Two reviews of Geert Wilders Fitna from one the host sites

Not sure if this is the main site hosting this, I haven't checked LiveLeak whatever that is, but this review is by one of the administrators of the site. He does not give the film a shining review let's just say.

Haven't read the first review yet on this page, the following is the second of two.

PoliGazette » Two Reviews of “Fitna”

REVIEW BY MICHAEL VAN DER GALIEN



When I heard on the Dutch news that Geert Wilders had put his film â??Fitnaâ?� online, I ran to my computer in an attempt to find it; I was overly curious. A lot had been said about â??Fitnaâ?� before it was even made. Once Wilders started working on it in honest, Muslim organizations and Dutch government officials warned that Wildersâ?? movie could result in riots, and bloodshed.

Even though nobody had seen the movie yet. They only knew what Wilders told them: that he was going to make a short film in which he would attempt to prove that Islam is an inherently violent religion.

So I ran to my computer and watched â??Fina.â?�

And was disappointed tremendously.

Why was I disappointed? Well, firstly it was less controversial than the controversy surrounding it, thatâ??s one. Of course this part is good; Wilders didnâ??t go too far. Which is also why there will not be any riots in the Netherlands, which is also a good thing.

More importantly, though, I was disappointed because although the movie is quite powerful in so far that Wilders knows how to express his view on Islam, â??Fitnaâ?� is a gross distortion of what Islam truly is all about, and what it truly teaches.



In â??Fitna,â?� Wilders constantly refers to the Koran. He has an imam quote violent passages of it, and then shows extremists Muslims carrying out terrorist attacks, or extremists Imams calling on the believers to fight the â??infidels.â??

However, Wilders basically makes the same mistake Osama Bin Laden et al. make.

What do I mean by that? Well, simple. Wilders and OBL do exactly the same thing: they read 10% of the Koran, and use it to â??proveâ?? that the Koran can be used to excuse terrorism, and conveniently ignore the other 90% of Islamâ??s Holy Book. For instance, Wilders quotes verses from a particular Sura that says that Muslims should kill the unbelievers, who are the enemies of Islam / the Muslims.

Thatâ??s violent alright.

But he conveniently forgets to quote the verses before these violent verses. These verses before it say:

[8.56] Those with whom you make an agreement, then they break their agreement every time and they do not guard (against punishment).
[8.57] Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful.
[8.58] And if you fear treachery on the part of a people, then throw back to them on terms of equality; surely Allah does not love the treacherous.

And then come the verses right after Sura 8 verse 60:

[8.61] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hears and knows (all things).

In other words: live in peace with non-Muslims, but when they attack you, fight back. Sure, thatâ??s not quite the same as â??turn the other cheek,â?� but itâ??s quite different than â??kill infidels!â?� as well. In fact I dare say that this message is one we can all believe in: live in peace with everyone else, but when they attack you or your society, fight back. Isnâ??t that what we all do, and isnâ??t that what the war on terrorism is all about?



As said, itâ??s a political manifesto: Wilders wants to convince the viewer that Islam itself poses a threat to the West. Sadly for him, however, he can only make that case by ignoring the peaceful verses of Islam, and Islamâ??s long, peaceful and intellectual history.

Let me give another example: Wilders quotes certain Muslims saying bad things about Jews. Thatâ??s horrible to listen to. But he forgets to point out that the clash between early Muslims and Jews was just that: a clash. It was about a particular battle. More importantly: when Jews were persecuted and forced to convert in Europe, they were living safely in Muslim countries where they were free to practice their faith. If Wilders would have been honest about Islam, he would have mentioned this. That he didnâ??t tells us all we need to know about his intentions.

What â??Fitnaâ?� does prove, or show, is that there is a serious extremist problem in the Muslim world. We already knew that, of course, but â??Fitnaâ?� does show how the Koran is abused by extremists; how they defend their extremism and terrorism, and how some Imams in Muslim countries try to turn believers into haters.

The short interview of the young Palestinian girl is and will always be shocking: sheâ??s completely indoctrinated. She has been taught to hate Jews, again based on a distorted and hateful version of Islam and the Koran.



Wilders could have used that interview, then, to point out how some Palestinians are indoctrinating their children. That quite a lot of people truly hate the West; not because Islam teaches such hatred, but because their leaders are copying and pasting from the Koran.

But thatâ??s not what Wilders tries to do in â??Fitna.â?� He doesnâ??t try to show that extremists form a very serious problem and danger and that they have to be fought no matter what, he tries to show that Islam forms a very serious problem and danger.

All in all, Wilders should be paid by Osama Bin Laden for helping him to spread his propaganda. Wilders does exactly what Bin Laden does and wants: to convince all Muslims that if they want to be good Muslims they have to be terrorists. The fact that he has to distort what Islam truly teaches and what the Koran truly says is irrelevant to Bin Laden and his ilk.

â??Fitnaâ?� wonâ??t convince anyone that Islam is inherently violent who wasnâ??t convinced of that already. Wildersâ?? case is weak. The film is so terribly one-sided, that even OBL himself couldnâ??t make a better propaganda film calling on Muslims to commit terrorism in the name of Islam.

So what â??Fitnaâ?� proves isnâ??t that Islam and Western Democracy and freedom are polar opposites. It only proves that Wilders is dishonest and / or that he doesnâ??t know what Islam truly teaches.

As said: a disappointment.

Anyone getting any hits on that link? It appears as though the site has gone down my end....

Damnit I clicked away the page just as I was about to read the first review, only to find that the site has pulled pulled for whatever reason. Can't find anything cached on google either it wasn't up long enough. Anyone read both of them?

It's been pulled from Liveleak as well I just checked. Read the statement in the video, something about them receiving threats as a result of it.

LiveLeak.com - Fitna the Movie: Geert Wilders' film about the Quran (English)

'Fitna' pulled from Web

Save Print Email Reprints

'Fitna' pulled from Web
By Ab Zagt
March 28, 2008

RELATED: Muslim nations condemn film
Anti-Koran film goes live on Web

AMSTERDAM -- The controversial anti-Muslim film by Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders has been removed from the Web by its British Internet provider, which said its employees have been seriously threatened.

"Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, LiveLeak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove 'Fitna' from our servers," the company said.

The 15-minute short film was posted Thursday and taken down Friday and had been seen by some 3 million people. In the film, presented in Dutch- and English-language versions, Wilders claims that the Koran provokes violence, using Sept. 11, the attacks in Madrid and London and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh as examples.

In the Netherlands, most local Muslim organizations appeared not to take the Wilders project seriously. There was no disturbances of the kind that occurred three years ago following the murder of van Gogh.

Meanwhile, Wilders can expect some copyright charges from Dutch media, whose material was used in "Fitna" without permission. Also, the infamous Danish cartoon of the prophet Muhammed being hit by a bomb was used without approval.

Wilders made another mistake. When trying to show the murderer of van Gogh, he instead showed a local rap artist, Salah Edin.

Poligazette is back up now. It looks rather like the people who run the site intended to host the film and then slander it to fuck once they had watched it, for which I commend them. No doubt this was without the permission of Geert Wilders and that was why the site was pulled last night for a few hours.

Interesting comments from the official host site LiveLeak regarding the pulling of the film: ""Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, LiveLeak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove 'Fitna' from our servers," the company said.
"

It's nothing to do with the content of the film, it's the fault of the British media LOL fucking idiots.

Well, sorry you guys all seem to have missed this yesterday, I had a thrill packed day yesterday following this, it was one of the most intriguing pieces of news to come out this year.

Anyway, to summarise, following the release of the film (and in the days running up to it) the following events have transpired.

A dutch muslim organisation is suing Geert Wilders.

Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist who sketched the Mohammed caricature which caused riots and lead to death threats recently, is also suing Geert Wilders for using the image in his film without his permission, saying that he now feels his life is yet again in danger and that his cartoon was intended as a protest against terrorism NOT Islam as a whole.

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has condemned the film in his strongest language calling it "offensively anti-Islamic"

And the Dutch Prime Minister released the following statement:

"The film equates Islam with violence, we reject this interpretation. The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence and in fact the victims are often also Muslims.

"We therefore regret that Mr Wilders has released this film, we believe it serves no other purpose than to cause offence."

Not only are the Dutch government considering repercussions, but the rap artist Salah Edin whos photograph was mistakenly used in place of the guy who murdered Theo van Gogh is also consulting his lawyers.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Relief over Dutch MP's anti-Islam film

Who is the clown? Geert Wilders!

[8.61] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hears and knows (all things).