FITNA
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Hate vs Hate
01-Apr-2008
A new film entitled Fitna, the Arabic word for ‘dissension’, by Geert Wilders, a rightwing Dutch parliamentarian, shouldn't be suppressed and should be made widely available for all to see. Not because it has anything valuable or insightful to offer in the debates and discussions surrounding Islam, modernity or the convulsions wracking much of the Middle East. Quite the contrary, it must be seen so that it can be openly criticized and shown up for the insipid propaganda video it is.
To suppress the film in the name of political correctness has been a gross miscalculation, which has only gone to underscore the seductive mystery its creators have cleverly cultivated. Wilders & Co decided to release snippets of info here and there, as part of an orchestrated strategy to scintillate and tantalize all those individuals and organizations of a sensationalist persuasion, and thereby whip up a torrent of anticipation for a film that can only be described as banal. Fitna is a propaganda video whose ‘aesthetic’ is comparable to those made by radical Islamists and their sympathizers, and whose prime objective is to polarize public opinion by evoking the twin feelings of fear, hatred and suspicion.
The burning of effigies, extremist placards and threats to website staff undertaken by Muslim vigilantes can only be framed as myopic, stupid and morally bankrupt. When ‘Muslim indignation’ takes a violent turn it merely confirms in the eyes of provocateurs like Wilders that Muslims are essentially incapable of participating in rational and civilized debate.
Having seen the film its intent is abundantly clear. It is not, as its apologists claim, a critique of Islamic fundamentalism or even the tribal vestiges of malign practices such as stoning, female circumcision and various other manifestations of gender discrimination and abuse, which have been sanctioned under the banner of ‘Islam’. Wilders enterprise is rather the pathetic and entirely nostalgic (in fact anti-progressive) attempt to salvage an ‘authentic’ and ‘nativist’ conception of Dutch and more generally European identity and ‘indigenous values’. In order to fashion a ‘pristine’ and ‘untarnished’ representation of his narrative he is forced to place it in contradistinction to a determinate and clearly defined enemy, represented by the looming threat of a monolithic and omnipresent ‘Islam’. Fitna on one level is therefore yet another variant of the discursively manufactured ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis first argued for by Samuel P. Huntington in the American journal Foreign Affairs over a decade ago.
Fitna is little more than a desperate attempt of an utterly unremarkable individual trying to make a name for himself by means of insulting and slandering some 1.3 billion people. Wilders’ strategy is simple and unnervingly crude. He endeavors to convince us of his thesis by arbitrarily picking out a few decontextualized lines from the Quran, only to then juxtapose them with footage of obscene violence committed by Muslim extremists in recent history; 9/11, the Madrid Bombings and the London bombings of the 7th of July 2005 are all paraded across the screen in an orgy of violence and mayhem.
The propaganda videos of al-Qaeda and those inspired by their message of violent jihad, rely equally on publicizing a filmic orgy of violence in order to attract recruits to their cause. The latter’s films often splice a myriad of clips documenting violence committed against Muslim civilians in order to wage their own propaganda campaign and in so doing vilify and dehumanize entirely their self-proclaimed enemies. Wilders’ favored strategy is entirely in keeping with such an ‘aesthetic’. He aims to dehumanize Muslim peoples so they emerge as little more than disfigured and cryptic monsters, as solely objects of fear and hatred.
Implicit in Fitna’s narrative is the contention that the Muslim holy book is inherently violent and the sole and determining reason why violence in the contemporary world is committed by members of the Islamic faith. To Wilders’ lights it’s the essentially 'fascistic kernel' of the Quran, that when transmitted to the Muslim faithful, necessitates their unforgiving and abhorrent violence. The traces of textual violence within the Quran, much like the laws of natural science, necessarily compel the unchanging and immutable ‘Muslim’ essence to commit unspeakable acts of terror and violence.
Like much Orientalist scholarship, Wilders concludes that Muslims have no free will or ability to denounce, decry or eschew violence, because it is intrinsic to their very ontological constitution, which itself arises from out of the Quran. Their violence emanates from textual violence and this in turn confirms their essential character as intrinsically violent beings. This is the vicious circle perpetuated by Wilders and his supporters. The only solution, according to this narrative, is to do away once and for all with the ‘heinous book’, since it’s subject to only one totalizing and all-encompassing interpretation.
Interestingly, Wilders rambled on quite a bit about having uncovered the ‘pure Islam’ when interviewed on the BBC’s Hardtalk. The ‘pure Islam’ of which he then spoke and continues to refer is a hidden grail also sought after by Islamic fundamentalists. The fact of the matter is that it is Wilders’ very own puritanical Weltanschauung and predilection for purity i.e. his desire for a pure and entirely indigenous Dutch polity that seeks out and constructs its phantasmagoric mirror image, ‘pure Islam’. On this point we can guess both Wilders and Osama bin Laden agree – there is such a thing as a ‘pure Islam’ and both claim they are able to access it, thereby defining and delimiting its scope and contents.
This all happens in a vacuum according to Wilders and his precocious and ill-educated ally, Ehsan Jami. Apparently, geopolitics and the vicissitudes of history have little or no purchase in the attempt to grasp the presence of extremism within the Muslim world. According to Wilders & Co, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the legacy of colonialism, the open and unabashed support and grooming of the so-called ‘Arab Afghans’ by Charlie Wilson and the Reagan Administration throughout the 1980s against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the various discontents and backlash against globalization and cultural homogenization, the Iraq War, European racism and fear over the dramatic increase in migration, and finally decades upon decades of support for autocratic tyrants in the Middle East, all have very little if anything to do with the modern incarnation of Islamic fundamentalism.
In this way the ‘filmmaker’ is attempting to make an essentialist claim predicated on a perverse, monistic and distorted reading of the Quran. One can do this with pretty much any of the so-called holy books, it's hardly a chore if one merely wants to arbitrarily pluck quotes and adduce hadiths without rhyme or reason, merely with the objective of vindicating one’s prejudicial point of view.
It is necessary to point out that Fitna doesn’t even succeed on its own terms. The film endlessly returns to footage of extremist imams and laymen spouting off their toxic and warped litany in the hope of vindicating the film's guiding premise: that it is the Quran that is at issue here and that this book is the reason why Muslims are innately prone and inclined to violence. The vast majority of the film however is fleshed out by non-Quranic sources and the perpetual bombardment of one extremist imam after another ranting and raving of their hatred for the ‘nonbelievers’ and ‘infidels’. These clips in conjunction with emotive and heart-wrenching footage of 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings are manipulatively exploited in order to set aflame viewers’ legitimate anger and fear, and thereby forge in many people minds a poisonous association of ‘Islam’ with some of the most brutal crimes committed against innocent civilians over the last decade.
By reading peoples’ comments on the web it seems that many of the less discerning and skeptical of viewers have bought into the film’s prognosis: ‘Islam’ is essentially and for all time a dangerous monolith, hell-bent on planetary conquest. There is no place for dialogue and discussion, only battle waged on the world stage, and ‘we’ have the bigger guns. The film’s creators furthermore assert the kinship of ‘Islam’ tout court with the modern ideologies of Nazism and Stalinism. No nuance or differentiation is deemed necessary. Even the Bush Administration had the sense to separate ‘Islam’ qua religion from the bastardized postmodern ideology advocated by the likes of al-Qaeda.
The Netherlands and Europe more generally in recent decades have undergone a marked increase in the number of Muslim immigrants reaching their shores, and Fitna is a near perfect example of the reactionary manufacture of an ‘indigenous and native’ European identity in a world where identity politics has increasingly come to rule the roost. Wilders’ efforts are far less concerned with freedom of expression than with the desire to vilify a section of Holland’s immigrant population who represent a nebulous, eerie and dangerous Other transfixed within the grand narrative of a ‘clash of civilizations’.
Wilders has repeatedly emphasized in interviews with Fox News, the BBC’s Hardtalk and elsewhere that if ‘they’ want to come to ‘our’ country ‘they’ have to ‘live’ by ‘our values’. What of second generation Dutch Muslims? The term ‘Dutch Muslim’ is an oxymoron as far as Wilders is concerned, and he has openly advocated the mass deportation of dual-nationals and various others he brands a threat to Holland’s ‘indigenous values’. Let’s quote the man directly himself:
Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!
Dutch Muslims are to be a priori excluded from Wilders’ vision of what the Netherlands ought to be, as he presents them with what is tantamount to a single uncompromising choice, ‘abandon your Muslim identity or go back to where you came from!’ Such an ultimatum hardly sits well with the long-established image of tolerance hitherto associated with Holland.
If you are left in any doubt as to his flagrant bigotry, during Fitna a graph depicting the precipitous increase of Muslim immigrants entering the Netherlands. The subtext of this visual display not only casts the influx of immigrants as an insidious development, but as an ongoing process of contamination and pollution of the Netherlands’ ‘native purity’. Muslims are effectively microbes and bacteria sowing the seeds of disease and malaise and consequently inducing the equivalent of a ‘cultural epidemic’. In the throes of phantasmagoria Wilders forecasts by dint of a ‘passive revolution’ the Muslim ‘fifth column’ will provoke the ruination of Europe from within. It is in this respect that Wilders’ discourse can feasibly be shown as aligning itself with various tropes reminiscent of European anti-Semitism.
According to this line of argument, Muslims are near-congenitally incapable of assimilation and their fidelity to the European nation-states in which they might have been born and continue to live is always potentially compromised because their allegiance in the final analysis is only to Allah. The obvious point is that this can potentially be alleged against any believer of any faith. English Catholics during the seventeenth century were similarly subject to suspicion and all manner of terrible abuse because it was claimed their allegiance to the Papacy superseded their loyalty to the English crown, which made them, almost in spite of themselves, prone to betray the nation-state in the name of a divine sovereignty. Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is in large part an exposition and proffered solution to just such a ‘dilemma’. According to the proponents of this not so subtle bigotry, the Muslim is never completely trusty worthy, deserving of suspicion and his or her loyalties remain ultimately inscrutable and clouded in mystery. The campaign to vilify the Swiss born Islamic Studies professor, Tariq Ramadan, is just one example of this. Ramadan in an interview with the German publication Der Spiegel offers the appropriate retort to an increasingly pervasive accusation alleging the irreconcilable ‘dual-loyalties’ of Muslims:
Oh yes, I am one of the most maligned Muslim intellectuals. Tariq Ramadan, the slippery trickster. They talk about people like me the way they used to talk about the Jews: He is Swiss and European, but his loyalties also lie elsewhere. He says one thing and thinks something else. He is a member of an international organization -- in the past, it was world Jewry, today it's world Islam. I am disparaged as if I were a Muslim Jew.
It is true also true however that resentment felt towards immigrants and the changing composition of European civil societies is also based upon some legitimate grievances. The issue of community integration and a refusal to participate in civic life on the part of some segments of immigrant communities living in Europe certainly exists and should be addressed. It is Wilders’ representation of the issue which is objectionable and must be protested, exactly because it depicts the problem as insoluble as long as Muslims are Muslims. In this way it is a clear assault on the very fact of being a Muslim – at least as far as the believer is concerned.
No single individual, group or nation can claim to define the truth as relayed in the Quran, Bible, Torah,Bhagavad Gita or any other holy book. Apparent calls for unremitting violence are evident in all the holy scriptures of the great world religions and there are extremists and intolerant elements amongst their respective followers. Even a significant constituency of Sri Lanka’s Buddhist monks has in recent years been engaging in violence in the hope of realizing its political aims, itself a product of the still unresolved ethnic strife between the country’s majority Singhalese and minority Tamil populations.
Some of the interpreters of these texts are able to provide us with a reasonable and informed reading and so perhaps offer some persuasive arguments for such a reading, but never a definitive and unassailable exegesis for all time. The sheer number of disparate and often irreconcilable interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah more than aptly demonstrates the limitations and fallibility of any particular exegesis made in a specific time and place. In the postmodern world within which we have all come to live, love and forced to coexist, the Islamic concept of ijtihad has expanded its domain of application and the parameters of its traditional meaning, and has become almost compulsively employed by nearly all those who choose to turn to the Quran for spiritual guidance. It is exactly the pervasiveness of this new ijtihad, or individualized method of reading, as the American lawyer and activist, Ali Eteraz, has pointed out, which permits one to read the Quran as either a literalist or in terms of allegory and metaphor. This is something which has in a roundabout way been even noted by the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek. Putting that to one side for the moment, there’s the added fact that the cultural, linguistic and historical diversity of the Islamic world itself has produced thinkers, poets and philosophers as variegated as Rumi, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Abdolkarim Soroush, Laleh Bakhtiar and Tariq Ramadan. ‘Islam’ as we know it is indissociable from the myriad of socio-historical and cultural renderings to which is has been subject since its inception.
Amongst the vast swathe of Muslims it is never an issue of 'Islamic values Vs Western values', only extremists on both sides view the obstacles to communal integration in these terms, which are more often than not, rooted in the afflictions of poverty, illiteracy and the institutionalized racism. It was at one time routinely argued that African-Americans were biologically incapable of democratic practice, while the ghettoization, alienation and disenfranchisement of peoples along racial lines was completely ignored as the determining reason for the absence of widespread civic participation. The riots of October and November 2005 in Paris largely by first and second generation North African immigrants can be seen as a further illustration of how discontent and revolt are sown by socio-economic disenfranchisement and alienation, rather than a product of ‘Islam’ and an endemic ‘clash of cultures’.
Right-wing politicians and pundits have resorted to ‘Islamicizing’ social and economic issues, exactly because they either refuse to consider, are simply indifferent to or wish to distract out attention from the underlying socio-economic factors, which more often than not induce segregation along ethnic and thus often along religious lines. The various Muslim communities however, cannot divest themselves of all responsibility and must themselves engage in more concerted efforts in order to reach out and nurture relations within civil society.
The preachers featured in the film are of course hate-mongers and live only to propagate their vile message. Their vitriol is of course pathological and emanates from a plurality of disparate maladies; from sexual repression to the nihilistic urge to negate the mundane and phenomenal world. Extremists such as these of course need to be confronted by the moderate elements within their communities; they of course need be undermined from within by individuals willing to speak out against their vituperative drivel. That is obvious and justified, but at the same time it needs to be recognized that the process of criticism and self-reflection is both gradual and intricate and cannot happen over night, and is only stultified by the inarticulate celluloid slander and obfuscation of bigots such as Wilders. Both extremes of the ideological spectrum believe a ‘clash of civilizations’ is in the offing and each hopes to spark the final countdown to confrontation and conflagration they espy on the horizon. This discourse has reached mythic proportions and its adherents rather than acknowledge this fact prefer to will it into becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is up to moderates of all persuasions to inject reason and a modicum of responsibility into this debate, as it has and will continue to affect and impact us all in the years to come.
LINKS
This is not a scholarly essay but a piece of journalism written out of necessity.
Even the comparison with al-Qaeda is more than a stretch. For starters you would need to forget the fact that Stalin and Hitler oversaw two of the strongest and most heavily militarized states in the history of the world.
Wikipedia: Geert Wilders, Accessed March 31, 2008
| Recently by sadegh | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Optimism and Nightmares | 2 | Jun 18, 2009 |
| The Quest for Authenticity | 6 | Mar 18, 2009 |
| Thirty Years On | 39 | Feb 01, 2009 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Sure , Right, Islam is a religion of peace----
by Don on Sun Apr 06, 2008 01:14 PM PDTSure, right, Islam is a religion of peace.
Is that why Muslims are commanded to cut off heads and fingers of those that do not believe Islam is a religion of peace? See below for Koran quote.
Who are the enemies of Islam? All those that do not believe Islam is of peace, so Muslims are commanded to torture non-believers into believing the Koran or to kill them with head chopping. What kind of nonsense is this? Historically, to this date days date, Islam never has been about peace but rather about war booty, killing non-believers, recruiting more killers for wars and conquest, subduing countries, and people in blatant terror. We are not talking about the USA, Christians, Russia, Pole Pot, Jews, or any other set of beliefs or actions of others. We are talking about Islam. There is NO justification for the blatant murders of the innocent, Koran supported killings. Pointing out the faults of others in justification of Islam is like putting lip polish on a pig and calling it lovely. See below as to one of over 707 verses in the Koran of the most hatful things, cursing and degrading, a man could ever imagine saying, or doing, to another. Islam is not a religion of peace, but rather a declaration of war, raising the black flag of torture and genocide to force beliefs and followed by hard cash, virgins, or gold, in payment. Those that say otherwise are either ignorant of what the Koran says, ignorant of world history, they never read the Koran, or a big fat liar. I live in Oregon, a Grand State of the USA. I am NOT out to pick a fight with the people of Islam, nor to harm anyone. I condemned the USA for acts in Iraq, I condemn much of the USA in history, I condemn the Jews for their ancient slaughters of the innocent to this date, and I condemn the Palestine’s for their random rockets into Israel that have one intent and that is to kill innocent children. I condemn the filth of the ages by Christians, and I condemn any government that blatantly LIES to its people. I condemn any thought that take away human rights and freedoms. I condemn any religion, as Islam in the Koran, that counts women as servant animals and breeding stock. Islam, the Koran, is not a religion of peace, is NOT a book of peace, does NOT supports human rights, does NOT stand in sound logic in science and discovery, no more than the moon is made of green cheese. I most certainly will criticize Islam, the Koran, as any sane, thinking, person should. I hold Islamic Mullahs, teachers, accountable for their words and big fat lies, as they should know better. NO ONE has disputed the film Fitna for its accuracy of Koran quotes. Showing how these Koran quotes are put into practice in real daily life is NOT propaganda, but a reality we common people live with, distain in revulsion, and fight against. To conclude: Iran is a great nation filled with beautiful people and lovely children. If any harm comes to these fine people it is against my convictions for the goodness to humanity. Any can tell these Iran people are thinkers and doers of good, GREAT, things. I prefer to think of Iranians as Persians, pre-Islamic, as that is where their best has been shown to humanity, in laws, and in Justice and Fairness, one to another. However do not let Islamic, Koran thumping, people come knocking on my front door, and tell me, Don, that lives in Oregon, to believe in the Koran or have your fingers chopped off, as Islam means peace.
I have news for these religious Islamic barbarians, and savages: I’m armed and dangerous to preserve my life and to those that I love in freedom of debate, argument, learning, in human rights and in common decency one to another.
Here is one of way over 707 quotes that show the barbarisms and nonsense of the Koran. You do not like it, then rip the pages of hate out of the Koran and burn them. ALL of the Koran has been put under a microscope of modern times, and found desperately wanting for common sense and human decency. You can find these scriptures, and more online, using a Google search of key words. Or learn about the Koran the old fashioned way--- READ your Koran and make notes, use your thinking ability, study, contrast and compare information, be smart, be intelligent, have intellectual honesty and a world wide perspective. Such doings never hurt a person, save under Islamic law, then have your fingers chopped off for the sin of learning and not believing the crud in the Koran. Don
Koran 008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers:
smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve.
Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Mamad, its very obvious that
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Sat Apr 05, 2008 02:13 PM PDTMamad, its very obvious that you and like minded people are not getting the point! For the last 50-60 years you guys have been lost trying to understand Iran and the world. You wrote” First of all, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism started not with the Iranian revolution, but with the US-supported coup in Pakistan in 1977, two full years before the Iranian revolution.” I really think you’re the first person in history who has claimed that! Look, I’ve heard the argument that Seyyed Qotb was the father of Islamism, maybe ideologically he initiated it, but it was Khomeni who inspired Islamic forces around the world to get power using violence and brutal oppression. He was the one who showed them the way to engage in a worldwide movement to establish an Islamic world. Did you know UBL said himself that Khomeini was his main inspiration? You wrote” Even after 9/11, the Bush administration did not want to attack Afghanistan. It first gave the Taliban an ultimatum about the Al Qaeda. Ands, by the way, according to the US State Department, the IRI played a major role in overthrowing the Taliban and the emergence of the Karzai government.” Well doesn’t that kill you guys’ claim that U.S attacked Afghanistan because it’s a “war mongerer” and “anti muslim” and all that BS. Well thats what we’ve been saying for ever! Its very apparent that you just don’t get it. You have no idea of the history of Islamic fundamentalism and your logic is absolutely twisted and the very sad part is you resort to making up stories to prove a point. You wrote” The point is: The US and the West do not give a hoot to whether a country is democratic or not.” How come the U.S was and is the biggest supporters, financially and inspirationally, of NGOs around the world? How come U.S lost a very important base in Uzbekistan because it criticized the Uzbekistani government of oppressing its own people? How do you justify that Mamad? How come U.S money provides close to 22% of U.N budget where as it cant even get an approval vote from it regarding the Iraq war? The fact of the matter is, what you guys call “U.S support to dictatorships” has been incredibly exaggerated by the leftist media and intellectuals during and post cold war. And since our country was and to some extent is infected with “Islamic Marxism” ideology, some Iranians have become some of the biggest believers of those exaggerations. You guys claim as if it wasn’t for U.S support, and by the way you never give details as far as what support it provided, those governments would just go away! Please take a trip to Saudi Arabia and see how much the people of that country support the government there, which is one of the biggest oppressors of human rights in the world, and you would see U.S support would not make any difference whether this regime is in power or not. It had brainwashed the people to believe that they are true representers of Saudi values. Many countries with history of dictatorships had those regimes because of their own historical socio-political tyrannical structure. Please open your mind, take a deep breath and start really thinking and observing how things work from bottom up in countries like Iran. Think why millions of people supported the Shah when he was the king. Think why millions of people supported Khomeini. None of them needed U.S support, they had enough support from their own people, our own people, to be in power for decades.
Farhad Kashani: learn the history
by Mammad (not verified) on Fri Apr 04, 2008 07:18 PM PDTIn your eagerness to respond, you either do not get the point, or you do not have all the facts, or both. In this case, it is both.
First of all, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism started not with the Iranian revolution, but with the US-supported coup in Pakistan in 1977, two full years before the Iranian revolution.
In 1977, General Muhammad Zia al-Hagh, the Pakistani military chief, overthrew the elected leader of Pakistan, Zolfaghar Ali Bhutto, cancelled Pakistan's constitution, and drafted a new one that included the Sharia. He hanged Bhutto later on, banned political parties, especially Bhutto's own Party, the Muslim League which, despite its name, was a moderate, secular Party (his daughter, Binazir led it years later), but helped the establishment of strict muslim fundamentalist groups that supported his government. It was the beginning of the Pakistan Inter-services Intelligence influence in Pakistan. The ISI later trained the Afghan Mojahedin (with funds from Saudi Arabia, and arms by the CIA) to fight the Soviets, which later became the Osama bin Laden group. The ISI also established and trained the Taliban, which is even more reactionary than Al Qaeda.
Practically all the terrorist attacks on the US have been committed by Afghan Mojahedin/Al Qaeda. It was also the Taliban that provided a base for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
In 1996, on the day when, with the help of the ISI and Pakistani army, the Taliban took Kabul over and established their government in Afghanistan, the US State Department declared that, "a positive development for the peace and stability in Afghanistan." Check the Internet and the State Department archives to see whether what I say is correct.
The Clinton Administration wanted to establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Hamid Karzai - the present Afghan President - and Zalmay Khalilzad - the present US envoy to the United Nations - were at that time two lobbyists for the oil company Union Oil of California, who were lobbying hard for the diplomatic relations, because Union Oil wanted to sign an agreement with the Taliban to construct a natural gas pipeline from Central Asia to ports in Pakistan. The only thing that prevented this was the outrageous treatment of women and children by the Taliban that gave rise to world-wide protests, and isolated the Clinton administration, especially its SEcretary of State Madeleine Albright who wanted the diplomatic relations.
Even after 9/11, the Bush administration did not want to attack Afghanistan. It first gave the Taliban an ultimatum about the Al Qaeda. Ands, by the way, according to the US State Department, the IRI played a major role in overthrowing the Taliban and the emergence of the Karzai government. Check every word of mine regarding this.
So, you know practically nothing about the history of Islamic fundamentalism, or do know but pretend otherwise.
You also did not get the point about Saudi Arabia and other US-supported dictatorships in the Islamic world. The point is: The US and the West do not give a hoot to whether a country is democratic or not. What they want is protecting and expanding what they consider as their vital interests (which, in most, if not all, cases, is the interests of multinational corporations). Therefore, if any government agrees to protect and support such interests, the US does nothing regarding their political structure. The Shah of Iran and the present governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Joradan, Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirate, Azerbaijan, .... are all like that.
Therefore, unlike what you and people like believe, the US does not give a hoot to whether Iran is democratic or not. If the mullahs reach an agreement with the US regarding the US interests, everything will be fine as far as the US is concerned, regardless of what is happening in Iran. Mark my words: Afteer Bush leaves office, the mullahs will reach an agreement with the US, and then we will see who supports the Iranian people.
So, learn the history, and more about what the US and the West want.
If anyone had any doubts
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Fri Apr 04, 2008 05:11 PM PDTIf anyone had any doubts that Islamic fundamentalism and ultra-socialism are working hand in hand to take our world back to the days of tyranny, oppression and death, by reading this article and postings in support of it, that doubt should’ve gone away. The fact of the matter is for those two groups, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, even if it “hurts feelings” and “insults people”, are “imperialistic concepts made up by the west to oppress indigenous people and worker classes”! I wanna ask what is tolerance if you can’t tolerate other’s opinions if it hurts your feelings? What is freedom of thought if you can’t write because you fear some Islamic and Socialist bigots will trash and bash you? The writer of this article uses every excuse in the book to assassinate the identity of the Fitna movie creator. But I’m glad these people are writing about it, cause slowly, but surely, it will reveal their true ideas and identity. It reveals how dark, backward and undemocratic their beliefs are but yet they accuse great forces of liberty such as non communist and non Islamist Iranians and the United States and every liberal minded, freedom loving people in the world as “neo con” and “mozdoor America”. Please keep on writing!
Mamad, you wrote” Is it
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Fri Apr 04, 2008 05:10 PM PDTMamad, you wrote” Is it not interesting that all these "experts" on Islam and Ghoran have emerged, out of the blue, after the 9/11 and especially after the criminal and illegal invasion of Iraq?” the existed long before that. The oppressed people of Iran tried to warn the world beginning with 1979 about the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism, but no one listened till 9/11. After 9/11, the world woke up and realized where the Islamic fundamentalism power has reached. So I’m glad that people like Zion and masoudA and Fred and others are speaking out. I’m glad that un democratic, evil intended people who justify IRI actions are being marginalized. Its about time. You wrote” Is it not interesting that 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the stunch ally of the US, but almost nothing is said about it? The rest were also citizens of the US allies!” What kind of logic are you using here? So what if the hijackers from SA? (By the way, I do believe Saudi Arabia is # 2 , behind Iran, in the list of Islamic fundamentalism supporting nations), but how does that justify U.S attacking Saudi Arabia? The Saudi Arabian government should’ve initialized something before the U.S government attacks it, it the U.S uses that logic to attack SA, then the whole world will say U.S attacked the “people” of SA. So offcourse it can’t use that. Maybe you are unaware that the U.S has been pressuring SA for years now to make changes to its educational and religious curriculum, now like we’ve been saying for a long time and this will kill you guys claim that the whole world is a puppet of U.S, it is up to SA to make those changes. Unlike you guys’ claim, U.S is far from being responsible for lot of things that happens in the world, even in allied countries. And it has , is, and always will be unable to control everything in the world, so its radicouls to claim that somehow these things are part of a “U.S conspiracy” ! You guys logic is unbelievabley twisted, I mean some of the things you hear from you guys is something only an Iranian will say! You wrote” Is it not interesting that the same IRI was armed by the same Reagan and Israel in 1985-1986 to drag the war with Iraq”. Make up your mind, don’t you guys always claim that the U.S “armed Iraq so it can kill the people of Iran”? So is that argument invalid going forward? You wrote” Is it not interesting that the same Saddam that was overthrown by the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq was armed to the teeth, including chemical and biological weapons, to attack Iran? But, when his usefullness to the US expired, so aldo did his regime?” France and Germany and Russia were the main exporter of arms to Iraq, so when I see you bashing them also, then I can conclude you are a fair and reasonable person. You wrote” Is it not interesting that the same "civilized" citizens of the West do not make movies about millions of people that were murdered by the West and the regimes that they supported during the Cold War in the name of "fighting with the Godless communists"?. Mamad jaan, you are a master of making up stories! There are many and many movies made by the same west critisizing its past. The reason that the West is so advance is because they apply self criticism and they value it, unlike your communist and Islamist idols. How about the “letters from Iwojima” and “Flags of our fathers”? The “conservative” Clint Eastwood had the decency to make two movies in a row pointing out two different points of view, something your Islamist and Communists idol will never, ever, ever in a million years do! Please be fair my friend, please! You wrote” But you, Eskandar, are right on the money, when you say that the hidden agenda behind all of this is that “. It’s this “hidden agenda” argument that has destroyed our country! What hidden agenda? This guy has no ties to anyone, he is simply concerned about a phenomena happening in the country he loves? What hidden agenda? Didn’t you recently read the statistic that Brussels will be a majority Muslim city in 20 years? Now that concerns some people, right or wrong, but how would you feel if someone said Iran, or Cuba, or north Korea, or China, will become majority Evangelical in 20 years? You will raise hell, wouldn’t you? Offcourse you will! So please, be fair my friend, that is one thing lacking from many of us, fairness, and unless we become fair people, we will never succeed.
Anonymous 2, you wrote” I
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Fri Apr 04, 2008 05:08 PM PDTAnonymous 2, you wrote” I totally agree that individuals should view this film in order to see the hidden agenda which this right wing extremist Dutch PM is attempting to portray:. How you define “extremist”? I like to know. Because this guy believes in gay rights, right of abortion, international peace and multi cultureless, among other things, so why do you call him an “extremist”? Is it because he doesn’t believe in the dark, backward, oppressive ideas of socialism and Islamism? You wrote” as for others who love to demonize a religion worshiped by 1.4 billion people; over 20% of the world's population it serves their lust to create fear and hatred about the Muslim world. After all in order to have a "War on Terror" you need to create fear for mass consumption.”. So you’re saying that all 1.4 billion Muslims think alike, act alike and behave alike. You’re saying that through some government control (As you guys believe in “unification of thoughts and ideas under a socialist agenda”), Muslims do not have the right to NOT feel insulted if someone critisizes their religion? So you’re saying “close mindedness” is the way to go and liberalism and being open minded is a “Western conspiracy”? Also, what “fear”? The fear started in 1979 when your Khomeini hijacked our country. Its nothing “they” created, it was there,. And considering the fact that so many of your leftist and Islamist friends are trying to bring catastrophe to this country, the American people and government have done a magnificent job preserving their way of life and their calm. You wrote” Our problem today is not the violence in the Muslim World, but the violence created by the self-righteous Western politicians and their followers. The so called "civilized West has spilled the blood of Muslims at a ratio of more than ten to one” Read some history, the first act of aggression between Islam and Christianity was when your Arab Muslims attacked Christian Roman empire in the name of Islam. That was what started it all. Christianity, like anyone under attack, defended itself. Now I don’t believe in Christianity a bit, and under its name, atrocities has made, but its unfair and out of ill intention to claim that it was the “savage” Westerners who always killed “innocent” Muslims.
Democracy at it's best!.....Any comments?!?
by 00000000000 (not verified) on Fri Apr 04, 2008 08:27 AM PDTدر حالي كه «گيرت وايلدرز»، نماينده افراطي پارلمان هلند، با انتشار فيلمي موهن، اسلام را دين خشونت معرفي كرده است، يكي از تظاهركنندگان فرانسوي كه عبارات او را به يهوديان نسبت داده بود، بازداشت شد.
روز شنبه تظاهراتي به وسيله احزاب چپ هلند، عليه حرکات نژادپرستانه و نيز در محکوميت پخش فيلم کينهزاي «فتنه» در آمستردام برپا شد. در اين تظاهرات، يکي از شرکتکنندگان، با همراه داشتن پلاکاردي حاوي جملاتي از فيلم «فتنه»، به وسيله پليس دستگير و روانه زندان شد. اين فرد در پلاکارد خود، عين جملات وايلدرز را آورده و فقط هرجا که وي از «اسلام» نام برده بود، از کلمه «يهوديت» استفاده كرده و به جاي کلمه «مسلمانان»، «يهوديان» را نوشته بود. وي به اتهام توهين به مقدسات، دستگير و به همين جرم محاکمه خواهد شد.
در اين حال، نشريه فرانسوي «رپوبليکدولتر» در مقالهاي، ضمن اشاره به گرايش نژادپرستانه «وايلدرز» در سالهاي گذشته، به روابط نزديک وي با جامعه صهيونيستي پرداخته و مينويسد: «وايلدرز» يکي از هواداران صهيونيستها بوده و در 25 سال گذشته، بيش از چهل سفر به اسرائيل داشته است و طبق اظهارات قبلي وي، روابط نزديکي با «شيمون پرز» و «ايهود اولمرت» داشته است.
اين نشريه ميافزايد: وي بارهاي مشابه قوانين جاري در اسرائيل را به پارلمان کشورش پيشنهاد داده است و در آخرين پيشنهاد خود، از دولت هلند خواسته است تا با مسلمانان رفتاري مشابه اسرائيل را در پيش گيرد.
Habibi
by Mammad (not verified) on Fri Apr 04, 2008 07:51 AM PDTNo, judge Islam based on all those that you listed, but,
do so not based on Western "experts" of Ghoran and Islam say, but read about them based on what the muslims themselves have written. There are a vast variety of opinion and analysis of what Islam, Ghoran, and the Prophet have said. Some interpret the teachings in the most reactionary ways, which only provide ammunition to the Western "expert." But, there are also just too many who interpret the same in enlightened ways. This is true also about the Bible or any other holy book.
Judge them based
not just on what a tiny minority have done in the name of Islam, but based on countless opinion polls that show that the vast majority of muslims oppose the extremists.
Judge them based
on not what the Western powers say is the root cause of terrorism that Osama bin Laden has done, but take a look at what Western powers have done to Islamic nations by supporting some of the most corrupt and dictatorial regimes in the Islamic nations, from Egypt (which has a "president" for life in Mobarak) to Saudi Arabia (that funds much of the madrassa that teaches Wahabism) to Pakistan (that created and supported the Taliban), the one-sided, totally blind support that they have given to Israel, and the governments that they have overthrown in the Isalamic nations, from that of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran to that of Soukarno in Indonesia in 1965 that resulted in the murder of one million Indonesians.
Judge them based
not just on riots in France by the muslim youth, but first take a look at the discrimination, chronic umemployment, and all sorts of prejudices that they suffer.
Judge them based
not just based on what the reactionary mullahs have done to Iran and Iranians, but also based on what a lot of enlightened Iranians, who proudly declare themselves muslim, have done to oppose them and have paid the price for it, from Mohsen Kadivar, Taghi Rahmani, Akbar Gangi, Emad Baghi, and Shirin Ebadi, to Yousefi Eshkevari, Ezatollah Sahabi, Habibollh Peyman, Mahdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani .....
The point is: There are always two sides to the same story.
Thanks Mammad
by sadegh on Fri Apr 04, 2008 02:29 AM PDTThank you for your kind words Mammad...You make many important points also...Thanks again...Eskandar
Thank you Eskandar
by Mammad (not verified) on Thu Apr 03, 2008 08:46 PM PDTThank you Eskandar. An excellent, well-written, well reasoned article.
Is it not interesting that all these "experts" on Islam and Ghoran have emerged, out of the blue, after the 9/11 and especially after the criminal and illegal invasion of Iraq?
Is it not interesting that this Zion guy, the man whose Zionist beliefs have made him totally blind, is now a Ghoran expert? He claims that he has read Ghoran. Yeah sure, using the Dutch man's tongue! But, if you talk to Zion about Zionism, or the Old Testament for that matter, he will attack you viciously, saying basically that only "them" can talk about such things? Some of the things that the Bible and the Torah say are far worse than whatever Ghoran is purported to say. There are just too many articles and books about this.
Is it not interesting that 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the stunch ally of the US, but almost nothing is said about it? The rest were also citizens of the US allies!
Is it not interesting that the same Osama bin Laden was hailed by Ronald Reagan as the "moral equivalent of our [American] founding fathers," when he and his gang who had been funded by Saudi Arabia, trained by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, and armed by the CIA, were doing the US job in Afghanistan?
Is it not interesting that the same IRI was armed by the same Reagan and Israel in 1985-1986 to drag the war with Iraq?
Is it not interesting that the same Saddam that was overthrown by the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq was armed to the teeth, including chemical and biological weapons, to attack Iran? But, when his usefullness to the US expired, so aldo did his regime? Where was the Dutch man to protest?
Is it not interesting that the same Dutch man says nothing about his nation's crimes in Indonesia?
Is it not interesting that the same "civilized" citizens of the West do not make movies about millions of people that were murdered by the West and the regimes that they supported during the Cold War in the name of "fighting with the Godless communists"? What or which God was the West invoking, then?
Is it not interesting that the same Dutch man never says a word about the largest jail on Earth - Gaza strip - that has been created by Israel?
Oh, hell, this list can be so long that you cabn wrap it around the Earth!
But you, Eskandar, are right on the money, when you say that the hidden agenda behind all of this is that, these guys want a "pure" West. Of course, they want a "pure" West, but they still also want the resources of the "terrorist" Islamic nations: Their oil, gas, minerals, strategic locations (to use against their bigger rivals like China), water (as in the case of Israel), etc. That is what they want: Pure and simple racism.
Someone said in this column that this is not against Islam but against Islamists. What is that? Who is an Islamist?
If that is any person who practices his religion, then that includes the vast majority of muslims everywhere and, therefore, it is indeed against Islam and muslims.
If that is one who commits acts of terrorism, then, why do we not use Christian terrorists or Jewish terrorists, or Hindu terrorists? They exist everywhere. How come they insist on using Islamic terrorists?
Do not judge Islam
by habibi (not verified) on Thu Apr 03, 2008 03:06 PM PDT1. Do not judge Islam by the deeds of prophet Muhammad
2. Do not judge Islam by the contents of Quran
3. Do not judge Islam by the Sharia law
4. Do not judge Islam by the preachings of Imams
5. Do not judge Islam by the actions of Moslems who claims to follow pp 1.-4.
6. Do not judge Islam by what has come about in the Islamic countries
7. Do not judge Islam by what Muslim immigrants are commitng in your country.
Be fair to minorities.
Just remember - what you see in the news is not the REAL Islam. The REAL Islam is what Muslims tell you in the talk-shows. Relax and understand - Islam is the religion of peace.
I'm glad this was released
by Anonymousk (not verified) on Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:25 AM PDTI'm glad this was released and have had the chance to watch it. I can't say that it's the best short film I've ever seen, but it does make many good points. I didn't see this film as anti-Islam so much as anti-Islamist. Since Muslim extremists justify their barbarism from the Qur'an I believe the verses used in this film are legitimate points to raise.
This doesn't say much about the religion itself, after all the Bible has some hair-raising verses as well, but it does in how it's practiced by many. All in all though, I really don't care if anyone is offended. I'm offended by many Muslims who use their faith to justify this savagery, excuse it or simply ignore it. Silence by moderate muslim against killing Theo Van Gogh or other vile and barbaric action by the muslims extremist tantamounts to complicity. When was a last time moderate muslims protested the militant and extremist views of Islamic Republic in the U.S.????
Turn your religion into an evil ideology and you can expect a negative reaction. Those who are Muslim and do not believe as the Islamists do have the unfortunate responsibility to turn this around. It may seem unfair but frankly TFB. If Christians were doing likewise you'd better believe I'd be holding their feet to the fire. Yet unlike Islam, Christianity went through the Renaissance, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Enlightenment, etc. It's time that Islam faces the same.
Situational Context
by Joubin Houshyar (not verified) on Wed Apr 02, 2008 08:41 PM PDTis distinct from temporal context.
In The Qur'an, Ar'Rahmaan Makes 2 clear statements regarding just who is supposed to "approach" HIS Book and just who will "Benefit" from It.
The latter Is addressed first - right in the very beginning. I would venture that you fail the requirements -- so no benefit from the content matter.
The former Is addressed a bit later -- somewhere in the middle. These, strictly speaking, once collectively fit under the Prophet's mantle - and Salaam Be upon them all, the Prophet included.
Its really Mercy, on both counts. (And I bet you have no clue what I mean by that last sentence. You can not, by design. Perfectly meaningful, btw. & to make a point.)
-
Just curious:
what makes you think you 'should' be able to understand God's Word?
have you ever experienced enhanced communication with a stranger that was culturally removed but Ham-Fekr??
/& Salaam
//mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0234.htm
Thanks to everyone for
by sadegh on Wed Apr 02, 2008 02:08 AM PDTThanks to everyone for taking the time to read my essay and thanks for all of your thought-provoking comments. Best, Eskandar.
Ahanin
by Majid on Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:11 PM PDTDamet (((((( G A R M ))))))) my friend.
DAS WARAM TAKIN BOUT !
I couldn't say it better myself.
Zendeh baashi.
To Anonymuslim: Do Not Speak For Me. From GOD
by GOD (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:32 PM PDTQuran is not mine. Prove it or stop being childish.
Responding: aaj sr
by Drama-boy (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 09:56 PM PDTWhat did you say:
We MUST throw away all evil verses from all THE books.
Everything is relative in this world. What seems to you as evil, may be justice to the others. Compassion to a rapist will look like a nightmare to the raped!
Please try to understand this.
You see, moslems don't believe in turning their cheek for another slap, if someone slaps them in the cheek - Just like Christians and Jews don't believe in it.
Do you know why we have freedom to own Guns in America?
Let's not be hypocrites.
Re: Ahanin
by Anonymuslim (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 09:46 PM PDTYou ask:
can you all moslems get together and write/publish a new Quran conforming to 21st century laws. In this effort, leave amendment option open for people in next century.
h'mmmmmmmm....The answer is no.
Reason?
Well I'm just fine with what God says. I do not have any new thing to add to it. I just don't want to make another mess to start another religion to cause injustice, arrogance, biggotry in the world.
I find Peace, happiness, kindness, compassion, strenghth, and 94 other great attributes that is enough to make me love all creations of God - yes including my fellow human beings.
to: Zion, Abarmard and Sadeghi;
by aaj sr (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 09:42 PM PDTIt's not a black or white issue, grey and other colours are in this spectrum.
We MUST throw away all evil verses from all THE books.
To Sadeghi:
Your lengthily, clattered, some times contradicting, difficult, self-assertion, complicated usage of words and composition remind me of my mini un-scientific survey conducted sometimes ago among few hundred friends, relatives and people in general contact, inside and outside of Iran, on which about 80% mentioned that they do not understand Qoran in Arabic (eventhough they may be able to read it, but remind you to visualize their funny pronunciation!!) nor they fully understand the meaning of "Namaz" except for a few words.
I am sure the "Fitna" will open very many eyes for further digging and that creates many debates resulting further distance from "unholiness" of relegions, (at least this is my hope).
I cross my fingers that "eye opener" debates and consequential knowledge obtained from this "pleasant awakening" would be the begining for the end of Islamic Republic of Iran.
It is so sad that people who
by Anonymuslim (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 09:40 PM PDTIt is so sad that people who claim they are spearheading democracy and freedom are actually so volgur and hatefull against billions of people around the world for the sake of what some other idiots are doing in the name of Islam (actually God). This bleached Goldie is supposed to be an icon of free world and a very progressive society; In contrary, he seems breeding the same hatered and brutality that he is supposed to be going against - What an irony.
This tells me that it's all dirty politics......orchestrated by the same idea of superior race that we have seen it's effects in Bosnia a decade ago.
No matter what the content of the film is, it's a natural product of the time we are in. Yes, we are at a critical juncture in the history. You will see more and more of this in Europe - It is the meeting field for the East and the West as we know it!
Wasn't that what exactly happened to our beautiful Iran?
by Iran and Iranian (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 09:13 PM PDTFrom your writing:
"According to this line of argument, Muslims are near-congenitally incapable of assimilation and their fidelity to the European nation-states in which they might have been born and continue to live is always potentially compromised because their allegiance in the final analysis is only to Allah."
Mr. Sadeghi, What happened to secular Iran? Did moslems in Iran assimilate and showed fidelity to our secular Iran? Was moslems (in Iran) final allegiance to Iran or Allah (change of flag to Allah)? How about changing of our constitution to Sharia laws? How about second classing Iranians in general and Iranian women specifically?
Wilders concern is valid. Wasn't that what exactly happened to our beautiful Iran?
For Iranians, this is our redemption and the whole world will be in our support for becoming an interdependent secular and democratically progressive country.
Excellent analysis!
by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 08:44 PM PDTDear Eskandar:
This was a much needed article on iranian.com; we have many Wilders on this site as well. The list of bigots, racists, and hatemongers unfortunately is much too long. Interestingly these are the same people who condemn others of intolerance, while they are the epotme of of that which they criticize.
Whoever wants to see an end of hatred and intolerance should above all overcome his own ignorance.
I totally agree that individuals should view this film in order to see the hidden agenda which this right wing extremist Dutch PM is attempting to portray. To those who have knowledge of Islam and its teachings, the fallacy of all that Wilder is attempting to portray is obvious; as for others who love to demonize a religion worshiped by 1.4 billion people; over 20% of the world's population it serves their lust to create fear and hatred about the Muslim world. After all in order to have a "War on Terror" you need to create fear for mass consumption.
Our problem today is not the violence in the Muslim World, but the violence created by the self-righteous Western politicians and their followers. The so called "civilized West has spilled the blood of Muslims at a ratio of more than ten to one.
Just like we have to rip the religious mask of terrorists who hide behind the guise of Islam; we have to also un-mask the West’s warriors of aggression, hatred, and racists who hide behind the guise of freedom, democracy and tolerance!
Western policies toward the Muslim world suffer from a shocking ignorance of even the basic facts.
hardly a 2cent
by hardly (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 08:34 PM PDTShould we attribute an idiologies' inability to modernize or to conform, to the idea itself or to the inability of its adherents?
Well I think niether is really fair.
It is the matter of time from which arises the need.
Some even 10 years ago what you say and see today would have been utterly inconcivable, yet today its reality can hardly be denied, although numerous attempts are made to provide justifications.
The speed of this deterioration is signifying the need for either a more speedy conformation or the advant of an eventual violent downfall.
Only thru the wise and sincere intents of the true followers of a religion, it can be resurrected from
the death of a thousand years of superstition, and be rescued from the inattention of its followers to the genuine purpose of its message.
All in good faith. and good luck to all of you from any religion or no religion.
Well It's a 1400 year old thing
by Abarmard on Tue Apr 01, 2008 07:58 PM PDTMr. Zion, are you claiming that there is no problematic issue you see with Judaism or Christianity (if they have not been changed!)? All religions try to upgrade their ideologies based on current time and social norms. Koran is one of the religions that take pride of not having "changed" in the book and its verses. That requires the faithful to use their "God given" brain to justify the verses based on time or rely on a Mullah!
Torah and Bible are no different. Either be against religion as a whole or respect all while you accept your own.
Cheers
No dear Eskandar
by masoudA on Tue Apr 01, 2008 06:22 PM PDTIt is not Hate vs Hate
it is sanity against insanity, it is progress vs backwardness,
it is those who rule via terror vs those who wish to move towards democracy.
it's the old cultural battle of Persians vs Arabs. it's our chance to surcome what has been hurting our country for 1400 years.
now - you can't stay neutral on this war - not as an Iranian - not as a human. You are either with us or against us.
You wish to call us hateful warmongers - that is fine - but our Persian culture is all about siding with AHURA and FIGHTING AHRIMAN - remember ?
All this talk about context
by Zion on Tue Apr 01, 2008 06:18 PM PDTI keep reading this common excuse from muslims here and elsewhere that the verses in this film and other similar works are `taken out of context`.
I don`t understand this claim. I don`t understand what it is asking to be done. Why is that a relevant issue here?
I have read the Koran, and Koran gives very little context. Issues are mixed and reptead, irrelevant to eachother, all packed in arbitrary segments called suras.
The verses quoted, and many other verses like those, give no context. They read as universal demands of a god for all times and situations. All the context, based on specific supposed events in Muhammad`s time and conduct, that have been attributed to them, come from other sources, by people at various times including modern apologists.
Which is fine. The point however is this: The fact that such verses are there at all is a problem, even if all the other verses are nothing but pure love and huminty and compassion (which is not the case). Unless you assume that the violent verses have a specific temporal context. If you agree that such violent verses and `divine` decrees need to be understood under such a context, then you are agreeing that they are not universal demands and are not valid for all times. In particular, you are agreeing that they are not valid in our time. Then you must also agree that they should not play a part in what you want Islam to be today. Isn`t that precisely what Wilders is asking muslims to do? Isn`t he simply showing you and the rest of the world how terrible it is when muslims take these verses as binding for all times and live by them? Why then are you complaining and whining like this?
I suggest instead of this repetative whining about Westerners and colonialsts among yourselves that you have been doing for decades now, you focus your attention on your muslims brethren that kill and mame based on their fundamentalist understanding of your Koran and force them out of the mainstream official fatwa issuing institutions of your religion and finish this shame?
Wouldn`t that be the only really honorable and conscientious thing to do?
Out of necessity and for love of human beings
by Ahanin (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 05:20 PM PDTMr. Eskandar Sadaghi, you said, "This is .....a piece of journalism written out of necessity."
Out of necessity and for love of human beings (enough blood shed), can you all moslems get together and write/publish a new Quran conforming to 21st century laws. In this effort, leave amendment option open for people in next century.
Mr. Sadeghi
by Anonym (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 04:57 PM PDTIt is not that whether the 'FITNA' video has any worthy content or not, it is the misguided and devious message that it wants to pass on to the public.
There are many uninformed people in this world and can easily be misguided by this propaganda. Demonstrations against this, at least will shed some light to the general un-informed public that all is not okay and they need to probably learn for themselves rather than take the words of this video.
negative propa...
by MAZIAR58 (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 03:59 PM PDTnegative propaganda always benefits the doers ;on porpose.
that said also F.Y.I. the word FITNA was told to geert by his moroccan lovers since they have open sexual society in holland and ARABS are mostly gay (in khafa).
the clips are nothing new but worth to make $1000.000 maybe more cash for wilders.
Persian by birth, Ex-Muslim by FORCE....
by Yazdgerd III (not verified) on Tue Apr 01, 2008 03:56 PM PDT//www.youtube.com/watch?v=daDZyBSlicQ&feature...