Fitna shows Islamic religious leaders saying TERRIBLE things, the sort of statements that incite murderous behavior by some mosque congregants.

Fitna omits the statement of the Finsbury Park mosque that celebrated what they call "The Magnificent 19" muslims who committed the 9/11 sneak attack atrocity.

Not shame, but arrogant pride of the 9/11 sneak attack.

I ask arab19 to watch Fitna and since he speaks arabic, do the english subtitles match the spoken words of the muslim religious spokesmen, or are the susbtitles WRONG?

IF wrong, what are they saying.

There is nothing in these 15 minutes that I have not seen, heard or read about before.

Eddie, good luck. But I'm sure we won't be hearing from Arabian19. If he sees your comment, he'll say nothing or just say that the film is a caricature of Islam.

I agree with Sol and Noga's statements about the film. My almost immediate reaction was that it clobbered you over the head, which oddly made it less effective because, subconsciously, you lose respect for the film's voice. You immediately suspect that the film is overstating its case, even if that might not be so.

If the film were a little more subtle, and had something new to say--not same things that we have seen or heard about a hundred times already--it would have actually been more compelling.

Also, their use of those Sura verses was nicely done from an aesthetic point of view; I like the way they were presented. However, connecting them directly to the slaughter in New York and Madrid was a bit of a stretch. I can see a Muslim now just itching to get at the Old Testament, where there are approving accounts of the Jews slaughtering this or that other tribe, or some Christian writings of yore (though probably not the New Testament), and saying, "See, there are writings like this in every religion, but it doesn't mean we take them at face value."

One thing that struck me, though, is that one of the imams shown speaking really reminded me of Hitler. In some of his speeches, Hitler let his voice grow hoarse, so he would sound even more impassioned. He would work up to a crescendo, his voice getting more hoarse and more emotional, and finally the audience would chime in with "Sieg heil, sieg heil!" Well, if you look at the film from 3:16 to around 3:50, this imam speaks in exactly the same way. And when he works his way up to a crescendo, the audience chimes in with Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar! The similarity is eery. Even some of the imam's gestures recall Hitler's. I wonder if this guy watched films of Hitler to take pointers.

Also, I liked the music. Again, though, using Tchaikovsky's Arabian Dance was a bit obvious.

Joanne, subtlety is not what is needed.

Facts are.

Showing Muslim religious spokesmen saying bloodthirsty, racist statements exposes the problem with current day Islam.

Again these are videos of real Muslims, not an animated cartoon, or puppets with long noses or Arabic speaking actors playing "Jews", but actual Muslim fascists.

With these videos the only way to deflect negative reaction is to claim that the English translations of the Arabic are wrong.

Fitna only documents the tip of the iceberg of Islamofascist aggression.

The film made me angry. Seeing the film of the falling man from the WTC, seeing a split second of the aftermath of the beheading, I looked away, made me angry.

To Islamofascists, it's OK to tell lies about the US and Jews and "freedom" to their congregants, but it's NOT OK to show real events perpetrated by their Islamofascist congregant drones.

If "Fitna" is supposed to demonstrate Western obsequiousness in response to Islamist aggression, I think South Park did a better job.

It didn't provide enough information to be a real 'investigation' of Islam's link to terrorism, it wasn't artistic, innovative or subtle enough to make people think, and it ignored the political infrastructure that supports terrorism. I'd give it a rotten tomato.

See update. The New York Times is really stinky.

"The New York Times says the film "...matches graphic images of terrorist attacks and death threats against Jews..." Talk about not getting it."

According to Freud, there are techniques, tricks that the unconscious uses to distort the reality, such as condensation and displacement.

In Condensation, large, or multiple issues are represented with only one image.

In Displacement, conflicts are replaced by something remote, so that a big issue plays a small role in a dream and a small issue gets all the attention. This technique is intended to confuse the issues, and thus dilute the fear. The fear of the real thing that bugs your subconscious is so great that your mind cannot handle it but through proxies.

NYT is not just getting it wrong. They are in denial. They want to convince their readers that the target of Islamic rage is the Jews, the classical victim symbol. History and myth have taught us that Jews are a reliable clearing house for Christian and Western fears. It is much easier to watch this film if you think that it's not really you and your kin who are targeted by this hatred but the "Jews".

(Sorry for the amateur analyticals. I couldn't resist, as this seems such a perfect example)

...who knew, Wilders is Jewish? Must be what the NYT is implying. Nothing to worry about, if they end the occupation, all will be well. "Don't worry folks, it's between them and the Jews. Not our problem."

As for the film, I think it's important that the reality portrayed gets a wider exposure. Sure, us blogheads know this stuff. But the YouTube babies are clueless. So, like Eddie says, subtlety is not required. What's needed is a slap in the face that and a shaking that says "wake up. Open your eyes!"

It is a propeganda movie. could be true could bge false but it is not indeapth.

Joanne writes: "One thing that struck me ... is that one of the imams shown speaking really reminded me of Hitler."

I absolutely agree. But something else struck me -- on a similar note. And this is that the film reminded me of anti-Jewish propaganda from the Nazi era. As someone hinted above, one could make an equally compelling, hypnotizing film that makes Jews seem evil.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying that all is equal, or that Europe and much of the rest of the world don't have enormous problems to deal with, problems which this film hints at. (Okay, clobbers at.)

But it went too far, and that -- again, as someone suggested above -- is counterproductive. Not only counterproductive, but morally problematic.

Because the innuendo, the subtext, is that all 900,000 Muslims in the Netherlands, and 4 million Muslims in Europe, feel the same way as those seen speaking in the film.

Again, many certainly do, and this is a grave problem, and something that should be tackled any way possible within ethical limits. But many surely don't feel this way. Many are like Magdi Allam, but who haven't converted yet, or don't feel the need to convert. Others are secular. Others are in Europe after fleeing the type of thing in their home countries. This film could very well have the effect of making us forget this fact. And we cannot forget it, so that innocent Muslims won't be beaten in the streets. And then -- as the poem goes -- they will come for us.

I hope this doesn't come across as self-righteous moralizing. I just think it's important to raise these issues when discussing a film like this.

As an aside: It nearly brought a tear to my eye to hear the woman's 911 call in the beginning of the film. It's heartbreaking. The now you-tubed 911 call from the guy whispering in fear from Merkaz Harav had a similar effect on me.

It's not a very good movie. Which is a pity, because we could use a really good movie espressing the ideas it presents.

Frankly, I heard that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh's movie Submission also wasn't very good. I understand that it was ponderous and boring. Oh well. I guess it's not the movies as masterpieces that we are defending here, just the right for these movies to be made. Uh, I mean the right of people to make those movies and not have to pay for it with their lives.

Bald Headed Geek had trouble posting and wanted me to post this for him:

========
I'm with Eddie in comment #4.

I salute Wilders' for not bowing to pressure and in putting out this film, and in advance I mourn his passing because you KNOW the Islamofascists won't put up with this.

BHG

I liked this commentary by Spiegel:

"People who make films to prove a point -- that president Bush is an idiot, that the world is on the verge of an environmental disaster or that the Koran is a fascist book -- are not so much concerned with aesthetics as with making a convincing argument. The maker is part of a long tradition in films -- from agit-prop to advertising. But in a tradition that runs roughly from Sergei Eisenstein to Michael Moore, where should we place débutante Geert Wilders?"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,544059,00.html

LiveLeak pulled the vid....because of threats. How can anyone trace thru the 'net,where they live? It's not possible for the average Joe. But they just threw in the towel. Will everyone do the same?

The thing is that they will be killed anyway IF islamics take over. Killed either physically or in their mind/spirit. Same thing.

Don't people in companies like LiveLeakever project themselves in possible futures, and what it would be to live under the islamic boots? And what kind of life their children or grandchildren would have then?

herny, they're in Manchester (UK).

It seems that this wild man Wilders has made all this bull shit in its movie, just for the sake of his own political motives. May be he has never gone to proper school to know how to do a proper research work, before making a movie. Little knowledge is a dangerous thing and same applies for him and his followers and believers. Such closed minded people are just limited to the extent and believe whatsoever negative propaganda their media or literature portrays about Islam. Question is that, Westerners even don’t know and follow their own religion properly and had made thousands of changes in their religion according to their own requirements, needs and desires; how will they know about Islam. Instead of “moving in circles” and criticizing just for the sake of criticism, with a closed minded approach, it is advised to read your own religion first, open your mind and then critically analyze other religions, to reach to some better conclusion.

"As someone hinted above, one could make an equally compelling, hypnotizing film that makes Jews seem evil."

Really? Where would they find Jews chanting "death to the non-believers," Jewish mobs carrying threatening signs, random bombings carried out by Jews, and snuff videos with Jews murdering kidnapped innocents?

The power of this film is that nothing is made up. It lets Islam speak for itself.

While the film is interesting mostly due to its newsworthiness and the related free speech issues, the familiar routine of death threats and scripted outrage is a sign that Western governments have not found an effective way to deal with these predictable Imam-ordered hits and death threats.

I'm not sure if Western governments are even looking for a way to deal effectively with them.

When these sharia-ordered hits are carried out, when death threats hamper our ability to distribute information, it’s proof that Western governments are failing to protect their citizens. If current laws don’t give us a way of dealing with or prosecuting people for issuing murder contracts on local citizens, the laws need to be revised.

The current method of coping with these death threats (running and hiding, or refusing to publish all information about a news story because of a fear of reprisals) has proven to be both ineffective and stupid.

"...it is advised to read your own religion first, open your mind and then critically analyze other religions, to reach to some better conclusion."

We should be well informed about all religions. At the very least, we should have a good solid high school grounding that would serve as a solid foundation of knowledge, even for those who don't pursue the study further at the university level.

By the way, the evidently Muslim writer of the quote above should note that all commentators have their political motives...Muslims included.

Also, about "reading other religions": Muslims should do the same. And not just Judaism and Christianity, but also Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. to learn from them and their philosophies, rather than denouncing them off-handedly as polytheists. Who cares what they are? We should understand them and learn from them, too. Practice what you preach, oh Muslim!

In another vein, it wasn't so long ago that the intellectual bien-pensants would never take any religion seriously. Remember when religion was "the opium of the people"? I almost pine for those days, when Arab nationalism seemed to represent something progressive (the accent here is on "seemed"). And when clerics of any stripe were treated with a healthy skepticism.

I can respect people's right to their religious beliefs. I can respect the critical role that religions have played in the development of various cultures and civilizations. And I can respect the pearls of ethical and philosophical wisdom that religions have brought us. But that's all. Beyond that, I don't owe Islam or any other religion any special deference, any more than I owed Marxism or capitalistic ideology in years past. If I feel it's nonsense, or that large swathes of it are nonsense, so be it. I never worried before about "offending" Marxists or Leninists, so why should I worry about offending other schools of thought just by disagreeing with them.

As a muslim I think that I have the right to give my point of view on the film....

i ask wielder why didnt he translate the verse in the 0;29 just after verse 60. which says "and if they went to peace then go to peace and place trust in god.

ofcourse he wont translate this because he is an amature enthusiast that produces junk documantry movies.

before watching the movie I watched two interviews with wielder on fox news and its clear what is his intentions but he wont survive long in this area "documentary film making 1) because anyone that fights this book will loose time and effort in vain 2) his approach in investigating and producing credible things is on stake.

I heard that even the guy from Denmark that drew the cartoons will sew him because he used his cartoons without asking.

sorry

its in
0:40

"i ask wielder why didnt he translate the verse in the 0;29 just after verse 60. which says "and if they went to peace then go to peace and place trust in god."

Perhaps you could explain to us how that somehow "cancels" out the bombs, kidnapping, and head-chopping? 'Cause I'm not seeing the logic.

This seems like agood moment to recall Martin Amis's words in "The age of Horrorism":

"Let us make the position clear. We can begin by saying, not only that we respect Muhammad, but that no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad - a unique and luminous historical being. Judged by the continuities he was able to set in motion, he remains a titanic figure, and, for Muslims, all-answering: a revolutionary, a warrior, and a sovereign, a Christ and a Caesar, 'with a Koran in one hand', as Bagehot imagined him, 'and a sword in the other'. Muhammad has strong claims to being the most extraordinary man who ever lived. And always a man, as he always maintained, and not a god. Naturally we respect Muhammad. But we do not respect Muhammad Atta.

Until recently it was being said that what we are confronted with, here, is 'a civil war' within Islam. That's what all this was supposed to be: not a clash of civilisations or anything like that, but a civil war within Islam. Well, the civil war appears to be over. And Islamism won it. The loser, moderate Islam, is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and the public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible. We are not hearing from moderate Islam. Whereas Islamism, as a mover and shaper of world events, is pretty well all there is.

So, to repeat, we respect Islam - the donor of countless benefits to mankind, and the possessor of a thrilling history. But Islamism? No, we can hardly be asked to respect a creedal wave that calls for our own elimination. More, we regard the Great Leap Backwards as a tragic development in Islam's story, and now in ours. Naturally we respect Islam. But we do not respect Islamism, just as we respect Muhammad and do not respect Muhammad Atta.."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/10/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety

What sane person can respect Islam after
- 1993 truck bombing of the WTC
- 9/11
- Bali
- Londons 7/7
- Madrids 3/11
- PanAm 103
- Beslan school massacre
- honor killings
- Beltway sniper
- assassination of Robert F Kennedy
- USS Cole
- US Marine barracks bombing
- current day slavery in muslim sudan
- death threats against writers, film makers
- murder of Theo Van Gogh
- Paris suburbs riots
- torture and murder of Ilan Halimi
- beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and others
- celebrations and muslim blessings of SHITler

AND the LACK of a VISIBLE
- anti-al qada by muslims
- anti osama by muslims
- anti-Islamofascism by muslims

Islam is DOOMED.

The Israelis are not the defenseless Yahoodi dhimmis of the "good old days".

"Respect Muhammad"...

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

* retch *

He gave birth to this perverted, hateful distortion of a religion, the way i see it, no serious person could not fail to respect Muhammad, the pig, the meshugga' , rapist, pedophile, thief and murderer of the jewish tribes of arabia, and many more peoples otherwise.

to hell with islam and to hell with muhammad. this film is not offensive; the demonic murderers and psychopaths (just a tiny sample of them) represented in it are what any sane human being should be revolted and offended by.

eddie you dont have to respect islam its your problem. but there are facts that should be taken into considaration before throwing judges here an there.

the movie first aim was to give bad impression about the quran, not to investigate thoroughly and in a scientific approach. its closer to an advertisement.
its clear that many of the respected people that posted here didn't respect this movie " its approach" , and some said its good movie and a realistic.

but once again for me i dont accuse all the west to have the same ideology of wilder, its his movie and his ideas.

furthermore, what will the movie achieve to those that watch it? it depends on the watcher previous information on this topic"quran and islam" if he has good knowledge then at least he wont fall in the trap that the movie tries to make people fall in, on the other hand people with less knowledge will be shoked and may believe "everything" in this movie and this will increase hate between people.

there are people on the opposit pole of wilder" the guy that wrote an artical in the foreign policy magazine last month, ( if there was no islam) which stated that even if there was no islam and quran then the porblems in the middle east will continue.
we know that and we know that not all people hold the views of wilder. its a free society in the west.

so stereotyping is not good.

and to add to this me as a muslim i am proud that jeruslim was under islamic authority and all religoens lived pecfully in jeruslim untill the barbaric crusades came and slaughtered all Muslims and jews, and robbed Constantinople .

===============================

also noga post :from the "gurdian"
althought its temper is better than wilder movie but once again it drag us to a debate. which is that the writer of the articale 1) doesnt believe prophet mohammed is a prophet, rather a military man. 2) he portries prophet mohammed to hold the quran in one hand and the sword in the other, wich is absouloutly noncense and muslims dont accept this picture, once agian its his views and we cant blame all people for it.
although it says that people in the west respect islam, this is well known, although some people dont even believe in anything and dont care about reliegon.

======================

joanne said also that : "I can see a Muslim now just itching to get at the Old Testament, where there are approving accounts of the Jews slaughtering this or that other tribe, or some Christian writings of yore (though probably not the New Testament), and saying, "See, there are writings like this in every religion, but it doesn't mean we take them at face value.""

i presume that she speaks of me, or anyother person . but you also said

"Also, about "reading other religions": Muslims should do the same. And not just Judaism and Christianity, but also Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. to learn from them and their philosophies, rather than denouncing them off-handedly as polytheists. Who cares what they are? We should understand them and learn from them, too. Practice what you preach, oh Muslim!"

I ask her what the use of reading about the bible or hindiusm or biddhism, if the intent when reading them is not good.
as intent is quarter of most reliegons. to track the process in any reliegon bieliving in its intet is important.
this applies to wilder movie. he holds the quran is a faciest book so what do people expect from him?.

================

at the end i would like to say that i am not suprised to see people not liking the movie "on the making process" and this most agree on it.

and thanks god that the movie didnt make a big fuss world wide and that wilder project ended as a big failure and a bad legacy that will last with him.

Arabian says: "he portries prophet mohammed to hold the quran in one hand and the sword in the other, wich is absouloutly noncense and muslims dont accept this picture,"

According to you, Muslims believe that the very opposite is true. That Muhammad was a man of peace and nothing but peace, he never murdered or massacred anybody for the sake of promoting his message. Islam spread out due to its many gifts, not its violence.

If what you say Muslims believe is correct, then a Muslim who does not believe the above is not a true Muslim. In which case, I ask you this: Why isn't Osama Bin Laden exposed as a heretic to Islam? After all, what he did was in contradiction to the spirit and the letter you claim for the holy Quran, right? Why don't we hear Mullahs and ayatollahs condemning Ossama and his followers in the strongest possible way as being UNISLAMIC?

To #18 qrstuv:

If you doubt that "one could make an equally compelling, hypnotizing film that makes Jews seem evil," I suggest that you have a look at some of pre-war Germany's 'commentary' on Jews -- in children's books, ads, film, etc.

And if you think I was saying that Judaism suffers from the same violent extremism that blights Islam, I suggest you re-read my post a little more carefully. (It's #10.)

Finally, if you really think that the film lets "Islam" speak for itself, rather than letting one segment, albeit an extremely significant and large segment, peak for itself, then that's pretty unfortunate.

arabian, I ask you a second time.

Are the english translations of the arab speakers in Fitna correct?

The men at podiums, the masked men behind the bound hostage, the little girl being interviewed?

Dear all,

It is very shockingly amazing to hear and read about the contents of a movie by a Dutch parlimentarian, supposed to be a man with a great sense of responsibility which he is not.

I really feel very sorry for the voters who voted for such an idiot who rather than bridging the gap among the different cultures and religions is spreading hatred in the world by twisting the facts.

The fact should not be forgotten that Mr. Wilders is using rather misusing his position and the EU shoulder to fulfill his ill willed agendas to bring enemity between Muslims and Christians. What does he really want???

I would like to conclude on the yesterday's report by Vatican that Islam has outnumbered the others and have become the most observed religion of the world, may i ask why???

Do both things have any connection??

love and peace for all

ata, specificly, which facts in Fitna were twisted?

Are you claiming that the words of the Muslims appearing in the film were made up? Were their evil statements dubbed by other nefarious people?

Are you claiming that the bound person was not beheaded? Were his screams fake?

Are you claiming that the posters held by Muslim demonstrators in London, like "God Bless hitler" twisted out of context?

Please enlighten us.

"I ask her what the use of reading about the bible or hindiusm or biddhism, if the intent when reading them is not good."

Arabian, this is a really feeble argument. You're setting up a straw man here. Of course, the very clear assumption here is that one would learn about other religions in order to better understand and appreciate them and their roles in history. My God, man! What did you think I was saying?

So what's your response now? Tell me please that you're ready to read up on what Judaism is *really* about, or that you'll avidly read a book on Indian or Chinese philosophy and history. Sure, when pigs fly. Oops, sorry for the inappropriate metaphor.

ata: Is this your name, or is it supposed to deliver some message?

Where can we find the Vatican report you mention?

Eddie,

I continue to be shocked by the vitriol of your posts on this blog. They often add little to the conversation. And please stop speaking on behalf of Israeli's. As a Jew and and someone who has friends/family in Israel, I know you do not speak for them.

Your bluster comes across as someone "talking tough" because they don't have to actualy do the fighting.

David,

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't offend you to your very core.

How about this...

If the US or Hindu India (which almost had a nuclear war with Muslim Pakistan over land, Kashmir) or Israel suffer a nuke attack, the "holy" city of Mecca and the Kabbah would become as hot as the surface of the Sun, in retaliation of course.

Eddie,

I believe my point stands...bluster in the face of zero sacrafice is still just bluster. And certainly in this case, talk is cheap.

David, I have great respect for the brave men and women who join the service and defend this country from enemies, foreign and domestic.

I have great respect for the Israeli people who endure an implacable enemy of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Ba'hais.

I have ZERO RESPECT for islamofascists, self-hating Jews, collaborationists, racists, anti-semites.

Back to you.

Eddie,

The question is who gets to put those labels on people. Someone who is for a two-state solution or who is critical of American or Israeli forign/domestic policy is not a collaborationist, self-hating Jew or any of the other lables you put out.

And to have a constructive dialouge, I don't believe respect is a pre-requisite. If we only talk to our friends or people we agree with, we'll never get anything accomplished.

What I disagre with are comments that push people away from the conversation and are not focused on solutions. If a decrease in anti-semtism and security for Israel is what we are after, we need to elevate the discussion, not bog it down with bold pronouncements that serve to seperate people rather than bring them together.

David, If you are for a two-state solution, who on the arab side is willing to accept that option?

- the hamas regime that demands a "one-state solution" in their charter

- the fatah regime that celebrates the murder of Jewish students in a yeshiva

- the islamofascist regime of iran that wants to wipe the "zionist regime" off the map

- religious leaders of the islamofascist regime of iran that have said they are willing to accept the deaths of 15 million muslims to destroy the "zionist regime"?

What can you offer islamofascists to convince them to act in a peaceful manner in accordance with their "Religion of Peace"?

What happens to people who question the foreign/domestic policy of hamastan or the islamofascist regime of iran?

Warning: this page has some bloody pictures
http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/palhumanrights.html

What happens to gay people in the islamofascist regime of iran?

Do you question the behavior, charter, sermons, educational system of hamastan? The educational system that "teaches" their students that Jews are the sons of pigs and apes?

Do you think that everyone holding hands and singihg Kumbaya will work?

There is a "Peace Now".

Where is "Salaam Now"?

Comments on “Dutch movie FITNA” released by a Dutch MP.
* If you see the movie FITNA by an open mind/eyes, you clearly see, the mind/thinking working behind this is only hate of an individual against Islam.
* The film maker picked the verses of Quran out of context and tried to develop hate to Islam among innocent people of other faiths by joining the video effects/clips.
Producer tried to play with innocent hearts by joining video clips like, Twin Tower attack clips, with verses.
I AM ASKING YOU PEOPLE, SHOULD ANY MUSLIM MAKE A MOVIE LIKE THIS “FITNA” AND JOINS THE TEACHING OF “BIBLE” WITH THE PICTURES/VIDEOS OF US ATTACK ON IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN……AND TRY TO PROVE THE SAME AS IN “FITNA”? SURE…..NO. THERE IS NO ANY MUSLIM IN THIS WORLD WHO CAN THINK TO COMMENT THE PROPHET JESUS AND HIS TEACHINGS. IF ANY DOES THIS, HE IS NOT A MUSLIM AT ALL, MAY BE HIS NAME IS LIKE OF MUSLIMS.
* In this movie, thinking of Politician doesn’t mean that it is the sayings of Islam. And individuals’ act don’t mean the sayings of Islam.
Quran Says: “ONE WHO SAVES THE LIVE OF ANY INNOCENT HUMAN IS AS HE SAVES THE WHOLE HUMANITY”
We believe in “FREEDOM OF SPEECH” but with responsibility. By this kind of so called FREEDOM, actually you are hearting the millions of people. In humanity, freedom should be constructive, not for promote the hate in society/world.
More Important: MUSLIMS ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE HOLY QURAN and ALL PROPHETS INCLUDING MUHAMMAD, JESUS, DAVID, MOSIS and all others.
I personally feel, the act of Dutch MP is based on hate to Muslims. Not only for Muslims but he is also against his society and country. His Movie will work as a fire in the society of Netherlands as well as in between thousands of Muslims and Christians in the world.
May God/Allah help us to live with peace.

There is hate for Muslims and a lack of respect for Islam because of all the murder, hate, attacks perpetrated BY Muslims against NON-Muslims and fellow Muslims all over the World AND the LACK of Muslim condemnation of Islamofascist attacks all over the World.

I only see majority approval of Muslim attacks against "kuffers" and the celebration of "the magnificient 19" by the islamofascist Finsbury Park mosque.

The Muslim "street" should be very concerned over the growing anger of the NON-Muslim "street".

asif, if any of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive, why aren't they on Al-Jazeera or Al-Manar TV for all the World to see?

Fitna is an important word that no one understands in the West. Fitna is any communication that disagrees with Mohammed. It is the worst crime in Islam and worse than murder in Koran. Fitna is an islamically-incorrect thought crime. Fitna requires the death sentence.

Fitna gives Muslims a superior human right: the right of not hearing criticism.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.
Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the
cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by
extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: 'Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you!'

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.
Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, 'Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.' Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be 'fought' (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean 'fitna'…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one's religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called 'special pleading'. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.