Two Reviews of “Fitna”

Filed under: Islam, Lead Story, Religion — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on March 28, 2008 @ 7:17 pm CET

Below follow two reviews of Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam film, “Fitna.” One is written by PoliGazette’s Claudia, the other by Michael van der Galien.

The two reviews you will read below have been written independently of each other. I have not seen Michael’s review before writing mine and likewise he wrote his without knowing mine. We have not discussed our thoughts on the film, so no attempts have been made to balance the reviews. This is intentional, to make them truly independent of one another.

REVIEW BY CLAUDIA

I started with this film with a surprise. I had thought it would be a full length feature, not a short 15 minute film. Two reactions came instantly to mind. First was “All this fuss, heightened terror alert, official diplomatic protests etc. etc. for 15 lousy minutes?!” After that was “There is no WAY you can cover the complexity of the issue in so little time”.

In fact the film clearly has no wish to delve into complexity of any sort, academics; historical, theological or geopolitical. It is 100% an appeal to emotion. That does not mean it isn’t powerful. It’s basically a montage of some of the most shocking, gruesome and tragic images and sounds caused by Islamic terrorism, with very violent passages from the Koran every so often. The conversation of a woman in the towers with a 911 operator “I’m going to die, I know I am”. A woman in Madrid calling a loved one “We’re in Atocha (the train station) there’s been an explosion, a bo..” the line is cut as a second explosion occurs, followed by mangled images of the Madrid victims, images that even I as a Spaniard had never seen. On to tiny children calling Jews “pigs” or marching in military formation, on and on.

I’d be lying if I said it didn’t affect me, I don’t think almost anyone could remain indifferent. The film is basically an infomercial against Islam. The message is that Islam is violent by nature, it demands absolute submission, and it does and will use any means necessary to dominate others.

My problem is that I think that the argument of Islam being inherently violent is not convincing. They take some verses that are very vicious yes. Want vicious?

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.”

Both these gems, as you can imagine, are from the Bible. Yet somehow Christians and Jews are not ordinarily associated with unspeakable violence of that nature. As a nonbeliever, much more important than what your holy text SAYS is how your faithful ACT.

Herein lays the problem. Islamic extremism is real. Islam is different from Christianity and Judaism in that the extreme wing is far more numerous, does much more harm, and finds much more comfort in the authorities of the religion. Discounting Islamic terrorists as mere crazies who are not “true Muslims” ignores the problem that DOES exist mainly within the Muslim world. Islamic extremism is real, as those horrible images so starkly remind us.

Wilders ruins his message by trying to make you believe that all Muslims, in their hearts, are extremists. This is pure bigotry, as vile as any the extremists themselves can dish out. In fact, the film itself doesn’t send any new messages, only reinforces the old; Islamic extremism is anathema to our way of life, to our values, and it must be fought. In fact the film doesn’t accomplish that half as well as the enormous fuss that has surrounded its production and release. I didn’t learn anything new from the film, but did learn from the events surrounding it. Only Wilders himself knows if that was actually the point all along.

REVIEW BY MICHAEL VAN DER GALIEN

When I heard on the Dutch news that Geert Wilders had put his film “Fitna” online, I ran to my computer in an attempt to find it; I was overly curious. A lot had been said about “Fitna” before it was even made. Once Wilders started working on it in honest, Muslim organizations and Dutch government officials warned that Wilders’ movie could result in riots, and bloodshed.

Even though nobody had seen the movie yet. They only knew what Wilders told them: that he was going to make a short film in which he would attempt to prove that Islam is an inherently violent religion.

So I ran to my computer and watched “Fina.”

And was disappointed tremendously.

Why was I disappointed? Well, firstly it was less controversial than the controversy surrounding it, that’s one. Of course this part is good; Wilders didn’t go too far. Which is also why there will not be any riots in the Netherlands, which is also a good thing.

More importantly, though, I was disappointed because although the movie is quite powerful in so far that Wilders knows how to express his view on Islam, “Fitna” is a gross distortion of what Islam truly is all about, and what it truly teaches.

In “Fitna,” Wilders constantly refers to the Koran. He has an imam quote violent passages of it, and then shows extremists Muslims carrying out terrorist attacks, or extremists Imams calling on the believers to fight the ‘infidels.’

However, Wilders basically makes the same mistake Osama Bin Laden et al. make.

What do I mean by that? Well, simple. Wilders and OBL do exactly the same thing: they read 10% of the Koran, and use it to ‘prove’ that the Koran can be used to excuse terrorism, and conveniently ignore the other 90% of Islam’s Holy Book. For instance, Wilders quotes verses from a particular Sura that says that Muslims should kill the unbelievers, who are the enemies of Islam / the Muslims.

That’s violent alright.

But he conveniently forgets to quote the verses before these violent verses. These verses before it say:

[8.56] Those with whom you make an agreement, then they break their agreement every time and they do not guard (against punishment).
[8.57] Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful.
[8.58] And if you fear treachery on the part of a people, then throw back to them on terms of equality; surely Allah does not love the treacherous.

And then come the verses right after Sura 8 verse 60:

[8.61] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hears and knows (all things).

In other words: live in peace with non-Muslims, but when they attack you, fight back. Sure, that’s not quite the same as “turn the other cheek,” but it’s quite different than “kill infidels!” as well. In fact I dare say that this message is one we can all believe in: live in peace with everyone else, but when they attack you or your society, fight back. Isn’t that what we all do, and isn’t that what the war on terrorism is all about?

As said, it’s a political manifesto: Wilders wants to convince the viewer that Islam itself poses a threat to the West. Sadly for him, however, he can only make that case by ignoring the peaceful verses of Islam, and Islam’s long, peaceful and intellectual history.

Let me give another example: Wilders quotes certain Muslims saying bad things about Jews. That’s horrible to listen to. But he forgets to point out that the clash between early Muslims and Jews was just that: a clash. It was about a particular battle. More importantly: when Jews were persecuted and forced to convert in Europe, they were living safely in Muslim countries where they were free to practice their faith. If Wilders would have been honest about Islam, he would have mentioned this. That he didn’t tells us all we need to know about his intentions.

What “Fitna” does prove, or show, is that there is a serious extremist problem in the Muslim world. We already knew that, of course, but “Fitna” does show how the Koran is abused by extremists; how they defend their extremism and terrorism, and how some Imams in Muslim countries try to turn believers into haters.

The short interview of the young Palestinian girl is and will always be shocking: she’s completely indoctrinated. She has been taught to hate Jews, again based on a distorted and hateful version of Islam and the Koran.

Wilders could have used that interview, then, to point out how some Palestinians are indoctrinating their children. That quite a lot of people truly hate the West; not because Islam teaches such hatred, but because their leaders are copying and pasting from the Koran.

But that’s not what Wilders tries to do in “Fitna.” He doesn’t try to show that extremists form a very serious problem and danger and that they have to be fought no matter what, he tries to show that Islam forms a very serious problem and danger.

All in all, Wilders should be paid by Osama Bin Laden for helping him to spread his propaganda. Wilders does exactly what Bin Laden does and wants: to convince all Muslims that if they want to be good Muslims they have to be terrorists. The fact that he has to distort what Islam truly teaches and what the Koran truly says is irrelevant to Bin Laden and his ilk.

“Fitna” won’t convince anyone that Islam is inherently violent who wasn’t convinced of that already. Wilders’ case is weak. The film is so terribly one-sided, that even OBL himself couldn’t make a better propaganda film calling on Muslims to commit terrorism in the name of Islam.

So what “Fitna” proves isn’t that Islam and Western Democracy and freedom are polar opposites. It only proves that Wilders is dishonest and / or that he doesn’t know what Islam truly teaches.

As said: a disappointment.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

1 C Stanley

March 28, 2008 @ 9:05 pm CET

I haven’t watched the whole thing yet, but having heard about Wilders before I guess these reviews sound like the film was about what I would have expected. I’m curious though, Michael, do you think that if a more impartial, fair minded individual had attempted a project like this, that some of the same footage and verses could have been a valid part of such a film, if they’d been put in context (as you did, for example, along with showing some important times in history, some modern moderate Muslims, etc?)

I guess what I’m suggesting is that it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to have a film which shows the horrors of Islamism- but then also make it clear that that’s not Islam, and show people exactly how the terrorists have coapted and twisted the true religion of Islam.

2 Michael van der Galien

March 28, 2008 @ 9:09 pm CET

Sure Christine, and that’s - as I wrote - what he should’ve done; an attempt to show just how dangerous extremist Islam is, and what extremist Islamic ideology is all about.

BUt that’s not what he did: he tried to portray Islam as inherently violent. In order to do that… he had to distort Islam, take verses out of context, and ignore 90% of the Koran and Islamic history.

Now that’s exactly what extremists do as well; so his movie could have served as a way to show just how dangerous and destructive extremist ideology is, and that we truly have to fight it.

Again; but that’s not what he did.

3 C Stanley

March 28, 2008 @ 9:23 pm CET

Oh, I’m not disputing that- I only wanted to find out if you think there’d be value in a film that really did show all sides- the extremist side but also the parts that show why that’s not all of Islam by any means. IOW, do you think something like that could do some good, to force people to look at the whole issue more accurately, to encourage more accurate discussion and understanding of it?

4 Michael van der Galien

March 28, 2008 @ 9:24 pm CET

Yes.

5 Jock Herrer

March 28, 2008 @ 10:00 pm CET

Michael van der Galien, I commend you sir, I could not agree more! This is all the best internet forum entertainment I have had in a long time. I love that quote from the Quran: [8.61] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hears and knows (all things).You know I have tried that many times with my muslim fellow human beings, and by and large they have shown me back the same respect I have given them, and sometimes more. To me they are an exceptionally generous and compassionate race of people.Who’s the clown? Geert Wilders!

6 commenter

March 29, 2008 @ 2:34 am CET

Another thing: Wilders makes a big deal about Muslim violence - but what about dinosaurs? Huge, carnivorous killing machines that ran amok devouring everything they could find! His analysis is unbalanced.

7 Tchiock Pok

March 29, 2008 @ 3:40 am CET

What we must remember—Islam is not a religion but rather a Civil Code.

8 dov

March 29, 2008 @ 3:50 am CET

michael: its all fine and dandy but you see the content of the movie is not as important as the reaction to it. The fact that thousands of people flew into a rage without having seen a single frame of the movie - and I think, based on the Danish cartoon experience, the worst is still ahead - proves the point of the movie abundantly. Islam is not really a religion; it’s a murderous sect. Only sects punish those who leave by death. By the way, where do you place "honor killings", in the moderate or extremist camp?

9 truepeers

March 29, 2008 @ 4:01 am CET

Dear Michael (and to a lesser extent, Claudia):

Unlike you, I’m not going to attempt to define what "the real" Islam or any religion is. A religion is a combination of what its believers make of it and what it looks like objectively to outside observers who can compare it to other religions.

Having said that, how do you come up with the suggestion that only 10% of the Koran invokes violence? Have you read the book? Have you not seen how frequently the unbeliever is cursed, a thematic mode that is absolutely central to this text, which is fully aware that it must denounce the older two monotheist religions in order to justify itself. It is not accidental that "radical" (orthodox?) mosques are obsessed with denouncing the kufaar.

A group like Muslims Against Sharia certainly seems to think more than 10% of the Koran has to be chucked, and then there are the Hadiths and the biography of Mohammed - what to do with them?

But none of this clarifies anything much. Ultimately, the point is that even the most violent of language will defer real violence, if only sometimes for a moment. If I say "to hell with you", it may encourage violence against you, but I’m saying it because I already feel violently towards you and as long as I’m talking I’m not punching. All language has this deferring quality, which is not to say it always works to defer violence indefinitely, and that it never encourages violence. There are various paradoxes at work here.

So, it’s not easy to make general declarations about whether any given religious language is violent or not. It may be, or it may not be, today or tomorrow. "I want to kill you" can be both a successful deferral of violence and a real encouragement to kill. And the paradox - which is it - cannot be resolved, even at the moment the words leave my mouth.

So we rely on general observations in respect to recurring patterns in daily life. At the end of the day, you have to judge a religion by how its practitioners are acting (not by some idealized reading of the texts). Is the religion succeeding to pacify them (internally and/or in relation to outsiders. A religion may be very successful at bringing peace among the believers, but at the cost of violence being focussed on the unbeliever)?.

Anyway, why are you so quick to condemn Wilders? What exactly has he done to the Netherlands that is so violent, as compared to what some Muslims have done? Maybe he is helping to defer a lot of resentment currently found among the Dutch in regards to the Muslims. I have to say that it sounds to me that you think that in criticizing Wilders you can defer either Muslim or non-Muslim violence. You don’t really explain any of this, so that it remains unclear (time will tell) whether you are simply making an apotropraic gesture, or actually doing something rational. Are you just a cowardly dhimmi, or a realist?

If I sound angry, it is because of what you write about antisemitism. When today the Middle East is very deeply obsessed with Judeophobia, to try and pretend, as you do, that it is not what the "real Islam" teaches, is just wishful thinking on your part. How can any of us know what the "real Islam" is in terms of the present world realities concerning globalization and the response of Islam to a global economic system? How can we know how Mohammed would have responded to the internet and global consumerism and production. Islam is what it is, today: in large part, deeply antisemitic. Not exactly antisemitic in the way of Mohammed, to be sure. There is a new form of antisemitism that mixes Western and Muslim traditions in ways that reveal aspects of our globalized world.

I have my own reasons for thinking Fitna is not a very good film. But if you are looking for reasons to turn your eyes away from the Jew hatred that is widely being taught to young children, you are only living in denial.

10 Kim

March 29, 2008 @ 4:25 am CET

I love your reveiw van der galien. Geert wilders is a fake and a hate preacher I get along with many muslims.

11 marc

March 29, 2008 @ 5:21 am CET

As Kim says, the Muslims I personally know in America have been, for the most part, fine people who interact easily with non-Muslims and seem content with things as they are.

But there are two things the Wilders brings up in the film that I don’t feel were adequately addressed in the reviews. The first is the dramatic increase in the Muslim population in Europe. As we’ve seen, this influx has not always been peaceful and it’s no stretch whatever to call it a jihad by immigration.

I think that’s demonstrated by the second issue, which is that Muslims in Europe and America, to a lesser but still noticeable degree, are actively agitating to change the cultural mores of western nations to be more like the places they came from, often working the legal system in these countries to force changes that are not wanted by citizens there.

I’m curious as to your responses to those issues, M & C.

Also, while the majority of Muslims are good, peaceful people, they’re also silent, like the majority of people elsewhere. Movers and shakers in the west make markets and drive innovation, which the silent consume. In Islam too many of the energetic leaders spend their time thinking of ways to destroy other ways of life. Unfortunately, these people matter far more in terms of world security than the silent majority. They are the ones who the west should fear and seek to contain, for good reason, as opposed to the entire philosophy of Islam.

This last may have been your point, Michael. If so, I didn’t quite catch it.

At any rate, they present a threat to the west that must be acknowledged. To the extent that Wilders’ film makes that danger real and personal to people who have ignored it in the past or thought it better to appease a known enemy, then it is a success, although, like Claudia, I expected more.

12 Blue Star Chronicles

March 29, 2008 @ 7:12 am CET

Muslim Extremists are Trying to Shut Down Dutch Film on Islamic Fascism…

There’s just a big brouhaha going on because of the Geert Wilders film, Fitna. Obviously, a lot of people saw that coming and many people and groups tried to stop it from being released from the get-go.
I watched the film and saw acts of terrori…

13 David

March 29, 2008 @ 7:24 am CET

Hmmm. Still not getting it huh? Funny how Wilders spells it out, the dangers, in the simplest of terms so even a child can ‘get it’. As soon as ‘Claudia’ started up with the hack arguments comparing the bible, I scrolled on.

14 Fadi

March 29, 2008 @ 8:01 am CET

Thank you very much Mr.Micheal for all the things you mentioned.This just proves that there are people who use their senses in all aspects.First of all let me assure you that the condition of going through a war has nothing to do with QURAN or any religion.If u are a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew;or any particular religion that anyone might think is above all others wont save you from a bullet,neither would it make you dodge armed forces that are allegd to the normal civilian cities.I myself have been to Pakistan and an underground report found by an extraordinary journalist shocked the authorities when they caught a tape by a suicide bomber before his crime.A suitable person was selected for a terrorist task and his family was preplanned killed in a road accident.After that he was as Mr.Michael described brilliantly indoctrinated by the professionals,that all his life is left is only for one meaning.To finish brutalities of non-Muslims.And that can only be done by damaging their breeds.
But my friends, we can never jump to conclusions before we admire the facts and figures that we can personally manage to seek.Islam is against to even kill an animal.The Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H) was during migration leading a clan when one of the member stopped near a tree and took a tiny bird off the nest.When Prophet came to knew this he ultimatley stopped his clan and with that person headed back to that place from where he took a bird away from its mother.This is the True meaning and teaching of Islam.Backbiting anyone is considered as a sin in ISLAM,so how can killing people wud hav been allowed.It is a shame on nowdays Imams who please their leaders and authorities by earning credits and changing the religion according to their tastes.Islam is derived and is considered the last mode from christianity to Muslims as CHRIST was a Prophet to Muslims aswell.Christianity asks to pray three times,its 5 in Islam,Christianity asks the followers for fasting,so does Islam.It never has been the religion that creates problems in our surroundings,its only the traitors who are eating all brains.POSTING a video like this isnt a proper way to protest against anything or to prove anything.If anybody has doubts,he/she can recite QURAN and find out what is the reality that is mentioned in it.Even for Muslims,killing in the name of Islam is a Sin and is totally forbidden.If Muslims are terrorsit that doesnt mean Islam taught them to do so,its only because they are no longer the followers of this religion.
In the end, i wud like to thank all those people who commented and all those who tried to fuse their thoughts about this religion.But believe me that only the low level category are raced to do things like this,if Islam was such a terrible platform why didnot the Muslims ever made an Anti-jew or Anti-religious Documentry to demonstrate it to their youth.

"Wars begin in the minds of men, and in those minds, love and compassion would have built the defenses of peace. "___Author: U. Thant

15 Roach

March 29, 2008 @ 8:45 am CET

It’s interesting how native cultures don’t want foreign cultures to take away it’s identity or way of life. This is true of many Islamic countries too that require guest women to cover her hair, etc… It’s pretty simple: when you are a guest in someone’s house, be keen to not offend or cause the home owner too much trouble. If you do, then expect the home owner to do something about it. But if the home owner continually welcomes those who openly despise her rules and sensitivities, she should loose her home. Fools should not be home owners.

16 Claudia

March 29, 2008 @ 12:02 pm CET

truepeers, as I mentioned in the review, I don’t personally buy into the "true Muslim" argument myself. As a nonbeliever who thinks religions are man-made constructions I don’t think that there is an ultimate True with a capital T religion (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu whatever) but that as you’ve mentioned the nature of a religion is defined by the reality of it’s teachings at a given point in time and the attitude of it’s followers. I actually detailed this quite a bit in a previous post.

The fact is that the Bible also contains very violent passages yet manages to be a much more peaceful religion. David, if you had kept reading instead of scrolling on you would have seen that I wasn’t about to make a moral equivalence, but simply sought to show that violent verses do not a violent religion make.

My main criticism of the Wilders film is that it goes way too far in overgeneralizing. Islam is very problematic at the present time because a very significant number of it’s followers adhere to an extremist version of it. You will never see me underestimate this. What I think has NOT been proved is the insinuation that all Muslims are in their hearts extremists and that there is something so fundamentally different about Islam that it simply could not go through the same sort of reformation Christianity did hundreds of years ago. Wilders is actually another mistaken subscriber to the notion of a True Faith. He believes there IS a True Islam, and that it is violent. I believe that there is a current Islam, and that far too much of it is extremist, but that adhering to "true Islam is violent" will do nothing to solve that situation. Extremist Islam must be fought tooth and nail, but peaceful Muslims, in whatever number, should not be lumped in with the extremists.

17 Jock Herrer

March 29, 2008 @ 12:11 pm CET

Not entirely related to this site, but I found the comments on LiveLeak interesting….. ""Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, LiveLeak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove ‘Fitna’ from our servers," the company said." … They are blaming the British media for the threats, it’s nothing to do with the content of the film!

18 unrealizedviewpoint

March 29, 2008 @ 1:47 pm CET

RE: Jock Herrer

You have interpreted LiveLeaks comments regarding their decision incorrectly. They are NOT blaming the British media for the threats.

LiveLeak said: "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff LiveLeak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove ‘Fitna’ from our servers…"

Their lives have been threatened by terrorists. The threat is so serious they needed suspend their rights of free speech. Hey Jock - When you hear the words: "I’m going to Keeel Yuuuuu" do you take it seriously or blame the media?

19 Jock Herrer

March 29, 2008 @ 2:06 pm CET

UnrealizedViewpoint. Of course I take threats of that sort seriously, but I mean come on WHAT DID THEY EXPECT! I thought they and Geert were going to stand up for freedom of speech in face of these (potential) threats. And I did not misinterpret their comments, it does rather sound a lot like they are trying to pass the blame onto someone else. It can’t be their fault for publishing hateful propaganda.

20 commenter

March 29, 2008 @ 2:47 pm CET

I think they might have expected the ‘British media’ not to give useful info to the death-threateners. So they’re not blaming the British media, but are annoyed with them. In fact, their comments make that sentiment fairly clear to anyone with more than half a brain, I’d say.

All the best.

21 JR

March 29, 2008 @ 3:09 pm CET

Fascinating commentary. LiveLeak gets death threats but ‘what should they expect?"

UH, perhaps a normal reaction by normal people, which might at most mean angry words or picket sign carrying/boycotts, but lives should certainly not be threatened without EVERYONE who is sane thinking "dear Lord, you have to be CRAZY to threaten someone’s life because they criticized your point of view". Criticize the point of view? Completely acceptable. Threatening a life? UNACCEPTABLE.

Again, fascinating that culturally we’ve been worn down to the point where we say ‘don’t upset the Islamists, you know how they are’, instead of reacting with ‘up your’s, this is about free speech’, or demanding an investigation (which certainly would happen automatically by police and loudly by the media were these guys sounding like the types that wore pointy white hats who burned crosses into lawns). However, there is a different standard for people who follow this religion, and that’s inherently wrong.

22 Jock Herrer

March 29, 2008 @ 3:13 pm CET

Half a brain you say? In what way does "ill-informed reports" equate with giving out personal information about the people who run Liveleak? When has a BBC report ever be so unprofessional to give out details like that, which is what you appear to be suggesting. What the comments suggested to me was LiveLeak were passing the buck and making it sound like they were receiving death threats on account of the BBC making incorrect statements regarding the film. I have not read anything which has suggested that the BBC have done this, why would I automatically jump to that conclusion? … They put their own necks on the line when they decided to promote this fascist guttersnipery, it is no use blaming anyone but themselves.

23 Claudia

March 29, 2008 @ 3:23 pm CET

They put their own necks on the line when they decided to promote this fascist guttersnipery, it is no use blaming anyone but themselves.

Here’s a thought. What about blaming the friggen extremists?!

I can see it now: Fatima was murdered by her father and brother for refusing to wear a headscarf. Comment: "She knew she was putting herself on the line by disobeying the men in her family. She has no one to blame but herself."

Do you SERIOUSLY not see how twisted that is?

24 Jock Herrer

March 29, 2008 @ 3:30 pm CET

"Here’s a thought. What about blaming the friggen extremists?!" … I couldn’t agree more. It is the fault of the extremists ON BOTH ENDS of the front line. As Michael van der Galien correctly said, Geert Wilders is using the same propagandists tactic as Osama Bin Laden, albiet for different ends. Both are cutting and pasting from the Quran, and Geert Wilders film is trying to suggest that this makes the influx of Islamic culture wholly pernicious. … Just because I see that as hateful and fascist does not mean I support the fricking Jihadists!

25 Kevin Sullivan

March 29, 2008 @ 3:59 pm CET

fascist.

You keep saying that word. I don’t think it means what you think it does.

26 ma_che62

March 29, 2008 @ 4:04 pm CET

Fifty years ago, the face of Germany was Nazism. Only a small percentage of Germans were Nazis. But they Germans, Nazi or not, stood by and watched genocide. Their passivity permitted it and therefore they are rightly culpable.Today the face of Islam is atrocity, mass murder and terrorism, from slaughtering innocents (Christians in Nigeria, Buddhists in Thailand, and Hindus in Kashmir). If Islam wants to change this, more Muslims will become less passive and afraid and start rebelling against this enormous wave of hate and violence.

27 Tully

March 29, 2008 @ 4:12 pm CET

Kevin @#25–LOL. No one else really does either. Anymore "fascist" is no more than a general epithet flung at any person the flinger disagrees with, a bogeyman ad hominem of no particular meaning at all.

"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else….except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come." –Eric Arthur Blair

28 Fatima

March 29, 2008 @ 4:27 pm CET

both of these reviews show the unwillingness and ignorance of those who fear Islam and are immensely afraid to even evaluate the Koran…

Fitna is not Wilders view…it is Koranic verses and words directly from Muslims so it is those Muslims view of Islam…and their actions as they justify them based on the Koran and Mohammid’s example… Geert Wilders including approximately 100 of his own words in Fitna…see this website for the analysis

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/fitna-the-movie-analysis-and-reactions/

29 Nick

March 29, 2008 @ 5:09 pm CET

Ma_che62 has made a good point. The passivity as mentioned, is the true problem. And we can see this happening in our societies almost evrey time there are protests in the streets… among protesters, lies a (small) group of people that infiltrate the mass to throw stones on the riot police, brake shop windows, burn cars etc… but as long as the protesters (the mass) do not organize to prevent these people from using violence, the logical reaction to that, would be that the police would use force against any protester to keep order. In other words, the only way to fight extremism in the muslim world, is that muslims rise against it. If not, like we see it today, why should we not believe that all muslims are silently supporting it (extremism).

Lastly, the Belgian muslim community representative, never apologized or even made a comment to condemn the attacks of 9/11, Madrid and London Bombings… I find that pretty odd! Don’t you?

30 Claudia

March 29, 2008 @ 5:38 pm CET

Here is where I think there is a limit. I don’t consider the Muslim community at large to be responsible for everything extremist muslims do. As such, I don’t think that every Muslim community is required to apologize for the heinous acts of terrorists. I DO think it would help if they were to loudly decry each of these acts at least as loudly as any that happen to Muslims, but I would draw the line at apologizing.

31 Nick

March 29, 2008 @ 5:43 pm CET

My bad! Apologising, like you say rightly, would underline the fact that they had taken part in it somehow …. But NOT condemning it would still make me think they agree (silently?) with it.

32 Jock Herrer

March 29, 2008 @ 6:29 pm CET

”fascist.You keep saying that word. I don’t think it means what you think it does. " … John Sullivan, I’d be willing to bet my bottom dollar that Islam doesn’t mean what YOU think it does. … Anyway, you know what I meant, so why bother getting into an argument over semantics. You just need to say the word fascist, of the word nazi, and someone comes along and gives you a wikipedia history of the word.

33 Jock Herrer

March 29, 2008 @ 6:32 pm CET

KEVIN Sullivan… sorry…. I got your name wrong.

34 Cole

March 30, 2008 @ 12:38 am CET

This is the problem with the standard argument that not all Muslims are extremists - but that is to say that only bad Muslims want Sharia in the western world and only bad Muslims want to over-turn our legal systems in favor of theirs.

It is - for the most part - the Muslim understanding that the Sharia is good and preferable to western democracy. Number one these good / non-violent Muslims can come together in numbers within the western democracy and vote in Islamic-like-laws - I am sure you and all the other members of the PC chorus - would still be saying not all Muslims are extremists - even while the laws have changed in favour of Islam - for all people -

In simple English - that is what they want - good Muslims - violent Muslims - all want to live in a land governered by Sharia/Islamic law. It might be more difficult for an American to figure out - with Mexican Catholics coming over the border - and demanding few changes to ‘free’ in the USA.

But when your country has a million or more Islamic people - who just came to work or as refugees - now demanding change in your country according to their Islamic laws - and are willing to use threats and actually violence to achieve that - then perhaps you might feel a little differently.

In Europe there are artists, writers and politicians living under police protection due to the threat of Islam - and they’re supposed to be living in the free world.

35 PG

March 30, 2008 @ 12:42 am CET

Both authors don’t understand what is going on at all. The bible verse quoted was for the children of Israel, set apart for the coming Messiah, of whom they were the leniage.

The koran is a perverted bible, a tool of satan given to Muhammad which he has been quoted as saying "I felt possessed"when receiving his revelation. Scholars of the bible see the twisted similiarities but the average layman, don’t.

Does anyone ask the ‘radical extremist’ why they believe the koran blesses their actions? Nope. The world comes to the ‘rescue’ of the innocent moderate muslim, missing the whole point.

Wilders doesn’t even understand the battle he has taken on, God bless him. God forgive the muslims for they not know what they do and the ignorance of John Q. Public that enables this to continue.

36 SF

March 30, 2008 @ 1:40 am CET

The UN cheif gets it wrong…….and doesn’t get the irony of his own statements…. "there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence…the right of free expression is not at stake here" On the first point, he is actually right but for the wrong reason….Wilders is (rather clumsily) making the exact same point by using the very words of some violent, intolerant, and bigoted Islamic extremists from various speeches and by quoting the Koran, which is often wrongly invoked by these same people to justify their hatred and threats, if not outright murder….why do the secretary general and the moderate voices of Islam not vehemently condemn these speeches by radical imams? There is no justification for THEIR hate speech and their inciting of violence. That SHOULD be the point. Instead we get censorship! Wilders is not threatening anyone’s life. He is not restricting the rights of women. He is not flying planes into towers. He does not condone "honor killings". He is making a point in reaction to these threats and murders (of his own countrymen). And to the spate of censorship (some forced and other times self-imposed) that follows any insult (real or perceived) of Islam. He is clearly baiting here. He was looking for two simultaneous reactions, both useful to his purpose. First, the radical elements would predictably make death threats and thereby reinforce his basic tenet about their intolerant and violent nature. Second, it would force moderate Muslim voices to try to separate themselves from the very real and very violent strain of radical Islam that silences these same moderate voices by further direct or implied threats. This is a real threat. It cannot and should not be appeased. His message would have obviously benefitted from a simple paragraph at the end pointing out that the message pertains only to a small fraction of the Muslims. He missed an opportunity there and unfortunately opened himself up to cries of bigotry and sweeping generalization, and thus to censorship. He gave his opposition an opening that allowed them to marginalize his highly valid message. And the worldwide media were predictably cowed. That is the only thing here worth lamenting. So it was about free speech afterall.

37 RMH

March 30, 2008 @ 3:31 am CEST

I watched the film. I read the reviews. The film does a good job
in making a point: there are Muslim extremists who are politically
dominating the Muslim action in the world. These extremists
advocate hate and killing and dominating the world with their
brand of Islam. And I am not aware
that the majority of the peaceful Muslims are doing anything to
distance themselves from the extremists. The film reinforces
a consciousness of the extremists in the Muslim world and that something ought to be done to condemn and stop it.

38 Danial

March 30, 2008 @ 9:42 am CEST

"Lastly, the Belgian muslim community representative, never apologized or even made a comment to condemn the attacks of 9/11, Madrid and London Bombings… I find that pretty odd! Don’t you? "

I find it pretty odd that Protestants around the world never bothered to condemn or even comment on the brutality of Lord’s Resistance Army based in Uganda.

I find it odd that Catholics around the world did not condemn the fascist Maronite Catholic Phalangist animals that slaughtered 3000 Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila in 1982.

I also find it odd that Catholics around the world did not express solidarity with the East Timorese when they were invaded by Indonesia, which was armed and funded by the U.S. under Gerald Ford in the 70’s.

I find it odd that Hindus and Western Christians did not condemn the actions of the Shiv Sena and other Hindu fundamentalists for attacking Christians in the Indian state of Orissa on Christmas Day last year.

I find it odd that Europeans had no shame in supporting Serb militias in slaughtering and raping Bosnian Muslims during the civil war in the 90’s.

So what do YOU say to all that? Keep a leash on your own animals before commenting on others.

39 RMH

March 30, 2008 @ 11:09 am CEST

Danial,
I am neither European or Catholic so your comments do not
pertain to me. Furthermore, you do not know in what other
forums I speak and pour my heart out about the senseless
killing and hurting of people that occur in the world, in Africa,
or in the Middle East. I am sensitive to such events.

Your final comment on "animals" speaks
for itself about the understanding you have of issues and
the way in which you honor other people’s reasoned point of
views, particularly when expressed from the heart in a polite and civil manner.

Not only is there is a fundamental right of freedom of expression.

40 RMH

March 30, 2008 @ 11:19 am CEST

Not only is there a fundamental right of freed of expression, but there is the responsibility for the use of this freedom. The bounds of that responsibility is that it is not correct under the values of western civilization to publicly speak about infringing on the fundamental rights of other people. This includes inciting other people to degrade, hate, hurt, or kill people who are not in your own group. This value of western civilization is not held by the Muslim extremists and as such constitute a threat to western civilization.

41 Caroline

March 30, 2008 @ 1:27 pm CEST

The religion which preaches hate and violence and fascism as shown in Fitna clips of madmen clerics, preaching inside Western societies needs to be challenged. Not appeased. Because it has caused such mayhem and suffering there is no way of saying this in a way that will not cause offense. Yes, we all know that the Koran is not all vitriol and pathology. But we all can see that this religion has not matured. It is stuck in a deep rut which now has to be actively fought through intense police actions to find and imprison the men of violence. That is how bad it has become and I personally feel a deep revulsion to nearly everything Islamic as a result of the fascism that it still supports. Many are the outraged comments by one leader or national spokesperson of Muslim countries after another about Fitna but until those same people DO something to silence those inflammatory clerics and remove their pernicious influence from the community, there will be absolutely no progress out of this quagmire at all. The Muslims have to become open to reform of their religion and culture. And here is the rub: it is very likely impossible for that to happen as they are already brainwashed into the idea that the Koran is the literal word of God and it is this extremism, this absolutism, this fatal flaw of mentality which leads directly to all the pathologies we now see. And have to face. This is the face of fascism all right. From this kind of thinking, fear is born and people then get their throats slit. I want to see Muslim nations standing up against bombings that kill 200 people in Spain or 50 people in UK etc and openly state immediately that such acts are against Islam. Period. If I am wrong and places like Indonesia or Pakistan and all official Muslim groups around the world DID publicly condemn those bombings, then please correct me. But my impression is that they remained largely silent and this is the problem that Fitna is drawing attention to. The deadly silence and refusal to crack down on extremism that is occurring under their noses. (and Hey, I am fed up of living in a world where I cannot put my full name because there is someone out there compiling lists of thinkers and writers and artists who they believe should be killed)

42 Tony Allwright

March 30, 2008 @ 3:30 pm CEST

Geert Wilders merely quotes passages of the Koran and juxtaposes them with footage of these passages being executed by "good" Muslims. He invents nothing, just points out the obvious. It is impossible to be both a good Muslim and a good human being. We are fortunate that most Muslims are bad Muslims and therefore good human beings. But Mr Wilders shows only the good Muslims. Unfortunately, there are far too many of them, and too many Muslims who tacitly support them.

No wonder his film has caused outrage in strongly Islamic societies: the truth is too painful for them to bear.

43 DG

March 30, 2008 @ 3:45 pm CEST

Comparing violent Quranic passages to violent Biblical passages doesn’t excuse either of them.

It only demonstrates that Abrahamism is a twisted, sick, and murderous vision, regardless of which denomination we may speak of.

44 DG

March 30, 2008 @ 3:50 pm CEST

All this contrasting of Islam with Christianity, itself a homophobic, paternalistic, and often violently anti-democratic ideology, does little to exonerate Islam.

It merely demonstrates that the problem isn’t Islam alone - the fundamental foundations of Abrahamism are sick and twisted.

45 Tony Allwright

March 30, 2008 @ 6:01 pm CEST

I agree that there is much that is despicable in the Old Testament. The difference is that Christians do not feel duty bound to carry out biblical strictures such as stoning adulterers; indeed the main message of Christ was to love your enemy not stone him. There is no such moderating message in the Koran.

46 C Stanley

March 30, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CEST

I agree with that, Tony, and it’s a point I tried to bring up in a previous discussion here. I think it is a very significant difference, because the Scripture itself gives the basis for a new interpretation; Christ clearly said that the old laws no longer applied, and as far as I know, there is nothing like that in the Koran or in Mohammed’s writings (in fact many people point out that he himself did things we’d consider immoral.)

Michael didn’t seem to understand the point that I was making, which I found odd because I’d think any Christian would instantly recognize what I’m talking about- that Christ established a new order, a new covenant, that abolished the old laws. If I recall, Michael pointed out that if this was a necessary thing in order for the older laws to be disregarded, that this would mean that the Jews would also be having problems with the old laws being followed by radical fundamentalists. To me, though, having Christ’s message to repudiate the old laws is an important factor but not an absolute necessity; people who practice a religion MIGHT eventually come to interpret it differently, so that they’re no longer using antiquated practices which oppose basic human rights- but they MIGHT not. Fortunately, the Jewish people seem to have rejected the dangerous types of interpretations but some Muslims have not; in the case of Christians, though, there’s a bit more of a safeguard against that because those who oppose extremist interpretations can use the words and deeds of Christ to prove them wrong. IMO, this is why the Christian Church has been able to overcome a period of time where injustices and violence were being falsely justified by religious leaders, so that now that is no longer tolerated. This is basically the theme elaborated so well by Pope Benedict in his address at Regensburg, where he spoke of the integration of our understanding of Logos- and he challenges Muslims to think about whether or not they similarly do so. Since Christ represents an incarnation of Logos, it makes it a bit ‘easier’ for us to have come to this understanding; that doesn’t mean that Muslims can’t also have that understanding, but the Pope’s challenge was for them to consider (and enter into a dialogue) about what it is in Mohammed’s teachings that might also serve as a basis to reject any interpretion of God which is contrary to Logos.

47 Mark Smith

March 31, 2008 @ 10:35 pm CEST

Sorry Michael, it is not good enough
Fitnas case is not strong enough but it conclusions are correct.

You say “Fitna” won’t convince anyone that Islam is inherently violent who wasn’t convinced of that already. Wilders’ case is weak. The film is so terribly one-sided, that even OBL himself couldn’t make a better propaganda film calling on Muslims to commit terrorism in the name of Islam.

That not true. You could do a study of Islam to find out what Muslims truly believe. But as it stands you only have to look Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (1st biography of Muhammad for those that do not know). Ishaq reveals that Muhammads life went through 3 phases
(i) He did not fight
(ii) He fought defensively
(iii) He fought offensively

Page 212-213 of Guillaume’s transaltion shows this
You Michael are maintaining the fiction that Islam promotes defensive warfare. That was Muhammads 2nd phase. He moved into his 3rd phase which non-Muslims should recognise is totalitarian offensive warfare. On page 213 it says "Then God ssent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction" i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Unitl God alone is worshipped."

And this is consistent with Sura 9:29 :
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

And see Salih Muslim
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294
where for non-Muslims it says, "If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.". That is offensive. That is totalitarian.

And note, none of the 4 major schools of Islamic jursiprudence (Hanbali, Sharif, Malik, Hanafi) disagree with Islams mission to conquer the Dar-al-Harb (House of War : non-Muslims world) by warfare.

The view I spell out above is consistent with early Islamic history.

Fitnas case, if anything, is not strong enough, not spelt out enough.
The true horror for the West is that the next 200 years is going to be one of constant warfare, because while there are good Muslims around (in spite of their religion), the root problem the West faces is entirely because Islam, as spelt out by the Quran, the Hadith collections, the Sirat, the schools of Islamic jurisprudence is totalitarian. God help the West as National Socialism and Communism are trivial in comparison. And right now, few people in West have truly recognised the onslaught we face.

The damage was done in the 1950s-1970s when liberal politicians forgot to read the small print on Islam and remind themselves of European history.

48 Mark Smith

March 31, 2008 @ 10:44 pm CEST

RHM:
I watched the film. I read the reviews. The film does a good job
in making a point: there are Muslim extremists who are politically
dominating the Muslim action in the world. These extremists
advocate hate and killing and dominating the world with their
brand of Islam. And I am not aware that the majority of the peaceful Muslims are doing anything to distance themselves from the extremists. The film reinforces a consciousness of the extremists in the Muslim world and that something ought to be done to condemn and stop it.

Not surprising really. The question should be asked, "Was Muhammad an extremist?" And the answer is "yes he was", and the moderate Muslims know this. Given that, how can they condemn or fight extremist Muslims - to do so would be condemn Muhammad - and they wont do that.

The reality is that the extremist Muslims are representative of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali and the moderate Muslims are not. If Muhammad was around, he would be executing many Muslims on the grounds that they are hypocrites - as he did in his day.

49 Mark Smith

March 31, 2008 @ 10:50 pm CEST

Bill Clinton once said, "It is the economy stupid"
And for Islam, the soundbite should be, "It is the ideology stupid".

It is no good talking about the merits of good Muslims or bad Muslims. That is a distraction. What matters is the thoughtforms and worldview they draw on. And for that you look at the Quran, Hadiths & Sirat, the founders life and the early body of Islamic thought.

There is no way beautiful roses can be grown on ground that has had sulphuric acid soaked in it.

50 Roman

April 1, 2008 @ 5:57 am CEST

My friends, Napolean was not a Muslim, Hitler was not Muslim, Stalin was not a Muslim…etc. The banking system was not set by Muslims to slave people. A Muslim do not have secret societies. The greed is not Muslims virtue, see Iraq, Palestine, and see what the French did to the Algerian. The slavery was abolished by Muslims because of the their Quran, but salavery was stopped but outsourced it to poor countries, see Bangladesh India. For the amusement of wealthy people children are slaved into prostitution see Asia ( Taiwan, Bangkok. etc). Read the bible: Romans: 1 verse 22 to 31 it tells a lot about the nature, and the sickness of certain people.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.Who is these people that Paul almighty is describing.Muslims do not select their governments; but they are imposed on them. Some policies are to enforce ignorance in Muslims countries, be my guess and Google Afghan textbook. See how the Taliban the Saudis, the Khomeini’s have been created, See how the Muslims extracted Europe from the Dark age to the light of the renaissance. Read my friend the ignorance was imposed on Muslims but the rest has chosen to be ignorant. Read how Edward Bernarys started chapter 1 of his book PROPAGADA“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society” In Medieval Period a learned bishop has an encyclopedia known as Etymologies was one pinnacle of his scholarly. He had more than 12 000 copies spread out in Europe ( 12 000 copies in 700 AC is beyond imagination) this encyclopedia has every detail, from the size of the sun, moon, acute diseases, legal instrument , the season, Old and New Testament, people differences and certain human monstrosity. This is who he describe the north African (Muslims).From Chris Lowney was Managing Director of JP Morogan & Co Page 18 of A Vanished World“The Blemmues born in Libya, are believed to be headless trunks, having mouth and eyes in the breast, other are born without necks in their shoulders”At that time the Muslims had tap water in their houses. My Friend nothing changed its old stories, Propaganda… Propaganda year 700 BC or today 2008 all same, just the tools has changed. Read what Ghandi said about Prophet Muhammad

“I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam In those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for the pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission” ( Young India 1924) Read what (Alphonse-Marie-Louis de Prat de Lamartine) said about Prophet Muhammad PBUH“If Greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and outstanding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad.”( L’histoire de la Turquie, 185, Vol II P. 276) See Wolf gen-Guter comments about the prophet Muhammad PBUH “He is a prophet and not a poet and therefore his Koran is to be seen as a Devine Law and not as a book of a human being, made for education or entertainment.”From: Und Abhandlungen Zum West-Ostlichen Divan, WA I,7,32

51 Wicca

April 4, 2008 @ 8:10 am CEST

Am not a moslem nor a christian. We are all not to belittle anyone’s belief. That’s extremely wrong. The casualties is abundance with any other party. Ask yourself who suffer. Because of that stupid movie, the people of Holland suffers. Isn’t it unfair?

52 Federico

April 5, 2008 @ 10:12 am CEST

Dear C Stanley,

If you can refer to the bible, please refer to Mathew 5:17 which says that Jesus did not caome to abolish the law, in fact He was the fullfulment of the Law!

53 C Stanley

April 5, 2008 @ 12:47 pm CEST

Federico,
If that’s meant to rebut my point, then you obviously take a different interpretation of that scriptural quote than I do.

54 Undercover muslim

April 6, 2008 @ 11:30 pm CEST

I’d like to tell all the people who are meaning to seperate extremist muslims from moderate muslim something I am investigating out of amusement and curiosity. I am an indian and brown skinned, but am an semi aethist semi christian, who was brought up as a staunch catholic. In the first week that I landed on western soil, when taking taxis etc. or just bumping into brown/muslim people they would immediately identify or want to think that I was a fellow muslim and sometimes I would play along just to know how they would treat a fellow muslim. This is one particular incident that happened in a cab. The driver asked me my name and since it could be interpreted as a muslim name he conveniently assumed that I was muslim and started talking at lengths how the american people are hypocrites, unethical, unlawful bigots and should be wiped away. He said it was upto younger generation like mine to carry out this work and work towards the spread of Islam in the west. He also thought that americans are weak and let "us" muslims easily carry out our mission cause their tolerance and freedom will bite them back one day. Well, after that I thought that maybe the taxi driver was an "extremist" and didnt dwell on that matter so much. I dont usually make friends or talk to people based on their religious identity. So, I went about making friends with muslims who consider themselves moderate and good. I learned slowly and passively from discussions with them that there are muslims, for instance osama bin laden who vile Islam and paint it in negative light. But at the same time, it was interesting to note that my very friends held similar ideas that if went unchecked would create terrorists in my own community. Given the power and weapons, I could imagine my very friends could turn into terrorists and wouldnt hesitate to kill me as well if i spoke against their religious ideas. One friend at such instance started swearing and calling hateful things about me even though I said I am sorry if I had offended him. The point I want to bring about here is that Wilders was right that there is something in the core of Islam that teaches its followers or inculcates in them different shades of violence towards western ideologies. People we will call moderate muslims are actually decieving the whole of the western world. They are just silently waiting till all their members are given power and authority in politics. The day will come when if there were elections and if an extremist muslim had to come to power, these very moderate and silent muslims will vote for them. And the rest of the tolerant world will be aghast by how these events will unfold. I understand what Wilders is trying to do… to make the west aware of what is sure to happen if they keep defending and being tolerant to muslims as they dont want to hurt their sentiments and want them to feel welcomed when they land as immigrants on their soil. I dont know if my comments came across the way I intended them to, but everyone who took the patience to understand my sometimes broken english and incorrect phrasing will understand what I am trying to say. In no way am i against Islam in any way, but I am begining to identify by experiences and discussions with "moderate" muslims that there is something inherent in the quran that lets terrorists and extremist muslims get away with what they are doing.