It's obvious from Eteraz's account above that shortly after watching the film, and despite his feigned claims of boredom or his peurile immaturity, Eteraz set about discussing methods and angles with his "friends" to blunt and deflect and discredit Wilder's film. But if Fitna is such a failure, such a repetitive bore, one is forced wonder Eteraz finds it so important to impugn the film? Why go to such lengths? Why mount a response at all?

If Fitna is half as muddle brained and dismissable as Eteraz maintains it is, then no response is really necessary, unless his yawn is feigned, and Fitna is understood by the Islam apologists to hit much closer to the truth about Islam than their preposterous distinctionctions between "Islam and Islamicism" allow.

The mask falls for a moment fom the face of this extremely sinister Muslim deceiver.

Posted by: jsla at March 30, 2008 8:44 AM

Give these guys enough rope and they invariably hang themselves.

High level analysis indeed!...indeed...We can make jokes about that all day, and probably will...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 30, 2008 8:48 AM

I have heard that Islam breeds indifference to the suffering of others, and now Ali Eteraz, moderate Muslim, shows himself to be a case study.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 30, 2008 9:03 AM

Fitna as a snuff film. File it under Islamoporn.

"I could have masturbated in that time."

He and Eteraz probably did, in their second viewings, but I doubt that Mohammad would approve. This perfect model of conduct was more of a rapist (of captured women) after participating in violent bloodletting, than a solitary onanist, as far as I've been able to determine. On the other hand (the one not used to wipe his anus) if Mo' had had a video camera when beheading the Banu Quraiysh...

Posted by: Lex at March 30, 2008 9:25 AM

@ ROBERT

What is Eteraz's game?

Posted by: Big Luke at March 30, 2008 9:31 AM

People - I copied this incredible comment from The Guardian after the article:

loewe
Comment No. 1230864
March 28 12:16
DEU Dear Muslims,

a fair way to react would be a COUNTER-MOVIE:

full of quotes of the Book of Revelation, the book Jonas, and some other monstrous parts of the Bible,

combined with "Christian" hate-speaches against Muslims and Mohammed and the Quran (there is abundance!),

graphic footage from Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan,

some footage from Germany f.e., where "Germans" (= Christians!) have burnt Turks (= Muslims!),

GWBush's crusader-quote, and that he claimed to have been advised by the Christian God to attack Iraq,

plus the US evangelical end-timers' armaggedon phantasies ...

Could be a much hotter movie than fitna, I suppose!"

Can you believe? The guy doesn't get it! So what about the Bible verses - Jews and Christians aren't mass-murdering people worldwide in the 21st century! In addition, the lunkhead appears to be unaware of the Qur'an's open-ended, eternal command to the Believers to kill the Unbelievers, a sentiment not contained in the Bible in any way, shape or form!

And, excuse me, but WHERE are these:

>>with "Christian" hate-speaches against Muslims and Mohammed and the Quran (there is abundance!)

"Abundance?" Where, pray tell? And by whom?

Posted by: darcy at March 30, 2008 9:50 AM

Aaah hell, islam is just one great big circle jerk anyhow.......

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 30, 2008 9:56 AM

Why bother debating 'The Guardian' when I was younger I read it but then I grew up!

The comment at the end at least shows the location of Eteraz's critical thinking. I wonder if he and the Guardian's editorial team get together for a MassDebate on the world's issues?

Posted by: James at March 30, 2008 9:58 AM

The primary audience for Fitna isn't Muslims, so Eteraz' opinion is irrelevant. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like Wilder's shifting of the onus of reform to Muslims. I, for one, am utterly unconvinced that the West is even in the smallest way responsible for the jihad declared against us, although I do admit that we've made the jihad against us stronger by not understanding its origins and methods. I refuse to take even the slightest responsibility for Muslim grievances and refuse to give in one iota to their demands. As far as I'm concerned, Islam is a completely illegitimate entity upon this earth and, as such, Muslims have no basis for making claims upon any non-Muslim, even including any claim that "we" should stop "exploiting" Muslims and Muslim lands. By adhering to Islam, Muslims abdicate those rights. I'm a human rights universalist, but I also believe that an individual's beliefs (including his beliefs about the relationship of belief to action) can place him "beyond the pale" of human rights, at which point he becomes "persona non grata" on this planet. This, and the potential consequences thereof, should be explained to them once. They will either "get it" or they will not.

As for the "originality" of his guest's "review", I guess amongst Muslims such feigned indifference might seem original, but for any Westerner who's gone through the "disaffected teen" stage, that's old hat.

Posted by: venividivici at March 30, 2008 10:01 AM

>>The comment at the end at least shows the location of Eteraz's critical thinking."

LOL! James, you know he's just jealous because the West invented the Internet!

And everything else besides.

Posted by: darcy at March 30, 2008 10:03 AM

That Eteraz guy shows exactly the uncompatible cultures of Islam and the West.

Me myself - doesnt matter what I think about the materials I watch, doesnt matter where I live, or what prayers I say, NEVER would I say such voulgar stuff to the sounds of burning woman in the Twin Towers, who is on the phone line with emergency, who can`t do a thing to save her.

Please, leave us. We want to hear harmony of Mozart instead of the hatred yelling, we want to conserve Europian legacy, instead of watching super-puper sized mosques build up.

If you see people get killed and beheaded, and all you have to say is "I could masturbate that time.." well... What can I say - we shouldnt live under the same roof.

Posted by: Vladzakr at March 30, 2008 10:03 AM

Etaraz is sorry that he didn't use that 15 minutes of valuable time watching internet porn videos!

Posted by: CTYankee at March 30, 2008 10:05 AM

Yes, yes, there is no gravity, there is no sun and Einstein did not come up with the theory of relativity. It was of course the Koran and Allah, please do not insult our intelligence with such stupid and idiotic farce of a reply and commentary of Fitna.

Posted by: savsiv at March 30, 2008 10:14 AM

Robert,
No quranic verses are recited by a non-muslim in Fitna. All the verses were recited by muslims and the consequence was juxtaposed. How can this be islamophobic?

Posted by: Desi at March 30, 2008 10:33 AM

darcy,

We have learned that simply telling the truth about Islam and its ways is "hate speech" by definition. As proof I offer this hate oozing missive by the incorrigible "Christian" hatemonger Franklin Graham: My View of Islam

Yeah, one view isn't exactly an "abundance," but there are so blasted many "Christians" who share Graham's hatemongering sentiments!

Interestingly, my Google searching led me to this March 29, 2004 Front Page article from that incorrigible hatemonger Robert Spencer: Islam’s Anti-Christian Jihad

Here's an excerpt: "Where does the Islamic animus toward Christians come from? Certainly radical Muslims despise Christians: the great radical theorist Sayyid Qutb said that while “Jews have been behind every calamity that has befallen the Muslim communities everywhere,” Christians “have been no less hostile.” But the roots lie deeper. CAIR’s ad doesn’t mention the verses of the Qur’an that say that those who “call Christ the son of Allah” are under “Allah’s curse” (9:30), or that command Muslims to “fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day . . . (even if they are) of the People of the Book” — that is, primarily Jews and Christians (9:29). Yet Muslims around the world are acting upon them."

Posted by: Lex at March 30, 2008 10:40 AM

Ali Eteratz, the great masturbator.

Is there a better word for such a jerk?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 30, 2008 10:41 AM

To me the intellectual point of attack should be Mohammad not the quran. It's easy to understand that Christian strive to be like Christ or a Buddhist like Budda. Muslims try to be like Mohammad and hold him up as an example.

We need to make it common knowlge in the west that Mohammad, killed thousands of people in battle, exicuted prisoners of war, took women as prizes, massacred 800 jewish men in one day, demanded 20% share in all loot and many more crimes.

In Western mass culture Mohammad needs to be removed from the list of great Social founders. It needs to be understood on a cultural leval that Mohammad is not comparible to Jesus, Budda, Confucius, Socrates and other great teachers.

Once Mohammads example is placed next to Attlia the Hun and Gingis khan we as a mass culture will understand. The people in the West will finnaly make the conection that Islamic teaching has no human morality and no place in the modern world.

Finta does not do this. The Koran is the wrong target, it's too complicated for a mass audiance. Mohammad is one man and his story can be understood and people can make the conection between Mohammad and the Evil acts Muslims commit everyday. Then we in the west can resist this Evil.

Posted by: Ruebacca at March 30, 2008 10:45 AM

Except for the entry and briefly at the end the music was from "Peer Gynt" by the Norwegian composer Edvard Grieg. The scandinavian music is fitting given the initial defining islamphobic event of the Danish (scandinavian) cartoons. The irony was probably lost on that Guardian idiot.

Posted by: Drakkar at March 30, 2008 10:57 AM

Ruebacca,

Interesting point you've made. In fact, the entire edifice of Islam - even the Quran - rests on the shoulders of Muhammad. Unlike the Bible, which had multiple authors over a period of centuries, the entirety of the Quran was composed solely by Muhammad over a period of 22 years.

As you suggest, the biographical material available in the Ahadith and the Sirat Rasul casts Muhammad in a light that could hardly be seen as flattering. He has sex with a 9 year old girl, he solicits the murder of an octogenarian and a pregnant woman because of the content of their poetry, he orders the beheading of 600 POWs after the Battle of the Trench, and in his search for buried treasure, he orders the torture of a Jewish tribal leader.

I think we need to target both the Quran and Muhammad's example as recorded by scripture, because both are intolerant and supremacist.

The Muslim reaction to Fitnah was predictable. More depressing is the craven reaction of Western leaders, from the UN Secretary General to politicians throughout the West. I haven't heard of one politician who has defended the film on free-speech grounds.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 30, 2008 11:01 AM

Ruebaca,

I tend to agree with you. I like the idea.

Focussing on the book is much too complicated. We should focus on the man.

isn't that what Muslims always do anyhow?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 30, 2008 11:12 AM

I am sure most of you have seen this at some point, as this is 2 years old, but I was laughing my belly out just now:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06065/666058.stm

Posted by: Vladzakr at March 30, 2008 11:14 AM

Watching a movie clip about Muslim violence and all he can think about is his dick.

Must be subconscious Muslim paradise syndrome.

Posted by: Dsinc at March 30, 2008 11:15 AM

In an effort to discredit Wilders, Eteraz makes the point the Western powers have often helped create the Islamists who are now attacking the West. Perhaps if Wilders was making a longer movie or writing an academic essay there would have been a place for that in 'Fitna', but Wilders was making the simple point that the terrorists attacking Europe and the West are following basic Islamic teaching. In a Europe that bends over backwards to accommodate the enemy, this is an important point. It is too bad the this point is made primarily from the right. It is the center of the political spectrum that needs to name the enemy.

Posted by: Jerry M at March 30, 2008 11:28 AM

Etaraz's point about juxtaposing Koran verses with photos of violence will resonate among the unspohisticated. The "cherry picking verses" argument will always be available. A better method would be to show clips of muslims themselves quoting the Koran to justify violence and extremism, then reiterating that this is from the Islamic scriptures, and then showing the bloody results.

Another pooint: I wish Wilders (and others) when showing clips, for example, of muslims calling Jews "sons of apes and pigs" etc. would make the point that this is directly from Islamic scripture and not a slur made out of the blue by someone ranting. This is a critical point to make over and over again -- one that Robert Spencer is good at but others let slide all too often.

Posted by: ansik28 at March 30, 2008 11:35 AM

Eteraz celebrates the recent declaration against terrorism by thousands of Indian Muslims (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2008/02/clerics_against_terrorism.html):

Recently, 20,000 Islamic clerics got together and termed terrorism un-Islamic. This is significant for two reasons.

First, it debunks the Islamophobic claim that the problem is Islam - all of it - and checking violence by Muslims is impossible.

...

This particular denunciation is the culminating point for along-standing movement by Indian Deobandi scholars to prove to secular India that their madrasas are not breeding grounds for terrorism.

Yet as Robert has pointed out, the declaration itself is a joke. Read it here: http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP185608

The "terrorism" condemned is Israeli terrorism and other that from the "tyrants and colonial master of the West."

Qur'an 5.32 is cited without 5.33.

In sum, it's a nice collection of all the standard misleading statements that do everything but actually condemn Islamic terrorism.

Did Eteraz actually read the declaration? If he did, and if he still thinks it's a good example of Islamic moderation, what does that say about Eteraz himself?

Posted by: kamala at March 30, 2008 11:49 AM

The pagan arabs it was said had an idol for every day of the year, Muhammed invented Islam by rejecting 364 of them and keeping one. But the fact remains that you can take the boy out of the country but you cannot take the country out of the boy.

So though only one idol is worshipped, Mahometans also bow to their founder, and also to the early companions, the hadiths, and also to shariah compilations, and then to the various personages that have bubbled up in the culture along the way.

I would guess that the modern arab pagan still has at least 364 other companions to worship along with ala.

Idolatry is a tricky thing, one could smash every graven image in the world but that is not the sin of idolatry, that originates within the hardened hearts of fallen men.

It does little to end idolatry by merely institutionalizing outward forms. The God who gave Moses the injunction against idolatry also gave directions for building the ark of the covenant, and the temple, both of which incorporated certain images.

Those who misunderstand the nature of idolatry should know that it is not the image but the misdirection of the persons heart, and even absent images, people can still retain images within their minds that they bow down to and serve as much as any pagan arab bowed down to the idol of alla.

Posted by: stickman at March 30, 2008 11:53 AM

Ali Eteraz sez:
"Anyone who has seen terrorist propaganda films is familiar with most of the scenes and most of the disgusting conflations of the Quran with acts of violence, murder, kidnapping and antisemitism. Such behaviour has been condemned resoundingly among Muslims. Those that use the Quran for illegitimate and criminal ends should be punished by the fullest extent of the law."

I guess I must have missed that resounding condemnation of violence by the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim majority. And by the way I must have also missed the peaceful muslim majority punishing their kind that uses the Quran for illegitimate and criminal ends. If capturing, pardoning, and releasing the misunderstanders so they can continue their terrorist ways is islamic punishment then maybe I wasn't sleeping.

Posted by: ARAKIS at March 30, 2008 12:07 PM

If among those "illegitimate and criminal ends" he would include violence against non-Muslims and an openly supremacist agenda involving the imposition of Islamic law in the West, then why is he upset with Wilders for opposing these things? Of course, his answer would be, "Because Wilders says these things come from Islam itself, whereas I myself am a Muslim and I oppose these things also." Very well. Eteraz then might more effectively discredit Wilders by directing his efforts within the Islamic community, against the jihadists and jihadism, rather than against those who hear the jihadists say repeatedly that they represent pure Islam, and don't see any large-scale significant countermovement opposing them among Muslims.

There is an issue here for Eteraz to consider: which side of the 'power balance' is he on?

If it is reasonable to assume that the fundamental underlying motive for all Muslims is to follow Mohammed's command to make the whole world Allah's, then it is reasonable to assume (in order to cut through their lies) that they will work in any manner possible to make this world domination come true, in time. This means (of necessity) that their efforts will be balanced by what they perceive is the path to victory (over our infidel non-Allah world) to advance the cause. If they see themselves winning on any front, they will side with Jihad, but if losing they will side with caution. This is the 'back and forth' we witness from all Muslim spokesmen, that they will either speak to advance the cause, or speak to slow it down until they feel they are in better position of power, which explains also why they will say one thing to their own, but say it is "out of context" to us. We are not privileged to 'know' the Muslim mind, because we are not on their side, so are treated as the natural enemy of Mohammed's cause. This is pure power politics propaganda, where we are left guessing as to what is really on the Muslim's mind, and never allowed to understand their true intentions of world domination.

So when Eteraz brushes off Fitna with a yawn, it means we hit the mark, because now he will become evasive in his response. We understood clearly what Mohammed's Koranic intentions were, to dominate the world for his Allah (a repackaged Arabian pagan moon-god devoid of intellectual capacity, an idiot god) so can see through the 'back and forth' smokescreen thrown up by Mohammedans. But this is destabilizing for them to know that we know, so they must destabilize us in turn, by making it seem that they too condemn terrorism (but only as a delay tactic until stronger) and are really on our side, to prosecute the criminals to full extent of the law. But this is not true to their belief system, where the 'power balance' must eventually tip in their direction, that they dominate and not be dominated for their Allah. So if this balance of power is shifting towards the Muslim's, they will press advantage, but if against, they will backpedal, and become 'evasive'. The ultimate goal, of course, is to impose Sharia on the world, where only one religion is allowed to rule to the full of the law of Allah, and all our freedoms are subordinated to this law (of necessity), which means the end of free speech, the end of freedom of conscience and belief, and the end of human rights protecting those freedoms, including the end of gender equality; and most importantly, the end of civil constitutional law, since only Allah's law is allowed (in their minds). Once this is seen clearly, we cut through the Islamic smoke screens and deprive them of one of their most potent weapons undoing our freedoms, their weapon of Muslim-deceits. They will lie for Mohammed's god Allah, because to do so empowers them in their 'power balance' to achieve their ultimate goal. This goal never changes no matter what the 'power balance' is at any point in time, but must be pursued by them to completion, even if set backs occur.

So when Robert asks: "Is it too much to ask that Muslims who condemn terrorism not be involved with it themselves, or approving of it in other contexts?" the answer is clearly "yes", because they may never abandon their prime directive, to make the whole world Allah's. But once they perceive themselves as winning against us, the duplicity becomes unnecessary, and they will forthrightly tell us what they always had on their mind, that now we must be ruled by Sharia, since (in their minds) the world belongs to Allah, and Mohammed's idiot god Allah's laws (manufactured by Mohammed's mad imagination) is the only legitimate law. What Fitna exposed of their intent, clearly showing how their Koran calls for domination over the non-Muslim world, is a terrible blow to their self-confidence, and shifts the 'power balance' away from them. The only logical response they can make is to simply discredit that this is true, and must act upon their inborn impulse to deceive us into thinking that it is irrelevant. But the power they seek is not irrelevant, but mandatory per Mohammed's Koranic teachings, and they now are forced into regrouping to find a new way to shift the balance back their way. Unfortunately Western politicians (and the general public from whom they garner votes) are clueless, so they respond with lame statements about the 'religion of peace' when in fact it is all about power, the same power these politicians will lose completely under Sharia law.

The only solution to this problem is to focus on the 'power balance' sought so dearly by the Islamic mind, and to never allow it traction, so they remain perpetually on the defensive. Once they understand that their world domination ambitions are impossible, they will retreat into siding against Jihad (at least publicly) and speak for 'moderation'. This allows for more time, and time is on our side, which allows for more Muslims to see the futility of their world domination quest, and also for more time for modern freedoms (spread with the help of modern technology, including in time lesser dependence on Arab oil) to sink in. The end result to shift the 'power balance' entirely to our side will come with greater secularization of Arab and Muslim societies, and perhaps mass defections out of Sharia sympathetic ambitions (even mass conversions out of Islam as Magdi Allam did, and as six million do each year) so their political power is eroded down to nothing. Muslims will always push for advantage, but if their 'power balance' is so eroded that it looks futile, watch them change their tune.

The ultimate weapon against Islamic ambitions is to totally discredit their prophet Mohammed and his invented moon-god Allah as legitimate cause for rule. It is not 'God's law' but Mohammed's 7th century idiot superstitions that rule Islam, and Sharia, and they must be made to understand this. Their self-confidence (fueled by Arab oil money and spread of Saudi propaganda through financed mosques and madrassas) must be so shaken that they realize that we are not the fools we appear, but rather that they are the fools, and that we know they are fools. Only then can we win their 'hearts and minds' when they realize total futility of their quest, and are shamed into realizing their stupidity in following the tenets of Mohammed's 7th century Arab superstitions. The Arab supremacist ideology must be totally discredited for what it really is, a fool's ambition at world domination supported by his mad ravings about Allah. This Islam is totally a man-made religion designed for world conquest ambitions, designed primarily by the early Caliphate as a tool of Arab imperialism, and it has no hold on stripping humanity of its natural rights to freedom. We know this, they (in their hearts) know this, and now the 'power balance' must know this, because once their dream of world domination is gone, they will declare it in their hearts (which they already know) that Allah was a fake god of ancient Arab superstitions, and Mohammed was his messenger.

In conclusion, the only obstacle here to our success in shifting power away from Islamic cleric power are the clerics themselves, not Eteraz and his ilk. They are the ones who must be exposed for the power hungry clerics they really are. God had nothing to do with them, if their Sharia power sought is entirely man-made. Muslims must be made to look behind the smokescreen of their Mullah power grab, and leave the 7th century permanently behind. And this even Eteraz must know in his heart. We must understand that the more 'evasive' the Muslims become, the more we are winning.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at March 30, 2008 12:10 PM

Ali Eteraz:

First there would be a slide with a Quranic verse. Then there would be a bunch of images of some modern scientific marvel. Apparently, everything from the space-time continuum, modern meteorology and congenital biology are supported by verses from the Quran.

What like this?...

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)

Koran: 23:12-14

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img6-big.htm

; - )

Islamic science.

Worth another look...

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img6-big.htm

Posted by: kasper1062 at March 30, 2008 12:11 PM

"I could have masturbated in that time."

C'mon, you guys have been been doing that to Western Civilization for 1400 years.

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 30, 2008 12:38 PM

He also has a blog here

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/geert-wilders-fitna-farce/

I'm heavily involved in the Comments.

Most Muslims have no intention of objective analysis.

Posted by: Vince at March 30, 2008 12:58 PM

"everything from the space-time continuum, modern meteorology, and congenital biology..."
-- from Ali Eteraz's comment on "Fitna" in which feigned boredom ("yawn") and feigned de-haut-en-bas amusement at the antics of these silly Infidels blend, not quite convincingly I'm afraid, in his attempted defense of what that mirror held up to Islam reflected

Whatever his other defects and signs of mental disarray -- it is hard to defend Islam without compromising one's intellect, and if you are not doing it merely for the money, as a Western hireling, but rather because you want desperately to believe that Islam, faith of your faithers, is just fine and must be defended, coute que coute intellectually speaking, this can have consequences -- Ali Eteraz cannot expect to be taken seriously if he believes there is something called "congenital biology." Not his worst affront to intelligence, but perhaps his most unwittingly comical.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2008 1:23 PM

There is a confession worth noting. I never thought of the Movie being a Woodymaker. He must be upset that the Film left out most of the Money Shots.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 30, 2008 1:46 PM

Muslims try to be like Mohammad and hold him up as an example.
so is it any wonder that Muslims rob and steal from other people's who are not Muslim or make war on them because Mohammed lived as a shadow of his spear and robbed and stole from any non-Muslims as well as enslaving their women and childrenas they are still doing in some areas of Africa emulating them Mohammed's behavior, where slaves are still common and legal and the only place left where slavery is still legal is in Muslim countries in Africa and the justification is from the Koran and the sayings of Mohammed because he kept slaves in which the child marriages because his favorite wife was only nine years old the first time he raped her yes the time spent on this movie and the Muslim protests could be better spent by the Muslims taking a long hard look at their precious profit and what kind of man he was as it is they are just proving the point Mr. Wilder was making with his film that Muslims are violent and the Koran is also violent

Posted by: crusader at March 30, 2008 1:47 PM

What is ironic (?) is that one of The Guardian's female Muslim staff was recently threatened by the very idiots whom Eteratz defends.

Posted by: saint at March 30, 2008 2:16 PM

If Muslims clerics are really opposed to acts of terrorism, and especially suicide bombings, why stop at hollow statements condemning them? Why not do something that would have a real impact?

If terrorism is so unIslamic, why not Fatwas stating clearly that terrorism and suicide bombings are acts of blasphemy, and those who do such things are going straight to hell? If such Fatwas were preached in every Mosque in the Islamic world, it would, at least, sow doubt about in the minds of the young, and make thoughts of rewards of paradise more of a gamble than a sure thing.

As it is, the Muslim religious establishment, leaves the whole question open. They issue meaningless statements for Western consumption, but say nothing that might deter Young Muslims from participating in atrocities in the name of Islam.

In short, suicide bomber are Martyrs, enjoying all the benefits of Martyrdom, and no Muslim cleric is going to say they're not.

Posted by: rational at March 30, 2008 2:19 PM

Come on lets give him a break after he is emulating their very perfect example of Muslims--Mohammed. I mean look at the dimwitted commentary on Fitna. He his following the Dumb logic of His Prophet who such as moron that he told his followers that:

"a group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and transformed into rats, for if you put the milk of she camel in front of a rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it."

"Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night."

Mohamed was a bigot and a hate monger and a real moron and those who follow his example are a fine example of him as you can see over and over and over again.

Posted by: savsiv at March 30, 2008 2:23 PM

At least the reviewer actually bothered to watch the film, If I had a nickel for every movie that has been criticized by those who did not actually see it but reviewed it through reputation and hearsay, I would probably have a whole lot of nickels.

Then it seems that today much of art has been politicized, so a movie that is considered liberal or conservative are often reviewed depending on the leanings of the reviewers.

One big exception that I have seen to this rule is the qualified praise that filmmaker Leni refenstehl recieved for her paean to Hitler, even though many of the reviewers deplored the message they were able to recognize the craft, such honesty seems to be evaporating nowadays in the heat of political scaldings.

Posted by: stickman at March 30, 2008 2:26 PM

After reading through his comments, including APG's zaniness the poor thing, I think he should be wondering why he has to so often reprimand for the homophobia and sexism of his fans.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 30, 2008 2:31 PM

OFF TOPIC:
I was just commenting on the Fitna movie on youtube, and noticed that none of my comments were being posted. If you post something that makes the slightest bit of sense, you get shut down. Someone said that the movie was Wildeers opinion and I said it was more than that,it was fact. People can be outright genocidal on both sides of the battle, and their comments get posted, but if you offer logical observations with no slander or obscenity you will be denied. I think youtube is trying to highlight the loonies on the goodside and make it look like they are the mainstream. Why else? Just an observation. Please try for yourselves and let me know what happens.
Respectfully Yours,
SeifulKaffir/Sword Of the Infidel =Knowledge

Posted by: SeifulKaffir at March 30, 2008 2:48 PM

"I could have masturbated in that time."

Something tells me he prolly did....with the sound down, just thrillin' to the violent images...

Given the nature of sex in the Islamic world, I have no doubt.

Posted by: Alaskan at March 30, 2008 3:58 PM

Alas! I realize too late that Robert should have called this post, "What too many moderate Muslims have been doing to counter violent jihad..." If only I had commented sooner perhaps I could have persuaded him to change it!

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 30, 2008 4:30 PM

"I could have masturbated in that time."

What a surprise this is his focus. A belief system that has sexually mutilated around one hundred million of its own women followers, then hid them in sacks has, shall we say, built up some tension.

Not to mention that raping infidel women will always be a powerful inspiration to Jihad for any new crop of young, male, jerkoffs.

It's nice to know he's comfy with the mental and moral masturbation of the Left, he'll be a perfect future citizen of Armandhandjob's new Caliphate.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 30, 2008 4:54 PM

Eteraz is just like every other Muslim. He's not interested in truth at all.

Posted by: PRCalDude at March 30, 2008 5:06 PM

Check into the islam roach-motel of cultish belief-systems, and remove your shoes and mind at the door. Great Nobel Prize winning scientists and world-revered humanitarians are not generated in double-digit numbers by that hater of knowledge. It seems that even those muslims that do achieve position in Western society, such as physician, dentists, pharmacists, and, especially, politicians, are imposing sharia on their infidel patients, clients, and constituents in an increasing way. I see a muslim, I see a brainless slave.

Posted by: twolaneflash at March 30, 2008 7:25 PM

Sounds like someone knows this Ali well to comment about him and she exited Islam. You know what, she appears to be proud of the fact she is 'free' as much as her circumstances allow- Read on...

apostatepakistanigirl said, on March 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am

Ali Eteraz on Using the Qu’ran for Criminal and Illegitmate ends (As if you don’t when you abuse women).
Ali Eteraz, the kind of liberal Muslim who gives both liberalism and Islam a bad name. The Quran is the source of patriarchy, it justifies in your mysoginist mind your well know disgusting attitude to women. No matter how enlightened you might think you are, you were raised a Muslim, which means, obviously, that your brain functions in a certain way, especially where women are concerned. I have just read a comprehensive psycho-sexual study of the male Muslim mind, like all men- white, black, western etc- it’s a dark journey into the human psyche, but your mind in particular was forged by patriarchy. To me, and to other Muslim apostate women, there is no difference between you and some whabbi sheikh, a shia mullah, a red neck white trash American with his beer can- you are ALL suffering from the same disease. Now you said that those who use Islam for illegitimate and criminal ends ought to be punished? YOU USE THE QU’RAN TO ATTACK WOMEN, ESPECIALLY WOMEN LIKE ME, you use it to justify rape, sexual intimidation and you yourself by all accounts seem to be on some sort of ’sexual jihad’- justifiable under your dirty religion, cos you are a man, and you can do what you want, afterall, according to your estimation, women only exist to satisfy your lusts. Listen, speaking solely for myself, an apostate Pakistani woman, it is YOU who use the Qu’ran for illegitimate and criminal ends, including honor killings, gang rape, getting your cock out in public whenever you feel like, touching women, pinching girls, following women in cars- this is YOUR DISGUSTING SYSTEM. Is this because the Qu’ran, like biblical and Jewish patriarchal trash is a criminal document, basically, in the hands of people like YOU- a sexual perverts charter?
I feel totally free to use the Qu’ran however I like, if that’s the only message you understand, then I am willing to spit on it and burn it. “Oh, how can she say that?” It’s very simple, I escaped from Islam and from sleaze sexually promiscuos Muslim men like you- and I can say, wear, do- whatever I want. I just don’t care what you think, really, and you’re right, you need to have stronger medicine cos women all over the Umma have got to understand only by trashing the Qu’ran and everything you value and consider muqadas, can we create the right climate to smash patriarchy- including it’s sex pervert agents- LIKE YOU.
apostatepakistanigirl.wordpress.com

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 30, 2008 7:46 PM

Posted by: daniel [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 30, 2008 4:48 PM

You are making good points there.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 30, 2008 7:53 PM

This surely is a more daunting and time-consuming task (I know I couldn't handle it) than zipping through one's little pocket-Koran to all those passages highlighted for easy reference, as it entails keeping up day-to-day, with the blathering rant and rage coming out of the Islamist propaganda machine (thanks MEMRI!), but I can't help believing it would be more effective sometimes, insofar as it would peremptorily deprive blind multiculturalists and Islamist apologists of some of their favorite accusations of irrelevance and misrepresentation.

daniel,

Frankly, It seems to me that Mr. Spencer has always done exactly as you suggest. He often quotes the blathering rants and rages coming out of the Islamist propaganda machine, especially that comming out of the mouths of individual Islamists and appologists, and, at the same time, provides the relevant Koranic verses used by Islamist to justify their murderous rants.

Of course your strategy is a good one, but it seems to me that that's been Mr. Spencers strategy all along.

Posted by: rational at March 30, 2008 8:05 PM

I hope we get more of these brave girls posting like this -

apostatepakistanigirl said, on March 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Harvard? Sorry, I got half educated at the Pakistani International School in Khobar, after getting home to the UK after 8 miserable years living under YOUR system in Saudi Arabia where I was routinely accosted, insulted, hissed out, even though I wore an abaya and a niqab until I had a mental breakdown and got so sick I couldn’t even go to school- then, I got myself to nightschool. Harvard, sorry, it was studying Pakistan Studies Curriculum to IGCSE level, and I can not go to university cos I am still in recovery after all what I suffered cos of YOU. The extreme repression I suffered developed into a fear of men, ALL men, and I can not cope on me own to go to university. I hope you all happy what you done, but hey, rather than kill myself like I tried in 2006, I started to understand through RAD FEM that why should I die- better to kill patriarchy, cos that’s the source of all our suffering- even you, you are sexually frustarted muslim men reduced to the level of dogs. By the way, the takfirirs, hezb al tahrir, lashkar-toybah and of course Jamiaat Islam and MMA- you are, as Islamists and Jihadists, absolutely following the Qu’ran, the hadiths, and the Sunnah, all the bad stuff you are doing to women esprecially- it’s inherent, from the Makkan suras. Now cos of the way our muslim soceities function, from child rearing practices, to schooling, to your little boys love of paternal affection- the whole pattern of your socialization, it is impossible for you not to be SEXUALLY PERVERTED as men. The radical feminist solution would be thus- as murthad fitri, as someone with no fucking Taqwah, no imam and no diin, you got no contact with me, this is in fiqh, similarly, as a radical feminist- I need no contact with YOU. I think you got another 500 years, but understand this, every aya, every sura, all namaz, it is a WASTE OF TIME and you know it too, you are only doing this to maintain an evil system where you can control women. The problem is, no matter how much you can control, it’s never going to work, Muslim men will cut your throats just to have five minutes with your wives, is that the jamaat, is this what being Muslim is? And as I know very well, you can oppress, you can intimidate, but so long as the nafs is FREE, you never ever going to really win cos I just used to say whatever I was coerced and threatened into saying, even in Makkah on me second umrah- I knew all of it was total lies and nonsense and fairy stories and then when I got touched up near the Great Mosque I knew- these men don’t believe this trash. I became an apostate one year later, in me head, like a sudden flash came, I was standing outside the Prophet’s Mosque with me broken arm after i got pushed over in Makkah and I realized, “This is the stupidity and ignorance of men.” So you are still living in the jahliyyah, it never ended, but me, no, I am far from Muslims, live safely, I got full freedom, I am happy person, only you still got one thing over me, cos the person I love, that person is sent to NWFP against that person’s will, forced into marriage and got that person’s UK passport confiscated and that person can not come home. So you got me on that, for sure, but that person is strong, very strong, and will teach future children Islam is lies, and to be murthad like us, and one day to fight back also. All this suffering, hell, misery, pain, agony, just cos you WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN, cos you only got the stick, nothing else.
Me story is well know, not only me in this position, come to Uk Council of Ex Muslims or Islam Watch and you going to see many more persons now ok - cos YOU can’t hurt us anymore.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 30, 2008 8:10 PM

apostatepakistanigirl is a Chameleon. Sorry folks if I wasted your time. She appears to be fip-flopping between Islam and non-Islam. She is pretty much defending Islam, like the rest of her comrades.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 30, 2008 9:32 PM

Some brilliant responses here, including:

I have heard that Islam breeds indifference to the suffering of others, and now Ali Eteraz, moderate Muslim, shows himself to be a case study.

And:

Fitna as a snuff film. File it under Islamoporn.

"I could have masturbated in that time."

He and Eteraz probably did, in their second viewings, but I doubt that Mohammad would approve. This perfect model of conduct was more of a rapist (of captured women) after participating in violent bloodletting, than a solitary onanist, as far as I've been able to determine. On the other hand (the one not used to wipe his anus) if Mo' had had a video camera when beheading the Banu Quraiysh...

The Truth About Islam

Posted by: Suziq at March 30, 2008 10:57 PM

quote, "I could have masturbated in that time."

yup, this sums up the reactions of these so called seculer moderate muslims. brings the movie " CLOCKWORK ORANGE" to mind, with it's imagery of thugs using casual violence. Except that I see the thugs are muslims.

For me this movie contains many horrifying moments, moments made possible by the followers of mohammed. the twin towers burning, the woman in the tower with the 911 operator resigned to death, the execution of american hostage, the words of hate from a 3 year old arab girl, the mindless blabber of moderate muslim imams, the moderate muslims protesting in the streets. just to name a few. I know these imageries are well known to us on these boards but it's still shocking to see them in a finished film form. This moderate muslim, ali is as usual blaming the messenger, geert, instead of the real culprits, his fellow muslims.

Posted by: desidude at March 31, 2008 12:26 AM

What would he have done for the other 14 minutes? Read the funny papers, sounding out the words to make his way through?

Posted by: special_guest at March 31, 2008 1:34 AM

I guess it does not surprise me all that much that Eteraz would try to downplay Wilders' Fitna project. I've read many--too many--of Eteraz's writings over the past couple of years, after I began reading Jihadwatch. Eteraz can best be summed up as a kind of poseur, posturing and posing to the non-Muslim left-leaning audience as a moderate Muslim of some sort, while using every opportunity to promote Islam. He spends much of his time buffing and polishing Islam's image, and is at best sparing in his criticism of those who need criticism most (i.e., his coreligionists who are slaughtering innocent civilians, subjugating women, etc., etc.). When he's not doing that, he's attacking honest critics of Islam (such as Spencer) or slandering others who, unfortunately, aren't around anymore to defend themselves (e.g., Tashbih Sayyed). And when he's not doing that, he's working on buffing and polishing his own ego. Pretty simple, really: Islam good, Islam critics bad, jihadists misunderstand Islam. He is probably succeeding to some extent in confusing quite a few non-Muslims about Islam.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at March 31, 2008 3:41 AM

Of course Ali Eteraz would rubbish Wilders' film. He is among friends on the Guardian's Comment is Free Website. People should look in to his article. The comments by contributors have been cleaned up somewhat. There were Jew hating comments galore but the pro Israel/anti Islamofascism contributors more than held their own. They did such a good job that the thread was closed down after only two days. That's what the Guardian does on this blog when "our lot" give too good an account of themselves.

I may not agree with Wilders' politics but he's got guts and people should stop being scared of their own shadows and speak out against the Islamisation of the West.

Posted by: AR at March 31, 2008 5:41 AM

Eteraz wrote: "...My initial reaction is a yawn. I blame production. The soundtrack is Tchaikovsky's mellow classical piece called "Arab Dance". Quick tip to future demagogues: when trying to incite riots, try not to use musical pieces that are based on Georgian lullabies. Quick tip to future Islamophobes: when trying to demonise Islam, try not to use elements of western culture that are inspired by Arabs and Muslims as that reveals that Muslims have contributed positively to the world."

Eteraz shows his utter depravity and lack of morality by "yawning" (i.e., telling us that he's bored and uninterested in what's presented) at the excesses of violence and mass killing in the name of Islam which is shown in the Fitna movie.

Re "incite riots", Eteraz also makes a deliberate attempt to mislead or deceive the general public about Wilders' intentions. In fact, Wilders' has never even remotely suggested that people riot against Muslims, or that Muslims should riot over the film. Indeed, Wilders even added the comment stating that the tearing sound was of a page being torn out of a phonebook, which was clearly added to reduce the chances of violent reactions from Muslims. To suggest that Wilders wants to incite riots is absolutely absurd, unfounded, hate-mongering and scare-mongering, blatant lying on Ali Eteraz's part.

Eteraz completely misses Wilders not-so-subtle juxtaposition of the soothing sounds of the "Arab Dance" with the grim violent ugly reality of Islam in the 21st century. We are being sold a bill of goods (from Muslim propagandists such as Eteraz and from non-Muslim politicians and media) about the Religion of Peace while most Muslims continue to, at minumum, maintain a doctrine of hate and terror, while a large minority of them declare outright that they aim to establish sharia law in non-Muslim countries world-wide. We've seen the polls. Most Muslims do not accept western standards of free expression, and most of them living in Muslim countries want "a strict application" of sharia law in every Muslim country.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at March 31, 2008 7:32 AM

Thanks to whoever deleted the initial post of mine which I had not adequately spell-checked.

However, I am baffled as to why my other rather lengthy post (it was not extremely lengthy), describing my reaction to Fitna, which I don't think was inappropriate for this thread, was removed. I put a lot of time into that post, and would like to know why it was removed.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at March 31, 2008 7:49 AM

Kinana

I just went in and removed some duplicate posts. If I removed one of yours that was not a duplicate, it was inadvertent, and I am heartily sorry. I will email your posts on this thread back to you, and invite you to repost the one in question.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 31, 2008 8:11 AM

We have to look at reality right in the face. Right? Unfortunately many Muslims are not fit for Fitna, the very fitting words of their most compassionate Allah accompanied by unfitting barbarian images of cruel terrorists in this 21st century. Very unfitting indeed for a religion of peace! Inch Allah you’ll all burn in hell forever!

Posted by: Platypus at March 31, 2008 4:55 PM

Thanks Robert! The post in question was indeed recovered in what you sent me.

Previous post:

Some comments on Fitna.

Overall, I think it succeeds in showing what I think Wilders set out to show.

There is a fairly direct connection shown between the explicitly terroristic verses of the Qur'an(e.g., 8:60, which explicitly uses the word terror, or extreme fear, i.e., in context, fear of being killed or mutilated) and what some* Muslims believe they must do to non-Muslims today
(e.g., 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, etc.). Moreover, Wilders' demonstrates, by letting the Muslims in question speak for themselves, that it is they who are making the connection.

*I say some Muslims, because Wilders has been clear in his many statements that he is not blaming all Muslims for terrorist attacks. However, he does hold all Quran-believing Muslims (i.e., practically all of them) responsible for cleaning out the bad verses from the Quran.

Having the reciter's voice played in Arabic while showing the verse in text that we can read is effective. This shows to non-Muslims who are perhaps not familiar with the Quran that, when Muslims recite the Quran and the naive non-Muslims hear those seemingly melodic, almost soothing sounds, it is actually a celebration of terrorism and hate, and this gets repeated over and over again, throughout the Muslim world and throughout all mosques stationed in the west.

The verse 4:56 is effective in showing the sheer, unprovoked hatred in Islam. There are hundreds of such verses in the Quran, promising eternal torture and hell-fire for the non-Muslims, simply because they did not believe Muhammad. Again, whenever you hear a Muslim reciting from the Quran
in Arabic, most of the time these are the sorts of things they are saying about us non-Muslims.

47:4. Beheading verse. Needs no further comment here. It's effective for the same reasons as cited above, and is at least effective in refuting the rather infrequently-used apologetic that "Islam forbids beheading" (Yes, some Muslims still do employ that line).

4:89. [Ed. note the verse says...] Death to apostates. Controversial because not all Muslims accept that this refers to the general case of simple apostasy, but useful to cite it anyway to force the Islam apologists into a defensive posture, which then leads to argument which provides more thorough exposure of other verses that deal with apostates (i.e., that the Quran says that apostates must be punished on earth and that they--like disbelievers generally--will have no protectors on earth (9:73, 9:66). One can also deal with verses such as 9:12, 5:33, 5:54, and others, which some Muslims interpret as supporting the death penalty for apostates. Ultimately, this leads to the Hadith, where several ahadith proclaim the death penalty for apostates, and to Islamic law, which has overall, throughout Islamic history, demanded death for the sane adult male apostate...this is implemented in at least a dozen countries today...public apostates are practically not safe anywhere on earth at present. Anyways, if an Islam critic is going to lead with 4:89, it's a good idea to have a thorough argument prepared in advance of presenting it.

8:39. "Fight (q-t-l) them until there is no more fitna, and all religion is for Allah." This is interpreted variously as calling for Muslims to conquer the world (Hilali and Khan, official Saudi translation) or to fight the non-Muslims until the Last Day (there's plenty in the Hadith and Sira to back up both readings). Some, particularly apologists, argue that the verse
is historically circumscribed. Such apologists are left with the problem of the defending their continued adherence to the verse, i.e., when pressed, they don't reject it.

Next, Wilders highlights the demographic jihad, though here he fails to cite the necessary verses, ahadith, and clerics' typical statements
advocating exploitation of massive unchecked immigration and high birth rates to overwhelm the non-Muslim countries. There are plenty such
statements, and there are ahadith in which Muhammad says Muslim men should marry virgins who have the most "prolific wombs" and to otherwise take wives who will be "very prolific" so that he (Muhammad) may "overcome" the non-Muslims through this method (e.g., see the Sunan of Abu Dawud, and see the compilation referred to as the Mishkat al-Masabih). Another limitation of Wilders' presentation here is that he does not cite other non-European examples of where this demographic jihad is playing out (e.g., just about
everywhere where Muslims are not already the majority).

Wilders succeeds in highlighting the political, legal, and social aspects of the jihad, such as attempts to restrict free speech (e.g.,
assassinations and ever-present threats), though these aspects are only dealt with briefly.

Wilders stumbles when he says that Muslims must deal with or remove the bad verses from the Quran. Clearly, the odds of this happening on any
significant scale in the next generation at least are so slim that this is not even a serious option. I suspect that he feels that he must say this, and I also believe he knows it is not likely to happen. The idea is to put pressure on Muslims to do something, and to highlight the fact, to non-Muslims, that Muslims aren't actually doing anything to object to, much
less remove, those hundreds of verses of hate in the Quran. Realistically, only strong intervention from non-Muslims will have a positive impact on Islam, to the extent that it is defanged and/or dismantled as a
social/legal/political/militaristic entity.

Wilders does not stumble when he writes that the "Islamic ideology" must be defeated. This is a sensible phrasing. "Islamist" is probably too weak, especially when he has already cited the verses from the Quran to show that the problems are endemic to Islam itself.

For some of the clerics' statements, Wilders fails to show the Quranic verse being quoted or paraphrased (e.g., whoever seeks a religion other
than Islam, it will not be accepted, 3:85; also see apes and pigs quote, 5:60-62 and others).

Overall, a successful attempt to raise public awareness about the Islam problem. Hopefully Wilders can refine his approach and strengthen it
further in future projects.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 1, 2008 12:01 AM

"The soundtrack is Tchaikovsky's mellow classical piece called "Arab Dance"...

and

"try not to use elements of western culture that are inspired by Arabs and Muslims as that reveals that Muslims have contributed positively to the world"

From Ali's article above.
------------------------------------

Yes it's true that Tchaikovsky's "Arab Dance" was inspired by the Arab culture of the Middle East, however this was not a positive contribution by Muslims. Arab music and dance was developed and preserved by Arabic Christians and Arabic Jews and NOT by Muslims.

Islam forbade secular music and feminine dances such as the Balady while Jews and Christians excelled at these art forms. Even today, Balady ("belly dancing") and other traditional dances such as the Dabke are often taught by Church groups. Go to an Arabic, Aramaic, or Armenian Church festivals and you will often see these dances performed while Muslims uniformly condemn them as anti-Islamic.

Posted by: Provoslavni at April 1, 2008 1:05 AM

I have also debated befor with Eteraz, the very model of a truly modernized Muslim and the darling of many anti-Islamists. I also found him to be a contradictory figure at best and a smooth talking spin master at worst.

He is fawned over by a certain set because he is so cool, so post-modern, and because he writes so well and so literarily. He is able to cite many masterworks of Western literature, scholarship and philosophy effortlessly. The citations and references just drip off his golden pen.

But all he is to me is the equivalent of the ultra-liberal Christian who talks a good game as a believer and then bends over backward to impress with how cool and post-modern they really are. These are much too cool to refrain from such antiquated silliness as watching one's language or trying to live life to a higher standard of behavior. He will talk about "giving his heart to Allah" just like any good evangelical and in the next breath use the f-word.

But I lost all respect for him when we debated. His position is that there are two Mohammed's. One is the spiritual leader, the other the political leader. In his system, Mohammed's character is divided evenly between Good/Spiritual Mohammed and Bad/Political Mohammed. According to his argument, Muslims are obligated to only follow the first and not the second. Mohammed is split into two neat halves that have nothing to do with one another.

Well, of course, I had a rather obvious problem with that reasoning. How exactly is it that a whole person is actually two separate people? In other words, exactly when is it possible to completely separate the good side of a person from their evil deeds?

My exact question to him was, Doesn't the lies that the bad Mohammed told in his political life, call into question his honesty when he acted as a spiritual leader? I mean usually if a person is caught in a lie once, there is no telling what else they have been lying about."

His response? "It doesn't bother me."

I'll never forget that. I spent a great deal of time and much font building my case from the bottom to the top and he dodges the whole question.

The question in the aftermath, is who exactly is he? My hunch is he may be simply the latest attempt to make Islam palatable to the West in much the same way that what's his face, the French guy the INS won't allow in the country. Sorry his name escapes me.

Of course, I don't suspect that Eteraz has the same vile connections and backers ss the other guy. But he doesn't have to be to be a sneak using sneaky means to normalize Islam, largely as is, in the West. To me, Islam doesnt have to be violent to be wrong or dangerous. Any faith which turns a blind eye to the evil deeds of its founder and proclaims his moral perfection has a serious problem with the truth and with fact and shouldn't ever be readily accepted by anyone in the West if we happen to hold our dear intellectual traditions.

Posted by: peggy32 at April 1, 2008 1:50 AM

Peggy writes :

Well, of course, I had a rather obvious problem with that reasoning. How exactly is it that a whole person is actually two separate people? In other words, exactly when is it possible to completely separate the good side of a person from their evil deeds?

[...]

His response? "It doesn't bother me."

I'll never forget that. I spent a great deal of time and much font building my case from the bottom to the top and he dodges the whole question.

Peggy,

You've got to understand that for people like Eteraz, what we call "Mohammed" is in practice nothing more than a symbolic, literary figure like Faust, or Ahab in Moby Dick. The "real", "historical" Mohammed is conveniently unknowable (since we only "know" him through religious, and therefore, historically unreliable, textual constructs -- have I got you confused yet?) and thus irrelevant so we can pick and choose what we like, when we like, and only if it suits the occasion. The only "real" Mohammed is whatever "Mohammed" we find meaningful to us as individuals (and in this respect, I might add that your lying, violent Mohammed reflects pretty poorly on you, you should really try a different one). That's why there can be two "Mohammeds" (or probably even more if need be) and also why it doesn't bother him, it's so much more practical.

Posted by: Mr_Spectator at April 1, 2008 6:11 PM