Could some muslim please inform me what all the big fuss is about? 

Having now watched this film, I can say it consists of quotations from the Quran, preachings by muslims, examples of indoctrination of young children in jew-hatred, the intentions of muslims to set up muslim rule in the Netherlands, and the awful consequences of atrocities perpetrated by muslims. (and some other things I may have forgotten about)

So what's the big problem?

Why should Wilders not have recorded all this on film?

If muslims object to it, then why not take the matter up with the people portrayed in the film, and with those whose acts caused such loss of life, instead of threatening to kill Wilders.....

 Thanks doo-bop for asking. The problem is with the Muslims. They translate the word Kaafir as a mere disbeliever. While it means the enemy of Islam. The verse that had been used to downplay the Quran and to prove that it was a terrorist religion allowing / ordering the muslims to kill the non-believers could not be meant like that.

 47:4 would be translated " When yo meet the  Kuffar (enemies of Islam ) face to face in battle, kill them. Smite their necks.... etc.

 That is all about the enemies of Islam who were out to attack the religion of Islam in various ways.

 Tell me, is it not allowed to fight the enemy? This is not any un-natural religion. Islam is fully natural. We may or may not love our enemy. It is upto us. If they fight then we have the permission to fight them. Why that has been made the basis of a bad film in Holland? Is that not foolishness or cleverness?

 If the Muslims, in future, in the Quran, translate the word Kaafir or Kufr as an enemy of Islam then there will be nothing wrong and no misunderstanding could be caused. And no such bad action could be taken against Islam such as making a film and spreading rumors about Islam.

 It is the fault of the Muslim friends which has caused this problem. The sooner they reflect the correct meaning of the word Kaafir in the books, the better it will be.

 Of course not all disbelievers are kaafir. Kaafir are only those who take up arms against Islam or they spread rumors or bad news. They do not accept Islam and do not allow any one to accept Islam and live in peace. Only those are kaafirs. The others who do not try to fight the religion of Islam and they do not oppose it and they do not oppose the peaceful preaching of the religion (any religion), they are not kaafir. And they should not be killed at all. No question. No problem at all.

 That fellow Wilders has done the wrong translation of the verses of the Quran and he has stirred up the peaceful atmosphere in the world against Islam. That was all a lie and a falsehood.

 There is no need to kill Wilders. There are in fact some muslims who are having wrong notions and bad beliefs not supported by the quran and sunnah. They have to correct those feelings of hatred, undue hatred etc. That is causing bad name for their religion.

 If some of the things are true in that film then the muslims had it. They are to answer. Are they in favor of Jihad and killing. Or they are in favor of peaceful co-existence?. Are the Muslims ready to reciprocate the good things of the western countries or they want good for themselves and deny the same right to the peaceful non-muslims?

 There are definitely some serious mistakes on the part of the muslims to earn a bad name in he world. They cannot blame others for it. I may later present a list of some bad policies of the muslims if permitted.

"So. If Christians emulate Jesus they will forgive their enemies and not bring violence upon the anti-Christians. Instead, they go to their deaths in Coloseum type venues. (See "The Martyerdom of Polycarp)."

Yes, we see many Christians emulating Jesus in this fashion. There are 150,000 of them in Iraq at the moment, sent at the behest of a Evangelivcal Christian leader of a predominantly Christian-Judeo country. In fact, it was one of G.W's good Christian buddies: Pat Robertson, who ranted and raved and called for the assassignation of a head of state.

Who are they emulating? Who are they emulating when they allowed hundreds of poor to die in New Orleans? Who are they emulating when they lie, and cheat, and pick up men in public restrooms, these good Christians of yours?

How many school shootings have there been in the U.S. in the last 12 months? How many of the shooters were Muslims? In fact, how many of the 25,000 or so people killed by guns in the U.S. in the last year were shot by Muslims?

Perhaps you should be more concerned with what is happening to your religion instead of fabricating stories about ours.

ejdavid wrote: Doo-bop - You wrote: "Could some muslim please inform me what all the big fuss is about?" Not a Muslim, but the big fuss is whether Muhammed was the perfect man, to be emulated by all the faithful. Specifically, Muhammed did a lot of hands-on-killing, and had his followers murder dissidents. These facts are not much in dispute except by those who have not studied Islam. So. If Christians emulate Jesus they will forgive their enemies and not bring violence upon the anti-Christians. Instead, they go to their deaths in Coloseum type venues. (See "The Martyerdom of Polycarp). So. How do Muslims Emulate Muhammed without resorting to violence? Its the very heart of the issue.

 What you wrote is not correct. Please give the name of one man only whom Muhammad killed. o.k? You will not find it.

 The good point about christians was when they were being persecuted and they were hiding. What happened when they became free and powerful? The Christian warmonger Crusaders killed many of their own faith people in jeroshlem not knowing that they were christians.

 Then please inform us all about your bloody Mary queen of England. She was in love with some of her christian friends whom she got killed in great numbers. Will you deny?

 There is no need to talk about jesus. He could not do anything in a three year short time. He just came and tried but his people hung him on the cross. That was the end of Jesus. No more of him any where. Only a few of his speeches (biography) are wandering in the books of bible.

ejdavid wrote: Doo-bop I am pleasantly surprised Muslims have not rioted accross the globe and killed available suspects by the hundreds. Perhaps we DO have some progress. HOWEVER, it is entirely clear that many authoritative Muslims from primitive societies are ranting for revenge and death, and Jihad against 'Appostate' Muslims as well as the entire global population of Infidels. These primitive Muslims have plenty of believers, money to spend, and Jihad on their minds. If they are only one percent of 2 billion Muslims? You do the math.

 I agree to what you have written. But please do not blame it on the religion of Islam. Blame it on the Muslims and their leaders who are giving sermons for Jihad from their pulpits. But do not blame it on Islam. Thanks.

 There is no need to mix up politics with religion. The religious mattrs will be dealt on religious level with you.

Doo-bop wrote: Could some muslim please inform me what all the big fuss is about?  Having now watched this film, I can say it consists of quotations from the Quran, preachings by muslims, examples of indoctrination of young children in jew-hatred, the intentions of muslims to set up muslim rule in the Netherlands, and the awful consequences of atrocities perpetrated by muslims. (and some other things I may have forgotten about) So what's the big problem? Why should Wilders not have recorded all this on film? If muslims object to it, then why not take the matter up with the people portrayed in the film, and with those whose acts caused such loss of life, instead of threatening to kill Wilders.....

The "big deal" is that this film was created as a tool to incite and provocate Muslims, nothing more, nothing less.

It would be the same if a famous filmmaker in the states shot a film about "Christians" using only footage from Hitler rallies, KKK indoctrinations, stories about priests molesting small boys and the church covering it up, the recent rash of Evangelical leaders getting caught with thier pants down in public places with sodomites and quotations from the Bible taken way out of context to represent all of Christianity. 

Or showing footage of Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian children or not allowing pregnant women to cross the border to the hospital so that they go into labor and lose their babies on the street, or the followers of Barukh Goldstein who celebrate at his grave every year and have made him a hero, as representing all of Judaism.

It's insulting and a slap in the face. However, talk of killing is wrong, but it is probably just talk. You know, much like Ann Coulter saying that we should kill all of the Muslim leaders and convert them to Christians, Pat Robertson saying kill the president of Venezuela, GW Bush saying we have to kill Saddam... wait that REALLY happened... I guess sometimes the more violent element of any religion can take over and do harm.

There are in fact some muslims who are having wrong notions and bad beliefs not supported by the quran and sunnah.

Very true. Ponder over it.

 This thing may have happened. But we are to start from the beginning. Why was Khaibar attacked. It was due to misbehaviour (cheating and aiding abetting the enemies) of the Jews. Why they did that? Such a bad move could be very dangerous for the muslims who were being attacked by the pagans every year.

 Muslims never attacked the Jews for many years and Jews were living in peace. But they were always plotting and inciting the pagan Arabs against the newly formed Muslim state of Madinah. These matters should be discussed and not the treasure. What use is treasure if there is no honesty?

 The subject is Fitnah, i.e. Greet wilders fitnah. We would like to know who is Greet Wilders? What is he? is he a christian? is he a Jew? Is he an atheist? That is the need of the moment. Let him live a happy life but please introduce him if any one knows about him. Thanks.

ejDavid:

No, actually you wrote this:

?\"Shasta'sAunt

I am short of time, but will try to return for more research later. However

You wrote: "So. If Christians emulate Jesus they will forgive their enemies and not bring violence upon the anti-Christians. Instead, they go to their deaths in Coloseum type venues. (See "The Martyerdom of Polycarp)."

I see that you have copied my of your post almost verbatim from AnsweringIslam, a well known anti-Islamic website that spreads falsehoods and manufactures stories. Unless you can come up with a true source for your "facts" they are not worth a response. perhaps a book that YOU yourself have read, something with sources that can be validated?

Links from anti-Islam websites are not welcome here and goes against rules of the forum:

18.  We request you not to post URLs of sites the sole existence of which is to slander a religion or spread lies about it. Even if the intention is good. Doing so means promoting the site for free.

 Guidelines

Following article may be useful due to its relevance:

A FITNA FILM 
by Chandra Muzaffar

For ejdavid: It was not the intent of the Muslims of madinah to attack any one. They were too weak to ask for any trouble. But the prophet was very wise. As soon as he reached Madinah, he met all the leaders there, even the Jews and made pact with them to defend the city in case of any attack. He was expecting attack from the pagans of Makkah.

 And the pagans were planning to attack as they were sorry that the prophet had escaped alive. That was their crime number one to try to kill some one. Can you not see that please? Be reasonable. You cannot twist the history.

 The prophet was not sleeping. he had informers who told him that attack from Makkah was imminent. A party of 1000 strong armed men had started from makkah. At the same time, a caravan of laden camel was travelling from Syria to Makkah. That caravan was an easy target for the Muslims. Normally, people would go to attack such easy target and get a lot of booty.

But the prophet, under divine guidance, and after consulting his friends, moved out of Madinah with hardly any armour. He had only 313 persons with him.  Before that, he even discussed with friends if they liked to remain in the city to protect it or they liked to go out and prevent an attack. That shows his innocence too.

 The friends advised to go out of city to face the advancing army of the pagans. There was a battle at the field of Badr on 17th Ramadhan of the year 02 Hijrah, that was 13 March 0624 A.D.. The result was a complete downfall of the enemy forces. Please remember that this battle and the victory was forecast (mentioned) in the bible OT. I can present the exact words if required.

ejdavid:

You wrote: "Shasta'sAunt - You wrote: "I see that you have copied my of your post almost verbatim from AnsweringIslam..."

I have never heard of that site nor used anything from it for my posts. I have been in dialog with Jews, Christians, and Muslims for at least a decade. I make my own posts. So. Is it not true that Muhammed and followers successfully attacked a Meccan Caravan, and that this is THE pivotol event in all of Islam?"

Yet here is YOUR post where you include the link to answering Islam. You may think that all Muslims are idiots and deceivers, but you are the only one caught in a blatant untruth here. 

ejdavid wrote: Muhammed and Islam made war upon much of the known world at the time. In this capacity he was not always benificent to those who crossed him. Even if they nothing more then imputent femail poets with suckling children. Some Muslims to this very day prescribe execution for those who are not properly respectful. http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/dead_po ets.htm

ejdavid wrote: seekshidayath and others. One by one. OK? Openly condemn the death fatwah against Rusdie, and ALL the others, unequivicably and with your username attached. Then tell me that you do or do not believe American troops bayonette pregnant Muslim women to obtain fetal craniums for ash trays. Real simple. You guys up to it? In my experience Muslims do a ropa-dope. Declairing nothing and blaming every non Muslim in sight. IMHO, I believe Muslims are affraid to condem such Muslims, and for good reason. They just might kill YOU?

I find the nonsense about fetal craniums just about as easy to believe as evil Muslims issuing fatwas about anyone who disagrees with them or wanting to kill everyone in the streets.

In fact, lets face reality. Since September 11, 2001, American soldiers have killed alot more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans, or anyone else for that matter.

You are much more likely to be killed by a young, non-Muslim, male school-shooter in this country than you are a Muslim. Why aren't you out crazy talking all young non-Muslim males?

Salman Rushdie is old news. Why not talk about that yound Iraqi girl who was raped, murdered, and set on fire by American troops, who also murdered her whole family? Or the murders or Iraqis by Blackwater. At least these happened this century... And your tax-dollars are paying for it all....

minuteman wrote:   For ejdavid: It was not the intent of the Muslims of madinah to attack any one. They were too weak to ask for any trouble. But the prophet was very wise. As soon as he reached Madinah, he met all the leaders there, even the Jews and made pact with them to defend the city in case of any attack. He was expecting attack from the pagans of Makkah.  And the pagans were planning to attack as they were sorry that the prophet had escaped alive. That was their crime number one to try to kill some one. Can you not see that please? Be reasonable. You cannot twist the history.  The prophet was not sleeping. he had informers who told him that attack from Makkah was imminent. A party of 1000 strong armed men had started from makkah. At the same time, a caravan of laden camel was travelling from Syria to Makkah. That caravan was an easy target for the Muslims. Normally, people would go to attack such easy target and get a lot of booty. But the prophet, under divine guidance, and after consulting his friends, moved out of Madinah with hardly any armour. He had only 313 persons with him.  Before that, he even discussed with friends if they liked to remain in the city to protect it or they liked to go out and prevent an attack. That shows his innocence too.  The friends advised to go out of city to face the advancing army of the pagans. There was a battle at the field of Badr on 17th Ramadhan of the year 02 Hijrah, that was 13 March 0624 A.D.. The result was a complete downfall of the enemy forces. Please remember that this battle and the victory was forecast (mentioned) in the bible OT. I can present the exact words if required.

So what are you saying?  That Muhammad did not attack the caravan?  Or that the caravan was planning to attack Muhammad?

So you can give me the exact words about the battle of Badr from the OT?  Ok then - give them....

I have just realised - I started this thread!!! About Geert Wilders great film!!  So how come we're talking about caravans?

I guess I should have got back to this thread long before I did

Doo-bop wrote: I have just realised - I started this thread!!! About Geert Wilders great film!!  So how come we're talking about caravans? I guess I should have got back to this thread long before I did

So you are not offended when people portray Jesus in a way that is blasphemous, or Christianity in less than a flattering light?  That's very enlightened of you.

You personally haven't joined with other Christians in speaking out against such things? Interesting....

Sign reader wrote:-

"And that was forty years ago! He was talking about  Vietnam war  and he were alive he would be talking about the Iraq war in much harsher terms, believe you me!
The crimes of the present day Americans have gone way beyond that mark!"

---And how would this man have been referring to Islamic jihad, if he had even known about it? 

How would he have referred to the muslim sacking of Constantinople? 

How would he have referred to the Muslim invasions of Europe? (Poitiers-Tours, Vienna)? 

 How did he refer to the muslim invasion and occupation of Spain and the Balkans? 

 How would he have referred to the wholesale slaughter of Greeks and the ruthless abduction of her sons to serve in the Ottoman army?

How would he have referred to the genocide of 1.5 million Armenian christians?

How would he have referred to the muslim invasion of India, and the slaughter and carrying away into slavery of countless millions of hindus?

How would he have referred to the atrocity of Smyrna?

How would he have referred to the slavery practices of the muslims?  (remembering that his own forbears were probably slaves themselves)

What would he have been saying about the abduction and slaughter of christians in Iraq today?

etc etc etc etc.........

Well we don't know do we?  The man was cut down 40 yrs ago....but you seem to think you know him....

Btw - I was against the war in Iraq myself, from the word go.  The west would have done much better to have spent the this money protecting itself against the flood of muslim colonialist/imperialists now pouring into it.  Who knows? maybe Martin Luther King would have agreed with me...

Sign reader wrote:-

"The  problem simply put  is that the European Christian crusaders had thought with demise of Ottomans & Moguls the  Sunni Islam was dead and buried"

Well, drop the "christian" and "crusader" bits, and you've got it about right.  The Europeans did indeed think that the muslims were no longer a threat.  How wrong they were!!  The muslims never ever stopped being a threat...

"If he wants to get in the neighbor Muslim's face he might as well face the music that will come with it!"

And just what do you mean by the above?  ---As if I didn't know!!!  It is an admission that you are killers!  That is what you mean by the "music".  It was always, ever, the only way muslims could deal with the opposition.....

(and what you said here is not "old history", but present and future threat!!!)

"you would assume that  Dr. King wasn't aware of the history! Good try"

And you would assume that he was?  Look, be gullible if you like, but don't assume we all are

"And just what do you mean by the above?  ---As if I didn't know!!!  It is an admission that you are killers!  That is what you mean by the "music".  It was always, ever, the only way muslims could deal with the opposition....."

Do not starting counting the dead of religious persecution and ideology because Islam is far behind Christianity in that body count.

Muslims may or may not have been responsible for 9-11, but it is a Christian president who unilaterally brought about the war in Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11, and is responsible for all of the deaths that have ensued.  This was not even dealing with the opposition, but a war for profit. Blood money on the hands of the Christian administration of a Judeo-Christian country.

Don't try to portray Islam as a religion of violence when Christianity was the original violent religion. It even began with a human sacrifice....

"Do not starting counting the dead of religious persecution and ideology because Islam is far behind Christianity in that body count. "

Prove this or retract it! (Btw nowhere in the New Testament are christians ordered to fight or kill for any reason, whereas in the Quran...)

I would have thought that with all the slaughter going on in Iraq (by muslims)  that you would have well overtaken us by now.  But I could be wrong....

Never forget - Islam orders killing.  Christianity does not.

To get back to the subject of Wilders film - what did you think of it?

Doo-bop wrote: "Do not starting counting the dead of religious persecution and ideology because Islam is far behind Christianity in that body count. " Prove this or retract it! (Btw nowhere in the New Testament are christians ordered to fight or kill for any reason, whereas in the Quran...) I would have thought that with all the slaughter going on in Iraq (by muslims)  that you would have well overtaken us by now.  But I could be wrong.... Never forget - Islam orders killing.  Christianity does not. To get back to the subject of Wilders film - what did you think of it?

Which statement should I retract?  I am sure you know the history of Christian atrocities and how it was spread. Do I REALLY have to list them?

Islam does not "order" killing. Islam allows you to protect yourself if you are attacked. Since you claim Christianity does not allow this, then what is the excuse for all of those Christians killing? 

Let's see what Jesus says:

Luke 12:

49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!

50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!

51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.

53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law

Although I prefer the Matthew version:

Matthew 10:34

 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn
   " 'a man against his father,
      a daughter against her mother,
   a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
    

36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

So now, will you deny Jesus' own words? Or was what he said not really what he meant?

Doo-Bop is anti-Islam.....

He calls the movie made by GEEK oops Geert Wilders Great!

What real Christian spends his or her time on Muslim forums trying to disprove a religion? Someone who lacks religious insight. If I spent my time on Christian forums talking about how wrong the Trinity is and how wrong Christianity is because of this and that while at the same time fighting to defend my point of view I haven't gained nothing. I suggest to you Doo-Bop is to  gain more knowledge on your faith and come closer to God on your personal time than trying to disprove a religious belief. We've heard your point and I'm quite aware you dislike Islam and its eachings and its your choice to have this belief but don't come here making st**id a** threads about an ignorant dutch who is not only racist, and nationalist, but also a bigot.

If you call such a human being good because this individual shares a similar opinion like you then maybe you should look in the mirror and wonder whether you are truly following the WWJD pattern. Most Christian intellects don't spend their times on countless Muslim forums discrediting another person's faith. Most say that God's influence works in time not in the words of other men. So by discrediting Islam you are pushing potential converts away by showing your personality here. Because of your sheer insensitivity to my faith when I log on sometimes I wish people like you were all crammed in a missile and shot in the SUN.

Israfil - always a pleasure to hear from you, as you know.  Now Wilders.  He is, according to your good self 1.- ignorant  2.-  Dutch  3.-  racist  4.-  nationalist  5.-  bigot

Well, he is Dutch, I agree.  But what about the rest?  Can we have some clarification on this?

1) His bigotry:

�Islam is not a religion, it�s an ideology,� says Wilders, a lanky Roman Catholic right-winger, �the ideology of a retarded culture.�.... http://makkah.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/geert-wilders-polarizing-dutch-society-against-islam-and-muslims/ - http://makkah.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/geert-wilders-polariz ing-dutch-society-against-islam-and-muslims/

Dutch Jewish Producer: �Keert Wilders is a bigot!!!�

Jewish TV producer Harry De Winter has blasted Geert Wilders� anti-Islam film aspirations with a provocative advertisement on the front page of the Dutch de Volkskrant:

TV Producer Harry de Winter, President of the board of the foundation Een Ander Joods Geluid [Another Jewish Voice], today placed a remarkable advertisement on the front page of the newspaper Volkskrant. De Winter puts Geert Wilders�s criticism of Muslims in the same category as anti-Semitism�

http://makkah.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/geert-wilders-polarizing-dutch-society-against-islam-and-muslims/ - http://makkah.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/geert-wilders-polariz ing-dutch-society-against-islam-and-muslims/

2) Racism

http://afutureinfreedom.blogspot.com/2007/11/immigration-not-by-muslims.html - "Immigration? Not of Muslims!"

http://afutureinfreedom.blogspot.com/2007/11/immigration-not-by-muslims.html - http://afutureinfreedom.blogspot.com/2007/11/immigration-not -by-muslims.html

In the link you'll find this person in the same political part as Geert Wilders...

"submitting to the Parliament an official motion calling for an immediate ban on immigration of Muslims to the Netherlands. The Dutch identity is compromised "by the continuous immigration of Muslims who often appear not to share our values," Fritsma stated."

The above is from the same link but wanted to point how similar statements made by Wilders in his nationalist view.

If Wilders is promoting true tolerance why are all these people across the globe in these pictures protest against him? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1993293/posts - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1993293/posts

Israfil wrote: 1) His bigotry: �Islam is not a religion, it�s an ideology,� says Wilders, a lanky Roman Catholic right-winger, �the ideology of a retarded culture.�.... http://makkah.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/geert-wilders-polarizing-dutch-society-against-islam-and-muslims/ - http://makkah.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/geert-wilders-polariz ing-dutch-society-against-islam-and-muslims/ Dutch Jewish Producer: �Keert Wilders is a bigot!!!� Jewish TV producer Harry De Winter has blasted Geert Wilders� anti-Islam film aspirations with a provocative advertisement on the front page of the Dutch de Volkskrant: TV Producer Harry de Winter, President of the board of the foundation Een Ander Joods Geluid [Another Jewish Voice], today placed a remarkable advertisement on the front page of the newspaper Volkskrant. De Winter puts Geert Wilders�s criticism of Muslims in the same category as anti-Semitism� http://makkah.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/geert-wilders-polarizing-dutch-society-against-islam-and-muslims/ - http://makkah.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/geert-wilders-polariz ing-dutch-society-against-islam-and-muslims/ 2) Racism http://afutureinfreedom.blogspot.com/2007/11/immigration-not-by-muslims.html - "Immigration? Not of Muslims!" http://bp1.blogger.com/_DTlMRVDZln4/R0AZuYLGqXI/AAAAAAAAAEM/bZlLm7G620Q/s1600-h/Sietse+Fritsma.jpg"> Geert Wilders's right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) can hardly be surprised by the cordon sanitaire imposed against it on Friday.         http://afutureinfreedom.blogspot.com/2007/11/immigration-not-by-muslims.html - http://afutureinfreedom.blogspot.com/2007/11/immigration-not -by-muslims.html In the link you'll find this person in the same political part as Geert Wilders... "submitting to the Parliament an official motion calling for an immediate ban on immigration of Muslims to the Netherlands. The Dutch identity is compromised "by the continuous immigration of Muslims who often appear not to share our values," Fritsma stated." The above is from the same link but wanted to point how similar statements made by Wilders in his nationalist view. If Wilders is promoting true tolerance why are all these people across the globe in these pictures protest against him? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1993293/posts - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1993293/posts

But the very same page you linked has Wilders declaring that he does not hate muslims, but Islam.  So how can he be a bigot? (Indeed, as a christian, he must hate islam, but must not hate muslims).

And how can he be racist, since Islam does not constitute a race?

Fundamental questions which must be answered, but they will not be, because the muslims simply hate Wilders for his fierce criticism of Islam, which they will not tolerate.  Indeed, muslims are working very hard to impose conditions where islam cannot be criticised.  And they are doing this world-wide

ejdavid wrote: Shasta'sAunt - You wrote: "Muslims may or may not have been responsible for 9-11." This is why I do not reason with Muslims but simply make fun of them. You also wrote: "...it is a Christian president who unilaterally brought about the war in Iraq..." Iraq is one of several centers of Islamic Civilization. The invasion removes the Iranian model. You know. Where a Muslim dictator takes over from a secular dictator. Humpty dumpty Iraq will for decades if, not centuries, be conflict between Muslims. You also wrote: "Blood money on the hands of the Christian administration of a Judeo-Christian country." You write as if (and I agree) the Iraqi invasion set Islam back a notch or two. You also wrote: "Don't try to portray Islam as a religion of violence..." Yeah. You won't even criticize the 9/11 guys, even if they "Might or might not" have been Muslims." You also wrote: "...Christianity was the original violent religion. It even began with a human sacrifice...." Christianity began in humility and persecution. This went on for several centuries until Constantine established Christianity as the State Religion." Islam, on the other hand militarily conquered much of the known world by force of arms in less then a century. However, beeing a religion of violence, it did not last very long. Why? Because even some of the four Rightly Quided Caliphs were less then pious. After that the entire enterprise descended into civil wars, both large and small, that continue to this very day.

ejdavid,

You have already been warned. You must provide evidence to support your claims. You will not be allowed to misrepresent Islam or any other faith. 

Doo-bop,

Any form of misrepresentation of any faith, including Islam, will not be tolerated here. You have been warned couple of times in the past. It has been explained to you several times that Islam is the message of peace and submission to Allah, yet you keep posting anti-Islam posts, falsely spamming otherwise.

Please comply with guidelines.

peacemaker wrote: Doo-bop, Any form of misrepresentation of any faith, including Islam, will not be tolerated here. You have been warned couple of times in the past. It has been explained to you several times that Islam is the message of peace and submission to Allah, yet you keep posting anti-Islam posts, falsely spamming otherwise. Please comply with guidelines.

Message understood, peacemaker.  Although I think you should also have a word with Auntie, who seems to think Christianity is a violent religion.

And that, I think, folks, concludes this thread.  I had been hoping to find out exactly, specifically what muslims though was wrong with the film "Fitna", but it all seems to be just condemnation without explanation

Everyone,

It is imperative that we engage ourselves in civil discussions in order to learn, share and grow together:

Guidelines

Doo-bop wrote: peacemaker wrote: Doo-bop, Any form of misrepresentation of any faith, including Islam, will not be tolerated here. You have been warned couple of times in the past. It has been explained to you several times that Islam is the message of peace and submission to Allah, yet you keep posting anti-Islam posts, falsely spamming otherwise. Please comply with guidelines.   Message understood, peacemaker.  Although I think you should also have a word with Auntie, who seems to think Christianity is a violent religion. And that, I think, folks, concludes this thread.  I had been hoping to find out exactly, specifically what muslims though was wrong with the film "Fitna", but it all seems to be just condemnation without explanation

I answered this on the first page of the forum, but it appears that this was not truly your purpose for posting the thread, as it continued despite our answers.

I do not have to "think" Christianity is violent, history proves it to be so. From the blood sacrifice of Jesus to the Crusades, numerous Inquisitions, burning of Lutherans and Protestants, the Reformation of the Church, the Salem witch hunts, the genocide of the indigenous peoples of America, Mexico, New Zealand by settling Christians, the Mormon Massacre, Hitler's annihilation of the Jews, the KKK, abortion bombings, the IRA, the Massacres at Sabra and Shatilla, etc.....

All of these have acted based of religion and religious conviction. Now you can state that they were not following the tenants of Christianity, just as Muslims have stated over and over again that terrorists are not following the tenants of Islam, but to the perpetrators of these atrocities they were doing so in the name of Christianity. Onward Christian Soldiers...

Shasta'sAunt - RE Assasinations

Finally, I have my own suspicious story to tell you. Decades now I have been confronting Islamic maniacs on-line, and received my fair share of Islamic Death Threats. I live in a remote mountain area but one day notice something entirely out of my experience. Specifically, two dusky looking guys in beards and black jackets marching across my land directly towards my house.

I confronted them from my high deck, and said they were not welcome on my land, and asked who they were. They then sarcastically sniffed 'does it matter' and I said it DID. So I called the cops. Both of us treked down the hill to where three men and one boy were lighting up a campfire. Just to ask...

Just chasing a rabbit, they said, and gratuously accepted my appologies for confronting them on my own land. I shook their hands as they accepted my appology just to get a good look at them. They told us they were just tourists from Peru.

I studied Spanish in college. My sister is fluent from California, and I have much experience with European accents. The cop and I treked back to my place and the cop asked me about the accent. I told him Peruvian was a deliberat insult. I also told him it was not Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, or middle eastern. My best quess is Baltic.

But whatever it was, and from wherever they came, they never came back. I sort of wish they had...

Actually I have read the Old and New Testaments, I am a revert to Islam and used to be a Christian.  The Old Testament is full of "smiting" as you call it, along with adultery, fornication, incest, murder, and wars.  The New Testament is a compilation of "According to's" hand picked by the Council of Nicea to help spread a new religion that they felt would be politically beneficial.

Although I was incorrect in calling Christianity the original violent religion, that would no doubt be Judaism, I am correct in stating Christianity started with a human sacrifice. Don't you believe Jesus was sacrificed on the cross, by God, to atone for the sins of man?  And once again, there are no tenants or edicts in Islam that tell Muslims to wage war. They may protect themselves if they are attacked, and the Quran does state this in no uncertain terms, but there is not one verse in the Quran that tells Muslims to start a war.

Geez, I wear a scarf so everytime I go outside I am confronted by scary Christians. It has been a constant in my life since I became a Muslim 11 years ago. Usually young men who have nothing better to do than harass a lone woman, because when I am with my husband it doesn't happen... So they are cowardly as well....

Shausta's Aunt I'd have to disagree with your analysis of Christianity as a "violent" religion. It would appear so through historical reflection that this is the case but if you are going to make such an extreme analysis of Christianity as violent we should do the same for Islam. During the Caliphate period many innocent people were crucified and burned and even some great thinkers were killed for rational thinking.

If we are to make a critique on extreme behavior under religion I'd rather focus on the people not the religion itself. Most if not all of our principles come out of the Abrahamic culture. You did in your previous post retract your comment regarding Christianity but you then made the mistake in saying:

Although I was incorrect in calling Christianity the original violent religion, that would no doubt be Judaism,

Have you studied the Torah or Mish'nah Torah? Have you studied the ancient Hebrew philosophy concerning man's connection with the divine? I don't understand why generalize an entire relgiion that is older historically speaking than ours. you are emulating the same behavior as those who criticize Islam.

Doo-Bop said:

But the very same page you linked has Wilders declaring that he does not hate muslims, but Islam.  So how can he be a bigot? (Indeed, as a christian, he must hate islam, but must not hate muslims).

Doo-Bop you must have to be the dumbest Christian I've come across. So the message of Jesus is Hate the religion not the adherent? You have totally and utterly made yourself into a fool by exclaiming that Wilders is exercising true Christianity by "Hating" something. I thought hate was a behavior Jesus spoek out against. As a Christian you must hate Islam? Wow good job. You need more education in your life.

And how can he be racist, since Islam does not constitute a race?

Again Doo-bop you need more education. I'm willing to forgive you if you are in high school but the above comment says it all. I'm speaking on wilers' ignorant statements regarding immigration and the forceful acclimation of Muslims into a culture. He feels that Muslims bringing their ethnic and religious culture to the country destorys the current one there. He does not believe in multiculturalism.

Fundamental questions which must be answered, but they will not be, because the muslims simply hate Wilders for his fierce criticism of Islam, which they will not tolerate.  Indeed, muslims are working very hard to impose conditions where islam cannot be criticised.  And they are doing this world-wide.

I'm working very hard to make a cure for st**idity. You'll be my first test subject.....

Israfil:

Christianity started with the blood sacrifice of Jesus to atone for the sins of man. No true Christian can deny this, even if they don't like having it spelled out this way. It is the basis of their faith, and the reason they believe Jesus, God incarnate, was sent to the earth. Basically his sole purpose in being here.  I question that any religious doctrine that must begin with a human sacrifice, can ONLY exist because of this sacrifice, can then be labelled a religion of peace.

I am basing my statement about Judaism upon the teachings of the Old Testament which contains numerous stories of violence, murder, and war.  The first example I can think of is God commanding Joshua to make war, to destroy the city of Ai and kill every inhabitant. This is not Joshua doing this of his own, but God commanded it of him.  If you are familiar with the Old Testament you will know that there are many more examples, I can post more if needed.

I am not making sweeping generalizations, I am quoting the Old and New Testaments.

The posters who continually state that Islam is a violent religion because Muslims are allowed to defend themselves choose to willfully ignore the basis of their own religious beliefs. Beliefs much more violent than any Ayat in the Quran. I am merely pointing out the truth.

ejdavid wrote: Shasta'sAunt Islam is a fascist totalitarian political institution with hundreds, if not thousands of authorities. Islam has not recognized an authoritative Caliph since after the Fourth one. Further, Islamers seem to believe the very act of insulting their religion constitutes an act of war. To this day I have not read MS Aunt condemn any of the specific acts of deranged maniac Muslims: 1) 9/11 2) Bali masachre 3) Madrid train bombings 4) The Londong train and bus bombings I might change my mind about this if you write a coherent analyze these events and plainly tell us you do not support them and they are unjustifiabl under Islamic Law. I do not believe you will ever do any of this in public. Accordingly, I have decided to oppose any and all immigration of Muslims to the US. For Europe, it far too late. Muslims breed in secret like deranged rabbits, and will undermine the entirety of Continental European Society within 100 years. You will win! In contrast, the US has less of a religious issue, then a cultural one from Mexico. That conflict does not include a Religious Reconquista, but if illegal Mexicans breed rampant, we may vote to revoke statehood in order to cut our losses. California is already on everyones short list to cede back to Mexico. I find it amusing to contemplate how long California would remain a first world place under Mexican authority.

Hi ejdavid,

....and you call Muslims fascist!

I think you are mistaken in your opinions. We all are free to express our anger, but at proper websites. This is a place to learn and share your beliefs, not to express your political views and agendas.

If you have come to this website to learn about religion, go ahead and ask a question or share your belief, we are here to help you.

Hasan

TV Producer Harry de Winter, President of the board of the foundation Een Ander Joods Geluid [Another Jewish Voice], today placed a remarkable advertisement on the front page of the newspaper Volkskrant. De Winter puts Geert Wilders�s criticism of Muslims in the same category as anti-Semitism�

To many of the especially "pan-Germans" of a generation past, Julius Streicher was as good a cartoonist as Geert Wilders is a filmmaker.   Perhaps, in this case, it takes a courageous Semite (Harry de Winter) to acknowledge an emerging form of anti-Semitism.  

Serv

005.032

I believe the correct term would by Judeophobia.

To put the film in the same category as anti-Semitism would be redundant since technically semitic people include Middle Eastern Arabic speaking Muslims, toward whom this film is directed.

"EJDavid responded by writing:  "In the US we have very specific rules on free speach. You can say or promulgate almost anything you wish. We do not have thought police ...""

Shasta�sAunt wrote: I believe the correct term would be Judeophobia.

Sorry.  You believe the correct term for what would be Judeophobia?  I doubt you mean Geert Wilder�s film?

To put the film in the same category as anti-Semitism would be redundant �

I must respectfully disagree.  If, repeat if, it is true that the film summarily calumniates the physical and spiritual progeny of Ishmael, son of Abraham, son of Heber, son of Shem, then it is, categorically and by definition, anti-S[h]emitic.     

� since technically semitic people include Middle Eastern Arabic speaking Muslims, toward whom this film is directed.

Exactly.

By the way, we�ve not met, so welcome to the discussions, from me, a non-Muslim but by now rather long-term (if only occasionally appearing) guest.

Serv

"Sorry.  You believe the correct term for what would be Judeophobia?  I doubt you mean Geert Wilder�s film?"

The correct term for which category the film should be placed (the same) as.  I believe that since the film is anti-semitic it cannot be classified in the same category as/with anti-semitism.    

Moreover, I don't understand because I don�t speak Dutch and cannot read his statements in full, but there seems something disingenuous or at best inconsistent in a man like Geert Wilders (and others of his type).  From one side of his tongue, he insists upon the necessity of protecting �free speech� when he produces and distributes his anti-Islamic film, Fitna, and reproduces the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, but from the other side he argues that the Quran, which he places in the same category as Adolf Hitler�s Mein Kamp, should be outlawed in the Netherlands.

I guess it comes down to this, in the mind of an ideologue (and the irony is intended):  only agreeable speech should be fully free.

Serv

Hi Israfil,

But Servetus I must challenge the end point you made: only agreeable speech should be free-does not necessitate freedom....?

That is the irony of the statement.  It is what the ideologues of whatever persuasion and from whatever point on the globe seem invariably to suggest, or to even subconsciously argue.  Put in other words, it reads like this (and again the irony is intended): only the speech with which I agree should be fully free.

Serv