Fitna: A controversial short movie on Islam

[Dixie Cup]

Fitna" is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world. "

I found this film and others, EXTREMELY disturbing.

When extremist teach 3-1/2 year olds that Jews are apes and pigs; when you have hate being preached in Mosques, even by a few, and the world cannot condem these actions because it might "offend" Islam, I fear we are in big trouble. These groups are pure evil and I don't care whether that offends Islamists or not. If Christians or Jews or anyone else held the same ideology, they would be evil too!!

JMO

 

[MikeyDB]

Dixie Cup

So would you agree with my sentiment that there aren't any "moderate" Moslems or are there moderates so afraid of being the next target that they've been cowed into silence?

 

[Dixie Cup]

That's a good question.

If, in fact, Islam and the Koran is being taken out of context by "the ugly few" and Islam is really a "peaceful" religion, does it not mean that those who love the religion for it's "peacefulness" should be equally outraged at this distortion?? If that's true, then Mulslim's themselves are perpetuating this distortion by NOT also marching in the streets, demanding that the insult to Islam by fellow Mulsims also stop. The fact that they aren't troubles me.

And, I disagree with a previous poster that the media would not cover this type of event. On the contrary, the media would give it great coverage because it would be such a rare event. (I'm sure the CBC would find a way to "spin it" tho' )

JMO

 

[Zzarchov]

But bear in mind that Hitler committed his atrocities in the name of Christianity:

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Actually he was a fairly big opponent of Christianity, he believed it was a weak foriegn religion, he just knew he couldn't convince his people to give it up quickly.

Hitler was quite fond of old Germanic religions (a member of the Thule society), and was quite fond of the Japanese style of religion. He saw Christianity as flawed scientifically.

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity." -1941

 

[gopher]

Actually he was a fairly big opponent of Christianity, he believed it was a weak foriegn religion, he just knew he couldn't convince his people to give it up quickly.

He saw Christianity as flawed scientifically.

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death ... then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity." -1941

Your quote, like that of CDN Bear are both substantially correct: yes, many Mullahs have called for "death to infidels" and have killed Jews. And yes, Hitler had his qualms about Christianity.

But it remains a fact that Hitler was a Catholic for life:

"Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941."

http://www.skeptically.org/againstreligion/id13.html


History reveals that all three of us are correct.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Terrorism commited in the name of religion is a profanation. This includes the Inquisition, the Jesuits and their abuses among Native Americans, Hitler's atrocities, and the terrorism of the mullahs. ALL are wrong and inexcusable. So let's not be selective in our condemnation of evil. Let all of those evildoers be held to the same standard of condemnation and accountability.

 

[Colpy]

Your quote, like that of CDN Bear are both substantially correct: yes, many Mullahs have called for "death to infidels" and have killed Jews. And yes, Hitler had his qualms about Christianity.

But it remains a fact that Hitler was a Catholic for life:

"Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941."

http://www.skeptically.org/againstreligion/id13.html


History reveals that all three of us are correct.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Terrorism commited in the name of religion is a profanation. This includes the Inquisition, the Jesuits and their abuses among Native Americans, Hitler's atrocities, and the terrorism of the mullahs. ALL are wrong and inexcusable. So let's not be selective in our condemnation of evil. Let all of those evildoers be held to the same standard of condemnation and accountability.

Which takes me back to my original point:

Christianity was essentually pacifist for the first few centuries,..........

Mohammed conquered the Arab peninsula, putting pagans to the sword.

Christ conquered nothing, healing a man come to arrest him......

Violence done in the name of Christianity is obviously counter to the teachings of that religion and it's leading figure.......

Violence done in the name of Islam is exactly what the prophet did, and preached.

The Idea of islam as a "religion of Peace" is silly.

 

[wallyj]

But bear in mind that Hitler committed his atrocities in the name of Christianity:

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Yep,and Hitler and his nazis were very evil. What is your point?

 

[gopher]

Yep,and Hitler and his nazis were very evil. What is your point?

You missed what the other commentators readily perceived: that evil is not restricted to Islam and that all need to be equally accountable for their misdeeds.

Colpy says Islam does not deserve to be called the religion of peace because of the misdeeds of certain evildoers. If he is correct, then Jesus should not be called "prince of peace" because so many more people have been killed in his name.

 

[senorita]

There's no such thing as 'a select few' in Muslim violence.

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.

Is that not such an enlightening quote...

I found this film and others, EXTREMELY disturbing.

When extremist teach 3-1/2 year olds that Jews are apes and pigs; when you have hate being preached in Mosques, even by a few, and the world cannot condem these actions because it might "offend" Islam, I fear we are in big trouble. These groups are pure evil and I don't care whether that offends Islamists or not. If Christians or Jews or anyone else held the same ideology, they would be evil too!!

Dixie cup, I understand where you are coming from. But just to state there is no such thing as an Islamist. There is Islam the religion, and the people who follow it are called Muslims.

It IS wrong to teach such things to a 3 1/2 year old...but you're opening a whole new can of worms...Palestine vs Israel...they both have a lot of hatred against each other...both sides teach each other things like that...you're seeing one side, I apologize for informing you that the other side does the same. With Palestine and Israel...forget about teaching kids things like that, kids actually do a lot more than just say things when it comes to the differences...like I said its another can of worms altogether...

That's a good question.

If, in fact, Islam and the Koran is being taken out of context by "the ugly few" and Islam is really a "peaceful" religion, does it not mean that those who love the religion for it's "peacefulness" should be equally outraged at this distortion?? If that's true, then Mulslim's themselves are perpetuating this distortion by NOT also marching in the streets, demanding that the insult to Islam by fellow Mulsims also stop. The fact that they aren't troubles me.

And, I disagree with a previous poster that the media would not cover this type of event. On the contrary, the media would give it great coverage because it would be such a rare event. (I'm sure the CBC would find a way to "spin it" tho' )

And how do you know those Muslims who believe in peace and follow the real Islam...that they are not outraged? My dear don't go so far as to accuse the rest of us of 'perpetuating' such distortions... the statement wreaks of ignorance...and as popular as it might be, the theory of being spoon-fed by the media or a one sided close minded idiology...it is unhealthy for ones intelligence...:smile:

 

[senorita]

Which takes me back to my original

Violence done in the name of Islam is exactly what the prophet did, and preached.

The Idea of islam as a "religion of Peace" is silly.

Colpy can you tell me what you know about the Prophet (SAW). What violence did he commit? And what type of violence he preached? I am very interested...

The idea of Islam being a religion of peace is not just silly it is a reality. But just like you will assume what you want of it, so will many other people. Then how can you even condemn those who commit wrongs...when you yourself are making whatever you want of the religion of Islam..?

I know that a lot of people tend to misunderstand Islam and thus have ignorant views...but I did want to say I appreciated comments from gerryh and wolf. There is always a tacful way of disagreeing, but to meet somebody who has an open mind...what a blessing!

 

[karrie]

The idea of Islam being a religion of peace is not just silly it is a reality. But just like you will assume what you want of it, so will many other people. Then how can you even condemn those who commit wrongs...when you yourself are making whatever you want of the religion of Islam..?

If I may seniorita... the assertion is fairly ingrained in Western thinking that Muhammad (Mahomet in my texts, I find the variety there confusing considering his importance) said to spread the religion of Islam by sword. I've never seen a quote or a citation to back up that claim, but, I've also never seen a Muslim really refute it either.

 

[senorita]

You've never seen a Muslim refuse such a point? Sad. But I guess no point in dwelling on the negatives, I guess I'll be the first to refute.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page .eight):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

Muslims ruled Spain for hundreds of years, they did not force people to convert, other faiths were allowed to hold onto their own faith...it all changed when the Christian Crusaders came along.

This is the message the Prophet ( PBUP) preached:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]

The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

 

[karrie]

You've never seen a Muslim refuse such a point? I guess I'll be the first.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page .eight):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

I'm currently reading up on 'the history of psychology', and one of the huge components of the history is that of religion, the births of Greek philosophy, of Christianity, of Islam, and the way all interacted, brushed elbows, influenced one another, and finally, how Christianity and Islam warred over control of the people. While it doesn't go into great depth on the wars, or the causes of them, it does definitely make it sound like the spread of each religion was a fairly natural process. It discusses the philosophers Avicenna and Maimonides, coming from Cordova Spain at roughly the same time (1135'ish) when Jews and Muslims lived harmoniously.... before the Crusades were to sweep through and change it.

It struck me that, if Islam had spread to Spain at sword point, the likelihood of what the text describes would be zero.

 

[Colpy]

An Islamic website....

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/20.htm

brags Mohammed launched 80 campaigns.....

Sorta sounds like "by the sword" to me.

As for Christians and Jews and Muslims living in harmony in Spain......it is very true that Islam was quite tolerant of "people of the Book" as Christians and Jews were known, Islam was, in fact, much more tolerant of Jews than the Christians of the reconquista (the re-taking of Spain by Christian forces), who usually murdered Jews (and Muslims) wholesale.

Pagans, however, were given the choice of conversion or death by Islam.

 

[Zzarchov]

Am I really the only one who thought it was odd that a far right group was using "the defense of gays" as one of its calls to arms?

Can you imagine the Canadian Heritage Front doing that? Or the KKK?

 

[Zzarchov]

An Islamic website....

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/20.htm

brags Mohammed launched 80 campaigns.....

Sorta sounds like "by the sword" to me.

As for Christians and Jews and Muslims living in harmony in Spain......it is very true that Islam was quite tolerant of "people of the Book" as Christians and Jews were known, Islam was, in fact, much more tolerant of Jews than the Christians of the reconquista (the re-taking of Spain by Christian forces), who usually murdered Jews (and Muslims) wholesale.

Pagans, however, were given the choice of conversion or death by Islam.

There was also a pagan/people of the book, on again off again relationship with the Zoroastians, but I think that might be post-muhammed, I'd have to check again.

 

[karrie]

There was also a pagan/people of the book, on again off again relationship with the Zoroastians, but I think that might be post-muhammed, I'd have to check again.

I was under the impression, just from the timeline of introduced ideas in my text (not that they gave specific dates for the start or end of zoroastrianism), that they were pre-christianity and faded away or were swallowed up, shortly after Jesus was seized upon as Christ, so, 35-250 years or so after He died. Mahomet wasn't born until 570.

But it's not as detailed a history as it could be, since it's mainly pertaining to the psychological concepts of each religion.

 

[Zzarchov]

No, Zoroastianism is still around today, at the time of the Muslim invasion of Persia it was still the state religion, practiced by the vast majority of the population (like everyone),

It went down so quickly because it was in a flux, they were having their own reformation moment between the corrupt entrenched church and Zoroastian idealists.

 

[karrie]

No, Zoroastianism is still around today, at the time of the Muslim invasion of Persia it was still the state religion, practiced by the vast majority of the population (like everyone),

It went down so quickly because it was in a flux, they were having their own reformation moment between the corrupt entrenched church and Zoroastian idealists.

Still being around today doesn't mean it didn't pretty much disappear then though does it (after the invasion of Persia, not before as I was thinking... thanks for clearing that timeline up for me)? Sort of like Paganism? Plenty of religions have seemingly disappeared, gone underground and re-emerged later.

 

[Dixie Cup]

And how do you know those Muslims who believe in peace and follow the real Islam...that they are not outraged? My dear don't go so far as to accuse the rest of us of 'perpetuating' such distortions... the statement wreaks of ignorance...and as popular as it might be, the theory of being spoon-fed by the media or a one sided close minded idiology...it is unhealthy for ones intelligence...:smile:[/quote]

I take exception to your statement. It seems ignorance knows no bounds and the suppression of ideas and discussion promotes it as you seem want to do. What I was implying is, or perhaps my meaning was missed, is that IF Muslims are outraged, they are being exceptionally quiet about it. The few who have stood up have been threatened with death. So why aren't the Mulsims standing together, with the brave souls who have the courage to state the obvious - murder, in the name of Islam, is evil.

This specifically addresses Muslims, but again, I reiterate, no matter what religion is involved in the murder of people, the same thing applies. We ALL must stand up against the barbarianism. But when it comes to Muslims, it seems that any criticism ends up becoming a wholesale protest and even more people are hurt, property destroyed and threats made. I think that's the difference between Isalm and other religions.

JMO