I thought Islam was smart. What were they thinking?

[Greatest I Am]

I thought Islam was smart. What were they thinking?

I always thought Islam a smart religion and I see I was wrong in this once instance. Please do not view this as a critique of any other of your views, I do not know them well enough. I did follow one of your leaders through this medium at one time and respect Islam as a religion. Allah as represented is to be respected.



The issue in question is that of the death of Theo van Gogh.

I cannot view his film Submission with your eyes and mindset and will offer mine from my side.

My overall impression of the message of this film, from a religious point of view, was that if all males, of any religion, that were of spiritual heart, would learn wrong conduct and would gain a further respect for their women.

To me this is a positive for any religion.

The only shame I see is that Islam, a progressive religion, did not come up with it yourselves.

To your fundamentals I ask, what were you thinking? To much of the old pipe perhaps? Please note that I say this as a joke. No Holy anything please.

I hope you will forgive my bluntness in speech. In other places where I discuss religion it is often insinuated that I and Satan are close and so my intrusion on your thoughts may be an insult. I hope you do not take it as such.

In my definition of debate I love all I speak to but, respect they have to earn.

When I first learned of your God, He began without blemish. That of course is only in my eyes for I speak only for one. He now has a small one. Please help me regain that small part of the respect I lost to add to that which I still hold for your God.

I do recognize that the presentation of the young lady in what Islam would view as risqué but would have thought that the benefits of the universal message of right action, would
have cause the leadership to not honor Van Gogh with martyrdom and therefore putting a thorn in Islam’s rump forever.

Regards
DL

[Goat]

So:
DO you have equal pay for equal work in the US?
AND: are women still expected to shorten their career expectations to benefit their families in the US?

It isn't perfect, but it's getting there.. and my sister certainly didn't shorten her career to benefit her family. Her husband was MR Mom.

^---- The two questions above still stand unanswered and in anticipation, I await your replies.

Well, you don't understand the U.S. constitution. Amendments to the constitution don't have ot be ratified by ALL states to become part of the constitution, but all states are subject to the constitution.

My apologies. My wording of the sentence got in the way. I will rephrase.

Perhaps, considering you are the one claiming the US ratification of CEDAW is redundant, you could give me examples of where the US constitution has been amended, (which can only be done by the ratification of a proposed ammendment by a minumum of "x"..insert # here of states) of course, apart from ammendment 19 which is that "paltry" one allowing women to vote.

So I suppose to put it simply, show me any other amendment in the US Constitution "allowing" equal rights to women.

THe right to vote is the only one that specifically mentions women. They do have equal rights under the law? Can things be improved, .. yes.. but ratifying that CEDAW won't help.

The pay between men and woman is 77 cents to the buck (the same ratio as australia)

Let's me give you a challenge. Show me one right that a woman has in Australia that isn't given to her in the U.S.

Too easy Goat. The right NOT to have to sit on death row as "punishment" for a crime.

Plus, I will note that since 2004, the gap between how much women get paid vs their male counterparts has widened in Australia, rather than narrowed. Doesn't look like CEDAW did much good there.

And as you will note, I DID mention Howard's AWA, Work Place Reforms and explained in summary how it works. Regardless OF those reforms however, the BASE "award" is the same for men or women EQUALLY.
It is apparent to me that you are going on "general studies" of what MEN have been paid vs what women have, rather than looking at the case "norm" award, either at an hourly or PA rate. Perhaps you could cite the source of your "findings" for my perusal? I would appreciate it. Also, the WPR's put in place by the Howard Government reflect their own stance on IR laws, rather than issues of a sexist nature. FYI .. I am not an advocate of Howards methods and as a result of that, I never voted for Howard as I have always seen him as a tronk, and I have known him personally since I was a child. (I grew up in his local electorate and he was and still is, a friend of my father).

And do you honestly think the American woman doesn't have much more equality without ratifying this piece article more than Afghanistan, which did?

Afghanistan ratified CEDAW in March 2003 and as such, considering their past, it is a promising first step as to womens rights in that country. At least however, Afghanistan HAS ratified which shows they recognise the importance and at least now the women of Afghanistan have THAT to fall back on as to their rights. As you have not given me any examples other than the agreed upon as being paltry 19th Amendment, by signing CEDAW, women in Afghanistan theoretically DO have more rights than women in the US. It is that simple. At least the women in Afghanistan, if there were an issue where their "rights" were called into question and the residing judge deemed that 'right" was "unconstitutional", at least the women would have CEDAW to fall back on with proof of Afghanistans ratification. Women in the US, should the same scenario arise, are left with the "unconstitutional" and therefore, suffer as a result, as there is no further legal avenue for them to persue. Also and it has to be mentioned, any domestic Constitution come 2002 for Afghanistan, has the current US government "stamp of approval"..hmmm...perhaps there is no wonder that extra protection for women was deemed necessary, hence the ratification of CEDAW by Afghanistan.

It comes down to International "rights" being recognised, rather than the domestic and ironically, even though the US has been party to the evolution of MANY international laws and many a treaty, they themselves are more often than not, the ones refusing to ratify them and as such, it comes down to a "do as I say, not as I do" rhetoric, which in itself equates to non equality anyway.

[catalyst]

It isn't perfect, but it's getting there..

Then cite sources confirming that it is "getting there".

and my sister certainly didn't shorten her career to benefit her family. Her husband was MR Mom.

And I assume that was a decision they determined between themselves for the simple reason she in her job descrption was making more than he is his, which in the end resulted in the financial betterment for the family.Am I correct in this assumption? That however in no way proves that your sister is getting equal pay in her position to that of a man in the same position.

THe right to vote is the only one that specifically mentions women.

I already knew that.

They do have equal rights under the law?

Well do they? You didn't answer it. It's your country and you should be able to answer that better than I and when you do, please cite examples as to how. If not, WHY not considering the US is the country out there claiming authority as to allowance of across the board freedoms.

Can things be improved, .. yes.. but ratifying that CEDAW won't help.

Why won't it? And if not, WHY not? As your constitution covers ZIP for women, except for the right to vote, any other claim by a woman could or perhaps would be considered "unconstitutional". You are the one claiming that ratification of CEDAW in the US is redundant because "because equal rights to women is promoted in the constitution already", and then even when we covered the voting thing you said "However, equal rights is more than voting. I personally think it is redundant", as such it is you who should come up with valid reasons WHY. I hardly think that is an unfair request, considering your OWN reasoning as to its redundancy contradicts itself as there is nothing IN your constitution other than a womans right to vote, IN your constitution, despite you making earlier claims otherwise.

The pay between men and woman is 77 cents to the buck (the same ratio as australia)

And I asked you to cite your source/s to support that claim, which you have neglected to do. Frankly, I want to know as I have been paying men and women EQUAL $ for equal work, BY LAW for years now and in fact such law has been in place in Australia since 1972, thanks to the Whitlam Government, the Arbitration Commission handed down its momentous decision. Since that time, the BASE award, regardless of gender for a specific job description, has NOT changed, except to allow for inflation.... etc. The only element NOT changing is that women AND men get that static "x" per hour, for the same job, at that job's level, meaning female dollar = male dollar. So with your citing your source, you may well have a loopole for me, Goat. which would be a bonus as more profit could be fed INTO the business.
It would be appreciated as we run a non-profit org and any spare $ that could be funnelled in, would help.

I notice though, no comment to my reply to your "challenge" or to your comments as to Afghanistan?

[Greatest I Am]

Sorry that I have not commented for a bit. my notification does not seem to work for this thread for some reason.

I see that no interest or comments have gone to the topic so I thought I should put this in to maybe get some feed back.

If any would like to speak to the moral issue, I would appreciate it.

Regards
DL

[catalyst]

Sorry that I have not commented for a bit. my notification does not seem to work for this thread for some reason.

I see that no interest or comments have gone to the topic so I thought I should put this in to maybe get some feed back.

If any would like to speak to the moral issue, I would appreciate it.

Regards
DL

DL,

Is it known for sure that the reason Theo van Gogh was murdered due to the film, or is it merely assumed as such because the perp was a morrocan muslim and he left a note with texts from the koran on van Gogh after murdering him?

Unfortunately I was not able to load the link you sent, so I don't know if there is preamble on it making any certain speculations either way.

I ask as there could have been other underlying reasons FOR it.

Could you please advise?

[Goat]

Sorry that I have not commented for a bit. my notification does not seem to work for this thread for some reason.

I see that no interest or comments have gone to the topic so I thought I should put this in to maybe get some feed back.

If any would like to speak to the moral issue, I would appreciate it.

Regards
DL

DL,

Is it known for sure that the reason Theo van Gogh was murdered due to the film, or is it merely assumed as such because the perp was a morrocan muslim and he left a note with texts from the koran on van Gogh after murdering him?

Unfortunately I was not able to load the link you sent, so I don't know if there is preamble on it making any certain speculations either way.

I ask as there could have been other underlying reasons FOR it.

Could you please advise?

There were threats against his life, and a fatwah issued to him due to the film.

[catalyst]

There were threats against his life, and a fatwah issued to him due to the film.

That is interesting. I have been looking for references to the death threats purportedly made to him "due to the film" and I found an interview with Theo van Gogh and ANP.nl (Netherlands National News Agency) dated 30th August 2004, where van Gogh said: "despite the shocking content of the film — which casts an accusing eye on the treatment of women in the Islamic faith — no threats were made against me".

Perhaps the threats he was unaware of at that time came after? Can anyone perhaps clarify this?

Also in reference tthe fatwa. Which Islamic cleric/leader allegedly issued it? Can anyone clarify that either?

[Goat]

There were threats against his life, and a fatwah issued to him due to the film.

That is interesting. I have been looking for references to the death threats purportedly made to him "due to the film" and I found an interview with Theo van Gogh and ANP.nl (Netherlands National News Agency) dated 30th August 2004, where van Gogh said: "despite the shocking content of the film — which casts an accusing eye on the treatment of women in the Islamic faith — no threats were made against me".

Perhaps the threats he was unaware of at that time came after? Can anyone perhaps clarify this?

Also in reference tthe fatwa. Which Islamic cleric/leader allegedly issued it? Can anyone clarify that either?

I think I am mistaken about the fatwa, but from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... _blasphemy

In 2004, Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali created the 10-minute movie Submission. The film is about violence against women in Islamic societies. It shows four abused naked women, wearing see-through dresses. Qur'anic verses allegedly unfavourable to women in Arabic are painted on their bodies. After the movie was released, both van Gogh and Hirsi Ali received death threats. Van Gogh was stabbed and shot dead on November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam by Mohammed Bouyeri. A note he left impaled on Van Gogh's chest threatened Western governments, Jews and Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding

[ahmd]

The Status of Woman in christianity



By Magdy Abd Al-Shafy

Woman has suffered throughout history and was always inferior to man , perhaps the worst picture given to woman can be credited to Christianity and Judaism .Christianity and Judaism , being tampered by human being , went to every extreme in giving women every heinous picture , the rationale behind this lies in the original sin . Eve , according to the Bible and Torah , incited Adam to eat from the forbidden tree . Unmindful of the fact that Adam himself took part in this obedience , they ascribe every evil to Eve , all of the off-spring females in the sight of the church are to inherit the same picture . We are sure that these writings can't be God's word . These words are interpolated by people , God's mercy encompasses all his creatures . The western media should focus criticism on these writings instead of misrepresenting Islam as a religion that oppresses women . In this short study we will introduce the opinions of the church and the rabbis , not the God's , about women . Read these few lines :

Burn The Daughter!

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."(Leviticus 21:9)

Comment

A priest's daughter, if found to have lost her virginity without marriage, can receive the death penalty, but in the form of incineration.

How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them "whoring"? (See also Genesis 38:24)

Cut Off Her Hand!

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Comment

A wife would naturally wish to come to the aid of her husband in any way she could if he desperately struggled with an opponent, but the Hebrew law specifically forbade a wife to help her husband in distress if that support consisted of her grabbing the enemy's genitals in an effort to stifle his onslaught. The penalty? Amputation of the hand that fondled the genitals!

Only in an overly obsessive male dominated culture could men create such atrocious laws. As such, the penis ranked sacrosanct in the minds of men (as it still stands today). If a male lost his penis for any reason, he would lose the right to enter a congregation of God. (See Deuteronomy 23:1)

Female Births Get Penalty

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean."(Leviticus 12:2)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

Comment

A woman who gives birth to a child must undergo a purification ritual lest her "uncleanness" contaminate others. This not only entails her isolation, but also payments to priests for the ritual acts. Thus the male dominators had even made birth dirty.

Notice here that if a woman bears a female child, her isolation must last twice as long as that if she gives birth to a male child!

(See also Psalms 51:3-5)

"The Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Female Inferiority

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Comment

The Bible's decree of male supremacy has kept woman inferior to men for centuries. For the religious, it comes as a sad fact that a human must have a penis to receive any respect or power within the Church.

All woman should realize that such phrases in the Bible has justified for many Christian men, not only their supremacy but a reason to sexually abuse women.

(See also I Cor. 14:34-36,I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19)

Jesus Will Kill Children

"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."(Revelation 2:22-23)

Comment

If anyone thinks Jesus represents only a peaceful loving soul, then think again. For an act of adultery, Jesus would kill innocent children for the adultery of others; hardly fair justice, love, or the concern for human beings.

Some apologists claim that "children" refers to the followers of a cult of Jezebel and not to children birthed from Jezebel. However, if this proved the case, the situation would appear even more horrific, for a cult of believers could number in the dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more. The deaths of these multitude of cult believers (which would include children within its membership) would only make the moralistic problem far more atrocious.

"It's interesting to speculate how it developed that in two of the most anti-feminist institutions, the church and the law court, the men are wearing the dresses."

-Flo Kennedy

Kill The Witches!

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:18-20)

Comment

These verses attest to the power of belief as they led to the slaughter of thousands of defenseless people throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Understand that these verses not only authorize the executions but they explicitly command them.

Verse 18 justified the burning of women in Europe judged as witches. In early America, the Salem witch trials resulted in the deaths of women and men.

Verse 19 refers to bestiality, a sin considered worthy of death. Christians used verse 20 to justify religious wars, Crusades and the slaughter of unbelievers throughout Europe. And the condemnation of heretics still goes on.

Rape My Daughter

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

Comment

Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.

Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of passion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.

Silence The Woman!

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."(I Timothy 2:11-14)

Comment

Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.

"Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over women it is especially fortunate that this authority has been vested in him by the Supreme Being. For the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God will therefore repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female."

-Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex 1949

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12,I Cor. 14:34-36, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)

Stone The Woman!

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)

"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."(Deuteronomy 22:24)

Comment

(Read also Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

The discovery of a bride lying with another man can yield disastrous results.

If the wife's parents can produce tokens of the damsel's virginity and spread the cloth before the elders of the city, the husband has to pay the bride's father one hundred silver shekels and he may not send his wife back to her parents as long as she lives. But if the bride's virginity does not satisfy the requirements, the husband can get rid of her by letting the men of the city stone her to death.

From a practical level, these designed laws regulating women's virginity protected economic transactions between men rather than for the sake of morality. (See Virgin's Worth below)

"Virgin" Mistranslation

"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

Comment

Perhaps the most famous mistranslation of the Bible, the word virgin here comes from a mistranslated Greek word for virgin.

The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.

Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.

Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)

Apparently either God makes errors or the Bible does not come from god, but rather from fallible men.

Virgin's Worth

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Comment

The belief some get about the Biblical law leads them to think that it represented a great advancement in morality. However, if we look at this law in the social and economic context, it becomes evident that it did not come from any moral ground, but rather to protect men's property rights of their wives and daughters.

This law says that since an unmarried girl, a non-virgin, no longer serves as an economically valuable asset, her father must receive compensation. As for the legal requirement of the man that caused the economic problem, his marriage in that society gave him practically unlimited power over their wives. Such forced marriage can hardly serve as a concern for the poor girl's welfare.

Wives, Submit Yourselves!

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Comment

These words of Paul describe another instance for the calling of the submission of women to their husbands. Note that the all inclusive "everything" could allow husbands to submit their wives to anything, including rape, beatings, slavery, etc.

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Col. 3:18-19.)

Women Shall Not Speak

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Comment

If one ever wishes to find an explanation of woman's inferiority to men, one only has to look in the Bible. Paul makes clear and delineates the importance of woman recognizing her place, "ad nauseam."

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24 , Col. 3:18-19.)

"The bible teaches that women brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire... Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Women's Sorrow

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

Comment

Not only does the Woman get blamed for the Fall, but God decides to multiply her sorrow, plus, she must submit to her husband like a slave.

Religionists have used this verse as justification and "reason" for the pain and punishment (sin) of childbirth and the sin of mankind. And to this day many Christians, Jews and Islamics place women lower then men in the ranking of Godly order. If ever there existed a more cruel justification against women, it could not have done as much damage as from belief in Genesis 3:16. Because of the belief in the Fall, countless Christians have branded the entire human race as depraved.

Before the advent of male dominated religions, cultures around the world respected women and worshipped goddesses. The Old Testament records the brutal slaughter of surrounding cultures and slowly throughout the centuries, the goddess religions faded away in place of the belief-system of a jealous, scatological, male war god.

"Christianity teaches that the human race is depraved, fallen, and sinful."--D. James Kennedy (Why I Believe, World Publishing, 1980)


The Wicked Woman

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)

"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)

"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)

"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord."(Eccles.26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach."(Eccles. 42:13-14)

Comment

Ecclesiasticus of the Apocrypha does not appear in most Bibles. However, in Catholic Bibles, the inferiority of woman still appears in the verses of Ecclesiasticus. These verses give only a sampling from this book that lowers the status of women.

[catalyst]

Hmm... Thank you for the wiki link, goat. With all due respect, I take what is at wiki with a grain of salt and the information as to Ayaan Hirsi Ali beng given death threats AFTER the release of the movie are also untrue, so that in itself speaks volumes on the reliability of wiki. She actually received death threats for reasons not related to the movie much earlier and it was assumed only that it was from "islamic fundamentalists".

So again, could anyone truly clarify on the death threat situation as to van gogh? OR the alleged fatwa?

[Goat]

Hmm... Thank you for the wiki link, goat. With all due respect, I take what is at wiki with a grain of salt and the information as to Ayaan Hirsi Ali beng given death threats AFTER the release of the movie are also untrue, so that in itself speaks volumes on the reliability of wiki. She actually received death threats for reasons not related to the movie much earlier and it was assumed only that it was from "islamic fundamentalists".

So again, could anyone truly clarify on the death threat situation as to van gogh? OR the alleged fatwa?

Is it false??

From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/ ... 9609.shtml

Even before the movie was broadcast, Hirsi Ali worked in parliament under guard. After the broadcast, she received a new wave of death threats, and the government increased her security. There were threats against Van Gogh, too, but he laughed them off. This was Holland, after all, the world's capital of free speech.

But Van Gogh was murdered as he cycled to work on a bike path in Linnaeus Street in Amsterdam one morning. He was shot several times by a bearded young man. As he lay dying, Van Gogh was reported to have begged for mercy, and said, "Can't we talk about this?" But the man shot him again, slit his throat and stabbed him, pinning a letter to his body.