Fitna - have you seen it? Any comments?

unkel

Linky

wes

Will just copy my post from politics forum:

Watched a few minutes of it. At best its bad propoganda. In fact its propoganda in a grand old far right European tradition.

Of course, Wilders true intention eventually comes out, when he goes on about Muslims, will some how take over Europe (the Islamisation nonsense and the rubbish about population). Has everyone forgotten the fact that European armies (e.g. UK) are currently occupying 2 Muslim countries? So some how Muslims are the ones who are in danger of taking over Europe, even with the European armies occupying Muslims countries. Complete nonsense.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Are thoses Suras in context? Would be interested in Muslim opinions on them & the video's presentation of them.

wes

The comment is free article by Ali Etriaz touches on the Sura's:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2008/03/the_fitna_farce.html

blackthorn

I haven't seen it yet. Is it any good?

unkel

wes wrote: »

Watched a few minutes of it. At best its bad propoganda. In fact its propoganda in a grand old far right European tradition

I get the feeling your post is a bit emotional and angry. Are you upset by it? Maybe you posted after only watching a few minutes of it and not really thinking about it / reflecting on it?

How can you claim things like "fact" and "propaganda" while you've only seen a bit of it?

Have you seen the full film since (it's only about 15 minutes iirc)?

Any new comments?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i thought it was interesting enough until about halfway through when 'omgz, the muslims are breeding' kicked in.

can't say I was surprised though

unkel

blackthorn wrote: »

I haven't seen it yet. Is it any good?

Any good? In what way? Most people (including myself) were afraid it was going to be some slagging off Islam as a bad, cruel, retard and backward religion, but it is not like that at all! Why don't you watch it yourself and make up your own mind?

wes

unkel wrote: »

I get the feeling your post is a bit emotional and angry. Are you upset by it? Maybe you posted after only watching a few minutes of it and not really thinking about it / reflecting on it?

How can you claim things like "fact" and "propaganda" while you've only seen a bit of it?

Have you seen the full film since (it's only about 15 minutes iirc)?

Any new comments?

Angry, hardly. Same old rubbish touted again and again. Its a poor You Tube video, and thats being very kind. I seen enough to make up my mind on it.

How many times does one need to see the same old rubbish? The population nonsense, I pointed out is total scare mongering nonsense and the Islamisation nonsenses is just that. Its the same stuff they said about every minority in Europe. So Wilders true intentions are very clear, he is the same ilk we have always seen of the far right.

unkel

wes wrote: »

Angry, hardly. Same old rubbish touted again and again. Its a poor You Tube video, and thats being very kind. I seen enough to make up my mind on it.

How many times does one need to see the same old rubbish? The population nonsense, I pointed out is total scare mongering nonsense and the Islamisation nonsenses is just that. Its the same stuff they said about every minority in Europe. So Wilders true intentions are very clear, he is the same ilk we have always seen of the far right.

Sorry, you're not making that much sense to me. Did you have a (stiff) drink before posting?

wes

unkel wrote: »

Sorry, you're not making that much sense to me. Did you have a (stiff) drink before posting?

Perhaps, you reading and comprehension skills need a little work? Just a friendly suggestion . Pi$$ taking aside, yeah my post there was pretty terrible.

So, Just to explain things in simpler terms. There is a bit in the movie, where Wilders goes on about Muslim population growth and the suggestion is that Muslims will eventually take over (Europe). This is the same sort of things that far right groups use to say about other minorities groups. Strangely there predictions didn't come to pass.

unkel

wes wrote: »

There is a bit in the movie, where Wilders goes on about Muslim population growth and the suggestion is that Muslims will eventually take over (Europe). This is the same sort of things that far right groups use to say about other minorities groups. Strangely there predictions didn't come to pass.

I agree with you there. It's the kind of politics that plays on peoples fears.

Suff

To me as a Muslim the movie is concentrating on the negative actions of some followers of the Islamic faith. which is fine by me since we do it all the time. however using some lines from the Holy Quraan out of context and after showing images of blowed up trains and dead people is a real indication of how shallow the film's maker information and understanding of the faith and its teachings. which is easy to point out once you view the movie.

Without being pregidous in any shape or form, If some other film maker decided to produce a similar concept movie on either Christianity or Judaism it would need to come out in a Boxset to cover the !

I'm sure we can all agree that thought out the ages many people have used the name of religion to fit their own personal/ political agenda. it's been used in the name of Islam, Christainty and Judaism. the only way we can stop this is by simply having an open and constructive dialogue between the different faiths to help make a clear understanding of each other beliefs, to help eliminate the typical cliches that are now part of ones understanding of a faith.

EamonnKeane

You could pull quotes from the Gospels if you liked:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Mt 11:34-36

Hero Of College

Saw it, thought it was brilliant.

Bottle_of_Smoke

EamonnKeane wrote: »

You could pull quotes from the Gospels if you liked:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Mt 11:34-36

Doesn't make them any more reasonable

Hero Of College

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Doesn't make them any more reasonable

To mention nothing of the fact that Mohammeds input into the Koran was a lot more than that which Jesus had into the Gospel and Scripture.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

To mention nothing of the fact that Mohammeds input into the Koran was a lot more than that which Jesus had into the Gospel and Scripture.

Christian's still believe the Bible to be the word of God. In fact, someone stated exactly that in elsewhere on the forum.

Schuhart

EamonnKeane wrote: »

You could pull quotes from the Gospels if you liked:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Mt 11:34-36

I don't think the equivalence is valid. The simple fact is that Jesus isn't calling on his followers to take up a sword and fight a war. On the other hand, when Mohammed delivers the message in the Quran to kill the unbelievers after giving them an opportunity to convert, he actually was instructing his followers to kill a particular group of unbelievers after giving them an opportunity to convert - its not a question of it being taken out of context. It is simply a fact that the life of Mohammed and Jesus as presented in the Quran one the one hand and the Gospels on the other are not the same and they are not depicted as reacting to the same kind of threat in the same kind of way.

Yes, there's an amount of the kind of thing you find in the Quran if you read the old Testament. Yes, Jesus says he comes to fulfil the law and not to change it. But, notwithstanding that, I'd ask if anyone can identify a point in the Gospels where he's depicted as leading an assault on his enemies.

That's not to say one is right, or the other wrong. Maybe we should paint ourselves blue and worship Wotan. I'm simply questioning that this equivalence of violent quotes actually holds up to scrutiny.

Just as a footnote, I haven't actually bothered to watch Fitna as I've probably seen and read enough material about Islam at this stage from a wide enough variety of sources to have made up my own mind.

Hero Of College

wes wrote: »

Christian's still believe the Bible to be the word of God. In fact, someone stated exactly that in elsewhere on the forum.

What Christians believe from one man to the next differs greatly. In fact, Muslims are always making the same argument "ooohhh..we're not all radicals".....:mad: Don't be putting words into my mouth. I believe in Jesus, and his teachings as a man. What came after or before him I do not attribute to him- even if I should, per the Church.

We know Mohammed incited war. Jesus did not. Its all good of course- there is nothing wrong with inciting war, per se. If Jesus incited war and Mohammed did not then I would not think any less or any more of either man.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

What Christians believe from one man to the next differs greatly. In fact, Muslims are always making the same argument "ooohhh..we're not all radicals".....:mad: Don't be putting words into my mouth. I believe in Jesus, and his teachings as a man. What came after or before him I do not attribute to him- even if I should, per the Church.

Isn't most of Christianity founded on whats in the Bible? Fair enough you take a different perspective.

I am not trying to say that all Christian are war mongers or anything like that. Still for a lot of Christians the Bible would be a significant part of there faith, in the same way the Koran would be for Muslims. Each may take different things from the same book, but wouldn't the vast majority hold that book as the basis of there faith?

Btw, I was not trying to put words in anyones mouth. I was always under the impression that the Bible was hugely important text, from which Christians take there beliefs from. Not did I say all Christians believe, the same thing or take the same from the Bible. Nor did I insinuate that your or all Christians were radicals of any description. So your argument here is largely pointless, as I never said what you think I did.

Hero Of College wrote: »

We know Mohammed incited war. Jesus did not. Its all good of course- there is nothing wrong with inciting war, per se. If Jesus incited war and Mohammed did not then I would not think any less or any more of either man.

The Bible isn't just about Jesus. There is as much violence within its pages as the Koran. I am making a comparison of 2 different texts as opposed, to comparing 2 men. If we are to cherry pick isolated passages from the Koran, the point being made is that the same can be done with the Bible.

This does not mean that those passages taken in isolation necessarily represent the beliefs of Muslims or Christians, just that the same can be done to both.

Getting back to the film, the argument being made by Wilders focuses solely on religion, does a large dis-service to what Islamic radicalism is about, as while it has religious elements and they should not be ignored, but at the same time other elements should not be ignored. To discuss this topic without referring to the events in Iraq, Bosnia, Palestine, Womens issues, economics, western backed dictators, western backed coups, Islamism, creation of states in the Middle East after World War 1 and then creation of various countries after the 2nd World War as colonialism was ending etc, does the topic a huge dis-service and over simplifies a highly complex topic.

What Wilder argument boils down to is an anti-immigrant argument (which hardly makes sense as there are plenty of non-Muslim immigrants), shameless self promotion and a hefty dose of old time far right scare mongering. Wilder doesn't want to talk about the whole topic at all, but rather a simplified caricature of it instead, that is to be used for his own purposes.

Schuhart

wes wrote: »

If we are to cherry pick isolated passages from the Koran, the point being made is that the same can be done with the Bible.

Indeed, an amount of this circles around the Old Testament books of the Bible which have plenty of feuding. I just think there is still a significance in the very real contrast between the depiction of the central figure in each faith. You can cherry pick passages about Jesus, but they really are cherry picked out of context. (Its like that old joke about the Bible saying 'there is no god' when the full quote is 'the fool says in his heart "there is no god"').

As far as I know, the most violence Jesus ever gets up to is driving money changers out of the temple with a whip. There's no reports of any fatalities or of unrepentant money changers being pursued to the death. I won't labour the point about Mohammed, but the contrast should be pretty obvious and (it seems to me) not explained in terms of stuff being taken out of context as frequently the statements just mean what they say.

Hero Of College

wes wrote: »

Isn't most of Christianity founded on whats in the Bible? Fair enough you take a different perspective.

I am not trying to say that all Christian are war mongers or anything like that. Still for a lot of Christians the Bible would be a significant part of there faith, in the same way the Koran would be for Muslims. Each may take different things from the same book, but wouldn't the vast majority hold that book as the basis of there faith?

Btw, I was not trying to put words in anyones mouth. I was always under the impression that the Bible was hugely important text, from which Christians take there beliefs from. Not did I say all Christians believe, the same thing or take the same from the Bible. Nor did I insinuate that your or all Christians were radicals of any description. So your argument here is largely pointless, as I never said what you think I did.



The Bible isn't just about Jesus. There is as much violence within its pages as the Koran. I am making a comparison of 2 different texts as opposed, to comparing 2 men. If we are to cherry pick isolated passages from the Koran, the point being made is that the same can be done with the Bible.

This does not mean that those passages taken in isolation necessarily represent the beliefs of Muslims or Christians, just that the same can be done to both.

Getting back to the film, the argument being made by Wilders focuses solely on religion, does a large dis-service to what Islamic radicalism is about, as while it has religious elements and they should not be ignored, but at the same time other elements should not be ignored. To discuss this topic without referring to the events in Iraq, Bosnia, Palestine, Womens issues, economics, western backed dictators, western backed coups, Islamism, creation of states in the Middle East after World War 1 and then creation of various countries after the 2nd World War as colonialism was ending etc, does the topic a huge dis-service and over simplifies a highly complex topic.

What Wilder argument boils down to is an anti-immigrant argument (which hardly makes sense as there are plenty of non-Muslim immigrants), shameless self promotion and a hefty dose of old time far right scare mongering. Wilder doesn't want to talk about the whole topic at all, but rather a simplified caricature of it instead, that is to be used for his own purposes.

Thats just the point. The Bible isn't just about Jesus, but Chrstianity is ALL ABOUT JESUS. Therefore, as a Christian, the bible is only of a certain significance. Compare and contrast that to Islam, which dictates that the Koran is the very word of God dictated to Mohammed by Allah. Mohammed is nothing without the Koran, and Islam is nothing without Mohammed. Not so with Christianity- whose central focus is JESUS and his teachings. Thus what the Bible says about war or pillage cannot be attributed to Christians per se in the same direct fashion that the content of the Koran can be to Muslims-simply because Jesus does not claim {and history shows us anyways} that he did not write the bible under instruction from God.

Ekancone

Rubbish film.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

Perhaps, you reading and comprehension skills need a little work? Just a friendly suggestion . Pi$$ taking aside, yeah my post there was pretty terrible.

So, Just to explain things in simpler terms. There is a bit in the movie, where Wilders goes on about Muslim population growth and the suggestion is that Muslims will eventually take over (Europe). This is the same sort of things that far right groups use to say about other minorities groups. Strangely there predictions didn't come to pass.

Does Bernard Lewis belong to the far right?

wes

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed, an amount of this circles around the Old Testament books of the Bible which have plenty of feuding. I just think there is still a significance in the very real contrast between the depiction of the central figure in each faith. You can cherry pick passages about Jesus, but they really are cherry picked out of context. (Its like that old joke about the Bible saying 'there is no god' when the full quote is 'the fool says in his heart "there is no god"').

As far as I know, the most violence Jesus ever gets up to is driving money changers out of the temple with a whip. There's no reports of any fatalities or of unrepentant money changers being pursued to the death. I won't labour the point about Mohammed, but the contrast should be pretty obvious and (it seems to me) not explained in terms of stuff being taken out of context as frequently the statements just mean what they say.

The point I am making is exactly that, things can be taken out of context in the Bible. The comparison being made by people is between 2 books and not Jesus and Muhammad. Basically we are talking about 2 different things.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

Thats just the point. The Bible isn't just about Jesus, but Chrstianity is ALL ABOUT JESUS. Therefore, as a Christian, the bible is only of a certain significance. Compare and contrast that to Islam, which dictates that the Koran is the very word of God dictated to Mohammed by Allah. Mohammed is nothing without the Koran, and Islam is nothing without Mohammed. Not so with Christianity- whose central focus is JESUS and his teachings. Thus what the Bible says about war or pillage cannot be attributed to Christians per se in the same direct fashion that the content of the Koran can be to Muslims-simply because Jesus does not claim {and history shows us anyways} that he did not write the bible under instruction from God.

So your basically saying the Bible isn't that important to Christians? Fair enough, that news to me.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

So your basically saying the Bible isn't that important to Christians? Fair enough, that news to me.

He didn't say that at all.

wes

daithifleming wrote: »

Does Bernard Lewis belong to the far right?

Don't know who he is, so don't know.

However, if he is making the same population argument Wilders is, he is certainly repeating views associated with the far right. As this argument has been made about other minorities in Europe, typically by the far right.

**EDIT**

Just did a quick Google, and he seems to a Orientalist and not to mention a denier of the Armenian genocide and a supporter of the illegal war of aggression against Iraq. So calling him a right winger in foreign policy terms seems apt to me.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

Don't know who he is, so don't know.

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

Bernard Lewis (born May 31, 1916 in London, England) is a British -American historian, Orientalist, and political commentator. He is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West, and is especially famous in academic circles for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire. Lewis is a widely-read expert on the Middle East, and has been described as the West’s leading specialist on that region. His advice has been frequently sought by policymakers, including the current Bush administration. In the Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing Martin Kramer, whose Ph.D. thesis was directed by Lewis, considered that, over a 60-year career, he has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East."

wes wrote: »

However, if he is making the same population argument Wilders is, he is certainly repeating views associated with the far right. As this argument has been made about other minorities in Europe, typically by the far right.

So if he is drawing just one conclusion that the far-right also uses, although for entirely different agendas, that means he is of the far-right? Don't you think that is a little overly simplistic?

wes

daithifleming wrote: »

So if he is drawing just one conclusion that the far-right also uses, although for entirely different agendas, that means he is of the far-right? Don't you think that is a little overly simplistic?

I never said holding that singular views make him far right, just that it could give the impression that he is one.

His other views however, certainly make him seem like a typically right winger and his genocide denial certainly seem pretty far right to me.