|
Fitna, the controversial dutch movie
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ak87 |
So I just read this article and was rather intrigued to see the movie itself
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7885918.stm
so i youtube'd the movie and found it
part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kce...feature=related
part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdLM...feature=related
The movie pretty much claims that Islam is based around fear and hatred for non allah beleivers, and wants to take over the world for Islam
Claiming the Netherlands is being taken over, and compares Islam to Nazi's and Communism
interesting video, it seems a little racist, but cannot deny it's facts
the movie claims
"islam wants you to make way for them, but not make way for you"
now there are not many stories out there promoting islam's good nature, and I don't know any islamists themselves, so my opinion really only comes from the one-sided western view
I'm sure most of you here would have a better grasp
discuss |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Haven't seen the film yet (altho I guess I probably should considering the furore around it). Does Islam want to "take over the world"? Depends how you look at it. ALL religions believe they are correct and by default want to "take over the world" - just look at the Crusades or the missionaries that go to Africa for Christian examples of attempts to gain global dominance. Does EVERY Muslim want to take over the world? No.
Are there some Muslims trying to take over the world? Again, depends how you look at it. Islam, in its historical expansive form, has never desired land outside the Middle East, North Africa and southern Spain. Those are the same areas in modern Islamist ideology that Islam must retake. But there has been rhetoric from some of the "external" Islamist groups (ie those operating in the West) that they intend to convert their country of origin, but I'm not sure how serious we can take these demands from educated individuals claiming to want to do what they know they will never be able to. |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
site blocked. touche sheikh mo & co, touche.
time to fire up the anti censorship software ;) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
but I'm not sure how serious we can take these demands from educated individuals claiming to want to do what they know they will never be able to. |
I don't think that's the right question to ask. It's how far will they be accomodated before someone stands up and says "WTF is happening to my country?" |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
I don't think that's the right question to ask. It's how far will they be accomodated before someone stands up and says "WTF is happening to my country?" |
Well what's the difference between allowing Muslims to preach hate and allowing non-Muslims to preach hate?
I'm honestly not too sure where I stand on the censorship of Wilders. If you allow him to spread hate (which is what he does, it's not a valid criticism of a religion) under the guise of free speech then you must also allows these religious nuts to spread hate under the guise of free speech.
As for whether there is a genuine security risk from allowing Wilders to enter the UK to spread his message, it's a fair possibility. We do have extremists in this country that are willing to kill hundreds, and unlike the 9/11 attackers, these nutters are British citizens. But it's not just that kind of obvious threat we need to care about in the UK, there's a hell of a lot of unrest in Muslim communities because of the way they are being characterised by people like Wilders. We need them on our side if we're gonna get anywhere, and giving people like Wilders the opportunity to turn people against them isn't going to help us. |
|
|
| BARS-N-STARS |
| Geert Wilders should be president. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well what's the difference between allowing Muslims to preach hate and allowing non-Muslims to preach hate?
I'm honestly not too sure where I stand on the censorship of Wilders. If you allow him to spread hate (which is what he does, it's not a valid criticism of a religion) under the guise of free speech then you must also allows these religious nuts to spread hate under the guise of free speech.
As for whether there is a genuine security risk from allowing Wilders to enter the UK to spread his message, it's a fair possibility. We do have extremists in this country that are willing to kill hundreds, and unlike the 9/11 attackers, these nutters are British citizens. But it's not just that kind of obvious threat we need to care about in the UK, there's a hell of a lot of unrest in Muslim communities because of the way they are being characterised by people like Wilders. We need them on our side if we're gonna get anywhere, and giving people like Wilders the opportunity to turn people against them isn't going to help us. |
Agreed.
Seeing this coming from such an outwardly tolerant society like the Dutch is surprising, especially given it's high Muslim population.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the future. |
|
|
| -=Kotten=- |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Haven't seen the film yet (altho I guess I probably should considering the furore around it). Does Islam want to "take over the world"? Depends how you look at it. ALL religions believe they are correct and by default want to "take over the world" - just look at the Crusades or the missionaries that go to Africa for Christian examples of attempts to gain global dominance. Does EVERY Muslim want to take over the world? No.
|
:conf:
Muslims who doesnt dedicate their life to bring Dar al Harb (house of war) to Dar al Islam (House of Islam) are not true muslims.
Exerpts from the "The Reliance of the Traveller" islamic lawbook. This is not some weird propaganda but official islamic law certified by the Al-Azhar university, chief centre of Arabic literature:
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.
1. (Offensive) fighting is obligatory for you (Koran 2.216);
2. And fight against the unbelievers all together as they themselves fight against you all together . (Koran 9.36);
and such Prophetic quotations (Ahadiths) as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet - may Allah venerate him and give him peace - said:
I have been commanded to fight people until they bear witness that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay the obligatory charity (zakat). If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah;
and the Prophetic quotation (Ahadith) reported by Muslim:
To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''
Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military encounters of the Prophet - may Allah venerate him and give him peace - including his own martial raids and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, which numbered either twenty-seven or twenty-nine.
The Prophet - may Allah venerate him and give him peace - fought in eight of encounters, and killed only one person, namely Ubayy ibn Khalaf, with his noble hand at the battle of Uhud.
9.9.1 The Obligatory character of Jihad
Jihad is a Communal obligation (8.3.2). When enough people engage in jihad to accomplish it successfully, it is no longer obligatory upon others the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying - may Allah venerate him and give him peace -
"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"
and Allah, the Most High said:
Believers who stay behind, having no injury, are not equal to those who fight in the way of Allah with their wealth and their souls. Allah has preferred those who fight with their wealth and their souls a degree above those who stay behind (because of sickness). Yet to each, Allah has promised the most excellent (Paradise). And Allah has preferred those who fought over those who stayed behind with a great wage. (Koran 4.95)
When able-bodied men are called upon to engage in jihad - regardless whether or not it actually occurs - do not participate each and everyone who is aware that it is obligatory to take part in the jihad is guilt of sin
After the Prophets migration to Medina jihad became a Communal obligation.
As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.
The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (9.9.8) is a Communal obligation , and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a Communal obligation ," meaning upon the Muslims each year.
The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (8.3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).
9.9.2 When jihad is a personal obligation
Jihad is obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines and it is a major sin to flee from a battle. However, if a person does not take part on account of illness or the death of one's mount when unable to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force.
9.9.4 Those obligated to fight in Jihad
Those called upon to fight are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.
9.9.8 Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (9.25) makes war upon Jews, Christians (Nazarenes), and Zoroastrians provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: 9.11.4). Their circumstances remain as such until they either become covert to Islam or continue paying the non-Muslim poll-tax.
Allah, the Most High says:
Fight those who neither believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not embrace the religion of the truth, being among those who have been given the Book, until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humiliated. (Koran 9.29),
After the final coming of Prophet Jesus, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, that is because the taking of the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent - peace be upon him, and this has been Divinely revealed in the Law of Prophet Muhammad - may Allah venerate him and give him peace.
The final coming of Jesus does not constitute a separate Divinely revealed law, he will rule with the law of Prophet Muhammad may Allah venerate him and give him peace - because he said:
Authority among the Children of Israel was exercised by prophets. When a prophet died, he was succeeded by another prophet. I will not be succeeded by a prophet, but there will be caliphs after me, a large number of them. He as asked,
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus peace be upon him - since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet - may Allah venerate him and give him peace.
9.9.9 Regarding others:
The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya). However, according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y-21), 6.48-49) ). |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
I agree that Wilders has gone too far with this - he is acting irresponsibly. He is using racism and hate, instead of focusing on facts and human rights. He is only helping the cause of Muslim fundamentalists. After reading further about his movie and views, I dont support his view. Because he discredits the campaign of other people who do feel genuinely threatened by Islamic fundamendalists. Now if Dutch voice negative opinions about some aspect of Islam, they may instantly be compared to Wilders or have to defend themselves against being racist.
People need to get a brain and act smart when it comes to sensitive issues like these. But in any case, if some Muslim voices out how evil our culture is (which most of fundamentalists do all the time - including brainwashing children), or makes a movie about it, he will probably not even get a death threat - not even talking about a danger of being stabbed 20 times or shot.
However, if we dare share our opinion among a group of people, there's a serious risk to life of that person(s).
Look - much of the 20th century was an ideological struggle between communism and capitalism - which is not as dangerous of what may be a 21st century's struggle between religions (Islam vs. Judaism/Christianity) may turn out to be.
|
|
|
| BARS-N-STARS |
| Ill tell you what. Take your religon over there and see what happens. Dont comment just do it.......... Didnt think so. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well what's the difference between allowing Muslims to preach hate and allowing non-Muslims to preach hate? |
because the former scares the out of people, to the point they fear for their own lives. no one should give all about a movie show. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
because the former scares the out of people, to the point they fear for their own lives. no one should give all about a movie show. |
To be fair, that's on this side of the fence. I imagine it's rather different on the other side. |
|
|
|
|
