FITNA (not the movie)

[staffsgt7]

Fitna

The word fitna comes from an Arabic verb which means to “seduce, tempt,
or lure.” There are many shades of meaning, mostly referring to a feeling of
disorder or unrest.

Variations of the word fitna are found throughout the Qur’an to describe the trials and temptations that may face the believers. The term has also been used to describe divisions which occurred in the early years of the Muslim community.

In modern usage, it is used to describe forces that cause controversy, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord within the Muslim community, disturbing social peace and order.

I wonder why Muslims around the world behaved so poorly when a movie was put out about Fitna, or even Hirsi Ali’s movie, Submission, that got Theo Van Gogh murdered after a fatwa was put on his head. How come the call for assasinations come from Islamic clerics on Salmon Rushdie, the guys who made the cartoons of Mohammed and his turban made into a bomb, or the strong effort by Muslim nations to shut down free speech in regards to anything Islam while they do whatever they want to non-Muslims in their own country and around the world. We find hate literature in their mosques (about 20% of the mosques in the USA are known to be teaching hatred).

Why, or how, was this violence associated with Islam? It has to do with this thing called fitna in Islam.

And ironically I don’t find too much about it on the internet, except for the movie that the Muslims hate so much.

I got this in my inbox yesterday and found it very interesting about
Fitna from the website called politcal islam.

If we look at fitna we see why the attempts to shut down free speech.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

But this is why the violence against so many, the destruction of so much over cartoons, movies, etc when it is infidels talking about their prophet:

Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the
cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by
extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: ‘Don’t say Islam is violent or we’ll kill you!’

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.

So unless we accept dhimmitude and shut our yaps because then they can control
us better, or just convert or die we will continue to see such demonstrations when we show politically incorrect depictions of Mohammed. I suppose that is why the Muslim Brotherhood (terrorist organization) set up one of their front groups, MPAC, to make sure Hollywood, the media and the news in our countries dhimmify us and start twisting the truth about Islam’s history and Prophet.

Political Islam and Religious Islam are so intertwined that it would take more than a crowbar to separate them, and I don’t know any group - with power - that is even trying to separate them.

 

[dzheremi]

Good questions here, though I don’t think you’ll find much of a response to them other than to say that you’re “misguided”, you “don’t understand”, you’re an “islamophobe”, and my favorite, “that’s not true Islam”.

Anything that makes Muslims look bad is suddenly “not true Islam” once we kuffar know about it. Kinda funny, huh? That must be why they have always tried to prevent us from studying the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira…and are still doing it now, with their obfuscating, “soft” translations, etc.

Islam is a religion and a political system, and frankly, both sides of it reek of blood and hatred. Good luck trying to tell it like it is.

 

[ralphinal]

Read all of this post before you react to any of it.

I am willing to accept that the people who riot, blow things up, and otherwise act like lawless, uneducated criminals (assuming that doesn’t insult the criminal world too much) do not represent “True Islam” or all Muslims.

However, in order for me to do so, the “True Muslims” will have to stop these people. Until “True Islam” more or less makes these so-called fringe elements truly fringe, I cannot accept that they are only fringe.

So, next time someone does something, put the fatwa on those who riot. Make trying to be a terrorist something that damns you. Stop giving to charities that funnel money to terror groups. Turn in honor-killers and refuse to allow them the excuse of the faith.

 

[dzheremi]

:clapping:

Well put, Ralphinal!

 

[staffsgt7]

Read all of this post before you react to any of it.

I am willing to accept that the people who riot, blow things up, and otherwise act like lawless, uneducated criminals (assuming that doesn’t insult the criminal world too much) do not represent “True Islam” or all Muslims.

However, in order for me to do so, the “True Muslims” will have to stop these people. Until “True Islam” more or less makes these so-called fringe elements truly fringe, I cannot accept that they are only fringe.

So, next time someone does something, put the fatwa on those who riot. Make trying to be a terrorist something that damns you. Stop giving to charities that funnel money to terror groups. Turn in honor-killers and refuse to allow them the excuse of the faith.

I don’t see any of this happening since the salvation of their souls depends on doing the things that you think are not of true islam. And those who do not fight are supposed to do the other two things that the Jihadists don’t have time for - wage Jihad by their tongues and with their wealth. It is in the Koran and Sunnah - and spelled out more clearly in Sharia laws (The Reliance of the Traveller).

What you are calling the fringe elements are very much a part of Islam. There is a whole chapter, or whatever they call the sections in the Sharia law manual, about Jihad and how Muslims are to wage it. (section o.9)

Those who riot are directed to do so by their own clerics, or Imams. This part is not told to us in the lamestream medias. You can usually find it in the alternate media if they report it. The article that I have in the first post tells this:

Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, ‘Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.’ Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be ‘fought’ (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

The grand Imam is very slick since he knows that the people are trying their darndest to say that ‘we are not at war with Islam’ in this politically correct world. He basically gives permission to the violence and it is permissible in Sharia laws to be violent. And this is why the ones you are hoping will wake up and stop the violence are not doing so. Their Sharia laws say it is ok.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t see any of this happening since the salvation of their souls depends on doing the things that you think are not of true islam. And those who do not fight are supposed to do the other two things that the Jihadists don’t have time for - wage Jihad by their tongues and with their wealth. It is in the Koran and Sunnah - and spelled out more clearly in Sharia laws (The Reliance of the Traveller).

What you are calling the fringe elements are very much a part of Islam. There is a whole chapter, or whatever they call the sections in the Sharia law manual, about Jihad and how Muslims are to wage it. (section o.9)

Those who riot are directed to do so by their own clerics, or Imams. This part is not told to us in the lamestream medias. You can usually find it in the alternate media if they report it. The article that I have in the first post tells this:

The grand Imam is very slick since he knows that the people are trying their darndest to say that ‘we are not at war with Islam’ in this politically correct world. He basically gives permission to the violence and it is permissible in Sharia laws to be violent. And this is why the ones you are hoping will wake up and stop the violence are not doing so. Their Sharia laws say it is ok.

You missed my point. My point is that if those people do not represent “True Islam” and are a minority, why has the majority not stopped them?

In other words, don’t go to the bathroom on my back and tell me it is raining

 

[staffsgt7]

You missed my point. My point is that if those people do not represent “True Islam” and are a minority, why has the majority not stopped them?

In other words, don’t go to the bathroom on my back and tell me it is raining

Thanks - it might have saved me a lot of typing if I slapped the side of my head first!

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks - it might have saved me a lot of typing if I slapped the side of my head first!

It’s ok. Basically, if Muslims want to say these people do not represent them, do not let them represent Islam. Otherwise, I am not going to buy into it at all.

 

[staffsgt7]

It’s ok. Basically, if Muslims want to say these people do not represent them, do not let them represent Islam. Otherwise, I am not going to buy into it at all.

I just found out that we just had another Islamic terrorist attack and the lamestream medias - and absolutely none of the Muslims you mention - are saying anything about it. I got this from alternate news sources, here. Instead Muslims are praising this guy and the scary thing is that he had a wish to attack children too.

 

[staffsgt7]

I just found out that we just had another Islamic terrorist attack and the lamestream medias - and absolutely none of the Muslims you mention - are saying anything about it. I got this from alternate news sources, here. Instead Muslims are praising this guy and the scary thing is that he had a wish to attack children too.

Well, I found out more about this and it is unsubstantiated that Clemmons converted to Islam. Here is the article.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The wife of one of the priests at my last church once told me that she tried to read the Quran, but found it confusing: throughout the book it constantly says, “This act is forbidden, except in this circumstance; this act isn’t cool, unless this happens; you can’t do this, but oh wait you can do it over here.” I think this relates to the topic of this thread, and all boils back down to the basic moral problem found in the Quran and ahadith, namely that sometimes an act is allowed and sometimes it isn’t. This would be like if Christ, after saying “turn the other cheek,” commended Peter for cutting off the Temple servant’s ear. Perhaps the greatest example of this moral issue is taqqiya, which although, in practice, it is supposed to be only in extreme circumstances (like if a Muslim has a gun to his head), in execution one finds it used in any case involving an unbeliever, and while it’s on the table it’s permissible to be used.

This is why many times the apologies or condemnations from certain Muslim groups are almost backhanded, especially in regards to terrorism or violent acts that go against human rights. If a Palestinian fires into an Israeli school bus, some Muslims will say: “Well that’s bad, BUT it’s good they’re defending themselves cause Israel is so gosh-darn evil!” I’ve even heard some Muslims say regarding September 11: “Well that’s bad and not Islam, BUT America asked for it.”

Therefore non-Muslims are often confused because there seem to be two conflicting ideas:

1. 
   *]What the Muslim did was bad and makes them not a Muslim…
   *]…BUT…what they did was good.
   
   The issue of who “is not a Muslim” and who “is a Muslim,” is also a bit sketchy. Muslims who may condemn Osama bin Laden, a terrorist leader, as being “not a Muslim,” yet will claim that Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, also a terrorist leader who was infamous for his suicide attacks in civilian buses and discos, was a Muslim who followed the sunnah and Quran faithfully. Again, this leaves non-Muslims all very confused about where the real issue of consistent morality in the Muslim ummah lies.

 

[staffsgt7]

The wife of one of the priests at my last church once told me that she tried to read the Quran, but found it confusing: throughout the book it constantly says, “This act is forbidden, except in this circumstance; this act isn’t cool, unless this happens; you can’t do this, but oh wait you can do it over here.” I think this relates to the topic of this thread, and all boils back down to the basic moral problem found in the Quran and ahadith, namely that sometimes an act is allowed and sometimes it isn’t. This would be like if Christ, after saying “turn the other cheek,” commended Peter for cutting off the Temple servant’s ear. Perhaps the greatest example of this moral issue is taqqiya, which although, in practice, it is supposed to be only in extreme circumstances (like if a Muslim has a gun to his head), in execution one finds it used in any case involving an unbeliever, and while it’s on the table it’s permissible to be used.

This is why many times the apologies or condemnations from certain Muslim groups are almost backhanded, especially in regards to terrorism or violent acts that go against human rights. If a Palestinian fires into an Israeli school bus, some Muslims will say: “Well that’s bad, BUT it’s good they’re defending themselves cause Israel is so gosh-darn evil!” I’ve even heard some Muslims say regarding September 11: “Well that’s bad and not Islam, BUT America asked for it.”

Therefore non-Muslims are often confused because there seem to be two conflicting ideas:

1. 
   *]What the Muslim did was bad and makes them not a Muslim…
   *]…BUT…what they did was good.
   
   The issue of who “is not a Muslim” and who “is a Muslim,” is also a bit sketchy. Muslims who may condemn Osama bin Laden, a terrorist leader, as being “not a Muslim,” yet will claim that Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, also a terrorist leader who was infamous for his suicide attacks in civilian buses and discos, was a Muslim who followed the sunnah and Quran faithfully. Again, this leaves non-Muslims all very confused about where the real issue of consistent morality in the Muslim ummah lies.

1. 
   It isn’t sketchy at all if you read Sharia laws, the Koran and hadith. It outlines who are believers and hypocrites very precisely.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It isn’t sketchy at all if you read Sharia laws, the Koran and hadith. It outlines who are believers and hypocrites very precisely.

I am referring to western Muslims who attempt to outline what is and isn’t Islam, as well as who is and isn’t a Muslim - ie., Osama bin Laden isn’t a Muslim, but Sheikh Yassin was, despite the fact both men are guilty of equal crimes. To put things in perspective, I can criticize the crusaders who killed civilians in Jerusalem and those who blow up abortion clinics equally, and not play apologist for either. You don’t see me condemning one group while forgiving another.

Perhaps what Christians in this regard is that our scripture clearly outlines that the sum of all sins are equal (James 2:10) - there is no “well this sin is OK but this one isn’t,” or “this sin is OK under these circumstances but this one isn’t,” etc etc etc. Like I said, Christ didn’t say, “Turn the other cheek,” and then when Peter cut off the Temple servant’s ear say, “Good job, Peter - now, wallop on Judas!”

 

[staffsgt7]

I am referring to western Muslims who attempt to outline what is and isn’t Islam, as well as who is and isn’t a Muslim - ie., Osama bin Laden isn’t a Muslim, but Sheikh Yassin was, despite the fact both men are guilty of equal crimes. To put things in perspective, I can criticize the crusaders who killed civilians in Jerusalem and those who blow up abortion clinics equally, and not play apologist for either. You don’t see me condemning one group while forgiving another.

Perhaps what Christians in this regard is that our scripture clearly outlines that the sum of all sins are equal (James 2:10) - there is no “well this sin is OK but this one isn’t,” or “this sin is OK under these circumstances but this one isn’t,” etc etc etc. Like I said, Christ didn’t say, “Turn the other cheek,” and then when Peter cut off the Temple servant’s ear say, “Good job, Peter - now, wallop on Judas!”

Yeah, you are right and in Islam there is a difference if you are a Muslim and if you are not. One atrocity against another is not ok if it is against a Muslims but a-ok and HOLY! if it is against a non-Muslim. And in some instances winning them a fast path into their heaven. And it is reinforced all over their texts and summarized the best in their Sharia laws.

 

[staffsgt7]

A second part to the article about Fitna is here.

Here is why they are trying to censor any discussion about Islam, they are trying to distinguish fitna. They deem it their God given right too, because Allah said so. I guess it trumps shirk as the ultimate sin since Mohammed committed shirk quite often and he is praised as their perfect man.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean ‘fitna’…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one’s religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called ‘special pleading’. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.

Fitna deserves the death penalty because Allah said it is worse than murder (Koran 2:191)