Most of the time I’m not agree with Wilders. But I think you should first analyse the people who represents your religion. The basic rules the muslims believe and accept are horrible, I have to say. A man can marry so many women. Killing somebody in the name of God helps you go to heaven and so forth.
I ofcourse don’t think Muslims are bad. I have many muslim friends. Very kind and decent.
But who would cheer up to see somebody is dying in the flame. Many moslims did at 9/11. It is really something. They are talking about their rights in western countries. But they want to force other peple to obey their rules. If you speak against them, it’s insult. Sometimes beheaded for any critics against Mohammed.
Representing violent mentality.
Why Buddhists and Christens and Hindu’s are quite OK with each other while muslims fighting with the rest. Telling to kill non believers. Explain. It’s not about which God is real. It’s about respect.
I’m Burmese too. I live here in Holland working and paying taxes and obeying their rules. If I don’t like the rules and constitutions here , I’ll simply leave and go back to my country. So simple is that. We as imigrants have the equal rights ofcourse according to Law. But we too should earn it. Don’t you think so?

Dear Thazin,

Thank you for your comment.The purpose of creating this blog was to form the bridge between different faiths.

There is only one God for all mankind, and this is the very simple explanation for those who believes in creator. If you do not believe in creation and believing that this Universe is going without any guidance, I am sorry that we are in different frequency to continue discussion.

Now, you have mentioned that Muslims are allowed to marry four wives, that is true with very strict terms and condition, unfortunately most of the Muslims( By name) take advantage, for their own pleasure and use to discriminate women.

Again, allowing to marry four wives, legally with the condition of taking full responsibility from the male a prtner, is actually protecting the right of women. In west and Europe, millions of abortions were performed every year, and millions of illegitimate children were born because, there is no clause for protection of women as well as unborn children in the name of " women's right". Islam never encourage men to marry four wives, only allow maximum of four wives, one can marry legally. However, millions of Muslims misinterpret Islam, for their own pleasure and again Holy Quran strongly condemn this type of people as Hypocrites.

Islam never encourage killing of innocents, however clearly stated when you are allowed to kill, such as in during War, and for self defense.

US kills several thousands more than, what they claimed the Alqueda attack on World Trade Center. Again, finally Iraq has no weapons for mass destruction, and Afghanistan has no representatives on the ill fated planes that crashed to US cities.

Why all of you were quiet thousands of Palestinians were killed and tortured every day.?

Anyway, as a Burmese Muslim, I agree with you that Muslims need to work very hard to improve the Image among non Muslim for the religion they believe. However It does not mean that all the white men have license to Insult Islam and our Prophet (PBUH) as they wish. That is morally wrong, to insult the feeling of billion of believers, even as an atheist.

Regards,

Kyaw Kyaw Oo ( Burmese Muslim)

Han er inviteret af Trykkefrihedsselskabet, der vil byde ham velkommen på talerstolen med ordene:

De mener det allesammen. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, dagbladet Politiken, Danmarks Radio, Abdul Wahid Pedersen samt hundreder af præster og biskopper: Wilders er Europas værste mand.

Mere på Avisen

Herfra skal der blot lyde et: Velkommen Geert!

Dear Geert and Dr. laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18 : 22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1 : 9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21 : 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15 : 19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but many women take offense.

d) Lev. 25 : 44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35 : 2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or will you arrange it for me?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11 : 10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21 : 20 Clearly states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19 : 27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11 : 6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19 : 19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24 : 10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20 : 14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan

This quote from "Rudy" comes to mind.

"No one, and I mean no one, comes into our house and pushes us around."

Police Protection for “Mohammed Pulpit”

Brussels Journal

From the desk of Thomas Landen on Tue, 2008-05-13 20:43

Belgian police is protecting a 17th century pulpit in the Flemish town of Dendermonde. The pulpit in the Catholic church of Our Lady dates from 1685, two years after the battle of Vienna when the Christian armies of the Polish King John III Sobieski defeated the Turks poised to overrun Europe. The sculpted wooden pulpit, made by Mattheus van Beveren, depicts a man subdued by angels and represents the triumph of Christianity over Islam. The man is generally thought to be Mohammed. He is holding a book which is generally assumed to be the Koran.

Two years ago, on April 16, 2006, during the height of the Danish cartoon affair, this website published a photo of the pulpit to show that there is a long tradition of depicting Mohammed in European iconography. Last Friday the Turkish newspaper Yeniçag reprinted our picture on its front page with the caption “Stop this hideous insult.” Yeniçag demands that Belgium remove the pulpit. The paper writes that “We have had the crusades and now they are still trying to humiliate us. This is as bad as the Danish cartoons and Geert Wilders’s Fitna movie in the Netherlands. Even Pope Benedict does nothing to stop these humiliations.”

Since Friday, we have received threats while the authorities in Belgium, which has a large population of Turkish immigrants, fear that the pulpit and the church may be attacked. The Belgian press reported today that the police is guarding Dendermonde’s Our Lady church to prevent vandalism to church and pulpit.[...]

[...]Meanwhile, radical Muslims in Italy are still demanding the destruction of an early Renaissance fresco in Bologna's Church of San Petronio, painted by Giovanni da Modena in 1415. The fresco depicts Mohammed being tortured in Hell.

Continued.

More here also at the Brussels Journal:

Flemish 17th Century Pulpit Offends Turks

You may also enjoy browsing the "Mohammed Image Archive" @ Zombie Time
Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History
The Mohammed Image Archive is a compendium of images that depict Mohammed (the 7th-century founder of Islam), spanning all historical periods, cultures and genres.

The inspiration for this Archive came from the global controversy over the publication of Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and the need for a comprehensive and even-handed look at the wide variety of Mohammed depictions in Islamic and Western societies from the Middle Ages until today. It will remain online as a resource for those interested in freedom of expression. (Please note that the Arabic name "Mohammed" has over the years been transliterated into Western languages with several different spellings -- some of which you'll encounter on this site -- including Mahomet, Muhammad, and Mohamed.)

Anti-immigration MP Geert Wilders has cancelled the first of a series of debates on the ‘islamisation of the Netherlands’ because not enough Muslims have agreed to attend, news agency ANP reports on Friday.

Wilders pledged discussions on the issue as a follow-up to his anti-Koran film Fitna, which links Islam with violence and terrorism.

Of the 175 people who signed up for the debate in Waddinxveen on May 16, only a handful are Muslims, says ANP.

‘This is not enough for a constructive and open debate on the real dangers of the islamisation of the Netherlands and the failure of immigration and integration politics of the past decade,’ says Wilders’ PVV party in a statement. The party has nine seats in the 150-seat parliament.

Six imams and a local politician turned down an invitation to appear at the debate because they were not allowed to contribute to the agenda and their call for an independent chairman was rejected, says ANP.

Imam Yassin Elforkani told ANP that Wilders was not prepared to give Muslims any influence over the meeting in line with normal procedures. ‘Wilders wants to do everything himself. He does not want a balanced debate,’ said Elforkani. - © DutchNews.nl

Submit to our control or we won't debate you! And the protests against Fitna are going strong in Pakistan - check out the 'tiny minority of extremist' pictures from MEMRI!

27. mars 2008 vart filmen ”Fitna” publisert på internett. Filmen presenterer ein kritikk av islam og såkalla islamisme, det vil seie den type konservativ islamsk tenking som ikkje vil skilje islam ut frå den politiske sfæren. Bak filmen står den nederlandske politikaren Geert Wilders, som står for ein restriktiv politikk med omsyn til innvandring.

Wilders film ”Fitna” (arab. splitting, prøving, anarki) varer i om lag 17 minutt, og filmen opnar med eit bilete av den kanskje mest kjende Muhammedkarikaturen, der Muhammed vert framstilt med eit hovud som ei bombe. Så glir det heile over over i film-, foto-, og lydmateriale frå terrorhandlingar i New York, Madrid og London, samt resitering av vers frå Koranen (8,60; 4,56; 47,4; 4,89 og 8,39). Groteske bilete og desperate røyster som bed om hjelp vert kryssklipt med opptak av islamske imamar som oppfordrar til drap av Allahs fiendar. Det heile vert akkompagnert av ”Åses død” frå Peer Gynt av Edvard Grieg.

Filmen tek også opp Theo van Goghs drap, Koranens fiendebilete av jødar, dødsstraffa for fråfall frå islam, kvinneleg omskjering, homofili, veksande antal muslimar i Europa og islamistiske planar om å overta Nederland. Filmen vert avslutta med ein del korte, kritiske setningar mot islam og islamisering, før vi på nytt får sjå den nemnte Muhammedkarikaturen, men denne gongen med ei klokke som tel ned og ei lunte som er i ferd med å tenne bomba.

Kva ynskjer Wilders å oppnå med denne filmen? Umiddelbart kan ein peike på at filmen ganske sikkert vil føre til eit oppsving for hans politiske oppslutning. Men like fullt må ein understreke at det er heilt legitimt – og rosverdig – at Wilders peikar på mange av dei djupt problematiske sidene ved islamismen slik han har blomstra opp frå og med andre halvdel av det 20. århundre og inn i vårt århundre. At islamismen i mange utgåver er ein ideologi som slett ikkje kan sameinast med vestleg demokrati og trusfridom, er diverre sant.

Wilders har møtt fleire typar av kritikk etter at filmen vart kjent. Ein del av kritikken er det lett å istemme, dette gjeld i særleg grad bruken av karikaturteikning. Sjølv om ein kritiserer tankar innanfor islam, er det unødvendig og lite fruktbart å ty til hån og latterleggjering. Men Wilders har også møtt kritikk for at han ikkje skjelnar mellom islam og islamisme, og for at han heller ikkje skjelnar mellom islam og muslimar. Wilders peikar korrekt nok på at det er Koranen sjølv som oppfordrar til dei ekstreme islamistiske haldningane. Men han burde også i sin film gjeve uttrykk for at på langt nær alle muslimar står for desse haldningane.

Kjelder: Wikipedia, Youtube.

Een Nederlands-Vlaamse unie zou een win-win situatie zijn, wij Nederlanders krijgen de haven van Antwerpen, meer ruimte, meer werkgelegenheid en de steeds kleiner wordende Nederlandse inbreng in de wereld zou enigszins kunnen worden teruggedraaid. De Vlamingen zijn dan eindelijk van de arme Walen af die de Vlamingen alleen maar geld kosten.

De culturele verschillend tussen de Vlamingen en de Nederlanders zijn relatief klein, de verschillen tussen mensen uit Amsterdam en Zuid-Limburg zijn ook wel redelijk, en Limburg is toch ook geen onafhankelijk land? Ook uit eigen ervaring moet ik zeggen dat het verschil tussen Zuid-Limburgers en Belgen klein is. Tot slot President Sarkozy ook nog voordeel van de Nederlands-Vlaamse Unie krijgen als Wallonië een onderdeel van de Franse Republiek zou worden. Dan zou België net als Joegoslavië en de Sovjet-Unie eindelijk in de geschiedenisboeken verdwijnen.

"Jadi ada lima ayat Alquran yang digunakan untuk mendeskreditkan Islam. Padahal isinya sangat bertolak belakang. Justru ajaran Islam ini sangat-sangat damai dan mengajak umatnya untuk memiliki hubungan harmonis dengan pemeluk agama apapun," kata Direktur Pusat Studi Al-Quran itu. Kenapa judulnya kok ayat-ayat fitna? "Ya karena ini berbicara tentang ayat-ayat Alquran yang dijadikan bahan fitnah," jelas Quraish saat jumpa pers di masjid Sunda Kelapa, Jakarta .

Buku setebal 98 halaman tersebut disebarkan serempak di enam lokasi di Jakarta. Buku ini juga bisa didapatkan dalam versi e-book (silahkan anda download e-book dalam format pdf berukuran 442 kb melalui link yang saya sediakan di weblog ini).

Quraish Shihab mempersilakan pihak manapun untuk menggandakan bukunya. Namun ia mengingatkan agar buku tersebut tidak dijualbelikan. "Untuk apa diperjual belikan? Kalau diberikan gratis untungnya lebih banyak daripada diperjualbelikan. Memang tertunda keuntungan itu tapi akan berlipat ganda di hari kemudian," kata Quraish.

-----

Sumber : Detikcom

I though Fitna was utter rubbish, lacking in substance and wholly inflammatory. Divorced from context the movie itself was a sardonic farce. It featured selected verses from the Qur'an interposed against horrific scenes of terror and violence. Whatever one would like to think, Mr. Wilders intentions leave little to be desired. He wasn’t merely expressing his freedom of expression. This was a decisive attempt to skew people’s perceptions towards the Qur’an; the Muslims Holy Book. Specifically to reify what the majority or peace-loving, well-meaning intellectuals have struggled to mend; the notion that Islam is synonymous with violence.

Notions abound about Islamists sweeping across the world who want nothing but to obliterate freedom and democracy to impose their strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia. For this reason it is generally thought that pandering to Muslim sensitivities is akin to sanctioning the evil elements 'inherent' in the religion. Afterall, why should you care if you hurt the feelings of those barbarians who have no qualms about killing innocent women and children, slaughtering homosexuals and beheading apostates?

This kind of thinking does not help at all. The fact is while there are some who take the religion to an extreme they neither represent nor speak for the majority. I particularly cringe when these writers cite their pseudo first person account of the ongoings in Northern Nigerian. You would think they've lived there all their lives. What they don't know and fail to mention is the implementation of Shari'a in Northern Nigeria is being carried out by the ruling elite against the will of the populace. It is not the will of the majority of Muslims but a select few fulfilling their fantasies through religious oppression and subjugation. Though most have accepted their lot, if you asked whether they were better off before the implementation their collective response is a resounding no.

As is the case with the ‘West’ also, people often mention the West as if every single person in the West supports the policies of their government. Failing to distinguish the ideological West -which mirrors a number of Islamic values - and the political wing of it. Not all Americans support the war in Iraq. Most, more than we give credit for, are aware of the underhanded tactics the Bush administration used to invade the country. Remember also the millions that marched in protest against Tony Blair and Co's decision to deploy troops to Iraq.

I like to think different and diverse as we are, we all want one thing as human beings; to live a life of dignity with freedom of self-determination and laws to prevent others from impinging on our rights. I think it’s important for Muslims to make a distinction between the west and the policies of the administrators in those countries, just as we should give the average individual the benefit of their independent faculty of judgment addressing them first and foremost on that basis alone. It is important because in doing so we acknowledge that a select group of people are acting to further their own selfish goals at the detriment of the rest of us. We are left fighting each other while they bleed the earth dry.

Some of my favorite excerpts:

The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

Excerpt 2:

In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."

Read the article here 

P.S. Sam Harris looks like Ben Stiller...

Deux jours après la publication de l'article incriminé de Bruno Guigue, le 27 mars, le Conseil des droits de l'Homme de l'ONU réuni à Genève a adopté 6 résolutions dont une relative « à la lutte contre la diffamation des religions et en particulier sur les incidences graves de l'islamophobie sur l'exercice de tous les droits ». Ce projet de résolution a été présenté par le Pakistan au nom de l'organisation de la conférence islamique(OCI) a été adopté par 21 voix contre 10 dont l'Union européenne et 14 abstentions.

Le texte de la résolution dit déplorer « l'utilisation de la presse écrite, des médias audiovisuels et électroniques y compris l'internet et de tout autre moyen afin d'inciter à des actes de violence, à la xénophobie ou à l'intolérance qui y est associée et à la discrimination à l'égard de l'Islam ou de toute autre religion ». Par ailleurs, le Conseil se montre préoccupé « par les tentatives visant à associer l'islam avec le terrorisme, la violence et la violation des droits. Il note avec une vive inquiétude l'intensification de la campagne de diffamation des religions, et la désignation des minorités musulmanes selon des caractéristiques ethniques et religieuses depuis les événements tragiques du 11 septembre 2001. Le Conseil se déclare aussi préoccupé par les lois ou les mesures administratives qui ont spécifiquement conçues afin de « contrôler » et « surveiller » les minorités musulmanes et arabes, les stigmatisant ainsi encore davantage et légitimant la discrimination dont elles sont victimes » L'initiatrice du projet de résolution, la pakistanaise Mme Themina Janjua a justifié son projet de résolution par la multiplication des manifestations de l'islamophobie, par des faits et des actes dûment prouvés et démontrés par les rapporteurs spéciaux. A titre d'exemple, elle a montré qu'au Royaume Uni, l'Islam est considéré comme une religion barbare et qu'après le 11 septembre 2001, les musulmans ont été l'objet de discrimination de par le monde. Cette manifestation de diffamation touche exclusivement l'Islam et ne concerne pas les autres religions. Elle a aussi fustigé le délit de faciès dont sont victimes les musulmans et elle a conclu que son projet porte sur la diffamation des religions en général et de l'Islam en particulier dans le monde aujourd'hui.

Par la voix de sa déléguée allemande, Mme Brigitta Maria Siefker-Eberle, l'Union Européenne a justifié son vote contre le projet de résolution par l'absence de mention d'autres religions que l'Islam comme le judaïsme, le christianisme et les religions et croyances venues d'Asie ainsi que les personnes sans religion. Le délégué du Canada a estimé quant à lui que le lien n'est nullement établi entre discrimination fondée sur la religion et le racisme. On ne voit pas comment ce délégué a pu séparer discrimination raciale et religieuse et racisme qui sont les deux formes d'un même phénomène, l'exclusion de l'autre et de celui qui est différent. Si ce même délégué avait dit que le lien n'était nullement établi entre le meurtre de 6 millions de juifs et une politique délibérée conçue exclusivement par les nazis pour les exterminer à cause de leur origine ou de leur race, il serait sans aucun doute condamné par les tribunaux pour négationnisme comme l'ont été les Faurisson.

En somme, cette résolution tombe à point nommé pour rappeler que les arguments opposés par Bruno Guigue aux signataires de l'article dans le Journal du monde visant à créer un amalgame entre islam et terrorisme étaient aussi ceux de la majorité des États membres du Conseil des droits de l'Homme de l'ONU. Le jour même du vote de la résolution, une preuve supplémentaire du regain de l'islamophobie dans le monde occidental vient de s'ajouter avec la diffusion sur internet du film réalisé par le député hollondais Geert Wilders, le « Fitna » montrant entre autres scènes, celle de la violence faite aux femmes dans l'islam. Est-ce cependant un hasard si l'argument de la violence aux femmes musulmanes utilisé par Geert Wilders dans son film, Fitna, est aussi celui des signataires de l'article dans le journal le Monde? Au lieu de trouver le parfait bouc émissaire en la personne de Bruno Guigue, n'eût-il pas plus judicieux et plus crédible pour la ministre de l'Intérieur de chercher d'abord s'il n'y a lieu de poursuivre le journal le Monde et les auteurs de l'article publié dans ce journal pour incitation à des actes de violence, à la xénophobie ou à l'intolérance par l'utilisation de la presse écrite ?...

Faouzi Elmir

]]> http://damarberlari.wordpress.com/?p=141 Wed, 07 May 2008 11:20:22 +0000 damarberlari http://damarberlari.wordpress.com/?p=141 Setelah film Fitna dan Ayat-Ayat Cinta yang 'menghebohkan', dalam dua arti yang berbeda tentunya, kini hadir sebuah buku dengan judul yang agak-agak mirip, tepatnya Ayat-Ayat Fitna : Sekelumit Keadaban Islam di Tengah Purbasangka, karangan M. Quraish Shihab. Buku ini tentu tidak ada hubungannya dengan novelnya Mas Habiburrahman El Shirazy yang fenomenal itu. Akan tetapi mengenai hubungannya dengan film Fitna dari Greet Wilders yang menyebabkan kita kehilangan akses ke beberapa situs beberapa waktu silam, Bapak Quraish Shihab mengatakan,

Tujuan utamanya bukan untuk menanggapi atau menyanggah, tetapi untuk menunjukkan kepada umat Islam dan siapapun yang hendak mengenal Islam, dan juga kepada yang terpengaruh oleh fitnah film Fitna itu, bahwa sungguh ajaran Islam sangat bertolak belakang dengan apa yang mereka suguhkan itu.

Jadi untuk mereka, yang merasa disebut dalam tujuan di atas itu, tidak ada salahnya untuk mencoba membaca buku ini. Dalam buku ini, Bapak Quraish Shihab membahas surat-surat dalam Al-Quran yang digunakan oleh Geert Wilders untuk mendiskreditkan Islam, dan menunjukkan bagaimana film Fitna telah memutarbalikkan arti sebenarnya dari ayat-ayat tersebut.

Buku ini dapat didownload langsung dalam format e-book dengan masuk ke situs Lentera Hati, kemudian mengikuti petunjuk download yang tertera. Tanpa biaya.

@q_p<damar!

Al lang ben ik overtuigd van het grootste talent van de mens: zichzelf de meest ondoorgrondelijke motieven op de mouw spelden. For God's sake. Voor onze eigen geloofwaardigheid.

Gelukkig toont een maand ook de hypocresie van de waan van alledag. Onze nieuwbakken Mozart met pruik, volksvertegenwoordiger Geert Wilders, is over zijn eigen veters gestruikeld en tussen zijn benen gepasseerd door zusje Rita. Ook zij zal geheid het loodje leggen. Want de geschiedenis is wèl wijs. Holle retoriek mag misschien attractief zijn voor een korte tijdspanne, zij is per definitie zonder gewicht en lost onontkoombaar op in het schreeuwende luchtledige van ons polderland.

En, zou Peter R. de Vries weer op Aruba zijn om zijn nieuwste undercover-act op stapel te zetten? Joran van der S. is, na enkele benauwde dagen, weer zo stoned als een garnaal en kan de naam Nathalie niet eens meer spellen. Let wel: deze zoon van een magistraat is niet uniek. Hij kan alleen maar zo diep zinken omdat huichelarij een spelletje is geworden. Yes, for God's sake. Virtueel verslaafd, virtueel gelogen.

Ondertussen wordt de bankschroef van het vleesgeworden geluk aangedraaid. Ik denk inderdaad dat geld voor de meesten het malse regentje van geluk is. Geld stelt in staat de wanhoop van het leven te overstemmen. Al was het maar de kortstondige euforie van een lot uit de loterij.

De Deense filosoof en theoloog Søren Kierkegaard zegt:

De wereld kan worden verdeeld in mensen die schrijven en mensen die niet schrijven. Mensen die schrijven vertegenwoordigen de wanhoop en mensen die niet schrijven keuren dit af en geloven dat zij een grotere wijsheid bezitten -- en toch, als zij konden schrijven, dan zouden zij hetzelfde schrijven. In de grond zijn alle even wanhopig, maar wanneer men niet de kans heeft door zijn wanhoop groot te worden, is het niet de moeite waard zijn wanhoop te laten blijken. Is dit wat het betekent de wanhoop te hebben overwaonnen?

Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity."

Witness the free world's response to Fitna: The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline.

Interfaith dialogue may usher in new era
Mr. Aziz Junejo

Special to The Seattle Times

This spring, both Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and the Vatican's Pope Benedict XVI called for international, interfaith dialogue — and isn't it about time?

Isn't it about time for what? About time Bibles, churches, synagogues were allowed in all Muslim countries for example?

In a modern world where great advancements in education, science and technology are commonplace, centuries-old religious conflicts still smolder and ignite.

This is true in the modern Western world (isn't that why Muslims hate us?) but are there any examples of great advancements in education, science or technology coming from the Islamic world?

Sadly, this religious intolerance is also commonplace. Just in the past few weeks, we've seen the release of a Dutch lawmaker's film "Fitna," which denigrates the Holy Quran, and the suppression of peaceful Tibetan monks by the Chinese. We need, desperately, to learn how to live together peacefully.

Centuries old religious conflicts and intolerance - such as the Sunni and the Shia Muslim conflict? The Ahmadiyahs? Or just non-believers in general? Was it the movie Fitna that denigrated the Quran or was it the Muslims who were shown killing non-Muslims in the name of allah and boasting that Islam would conquer the world that denigrated Islam?

Muslims, Christians and Jews in America already share a commitment to interfaith work characterized over the years as friendly and respectful with tangible results.

CAIR, check. Muslim Student Assosiation (MSA), check. ISNA, check.

For me, this was best demonstrated during the first few days after the Sept. 11 attacks. Two nights after the tragedy, a lone gunman fired at worshippers leaving the Idriss Mosque near Northgate. Mercifully, nobody was hurt.

The next morning, the shooting was a top national news story — ours was one of the first mosques attacked after Sept. 11.

While most of us know what happened on Sept. 11, Junejo doesn't feel the need to describe the acts of 19 Islamic terrorists (and an untold number of Muslims who planned and provided logistics for the attacks) against innocent people of all faiths, but mostly non-Muslim Americans. Unfortunately, nearly 3,000 were killed by those Muslims and millions others affected.

I arrived at the mosque around 6:30 a.m. to speak to the media. Shortly after 7 a.m., the first of many neighbors and citizens began to arrive with flowers, cards and offers to help secure our place of prayer.

Many of these volunteers were from the local interfaith community. They showed up in force offering to guard the mosque. People from the Church Council of Seattle and the interfaith community wound up standing guard day and night. They camped on our doorstep for the next three weeks to protect the city's largest mosque.

We had, over the years, shared coffee and discussions on religion with many of these faith-loving people. But those three weeks in 2001 ushered in a new chapter for our communities.

In the months that followed, we began to feel special trust in our brethren based on action, not just on words. We discovered that risking one's life for another's safety was a shared belief among faiths.

What were Muslims doing on the days after 9-11? Some were celebrating, dancing in the streets. None were protesting in America. What have they done since to protect America? CAIR, the largest, most vocal and influential Islamic civil rights group in the U.S., advises Muslims that they have "no obligation" to speak to the FBI and "you do not have to permit them to enter your home". They protest against wiretapping of suspected foreign terrorist phone calls, and are currently on a mission to free an admitted, convicted terrorist.

In early Islamic history, Prophet Muhammad drew up a pluralistic constitution that spelled out the duties of Muslims and people of other faiths in the city of Madinah (near Mecca). The people were to protect each other from threats to their security, uphold moral conduct and deal with each other fairly.

Thereafter, tolerance became the rule for non-Muslims living in Islamic lands. Churches and synagogues were protected by Muslims; non-Muslims were free to practice their own faiths.

It would be great if Mr. Junejo could clarify tolerance in light of something called jizya - a tax levied on non-Muslims for the aforementioned protection by Muslims and "freedom" to practice their own faiths.

I am proud the Seattle area interfaith community came together in those uncertain times; nearly seven years later we are a stronger, more trusting and more peaceful community.

Today, our local mosques are recognized religious institutions, and they've become venues for dialogue among all faiths.

Recognized as what? By whom? What did Seattle resident Naveed Afzal Haq, a Muslim, recognize about the Jewish Center where he randomly shot and killed innocent people because he hates Israel? Did he learn it from his father, a Muslim who founded the Islamic Center in Richmond?

By engaging in interfaith dialogue, world religious leaders have the power to usher in a new era of religious cooperation and understanding. Protecting the right of religious freedom and understanding our differences is precious, because our most universal quality is diversity.

Flying hijacked planes into buildings is not dialogue, nor is ignoring aspects of Islam such as jihad, jizya, sharia. Nor is protesting and boycotting over a film that addresses the very concerns interfaith dialogue must address.

Over time, such interfaith efforts carry us toward the day of peaceful brotherhood and sisterhood among all God's children.

Aziz Junejo is host of "Focus on Islam," a weekly cable-television show, and a frequent speaker on Islam. Readers may send feedback to faithcolumns@seattletimes.com

Based on current actions, the peaceful brotherhood and sisterhood that seems to be emerging is very similar to the one in Madinah (near Mecca). Muslims that advocate interfaith dialogue rather than admitting and resolving the intra-faith issues that justify jihad are disingenuous at best and doing nothing more than advancing their own, often sharia-based, agendas.

Förnimmelsen eller känslan för verkligheten formar vi genom att pröva våra föreställningar mot våra sinneserfarenheter. En förutsättning för detta är att våra sinneserfarenheter står i något så när förbindelse med verkligheten.

Ett av vår tids växande problem ligger i själva förbindelsen. Den har förvisso aldrig varit enkel, rak eller problemfri. Men frågan är om den någonsin varit så krokig och utsatt som idag.

Efter det första Irakkriget 1991 utkom filosofen och samhällsvetaren Jean Baudrillard med boken ”Irakkriget har aldrig ägt rum”. Även om Baudrillard var en medveten provokatör så menade han inte att kriget aldrig ägt rum. Vad han hävdar är att det var ett krig där förbindelsen mellan det som hände och de vi såg hade försvagats eller i värsta fall brutits. Händelser som i ett hårt kontrollerat urval når oss efter redigering och förpackning. Varefter vi förnimmer en känsla av verkligheten.

Samma brott eller försvagning i förbindelsen orsakade också panik i New York när Orson Welles radiodramatisering av H.G. Wells roman ”världarnas krig” sändes 1938. Förbindelsen mellan verkligheten och det de hörde hade brutits. Något som uppfattades som verkligt kunde således vara något som inte ägt rum.

Man skulle kunna hävda att det förståss beror på vad som menas med verkligheten. Baudrillard menar att detta är något vi blir mer och mer osäkra på. Eftersom vi får allt svårare att skilja på vad som är verkligt och overkligt. Vi tvingas allt mer närma oss verkligheten i en medial förvirrande, och förvrängande ström av tecken och tolkningar.

Bloggaren Alex Schulman var under en tid känd som Sveriges mest lästa och kände bloggare. I hans digitala dagbok kunde tusentals människor ta del av inte bara hans privatliv, hustruns sexuella tjänster och bästa vännens behov av en dejt utan även kändisars göranden och låtanden.

Alex Schulman – eller en person som påstår sig vara Alex Schulman - uppträdde för en tid sedan i ett nytt tv program som görs av Expressens kulturredaktion och sänds i Axess TV. Han berättar att bloggaren Alex Schulman inte är Alex Schulman, att det han skriver bara är påhitt, i varje fall inte sant. Men att det hursomhelst inte spelar någon roll om det han skriver är sant eller falskt eftersom det handlar om ett ”litterärt projekt”.

IT-teknologin och mediasamhället har gett oss helt nya former att kommunicera med varandra. Men det ställer också högre krav på våran förmåga att skilja mellan verkligt och overkligt.

I den växande mediala gestaltningen av verkligheten blir det alltmer oklart vem so vill oss vad och varför.

Sedan terrorattackerna i New York den 11 september 2001 har det gjorts åtskilliga dokumentärer som med lupp och grovkorniga bilder försöker leda i bevis att det vi alla såg i själva verket var något annat än det vi såg.

Bilder som även används i Geert Wilders film ”Fitna” fast här i syftet att skildra en annan verklighet. En ”verklighet” om Islam.

Vi lever i våra ständigt skiftande och mer eller mindre välgrundade föreställningar om verkligheten så som vi uppfattar den, snarare än verkligheten som den är. Vill det sig riktigt illa kan våra föreställningar om verkligheten komma att byggas på fantasier eller rena lögner. Individer, grupper, ja ibland hela samhällen, kan bevisligen förlora verklighetskontakten.

Verkligheten kommer naturligtvis förr eller senare att göra sig påmind och anpassa våra föreställningar med våra erfarenheter.

Men ju större lögn desto större risk för att påminnelsen blir brutal.

Iran to counter Dutch anti-Islam video with two documentaries

Tehran - Iran is to counter the anti-Islamic video Fitna (Discord) made by Dutch legislator Geert Wilders with two documentary films, Fars news agency reported Monday.

The Iranian films are titled Reply to Fitna and Beyond Fitna and aimed at what the filmmakers call neutralizing the "plot" by the Dutch against Islam.

The two Iranian filmmakers have also declared their readiness to have a debate with Wilders over his film.

Tehran has condemned the anti-Islamic video, terming it "insulting and anti-Islamic" and symbolic for the "deep antagonism" of some Western states towards Islam and Muslims.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry last month summoned the Dutch ambassador to Tehran to lodge a protest against Wilders' video. (dpa)

UN asked to implement Senate resolution against ‘Fitna' & Pakistani lawmaker offers cash prize to name his anti-Fitna film

PESHAWAR: The United Nations (UN) should implement the Pakistani Senate resolution against the Dutch film, ‘Fitna’, which has hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Babar Awan said on Sunday....

Awan said he would also make a film, ‘Difa-e-Quran’, in response to ‘Fitna’, adding that the movie would be released in five international languages – English, Arabic, Urdu, Persian and French. “It will be released on the 1st of Ramazan,” he added.

He requested Muslims across the world to suggest a name for his film, saying that the movie had temporarily been named as ‘Difa-e-Quran’. “A Rs 100,000 cash prize will be given to the person whose suggested name is selected,” he said, and asked those interested in the contest to mail their suggestions to his Senate office.

Only Muslims? Why can't non-Muslims submit a name and claim the cash?

Difa-e-Islam shooting starts this week

ISLAMABAD: People's Party leader, Senator Babar Awan has said that the shooting of his film `Difa-e-Islam' (In defense of Islam) would start on Thursday, which in substance would be a rejoinder to the film against Islam, made in Holland.

According to a private TV channel, Senator Babar Awan said that the

Holland's film `Fitna' was made for stoking clash between East and West, under the cover of so called "Clash of civilizations," by presenting a wrong perception about the Holy Quran. He said that the film would be shot in Pakistan and abroad.

This article was picked up by Campus Watch.

Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes spoke at length on April 8 about why they believe ["holy war"] is a much more accurate definition [for jihad]. Spencer and Pipes were invited to speak at Stanford by Students for an Open Society, in an event co-sponsored by The Stanford Review and the Stanford College Republicans.

[...]

Perhaps the most important point of the lecture, which both Spencer and Pipes agreed upon, is that the jihadist ideology cannot be defeated if the West continues to explain it away as unimportant, allow obfuscation by certain groups to replace candid investigation of it, or ignore it entirely. Recognition of the threat that this ideology poses to Western civilization is essential if victory is ever to be attained.

Read it all...

"Orang-orang kafir itu membuat tipu daya, dan Allah membalas tipu daya mereka itu. Dan Allah sebaik-baik pembalas tipu daya." (QS. Ali 'Imran:54)

Sejumlah sumber di Belanda, Ahad menegaskan, perpustakaan Belanda dalam minggu-minggu lalu menyaksikan kunjungan yang luar biasa banyaknya terhadap buku-buku Islam di Amsterdam. Orang-orang Belanda membeli dalam jumlah besar mushaf-mushaf elektronik yang diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Belanda, sehingga hampir habis di pasar dalam dua hari yang lalu.
Sementara 3 orang menyatakan masuk Islam dalam seminggu ini.
(A. Muttaqin : Kebayang mimik wajahnya Geert Wilders setelah mengetahui ttg berita ini.., ha..ha..)
Sumber-sumber itu menyambut baik reaksi dingin kalangan komunitas Islam di Belanda, dan sikap bijakasana yang diambil generasi kedua umat Islam yang hidup di negara eropa itu. Hal ini menjadikan kasus yang menimpa mereka pasca ditampilkannya film anti Islam 'Fitna' yang dibuat seorang anggota parlemen Belanda bernama Geert Wilders mendapat simpati yang besar dari masyarakat.
(A. Muttaqin : Reaksi bijaksana seperti komunitas Islam di Belanda itulah cara yang efektif untuk menangkis fitnah yang sedang di gelindingkan anti Islam…hidup Islam..!!)

Surat kabar 'De Telegraaf', berbahasa Belanda menampakkan propaganda anti film tersebut yang direpresentasikan melalui workshop dialog, bersama kalangan intelektual dan pers Belanda. Dialog itu menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan seputar al-Qur`an al-Karim sebagai kitab ibadah dan hidayah, serta penjelasan bahwa apa yang dilakukan Geert dalam filmnya itu merupakan sesuatu yang telah keluar jalur.
(A. Muttaqin : Betul betul sikap yang cerdas, begitulah sesungguhnya Islam)

Surat kabar itu itu dalam halaman intinya mempublikasikan poto walikota Amsterdam berdarah Yahudi, That Cohen saat ia menyalami seorang pemilik penerbitan sekaligus tokoh pers Arab Saudi, Isham Mudir setelah berakhirnya konferensi pers oleh komunitas Muslim yang diadakan di masjid al-Ummah, ba'da shalat Jum'at yang lalu. Cohen dikenal sebagai seorang yang memiliki sikap yang objektif terhadap kaum Muslimin.

Pemuda Muslim dari generasi kedua di negeri itu juga mengadakan workshop dialog di pinggiran Mir, Amsterdam malam Jum'at untuk mengantisipasi implikasi film yang sempat mereka tonton tayangannya. Di tengah workshop tersebut, salah seorang warga Belanda menyatakan masuk Islam. Dengan begitu, ia menjadi orang Belanda ketiga yang melakukan hal yang sama (masuk Islam-red) sepanjang satu minggu ini. Ini mungkin sebagai reaksi atas sebuah ungkapan di akhir film itu yang berbunyi, 'Hentikan Islamisasi Eropa.!'

(A. Mutatqin : Allahu akbar..!!)

Lembaga Para Imam di Belanda mengajak setiap Muslim, kalangan tua maupun muda untuk bersikap cerdas, tenang dan logis serta mengedepankan sikap hikmah dalam melakukan reaksi. Lembaga itu juga memperingatkan untuk tidak melakukan tindakan-tindakan negatif yang dampak buruknya akan menimpa diri mereka sendiri dan masyarakat secara umum.

Dalam keteranganya, lembaga itu mengatakan, reaksi keras apa pun pasti akan menguntungkan musuh-musuh Islam dan sesuai dengan target yang diinginkan Wilders, yaitu menciptakan perseteruan di tengah individu-individu masyarakat.
(A. Muttaqin : Setuju saudaraku, teruslah berjuang dengan cara dan sikap yang cerdas)

Sementara itu, sejumlah perusahaan Belanda mengancam akan menuntut anggota parlemen Belanda, Geert Wilders bila film anti Islamnya yang dipublikasikan di jaringan internet itu menyebabkan terjadinya boikot perdagangan dari sisi yang lain. Ketua Kamar Dagang Belanda, Bernard Ventes mengatakan, "Saya tidak tahu apakah Wilders sudah merasa cukup kaya atau memiliki asuransi yang baik. Yang jelas, bila kami menghadapi pemboikotan, maka kami akan melihat sejauhmana hal itu dapat menyeret pertanggungjawabannya."

Ia menambahkan, "Boikot dapat merugikan komoditi Belanda dan perusahaan-perusahaan seperti Shell, Philips dan Unilever yang dikenal milik Belanda."

Seperti diketahui, sebelumnya mantan PM Malaysia, Mahathir Muhammad menyerukan pemboikotan terhadap produk-produk Belanda, setelah seruan serupa juga dimuat di sejumlah media massa Yordania.

Kepada para wartawan, Mahathir Muhamamd mengatakan, "Bila kita memboikot produk-produk Belanda, maka Belanda terpaksa akan menutup sejumlah perusahaan." Ia menegaskan, bila 1,3 milyar Muslim di seluruh dunia bersatu dan menyatakan tidak akan membeli produk-produk Belanda tersebut, maka itu akan sangat efektif.
(A. Muttaqin : Yang haq tentu saja mendapatkan jalan yang terang, mari kita dukung gerakan boikot ini…bersatulah Islam untuk menerangi dunia dengan cahaya Iman..)

Sejumlah negara seperti Malaysia dan Singapura mengecam film Fitna yang berdurasi 17 menit dan ditampilkan di internet tersebut, hari Kamis lalu.

Though innocuously titled - the title comes from the Arabic word meaning 'disagreement among people' or 'test of faith in times of trial' - in the film Wilders explores the rise of Islamic militancy and extremism, and the threats they pose to democracy, free speech and civil liberties in the Netherlands as a whole.

There have been protests across the Muslim world which, fair enough, is to be expected: any person or group in a democratic society who feel hard done by are free to make their grievances known by peaceful means.

And it was a given that that this work would raise eyebrows, since objections to Wilders' political views, his stance on Islam and its relevance in the Netherlands, as well as his intention to make this controversial film had long been in existence and were really nothing new.

What seems to have gradually become the norm in situations where the Muslim faith is involved is the use of violence or the threat of it as a means of suppressing critics. Sadly, that has been no different in this case.

As a consequence of his outspoken views, Wilders has suffered regular death threats, and is under round-the-clock guard after a number of attempts on his life.

Of course, the problem with this harsh response is that instead of quelling criticism, this approach has the opposite effect of raising more questions about practitioners of a religion which seemingly condones and encourages the use of force as a means of achieving its goals.

Criticism and dissent is not tolerated, and those who dare partake of such are literally made to feel the wrath of the faithful.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the chilling case of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by a militant on the streets of Amsterdam in November 2004. His crime? Making the movie 'Submission', which looked at the issue of violence against women in Islamic societies.

Now, I should state here that I am not a fan of either Wilders or the late van Gogh. Wilders belongs to the far right of the political spectrum - his style being openly provocative and outlandish - and though he may feel that he has valid points to make, my opinion is that he chooses to do so in a manner which is generally intended to evoke a negative response.

He favours, among other things, restricted immigration to the Netherlands, a ban on the Koran in the country because he sees it as conflicting with Dutch law, mandatory life sentences after three violent criminal acts, and has compared the Koran to Hitler's autobiographical tome Mein Kampf.

Van Gogh was also a controversial figure who rejected all religious and moral principles and regularly ruffled feathers, not just with his outspoken views, but with an unrepentant penchant for the obnoxious.

In the Western world in particular, the concept of only thinking, saying or publishing concepts considered acceptable and inoffensive is unthinkable, and the boundaries of press freedom and decency are pushed further each day.

But in spite of all this, do we have the right to offend others? Or, does any one religion have the right to be exempted from all questioning and criticism, freed from any ridicule?

I think not, as free speech has the advantage of keeping people in check. It brings things to the fore that may not necessarily be apparent from one perspective, and it ensures that totalitarianism, be it in a household, organisation, society or country, never has the opportunity to thrive.

Its beauty lies in the fact that it provides an environment where everyone - male or female, rich or poor, young or old, religious or non-religious - is equal by virtue of being human, can make their views known and hear those of those of others without fear of recrimination.

And there are certainly some pretty outrageous views out there: the tenets of free speech which we admire and uphold in the democratic process of government, for example, is the same one that enables members of the infamous British National Party, holocaust deniers, and even Islamic militants to speak andmake themselves heard. Indeed, the price we pay for free speech may be that we also unwittingly provide a platform for such extreme views.

But we have the right to agree or disagree with each other without recourse to violence and bloodshed.

I will argue that to whom much is given much is expected, and there is clearly a requirement for both the proponents and beneficiaries of free speech to use it responsibly, without resorting to cheap or populist rhetoric which insults sensibilities and causes offence for its own sake. Often, only a thin line seperates one from the other, and people will always - consciously or unconsciously - cross that line.

Notwithstanding, no one ideology can be ringfenced through a culture of fear and intimidation. Moderate Muslims must begin to make their voices heard above the battle cry of their misguided and bloodthirsty compatriots, and prove that they possess the maturity to live peacefully in a world where the man on the street is not necessarily saying what they want to hear.

En este documental de 15min. el autor representa su opinion sobre lo que es el fundamentalismo islamico y su posicion de acavar con el para una libertad completa del ser huano, ademas de presentar imagenes de los movimientos islamicos y sus atentados. El documental da inicio con una cuenta regresiva en 15 min., el sonido de un relog, una danza árabe de Chaikovsky de fondo y una imagen del Corán la cual se abre y deja a la vista la caricatura de Mahoma con una bomba como turbante, realizada por el danés Kurt Westergaard, despues empizan a parecer paginas del Corán de las cuales resaltan Algunos versiculos con su traduccion al ingles a un lado, al final del documental se muestra la cuenta regreisva en 00:03, 00:02, 00:01, 00:00, y la mecha de la bomba de la caricatura se acava, al final se arranca una hoja del Corán en la cual viene todos estos versiculos, el autor indica queesto es una forma de demostara que se tiene que reformar el pensamiento islamico y que esta accion solo tiene valor si un mahometano lo hace, ya que, solo asi se puede lograr este cambio.

Los versiculos tomados del coranson los siguientes:

Sura (Capitulo) 8, aleya (Verciculo) 60: "¡Preparad contra ellos toda la fuerza, toda la caballería que podáis para amedrentar al enemigo de Alá y vuestro y a otros fuera de ellos, que no conocéis pero que Alá conoce! Cualquier cosa que gastéis por la causa de Alá os será devuelta, sin que seáis tratados injustamente."

Sura (Capitulo) 4, aleya (Verciculo) 56: "A quienes no crean en Nuestros signos les arrojaremos a un Fuego. Siempre que se les consuma la piel, se la repondremos, para que gusten el castigo. Alá es poderoso, sabio."

Sura (Capitulo) 47, aleya (Verciculo) 4: "Cuando sostengáis, pues, un encuentro con los infieles, descargad los golpes en el cuello hasta someterlos. Entonces, atadlos fuertemente. Luego, devolvedles la libertad, de gracia o mediante rescate, para que cese la guerra. Es así como debéis hacer. Si Alá quisiera, se defendería de ellos, pero quiere probaros a unos por medio de otros. No dejará que se pierdan las obras de los que hayan caído por Alá."

Sura (Capitulo) 4, aleya (Verciculo) 89: "Querrían que, como ellos, no creyerais, para ser iguales que ellos. No hagáis, pues, amigos entre ellos hasta que hayan emigrado por Alá. Si cambian de propósito, apoderaos de ellos y matadles donde les encontréis. No aceptéis su amistad ni auxilio,"

Sura (Capitulo) 8, aleya (Verciculo) 39: "Combatid contra ellos hasta que dejen de induciros a apostatar y se rinda todo el culto a Alá. Si cesan, Alá ve bien lo que hacen."

Estos versivulos estan ordenados en el orden como se representan en el documntal.

Los titulos de los capitulos son:

Al anfál ('El botín de guerra) capitulo 8

An nísa (Las mujeres) capitulo 4

Mohamád (Mahoma) capitulo 47

Este documental a molestado a varios sectores no solo a los islamicos los cuales se manifestaron encontra el sabado en la cual asistieron más de 4.000 mujeres del partido Jamaat-e-Islami y grupos seculares, Tambien en erupa esto se a considerado como una agrecion al islamismo, asi como en EUA.

En mi opinion el Fundamentalismo islamico si esta muy serrado en cuanto a la libre exprecion, pero el hecho de commenzar a agredir esas creensias no es libertad de exrecion, asi que qunque no apoyo la creencia en ningun dios,tampoco que jusguen a ellos por sus creensias y a lo que estas los orillan a hacer.

Ovbiamente es un tema muy delicado, ya que los ataques terrorista nos afectan a todos y es algo que no se puede tomar a la ligera.

Aqui les dejo el documental, les advierto de antemano que contiene imagenes muy fuertes y se considera que es solo para mayores de edad.

Parte 1:

Parte 2:

¡¡¡Betito Star!!!

:)