Fitna (short movie about Islam)

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Aside from the 9/11 and 7/7 references (which wasn't the work of muslims, though celebrated by many of them), not a bad production at all. The verses shown in the video aren't rare exceptions. There are many similar statements throughout the Quran and related texts.

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/134507

"We want more! We want more!"

 

[jilola]

Just watched this the other night.
I don't see whence all the hoopla against it comes. There's no valuation one way or the other, only a collage of news items and imams preaching.

The film has two functions in my opinion.
The obvious one is to highlight the existence of the extremist moslems.
The other is to highlioght the self-censorship and tendency to repress commentary and reaction toward extremist behaviour when it comes from an immigrant (especialy islamic) origin.

A telling point is the comments from the Dutch minister who called for this film not to be broadcast because it elegeldy exhorts violence and discrimination toward the moslem world. Right after that he hoped this film would not result in violence.
Either he is a fool or a very clever guy since he seemed to be saying between the lines what a politician cannot say overtly, namely that there is an extremeist islanic faction in Europe and elsewhere and that this faction should be dealt with by both the moderate islamic world (hopefully the majority) and the countries where said extremist groups function.

Islam in itself may be a religion of peace, but it clearly contains subgroups who are the opposite. What is the desired image of the majority th emoslems remains to be demostrated by their actions in regard to these extreme factions.

 

[Guest]

I think it's a very sad windows movie maker product with footage from other documentaries to put more oil on the fire, IMHO

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Islam in itself may be a religion of peace, but it clearly contains subgroups who are the opposite.

That was not the message of this video, or the message of the different authors who've written books about this subject. The message is:

Islam is NOT a religion of peace, for Islam is based on the Quran which is NOT a book of peace. It is a declaration of war and global conquest, embellished with pious concepts and religious phrases borrowed from the religions preceding Islam (Allah was already known before M. concocted Islam, but he was merely one of several pagan gods).

So if Islam is based on a book that is NOT a book of peace (as clearly shown in this video, but you can do your own research and come to the same conclusion), how can moderate Islam be peaceful? It could only be moderately peaceful. When you really investigate the matter, you realize moderate Islam is really a watered down version of Islam. Perhaps it would be good to start calling this moderate practice of Arabic piety and friendliness (which I have experienced myself numerous times) something other than Islam, to avoid confusion.

In other words: the moderate muslims must stop identifying themselves with the terms Islam and muslim if they want us to take their claims of peace seriously. The words Islam, muslim, Quran, Allah and Muhammed are all directly related to a declaration of war to the world. Yes, a declaration of war. This video is about that declaration of war, and we comment on it by referring to the weird haircut of Geert Wilders (the man who made this video) or the quality of the editing. But think about the message: the Quran is a declaration of all-out war. If that is not true, fine, let's make fun about Geert. But if it's true, WTF?! Shouldn't we take this information seriously? Why are all the politicians talking about the (feared) response to this video rather than its content?

Don't bother quoting violent passages from the Old Testament, I know they are there. But there is no one following these statements, and no one is urged to anymore, due to the New Testament and several reformations. I do agree all religious scriptures pose a threat to world peace (including Indian/Vedic texts). But we have to start acknowledging that the Quran is a couple of degrees more violent, is much more recent and male dominated, and strongly self-asserts eternal flawlessness and absolute authority.

Compare it to the threat posed by climate change: time is running out. We can't continue pussyfooting around these issues.

Destroy Islam (by pointing out its flaws, and restricting its practice in non-muslim countries), or be conquered by it. What can we do? Well, I think the best we can do is to create a genuine spirituality, a true religion of direct religious experience. The psychedelic community that is developing now, with its different experts in science, art and philosophy, must become more and more attractive and charming (and legal!). This way young Arabs might become attracted to it and lose interest in the ways and the books of their parents. Young Christians, Hindus and Jews too must realize that the days of scripture are over, and it is now time to reclaim our birthright of direct religious experience through the ingestion of entheogenic plants.

We must create an attractive, well-organized alternative to the religious institutions of this world. And at the same time we must be straightforward about scripture and monotheism: they must be given up by the practitioners, for they create nothing but misery and insanity.

 

[VerusDeus]

Well you definately have a more clear view on this than Wilders himself. I haven't read the quran, and frankly find it hard to believe it is as hatebreeding as said. But if it is then still, most muslims in the western world seem to be real peaceful. You can say: yeah they might seem peaceful but they associate themselves with the quran and thusforth they form a threat. But you have to grasp the fact that very much alike christians, the muslims here in the western world are just normal 'thinking' people. Who happen to cling on to ancient writings.

But the bible says homo's should be killed or whatever, though the modern christian doesn't agree with that at all.


BTW: the last bit of your post made me worry man. The bad thing about organised religion is that the 'religious' try to think for others. Decide what's best for the rest of the world. The problem is every individual has a mind of it's own, and therefore can think for himself.

We do not have to form a new religion or whatever, we have to emphasize the fact that people can think for themselves. And that everyone is free to believe whatever he/she wants to.

PEACE!

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

BTW: the last bit of your post made me worry man. The bad thing about organised religion is that the 'religious' try to think for others.

I think you may have misread me. I wasn't talking about an organised religion at all, not even hinting at it. When I said well-organised alternative, I meant the multi-disciplinarian, cross-cultural psychedelic celebration that's happening right now, all over the world. In this movement (which already exists, it doesn't need to be created, but it's up to us and our children to re-create it) everyone thinks, believes and experiences for themselves. There is no dogma, no holy law, no scripture, no hierarchy.

 

[Forkbender]

A few things I have noticed.

1. Wilders is too smart to have such ignorant oppinions. He is just after power.

2. Though the Quran has some -in our eyes- violent verses, it is not much different from Modern Western Capitalism in its goals.

3. So I guess the main point is that fitna is again pointing fingers at some distinguishable Other, while it could have been pointed at ourselves with the same reasons and the same force.

4. Wilders 'movie' shows us some things that are worrisome in upholding the peace. Though one-sided, they are worrisome. However, his goal is not directed against muslims. It is directed at us, because muslims will a) not identify with fitna (because they are peaceful) or b) identify with fitna (because they are extremists) and be proud of it. The main goal of the movie to me seems to instill fear in the non-muslim population. To herd people together under one general ideal (a vague blur of freedom and antipathy to some group that doesn't really exist in the way it is portrayed, which to my mind seems kind of mutually exclusive), in order to create a 'big leader', someone who can lead the people towards its carefully conformative freedom. The danger that Wilders embodies is a danger to our own freedom, even when he claims to be its defender.

 

[VerusDeus]

At Caduceus: I guess I did misread your post, which is quite a relief :lol:

You do say that people should give up their religions though, which is quite impossible, and is in fact the opposite of spiritual freedom. I think it's important that no one tries to decide what is best for who, people should decide themselves.

And I don't think all religions lead to insanity, they do once power or money is involved, but without those two every religion could be peaceful.

Though someone should tell all christians, jews, muslims you name it, that what they base their values on are just outdated manuscripts.(well not just that, they certaintly have historical value). It's just that people change, the world changes, but those books don't and that's the flaw of most religions nowadays I guess.


Peace

 

[Forkbender]

It's just that people change, the world changes, but those books don't and that's the flaw of most religions nowadays I guess.

I believe there are hints of the unchanging truth behind everyday truths in those holy books (that's the reason they became holy!), but that these are obscured by the many historically contingent factors in the same works. The flaw of religion lies not in its upholding these contingencies, but in sacralizing them. It's another way to pray before the Golden Bull, idolatry in its deepest sense.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

So I guess the main point is that fitna is again pointing fingers at some distinguishable Other, while it could have been pointed at ourselves with the same reasons and the same force.

No, fitna doesn't point fingers at any Other, it discusses a book. The people shown in the video only illustrate the effects of the book.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

You do say that people should give up their religions though, which is quite impossible

No, it's not impossible. I gave up my religion. And I was a pretty staunch follower.

 

[Forkbender]

So I guess the main point is that fitna is again pointing fingers at some distinguishable Other, while it could have been pointed at ourselves with the same reasons and the same force.

No, fitna doesn't point fingers at any Other, it discusses a book. The people shown in the video only illustrate the effects of the book.

Okay. Do you think that there is no motive behind that? Or that you can distinguish a belief from the people believing it? In attacking any holy book, you will always attack those believing in it. This doesn't mean that it is right for them to be disturbed by this or that Wilders' real object isn't purely conceptual, but the real-life consequence is that those who identify with being a muslim will feel attacked and those that identify others with their islamic faith will consequently see them (the people) as the problem. Taking away a book will not change people.

And about the will to dominate the world in the Quran. Who truly believes such a thing? I've never come across a muslim telling me that I should become a muslim (not even when I was in Iran or Pakistan, nor in my own neighbourhood, which has a high percentage of muslims). The Christians however... It seems that the christian evangelicalism has remained within our culture, but now connected to the ideas of democracy and freedom (which in reality are just facades of bureaucratic tyranny and control).

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Okay. Do you think that there is no motive behind that?

The motive behind it is kind of irrelevant if the video points out a real problem. I don't care about Wilders (his motives, his other opinions, his ideals), I care about what's being said, about this particular subject. Similar things have been said before Wilders, and will be said after Wilders. But whenever someone speaks out against Islam, discussions always gravitate to the person voicing the criticism, away from the real problem.

Or that you can distinguish a belief from the people believing it?

Of course you can. Because those people can start believing/understanding other things.

 

[Forkbender]

Okay. Do you think that there is no motive behind that?

The motive behind it is kind of irrelevant if the video points out a real problem. I don't care about Wilders (his motives, his other opinions, his ideals), I care about what's being said, about this particular subject. Similar things have been said before Wilders, and will be said after Wilders. But whenever someone speaks out against Islam, discussions always gravitate to the person voicing the criticism, away from the real problem.

I think the motive IS important for several reasons. First, nobody is purely objective, and the information shown is one of many ways of perceiving the 'real problem'. Second, only if we try to understand the goal of the movie, can we understand what is being said in its proper manner. Objectifying a film like this is a step in the way of making it true, while as it stands it is a conflation of opinions and garbled reality. Finally, the movie would not have existed without this motive, for it is the voice of this motive. What is being said, consequently is said because Wilders wants to achieve something, perchance to instill knowledge in people as to what the 'real problem' is.

[quote:2j78fjb1]Or that you can distinguish a belief from the people believing it?

Of course you can. Because those people can start believing/understanding other things.[/quote:2j78fjb1]
But do they still have the same identity if they do? I don't think that is case, because a large part of how they feel, how they act and what they think of the world and others is determined by these beliefs. I don't believe in some form of transcendental identity of the subject, prior to his or her beliefs and desires, rather these are forming the subject as he or she appears. Thinking that there is something behind it is questionable to say the least. This does not mean that there is nothing behind it, just that it cannot be talked about coherently.

Interesting discussion, btw.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Second, only if we try to understand the goal of the movie, can we understand what is being said in its proper manner.

I think the goal of the movie is pretty straightforward: to bust the myth that Islam is inherently a peaceful religion, and to wake people up from the idea that it will all work out fine if we just abstain from portraying Muhammed in cartoons.

First, nobody is purely objective, and the information shown is one of many ways of perceiving the 'real problem'.

True, nobody's purely objective, but the verses quoted in the video are acceptable translations. This is what the Quran says. The vast majority of people watching the video didn't know such verses were there. Hence the video has educational value, even if it was produced by a moron, or a person with ill intentions and hidden agendas. I feel way more suspicious about the motives of those who wish to keep this information unavailable to the public. Folks like Balkenende are not trying to keep the peace, they are postponing the confrontation.

 

[Forkbender]

Second, only if we try to understand the goal of the movie, can we understand what is being said in its proper manner.

I think the goal of the movie is pretty straightforward: to bust the myth that Islam is inherently a peaceful religion, and to wake people up from the idea that it will all work out fine if we just abstain from portraying Muhammed in cartoons.

There is no ideology without blood on its hands. So the ideology that counters Islam can be just as horrible as the ideology of Islam. No religion is inherently peaceful, because it is impossible to uphold your truths facing other faiths without violence. But no religion is inherently violent as well, simply because it cannot sustain itself if it was. Religion must inspire people to be good in some way, otherwise people will not follow it.

[quote:1ubq2xk5]First, nobody is purely objective, and the information shown is one of many ways of perceiving the 'real problem'.

True, nobody's purely objective, but the verses quoted in the video are acceptable translations. This is what the Quran says. The vast majority of people watching the video didn't know such verses were there. Hence the video has educational value, even if it was produced by a moron, or a person with ill intentions and hidden agendas. I feel way more suspicious about the motives of those who wish to keep this information unavailable to the public. Folks like Balkenende are not trying to keep the peace, they are postponing the confrontation.[/quote:1ubq2xk5]
If I give information to you about jews killing nazis in the second world war, is this education? Education means to show both sides of an institution like religion, not to totally neglect one side and only show the other. That is imbalanced education. Standing on one foot, one can easily be pushed over. Showing how the Quran has both positive and negative (in our judgment) verses is valuable. Showing only negative ones is dangerous. Just as showing only the positive ones. Like any argument, both are wrong and can only become right if they are willing to accept each other.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

There is no ideology without blood on its hands.

Then my question is: how fresh is the blood? And how much future bloodshed can we expect from the ideology?

So the ideology that counters Islam can be just as horrible as the ideology of Islam.

Can be, but need not be.

If I give information to you about jews killing nazis in the second world war, is this education?

If your information is based on facts, then yes, the information could be educational. But the acts of some individuals aren't as significant as commands given to large numbers of people (past, present and future).

Education means to show both sides of an institution like religion, not to totally neglect one side and only show the other.

I think you're turning things around. I didn't claim Wilders little video equals education, I said his video has educational value, just like a documentary on the mating behaviour of a turtle (but not about that of tortoise) can be educational.

Showing only negative ones is dangerous.

But we have already heard some of the positive ones. Considering the threat posed by Islam, now is not the time to quote the pretty verses from the Quran. Sure they are there, like I already wrote in this discussion:

It is a declaration of war and global conquest, embellished with pious concepts and religious phrases borrowed from the religions preceding Islam.

You may quote the Quran saying "Allah is merciful". In fact you'll read Allah is merciful on every page. Mercy is a great principle. But what would be the use of quoting such phrases, when there is not a single example in the Quran of Allah truly acting or speaking in a merciful way? Allah functions on the basis of "my way or the highway", and that is the example on which Islam is based. It's time to start acknowledging this. And since reformation is taboo in Islam, the criticism doesn't come from within, but from without, in this case from eccentric folks like Geert Wilders, Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn.

 

[Forkbender]

There is no ideology without blood on its hands.

Then my question is: how fresh is the blood? And how much future bloodshed can we expect from the ideology?

[quote:1guf2tf9]So the ideology that counters Islam can be just as horrible as the ideology of Islam.

Can be, but need not be.
[/quote:1guf2tf9]
How fresh is the blood? Look at what is happening in Palestine. Both sides are fighting a bloody war as we speak. Look at Iraq.

[quote:1guf2tf9]If I give information to you about jews killing nazis in the second world war, is this education?

If your information is based on facts, then yes, the information could be educational. But the acts of some individuals aren't as significant as commands given to large numbers of people (past, present and future).

Education means to show both sides of an institution like religion, not to totally neglect one side and only show the other.

I think you're turning things around. I didn't claim Wilders little video equals education, I said his video has educational value, just like a documentary on the mating behaviour of a turtle (but not about that of tortoise) can be educational.

Showing only negative ones is dangerous.

But we have already heard some of the positive ones. Considering the threat posed by Islam, now is not the time to quote the pretty verses from the Quran. Sure they are there, like I already wrote in this discussion:

It is a declaration of war and global conquest, embellished with pious concepts and religious phrases borrowed from the religions preceding Islam.

You may quote the Quran saying "Allah is merciful". In fact you'll read Allah is merciful on every page. Mercy is a great principle. But what would be the use of quoting such phrases, when there is not a single example in the Quran of Allah truly acting or speaking in a merciful way? Allah functions on the basis of "my way or the highway", and that is the example on which Islam is based. It's time to start acknowledging this. And since reformation is taboo in Islam, the criticism doesn't come from within, but from without, in this case from eccentric folks like Geert Wilders, Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn.[/quote:1guf2tf9]
An education cannot be based on one-sided arguments, because than you don't teach someone something, but make a machine out of him. You claim that the positive sides have been shown, but I have not encountered many.

Your idea about islam not being based on love or mercy is in my sense mistaken. I have a lot of experience with muslims and most have been very kind to me as a Western man, and to my girlfriend, a Western woman. They are generally more welcoming and helpful than people in Western countries. They are more curious about us as strangers as well. You can say that the Quran cannot be a basis for love or mercy and that these examples stem from something else, but why do these people then claim to be loving because of Allah?

Criticism in Islam was very prominent in the 10th to 14th century but has vanished from then on. There was criticism then, while in Europe dogma ruled. Now the tables are turned. Moreover, we say that muslims cannot take criticism, but what they cannot take seems to be our kind of criticism, which is based on values that are our own, but not necessarily theirs. Our criticism, therefore, claims to be a) universal and b) against the only universal truth they know (the Quran). It is a logical vacuum. We should expose the inner fuzzy logic in the Quran, not measure the Quran against our Western standards, because then we are doing the same thing that we criticize the Quran for: intolerance and totalitarianism.

Ask yourself the following: has there ever been muslim suicide attacks when muslims where not oppressed? The cause is not the Quran in my view, but social inequalities. Fundamentalism is a natural reaction when your views are systematically attacked by someone stronger than you.

 

[Dantediv86]

Stop right THERE both of you
who the hell gave you the authority or even the thought you could just talk about something you don't KNOW!!!!

have ever either of you lived in a muslim (this is how you spell it not moslem) country?
have you ever lived in a muslims house? seen them in the eyes? talked to them?
if you can answer to at least three of any of these answers then you might start arguing again,
but what you are saying is from what you heard on TV. or from facts passing through the news, or some writing somewhere.
what both of you don't realise is that it does not matter weather we do something about it or don't, because Islam is like any other religion (up for conquering the world) it's up to the people to decide what to follow.
sure
the Q'ran was written by Muhammad as a mean of control
sure
it does not allow free thinking
sure
it fits perfectly with a right-wing mentality
sure
it allows death penalty and the strumentalization of women
sure
it was made to allow the arabs to have an empire
but
if it wasn't for the islamic arabs
we wouldn't be able to read Aristotle nowadays
we wouldn't have had the knowledge of mathematics (from India) untill the end of the Ottoman empire....
unfortunately
that being a religion that doesn't allow free thought
it got them muslims regressing instead of evolving, due to the many contraddictions that appear ( in one of the first suras, i believe the second, correct me if i'm wrong - Muhammad blesses the wine as a gift of Allah[Allah FYI was the GODDESS OF THE MOON!!!!!!!!] and in the one describing the impure foods he lists wine as an instrument to obfuscate the mind) throughout the book. And you can't even say that it's a muslim's fault if they are like that....
consider that it's a religion that spread amongst the poorest parts of the world
and the poor can't afford to go to school, but the mullahs force the youngsters to go to the mosqe to learn to read and write. and now imagine that the only book you learn to read and write is the Q'ran. that has an effect on the brain that is WORSE!! than constant pounding of the propaganda. the kids start believing that that is the only law, the only way. and then, because they come from a poor and ignorant background they treasure what they got , and that is Islam, their only richness in a filthy world wich (incredibly) is imposed on them by their rich muslim brothers so that they can stay rich and them POOR!!!!!!
it is natural for them to react aggressively when westerners come and question the only thing they got...now wouldn't you get really pissed off if they came and told you that what you believe in is retrograde and wrong and barbaric? of course you would...i've seen people flip off on this forum just because someone dared say that Terence McKenna was a bit of a coockoo!(AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FORUM where PEOPLE HAVE GONE OVER CERTAIN BEHAVIOURS AND ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE ENLIGHTENMENT!)....without considering that the Q'ran says EXPLICITLY that a muslim is supposed to destroy whoever or whatever questions the word of Allah...


besides, videos like that are indeed made to pour oil on the fire,
but we must recognise that, unfortunately, the number of moderate muslims (the ones who really think with their head before thinking through the book, and are ready to accept someone elses opinion as valid and coming from a human being and not from an idiotic infidel who doesn't know what he's talking about because he doesn't know the words of the profet dicteated by Allah himself through his messenger to Muhammad) is very low and therefore we must be careful what we do and say, thus we allow for the opening up (instead of the closing in wich causes extremism) and pretend that they respect us showing that we respect them and make it as clear as day that they are being respected. In Kossovo for example in this small town (i dunno about the rest of the country, but i've been only there) the muslim and the christians go in churches and mosques indipendently from faith. i've seen people on Christmas eve participate to the mass even if they were muslim, and the christians went to the mosque with their muslim friends to celebrate Eid al-Adha, just some days before!!
Maybe this little town is the exception to the rule, but nobody can say
oh the muslim are good
oh the muslim are bad
THEY ARE PEOPLE FOR CHRIST SAKE!!
there are good ones and bad ones, just like the Christians
the only difference is that their religion is still young
just like Christianity and Hebrew and Hindu, they need their time to evolve! they are still in the year 1441 i mean in the 1470 we still had the inquisition!!!
and i believe the Hindus before their own year 4000 had quite a history before becoming pacific...
christianity had a break only after America was discovered! we needed a paradigm shift!! they haven't had it!!!!!give'em a break...
how can you expect muslims to be open minded when they start being brainwashed since they come to the world
besides they believe that every action is given by god, not a flies moves if Allah doesn't want it....you come to a certain resistance when you go round preaching freewill, y'know... just give em time
and even if....
who cares
history is bound to repeat itslef over the ages
and if the muslims take over the entire world? what's the big deal? we've had that shit with christians before and dealt with it...it'll just take us longer to evolve
or maybe it's the punishment we deserve for being shortsighted and complete annihilation due to our stupidity will occur before the great quality jump that will allow us to survive out own homebrewed-specifically-made-self-destruction

 

[Forkbender]

Stop right THERE both of you
who the hell gave you the authority or even the thought you could just talk about something you don't KNOW!!!!

have ever either of you lived in a muslim (this is how you spell it not moslem) country?
have you ever lived in a muslims house? seen them in the eyes? talked to them?

I can ask you the same questions. I myself spent a couple of months in muslim countries (Turkey, Iran, Pakistan), so I talked to a lot of muslims, visited their homes (cause they are generally pretty welcoming as I said before), and seen a lot of them in the eye.

nobody can say
oh the muslim are good
oh the muslim are bad
THEY ARE PEOPLE FOR CHRIST SAKE!!
there are good ones and bad ones, just like the Christians

exactly what I am saying.

the only difference is that their religion is still young

like capitalism.

Nice rant, though. :wink: