The Forum > Article Comments > 'Fitna' fits-up Islam > Comments
'Fitna' fits-up Islam : Comments
By Ruby Hamad, published 10/4/2008Geert Wilders' 'Fitna' is a put-up job to inflame the anti-Muslim fire.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- ...
- 21
- 22
- 23
-
- All
Posted by goodthief, Sunday, 13 April 2008 10:31:51 PM
| |
Dear Katie0
Hate the belief, love the believer. Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 13 April 2008 10:41:43 PM
| |
We all know that you are particularly choosy, Boaz, when it comes to selecting quotes from ancient texts to support your views. So why beat up on Ruby and Fractelle if they fall occasionally into those same habits?
>>if you had only said "The Bible mentions God commanding the complete destruction of particular tribes" I would have no quarrel with you. But you went too far... You said "God frequently commanded the Israelites to MURDER and RAPE"<< In your very next post, Boaz, you proceed to perform exactly the same trick - select one verse from the Qu'ran, and extrapolate it to generalize that all Muslims are instructed to kill all non-believers. Does this not strike you, just occasionally, as an example of, at the very least, the pot calling the kettle black? My own interpretation of this involves, as you well know, that "h" word. Hypocrisy. Unpleasant. What annoys me in parallel with this bad habit of yours, by the way, is the arrogant and condescending manner in which you deliver your sermon of sanctimony. Have a great day. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 14 April 2008 10:00:43 AM
| |
Hello all, and I thought that Rubby was making an interesting admission when she writes, "religion isn't the only reason for violence..." or words to that effect (if you'd like to clarify or correct, go ahead).
As others here have said, the only way to be a good (and not anti-social) person as a Muslim is to ignore the Koran. The violence, mysoginy and anti-semitism quite takes my breath away, and I'm only up to chapter 4. As I've said elsewhere, a project has come to me. What if a Koran was to be published with all the violence, mysoginy and anti-semitism removed? It could be called The Humane Koran (although it might get known as the holey Koran). Just to make the point, all the bits left out could be published as an appendix, along with explanations as to why it was left out. (And if you want to talk about 'taking things out of context, there is almost no context in the Koran - it is a collection of recollections, which have been put together almost at random. Patricia Crone calls it 'rubble' , by which she means it has been broken down.)This might help uninformed westerners learn quickly what Islam is about. You will struggle to find any calls to violence in the New Testament, it isn't there. The violence in the Jewish scriptures is out of date, as it was to be directed against peoples which have been long extinct (and not due to the Jews - they were reprimanded for not doing the extermination job they were supposed to). In the council pound of world religions, Islam remains the one whose rabbies has not responded to treatment. Let's give it a dose of exposure. Posted by camo, Monday, 14 April 2008 10:45:50 AM
| |
Pericles,
I posted a link above that gives a Christian response to fitna. This below is one of the responses from that same link: http://publicchristianity.org/fitna.html This article addresses the problematic issues of Fitna (all raised in the discussion above): (1) disturbing content and approach (2) violence of the film (3) ‘cherry-picking’ of the Qur’anic verses (4) Politics of the film-maker (5) Lack of context As non-muslims, we are left in a quandary, and encouraged to ask if the Islamist reading of the Qur’an is authentic. Does the Qur’an indeed promote violence in the name of Islam? Conclusion: “The argument of Fitna must be established or dismissed by the Qur’an”. The article then shows the issues of interpretation which are unique to the Qur’an, and takes the example of 47:4, to show interpretation as defined by Muslim clerics: (1) Is this Qur’anic injunction situational in application? (2) Has this verse been ‘abrogated’? (3) Is it metaphorical or symbolic? (4) Are the views in the movie representative of Muslim scholarship? BD’s stated goal in his post above: “to find the actual background according to Islamic scholars, and then, to evaluate if the claim made by the Movie, fits the context and meaning provided by Muslim Scholars” is consistent with the approach advocated in the arctcle (for understanding surah 8 verse 60). For muslims, the challenge is clear: “the Qur’an endorses violence in the name of Islam, even if it is only in self-defence”. How does that fit with citizenship in a democratic country? The Bible has not been afforded the same courtesy here, and as there are no verses that have been ‘abrogated’, it should not be that difficult to at least engage with the arrival of Jesus Christ into the context of the old covenant (refer Camo's post). Posted by katieO, Monday, 14 April 2008 11:04:29 AM
| |
Boaz and KatieO: Deuteronomy7: 1-2:
"When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you-Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you - and he delivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate them. Make no covenant with them nor show them compassion!" Deuteronomy 21: 10-14: "When you engage your enemies in warfare and the Lord your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners, if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife, you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, go to your house, and lament for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife. If it should turn out that you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her." These are two examples of God not only condoning but ordering rape and murder in the Old Testament. I do not write this in order to “vilify” your faith. I am simply quoting the Bible. I am not suggesting that anyone actually takes these verses at face value today. In fact, my article suggests otherwise. Take it as you will but I don’t appreciate being accused of lying and vilification. Thanks for your comments. John Greenfield: I have no idea what you are talking about. Anti-Semitism? Blaming Jews for 9/11? Are you sure you read my article? I fear you have me confused with someone else. If you have any questions or comments relating to any of the issues I raised then I am more than happy to hear them, but I am beginning to find your baseless accusations quite irksome and offensive Posted by RubySoho, Monday, 14 April 2008 2:38:34 PM
|
I think you are making a small mistake. In trying to inform readers of the existence of other factors, you are downplaying the impact and importance of the religion of Islam. You needn’t do that, in order to make your point. The US, for example, is probably every bit as dangerous as its critics say it is. But, so is Islam.
Israel is up itself, sure, but it’s not a threat to the world. It won’t be Zionists who blow up my train.
In tracking this back to the establishment of Israel, are you saying that, if it weren’t for that, Islam and the rest of the world would be at peace? I know it’s a hypothetical, so I’m not expecting an overly confident response. However, judging from the things Muslim clerics say, the answer is clearly “No”. Islam seems to have a few beefs other than Israel.
I don’t know how anyone can suggest that Islam is simply playing defence. It seems to me to be a proactive, dynamic danger to every non-Muslim and to many Muslims. I would prefer to believe something better of Islam (just as I believe better of many Muslim people, including those I’m acquainted with) but the evidence seems overwhelming.
The film is not a call to arms. It is a call to awareness. There should be dialogue, but the West should not be drowsy and lethargic during that dialogue, but alert to the realities across the table.
Pax,