most often :) – a rest of reason in most men’S mind that you can use to motivate them asking questions all by themselves. As the saying in Zen goes: “ small doubt: small awakening. Big doubt: big awakening. No doubt: no awakening”. Believing but not knowing is no virtue: it is a lethal disease. It also is no trust, because trust is coming from empirically justified experience. In “Kingdom of Heaven”, Sybilla sums it up so very nicely: “ Jesus said: decide! Muhammad said: submit! ”

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that some of the core principals of Islam are born of an age where tribal banditry was the norm (and was until very recently). Context in formation of religion is very important. Islam was expansionist not because Mohammed was an evil guy, but because it had to be to survive.
The man called for murder of critics, launched almost 70 wars and predatory raids against neutrals and enemies being inferior after the starting years, told people they only fear death because they do not know that getting killed in battle earns them so high credentials in paradise, praised women only when they were submissive and obedient, but called for their penalty if they dared to have a will of their own, etc etc. Sorry? Context-sensitivity? Assuming for a moment it is like that, and maybe it is, I said myself often enough that the clash of civilisation also is a clash of different time ages, the modern colliding with the medieval. Muhammad was nevertheless expansionist because he was suffering from narcissism and an inferiority complex he compensated by becoming a megalomaniac and showing all world how great and fearsome a leader he is. I told it before: when he fled from Mekka to Medina in 621, or was it 623, he was confronted not only by the initially critical Medanese people, but also by the three Jewish tribes living in the region around the city. For ten years he had educated himself on Judaic religion, due to him having led the caravans of his uncle up and down in Arabia and having come into contact with the man different cultures and civilisation – Arabia at that time was a truly multicultural place (compare to the tristesse and monoculture it is today!) . But Judaic religion has a very grim, unforgiving deity in it’s centre, the brutal oppressor and penalizer you also read about in the old testament. Jewish scholars had formed a very sophisticated, hairsplitting think that until today is proverbial and for which the Pharisees already back then were famous for. They had to do so in order to find a good, man-loving warm God in their scripture nevertheless, it was and is efforts to turn a tyrant around by finding arguments that allow to paint him as a loving, forgiving father. Exactly what Muslim’s popular belief is trying, do you see the parallel? Muhammad was no match in theological dispute for these highly trained Pharisees, and they let him know it. If you think he learned from that that he overestimated himself and need to learn more, you are wrong. Instead his ego felt so offended (another pattern in Islam that repeats until today: to be constantly offended of others being not below oneself) that he took bitter revenge and launched war against them, he drove off two tribes, and then made a treacherous peace with the third. A peace he broke by surprise and captured all their people. By the population of that time, what followed was a biblical massacre: he ordered that all males, boys, men and old men, should be slaughtered and buried on the central place in Medina, and all females, women and girls were led into slavery, the tribe’s culture and tradition was wiped out that way. By the UN convention of modern times, this fulfils what today we call “genocide”. 800-900 males were murdered – now you know that until today any archeological research and digging in the town centre of Medina is forbidden until today: one does not wish to produce images and solid evidence of what the prophet of the religion of peace used to do if he did not like somebody. Also, two of Muhammad’s secretaries had to flee to save their lives after they noted that he used words of their own in his sermons and labelled these words of his secretaries as the word of Allah that were revealed to him – which of course was a contradiction that to realise put your life in danger.

I see Muhammad in one line with the great tyrants and suppressors of human history, and considering that after 1400 years Islam is still at war with all non-Muslim mankind and that it has achieved the biggest military conquest we ever knew of and that it is short before the greatest victory of it’s history: Europe falling to it, and even peacefully and voluntarily, then I think I have good reason to label it as the greatest cultural catastrophe mankind was ever haunted of.

Christianity was forgiving because the Jews of the Roman era had already accepted their place as second class citizens (very established second class citizens, but second class none the less)
Are you kidding? Judea was the most rebellious province for much time of the empire! The Jews were seen as a notorious source of trouble and uprise. And at the time Jesus lived, almost nobody knew him, he was a local guru about whom the first tales were put down in writing not before many decades after he had died! For somebody being world-famous in the empire at the time of his living, you would expect something different, don’t you think?

and "turn the other cheek" was a value of the time as tribal warfare was just as big a value in the context of the tribes of the Arabian peninsula.
Sorry, but Muhammad was born roughly 600 years AFTER Jesus.

You remark that Islam is fundamentalism. But really, what religion is this not true of? Those who wish to claim the "true" credentials of ANY religion will always trend towards fundamentalism. This is true both in Saudi Arabia and the United States.
True, and note that I attack, like Pat Condell does, fundamental Christians as bitterly as I attack Islam. However, I cannot see Jesus’ teachings to be fundamentalist, or supporting violence, in fact he preached for mental calm, reason, giving up on being aggressive, and accept responsibility for your own deeds and decisions, and not to believe, but to act in that way that the consequences are helpful to your peace of mind and calm of soul.

Excursion: it was the church saying that there are sins, but if you are sorry for them, God will forgive you and lead you to heaven anyway. It did so to claim influence and power by presenting itself as mediator between God and man. Jesus never said something like that. He said that the way to heaven leads over him, by that he gave his own acting and thinking as the example others have to follow. Automatic transportation to heaven, no matter what? Jesus dying at the cross in our place? You see, it is stupid lying BS like this that additionally makes me so hostile to churches, and religion. Jesus gave man the responsibility for himself, what he says compares better to the concept of karma – action has reaction – than to the gentle mind-appeasing fairy tales the chu8rch is telling, and he did not die in our place, but for the sake of man wanting to find true freedom. He set an example, and if anybody thinks that frees him from doing that effort himself, he will find a very nasty surprise by the end of his life: Jesus said exactly the opposite, loud and clear:

“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.” (Luke 13, 24-25);
“ If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14,26);
“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7,14);
“Another disciple said to him, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’ But Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.’ (Matthew 8,21-22);
“Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." (Mark 8,34-38).

Now, Islam does not tell you to train your reason, it tells you to give it up, and instead be satisfied by simply believing what you have been told (by Muhammad). You shall take care to follow his orders carefully, but you shall not experience yourself, shall not decide yourself, shall not take responsibility for claiming your freedom. You shall believe that you will be fed and cared for when you agree to live like cattle in a barn, following the farmer’s demand. This is the same in any kind of fundamentalist religion, it is like this with fundamental Christians alike. They tell you: “heaven is right there waiting for you, and all you have to do, is die!” (Pat Condell). The churches did like this for a long time, and for the most still do. That is the nature of religion: you do not gain freedom by believing, but you give up your freedom by believeong, and declare that to be a virtue. You do not experience yourself and test and check and falsify or prove claims being made, but you submit to a dogma that you do not ask questions about anymore. That is the heart and nature of institutional religion! If there would be a god that really loves mankind and wishes for it’s best – he must HATE it, and ask man why he is distorting and abusing the good of free thinking and reason given to him so perversely!

The problem of religion; unlike, say the US constitution, is that the constitution is widely accepted as a "living document". Religious texts simply will never be, because you can't just go ahead and change the "word of god" to fit the times as easily as you can the constitution. Yet, Christians have managed to do this GRADUALLY over time. Not by literally changing the text, but widely accepting that it doesn't need to be followed literally.
Yes, the old testament turned towards the new testament which focussed onto the glad tidings – but afterwards, others came trying to somewhat reverse this development again and interfering with it by their own selfish narcissism. Especially Paul is on my mind, on whose negative role I agree with one of my favourite philosophers, Nietzsche.

But such thing did not happen in Islam. Both sections of the Quran orginate from Muhammad’s lifetime. There is no old and new chapter in the Quran, and nothing equivalent to the glad tidings. Islam got stuck to what compares to the Christian churches during the inquisition, ignoring the glad tidings and focussing on the god-concept of the old testament.

You say: "Christianity formed a tradition of splitting into several sects and churches, some branches being not as strict as others, but in islam, this is a big no-no. Muhammad wanted to keep his community (his power basis) together at all cost, and for that totalitarian control and uniformity, no chance for rebellion by threatening apostacy with death (like Mafia does today, for example), it was necessary to rule out any chance to ever leave Islam (muhammad's party) alive, or not to follow the cult completely."
By formed a tradition, you mean experienced several centuries of the worst warfare mankind had seen to that point? It was a pretty big f'in "no-no" for Christians at first as well! I think you take the Christian church splitting into sects and becoming moderate a little lightly. It took a lot! Of time, argument, and blood.
Yes indeed, and in no way I am ignorant of that. Note that I often said something like “our today’s freedoms and rights and values being bitterly fought and suffered for by our ancestors”, I use this phrase often in order to cut certain things and historical arguments short. Amongst political nationalism and feudal ruling, I also mean religious power struggles by that.

However, all this took place not because following Jesus’ orders, but by violating the principles he taught. That is one reason why I differ so determined between the church, and the following of Jesus named as the Christ’s teachings. And the church has not much to do with the latter. The term “Christianity” precisely refers to Jesus – not the church, although popular understanding is different and does not make that distinction. But that is imprecise use of terms.
This ended with several Christian sects, and even the grandfather sect (Catholicism) was moderated over time. Something that hasn't happned to the Islamic religion for many reasons, not because those that "run" the religion are inherently evil. But because the conditions that surround them have caused them to act inherently evil to survive.
No, again you link it to situations, where you ignore that the dogmatic difference of Islam to the teachings of Jesus. Note that the church became “evil” and brutally suppressed heretics by becoming somewhat more equal to the procedures of Islam. Islam by it’s own dogma just was more consequent and thus: effective in fighting against the heresy of reformation and alternative thoughts. If somebody thinks there have not been attempts for that, he is wrong: they were there, and sometimes it were highly originally, we would even say: modern thinkers. But they got smashed to a much greater degree and for much, very much longer time than it as done by the church, which after the inquisition nevertheless had to give room and accept that it’s power was forced back.
As I recall, one of the events that caused such reform in the Catholic church was the Crusades. Young men were being sent to die by religious figures promising them entry into heaven.
You mix up the goal with the means somewhat here. Originally the crusades were intended to answer a call for help by the Byzantine emperor who was under pressure by the ongoing Islamic offensive that already had captured north Africa, Spain, the former roman orthodox-christian province of Judea, and the city of Jerusalem. Note that Islam was on offensive here, it was the aggressor, the attacker, the invader. The first crusade was not yet for innerpolitical reasons of European kingdoms, but an effort to defend against advancing Islam and to get back what had been gone lost to the attackers. This was the goal. To tell fighters Jerusalem were the kingdom of heaven were all sins would be forgiven and peace could be reached was the mean to motivate the armies. It cannot be stressed often enough: initially, the crusades were a truly defensive effort of taking back what had been lost, it was a counter-offensive. Later, of course, it degenerated into a fight for land and wealth and political influence of European feudal lords, and religion was abused to excuse the slaughtering and deceive one owns fighters on the real motives, leading to perverse things like the children’s crusade.

These Christian religious figures used religion as a mean of politics.
In later crusades, yes. And many churches and American fundamentalist Christian still do like this today. The bitter thing is that we might need them nevertheless to form a final, solid front against Islam – a front that the “standard” churches are not willing and not capable to form, that’s why they are constantly giving ground to Islam, and Europe falling to Islam more and more on the grounds of it’s own legal procedures, because we allow ourselves the luxury of constitutions that differ between religion and politics, while Islam does not. This is a major weakness of ours that gets exploited to the maximum by Islam pushing it policies while demanding not to reject them by declaring this to be free practicing of religion. Like Muhammad invented Allah to make himself unavailable to political criticism, so uses Islam our laws that protect free practicing of religion to forbid us to criticise it’s policy. But what people do not understand is that not only does Islam not know the separation of politics and religion, but that Islam by far is more politics than religion anyway. Note that I often do not call it a religion, but an ideology.

Furthering their own causes and that of their allies under the name of god, which is pretty hard to argue with. Eventually, this caused a turning point in the Christian faith. One that lead to moderation and several different sects. I'm not saying that Islam is there now, but I think they're getting to that point. It's hard not to see the parallels unless you are trying not to.
Well I am not trying not to see it, but still I have a hard time to share your optimism, I admit. What I see is that democracy in Muslim countries for the most have boosted the power and position of the orthodox, radical orientations and sects of Islam spreading much faster than “moderate” ones (Kosovo being the latest example), and that democracy is used as a train Islamists ride on until they have reached their destination – where they then leave it or intend to leave it and don’t care for it anymore, like we see things developing in Turkey.

I hope this explains my position. Most of it already has been told several times before in several place over the past two years on this board. I have confronted “information stands” of Muslims in the pedestrian zone and made them finally withdrawing, and I have helped a “Bürgerinitiative” that finally succeeded in preventing that an existing small mosque in a part of the town where absolutely no Muslims do live and have no community could nevertheless increase - and they even tried to betray by giving wrong information and lying about the identity of the customer who tried to buy the additional needed land for that. I will never forget –and never forgive – by what naturalness they told us that they needed to lie and had to hide their intentions because else they would not have been able to buy the land, for the neighbourhood completely refused their project, and even there alraedy existing presence. That means that lying and betraying and deceiving is very much okay for them if it helps to bolster the position of islam, and that the neighbours of that pplay does not have any say at all, and that it is not about supporting an existing Muslim community in that part of town, but to erect a new beachhead in an existing infidel community where so far no Muslim community exists. Mind you, historically, towers are symbols of claiming power. By these activities, and me not being shy to talk in my real life like I write here in the forum, it may be caused that I repeatedly got death-threads via paper-mail (so somebody obviously knows my address) in the past two years. Which also tells something about the nature of the enemy that I have identified to be nobody’s friend, but all non-Muslim mankind's enemy, forever. I see this fight as being enforced on all mankind, and that we do not feel happy and do not wish to fight will not save us the fate of getting crushed. We must resist and confront and challenge Islam and deny it any more time to not starting to critically ask questions about itself, or all will get lost. But the challenges of the future, from pandemic diseases over rare food and sweet water to poisoned environment hardly will be solved by a global Islamic society that rests fatalistically in the arms of it’s self-induced superstition that is based on the belief that all ways of gaining knowledge that can lead to questioning the Quran and not seeking all answers only in the Quran shall be forbidden. But we will need sciences and technologies that an only be developed through traditions that even do not stop at the doorstep to Quranic self-interest, or the dogma of any other religion there is. Gods will not help and save us. We need to find the way ourselves, and when we fail, we will face extinction. That is the situation – not more, not less.

Happy Times

03-25-08, 12:38 AM

The movie is here, its in English with Dutch subs.

edit. Im not sure if its the real film..

Skybird

03-25-08, 03:43 AM

The movie is here, its in English with Dutch subs.

edit. Im not sure if its the real film..

Where? I only learned of a UK site - and that is confirmed to have been a hoax.

Skybird

03-27-08, 04:08 PM

The movie has been published. You can watch it here (15 min.):

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Before i protest it's content, I'd prefer to defend it.

Dowly

03-27-08, 06:06 PM

Umm.... that was... krhm... interesting. :roll:

Happy Times

03-27-08, 06:52 PM

SUBMAN1

03-27-08, 06:57 PM

Happy Times

03-27-08, 07:07 PM

Nothing that hasnt been said before. Why arent the muslims protesting the religious and other leaders for saying these things? Some point we have to assume they agree and take tough measures in use to stop this madness in the West. Deport everyone that agrees with this ideology.:hmm: Intolerant thing to do? Well so are they, its our countries, we have the right do defend them.Because it looks really bad on them when its all put in one place. Kind of puts it into perspective for the average idiot who has a short attention span.

-S

You have a point.:rotfl:
Maybe i should do one in Finnish to see what happens. Dowly, you can imagine the fun when some Arab or Somali comes to find me in Pohjanmaa.:rotfl:
"Can you tell me where this infdel lives? Im going to kill him."
"Yeah, sure.. Bang!"

Dowly

03-27-08, 07:08 PM

Nothing that hasnt been said before. Why arent the muslims protesting the religious and other leaders for saying these things? Some point we have to assume they agree and take tough measures in use to stop this madness in the West. Deport everyone that agrees with this ideology.:hmm: Intolerant thing to do? Well so are they, its our countries, we have the right do defend them.Because it looks really bad on them when its all put in one place. Kind of puts it into perspective for the average idiot who has a short attention span.

-S
You have a point.:rotfl:
Maybe i should do one in Finnish to see what happens. Dowly, you can imagine the fun when some Arab or Somali comes to find me in Pohjanmaa.:rotfl:
"Can you tell me where this infdel lives? Im going to kill him."
"Yeah, sure.. Bang!"

ROFL! :rotfl:

SUBMAN1

03-27-08, 07:26 PM

The movie has been published. You can watch it here (15 min.):

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Before i protest it's content, I'd prefer to defend it.Really? i finially watched the whole thing and thought it was an excellent account!

I wasn't sure what to expect from you, but I expected you to defend it eventially.

-S

Skybird

03-27-08, 07:55 PM

Noisemaking is a tactic Muslim speakers have choosen. I quote by memory what in Germany the speaker of a Muslim community has told his Muslim audience (mostly representatives of other muslim organizations), and in german language (I saw it some days ago in a TV mag which gave it a 15 minutes coverage). He said roughly like this:

"Brothers, here in the West violent uprise does not work anymore. Yopu need to be patient, for islam's hour is to come. Start marching through the levels of administration (=Marsch durch die Instanzen), use the laws. The infidels have so many laws helping our cause. Use the laws, and do not do anything that gives them a casue to use the laws against you. By using the laws, we strengthen islam until we do not need their laws anymore, and replace them with Islam. By using the laws you will see that the infidels are not only unablöe to defend against Islam, but you will see that they are not even willing to resist Islam. they get blinded by their laws, so use their laws to blind them. "

As I said: quoted by memory, so it is a rough reference, I know, but these phrases he used. the man saying it was a representative and Islamic community judge who is praised by the city's politicians (Berlin, I think) to be oh so tolerant and representative for "moderate" Islam. In fact, he is exactly the opposite.

The silence and lack of reaction after that film was broadcasted, yelled in my ears. It cannot be, what should not be, right?

German courts since several years get drowned in Muslim-filed lawsuits about all and everything - no matter how absurd or profane or minor or unimportant. It is no hysteria, it is no headless acting. It is systemtic tactic. For every nine courtfiles they loos and have no loss from them, they win the tenth that gives them a small advance for Islam. It's a win-win-situation.

mrbeast

03-28-08, 08:07 AM

Some of the response from the EU etc to Wilders film

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/28/islam.film/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Skybird

03-28-08, 10:13 AM

For a film criticised to be so wrong and unimportant, there is surprisngly much smoke in the air, since weeks. Guess although they say there isn't - nevertheless somewhere there is a big fire out there. :hmm:

Tchocky

03-28-08, 10:19 AM

I prescribe as little attention as possible. Take continously until hysterical reactionism is in remission.

Although this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7318733.stm) is interesting.

Skybird

03-28-08, 10:44 AM

Tchocky

03-28-08, 10:50 AM

Well, copyrights must be respected, sure. Let's shut down all of youtube and lifeleak since there is copyright infringement taking place from day to night with video clips and music and picture material as well - like Wilder's film, in a non-commercial context. Well, yeah. How many times have you clicked a YouTube link and it's been removed because of a terms of use violation? Happens all the time.

I wonder why the man does not take legal action against any other sites and opportunities where his cartoon has been shown out of the original context on hundreds if not thousands of internet sites, newspapers, and TV reports. Well, newspapers & TV reports are one thing, whereas a polemic is something very different. Usage of his drawing implies support, and adds meaning. A news report does not.

Happy Times

03-28-08, 03:29 PM

Many muslim leaders condem the film for depicting Islam as violent and warn there might be violent protests.:rotfl:

From LiveLeak

Note: Due to high traffic and DDOS attacks the site may be unusually slow. We're working on resolving these issues...thanks for your patience.
:roll:

LiveLeak and YouTube have published all kind of Islamist films, even beheadings in full. Why should this be banned..

Happy Times

03-28-08, 03:35 PM

And why are they not shocked about the content, they dont condem the muslim leaders and people in the film. They dont feel bad to see see the 3yo little girl calling Jews apes and pigs? :roll: We would be shocked to see someone abuse our children like this. They now the film is true and dont care!!!!

Happy Times

03-28-08, 03:46 PM

Got trough to LiveLeak.:nope:

"Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com 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 anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high."

This is a very sad day.

Skybird

03-28-08, 04:51 PM

Was to be expected. Another battle won by Islam and lost by the West. I wondered that they even dared it. but they overestimated themselves - and the obligations of the state and police to protect them.

Anyhow, the thing is out, and I am sure it will be circulating somehow and somwhere. Not that it is brilliant, but it points finger at the obvious markings. and that is more than almost all the West is doing regarding appeasement of Islam.

Yelling the loudest and being barbaric may prove the correctness of criticising Islam - but it pays off. and the prey does not want to hear about it's future fate anyway. Where is our leaders making a stand for europe in the face of the greatest threat to free mankind ever? where are the clear voices that tell the trutzh to the people? Ph yes, we leave them in the rain, we bind their mothes by law, we chase them away and make them moving into exile in foreign nations, refusing to protect them here in place.

Wanted: voluntary lambs for slaughter! Europe, thy name is cowardice, so thine shall be your self-chosen fate, well deserved.

I think i am close to stop standing up for Europeans and defending them. Thinking in terms of societies, they are not worth it anymore. They are old, weak and anxious - all what disgusts me, and what I am not. Senile old dodderers with infantile wishes and memories of gold an glory from the past long since gone on their shapeless minds. I think not before wider groups of population stand up against their governments and send them to hell i will consider to start supporting Europe again. I am too good to waste my energy on a fearsome flock of sheep. Bah.

Some months ago, I actively supported a Bürgerinitiative (citizens initiative) that in the end successfully prevented the gropwing of a mosque in a part of the city wehre no is no Muslim community at all, I repeatedly told you that. but you do not know the latest news: when it was about their immediate neighbourhood, the local residents supported us. now, that the immediate danger is banned, many of them as well as some mebers of that initiative are changing colours again, suddenly saying how tolerant we should be and that Islam is not that bad at all and that they have nothing against it. Can't believe I invested my energy in these wrynecks (wendehälse). Next time they need support, I'll slam my door in their faces. that the chairman of that initiative who also represented them at court also received death threats, and that his wife was intimidated on open street and repeatedly threatened with violence - forgiven and forgotten. Last time I telephoned with him he said he wouldn't do it again - people would not be worth it. He was even more dissapointed than I am. He is teaching at university, and thinks about quitting there in frustration as well - them too left him alone in the rain. Wouldn't be surprised if he takes his wife and leaves germany all together. Many do that these days, numbers growing. and it is our higher middle an top class, qualified manual workers and specialists as well as medical, technical and scientific academics , while their places get filled with unqualified foreigners. Go figure. The shift is already to be seen in statistics.

History moves in cycles, and the bad days return. We have learned nothing.

AG124

03-29-08, 08:54 PM

Just found this in CBC's archives - just a point to prove that this sort of thing is going on in Canada as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/12/05/muslim-macleans.html

This story made me uncomfortable when I first heard it awhile ago, and I didn't want to let it slip by without others here knowing about it.

Happy Times

03-31-08, 03:25 AM

The film is live on Wikileaks.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Fitna_anti-islam_movie_by_Geert_Wilders

GlobalExplorer

03-31-08, 03:14 PM

Finally got the time to watch it.

I have not seen anything why this movie should be forbidden.

I have also not seen anything new. 15 minutes of the kind of images we have grown used to seeing over the last 20,30 years. 15 minutes of outgrowths of Islamism and the ugly side of the muslim world. And at the end messages in my face like "Islam wants you to make way for itself, but Islam does not make way for you". Well, I have met quite a few Muslims who made way for me.

Anyway. These things exist, and they make me angry too. I still don't see why Heer Wilders thinks we should condemn a billion people.

One could produce similar movies with disturbing images against anything, show respective subtitles and music and gullible people would leave the cinema thinking they'd have gained deep insight - as to who is the main evil in the world.

For instance I could show images of animals being killed and mutilated and then fat disgusting people enjoying meat and wearing animals skins - to make a movie that attacks humanity as a whole. *Humanity has already killed 80 trillion animals .. now lets watch an animal being killed in slow motion .. humanity is a fascist ideology .. stop humanity .. blah blah blah*

I think this is nothing but propaganda, but everyone should feel free to see it.

And we should not forget that islamism is a threat.

Skybird

03-31-08, 04:31 PM

Biting as always:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4

Meanwhile, some people at liveleak came to their senses and took their courage-pills: the video is back online under the same adress.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

This they gave as a public statement above of the video-window:

On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don't consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.

Happy Times

04-01-08, 12:24 AM

Skybird

04-01-08, 01:37 AM

I love LiveLeak! I think the film isn't very good, Min is just too short. Its the principle that was under threat.

Agree on both. but actually, a reasonable film about Islam today would have no effect and would be talked to death. I also think that Wilders knows that and for that reason chosed a more brute directness to deliver the call. If getting talked into subtle beauty and reasonable relativising anyway, way keeping on to whisper?

However, some reactions to him are simply wrong. As Germany's Henryk Broder pointed out, there is little sense in accusing him to be a rightwing populist: first, so Broder, politically Wilders is an extreme liberalist (says Broder who usually writes for Der Spiegel, a weekly politics magazine associated with the centre and slight Left, and Die Welt, associated with the political centre, so he is hardly suspicious to be a "rightwing populist" himself), and second, what Wilders is doing is not popular at all. but this label "rightwing populist", so continues Broder, today has the same defaming overkill-capacity like "communist" in the 50s and 60s and "fascist" in the 70s and 80s - it holds no argument or justification in itself and puts all responsibility of the consequences onto the shoulder sof the perpetrator triggering them. "If Wilders would have started to rumble with the dutch association of flower traders, Wilder's private life still would be intact" (and he would not need police protection and sleeping in a different house every night), says Broader: "Sadly, in this context one has to point out that it is not obsessive enthusiasm that strips Wilders of his private life, but the memory of why and how a dutch film maker named Theo van Gogh was murdered (...) who still would have had an untroubled private life today if he wouldn't have made the mistake to make an Islam-critical film. Comforting it is, that Wilders 'did not repeat the mistake that van Gogh was making: to connect sexuality with Islam what back then was not taken well by the less-moderate Muslims, that surely would have multiplied the explosive danger', wrote a Muslim woman at Spiegel Online who did not felt offended by Wilders movie at all, she said. And she went even that far to point out that Wilders 'in principle only showed obvious facts - just a bit one-sided' ".

Ignoring for a moment that it appears to be a bit exaggerated to kill somebody just because he has a different opinion - could facts be described any different than one-sided?

Is there a way to document the murdering of Theo van Gogh, the beheading of Daniel Pearle, the execution of a woman in Kabul, the hanging of homosexuals and the stoning of adulteress' any different than "one-sided"? Accordingly, would one not need to point out when reporting on a plane disaster that just took place, that this does not happen any day, and that most airliners land in one piece - just for not getting accused of reporting "one-sided"?

Wilder's film is as "one-sided" as Michael Moore's films are "anti-capitalistic". the hostility is not in the eye of the beholder, but the nature of the to-be-watched object. to the regular set of rites, by which speakers of Muslim communities react to the statement that Islam is not purely and always the religion of peace, belongs the practice to threat violence if this "offence" is not being taken back."

Broder ends with what I have said from the very beginning in this thread: that the movie's content is not the important part anyway, but the ridiculous reactions amongst Western politicians he was able to trigger by just saying that he is doing that movie. It reveals the EU to be a paper-tiger only, while the UN's president was condemning the film to the maximum. "This were reactions and statements for which we wait in vain when Islamists call for djihad, fanatics commit another massacre of infidels, or holocaust-deniers organise conferences. Because the only purpose of these statements was to avoid consequences like in 2006 when a dozen of harmless Muhammad caricatures started an extensive fire of indignation from Jakarta to Rabat and made western politics to call for "de-escalation" - but their appeal did not address the fire raisers who burned Danish flags and devastate foreign embassies - but the Europeans who watched the events unfolding without any idea of what to do.

It was like this when a harmless British teacher was giving a teddy-bear the name Muhammad. It was like this when Salman Rushdie received knighthood by the Queen: Muslims clamoured against it, and the Westerners went low and took cover.

And now the "rightwing populist" Wilders gets sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. He is no artist, and his film is no masterpiece. It is a brute demand just to take note of the obvious reality, at least this."

GlobalExplorer

04-01-08, 08:32 AM

Biting as always:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4

Great.

It's strange, but thinking about this - islamism and all - makes me proud of Blacks.

Blacks got mistreated much more than people in the Middle East, but they never developed that hateful mentality. If we'd taken the slaves from Palestine, we would live in World War III now.

caspofungin

04-01-08, 12:04 PM

Blacks got mistreated much more than people in the Middle East, but they never developed that hateful mentality.

you need to hang out with more black people