Slashdot Mirror
Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film
h4rm0ny notes the furor over an anti-Islamic movie due to be released on the Web in the next week. After Pakistan disrupted YouTube worldwide over an interview with right-wing Dutch MP and filmmaker Geert Wilders, Network Solutions, acting as host as well as registrar, has suspended Wilders's site promoting the 15-minute film "Fitna" (a Koranic term translated as "strife"). The site now displays a notice that it is under investigation for possible violations of NetSol's acceptable use policy. According to the article the company's guidelines include "a sweeping prohibition against 'objectionable material of any kind or nature.'" The article describes the site's content before NetSol pulled the plug as a single page with the film's title, an image of the Koran, and the words "Coming Soon." No one but Wilders has seen the film to date. The Dutch government has distanced itself from the film, fearing Muslim backlash. A million Muslims live in The Netherlands. Wilders's party, which controls 9 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, was elected on an anti-immigration platform.
Nothing much interesting but if you follow one of the 'see also' links there's an old video interview where he talks about his views on Islam.
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view.
No, I guess they just go regular bombing.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
As the submitter of this story, I just wish to add that kdawson has rather heavily rewritten the original submission. Also, the link to the story on the BBC site, which was the original first link has been removed. It is here for those interested. I also had a look for the film on torrent sites and though I found something pretending to be the film, it turned out to just be some "music to inspire peace" and a README saying "we the Dutch don't support this politician."
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
That's not how I recall events.
What I heard that happened was that the Dutch UN soldiers were in Srebrenica, lightly armed and not authorized to open fire. They radioed for back-up from the other UN (and NATO?) forces, but got nothing.
It must have been terrible being one of these soldiers: knowing it is your duty to protect these people, but not allowed to open fire, and not receiving back-up, despite supposedly having allies nearby. Supposedly, they got the medals in recognition of that.
The medals certainly weren't pinned on them in a move by the politicians to save their asses. Far from trying to save their asses, the whole Dutch government resigned is response to a report about the incident.
Maybe it is my national pride (I am Dutch - and, as many Dutch, I have little national pride, but I do have some) that is being injured here, but I don't think it's fair to blame it all on the Dutch. Sure, it's convenient; the Dutch were there, so it's all their fault. But the Dutch weren't there alone: this was a UN mission, and so it was ultimately the UN and everybody who was there that failed. Yet I hear nothing about that. It's only the Dutch who are getting the blame.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
There are more than enough passages in the Koran to justify the killing of non-Mulsims as the following two show:
4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols (unbelief). So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
The second one sounds good - except that the Koran defines a wrong-doer very broadly. It is a class that includes freethinkers, polytheists, atheists and non-Muslims that preach their own religion. Among other passages:
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.
4:101 And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
This is one of the many many places where the Koran incites violence against non-believers:
The verse of the sword
Moderate muslims are simply deluded by the lies of their shieks. The language in the Koran is archaic and your average muslim rehearses it over and over without really understanding what's going on. If they ever wonder about the meaning of some particular verse, they usually turn to their shiek for explanation. The shiek can lie and twist the meanings of the words to give whatever explanation they want.
In fact, the problem is deeper and more complicated than this. The Koran contains verses that incite violence as well as those which encourage mercy and coexistence. However, the violence-inducing verses override the other ones. This is because Mohammed was weak and without support when he started his religion, so he had to be peaceful. Later on when his army grew, he became merciless and commanded his people to violently kill their enemies.
The peaceful verses remain in the Koran today, even though muslim scholars agree that they are overridden. Your average Muslim does not know about any of that, and a shiek can easily manipulate an average muslim into believing that the Koran is a peaceful book by stressing the peaceful verses and avoiding the violent ones.
Because that directly hurts kids.
"I love violence. I love free speech. Pretty much everything that's 'dangerous to the mental health of out youth' kicks ass. But if the film, say, encourages people to go out and punch a muslim, then yes, it should be banned."
Well, no one has seen the film yet...which means no one knows if it says to 'punch a muslim'....however, I kinda doubt it does. I believe it probably shows islam in a less than admirable light...and just because those muslims get all up in arms (literally) when someone speaks ill of them or prints a cartoon of muhammad or whatever, the ISP pulled the plug.
This is hardly the same thing as banning kiddie porn. This is more being scared of religious idiot zealots acting out.
And no, I do not believe there is freedom from being offended. That takes a heck of a lot of fun out of the freedom of speech. I think even if they film did advocate punching a muslim...it would not merit pulling the plug on their website. No one is harmed by speaking about ideas.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Is this AFTER the Muslims came in and killed anyone not Muslim that was a male and then threw out the rest of the families in the street so a "true Muslim" could live in the house? A very good friend of mine got the honor of living in a "public" park for a year while she and her daughter tried to flee to the U.S.A. So, you had tons of "anyone not Muslim" being killed or forced out of their homes, most of which were and are Christians. Some of those Christians united and fought back. Christianity does not promote this and actually con dims this action.
I will say that generally people that hate each other tend to use religion as a motivating factor to get people to rally around their cause and war. I can't speak for Muslims, but Christians, specifically Catholics are opposed to almost any war. The last Pope (John Paul II) who lived through WWII and saw many horrible things even mentioned that it was ok to fight in a war but he had never seen an instance of a time when it was warranted. This coming from a man who saw Hitlers army crush Poland and kill many innocent people. Granted there are many different sects of Christianity and I will concede that almost every religion has their weird splinter groups, but the VAST majority of Christians (and I bet Muslims) do not promote violence in any way. Just the opposite they promote peace, sometimes at the sacrifice of their own lives.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
A Muslim author and critic of Islamic fundamentalism who was baptized a Catholic by Pope Benedict said on Sunday Islam is "physiologically violent" and he is now in great danger because of his conversion.
...
...
...
...
"I realize what I am going up against but I will confront my fate with my head high, with my back straight and the interior strength of one who is certain about his faith," said Magdi Allam.
Writing in Sunday's edition of the leading Corriere della Sera, the newspaper of which he is a deputy director, Allam said: "... the root of evil is innate in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictual."
He said before converting he had continually asked himself why someone who had struggled for what he called "moderate Islam" was then "condemned to death in the name of Islam and on the basis of a Koranic legitimization."
ANOTHER DEATH SENTENCE
Allam, the author of numerous books, said he realized that his conversion would likely procure him "another death sentence for apostasy," or the abandoning of one's faith.
Watch out.
This guy's going to get killed by some Muslim. For the Islamic crime turning his back on Islam because it's inherently violent. And oh yes, "apostasy" is punishable by death - per the Koran.
Those "moderate Muslims" who claim that there is no such direction from the Koran are lying to you. Period. They're lying.
Ask Theo Van Gogh about that.
Oh wait, you can't. Muslims killed him for daring to criticize Islam.
So, your "moderate Muslims" are liars:
KORAN
It is clear quite clear that under Islamic Law an apostate must be put to death. There is no dispute on this ruling among classical Muslim or modern scholars, and we shall return to the textual evidence for it. Some modern scholars have argued that in the Koran the apostate is threatened with punishment only in the next world, as for example at XVI.106, "Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief -save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom." Similarly in III.90-91, "Lo! those who disbelieve after their (profession of) belief, and afterward grow violent in disbelief, their repentance will not be accepted. And such are those who are astray. Lo! those who disbelieve, and die in disbelief, the (whole) earth full of gold would not be accepted from such an one if it were offered as a ransom (for his soul).Theirs will be a painful doom and they will have no helpers."
However, Sura II.217 is interpreted by no less an authority than al-Shafi'i(died 820 C.E.), the founder of one of the four orthodox schools of law of Sunni Islam to mean that the death penalty should be prescribed for apostates. Sura II.217 reads: "... But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever , his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever." Al-Thalabi and al -Khazan concur. Al-Razi in his commentary on II:217 says the apostate should be killed.
Similarly, IV. 89: "They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them..." Baydawi (died c. 1315-16), in his celebrated commentary on the Koran, interprets this passage to mean: "Whosover turns back from his belief ( irtada ), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him a
My wife was in the Dutch military at the time (not on that mission), and what she heard from her colleagues that actually were on that mission confirms your story. It really was a shitty situation.
They have an acceptable use policy, which they agreed to follow. Apparently, they didn't.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
Network Solutions has no problem with Hizbollah
http://english.hizbollah.org/index.php
WHOIS:
https://my.mirahost.com/order/viewwhois.php?domain=hizbollah&ext=org
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Exegesis of 4:76:As one can easily see from the exegesis and from the text of the Qur'an-il-Kareem, that this verse was
(a) presented in a historical context of freeing Muslims from oppression in Maccah
(b) more generally refers to the fight in the cause of Islam against oppressors.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Wrong.
There is no tolerance whatsover. Dhimmi aren't tolerated, they are persecuted. You pay a fine for your non submission (literally what it's called), and they can take your home for any Muslim. Basically, to be dhimmi, you have to live in such a hovel that no Muslim would demand you be displaced so he could take it. And the persecution was much further, of course.
The idea that dhimmi means that Islam can coexist with others is totally Bullshit.
That's not to say that Muslims can't live alongside others, as this is certainly the case. And it's not as though other religions, including Christianity, have not also persecuted, but your point is bunk, totally.
Well, no one has seen the film yet...which means no one knows if it says to 'punch a muslim'....however, I kinda doubt it does
You can get an idea of what his position is by listening to an interview with him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc
In fact, he says that the vast majority of Muslims are good people; his problem is with the Koran and the fundamental tenets of the religion.
I believe it probably shows islam in a less than admirable light...
Yes, that's basically it. I suspect that this isn't actually all that different from what you have already seen in many news programs and historical programs about Islam; the bloody history of Islam, the belligerent language in the Koran, its use as justification for terrorism, and the oppression of women are hardly news to anybody. The only reason this film is causing a stir is because its creator explicitly states a political agenda.