Fitna popularity, thanks to Pommy

thealsrocks.jpg

Well done, Pommy, you’ve sent the blog stats into overdrive… I even took a screenshot of the WordPress home page for keepsies. Classic stuff… not sure how it happened, but our most popular post yet. BTW, you can watch (and download) Fitna here.

UPDATE: I should probably also mention that I’ve blogged this over at Catallaxy, in part because I have Dutch relatives and find the whole issue interesting from their perspective.

46 thoughts on “Fitna popularity, thanks to Pommy

  1. Not sure why, Pommy. For some reason google must have indexed your post really quickly, and then WordPress picked it up. If it’s good enough for them to run on their front page…

  2. Please find below the mail I sent just to inquiries@un.org as to call UN SG Ban Ki-moon to step back from the position of the UN SG. Please join me to send related mails to him as to defend our right on freedom of speech and expression.

    Thanks,
    Haiduk (Germany)

    Regarding: STRONG CONDEMNATION OF ‘ANTI-ISLAMIC’ FILM

    Dear Ban Ki-moon,

    under

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sgsm11483.doc.htm

    I read you “condemn strongly” the airing of Geert Wilders’ movie “fitna”. Thouh you also “appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it”, but you must concede that this is a very halfhearted statement. Do you know that such an unbalanced statement will be perceived such that you make Geert Wilders responsible for any act of violence that may follow after the airing of this movie even(!) before such acts happen?

    So instead of defending the freedom of speech and expression that was warranted “without frontiers” by Article 19 of the human rights declaraion in December 1948 you become the leader of false reversion of the guilt-principles and thus give anyone a free charter for acts of violence such as flag buring and even murdering!

    I hope you know how far-reaching the implications are: Human rights article 29/1 says crystal clearly one has duties only to a “community” that grants the “free and full development” of ones personality and it was the co-author(!) of the human rights declaration Charles Malik who insisted in his “Talk on Human Rights”

    http://www.udhr.org/history/talkon.htm

    on this very crucial characteristics of human rights article 29/1 as a firewall against any future “excesses precisely of statism and socialism”!

    For this reason I see it as my duty to tell you that

    (a) the “free and full development” of ones personality undoubtedly covers also the freedom of speech and expression
    (b) the term “community” though primarily refers to the state where one lifes, but also the United Nations is a community in the terms of this article.

    this implies, that if you dont revoke or correct your above statements any duty anyone might feel adverse to the United Nations will become invalid.

    For that reason I plea you to withdrawal as Secretery-General as to prevent further damage to the reputation and authority of the United Nations.

    Best Regards,
    ….

  3. Saw that, Scroogmcduck. I have no idea how we did it, but I think the Cat would have died with this many hits in such a short time.

    Haiduk, admire your sentiments, but don’t think the UN could fall any further in terms of reputation.

  4. Freedom of speech should not be confused with bigotry and islamophobia. I remember that a lot of Christians were offended by Scorcese’s movie Last Temptation of Christ despite that the movie was not offensive. Be careful of double standards, revisionist historians will seize this opportunity, maybe the movie one third of the holocaust should be hosted by google!

  5. Really, lets be honest, The muslims are having many more children than the Danish or any other European country. It is just a matter of time till the Muslims out number Europeans.

    Shouldn’t the Europeans including the Danish, have the right to preserve their land for their offspring?

  6. The Last Temptation of Christ was offensive. So was Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. I thought they were both obnoxious.

    The difference is, I don’t think either should be banned. Nor should Scorcese or Gibson require bodyguards as a result of making them.

    Fitna makes a valid point. Islamisation has to be stopped because it seems to inevitably bring bring with it values that are fundamentally unacceptable.

    If the Nazi brownshirts had been arrested when they attacked Jews, gays and gypsies, it would have stopped them. If Stalin had been compelled to submit to fair elections every few years, he would never have been able to murder millions.

    Islamic fascism will have to be defeated. The choice is whether it’s now, while it’s still relatively achievable, or later when it will cost massive lives and money. And Iraq and Afghanistan are on the front line, like it or not.

  7. Big deal. My cat came in at second for a two (common) word search on google image and sixth for a google web search for some months.
    As ever the real news is made and read elsewhere.

  8. Whilst Islam has some good features, the bad outweigh the good.
    1) Early marriage of pre-pubescent women, because Mohamed married a 9-year-old girl.
    2) Advocating slavery- the Koran praises slavery as showing the correct relationship between free believers and enslaved unbelievers.
    3) Intolerance of change, because Mohamed condemned anyone changed his words, and this prohibition was extended to everything.
    And so long as men believe that they’ll have virgins in Paradise IF they die in jihad, they will always want to wage war with us.

  9. this is with reference to haiduk ‘s comments:
    “Do you know that such an unbalanced statement will be perceived such that you make Geert Wilders responsible for any act of violence that may follow after the airing of this movie, even before such acts happen.”
    Why make a movie in the first place that can incite violence?
    IF hes not accountable for the violence –if any erupt- than -who is?
    After the attack on the Islamic prophet in the form of caricatures–that hurt the sentiments of millions of Muslims and resulted in protests both violent and peaceful ,loss of lives and property ;Geert wilders –a politician who should be showing a more responsible attitude produced a movie that is AGAIN an outright attack on the Islamic beliefs.And can cause the riots again.
    Freedom of expression is necessary for people and the society but it loses its value once it takes the form of hostility for others.
    If it’s the case of human rights, lemme quote Europe’s top Human Rights authority, the Strasbourg- based Council of Europe “this film is a distasteful manipulation which exploits IGNORANCE, PREJUIDICE AND FEAR”
    “It is simply political propaganda and it plays into the hands of extremists who are given such a prominent role in his film” said the council’s secretary general Terry Davis.
    Netherlands PM Jan peter balkenende issued a statement condemning the film which he said “equates Islam with violence. We reject that interpretation”
    “We therefore regret that Mr Wilders has released this film. We believe it serves no purpose other than to cause offence.”
    Here is the Netherlands official press release site.
    http://www.government.nl/News/Press_releases_and_news_items/2008/March/Government_s_reaction_to_Wilders_film

    ty

  10. IF hes not accountable for the violence –if any erupt- than -who is?””

    The person who commits the violence Habad. The trouble with the claim of inciting violence is that anyone can then claim that someone saying so and so incited them to be act violently. People hurting other people over some movie are the problem, not the movie. If a simple movie can make an individual violent then the problem is with that individual, not the movie.

    “After the attack on the Islamic prophet in the form of caricatures–that hurt the sentiments of millions of Muslims and resulted in protests both violent and peaceful ,loss of lives and property ;Geert wilders –a politician who should be showing a more responsible attitude produced a movie that is AGAIN an outright attack on the Islamic beliefs.And can cause the riots again.”

    Just because a treasured figure is ridiculed is no excuse to exact violence upon others. Muslims will have to adapt to a secular world. Christians have been mocked for yonks. Look at the Life of Brian, a complete send up and very popular movie. Even some christians like it.

    I am often confronted by people mocking some of my beliefs Habad. People on this forum even enjoy insulting me. Yah so what? What do I care what so and so says about what I believe? I do care but not enough to become violent. Sheesh, why bother! Answer this question for me: how much mocking justifies me punching out the lights of the mocker?

  11. Just because a treasured figure is ridiculed is no excuse to exact violence upon others. Muslims will have to adapt to a secular world. Christians have been mocked for yonks. Look at the Life of Brian, a complete send up and very popular movie. Even some christians like it.

    Exactly. Would anyone have the cojones to make a ‘Life of Muhammad’ after the cartoons flap, I wonder? I doubt it, despite the rich comedic potential.

    Somehow I doubt Habad will be back to read your comment, John, which is a pity because it sums things up nicely.

  12. Quran (8-60) you must read also (61)
    [60] Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

    [61] But 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).

    Quran (4-56) you must read also (57)
    [56] Those who reject Our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire; as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the Penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

    [57] But those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home, therein shall they have companions pure and holy: We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening.

    Quran (47-4) This verses is applicable only in WARS

    [4] Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.

    Quran (4-89) you must read 88 and 90

    [88] Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the way, never shalt thou find the Way

    [89] They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

    [90] Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
    ———————–
    If you search the truth you will find it … just try to find it.

  13. THE FILM HAS NOTHING BUT HATE!
    IT REFLECTS THE HATERD IN THOSE WHO ASSEMBLED ALL THESE BLOODY PICTURE!
    * THE PICTURES ARE ALL OF THOSE OF DESPERATE REACTIONS OF SOME DESPERATE INDIVIDUALS LIKE AL-QAEDAH.
    * THE VERSES MENTIONED ARE THOSE RELATED TO THE HISTORICAL PERIOD WHEN THE NON-BELIEVERS IN MAKKAH WERE KILLING AND OPPRESSING THE USLIMS AND THEN THE MUSLIMS WERE ALLOWED TO FIGHT BACK AFTER LONG SUFFERING.
    >>>>> SO WHAT IS THE DEAL!!!<<<<<

  14. John hasenkam
    Violence is always incited. . If one agrees with the freedom of expression amounting to hostility then one has to agree with the reaction it gets too. As it is also the freedom of expression- the freedom of expression of the muslims to express their sentiments?
    If one area is already sensitive why provide it stimulus that would inflame it further?
    It’s the stimulus that determines the magnitude of violence. And if the threshold of the people one is trying to stimulate already low then just one lil push ( of a few milivolts )would be enough to get a full blown reaction-which would be hard to contain. One of the reasons i believe the movie shouldnt have been released.

  15. Violence is always incited.

    No it isn’t, hadad. Violence is a choice. Nobody is anyone’s puppet.

    But violence is often the best response to someone else’s violence. Which means a lot more muslims will be killed in response to violence that they initiate.

    Why can’t they learn to argue peacefully? If the Jews can do it ….

  16. Habad, Anyone who reacts to speech with violence is a bully. Plain and simple. Anyone with a modicum of self control can stop themselves from committing acts of violence just because someone said something.

    If what you believe in tells you that the proper response to criticism of what you believe in is to commit acts of violence then what you believe is wrong; Morally wrong.

    The best response to a bully is to stand up against them to let them know that they don’t scare you. We will do this and continue to do this until bullies no longer exist.

  17. Habad,

    If I chose to accept your position I would be doing jail time tomorrow. My whole culture has so many distasteful elements I should be in continual rage at the mess that lies around me.

    Your position is like those christians in the US who think it is okay to kill doctors who do abortions.

    Habad, you must learn to accept that societies can exist because our innate violent tendencies are kept under tight reign. Adopting your view of “justified violence” will result in random killings, fear ridden streets, and a society that will decline because people are too busy protecting themselves rather than living the good life. For it all its problems, the rule of law works.

  18. When are the Iranians having their next cartoon contest? I think it is a form of response to be actively encouraged.

  19. Thank you for posting the UN e-mail address, Haiduk. I took your advice and wrote to Ban Ki-Moon. I hope that others will do the same. I also hope that they will write to their elected representatives and express their feelings about this issue.

    When I scan the articles that have been written about Fitna, nearly ever journalist and European leader is groveling and running for cover. Only the people seem to have the courage to take a strong, uncompromising stand for free speech. It’s up to us, so do it now!

  20. Only the people seem to have the courage to take a strong, uncompromising stand for free speech.

    Asymmetric power. The people are a defused target and not easily made a focus of retaliation. This is how we can combat facism in all it’s forms. Of course only until some dumb offical centralises Internet censorship.

  21. Sceptic-
    I’ve heard of ‘Going Dutch’ (both people pay on a date), and ‘Dutch courage’ (getting drunk and then acting courageously). Maybe ‘Having Dutch relatives’ will mean you want to share news, instead of hoarding it!?

  22. David eyonhjelm
    We saw what happened after the cartoon controversies. It was a big mess. Now I want u to think what purpose does that movie serve? The only form of Islam geert has presented is fundamentalist, destructive, the non Muslim killing type of Islam; he has distorted the verses completely, attacked the religious scripture, and depicted the most revered Islamic figure with a ticking bomb on head and blowing off later. Is that freedom of expression? What good is it doing?
    Besides that there is no question of comparison between the Jews n the Muslims, as the Jewish prophet has never been attacked as the Muslims’.

  23. Ben
    I am not trying to justify violence here. Muslims responded violently- something that their book strictly prohibits- “Do not create Fitna” it says.
    I agree with you on how to respond to the bullies only this time the bullies are those who have made the movie.

  24. Jewish prophet has never been attacked as the Muslims’.

    habad – Jewish and Christian prophets are relentlessly attacked by ‘comedians’, ‘artists’ and the media.

  25. John hasenkam
    I agree being violent is wrong SO is attacking someone’s religion. The only speech in “Fitna” is the hate speech. The sole purpose it serves is to offend the Muslims. And anyone with a working brain would realize the intentions behind its creation.
    this is where our disagreements lie. If one knows it could result in violent protests, riots or may be loss of life …why the hell stir it?
    Muslims are sensitive about tehir religion already. They have witnessed wars ,prison abuse controversies, the abuses recorded and circulated, holding prisoners without trials, forcefeeding,waterboarding, hidden prison cells,torturing,blackwater, CARTOONS , hate speeches, obsessions,submissions now the fitnas?
    Any more fitnas on the way?

  26. I have read with interest the above, and Habad; the comment that Muslims are sensitive about their religion already… as though that alone should be reason not to make a movie such as fitna, is flawed and not the problem of the West, or Catholics, or Protestants, or Hindus, or members of any other religion.
    Every year hundreds of cartoons are made of Jesus and his crucifixion, I do not agree with them and in fact find them offensive, but I do not go out looking for the journalist or comedian that drew them, to seize them and slay them wherever I may find them.
    I may not agree with fitna, nor agree with the reasoning behind it, nor agree with its message, nor with its blatant violence; but I firmly believe that it is my right to view it should I wish, and it is the right of those who made it – to make it, regardless of who it offends.
    And if Muslims the world over want to riot, and threaten to kill Westerners because they disagree with the movie. So be it, they too are entitled to freedom of speech.

  27. Habad,

    I agree. I haven’t seen the movie and won’t. I’m not interested in watching something that descends to such depths of stupid antagonism(from what I’ve read).

    I would hope and believe that moderate Muslims, ie the vast majority of Muslims, will lodge their protests and make their opinion known. When people offend us we should not just accept that, we are entitled to defend ourselves but not through violence.

    However Habad I disagree that criticising beliefs is wrong. I am not compelled to respect others’ beliefs. If I believe these are beliefs that constitute a danger to the wider good then I do have some responsibility to speak out against the same. Criticism engenders improvement. As the history of the Church has demonstrated, preventing criticism eventually leads to strife. The Church has shifted and changed its values over the centuries, that is actually one of christianity’s greatest strengths: its ability to adapt. Ironically that arises because no-one really knows how to under the collective messages of the Bible, thus allowing all manner of interpretations.

    I hope that moderate Muslims will begin to take the lead, to speak out against the extremist elements and to cleanse their faith of leaders who have so viciously corrupted the message of Koran and in so doing have replicated the history of the Church where so-called christians would use biblical verses to justify all sorts of perverse nonsense like slavery and killing.

  28. Game’s over!

    Too late for the Whites to wake up!

    Too late to halt the shear dynamics of demography.

    Asterix

  29. “Moderate Muslism”

    You mean the ones in Wilders movie?

    It’s like talking a Moderate Nazi!

    Mein Koran, like Mein Kampf, set the final goal.

    We brushed off Mein Kampf… and now we know at what cost.

    Unfortunately History is never a lesson.

    Aterix

  30. Habad,

    Your whole logic seems to absolve individuals of any moral accountability. I think Fitna is an important movie precisely because of people such as yourself and I hope many, many more movies such as Fitna are produced and distributed and discussed widely. So long as I continue to hear voices like yours that condone and justify violent retaliation for free expression of opinion I will continue to think so. The fact that you can harbour the belief that presenting some graphic images on a computer screen are worse than, or even morally equivalent to direct acts of violence is disturbing. I fear that the only way to deal with such an impulse to violence is for insults to come again and again until the senses deaden and the experience begins to cause bordem.

  31. Habab,
    As a Christian, you even writing ‘Koran’ causes my immense distress and embarrassment, and I won’t be responsible for what I do! You’re to blame if I turn violent! How dare you try to have a reasoned debate? Free speech means you have the freedom to agree with me completely! I hope you exercise that right!

  32. There are plenty of “moderate nazis” out there. We call them “conservatives”.

    Two things seem blindingly obvious to me. First, there is a problem with what is sometimes called “ismalo-fascism”, but which I prefer to call “Islamic socialism”. I think my term is better because it makes clear that the problem arises from the desire to have the government control lives, and the fact that facism is “national socialism” and the islamists aren’t necessarily interested in nationalism.

    The second blindingly obvious thing is that there is nothing inherently wrong with islam and those people who confuse islam with islamic socialism are either idiots, bigots, or both.

    The Iraq war has helped the islamic socialists, and also the arab nationalists… and has harmed the concept of liberal democracy and peace. Not to mention a few lives and a trillion dollars. Pity. Saying the words “ooohhh, scary moooslim” twelve times will not make the war any better.

    But most importantly — and most linked to the original post — free speech should be absolute. And violence should not be tolerated. I haven’t watched the film yet, but it can’t be more stupid than scientology, mien kamph, falun gong or reality TV. None of these things should be banned, and none are an excuse for violence.

  33. John – good point – ‘Islamic socialism’ is a better name than Islamofascism due to the international nature of the Ummah. Sharia Law has a lot more in common with communism than fascism.

    ‘there is nothing inherently wrong with Islam’

    What is Islam? if it is sticking to the letter of the Koran, then there is a lot wrong with it. however, if you are prepared to skim over the nastier bits of the Koran (as most Christians and Jews now do with their favourite books), then yes, i agree. If it is a personal relationship with God, then it is a powerful, spiritual thing to be encouraged.

  34. “I agree being violent is wrong SO is attacking someone’s religion”.

    Really? What’s wrong with attacking a religion? There is no evidence for the existence of “Allah” – it’s entirely unproveable. It’s psychobabble from start to end. Why should other people defer to a steaming pile of rubbish like the Koran?

  35. Er, yes, there is a LOT wrong with Islam. Starting with the fact it was invented out of thin air by a lying/insane conman.

  36. Ha Ha Ha ! Nicholas yeah right very funny .duh.
    Well loved the point anyway…. BUT there is a HUGE, I MEAN HUGE difference between a reasoned debate and fitna-–THE AGITATION INDUCER.

  37. Fitna doesn’t support the idea of “freedom of speech” in any way it rather violates it. It manipulates the verses that were Ad hoc –revealed during a particular time for a particular purpose i.e. when Muslims were at war with the pagan mekkans.
    Geert’s interpretation of Islam is flawed. He has molded the verses to favor his idiotic agenda and has associated them with actions of some sociopaths-giving them a totally different meaning. He has even mistranslated one of the verses. This shows how much he has researched about the religion he has been crying his heart out against. Fitna only furthers the rift between the faiths.
    Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you become hostile to other religions and attack their revered religious figures and that without any substance to back you up. The way Muhammad has been depicted is totally opposite of how he was and what he preached.
    It’s not freedom of speech Geert is trying to sell it is Blasphemy .And an attempt to create unrest in the society.. Something Geert could and should face a criminal trail for.
    As his prime minister put it “he equates Islam with violence. We reject that interpretation”
    So do I, I m not buying the crap u r trying to sell us mr. Geert.

Comments are closed.