Fitna (short movie about Islam)

[HeartCore]

I keep pointing at our beam .....

Anyway, to me it's the same bullshit: people who consider certain ways of thinking a sin, are no equal discussion partner. I never found an equal Christian discussion partner and I'm sure the same will go for Muslims. It has to do with intelligence vs believe. Believe will (almost)always win from intelligence and if you haven't figured that our yourself yet, I highly recommend to attend some biblestudies or other places where Christians meet and try to philosophize with them. You will find out that certain turns in conversation are a big nono. And if you keep asking, the discussion is over, period, as in they will just tell you that.

 

[Dantediv86]

that is because believ if onesided
philosophy isn't

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Why I keep coming up with this is because we seem to keep pointing at the splinter in someone else's eye without seeing the beam in our own.

Then please describe the beam in my eye. As far as I'm aware of, I'm as nonviolent as I can possibly be.

So what is the problem? That people...

No, it's not people that are the problem here, but a book. The Quran (especially its self-asserted authority and flawlesness) is the problem, and that is why Fitna is about the Quran, not individual muslims or people born in muslim countries.

I know what a closed system of information can do to people, for I have experienced this directly. Not within Islam but within a certain branch of Hinduism, and thus I know the psychological dynamics involved. There may be many ways to deal with Islam, but discussion of the Quran must not be avoided, for I believe it may be the main cause of the problem.

There are numerous videos and websites criticizing Fox News, or Israeli Zionism, or (neo-)nazism, or Christianity, or capitalism, but do such videos and websites lead to massive protests, suicide attacks and (threats of) murder of the authors and film makers? No, generally they do not.

Why? Because none of these groups have a written policy that critics must be slain, that they must be killed, that blood must flow. As far as I know, Islam is the only ideology which has that policy written down. And written in stone I might add, for the Quran states over and over again that it's the word of God Himself, and thus cannot be changed or edited in any way whatsoever.

 

[HeartCore]

As far as I know, Islam is the only ideology which has that policy written down. And written in stone I might add, for the Quran states over and over again that it's the word of God Himself, and thus cannot be changed or edited in any way whatsoever.

Det 007:015 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will
put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest,
upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.
007:016 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God
shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them:
neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare
unto thee.

Or

Sam 017:045 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a
sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee
in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of
Israel, whom thou hast defied.
017:046 This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will
smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the
carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the
fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that
all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

Or

Psalm 058:004 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like
the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

058:005 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming
never so wisely.

058:006 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great
teeth of the young lions, O LORD.

058:007 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he
bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in
pieces.
058:008 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away:
like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the
sun.
058:009 Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away
as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.
058:010 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he
shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

Or

Exo 022:020 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he
shall be utterly destroyed.

Don't shoot the messenger please

Edit: Ah wait, of course we are talking about the OLD testament here. Christian religion has had an enlightenment phase right?

Think again:

Luke 019:027 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

And there is more.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

That is my point. I could quote Bhagavad-gita just as easily:

Do not become a coward, O Arjuna,
Because it does not befit you.
Shake off this weakness of your heart
And get up (for the battle), O Arjuna.

You will go to heaven if killed,
Or you will enjoy the earth if victorious.
Therefore, get up
With a determination to fight, O Arjuna.

Practically all the holy books have a violent nature. I'm not going to defend any of them. They should all be abandoned to the past.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Funny how you seem to think that people identify voluntarily with the Quran or Islam in general.

That is true. Therefore I really don't wish to discuss the people themselves. With voluntary I mean knowing of these passages and not stepping out of the herd. But that actually brings up another issue: you can't step out of the herd, for that is punishable by death. All of these people, the good people you talk about and I also know of, are (or were) in fact prisoners. Once a muslim, you must remain a muslim. It's so sad actually. This whole state of affairs, all these weird religions making people crazy and fighting eachother, it's so very sad. And it's complex. I can't say I have a solution to this mess. And although the video might suggest somewhat of a solution (get rid of certain passages in the Quran) that is of course never gonna happen. I don't think anyone really has a practical sollution to this problem.

 

[Forkbender]

I keep pointing at our beam .....

Anyway, to me it's the same bullshit: people who consider certain ways of thinking a sin, are no equal discussion partner. I never found an equal Christian discussion partner and I'm sure the same will go for Muslims. It has to do with intelligence vs believe. Believe will (almost)always win from intelligence and if you haven't figured that our yourself yet, I highly recommend to attend some biblestudies or other places where Christians meet and try to philosophize with them. You will find out that certain turns in conversation are a big nono. And if you keep asking, the discussion is over, period, as in they will just tell you that.

I know you do. And I appreciate that.

What I do think is that we shouldn't believe that we are somehow intelligent as opposed to mere believers, because then you are applying the same mechanism as a lot of religious people are (us versus them). Intelligence itself has blind spots, much like the biblequotes you pointed out and the Quranic verses pointed out in Fitna. But just like the human eye, we need blind spots to see. It is somewhat an obligation to others to point out their blind spots, but we cannot make them see these spots by force (either by violence, hate, programming them with commercialism or talking down on them).

 

[Forkbender]

Then please describe the beam in my eye. As far as I'm aware of, I'm as nonviolent as I can possibly be.

You're kind of fierce in this debate.

No, it's not people that are the problem here, but a book. The Quran (especially its self-asserted authority and flawlesness) is the problem, and that is why Fitna is about the Quran, not individual muslims or people born in muslim countries.

But this book is highly regarded by a lot of people and these people will therefore not take it lightly if someone messes with it, just like when someone messes with you personally.

I know what a closed system of information can do to people, for I have experienced this directly. Not within Islam but within a certain branch of Hinduism, and thus I know the psychological dynamics involved. There may be many ways to deal with Islam, but discussion of the Quran must not be avoided, for I believe it may be the main cause of the problem.

What is the problem? Please answer without referring to people.

There are numerous videos and websites criticizing Fox News, or Israeli Zionism, or (neo-)nazism, or Christianity, or capitalism, but do such videos and websites lead to massive protests, suicide attacks and (threats of) murder of the authors and film makers? No, generally they do not.

Why? Because none of these groups have a written policy that critics must be slain, that they must be killed, that blood must flow. As far as I know, Islam is the only ideology which has that policy written down. And written in stone I might add, for the Quran states over and over again that it's the word of God Himself, and thus cannot be changed or edited in any way whatsoever.

The difference between criticism of Christianity and of Islam is that historically speaking the former came from within and the latter (at least the most recent forms) from without.

 

[Forkbender]

That is true. Therefore I really don't wish to discuss the people themselves. With voluntary I mean knowing of these passages and not stepping out of the herd. But that actually brings up another issue: you can't step out of the herd, for that is punishable by death. All of these people, the good people you talk about and I also know of, are (or were) in fact prisoners. Once a muslim, you must remain a muslim. It's so sad actually. This whole state of affairs, all these weird religions making people crazy and fighting eachother, it's so very sad. And it's complex. I can't say I have a solution to this mess. And although the video might suggest somewhat of a solution (get rid of certain passages in the Quran) that is of course never gonna happen. I don't think anyone really has a practical sollution to this problem.

This post is a lot more in line with what I am trying to say. But I really think that we should stop thinking of religion in terms of problems and start thinking of it in terms of opportunities. (Do I sound like a manager or what?!?!)

How to free someone? One attempt, historically, was religion. We all know where that ended up. Another attempt is education. Doesn't work either, at least not to the extent people hope it does. A further attempt might be philosophy, but what we really need is for closed minds to open up to the infinite wisdom that is speaking everywhere. This can only be brought about by making people aware of their own closedmindedness. It is my firm conviction that you have to persuade people to come out of their mind-closet, that you have to seduce them. I don't believe that criticism works (as can be seen in any discussion between a religious person and an atheist). I always try to develop middle ground between two poles, to bring people together so they can learn from each other. To show them that what they accuse others of is in fact often (yet not always) exactly their own flaw, unbeknownst to them. Listen to people, and show them how you can agree and still think otherwise. Existence is to ambiguous for one truth and people from all faiths will recognise an honest heart.

There are many criticisms towards the major of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, who talks a lot with Marrocan families, tries to build bridges, but I reckon it is the only way. But it will only work on a larger scale, if a lot of people will start speaking up.

I'm generally positive about the future, because I know that we will have to create it together and that we as people can truly make a difference. If we only focus on the things keeping us apart, these things will grow and force themselves between us. Let's not make this image of doom and gloom a reality, because then we are truly realizing the apocalyps.

 

[Brugmansia]

Here are many criticisms towards the major of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, who talks a lot with Marrocan families, tries to build bridges, but I reckon it is the only way. But it will only work on a larger scale, if a lot of people will start speaking up.

I fully agree with this though. But in this case you've taken not the true Islam as an example. Because salafists (who're striving for the same Islam 13 centuries ago) ain't allowed to talk to kuffars, they have to eliminate kuffars when they encounter them.

The concept you have written can be only in force when there's mutual respect. (Thank God there is, very often) And in fact, within our Dutch laws, half of the Quran can't be brought into practice. Let alone taken literally.

For some it is very hard to distant themselve from the Islam till their interpretation fits within the national laws. However, an overwhelming majority still can practice the Islam without any violations.

But we can't rest easy with this thought. Many of their families who still live in their home countries only known the sharia-law, which applies to everyone. So they don't know better that the thought of ANY politican (in fact dictatorship) is representative for their entire nation. And many of them can't believe an existing nation with seperated thoughts.

Seeing that they burnt Dutch flages while Wilders only represents 9 of the 150 seats in Ten Hague, it underlines the extreme dark sides of this religion in it's pure form which could infiltrate here as well in the worst case scenario.

I'm generally positive about the future, because I know that we will have to create it together and that we as people can truly make a difference. If we only focus on the things keeping us apart, these things will grow and force themselves between us. Let's not make this image of doom and gloom a reality, because then we are truly realizing the apocalyps.

Which is a good thing, I'm pleased with how it now goes in our country and hope we proceed that way. But we always should be alert whether there's gaining a more pure Islam in our country.

Wilders is an extremist as well. Though he'd have had a point if he started his movie with "If fundamentalism spread amoung us on a large scale, the following can happen... " rather than refering to the Islam, which are also 900.000 people in our country with only two idiots so far. Mohammed B and Samir A.

Which is the same amount of non-foreigners with a fucked-up brain, the murderer of Pim Fortuin and the murderer of Seveke.

 

[Forkbender]

I fully agree with this though. But in this case you've taken not the true Islam as an example. Because salafists (who're striving for the same Islam 13 centuries ago) ain't allowed to talk to kuffars, they have to eliminate kuffars when they encounter them.

[...]

Which is a good thing, I'm pleased with how it now goes in our country and hope we proceed that way. But we always should be alert whether there's gaining a more pure Islam in our country.

That begs the question: Is there a 'true' or 'pure' Islam? I don't think so. Fundamentalists think there is. But in reality there are so many different forms of Islam, that one cannot say that there is a true Islam. The truth is diverse. Same holds for purity. I don't think there is a pure Islam anywhere. If Salafism was the true and pure Islam they should condemn all other muslims for being hypocrites, which they generally don't.

 

[HeartCore]

That is my point. I could quote Bhagavad-gita just as easily:

Do not become a coward, O Arjuna,
Because it does not befit you.
Shake off this weakness of your heart
And get up (for the battle), O Arjuna.

You will go to heaven if killed,
Or you will enjoy the earth if victorious.
Therefore, get up
With a determination to fight, O Arjuna.

Practically all the holy books have a violent nature. I'm not going to defend any of them. They should all be abandoned to the past.

O sorry, I guess I misunderstood your remark, I understood you
meant the Quran was the only book promiting violence,

What I do think is that we shouldn't believe that we are somehow intelligent as opposed to mere believers, because then you are applying the same mechanism as a lot of religious people are (us versus them).

Believe has nothing to do with intelligence and time and time again, history proves this. There is no 'us or them' from my side, there is only 'leave us the fuck alone in our way of life so we can let you life and believe yours in piece'.

That's all there is to it.

Moslims and Christians won't accept that and if you can prove me wrong, you are my hero. The point is, they won't because they BELIEVE that we are inferior and our habits should be illegal. Being it use of entheogens, being gay or wanting to terminate your own life because you can't stand the pain anymore from suffering a terminal disease.

Believe is stupid, retarded and a danger to our society and, even more so, other cultures, as history also proves time and time again.

When intelligence rises, believe disappears.

If it was for believe, all entheogenic plant use would be non existent. It's not a coincidence that for Christianity entheogenic plants are synonym with the devil. And that in muslim culture, mushrooms are taboo.

When believe get's in the way of intelligence we get suicide bombings, burning of witches, slaughtering of indigenous people, murdering of people working in abortion clinics, the list is much longer.

Believe is in the way of intelligence and has always been. That is because believe is designed to keep people dumb and enslaved.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

You're kind of fierce in this debate.

Is that a beam compared to the splinter of beheading people?

But this book is highly regarded by a lot of people and these people will therefore not take it lightly if someone messes with it, just like when someone messes with you personally.

It's not my or our responsibility that people wish to identify with such a text.

What is the problem? Please answer without referring to people.

I've answered that before, it's the Quran.

The difference between criticism of Christianity and of Islam is that historically speaking the former came from within and the latter (at least the most recent forms) from without.

Exactly.

 

[Forkbender]

@ HC

Though I still disagree with the opposition you make between belief and intelligence, because even intelligence is based on the belief that reality as such does exist and is somehow more real than mere thoughts, which is ultimately not provable by any science as they are dependent on it. I do, however, agree with your:

'leave us the fuck alone in our way of life so we can let you life and believe yours in piece'.

 

[Forkbender]

Is that a beam compared to the splinter of beheading people?

I'm not comparing. That's kind of a 'holier-than-thou-attitude' that only separates people. I am also careful in my criticism against you, as I know it won't help either of us to get into a heated debate, because then we will only twist our own ideas instead of looking at things face value. You could also say that muslims don't behead people, but fundamentalists do. I would tend to agree with such a separation, because it is not along the same lines as a distinction between Western and muslim people, and is more in line with how things are in the world.

It's not my or our responsibility that people wish to identify with such a text.

Then why worry?

I've answered that before, it's the Quran.

But people identify with this text, so in many ways they are the Quran. This is of course pretty conceptual, but it still won't change the fact that if you attack the Quran, these people will feel attacked personally. Attacking the Quran is an indirect attack to people identifying with it. My response is that you could argue with most muslims about it (and I have with a couple) and that you achieve more if you show respect to their views while sticking to your own convictions than if you blatantly state that you are right and they are wrong.

[quote:1pnsn9ds]The difference between criticism of Christianity and of Islam is that historically speaking the former came from within and the latter (at least the most recent forms) from without.

Exactly.[/quote:1pnsn9ds]
In my mind attacking something from within is easier and more acceptable, self-criticism is harder, but you can stop when it gets too much. Criticism by another can strike you harder than you please, and can therefore be violent in that it crosses the line. Words are powerful, and there may be different meanings across cultures to similar words. If we use certain words, another person from another culture may think it is pretty bad. I had the same thing yesterday, with a close friend from Bolivia. We were in a cafe and there was this painting and she asked if I liked it. I said it didn't really make an impression on me ("Het doet me niets"), and she then associated this with a very negative stance, because nothingness was bad in her mind. There are probably tons of words that have a similar meaning on the surface, but beneath this surface can trigger very different emotions and we should be careful in approaching such a delicate subject. Tease people a bit, but don't blow them away.

 

[Forkbender]

On a whole nother note:

I just watched a short clip called "The Church of Oprah Exposed", made by some Christians. It was basically an attempt to destroy every new age belief about spirituality, claiming that there is only One Path and only One Saviour (Jesus). It was pretty idiotic.

I got the video from conspiracycentral.net, a torrent site with lots of crazy torrents about Aliens, Illuminati, Zionism, 911 debunking, things like that. Although I am mostly a bit sceptical about the content of those vids (it's all in yr mind, you know), I do think these videos are very interesting, showing the diversity of human belief and how most beliefs (including a lot of scientific dogma) are based on the same error in human psychology, namely that there is an opposition between right and wrong and that we have to fight evil (while in fact fighting creates evil).

Peace.
Fork.

 

[Brugmansia]

I fully agree with this though. But in this case you've taken not the true Islam as an example. Because salafists (who're striving for the same Islam 13 centuries ago) ain't allowed to talk to kuffars, they have to eliminate kuffars when they encounter them.

[...]

Which is a good thing, I'm pleased with how it now goes in our country and hope we proceed that way. But we always should be alert whether there's gaining a more pure Islam in our country.

That begs the question: Is there a 'true' or 'pure' Islam? I don't think so. Fundamentalists think there is. But in reality there are so many different forms of Islam, that one cannot say that there is a true Islam. The truth is diverse. Same holds for purity. I don't think there is a pure Islam anywhere. If Salafism was the true and pure Islam they should condemn all other muslims for being hypocrites, which they generally don't.

Fundamentalism is a Western phrase actually.

Salafism seeks to revive a practice of Islam that more closely resembles the religion during the time of Muhammad. And yes, many salafists attempt to pull moderated Muslims by their arm to get them more close to the pure original idealogy. Such a relief that what they are trying in the Netherlands is often in vain, but still. But it is one of the main reasons why there is so much controversial violence within the Muslim culture as well.

Apart from this, the way Sjits and Soenits act during ceremonies and the way they interpretate various aspects of the Islam can vary dramatically. And both claim that their interpretation is the only which is omnipotent. Which led to the worst terror as we all know it, and considering all the victims ain't even complete kuffars.

----

I agree with HC that it is a lack of intelligence and device to keep control over the dumb population.

I guarantee you it's as good as impossible to find astronomers, master in physics or professor who studied DNA evidence who believes God is a man with a beart who judges mankind after their demise.

If one studies the matery of the universe and how it got established, he won't even think about a book, or God as it has been known for centuries and centuries.

God/Allah is a creation of mankind. So is blindness.

 

[Forkbender]

I guarantee you it's as good as impossible to find astronomers, master in physics or professor who studied DNA evidence who believes God is a man with a beart who judges mankind after their demise.

I guarantee you it's as good as impossible to find a religious person who thinks God is a man with a beard who judges mankind after their demise. God is more than that to them, so they won't think this caricature is precise.

God/Allah is a creation of mankind. So is blindness.

So is Science. So is Fiction.

If one keeps referring to religion as something that is entirely positive or entirely negative, one will remain one-sided. Religion is beyond good and evil, it is what people do with it that can be problematic. I don't think criticizing religion is fruitful. Take away all the Bibles and Qurans and Torahs and Gitas in the world and people will simply write new ones.

 

[Dantediv86]

amen

 

[Brugmansia]

I guarantee you it's as good as impossible to find astronomers, master in physics or professor who studied DNA evidence who believes God is a man with a beart who judges mankind after their demise.

I guarantee you it's as good as impossible to find a religious person who thinks God is a man with a beard who judges mankind after their demise. God is more than that to them, so they won't think this caricature is precise.

God/Allah is a creation of mankind. So is blindness.

So is Science. So is Fiction.

If one keeps referring to religion as something that is entirely positive or entirely negative, one will remain one-sided. Religion is beyond good and evil, it is what people do with it that can be problematic. I don't think criticizing religion is fruitful. Take away all the Bibles and Qurans and Torahs and Gitas in the world and people will simply write new ones.

But then it'd be fairly clear that it's a bunch of thoughts and expressions based the inner lifes of the writers and nothing holy to kill or die for. For them feelings are feelings so the absolute truth.

Science knows that feelings are feelings, but also figured the theory between feelings and receptors, neurotransmitters in the brain. Which provides a wider understanding of who we are. This is more sided. Many religions do not want to acknowledge logical science because it overpowers their theories created on instincts centuries and centuries ago.

We went through the renaissance and enlightment, it is well documentated and this isn't based on an inner life, but on what happend with mankind and our gained civillisation till now. It learned us how to organise a community with a free will, wellness and joy for most of the people.

Of course, neither we should force them to abandon their religion. But it isn't unfruitful to spread this word amoung those who're more traditional.