Geert Wilders (yea, him). See if you can read it for the argument it makes without flying off the handle.
===
"I support Muslims who love freedom"
WHY GEERT WILDERS TAKES ISSUE WITH ISLAM
Islam critic Geert Wilders, the populist, is not socially
acceptable enough to appear with his Freedom Party in the Dutch
coalition government to participate, but perhaps providing support
from the benches of the opposition. But what is socially acceptable
about his criticism of Islam?
I first visited an Islamic country in 1982. I was 18 years and
traveled with a Dutch friend from the Israeli town of Eilat to the
Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheikh. We were two students with
backpacks and we had almost nothing. We slept on the beach and found
hospitality by Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea. I
remember clearly my first impression of Egypt, I was overwhelmed by
the friendliness and helpfulness of the people.
I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: I noticed how
scared those nice, friendly people were. While we were in Sharm el
Sheikh, President Hosni Mubarak came to visit. I remember the fear
that suddenly flooded the city when it was announced that Mubarak was
coming. I can still see the procession of black cars on the day of his
visit and I can still feel the almost physical sense of fear, as a
chill on that sweltering summer day.
It was a strange experience, Mubarak is not considered as the worst
tyrant in the Muslim world, yet the fear of ordinary Egyptians for
their leader was palpable. I wonder how the Saudis feel when their
king is in town, how the Libyans feel as President Moammar Gaddafi
announces his arrival, how the Iraqis must have felt when Saddam
Hussein was near.
A few years later I read in the Qur'an how the seventh-century Arabs
felt in the presence of Muhammad, which, as several verses describe
"threw terror into their hearts" (Sura 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).
From Sharm el Sheikh, I went with my friend to Cairo. The city was
poor and dirty. My friend and I were surprised that this poor and
dirty Egypt could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean and
prosperous. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we spoke about
their poverty, was that they were in no way to blame: they were
victims of a global conspiracy of the "imperialists" and the
"Zionists", designed to keep Muslims poor and subservient. I found the
explanation unconvincing. According to my intuition it had something
to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.
Churchill
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Winston Churchill was
soldier and war correspondent in British India (now Pakistan) and
Sudan. Churchill was an astute young man. Months in Pakistan and Sudan
enabled him tounderstand with stunning clarity what the problem is
with Islam. "Besides the fanatical frenzy, ..., there is that awful
fatalistic apathy," he wrote. "The consequences are seen in many
countries. Where the followers of the Prophet rule or live, there are
careless habits, inefficient systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce and uncertainty of ownership. Individual Moslems may show
splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyzes the
social development of its followers. " And Churchill concluded: "There
is no stronger backwards force in the world."
Some people say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate the Muslims. It
makes me sad that Islam has deprived them of their dignity.
What Islam is doing to Muslims is reflected in the way they deal with
their daughters. On March 11, 2002 fifteen Saudi schoolgirls were
killed when they tried to flee from their burning school in the holy
city of Mecca. A fire set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the
school gate, but it was locked. The keys were held by a male guard who
refused to open the gate, because the girls are not wearing the proper
Islamic dress which the Saudi law requires women to wear: facial veil
and dress. The 'indecently dressed' girls (without facial veil) were
trying frantically to save their young lives. The Saudi police hit
them back into the burning building. Agents of the Muttawa, the
"Committee for the promotion of virtue and prevention of sin," as the
religious police in Saudi Arabia are called also beat passersby and
firefighters who tried to help the girls. "It is sinful to come near
them," the police warned the crowd. It's not only sinful, it is also a
crime.
Girls are not valued in Islam. When a father receives a daughter,
according to the Quran, "his face turns black of dark depression"
(Sura 43:15). Nevertheless the incident in the school in Mecca brought
angry reactions. Islam is inhumane, but Muslims are humans and
therefore capable of love - the mighty power that Muhammad despised.
Humanity prevailed in the fathers in Mecca who were trying to save
their daughters. Humanity also prevailed in the firefighters who
resisted when the Muttawa hit the girls back inside. Humanity
prevailed, too, in the journalists of a Saudi newspaper who, for the
first time in history, criticized the feared and powerful "committee
for the promotion of virtue and prevention of sin."
But Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims
in Western countries go to the mosque and listen to shocking verses
being preached from the Koran without revolting against them.
Pedophile
I myself am agnostic. But Christians and Jews believe that God created
man in His image. They believe they can get closer to their God by
observing themselves as free, rational beings who are capable of love.
They may even argue with him, as the Jews do their entire history. The
Quran states however that "there is nothing equal to Allah" (Sura
16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is
absurd to suppose that Allah has created man in his image. The
biblical notion that God is our father, does not exist in Islam. There
is no personal relationship between man and Allah. The goal of Islam
is total submission of ourselves and others to the unknowable God, and
total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic State (Sura 3:31,
4:80, 24:62, 1948 : 10, 57:28). History has taught us that Muhammad
was certainly no prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer,
a tyrant and a pedophile. The Muslims could not have chose a more
regrettable role model.
Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the idea of man
as a responsible person is not very developed in Islam. Muslims are
often fatalistic. Maybe - and let us hope - only a few radicals take
seriously the call of the Quran for a jihad against the infidels. But
most Muslims never raise their voices against these radicals. That is
the "terrible fatalistic apathy" that Churchill meant.
Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is unfortunate, because
free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The
Arabic, Turkish, Iranian, Indian and Indonesian peoples have a huge
potential. If they weren't prisoners of Islam, if they could free
themselves from Islam's burden, if they would get rid of the evil
Quran and if they could cease viewing Muhammad as a role model, they
could be capable of great things. Not just for their own benefit, but
for the benefit of the world.
As a Dutch, European and Western politician my first responsibility
lies with the Dutch people, the Europeans and the West. But we will
all benefit if Muslims are liberated from Islam and I therefore
strongly support the Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is
clear: Fatalism is not an option, "insjallah" is a curse, submission
is a disgrace. Free yourself. It is up to you.
GEERT WILDERS
WHO? Leader of the Dutch Freedom Party. WHAT? Muslims are not the
problem, Islam is. WHY? Islam preaches fatalism and lack of freedom.
===
I actually don't know very much about Wilders, I just keep seeing how people are revolted by his political ideas.
But his politics be what they may, it's an interesting observation about apathy. Which sort of agrees with my anecdotal impression of the way many people are, resigned to it.
===
"I support Muslims who love freedom"
WHY GEERT WILDERS TAKES ISSUE WITH ISLAM
Islam critic Geert Wilders, the populist, is not socially
acceptable enough to appear with his Freedom Party in the Dutch
coalition government to participate, but perhaps providing support
from the benches of the opposition. But what is socially acceptable
about his criticism of Islam?
I first visited an Islamic country in 1982. I was 18 years and
traveled with a Dutch friend from the Israeli town of Eilat to the
Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheikh. We were two students with
backpacks and we had almost nothing. We slept on the beach and found
hospitality by Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea. I
remember clearly my first impression of Egypt, I was overwhelmed by
the friendliness and helpfulness of the people.
I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: I noticed how
scared those nice, friendly people were. While we were in Sharm el
Sheikh, President Hosni Mubarak came to visit. I remember the fear
that suddenly flooded the city when it was announced that Mubarak was
coming. I can still see the procession of black cars on the day of his
visit and I can still feel the almost physical sense of fear, as a
chill on that sweltering summer day.
It was a strange experience, Mubarak is not considered as the worst
tyrant in the Muslim world, yet the fear of ordinary Egyptians for
their leader was palpable. I wonder how the Saudis feel when their
king is in town, how the Libyans feel as President Moammar Gaddafi
announces his arrival, how the Iraqis must have felt when Saddam
Hussein was near.
A few years later I read in the Qur'an how the seventh-century Arabs
felt in the presence of Muhammad, which, as several verses describe
"threw terror into their hearts" (Sura 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).
From Sharm el Sheikh, I went with my friend to Cairo. The city was
poor and dirty. My friend and I were surprised that this poor and
dirty Egypt could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean and
prosperous. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we spoke about
their poverty, was that they were in no way to blame: they were
victims of a global conspiracy of the "imperialists" and the
"Zionists", designed to keep Muslims poor and subservient. I found the
explanation unconvincing. According to my intuition it had something
to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.
Churchill
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Winston Churchill was
soldier and war correspondent in British India (now Pakistan) and
Sudan. Churchill was an astute young man. Months in Pakistan and Sudan
enabled him tounderstand with stunning clarity what the problem is
with Islam. "Besides the fanatical frenzy, ..., there is that awful
fatalistic apathy," he wrote. "The consequences are seen in many
countries. Where the followers of the Prophet rule or live, there are
careless habits, inefficient systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce and uncertainty of ownership. Individual Moslems may show
splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyzes the
social development of its followers. " And Churchill concluded: "There
is no stronger backwards force in the world."
Some people say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate the Muslims. It
makes me sad that Islam has deprived them of their dignity.
What Islam is doing to Muslims is reflected in the way they deal with
their daughters. On March 11, 2002 fifteen Saudi schoolgirls were
killed when they tried to flee from their burning school in the holy
city of Mecca. A fire set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the
school gate, but it was locked. The keys were held by a male guard who
refused to open the gate, because the girls are not wearing the proper
Islamic dress which the Saudi law requires women to wear: facial veil
and dress. The 'indecently dressed' girls (without facial veil) were
trying frantically to save their young lives. The Saudi police hit
them back into the burning building. Agents of the Muttawa, the
"Committee for the promotion of virtue and prevention of sin," as the
religious police in Saudi Arabia are called also beat passersby and
firefighters who tried to help the girls. "It is sinful to come near
them," the police warned the crowd. It's not only sinful, it is also a
crime.
Girls are not valued in Islam. When a father receives a daughter,
according to the Quran, "his face turns black of dark depression"
(Sura 43:15). Nevertheless the incident in the school in Mecca brought
angry reactions. Islam is inhumane, but Muslims are humans and
therefore capable of love - the mighty power that Muhammad despised.
Humanity prevailed in the fathers in Mecca who were trying to save
their daughters. Humanity also prevailed in the firefighters who
resisted when the Muttawa hit the girls back inside. Humanity
prevailed, too, in the journalists of a Saudi newspaper who, for the
first time in history, criticized the feared and powerful "committee
for the promotion of virtue and prevention of sin."
But Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims
in Western countries go to the mosque and listen to shocking verses
being preached from the Koran without revolting against them.
Pedophile
I myself am agnostic. But Christians and Jews believe that God created
man in His image. They believe they can get closer to their God by
observing themselves as free, rational beings who are capable of love.
They may even argue with him, as the Jews do their entire history. The
Quran states however that "there is nothing equal to Allah" (Sura
16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is
absurd to suppose that Allah has created man in his image. The
biblical notion that God is our father, does not exist in Islam. There
is no personal relationship between man and Allah. The goal of Islam
is total submission of ourselves and others to the unknowable God, and
total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic State (Sura 3:31,
4:80, 24:62, 1948 : 10, 57:28). History has taught us that Muhammad
was certainly no prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer,
a tyrant and a pedophile. The Muslims could not have chose a more
regrettable role model.
Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the idea of man
as a responsible person is not very developed in Islam. Muslims are
often fatalistic. Maybe - and let us hope - only a few radicals take
seriously the call of the Quran for a jihad against the infidels. But
most Muslims never raise their voices against these radicals. That is
the "terrible fatalistic apathy" that Churchill meant.
Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is unfortunate, because
free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The
Arabic, Turkish, Iranian, Indian and Indonesian peoples have a huge
potential. If they weren't prisoners of Islam, if they could free
themselves from Islam's burden, if they would get rid of the evil
Quran and if they could cease viewing Muhammad as a role model, they
could be capable of great things. Not just for their own benefit, but
for the benefit of the world.
As a Dutch, European and Western politician my first responsibility
lies with the Dutch people, the Europeans and the West. But we will
all benefit if Muslims are liberated from Islam and I therefore
strongly support the Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is
clear: Fatalism is not an option, "insjallah" is a curse, submission
is a disgrace. Free yourself. It is up to you.
GEERT WILDERS
WHO? Leader of the Dutch Freedom Party. WHAT? Muslims are not the
problem, Islam is. WHY? Islam preaches fatalism and lack of freedom.
===
I actually don't know very much about Wilders, I just keep seeing how people are revolted by his political ideas.
But his politics be what they may, it's an interesting observation about apathy. Which sort of agrees with my anecdotal impression of the way many people are, resigned to it.
Buy on AliExpress.com
