Geert Wilders' 'Fitna' is Boring, Pointless Anti-Islamic Propaganda

WOW. he is a humor guy,many friends like to chat with him online on tall dating site~~~~Tallmingle.com~~~~,He often told us some funny jokes. Seems he is famous on that site,especially some hot models talk with him positively.

OK, I suppose it is possible to believe acts of Islamic terror are not linked to verses in the Koran but only because it is possible for people to say about anything.

 And saying just about anything is a regular habit of the lead writers on this blog. 

It surely strains credulity to suggest that reminding all of us through a video presentation, that the goal of radical Islam is to kill us is some kind of a "trick."  The rare trick would be to suggest that this is somehow not the plan.  If the reaction in the Muslim world is a shrug of the shoulders, this is remarkable and a real improvement but does nothing to take away the essential truth that the attacks were planned political acts influenced by a sinister brand of fundamentalism, based in the so-called "religion" of Islam.

The other point which is so remarkable is here we have an entire culture of people convinced it is a moral virtue to kill innocent people while their apologists on a Jewish blog suggest that reminding people of the threat is "idiotic."  Thus, it is not "idiotic" to act like one of the millions of hate-filled drones who want to destroy Israel and America but it is surely idiotic to protest that mindset.  In the West, in our freedoms and exultations for the individual--the author of the blog entry believes that *we* are the one's who are victimized by alleged "propaganda" films and are led by demagogues. Further, he believes that in picking verses from the Koran, we can say that the Koran says pretty much anything.  Funny, its followers only seem to have read the things that talk about destroying the infidel.   The Koran which seems to be so known and easily understood says what it says about the enemies of Allah and front and center are the Jewish people. 

All of these protests are simply too bizarre to be taken seriously.  If Jewcy does not see that allowing the apologists for radical Islam to have a forum is a problem, I will raise my hand and open the blinds so there is a bit more light into the room.  However, given the fact that the entire editorial philosophy of Jewcy seems to be to try to paint a rosy picture of our enemies,  I think I will be ignored.

This is pretty tragic. 

I'm the last person who will minimize the threat--but I know that there are may branches of Islam, that Wahabism or those who read with a Wahabist method are quite dangerous.  I also know that Wahabism has the big money behind it.  I suspect that Wahabism is the dominant, that is, the most powerful branch of Islam in the world today.

What is needed is a comprehensive analysis of the state of Islam.  

But there is no question that the Wahabists would like to destroy the the West.  The problem is, they know exactly what they want to destroy.  They want to destroy free speech and free thought.  I suspect that wish to completely overturn the social fabric of Amsterdam--but I can see their point.  

The fact is, there is an enemy out there that remains undefined, and I suspect this is because the western world is defenseless against them.  Expect denial as a result of this.  But also expect a dearth of concrete plans on what to do about it.

Western Culture faces an existential threat and it seems powerless to stop it. 

Yes and you might add that there is clear danger in our denial of the problem.  I believe our powerless lies in our denial.  Action is blunted by this kind of denial and this is why it is baffling why there should be animosity to this kind of film.

As for the need for a comprehensive analysis of the state of Islam so as to separate out what is dangerous and what is not, at this point, I fail to see the merit of such a point.  Unless and until moderate voices within this community come forward to strike down huge portions of Islamic "holy" verses--millions will remain vulnerable to this kind of ideology.  Also, please take note of its striking contrast with secular, liberal ideals.

It is some irony that a blog of secular humanism can so readily come to the defense of the cult of doom.

If we have a shot at winning--this will come when we see unity in our defense of Western and Biblical values.  Surely, President Bush has helped a lot but if the effort is blunted by political elections of the kind Obama represents, we will be under much more vulnerable.

Such behavior has been condemned resoundingly among Muslims....I read most of these condemnations. They basically read. We condemn xyz, but you had it coming. Sorry, we dont buy it. Even if your condemnations were not conditional, we dont know whether they are representative of most Muslims. Most Muslim communities are sitting on the fence, waiting to see who triumphs, the Islamists or the host community. It is the lack of committment of these societies to the host country that we find disturbing. He homegrown Muslim terrorists in the UK sprouted on fertile soil.

In general, we westerners font have objection to immigration per se. WE do object to immigrants who want to transform our countries to  mirror images of primitive, violent societies as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. If I wanted to live under those conditions, I would move there

At the dawn of Islam the Jews dominated the economic life of the Hijaz Arabia. They held all the best land ; at Medina they must have formed at least half of the population. There was also a Jewish settlement to the north of the Gulf of Aqaba. What is important is to note that the Jews of the Hijaz made many proselytes or converts among the Arab tribesmen.

    The prosperity of the Jews was due to their superior knowledge of agriculture and irrigation and their energy and industry. Homeless Jewish refugees in the course of a few generations became large landowners in the country, the refugees who had come to the Hijaz when the Romans conquered Palestine controllers of its finance and trade. Thus it can readily be seen that Jewish prosperity was a challenge to the Arabs, particularly the Quraysh at Mecca and other Arab tribes at Medina.

The Prophet Muhammad himself was a member of the Quraysh tribe, which coveted the Jews' bounty, and when the Muslims took up arms they treated the Jews with much greater severity than the Christians, who, until the end of the purely Arab Caliphate, were not badly treated.

One of the reasons for this discrimination against the Jews is the Quran's scornful words regarding the Jews. The Jews' development of land and culture was a prime source of booty in the Arabian desert peninsula. Beginning at the time of the  Muhammad and Islam from the expulsions, depredations, extortion, forced conversions or murder of Jewish Arabians settled in Medina to the mass slaughter of Jews at Khaibar -- the precedent was established among Arab-Muslims to expropriate that which belonged to the Jews. Relations between the  Muhammad and the Jews were never easy.

    They had irritated him by their refusal to recognize him as a prophet, by ridicule and by argument; and of course their economic supremacy was a standing irritant.

It appears that the first instigation by Muhammad himself against the Jews was an incident in which he had one or two Jews  murdered and no blood money was paid to their next of kin.

    Their leaders opposed his claim to be an apostle sent by God, and though they doubtless drew some satisfaction from his acceptance of the divine mission of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, they could hardly be expected to welcome the inclusion of Jesus and Ishmael among his chosen messengers.

   The existence of pockets of disaffected Jews in and around his base was a cause of uneasiness and they had to be eliminated if  Muhammad was to wage war without anxiety.

Because the Jews preferred to retain their own beliefs, a tribe of Jews in the neighborhood of Medina, fell under suspicion of treachery and were forced to lay down their arms and evacuate their settlements. Valuable land and much booty fell into the hands of the Muslims.
Muhammad's pronouncement: "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula." This edict was carried out by Abu Bakr and Omar 1, the Prophet Muhammad's successors; the entire community of Jewish settlements throughout northern Arabia was systematically slaughtered. According to Bernard Lewis, "the extermination of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza was followed by "an attack on the Jewish oasis of Khaibar."

Messengers of Muhammad were sent to the Jews who had escaped to the safety and comfort of Khaibar, "inviting" Usayr, the Jewish "war chief," to visit Medina for mediations.

    Usayr set off with thirty companions and a muslim escort. Suspecting no foul play, the Jews went unarmed. On the way, the muslims turned upon the defenseless delegation, killing all but one who managed to escape. "War is deception,"  according to an oft-quoted saying of Muhammad.

The late Israeli historian and former President, Itzhak Ben-Zvi, judged the "inhuman atrocities" of the Arabian communities as unparalleled since then:  '... the complete extermination of the two Arabian-Jewish tribes, the Nadhir and Kainuka' by the mass massacre of their men, women and children, was a tragedy for which no parallel can be found in Jewish history until our own day .... '

The slaughter of Arabian Jews and the expropriation of their property became Allah's will. According to the Koran,' ... some you slew and others you took captive. He (Allah] made you masters of their [the Jews'] land, their houses and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaibar] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, Allah has power over all things.'

Ali Eteraz,

If you are sincere in fighting “Islamism,” you need to discuss how
the United States and Britain have collaborated with Muslim extremists,
not jut France.

See http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=9615

I can understand why you might be reluctant to do this because you
live in the United States and write for a British media website. 

Anonymous at
03/30/08 5:39 pm,

Stop acting like Jews haven't slaughtered whole groups of people. The matter of fact is the Old Testament is more violent than any other religious books.

After pitying yourself about what happened centuries ago, do something about the millions that are dying in the Congo. But I guess that is none of your concern since Israel, the United States, and Europe are benefiting from the diamonds, other natural resources, slave labor and sale of weapons then the the lives of Congolese don't matter.

Don't believe anyting Ali or other Islam defenders tell you.  Islam is a threat not just to Jews and Christians but to all people who care about freedon and democracy.  If the world in the 1940's would have been "phobic" of the Nazis 6 millions Jews and others would have been saved.  Geert Wilders is a hero for warning the world of the new Nazis in our midst.

. While Europeans were involved with the slave trade for a few
hundred years, the existence of the traffic of African slaves had been
well established one-thousand years before.

The Muslim position which places the entire blame for the invention and
practice of black slavery at the door of Christian Europe, is simply
not historically tenable. Both the Grecian and Roman societies were
slave states, yet most of their slaves were Caucasian. In fact, the
word slave meant a person who was of Slavic origin. Robert Hughes, in
his essay on The Fraying of America in the February 3, 1992 issue of Time magazine corrects this false impression when he says:

"The African slave trade as such, the black traffic, was an Arab invention,
developed by traders with the enthusiastic collaboration of black
African ones, institutionalized with the most unrelenting brutality,
centuries before the white man appeared on the African continent, and
continuing long after the slave market in North America was finally
crushed... Nothing in the writings of the Prophet [Muhammad] forbids
slavery, which is why it became such an Arab-dominated business.
And the slave traffic could not have existed without the wholehearted
cooperation of African tribal states, built on the supply of captives
generated by their relentless wars. The image promulgated by
pop-history fictions like Roots - of white slavers bursting
with cutlass and musket into the settled lives of peaceful African
villages - is very far from the historical truth. A marketing system
had been in place for centuries, and its supply was controlled by
Africans. Nor did it simply vanish with Abolition. Slave markets,
supplying the Arab Emirates, were still operating in Djibouti in the
1950's; and since 1960, the slave trade has flourished in Mauritania
and the Sudan. There are still reports of chattel slavery in northern
Nigeria, Rwanda and Niger."

The argument by some Muslims that slavery was God's way of converting
Africans to Islam, is much the same argument suggested by certain
misguided Christians in the 19th century who said that, bringing
Africans to America gave them the opportunity to hear the Gospel; an
argument which holds no credibility in the Bible, and dishonours the
character of God.

Unfortunately Islam still hasn't learned, as today the slavery of
foreign nationals still exists in the heartland of Islam: Saudi Arabia.
(UN Report on Slavery, 1994)

Anonymous 03/30/08 8:46 pm,

Slavery exists in many regions today in Eastern Europe, India, Philippines, etc.

Guess what? There is a thriving sex slave trade of Slavic women in Israel.

There is slavery in the Congo, but I guess that doesn't bother you since Israel, the United
States, and Europe are benefiting from the diamonds, other natural
resources, slave labor and sale of weapons.

To compare the present-day arab muslim system of chattel slavery,still existing in Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and numerous other muslim countries in which entire families, men, women and children, are born into slavery and live their entire lives as chattel slaves, to sex workers who may be tricked into prostitution but have recourse to escape their situation, is a very feeble and pathetic, although very typical, muslim attempt to divert condemnation away from their societies for being the last societies on earth still practising chattel slavery. And allowed by their Islam.

Slavery is outlawed in these countries.  Many of these people have
the option to escape their sitution but it is due to poverty and and
lack of education that they due not see other options for themselves.

 Maybe the Untied States should do the noble thing and stop
accepting trillions of dollars of investment mony from the Saudi and
instead tell the Saudis to spend it on building schools in sub-Sahara
Africa. 

The Congo is probably the wealthiest country in natural resources
but because Israel, the Untied States and Europe want its natural
resources they have no problem with the slave labor  that is used to
retrieve the natural resource

.

Can I get some resources on that? I know that slavery is illegal in nearly all Muslim majority countries though in some the rules are not stringently enforced at all.

Also please clarify what you mean by chattel b/c I am not sure we are on the same page. 

CHATTEL SLAVERY is closest to the slavery that
prevailed in early American history. Chattel slaves are considered
their masters’ property — exchanged for things like trucks or money and
expected to perform labor and sexual favors. Once of age, their
children are expected to do the same. Chattel slavery is typically
racially-based; in the North African country of Mauritania, for
example, black Africans serve the lighter-skinned Arab-Berber
communities. Though slavery was legally abolished there in 1980, today
90,000 slaves continue to serve the Muslim Berber ruling class.
Similarly, in the African country of Sudan, Arab northerners are known
to raid the villages in the South — killing all the men and taking the
women and children to be auctioned off and sold into slavery.

Can you give me the sources please?

We talked about slavery in Mauritania in some more detail on the old site.

http://archive.eteraz.org/story/2007/3/21/163027/889

Thanks for the review. But I don't see many people here agreeing with it, I'm sure they would like to reseach more, from neutral websites, rather tha Judging Muslims based on what they hear from this racist movie.

And another thing is, about Slavery... Islam prohibits slavery. Hazrat Bilal, who was the first Muzzein of Islam, was a black slave, who was freed by the Prophet, and was one of the closest companion and a good friend of the Prophet. In the eyes of God, all men are equal, the sons of Prophet Adam and Eve.

Arabs wo continue slavery do so disregarding the rules of Islam, and it is extremely reprehensible that such dastardly people still exist.

   Any search engine will reveal numerous 'sources' testifying to the ongoing situation in Mauritania. Here are just two, from the BBC and the United nations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4091579.stm

http://www.antislavery.org/archive/submission/submission2002-mauritania.htm 

   http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/islamandslavery.html

There can be no excuse for anyone converting to any religion not to find out as much as possible about the faith and NOT to rely solely on the teaching of a so-called 'Imam.'

Here is website about modern slavery

http://www.freetheslaves.net/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=375&srcid=356

I am still wondering why there isn't wide scale activism for the Congo? This is a region with the most killings and rapes. Is it because Israel, the United States, and Europe benefit from the diamonds, other natural resources, slave labor and sale of weapons?

This is untrue.

Islam is not an enemy, bro.