Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film 874
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.
Here's the BBC article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hum (Score:2, Informative)
Re:hum (Score:5, Informative)
No, I guess they just go regular bombing. [cnn.com]
Not Surprising From NetSol (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Informative)
If it says 'Non-Muslims are wrong, you are commanded to kill them', then yes, when I am king that will be banned.
But I've heard many moderate Muslims state that no such instruction exists.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Informative)
On topic here I agree with others that have said since NS didn't have any first-hand knowledge of the movie content then they shouldn't have shut down the site.
Re:hum (Score:2, Informative)
No, just an abortion clinic or two. They're too cowardly to blow themselves up with it.
They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
No, but they've come pretty close [washingtonpost.com].
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
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 [bbc.co.uk] 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."
Re:hum (Score:3, Informative)
Got any stats to back that up, or are you just pulling opinions out of your ass?
Here's a suvey of "moderate", American muslims [muslimsfor...merica.org]. If these are the opinions held by Muslims who have lived in, and, theoretically, been further liberalized by exposure to our society, how do you think the rest of the Muslim world would answer these questions?
Re:hum (Score:5, Informative)
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 [bbc.co.uk] 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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (Score:1, Informative)
So where is the 95% condemning the killing of innocents? -- No where
So where it the 95% condemning all the crap that happened after the publication of cartoons? -- No where
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php [muhajabah.com]
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html [juancole.com]
http://www.americanmuslimwoman.com/id14.html [americanmuslimwoman.com]
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm [unc.edu]
Genocide? or self defense (Score:0, Informative)
Well, that, and the fact just prior to the "massacre" the muslims were murdering Christians like crazy.
But you make it sound as though the muslims were just sitting 'round sipping tea and were suddenly massacred. It's called war and it occurred because islam and (basically every other religion) are mutually exclusive.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Informative)
What an absurd statement. Clearly some Dutch do, as they're not completely unsuccessful in elections.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
The verse of the sword [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:hum (Score:2, Informative)
Let's see:
KKK - (Burned, bombed, decapitated) They claimed it was their god given right. Slave owners did the same
Army of God - (Use deadly force to blow up abortion clinics)
Nagaland for Christ - Terrorist attacks against Indian Army (the largest demacracy in the world)
Tsar Lazar Guard - First uniformed Christian "militia" group. Classified by NATO as a terrorist organization
God's Army -a Christian revolutionary group in armed rebellion against the military government of Burma.
National Liberation Front of Tripura - Ethnic cleansing and bombings
North Ireland Terrorism - Long before arabs started it, the protestants were bombing the catholics
Lord's Resistance Army Lord's Resistance Army - Torture, Rape, use of child soldiers
the list goes on....I remember the October group or something in Greece had a large christian motive against the orthodox church, also that armenian group that bombed several masks in turkey and killed 3 university students (anti islam christians). Chstrian god is the same as islam, and so is there history and modern acts of terrorism. theres a ton in south america, you just don't hear about them becuase u live in a pro-christian country where a recent survey indicated that Gays were hated less than atheists...http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/24/atheists-hated-more-than-gays-muslims-all-other-groups.htm [about.com]
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:hum (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:3, Informative)
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 [jihadwatch.org]:
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
Re:hum (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hum (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Informative)
The clause says "Congress shall make no law..". It doesn't say "Network Solutions can't be a bunch of idiots and kick people off their web servers for publishing unpopular content."
Re:hum (Score:2, Informative)
Oh really?
Matthew 10:34-39
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
or Psalm 137:8-9
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Lots more where that came from. If all this is open to interpretation, then so is the Qur'an... or no?
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Informative)
Network Solutions has no problem with Hizbollah (Score:4, Informative)
Network Solutions has no problem with Hizbollah
http://english.hizbollah.org/index.php [hizbollah.org]
WHOIS:
https://my.mirahost.com/order/viewwhois.php?domain=hizbollah&ext=org [mirahost.com]
Re:Islamic perspective : asma bint marwan (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html [usc.edu]
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
Exegesis of 4:76 [tafsir.com]: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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Informative)
The verse is not presented in any historical context without an accompanying man-made text. The Othmanic reclension stripped the text of any temporal markings - effectively re-writing the words of your God in a method that the first Caliph found pleasing; and there are Hadith in Bukhari that describe the verses that were not included or lost.
At least modern Christians are not disingenuous about the man-written nature of the Bible. The Koran is not directly unevolved from the lips of your God - it was contaminated during the reclension.
On the other hand, if the Koran is merely a collection of sayings that are Mohammed's (god-claimed) rulings over events in the seventh century, all it is is a collection of the judicial precedent as written by an illiterate (7:157) who claimed to see God. You'd be better off asking a guy with advanced-stage syphilis his thoughts about the modern world. At least he would probably know that the Christian trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not Allah, Jesus and Mary (5:116) and that sperm doesn't come from the backside (86:6-7)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:3, Informative)
Your use of the term "encourages" is vague.
If the film tells people directly to go out an punch a Muslim, then perhaps it should be banned. But based on interviews with the author, it's pretty clear that it doesn't.
What the film does do is make an argument that Islam is an inherently violent and fascist religion, and it shows atrocities committed in the name of Islam in recent years. That may make some people angry and encourage them to go out and "punch a Muslim", but it is not a justification for banning the film.
In fact, Wilders does not condemn all Muslims, he condemns Islam. There's a difference. He's basically saying that there are many good, law-abiding Muslims who have found some kind of accommodation between the Koran and modern, liberal democracies. But that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the Koran.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Informative)
You can get an idea of what his position is by listening to an interview with him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc [youtube.com]
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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification [wikipedia.org]
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, and let's just ignore the fact that:
If that's how this administration punishes its "enemies", where do I sign up to become one?
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:1, Informative)
As long as it fits YOUR definition of a hate crime, right? One man's offensive words are another man's free speech. I'm guessing that you have a profound ignorance of human nature...
"Additionally, most Muslims do not believe in hurting non-muslims/atheists or conversion through force."
Really? You've visited most of the Muslim-dominated regions of the world? I know some missionary friends who would disagree with your assessment very much.
"Don't let a few bad apples taint your perception of the whole."
See, the thing is, these supposedly few bad apples keep coming up with dastardly plans like flying airplanes into office buildings full of unsuspecting civilians, blowing up European trains and buses, or strapping bombs onto retarded people and sending them into crowded markets to be detonated.
"I'm sure some sheik in some rural part of Iraq probably depicts the West by giving examples of the KKK; do you want to stoop to that level?"
Really, do you know what you are talking about? Would a rural shaik even know about the KKK? I'm sure American history is a THOROUGHLY covered topic in the highly-educated region that is rural Iraq. I'm SURE they can't come up with some more recent, local, and relevant examples of racism.
"...on a website where I usually find informative and balanced opinions..."
You must be new here...
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure it also doesn't matter that Plame herself could not verify she fit the definition of a "covert agent" -- this while under oath and testifying in front of the Congressional inquiry. The CIA itself could not verify she had covert status at the time of the disclosure, and in the meantime Plame's neighbors testified she made no secret of her work at the CIA. Seems she wasn't particularly eager to keep her work under wraps at all...at least, not until it was politically convenient to do so.
Also, let's not forget that Plame was made so "miserable" (to use your adjective) at being "outed" that, in order to avoid more public intrusion into her life, her husband wrote a book about the whole affair and loudly promoted it on a nationwide book tour. Plame herself has delivered paid speaking engagements on the affair. She's making far more money now than she ever did for the CIA. Yep, nothing but misery here. But don't let that get in the way of you screaming, frothing, and vituperating that it's all the fault of some vast right-wing Bush Conspiracy(tm).
Re:lol, but of course it's always more complicated (Score:3, Informative)
I live in the US - we have tons of nutty, racist or homophobic groups running around. Some make news, but never on this scale. Why not? Because whatever negative things may be said about 'Americans' one thing we as a nation do reasonably well (not perfectly, but reasonably) is let asshats speak. Then we ignore them, and they generally fade into the woodwork. A Few examples:
- Nation of Islam. Hasn't gotten much bigger over the last 40 years, despite all the hoopla when Louis Farrakhan calls whites 'Blue eyed devils' or such from time to time.
- A tiny church in rural Arkansas (I believe) that pickets the funerals of dead servicemembers because they believe god is allowing US soldiers to die because America tolerates Gays and Lesbians. No kidding. Point and laugh, they get media attention, but no one takes them seriously, except as a bunch of asshats.
The big deal here is not some (alleged) wingnut politician and a 15-minute film - it is the anticipation of a few million oversensitized Muslims (note: I am not saying *all* muslims are oversensitised, I am saying some are) rioting and killing each other and a few innocent bystanders in reaction to a film that in the grand scheme of things makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. Oh, except the people who get mauled by the rioters.
Freedom of speech is about being able to speak your mind without fear of censorship or 'undue' consequence - i.e., being murdered for said speech. I submit a part and parcel of that freedom is the freedom to ignore anothers' freely-made speech, or respond with your own. To those Muslims who may be offended by this film (which no one has as yet seen):
1. Make your own film. Blaspheme Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, etc. as you see fit. Watch as the rest of the world refrains from rioting and killing people over it.
2. Prepare a point-for-point rebuttal of the films' key themes and arguments once you see it. Upload the rebuttal to Youtube. Observe how people will listen to you and consider what you have said.
3. Ignore this film when it is released. See how fast is falls off the memetic map.
In the US, unlike Europe, speech that is controversial or even factually wrong is allowed, unless it is actually defamatory toward a person. You can't say someone is a prositute unless you can back it up with proof, but you may publicly deny the holocaust here all you like, in print and in person. The US also has more Jews than Israel. You might expect then that such denial would be a big deal, right? Wrong. The only media coverage of holocaust denial we really see here is when some idiot who writes a book on it goes to Germany and gets arrested for holocaust denial, or an occasional overwrought member of B'Nai Brith crying in the media about antisemitism and pointing to three pointy-headed rednecks in rural Nebraska who have a pro-Nazi website set up, thus gaining the neo-nazis more media attantion than they ever would have received had BB never said anything about them at all.
I'll go out on a limb and further state that despite the fact that we have a frightening number of 'new Earth' creationists here and American secondary education is terrible, asshats who deny the holocaust are vanishingly few and of no importance in the American media environment. Yes, you can tell the 'big lie' over and over, but it only sticks if you can make it stick by removing competing messages. In a truly free-speech environment, lies can't survive over the long-term or gain real traction because more people are concerned with truth than with lying (we can debate exactly what proportion, but it only takes >50% for truth to eventually win).
Take the 'free speech' lesson from us, oh enraged Muslim masses. It is far more effective to say 'Eh. She/he is an asshat. Ignore them.' The Asshats will go away, and pretty quickly at that. Paying attention to them, though, will make them breed like roaches. Or trolls.