Comments on: Fitna popularity, thanks to Pommy

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:36:56 +0000

Habad – blasphemy is freedom of speech. Unless you are saying that there is one true faith we should all be forced to follow.

By: Jim Fryar

Jim Fryar — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:51:26 +0000

John; It depends on whether you think you are a Jesus or a David Koresh, I think Mohammed was the latter.

By: habad

habad — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:48:19 +0000

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.

By: habad

habad — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:16:09 +0000

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.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:43:05 +0000

Steve — how is that different from every other religion? All religions can be abused, or helpful to people, depending on how they are used.

By: Steve Edwards

Steve Edwards — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:28:59 +0000

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.

By: Steve Edwards

Steve Edwards — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:27:56 +0000

“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?

By: pommygranate

pommygranate — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:09:58 +0000

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.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:26:01 +0000

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.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:10:15 +0000

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!