The movie "Fitna" goes out in the public

[Predator]

The controversial movie by Geert Wilders, a right-winged politician, has gone online and is available for public.
Seeing, how have the late religious rowds gone ho ..... This will go down veeery dirty. :oh

Saw the movie and I must say ..... if muslims were angry about the pictures of their saint, this will piss them off even more.

BBC News article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7317506.stm)


What do you think about the topic?
> The movie says no false information, but just shows the facts in a biased way?
> Wilders has gone too far and is provoking violence?
> Must we brace for more attacks, both America and Europe?
> Freedom of speech. We treasure it. But are there any boundaries we must mind?

What are the solutions? Regional lockdown? Rejecting migration?
And lastly .... Will this mess about religion ever end?


*Remember the No Bashing rule*

EDIT: .... Just had another point/idea.
Would making all the world like manga and such stuff be a good solution? O_o

[Imperium]

Okay, my two cents on the subject. Most of the Quranic verses in the film are either out of context of misleading. For example the first verse in the film, it recites "[...] to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies". This actually is not a correct translation, Marmaduke Pickthal's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmaduke_Pickthall) translates it not as "terror" but actually "dismay" (His translations of the Qu'ran are the most widely used and deemed closest to original arabic). The whole chapter in which that verse was from is actually talking about spoils of war (loot). And the verse's before this one is talking about the people who are treacherous when going for spoils of war (and these are the enemies the verse in the film is implying to).

Also in the next verse in the quran it continues to state about the “enemies” - "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it". So if they want peace, make peace with them. But the film neither, includes the previous verses nor the ones after. And im only referring to the Qu’ran when I say it’s taking things out of context to purposefully mislead. The speeches shown are probably true, but then again it would be a real no-brainer to not know there are speeches of that sort.

What annoys me is that the film is targeting people who do not really know a lot about Islam or the Qu'ran and they will all probably take it all for granted. And to be honest if I didn’t bother looking to see if it was indeed factual or not I would have too. It’s most likely aimed at increasing xenophobia in Europe and another way for people to attack a religion and hide behind freedom of speech. Now what I am waiting for is to see if somebody will come out and say “wait a minute, actually what he says about the Qu’ran is not true” or whether they will just riot, burn down a couple of embassies and threaten to kill the dude.

I also have to add, does he bother not to think what this will do to the soldiers in Iraq? It’s all good and nice that the Dutch are not their fighting but at least have some courtesy to not try and make things worse for people who are risking their bloody lives. And also to his own people fighting in Afghanistan? Really, such sheer stupidity astounds me.
[hr]

Saw the movie and I lust say ..... :rofl Pred-chan this is what happens when you post so early in the morning. :XD

:darn *corrects* ..... Thanks

[miyi]

I haven't seen the movie, but I have a bad feeling about it. It is true that I have my own personal disagreements with the Quran's teachings, but overall they are minor. I honestly think there's nothing outrageously wrong with the Quran's teachings, and it is possible to be Muslim and not be a terrorist.

The problem is that, generally speaking, most Middle Eastern countries today have oppressive governments, and this can easily turn religious people into extremism.......and in addition to that, the teachings of Islam are being distorted, and instead of the governments taking responsibility for not satisfying their people, they blame it on other people, i.e. the American "imperialists"....

Another problem facing Islam today: there's no strong central religious figure capable of far-reaching influence throughout the Middle East...........instead, what you have are a decentralized religious leaders, dispersed throughout the Middle East, and they all have different agendas. This politicized aspect of Islam is what is dangerous............in other words, I think political Islam needs major changes, but the religious aspect might need only minor changes. (Some things I'd like to see changed: more tolerance for women, non-Muslims, and apostates).

So having said that, when you attack the religious aspect of Islam, instead of the political aspect, then this sends the wrong message to the entire Muslim world community. Instead of getting good Muslim people on our side in the fight against "terrorism", we are demonizing Islam, the religion. This is irresponsible.

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

You can't take abit out of a verse and interpret it, you have to read the whole chapter/Surah and then interpret it, some Surahs are like a stories, you can't read a random page from the book and judge the book by just reading that part or a few parts.

[miyi]

^exactly.


Whatever my disagreements with any particular religious group, I have never been an opponent of religion in general. We all have different point of views, and I cannot change the fact that a religious viewpoint have existed for centuries.


Whatever our disagreement with the Middle Eastern countries today, it should remain political, and not religious. Besides, it is not the religion of Islam that we should be afraid of, it is the political aspect. There is an urgent need today to clarify these two paradoxical dichotomies of Islam: the religious, and the political.

The religious Islam is something we need not fear; instead, we should embrace it, because it teaches peace.

The political Islam, we need to fear, because it teaches war. Knowing this significant nuances of Islam is the key to defeating political Islamist terrorism.

Whatever the Dutch is trying to do in promoting "freedom of speech" does not recognize these realities.

It is utterly unnecessary to wage war on religious-Islam.

If we have any disagreements with Islam, let's stick to politics, and let's be careful not to wage war on all Muslims.

The last thing we need right now is arouse world-wide Muslim hatred towards non-Muslims. This film will only incite more violence on both sides: non-Muslims and Muslims alike will develop a dislike of each other as a result of a propogandic, and misleading film like this one.

Seriously, freedom of speech applies well in the sphere of politics. But once you enter into a war with religion, it's a whole new ball game.

[Predator]

It is utterly unnecessary to wage war on religious-Islam.

If we have any disagreements with Islam, let's stick to politics, and let's be careful not to wage war on all Muslims.

The last thing we need right now is arouse world-wide Muslim hatred towards non-Muslims. This film will only incite more violence on both sides: non-Muslims and Muslims alike will develop a dislike of each other as a result of a propogandic, and misleading film like this one.

Seriously, freedom of speech applies well in the sphere of politics. But once you enter into a war with religion, it's a whole new ball game.

Well .... I agree with your points overall, but not completely.
As painful as it could be for muslims to hear, they're currently one step behind the trend. Christians learned their lesson back in Renaissance. And the lesson was "Don't be too annoying while spreading your gospel among non-believers. You'll get the opposite response." Nowadays the christians are much more tame, than they were few centuries ago.
What I saw in Wilders film was resistance towards immigration in general (normal for any right wing politician). He went against muslims in particular, because they're not only immigrants, but also avid believers.
The only idea I didn't see him say was that many immigrants don't act "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" way. Wanting the benefits, but not wanting to accept local customs and culture is a bad modern trend, no matter, how you look at it. Maybe it would've worked better and drawn less agression in society. But maybe that's just my imagination and he's really just anti-muslim.

Problem is ..... looks like Wilder intends to deal with immigration in a bad way .... through ruining relations between islamic and secular cultures. If he succeeds, he'll probably go after chinese and africans. >_>

[miyi]

What I saw in Wilders film was resistance towards immigration in general (normal for any right wing politician). He went against muslims in particular, because they're not only immigrants, but also avid believers.
The only idea I didn't see him say was that many immigrants don't act "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" way. Wanting the benefits, but not wanting to accept local customs and culture is a bad modern trend, no matter, how you look at it. Maybe it would've worked better and drawn less agression in society. But maybe that's just my imagination and he's really just anti-muslim.

Problem is ..... looks like Wilder intends to deal with immigration in a bad way .... through ruining relations between islamic and secular cultures. If he succeeds, he'll probably go after chinese and africans. >_>

I had a feeling this was about anti-immigration....you see, this should be a political debate, I'm sure there are ways to approach this problem in a political way, and coming up with a compromise. I just don't think attacking the religion itself is not smart.

Mr. Wilders apparently is anti-Muslim, and I can understand that. Heck, it happens.

But from my understanding, he is a member of the Dutch Parliament, someone who holds political power.

The Netherlands, if I am correct, is a secular democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or something like that..

It is dangerous to mix religion and politics together in a secular government...it's a conflict of interest. The separation of church and state solves this...

What Mr. Wilders is doing is wrong, and irresponsible. If he wants to do something about immigration, he needs to do so in a political way without infringing on the rights of people who wish to practice their religion without being offended. That is the rationale behind the separation of church and state, which also applies in a similar vein with the concept of "freedom of speech".

This movie only provokes offense to the religion of Islam. In what way does he plan on solving the immigration issue with this film?

But I agree with you, Islam is, so to speak, "backwards", in terms of it's acceptance with "modern" trends. They are isolationists, and have trouble assimilating with Western culture. This, I can understand.

But I'm sure there are some Muslim politicians who will acknowledge the fact that if they want to be accepted by the Western countries, they need to be willing to accept Western ways, as well. If they want benefits, they need to be prepared to reciprocate by culturally assimilating.

That is not to say, that they have to give up their faith. That is simply not true. You can be Muslim in a secular country, just as one can become Christian in a secular United States. It works. Separation of church and state ensures the protection of both secularism and religion, and all parties are happy.

We have a similar "assimilation" issue here in the USA, because there are some right-wing politicians who want to impose assimilation on Latinos via imposing the English language on them. The argument goes, that if you want American benefits, then it is only appropriate to assimilate culturally to American ways, as well.

So this is a political issue, and should not be turned into a religious one.


[EDIT]

ok, so I finally saw the film.

I can respect Mr. Wilders' bravery for even having made this film, since there is a fatwa authorizing his death penalty. I guess he genuinely believes in what he is doing, although I disagree with him.


Again, I still think he is misguided, because religious Islam is not the problem, it's the political Islam that he should have attacked.

If I were him, I would have spoken to religious Muslim leaders and initiated a dialog. Having a mutual understanding between the Muslims and non-Muslims in the Netherlands through intellectual debate is preferable than outright attacking the religion. It is counterproductive, and it endangers even the Dutch non-Muslims in a country with ever increasing population of Muslims.

I understand that there are tensions in the Netherlands due to Muslim immigration, but again, this was not the appropriate approach to solving the situation.

None of the things I saw in this film are new. I've seen them before, and the violence you see in the film are the works of terrorists, not Islam. Making this important distinction is so crucial, because what the film implies is that all Muslims are terrorists (or at least, this is what it is designed to portray), which simply is not the case.

What I do hope is that Muslims do not overreact from this film, as they did with the cartoon. They need to realize that violence is not the answer, and instead, they will educate the world, and be part of the solution to getting rid of terrorists that are constantly hijacking their faith.

And another thing, the quotes taken from the Surahs were mistranslated and totally taken out of context. I'm quite sure that when Allah made these declarations, that they were directed towards those who persecute the Muslim faith. During the 7th century, Islam was a minority religion and they were constantly victims of religious persecution. The Quran was put into written form roughly a few decades later, and in order to understand what the atmosphere was like, you need this cultural and historical context in order to understand why this was the tone of some of the verses quoted from the Quran in the film.

It may seem as though the message of Islam, after viewing the film, is "violent", if read today, in this current era. But back in the 7th century, this was the reality of the time. So one really needs this context, because it's so easy to misinterpret religion when only focusing on isolated verses, instead of reading the entire chapters, and knowing the situation of the religion at the time the Quran was put into text.