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.
I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Funny)
No? Me either, but hey, it'd be fun to try.
Re: (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:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Insightful)
The movie is most likely just a rant about the danger of trying to use ancient religious texts to rule peoples lives today. Regardless of that, I'm sure Muslims will take offence, since any criticism will cause them to take offence. These people just have a hard time dealing with free and open societies, and like to purport that their religious feelings deserve extra constitutional protection.
In a free marketplace of ideas like western Europe, asking for this kind of protection under the law for your ideas gives a rather obvious indication of the lack of confidence in those ideas in my opinion. But then, i don't claim to understand religious people.
I'm offended (Score:5, Interesting)
How many complaints does it take to shut down a site? Let's pick one at random, and get it shut down. Then pick another...
Re:I declare a fatwah! HEY - EVERYTHING IS OBJE... (Score:3, Insightful)
EVERYTHING is objectionable to someone. You either close down the entire Internet, or none of it. No picking and choosing in-between.
I declare a counter-Fatwah (Score:3, Funny)
So, being SubGenius myself and rather abhorrent of any and all religions, does anyone else think that I can get NetSol to close down any and all religious websites that they currently host?
Speaking as a Discordian myself, I approve of people of all religions getting their panties in a twist and trying to blow each other to smithereens. It's exciting fun and makes for fantastic television. It would go against my beliefs to take any of these religious websites down. I therefore find it necessary to declare a counter-Fatwah on you! Double double neener neener to you, good sir. And all that.
Onward Christian Soldiers,
Onward Buddhist Priests.
Onward, Fruits of Islam,
Fight till you're de
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Funny)
lol, but of course it's always more complicated... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't... I severely despise everything he stands for, yet I will fight for his right to say so. Even if the movie is offensive and inflamatory (and no one has seen it yet), I think if we ban this or any other speech, it's not just bad for "free speech" but mostly, a threat to an open society. I think his kind would never have gained the support if we would all allow him to say whatever stupid things he wants. When it's not allowed to talk about it, all good reasons against it aren't heard either. I say, let's view his inflamotory, hatefull movie and laugh about / discuss it.
That said... I really fear what will happen to him, cos we can't really expect a guy that's so full of **** and so much in the public spotlight to *not* get some crazy muslim to kill him... I mean, I hope it doesn't happen and just degrades to another "Jan Maat", but if he does get killed (and he's really working hard to make that a reality) his views will only be adopted even more... and he will have gained more support in death than he ever could in life...
Re:lol, but of course it's always more complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points.
Re:lol, but of course it's always more complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the GP deftly avoided the blanket statement you fell for: "certain groups." Just like with Theo van Gogh (for the rest of the world: a cinematographer who made a short film about women's rights under the Koran and was killed by a crazy Muslim) there will be crazy folks with an axe to grind.
About the validity of Wilders' points, I'm sure we can find good sides to every person. I also think that the Netherlands as a nation is worse off with this clown in our parliament. The man is one-issue (rest of the world: the issue being "there are too many foreigners in the Netherlands.") He's trying to instill fear in the Dutch people, fear of the Islam and of foreigners in general. There's a word for it: xenophobia. In a multi cultural society like ours, xenophobia is a bad thing.
In this Saturday's Volkskrant, there was a large piece about all kinds of Islamic groups in the Netherlands, like the LBM (Landelijk Beraad Marokkanen / National Morocan Society) actually and actively defending the Dutch government and society by sending messages to Islamic "hot zones" explaining our stance in the matter, telling them how well integrated they are, how many mosques there are in the Netherlands, etc. The piece is titled "We're not Denmark," an unfortunate title for a text that communicates openness, referring to the Mohammed cartoons.)
Of note is the anti-movement on Youtube: people posting short films saying sorry, titled "Fitna by Geert Wilders", in the hope that a search for the film will yield only apologies.
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society. If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament. I think it's very unfortunate that he's getting so much attention, especially from abroad. People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
no one is forcing these muslims to watch it, yet they think their being offended gives them the right to tell me what i can and cannot make up my own mind about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, uh... how is that not free speech? Telling someone to commit violence is a far cry from actually inciting violence.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is precisely freedom of offensive speech, particularly offensive political speech. When the party in power in a givernment can arrest an opposition party member or candidate (or censor his speech) for simply stating his platform, democracy is over.
I believe the term for inoffensively destroying democracy is "velvet fascism". It seems to be gaining ground in a great many countries. You should be outraged by this!
More rights you don't have... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Freedom from being offended.
- I've actually heard people who think that offending a person audibly is equally punishable as assaulting a person physically. When I tried to argue this idea, they kept yelling "It's the same thing. It's the same thing. It's the same F---ing thing."
2. Freedom _from_, not _of_, religion.
- It's arguable (as are all things regarding religion http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Usage_notes [wiktionary.org] ), but everyone has a religion. (Religion as in a person's believe _regarding_, not necessarily in, deities.) So, just because you are an atheist, you don't have a right to total isolation from religion. Although I sympathize at how annoyed you must be.
3. Constitutional right to vote.
- This was even spoke of recently by Barack Obama. I'm disturbed to see how many people think the U.S. Constitution affords them a right to vote. The truth is, the Federal Government only restricts the criteria that can be used for denying a person the privilege of voting. Your state's constitution may protect additional rights, but that is rarely ever spoken of. I think that it would increase voter turn out if we properly described voting as a privilege instead of a right.
4. The right to drive an automobile.
- This is certainly a privilege, not a right. It is also a privilege that is too freely granted, and too infrequently denied or revoked.
Please feel free to contribute to the list. I guess you have the _right_ to argue with it too, but why would you want to?
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't see anything about, "unless it's speech we really, really don't like," in there at all, do you?
I declare Network Solutions a bad citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
This demonstrates the problem with allowing private organizations to serve as the gateway to the network. The nets, like the roads, should be a public resource; otherwise, they're going to be filtered by the views and fears of those entities providing access.
This is a perfect example: Network Solutions is in no way the author of, or the sponsor of, this content, but they will filter it because they don't want to be another target of violent factions of Islam or hordes of politically correct, censorship-minded people / investors. So the site is censored. Today it is someone speaking out against superstition and violent social coercion; tomorrow it may be a site against the drug war, or one against the war in Iraq. Or one that speaks out against your local school board. Or one that promotes Catholicism over Protestantism.
Personally, I think access-provider censorship is the kind of behavior the FCC really ought to be watching for, if they were really looking out for us. But of course, they aren't. They're watching out for corporate interests. And of course, Network Solutions is a corporation.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to admit I'm getting sick of this sloppy liberal referencing to 9/11 as the day the US became a fascist dictatorship. It's the modern equivilent of
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. Surely you can appreciate that some stuff should be banned. (Kiddie porn?) If you can get your head around that, then you must realise that in some, limited instances, the right to offend is superseded by the right not to be harmed.
How can I decide whether it's right to ban the film if I'm not allowed to see it? I am an adult and I reserve the right to self-censor. I don't need you or anyone else telling me what is good for me to watch, or what may cause me to "go out and punch a muslim [sic]".
This is not the "right not to be harmed". This is pure and arbitrary censorship. In some Muslim countries, the most vicious anti-Semitic and anti-Christian propaganda is freely broadcast for all to enjoy. See MEMRI [memri.org] for translations of t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Long ago. Where were you, in a cave? In the nation with the world's most advanced concepts and legal frameworks relating to liberty, in order to Save The [insert fear-inspiring potential Victims here], free speech is not free; freedom of religion is not freedom; the explicit right to keep and bear arms is no right; the commerce clause is the inverse commerce clause; the orderly and specific requirements of probable cause, oath or affirmation, warrant, and then search have become search, followed, perhaps, by warrant; the freedom from incriminating one's self has become the freedom to be tortured until you speak the desired confession; the absolute dictate against ex post facto laws spawns them instead of stopping them; enforcement of the prohibition against being deprived of property without due process is only a dim memory; and the government wages a violent war against personal and consensual adult choices in such a way as to create black markets of equal violence and danger.
Certainly, more remains to be lost. So enjoy what you have now. It's only going to get worse. Save The [fitb]!
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the fact that I think this guy is an islamofobic, racist and generally unpleasant guy, I still have to disagree with you here: before having seen the film, you can't assume it contains legally or otherwise unacceptable material. It will probably do so, but we'll have to wait and see whether this is indeed the case. Until the movie has been published, the benefit of the doubt should be given to Geert Wilders, regardless of his lousy reputation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're willing to give the Koran the benefit of the doubt, why wouldn't you extend the film the same courtesy?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely private companies are free to set their own bounds?
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: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: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:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rather pointless to blame Islam, or Christianity for that matter. Both are in fact inert doctrines until they are taken up and interpreted by individuals. Martin Luther King was a Christian, but so was Jerry Falwell, and so were the Crusaders and Oliver Cromwell. Similarly, Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, but Avicenna, Abd Ar Rahman, and Suleyman the Magnificent were Muslims too.
I'm an atheist, but I admire many religious people and deplore others. It's a mixed bad. Idiots like Hitchens can pretend that religion has never done anything good, but has he ever listened to a Bach oratorio or stood in the Mezquita? Only an idiot could say religion has done nothing good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How early. Are you talking about those slaughtered by Mohammed and his men or those ransomed to pay a heavy tax to support Islamic invasion or die for their beliefs?
You know if you murder a city full of people you get to keep the money too, and you've purged the world of "infidels" and "apostates" too.
>>> "Martin Luther King was a Christian, but so was Jerr
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: (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 altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard". Ibn Kathir in his commentary on this passage quoting Al Suddi (died 745) says that since the unbelievers had manifested their unbelief they should be killed.
Abul Ala Mawdudi [1903-1979], the founder of the Jamat-i Islami, is perhaps the most influential Muslim thinker of the 20th century, being responsible for the Islamic resurgence in modern times. He called for a return to the Koran and a purified sunna as a way to revive and revitalise Islam. In his book on apostasy in Islam, Mawdudi argued that even the Koran prescribes the death penalty for all apostates. He points to sura IX for evidence:
"But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist."(IX: 11,12)
On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, I converted to Islam four years ago, and I can tell you that among the hundreds of Muslim people I know, ther
Here's the BBC article (Score:5, Informative)
Serious Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Now replace the same word with "Catholicism". Then "Buddhism". Then "Liberalism". Then Conservatism"...
Censorship over mere ideals? Sucks no matter what angle you view it from.
So, does anyone know what would happen if (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, not all Muslims are violent. Not all Muslims protest everyone else that does anything anywhere in the world that does not affect them. This whole 'insult to Islam' business is as out of control as political correctness in the US. We should start hanging signs up everywhere that state "Sharia Law not legal here" ()
The non-Muslim part of the world should be posting that loudly and proudly... to the point that ordinary Muslim peoples are ASHAMED of their violent militant Muslim friends. When other Muslims tell them to STFU and sit down perhaps the rest of us can stop worrying about stepping on the toes of Muhammed, prophet or otherwise.
No, I do not for an instant believe that Christians or Jews are any better. All the BS about Mr Gibson's movie was stupid. The crap about The Davinci Code was idiotic. The bruhaha about 'The last temptation of Christ' was ignorant. All of these religious groups that are claiming sacred right to this and that and feel they are being insulted actually need to adhere to the words in their books. Oh, but that's the problem... they think they are. Well, for all their 'righteousness' the have surely fucked this planet up.
If you feel insulted, take it as a reason to ponder for a few moments how well you live your religious beliefs. If you think I left your religion out SMACK!! You too can go ponder your religious beliefs. If when you are finished you still find that you are right to be intolerant of other people's belief systems I have a friend with a gun store and plenty of single use bullets. Use these to massage your temples and all will begin to get better in the world.
Personally I'd like to see more people making fun of ALL religions. ALL of them. If your god is almighty and doesn't want anyone to make fun of them, or tell jokes about them, or in some way portray them in ways that you don't like... well, then I suggest your god come right on down here to little old Earth and tell me about it in PERSON. I will not accept the likeness of his mother on a piece of burnt toast or a water stained wall as a sign. I will not accept that a human prophet speaks for an ALL POWERFUL god. If your god does not want me to draw cartoons or make films, he can come down and explain it in PERSON.
Perhaps that is the problem? god doesn't come down and explain things in person so when there is a challenge to god's authority religious zealots have to act before someone points out that there god is not much good at protecting his image, never mind the feeble lives of his followers?
If that makes you wonder about god... good. I do not want to believe in anything or entity whose supporters are so violent, militant, dogmatic, ignorant, disrespectful, hateful and
Yes, I know that only a small group of people hijack religion to server their militant causes. My point is that others of whatever faith should be rising up to stop such people from ruining their otherwise good intentions.
Final point is that when good people let bad people ruin their faith and do nothing to stop it, it denigrates all of them. Where are those Muslims that renounce violence? Where are the Muslims that renounce suicide bombings? Why did the Iranian vigils after 9/11 get no real news airplay?
Thanks to all the high profile religious people in the world, Atheism is the fastest growing set of beliefs in the Western World, if I can say it that way.
Re:So, does anyone know what would happen if (Score:4, Interesting)
Like I said, you need to go ponder the words of your god/prophet/book and figure out just how poorly you follow the principles of your own beliefs.
Interestingly, I had a similar problem recently (Score:4, Insightful)
Some asshole(s) took their dissatisfaction with the link in my sig to the University's administration... It being a university, rather than a commercial enterprise, I was merely forced to add an obvious disclaimer, that the views on the page are my own, rather than the school's...
Curiously, my request to see the complaint itself was denied on the ground, that there would be no way to preserve the anonymity of the complaining party(ies)... Any lawyers out there willing to file a FoIA-request on my behalf (the school is a government institution)?
These attempts to use the legal system [nysun.com] and/or bureaucracy to shut the unpleasant views down are a welcome change from killing fellow country-men to make a point — as is happening in Iraq [bbc.co.uk]. But if anybody is hoping to score sympathy-points doing it, they are doing it all wrong...
I live in Holland, and (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple and straight explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do they take Muslims seriously?
Because Muslims are standing up seriously for what they believe. They fight, they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.
That's the only thing that matters. Your values cost only as much as you are willing to pay to defend them.
Look at our history since Bush took power. He steadfastly stomped out the very rights you are so eager to cry for in every post on YRO.
What did you do? What did you do to deserve your rights? You ancestors who fought against British with arms in hands did deserve their economical freedom.
What did _you_ do to deserve your rights?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you suggesting we start bombing our senators instead?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is your values, who am I to suggest what you should do?
Let me tell you what is my value and what I am going to do if they are broken. My values is a possibility to freely practice my religion and be able to freely tell other people the truth about my religion.
If I won't be able to do any of this, my obligation is to leave my good job, my good house and emigrate to a Muslim country.
I do not
Re:Simple and straight explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
Enslave empoverished women and sell them for sex in Nevada? We've got laws against slavery, and legal prostitution has licensing requirements. According to a quick wikipedia check, pimping in the usual form is illegal too. The only way I can see legal(and even this is a stretch, and I've got a feeling a judge would rule with the woman) sexual pseudo-slavery in Nevada is through contract, and we've got laws against contract under duress.
To understand why these rights exist, you must understand the principles that this government was founded upon (even though they really don't apply now-a-days unless it suits someone with money), being minimally intrusive in private matters. The government is not supposed to have any rights that it's not explicitly granted through law, nothing illegal not explicitly declared illegal. It's about the rights of many, regardless of the feelings of a few. You may not appreciate your freedom of speech, but I do, because it allows you to voice your displeasure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do they take Muslims seriously? Because Muslims are standing up seriously for what they believe. They fight, they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs. That's the only thing that matters. Your values cost only as much as you are willing to pay to defend them.
That's a lie. Muslims are taken seriously because everyone who peacefully criticizes them or draws insulting cartoons gets death threats, many of them called "fatwas" and issued by actual Muslim clerics. Meanwhile, Muslims start riots, destroy embassies, and murder people over it. And the West has become a civilization of cowards who are afraid to offend anyone, so all too meekly we submit to the intimidation. That's called terrorism, and the reason Muslims are taken seriously is because so many of them a
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]
They gave him -exactly- what he wants (Score:5, Interesting)
Geert Wilders is someone that got this far in politics by feeding on fear and hate.
The man is dangerous and should be ignored, not shut down.
Is anyone tries to shut him up, it will cause publicity.
And we know there's no such thing as bad publicity in politics.
I agree NetSol has very little business in taking down his site, but
I just wish the people would see the man for the windbag he really is.
(a few years ago, we had someone running for government with an agenda slightly like Wilders.
The man got shot (by an 'animal lover', the irony) and they continued the party in his name.
Strangely enough, that empty shell of a party even got into power.
Unfortunately, very few people in that party actually had any knowledge of politics.
Yes, chaos ensued...)
Now, quite some time later, the exact same thing is happening -again-...
Censorship is Immoral (Score:3, Funny)
I will do (nearly) anything to promote ANYTHING (in regards to visual, oral, or verbal representations) in regards to media that ANYBODY finds to be questionable, immoral, illegal, unethical, etc.)
Fight the good fight Slashdotters! Make an effort to download only things that are illegal!
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hum (Score:5, Informative)
No, I guess they just go regular bombing. [cnn.com]
Oh, I'd say they're christian all right (Score:3, Interesting)
E.g., most people self-proclaimed as Christians think that the Christian thing to do is respect other people's religions, and believe that a nice guy is a nice guy, and will go to heaven anyway. Even the Catholic church nowadays came up with the "Anonymous Christian" [wikipedia.org] doctrine to that effect.
That used to be a major heresy, namely that of Pelagius [wikipedia.org]. Those are (according to at least one interpretation) t
Re:hum (Score:5, Insightful)
As you can read on the wikipedia page you linked, the dutch were hopelessly outnumbered (400 lightly armed soldiers vs 1k-2k serbs with tanks and morters). The dutch troopers weren't given the mandate, the manpower, the reinforcements or the air-support required to fight back.
I wouldn't know what I would have done in their place, and I hope I never will know. Either way, it shames me that the dutch and the UN were this toothless faced with genocide right under their noses.
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:hum (Score:4, Interesting)
When guerillas swim among their supporters like the proverbial fish in the sea, one must dry up the sea. In an era of unconventional war, so-called "war crimes" are actually the proper response. We conveniently forget all the "war crimes" the Allies committed to win WWII, and the post-Nuremburg fetish for imposing laws only on our own side isn't getting us anywhere.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know...for such a 'minority' of muslims....you sure can see a lot of them in the streets of the middle east, cheering suicide bombers, jumping and flaying about, with guns in hand in the streets on the tv.
I see so many of them on tv in various places of the world, behaving in such a manner, I have a hard time believing it is just a few on the 'fringe'. It seems to be pretty prevalent.
Re:hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes as irrelevant as all the changes to freedom after Sept 11. The terrorists want to take our freedoms. They will institute sharia law wherever they are able to become politically powerful enough to do so. They may not manage to do this here in the US, but even so we all are considerably less free now than we were before Sept 11. For their first big try at terrorizing the US and especially its government, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the extremists regularly kill people, they can get what they want. If moderate voices publicly disagree with them and stand up to them, the extremists can just kill the moderates, can't they?
So the extremists get their way until someone stops them -- presumably by killing them. If no one ever stops them, then ultimately, they simply win.
Killers might be a lot of things. One thing killers aren't is irreleva
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people take him seriously, politically. It's one thing to want to get attention for important issues. It's quite another thing to make an issue where there hardly was one and act like a total ass just to get attention. This guy is a troll, and, fortunately, more and more people are seeing that.
That's what censorship is (Score:5, Insightful)
if he said what you wanted to hear instead of what you don't want to hear.
That's what censorship is. That's also why we have free speech protections in the USA -- because speech that everyone wants to hear doesn't need protection. It's only the "flamebait" and other stuff that someone might disagree with that needs protection.
Re:hum (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets be clear about something. Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence. Unfortunately, it only takes one small group to do some pretty horrendous stuff.
Note also, that most muslim violence is directed against other muslims.
Yes there is a problem with poor levels of education, and also that religious leaders can spin any old line of bull and have it believed in its entirety by large numbers of muslims, but if we are to be honest, christians do the same thing quite often, especially some of the christianity 2.0 people. Ok we don't do the suicide bomber thing, but again, neither do the vast, vast majority of muslims, many of whom are just folk. Once again, most suicide bomber attacks are directed against muslims.
What's really going on, in my opinion, is a muslim civil war, orchestrated by powerful people who'd rather like it if only their flavour of beliefs were allowed, oh, and that they be rich and control the entire muslim world. We should butt out and let them solve their own problems.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I did read what you wrote. You said: "Ask most moderate or 'peaceful' Islamists how they feel about the Americans or Danes getting killed, and they'll typically have a look of satisfaction. I'd consider it an overwhelming majority that are not against violence, as long as it's perpetrated against non-muslims."
"they'll typically have a look of satisfaction" - how do you know? Have you had the chance to ask most moderate Muslims? Of course not - there are thousands of them. So you are stating how a lot of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The christians haven't been so limited. But they still prefer to use real armies and real intelligence services.
Do you think it's really about religion? It's US vs THEM. Any "us" you pick. It's not the power that corrupts, it's the immunity to consequences. Peer pressure helps. Riots used to be
If Buddhists can go Rambo, Muslims can suck it up. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares? Religious people have received death threats for stating their belief that "abortion is murder". Hell, I've received death threats for daring to argue with the "9/11 truth" crowd.
Anonymous cowards don't need much incitement in order to send death threats to others. Religion is a good motivator for them, but hardly the only one. I was discussing instances of actual physical harm, not internet-tough-g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Myth of Moderate Islam [spectator.co.uk], by Patrick Sookhdeo:
To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My parents are ex-Catholic. Fortunately their awakening came long before I was born.
Seriously though, you don't need to have any of the attributes you mention to move your domains from NetSol. I also have some domains there, a
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
A hate crime has to have SOME criminal element to it. If I say 'Muslims suck', I made a blanket statement, but to even think of elevating it to a crime is absurd. Now, I can run around all day spouting blanket staments, and eventually people will learn that I am acting like a crackpot and have nothing important to say. (Example, Twitter [slashdot.org]). That is punishment enough.
To start deciding that unpopular content is a crime in itself is the first step in the end of free speech.
I've seen some of the cartoons, I have not seen the film. The cartoons are tasteless, they are not criminal.
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
If I wrote a book saying 'kill the Muslims' and outlined specifics on how to do it, that would be a hate crime. I'm clearly inciting violence.
If I draw a cartoon or write a book depicting Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or Buddha as a terrorist, I have not committed a hate crime. I personally wouldn't do something like that, because I don't believe it, but I will defend the right to be able to do it.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right. I will never condone removing that right for something as petty as avoiding insulting someone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you told me that a person, a religious guide that is dear to me, that is Muhammad, is a terrorist, or like a terrorist, or a suicide bomber, just as the cartoons suggest, it's certainly hateful... full of hate... as a Muslim, to me, those cartoons spew nothing but hate...
That was not my interpretation of the cartoon at all. Perhaps it was the author's interpretation and intention. I don't know. But perhaps not and I am personally inclined to think not. Any writing or work of art is necessarily interpreted by the reader or viewer often times in ways the author did not even consider.
My thought upon seeing the cartoon was not that it was intended to depict Muhammad as a suicide bomber but to show that many Muslims must think of him as one since they justify their suici
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Parent UP (Score:4, Insightful)
Ridicule of a religious belief or political persuasion is NOT a hate crime. I consider myself an agnostic science-is-religion libertarian - you can make fun of my beliefs all day long, draw cartoons of political leaders I respect or make jokes about those who I consider prophets (Newton, Darwin, etc.). I won't sulk around with hurt feelings or have promptings to harm anyone. Such absolute reverence to an ideology almost always ends in persecution and evil.
Further if you really feel you worship the "right" vision of God and this God is almighty why doesn't this God make a public statement and strike down such provocateurs directly? Why does this God need protection from puny humans.
Seems to me the Truth needs no local support but can stand on its own.
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is mere insult. Insult is not a crime, except under Islam, which does not tolerate a wide variety of other Free Speech.
You are invited to make all the derogatory cartoons of me you like, and of my beliefs (I'm theism-free). It bothers me not.
I've deployed to the richest Muslim societies on the planet, and seen the best they can do under the guidance of your oppressive, barbaric, pseudo-Nazi superstition. I will not yield to demands to change our social discourse just because it is not on Islamic (or Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc) terms.
Your Prophet can kiss my fat white arse.
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Interesting)
We sit around all rich and advanced and western, but beneath it all we just need someone to hate. Another tribe to vilify.
Shenanigans my good man. The canons of Islam are no more nor less ridiculous than those of any other major religion. Just as Richard Dawkins points out that "Christian morality" cannot possibly come from the bible, "Muslim intolerance" is also a myth.
Which is not to say that there isn't something barbaric going on in the Muslim world. Could it have something to do with the average income of Muslims being about 1/7 of incomes in the west? Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?
If you are referring to Saudi Arabia, let's talk about Aramco, through which American money has supported the rule of the House of Saud and the Wahibbist's grip on Saudi society for decades. Dontcha think that would piss some people off, particularly those who live under that regime without profiting?
No, Islam itself is not the problem. It's economics and politics that are the source of this era of Muslim weirdness. This is definitely not a case of we are better than them, it's a case of, boy we are lucky we weren't born in one of those countries.
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
"making derogatory cartoons of what's dear to me is NOTHING but hate crime"... this sums it up *perfectly*: anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law.
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus liked to dress in drag and had an affair with all of the apostles while smoking a joint and nobody wlil prevent me from saying it, nor will anyone - not even he "equally bad" Christians that are used as some sort of "they did it to!" scapegoat - try to kill me. But the moment I even *draw* a depiction off Mohammed I'm an hateful bastard who must be stoped because I'm infringing someones feelings.
There are places where this sort of behaviour is law. Saudi Arabia, for example. I would recommend to people displeased with my ability to say that Mohammed was a camel-sucking homo to move there.
PS: Just to be democratic, it's also perfectly legal to say that Jupiter likes little boys and Ariadne is a slut. Fine with me.
Hail Eris (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuts to them. If you can only insult 1/6 of the world population at once you're not even trying.
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
No they aren't. If someone kicked the shit out of you for being a muslim, that would be a hate crime.
Again, no, it is not a hate crime. Making unjustified negative statements about a group of people may be morally wrong, but it is not a hate crime.
I suggest you do a little research on the meaning of "freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech must include the right for someone to say something that you find reprehensible, or it means absolutely NOTHING.
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. Anti-Semitism is not a crime. I can hate all the Jews I want because they are Jewish and I've committed no crime. So you are asserting that Islamophobia is also not a crime. I agree. There is no crime in hating you for your religion. There is no crime in insulting you because of your religion. There is no crime in making fun of your religion and your religious figures. There is no crime in any of that, so you agree that it shouldn't be prevent for anyone to do that to any religion, including yours. That's the core of the Freedom of Speech, to say that which everyone hates and thinks is wrong.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
That makes you a terrorist. You want to make a crime my ability to speak my mind. I hate you. Not because you are Muslim. Not because you are a radical (and you are, despite your claims, or you wouldn't want to make it illegal for people to speak their minds about any subject). I hate you because you are claiming to be renouncing violence, yet stating that you want the State to enforce, through violence (the only way to enforce a law, including those against "hate crimes") when you are unable or unwilling to use violence yourself. Not only are you a spineless coward, but you are a hypocritical spineless coward. Oh, and please note, I didn't insult your religion. Whatever religion you had or didn't have is irrelevant to your condemnation of violence, followed by your support thereof. It is the ignorant hypocricy that I hate, and anyone that displays it with such vigor in a public forum is worthy of my disdain.
It should be clear (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is? Christianity originally was a religion of peace and subservience. Go back and read (critically) the books of the Gospels: what other meanings does Matthew 5:39 have? It tells to not resist evil. The Pentarch discusses how to treat non-Jews, but t