pageok
pageok
pageok
Threats Cause Fitna To Be Taken Down By Its Hosting Service:

The Hollywood Reporter reports:

The controversial anti-Muslim film by Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders has been removed from the Web by its British Internet provider, which said its employees have been seriously threatened.

"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," the company said....

The thuggery of those making the threats is appalling, though unsurprising. Thanks to Dan Schmutter for the pointer.

UPDATE: Thanks to readers who responded to my request for pointers to other copies of the film; there is a list of pointers here, a Wikileaks copy here, and Dutch versions elsewhere. That's the beauty of the Internet.

TGGP (mail) (www):
A list of sites carrying it here.
3.29.2008 6:42pm
Nathan_M (mail):
It's available at Wikileaks.
3.29.2008 6:44pm
martinned (mail) (www):
L.S.,

More mirrors:

AD newspaper

FOK
3.29.2008 6:47pm
Scote (mail):
It would seem that some Muslims used threats of violence to take down the video which suggested that some Muslims use Islam as an excuse for violence. The US, if it really stood for free speech, should condemn the censorship of the video.

Frankly, I"m almost afraid to watch it. I don't know if it is anti-Muslim hate mongering or legitimate, but harsh, critique. Either way, death threats over a video that does not call for violence are unacceptable and should be investigated by authorities.
3.29.2008 7:10pm
Fub:
Soon to be a major motion picture: Islamofascists Meet the Streisand Effect.
3.29.2008 7:14pm
BerkeleyBeetle:
It's nice that they're being open about the reason they've been cowed, rather than talking about selective interpretation of rules of conduct as many outlets do.

It doesn't really matter what the movie said anymore. If the goal was to get people to be suspicious of Islam, it's done so with flying colors.
3.29.2008 7:18pm
Boose:
The video is still up on youtube and google. Just so you know.
3.29.2008 7:26pm
John Armstrong (mail) (www):
I'm sorry, but I just can't blame the ISP here. The ownership and employees feel afraid for their lives, and it's their right in a free market to say, "no, we will not carry this content". They aren't censoring anything, they're just saying they don't feel the risk is worth the reward.

And in their explicit favor: they were the first carriers of the content in question, and that's what really matters. They got content out, where it could be copied and disseminated (as other commenters have pointed out it has been). Now they can step back away from the danger and the material is still out there. How can you blame them for stepping out of the limelight and letting the important content circulate without any particular target for those it angers to threaten?

Yes, it's appalling that people threaten violence over disagreements, but the ISP here has already done more than anyone has any right to expect of it.
3.29.2008 7:35pm
Javert:
So the "religion of peace" once again triggers barbaric behavior. The real horror here is the blindness of our intellectual and political leaders.
3.29.2008 7:39pm
33yearprof:
The ownership and employees feel afraid for their lives....


They live in (formerly Great) Britain where the government cannot protect them and it will not allow them to protect themselves lest the assailants be hurt. The joys of multiculturalism.
3.29.2008 7:44pm
nylaw58 (mail):

some Muslims use Islam as an excuse for violence.

Actually, they are true muslims. I am an atheist, but from my research of the Quran and Islam, a true Muslim will kill those who insult the Mohammad and the Quran, which is the word of God.

Christians often ask, "what would Jesus do," well, if a muslim were to ask, "what would Mohammad do," they would conclude that he would kill the infidels—so they do (or at least threaten to).
3.29.2008 7:54pm
Dave N (mail):
I watched it. I am no apologist for Islamic radicals but this is propoganda that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Aboslutely no context. None. Zero. Zilch. And as we all know, context is everything.

This short film is, in some ways, akin to comparing all Christians to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, the rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the worst excesses of the Spanish Inquisition.

I don't blame many Muslims' anger at this film for distorting their religion because, well, it would appear to be 15 minutes of fun-house distortion. I don't approve of the death threats and think they are very wrong. While I don't buy the whole "Islam is the Religion of Peace" slogan, I also do not share the hysteria this film seeks to create.
3.29.2008 8:17pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
Actually, they are true muslims. I am an atheist, but from my research of the Quran and Islam, a true Muslim will kill those who insult the Mohammad and the Quran, which is the word of God.


At least two schools, the Hanafis and Shafi'i, tended to only flog public blasphemers. While I personally find that pretty unacceptable, it's not quite accurate to say 'true' Muslims would kill anyone who blasphemed. The relevant texts only seem to declare a death penalty for male apostasy (for Sunnis and most Shia schools), not all non-believers. Non-believers in Islamic lands were allowed to not believe, albeit under some pretty extensive limitations, such as a prohibition on outdoor worship, the riding of camels, or printing of religious books.

That's pretty unacceptable, but it's best to be as accurate as possible.

As for the OP, the web host may well have the right to not host something like this, but there are few better ways to encourage unlawful violence than to demonstrate its effectiveness.
3.29.2008 8:53pm
John Armstrong (mail) (www):
[T]here are few better ways to encourage unlawful violence than to demonstrate its effectiveness.


I'll just point out that I don't see the VC hosting a copy. The hosts of this site are content to let the video be available through semi-anonymous video hosting sites like YouTube, while they declare it "appalling" for the ISP that took the all-important step of first hosting the video to do the exact same thing.
3.29.2008 9:04pm
egn (mail):
John, I understood Eugene to be referring to the death threats as appalling, not the host's decision to take down the video.
3.29.2008 9:21pm
Hoosier:
If it were not for the threats and the fear, how many of us would have even *heard* of this film. The point of the rage isn't stopping "blasphemy." The point of the rage *is* the rage.
3.29.2008 9:21pm
Nathan_M (mail):
I'll just point out that I don't see the VC hosting a copy. The hosts of this site are content to let the video be available through semi-anonymous video hosting sites like YouTube, while they declare it "appalling" for the ISP that took the all-important step of first hosting the video to do the exact same thing.


I could be mistaken, but I think Professor Volkh was saying the threats were appalling, not the decision to remove the video.
3.29.2008 9:25pm
John Armstrong (mail) (www):
egn: it's ambiguous at best. If Prof. Volokh clarifies his point and my impression is mistaken, then I withdraw my objection. I agree that the threats are reprehensible, but the post can be as easily read as supporting my impression as yours.
3.29.2008 9:26pm
Albatross:
gattsuru said: "At least two schools, the Hanafis and Shafi'i, tended to only flog public blasphemers. While I personally find that pretty unacceptable, it's not quite accurate to say 'true' Muslims would kill anyone who blasphemed."

No, no, no, no, no! It is absolutely unacceptable! Never should anyone be killed for criticizing a particular religion. Never should anyone be flogged for crticizing a particular religion. And never should people who think they are civilized qualify such a statement with "pretty unacceptable." To do so renders one an apologist for the people doing the flogging.
3.29.2008 10:03pm
LM (mail):
John Armstrong,

I agree that the threats are reprehensible, but the post can be as easily read as supporting my impression as yours.

Only if you've read too little EV to have an informed impression of him, and you withhold the benefit of the doubt.
3.29.2008 10:12pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
" ... but this is propoganda that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Aboslutely no context. None. Zero. Zilch. And as we all know, context is everything."

Come on, the film might qualify as propaganda, but saying it goes beyond Goebbels is loony. How about Gore's movie, does that quality as "propoganda that would make Joseph Goebbels proud ..." Did he present an opposition viewpoint?

As for context, this seems to provide a universal excuse for justify anything. How would you like this applied to the KKK?
3.29.2008 10:18pm
Vinnie (mail):
The movie said:"Islam is a violent religion"
Muslims said:"We will kill you if you say that"
I say:"quod erat demonstrandum"


Or just Q.E.D
3.29.2008 10:19pm
Russ (mail):
Islam - a religion of peace, and its followers will kill you to prove it.
3.29.2008 10:40pm
Laura S.:
David N. writes.

This short film is, in some ways, akin to comparing all Christians to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, the rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the worst excesses of the Spanish Inquisition.


David: That's a disingenuous straw-man interpretation of the film. Can we please be adults enough to distinguish criticisms of violent threads in the fabric of Islamic life versus individual Muslims?

I certainly don't have any thing against Muslims per se, but it seems strikingly clear that we should be vociferous and consistent in our condemnation of violence-in-the-name-of-religion.

Your viewpoint is, thus, surprising indelicate and childish.
3.29.2008 10:48pm
Dave N (mail):
A. Zarkov and Laura S.,

I didn't say this film "goes beyond Goebels." I did say that he would be proud of the film. It is propoganda, as you acknowledge. It is also dishonest.

I certainly am no fan of An Inconvenient Truth but I made no attempt to compare that film to this one.

Now to Laura S.'s complaints--that I am creating a strawman. Really? I could take selective quotes from the Bible and various Christian religious leaders and come up with a piece of trash equal to this film.

I do distinguish between those who practice Islam as a religion and the Islamist radicals of al-Qaeda and Iran. Unfortunately, this 15 minute documentary did not. It all comes down to context. That was my point in my original post. How is that point either indelicate or childish?
3.29.2008 11:04pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
'Indelicate and childish,' perhaps, but David N. has the virtue of being correct.

There is no question that a significant number of Muslims find that the Quran authorizes violence in many circumstances.

The point is that the vast majority of Muslims find no such authorization and therefore do not behave violently.

But it's only human nature, unencumbered by any religion, to start biting when being continually poked by a stick.

Many non-violent Muslims are concerned that Islam is under attack by the West. Films like this serve only to move 'concern' to 'fact'. Telling them 'grow a thicker skin' doesn't appear to be a functional solution.
3.29.2008 11:43pm
LM (mail):
Laura S,

I certainly don't have any thing against Muslims per se, but it seems strikingly clear that we should be vociferous and consistent in our condemnation of violence-in-the-name-of-religion.

That's so reasonable you might have a hard time finding anybody who'd disagree who wouldn't just as soon kill you. But as Dave N points out, the film isn't nearly that reasonable. And you only have to read some of the sympathetic comments here to see what kind of babies it casually throws out with the bathwater.
3.29.2008 11:44pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"I didn't say this film "goes beyond Goebels." I did say that he would be proud of the film. It is propoganda, as you acknowledge. It is also dishonest."

Propoganda and dishonesty can be very effective weapons against the enemy. I think the fancy name today is "disinformation."
3.29.2008 11:46pm
Bible Guy:
But, Eugene, does not Judeo-Christian Bible require to kill all atheists?

An how about this "commandment"

directly from the HQ
?:



You shall not covet your
neighbor’s house; you shall not
covet your neighbor’s wife, or his
manservant, or his maidservant,
or his ox, or his ass, or anything
that is your neighbor’s.


Pretend, you don't know, that a few years ago the Vatican substituted "male slave" and "female slave" for something akin to Sheraton room service.
3.29.2008 11:59pm
Vinnie (mail):
Dave N said
Now to Laura S.'s complaints--that I am creating a strawman. Really? I could take selective quotes from the Bible and various Christian religious leaders and come up with a piece of trash equal to this film.

Yes, and how many death threats would you receive for posting it?
3.30.2008 12:03am
Mark Robinson (mail):

The point is that the vast majority of Muslims find no such authorization and therefore do not behave violently.


And yet, all we hear are crickets.
3.30.2008 12:17am
Brooks Lyman (mail):
Gattsuru -

Islam tolerates "people of the book" - Jews, Christians and, I believe, Sabians, who are pretty much extinct, but the conditions of that toleration are, as you imply, humiliating.

Unbelievers such as Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc. are not tolerated (historically, at least). They get a choice: convert to Islam or die. During the various Islamic wars of conquest, the question was often asked after the the Muslims had killed a few ten thousand inhabitants of a conquered city (mostly the men) and taken the women and children into slavery. Much easier to convert the children to Islam if they don't have parents to remind them of their original religion....

To those who would point at the excesses of the Christian crusades or the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition in an attempt to excuse Islamic slaughters, I will point out that while Christians may have done evil things, there was nothing in Jesus' teaching or in the Christian Scriptures that encouraged such behavior - indeed, the opposite. In Islam, killing the infidel is a duty prescribed by Muhammad and the Koran; it is part of the core of Islamic Scripture.

So, while some Muslims may be moderate, peaceful people, Islam, their religion, is not a religion of peace.
3.30.2008 12:36am
Charles Chapman (mail) (www):
3.30.2008 12:39am
Eugene Volokh (www):
Clarified, as requested -- I've revised the post to make clear that it's the thuggery of the threat-makers that's appalling (which is what many commenters rightly assumed in the first instanc); I'm not passing judgment on the hosting service.
3.30.2008 1:15am
ScottVA:
Islam tolerates "people of the book" - Jews, Christians and, I believe, Sabians, who are pretty much extinct, but the conditions of that toleration are, as you imply, humiliating.


Right, that is the literal text.

Unbelievers such as Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc. are not tolerated (historically, at least). They get a choice: convert to Islam or die.


Not entirely true—it's a matter of interpretation! There are (a few) Zoroastrians in Iran today. There are still hundreds of millions of hindus in India despite most of the subcontinent being under Muslim control at one time or another. Various Muslim thinkers in the past have basically said "well, Zoroastrians have a 'book' and Hindus have the Gita, etc—ergo, they are protected as people of the book." That's not to say those standards have universally been followed, as there have been countless Jihads to convert unbelievers (such as the perhaps most recent one in late 19th century afghanistans to convert the "kafirs" of Kafiristan (a province name meaning land of unbelievers)—now it's called nuristan (the land of enlightenment).

Much easier to convert the children to Islam if they don't have parents to remind them of their original religion....


Additionally there was janissary system of the Ottoman empire in which—in some cases—Christians would deliberately send children to be converted and turned into slaves. Of courses in the majority of cases the slavery+conversion was violently enforced..

I will point out that while Christians may have done evil things, there was nothing in Jesus' teaching or in the Christian Scriptures that encouraged such behavior


Ludicrous! You think the Christians on the Crusades, the Pope, the Catholic church, etc did not 100% believe they were doing God's work?

In Islam, killing the infidel is a duty prescribed by Muhammad and the Koran; it is part of the core of Islamic Scripture.


I disagree with this! There is definitely that aspect, but the Qur'an in some ways is almost schizophrenic. Historians of the book have been able to guess chronologically the order in which most of the Qur'an was written (the qur'an is arranged in order of long chapters to short chapters—not thematically, chronologically, etc—it's almost bizarre!) The context of some chapters with what was going on to Muhammad and the early Muslim community is very interesting. Some of them are very violent and aggressive! Others much less so. I agree if you pick+choose bits of the text, the picture for Islam looks very bleak, especially compared with the other Abrahamic religions! However, as with all suitably long, dense, and esoteric religious texts, there's room for interpretation and selection.

So, while some Muslims may be moderate, peaceful people, Islam, their religion, is not a religion of peace.


Absolutely disagree. There's one Muslim theory (I believe derived from Gnostic beliefs—not sure) that there is a book floating around in the ether called the Um al-Kitab — the Mother Book. This is the Qur'an. The Qur'an always existed, was eternal along with God and had only to be revealed by Muhammad. You're treating religion the same way—Islam is not some eternal set-in-stone entity. Islam is a religion, and as a religion, is defined solely by those who practice it.
3.30.2008 1:16am
Elliot123 (mail):
"To those who would point at the excesses of the Christian crusades or the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition in an attempt to excuse Islamic slaughters, I will point out that while Christians may have done evil things, there was nothing in Jesus' teaching or in the Christian Scriptures that encouraged such behavior - indeed, the opposite. In Islam, killing the infidel is a duty prescribed by Muhammad and the Koran; it is part of the core of Islamic Scripture."

And the Muslim responds that the Old Testament is a slaughterhouse. The Christian responds that Chrisians conveniently ignore those bad parts of the OT. The Muslim responds that Muslims do the same with the Quran. Then the Christian says he is just reading what is written in the Quran. The Muslim says he is doing the same by just reading what is in the bible.

The interesting thing is that Christians say they are in the best position to tell Muslims what Muslms believe. Muslims return the favor by saying they are in the best position to tell Christians what Christians believe. Then each turns to his bleachers and gets cheers his position, and derision of the other guy's position.

Having lived and worked in the Arab Muslim world for a long time, I'd say the Arab Muslims have a very poor understanding of the West and Christianity, but that understanding is superior to the West's understanding of Arab Muslims and Islam. The reason for this is the pervasive western news, publishing, and entertainment media that now encompasses most of the world. Four-year-old Arab kids are glued to the TV watching Sesame Street.
3.30.2008 1:17am
unhyphenatedconservative (mail):
"Many non-violent Muslims are concerned that Islam is under attack by the West."

Those darned Western office buildings, always jumping in front of Muslims flying airplanes. And how could the West have the temerity to put embassies right in the path of bombers? And don't even get me started on how those damn journalists put themselves right in the way of Muslim knives.

Yep, I can see why Muslims are afraid.
3.30.2008 1:17am
ScottVA:
Yep, I can see why Muslims are afraid.


Chechnya. Bosnia. Afghanistan. Iraq. Palestinian territories.

Iran? Pakistan? Syria?

Now, you and I and the rest of the posters can sit here and explain and justify each of these actions or threats. Heck, I'll say right now that I was and am in favor of our taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan and taking out Saddam in Iraq. What WE think about these attacks doesn't matter, what matters to many Muslims around the world is that Christian Europeans committed genocide in Bosnia, killed tens of thousands of Muslim in Chechnya, and outright invaded Afghanistan and Iraq while issuing blatant threats to Syria and Iran.
3.30.2008 1:30am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Few of the posts here present data we can use to judge Muslim tendencies towards violence. In May 2007 Pew Research Center released a poll on the attitudes of Muslim Americans. While Pew tried to put a positive spin on the results, I personally find them extremely troublesome. Look at the table on the top of page 54. Here we find that 15% of Muslims aged 18-25 find suicide bombing "often or sometimes justified." European Muslims in that age cohort run about 19%. Also troubling are American Muslim attitudes towards their national identity. Look at the table on the top of page 31. Here we find 47% of Muslims in American think of themselves as Muslims first, and not Americans. This figure rises to 60% for the 18-29 age cohort. Compare and contrast to American Christians where 48% think of themselves as Americans first. To be fair 62% of white evangelical Protestants consider themselves as Christians first.

I strongly suspect that much more than 15% of American Muslims have a favorable attitude towards suicide bombing. This is not something one readily admits to a pollster. After all 28% American Muslims believe Arabs did not carry out the 9/11 attacks. This figure increases to 46% for Muslims with high religious commitment (page 51). But in the UK 56% of all Muslims (not just high commitment) believe Arabs did not carry out the 9/11 attacks. These and other numbers lead me to believe that 15% is a significant under estimate.
3.30.2008 1:30am
33yearprof:
In Islam, killing the infidel is a duty prescribed by Muhammad and the Koran; it is part of the core of Islamic Scripture.


The proper response by infidels to actions based on the above teaching of the Koran is a M118 bullet delivered to the cranium. The US M118 employs a full-jacketed lead boattail bullet having a nominal weight of 173 grs., and the specified average muzzle velocity of about 2600 f.p.s. Sierra Match King is a favorite brand. 1 MOA accuracy is regularly reported at 600 yards. It is the favorite of the Designated Marksmen in US infantry units in Iraq.
3.30.2008 1:32am
Brooks Lyman (mail):
33yearprof -

Glad to hear from another target shooter...
3.30.2008 1:40am
Elliot123 (mail):
"The proper response by infidels to actions based on the above teaching of the Koran is a M118 bullet delivered to the cranium."

Very good point. I really don't care what they believe, or what the old books say, just what they do.
3.30.2008 1:44am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Dave N:

"I didn't say this film "goes beyond Goebels." I did say that he would be proud of the film. It is propoganda, as you acknowledge. It is also dishonest."


You're weaseling. Comparing Fitna to a Goebbels' propaganda film is still ludicrous. Moreover something that's "propaganda" is not necessarily dishonest. Some propaganda simply lacks a dispassionate viewpoint and fails to present other opinions. Fitna is more toward the latter.
3.30.2008 1:44am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
John Burgess writes:

But it's only human nature, unencumbered by any religion, to start biting when being continually poked by a stick.
You've got the sequence backward. The biting is what is causing the poking with the stick.
3.30.2008 1:47am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Heck, I'll say right now that I was and am in favor of our taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan and taking out Saddam in Iraq. What WE think about these attacks doesn't matter, what matters to many Muslims around the world is that Christian Europeans committed genocide in Bosnia, killed tens of thousands of Muslim in Chechnya, and outright invaded Afghanistan and Iraq while issuing blatant threats to Syria and Iran.
The invasion of Afghanistan was clearly justified by the Taliban's unwillingness to turn over bin Laden for trial--a person who later boasted of having arranged the 9/11 attacks. Any Muslim that thinks that invasion wasn't justified doesn't deserve me listening to him.

Iran's history of involvement in attacks on U.S. forces also clearly justifies threats and a lot worse.

At its core, Islam is an warlike religion that believes that violence to non-Muslims is always justifiable and acceptable. They keep biting like a wild dog; there comes a point where you can only respond as you would to a wild dog.
3.30.2008 1:52am
K Parker (mail):
Dave N,

I watched it, too, but I didn't see where it said "Every single Muslim on the planet understands these verses from the Koran like this." And the footage of the preaching and of the atrocities is genuine, not fictional.

You analogy is completely wrong. Try this: it would be like a film showing a few verses from the Bible that Wright has used, some quotes from Wright saying "G-d d-mn America" etc, and then footage of the Rodney King riots. No American Christian in his right mind would respond by saying, "Bad filmmaker, you're insulting my religion!" Rather, they'd be saying, "WT- kind of Christian is this Wright fellow, anyhow?"

John Burgess, I see this sentiment from you, over and over, but I don't buy for a minute that the Dar al-Harb, overall, would give two figs about Muslims qua Muslims if it weren't for that minority that wants to turn the name Dar al-Harb into a literal truth. What your vast majority needs to do is quit complaining about the messenger and start driving the violent minority from their place of influence and power.

[Never Actually Read The ] Bible Guy,
But, Eugene, does not Judeo-Christian Bible require to kill all atheists?
No.
3.30.2008 1:56am
Daryl Herbert (www):
Who within the British Media is aiding these Muslim terrorists?

Why haven't they been identified?

Traitors need to be named and shamed.
3.30.2008 2:07am
Erÿk Boston (mail):
Here's an idea: let's forget about the Fitna movie and just release a documentary comprised entirely of the threats made to get it pulled. No editing. No commentary. Just their exact words. I wonder which would cast Islam in a worse light.
3.30.2008 2:17am
Vinnie (mail):
OK, time for the pragmatists view. I am not a Christian. I do not currently work in an abortion clinic so I currently have no fear of Christians blowing me up, even if I say that Christians are idiots.
I am not a Muslim. I stand a better chance of being killed for that reason than I stand for not being a Christian.
THAT is what I care about.
Past crimes can be sorted out later, MY safety first.
SOME Muslims are dangerous to ALL non-Muslims. If I say that Muslims are idiots, I have a legitimate fear for my safety.
3.30.2008 2:21am
Alligator:
Regardless of whether the film is trash, propaganda, or chocked full o' lies, these death threats are simply unacceptable. I can see the draw of discussing the content of the film, but I sincerely hope no one here is suggesting that the film's viewpoint in any way justifies the death threats to Geert Wilders and the LiveLeak.com staff.
3.30.2008 2:38am
Brian K (mail):
Moreover something that's "propaganda" is not necessarily dishonest. Some propaganda simply lacks a dispassionate viewpoint and fails to present other opinions. Fitna is more toward the latter.

hmm..interesting. so not all propaganda is bad? that's certainly not the impression you get reading posts on the "liberal" bias in acadamia. It's enough to give one the impression that whether "propaganda" is good or bad, honest or dishonest is entirely based on whether or not one agrees with it.
3.30.2008 2:46am
Dave N (mail):
I watched it, too, but I didn't see where it said "Every single Muslim on the planet understands these verses from the Koran like this." And the footage of the preaching and of the atrocities is genuine, not fictional.
I do not doubt the violence of Muslim extremism. I do not excuse or condone it. It is vile and reprehensible that non-extreme Muslims do not do more to condemn it.

However, when the documentary juxtoposed statements being made by radical extremists with statistics (which I will accept for the sake of argument) about the increased number of Muslems in the Netherlands, then what conclusion am I supposed to draw other than all Muslims are being tarred by the same brush?
3.30.2008 2:49am
Lev:

However, when the documentary juxtoposed statements being made by radical extremists with statistics (which I will accept for the sake of argument) about the increased number of Muslems in the Netherlands, then what conclusion am I supposed to draw other than all Muslims are being tarred by the same brush?


The conclusion that the greater the number of Moslems you have in the Netherlands, the greater the number of radical extremist Moslems you will have in the Netherlands.
3.30.2008 3:13am
LM (mail):
Erÿk Boston,

Here's an idea: let's forget about the Fitna movie and just release a documentary comprised entirely of the threats made to get it pulled. No editing. No commentary. Just their exact words. I wonder which would cast Islam in a worse light.

What you're suggesting would certainly be fairer to hundreds of millions of innocent Muslims. Obviously what's portrayed in the film and the threats against those hosting the film are intolerable. What's wrong with the film, as Dave N has pointed out, is that it implies that the barbaric behavior shown is attributable to Muslims. Period. So where's the renunciation of collective guilt so many here held out as a basis for their outrage over Jeremiah Wright's propaganda?
3.30.2008 3:36am
Rich Rostrom (mail):
The Koran is not equivalent to the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of extremely diverse texts from diverse sources over thousands of years. There is not that much in common between Genesis, Kings, Proverbs, Haggai, Mark, Corinthians, and Revelations. Parts of the Old Testament are explicitly abrogated in the New Testament.

The Koran is a single text composed by a single man. None of it is explicitly abrogated. Where the text is contradictory, some later verses are held to abrogate others; but in the chronology accepted by nearly all Moslems theologians, the verses preaching coexistence are early verses, abrogated by later militant verses. This conforms to the universally accepted account of the life of Mohammed - that after preaching his doctrines peacefully and being rejected, he fled from Mecca, became a powerful warlord, and eventually destroyed his opponents in battle.

The verses cited in Fitna are not obscure verses, they are very important, widely cited verses - comparable to Isaiah 53:6, Matthew 5:38, or I Corinthians 7:9.

Like these verses, they have great force, and a large proportion of Moslems say these verses should be carried out literally. The imams featured aren't fringe weirdos like Fred Phelps; they preside over large mosques with thousands of congregants, and they are representative of many thousands of other imams with similar views.

It is not sufficient to say that the majority, or even nearly all, Moslems do not commit violence against "infidels". Islam appears to produce a proportion of violent bigots as an unavoidable feature. If the Moslem community cannot end this problem, then it must be excluded from the rest of the world.
3.30.2008 4:00am
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
To those who would point at the excesses of the Christian crusades or the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition in an attempt to excuse Islamic slaughters, I will point out that while Christians may have done evil things, there was nothing in Jesus' teaching or in the Christian Scriptures that encouraged such behavior - indeed, the opposite.

Not to mention that in 2008, all Christians would agree that those were past episodes of savage behavior, not models for present conduct. With all due respect to our ancestors, sometimes they acted like barbarians or savages (sometimes with an excuse, sometimes not). The difference is that present day Muslims tend either to (1) be savages (I'll not say barbarians, as barbarians had some restraints) or (2) refuse to repudiate (1) for one reason or another.

In the end. a 7.62 to the cranium is probably the only permanent cure. A bit messy, but much therapy is like that. I was willing to see the Palestinians' side for many years, but now believe in administering the proper therapy until the afflicted population is reduced to where we can commence a proper policy discourse again. Underneath our starry flag, civilize them with a Krag and all that.
3.30.2008 4:09am
JamesWN (mail):
What's wrong with the film, as Dave N has pointed out, is that it implies that the barbaric behavior shown is attributable
to Muslims. Period. So where's the renunciation of collective guilt so many here held out as a basis for their outrage over Jeremiah Wright's propaganda?

The point is not that all muslims are violent and intolerant, but rather that the tradition comprised of the Quran and Sunnah commands intolerance against nonmuslims.
Have you heard about the Malaysian woman Lina Joy? The Cairo Declaration and the 30 percent of British young muslims who according to a Pue Research survey thinks that killing apostates is acceptable?
If mnore than 30 percent of the American population thought that killing Negroes were fine, we would all recognize the critical mass. In muslim nations, support for the act of killing a muslim who leaves the religion,is not only marginal but entirely mainstream and often codified into law.
Whether most muslims living in the west expressly agree with these sentiments is not relevant, because passive accommodation with a democratic Constitution is not tantamount to repudiation of the tenets of Islam. The scholar Tariq Ramadan for example advocates that muslims should accept minority status under a western constitution, but this doesn't answer how a muslim majority should treat a nonmuslim majority, if or when the demography is changing the balance of power in the western society.
Are most muslims willing to repudiate the violent and intolerant interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah? Or are their only moderation an expression of passivity?
3.30.2008 4:17am
Jim at FSU (mail):
I don't think it is fair to compare this to Goebbels because Goebbels was lying about the jews. To make the jews into some sort of monstrous threat, it was necessary to make up a great many lies. To make muslims into a monstrous threat, all you have to do is pay attention to the news. While there is bias in any reporting medium, the decapitation videos and the sermons pretty much speak for themselves.

Case in point:
Jews have never expressed a desire to subjugate the entire world and impose halachic law upon everyone. I think this is an important distinction. The distinction, if I had to pick one.
Jews don't engage in terroristic violence against people they disagree with.
Jews don't oppress women, own slaves or otherwise behave like it's the 13th century. Yeah, I went there- slavery is still commonplace in the muslim world.

Anyway, differences obviously abound. There are crazy jews in the world (Meir Kahane? Or this guy?) but for whatever reason their craziness rarely escalates into violence. And no, I don't consider IDF strikes against terrorists to be terrorism. That is BS.
3.30.2008 4:39am
Hoosier:
>>>So where's the renunciation of collective guilt so many here held out as a basis for their outrage over Jeremiah Wright's propaganda?

Say, that's right! Why is Obama dodging this issue?
3.30.2008 5:58am
LM (mail):
Jim at FSU,

I don't think it is fair to compare this to Goebbels because Goebbels was lying about the jews.

No, the difference is that Goebbels was lying about all of the Jews, and this movie is only lying about some of the Muslims. Obviously there's no complaint about the Muslims to whom it accurately applies. It's the lying about the rest that's wrong.
3.30.2008 6:06am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
As I've said before, not that I invented it, the "innocent" Muslims look a good deal like the guilty Muslims.
It would be in their interest to end this sooner rather than later.
The stats on various issues indicating either passive support or lack of condemnation are astonishing. To put it another way, the lack of concern by the rest of western society at the stats is astonishing.
Something like 12% of Canadian Muslims agreed with the goals of the Toronto 17--now 18--and that doesn't count those who would not agree but would be in sufficient solidarity to say nothing if they knew about it. There being about 700,000 Muslims in Canada, that's 84,000 who agree.
Given the age-group breakout in Europe and the UK wrt one or another horrible idea, it is likely that a similar distribution prevails in Canada. That is, young men are particularly prone to such crap.
3.30.2008 7:19am
Fub:
Dave N wrote at 3.29.2008 7:17pm:
I am no apologist for Islamic radicals but this is propoganda that would make Joseph Goebbels proud.
I don't think so. As cinematographers go, Geert Wilders is no Leni Riefenstahl. Not even in the same league.
3.30.2008 8:38am
ithaqua (mail):

I don't think it is fair to compare this to Goebbels because Goebbels was lying about the jews. To make the jews into some sort of monstrous threat, it was necessary to make up a great many lies. To make muslims into a monstrous threat, all you have to do is pay attention to the news.


As I've said before, not that I invented it, the "innocent" Muslims look a good deal like the guilty Muslims.


Christians often ask, "what would Jesus do," well, if a muslim were to ask, "what would Mohammad do," they would conclude that he would kill the infidels—so they do (or at least threaten to).


[T]he tradition comprised of the Quran and Sunnah commands intolerance against nonmuslims.


In the end. a 7.62 to the cranium is probably the only permanent cure. A bit messy, but much therapy is like that. I was willing to see the Palestinians' side for many years, but now believe in administering the proper therapy until the afflicted population is reduced to where we can commence a proper policy discourse again.


It is not sufficient to say that the majority, or even nearly all, Moslems do not commit violence against "infidels". Islam appears to produce a proportion of violent bigots as an unavoidable feature. If the Moslem community cannot end this problem, then it must be excluded from the rest of the world.


At its core, Islam is an warlike religion that believes that violence to non-Muslims is always justifiable and acceptable. They keep biting like a wild dog; there comes a point where you can only respond as you would to a wild dog.


So, how many posters here would endorse a 'final solution' to the Muslim problem?
3.30.2008 9:30am
Happyshooter:
Death to those who say Islam is violent
3.30.2008 9:53am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
itahaqu
That was inevitable.
Somebody brings up a problem; you can't think of any solution but a bloody one; the person who mentioned the problem is the warmonger. Standard nonsense.

If you follow Wretchard's three conjectures, you'll see the prospect of a horribly bloody ending to this issue. Not that Wretchard (The Belmont Club), is particularly bloodthirsty, but some things just are.
The only people who can prevent it are Muslims.
3.30.2008 10:58am
Elliot Reed (mail):
You people who are arguing about the Qu'ran are missing the key point here: the "correct" interpretation of the Qu'ran doesn't matter. You will not learn to understand contemporary Islam merely by reading the Qu'ran in English any more than you will learn to understand contemporary Judaism by reading a translation of the Old Testament. The unbeliever does not come to those texts having been instructed in all the weird layers of theology and practice that have been "interpreted" onto those texts, or the believer's understanding of Jews or Muslims consider to be technical theological terms. You also lack all sorts of other background knowledge: does your average Christian know that a Muslim would not consider your English translation to be a valid Qu'ran, or that the Old Testament and the Tanakh are not quite the same?

Furthermore, believers and theologians are no less capable of reading what they want to find into religious texts than judges are capable of doing the same with constitutions and statutes. The history of Christianity is a testament to this: the Bible has been interpreted to find that the Earth is stationary and the center of the universe (viz. the trial of Galileo), that kings rule by divine right, that Christians have the right to slaughter Muslims and American Indians ("heathens"), that it's OK to kidnap Africans and bring them to the Americas as slaves ("bringing them Christianity"), and that it's OK to keep them enslaved for untold generations (the Cain/Abel story). For the purpose of understanding the religion of those places and times, it is simply not relevant that all these interpretations were incorrect according to contemporary Christian theology.

So even if, as an unbeliever, you happen to stumble on the "correct" interpretation of the Tanakh or the Qu'ran just by reading it yourself, that doesn't tell you anything about what real Jews and real Muslims believe today. At the very least, you could probably learn a lot by going to your local mosque and finding some real Muslims to talk with there; tell them you're a Christian (if that's what you are) who, given the times, is interested in learning more about Islam, and how can you do that? At the very least, you cannot learn what real Muslims believe just by reading and viewing hostile works by nonbelievers, or a few clips in the news of groups of Muslims at their most radical.

I haven't done this myself, and don't know what I would find, but I do know that you will never understand a point of view by reading criticisms of it. You cannot understand believers in the free market by reading liberal attacks on libertarian/conservative arguments for the free market and news articles about alleged free-market failures like Enron and the recent subprime meltdown. Nor will you come to understand what constitutional originalists believe by arguments against originalism.
3.30.2008 12:29pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
Also troubling are American Muslim attitudes towards their national identity. Look at the table on the top of page 31. Here we find 47% of Muslims in American think of themselves as Muslims first, and not Americans. This figure rises to 60% for the 18-29 age cohort. Compare and contrast to American Christians where 48% think of themselves as Americans first.
Not that I have actually looked at the polls, but as you've written it this is an unbelievably silly argument. From the statistics as you describe them, it looks like about half of American Muslims think of themselves as Americans first, and so do about half of American Christians. And likewise about half of American Muslims and about half of American Christians think of themselves as religious believers first. Maybe the statistics you don't present falsify this analysis because the number of undecideds or 50-50's is very large, but as written it looks like the two groups are almost exactly the same on this particular indicator.

Incidentally, I find it bizarre that any believers in either religion would think of themselves as Americans first. How can your loyalty to God possibly be less important than your loyalty to your country? When you are forced to choose between God and America, by what argument do you reject God?
3.30.2008 12:43pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Elliot Reed:

From the statistics as you describe them, it looks like about half of American Muslims think of themselves as Americans first, and so do about half of American Christians.

I made two typos. The figure for Christians is 42%, not 48%. The figure for Muslims with high religious commitment is 70%. Of course these commitment figures are a small part of the picture. I'm not sure what you're fussing about.
3.30.2008 1:31pm
Sam Hall (mail):
" ... but this is propoganda that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Aboslutely no context. None. Zero. Zilch. And as we all know, context is everything."

No it isn't. He shows text from the Qu'ran and then shows news clips of how Muslims enforce that text.

Sure you can find a few lines from the Bible that condone bloody acts, but you can't find any examples that aren't hundreds of years old.

Islam has always been spread by conquest. They tried for 300 years to invade Europe and were finally turned back at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. This is just a new phase of a very old war.
3.30.2008 2:14pm
davod (mail):
Fitna is a better film than Leni ever produced.

Fitna is short and to the point.

Fitna repeats a verse from the Quran, followed by example of the terror of Jihadists, followed by proponents of Jihad talking about Jihad.

Fitna asks Muslims to solve this problem.

What could be more powerfull.
3.30.2008 2:26pm
davod (mail):
Sam:

You covered most of my post, which just goes to show that if you wait long enough someone will always agree with you.
3.30.2008 2:28pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"hmm..interesting. so not all propaganda is bad? that's certainly not the impression you get reading posts on the "liberal" bias in acadamia. It's enough to give one the impression that whether "propaganda" is good or bad, honest or dishonest is entirely based on whether or not one agrees with it."

Is it good or bad? I don't know. It depends on the purpose of the guy issuing the propoganda. If it achieves his purpose he thinks it's pretty good, and the other guy thinks it's pretty bad. Observing the reaction to this film, I'd say it was a howling success from the pespective of the issuer, and he'd say that is very good.

A good example of this is the current Democratic primary.

The reaction of the internet is also quite good from the issuer's perspective. The threats caused a few internet providers to drop the film, but that spawned many more who posted it in defiance of the threats.
3.30.2008 2:59pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Sure you can find a few lines from the Bible that condone bloody acts, but you can't find any examples that aren't hundreds of years old."

One can't find any lines in either the Bible or Quran that aren't hundreds of years old. And, the Old Testament has far more than a few lines.

Regarding the bloody history of Christians, the Muslim would remind them of Twentieth Century Europe, a continent of Christians that had embraced Christianity for hundreds of years. Then he would remind us that nothing in Muslim history even comes close to that.
3.30.2008 3:05pm
Liberal Laura:
Dave N.

I do distinguish between those who practice Islam as a religion and the Islamist radicals of al-Qaeda and Iran. Unfortunately, this 15 minute documentary did not.


And that's your perspective. When Wilders starts calling for the expulsion of all Muslims and persecution of Islamic practices, I'll agree with you. I am suggesting that you should presume Wilders a reasonable man and frame his commentary in that fashion until given clear sign to the contrary. That's part of the quid-pro-quo of dialog and discussion right?

As for the population numbers: Violent and Moderate Islam has been around for a while. A reasonable person might ask: why are we concerned now? The answer is there is a large Islamic population in Europe (there wasn't one before), and there appears to be an increasing level of violence and discord.
3.30.2008 4:08pm
nylaw58 (mail):
What in FITNA do its opponents have a problem with. Verses of the Quran and video of Muslim acting in accordance with the Quran.

Is there issue with the truth? FITNA seems only to be a compilation of true events. Perhaps the only thing objectionable is the cartoon of Mohammad.
3.30.2008 4:20pm
Gordon (mail):
As a Brit I must express my shame wrt our response to the fatwa against Rushdie. At the very least the governement should have left false trails pointing to where Rushdie was hiding, with the the hope of drawing potential assasins into a trap and gunning a few dozen of them down.
3.30.2008 4:27pm
NickM (mail) (www):

Regarding the bloody history of Christians, the Muslim would remind them of Twentieth Century Europe, a continent of Christians that had embraced Christianity for hundreds of years. Then he would remind us that nothing in Muslim history even comes close to that.


Ever hear of Tamerlane?

Nick
3.30.2008 5:25pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
If anyone wants a copy that is formatted for the iPod, come back tonight to this space tonight. I'll post a link to download it when I get home.
3.30.2008 5:43pm
Sam Hall (mail):
"Regarding the bloody history of Christians, the Muslim would remind them of Twentieth Century Europe, a continent of Christians that had embraced Christianity for hundreds of years. Then he would remind us that nothing in Muslim history even comes close to that."

Are you saying that WWI &WWII were caused by Christians acting on a biblical command? Get real. Only Muslims have done that for hundreds of years.
3.30.2008 6:02pm
Elliot123 (mail):

"Ever hear of Tamerlane?"

Sure. He gets honorable mention, but can't compete with the 20th Cnetury Europeans.


"Are you saying that WWI &WWII were caused by Christians acting on a biblical command? Get real. Only Muslims have done that for hundreds of years."


No. The Mulsim observes they were caused by Chrisians in a continent that had been Christian since before Mohamed was born. He also observes the sordid history of European Christians' treatment of Jews, the treatment by organized Christianity, pograms after religious Passion Plays, and how that cultural legacy culminated in the death of six million Jews in a Christian nation.

So, the folks from each religion who want to equate the other religion with mindless violence have lots of material. I'm not sure why it matters. Would we react any differently to attacks if they came from atheists?
3.30.2008 6:25pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Since Goebbels has already been mentioned several times, how about putting this into a nazi context? The Islamists are the nazis and the 'ordinary' Moslems are the ordinary, apolitical Germans. Didn't the nazis draw effective support from the ordinary Germans who just went to work and paid taxes? And didn't the ordinary Germans harm the world by providing that support?

Maybe the only sin most Moslems are committing is keeping their heads down, but sometimes that's sin enough.
3.30.2008 6:28pm
whit:
many christians think that mormons are either not christians at all, weird cultists, or even evil...

yet...

mormons routinely go to majority catholic, protestant etc. countries and are free to proselytize, do missionary work, attempt to convert, etc. with no significant fears.

i have a friend who just got back from ecuadorian mission. no problems, except he said the food sucked and there were lots of bugs :)

i double dog DARE you to try this sort of missionary work in any muslim country.

there is simply no comparison. i detest moral equivalence because it denies facts. it denies reality.

i can't think of anywhere in a majority christian country where i couldn't walk around with a yamulke on my head, a talmud in my hand, and feel completely safe.

can the same be said in majority muslim countries.

let's stop playing silly equivalency games.
3.30.2008 6:51pm
Brian K (mail):
i double dog DARE you to try this sort of missionary work in any muslim country.

aside from the childishness of the claim...

a mormon ex-coworker of mine was pulled out of iraq when the US invasion started. He was going to go back and finish his 2 year mission at a different middle east country, but i stopped working there and don't know if he ever did. and a small group of people i know are biking across the middle east. i don't remember the exact route they are traveling by, but i know they are going through iran. do those count?
3.30.2008 7:55pm
LM (mail):
PersonFromPorlock,

Talk about false equivalences.... A German population of about eighty million drove a military economy that supported one of the larges armed forces in the world. And not only was their country the aggressor in the deadliest war in history, but it was led by a maniac who made no bones about his agenda, and built a theretofore unheard of industry for efficient extermination of civilian populations. And despite all that, most people would still agree that the average German citizen bore only a fraction of the moral culpability of those who planned and engaged directly in the atrocities.

And you think that's comparable to holding a billion and half people spread across the world responsible for the unconscionable behavior of several thousand terrorists hiding out here and there in small bands and cells, acting under the banner of no country, and with whom they share only a religious identity? Seriously?
3.30.2008 9:00pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
A version of Fitna ready to be put on your video iPod. Enjoy:
3.30.2008 9:40pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Elliot.
Big, big difference.
A Christian puts God first. If there is a problem choosing between what he thinks God wants and what he thinks the USA wants, the Christian will choose the former.
A Muslim in the same bind has an additional option. His choices are to do his duty as he thinks Allah would want him to, or to act as would benefit Islam. There is no option for a Christian similar to the last choice.
Islam's view of itself in the world is DIFFERENT from Christianity's view.
Therefore, a Muslim's view of his duty to his faith will be different.
3.30.2008 10:07pm
Elliot123 (mail):

"A Christian puts God first. If there is a problem choosing between what he thinks God wants and what he thinks the USA wants, the Christian will choose the former."



The Muslim would ask where these Christians are. He'd ask if Christians decided god wanted them to rip each other apart in the first half of the 20th Century. He'd ask if god wanted Jerusalem slaughtered in the Crusades. He'd ask if god wanted the Albegensians slaughtered. He'd ask if god wanted the European religious wars. He'd ask if god wanted the Jews gassed. He'd say the Christians have a nice theory, but if they typically choose what god wants, then god must love violence.

Then he might ask if you are just speaking of a new Christian idea developed in the last fifty years.
3.30.2008 10:31pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
Ithaqua -

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a "final solution" in the way of the Holocaust to the Islam problem. What I hear is two things (and I hear them from many sources):

1) Perhaps we need to separate ourselves from Islam until Islam starts acting in ways compatible with Western (and Eastern - China, India, Japan etc.) civilization. In short until they grow up and stop the violent Jihad action. This may mean, stopping immigration of Muslims into the West; it may even mean deporting many of those Muslims currently in the West. We're not talking a small problem here, not with the Islamic nations' capability of making Weapons of Mass Destruction and death - particular chemical and biological weapons (Although al Qaeda is likely to be in possession of nuclear bombs obtained from the former Soviet Union)....

2) On occasion, local armed defense and international military action may prove necessary. War ain't beanbag; the idea is to kill and wound enough of the enemy to force him to surrender and give in to your demands.

If we are not willing to stand up in our own cause, defend our (mostly) Judeo-Christian Western civilization, then we probably ought to turn over the government to the Saudis and bin Laden and have done with it. If all you brain-dead liberals out there don't mind, I happen to think that J-C Western civ is worth fighting for, whatever you may think.
3.30.2008 11:28pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
Gordon -

I don't think the British government believes in gunning anyone down anymore, They certainly don't believe in letting their citizens ("subjects?") own weapons or defend themselves with them. I suspect that the cancer has spread....



By the way, with regard to the term "propaganda," while it does sometimes have negative connotations, it basically means information or advertising (and in Britain is often used in that way). The root, of course, comes from propagate, meaning to spread and promote ideas and information.
3.30.2008 11:41pm
LM (mail):
Brooks,

Which Muslims would you deport?
3.30.2008 11:50pm
whit:
i cannot BELIEVE you are this ignorant that you actuaklly prove my point without even realizing it.

in catholic and protestant etc. countries mormons do proselytizing work. in muslim countries they DON'T. they do primarily humanitarian work. they are specifically PROHIBITED from trying to proselytize people - for their OWN safety. most of these countries CRIMINALIZE Proselytization of muslim. and the LDS church specifically instructs its members NOT to proselytize in those countries.

thank you for proving my point. i didn;t say mormons didn't have a presence in majority muslim countries. my point was that they specifically DON'T proselytize there, and are forbidden to do so - in most cases by explicit legal codes of these countries, as well as by the church which doesn't want DEAD MISSIONARIES.

"In 1989, Jordan became the first Arab country to grant formal recognition to the Church, allowing it to establish the Center for Cultural and Educational Affairs in Amman. The governments in these countries have allowed the Church, along with other non-Muslim groups, to hold services and other activities as long as they are unobtrusive and their members respect Islamic laws and traditions, including the restriction against proselytizing among the Muslim populace"
3.31.2008 12:36am
Elliot123 (mail):
Whit,

Muslim countries have a variety of laws regarding proselytizing. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country and Mormons are active and safe there. The same is true of Malaysia. Islam spans a wide variety of cultures, and often Westerners mistake cultural characteristics of one Muslim country to be universal in every Muslim coutry. There is a world of difference between Arabs and Indonesians, yet they are both Muslims.
3.31.2008 1:45am
Brian K (mail):
Whit,

i cannot BELIEVE you are this ignorant that you actuaklly [sic] prove my point without even realizing it.

I don't think you should be using big words like "ignorant" when you have yet to master the art of reading (and spelling).

Where in my post did I say what my mormon ex-coworker was doing? You seem to think I said he was doing solely humanitarian work and not proselytizing, so point out where I wrote such a thing. I said he was on a 2 year mission. you might want to look up just what that entails. (you can go here)

you might want to pull your head out of your own butt one day and look at the real world rather than the fantasy one you live in, because the way he told it he most certainly was proselytizing.

And oh yeah, as elliot123 already mentioned, Jordan and Iraq are two separate countries. this means they will have different laws and different levels of enforcement of those laws (you are a cop, aren't you? shouldn't you know that the laws of canada are not the same as the laws of the US?). i guess this means you might want to learn a thing or two about geography in addition to reading.
3.31.2008 4:09am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Elliot.
Nice point, if somewhat obsolete.
The real point here is that some Muslims think Islam on Earth is part of Allah's plan. And killing is just dan and finedy.
That's now.
Of course, the worst killers of Muslims are other Muslims, which, somehow, doesn't seem to piss off surviving Muslims all that much. Not nearly as much as, say, a movie or a cartoon.
A good deal here which is curious and making false equivalences isn't useful.
3.31.2008 10:16am
Elliot123 (mail):

"The real point here is that some Muslims think Islam on Earth is part of Allah's plan. And killing is just dan and finedy."


I believe it's Catholic doctrine that the Catholic Church is god's plan on earth. History shows that killing was just fine and dandy.


"A good deal here which is curious and making false equivalences isn't useful."


Nor is making false differences between two groups with very violent histories particularly useful. I'm still not sure why it matters what either religion believes. I'd suggest that actual behavior by real people is far more important than relgious doctrine.

However, it is interesting that some folks seem to think most Muslims are faithful to all Islamic teachings. That sure isn't the case with Christians. If Christians routinely ignore Christian teachings, isn't it reasonable that Muslims routinely ignore Islamic teachings?
3.31.2008 12:08pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Elliott.
As I say, your point wrt Christians is obsolete. "Deus vult" is not on anybody's tank barrel these days.
Indeed, Isaiah 6-8 is prety popular, though

The problem is not solely the nutcases like the Toronto 17, the Ft. Dix Six, the 9-11 guys, the Achille Lauro murderers, et tedious cetera. It's that they come from a secure infrastructure which includes, as the British cops are finding out when investigating honor killings, substantial community resistance to authority.
While the Toronto 17 may be only 17, 84,000 of their brethren, according to a poll, thought it was a good idea.
3.31.2008 3:26pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"As I say, your point wrt Christians is obsolete. "Deus vult" is not on anybody's tank barrel these days.
Indeed, Isaiah 6-8 is prety popular, though"


Has Christianity changed? Is there a Christianity that has become obsolete? How? What is different? Have the violent sections of the OT been purged? Has the interpretation of the bible changed? Is the Holocaust obsolete?

"The problem is not solely the nutcases like the Toronto 17, the Ft. Dix Six, the 9-11 guys, the Achille Lauro murderers, et tedious cetera. It's that they come from a secure infrastructure which includes, as the British cops are finding out when investigating honor killings, substantial community resistance to authority.
While the Toronto 17 may be only 17, 84,000 of their brethren, according to a poll, thought it was a good idea."


I agree. We should deal with actual behavior. I don't care what they believe or why. I only care about actions. It doesn't matter what the religion of the killer is. Do we deal with a Muslim killer differently than we deal with a Christian killer?

Nor do I care about their brethren. On what basis are they brothers? How many other brothers disagree? Does it matter? Last I read a substantial number of American Christians thought Katrina was god's punishment. Should we care?
3.31.2008 4:16pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Elliott
There is a difference, especially if you're a Muslim, between "Deus Vult" and Isaiah 6-8. Or there should be.

The folks who thought Katrina was God's punishment weren't in a position to crank up another hurricane.

The problem with the 84,000 believers is the support the nutcases can count on.

They are brothers because they claim they are.
Consider that Sami al Arian might have been charged more severely if a Muslim FBI agent had not refused to wear a wire against a brother Muslim.

The question is not about dealing with the killer. It's about dealing with a population which generates a number of nutcases bent on mass slaughter.
3.31.2008 4:20pm
LM (mail):
Richard,

The 84,000 are relevant only as an audience for persuasion, unless you're in favor of punishing thought crimes. If the FBI agent broke a rule, punish him. Otherwise, it's his business why he did what he had a right to do. What do you suggest for groups that produce criminal nutcases, other than prosecuting the criminals? Obviously half the world produces more than their share of criminals. We can probably fit most of them into some convenient demographic to target. Isn't guilt by association something this country was founded to get away from?
3.31.2008 5:12pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"The question is not about dealing with the killer. It's about dealing with a population which generates a number of nutcases bent on mass slaughter."

OK. So how do we deal with the Christian population that produces so many criminals in the US?
3.31.2008 5:26pm
davod (mail):
How many Chritians in the US are bent on mass slaughter?
4.1.2008 8:17am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Elliott
The audience for persuasion in Canada is the entire 700,000. The 84,000 are the convinced. They can be counted on for at least passive support, i.e. not calling the cops, and so forth.
A scary number, about a third, of Brit-born Muslims under thirty thought the subway bombings were a good idea.
I can think of no other similar example. The only possibility which occurs to me is that the Sudeten Germans really did want to be liberated, but I've never seen anything on that.
The infamous Minneapolis cabbies and booze issue has been reported as if it were their idea. Instead, according to some reports, the cabbies had never thought of it until the local MSA told them what they had to do.
It would be like some Baptists being told that, in addition to no drinking and dancing, they couldn't do work on Sundays and they should call over to St. Mike's to get some folks to turn on the oven for them. And then doing it.
The equivalences you keep trying for don't really match.

Your question about what to do is a technique for shutting down the discussion of the issue altogether.
And nobody's said anything about thought crimes.
Your imputation of such, which nobody said, is a clear indication you're on the defensive with few actual....ideas.
4.1.2008 9:34am
Elliot123 (mail):
"How many Chritians in the US are bent on mass slaughter?"

Every year thousands of them kill others. They rape, steal, and assault. Each year they kill far more than all those who died on 9/11. Christians have been responsible for far more killing of Americans since 911. I'd say this was massive. How will we deal with this population?

They are not just bent on it. They do it everyday, all over the country.
4.1.2008 12:15pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Your question about what to do is a technique for shutting down the discussion of the issue altogether."

In that case, you are to be commended for not shutting down. Next thing we know someone will want to pass laws mandating business closing on the sabbath.

Actually, I'd say a Christian killing an innocent person is equivalent to a Muslim killing an innocent person. Dead is dead. And we can see both groups have had lots of practice
4.1.2008 12:21pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Elliott

Not to break your train of thought or anything, but Christian churches aren't promoting the killing of non-Christians as a religious duty.

The killings by Christians you speak of have two characteristics: One is they are condemned by other Christians. The other is that you don't know these perps are Christians. All you know is that they were born in a predominately Christian country.

There is a mosque in Tulsa. One of the members wrote an op-ed suggesting Islam disown terrorism. He was thrown out of the mosque, threatened with violence. He was offered the opportunity to get back in if he'd forswear his earlier comments.

I asked a few folks who were touting the huge number of moderate Muslims about this. Where are they in this situation? The Mod Mus, I mean.
I suggested the mosque in question ought to be empty while all the moderates get together and start one of their own.
Yeah, said the touters. That's it. That's what they're doing.
Only they're not.

That the solutions are difficult to conceive means to you, Elliott, that the question must be discredited.

That's fine in the world of words. In the real world, sometimes stuff just, you know, actually happens.
4.1.2008 1:35pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"That's fine in the world of words. In the real world, sometimes stuff just, you know, actually happens."

I agree. So, why keep telling us about the words of Muslims. Word in the Quran, words in the mosque, words in a poll.
4.1.2008 2:13pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):

Jeez, Elliott. Can you get any more desperate?
The words are important because they have been associated with acts and that means it's likely that current words will be associated with more acts.

I think we'll be a step ahead if we can have a discussion in which nobody says, "During the Crusades..." and instead says, "We've got a problem." Or, "We don't have a problem." The latter can be discussed. Disingenous digressions are both unhelpful and transparent.
Think of something else.
4.1.2008 2:44pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"The words are important because they have been associated with acts and that means it's likely that current words will be associated with more acts."

OK. Glad we are back in the world of words again.

So, how do we deal with that extremely violent Christian population? It's been churning out murders for 1500 years..
4.1.2008 3:02pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
I guess, Elliott, that your equivalence schtick is the equivalent of a banky.
Hold on to it.
You might need it. Put a couple of corners in your ears, and use some of it to cover your eyes.
4.1.2008 8:44pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Thanks for the advice. Do you think it will protect against the rampaging Christians who killed nearly 100,000 Americans since 911? How are we going to deal with the Christian population that generates these people?
4.2.2008 1:17am
SG:
The tu quoque "argument" is inane. It's not only a logical fallacy in the first place, but it's not even being applied correctly. The point is not the there are Muslims who kill, it's that some Muslims are killing explicitly in the name of Islam. How many people today are being killed explicitly in the name Christ? That's the relevant contemporary point of comparison to Islam, not that there are Christians who kill.

Of course you can certainly go back in history to find plenty examples of barbarism in the name of Christ but, unless you are defending those events, it still doesn't excuse what some Muslims are doing today. In fact, the historical record reinforces the need to condemn the actions of jihadists today; we know with the clarity of hindsight that using violence to spread your religion is profoundly unjust. Even if you were to correctly identify instances of Christian barbarity, it still doesn't excuse what's occurring today with militant Islam.

Of course I assume you know all this. I doubt anyone reading and posting here would be so ignorant and illogical as to seriously make the argument you're making. So what's your real motivation behind defending jihad?
4.2.2008 12:26pm
LM (mail):
It's not my place to speak for Elliot, but why should that stop me? This argument stems from comments up the thread that painted Islamic extremism with a broad enough brush to cover more innocent Muslims than guilty ones. I think his point (even if I'm wrong, take it mine) is that death by terrorist is the same as death by mugger, drunk driver, hurricane or heart attack. Which for this discussion means:

1. Modern Christianity having no moral equivalent to Islamic terrorism doesn't justify indiscriminate responses, even in words only. If we could separate this debate from the emotions triggered by having a declared enemy, it would be uncontroversial to say Americans don't believe in holding hundreds of millions of people guilty by religious association. But that's what lots of us are doing. It's part angry reaction, and part moral superiority. Which is where I think Elliot's comments come in. I don't think he means to attack Christianity per se, but rather to make the Christian point about motes and beams.

2. All that emotionalism does a pretty good job of distracting us from handling this threat in a cost-benefit context with our other liabilities and our resources for addressing them.
4.2.2008 10:16pm
LM (mail):

take it as mine.

And please take my failing eyesight with it.
4.2.2008 10:19pm