Fitna the Movie -an Anti Quran Film- released!

So, because someone as learned and revered as the Archbishop of Canterbury has said something on a matter you lack much education on, drugs are involved.

Surely, you can't simply be wrong on what exactly Shari'ah law is. Oh no.

Or it could be drugs.

Originally Posted by European Court of Human Rights

In making an overall assessment of the necessity of the interference and in particular whether it corresponded to a pressing social need, the Court found that the acts and speeches of Refah’s members and leaders cited by the Constitutional Court were imputable to the whole of the party, that those acts and speeches revealed Refah’s long-term policy of setting up a regime based on sharia within the framework of a plurality of legal systems and that Refah did not exclude recourse to force in order to implement its policy and keep the system it envisaged in place. Considering that these plans were incompatible with the concept of a "democratic society" and that the real opportunities Refah had to put them into practice made the danger to democracy more tangible and more immediate, the penalty imposed on the applicants by the Constitutional Court, even in the context of the restricted margin of appreciation left to it, might reasonably be considered to have met a "pressing social need".

For those of you who didn't read that, Refah Partisi is an Islamic political party. There have already been mass calls for Archbishop Williams' resignation.

I would also remind you that extremist Muslims got the original Fire Temple music and Mirror Shield logo pulled from v1.1 and 1.2 of Ocarina of Time. The fact that Islamic fundamentalists feel that they have the right to censor a video game, let alone one as well-known as Zelda (or any other artistic work, for that matter - Jyllands-Posten/Cartoon Wars, anyone?) is proof that they are a threat to civilized society and must be destroyed. If moderate Muslims want their religion to survive, they need to very publicly start denouncing these people; in a situation like this, silence, quite frankly, equals tacit consent.

Gee, so a banned Turkish party that tried to set up a regime with its own vision of Shari'ah to be enforced with political power is your reasoning why a bunch of Somali immigrants shouldn't settle out of court in their own communal meeting based on their traditions (because settling out of court is unheard of!).

Applying reading comprehension a bit, notice how the point the ECHR made was that Partisi wanted to supplant a personal system that would be above and a replacement for democratic government, and had the power to usurp a sovereign nation's law with his influence. Might want to erase and mark your answer differently.

I would also remind you that extremist Muslims got the original Fire Temple music and Mirror Shield logo pulled from v1.1 and 1.2 of Ocarina of Time. The fact that Islamic fundamentalists feel that they have the right to censor a video game, let alone one as well-known as Zelda

Hah, so a bunch of uptight religious types are MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. I can imagine the Robot Chicken skit, right now: "Mommy, look! My shiny shield projects a neat star and crescent moon!"
*two neckbeards in camo and firing two M16s into the air kick down the door and shout Arab-ish jibberish*
"Terrorism!"

Please.

(or any other artistic work, for that matter - Jyllands-Posten/Cartoon Wars, anyone?)

I would throw my giant posts I made on the subject some time ago, but I'd rather you search for the old topic on this and look for yourself. The point was far from suppression of "art" and more about Danish imams and their issue with the Danish government.

is proof that they are a threat to civilized society and must be destroyed.

The ignorant polemic in me agrees (destroy dem evil muzzies!), but one can only laugh at the justification you're giving me here... I mean seriously - Zelda?

If moderate Muslims want their religion to survive, they need to very publicly start denouncing these people; in a situation like this, silence, quite frankly, equals tacit consent.

Err, maybe I shouldn't be kind and remind you of the past few years (I usually dislike those who live under a rock), but they have. Many times. And in great numbers.

Originally Posted by Virtigo

Gee, so a banned Turkish party that tried to set up a regime with its own vision of Shari'ah to be enforced with political power is your reasoning why a bunch of Somali immigrants shouldn't settle out of court in their own communal meeting based on their traditions (because settling out of court is unheard of!).

No. What I actually said is that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that sharia law is an oppressive and unnecessarily harsh system.

Applying reading comprehension a bit, notice how the point the ECHR made was that Partisi wanted to supplant a personal system that would be above and a replacement for democratic government, and had the power to usurp a sovereign nation's law with his influence. Might want to erase and mark your answer differently.

Applying reading comprehension a bit, what the court actually said was what I just said they said.

Originally Posted by Smash Bros. Announcer

FAILURE.

Hah, so a bunch of uptight religious types are MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. I can imagine the Robot Chicken skit, right now: "Mommy, look! My shiny shield projects a neat star and crescent moon!"
*two neckbeards in camo and firing two M16s into the air kick down the door and shout Arab-ish jibberish*
"Terrorism!"

...that...would...be...so...AWESOME.

I would throw my giant posts I made on the subject some time ago, but I'd rather you search for the old topic on this and look for yourself. The point was far from suppression of "art" and more about Danish imams and their issue with the Danish government.

The point was that Muslims got mad over a bunch of ****ing cartoons and rioted because of it.

The ignorant polemic in me agrees (destroy dem evil muzzies!), but one can only laugh at the justification you're giving me here... I mean seriously - Zelda?

...FACE. PALM.

It's not about Zelda. It's about Islam's well-documented tendency to attempt to censor anything that offends them.

Err, maybe I shouldn't be kind and remind you of the past few years (I usually dislike those who live under a rock), but they have. Many times. And in great numbers.

sources plox

Originally Posted by Project 2501

No. What I actually said is that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that sharia law is an oppressive and unnecessarily harsh system.

Applying reading comprehension a bit, what the court actually said was what I just said they said.

No, what they said was Reza's law system (which is Shari'ah just as much as the Republic of China and America are both Republics) was a danger to the democratic system of Turkey where it was planned to replace it entirely, and was to use force to keep it in place.

Shari'ah is not some monolith you can grab hold of and say, 'this is Shari'ah and it is alike everywhere' no more than you can say the same for all communist, democratic, and despotic government systems.

You'll notice that the court has not banned any further platforms of shariah in other Turkish parties (of which there are) but only saw fit to uphold the ban on one with a leader bent on displacing a sovereign democracy with his own despotism.

...that...would...be...so...AWESOME.

Eh, I usually do better, but I guess my mediocre ideas are still good.

The point was that Muslims got mad over a bunch of ****ing cartoons and rioted because of it.

No, they did not. They got mad over a whole slew of things, few if any of it was over the twelves original Danish cartoons.

...FACE. PALM.

It's not about Zelda. It's about Islam's well-documented tendency to attempt to censor anything that offends them.

Gee, like how most all other religious groups from Jews to Southern Baptists.

Please.

sources plox

Well, the correct response would have been "ah, after some googling, I rescind my previous statement," but since I get this, how about this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and these many statements and this one and this whole page of links to such statements and this and this and this collection of condemnations and this one and then this one count for something. Didn't you notice those? Why not?

How about this statement by Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi or this one by Abdul Hakim Murad of Cambridge University? Not enough for you? Then how about this fatwa against targeting civilians by Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, or this condemnation of suicide bombings by the Grand Sheikh of the al-Azhar mosque, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, or this extensive list of fatwas by various Muslim scholars against terrorists?

Want more? I can keep this up for quite a while. Here's a Pakistani Muslim scholar. Here's another British one. Another Pakistani scholar. And another. How many more would you like? Here's a fatwa against Bin Laden by Spanish Muslim scholars.



"Virtigo, Virtigo, where's the condemnation of terror by moderate Muslims!"

I dunno, lol.

Originally Posted by Virtigo

No, what they said was Reza's law system (which is Shari'ah just as much as the Republic of China and America are both Republics) was a danger to the democratic system of Turkey where it was planned to replace it entirely, and was to use force to keep it in place.

Did I not just highlight where the court decision stated the ECHR's opinion of sharia?

No, they did not. They got mad over a whole slew of things, few if any of it was over the twelves original Danish cartoons.

The families of over 100 people would beg to differ with you.

Gee, like how most all other religious groups from Jews to Southern Baptists.

Exactly, which is why they should be banned as well.

Well, the correct response would have been "ah, after some googling, I rescind my previous statement," but since I get this, how about this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and these many statements and this one and this whole page of links to such statements and this and this and this collection of condemnations and this one and then this one count for something. Didn't you notice those? Why not?

How about this statement by Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi or this one by Abdul Hakim Murad of Cambridge University? Not enough for you? Then how about this fatwa against targeting civilians by Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, or this condemnation of suicide bombings by the Grand Sheikh of the al-Azhar mosque, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, or this extensive list of fatwas by various Muslim scholars against terrorists?

Want more? I can keep this up for quite a while. Here's a Pakistani Muslim scholar. Here's another British one. Another Pakistani scholar. And another. How many more would you like? Here's a fatwa against Bin Laden by Spanish Muslim scholars.



"Virtigo, Virtigo, where's the condemnation of terror by moderate Muslims!"

I dunno, lol.

Thank you for actually providing sources. I concede this point, but that would not have been the correct response, regardless; I don't do people's homework for them. And even so, it does not erase the basic objection against the violent verses present in the Qur'an.

Originally Posted by Project 2501

Did I not just highlight where the court decision stated the ECHR's opinion of sharia?

You consistently say this with a straight face, but nowhere is it implied that the ECHR passed a ban on a political party over Shariah. It is against the power-mongering party leader who had plans to overthrow a democratic government and impose his own law system by force.

Not that I'd particularly enjoyed pursuing this diverging little rant of yours, off topic and pointless as it is.

The families of over 100 people would beg to differ with you.

Originally Posted by Virtigo

The truth is people did not riot with violence and killing over the fact that Muhammad was depicted. There is a depiction of him in plain sight on the U.S. Capitol building's mosaic, for instance. There is also a healthy amount of Islamic art that depicts Muhammad.

Nor did people kill and maim over 'bomb Muhammad' or comics about heaven running out of virgins. The truth is these same cartoons were in print and circulation in Middle Eastern newspapers over three months ago. Only the editors and a few write ins really cared.

They were quite benign, actually. The worst of the lot would definitely be 'Bomb Muhammad,' and that was nothing to riot about, as the printing of these same comics months before the riots proves.


HOWEVER. The fundamental imams of Denmark, not satisfied with the fact that the Muslims in Denmark couldn't care less, began to tour the Middle East with a large 35 page dossier in hand.

If you couldn't tell already, you don't need 35 pages to simply reprint 12 cartoons. These pages contained three new 'cartoons' that were later proven to be fakes. One had a picture of a man in a friendly pig-costume competition. This picture was later made black-and-white and captioned with 'Muhammad as a pig.' If you can't tell, that's much more offensive than the original dozen light-hearted comics from Denmark. Another fake was an image of a praying man with a dog humping him - captioned as Muhammad being raped by a dog. That one was even more offensive and downright disgusting. The final was a demonic picture of Muhammad cavorting with demons and shown as a pedophile. This one is self-explanatory.


But wait! There's more! It's clear to everyone that you don't need 35 pages to depict 12+3 cartoons. What else was in this dossier? Stories. Fake stories and half-truths to be exact. It presents a Denmark with an 'endangered Muslim population' that was receiving death threats daily. It presents a Muslim population being repressed by the Danish government while it publishes derogatory images of Muslims and Muhammad in the newspapers and hands medals to people who the Middle East already hates, like Ms. Hirsi. They present the Muslims in Denmark as under threat of Islamophobia and in dire need of help, that Denmark does not recognize Muslims in their country.

And then they presented said dossier to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a huge Middle Eastern summit involving several heads of state and religious leaders. Soon after, said leaders approached the UN for sanctions against Denmark under the conception that the Danish imams were truthful in their plea and the religious leaders started preaching what they now learned from the dossier. If you can imagine what stories of death threats and persecutions towards Danish Muslims on top of three offensive cartoons involving rape by dogs, pig-faced Muhammad, and demonic pedophile Muhammad can do to a spiritually incensed community after Friday prayers... well, we don't need to imagine. The riots were obvious.


So notice another thing. All the nations that had access to this dossier from the Danish imams were the ones with the most number of initial protests. At the same time, all the violent protests and riots happened in countries that received this dossier and spread its propaganda around.

Why not look at, say, Bangladesh and North America? They did not get a look at said dossier, only what the official news reports from CNN and BBC tell them - the truth. And what happened? Mild protests, a few miffed editors telling off what they thought, and no deaths or acts of violence. An average response, like when Dogma was released and Christian groups had their little say and protests against it.

Exactly, which is why they should be banned as well.

Too bad that such an argument doesn't make sense, nor is acceptable by standards of freedom.

Thank you for actually providing sources. I concede this point, but that would not have been the correct response, regardless; I don't do people's homework for them. And even so, it does not erase the basic objection against the violent verses present in the Qur'an.

It was your homework to begin with. You asserted that there was silence on the part of moderate Islam without so much as having checked and backed such a statement in the first place.

Furthermore, what objection? You speak of Wilder's movie that argues like the hundreds of odd online polemics with badly reasoned criticisms and out-of-context sourcing of verses as if it was a legitimate point. They neither fuel extremism among Muslims nor is there, with actual reading of the surahs, an objectionable portrayal of violence.

i notice only the dutch posters kind of agree with this film.
my conclusion is that most of you don't exactly know what you're talking about.
i live in Holland and i'm closer to the problem then most of you, these days you have to watch out when and where you state your own opinion on something because the risk of getting a knive in your back increases by every word you say that disagrees with muslim beliefs.

have you all forgotten the mohamed cartoon? thousands of muslims went crazy and threathened with death about a lousy drawing.
Let's say i make a drawing of mohamed F***ing a pig, and it gets out, thousands of muslims go crazy and they declare by allah that all the Dutch should be killed.. over an act 1 person did... tell me, who are the racists?

muslims have been granted to much freedom by the Dutch, when you leave your country to a place where you can get more free money ( i know this isn't a reason all muslims have to come to Holland but for most of them it is) isn't it normal to addapt to the culture of that country?
sure you can have your own religion, we've build a mosque in every goddamn city for ****** sake.
but we have respect for women here, we accept homosexuals, we tolorate other religions, if you want a nice job you have to speak proper Dutch, when you're walking down the street we want to see your face etc.
most muslims fail to see these points.

oh and about there being a mosque in every city.. do you think a church would survive long in a muslim country?

the biggest problem in Holland lies with the younger generation of muslims, they simply lack morale values that should've been thougth to them by their parents.

Treat someone as you would like to be treated, is what my grandma always says, so while looking at the acts of most muslims i encounter, i'm happy to treat them as they treat me... GO DIE YOU FILTHY PIGS

Originally Posted by Daveigus

the biggest problem in Holland lies with the younger generation of muslims, they simply lack morale values that should've been thougth to them by their parents.

Tough i partially agree with the most of what you said, i do want to say that this counts for technically all the younger people. Not just muslims.

From personal experience, the amount of bald, lonsdale wearing, "masters of hardcore" bomberjacket wearing skinhead scum, is far higher than muslim youth withour morale values.

But than again, i live in the north, and crime isnt as high there as it is in Amsterdam/Rotterdam/The Hague and place like that.


As for me: I don't agree with Wilders, hate the guy, but i do agree that extremists should be removed from the country.

Now here's an interesting tought, think of the cartoonist in denmark, no doubt muslims all over the world will react violently to this film, insulted (and i dont blame them for feeling insulted) but burning dutch flags and all that, aren't those actions kind of proving wilders point?

Live and Let Live.

It is against the power-mongering party leader who had plans to overthrow a democratic government and impose his own law system by force.

Such types tend to be endemic to sharia. Though I don't agree with this article's Christian slant on things, it is commendably well-documented in its criticism of the Qur'an. Read that and then tell me with a straight face that we shouldn't oppose sharia law.

Originally Posted by Virtigo

*snip sourceless bull**** about how the Jyllands-Posten riots weren't really about the cartoons*

I'd love to see even a shred of evidence that proves that. Especially since my source, not to mention common ****ing sense, decimated your viewpoint already. Little side note: When Catholics protested Dogma, nobody died. It doesn't matter what they were depicting Muhammad doing, it doesn't even matter if the cartoons were real or not; over a hundred people died because a significant portion of the Islamic community doesn't want to play by the rules. The reaction was absolutely unacceptable and should not (and will not) be tolerated by any civilized society.

Too bad that such an argument doesn't make sense, nor is acceptable by standards of freedom.

It makes complete and total sense to ban books that incite ethnic violence, promote sexism, condone slavery, allow the treatment of women and children as property, attempt to crush any and all dissent with violence, depict a murderous God responsible for crimes against humanity including but not limited to:

-ordering numerous military attacks on civilian targets
-striking an entire tribe with plagues for the "sins" of one man (who has a legitimate rap sheet of his own and is called a man after God's own heart)
-pranking people into almost killing their own children
-doing it himself
-committing mass genocide without being cool enough to invoke the Sephiroth Memorial Escape Clause

as a just and loving figure, advocate the murder of homosexuals, encourage people to unlawfully execute thousands of innocent women for the supposed crime of "witchcraft", and form the motivation for certain political cabals which seek to subvert the lawful government of the United States and replace it with a theocratic regime. In fact, given all of that, I can scarcely think of any book more deserving of being banned than the Bible, if only because Christianity has more adherents and influence than Islam. But we're getting off the subject.

Furthermore, what objection? You speak of Wilder's movie that argues like the hundreds of odd online polemics with badly reasoned criticisms and out-of-context sourcing of verses as if it was a legitimate point. They neither fuel extremism among Muslims nor is there, with actual reading of the surahs, an objectionable portrayal of violence.

You want an actual reading of the surahs? Fine, I'll play ball. As I stated earlier, the Pentateuch (theological term for the first five books of the Bible) is also taken to be part of the Qur'an, so every atrocity that is part of them (the curse of childbirth, the Great Flood, Abraham and Isaac, the ridiculous laws in Deuteronomy which prescribe death for just about every crime worse than jaywalking) can also be leveled against the Qur'an as well. It also has objectionable verses of its own, many of which are quoted (quite within context, contrary to your spurious claims) in Fitna. A selection of the most damning of said verses follows:

Originally Posted by some imperialist, pedophilic pothead in the 7th century

Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Quran 4:56

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. Quran 4:89

Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. Quran 2:7

Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way, And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences, We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom. Quran 4:160-161

Sorry, but there aren't a whole lot of ways "Allah will burn unbelievers in hell forever" can be taken out of context.

Is every Muslim a violent extremist? Obviously not. But it should be very clear by now that some doctrines do tend to produce more wackos than others.

Originally Posted by Daveigus

i notice only the dutch posters kind of agree with this film.
my conclusion is that most of you don't exactly know what you're talking about.
i live in Holland and i'm closer to the problem then most of you, these days you have to watch out when and where you state your own opinion on something because the risk of getting a knive in your back increases by every word you say that disagrees with muslim beliefs.

So arrest the people who are going around stabbing others.

It is not exactly rocket science. -_-;

have you all forgotten the mohamed cartoon? thousands of muslims went crazy and threathened with death about a lousy drawing.

Indeed.

But I put it to you: That is very similar to how the Bible belt in the US would react to similar cartoons of Jesus.

In addition, it's probably fair to say that if they didn't feel oppressed and discriminated against they wouldn't feel the need to defend their religion.

Also, the majority of Muslims didn't make death threats. Quite a few protested, yes, and those protests became a riot, but I doubt most of the people involved decided to get up and start a riot that day.

Finally, those cartoons were republished in Canada and the US: No riots. No death threats. Nothing.

muslims have been granted to much freedom by the Dutch, when you leave your country to a place where you can get more free money ( i know this isn't a reason all muslims have to come to Holland but for most of them it is) isn't it normal to addapt to the culture of that country?

Your first sentence alarms and disgusts me.

Your final one confuses me. Of course not. You can if you want to, but if you don't want to why should you?

but we have respect for women here,

As do most Muslims.

we accept homosexuals,

I have no idea what the majority Muslim stance is on that, but I know that in the US most Christians are dead-set against them.

we tolorate other religions,

See above.

if you want a nice job you have to speak proper Dutch,

Which is fine.

when you're walking down the street we want to see your face

Why? Do you ban balaclavas, then?

oh and about there being a mosque in every city.. do you think a church would survive long in a muslim country?

They have and they do.

the biggest problem in Holland lies with the younger generation of muslims, they simply lack morale values that should've been thougth to them by their parents.

Indeed? Stereotype much?

Treat someone as you would like to be treated, is what my grandma always says,

Ah, so you want to be unable to get a job and be deported from your country because a couple other Dutch people are criminals.