Wilders On Islam
JihadWatch links to MuslimsDebate.com's posting of a statement from The Netherlands' Geert Wilders:
There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.The "indecently" dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice," as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. "It is sinful to approach them," the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.
Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father's "face darken and he is filled with gloom" (sura 43:15). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love - that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice."
However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.
I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that "Nothing can be compared with Allah" (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.
Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps - let us certainly hope so - only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the "fearful fatalistic apathy" Churchill referred to.
The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: "About the immediate causes of things - precisely how they happen - they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. 'Do you think it will rain?' you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. 'If God wills,' is the answer. You pass the native hospital. 'Are the doctors good?' 'In our country,' the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, 'we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.' All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. ... They have relapsed - all except those who are educated according to Western methods - into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy."
Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.
...I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: "Fatalism is no option; 'Inch' Allah' is a curse;
Submission is a disgrace.
Free yourselves. It is up to you.
Geert Wilders
Why are you giving blog space to such a *racist*?
Doesn't he know that *all* cultures must be respected - and if any culture is to be dissed, it must be the *oppressive* Judeo-Christian one?
Ben David at July 21, 2010 1:39 AM
Another boring tale about their *potential*.
I know they and their womenfolk have the potential to be the world cruellest bullies, if we are not careful.
Geert Wilders should know that they are trying to make use of their socalled religion to extort special privileges for themselves.
Geert Wilder should know that whatever problem they have with their own people, they still cling to their socalled religion to prop them up.
Geert Wilder should know that they cling to their socalled religion to assert their socalled superiority over us.
Geert Wilder is just wasting his time talking to them who don't know the meaning of equality and fairness. Their womenfolk also cannot be trusted for they also cling to their socalled religion for power. Their women also have the potential to be the world greatest abusers. Their women also have the potential to damage our world freedom. Scary but real.
WLIL at July 21, 2010 2:38 AM
Dear Ben David,
I find it sad to hear someone make a blanket statement about any culture, including your comment at the end of your post about the Judeo Christian perspective. I know it's considered acceptable by some people to trash the Jewish or Christian faith or culture. However, such statements do little for enhancing the peace, tranquility and harmony we'd want between those who share different opinions or lifestyles.
I find such comments to be tragic. Judging others is a form of emotional violence. It does not promote the best interest of the person making the dogmatic statements or those subject to them. I'm more interested in hearing you concerns, that prompted your negative statement. Addressing the needs beneath your comments would be more productive. Dialog and looking how we can meet the needs of all concerned is preferred.
Religious bigotry is unacceptable, regardless who is the target. Are you making this statement due to negative experiences in your past? If so, I'm sorry that you may have had negative exposure to religious matters or people who were Jewish and/or Christian. Just the same, I would like to ask you keep an open mind. It would meet my need for tolerance, cooperation, dignity, respect and open communication when relating with anyone. Alienating others with judgments does not provide for healthy, open dialog.
Thanks for listening,
Paul
Paul NorthernCalif at July 21, 2010 2:39 AM
I liked your advice and the name was catchy . I was googling around and the name lead me here
baby advice at July 21, 2010 3:58 AM
Paul, you know he was being sarcastic, right. Really you had no need to write three paragraphs about how sad that makes you.
Kali at July 21, 2010 4:12 AM
As you know, I don't agree with your blanket statements about all Islam... but I WILL give you Wahabism. This is some fucked up shit.
I recently read an interesting book about female foeticide and infanticide India, as well, called "Empower Women"... the author is named Deeva something I think. It was a good read. Son preference is a problem there, too.
Not that there is anything wrong with wanting a boy or a girl... its the inability to get over it if you have the other that is a problem.
NicoleK at July 21, 2010 5:17 AM
Kali: there is a axiom if sarcasm is posted on the internet, would anyone notice? Sadly, it is truer than not.
NicoleK: China is on line one for you. Something about an overabundance of men.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 21, 2010 7:17 AM
Judging others is a form of emotional violence.
Oh, please. It's an expression of values instead of multi-culti bullshit.
As for your inability to read sarcasm, and the notion that Ben-David is some Judeo-Christian hater, look closer at the name..."Ben David"..."son of David" in Hebrew.
Oh, and as for tolerance...should we really be "tolerant" of a religion that demands its followers convert or kill the infidel and overthrow democracy and install the New Caliphate around the world?
I'm fond of Judeo-Christian values, although I think it's silly to believe, sans evidence, in god (whoops...is that "emotional violence"...having an opinion?) Would you prefer the values that would have us all beheaded for not believing in Allah?
Amy Alkon at July 21, 2010 9:29 AM
If they could ramp up their hatred of daughters enough to kill them all at birth, this whole problem would be solve itself in time.
Dwatney at July 21, 2010 9:49 AM
I read this over at jihadwatch and thought it was incredible. I'm passing the link along to everyone in my address book.
Jess at July 21, 2010 10:33 AM
Wilders makes a great point about what is, to me, *the* biggest difference between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. In Judaism and Christianity, every person is encouraged to discover and appreciate the nature of God for themselves. Further, they hold that the nature of God is that of a rational and loving creature. By comparison, Islam teaches that to the average Mo, Allah is unknowable. In fact, it's an insult to Allah, bordering on blasphemy, to even try. Allah's intentions can be known only by the statements of his prophets on Earth, and judging by most of those statements, Allah is a real sonuvuhbitch. The only thing the Muslim in the street can do is do what the religion's name says: submit.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that Lenin must have been really pissed about Islam -- in that someone else thought of it first.
Cousin Dave at July 21, 2010 11:21 AM
Are you tired of looking at Islam from the outside in and being overwhelmed by the strangeness and complexity and murky history? Never fear, you can now master Islam and its entire 1400-year history free online anytime with the Historyscoper to arm your mind with knowledge to understand current events. To get started just find study time and click http://go.to/islamhistory
Historyscoper at July 21, 2010 12:31 PM
Kali:
Paul, you know he was being sarcastic, right?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I think Paul may be engaged in Deep Satire of the PC position... either that or he's a leftie twerp.
Ben David at July 21, 2010 12:53 PM
We should not be tolerant of those evil nasty followers of islam who discriminated against us and who don't respect our nonbelievers freedom. It is not our problem that they cling to their evil ideolgy due to their greed for the bit of
power to control and manipulate the freedom loving world. They want the nonbelievers world to be fearful of of them. That is really disgusting.
As long as they don't have the power to control us nonbelievers, the world will have more freedom and will be a more safer place to be in. Our freedom belongs to us. They have no right to take away our freedom.
WLIL at July 21, 2010 2:23 PM
Thanks Amy for your response.
I’m well aware of the meaning of Ben David’s name. I read Hebrew along with other languages. I made no such assumption of him being a Judeo-Christian hater. An offhand, derogatory comment is different from hating. One is a snapshot, the other is a video. Could you please show me in my comment where I conclude he’s a hater? Your response reveals that the “telephone game” needs only one other person’s interpretation of what’s said for a misunderstanding to occur.
I thought it could be that he had unfortunate experiences from his religious upbringing as a child or during adolescence. I didn’t want to assume his reference point when he made his comment. I know many who comment on the oppression of the Judeo-Christian culture, due to historical reasons. I now see he was being sardonic. Thanks for providing clarity.
I, too, enjoy the expression of values. But when they are used to take a shot at a culture, as it appeared at the end of his post, I was concerned. As Marshall Rosenberg states, when we do so, “we increase defensiveness and resistance to those we address whose behaviors are of concern to us. [When we judge] “others our attention is focused on classifying, analyzing and determining levels of wrongness rather than on what we and others need and are not getting. [Doing so] sooner or later, we will experience the consequences of diminished good will.”
“It is important here not to confuse value judgments and moralistic judgments. All of us make value judgments as to the qualities we value in life; for example, we might value honesty, freedom, or peace. Value judgments reflect our beliefs of how life can best be served. We make moralistic judgments of people and behaviors that fail to support our value judgments, e.g. ‘violence is bad. People who kill others are evil.’ Had we been raised speaking a language that facilitated the expression of compassion, we learn to articulate our needs and values directly, rather than to insinuate wrongness when they have not been met. For example, instead of “Violence is bad,” we might say, “I am fearful of the use of violence to resolve conflicts: I value the resolution of conflicts through other means.” Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication, A Language of Life. p 16, 17. In this case we are stating what we want, instead of what we don’t want. I find such an approach more practical.
I don’t for a moment advocate tolerance toward Islamic or any other intolerance. This year alone I helped a Pakistani co-worker escape from her father. He had a rug-burned forehead indicating his piety, due to constant prayer. Nonetheless, he wanted to take her back home to Pakistan to kill her. He felt she disgraced the family because she was raped last year. She’s now safely living in another state.
My previous post wasn’t directed to support the tenets of any faith that oppresses others. I don’t agree with any faith that compels adherents to have intolerance towards those of a different faith, or those who have no faith. I question a religion that allows “infidels,” to experience the ultimate point—the point of a sword used to terminate unbelievers who don’t submit to Islam. My concern is with his statement about Judeo-Christian culture.
Thank you for the tolerance that allows me to express an opinion that may differ with yours.
Paul
Paul NorthernCalif at July 21, 2010 3:29 PM
But Paul, it makes you sad to hear about a blanket statment about any culture, so you shouldn't critize Islam.
"Judging others is a form of emotional violence."
"Religious bigotry is unacceptable, regardless who is the target. Are you making this statement due to negative experiences in your past?"
You darn emotional violent religious bigot. I bet you're only saying Islam is bad because of a bd experience from you're past.
Kali at July 21, 2010 3:43 PM
Ben and Kali,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. They help me to understand your worldview and values.
I wish both of you the best,
Paul NorthernCalif at July 21, 2010 3:57 PM
Some interesting newsworthy articles about women in Islam.
http://tinyurl.com/37xfcgt
http://tinyurl.com/398hymm
Paula at July 21, 2010 4:03 PM
Geert Wilder should also take note that is not our nonbelievers problem if those islamic people value their evil totalitarian ideology more than their freedom. We value our freedom. They don't. So, It is not our problem if they lose their freedom via their greed and their obssession for power via their totalitarian ideology. It is not our problem if they lose their sanity while demanding and extorting respect for their senseless totalitarian ideology.
WLIL at July 21, 2010 5:25 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/21/wilders_on_isla.html#comment-1735268">comment from WLILIt is our problem if we lose our freedoms to them.
Amy Alkon at July 21, 2010 5:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/21/wilders_on_isla.html#comment-1735270">comment from WLILAlso, personally, I think it's good to try to help people who are not free to become free.
Amy Alkon at July 21, 2010 5:33 PM
Yes,I agree with you. But we have to help to preserve our own freedom first. If we are in a more advantaged situation or when we are stronger, then only we can help the weaker.
If we are being constantly pulled down by evil forces, we have to defend ourselves first.
WLIL at July 21, 2010 7:34 PM
And another thing is the fact that I am living as a minority freethinker in their predominantly selfish asiatic islamic world. Therefore I have to take care of what little freedom I have first and prevent myself from being suck into their evil system..
WLIL at July 21, 2010 7:51 PM
Therefore, it is important that we protect our own free world freedom first.
WLIL at July 21, 2010 9:51 PM
And also, we should take note of the fact that many decent Americans and other decent native Western people had helped many nonislamic asians, islamic asians, middle eastern people and black people to be free, but they don't appreciate it. Instead they used their freedom to create more evil in the West.
WLIL at July 21, 2010 10:13 PM
Dwhatney said:
If they could ramp up their hatred of daughters enough to kill them all at birth, this whole problem would be solve itself in time.
To which I reply:
No it wouldn't, they'd start kidnapping women from other places and get even more violent.
NicoleK at July 22, 2010 5:47 AM
Quoting from this article, concerning Huxley's observations:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/12/on-the-hunt-in.php
“Inshallah” means God willing in Arabic, and it's often associated, from the American point of view, with the evasion of responsibility. “I'll see you tomorrow at three o'clock, Inshallah,” is often correctly interpreted as meaning “There is a good chance I won't be there.” Earlier that day I heard an American soldier say to an Iraqi bureaucrat that his wristwatch didn't come with the word Inshallah on it anywhere.
...
“I'm tired of this Iraqi talk,” Captain Looney said to the suspect. “I'm going to hand you over to the interrogators. That's what they get paid to do. I'm tired of hearing Inshallah. Listen up. You can have this conversation with me, be honest with me, and stop giving me these bullshit answers like Inshallah and walah adim, or I'm going to take you to the interrogators and let them talk to you.”
The man mumbled something and ended his sentence with “Inshallah.”
“You're saying it,” Captain Looney said. “You're saying Inshallah. I don't want to hear that word.”
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at July 22, 2010 8:38 AM
I just hated Geert Wilder weird speech to their islamic community that was being ended with some weird arabic word. I just hated their insincere islamic type of speech. When their islamic community exhibited such extreme shizophrenia behaviour, ie, one minute being very abusive and the next minute full of pretension about their socalled humanity, I will like to tell them to do whatever they like with their koran , but just don't come and preach their nonsense to me.
WLIL at July 22, 2010 9:11 PM
Leave a comment