Envision, Create, Share

Welcome to HBGames, a leading amateur game development forum and Discord server. All are welcome, and amongst our ranks you will find experts in their field from all aspects of video game design and development.

Fitna -- Should it be banned?

Acera

Sponsor

I'll start off with a note;

I will NOT link you the movie, you'll have to find it yourself. Yes it contains extremely "disturbing" images which really shouldn't be watched by minors. This is by no means a laugh or anything related to that. This is a serious issue...

I'm not intending to insult anyone, no religion, no person, this is a discussion

Warning!
This debate contains subjects which are extremely fragile for some people. Lets keep it mature and flame-free.

Now we got that out of the way;
If you don't know about Geert Wilders you can read up on him here
The English topic about fitna on wikipedia: clicky

Fitna (Dutch: Beproeving, English: Testing, Trial (not sure if it's the 100% accurate translation, it's what I could make up of it with my English knowledge))

Fitna is a "movie" made by Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician. In the movie he is showing passages from the Qur'an and parts from video's containing terrorist attacks, the 9-11 attack, the attack in England, a bus bomb and even the decapacitation of a USA (he was from the USA, right? it's been a long time ago since I last heard about it) soldier.

Fitna is the movie from Geert Wilders, where he is showing his ideas, his propaganda about Muslims. It came out on march 27, getting millions of views in a matter of hours. I for one watched the video today. This video is provoking, harassment and even on the thin line of racism. He is currently threatening the safety of the Netherlands and still the Dutch government have decided that there's nothing that they could do to stop him. Currently this video is going around all over the internet, and people, even children, are able to watch it with great ease.

Now I ask you, should the movie be banned and maybe even further. Should Geert Wilders be kicked out of the parlement because he's threatening the safety of Holland?

I'll get going with my opinion;

I think that it should be banned. The images shown are awful and it could potentionally harm children who watch it (I could write this and say that I'm 44, you can't tell if I'm lying or not). What he is doing is just provoking the muslim society and trying to gain followers among the Dutch population. He has stated that he does not intend to insult any Muslim people but that he is only "criticising" (spelling? now I really want to know how to spell that) the Qur'an. But isn't he indirectly insulting, yes insulting, the Muslim population by insulting their religion, which is something that they hold on to tightly? I don't believe in anything, and I have friends from all over the world, including Muslims. I can't figure out why this "can't" be banned. They say it's due to his right of freedom of speech, but as we all know, racism + freedom of speech = collision. I think he pushed the limit now and that he should be kicked out of the parlement, ban his movie and as my father says "put him on some distant island where he can't harm anyone".

discuss

~Acera

P.S. I apologise for any spelling errors which can probably be found here. Feel free to point them out to me.
 
I don't think it should be banned, personally, any more than any other film should be banned. The Dutch have freedom of speech, which means it's entirely legal to release this kind of movie. Yes, the Muslims are going to be offended, but the fact of the matter is, 10% of them support the actions of Al Queda, etc. 10% equal one hundred MILLION people. 100,000,000. (I really wish I could find a source for this, and the numbers may have changed, so if I made a mistake, please correct me). Basically, it's not like he doesn't have a potential point.

And of course, here's a relevant question: Why are the Netherlands threatened by this movie? Because extremist Muslims are going to blow stuff up.

Further, free speech rights can only be taken from someone if their free speech rights infringe on the rights of another person. Saying that the Quran supports a violent religion and that Islam is going to be a threat to the Western World (regardless of truth) doesn't prevent people from acting on their rights.

I don't know the rules of Parliament in that country, so I can't determine if he should be removed or not. If something like this merits removal under their law, then by all means remove him. If it doesn't, then removing him is punishing him for acting on his rights.
 

mawk

Sponsor

Anyone who thinks that the bastardization of scripture the extremists follow is what the Qu'ran actually reads is a complete idiot and does not deserve a place in the media.

Do we judge Christians by what the KKK do?

The extremists take very specific passages of the Qu'ran out of context and use them to ignore the pieces that preach peace and understanding. The most popular verse that is quoted among extremists reads something like "fight them until they know themselves to be subdued." Alone, this sounds quite incriminating. However, the Qu'ran is to be taken within the context of the prophet Mohammed's life -- that verse is not a call to war, but instructions on when to stop fighting -- it could be better translated as "fight them only until they know themselves to be subdued." This still sounds a little warlike, but taken it context of how it was used, it's merely instructions on how to retaliate during one war that Muslims were forced to fight -- instructions to stop when the enemy was subdued.

I'm rambling, and not being too clear about it, either, but I hope I've demonstrated just how badly the extremists are interpreting the Qu'ran. This is one of the signs of the apocalypse -- before the end, men with the hearts of demons, empty of love, wearing Arab skins and speaking the Arab tongue, would tempt the immature to the gates of Hell. I can think of no better description of what Osama and the rest of these false priests are doing.

I don't think the movie should be allowed. The world is divided enough as things are. The situation cannot mend so long as we have people spreading hate and widening the gap between Islam and the rest of the world by misrepresenting us on shaky evidence. How are the good Muslims going to mend things if the very people we are trying to make amends with have begun spitting in our faces and calling for war themselves? I wish the media would acknowledge that most Muslims still follow what the Qu'ran actually preaches -- and at their core, they are the same ideals that the prophets Jesus, Moses, and countless others brought. Islam as many see it is just the result of misinterpretations over hundreds of years by a very patriarchal society.

In other words... Can't we all just get along? I'm disgusted that so many people are doing this. Another very hateful article about Islam was published in a certain magazine recently, leading Muslim students to acknowledge it as a hate speech and lobby for its removal according to the laws regarding hate speeches. The only legal action that has been taken thus far is a push to remove the laws regarding hate speech, protecting the article in question from justice. Nazi or KKK propaganda would have been taken down just as swiftly as it was published -- why is an article that is equally offensive to Muslims protected like this?
 

Acera

Sponsor

Do we judge Christians by what the KKK do?

Not that I'm aware of, but I do think that many judge Muslims on the actions done by an extremely small % of the Muslim population. The current "fear" which is hanging around the world regarding terrorist attacks is his main point of action, he's playing into this fear to get his propaganda to the people.

@Legendary You're against it, but yet you say that there are 100 million people that support Al Queda's ideas, lets say that's much and make it 1% (just ranting here, no facts included). That's still a lot of people which can potentionally harm the safety of the ordinary people, who have absolutely nothing to do with this. But 1 man, can use this sort of propaganda to insult (yes I still think this is an insult) the Muslim community and potentionally increase the chance of an terrorist strike on Holland.

Freedom of speech is such a nice thing, but in my opinion he is infringing the rights of other people. Since we all have the right on a secure life and protection, which he is currently breaching. You can now argue with that he's not, but the past month(s) there have been discussions in the parlement, investigations by the government and 3rd party organisations on the current protection of Holland. So he is risking the security of the people for his own "good" (assuming that he did release this movie to gain more seats).

In other words... Can't we all just get along?
I wish it was all just that easy, but the media seems to not like immigrants for some reason. But lets leave the media discussion for an other time (or make an other topic)

EDIT: that was some fast editing there Miek, and I have to say that I agree on your point. Why should this be protected while KKK or Nazi propaganda (which is also potentionally harmful for certain groups in the population) is taken down extremely fast, while this threatens a whole country. I'm still amazed by the Dutch government.

~Acera
 
That maybe true, but the movie alone will not causepeople to hate other people. They were that way by nature and will stay that way regardless of a movie. Banning it would only make things worse, because its quieting whats going on, and quieting something as big as millions will only make it louder and more dangerous.
 
Acera,

You realize you're giving up your freedom of speech for what a bunch of nutty foreigners in caves think and hope to do in retaliation.  Doesn't that mean you're already in danger?  Do you think they are censoring their speech and their recruiting movies out of fear of pissing the Dutch off?  Do you think they care that you don't want to die?  Fitna or no Fitna, you're just a god damn Kufr to them.  You can't ignore that level of intolerance.  And I'm not speaking of the vast majority of Muslims not connected to terrorism.  I'm speaking of the ones that are, because they are the ones that will carry out some kind of hostile act with Fitna as their new excuse, not some common everyday salt of the earth Muslim.  The truth is though they're brutes.  Look what they do to their own in Iraq.  You think Osama is going to give up Jihad, because we're nice to him?  Do you believe the The Base for the coming Caliphate is all about a grievance over Palestine? 

Freedom and respect is reciprocal.

The following link is a youtube video from the People's Cube an opinion piece on the fiasco over the Pope's quote of Manuel the II that inspired a firestorm of riots in the muslim world over the Pope's intolerance.  The People's cube is a right wing political satirist group.  I happen to agree with them on this issue though.

A quick warning, Nicholas Berg makes a brief appearance towards the end.  If you don't know what that means google the name first before deciding to watch.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MgiFvmGRdDQ
 

___

Sponsor

I don't believe anything should be banned personally, unless the creation of the media itself involved heinous and illegal acts (such as in the case of snuff, rape and child pornography videos).  It doesn't matter how bad it is, it doesn't matter how offensive it is, if nobody was harmed in the making of it, you have the choice to not watch it.

Once we give a governing body the power to decide whether or not any given piece of media should be released to the public based on subjective and personal views of what is and isn't offensive we give them the power of arbitrary censorship.  In the U.S. for instance it'd be real easy right now for the government to censor all media critical of the Bush administration or the war in Iraq if our constitution didn't prevent it; major media outlets are already committing voluntary self-censorship in this area.  If we gave them the power to censor anything arbitrarily if it was 'offensive' to some group, they could easily say anti-war videos for instance 'support terrorism' and are offensive to a basic since of patriotism.

Once you allow the philosophy that the violation of any civil right is okay in certain subjective circumstances you open the door to constant expanding and redefining of what circumstances are justifiable based on arbitrary political whims of the groups or ideologies in power at the moment, and create a system of oppression.
 
The site's down. I really want to see the movie before I comment, and I think that it would be important for other people to see it before making opinions as well. According to the Wiki article it was released online, so it should be easy to find. Can anyone help?
 

mawk

Sponsor

Sophist":5tjv9qms said:
I'm speaking of the ones that are, because they are the ones that will carry out some kind of hostile act with Fitna as their new excuse, not some common everyday salt of the earth Muslim.  The truth is though they're brutes.

True enough. And I agree that banning something like that would be a bad idea. I really don't see what can be done about the movie -- there's no cure for a virus once it's out there, you just have to wait and hope it doesn't kill its host. My concern does not lie with the Muslim extremists (because as you said, they'll act that way regardless of our conduct towards them,) but with the uninformed masses themselves. Fitna depicts Muslims at their worst, and strongly suggests to its audience that those examples are Islam, what it stands for and how its followers conduct themselves. Not too long ago, a new friend of mine, upon learning that I was Muslim, replied with shock "but what do you do about the rule that you're supposed to kill all non-Muslims?" I set him straight and laughed it off, but I've run into similar problems since then. When I'm in America, I am careful to keep my faith a secret. Fitna is going to make it even harder to be Muslim -- the world as it is is far too willing to believe that we're an evil empire of slavering murderers.

Banning the movie, however, would be a bad move, and the extremists who threaten those that host it are handing the issue in the exact opposite of the way they should. Of course, their track record for diplomacy isn't too good anyway. The movie might give extremists another excuse to kill people, but removing it won't suddenly pacify them, either, and removing civil rights (even from those who have made it clear that they'll only use them to evil ends) is always a bad decision in a society that so values individual rights. Instead, I'd rather people were more informed about Islam, and didn't make these sorts of movies in the first place. As it stands, we can only lead by good example -- but right now the bad influences are far outweighing the good.
 

Acera

Sponsor

Despain":2zbkejmv said:
The site's down. I really want to see the movie before I comment, and I think that it would be important for other people to see it before making opinions as well. According to the Wiki article it was released online, so it should be easy to find. Can anyone help?

I'll give you a hint, youtube.

Back on the movie;
@Sophist, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're exactly saying. But here we go;
Yes we are in danger, at all times, everywhere in the world. But doesn't this "insult" make us more likely to be the next target on the list? What if they say, just like with the pope, that we are unbelievers or "Kufr" but instead of protesting, they attack us. That's my main point of why this movie should've been banned in the first place. It increases the likelyhood, and if I may, it increases it by a lot, that Holland will be the next target. And as researches say, we're not prepared for such an attack. So he is basically threatening the common people.
You think Osama is going to give up Jihad, because we're nice to him?
Nope, there's no reason for him to give up his Jihad, but why should we provoke him in such a way? We can't make him stop, but we should just give him more  reasons to attack the western society? Most of the time these terrorist organisations have a certain event linked to them. Whether it would be the US invasion into Iraq or an insult to the Islam.

Also Miek brings up a good point;
Fitna depicts Muslims at their worst, and strongly suggests to its audience that those examples are Islam, what it stands for and how its followers conduct themselves.
It does, and he has been planning this movie for a long time, and he hasn't sit still in that time. He chose these lines on purpose. All he's doing is seperating the Muslims from the others even more. While I've spoken to some of my Muslim friends, and they laughed about it. But they've also said lines such as "he should be kicked out of the country" and even further. While I stand by them at all times, and I know what they say and mean, this doesn't mean that extremist Muslims would say "He should get kicked out of the country". There have been other murders due to this (Theo van Gogh), why shouldn't they go further and actually kill more than 1 man? They can do it and I think that they will.

~Acera
 
Well, I'll give you guys my viewpoint.
Unlike most of you, I have had the experience of being born in a heavily Islamic country and growing up in said country. I have also read the Qur'an, and I am familiar with the Hadith as well. While I am no Muslim, nor would I claim to be one, I can claim at least a passing knowledge of the contents of the Qur'an and Hadith.
First, though, I'm going to talk about Legendary's quote here.
10% of them support the actions of Al Queda, etc. 10% equal one hundred MILLION people. 100,000,000
Is this the report you were thinking of? Read it carefully, as it has some very interesting information in it.
As well, many of those Muslims who do support sharia support a more relaxed version of it. For example, in a christian nation, following the Ten Commandments would be important, but all the minor little commandments like no wearing mixed fibers, no eating shellfish, etc... would be more overlooked. The same would exist in an Islamic sharia system outside of Saudi Arabia.
I agree with Miek that extremists such as Qaeda and Hezbollah take passages from the Qur'an out of context and distort them.

Now, onto the movie.
While I support free speech, I don't support this movie. I found it on youtube and in my opinion, it isn't all that much better than what Osama and Hezbollah are doing.
The quote at the beginning of the movie, from 8:60?
Here's the text of 8:61.
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Did he mention this? No. And why? This movie is all about the shock value. Shock of the statement followed by film of the twin towers, and so on.
The quotes from those muslims at about two minutes in? Radical clerics who don't have much support outside of their direct followers. I could go on, but I won't - I'm sure you all get the picture.

I agree with Nphyx that when you have government censorship, it's a slippery slope. However, while this film isn't child pornography or rape, it is extremely hateful racist propaganda. You know of the Nazi propaganda film Das Jude? That wasn't rape or child pornography either, but it wouldn't be something you'd show your kids, if you have any. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while the movie is a steaming pile of racist propaganda with little basis in reality and stuffed with shock tactics, banning it would only encourage the extremists.

Anyways...
Acera":33n08aut said:
Nope, there's no reason for him to give up his Jihad, but why should we provoke him in such a way? We can't make him stop, but we should just give him more  reasons to attack the western society? Most of the time these terrorist organisations have a certain event linked to them. Whether it would be the US invasion into Iraq or an insult to the Islam.
No, you can't make him stop. He's a religious fanatic, and you can't do anything to change his mind. He's not going to think logically about these things. And as to the links to events? Scapegoats, my friend. These extremists truly believe that they are on a mission from God, and that they are doing the right thing. They'll use whatever rationale they have to.
Acera":33n08aut said:
There have been other murders due to this (Theo van Gogh), why shouldn't they go further and actually kill more than 1 man? They can do it and I think that they will.
OK, now you're just being an idiot. No, don't flame me, hear me out.
Van Gogh was assasinated by a man heavily influenced by the philosphies of Takfir wal-Hijra, an extremely violent group who believe that they have dispensation to ignore the restrictions of the Qur'an in order to achieve their mission of destroying Western civilization.
As I said before, these guys don't need a reason. Any scapegoat they can use, fine, but they don't need one. They also hate many Islamic countries which aren't 'radical enough'. Saudi Arabia they're fine with, but pretty much the rest of the world can go fuck itself.
 

Acera

Sponsor

Van Gogh was assasinated by a man heavily influenced by the philosphies of Takfir wal-Hijra, an extremely violent group who believe that they have dispensation to ignore the restrictions of the Qur'an in order to achieve their mission of destroying Western civilization.

The Dutch wikipedia says (translated by me); Because he was keeping himself to the Islam more and more, he couldn't do as much tasks for the foundation Eigenwijks as before (Eigenwijks is an organisation to help people from poorer areas and such, can't think up the word atm). He refused to give alcohol to other and refused to attend activities where both male and females were participating in. This radicalisation completed itself in near the end of 2003, when his father re-married (his mother died in 2001) and the war in Iraq was going on. Bouyeri let his berad grow and started to wear a djellaba (a sort of robe worn by males in the middle-east -- don't know the English word). He visited the Tawheed mosque and came in contact with other radical muslims, one of them was Samir Azzouz and other members of the Hofdstadgroep (a terrorist organisation, located in Amsterdam, a group of teenagers named themself the Hofdstadgroep after being caught and sentenced). They came together in Bouyeri's house.
Doordat hij zich steeds strenger aan de regels van de islam begon te houden kon hij voor de stichting Eigenwijks steeds minder taken uitvoeren. Zo weigerde hij alcohol te schenken en aanwezig te zijn bij activiteiten waar zowel mannen als vrouwen aan deelnamen. Deze radicalisering voltrok zich in het najaar van 2003 toen zijn vader hertrouwde (zijn moeder overleed in 2001) en de oorlog in Irak bezig was. Bouyeri liet zijn baard groeien en begon een djellaba te dragen. Hij bezocht de Tawheedmoskee en kwam in contact met andere radicale moslims, onder wie Samir Azzouz en leden van de Hofstadgroep. In het huis van Bouyeri werden volgens het Openbaar Ministerie diverse 'huiskamerbijeenkomsten' georganiseerd van deze Hofstadgroep.

so this also says that he's Islamic, and the whole article says nothing about Takfir wal-Hijra, Wikipedia isn't a trustworthy source of information so I can't prove anything with "reliable sources" (like there's much you can trust these days, even the newspapers are mostly talking bullcrap for the sake of money). As far as my knowledge goes about Mohammed B. (as he's referenced to here) he said multiple times that he acted for the ways of the Islam. Also, the articles about Theo van Gogh (and his work) show that he was against the Islam and the Qur'an. He almost "invented" the word goat-fucker (to reference to Muslims).

Now I'm getting ready for work, I'll update this post if something comes to my mind.
~Acera
 
Acera,

It is not worth wringing your hands over what they might do to you.  They are going to do it to you anyway, because you and I are a kufrs.  What had Spain done to deserve the train bombing? 

At the end of the day they are looking for the easiest target.  They make their excuses after the fact.  Truth is they are going to want to kill you until your nation adopts sharia, covers its women, and offers itself up to be another base for the Caliphate.  That is what peace means to them.  They don't need Fitna to want that.  The regular muslims are going to protest and otherwise behave like normal people.  BFD.  This situation isn't going to change until Islam takes care of its nutbags.  As Salman Rushdie put it:

"The great weakness is the reluctance of all those people who dislike it to act on their dislike. I may be the wrong person to bang on about this, because of their views of me. But if people do not stand up and object to what is being done in their name, then Islam will simply become this thing. It will become this monstrous manifestation by default, because there will be nobody to say that it isn't."
 
I don't think it should be banned. Everyone has the right to say what they think, the right to make and publish a movie. However alot of countries think that the thoughts of Geert Wilders are the thoughts of all the people in the Netherlands, of course that makes not true. But the problem is that Al Queda thinks that everyone in the Netherlands thnks the same. So i'm a bit afraid that my country (yes i live in the Netherlands) might be attacked.
 

___

Sponsor

@Gratheo:  It's nice to know there's someone around who knows a little about the subject matter first hand.  However I think everyone in this thread that's for banning the movie, or falls along that general sentiment, is seriously overestimating its destructive power.  It's a preaching to the choir sort of situation:  people who are already racist bastards are going to go, "yeah yeah there's another reason to hate them sand niggers!" and people who it will offend are going to go, "yeah yeah there's another reason to blow up the white devil!" and the rest of us are going to recognize it for the utter piece of trash it is. 

In other words, the movie only serves to remind us of what we already know, and will not change views or opinions in any major way, therefore while it is offensive it causes no real harm.  If any of us were granted the power to ban what we found distasteful, well I for one would be banning a whole hell of a lot of stuff - but I'd rather let people consume garbage if they like so that I can keep the peace of mind of knowing that others will still have the right to produce things that I think have intellectual and cultural value, despite having content that will offend some people.
 
Ok, just saw Fitna and I can see both sides of the story.  What Geert is depicting is the EXTREMISTS.  It is unfortunate to have people like that in the world, but I see why the non-extremists would want this banned.  Personally, no, I don't think it should be banned because everyone is entitled to do or show what they want to, but in the defense of the Muslims, I think Geert knows exactly what he is doing.  He knows that people take things at face value and many people watching that movie are immediately going to think that is how ALL Muslims are.  He has an obvious dislike for that religion and if he portrays it in the worst way possible, I'm sure he thinks he can coax some people's minds to believe in the way he does.
 
Freedom of speech is one of the rights of a free society, however this law was made primarily to protect peoples' rights to criticize the government without finding a black van pulled up in their driveway. Insulting an entire religious group is pure racism. It is especially heartless of him to show footage of a soldier being decapitated. This man was a person with hopes and dreams, and I'm sure neither of them were to be used as a political pawn.
 
No matter how bad it is it should not be banned, it is likely it could be banned in some places (if that movie had been made in a conservative country like America it would have been banned immediately)

No matter how much I disagree with another persons view they should feel free to express their views. (also wasn't that video of the soldier being decapitated shown on the news a few years ago?)

It doesn't matter if you're offended by what someone says, they still have the right to say it.
 
Iceplosion, do you even live in America?  Because Fitna isn't banned here, and it won't be.  Now the question is if any would bother to pay to watch it.  Prolly not cause its a brief ten minute docuganda.
 

___

Sponsor

pewpewpew":16v0hgms said:
Freedom of speech is one of the rights of a free society, however this law was made primarily to protect peoples' rights to criticize the government without finding a black van pulled up in their driveway. Insulting an entire religious group is pure racism. It is especially heartless of him to show footage of a soldier being decapitated. This man was a person with hopes and dreams, and I'm sure neither of them were to be used as a political pawn.

Yes but if a government decides to ban any kind of speech or expression they by definition create a group who is critical of that policy and remove from them the means to express their criticism.

If I get into public office and pass a ban on Disney movies and talk about Disney, then the entire population of people who like Disney movies and want to watch them can't talk about it or criticise me for it without going to jail.

See how that works?  That's why we don't ban speech in free countries, we ban harmful actions.  It's illegal to blow up mosques and decapitate christians, not to talk about how Muslims suck or Christians are evil.
 

Thank you for viewing

HBGames is a leading amateur video game development forum and Discord server open to all ability levels. Feel free to have a nosey around!

Discord

Join our growing and active Discord server to discuss all aspects of game making in a relaxed environment. Join Us

Content

  • Our Games
  • Games in Development
  • Emoji by Twemoji.
    Top