I was deeply shocked and horrified to hear this news about a lunatic sicko dutch politician who dared to make an evil and satanic movie about our holy Quran.

I hold the Dutch government fully responsible if they allow such a film to be publicly published.

and the Dutch government will have to bare the consequences and the reaction of Muslims worldwide which for sure will not be peaceful.

as for this lunatic pig film maker his blood already becomes legal to all muslims.

just look at his evil eyes:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5689/geertwildersbm6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Geert Wilders on a Suicide Mission


the full story........http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2900

Ok...I really think you are overreacting by saying

his blood already becomes legal to all muslims

:os

I'm upset as well by this movie, but we should show our displeasure in a peaceful way, not declare someone is available for slaughter!!!

You see penny.. People like clouds make such films more believable.

:no:

Cloud's very reaction is what makes people like that make such films.

I am so worried about the problems this movie is gonna cause now...

So many people are gonna have the same mentality in approaching this problem as clouds...

*sigh*

I was deeply shocked and horrified to hear this news about a lunatic sicko dutch politician who dared to make an evil and satanic movie about our holy Quran.

I hold the Dutch government fully responsible if they allow such a film to be publicly published.

and the Dutch government will have to bare the consequences and the reaction of Muslims worldwide which for sure will not be peaceful.

as for this lunatic pig film maker his blood already becomes legal to all muslims.

just look at his evil eyes:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5689/geertwildersbm6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Geert Wilders on a Suicide Mission


the full story........http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2900


Clouds:

I understand why you are upset.

But the Netherlands is not your country.

What on earth makes you think that you can decide the policy of other countries toward issues like this?

I too think "his blood become legal for all Muslims" is over the top.

So much over the top that the post ought to be taken down and you ought to be warned for it. You can't publicly call for assassination.

And I think if you could only get hold of yourself you would see that it doesn't do any good. Cartoons, movies, websites, they only spread when you act like this.

And the more people act like this, the more they spread.

Think about it and edit that line out.

Maybe it's time that people who disapprove of these ways truly separate themselves from 'muslims' who practice them. But that will never happen.

And that's why these things will keep on coming out and keep on happening. People are curious as to why or what makes so many people so violent, so quickly.


Why someone who practices a "peaceful religion" would think, reason and say "as for this lunatic b]pig[/b] film maker his blood already becomes legal to all muslims."

They'll be asking themselves.. "where do these people get this stuff from?"

And we all know where the fingers will point.

I wish you would read your link, clouds.

The whole POINT of the movie is to PROVE that Muslims can't take harsh criticism. Wilders wants to prove that Islam is dangerous and intolerant.

If you don't like what Wilders is doing, the perfect way to react is to say: "What a jerk, what a loser," and forget about it.

This "blood" solution just proves him right.

Besides, if you yawn and roll over, the film gets a little blip of publicity. Storm the heavens with violent protests and the film becomes a huge deal.

Kill the guy and the film will be seen by millions and millions of people who will all see the message of the film is proven by the killing of the film maker.

YOU will be the film's publicity. Do you want to publicize this film and its message?

If Muslims had protested in a dignified manner and stopped buying that Danish newspaper and let it go at that, no one would ever have heard of those cartoons.

But because of the reaction, they are STILL classics on the internet, coming up to be viewed by people again and again and again.

Even if you believed that killing people was the just solution to such things, the fact is that under THESE circumstances, it has the exact opposite effect that it is intended to have.

I was deeply shocked and horrified to hear this news about a lunatic sicko dutch politician who dared to make an evil and satanic movie about our holy Quran.

I hold the Dutch government fully responsible if they allow such a film to be publicly published.

and the Dutch government will have to bare the consequences and the reaction of Muslims worldwide which for sure will not be peaceful.

as for this lunatic pig film maker his blood already becomes legal to all muslims.

just look at his evil eyes:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5689/geertwildersbm6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Geert Wilders on a Suicide Mission


the full story........http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2900First thing none of us have seen this movie.

Second thing is that you haven't brought a single thing that would dispute what this movie is "supposed" to be about.

Thirdly by saying sh!t like his blood belongs to muslims ... you only reinforce his position.

But clouds I do understand where you get your contention that you speak like this and your reaction ... straight from the book you love so dearly.

So who is what here clouds ...

And take a look at this:

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMHUpbH59bzagwEQ0AIYmAIyCONdfkH8c3pm

It's an ad by a Muslim service that is running--voluntarily--in the link clouds provided above. In an online journal that basically agrees with Wilders position on Islam.

And there are other Muslim ads there! Muslim ring tones; Islamic ring tones....

Why are Muslim companies running ads in the Brussels Journal? The MUST know what the Brussels Journal is. It's dedicated to standing against "the Islamicization of Europe".

The first thing to do before killing people is simply to withdraw your advertising, for heaven's sake!

But I bet they put it in there on purpose. I bet they know that Muslims are reading this stuff in large numbers. Why not cash in?, they are thinking.

You can either:

1. Take the confrontational route and withdraw your ads, or

2. Figure that Muslims will read, dislike, shop the ads and move on with life. And place your ads there anyway. Which by the way helps show that you are normal citizens of Europe.

Come on Clouds,

I understand you are offended, but really these are just a few pranksters. The Dutch people are some of the most tolerant and progressive people on the planet.

this is so frustrating and upseting but what to do . . . very sad

I do understand you clouds, and share with you the upset and offense that these Dutch are spreading to Islam worlds under the theme of “ Freedom “ :rolleyes:

Even though, I don’t agree with you about the blood thing, it will only cost us more troubles and won’t solve the problem but will create more problems

Personally I wouldn’t bother either think about such movie nor about these stupid Dutch ( this is how I feel about them in term of Freedom :angel: )

Put in mind that it isn’t one person word that will change all this Anti-Islam issues, it should be the whole Islam Nation to take action ( which is something we will keep dream :( )

I just want to comment on few quotes

Of course, Mr. Wilders has a right to say and show whatever he likes, especially in the Netherlands where everyone can say and show whatever they like. It goes without saying that he is allowed to buy himself as many Korans as he wants to and tear them to pieces. I do not deny that Mr. Wilders is a courageous man, a hero even. But is he wise? Will his provocation, at this moment, in the present circumstances, advance the cause of the counter-Jihadist movement?

He isn’t a wise, he is just stupid and out of his mind

The Dutch government is preparing itself for the “fall out” of the Wilders movie, both in the Netherlands and abroad. Diplomatic staff has been instructed how to deal with violent protests. Embassy evacuation plans have been drawn up. The Hague has instructed its ambassadors in Islamic countries to tell the local authorities that Mr. Wilders’ opinions are not shared by the Dutch government (which, by the way, is something those totalitarian dictatorships do not understand, or wish not to understand).

And why the hell do they have to go through all this hassle just cause of 10 min movie that they pretend it is a sort of freedom :bored: jerks


Wilders’ message that the Koran should be banned is not “evil” either; it is an opinion, which Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is allowed to express – just as others in the Netherlands are allowed to express support for such things as trio marriages, paedophilia and “consensual sex between humans and animals.”

What a foolish compare of someone is called courageous man :yuk:

looool... ahh Clouds ur such a funny dude..

Do I like the idea of this movie? hell naah

Would it change my opinion about anything? nobe

I mean.. Our religion has been talked about in every possible way you can think of..
one more person trynna bring it down.. is not gonna change anything..

At this point I think we should be saying.. SCreW It!
Do wut u wanna do.. cause it'll be ur loss in the end not ourz! ;)

He really does have evil in his eyes.

Oh well. People who have hate Islam have always been there, since the time of the Prophet :PBUH: - so it should not be a surprise to us that we have another intolerant, bigoted and ignorant individual. After 1400 years, we should be used to it by now - the Quran amazingly does specifically address them a lot as well.

Someone will do anything to grab attention, & this dude is doing that. The problem we give too much attention to such crap! So just ignore!

Anti Quran or Anti Islam, Islam is spreading and these pathetic people can't take it. No matter what they do, truth will prevail, whether they like it or not :)

I hold the Dutch government fully responsible if they allow such a film to be publicly published.

and the Dutch government will have to bare the consequences and the reaction of Muslims worldwide which for sure will not be peaceful.

In general, and in case he publishes the movie also, do you consider Holland, Dar al Islam or Dar al Harb ?

I will go to their Embassy to throw tomatoes and cucumbers :cute:

Anti Quran or Anti Islam, Islam is spreading and these pathetic people can't take it. No matter what they do, truth will prevail, whether they like it or not

Are you advocating spreading Islam by the sword?

I hope that people who watch this movie don't become brainwashed :l

Why spread wrong infos about a religion? Islam started spreading long ago but it seems like everytime somepeople try to give the wrong image it spreads faster, lol

Religions are not meant for movies...If you didn't realize that yet, you're a very talent-less filmmaker. He's not a goat...You can't slaughter him when you want to or when he does something. You can't stop him from saying what he wants to say. But you can tell him that there's another view and use the energy + money that you spend in protesting + calling for death to produce an equally publicised version of YOUR view of it. Or you can sit down with him and discuss things. Kill him and the movie is shown in theatres with the tagline, 'The movie that sparked the killing of its own maker' and believe me, everyone who sees that will pay to watch the movie. Gains: Money for film + Publicity for idea + More people with the idea you don't like.

Do anything else and you look like you don't know anything about Islam. Furthermore, how the hell is this 'Politics'?

as for this lunatic pig film maker his blood already becomes legal to all muslims.

[/URL]

i agree :)

^ So by doing that its supposed to make things better? If so in what way?

Religions are not meant for movies...If you didn't realize that yet, you're a very talent-less filmmaker. He's not a goat...You can't slaughter him when you want to or when he does something. You can't stop him from saying what he wants to say. But you can tell him that there's another view and use the energy + money that you spend in protesting + calling for death to produce an equally publicised version of YOUR view of it. Or you can sit down with him and discuss things. Kill him and the movie is shown in theatres with the tagline, 'The movie that sparked the killing of its own maker' and believe me, everyone who sees that will pay to watch the movie. Gains: Money for film + Publicity for idea + More people with the idea you don't like.

Do anything else and you look like you don't know anything about Islam. Furthermore, how the hell is this 'Politics'?

Threadlike got it in 1. When something seeks to be 'provocative', the way to defeat it is to refuse to be provoked.

^ So by doing that its supposed to make things better? If so in what way?

yes it will stop it, this will give a message for such anti-islam sick people not to do it again.

^ So by doing that its supposed to make things better? If so in what way?

Some Muslims just believe this is Islam.

They think that if someone insults the prophet or the religion, Islam commands Muslims to execute him.

But you see: that's why the movie is being made. Because the moviemaker and some Muslims AGREE about the character of the religion. They only disagree about if it is good or bad.

"Look!" says Wilders. "This is a religion that hunts down and kills people who don't like it and say so."

"Yes!" say these Muslims. "We are a religion that hunts down and kills people who don't like it and say so."

When does it come out on DVD ?

What clouds is saying is that if Wilders releases this film saying the Quran instigates violence, then, and heres the kicker, he advocates violence.

Talk about a self fulfulling prophecy.

Here, you can listen to what Wilders says direct from his own mouth.

Koran Film part 1

Koran Film part 2

Threadlike got it in 1. When something seeks to be 'provocative', the way to defeat it is to refuse to be provoked.

not being provoked means that it's ok with you, it means that hey you can do it again till it becomes a normal thing. No we don't want this. we have jealousy and respect to our religion so we don't accept insutls to it

No, not being provoked means reacting in an adult mature manner.

However, I am sure thats a foreign concept to you.

not being provoked means that it's ok with you, it means that hey you can do it again till it becomes a normal thing. No we don't want this. we have jealousy and respect to our religion so we don't accept insutls to it

That's Wilders point.

"If this religion takes hold in our society, everyone will have to bow down to it under threat of force."

I'm afraid, Rey, it IS an normal thing. There is nothing new about unfavorable opinions of Islam in the West. Dante, the most famous poet of Europe, has the Prophet in Hell, split from groin to chest, lamenting his evils. And schoolchildren across the continent have been reading it for centuries. Find something in Wilders as bad as that!

What does Wilders think and say that Jack and Wudjab don't think and say? There may be a bit of difference, but not much. And Jack and Wudjab are both Sabla members who get voted awards.

You can be upset that people have an unfavorable opinion of your religion. But acting as though it's your job to see to it that those who express it are punished is a different matter. ESPECIALLY in places that aren't yours to govern.

I will go to their Embassy to throw tomatoes and cucumbers :cute:

Can I come and bring grenades with me, ohhh sorry I mean eggs. :p

I’m sick and tired of the anti-Islam sentiment these days, to the extent that it doesn’t bother me much. Let them do as they please:

الكلاب تنبح ...والقافلة تسير

Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

Actually I'm glad that we have these controversies regarding Islam.

This causes the West to reexamine this whole concept of multiculturalism and integration of immigrants in their societies.

The more Mohammed El Masrys and Syed Sohawardy's we have (as in Canada), the more the spotlight shines on them.

The best way to flush out cockroaches is to shine a bright light on them

No, not being provoked means reacting in an adult mature manner.

However, I am sure thats a foreign concept to you.

that's in ur dictionary not mine :rolleyes:

That's Wilders point.

"If this religion takes hold in our society, everyone will have to bow down to it under threat of force."

I'm afraid, Rey, it IS an normal thing. There is nothing new about unfavorable opinions of Islam in the West. Dante, the most famous poet of Europe, has the Prophet in Hell, split from groin to chest, lamenting his evils. And schoolchildren across the continent have been reading it for centuries. Find something in Wilders as bad as that!
What does Wilders think and say that Jack and Wudjab don't think and say? There may be a bit of difference, but not much. And Jack and Wudjab are both Sabla members who get voted awards.

You can be upset that people have an unfavorable opinion of your religion. But acting as though it's your job to see to it that those who express it are punished is a different matter. ESPECIALLY in places that aren't yours to govern.


first of all jeff, with all respect to your view, we Muslims are awaay different in beliefs than Christians in terms of prophets dipictions and religions insults. and yes religion is our society or at least it should be ..

it's ok with you i see that and i see it from your movies and stories, mocking God and Jesus to make others laugh.

in contrary, we shouldn't make our religion for a laughter .. and thats why it's frustrating for us, we are raised and brought up like this.

and from the interview it seems that still no program is eager to host his movie.. and i wish the Netherlands government stop it, cause it's going to be a political issue as well if they accept to publish it

Here's another novel concept for you.

In the West, the government has no control over the free press.

You should have learnt that from the Danish cartoon debacle already.

Here's another novel concept for you.

In the West, the government has no control over the free press.

You should have learnt that from the Danish cartoon debacle already.

you seem to be haapy for this movie :rolleyes:

I doesn't bother me either way.

But it amuses me to see you wind yourself up over something you have absolutely no control over.

that's in ur dictionary not mine :rolleyes:




first of all jeff, with all respect to your view, we Muslims are awaay different in beliefs than Christians in terms of prophets dipictions and religions insults. and yes religion is our society or at least it should be ..

it's ok with you i see that and i see it from your movies and stories, mocking God and Jesus to make others laugh.

in contrary, we shouldn't make our religion for a laughter .. and thats why it's frustrating for us, we are raised and brought up like this.

No, it's not at ALL okay with me. And as a matter of fact, it's not a matter of celebration for me to see anything that YOU regard as holy mocked either.

I don't regard Mohammed or the Quran as holy. But I believe in the concept of Holiness. And I think it's bad for me as a Christian to mock something--or to stand by without objection while something is mocked--that is associated with Holiness in the minds of my Muslim brothers and sisters.

Not because it makes them kill. But because it hurts them and devalues the whole idea of the Sovereignty of God and the meaning of life.

The PROBLEM is that if your TV stops working, kicking it just breaks it. It doesn't fix it.

We have a GENERAL problem in the West with secularism and hatred of God. I think you and I are on the same side in that. Killing and destruction PLAYS INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMIES OF GOD AND OF ALL RELIGION, CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM.

Sometimes, the best way to achieve your end is patience. Not everything can be solved by smashing things.

But clouds I do understand where you get your contention that you speak like this and your reaction ... straight from the book you love so dearly.


See Clouds, thats the typical thing people would say when u overreact.
tsk tsk tsk :no:

The PROBLEM is that if your TV stops working, kicking it just breaks it. It doesn't fix it.

.

i have another example: if a dog barked on you, shoot him ;)

the problem is he's trying to convince people that the holy quran is a terror book a( which is not ) as he said before. i think if an Arabic or Muslim movie tried to insult Christians and the Bible, the first one who will ban it is Arabci Governments coz we respect other religions as well and don't tend to insult them.

and i don't see this as a freeom of speech it's apparently freedom of insults

yes it will stop it, this will give a message for such anti-islam sick people not to do it again.

Mashallah, this must be a very good way.... effective maybe? coward? or what? otherwise you wouldn't think or dare to post it here...... :hmm:

Mashallah, this must be a very good way.... effective maybe? coward? or what? otherwise you wouldn't think or dare to post it here...... :hmm:

oh you got provoked by my sentence
no comment :rolleyes:

i have another example: if a dog barked on you, shoot him ;)

the problem is he's trying to convince people that the holy quran is a terror book a( which is not ) as he said before. i think if an Arabic or Muslim movie tried to insult Christians and the Bible, the first one who will ban it is Arabci Governments coz we respect other religions as well and don't tend to insult them.

and i don't see this as a freeom of speech it's apparently freedom of insults

Well, sure, that's a good example.

But if shooting the dog just brings more dogs that bark and shooting them brings even more dogs....

And if the neighbors feel sorry for the dog and start crowding around to take you away to jail, then maybe it's not as simple as that.

Before you shoot the dog, you have to understand the whole situation. What is the dog? Why is he barking? Why are the rest of the people in your neighborhood not handling it?

You need patience and understanding. Then sometimes, shooting might be the answer. But sometimes not.

Your goal is: Increase respect for the Prophet and Islam by discouraging people from acting like this.

My point: Killing the guy has the opposite effect. It DECREASES respect for Islam and makes more not fewer problems for everybody.

Forget this one dog. He is from a pack of many dogs. And the reason that the dogs are barking is because they are sick and lost. The proper response is PITY, not fury.

I understand your FEELINGS. But if you are a WISE person, you don't always act on your feelings.

hmm, El Rey such statements won't change anything and if we all think that way than may allah be with us all, lol..

i guess some1 saw this one coming :l

you seem to be haapy for this movie :rolleyes:

i doubt he's happy because the movie might show islam in a bad light. he's probably more haappy about the fact that he lives in a society that allows others to express their opinions without fear of being shot or knifed on the street. if some don't like this, then they are living in the wrong part of the world.

Well, sure, that's a good example.

But if shooting the dog just brings more dogs that bark and shooting them brings even more dogs....

And if the neighbors feel sorry for the dog and start crowding around to take you away to jail, then maybe it's not as simple as that.

Before you shoot the dog, you have to understand the whole situation. What is the dog? Why is he barking? Why are the rest of the people in your neighborhood not handling it?

You need patience and understanding. Then sometimes, shooting might be the answer. But sometimes not.

Your goal is: Increase respect for the Prophet and Islam by discouraging people from acting like this.

My point: Killing the guy has the opposite effect. It DECREASES respect for Islam and makes more not fewer problems for everybody.

Forget this one dog. He is from a pack of many dogs. And the reason that the dogs are barking is because they are sick and lost. The proper response is PITY, not fury.

I understand your FEELINGS. But if you are a WISE person, you don't always act on your feelings.

i agree with the lost and sick dogs make them do such a thing .. but i still believe that this is not to shut-up about it issue.. and yah unfortunately:

And if the neighbors feel sorry for the dog and start crowding around to take you away to jail, then maybe it's not as simple as that.


i say those neighbours, the governments who allow such movies are the main reason that we have anti-religions movies . i mean they insured them the back up.

i doubt he's happy because the movie might show islam in a bad light. he's probably more haappy about the fact that he lives in a society that allows others to express their opinions without fear of being shot or knifed on the street. if some don't like this, then they are living in the wrong part of the world.

duh, if you think you have freedom of speech then you are fooling yourself. you only have freedom of swear at whovere you want but don't touch us.

this freedom of speech thing is just lame coz we already can do our freedom of speech on the net can't we ? aren't we now ? and Muslims can also make their movies anti-religions in youtube or any other free hosting site. but at least the arab governments will condemn it and try its best to stop it not to advertise and clap for it

Giggles that society you are talking about is helping a man spreading lies about my religion which means brain washing people who might have no clue what is Islam, don't you think its a problem?

"They seek to extinguish the Light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His Light, much as the unbelievers may dislike it"
[61:8]

El,

Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever the heck you like as long as you don't call for physical harm to someone else.

Now, as a Middle Eastern Arab male, I am sure this concept of independent thought is completely novel to you (and clouds) so I perfectly understand your reaction.

But the last time I looked at the calendar, it said 2008, and that means that we are not obliged to resepct anything ! It might be nice to do so, but thats only the icing on the cake.

When the "Golden Compass" came out (as anti catholic as a movie could be) it was boycotted. Who remembers that movie today ?

On the other hand, the Mohammed cartoons still continue to flourish to this day.

Keep it up. Wilders couldn't have asked for better publicity.

El,

Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever the heck you like as long as you don't call for physical harm to someone else.
.

well, that movie seems is going to physically harm someone, so don't you think it should be stopped ? for the sake of freedom of speech ?

we are not obliged to resepct anything

i read it : we are asked to disrespect everything :rolleyes:
thats what it seems and you are guys doing it very well

i agree with the lost and sick dogs make them do such a thing .. but i still believe that this is not to shut-up about it issue.. and yah unfortunately:



i say those neighbours, the governments who allow such movies are the main reason that we have anti-religions movies . i mean they insured them the back up.

I never said shut up about it. You can complain. You can boycott. You can protest. If you are Dutch, you can vote.

And most of all, you can work to bring an understanding of God back to the societies you are criticizing.

Yes, people in the West are allowed to be against religions. Any religions and all religions. And they are allowed to say that.

We have best selling books on atheism that say that ALL religions are evil, not just Islam, but including Islam. That's part of my point. You aren't just combatting one man. You are working on a huge problem.

If you recognize that then you proceed carefully and wisely. Not through precipitate actions.

you are doing the director the greatest service.
when this film comes out i'm gonna go watch it and give the director some money through my viewing.
ignore him, leave him alone, don't say anything.
let him be. he has a right to say whatever he wants to say in his own country...not in yorus.
you are only making him richer.

well, that movie seems is going to physically harm someone, so don't you think it should be stopped ? for the sake of freedom of speech ?

i read it : we are asked to disrespect everything :rolleyes:
thats what it seems and you are guys doing it very well

No, the only ones who are going to CAUSE physical harm will be some deranged muslims.

I am not obliged to RESPECT ANYTHING. I might, but you can't demand it of me.


PS : The upside is that we will probably get to see http://hodja.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/islamic_rage_boy.jpg again

El Rey:

See my point? This is precisely the reaction that you will spur.

The problem grows the more you oppose it with force or threats.

It's frustrating, I understand. And when people are frustrated they want to strike hard and quickly and solve the problem.

But hard strikes won't solve the problem. They will just make it grow...

you are doing the director the greatest service.
when this film comes out i'm gonna go watch it and give the director some money through my viewing.
ignore him, leave him alone, don't say anything.
let him be. he has a right to say whatever he wants to say in his own country...not in yorus.
you are only making him richer.

Hmm...

1. The "Brussels Journal" is not a newspaper, it is a right-wing anti-immigration, anti-Islamist political mouthpiece.

2. The advert is supplied via Google's smart ad syndication service, and has been associated presumably because of the numerous repeitions of the keyword "Islam" on the page. I imagine the ad's authors would be extremely embarrassed if they knew where it had ended up...technology eh?

(so thanks but no thanks for those two diversionary canards)

3. I haven't seen the film, but one thing I have noticed about propaganda dressed as art, is that the result falls well short on the artisitic front. I'll see it if it's available I guess, I'm as curious as anyone as to what this Nazi has to say.

4. I agree with those who said that burning tyres outside embassies and threatening to murder everyone is rather stupid; it perpetuates the image that this moron would like to give the world, of Islam. The correct response is cool critical destruction of Wilders' hateful manifesto as the drivel it no doubt will be. And derision. Either that or ignore it, like the others said.

5. BUT if it were my country I would seek to have the film banned. I'm not in favour of political censorship, or even much absolute moral or aesthetic censorship. But there are laws in many countries against "inciting racial hatred". As Wilders has proclaimed openly that he hopes to provoke a violent reaction from among a section of Dutch society and beyond, I think he is guilty of exactly this. I'd jail the *******. Criticism is one thing, but directly attempting to provoke intercommunal violence is criminal.

Not a movie really
Should be a 10 min talk on the bad :6: verses of the Quran, via youtube if the idea still that
Check this interview (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ned070911mc)for a profile of this blondette

Hmm...

1. The "Brussels Journal" is not a newspaper, it is a right-wing anti-immigration, anti-Islamist political mouthpiece.

2. The advert is supplied via Google's smart ad syndication service, and has been associated presumably because of the numerous repeitions of the keyword "Islam" on the page. I imagine the ad's authors would be extremely embarrassed if they knew where it had ended up...technology eh?

(so thanks but no thanks for those two diversionary canards)

3. I haven't seen the film, but one thing I have noticed about propaganda dressed as art, is that the result falls well short on the artisitic front. I'll see it if it's available I guess, I'm as curious as anyone as to what this Nazi has to say.

4. I agree with those who said that burning tyres outside embassies and threatening to murder everyone is rather stupid; it perpetuates the image that this moron would like to give the world, of Islam. The correct response is cool critical destruction of Wilders' hateful manifesto as the drivel it no doubt will be. And derision. Either that or ignore it, like the others said.

5. BUT if it were my country I would seek to have the film banned. I'm not in favour of political censorship, or even much absolute moral or aesthetic censorship. But there are laws in many countries against "inciting racial hatred". As Wilders has proclaimed openly that he hopes to provoke a violent reaction from among a section of Dutch society and beyond, I think he is guilty of exactly this. I'd jail the *******. Criticism is one thing, but directly attempting to provoke intercommunal violence is criminal.

Canard?

That implies there was deliberate deceit on my part. Do you believe that?

You sound like you know what you are talking about. I accept your explanation. I don't know about these things and just assumed--reasonably for a computer ignoramus--that advertisements were placed on pages with the knowledge of those placing them.

Still: why wouldn't you want to inform the advertisers? Why wouldn't they want to raise holy hell with google and force it to find a way around the problem of the association or else withdraw their business?

These are obvious steps to take, I would think. clouds gave us the link to the "mouthpiece". Why did he do that? Other Muslims are no doubt reading it, including some here. And of course Muslims do read it: to find cause for outrage, to see what the "enemy" is thinking, out of curiousity.....

Why doesn't it bother them that such ads appear in such a place? Why do they read it and distribute links to it?

My ultimate point is that the problem exemplified by Mr. Wilders is far deeper than this movie alone. It involves how Muslims and non-Muslims are going to get along in societies with values and present trends that inevitably bring them into conflict.

You certainly have a case about "inciting racial hatred." (With the exception of the fact that Religion is ideas and beliefs, not Race.) But if saying you think Mohammed is disgusting and Islam is incurably violent and needs banning is "inciting racial hatred", then you are essentially telling people that this is an opinion they cannot hold and an idea that may not be examined.

How are you going to separate that from Christopher Hitchens or the other popular atheists saying that all religion is psychotic and dangerous and needs to be discouraged or even banned?

The problems are two:

1. You simply can't QUASH that kind of thinking. You can't say: Everyone has to accept religion as good and no one can accuse it of being evil and offensive. If you try, people will conclude that you are afraid of trying to prove your point. And they will reasonably think you have something to hide.

2. People will inevitably--and with some justification--conclude that this in not about protecting Religion. They will conclude that it is The Islamic Exception. Not that people are not allowed to dis religions. But that they are not allowed to criticize Islam. That too will provoke a backlash.

By trying to fight this by killing or even jailing, you INCREASE the likelihood of conflict. If some of the responsiblity for conflict is on Wilders, some of it is on those who want to squash the conflict of IDEAS.

That's where the problem lies. This is essentially a conflict of ideas and beliefs. Jailing or silencing people isn't going to stop it.

Now: objecting and withdrawing your support in various ways seems fine. Trying to draw up laws which narrowly target, not ideas themselves, but ideas expressed in the manner of an insult, seems doable and worth doing.

I'll tell you something: the real end of the cartoon controversy is THAT MUSLIMS--despite their protestations to the contrary--are getting used to this stuff. Republications and distributions are hardly noticed. The Swedish guy who made a sculpture of Mohammed as a dog raised very little stink. When it pokes its head up again, Muslims are now shrugging in disgust: "Oh, THAT again..."

I think WHATEVER the end result of all this is, the next stage is going to be that it gets repeated and redistributed and imitated and after seeing it again and again, Muslims will in fact just get used to it. Just as they have gotten used to the cartoons, which remain all over the internet and are even occasionally republished in newspapers.

In a number of different ways, it isn't going to work. The problem is too big and too overarching and too much bound up with the ways of life and thought in the whole modern world. It's like cutting off a pimple to extract a cancer. Except that it actually helps the cancer spread.

What Muslims and Christians and other believers need to do is stop being parochial and come together and learn to work peaceably as brothers, despite their differences. One good sign, I believe, is the Common Word proposal.

But overreacting to Wilders is a distraction. It's a distraction PLANNED BY HIM. Tempting, I certainly understand. But a temptation to be resisted.

الكلاب تنبح ...والقافلة تسير

Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

So True :rolleyes:

Apologies then, re. the ad etc...an easy assumption to make I guess. But if you've ever used "gmail" for instance, you might notice some very strange ads opening next to your email associated with words contained in it, that might not be appropriate to you. The way this advertising sydication works is the Google let's the customer choose the keywords to associate with the ad, and then tells them how many times it has been viewed. Because these ads might not be static, and might number in the thousands, they do not necessarily tell the customer exactly when and where they are appearing. It is up to the customer to choose the keywords or "metatags" they want to use, and then sit back and count the numbers. Anyway, another diversion...sorry!

Yes, i agree with your last point, but just to clarify on the "inciting racial hatred" part: You are right that of course "Muslim" is not a racial definition. But in practice, if you are Dutch (or British, or French, or German) you will have your own idea of what a Muslim looks like. In those countries, Islam is strongly associated with an individual ethnic group or a number of groups, and it is those group that will bear the brunt of prejudice or social exclusion. Also, as I said, Wilders has a stated intention to bring people into conflict. So although the "racial" definition is not strictly accurate, the incitement is clear, and the racial association strong enough that I hope it would be considered: I don't know if there is such a law in the Netherlands, or how it is defined, I am just referring to one with which I am familiar in my own country of nationality.

For the rest, I think from my previous post we are already in broad agreement...I like the idea of common cause in deriding secular fundametalist extremism too, and I am against counter-productive hysterical responses to this sort of thing.

I would contest, though, that Muslims have "got used" to things like the Danish cartoons. At the risk of opening that one up again, I believe there was a similar case there if less blatant. Sure, by now the whole world knows that these insults and dehumanising provocations exist, but I don't think we are less angry about it.

If there is debate, discussion, even criticism of religious ideology, I don't see that as entirely a bad thing. As far as I know, nobody has threatened to go and chop off MrWudjab's head yet despite his less than friendly tone when he raises as issue. But I still see a key and vital qualitative difference between proposing or debating an idea, and doing so in a way designed to make one group of people fear, distrust and (as many on this "Brussels Journal" appear to advocate), ban or expel another.

Apologies then, re. the ad etc...an easy assumption to make I guess. ...... If there is debate, discussion, even criticism of religious ideology, I don't see that as entirely a bad thing. As far as I know, nobody has threatened to go and chop off MrWudjab's head yet despite his less than friendly tone when he raises as issue. But I still see a key and vital qualitative difference between proposing or debating an idea, and doing so in a way designed to make one group of people fear, distrust and (as many on this "Brussels Journal" appear to advocate), ban or expel another.

Not as yet, anyway.

Although I am not so confident that if I were to stand in front of Islams finest son Clouds, he might not actually carry out some violent act that would involve separating my head from the rest of my body.

That, of course, would go a long way to confirm to us (US being used symbolically since I would have been decapitated and therefore dead), that Islam is truly a Religion of Peace.

It would only confirm that the person who attacked you is violent.

Which is what Mr Wilders is trying to convince us, is fundamentally representative of the billion+ Muslims around the world. It is essentially perverse that Wilders is trying to demonstrate to the world that Islam as a religion of violence, by making an open and concerted effort to provoke some Muslims into violence.

If you were to get upset at something I said to you about your country, and slap my face, it wouldn't make Canadian culture a face-slapping culture. It would make me a rude arsehole and you a hothead. Luckily we get on just peachy, don't we Woody?

But I still see a key and vital qualitative difference between proposing or debating an idea, and doing so in a way designed to make one group of people fear, distrust and (as many on this "Brussels Journal" appear to advocate), ban or expel another.

Presumably you also think we shouldn't make films exposing Scientologists and their brainwashing cultism, pyramid scheme rip off and their use of violence and subversion to silence their critics and murder apostates. Coz that might make people distrust Scientologists. Or ban them as Germany did in a rare act of bravery.

Germany hasn't banned people from believing in scientology. or proposed to deport anyone who does to "a scientologist country". You didn't say which film, but I think the one to which you're referring makes some accusations about the actions of specific individuals, to which they were invited to reply (I believe they declined). I have no problem with that film, any more than I have issues with any other documentary that, for example, investigates illegal acts carried out by certain Muslims or even organised groups of Muslims.

If Wilders had been truly brave in his hate-project, he would have made a film that suggests Judaism is evil instead. Personally I would condemn that on exactly the same grounds, but I suspect there would be some "role reversal" from others in this thread. Oh, and the Dutch would ban it, rightly.

It might not be fundamentally representative of the 1 Billion + muslims around the world, but you'd be lying if you didn't admit it does represent a sizeable minority who have this violent view of Dar al Harb and Dar Al Islam.

Pick your percentate.

1% ? thats 15 MILLON
5% ? thats 75 MILLION

Not to mention most recent surveys among Muslims in Britan reported 25% agreed with the 7/7 bombings, 32% feel that Western society is decadent and Muslims should work to bring it to an end ?

Unfortunately the elephant is in the room and it's not going to go away by us all closing our eyes and being nice and politically correct to each other.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/23/ixnewstop.html

I wonder what percentage of your idea of "ordinary decent" Americans, Canadians, Britons or others would say they "agree with" forced deportation of other ethnicities or groups...limitations on freedom of expression from people they don't like...or support some major change in society to bring it closer to their own view of how the world should be?

Arseholes Woody...we all have them. Personally I think being nice to each other makes quite a lot of bad things go away.

And none of what you have said gives any justification for making a movie with the explicit purpose of encouraging people to be violent to one another.

Oh, I've just read the article. Naughty Woody. 25% had "some sympathy with the feelings and motives" behind the 7/7 bombings. Not quite the same thing as the 6% who said it was "justified". And one survey? Of a massive 526 adults?

You missed the overall conclusion though:

"Taken as a whole, the findings of YouGov's survey suggest that, although large numbers of British Muslims dislike British society and in some cases may be tempted to attack it, the great majority are loyal and law-abiding and are unlikely to provide the radicals with moral support, let alone safe havens."

Bad, baaaad Woody.

"They spread...like an irresistible tide, flooding the towns and nations of Europe - in fact, the entire world"

"[They] terrorize...world opinion, and world politics."

"They represent the rudiment of an insidious and underground destruction"

Doesn't that sound a lot like what Wilders and even some otherwise reasonable people in this thread, think about Muslims?

But maybe there's a justification? What if an influential and radical group of Muslims were saying something like this:

"[A billion Muslims] across the entire world are united as one, to declare war on [the West] and it's persecution of their fellow [Muslims]"


Woody, J4T, Giggles etc..do you think the words above if they came from well-known Muslim groups, would justify the attitudes in the first three statements?

You're hinting that we shouldn't be allowed to directly criticise Scientology, only Scientologists. Following that logic, we shouldn't be allowed to directly criticise fascism or communism either, and if some dangerous new ideology popped up we shouldn't be allowed to say that it's dangerous. Might hurt someone's feelings to say so.

There is no logical reason why we should have to tip-toe around your ideology, to protect your ideas from criticism, or mockery. (This means you Jeff!).

Maybe the Pew study would impress you more ?

Pay particular attention to the percentages who believe that Osama Bin Laden is the cats whiskers.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/253.pdf

Not at all.

What you are doing is using the new strategy - the victim card - by claiming the Muslims are the new Jews.

(that was Nazi propaganda you so artfully disguised, wasn't it ? :) )

The difference, is that the Jews weren't going around the world slaughtering people and the Nazi were reacting to that provocation.

Wilders and his ilk are reacting to the attacks on their cultures and traditions. Do I agree with his methodology ? Of course not. Do I think he has the absolute bloody right to do so ? Completely

You're hinting that we shouldn't be allowed to directly criticise Scientology, only Scientologists.

No, I'm saying the opposite: Debate ideas, don't demonise whole groups of people and provoke violence. That's criminal.

One of my favourite bloggers used this line.

Paul Revere didn't ride down the streets of Boston shouting "SOME British are coming ! SOME British are coming !" .

Woody, correct. But there is a clear parallel:

The latter statement came from a group of Jewish leaders, published in the "Daily Express" in 1933, immediately after Hitler's democratic election, and preceding the later horrors of Nazi Germany agains the Jews.

The three other quotes are from the Nazi propaganda film "The Eternal Jew", demonising all Jews, and beginning to justify "action" against them, on the basis that they were harming the country of their citizenship. These were the first propaganda moves in what led to the murder of six million ordinary people purely on the basis of their religious identity.

But the important thing is that all this was at the beginnng. There is no "holocaust" against European or American Muslims so far, and neither are governments making propaganda films for their people, as far as I know. But the first steps are there: There is a fringe of Muslims making their outrageous statements (and, yes, actions), there is a broader group of Muslims who are caught in uneasy ambivalence between their religious and national identity, and there is another even larger group who dislike extremism and just want to get on with their decent Muslim lives.

These attitudes are being heard about Muslims now in mainstream media all over the world, they are becoming socially acceptable in polite conversation among educated American, British and other Western people, and even an accepted truth to a great mass of ordinary citizens. This is the first step. What's the second this time?

No, I'm saying the opposite: Debate ideas, don't demonise whole groups of people and provoke violence. That's criminal.
Geert says he's criticising Islam itself so your wish came true.

He says he wants people to react violently, and that is the purpose of the movie. That's criminal.

He says just the opposite in the interview wudjab posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc

I have received an e-mail, which unfortunately I have deleted, saying this dutch magazine is setting up a poll on their web site that if you are with or against removing hijab and Quran from Netherlands!! Just plain stupidity and I really do not blame them if they intend to do such things if they have Israel as a role model for similar actions in Palastine and no body is saying any thing.

Unknown said it, Dogs and caravan things.

It's a good job orthodox Jews and Sikhs have beards, or they might be illegal too.

No, I'm saying the opposite: Debate ideas, don't demonise whole groups of people and provoke violence. That's criminal.

But ideas have consequences in the lives of those who follow them.

To say, "Agnosticism promotes tolerance; religion intolerance" is a debatable issue.

To say, "Christianity promotes sexual frustration; therefore it sickens society and should be discouraged," is a debatable issue.

To say, "Christianity as it exists today promotes polytheism, the thing the Creator hates most. It should be tolerated within narrow confines, but discouraged and not allowed to spread," is a debatable issue.

All these are debatable issues and the fact that I may find one or more of them provoking or angering or even insulting is neither here nor there.

To say, "the (imaginary) Prophet Neener-neener is a blockhead and the son of a dog" and scrawl pictures of this "Prophet" engaging in sexual intercourse with cows is not an idea. It's an insult and a mockery to the Neener-neenerians.

But to say, "Neener-neenerism is incurably violent and intolerant. Though some of its followers are peaceful and give it a peaceful interpretation in the main, its sacred text and the traditional interpretations of that text are sufficiently saturated in violence and intolerance that it virtually always does give rise to violent fanaticism among enough of its members that they carry along the others and fill society with bitterness and chaos until they are either rejected or they conquer,"...

...to say that may be unpleasant, but it may also in principle be TRUE. So: it needs debate.

You saw the response of clouds and El Rey.

Now: is their response just a one off? Is it just the furious reaction of cranks?

Or, is it actually rooted in Islam itself? Ask them and see what they say. They will tell you there is a basis for their ideas in their religion. Your religion. It's not just "a personal opinion" as far as they are concerned. They are following what seems to them to be a religious mandate: "Whoever insults a Prophet--Kill him!" And if you think they are alone among Muslims, you are not paying attention.

Now, Jeff will grant you that there is another side to this whole issue, which he frequently argues, to the dismay of Wudjab and others.

But do you REALLY want to claim that people who think that ideas such as this are characteristic of Islam and that therefore Islam creates a problem for our society are just haters? I think that's irresponsible.

If they are wrong, well, it's understandable that they are wrong. There are enough examples over history and in the present day with enough textual plausibility to make a case that needs a response.

Not on Sabla, I wouldn't say. Too many dear people simply trying to respect God, live their lives and be people of dignity and honor. This is their place.

But in the society at large? Yes, indeed. Muslims, however painful it may be, need to engage deeply and without rancour in debates which will inevitably make them feel defensive and angry. The simple answers won't do.

And part of engaging in that debate means treating people who think that the roots of the violence we see today are in the religion itself with seriousness and not dismissing them as the equivalent of racists.

I've seen enough of the interactions of Wudjab and Jack here to know that they are very fond of many Arabs and not even tempted to regard them as inferior in any way on a racial basis. Yet they are not particularly friendly toward the religion which dominates their societies.

I don't know Mark Steyn, but I DO know Robert Spencer very, very well indeed. The idea that he is any more "racist" than those two guys would be idiotic to anyone who knew him.

Are there racists who dislike Islam because it's associated with brown people? I'm sure there are. Just as there are Muslims who oppose the West merely because of cultural pride and dislike Westerners because they are the Other.

But when you are discussing religions and religious ideas, you can't shelter behind such things. You have to engage with the ideas themselves.

I say ALL this, you know, as someone who has a great deal of religious admiration for Islam and who actually favors free immigration of Muslims into my country. But I won't have those who differ with me branded as "racists" and their ideas de-legitimized without open and deep and TOLERANT (from BOTH sides) debate.

Nor, by the way, will I have Islam branded as wholly intolerant without pointing out the great freedom of discussion not only tolerated here, but actually encouraged and fostered. And the warm reception continually accorded to members like Jack and Wudjab, who are so negative in their perception of much of it.

El,

Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever the heck you like as long as you don't call for physical harm to someone else.

Now, as a Middle Eastern Arab male, I am sure this concept of independent thought is completely novel to you.


Not really. There are boundaries when it comes to the freedom of speech. In Great Britain at least, general attacks on a religious group are not tolerated by the legal system here and is viewed as an "abuse of rights" (i.e. an abuse of your right to freedom of speech). It is seen as going directly contrary to the hallmarks of a ‘democratic society’ that has particular importance to pluralism, tolerance, broadmindedness, social-peace, non-discrimination’ and the protection of the rights of others (esp. religious minorities). So really, this concept of respect for other people's religions and being tolerant, which provides as parameters for a democratic society, is not exclusive to the Middle Eastern societies, but is shared by many of the great countries in the West.

Maybe in Eurabia.

Not yet in the Netherlands, the US and Canada.

Thank God for that.

So really, this concept of respect for other people's religions and being tolerant, which provides as parameters for a democratic society, is not exclusive to the Middle Eastern societies, but is shared by many of the great countries in the West.

Did you really write that seriously or as a joke ?

^I can't see the joke here.
How are 'great countries in the West' not 'democratic' in your book?

"respect for other people's religions and being tolerant" is a trait of middle eastern society ?

Did you really write that seriously or as a joke ?

I am being very serious. That's what I was taught at law school at least when it comes to the freedom of speech. :p If you are inciting religious and racial hatred this could fall under the category of "the prohibiton of the abuse of rights". A democratic society has the hallmark of tolerance - rather than insulting religious minorities and their holy books, it ought to protect them. So really, our friend Mr Wilders here, is promoting what goes against the very basis of the West's promotion of democratic values - tolerance, broadmindness and pluralism.

"respect for other people's religions and being tolerant" is a trait of middle eastern society ?

The Middle East is going through a democratization process. On the other hand, the West prides itself in its democratic ideals. So when one sees the West purporting democratic ideals in theory, but not in practice -one questions the real substance of these 'values' that the West calls for.

Hold on.

There are two issues here.

1. Muslims are completely free to practice their religion in the west. Whether Wilders makes a film on Islam or not, does not imping on their freedom of religion. Shutting him down actually impinges on HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.

2. You made a claim "respect for other people's religions and being tolerant" is a trait of middle eastern society ? You can't be serious ? Minorities are TOLERATED in the Middle East. Thats quite different from RESPECT AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

1. Muslims are completely free to practice their religion in the west. Whether Wilders makes a film on Islam or not, does not imping on their freedom of religion. Shutting him down actually impinges on HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.

It really depends on the content of his movie, we can only guess from what he has already told us that he does not want "Islam" around and there cannot be a Europeanised Islam :rolleyes: (impliedly calling for an impingement of their freedom of religion).

2. You made a claim "respect for other people's religions and being tolerant" is a trait of middle eastern society ? You can't be serious ? Minorities are TOLERATED in the Middle East. Thats quite different from RESPECT AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

You don't live in the Middle East. Although some states might not be tolerant (those which have been exasperated in the Media), others (the majority actually) respect the freedom of religion. For instance, in Oman. :D And in Qatar, they have further promoted this ideal recently. The Mediterranean Middle Eastern countries have always had their good mix of religions. It would be unfair to take one or two intolerant Arab states and generalise this on all 22 Arab countries.

The Middle East is going through a democratization process. On the other hand, the West prides itself in its democratic ideals. So when one sees the West purporting democratic ideals in theory, but not in practice -one questions the real substance of these 'values' that the West calls for.

But all these laws against "incitement to religious hatred" are brand new and still highly controversial. They aren't part of the Western legal and democratic tradition.

That's not saying you can't make an argument for them. But the traditional "ideals" of free speech don't protect people against getting their sensibilities hurt.

One of the classic free speech battles when I was growing up was associated with the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois. Skokie was populated mostly by middle class Jewish residents, many of whom had actually been in the Nazi Death Camps in World War Two.

The American Nazi party (a tiny fringe organization) applied for a permit to hold a march right down the main street of Skokie, praising the Nazis and their Jewish policy. The only reason to do it there was to upset the Jews and especially those who had survived the Holocaust.

The town refused them a permit on the grounds of insult, incitement, etc. The ACLU, including Jewish lawyers, went to Court on the side of the Nazis and got them their permit to march. The ACLU was disgusted with the Nazis and what they stood for. They were even more disgusted with what they had to say. But they wanted to support the principle of free speech...which included the vitally important principle that you can't restrict speech because people find it hurtful and offensive.

Why do you think Jewish lawyers, some of whom had parents and relatives that suffered terribly, defended the right of Nazis to deeply and horribly offend their co-religionists? Because they believed in freedom of speech.

Incitement classically involves the intent to have an immediate effect on a discrete group of people. So, telling an angry crowd that has gathered that "someone should burn down the Jewish synagogues around here" constitutes incitement.

But saying, "Jews are a pest on the world and they should all be burned," or writing a book saying that the Bible is a pack of lies and the Jewish religion a stupid superstitions is NOT incitement. It might offend Jews deeply. It might make people hate Jews. It might even help make a person here or there decide to carry out an attack on Jews.

But it ISN'T incitement because the immediacy of appeal is lacking. And people have a right to believe and express horrible offensive ideas. If people are offended, they should say so. But if they start burning and killing in response, that is their responsibility.

Sophis,

I might not currently live in the middle east, but have spent the major portion of my adult life there, so please save me the patronizing comments.

Again, TOLERATING UNDER STRICT CONTROLS is not the same as having freedom of religion.

In the west, you have absolute freedom to practice your religion.

Not so in the middle east.

Sophis, mimo:

Do you think this constitutes or ought to constitute any kind of "incitement"?


as for this lunatic pig film maker his blood already becomes legal to all muslims.


And what about this for religious or racial incitement?

How about this?

Hitler once said in one of his books I want to demolish the Jew race from the face of this earth, but I will spare humanity a few of them to justify my action.

Hitler was right, those few Jews he spared massacred the Palestinians, tortured them, killed them and occupied their land.

I think the first one is a call for murder and shouldn't be allowed on Sabla (which is private). I think the second is grossly offensive and horrible.

But I don't see how either one of them could be called "incitement" in the classic sense of the word.

In your theoretical "just society", would clouds be in prison?

There is a breaking news story about a Bangladeshi immigrant who has been posting on forums suggesting Canadian soldiers be killed here and in Afghanistan. He also prayed that the Canadian Minister of Defense be assasinated while in Afghanistan.

It's an interesting real life example of the thin line between free speech and incitement.

I'll post more details in the morning.

Jihadi's - the gift that keeps on giving.

In the west, you have absolute freedom to practice your religion.

Not so in the middle east.

I really don't know which planet are you living in Wudjub.

France has passed legislation to explicitly forbid any "visible sign of religious affiliation", which means that Muslim girls cannot go to school wearing their headscarfs, the Jews cannot wear their Kippa and the Christians their crosses.

Furthermore, in Turkey, a contracting state to the European Convention of Human Rights, Merve Kavakci took the oath of parliamentary office whilst wearing a headscarf. Consequently, she was dismissed from her position as a democratically elected member of parliament, and was also stripped of her Turkish citizenship. These are just two examples, there are many more.

Jeff, the right to shock and offend is intrinsic and necessary for the effective exercise of the freedom of expression. However, there are other rights that come into play in a realistic situation, for instance, the right to manifest religious beliefs, non-discrimination, the prohibition of the abuse of rights and the public interest in the prevention of disorder. This will depend on the balancing of all these conflicting rights - which will vary according to state and the particular circumstances. Furthermore, you cannot compare the ramblings of a forum member whose voice holds no real weight, to a Member of Parliament whose radical views in the making of this movie (to ban the Quran in the Netherlands) will permit and be the springboard of similar religious and social prejudices to be manifested by members of society, creating intolerance and disorder.

Jeff, the right to shock and offend is intrinsic and necessary for the effective exercise of the freedom of expression. However, there are other rights that come into play in a realistic situation, for instance, the right to manifest religious beliefs, non-discrimination, the prohibition of the abuse of rights and the public interest in the prevention of disorder. This will depend on the balancing of all these conflicting rights - which will vary according to state and the particular circumstances. Furthermore, you cannot compare the ramblings of a forum member whose voice holds no real weight, to a Member of Parliament whose radical views in the making of this movie (to ban the Quran in the Netherlands) will permit and be the springboard of similar religious and social prejudices to be manifested by members of society, creating intolerance and disorder.

I think you've missed my central point. Go back and read what I wrote about the Skokie march by the Nazis.

My point is that in fact, our governments traditionally HAVEN'T balanced these things. They HAVEN'T said that offending believers discourages religious practice so you can't do it. They HAVEN'T said that harshly critiquing religious ideas can be a form of discrimination. They HAVEN'T said that there are rights of believers to be undisturbed in their faith require harsh criticisms to be scaled back and limited. They HAVEN'T said that if people are offended to the point of riot by a criticism of their religious beliefs, that it is the critics that need to be restricted.

Part of the reason they haven't is that all these things are a matter of interpretation. Your idea of "prejudice" against Islam is someone else's idea of a perfectly reasonable criticism. And they think you are the one who is "prejudiced".

Since free speech is largely meant as a protection against state power, it is PRECISELY the idea that government officials and judges should not be deciding about the "proper and responsible exercise" of free speech that is at the root of the whole thing.

We got along without your "realistic limitations."

Any exceptions were EXTREMELY NARROWLY TAILORED, as in the examples I've given already.

Catholics in the nineteenth and early twentieth century in America faced LOTS of criticism even from public figures, who called the Catholic Church "The Wh0re of Babylon" and said that Catholic immigration should be restricted because Catholics were essentially at the service of a corrupt foreign power (the Pope) and were enemies of the Bible and of America.

We didn't like what they said. But we combatted them with ARGUMENT, not by calling for the expression of such ideas to be restricted. We knew the rules. The rules were: talk about religion was protected. That included negative and positive talk.

And we didn't claim that we were discouraged from worshipping by all this nasty talk. We weren't. And Muslims aren't either. They fill the mosques and they will continue to do so whether Wilder speaks or doesn't speak.

As far as I can see your contrast between clouds and Wilders is very strange. A large part of the point of free speech, especially on issues like these, is to PERSUADE people. You seem to say it's okay unless you really DO persuade people. Then it has to stop.

Wilders was elected precisely BECAUSE he says things like this. He is one of the most popular figures in the Netherlands precisely BECAUSE of that. He spoke. People listened. They agreed. They elected him.

So now the government is also going to "allow" free speech only to the degree that you don't influence people?

Do you want Muslims to be able to say: "Islam is a benevolent and good influence on society. Society should accept Islamic values and rules which will benefit everyone"?

Then why can't others argue: "Islam is a detestable political ideology which will reduce our freedoms"?

You will say that the latter idea is "prejudice" perhaps. But the reply will come that it is YOUR idea that is positive prejudice.

And that's the whole point. You can argue it out. You can debate and convince people.

When people are divided on important issues, THAT is precisely what avoids public disorder. It is avoided by people understanding that they have to behave themselves if they feel outraged by someone's ideas about their religion. They can't suppress the ideas and they can't kill or threaten the people. They just have to debate.

And if they step over the line, they can't blame their misbehavior on being provoked.

These issues are best dealt with by cultivating a civil attitude. Many more people are going to be persuaded that Wilders is wrong if Muslims staged a vast silent protest or started a campaign to correct what they thought were Wilders' misimpressions of Islam. But if there are attempts to jail or silence him or if there are riots or if he is killed, it will simply help Wilders demonstrate his point to a lot of people: Islam is a violent, intolerant political ideology. After all, it was the murder of anti-Islamic figures in the Netherlands that largely PRODUCED Wilders.

Let me just repeat on thing, sophis:

I don't agree with Wilders. I would not say the things he says for any number of reasons.

One of the most important reason is that I don't want to HURT Muslims. I am worried about some young girl who weeps in her room because of the shocking things she heard said about her religion.

But the idea that saying such things makes people KILL has the opposite effect. Suddenly a figure like Wilders, who in normal circumstances I would simply avoid and discourage, seems like a person who might need protecting.

I think these things need to be handled by cultivating real respect for religion and the idea of holiness again. That's something that believers can work together on, just as in France, Catholics and Muslims marched together against government restrictions on religious garb and symbols.

I think that is HARMED by attempts to forcefully suppress such stuff.

Great responses from my muslim brothers and sisters in Sabla

This shows how much they really love Islam and proud of it but one word to them you must translate your condamnations to actions in case that movie is broad casted publicly in March by at least boycotting all Dutch products, I can think of one major company now which is Shell plc

for myself I started boycotting already I will not use Shell products any more like petrol and oil for my car (only Al Maha and Oman Oil).

we muslims need to show the Dutch government our anger and rage about that evil movie if they allowed it to be broadcast.

So cloudy, the death threat is off the table ?

no wujab, nothing off the table, that pervert deserves to be to be killed according to Islamic Share'a, he committed an awful blasphemy against Allah swt and his most divine revelation the Quran, no wonder true muslim believers are furious about all this and Wilders received too many death threats, he is under protection for the past three years, but surely his fate is decided already, he can run but he can't hide as Bush said once to OBL.

^Islamic Sharia'a is not applied anywhere around the world.
Furthermore, where did it say in Islamic Shari'ah to kill those who criticise Muslims + Qura'n?

^Islamic Sharia'a is not applied anywhere around the world.
Furthermore, where did it say in Islamic Shari'ah to kill those who criticise Muslims + Qura'n?

Threadlike, do you call what that pig is doing CRITICISING muslims and the Quran?

as for blasphemy against Allah swt, the Quran and the Prophet:PBUH: the ruling in Islam is clear that is the death penalty, this ruling applies to muslims and non muslims, I think we discussed this issue in the teddy bear thread.

No clouds, that issue was not made clear.

I really don't know which planet are you living in Wudjub.

France has passed legislation to explicitly forbid any "visible sign of religious affiliation", which means that Muslim girls cannot go to school wearing their headscarfs, the Jews cannot wear their Kippa and the Christians their crosses.

Furthermore, in Turkey, a contracting state to the European Convention of Human Rights, Merve Kavakci took the oath of parliamentary office whilst wearing a headscarf. Consequently, she was dismissed from her position as a democratically elected member of parliament, and was also stripped of her Turkish citizenship. These are just two examples, there are many more.

You got the wrong end of the stick once again.

France has banned visible signs of religion in their state funded public school system... and they have the absolute right to do so. If muslim girls want to wear their head scarves, they are welcome to join a private islamic school which will allow them to wear whatever the hell they like. France is a secular country and is under no obligation to HELP you practice your PRIVATE faith.

Turkey ? I wouldn't include Turkey in the West anyway.

According to your logic, if the STATE doesn't aid and abet you in the practice of your religion then somehow that is discrimination. Sorry, that argument has no legs.

In the West, religion is a private affair. You are free to wear whatever you like at home, in your mosque, on the streets. But goverment funded establishments have every right to dictate dress code.

Now run this "respect for other people's religions and being tolerant is a trait of middle eastern society ?" concept by me again ? Which planet would this be on ? (allowing the restricted and controlled practice of religion is IS NOT the same as providing complete freedom of religion).

This doesn't compute.
Religion is a private affair in the west but complete freedom of religion is there in the West. You realize that the first thing about 'complete freedom of religion' is the right to declare your religion by all means (clothes, invitation to that religion, practising your religion in public), right? Following your logic, spontaneous statements like, 'Jesus Christ' should also be banned in France since they are completely non-secular and are certainly not 'private'.

You're telling me the government is gonna tell you NOT to wear something that your religion implies? So that means...Government over your 'prviate practice' of religion. And you think that's missing in the Middle East. Well, I'm glad it is!

Jeff, .....Furthermore, you cannot compare the ramblings of a forum member whose voice holds no real weight, to a Member of Parliament whose radical views in the making of this movie (to ban the Quran in the Netherlands) will permit and be the springboard of similar religious and social prejudices to be manifested by members of society, creating intolerance and disorder.

Speaking of Elected Officials, how about this fine specimen ?

Listen well, dirty madman, WE’LL STAY HERE, hahahahahahhahah, DROP DEAD. I am a dutch moslem, and I shall stay one until my death. I feel pity with your kind, you must live with hatred, really sad. My father and mother have worked hard to help building this country, and I have nothing to do with what others think or say. You are a miserable devil worshipper!!! You have sold your soul!!! Rather bizarre, to believe in the devil and his entourage, and to negate god the allmighty and ruler over heaven and earth. Your kind are the worst terrorists, you have been terrorizing our lives for years here in Holland. But fortunately, you are few only, and most dutchmen are developped and tolerant. You are the allochthonous here!!!! With Allah by my side, I fear nothing and nobody. I AND MY CO-MOSLEMS ARE LIVING, your kind is being eaten up by hatred. A piece of advice, if I may, convert to islam and find tranquility in your heart. Hatred eats you up and makes your heart stay empty. You have only a limited time in your life, go get a life and enjoyment, soon it’s all over. We are living…………………..You are trying to make something undone, to influence the lives and fates of others. Freemason [*)] hahahaha, you are not free, you are a slave of the devil. You think you’re a kind of god, really sad, go and have yourself checked! If you’re a man with BALLS, let me know who you are, let us talk. You can always talk to me. I know, you’re empty inside, and sometimes you feel you wouldn’t exist. You want to be seen and heard, but you’re simply ORDINARY, a grey mouse and a pathetic little person, one of those billions walking around on this globe. But I hear your cry of emergency. I hear your cry for attention. I shall also have time for you, despite of the fact that I’m fully busy to make Holland a more beautiful, clean and safe country, where people can develop and live in freedom and democracy, no matter what colour, origin or faith. Where, for all I care, even devil worshippers have a spot, for who am I ultimately to judge. This I leave to the judges’ judge, ALLAH A RAHMAN OU RAHEEM!!!

http://www.opinionbug.com/?p=2359

This doesn't compute.
Religion is a private affair in the west but complete freedom of religion is there in the West. You realize that the first thing about 'complete freedom of religion' is the right to declare your religion by all means (clothes, invitation to that religion, practising your religion in public), right? Following your logic, spontaneous statements like, 'Jesus Christ' should also be banned in France since they are completely non-secular and are certainly not 'private'.

You're telling me the government is gonna tell you NOT to wear something that your religion implies? So that means...Government over your 'prviate practice' of religion. And you think that's missing in the Middle East. Well, I'm glad it is!

If I fund an organization, I have the prefect right to set out rules and codes of conduct, which can include a dress code. YOU are NOT forced to come to my organization, but IF you do, then you got to play by the rules in force.

For example, IF you want a driving license, you have to show me your face so that I can take a picture for your license. If your religion doesn't allow that, then thats too bad, you can't have a driving license. (although muslims have tried challenging that as well). Would you call that discrimination ?

I'm still waiting to be told about this wonderful and absolute tradition of freedom of religion which apparently exists in the middle east.

Clouds,

Do you see the actions of this Dutchman being equivalent to the actions of a Muslim (like OBL) who deliberately kills innocent people in the name of Islam?

^^mr pinnochio,

there is no comparison what so ever between the two

OBL killed innocents and I disapprove his terminology of applying Islam

Wilders committed a tremendous act of blasphemy against 1.5 billion muslims in the heart of their basic belief that is the holy Quran and the fundamental principals of Islam

The west are killing thousands of innocent people in the sake of capturing OBL and demolishing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq

but all muslims can do to Holland's Wilders is to protest and boycott

If this blasphemy were to take place when the Muslims were strong and have Caliphas, then surely Holland and the whole of Europe will be invaded by muslim armies and the head of Wilders will be kicked around in the streets of Amesterdam.

Who died and elected you Grandest Imam of All 1.5 Billion Muslims ?

Did an angel appear to you and give you this designation, this capacity to CLAIM to speak for all 1.5 Billion muslims ?

^^wudjab, how would you feel if some MP muslim makes a movie about the Bible and call it fachist and burn it and tear it apart and mock Jesus pbuh?

I'm pretty sure thats been done already.

But I would be sad, would pray for them and move on.

That way they wouldn't get the attention they were looking for and will soon be forgotten.

After all I am sure that MY God doesn't need my help.

You see that is the fundamental difference between you Christians (well most of you) and us Muslims ( well most of us)

we feel jealousy and rage and fumed if someone to talk bad about our religion and make a mockery out of it, it's sort of built-in in our genes as muslims to feel like that, we defend Allah swt and his Prophet to the last breath of our life, we are Allah's soldiers on this earth that's why he chose us to be his favourite nation of all nations and we are really proud about this valuable testimony and all muslims Cherish it.

you see thats why if some lunatic dares to mock and abuse our religion we will react in this manner

we are very peaceful, kind, loving and tolerant humans to whom are peaceful with us, but we can be like monsters and cannibals if someone try to insult and mock our basic belief in Allah swt, the Quran and the Prophet pbuh, these three things are RED lines which should not be crossed by any human on this earth.

No cannibal no please
Call me Islamist but not cannibal

You see that is the fundamental difference between you Christians (well most of you) and us Muslims ( well most of us)

we feel jealousy and rage and fumed if someone to talk bad about our religion and make a mockery out of it, it's sort of built-in in our genes as muslims to feel like that, we defend Allah swt and his Prophet to the last breath of our life, we are Allah's soldiers on this earth that's why he chose us to be his favourite nation of all nations and we are really proud about this valuable testimony and all muslims Cherish it.

you see thats why if some lunatic dares to mock and abuse our religion we will react in this manner

we are very peaceful, kind, loving and tolerant humans to whom are peaceful with us, but we can be like monsters and cannibals if someone try to insult and mock our basic belief in Allah swt, the Quran and the Prophet pbuh, these three things are RED lines which should not be crossed by any human on this earth.

We feel the same things. But in the end, we realize that such things are more a reflection of the pitiful state of those who do them.

But this idea that your religion needs to be honored as you honor it in the lands of others is a new one. The greatest poet of Europe puts your Prophet in Hell suffering grotesque and shameful torments. School children for generations have read Dante's Inferno and they still read it.

And all the while, we have had perfectly fine relations with the Muslims most of the time.

I don't see why Wilders is anything new. People have been expressing such opinions about Islam always.

Only something weak and fragile need to be defended.

Only someone posessed with self doubt needs to react in this way.

Both apply to Clouds.

Clouds don't speak for all muslims in the world, just state YOUR opinion. Not everyone in the world think the best solution to this problem is spill more blood that will further taint our religion.

Clouds don't speak for all muslims in the world, just state YOUR opinion. Not everyone in the world think the best solution to this problem is spill more blood that will further taint our religion.

Indeed.

I was just reading this on a Muslim site (Yes, I do read Muslim sites and those of you guys who are intellectually curious should read Christian sites too!):

“There are no legal limits to free speech, but there are civic limits. In any society, there is a civic understanding that free speech should be used wisely so not as to provoke sensitivities, particularly in hybrid, multicultural societies we see in the world today. It is a matter of civic responsibility and wisdom, not a question of legality or rights. In that context, I think it was unwise to publish these cartoons because it is the wrong way to start a debate about integration. Such a move inflames emotions; it does not court reason. It is a useless provocation.” Tariq Ramadan, The American Muslim, 2/6/06

What can be done?

Every Muslim organization needs to do their best to ask Imams to give Khutbas on Friday asking for calm and giving sound Qur’anic logic for diplomatic, and peaceful responses. We need to follow the prophet’s example in dealing with hostility.

Every Muslim needs to attempt to contact as many Imams as they know and request that they do the same. We need to focus particularly on reaching Imams overseas, particularly in Europe.

If we can respond to this provocation calmly and focus our efforts on responding to the actual film with facts, and mobilizing peaceful vigils instead of angry demonstrations, then it is possible that we can turn this situation around so that it is Mister Wilders who is embarrassed, not the worldwide Muslim community.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/how_geert_wilders_anti_quran_film_can_be_made_to_b enefit_the_muslim_communi/

Interesting to see that the American Muslim community, which is very well integrated, has a response like this.

As far as legal restrictions are concerned, it's VERY interesting to me to see that Tariq Ramadan agrees with me: Yes. Wilders has the right to broadcast this movie. The proper response is not legal limitations. The proper response is cultivating a civic culture in which such things are unacceptable.

Dante is one in a million of those who mistreated the Prophet :PBUH:
From Theofanes the Confessor to Niceta of Bysantium, everything has been said against Islam and the Messenger
As Tahar ben Jelloun observed during the Danish cartoons controversies, take as example Mohammed in Hell by Giovanni da Modena
Is the most horrible painting ever seen, doesn't even deserves to be listed among art works
It was known to the general public ONLY cause generated polemics some years ago and not cause has any artistic value
So if those who preach in the name of freedom of speach, think that we are so stupid to believe that all these writings and paintings are done innocently with no hidden purpose while they're just running their pseudo-crusades, well is time to prove to them that we are far superior
That's why violence is not the best answer

Dante is one in a million of those who mistreated the Prophet :PBUH:
From Theofanes the Confessor to Niceta of Bysantium, everything has been said against Islam and the Messenger
As Tahar ben Jelloun observed during the Danish cartoons controversies, take as example Mohammed in Hell by Giovanni da Modena
Is the most horrible painting ever seen, doesn't even deserves to be listed among art works
It was known to the general public ONLY cause generated polemics some years ago and not cause has any artistic value
So if those who preach in the name of freedom of speach, think that we are so stupid to believe that all these writings and paintings are done innocently with no hidden purpose while they're just running their pseudo-crusades, well is time to prove to them that we are far superior
That's why violence is not the best answer

Well, this is my point. This is a deep part of European culture. And it has always gone on.

So to act as if it's something new that needs a sudden response of violence is to misunderstand history and current events.

As far as illustrations of Dante, many famous artists have illustrated that passage of Mohammed in Hell, not just the one you mentioned. William Blake is among them... They didn't pick it out specially, but they illustrated the whole Inferno, including that passage.

http://aura.gaia.com/photos/2/16256/large/behead.jpg

http://aura.gaia.com/photos/2/16256/large/behead.jpg

That's literally too good to be true! :p

I don't believe that's real.

Here is Tariq Ramadan again, specifically on Wilders. He talks about a stategy that most of the Muslims have devised:

Silence. Absolute silence.

And you know what? I think that what he says is true. Muslims learned something from the cartoon controversy. And though there may be this or that violent act in some corner of the world, there will be surprisingly little response from Muslims.

They will just ignore it. And prove clouds wrong.

Which will make the movie fizzle.

Mr. Geert Wilders will launch very soon a short movie, about which nobody knows anything, where it is said that he is going to unveil the true negative essence of Islam, the unhealthy character of the Prophet, or maybe the Qur'an's insanities. Whatever is the content, one understands it is a pure provocation! Silence would be our best response!

The noise surrounding this movie's launch and the public statements of Mr. Geert Wilders are always so extreme that anyone can understand his objective is to provoke a reaction and to get media coverage and attention. For the time being, he seems to be succeeding beyond hope: everybody is speaking about a movie nobody has watched, being afraid of (or hoping for) a scandal. M. Geert Wilders is a populist: having no serious real social policy, he is trying to get voters by feeding and using their fears! This is so clear that the Muslims must pass over: Mr. Geert Wilders is now revealing his true nature and the best response is to ignore him. The worst case scenario he can expect is indeed not reaction . . . silence!

Yet we know that, in these times of tensions, anything could happen. Governments in the Muslim-majority countries, organizations, and politicians can use it for the sake of other political stakes. As it happened with the Danish cartoon crisis, some governments and/or religious organizations (radical or not) instrumentalized the whole story to mobilize the people either to divert them from the true problems in their own countries or to get popular support by attacking "the West" represented as "the enemy." An uncontrolled over-emotional reaction is always possible, and some can shape it through some inflammatory statements or "protest orchestration" (by some governments or organizations). Thus no one can predict where it is going to end.

People have learned from the cartoon crisis and many will try to calm down the atmosphere, but some other presidents or leaders have other agendas and this kind of crisis is very much an opportunity. Actually it is exactly what Mr. Geert Wilders himself is looking for! One may hope that the fact that Mr. Geert Wilders is known (and that it is clearly a provocation) would help the people to understand it is a trap and they must refuse to be driven into it. This would be the best case scenario.

The Dutch government needs to have a preemptive policy built on a clear discourse that the government is not supporting (or even rejecting or condemning) the film and its content but it does not want to interfere in the name of freedom of expression. [Exactly right!] If any ambassador or politician from a Muslim-majority country is asking for an audience, she or he should be received and this positioning should be clearly stated. Wilders should not be prevented from speaking or be put in jail (as some have suggested) [What do you think of that, mimo and sophis?]: one should only respond to his argument when there is an argument and simply ignore him when he is acting out of an orchestrated provocation.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/ramadan240108.html

I would LOVE to see a debate between Tariq Ramadan and Geert Wilders. I wish they would do one and post it on YouTube. If you listen to Wilders instead of just looking at his evil eyes, he is not a slavering monster, just a person with some ideas, some of which you may strongly dislike. The best approach if you think the ideas are flawed is to debate him.

Here is Wilders speaking about his film and his ideas about Islam and Europe, in case you are interested in hearing him explain his thoughts:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aauAMJfHFMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZpqhaeiWc

I don't know about you, but when someone condemns my religion--just listen to Ice Tea on Sabla! :p -- I want to get to know them and how they think.

WHY do they think that way? What is the basis for it? Is there something good in their thought that they are misunderstanding? How can I connect with that person on some level?

It's a fascinating and deeply helpful thing, I think. Give it a try.

Clouds don't speak for all muslims in the world, just state YOUR opinion. Not everyone in the world think the best solution to this problem is spill more blood that will further taint our religion.


I am not speaking on the behalf of ALL muslims read my post again:


You see that is the fundamental difference between you Christians (well most of you) and us Muslims ( well most of us)

so if you chose to be an exception it's up to you

but could you tell us what do you think about Wilders intended movie and his conceptions about Islam?

Ding Ding !

Your taqiya has been exposed Cloudy.

This is what you said in your first post

as for this lunatic pig film maker his blood already becomes legal to all muslims

^^

Actually, I think Wudjab is right on this:

That is probably what Pen is talking about.

She and Threadlike and others do not think your response is an appropriate one, nor that it is legal for Muslims to kill this man.

You are making a statement about Islamic belief in general and they are saying, "We don't agree. You don't speak for us. And we don't accept that you speak for Islam on this question. We say you are wrong."

with all due respect, i think any intelligent muslim would do well to ignore this movie and any other they deem offensive. and counteract by voicing the fact that they are peaceful folk.
going all anti and protesting violently will only make the director richer.

The more Muslims act provoked the more these kind of things come out, I say ignore it.

.


Silence. Absolute silence.

your message is loud and clear "sheikh Tariq Ramadan"!!!!

you want to turn us muslims to senseless blind, mute and dumb people, put our emotions and feelings in deep freezers and forgot about them.

before there was the cartoons and now the movie so what is next Mr Ramadan?

If these such people will not be stopped and taught a lesson they will never forget, you will open the doors wide, "Imam" Ramadan, to many more following suite and even worse.

shshshhhhhhhh muslims don't say a word shut your mouths up and eat your words, you have all the rights to remain SILENT or Mulla Ramadan will prosecute you before court in the US!!!!!!!!

what kind of stupid attitude is that?


And you know what? I think that what he says is true. Muslims learned something from the cartoon controversy. And though there may be this or that violent act in some corner of the world, there will be surprisingly little response from Muslims.

I think Muslims won the Cartoon battle, and showed the world how united we can be when it comes to mocking our Prophet:PBUH:, and this time we will be more united if this evil movie will ever see the light.

They will just ignore it. And prove clouds wrong.
Which will make the movie fizzle.

I don't think Jeff true muslims will ignore this one, no way and the coming days will prove me right.


I would LOVE to see a debate between Tariq Ramadan and Geert Wilders. I wish they would do one and post it on YouTube. If you listen to Wilders instead of just looking at his evil eyes, he is not a slavering monster, just a person with some ideas, some of which you may strongly dislike. The best approach if you think the ideas are flawed is to debate him

a debate between whom?

a senseless muslim verses the devil?

The more Muslims act provoked the more these kind of things come out, I say ignore it.
can you imagine if everybody ignores this movie...?
the next movie maker who gets the idea 'right i wanna make a shocking islam movie' will get no finance whatsoever.

I’m not happy with what he is saying about the Quran and his call for the ban. Personally I think he is purposely trying to cause problems, but as they say there’s no smoke without fire. It’s kinda our fault for giving the west the impression that Islam is a violent religion with the things being done and said in the name of Islam (for example you declaring his blood is legal, I just wonder how many more Muslims are gonna be saying that). So instead of proving people like him right on what they say and think about Islam being violent we should do the opposite and show that TRUE Islam is not violent! Show that we are not happy with the movie but in a PEACEFUL way. We need to take into account the way the world is now, not think with a 1400 year old mentality coz it won’t work now. Besides, this movie might turn out to be good for Muslims. People might watch it, become curious about Islam, read more and perhaps realize the real meaning of Islam (peace). I know someone here that this has happened to.

I think Muslims won the Cartoon battle...

How did you come to that amazing conclusion ?

with all due respect, i think any intelligent muslim would do well to ignore this movie and any other they deem offensive. and counteract by voicing the fact that they are peaceful folk.
going all anti and protesting violently will only make the director richer.

can you imagine if everybody ignores this movie...?
the next movie maker who gets the idea 'right i wanna make a shocking islam movie' will get no finance whatsoever.

Richer, poorer even if this movie makes him richer than Onasis, that's beside the point.

mark my words if this movie to be broad casted, muslims will riot, protest and boycott

whoops I slipped again true muslims I should say.