After having watched Fitna released on youtube by Geert Wilder, i am disappointed frankly. I thought perhaps his hype would merit something startling, but instead he just takes ayats from the Quran..translates them totally out of context and accompanies them with extremely violent and emotional imagery from recent history. Its nothing fascinating or startling to see one man’s hate for a religion being exhibited through video and sound. Its simply a hate flick, a well hyped propaganda film, a dud!!
Give me about 3 days and i can do the same on any religion or subject…taking isolated clips by hate mongers present in every culture and society and weaving them in nicely with effects.
See for your self
Yeah I thought that too. No scholarly work. You would expect more from an MP. But his premise is correct: we defeated fascism, Nazism and communism – up next….Islamofascism
And I hate Islam and its fanatics and the Al Qaida Manual, First Edition….ahem, the Koran….LOL.
Geert Wilders is a known xenophobic bigot and a paranoid extreme racist. Like all extremists, they suffer from paranoia and dillusions. His at best amateur movie provide some photos and clips relating to islam and muslims without ever explaining them.
But I understand why these people do this:
to create fear and hatred and expand the global neo-imperialism of the west on the lands of muslims for their natural riches such as oil and gas. Useful morons such as Geert Wilders are adhored by Neo-cons and their ideology of “clash of civilizations”. This is all part of the so call “the new great game”. This is the 21st century energy wars.
Never has religion been the actual reasons for war, whatever you want to believe, the powerful elites across history and the worlds only go to war for power and riches. We the simple people, the ordinary suffer because of them. Racism and fear is created by them in order to control and brainwash people into sumbission and war.
Increase the Peace.
we are all one big Human family.
I’m wondering where the “extremely violent and emotional imagery” came from?
Those short clips of speakers in front of large audiences…where those out of context?
I thought this film was passionate and very relevant for the times. Yes you could make a film for every orginized religion I agree…it just so happens the religion right now causing a stir is the one featured.
Agreed faisal. I think you put it in a better manner then i put it. I already feel pity for this terrorist Geert Wilder. He needs to take some lesson in the art of making films. He must read “Idiots Guide to making films” 🙂
I am nowhere near the scholar required to refute Mr Wilder’s allegations but i have read the following on Teeth Maestros blog and thus post it below. I have checked for the authenticity of these verses and it just goes to prove that there are many many examples in Islam of Tolerance towards non muslims
By Mr Qazi on http://www.teeth.com.pk
There is a very general and very deep-rooted misconception that the Holy Qurâ€™an preaches intolerance, and that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preached his faith with the sword in one hand and the Holy Qurâ€™an in the other. Misrepresentation could go no further. The basic principle of Islam, a faith in all the Prophets of the world, is enough to give the lie to this allegation.
The great and liberal mind that preached not only love and respect for the founders of the great religions of the world, but much more than that-faith in them-could not shrink down to the narrowness of intolerance for those very religions. Tolerance is not in fact the word that can sufficiently indicate the breadth of the attitude of Islam to other religions. It preaches equal love for all, equal respect for all, and equal faith in all.
Again, intolerance could not be ascribed to a book which excludes compulsion from the sphere of religion altogether. â€œLet there be no compulsion in religion,â€ (2:256), it lays down in the clearest words. In fact, the Holy Qurâ€™an is full of statements showing that belief in this
or that religion is a personâ€™s own concern, and that he is given the choice to adopt one way or another: that if he accepts truth, it is for his own good and that if he sticks to error, it is to his own detriment.
Given below are a few of these quotations:
â€œWe showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will).â€ (76:3)
â€œâ€¦The Truth is from your Lord: let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it)â€¦â€ (18:29)
â€œNow have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): If any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will be blind, it will be to his own (harm)â€¦â€ (6:104)
â€œIf ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselvesâ€¦.â€ (17:7).
The Muslims were allowed to fight indeed, but what was the object? Not to compel the unbelievers to accept Islam, for it was against all the broad principles in which they had been hitherto brought up. No, it was to establish religious freedom, to stop all religious persecution, to protect the houses of worship of all religions, mosques among them. Here are a few quotations:
â€œâ€¦Had not Allah checked one set of people by means of another there would surely have been pulled won monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measureâ€¦.â€ (22:40)
â€œAnd fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allahâ€ (2:193)
â€œAnd fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhereâ€¦â€ (8:39)
Under what conditions was the permission to fight given to the Muslims? Every student of Islamic history knows that the Holy Prophet and his companions were subjected to the severest persecutions as Islam began to gain ground at Mecca; over a hundred of them fled to Abyssinia, but persecution grew more relentless still. Ultimately the Muslims had to
take refuge in Medina, but they were not left alone even there, and the sword was taken up by the enemy to annihilate Islam and the Muslims altogether.
The Holy Qurâ€™an bears express testimony to this: â€œTo those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged-and verily, Allah is Most Powerful for their aid-(they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right-(for no cause) except that they say, â€˜Our Lord is Allah.â€™â€¦â€ (22:39-40).
Later, the express condition was laid down: â€œFight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.â€ (2:190). The Holy Qurâ€™an, therefore, allowed fighting only to save a persecuted community from powerful oppressors, and hence the condition was laid down that fighting was to be stopped as soon as persecution ceased: â€œBut if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful. And fight them on no more until there is no more tumult or oppressionâ€¦â€ (2:192-3).
If the enemy offered peace, peace was to be accepted, though the enemyâ€™s intention
may be only to deceive the Muslims: â€œBut if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that heareth and knoweth (all things). Should they intend to deceive thee-verily Allah sufficeth thee: He it is that hath strengthened thee with His aidâ€¦â€ (8:61-2).
The Prophet made treaties of peace with his enemies; one such treaty brought about the famous truce of Hudaibiyyah, the terms of which were not only disadvantageous, but also humiliating to the Muslims. According to the terms of this treaty, if an unbeliever, being converted to Islam, went over the Muslims he was to be returned, but if Muslim went over to the unbelievers, he was not to be given back to the Muslims. This term of the treaty cuts at the root of all allegations of the use of force by the Holy Prophet. It also shows the strong conviction of the Holy Prophet that neither would Muslims go back to unbelief, nor would the new converts to Islam be deterred from embracing Islam because the Prophet gave them no shelter. And these expectations proved true, for while not a single Muslim deserted Islam, a large number came over to Islam, and being refused shelter at Medina formed a colony of their own in neutral territory.
It is a mistake to suppose that the conditions related above were abrogated at any time. The condition to fight â€œwith those who fight with youâ€ remained in force to the last. The last expedition led by the Holy Prophet was the famous Tabuk expedition, and every historian of Islam knows that though the Holy Prophet had marched a very long distance to Tabuk at
the head of an army of thirty thousand, yet when he found that the enemy did not fulfill the condition laid down above, he returned, and did not allow his troops to attack the enemy territory.
Nor is there a single direction in the latest revelation on this subject in Chapter 9, the immunity that goes against this condition. The opening verse of that chapter speaks expressly of â€œâ€¦pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances,â€ and then in verse 4 excepts from its purview â€œâ€¦those pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you,â€ thus showing clearly that the â€œimmunityâ€ related only to such idolatrous tries as had first made agreements with the Muslims and then violating them, killed and persecuted the Muslims wherever they found them, as verse 10 says expressly: â€œIn a believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant!â€ Such people are also spoken of in an earlier revelation: â€œThey are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every timeâ€¦â€ (8:56).
Further on, in chapter 9, the condition of the enemy attacking the Muslims first is plainly repeated: â€œWill you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took to aggression by being the first (to assault) you?â€ So from the first to the last, the Holy Qurâ€™an allowed fighting only against those who fought the Muslims first; it allowed expressly only fighting in defense without which the Muslims could not live, and it clearly forbade aggressive war.
The waging of war on unbelievers to compel them to accept Islam is a myth pure and simple, a thing unknown to the Holy Qurâ€™an. It was the enemy that waged war on the Muslims to turn them away from their religion as the Holy Book so clearly asserts: â€œâ€¦Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they canâ€¦.â€ (2:217).
It is sometimes asserted that the Holy Qurâ€™an forbids relations of friendship with the followers of other religions. How could a book which allows a man to have as his comrade in life, a woman, following another religion (5:5), say in the same breath that no friendly relations can be had with the followers of other religions? The loving relation of husband
and wife is the friendliest of all relations, and when this is expressly permitted, there is not the least reason to suppose that other friendly relations are forbidden.
The fact is, that wherever there is a prohibition against making friends with other people, it relates only to the people who were at war with Muslims, and this is plainly stated in the Holy Qurâ€™an: â€œAllah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances) that do wrong.â€ (60: 8-9).
Another widely prevailing misconception may also be noted here. It is generally thought that the Qurâ€™an provides a death sentence for those who desert the religion of Islam. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the Holy Qurâ€™an will see that there is not the least ground for such a supposition. The Holy Qurâ€™an speaks repeatedly of people going back to
unbelief after believing, but never once does it say that they should be killed or punished. I give here a few quotations:
â€œâ€¦And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafterâ€¦â€ (2:217)
â€œO ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Himâ€¦â€ (5:54)
â€œBut those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith-never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.â€ (3:90).
On the other hand, the Holy Qurâ€™an speaks of a plan of the Jews to adopt Islam first and then desert it, thus creating the impression that Islam was not a religion worth having (3:71). Such a scheme could never have entered their heads while living at Medina where the government was Muslim if apostasy according to the Qurâ€™anic law were punishable with death.
The misconception seems to have arisen from the fact that people who, after becoming apostates, joined the enemy and were treated as enemies, or where an apostate took the life of a Muslim he was put to death, NOT of course for changing his religion, but for committing a murder.
As mentioned before the Ayats and the Sulah of Hudaibia are all documented in many places in Islamic history and the Quran. I hope this serves to dispel at least some of the notions which might have arisen because of this hate film.
PEACE UNTO ALL
Comments are closed.