The Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders has posted his controversial film critical of Islam’s holy book, the Koran, on the Internet. I personally have not seen this video and do not plan to watch it simply in protest of his deliberate attempt to spark hatred along religious lines. Generally when reading the description of the video from a number of reports I must confess it does not apparently appear to be ‘that offensive’ as compared to what was hyped globally, that said I still refuse to patronize this video under any circumstances.
The video was hosted yesterday on LiveLeak.com defended its decision to host this controversial film by stating “LiveLeak.com has a strict stance on remaining unbiased and allowing freedom of speech so far as the law and our rules allow,” but barely a day later [today] it has pulled the plug after receiving a number of threats to its staff members, they have this statement posted on their website right now
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. This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realized LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one. Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture. We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.
Further on the film, the Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende said the film wrongly equated Islam with violence. “We believe it serves no purpose other than to offend,” he said in a statement. Its is good to note that the Dutch broadcasters have declined to show this movie. While Brahim Bourzik, a spokesman for a Dutch Moroccan group, said that he did not believe Mr Wilders’ film would spark fury from Muslims in Holland. “It is not a film, it is propaganda,” he said. “All the elements have been seen before, there is nothing new in it.”
The video has been described by various media outlets as follows:
Graphic images from the bomb attacks on London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004 are shown. Pictures of a woman being stoned, scenes from a beheading and images of the Dutch director Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by a radical Islamist in 2004, are also included. And pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying “God bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to hell” also feature. The film shows a young girl in a headscarf making derogatory comments about Jewish people. It also displays a graph showing how the number of Muslims in the Netherlands and Europe has grown. The film ends with someone turning pages of a Koran, followed by a tearing sound. A text that appears on the screen says: “The sound you heard was from a page (being torn from a) phone book. “It is not up to me, but up to the Muslims themselves to tear the spiteful verses from the Koran.” The film concludes: “Stop Islamization. Defend our freedom.”
The interesting twist to this event is that the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who depicted the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, says he will sue the maker of an anti-Islam film as his cartoon, which sparked riots two years ago, was used in the film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders without permission.
Links:
Ali Eteraz on the Fitna movie >> Geert Wilders Fitna Farce
Watch an iReport reaction by a dutch citizen here
Comments
12 responses to “Geert Wilders uploads Fitna, but host forced to delete video a day later”
Wilders just quotes what is mentioned in the Koran. The terrorist acts committed around the world are the “true” Muslims. Whenever a terrorist act is committed why doesn’t any Muslim country ever come forward and condemn it? It’s because they only preach hatred and death rather than peace, love and humility to all people. There were two World Wars fought for freedom of speech… Don’t ever forget that. Don’t let a fanatical religion dictate what u can say or do. Viva la Liberte! Viva la Egalite!
@David: You’re oblivious to the 1000s of media and personalized and even offical condemnation everytime a teeorist act takes place. Please also be known, not every terrorist act is committed by a Muslim. Oklamhoma City bombing, David Koresh, Unabomber, The Anthrax mailis, The Basque Sepratist Movements, the LTTE terrorists attacks, The Aum Shinrikyo, The Condfederate veterans better known as the KKK, Hitler’s rampage, FARC terrorists activities, and I can cite literally a 100 more…. and PLEASE get your facts right about Freedom of Speech and the World Wards I/II. Today if you denounce Holocaust in Germany, its a prison sentence – do the Freedom of Speech acts don’t apply there? Its people like Greet who have nothing better to do than to portray in a messed up way about Islam. Dan Brown wrote a book about the the bloodline and the Church went bonkers. Atleast what he wrote was seemingly fiction. Everyone in themselves has the fuel to incite hatered and also equally present within everyone is the ability to deflate the same.
Don’t bring Freedom of Speech into the equation. As a nation, we are ‘meant’ to be governed. If there were no laws, we as a society would be out of existence a long time ago. I’d personally like to see the west control their temper with the infamous two gay men looking like Jesus Christ, on a T-shirt with the words “Jesus fucking Christ” standing in front of the Church on a Sunday, shouting blasphemy and I would like to see how OK would that be.
good response faisal…
yes he mentions what mentioned in quran but he doesnt mention context in which its said AND the what follows that verse….
its like idiot questioning basics of physics.
Why blame Islam?
Individuals, not religions, carry out inhuman acts.
Islam is a religion of peace, accepted and practiced by more than 1.25 billion people worldwide. It is the fastest-growing religion in the world, and if it was what some critics claim, why should the people from all walks of life from around the world keep embracing Islam? Where is the sword now?
In Islam, a person has the right to defend himself, his family, his country or his neighbor(s), which justifies the resistance being offered by the people of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir and Palestine, to attacks on their soils by the so-called liberators, who are actually the occupiers.
The Holy Qur’an clearly states that if a person saves one life, it’s as if he saved humanity, and if a person kills one human being, it’s as if he killed humanity.
What is happening in the enslaved Muslim countries is a natural reaction to occupation, bombings, killing and terrorizing of innocent civilians (children, old men and women), rapes, in addition to looting of resources, national antiques and artifacts, above all destruction of property by the occupiers.
Terror breeds terror.
We assure those who bash Islam that if there was no occupation in this world by foreign invaders, there would be no resistance – the so-called terror.
We would like those who criticize Islam to explain the following acts committed by the Christians on Jews, other Christians and Muslims alike, throughout history:
– Hundreds of thousands of Muslim men, women and children killed by the crusaders, who were Christians.
– Inquisition of Jews and Muslims from Spain by Queen Isabella, a Christian.
– Millions of people killed by the European and American Christians during the two world wars.
– Atrocities committed on millions of Jews and Christians by Adolph Hitler, a professed Christian.
– Hundreds of thousands of Christians killed every year by the Irish Christians, including the British and the IRA, both Catholics and Protestants, during the past few centuries. Why are they not blamed to be “Christian Terrorists?”
Both of them believe in Jesus Christ, who told them to turn the other cheek, and both of them believe in the same Lord, Who commanded that “Thou shall not kill.” Period.
– Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, was a Catholic. Are all Catholics terrorists?
Last but not least, the bombings, killings, rapings and lynchings of both American Indians and black slaves (Afro-Americans) during the past 200 years in the United States.
What about them?
Will those filled with hate for Islam blame Christianity for the above inhuman acts by Christians in various parts of the world since its inception?
If not, then why are they blaming the religion of Islam for what is a natural reaction to occupation of Muslim countries by foreign invaders?
Most importantly, these folks should know that the three great Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – have one common basis, and that is one God Almighty.
“All men (and women) are created equal, and we all are one nation under Almighty God,” is a statement according to the Holy Qur’an and is very well elucidated in the U.S. Constitution.
Lastly, yet importantly, as brothers in humanity, we recommend those filled with hate get an education in the history of Islam and Muslims, before they dare to write nasty letters full of personal, ingrain hate and vendetta.
We would be pleased to provide anyone with free copies of the Holy Qur’an and Islamic literature in English, which would help them to understand the truth about Islam and Muslims and get rid of hate from their systems, God willing.
May God Almighty show you the light, Amen.
TOLERANT ISLAM
There is a very general and very deep-rooted misconception that the Holy Qur’an preaches intolerance, and that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preached his faith with the sword in one hand and the Holy Qur’an in the other. Misrepresentation could go no further. The basic principle of Islam, a faith in all the Prophets of the world, is enough to give the lie to this allegation.
The great and liberal mind that preached not only love and respect for the founders of the great religions of the world, but much more than that-faith in them-could not shrink down to the narrowness of intolerance for those very religions. Tolerance is not in fact the word that can sufficiently indicate the breadth of the attitude of Islam to other religions. It preaches equal love for all, equal respect for all, and equal faith in all.
Again, intolerance could not be ascribed to a book which excludes compulsion from the sphere of religion altogether. “Let there be no compulsion in religion,” (2:256), it lays down in the clearest words. In fact, the Holy Qur’an is full of statements showing that belief in this
or that religion is a person’s own concern, and that he is given the choice to adopt one way or another: that if he accepts truth, it is for his own good and that if he sticks to error, it is to his own detriment.
Given below are a few of these quotations:
“We showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will).” (76:3)
“…The Truth is from your Lord: let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it)…” (18:29)
“Now have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): If any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will be blind, it will be to his own (harm)…” (6:104)
“If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves….” (17:7).
The Muslims were allowed to fight indeed, but what was the object? Not to compel the unbelievers to accept Islam, for it was against all the broad principles in which they had been hitherto brought up. No, it was to establish religious freedom, to stop all religious persecution, to protect the houses of worship of all religions, mosques among them. Here are a few quotations:
“…Had not Allah checked one set of people by means of another there would surely have been pulled won monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure….” (22:40)
“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah” (2:193)
“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere…” (8:39)
Under what conditions was the permission to fight given to the Muslims? Every student of Islamic history knows that the Holy Prophet and his companions were subjected to the severest persecutions as Islam began to gain ground at Mecca; over a hundred of them fled to Abyssinia, but persecution grew more relentless still. Ultimately the Muslims had to
take refuge in Medina, but they were not left alone even there, and the sword was taken up by the enemy to annihilate Islam and the Muslims altogether.
The Holy Qur’an bears express testimony to this: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged-and verily, Allah is Most Powerful for their aid-(they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right-(for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’…” (22:39-40).
Later, the express condition was laid down: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.” (2:190). The Holy Qur’an, therefore, allowed fighting only to save a persecuted community from powerful oppressors, and hence the condition was laid down that fighting was to be stopped as soon as persecution ceased: “But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful. And fight them on no more until there is no more tumult or oppression…” (2:192-3).
If the enemy offered peace, peace was to be accepted, though the enemy’s intention
may be only to deceive the Muslims: “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). Should they intend to deceive thee-verily Allah sufficeth thee: He it is that hath strengthened thee with His aid…” (8:61-2).
The Prophet made treaties of peace with his enemies; one such treaty brought about the famous truce of Hudaibiyyah, the terms of which were not only disadvantageous, but also humiliating to the Muslims. According to the terms of this treaty, if an unbeliever, being converted to Islam, went over the Muslims he was to be returned, but if Muslim went over to the unbelievers, he was not to be given back to the Muslims. This term of the treaty cuts at the root of all allegations of the use of force by the Holy Prophet. It also shows the strong conviction of the Holy Prophet that neither would Muslims go back to unbelief, nor would the new converts to Islam be deterred from embracing Islam because the Prophet gave them no shelter. And these expectations proved true, for while not a single Muslim deserted Islam, a large number came over to Islam, and being refused shelter at Medina formed a colony of their own in neutral territory.
It is a mistake to suppose that the conditions related above were abrogated at any time. The condition to fight “with those who fight with you” remained in force to the last. The last expedition led by the Holy Prophet was the famous Tabuk expedition, and every historian of Islam knows that though the Holy Prophet had marched a very long distance to Tabuk at
the head of an army of thirty thousand, yet when he found that the enemy did not fulfill the condition laid down above, he returned, and did not allow his troops to attack the enemy territory.
Nor is there a single direction in the latest revelation on this subject in Chapter 9, the immunity that goes against this condition. The opening verse of that chapter speaks expressly of “…pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances,” and then in verse 4 excepts from its purview “…those pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you,” thus showing clearly that the “immunity” related only to such idolatrous tries as had first made agreements with the Muslims and then violating them, killed and persecuted the Muslims wherever they found them, as verse 10 says expressly: “In a believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant!” Such people are also spoken of in an earlier revelation: “They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time…” (8:56).
Further on, in chapter 9, the condition of the enemy attacking the Muslims first is plainly repeated: “Will you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took to aggression by being the first (to assault) you?” So from the first to the last, the Holy Qur’an allowed fighting only against those who fought the Muslims first; it allowed expressly only fighting in defense without which the Muslims could not live, and it clearly forbade aggressive war.
The waging of war on unbelievers to compel them to accept Islam is a myth pure and simple, a thing unknown to the Holy Qur’an. It was the enemy that waged war on the Muslims to turn them away from their religion as the Holy Book so clearly asserts: “…Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can….” (2:217).
It is sometimes asserted that the Holy Qur’an forbids relations of friendship with the followers of other religions. How could a book which allows a man to have as his comrade in life, a woman, following another religion (5:5), say in the same breath that no friendly relations can be had with the followers of other religions? The loving relation of husband
and wife is the friendliest of all relations, and when this is expressly permitted, there is not the least reason to suppose that other friendly relations are forbidden.
The fact is, that wherever there is a prohibition against making friends with other people, it relates only to the people who were at war with Muslims, and this is plainly stated in the Holy Qur’an: “Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances) that do wrong.” (60: 8-9).
Another widely prevailing misconception may also be noted here. It is generally thought that the Qur’an provides a death sentence for those who desert the religion of Islam. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the Holy Qur’an will see that there is not the least ground for such a supposition. The Holy Qur’an speaks repeatedly of people going back to
unbelief after believing, but never once does it say that they should be killed or punished. I give here a few quotations:
“…And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter…” (2:217)
“O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him…” (5:54)
“But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith-never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.” (3:90).
On the other hand, the Holy Qur’an speaks of a plan of the Jews to adopt Islam first and then desert it, thus creating the impression that Islam was not a religion worth having (3:71). Such a scheme could never have entered their heads while living at Medina where the government was Muslim if apostasy according to the Qur’anic law were punishable with death.
The misconception seems to have arisen from the fact that people who, after becoming apostates, joined the enemy and were treated as enemies, or where an apostate took the life of a Muslim he was put to death, not of course for changing his religion, but for committing a murder.
When IRA fighter fights for freedom he is labeled a ‘Freedom Fighter’ when a Kashmiri fights for the same freedom he is labeled a “Terrorist”
Mr. Qazi, brilliantly put.
FK
I care not what this vile disruptive pathetic man has to say with his FITNA. I care not if Gods and Prophets of any religion are true or not. I do care about respecting what is sacred to people, I do care about peace. So here is my advice, beat them at their own game, don’t fall in their trap, use the trap that they have laid down against themselves. Don’t get worked up and angry, don’t insult, use academicly researched documents to present to them what they don’t want to hear and face, they call themselves CIVIL, what a joke! You will find them to be so unbelievably hypocrite when you will hold the mirror, so unbelievable HYPOCRITES….
@Qazi Sahib you forgot to mention thousand of innocent muslim men women and children killed by Roman Catholic George Walker Bush and his dad in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan
While Roman Catholic Bush and his extremist warmonger neocon brigade is busy butchering Muslims around the world, Vatican today announced the for the first time in the history of mankind, Muslims have outnumber Catholic Christians, according to Vatican and UN Muslims account for 19.2 % of world population while Catholics are 17.4%, still overall if other christian sects like Orthodox Christians, Anglicans and other Protestants are included along with Catholics then christains still are majority(33% /2 billion)
the movie is available for watching on my blog, if anyone cares to do so.
Mr Qazi could i borrow some of your brilliant quotations??
just watched the clip released by this right wing hate monger,i personally feel that instead of working for Isreali Mossad he should start working for Fox News, just like Alqaeda's Videos that are released off n on and are not taken seriously(which i personally feel are mostly the handiwork of CIA to prolong n justify Sham war on terror by neocons) similarly this clipping is also the handiwork of paid Israeli agent to provoke and infuriate muslims around the world so that they could be tagged as terrorists so it should be ignored and not given any significance or weight..
now lets look closely at who this right wing extremist actually is, this homosexual dork is scared of muslims in Holland,specially morrocan muslims ,his worst nightmare is to be beaten up by a morrocan while "walking down the street in Amsterdam"(Why Morrocans you may ask well i'll explain that abit later), he loves Israel(more then his home country) and have
visited israel more then 40~50 times in last few years.According to his own sayings, he has met hawks and butchers like Ariel Sharon ("Countless times") and Ehud Olmert, among others, in Israel. Furthermore, he claims tight connections with the Mossad.
He was speech writer for Pim Fortuyn's VVD party,(Pim Fortuyn a Gay political leader who famously described Islam as a backward religion. Fortuyn was murdered by a Dutch (Radical/extremist Christian ) animal rights activist in 2002 , later Geert left VVD party and formed his own PVV party (coz according to him, his pervous party wasn't hating muslims as much as he wanted them to )
Gerard Spong a lawyer friend of his Previous Party's boss Fortuyn told dutch television :
"Geert Wilders… incites hatred against Muslims, and Pim did not do that: he had sex with Moroccan boys in dark rooms,"
I don’t know if what d0ct0r claims above about Geert Wilders connections to Israel are true, I wouldn’t be surprized. Funny, every time you have some body insulting Muslims or Islam there is a Jewish/Israeli connection. The media, well as usual they huff and puff, and like the low life mafiosis they say, ya know whada ya wanna do…its freedom of speech, yeah right!